[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

yes, it is precisely your argument. You consider a symbol of oppression as a simple fashion statement.  You believe it's not the job of the government to regulate such symbols.  Logically, you should not support any government ban on any kind of clothing, or lack of, to be consistent.  But of course you won't.

I can't think on any kind of ban on clothing I particularly support, no. Do you have anything particular in mind?

I mean, I see the argument for restricting displays of gang colours in some contexts, especially when worn by members of actual organized crime groups. But it's not something I'm particularly attached to. And I don't have problems with "dress formally" dress codes for private establishments.

But I'm not sure why you conclude that "of course I won't" support government not banning clothing choices.

The Liberals are.  The NDP will simply repeat the model, they have already started, with a Liberal at their head, former member of Alliance-Québec.  You're either voting for Trudeau or Mulcair.  One guy can barely speak French anymore and hates Quebec with a passion, despite living there.  The other has always resented French Québécois, and he became a Liberal (provincial) MP because the party needed someone to rally than angryphones of Montréal.  He change ideas depending on the language (a particular liberal trait) he speaks, he changes ideas depending on who pays him.  While I think it's an appropriate behavior for a practicing lawyer, I disagree that it's a welcome trait in a politician.

Which is one of the many reason I can not vote NDP.

Okay, you have your reasons. Obviously local Quebec politics matter more to you, but they're pretty remote where I'm at.

[Jacob]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the obvious.  You're supporting a moronic proposal that gives even more leeway to extremists, the same people we are fighting abroad.

I'm supporting the law of the land, as determined by the courts and in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The moronic proposals are coming from the Conservative camp at this point.

Not so long ago, abortion was illegal and we had death penalty.  Would you have fought to preserve the law of the land?

Not particularly, no, but calling the law of the land "a moronic proposal" is inaccurate nonetheless.

[crazy canuck]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the obvious.  You're supporting a moronic proposal that gives even more leeway to extremists, the same people we are fighting abroad.

I'm supporting the law of the land, as determined by the courts and in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The moronic proposals are coming from the Conservative camp at this point.

Not so long ago, abortion was illegal and we had death penalty.  Would you have fought to preserve the law of the land?

You understand that was all pre-Charter right?  And you do understand the Charter is now the law of the land right?

[viper37]

Déconstruction de la propagande anti-Harper
Deconstruction of anti-Harper propaganda

Some interesting facts in there.

About Canada's reputation: Canada regains title as most reputable nation in the world despite Harper derangement frenzy

About various rankings involving Canada:


Canada's debt to GDP ratio was 29% in 2007-2008, now it's 31% after the recession.  Not so bad.

Canada's middle class is the richest

Harper, the destroyer of the middle class:
From OECD

La croissance du revenu médian a été supérieure à la croissance du revenu du 1% seulement dans 2 pays: l'Australie et le Canada !  De plus, au Canada le revenu médian a augmenté de 5,9% contre seulement 1,0% en Australie.

Median revenue growth was superior by 1% of revenu growth only in two countries: Australia and Canada.  In Canada, median revenue growth was of 5,9% against only 1% in Australia.


So, not so bad after all.  And the Libs and NDP promise to destroy all of that.  Fuck it.

[viper37]

You don't seem to be able to grasp the obvious.  You're supporting a moronic proposal that gives even more leeway to extremists, the same people we are fighting abroad.

I'm supporting the law of the land, as determined by the courts and in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The moronic proposals are coming from the Conservative camp at this point.

Not so long ago, abortion was illegal and we had death penalty.  Would you have fought to preserve the law of the land?

You understand that was all pre-Charter right?  And you do understand the Charter is now the law of the land right?

it was the law of the land.
Besides, the abortion debate was finally settled in 1988.

[Valmy]

I think if the Conservatives had stuck to those talking points they would still be in the lead.

But heck I get all my info from Languish so maybe they are for the most part.

[Jacob]

The Conservatives have even translated their own ad:

[crazy canuck]

Besides, the abortion debate was finally settled in 1988.

In a Charter challenge 

[crazy canuck]

Some interesting facts in there.

Yeah, Canada is a great place to live.  Probably the best place to live on the planet.  I would very much like to keep it that way.

[Malthus]

I think if the Conservatives had stuck to those talking points they would still be in the lead.

But heck I get all my info from Languish so maybe they are for the most part.

Leaving to one side the emotive argumentation among the Languish personalities ( ), the Con election strategy appears to be to appeal to its base, to selectively attack the Libs and NDP with certain constituencies, and to hell with 'progressive' types who are less likely to vote for them anyway. 

The problem is that in doing so, they have lacked any positive overall messaging - other than a crude 'we will not raise your taxes'. There is lots of negative messaging going on, but nothing that really articulates a positive vision.

This is I think one of the problems with the NDP - they have been unable to articulate a positive reason for existing, either (other than not being the Cons and not having Trudeau as a leader). Rather, they have been at pains to downplay the traditional "positive" NDP message - of increased socialism - in order to appeal to the centre and displace the Libs. For a shining moment, that almost looked like it worked.

Thing is, that's the Lib's natural stomping-ground. Trudeau also "isn't Harper". He doesn't come with the baggage of having to deny a socialist agenda. What he's been able to do, very cleverly, is articulate a positive message - that Canada is 'all about' civility and inclusion (in contrast with the Cons, whose message tends in the opposite direction).

This means that he has made it easy for Canadians to feel good about voting for him - a strategy that appears to be paying off in the polls.

The problem here is that, while his campaigning (and Con mistakes) have made him electable, it does not change the fact that, once in office, he's likely to be ... less than stellar in the ways that matter, as a manager of Canadian economic issues and international affairs.

However, what the campaign has shown is that the fears I articulated early in the running have proven all to true - whatever the outcome, whatever failings Trudeau may or may not have, the Cons appear a spent force: something that happens in Canadian politics to parties that have been in power too long.

[crazy canuck]

I disagree.  About mid campaign this was the Conservatives election to win.  If the Conservatives had just run on their economic agenda they may well have ended up with another majority.  Whoever decided to go ugly on the social policy side will have a lot of explaining to do.

[Grey Fox]

Except for BB & Jos, the lines have become so blurred about you guys position & a particular political party that these arguments are almost all theoritical.

[crazy canuck]

We had a brief discussion about how a minority party might try to form government this time.  To the point we discussed the fact that the Conservatives could not form a minority government this time even if they had the most seats.  The Globe has a good article about that today.  In short, the Conservatives don't just need to catch the Liberals, they need a majority to form government.  Otherwise we are going to have a Liberal minority government even if the Conservatives have the most seats but are still in a minority position.

Here is the relevant bits

Immediately after the election, the prime minister, in this case Mr. Harper, remains prime minister, whether he finished first or last. No matter how many seats he has, Mr. Harper could meet the Commons and try to win a confidence vote. A PM who is doomed to lose typically resigns before that, but either way, if he can't muster a majority in the Commons, he's out.

That doesn't mean a new election. The Governor-General would then look to see whether another MP can command confidence in the Commons, usually the leader of the opposition party that won the biggest block of seats. That leader could either try to form a coalition, inviting members from another party into the cabinet, or just form a minority government, seeking support on votes from one party or another.

But the politics narrow down the options.

First, Mr. Harper has a weak chance of forming a minority government. He's done it twice before, but this election campaign is a polarized Harper-versus-anti-Harper affair. Politicians on the other side know what their voters want.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said there's no way he'd prop up a Conservative government. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has, too. So has Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

Those campaign statements could be bent after the votes are in, but the leaders would face a backlash. They know there's a powerful, pent-up desire among their own supporters to oust Mr. Harper.

For Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair, polls show half of each party's supporters pick the other as second choice, and many will switch to the one who can beat the Tories. The leader who keeps Mr. Harper in power risks being abandoned by them, and decimated in the next election, which could come quickly.

Perhaps Mr. Harper could eke out a deal with a weak opposition party if he's just a few votes shy of majority. But otherwise, it's likely majority or bust.

That means a minority Parliament would probably bring a different government. But it's not likely to be a coalition. Coalitions can be stable governments, but the politics are tricky.

Imagine, for a moment, if the results did mirror the latest polls. Mr. Trudeau's Liberals, in first, don't really want to share power with the NDP, in third. And they would know the NDP can't support Mr. Harper, so it's virtually compelled to prop up a Liberal minority. Maybe the two would agree to exchange policy concessions for guaranteed support, but maybe not.

The third party doesn't have much incentive to join a coalition, either. Junior coalition partners share blame but not credit, and often lose in following elections. It's a much better gamble for a third party to prop up a new, untested government, and bring it down when the time is right.

It means Mr. Harper, running second in polls, has to do more than catch up. If he's short of a majority, the politics of a minority Parliament are likely to defeat him.

[Josephus]

Ezra Levant now runs this site:

http://www.therebel.media/


No chance I am touching that link.

It's not a virus thing..if that's your concern.

It's a legitimite site. It's what he's been up to since the Sun thing ended. I know someone who's a producer on it. It's basically a right wing, anti-Moslem, pro-Israel site, run here in Toronto.

here's a typical piece written by Brian Lilely, also a former Sun guy

http://www.therebel.media/canada_s_proposed_niqab_restrictions_mild_compared

[Jacob]

Ezra Levant now runs this site:

http://www.therebel.media/


No chance I am touching that link.

It's not a virus thing..if that's your concern.

It's a legitimite site. It's what he's been up to since the Sun thing ended. I know someone who's a producer on it. It's basically a right wing, anti-Moslem, pro-Israel site, run here in Toronto.

here's a typical piece written by Brian Lilely, also a former Sun guy

http://www.therebel.media/canada_s_proposed_niqab_restrictions_mild_compared

I think it's more of a "don't give clicks to extremist gadflies, as it provides them sustenance" thing.