Okay, so I know that the Canadian Politics Redux thread doesn't get a lot of traffic, plus I'm hoping to get an outside perspective on this.
There's a brewing political scandal in Alberta. We have to have a provincial election before the end of May. The current government (I'll mention names but you don't need to know or remember them) is led by Rachel Notley and her left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP). The opposition is led by Jason Kenney and his right wing United Conservative Party (UCP).
There used to be two right-of-centre parties in Alberta, which may explain why the NDP won it's first-ever government back in 2015. Jason Kenney, formerly a Federal politician, came down to Alberta provincial politics. He ran for leadership of one of the two parties (the PCs) with an explicit campaign to merge the PCs with the other right wing party (Wildrose). He won that election, negotiated the merger that formed the United Conservative Party, then ran for the leadership of the new merged party.
When Kenney ran for leader of the new party, he ran against the former leader of Wildrose, a man named Brian Jean.
Now here's the scandal - in that leadership election it appears clear that Kenney's campaign financed and supported a third candidate, Jeff Callaway. The allegation (which has support) was that Callaway was a "kamikaze" candidate - that he directed all of his attacks against Jean, said nothing about Kenney, and eventually withdrew from the race and threw his support behind Kenney - who went on to win easily.
Now: there's nothing against the rules for candidates helping each other or co-ordinating their campaigns. However Kenney has stated several times there was no such co-operation - and that increasingly seems like that is a lie.
It does also appear that there may have been some campaign finance violations - that money was given to the Callaway campaign from the Kenney camp that wasn't properly accounted for.
So Languish: how much should I care about this scandal? Jason Kenney has been "my guy" for awhile, so I'm certainly a little bit biased. Is this just hard-nosed politics, or is it just plain undemocratic?
(and just a bit more background if anyone is curious - once upon a time both Kenney and Jean were members of Stephen Harper's caucus. Jason Kenney was one of Harper's most senior ministers, and seen to be one of his most successful. He also comes across as fairly cold - a guy who is always relentlessly "on". He's never married and lived with his mom when not in Ottawa. Jean is kind of his opposite - he was a backbench MP who never had any profile on Ottawa. He's not even very good at giving a political speech in front of people, but has a very down to earth kind of persona, seems very approachable. He lost his home in wildfires in Ft McMurray and has a new family.)
Your hero is a con man.
Sure it's undemocratic but it's party politics. In a general election it would carry 1000 times more weight with me.
Kenney has always been a little loser to me anyway :P
It sounds pretty devious and unsportsmanlike to me. Very not your usual MO, BB.
Not sure how you can continue to support him. His party, sure, but him? eh...
Quote from: merithyn on March 18, 2019, 01:49:05 PM
It sounds pretty devious and unsportsmanlike to me. Very not your usual MO, BB.
Not sure how you can continue to support him. His party, sure, but him? eh...
Well you can't really separate the two. In the fall I have to vote for a party, and it sure as hell won't be the NDP.
Actually you vote for a member of the legislature
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 02:06:12 PM
Well you can't really separate the two. In the fall I have to vote for a party, and it sure as hell won't be the NDP.
Are Conservatives people of good principle, holding moral authority in their politics high? If so then the answer is clear, Jason Kenney has engaged in unethical conduct against his fellow Conservatives, and the people of Alberta, and he should not be supported. If you can't vote for the NDP, then you should abstain.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 02:11:10 PM
Actually you vote for a member of the legislature
...who is a member of a political party, and invariably takes his or her directions from the leader.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 02:11:10 PM
Actually you vote for a member of the legislature
We all now, 95% of the time, we vote for the party. Lots of people don't know their MPs, but they know the Premier/Prime Minister. In some riding, just about anyone will win as long as he is in the right party (hint: Montreal's West Island ridings always lean Liberal).
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 02:11:10 PM
Actually you vote for a member of the legislature
...who is a member of a political party, and invariably takes his or her directions from the leader.
As was so aptly demonstrated by two former cabinet ministers. :P
Covertly backing a third candidate is just hard nosed politics.
Lying about it makes one a liar. Naughty, but I've been led to believe not unusual for politicians.
Campaign finance violations may make one a criminal, depending on the severity.
Personally, I wouldn't be able to support this guy. However that looks in your government, that would be the final choice for me. It seems odd that you of all people aren't sure if this should matter for you. He's everything you espouse to find distasteful. I guess I'm not sure why you're struggling.
Quote from: merithyn on March 18, 2019, 04:17:56 PM
Personally, I wouldn't be able to support this guy. However that looks in your government, that would be the final choice for me. It seems odd that you of all people aren't sure if this should matter for you. He's everything you espouse to find distasteful. I guess I'm not sure why you're struggling.
I was twice a campaign manager in a real election - once federally, once provincially. They were efforts we were always doomed to lose as we were up against strong incumbents, but it gave me some appreciation for political campaigns. And I, for one, respect and enjoy "hard nosed politics" that got right up to the line, but don't cross it. There's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
As for the campaign finance violations - it appears to be more of an issue that the funds could have been used in this way, they just didn't want to admit it and thus failed to report it. It's more of a regulatory offence than a criminal one.
Or maybe not - it has apparently been referred to the RCMP, which seems to mean something thinks it might be criminal. That obviously would be a bigger deal.
Where's the option for Nobody should care about Alberta politics? :P
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PMThere's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PMtrying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
Do you mean trying to suppress the people's vote?
As long as it's just influence and not coercion.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 18, 2019, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PMThere's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
:yeahright:
I assume he means suppress by negative campaigns (like turn out) rather then like through disenfranchisementor something.
Anyways, i'm surprised BB would continue to back a someone with a grey moral area (what happened to conservative and upright morals), and an obviously closeted homosexual*.
*only partially a joke :P
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PMThere's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
:mellow:
"There's no problem..."? Please tell me that this didn't come across the way that you meant it. Because if this is what you meant, I'm sorely disappointed in you.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 18, 2019, 04:49:02 PM
As long as it's just influence and not coercion.
Even that is beyond the pale. Because what it is actually doing is reducing the confidence in, and the legitimacy of, the government.
Quote from: merithyn on March 18, 2019, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PMThere's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
:mellow:
"There's no problem..."? Please tell me that this didn't come across the way that you meant it. Because if this is what you meant, I'm sorely disappointed in you.
Depends on how it is done.
Robo-callers telling people that the election was moved to Wednesday is very bad.
Releasing polls that show your candidate is way out ahead, your opponents voters shouldn't even bother voting, is fine. I mean it's hard-nosed, but we're not using the marquis of queensbury rules here.
...I think you have bigger issues than whether or not to care about this scandal.
Suppress is a loaded term Beeb. It means evil Republicans cheating sweet black grannies out of their vote.
Negative campaigning is not particularly laudable, but it is within the Pale. Flying a false flag is not IMO.
I'd say it's a major red flag at least--it seems to me that using the "kamikaze" wouldn't have much bothered anyone if he hadn't lied about it. If he's willing to lie about something that nobody would have cared about, it has to make you wonder what else he may be lying about.
That isn't factoring in any possible criminal violation of campaign finance law, since it's not clear there was any such violation.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm just taking your word for it that using the "kamikaze" candidate wouldn't have bothered people much in the context of the selection of a party leader in Canada.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 05:01:58 PM
Negative campaigning is not particularly laudable, but it is within the Pale. Flying a false flag is not IMO.
Negative campaigning to try to get people to vote for you rather than your opponent, ok.
Negative campaigning to try to get people to not vote, not ok.
Quote from: Maximus on March 18, 2019, 05:05:43 PM
Negative campaigning to try to get people to not vote, not ok.
Disagree. It's a continuum. Vote for me, don't vote, vote for the other candidate.
Egg McMuffin's candidacy was essentially a placeholder for tribal Republicans to abstain from voting from Trump. He wasn't seriously running for president.
Except for the fundamental difference that people who are voting are supporting the democratic process while people who aren't voting, especially those who aren't voting out of apathy or disillusionment, are delegitimizing it. And the level of polarization and corruption we are seeing now is a direct result of low confidence in the democratic process.
It doesn't sound like it will affect you directly, unlike say a proposal to increase taxes. There is nothing you can do about it. So you shouldn't care. Even if you "care", it won't have the slightest effect on the outcome. This is somebody else's business. Somebody else will take care of it.
Having said that, the Kenny guy seems like a bad person if you ask me. It is party politics, but financing another candidate for the only purpose of trying to undermine his opponent, then proceed to cover up and lie about it, is pretty dirty party politics even using the usual low bar for party politics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 05:56:40 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 18, 2019, 05:05:43 PM
Negative campaigning to try to get people to not vote, not ok.
Disagree. It's a continuum. Vote for me, don't vote, vote for the other candidate.
Egg McMuffin's candidacy was essentially a placeholder for tribal Republicans to abstain from voting from Trump. He wasn't seriously running for president.
Really, you don't understand the difference between trying to convince someone not to vote for the other candidate and trying to convince a person not to vote at all?
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PM
I was twice a campaign manager in a real election - once federally, once provincially. They were efforts we were always doomed to lose as we were up against strong incumbents, but it gave me some appreciation for political campaigns. And I, for one, respect and enjoy "hard nosed politics" that got right up to the line, but don't cross it. There's no problem with negative campaigning, or trying to supress your opponents vote, for example.
My wife was a campaign consultant at one time. I agree with all of this, other than the voter suppression bit (I understand your later characterization).
Quote from: Barrister on March 18, 2019, 04:25:45 PM
As for the campaign finance violations - it appears to be more of an issue that the funds could have been used in this way, they just didn't want to admit it and thus failed to report it. It's more of a regulatory offence than a criminal one.
Also that generally speaking campaign violations can be somewhere from "meh" to "Jesus Christ, what the hell." More data is needed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2019, 05:56:40 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 18, 2019, 05:05:43 PM
Negative campaigning to try to get people to not vote, not ok.
Disagree. It's a continuum. Vote for me, don't vote, vote for the other candidate.
Egg McMuffin's candidacy was essentially a placeholder for tribal Republicans to abstain from voting from Trump. He wasn't seriously running for president.
Really, you don't understand the difference between trying to convince someone not to vote for the other candidate and trying to convince a person not to vote at all?
I think the words "voter suppression" are a bit of a trigger for Americans, and I understand why.
I think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!) and trying to
prevent a person from voting (not cool!). And the later has a long history in US politics through things like Jim Crow laws
Convincing a person not to vote includes as lot more than convincing them not to vote for the opposing candidate.
Jason Kenney lost another UCP candidate this morning. Caylan Ford resigned because comments she made after the Charlottesville riots, about how white supremacist terrorists are treated unfairly, have come to light.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/ucp-candidate-caylan-ford-resigns-after-controversial-online-comments-surface
There is always going to be a group of racist wingnuts within a right wing party. The issue is how the leader and party deals with them. It appears she was forced out quickly.
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 01:53:07 AMI think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!)
Back in my more activist days, I used to think that. But no longer, not with declining participation rates. The crisis of democracy requires us to empower the democratic process, and that means encouraging everyone to vote - and to participate more largely. In our moment of "victory, no matter the cost", we need to appreciate anew the value of the process itself, over the result. And convincing a person not to vote is always done in a somewhat disingenuous way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 11:04:57 AM
There is always going to be a group of racist wingnuts within a right wing party. The issue is how the leader and party deals with them. It appears she was forced out quickly.
It has been a big priority for years to Kenney dating back to his time in Harper's cabinet to increase Conservative support amongst recent immigrants and visible minorities. The racial dynamics of Canada are quite different than in the US after all, with visible minorities being being mostly south and east asian (rather than black and hispanic), more financially successful, and often more socially conservative. And it has shown some success.
I was going to say that I didn't think this particular candidate needed to go - the first comments I saw were more about process than substance. But then I see she did say that she was 'saddened by the demographic replacement of white people', and that 'would not be a peaceful transition', and that such comments were only 2 years old, not in the distant past, so I can understand and agree with her going.
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 11:25:00 AM
It has been a big priority for years to Kenney dating back to his time in Harper's cabinet to increase Conservative support amongst recent immigrants and visible minorities. The racial dynamics of Canada are quite different than in the US after all, with visible minorities being being mostly south and east asian (rather than black and hispanic), more financially successful, and often more socially conservative. And it has shown some success.
Top five countries for immigrants in Canada (2016):
1. Philippines 2. India 3. China 4. Iran 5. Pakistan
Top five countries for immigrants in Quebec (2016)
1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. France 4. Haiti 5. China
(Philippines comes in at 9; Iran at 13 and India and Pakistan do not break the top 15).
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 19, 2019, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 01:53:07 AMI think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!)
Back in my more activist days, I used to think that. But no longer, not with declining participation rates. The crisis of democracy requires us to empower the democratic process, and that means encouraging everyone to vote - and to participate more largely. In our moment of "victory, no matter the cost", we need to appreciate anew the value of the process itself, over the result. And convincing a person not to vote is always done in a somewhat disingenuous way.
the Parti (and Bloc) Québécois used to call me each election, reminding me how important it was too vote. Until I told them I voted for the other guys.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 19, 2019, 01:19:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 11:25:00 AM
It has been a big priority for years to Kenney dating back to his time in Harper's cabinet to increase Conservative support amongst recent immigrants and visible minorities. The racial dynamics of Canada are quite different than in the US after all, with visible minorities being being mostly south and east asian (rather than black and hispanic), more financially successful, and often more socially conservative. And it has shown some success.
Top five countries for immigrants in Canada (2016):
1. Philippines 2. India 3. China 4. Iran 5. Pakistan
Top five countries for immigrants in Quebec (2016)
1. Algeria 2. Morocco 3. France 4. Haiti 5. China
(Philippines comes in at 9; Iran at 13 and India and Pakistan do not break the top 15).
damn French trying to invade and replace us :mad:
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2019, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 19, 2019, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 01:53:07 AMI think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!)
Back in my more activist days, I used to think that. But no longer, not with declining participation rates. The crisis of democracy requires us to empower the democratic process, and that means encouraging everyone to vote - and to participate more largely. In our moment of "victory, no matter the cost", we need to appreciate anew the value of the process itself, over the result. And convincing a person not to vote is always done in a somewhat disingenuous way.
the Parti (and Bloc) Québécois used to call me each election, reminding me how important it was too vote. Until I told them I voted for the other guys.
There is the old belief that high voter turn out helps left of centre parties more than right wing ones, so it may make sense that Conservative parties would see the benefits of voter suppression and be more willing to engage in it.
Quote from: PRC on March 19, 2019, 03:15:57 PM
There is the old belief that high voter turn out helps left of centre parties more than right wing ones, so it may make sense that Conservative parties would see the benefits of voter suppression and be more willing to engage in it.
I never heard that in Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on March 19, 2019, 03:15:57 PM
There is the old belief that high voter turn out helps left of centre parties more than right wing ones, so it may make sense that Conservative parties would see the benefits of voter suppression and be more willing to engage in it.
I never heard that in Canada.
Why do you think Conservative party operatives engaged in robo call voter suppression?
Harper government made it harder to vote under the Fair Elections Act. ID that is acceptable in a provincial election, is not always acceptable nationally. The bar was needlessly raised.
I am shocked that a Conservative politician is corrupt. :bowler:
Quote from: saskganesh on March 19, 2019, 03:35:12 PM
I am shocked that a Conservative politician is corrupt. :bowler:
No shock over Liberal corruption in Ottawa? :)
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 19, 2019, 03:35:12 PM
I am shocked that a Conservative politician is corrupt. :bowler:
No shock over Liberal corruption in Ottawa? :)
Umm BB, your thread is about the scandal in Alberta. In fact you specifically asked us whether you should care about the Alberta scandal.
And really, you have started with the "but what about" Trumpist response. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 03:51:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on March 19, 2019, 03:35:12 PM
I am shocked that a Conservative politician is corrupt. :bowler:
No shock over Liberal corruption in Ottawa? :)
Umm BB, your thread is about the scandal in Alberta. In fact you specifically asked us whether you should care about the Alberta scandal.
And really, you have started with the "but what about" Trumpist response. :P
Sasks showed up for the first time in a long while - I wanted his take on LavScam.
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 01:53:07 AM
I think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!)
No, it's not.
Quote from: Maximus on March 19, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
No, it's not.
The connection between not voting and delegitimization of democracy is pretty ephemeral.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2019, 05:37:40 PM
The connection between not voting and delegitimization of democracy is pretty ephemeral.
That's an extraordinary claim.
What would a Democracy look like if nobody voted?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
What would a Democracy look like if nobody voted?
If one person voted it would look like a dictatorship.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2019, 06:41:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
What would a Democracy look like if nobody voted?
If one person voted it would look like a dictatorship.
And if only one group in society voted - say affluent, older white voters - well we call that conservative strategy.
Quote from: PRC on March 19, 2019, 03:15:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2019, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 19, 2019, 11:10:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 19, 2019, 01:53:07 AMI think there's a difference between trying to convince a person not to vote (fair game!)
Back in my more activist days, I used to think that. But no longer, not with declining participation rates. The crisis of democracy requires us to empower the democratic process, and that means encouraging everyone to vote - and to participate more largely. In our moment of "victory, no matter the cost", we need to appreciate anew the value of the process itself, over the result. And convincing a person not to vote is always done in a somewhat disingenuous way.
the Parti (and Bloc) Québécois used to call me each election, reminding me how important it was too vote. Until I told them I voted for the other guys.
There is the old belief that high voter turn out helps left of centre parties more than right wing ones, so it may make sense that Conservative parties would see the benefits of voter suppression and be more willing to engage in it.
nah, I think it's too simplistic.
Urban centers tend to be mostly center of the left in America&US. Countryside tends to be more conservative. The Liberal Party (both of them) used to send a van, with their party logo well painted, get my grandparents to vote (it wasn't unique to them ;) ). They used to do this with lots of elderly people because they were traditionnaly "redder".
If older, more conservative people vote and young voters feel they have something better to do, you have low voter turnout with a conservative tint.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2019, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2019, 06:41:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2019, 06:35:31 PM
What would a Democracy look like if nobody voted?
If one person voted it would look like a dictatorship.
And if only one group in society voted - say affluent, older white voters - well we call that conservative strategy.
in here, we call this Liberal strategy. :)
Along with nationalizing lots of immigrants with Canada flags everywhere just before an election or a referendum and reminding them how the Liberal Party truly embraces the Canadian values they want to be part of.
Or courting the religious extremist vote.
Yeah, basically, each party has their own tactics.
Think about how you'd react if a political opponent did this and adjust your outrage appropriately.