[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Don't worry. You sound like the right wing here when they lost the last time around. What happened? The social democrats didn't ruin the country, in fact we're a little better off. The rich are much better off, the poor only a little worse.

Now the right wing won and the reds are crying about inequality that they themselves didn't do anything about, about how the right will destroy the environment which they probably won't, because, you know, they didn't the last time either.

Well, the Liberals aren't the left wing. They're a pro-business, socially liberal party. They're for a softer edge than the Conservatives - and they sometimes come through with something significant - but they don't espouse social democrat positions that they then ignore as they seek the middle (in the vein of Labour in the UK and the various left parties in Denmark); they occupy that middle position from the get go.

In terms of campaign promises, the big ticket items are:

- some tax cuts on middle earners, with some increases on top earners. A handful of benefits moving around and being implemented along similar lines - middle and below to benefit, top earners pay more.

- planning to develop a climate strategy and bring something to the table for the big conference in Paris at the end of the year, though no specific targets promised. This is different from Harper's climate change denial "fuck you" strategy on the subject.

- 3 years of deficit spending to build infrastructure. They campaigned on this, so it's likely to happen.

- they said they'd spend $100M to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year - but we'll see if they can make it happen. They also said they'd spend another $100M to provide aid in the region.

- call an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women (1200+ in a decade or so); which the Conservatives had MPs saying "it's their own fault for doing stuff that put them at risk."

- end military action in Syria (but provide humanitarian aid).

On the other hand, he still hopes to persuade Obama on the XL pipeline, they're in favour of the TPP, and there's been no word on rolling back C-24 and C-51 (the "police state" surveillance and citizenship-revocation laws the Conservatives recently put in).

So while there's plenty of scope for them to disappoint in various ways, it's not that they claim to address fundamental social issues and then ignore them. They ran on trimming the sails and altering the course a bit, not on changing the mode of transportation altogether. If you're a full on leftie, you can coherently hold that there's not that much difference between the Libs and the Cons... though for many Canadians the differences in the details are still significant.

[Jacob]

The country's economy run for the benefit of the oil industry.

I have to add to the list of good thing:
they started to tackle union corruption in this country, something the Libs&NPD had promised they would reverse.
I guess when you are the beneficiary, corruption is not important.

I'll concede that there are some seriously corrupt unions in Canada, Viper37.

I mean, think there are non-corrupt unions and that the general idea is sound, but there are some seriously nasty outfits out there too. I'll take your word that the building ones in Quebec are beyond redemption, and I'll add that the Longshoremen out here could do with some clean-up as well.

[Valmy]

- end military action in Syria (but provide humanitarian aid).

Interesting. It is obviously impossible to provide this aid inside Syria without military action but is the plan to help in the redugee camps in Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon? Because those countries could really use some help.

[Grey Fox]

The FTQ is not corrupt, The FTQ is in control.

General Contractors, like viper, usually confuse the 2.

[crazy canuck]

Harper won his first minority government promising to clean up government.  And at first he was quite good at it.  But then things changed.  One good example of the change is the run ins he started having with the Parliamentary budget watchdog - an office Harper had promised and created after his first successful election.  While Viper is correct that the old Liberal practices of blatant patronage were not repeated, Conservative supporters were tried and convicted of a lot of shady activity and particularly surrounding elections and obtaining electoral support.  I don't see much of a meaningful distinction there and it certainly removed the ability of the Conservatives to continue to claim they were committed to good government.  The Liberals have spent years in the wilderness and will likely be slow to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

I had a concluding paragraph that read something like "And as Malthus frequently reminds us, it is the way of Canadian governments that this one will also become corrupt in its own way and we will then kick them out and start the process anew".  But I thought it too pessimistic to post on day 1.

[The Minsky Moment]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

[crazy canuck]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

Perhaps it is our sensitivity about corruption that makes our governmental structures relatively corruption free. 

[Malthus]

Don't worry. You sound like the right wing here when they lost the last time around. What happened? The social democrats didn't ruin the country, in fact we're a little better off. The rich are much better off, the poor only a little worse.

Now the right wing won and the reds are crying about inequality that they themselves didn't do anything about, about how the right will destroy the environment which they probably won't, because, you know, they didn't the last time either.

Well, the Liberals aren't the left wing. They're a pro-business, socially liberal party. They're for a softer edge than the Conservatives - and they sometimes come through with something significant - but they don't espouse social democrat positions that they then ignore as they seek the middle (in the vein of Labour in the UK and the various left parties in Denmark); they occupy that middle position from the get go.

In terms of campaign promises, the big ticket items are:

- some tax cuts on middle earners, with some increases on top earners. A handful of benefits moving around and being implemented along similar lines - middle and below to benefit, top earners pay more.

- planning to develop a climate strategy and bring something to the table for the big conference in Paris at the end of the year, though no specific targets promised. This is different from Harper's climate change denial "fuck you" strategy on the subject.

- 3 years of deficit spending to build infrastructure. They campaigned on this, so it's likely to happen.

- they said they'd spend $100M to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year - but we'll see if they can make it happen. They also said they'd spend another $100M to provide aid in the region.

- call an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women (1200+ in a decade or so); which the Conservatives had MPs saying "it's their own fault for doing stuff that put them at risk."

- end military action in Syria (but provide humanitarian aid).

On the other hand, he still hopes to persuade Obama on the XL pipeline, they're in favour of the TPP, and there's been no word on rolling back C-24 and C-51 (the "police state" surveillance and citizenship-revocation laws the Conservatives recently put in).

So while there's plenty of scope for them to disappoint in various ways, it's not that they claim to address fundamental social issues and then ignore them. They ran on trimming the sails and altering the course a bit, not on changing the mode of transportation altogether. If you're a full on leftie, you can coherently hold that there's not that much difference between the Libs and the Cons... though for many Canadians the differences in the details are still significant.

Indeed, aside from the TPP, the NDP campaigned on a "business as usual" platiform, promising no huge tax increases and no deficit spending - presumably, to move to the centre, to eat the Lib lunch. Unfortunately for them, the Libs ate theirs instead. The reason, i suspect, is that the election wasn't about "issues" so much as it was about the perception that the Cons were done - too tired, too spent, increasingly out of touch, arrogant and corrupt: the usual fate of a party in power too long. This was expressed as "desire for change", but Canadians don't, apparently, really want "change" - they want more of the same, only with fresh faces, more humility, more energy, less cynicism.

The really interesting thing about Canadian politics is how little the parties actually differ from each other in matters of substance: even, in this election, the NDP. The differences are more matters of detail and tone. Harper was "dictatorial", Trudeau promises to be "collegial" instead. The largest election item, one you guys spent pages arguing about, was about Muslim women's headgear - for all its no doubt vast symbolic importance as an indicator of cultural openness and citizenship values, an issue of zero practical importance to the actual business of government. Harper, an avowed "social conservative", did essentially nothing to prevent social-liberal issues from being manifest - for example, gays still get married here if they want, despite his decade in power. He dragged his feet on drug issues like safe injection sites and pot legalization, but that's about it. 

There simply is no appetite, for better or worse, for any sort of radical social or political change of any sort, so none of the parties actually offered any.

[Barrister]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

And I suspect that Quebec politicians cound in fact teach Chicago wards a few things about corruption.

[Malthus]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

Corruption in Canada is incredibly small-scale, indeed. The issue isn't the actual passage of brown paper packets filled with rolls of bills - but the visible (albeit small-scale) flouting of the electorate. It's an indication that the government is settled into the bad old ways of its predecessors, often in exactly the ways it compained of in opposition.

A perfect example of both the visibility and the tiny scale of this process is the Senate expense-scandal. The Canadian senate basically exists to provide patronage positions for political hacks being put out to pasture. The Cons critiqued this mercilessly when they were in opposition, and the Libs packed the Senate. They promised to reform it. A decade in power, and not only did the Cons fail to reform it - but the Senators they packed into it created a scandal by cheating on their expense accounts. The Cons tried to hush it up, creating an even bigger scandal. The amounts involved were relatively picayune - Hardly the sort of quantum that ought to rock a federal government - but it was not the amounts that counted, it was the perception that the one-reforming Cons were just the same as the bloated old Libs.

[Josephus]

It's not just Canada. It's just the net result of having a group of people in power for a lenghty time. No matter how altruistic that party, it's only inevitable that corruption begins to stain it.

[crazy canuck]

Don't worry. You sound like the right wing here when they lost the last time around. What happened? The social democrats didn't ruin the country, in fact we're a little better off. The rich are much better off, the poor only a little worse.

Now the right wing won and the reds are crying about inequality that they themselves didn't do anything about, about how the right will destroy the environment which they probably won't, because, you know, they didn't the last time either.

Well, the Liberals aren't the left wing. They're a pro-business, socially liberal party. They're for a softer edge than the Conservatives - and they sometimes come through with something significant - but they don't espouse social democrat positions that they then ignore as they seek the middle (in the vein of Labour in the UK and the various left parties in Denmark); they occupy that middle position from the get go.

In terms of campaign promises, the big ticket items are:

- some tax cuts on middle earners, with some increases on top earners. A handful of benefits moving around and being implemented along similar lines - middle and below to benefit, top earners pay more.

- planning to develop a climate strategy and bring something to the table for the big conference in Paris at the end of the year, though no specific targets promised. This is different from Harper's climate change denial "fuck you" strategy on the subject.

- 3 years of deficit spending to build infrastructure. They campaigned on this, so it's likely to happen.

- they said they'd spend $100M to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year - but we'll see if they can make it happen. They also said they'd spend another $100M to provide aid in the region.

- call an inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women (1200+ in a decade or so); which the Conservatives had MPs saying "it's their own fault for doing stuff that put them at risk."

- end military action in Syria (but provide humanitarian aid).

On the other hand, he still hopes to persuade Obama on the XL pipeline, they're in favour of the TPP, and there's been no word on rolling back C-24 and C-51 (the "police state" surveillance and citizenship-revocation laws the Conservatives recently put in).

So while there's plenty of scope for them to disappoint in various ways, it's not that they claim to address fundamental social issues and then ignore them. They ran on trimming the sails and altering the course a bit, not on changing the mode of transportation altogether. If you're a full on leftie, you can coherently hold that there's not that much difference between the Libs and the Cons... though for many Canadians the differences in the details are still significant.

Indeed, aside from the TPP, the NDP campaigned on a "business as usual" platiform, promising no huge tax increases and no deficit spending - presumably, to move to the centre, to eat the Lib lunch. Unfortunately for them, the Libs ate theirs instead. The reason, i suspect, is that the election wasn't about "issues" so much as it was about the perception that the Cons were done - too tired, too spent, increasingly out of touch, arrogant and corrupt: the usual fate of a party in power too long. This was expressed as "desire for change", but Canadians don't, apparently, really want "change" - they want more of the same, only with fresh faces, more humility, more energy, less cynicism.

The really interesting thing about Canadian politics is how little the parties actually differ from each other in matters of substance: even, in this election, the NDP. The differences are more matters of detail and tone. Harper was "dictatorial", Trudeau promises to be "collegial" instead. The largest election item, one you guys spent pages arguing about, was about Muslim women's headgear - for all its no doubt vast symbolic importance as an indicator of cultural openness and citizenship values, an issue of zero practical importance to the actual business of government. Harper, an avowed "social conservative", did essentially nothing to prevent social-liberal issues from being manifest - for example, gays still get married here if they want, despite his decade in power. He dragged his feet on drug issues like safe injection sites and pot legalization, but that's about it. 

There simply is no appetite, for better or worse, for any sort of radical social or political change of any sort, so none of the parties actually offered any.

I think you have a point economically.  I also agree that there will be an important shift of tone.  But I think there will also be some important changes that go beyond mere symbolism.  There will also be some dramatic changes.  If the Liberals live up to their promises:

a) pot will be legalized, regulated and taxed.  I know you mentioned this but I don't think you gave enough credit to what a substantial change this is.  Instead of a government intent on imposing more tough on crime bills we have a government that will actually reduce crime at its source.

b) The Federal government will now partner with the provinces who wish to treat drug addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue.  Again you mentioned this but the change will be dramatic judging by the entirely salutary effects the injection clinic has had on the downtown east side of Vancouver.  And again this is a significant shift from seeing drugs as a criminal issue to seeing them primarily as a health issue.

c) trying to find a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Don't yet know what they are going to propose but the fact they are actually going to think about it, fund research and cooperate with the provinces is a huge step forward.

d) Connected with c) is the significant change to how science will once again be done in this country.  Science departments at universities across the country must have been popping the champagne corks last night as the funding model will likely be returned to a model where primary research is once again valued and funding will not just be restricted to market ready applications. Also, we will once again be able to hear directly from government scientists without them first having their statements vetted by the PMO.

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

f) last, but certainly not least, there will be an attempt to repair a much damaged relationship with the aboriginal community. That will have significant results in terms of providing greater certainty for everyone as to how resources and other business opportunities can be developed.

I am sure there is more but those are the significant changes I can think of atm.

[Jacob]

- end military action in Syria (but provide humanitarian aid).

Interesting. It is obviously impossible to provide this aid inside Syria without military action but is the plan to help in the redugee camps in Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon? Because those countries could really use some help.

I may have gotten those details wrong - the main point is to stop pretending to be an imperial power using our military to attack things (incl. ISIS) and do other "helpful stuff" (my words).

[viper37]

[viper37]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

And I suspect that Quebec politicians cound in fact teach Chicago wards a few things about corruption.

while in Canada, they prefer to keep things under the blanket, in Quebec, we at least tried to shed some lights on it.  But now, all his lost.