Canadian Politics Thread

[viper37]

I think the NDP are being very clever here.  They have pulled out one issue they want addressed by the government and it looks like the government will do it.

Both will come out looking good while the Liberals will come out of it splattered with mud - potential headlines (NDP wins concessions Liberals failed to obtain) or something along those lines.

Meanwhile the BQ continues to look good by standing by the easy and age old mantra "if its good for Quebec we will support it"

I see no win in this for the Liberals in the short or long term.

very good analysis.

I think the pressure inside the Liberal Party must have been enormous for Ignatief to make such a bold move.  'Cause he's really painted himself in a corner and can't get out of there without looking like a fool.

At best, the Libs will say the NDP lacked convictions when it really mattered, but do they really gain from this?  Under Dion, the party was seen as competing with the left to gain votes.  Under Ignatieff, the party is seen as a right-wing contender (despite having basically the same ideas&values).  Would the moderate left still support the Libs?  doubtful.

Lose-lose situation for the party, and they created it themselves.  Harper did not even have to move on anything and he looks like the victim here, something people always seem to love.

[Josephus]

The good thing about Harper is that he's an idiot. That's why I don't understand his popularity. I can understand people agreeing with the ideology. But Harper is an arrogant little buffoon.

The editorial balloons on this CBC report are not mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MG049D7Zls

[viper37]

Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:

- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.

Is that false?


He also tries to boost morale of his troops saying if the Libs win or form a coallition of the left, they'll place leftists ideologues everywhere.

Again is that false?

Didn't we have sufficient problems with that over the 12 years of liberal government?

Harper also says he's proud of having bought new equipment for the armed forces.  Is that wrong?  Already many lives have been wasted in various missions because of lack of proper equipment.  Not having helicopters for the current mission in Afghanistan is a big problem, and a cause of so many deaths that could have been avoided.  Exactly who decided we didn't need helicopters to transport our troops?

[Josephus]

Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:

- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.

Is that false?

Yeah. The NDP is not a socialist party. In fact, socialism is not a political system, i it is an economic system.Nowhere in ithe NDP agenda does it talk about workers taking over factories and destroying capitalism. So yeah, it's false. But it's  a nice word to use cause people, obviously, don't have a clue what socialism means. They just know it's a bad word.


The rest of what you say, is fine. I agree...he's talking ideology to a group of supporters. But he wouldn't say those things in front of media . Which is my point. He's an idiot. This isn't 1965. He's got to know that everything he says is being recorded by someone.

The other thing is his contemptuous disregard for all the other parties, lumping them all as "leftist ideologues."  And then he wonders why the opposition does not want to work with him?

As Iggy said:
"He treats every adversary as a public enemy who has to be destroyed, and so you wonder why it's difficult for me to continue to support him?" .

As an NDP dude said:
He's got a public discourse where he says he's trying to work with the other parties," said deputy New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair. "But then in private we find out he's the same sectarian, narrow-minded, venom-spewing Stephen Harper that we've always known."

Like I said earlier....I'm not in favour of another election. I think it's stupid. But Harper sometimes comes across as an arrogant SOB. He's not very diplomatic.

[crazy canuck]

The good thing about Harper is that he's an idiot.

If an idiot can successfully unite the Reform and PC's in a new party, become PM, hold a bunch of rookie MPs together into a cohesive unit, stare down sure defeat when the opposition was about to form a coalition (and win), survive the worst economic downturn in living memory and still be ahead in the polls - give my an idiot every time.

Fact of the matter is he is highly intelligent.  And if you were to be fair about this you would recognize that the tape came from a partisan rally.  Every political leader says things in those kinds of settings that they would not say to the general public.  For example I have heard rhetoric come out of NDP people (when they know the media isnt listening) that make Harper's comments extremely tame in comparison.

The reason the NDP comments never get reported is because:

a) they will never form government so who really cares;
b) we all know the NDP is home to a lot of loons so in a sense its expected.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah. The NDP is not a socialist party. In fact, socialism is not a political system, i it is an economic system.Nowhere in ithe NDP agenda does it talk about workers taking over factories and destroying capitalism. So yeah, it's false. But it's  a nice word to use cause people, obviously, don't have a clue what socialism means. They just know it's a bad word.

While you are technically correct there are a lot of NDP people who self identify themselves as socialists.  They are quiet about that now since the label is highly unpopular at the moment but surely you are old enough to remember when the NDP wore the socialist badge proudly?

[Malthus]

The common perception of Harper among people I talk to is that he's unlikeable, uncharismatic and abrasive (even abusive) but competent, a fighter, and not personally corrupt.

As long as people keep believing the latter three attributes are true, they'll keep holding their noses and voting him into office, no matter how big an asshole he is.

That's why, for example, the ads the Cons ran depicting Harper as a lovable guy in a sweater aroused widespread scorn, yet didn't sink him. 

[crazy canuck]

The common perception of Harper among people I talk to is that he's unlikeable, uncharismatic and abrasive (even abusive) but competent, a fighter, and not personally corrupt.

As long as people keep believing the latter three attributes are true, they'll keep holding their noses and voting him into office, no matter how big an asshole he is.

That's why, for example, the ads the Cons ran depicting Harper as a lovable guy in a sweater aroused widespread scorn, yet didn't sink him.

I think that is a good analysis.

[saskganesh]

meh. The NDP is a happy member of the Socialist International...maybe a middle of the road . "liberal" version (like the UK's Labour Party), but they are still, at the end of the day, socialists.

I think we are back to having to define "socialism" again. luckily  this has already been done. http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31ed

anyhow, to sum up, modern socialism is now about certain shared human values, not about a specific economic ideology/strategy.

[crazy canuck]

anyhow, to sum up, modern socialism is now about certain shared human values, not about a specific economic ideology/strategy.

That very much depends on what group of socialist you talk to.  One thing that has always characterized the left is the degree to which they can disagree on what they are and what they stand for.  I am not saying that doesnt also happen throughout the political spectrum also but disagreement seems to punctuate the history of the left.

[Josephus]

I'll retract the "idiot" statement. I didn't mean he was "stupid." I'll agree with Malthus that Harper is "competent."

I used "idiot" more in an insulting fashion. Sort of like calling a centre-left party "socialist".

[Barrister]

Didn't we have the debate over "socialist" before, and didn't I bring up Socialist International before?   

[crazy canuck]

I used "idiot" more in an insulting fashion. Sort of like calling a centre-left party "socialist".

I am interested in your wish to dissassociate the NDP from the word.  When would you say the NDP moved away from the label?

[Oexmelin]

I think that is a good analysis.

My biggest problem with his is not that he believes in things I do not believe in, it is because he has, in the last years, showed a disturbing tendency to enjoy making things from the shadows, without ever engaging in a frank debate on issues which he supposedly really believes in.

If the journalists, the judges and the civil service is really such a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you'd think you'd want to denounce it in the open (or Harper could still do what he did, and defend his policies on an American network...) rather than keep it for internal consumption.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Let's take a step back, and carefully analyze what he says:

- He says the Bloc is a seperatist party.
- He says the NDP is a socialist party.

Is that false?

almost... NDP is only socialist in leaning.... haven't been truly left since Broadbent. (and well it's very easy to be "socialist" as 3rd chair.)

He also tries to boost morale of his troops saying if the Libs win or form a coallition of the left, they'll place leftists ideologues everywhere.

Again is that false?

Yes Blatantly... The "Liberals" are about as far "left" as the Tories. Having a vague social consciousness and being prone to corruption is not just a "lefty" thing.

Didn't we have sufficient problems with that over the 12 years of liberal government?

Yes, Yes we did. And will have similar issues when the Tories 12 years (or however long it sis before we need as a nation to demolish that party again)... what else is new?

Harper also says he's proud of having bought new equipment for the armed forces.  Is that wrong?  Already many lives have been wasted in various missions because of lack of proper equipment.  Not having helicopters for the current mission in Afghanistan is a big problem, and a cause of so many deaths that could have been avoided.  Exactly who decided we didn't need helicopters to transport our troops?

Helicopters only exist as a thing to cry about in Canuck politics. Canadian Strawman of the Highest Order. (like Senatorial Reform/Patronage.)