Canadian Politics Thread

oh - except one about the leafs. their lone priority above smearing liberals.

lololol

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/06/cv-election-flash-vote-mobs.html

"I'm not sure what a flash mob is but it sounds a bit disconcerting … I don't know about 'flash' or 'mobs' but I don't like the context of either word."

"... or 'student' either."

I've noticed that the papers here in Vancouver have also been really critical of Harper and positive about the Liberals and the NDP.

CPC campaign strategy, at least for the first portion of the campaign, seemed to revolve around saying the word "coalition" as many times as possible per sentence. Even the right-wingers I know started to find it embarrassing. By way of contrast, while I once swore I'd never support a party led by Michael Ignatieff, I'm thinking of actually donating something based on the LPC campaign so far.

Exactly, Canada. It's time.

Hmm,
Ex-pat Canadians baffled by voting rules

I sent off for my special ballot last week. I didn't find the rules baffling really, just kind of irritating--like why a 5-year rule? Is that the point at which I'm no longer considered to be interested or invested enough in my home country to vote in its elections? grumble grumble.

5 years is approx the amount of time foreign commie indoctrination takes to set in.

Elections Canada is waaaaaaay more organized now than they were in '08. Last time, you had to contact them after the election had been called to be put on the voter list (and by the time they got their shit together and sent my ballot, it was too late to vote). But they've since compiled a list of overseas voters and the ballots were ready as soon as the election was called.

The confusion stems from the fact that Janhunen goes home to visit for about a month once a year. Does that qualify as residency or not? She said she wasn’t able to get a straight answer

I don't know, to me the rules are perfectly clear. For taxation purposes, the definition of residency is clear cut. And what possible definition of "residency" would include "visiting home for about a month once a year"?

Well yeah, that's what I thought too. I visit for a month over xmas but that doesn't make me a resident, obv! But not being able to vote in a year or two under this 5-year rule makes me a sad panda, so boourns to that.

Do you mean 'residency' being is tied to whether or not a person pays taxes in Canada? Seems like an awkward way to determine voting eligibility if so, there are people living in Canada don't pay taxes but they still get to vote, and there are taxpayers who aren't citizens who don't get to vote...

Yeah, you don't need to pay taxes if you want to vote, so they're not linked in that sense. Residency is defined (maybe that's too strong a word) partly for tax purposes, but that's just one possible requirement to be eligible to vote.

It wouldn't be worth it to maintain Canadian residency if it meant that your salary could be taxed. That's not true for everyone, especially if they own a business or do business in Canada, but it's definitely not worth it to maintain residency status just for voting purposes. The five year rule isn't related to taxation either, the rationale is that someone living abroad wouldn't be properly informed about the election or something. This might have made sense pre-internet/pre-24 hour news cycle. Hopefully they'll change the law sometime.

Pretty good little debate on corporate taxes: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1872560664

even better: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-rates-effect-on-business-investment/article1972513/?from=1972599

Am I a bad citizen if I find things like the American budget debate infinitely more interesting than our own election? Even though the outcome affects me directly, I just can't get interested in this crew. Trudeau interested me, ditto a couple of those Mulroney/Turner elections--nothing since that I can remember. I think the nature of my job--regardless of ruling party, public-school teachers are probably as close to a secure pension and a secure job as it gets, plus any salary movement's going to happen within a relatively narrow spectrum--has something to do with it.

normally i'm revolted by US politics and would prefer to ignore it as best as possible.

that post turned out way more Morbs-ian than i intended!

Yeah...the same stuff that revolts you is what draws me in. I do, unfortunately, approach politics for the spectacle.

The 2004 election was more "important" than we realized it was at the time: a referendum on Liberals' ability to govern despite all the scandals, a referendum on Paul Martin as leader, the rise of the re-unified Canadian right, the balance of federal politics shifting even further west. Quebec was at a crossroads where separatism could have gained huge momentum depending on how Quebecers voted.

I prefer having a government that isn't in a perpetual state of clusterfuck like they have in the US. It might be entertaining to watch from afar but good government isn't supposed to be entertaining!

i just think it's so corrupt down there. it makes me sick.

"I prefer having a government that isn't in a perpetual state of clusterfuck like they have in the US." - I just realized that this can be read in two ways, so just to clarify: US = clusterfuck. Canada = less of a clusterfuck and I prefer it that way.

I think in the last election there was a poll taken that found something like 15% of Canadians would trade their vote in Canada to be able to vote in the US (specifically, I think it may have been to trade their vote in the Can 2008 election so they could vote in the US 2008 presidential election). Not sure how much that number would change if re-polled now but it's still a bit :/ I think I'm like the others posting here. US politics are too frustrating, too sickening. Also, I would never want to live there (and thus will never be able to vote there) so I personally don't see much point in paying much attention to what goes on in the US.

It's worth paying attention to what goes on there (leaders of the free world, etc.) but I don't envy the way they do politics.

The Star can barely hide their excitement today (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/972241--ndp-fortunes-falling-fast-in-latest-poll?bn=1)

According to Nanos, support for the New Democrats in Ontario has declined for seven days in succession.

Nationally, Conservatives sit at 40.5 per cent, Liberals 31.7 per cent, NDP, 13.2 per cent, Bloc Quebecois, 9.2 per cent and Greens, 4.0 per cent.

The Nanos survey of 1,011 decided Canadians was conducted April 6-8, and is considered plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

A Layton spokesperson argued that the average of all the polls so far is 17.5 per cent for the NDP. (my emphasis)

LOL seriously, NDP?? Here's a crazy thought: if you can't pass fourth grade math, then you can't figure out how to balance the budget by 2014.

not even sure why the Star would be so excited - with the Cons still polling better than they did in '08 i don't see much to celebrate.

Still plenty of time for those numbers to change, especially if stuff like this keeps coming out: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/972725--tories-come-under-attack-over-ag-s-shocking-g8-spending-report?bn=1

Just noticing for the first time here how much Sarkozy looks like Kids In the Hall's Kevin McDonald.

ha ha.

i was just coming to post that article. fuck tony clement. i hope he goes to prison.

A Layton spokesperson argued that the average of all the polls so far is 17.5 per cent for the NDP. (my emphasis)

LOL seriously, NDP?? Here's a crazy thought: if you can't pass fourth grade math, then you can't figure out how to balance the budget by 2014.

I mean, it depends which polls you look at but that's not completely insane, although it's as optimistic as every political party's self-evaluation is. Looking at Election Almanac, there have been several polls that showed the NDP above that number, as well as below. (A few in the 20-21 range.) Admittedly, I didn't bother doing an average myself.

(And yeah, something like the release of an Auditor-General's report is what I was referring to upthread:

So far there haven't been any official findings that money was pissed away on corrupt partisanship or grossly and inappropriately misspent.)

Btw, I'm no military expert but the NDP's defence plan is actually sounding pretty good to me: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-pans-tory-defence-plan-unveils-made-in-canada-alternative/article1976679/?from=sec368

This seems like a long time coming btw: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/in-quebec-the-ndp-is-no-2/article1977700/

I believe this is the complete leaked report fwiw: http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/11/17953806.html

not nearly as stinging as i was hoping.

Not devastating but does seem to show: a lack of transparency verging on manipulation of Parliament, unusually high expenses, and inadequate documentation.

man. i decided to read the Post's site this morning. what a joke. no mention of the G8 scandal anywhere near the top. the first thing i click was about how the money for the action plan was spread around, where the article goes on to say that the Cons had "so far avoided any spending scandals"! then i scroll to the bottom to read 1,000 posts bitching about the liberal commie media bias. fuck these morons.

Not sure what to make of yesterday's story. It was leading CFTR all day, but (what you'd expect, of course) a PC guy shrugged it off. It might be an opening, though--again, short time frame, stories take on a life of their own.

i have a feeling this report and the "misquote" are going to be the debate's theme song tonight.

I mean, it depends which polls you look at but that's not completely insane, although it's as optimistic as every political party's self-evaluation is.

But when the polls show a clear trend downward, then taking an average and claiming it to be representative of something is almost meaningless.

Btw, I'm no military expert but the NDP's defence plan is actually sounding pretty good to me:

IMO, it's completely retarded, like most NDP "plans".

It's a defence plan that is more of a job-creation plan.

Judging from that article, Layton's concept of defense-related jobs means more unionized manual labour building ships, not as if that should surprise anyone. If they just want to create jobs then there are any number of other ways to go about it, and none of those ways would cost $21B.

Canada is a world leader in aerospace -- our aerospace industry is the 4th largest in the world. It's a high-yield sector that brings billions of $ in sales into the country, keeps us at the forefront of military and civilian technological developments, and keeps tens of thousands of high paying jobs in the country (and the intellectual capital that goes with it). Buying jets can at least be partly justified along those lines. Anyone proposing a $21B defense budget had better be putting big chunks of money into the kind of R&D and engineering sectors that will not only create jobs right now, but invest in the long term future of the country. Oh, and the Grits also want to support more peacekeeping efforts, so this is nothing new.

Mr. Layton said it is time to go back to “square one” on the F-35s and none of the aircraft should be purchased without first assessing the defence priorities of Canadians.

This is a meaningless statement. Defense isn't like a health care system, it's not something that everybody uses or needs to have access to every day. Layton is so out of touch it's not even funny.

you sure hate the ndp huh

The NDP are all right, but when they're wrong they're spectacularly wrong and their leader is a gigantic douche.

he has a p cool moustache tho

this may sound cliched - but at least he's sticking up for our vets. i'm glad he's coming out swinging on that one. when our current gov't's policy is to treat our returning troops like yesterday's garbage until it's time to trot them out for a photo-op... if we're going to start calling people "gigantic douches" - we should think about who our PM is and what's he's done to limit the help our troops have access to.

if anything really pisses me off about Harper and his goons (aside from completely lying about transparency and ethics) - it's the totally disrespectful way they've treated our troops. it really, honestly, bothers me alot.

Defense isn't like a health care system, it's not something that everybody uses or needs to have access to every day.

It is still possible to (re)assess what our defence priorities should be, B4rry, e.g. questioning whether we should even get involved in active combats in internal matters such as the current Libyan situation. National Post writers with no NDP sympathies whatsoever have said as much (that we can question our defence priorities):
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/kelly-mcparland-liberals-hide-their-agenda-on-canadas-military/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/peter-worthington-canada-doesnt-need-the-worlds-best-attack-aircraft/

Anywho, I read the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP platforms last night. I like the Liberal platform the best, particularly the ideas of promoting strategic knowledge-intensive sectors, the emphasis on investing in scholarly non-commercial research, the Learning Passport, and the relatively detailed ideas about arts funding. I do think their approach to international trade and co-operation is good. I don't really know how much to trust Ignatieff, honestly. (The LPC mostly seemed to go along with the CPC in the last Parliament and Chretien's Liberal governments were quite neoliberal so this new progressive agenda seems a bit surprising.) Also, my NDP incumbent seems much stronger than the Liberal candidate + the Conservative came in #2 last time so I may vote NDP again. Seems like I won't volunteer with anyone's campaign though.

I wasn't expecting to like the Conservative platform anyway but it's kind of amazing in terms of how little information they provide as to how they will balance the budget, especially given how much detail they want to give in other areas. They plan to slash taxes, increase military and law enforcement spending, and say they'll maintain health and education transfers to the provinces... Something's going to get gutted...

I just signed up to be a DRO. I'm not completely sure what to expect.

(And I'm sorry to be a pedant, clemenza, but there hasn't been a federal PC party for a decade.:P They're Conservatives or Tories or the CPC. Joe Clark wouldn't recognize this bunch.)

"...in active combat when it comes to internal matters..."

(I realize that the NDP doesn't actually seem to be questioning that particular issue, btw.)

what is DRO?

Deputy returning officer. Guy who manages a polling station.

(And I'm sorry to be a pedant, clemenza, but there hasn't been a federal PC party for a decade.:P They're Conservatives or Tories or the CPC. Joe Clark wouldn't recognize this bunch.)

No problem, you're right--shows how little attention I've paid the past 20 years. I was in grade 9 the year Clark took over the leadership, and I wrote a paper on him (or the convention, can't remember) for history class. He seemed like a very decent guy who, politically, was no match for Trudeau.

Harper is handling himself depressingly well...

...and Layton is currently rocking Iggy back on his heels here. For a lecturer and intellectual, Iggy's being stunningly repetitive and occasionally incoherent. Though I generally lean NDP, this is NOT pleasing me.

OTM

layton sounds like a fucking asshole