Canadian Politics Thread

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

ya this is why I don't buy the "left-wingness" of media. In Canada at least the media is fairly sympathetic to whoever is governing. Will that change as CBC becomes Fox-itized?

[crazy canuck]

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.

As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.


I am judging him on is what he does, not what he says to a partisan crowd.

[Malthus]

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.

As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.


I am judging him on is what he does, not what he says to a partisan crowd.

The difference between judicial appointments in Canada and the US is striking to say the least - not just in the case of Haper, but generally. The Canadian ones are not politicized to nearly the same degree, in spite of the uproar caused over the last two decades by the introduction of the Charter and cries of judicial activism. 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Ya I'd say the most partisan-ish appointments (from eirther Libs, or Tories) has to be The Senate. Judges, I'm sure have political leanings, but you don't hear about patronage as much.

Is that because our legal system is different from  the US, or is there less of a culture of Politicized lawyers/Judges in Canada? I'm not sure I'd know one way or the other.

[Josephus]

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?

CC. I don't know specifically when they moved away from that label. It probably did not happen overnight, but was a gradual shift. If I had to pick one leader, though, I would say Alexa McDonough, or whatever her name was, back in the late 90s who tried to reorganize a then-battered NDP into something more like Blair's Labour Party and moved the party's base closer to the centre. This was around the time that Unions and The CAW stopped supporting the NDP.

But in any case I don't have a problem with the label. But it is bandied about as an insult. Adn the majority of Canadians, present company excepted, hear the word "Socialist" and immediatley start thinking the NDP wants to turn Canada into North Korea....or maybe present company not excepted. 

The NDP knows that it cannot change that brand. So, it has to distance itself from "socialism" .

[Neil]

But in any case I don't have a problem with the label. But it is bandied about as an insult. Adn the majority of Canadians, present company excepted, hear the word "Socialist" and immediatley start thinking the NDP wants to turn Canada into North Korea....or maybe present company not excepted. 

North Korea wouldn't be so bad.  It's wanting to turn us into smarmy, bike-riding mustched Torontonians that I object to.

[Josephus]

What'sa matter, Neil, you can't grow a moustache? 

[Neil]

What'sa matter, Neil, you can't grow a moustache? 

Actually, I have an ever-so-trendy goatee.

[viper37]

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.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

That fits the profile of the NDP.

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.

He may not have known he was filmed, but it's not that gigantic conspiracy you guys are talking about.  In fact, what he says is not really different then what he said last fall when the Libs wanted to enter a coallition with the NDP and the Bloc, after the election.

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?

No.  He brands the people who will be nominated to higher spheres of power "leftist ideologues".

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?" .

Post-facto justification.
Iggy first decided the government needed to be removed, then he found a justification.

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."

And do the other parties even attemp to work with the Conservatives?  If so, I haven't seen it, except when they believe themselves to be too weak to undergo another electoral campaign.
Really, the opposition is no different than the government.

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.

He's got the plurality of votes.  Wich means a majority of the voters decided they liked the Conservatives better than another party.
As such, if he is to govern according to what the other parties want, I do wonder why did I bothered to vote in the first place?  What's the point of having a party in power if he can't enact its electoral platform for wich people voted for.

Harper is the Prime Minister after all.
That the opposition does not like some of its bills project, that I can understand.  But that they never seek to compromise on their own agendas, I fail to see how they are supposedly better than the elected government.

[viper37]

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.

Actually, it's been debated before, and there are interviews with the PM where he expresses his belief, but generally speaking, the left always believe he's lying or hiding something.

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.

It's not about being a vast left-wing conspiracy, but a party in power will put his people in power.
Everyone accuses the Cons of putting their "horrible people in place", I've seem some accusing the Cons of manipulating the judge selection process to fit in people opposed to abortion.

Can we deny that the many of the current judges comes from Liberal background and the new ones nominated by the Cons don't?
Wasn't the Senate filled with Liberals at some point, before they retired and Harper put some other people there?

We know the Conservatives hate what they call "activist judges" who in their mind rewrite the policies of Canada (gay marriage, Omar Khadr, etc) instead of the Parliament.  It is their position.
And it is shared by the Bloc and other sovereignist parties whenever the court don't do what they like (the Clarity act, for example, from wich I remember a lot of people saying the Supreme Court had no business studying this and that the SC was always leaning against Quebec, etc, etc).  And when I read our dear friend Niptium talking about the courts, they are the courts of the Federal government (the Sikh case, most notably) as they are filled with judges nominated by the ennemy: The Feds.

So, where is the difference?

[viper37]

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?

Maybe, maybe not.
We never know until they've been in power with a majority.
And then it's only 5 years top, and if we don't like them, we have other options.

Currently, there are no valid options for me besides the Conservatives.  I don't like part of their agenda, I don't like part of their ads, but I see nothing better when it comes to economics, wich is the most important issue to me.

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

helicopter, tanks, proper uniforms, etc.  All things that we didn't have with the Libs while they were in power.

[Barrister]

As I have argued in past threads when he had the chance to put right wing ideologues into the Courts he didnt.

We had our annual "bench and bar" session yesterday.  Guest speakers included Rothstein J. (SCC) and Fraankel J. (BCCA) - both of whom were Harper appointments.  I appeared in front of Frankel very briefly this past spring, but we haven't had any federal appointments up here yet so I haven't had an opportunity to assess how he's done.

I found both of the Justice's very interesting, and in their own way, very small "C" conservative.  Rothstein in particular was talking about conflicts, but spent a lot of time talking about "unintended consequences" and the limits of the court's power.  It was music to my ears. 

Frankel I know more by reputation, as he was a DOJ/FPS lawyer for 30+ years, and I saw his name on a number of emails when I first joined the department.

So based on a sample size of two, I'm quite impressed with Harper's appointments.  They are in no way doctrinaire appointments, and follow very closely to precedent.  But they are also appointments that Martin or Chretien would be unlikely to make.

It's not all superior court judge's, but I know more than a few that were appointed on the basis of long-standing support to the Liberal (or PC) Party.

[Josephus]

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization


That fits the profile of the NDP.

Well of course it does. That has to be the vaguest  definition I've ever read. Where did you find that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Gotcha!

Really, the opposition is no different than the government.

Well....can't disagree you with there. They're all politicians.

What's the point of having a party in power if he can't enact its electoral platform for wich people voted for. Harper is the Prime Minister after all.

Sorry...but this has nothing to do with anything. You're arguing about Canada's electoral system. We've had this discussion last year. While Harper got a plurality, he failed to get enough votes. More people voted for other parties. It sucks. I agree.

[Neil]

More people voted for other parties.

Yeah, but only one of those other parties counts.  The Liberals were defeated.  Thus, by right of tradition, Harper should wield absolute power over Canada, and all who oppose him should be imprisoned or executed.

[Barrister]

More people voted for other parties.

Yeah, but only one of those other parties counts.  The Liberals were defeated.  Thus, by right of tradition, Harper should wield absolute power over Canada, and all who oppose him should be imprisoned or executed.

Once again, it would be much more interesting if you would actually debate politics as they are...