Canadian Politics Thread

Ha, I've been discussing this stuff so much on Maple Leaf Web but I'm a stan for Mulcair and am pleased/relieved. I never bought that he is that much more of a centrist than Layton (or, especially, say, Doer or Dexter). He has been a serious environmentalist for a long time - with a real record to back it up - and led the fight against corporate tax cuts. (Honestly, the policy disagreements between the candidates generally struck me as extremely minor, except for Cullen's joint nomination idea.) As a speaker and debater, I always thought he was a great complement to Layton; I might actually prefer him of the two. Btw, he was a QC provincial Liberal: there is no provincial NPD; the social democratic provincial parties are all separatist/sovereigntist. (He left Charest's cabinet over environmental policy issues btw). I give Mulcair much of the credit for being able to sell Quebec on social democracy without separatism.

And I'm sorry if you're a Cullen supporter but I thought the joint nomination proposal was half-baked and ludicrous. I just do not see any sensible reason why the NDP should co-operate with the Liberals in some ridings, only fielding one candidate between the two parties, while competing with them in others. If you want a merger, call for a merger. (I don't support the idea but I can at least take it seriously.) Either the NDP and Liberals are two distinct parties with distinct agendas that are competing for voters or they are not. It doesn't mean that they can't co-operate in the House after winning seats on their own terms; that's a separate issue. I also think lowering the voting age is pointless. Let's work on encouraging more 18- to 25-year-olds to vote before we worry about extending the franchise to kids in Grade 11.

("Stan" is an exaggeration, admittedly.)

that's all good to hear...I liked Cullen more for his personality than for the idea of the merger, but I am very frustrated by the split of the anti-Harper vote every election.

I do like his personality, don't get me wrong! And Cullen wasn't advocating a merger, remember.

i liked Cullen for his cooperation idea and was pulling for him.
could not disagree with you any more, sund4r - the sensible reason to divy some ridings is very simple. to beat the conservatives. the guys running things with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. why doom yourselves to the opposition benches, when with a little deal-brokering at least one of the left(ish)-of-center parties can form government? not cooperating until after an election, when your collective seat total is that much diminished because you couldn't work together before the election, seems a little silly to me. i don't see why the only options are to fight each other or merge. there's a middle ground i think can be found that will also not have to be permanent... one party gets too powerful or corrupt (such as our current ruling party) - you're not stuck with them.

i'm curious to find out more about this alleged hacking. and who might be behind it. like, what did they hope to achieve? is it maybe one or two pranksters trolling the convention - or something more sinister? perhaps one of those berzerk conservative phone-bots?!

could not disagree with you any more, sund4r - the sensible reason to divy some ridings is very simple. to beat the conservatives. the guys running things with just over 1/3 of the popular vote. why doom yourselves to the opposition benches, when with a little deal-brokering at least one of the left(ish)-of-center parties can form government?

I just think that this prioritizes beating the CPC over either party's own policies or platform, which seems like a weak position to go into an election with. Especially since the Liberals still have an interim leader: would it even make a difference who was leading them and what platform they were running on? If the PCs and Alliance had tried something like this 10 years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have seen it as cheap and desperate.

And how do we decide which ridings to divide like this? Based on the last election's results? Opinion polls? Even when the last election was called, no one foresaw the NDP sweeping so much of Quebec, for example. Should the NDP have allowed the Liberals (or BQ?) to compete in all those ridings without NDP support?

Besides, I never saw any sign that Cullen had even run the idea by the Liberals. Does anyone expect that they will refrain from fielding candidates in Quebec or the Prairies next time to help out the NDP?

without NDP support?

"without NDP competition", sorry.

apparently the ndp had run the idea past the Libs when they were the 3rd party and the idea was immediately shot down. i think Topp might have cited that as a reason he didn't want to try again, tbh. and i don't see you point re: the libs having an interm leader. if Cullen had hypothetically won, then it would put the ball in the Liberal's corner when they picked a leader. and i have a feeling they'd be more open to the idea this time around!

I just think that this prioritizes beating the CPC over either party's own policies or platform
yes, this is pretty much literally what would be happening. and like i said, your policies and platform aren't going to do you a hell of a lot of good when you're in the wilderness of opposition. it's not ideal, but working in tandem with a party you have some common ground with would certainly be preferable to being dominated by a party party you have nothing in common with.

no idea how they'd work out who would and wouldn't run where tho.

and i don't see you point re: the libs having an interm leader.

My point is that the Liberals' policies have varied fairly widely over the years, depending on a number of things, but often depending on the leader, who has more direct control over LPC policy than an NDP leader has over NDP policy. I have no trouble imagining a version of the LPC that I would want to see in government. I also have little trouble imagining a version of the LPC that seems no better or worse to me than the CPC.

ok - i see your point there.
except for the part about possibly being no better or worse than the cpc. worst case scenario for me would be Rae becoming permanent leader and i would still take that over Harper in a heart beat. i honestly cannot fathom who they could possibly elect as leader that would make me look at Harper and his goons and think that was somehow better.

I was a bit weary of Cullen's coop/mutual support thing but it's something I prb could've been sold on. One of the things I liked about Cullen (and this might sound stupid or irrelevant) is that he's spent his political career in the other half of the country, y'know, not Ontario and not Quebec, so there's a proximity with the west there and I sort of wondered if that might help boost the NDP in, say, Alberta or Sask.

He's certainly built up recognition though, hopefully it'll translate into a bigger role for him in the party. He seems like an alright guy.

weary? wary...

I live in SK right now. I'm not sure that Cullen would boost the NDP any better than Mulcair here but I'll admit that I don't know that I really have a feel for SK politics yet. (I do know that I'd definitely say retaining QC seats seems like a higher priority than trying to pick up a couple of the 14 seats in SK.)

Here's the thing: I and I think most voters would rather vote for something than against something. I'm no Harper fan; I give my time and money to the NDP; but I'm not sure that I feel like the current CPC government is so dangerous and evil that they have to be stopped at all cost. Nor do I think most voters feel this way. I think they're sincere that they're not going to touch same-sex marriage or abortion or bring back capital punishment in Canada. I don't believe that they have plans to privatize health coverage in a significant way (and the Liberals really did gut health care and education funding).

Now, if the opposition parties were coming together on a matter of principle - e.g. if the Liberals were to say "the government's disregard for the environment has been so appalling that we'll do what we can to help the NDP win power instead (AND WE HAVE AGREED ON THIS ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION)" or "this crime policy is going to be so disastrous that we need to come together to fight this" etc - I could easily see the point of co-operation (although dividing up ridings still seems like a problematic way to go about it). But I haven't seen anything like this. It's hard to get behind co-operation if the only point is to 'beat the Conservatives' (and again, I've never seen the slightest hint that the LPC has any interest in 'beating the Conservatives' unless it actually means that the LPC will be governing the country and not even as a junior partner in a coalition). As I understood it, Cullen's plan was to co-operate just in order to implement mixed-member proportional representation, which is not a system I support anyway.

that's all pretty otm (except for pro-rep, pro-rep in canada would be awesome)

the libs have gone so far to the left since being out of office i don't think there's a difference between them and the ndp anymore. the last two liberal candidates certainly haven't been able to articulate any, and I doubt rae will do any better. it would be nice if they could find a matter of principle to unite over.

can we talk about bc politics here? the bc liberals are (at long last) falling apart. and it is wonderful.

ya - over transit? (and the financing thereof)
same issue that has caused Toronto's mayor to implode (i know, sorry for bringing up Toronto).

no, tho premier christy clark repeatedly going offscript on transit financing certainly hasn't helped. last week a minister resigned because his office sent a copy of a journalist's email to a private education company that was being investigated. the company is a major liberal donor, of course.

but more importantly, they've lost the right over the HST (which is a regressive consumption tax, so I hate it too) and are being confronted with a new BC Conservative party and a split right wing vote. Today John Van Dongen resigned from the Liberals to give the Conservatives their first MLA. He hilariously resigned over the Liberals' lack of integrity, which he was somehow able to ignore for all of Gordo's three terms. The conservatives will also prob win another seat in a byelection next month.

Right now polls are showing an NDP rout. It's a full year until the election, and our media loathes the NDP with every ounce of their being, so anything could happen. But if the NDP do reduce the Liberals to ten-twenty seats, I predict the Liberals will close up shop and reunite under the Conservative banner for the election after that.

Many polls have been showing the federal NDP way ahead in BC. I'm guessing it's spillover from provincial politics.

That second sentence was supposed to be a question.:P

oh i didn't know that the NDP were ahead here. I don't know if the average low info voter here associates the BC Liberals with Harper's conservatives, even though their ideologies are practically identical. Christy Clark has actually been trying to associate herself with Harper, which seems pretty obviously misguided politically:

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01363/web-bc-clark16n_1363167cl-8.jpg

Hm, it looks like the polls are actually divided. About even numbers seem to show the CPC ahead and NDP ahead:
http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-election-polls-british-columbia/

Atlantic Canada is surprising: http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-election-polls-atlantic-canada/

Oh, holy shit, you weren't kidding!: http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/british-columbia-election-polls/

yup! check out the seat projections. the most recent number has the libs at 3 seats (and the cons at 17).

What's the difference between the BC Liberals and BC Conservatives in terms of policy?

the Liberals have done about a million terrible things in office, so it's nice that BC public opinion is finally catching up. they've also decided to pick a fight with the teachers' union, which could very well lead to a full wildcat strike for the rest of the year if the government doesn't back down.

The Conservatives haven't run yet, so I'm not sure what their policy proposals are...They are basically a home for right wing BCers disappointed with the HST or carbon taxes or whatever random bit of Gordon Campbell corruption they've decided to take offense to. Christy beat a more conservative Liberal for the premiership after Gordo resigned, so the right sees her as an incompetent centrist. xp

They're kind of like Tea Partiers pretending they never supported Bush

the libs have gone so far to the left since being out of office i don't think there's a difference between them and the ndp anymore.

You're right about this btw. The word on MLW is that the Grits are planning to move back to the Chretien-era economic conservative/social liberal approach, which would at least give them a reason to exist as a distinct party.

mlw?

Ha, sorry, Maple Leaf Web, a politics forum I waste time on.

maple leaf web?

xpost!

the Libs and dippers are similar enough right now that i would have no problem coming back into the liberal fold (after 10 years) depending on what leader they chose.

The thing is so far I still just don't trust the Liberals.

Having almost 'defended' the CPC, I gotta say stuff like this sends me up the wall: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Canada+pearl+Arctic+research+with+funding+freeze/6352101/story.html

not like we didn't already have 1000+ reasons to loathe them (CPC), but this voter suppression stuff is beyond disgusting.
fucking sickening.

There's no hard evidence that pins the blame on the CPC yet though, right?

(Btw, if the opposition parties wanted to co-operate to reverse the CPC's treatment of science and research more generally, I'd be there in a heartbeat.)

there is no video on youtube of stephen harper picking up a phone and telling someone in Thunder Bay that the voting station has been moved 100 klicks away, no.

it pretty obvious to ANYONE who's been paying attention that this came from their camp.

fuck.

i mean - you have to have heard about the Irwin Cotler calls?!

exact same m.o. as these vote suppression calls. and our speaker of the house, in his infinite wisdom, berated his party - the conservatives over it, but proceeded to do nothing. the same speaker who had transferred thousands of dollars into the Guelf riding these calls were centered around (the vote supression ones, the the Coltier ones). and naturally he doesn't see this as a conflict when he rules on the robo-call debates in the house.

and what does the part - who seemed to take ethics soooo seriously - do when confronted with these disturbing allegations in the house? they throw mud at the liberals! they accuse the liberals of doing something that it turns out THEY had actually been doing (using as US calling firm, which isn't even the issue in the first place). they didn't even start cooperating with election Canada until they were shamed into it in the house!

the Cons own calling company, rack nine, had provided the phone list this "Pierre" guy had used and by their own admission could not have been accessed by someone outside of the party. and of course rack nine guy has *no* *idea* who this guy really is.
and i should add two things here - apparently rack nine has people employed there that do not actually exist, which proves nothing but is bizarre as all hell (can't be bothered to find the article). and also some of the Cons didn't bother claiming using rack nine's services as an election expense. not that breaking any election spending laws is anything new to these guys.

then we have the 700 unique complaints from one coast to another all fitting a similar pattern. that kid in Guelph they tried throwing under a bus over the first allegations - the one who had previously tried stealing and election box and then somehow got a new job right away with the conservatives. and the people at the call center in Thunder Bay admitting they were sending people to the wrong locations.

but no hard evidence no.

and i will end all this (sorry for not backing all this up with links, but it's 1:30 in the morning here) with a quote:

At worst, he personally ordered it done and chose the people who executed the plan. At the very least, he fostered an attitude within the party ..., chose the managers of the people who committed these crimes and completely and utterly failed to exercise any oversight, supervision or leadership.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter where (his) actions or lack of them fall on that scale. He is the leader and a leader is responsible for the actions of the people he leads.