[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Say you and I are leaders of political parties. Say you lead party A and I lead Party B. Our parties have very little in common. WE are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I like squares, you like circles.  Now you say you are going to table a budget and you want my support. I say, "I doubt that can happen but look, if you throw in A, B and C, maybe I will."

Instead lets deal with what really happened.

Months ago Layton set out criteria for getting his support on the budget.  So far so good.  That is what he is supposed to do as an oppostion leader and, to his credit, he has done a good job of bargaining in past budgets.

Then he has a complete brain fart and says publicly that because the Conservatives didnt give him everything he wanted he could not support the budget.  Continuing on the "take my ball home" theme this is the kind of lesson we teach two year olds.  But I suppose the NDP needs the lesson to be repeated.   Life is never an all or nothing proposition.  Compromise is necessary in life as it is in politics.  Layton would have got some of what he wanted but by forcing an election he will lose that leverage (perhaps permanently if the Cons win a majority).

That is bad politics no matter how you want to dress it up. 

[Jacob]

I guess Layton lost your vote with that maneouvre. Real pity that, with the NDP being so competitive in North Vancouver.

[Monoriu]

When I was in Canada, none of the Chinese that I knew personally ever mentioned Canadian politics.  All this talk seem so...alien to me. 

[Grey Fox]

Say you and I are leaders of political parties. Say you lead party A and I lead Party B. Our parties have very little in common. WE are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I like squares, you like circles.  Now you say you are going to table a budget and you want my support. I say, "I doubt that can happen but look, if you throw in A, B and C, maybe I will."

Instead lets deal with what really happened.

Months ago Layton set out criteria for getting his support on the budget.  So far so good.  That is what he is supposed to do as an oppostion leader and, to his credit, he has done a good job of bargaining in past budgets.

Then he has a complete brain fart and says publicly that because the Conservatives didnt give him everything he wanted he could not support the budget.  Continuing on the "take my ball home" theme this is the kind of lesson we teach two year olds.  But I suppose the NDP needs the lesson to be repeated.   Life is never an all or nothing proposition.  Compromise is necessary in life as it is in politics.  Layton would have got some of what he wanted but by forcing an election he will lose that leverage (perhaps permanently if the Cons win a majority).

That is bad politics no matter how you want to dress it up.

Why do you pin this on Layton? The Libs & BQ could have not taken the chicken route either but they did, faster then Layton so he's responsible?

[Neil]

Why do you pin this on Layton? The Libs & BQ could have not taken the chicken route either but they did, faster then Layton so he's responsible?

Layton has more to lose than the other two parties.  The Libs and BQ have hopes of gains in an election.  For the NDP, there is only destruction.

[Josephus]

In any case this might be all moot, since the gov't may be brought down on the contempt of parliament ruling instead of the budget.

[Grey Fox]

But that's not different from any previous election. The NDP always faces destruction.

[Malthus]

Tell me more about "streamlining immigration". This hasn't pinged my radar yet - what measures have they taken?

They've done some shuffling of bureaucratic functions and have re-allocated immigrationvisas amongst the different categories. It's not particularly high profile, but the upshot is nonetheless significant for the people affected.

We've started the process to have my in-laws immigrate to Canada. Previously, the expected processing time was about six years (most of which is the application lying in a pile waiting to be looked at). With the recent changes under the Harper Government, the expected processing time is now 13 years.

I would like the kids we're having to grow up with their grandparents around, but this "streamlining" (which as I understand it is just "all the resources for people with lots of money who want to immigrate, none for anyone else") prevents that.

Heh, my Ukrainian in-laws don't seem to suffer from this - mainly I think because they simply cheat, and get away with it. My brother-in-law's wife's dad in here right now on a 6 months visitor's visa that has so far lasted six years.

I guess they have lots of practice in cheating obstructive bureaucracy back home in Ukraine. 

[Malthus]

Like a day trip? 

I figured from the ad he might have done a six month stretch at some comfy think tank.

Nah, he was an academic in the US for years. You know, he had some career and academic success and went to where the best opportunities were. According to the attack ad, that makes him suspect.

The better basis for an attack ad is that he was "parachuted" into his riding (my riding) against the wishes of the local liberals, because it was a thorougly "safe" liveral riding, and basically has done nothing for it - it was simply a ploy put on by the party to get a leader they thought would lend them gravitas.

Unfortunately, importing a leading academic did not imbue him with charisma, leadership qualities or a coherent political strategy or vision.

Not that the other parties don't pull such stunts of course, but this was a particularly egregious example.

The attack ad the cons mounted was, as you say, an exercise in lameness. The fact that it is everywhere just multiplies that lameness.

[Neil]

But that's not different from any previous election. The NDP always faces destruction.

Last election, with Dion as Liberal leader, they were poised to make great gains, and they did.

[Neil]

The better basis for an attack ad is that he was "parachuted" into his riding (my riding) against the wishes of the local liberals, because it was a thorougly "safe" liveral riding, and basically has done nothing for it - it was simply a ploy put on by the party to get a leader they thought would lend them gravitas.

Unfortunately, importing a leading academic did not imbue him with charisma, leadership qualities or a coherent political strategy or vision.

Not that the other parties don't pull such stunts of course, but this was a particularly egregious example.

The attack ad the cons mounted was, as you say, an exercise in lameness. The fact that it is everywhere just multiplies that lameness.

Do you think that the average voter can be wooed with appeals to democracy?

[Malthus]

Do you think that the average voter can be wooed with appeals to democracy?

I dunno, but it has got to be better than "Iggy worked outside the country!!!" or "Harper looks like a meanie in a sweater!!!". 

[Neil]

Do you think that the average voter can be wooed with appeals to democracy?

I dunno, but it has got to be better than "Iggy worked outside the country!!!" or "Harper looks like a meanie in a sweater!!!". 

You're not the target of TV ads though.  TV ads exist because the average voter doesn't really know anything or care much about politics, so all you can use in them is personality issues and scare tactics.

[Camerus]

Because Harper is so full of principles.

Well, it's not that Iggy is unprincipled as an individual, but rather that he and his party lack any coherent vision or party principles that I can ascertain.  What do the Liberals stand for these days, really?  Outside of a strong federal system, it's difficult to say. 

To my mind, the only reason to vote for them right now is that "they aren't the Conservatives", and because the Conservatives are still a legitimate option (recent black eyes notwithstanding), that just isn't a good enough reason to vote Grit.

[Camerus]

Tell me more about "streamlining immigration". This hasn't pinged my radar yet - what measures have they taken?

They've done some shuffling of bureaucratic functions and have re-allocated immigrationvisas amongst the different categories. It's not particularly high profile, but the upshot is nonetheless significant for the people affected.

We've started the process to have my in-laws immigrate to Canada. Previously, the expected processing time was about six years (most of which is the application lying in a pile waiting to be looked at). With the recent changes under the Harper Government, the expected processing time is now 13 years.

I would like the kids we're having to grow up with their grandparents around, but this "streamlining" (which as I understand it is just "all the resources for people with lots of money who want to immigrate, none for anyone else") prevents that.

13 years for legal immigration?  That just opens the door for illegality and gaming the system, like Malthus' Ukrainian in-laws.

I wonder what the official Conservative explanation and rationale for the policy changes are?