Canadian Politics Thread

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.)

Also, their foreign policy platform looks like something a first year university student might write on a napkin during coffee break.

― NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:10 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

Shame it couldn't be as nuanced as Iraq hawk Ignatieff's, eh?

tho apparently my beliefs are closest to the green party's, so what the hell do I know

Yeah, despite my earlier comments, I have to admit that Ignatieff's foreign policy views are probably the #1 reason I'm not an LPC supporter.

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.

The balance of power was held by the independents in '04-'06, but it was the NDP's withdrawal of support for the Libs (over healthcare) that triggered the election.

Sure, it's reasonable to not support a budget brought forth by a governing party full of liars, but when the *only* alternative is an election, it's a bad move by the opposition unless they're sure they can win. (I'm not sure that the Libs really understand this, hence the Einstein quote)

Also, their foreign policy platform looks like something a first year university student might write on a napkin during coffee break.

― NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:10 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

Shame it couldn't be as nuanced as Iraq hawk Ignatieff's, eh?

― symsymsym, Sunday, March 27, 2011 2:46 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

I was thinking more about the non-war stuff, i.e. the Libs seem to have a plan for dealing with fast growing economies such as India and China, and a way to position themselves relative to the other G20 nations. I'm not sure the NDP have really thought about this stuff beyond "we'll try to prevent our jobs going over there".

it's a bad move by the opposition unless they're sure they can win.

OK, you can never be *sure* you can win, but you should have a lot of momentum going into the election, as though things are rapidly turning in your favour. A dispute over the cost of some fighter jets is going to bring down a govt whose poll numbers have been more or less consistent for the past three years? Really??

too drunk to recall specifically but the flyers i get from the ndp mp for my riding always have this resinged 'yeah but what are you gonna do?' tone to them via bragging abt like, helping get new subway cars & shit. its sorta endearing but mostly lol

ndp humblebrag

where do u live lamp?

that sounds like the flyers from my ndp mp, too, Ms Chow. Seems like a decent sort, we see her around the area often, but she's almost more like a city councillor than an MP, whatever that means.

you typed it - what does it mean?!

lol wasn't olivia chow a toronto city councillor for a long time?

haha, fair point. :) And, yeah, she was a councillor for quite a while. Her flyers still read like that. Which is cool, she's concerned with local issues, that's a fine thing. Nice to not have just standard national politics talking points regurgitated yet again.

A friend of mine, who leans pretty conservative, I guess, said something today about "lol, Ignatieff drinks latte", as if it was some devastating zing. I'm not a fan of Ignatieff, particularly, but I'm so very sick of culture war style stuff like this. IS there anything substantial to actually talk about in this election, at least as far as policy differences between the two main parties go?

I'd be able to tolerate a minority government from any of them, but I think a majority would be a bad thing at this point.

That compass thing told me I was closest to the Bloc... o.O

the only thing the bloc is wrong on is quebec, imo

that's an exaggeration i guess

No, I completely agree!

For that matter, I disagree with the NDP's stance on Quebec ('asymmetrical federalism') as well.

Will, what's your sense of how the BQ is seen in Quebec? I've kind of been assuming/suspecting that most of their voters see them primarily as a social democratic/progressive option that looks out for Quebec's interests first rather than a separatist party per se (especially since a federal party could never call a referendum anyway). Since separatism seems to have been largely dormant for a while (and it's not like the BQ has been especially active in terms of trying to push for constitutional changes), that makes the most sense to me. But maybe that's wishful thinking?

I can't speak to it, I live in Montreal. I am reasonably confident that most BQ votes come out of francophone nationalism & an urge for sovereignty. I have heard some stories abt people visiting their families in northern Quebec and the level of racism/xenophobia makes the southern USA look like a big welcoming hug that goes all the way around the world. But I guess it comes down to the individual MPs, right? What's weird though (and I could be completely making this up in my head) is that the xenophobe vote is starting to get split w/ the Conservatives and the last two elections have had Cons elected in Quebec, which didn't happen for years?

that political compass thing told me to vote for the bloc

I think a lot of people vote Bloc in Quebec mostly by default just because they don't like what the other parties are offering. I guess a lot of people also vote for them because of the sovereignty thing, but this seems to be pretty low priority for most people I know (admittedly I mostly only know people living in and around montreal).

I think a lot of people vote Bloc in Quebec mostly by default just because they don't like what the other parties are offering. I guess a lot of people also vote for them because of the sovereignty thing, but this seems to be pretty low priority for most people I know (admittedly I mostly only know people living in and around montreal).

― peter in montreal, Monday, March 28, 2011 11:20 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark

This? More or less? My boyfriend's family is from relatively rural Quebec, and the depth of Bloc support outside the urban areas in Quebec is exceptionally strong both because of the sovereignty/nationalism thing but mostly the former. In Montreal, this:

most of their voters see them primarily as a social democratic/progressive option that looks out for Quebec's interests first rather than a separatist party per se

strikes me as more true. While the xenophobia/racism thing is certainly present (significantly in a lot of Quebec) I'm not sure if there's any clear correlation with Bloc voters and xenophobic tendencies. I have fairly cosmopolitan mid-20s friends who support the Bloc and have 60 year old family members who vote Liberal but are on the xenophobic side of 'reasonable accommodation' bullshit.

I mean, on a provincial level there's a fairly clear distinction b/t the leftist/progressive Parti Quebecois and the ADQ, which is a secular Quebec nationalist right wing/market party. The prospect of an actual referendum and secession is so far removed from its 90s heyday that while the presence of the Bloc in Parliament makes achieving majorities frustratingly difficult, esp. for the Liberals, they're nice to have around for social issues. A Bloc that lined up ideologically with the Conservative gov't rather than the NDP and Liberals on the environment, gay rights, etc. would make political geography slightly more terrifying.

The prospect of an actual referendum and secession is so far removed from its 90s heyday

It'll be interesting to see how much Duceppe talks about separatism in this campaign. The BQ essentially functions as the "Quebec first" party rather than a separatist party in the current political climate, although obviously they can't risk straying too far from a separatist message without alienating a lot of voters.

Holy shit!: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Tories+begin+election+ahead+Liberals+poll/4498903/story.html

i wouldn't get too worked up over that. most polls done for the Post/Global media monstrosity enjoy over stating the Con's popularity.
you can see a bunch of recent polls here: http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/polls.php

although in all those recent ones the Cons are still looking pretty good.

Personally I find the most surprising fact in that article to be this:

• In Alberta, the Tories stand at 54 per cent support, while the Liberals have 23 per cent, the NDP have 17 per cent and the Green party has five per cent.

• In Saskatchewan/Manitoba, the Tories are ahead at 66 per cent, while the Liberals have 18 per cent and NDP has 13 per cent.

only 54%!? whaaat? more support for Tories in SK/MB than AB?

Layton really seems to be targeting AB and the West generally. Maybe it's paying off...?

I'm guessing that the Conservatives' 'coalition' angle is actually working. I was genuinely angry watching Guy Giorno claim on Power Play that in the event of a minority Parliament that voted no confidence in the party with the plurality of seats, it would be "undemocratic" for the party with the second-most seats to govern with the support of the remaining Opposition parties. In a Westminster Parliament, we vote for local representatives, not directly for a head of government. If someone can govern with the support of the majority of elected members, that is not undemocratic. That's how Parliamentary democracy works and should work. Perhaps remedial Gr 10 history/civics classes are in order for high-ranking Conservatives?

But yeah, going by polls, SK/MB have been fucking loving the CPC for some time now. I'm not completely sure why. The gun registry? Fatigue with provincial NDPs? Resentment of Central ('Eastern') Canada?

One MLW poster makes the convincing case that convincing the public of the 'coalition threat' is a brilliant strategic move on the part of the CPC if they want to destroy the LPC from both sides: Centre-right Lib/Con swing voters vote Con in order to produce a CPC majority so as to avoid having socialists influencing the PM; Centre-left Lib/NDP swing voters vote NDP, secure that they don't need to 'strategically' vote Liberal since the NDP will have a role in a governing coalition.

MLW?
i'm not sure how "brilliant" a strategy it is since, having tried to pull a coalition stunt himself, this can blow up in Harper's face pretty easily.

Maple Leaf Web, sorry.

And, yeah, that's what Layton and Duceppe have been saying and part of what Reality Check discusses here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/03/the-coalitions-not-the-question.html

I think the CPC is banking on a couple of things, though:

i) They're leading in the polls so people are less likely to think they'll need to try something like that again. (Plus, a coalition including the #1 party may seem less objectionable to the sort of people who think there is something objectionable about coalitions.)

ii) Their right-wing base isn't going anywhere (since they have nowhere else to go) and they can draw in more moderate voters this way, while simultaneously pushing away the left wing of the Liberal base. If anything, the idea that the CPC may be willing to work with other parties may even help them win centrist votes.