Canadian Politics Thread

i wish those two parties would just fucking merge or something already.

NDP and Green? Why? They're not that similar ideologically and there would be little strategic advantage for the NDP in merging with a party that has never even won a seat in Parliament.

The NDP now has the reputation of the the least progressive of the main parties in sustainability/environmental issues. They could soak up most of the Green Party's support, which one presumably thinks would be more naturally predisposed to vote NDP than any other party, if they adopted some more enlightened policies around the issue. The NDP's union ties will probably ensure that will never happen though. NDP is looking more and more like a done deal every year really.

The NDP now has the reputation of the the least progressive of the main parties in sustainability/environmental issues.

?

Environmental sustainability has been a core issue throughout Layton's whole career, down to the house he lives in. He founded the Green Catalyst environmental consulting business and chaired the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. Of the seven chapters in Layton's Speaking Out, two are devoted entirely to environmental/sustainability issues. Even the NDP's whole economic platform has become focused around sustainability and green energy: http://www.ndp.ca/vision/economy . Their environmental platform has to be the most sweeping of the major parties': http://www.ndp.ca/vision/environment . The recent Climate Change Accountability Act (which died in the Senate) was an NDP initiative. Especially considering the Conservative record on the environment, this statement seems rather strange, sorry.

They differ from the Greens, however, in that the Greens have never been a labour/social democratic party. They have tended to favour raising consumption taxes and lowering personal and corporate income taxes. In fact, many of the founding Greens were old PCs. As such, I am not necessarily convinced that the Green Party's support would "be more naturally predisposed to vote NDP than any other party". (I always tended to believe the Idealistic Pragmatist on this actually: http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/10/garth-going-green-makes-sense.html )

And again, I'm sure any of the major parties would want to wait for the Greens to actually win a seat (or actually manage to get more than 5% of the popular vote in an election) before they would consider merging with them.

This was the NDP stance on stimulus/bailout measures in 2008 btw: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article708355.ece

I do not think that the Green Party are taking many votes from the Conservatives. Harper can be openly dismissive of environmental issues rather than having to pay lip service because it barely effects his support. Not so Jack Layton. Whether or not he would ever follow through on these policies is really in the realm of speculative fiction. I personally don't believe he would ever do any of these things if (LOL) he won an election. On a federal level the NDP are pretty much a fringe party. They have little or no influence or power. Provincial NDP parties in Nova Scotia, BC etc who have been placed in a position to actually push for environmental policies always flake out in the end. The way they dealt with the carbon tax here in BC pretty much finished them off as far as getting support from environmental groups. In NS this just happened: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/03/bad-forestry-meets-problematic-energy-policy-ns

BTW, the Greens got 6.78% of the vote in the 2008 election according to Wikipedia. The NDP got 18%. It makes as much sense to look at that from the Green perspective - why would they want to hook up with such an unpopular party? Especially one with so much negative baggage as the NDP?

The federal NDP holds the balance of power! Their pressure was likely a reason the Cons just agreed to renew eco retrofit funding.

I was arguing against a merger anyway.

(I'll read your link soon btw. I do actually generally feel that NDP provincial governments have been only as progressive as the Ontario Liberals tbh.)

i don't think you should blame jack layton for carole james' moronic decisions

No, and as I pointed out, Layton's environmental record does not only apply to the NDP platform. He was heavily involved with environmental issues as a city councillor and businessman.

why would they want to hook up with such an unpopular party?

because a large party like the liberals would swallow them whole and they would be on the fringes. a party that is *only* at 3x the Green's support level, like the NDP, would be way more inclined to adopt green policy/platform and candidates.

So... looks like we'll probably have an election, unless Flaherty actually amends the budget to an NDP budget... Am I crazy if I think the proposed budget actually sounded OK? I liked the tax credit for children who enroll in arts programmes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/22/pol-budget-main.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/22/pol-budget-highlights.html

it's a classic "we know an election is coming" budget.

so i guess this leaves Harper with only a matter of days to prorogue parliament.

nah. prorogation is saved for things that would make the gov't look bad - you know, like attempts to defund all political parties besides the government, or hearings on government knowledge of canadian military involvement in torture of afghan teenagers. stuff like that.

They can't lose, anyway. They just rebranded The Government of Canada to "The Harper Government".

ya i know.
i have no idea why the opposition parties aren't making more of the Cons trend of using tax payer money to promote themselves. this "Harper Government" nonsense and having senators use the public purse to pay for Conservatives leaflets, etc etc...
like no wonder they have so much money than the other parties - they don't have to pay for their own promotion anymore!

I'd like to get excited about an election, but we all know that the Tories are getting elected again.

everything OTM about the NDP, they are a joke. Considering their complete lack of comprehension of anything remotely close to investment in science or hi-tech, then I have trouble taking seriously their platform of investing in renewable energies. I'm sure they couldn't care less about making investments in any real next-generation technology, as long as auto workers building gas-powered cars will be able to keep their jobs and build electric cars instead. Also, their foreign policy platform looks like something a first year university student might write on a napkin during coffee break.

this will make you happy, Barry.
since i've moved to Parkdale i'm now in Kennedy's riding and will be voting (ugh) Liberal this time around!

I'll be great to have you join the dark side!

I don't follow Canadian politics (at any level) as closely as I do American, so I may be way off here, but this seems like such a set-up for a PC majority. I'll vote Liberal, as I always do, but the PCs have two huge advantages: the majority of the public doesn't see the election as necessary, and, whether they deserve any credit for it or not, our economy is relatively stable compared to most countries. Canadian federal elections happen fast enough that sometimes something springs up and things get out of hand for one side, but I'd be surprised at any result except a PC majority.

Also, I think Ignatieff is our Kerry or Dukakis. I like certain things about him, chiefly that he's strong on the readin'/writin' stuff, but he doesn't seem to be an especially beloved figure here.

Harper's party is now all "C" with decidedly no "P". not even a little "p".

as for Iggy, i look forward to him getting replaced after another election of accomplishing very little. i always thought of him as a Kerry aswell!

Hasn't one of the knocks on Harper been that he's been moving to the center?

(from conservatives)

that's their knock on everything that's not Glen Beck. and thb i haven't heard that in years - not since he 1st became PM.

what i do hear still on occasion from the Cons that i do know is that Harper and his cronies are still too far right for their liking. you don't hear alot about them but there's still a bunch of old PC'ers lost in the wilderness.

Might've accidentally had the TV on Global news when I heard that. Gotta be careful.

Love the last comment. Global ("communications," not the news department) was the only place that ever fired me! This was 1989...Apparently I wasn't paying proper respect to Major Dad or something like that.

Come on, Thermo. This is from November: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/politics-all-the-way-down/
And this, from January, isn't a knock but comes to a similar conclusion about the Cons: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/07/dan-gardner-conservatism-in-canada-would-be-called-socialism-in-the-u-s/

I don't know that a CPC majority is likely. The recent polls haven't suggested it. The country seems too divided. Plus, the scandals and contempt issues from the last couple of weeks will probably have a little impact over the campaign. Anything can happen during a campaign though.

Even if the election produces another CPC minority, it may still be worth it. We may see some new, and possibly better, opposition leaders. If the CPC tries to pass a similar, or more conservative, budget again, I think the Opposition should stand their ground and try to form a government if the CPC won't make further amendments.

B4rry, I agree that the NDP's foreign policy platform is not especially in-depth, although I've always much preferred their stance on Afghanistan to the Liberals' (or CPC's). The Liberals' Global Networks Strategy mostly seems reasonable, although I maintain deep reservations on the foreign policy stances Ignatieff always advocated in the US. I would also tend to trust the Liberals a little more on research (and arts/culture) funding. I still don't think it's at all fair to doubt Layton's commitment to green technology, given what he's done in his career.

I also think, however, that those things would matter more if the NDP were in a position to head a government as opposed to holding the balance of power or being a potential coalition partner.

(I always privately thought of Ignatieff as a Kerry too.:P )

xpost

also think, however, that those things would matter more if the NDP were in a position to head a government as opposed to holding the balance of power or being a potential coalition partner.

I mean, they do matter but they're not stopping me from voting NDP, given the circumstances. (I don't think Paul Dewar is terrible or anything btw. And the NDP does bring up human rights issues that might not get raised otherwise. Also support the recent private members' bill on generic drug exports.)

Ha: http://www.google.ca/search?q=national+post+fiscal+conservative+harper&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

sund4r - the Mcleans' piece is about ethics and the Post is THE NATIONAL RIGHT-WING NUTTO FUCKING POST!

I wish we could have a FAP to talk about this stuff. It'd be way more fun to talk about this stuff while drunk.

Wasn't there a time when politicians who were picking and choosing what to focus their attention on and modifying their ideology accordingly were called pragmatic rather than unethical?

I have voted in every election since reaching the age of majority and I am seriously considering spoiling my ballot for this vote.

Dear every political party in Canada, please fire your leaders and replace them with better ones. Thanks.

Thermo, you don't think this is slamming Harper for betraying small-c conservative principles?:

...
This is a remarkable feat. Stephen Harper’s Tories can run $56-billion deficits, raise spending to all-time record levels, and grease every Conservative riding with layers of pork; they can abandon Afghanistan, coddle Quebec, and adopt the NDP approach to foreign investment; and still there exists in people’s minds another Conservative party, somewhere, for whom these policies are anathema...
.

Aside from the 'pork grease' line, the rest of that is clearly about policy, not ethical issues or scandals. This is a recurring theme for Coyne:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/10/harper%E2%80%99s-tories-lost-the-plot-a-long-long-time-ago/
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/11/andrew-coyne-canada-s-left-wing-unconservative-compromise-ridden-conservatives.aspx

And the National Post is probably the dominant right-wing journalistic voice in the country. If you're looking for what right-wingers are saying, you can't really discount it! My point was simply that right-wingers do knock Harper all the time for moving to the centre.

Bryan: Yes, that's a common view among non-extremists.

Tbh, having lived in the US for the first couple years of Harper's reign, it's hard for me to not agree with Gardner about the comparison between Republicans and the CPC.

Yes, that's a common view among non-extremists.

Referring to the idea that politics is better when drunk, of course.

Gardner's piece originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, not the Post iirc.

Most things are improved with drink.

... and here we go

I don't know if this is an accurate reflection of the general mood or not, but most of CFTR's coverage in Toronto so far has to do with how uninterested in/disgusted with this election people are. (Meaning, maybe it's the media who's sick of elections, and maybe they're driving that story.) Fourth in seven years, fifth in ten, what's the point, I won't vote, etc., etc. Maybe a small turnout will gum up the results for the PCs, but in the States at least, a small turnout always hurts the left.

I don't think a small turnout hurts the left, rather, it helps the sitting government. IOW, turnout is high when people want a change and want to vote in somebody new.

I'm not so "close to the action" these days, so maybe my perspective is way off-base, I don't know, but to me it seems that the opposition parties feel that a minority govt is inherently unstable and therefore new elections are almost always a good idea. I'd counter that with Einstein's saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And I don't see this sea change of opinion in Canadian politics that's going to sweep the Tories out of power. This election will be more about the minority parties trying to grab seats from each other and consolidating (let's face it) what little power they have.

Errr... Canadians are disgusted and don't want an election! is a Conservative talking-point right now, and if you see it on the news, treat it as a signal that the station's in Harper's pocket.

the opposition parties feel that a minority govt is inherently unstable and therefore new elections are almost always a good idea. I'd counter that with Einstein's saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I'm not sure which way you mean this but, to be clear, the 2008 election was not forced by the Opposition (at all). If anything, I think the Opposition has been remarkably willing to let Harper's minority government bully them until now.

I get why this may seem like a questionable strategic move, given the polls. But there is also no reason why the Opposition needs to let a budget pass if it doesn't contain what they're looking for (even if Harper were to win another minority, for that matter). Nor any reason why they need to maintain confidence in a government that has been found in contempt of Parliament.

Some valid points imo: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/public-opinion-turns-when-you-least-expect-it/article1955536/?service=mobile

Yes, that's the caveat I threw in earlier: "Canadian federal elections happen fast enough that sometimes something springs up and things get out of hand for one side." When Obama had to deal with the Wright story in 2008, there was still something like four or five months left till in the campaign; ditto three or four other major stumbling blocks that were defused along the way. This election will happen over 40 days: if something unexpected turns up, or something we already know catches fire for whatever reason, it could take on a life of its own, and there'd be no time for damage control. The analogy might be the economic meltdown in 2008, which happened in the last month of the campaign, at a point where McCain had no time to recover. I don't expect that to happen up here, but it sometimes does, and it could once more.

Ha, this Vote Compass tells me I'm closest to the Liberals: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

It also seems to rank the Greens as further to the economic left than the NDP so who knows?

Not in 2008, Sund4r, but in 2006 and 2011, yes.

But there is also no reason why the Opposition needs to let a budget pass if it doesn't contain what they're looking for

Sure there's a reason -- if they don't let the budget pass, then there'd be an election literally every year (until someone eventually wins a majority, of course). Or they can try to compromise with the government over the budget (and claim the credit for making the budget pass). That's politics. But it's one or the other. It's only when you try to do both at the same time (claim all the credit for the government's achievements and then bring it down anyway, like what the NDP did in '06) that you run into trouble.

Schacter is OTM with that commentary in the G&M, but even so, Peterson's loss was fairly unlikely. A whole bunch of stuff went wrong for him in that campaign and almost nothing went right. Harper isn't facing the same kinds of hot-button issues, and his campaign strategy is absurdly simple -- everything's OK, let's just stay the course. Iggy needs to slowly deconstruct and discredit him in order to win, while somehow not saying or doing stupid things like he's normally prone to do.

The vote compass said I'll be voting for the Liberals, surprise surprise.

The 2006 election did produce a change in government though... And it was five years ago obv... I thought with the Einstein quote, you were suggesting that the Opposition keeps trying unsuccessfully to bring down minority governments by forcing an election every couple of years. But maybe you just meant that we keep having elections that result in short-lived minority governments?

The NDP didn't have enough seats to keep the Liberals in power in 06 even if they'd wanted to, btw. The motion of no confidence passed 171-132. The NDP only held 19 seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006#Aftermath_of_the_first_Gomery_report

Or they can try to compromise with the government over the budget (and claim the credit for making the budget pass).

The CPC was unwilling to make any further amendments to the budget, which suggests that they were also looking to provoke an election, as e.g. the Liberals did with the 1974 budget. (The recent spate of attack ads were another clue.) A minority government that wants to maintain Parliament's confidence will make a greater effort to get one Opposition party on board. Besides, if, as the Speaker ruled, the government was not providing adequate cost forecasts for their new prisons, fighter jets, and tax cuts, it does seem reasonable for the Opposition to reject the budget. (And the govt actually fell on the contempt charges.)

i'm rarely prone to agreeing with Ignatieff - but his point that he can't vote to support a budget when a good portion may or may not be fiction is a v good one that he should stick with (anyone who remembers Flaherty from his days as the Ontario finance minister can confirm his fondness of fantasy/phantom projection & numbers).

Maybe you were right, clemenza...: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/962129--tories-on-brink-of-majority-as-election-called?bn=1

(Signed up to volunteer with Brian Masse's campaign. First time I've done this.)

Because It's 2016: Canadian Politics in Sunnier Days