[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

So let me correct my earlier mistake - he was a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, not a Conservative Prime Minister.  But he was a Conservative by virtue of having a membership.

There has been a vigorous public debate over whether capital punishment should be reinstated. Those in favour claim it is an effective deterrent to homicide. However, most studies in Western societies conclude that murder rates have remained stable or declined with decreasing use of capital punishment. Neither abolition nor the re-introduction of capital punishment have been shown to affect homicide rates significantly.

In a historic vote on 30 June 1987, the House of Commons voted 148–127 not to reinstate the death penalty. This quashed any attempt to restore it in the near future.


Let's say Poilièvre is elected as our next PM.

Let's say the death penalty issue needed to be revisited because it was a court ruling.

What would be the next issue to be reopened?  Will it really be a free vote, no strong arming of any MPs that might be disinclined to vote with the majority of the party?

Harper was pretty quick to squash any vote on abortion issues from ultra conservatives.  PP is beholden to them.  His support entirely comes from them.  Without them, he is nothing.  He is to Canada what Danielle Smith is to Alberta: a populist with no vision.

[Sheilbh]

But with BBoy's point that he's never seen the Conservatives poll so high that shifts if he wins.

He may be beholden to the ultra conservatives for winning election as leader. If he wins big at the election there'll be a lot of MPs who are or feel beholden to him for winning their seats (and it'd be interesting to see who they are/what their background is). And if you win a big stonking majority the people who got you the leadership don't really matter any more. Power and elections change things.

[viper37]

But with BBoy's point that he's never seen the Conservatives poll so high that shifts if he wins.

He may be beholden to the ultra conservatives for winning election as leader. If he wins big at the election there'll be a lot of MPs who are or feel beholden to him for winning their seats (and it'd be interesting to see who they are/what their background is). And if you win a big stonking majority the people who got you the leadership don't really matter any more. Power and elections change things.

That was the reasoning with Stephen Harper.  And it mostly worked.

But he wasn't going full on populist on his campaign.

On the other side, look at Trump.  Look at the decision he made in power, aside for himself, whom did he tried to appease, which groups?  The minority that put him there.

[Sheilbh]

Is that true though? His biggest achievements in terms of what he did with power were tax cuts and judges. That's not particularly focused on the minority who put him there, but the same objective that every Republican President since Reagan has been pushinig and very much the goals of the establishment Republican mainstream.

I think another term will be different and higher risk (not least because there's a big drive on the right now to have more Trumpian people in a position to be appointed to various positions) - and also I think McConnell going in the Senate will change the power dynamics (if Trump wins).

Also, obviously, I don't think populist = bad (I actually think the focus on populism is a useful cover, especially in Europe, for the mainstream right flirting with the far-right because it focuses fears on bad form/style not substance.)

[crazy canuck]

But with BBoy's point that he's never seen the Conservatives poll so high that shifts if he wins.

He may be beholden to the ultra conservatives for winning election as leader. If he wins big at the election there'll be a lot of MPs who are or feel beholden to him for winning their seats (and it'd be interesting to see who they are/what their background is). And if you win a big stonking majority the people who got you the leadership don't really matter any more. Power and elections change things.

You are assuming that the people who are running for election are not themselves extreme right wingers. Just look at the background of the fellow we've been talking about up thread, and you will get a sense of the candidates running in the party. They are themselves the extreme right wing.

The moderates have left the party. 

[Barrister]

Also, obviously, I don't think populist = bad (I actually think the focus on populism is a useful cover, especially in Europe, for the mainstream right flirting with the far-right because it focuses fears on bad form/style not substance.)

Bringing things back to POilievre, I see a lot of terms thrown around, like populist, or ultra-conservative - the thing is those terms don't really have much meaning.  They're just epithets.  And to risk going all "both sides" I definitely see this on the right as well, labelling opponents as "communists", "socialists, "globalists" or what not.

Very little criticism of policy.  Now to be fair in part that's because Poilievre's Conservatives haven't announced a lot of policies.  They've said they'll axe the carbon tax, and said some of the policies they'll introduce on housing, but I'm not quite sure what else they intend to do.

Sheilbh also hit on it though - if the Conservatives win a large majority that's not going to be on the strength of Alberta and rural Ontario.  They'll be picking up a lot of seats that have gone Liberal for a number of years.  Any such majority can't then just be beholden to the "Fuck Trudeau" crowd.

[crazy canuck]

You might've missed the criticisms of his intellectually, dishonest, YouTube efforts.

[viper37]

Is that true though? His biggest achievements in terms of what he did with power were tax cuts and judges.

That is overly simplistic.  But I will forgive you, since you are not Canadian and only have an international (albeit very informed) observer eye.  
Had it been CC or Grey Fox that was writing this, I'd be trouncing them


He mostly fixed the fiscal imbalance between the Federal and Provincial governments that perdured since 1996, after Jean Chrétien won the referendum and decided to fix the Federal govt deficit by transferring responsibilities to the provinces while keeping the budget.  He slashed the equalization payments along with the health and education transfers.  Harper made the same move when he fixed it to 3% of GDP instead of population growth.

Harper reestablished harmonious relations with Quebec, made sure to address Canadians by speaking French first, even when abroad, despite the complaints of many frustrated citizens.  Unlike the Liberals, he seemed to believe in a bilingual Canada and acted toward it, not just mentioned it.

He restored fiscal sanity until the recession hit us, despite growing opposition.  The budgets were balanced, taxes were lowered - although I would have preferred the GST remained at 7% (lowered to 5%) and a better revision of our income tax; less escapes for the very rich, lower taxes for the middle class.

The military was still neglected, but less so than under Chrétien and Paul Martin, they had least had correct uniforms to fight in Afghanistan, not green uniforms and non reinforced light tanks super vulnerable to ieds.

He championed the idea of replacing our aging CF-18 with F-35.  He had a plan in motion.   Just like Chrétien did, Trudeau described it as overspending, buying a Cadillac that we did not need, we were a peaceful country, did not need such an expensive airplane and then he cancelled the contract and had to doubleback only to come back to the F-35 for more $$$.  Exactly like Chrétien did with our helicopters.

He slashed the budget for the department of Condition féminine by 40%.  I have no idea what it does.  Really. But Canadian women aren't any worst for what.  Only those from minorities, due to religious problems.  Which brings my next point...

His government was decried for their promise of a Barbaric Cultural Practice Hotline during their next campaign.  Not the best title for a policy.  They could have used better people at comms.


But, I maintain that such a tool would have been very useful for Canadian women, especially young women, who are more than often the target of such practices.  Ablation of the clitoris, forced marriage, honour killings, these are all things that exists here.  I spent time on Reddit since I'm half unemployed.  From time to time, there's a young women, or a girl coming and asking for help in one of the Quebec/Canadian forum where people have to direct her to proper place.  These are only the posts I notice myself.  How many did I not notice?  How many live through that and do not know where to go?  They fear their family will kill them, or that they will be sent back to their home country to marry a family member 3x their age.

Instead, we have a government that alternates between shutting a blind eye and promoting religious extremism, then wonders why a crisis on the other side of the world becomes violent here.

Also, obviously, I don't think populist = bad (I actually think the focus on populism is a useful cover, especially in Europe, for the mainstream right flirting with the far-right because it focuses fears on bad form/style not substance.)

Ok.

I prefer rationality.  If you can explain with logical arguments where you are going, I'm buying it.

"I have big hands.  Very big hands".  That's not convincing to me.

You tell me the Governor of the Bank of Canada is an incompetent.  Ok.
You tell me our money should be replaced by Bitcoins.  Ok.

You got my attention.  I am listening.  I want you to explain to me why the Governor is an incompetent.
"He did not manage inflation, we are close to 7% inflation"
Ok.  My next question is, do you understand how we got there?
"Because he is an incompetent.  JUSTINFLATION!!!".

I am gone.  I am sorry, but I am gone from this line of conversation.



Next, you want to talk to me about the future of finance, crypto money.
I want you to talk to me about futures, derivatives and other options.
...

See, again, I am gone.

That is populism.

It might not be that "populism = bad".  I suppose, any student in political science would say that any political party would go for a bit of populism at any given time. 

You have to appeal to the mass if you want to be elected.  You don't elected only by Ph.Ds and other highly intelligent IQs, there's not enough of them.

But there are limits as to what I'm willing to tolerate.

If you're unable to explain your reasoning beyond simple catchphrases, that's populism and I don't want you to lead me.  Either get behind me or move aside.  You're no better than the idiot at my bank with an high school degree trying to teach me finance and I don't want you anywhere near my wallet.

[viper37]

Is that true though? His biggest achievements in terms of what he did with power were tax cuts and judges. That's not particularly focused on the minority who put him there, but the same objective that every Republican President since Reagan has been pushinig and very much the goals of the establishment Republican mainstream.

I think another term will be different and higher risk (not least because there's a big drive on the right now to have more Trumpian people in a position to be appointed to various positions) - and also I think McConnell going in the Senate will change the power dynamics (if Trump wins).

Also, obviously, I don't think populist = bad (I actually think the focus on populism is a useful cover, especially in Europe, for the mainstream right flirting with the far-right because it focuses fears on bad form/style not substance.)

A highly partisan text (it's the National Post, they can't help themselves ), but still worth reading, it's about Harper's last campaign:
Harper was right

They only keep the good, discard the bad.

[viper37]

But with BBoy's point that he's never seen the Conservatives poll so high that shifts if he wins.

He may be beholden to the ultra conservatives for winning election as leader. If he wins big at the election there'll be a lot of MPs who are or feel beholden to him for winning their seats (and it'd be interesting to see who they are/what their background is). And if you win a big stonking majority the people who got you the leadership don't really matter any more. Power and elections change things.

You are assuming that the people who are running for election are not themselves extreme right wingers. Just look at the background of the fellow we've been talking about up thread, and you will get a sense of the candidates running in the party. They are themselves the extreme right wing.

The moderates have left the party. 

Michael Fortier.
Alain Rayes.

So many that are not even gravitating along the new Conservatives.


@BB:
Let's talk about how incompetent is Tiff Macklem.  What did he do that was incompetent?  Precisely. Retrace it step by step, from Poilièvre discourse.  Every step of the way, since 2019, what would Pierre Poilièvre, as governor of the Bank of Canada, said he would have done as a competent Governor that Tiff Macklem didn't do?  What would have been the effects of his decisions?  How would they or would they not conform with the policies set for by the Government of Canada?  Would he have deviated from the policies of the Federal government to institute his own policies, disregarding our democracy?

Than, we talk Bitcoins.  How are they going to stabilize inflation again? 

How is it better than the Canadian dollar as a universal currency?  

What are the advantages of leaving a money we control with our institutions for an obscure speculative tool no one truly understands as our device to pay for everything essential?

What do we gain that we do not have with the Canadian dollar currently?

On the flip side of the coin, what do we lose?


I don't want your answers.  I want Pierre Poilièvre's answers to these questions.  As you know, I have been quite sick in the last few years and only very recently regained my full shape and concentration.  It  is quite possible I missed all his answers to these questions.  Just point me in the right direction so that I can read it.

[Sheilbh]

A highly partisan text (it's the National Post, they can't help themselves ), but still worth reading, it's about Harper's last campaign:
Harper was right

They only keep the good, discard the bad.

Sorry I meant about Trump

Bringing things back to POilievre, I see a lot of terms thrown around, like populist, or ultra-conservative - the thing is those terms don't really have much meaning.  They're just epithets.  And to risk going all "both sides" I definitely see this on the right as well, labelling opponents as "communists", "socialists, "globalists" or what not.

I think it's about de-legitimising opponents to be honest. It is drawing a barrier of what is acceptable politics - and as I say I think it's being done on style not content because populism is, at its most developed, very skinny on ideology. In a European context I think the effect is that you basically have to disown most of the left, but can work with quasi-fascists as long as they're "respectable".

It's the same as, say, viewing Sanders and Trump as bad because they're both populist. Maybe that's not the issue and actually it's the authoritarianism, the racism, the far-right stuff - the content not the style.

Edit: Also I'm not convinced that our elites/establishment in the West have really been firing on all cylilnders in the last couple of decades I'm not sure attacking them or saying they've failed really really badly and we need significant change is or should be perceived as somehow dangerous to democracy.

Very little criticism of policy.  Now to be fair in part that's because Poilievre's Conservatives haven't announced a lot of policies.  They've said they'll axe the carbon tax, and said some of the policies they'll introduce on housing, but I'm not quite sure what else they intend to do.

I think the criticism on lack of policy will become more fair the closer you get to an election. I think generally in opposition you're always attacking the government, but the first two years are about earning a hearing from voters who've just rejected you. Then the last two years towards an election should be starting to sketch out what you want to do.

Although obviously some leaders of the opposition never get past the first stage.

[viper37]

Re: Elites

I agree, but I need more substance.

If it stops there, it's populism.  If it goes beyond, they may have a point.

[crazy canuck]

But with BBoy's point that he's never seen the Conservatives poll so high that shifts if he wins.

He may be beholden to the ultra conservatives for winning election as leader. If he wins big at the election there'll be a lot of MPs who are or feel beholden to him for winning their seats (and it'd be interesting to see who they are/what their background is). And if you win a big stonking majority the people who got you the leadership don't really matter any more. Power and elections change things.

You are assuming that the people who are running for election are not themselves extreme right wingers. Just look at the background of the fellow we've been talking about up thread, and you will get a sense of the candidates running in the party. They are themselves the extreme right wing.

The moderates have left the party. 

Michael Fortier.
Alain Rayes.

So many that are not even gravitating along the new Conservatives.


@BB:
Let's talk about how incompetent is Tiff Macklem.  What did he do that was incompetent?  Precisely. Retrace it step by step, from Poilièvre discourse.  Every step of the way, since 2019, what would Pierre Poilièvre, as governor of the Bank of Canada, said he would have done as a competent Governor that Tiff Macklem didn't do?  What would have been the effects of his decisions?  How would they or would they not conform with the policies set for by the Government of Canada?  Would he have deviated from the policies of the Federal government to institute his own policies, disregarding our democracy?

Than, we talk Bitcoins.  How are they going to stabilize inflation again? 

How is it better than the Canadian dollar as a universal currency? 

What are the advantages of leaving a money we control with our institutions for an obscure speculative tool no one truly understands as our device to pay for everything essential?

What do we gain that we do not have with the Canadian dollar currently?

On the flip side of the coin, what do we lose?


I don't want your answers.  I want Pierre Poilièvre's answers to these questions.  As you know, I have been quite sick in the last few years and only very recently regained my full shape and concentration.  It  is quite possible I missed all his answers to these questions.  Just point me in the right direction so that I can read it.

I think BB has forgotten about when his party's leader was saying that cryptocurrency was the answer.

[viper37]

There is a narrative being pushed by Alberta's Danielle Smith, some friendly columnist, and also other Premiers that the carbon tax will represent double the cost of the natural gas bill itself.

I agree with them that it is unfair that the carbon tax was eliminate for the Atlantic province's heating oil while it remain for the Prairies' natural gas.  There were other mitigating policies that could have been put in place before that, but planning has never been a strong suit of the Liberal Party.  And the Conservative governments have become expert whiners.

However, that narrative about the carbon tax is simply false and based on misleading information:

https://www.auc.ab.ca/current-gas-rates-and-terms-and-conditions/

Fat from twice the cost of the resource itself.

[HVC]

Canada is now at 41 million people. Up 1 million in just 9 months. That seems a bit excessive.