[Canadian Election Results] Harper vs Iggy vs the 'stache

[katmai]

You don't have to lie to kick it Neil

[Ed Anger]

I support Gray Wolfe's internet being metered.

[Josephus]

I must admit Neil is an enigma to me. I can't quite figure him out.

[Jacob]

Et Tu Yakob?

Well, it's not like there's much of a choice for the next few years

But ultimately, what I want is peace, order and good government. My natural inclination is probably what used to be called a social liberal in Europe, back in the day. But PO&GG is the main thing, and if Harper can deliver that then I'll give him props for it. If he engages in the social conservative crusade then that fails the GG part of PO&GG.

[dps]

Et Tu Yakob?

Well, it's not like there's much of a choice for the next few years

But ultimately, what I want is peace, order and good government. My natural inclination is probably what used to be called a social liberal in Europe, back in the day. But PO&GG is the main thing, and if Harper can deliver that then I'll give him props for it. If he engages in the social conservative crusade then that fails the GG part of PO&GG.

I thought that good government just meant mostly lack of graft?  At least in the US, that's mostly what it meant historically in practice, if not in theory.

[crazy canuck]

Et Tu Yakob?

Well, it's not like there's much of a choice for the next few years

But ultimately, what I want is peace, order and good government. My natural inclination is probably what used to be called a social liberal in Europe, back in the day. But PO&GG is the main thing, and if Harper can deliver that then I'll give him props for it. If he engages in the social conservative crusade then that fails the GG part of PO&GG.

I thought that good government just meant mostly lack of graft?  At least in the US, that's mostly what it meant historically in practice, if not in theory.

Peace Order and Good Government is our constitutional mantra.  It means just that.  Jacob is quite right.  If the Government does not provide POGG then it fails.

[Jacob]

I thought that good government just meant mostly lack of graft?  At least in the US, that's mostly what it meant historically in practice, if not in theory.

Obviously lack of corruption is a pre-requisite for good government. As far as I'm concerned, good government also means attending to the weal of the people. So, if the national finances are ruined or the various conditions of life of the citizenry is significantly degraded then the government fails at being good.

The definition of social conservative the BB provided earlier in the thread is perfectly consistent with good government as far as I'm concerned. The social conservative agenda we sometimes see from the US, where it seems creating opportunities for private profit and inserting religious morality goes before the welfare of the population, is not.

The Citizenry needs access to good health care, access to good education and a properly regulated business environment that allows for private profit but protects the interests of consumers, the environment and the nation as a whole.

If the prospect of a treatable but fairly serious illness or accident means financial ruin or life-long damage for large swathes of the population, we do not have good government. If it does not, if everyone will get taken care of and has a chance to get back on their legs again; that's good government. I don't care if that happens through a pure socialist state run system, some limited choices within a semi-private system or a full blown free market approach. What matters is that the population has access to the medical care they need. That is a sign of good government.

Same thing for education; if everyone has a real opportunity to get a good education, independent of their background, then that is a sign of good government. I don't care if it's a mandatory public school system, a fully private and charity based one or some mix between the two. What matters is that the population has access to the education they need. Steps towards that are signs of good government, steps away from it are not.

As for regulation, in whatever field, when it is not draconian, when it spurs innovation and good infrastructure, when it allows for enterprise to flourish while still protecting individuals, the national interest (under which I include the environment) and does not allow capital to run roughshod over the interests of workers and consumers, then we have good government.

Good government is pragmatic, not ideological. That's what I want from my government, whether it's from the left or the right.

You can't do everything for everyone, and there are costs that have to be covered and different ways to get things done. That's fine. As long as the government doesn't make things worse, or better yet, takes steps towards reaching those goals (even if there are disagreement over the best steps to take), then we've got good government. Obviously, the more it succeeds, the better it is.

[Malthus]

The results would suggest your analysis is flawed.  The phenomenon of Right of centre voters moving from the Liberals to the Conservatives occured across the country.   The conservative vote went up more than the polsters predicted and the Liberal vote went down further than the polsters predicted.  The reason was the rise in NDP popularity.  Nobody who is fiscally conservative would ever want the NDP anywhere near power.  As a result those voters jumped to the best option to prevent that.

I am not claiming it did not play a role - it almost certainly did, especially since the overall support for the Cons only slightly rose, in terms of percentage. What I mentioned was simply that we tend to project arguments we find convincing as "major ones", and apply to federal politics across the country the dynamics of federal politics we are most familiar with in our provinces/regions.

The reasons I gave you was to nuance that view about fiscal conservativeness as the overall factor. I assure you there are many fiscal conservatives in Quebec. Why hasn't the same phenomenon happened here? Fiscal conservativeness must have played a role for Toronto's Malthus equivalents. But what about the others?

I've become a trope. 

[Oexmelin]

Don't feed the trope. 

[Oexmelin]

Good government is pragmatic, not ideological. That's what I want from my government, whether it's from the left or the right.

I am sorry, but this does not follow. Pragmatic is not opposite to ideological. It is opposite to intransigent. If, by definition, we need to make choices, then, such choice will follow what we consider to be the Good Life - and this is inherently moral. Some principles become left by the wayside; for some we want to remain intransigent. By definition, everything can be subject to pragmatism, yet I would not want my government to be pragmatical on issues of death penalty (as it is now...), or dignity, or justice...

[Admiral Yi]

I'm curious if the rest of y'all Great White Northerners define "good government" the same way Yakie does.  To me it seems to come with an awful lot of baggage.

[Jacob]

I am sorry, but this does not follow. Pragmatic is not opposite to ideological. It is opposite to intransigent. If, by definition, we need to make choices, then, such choice will follow what we consider to be the Good Life - and this is inherently moral. Some principles become left by the wayside; for some we want to remain intransigent. By definition, everything can be subject to pragmatism, yet I would not want my government to be pragmatical on issues of death penalty (as it is now...), or dignity, or justice...

Of course ideology informs how and what you're pragmatic about. What I was trying to say was that the weal of the people matters more to me than whether it is tended through socialism, open markets, something else or some sort of mixture.

And yes, you are right that the definition of what the weal of the people is ideological in and of itself. I was just trying to express that functioning infrastructure, education, health, the ability to work and do business relatively unhindered and so on are more important to me than abstract tenets of socialism or free marketism or libertarianism. If you want to call that out as an ideology, fair enough. I called it pragmatism because that's what it seems to me, but I'm happy to use a more apt term if you can suggest one.

[Jacob]

I'm curious if the rest of y'all Great White Northerners define "good government" the same way Yakie does.  To me it seems to come with an awful lot of baggage.

I don't pretend there's not baggage there, just for the record

It was a statement of what I personally want from my government, of my view of what PO&GG means. It was also intended to illustrate why I can be okay with the Conservatives, NDP, Liberals or whomever in power, all depending on how they fit the criteria I set out.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.

[crazy canuck]

I'm curious if the rest of y'all Great White Northerners define "good government" the same way Yakie does.  To me it seems to come with an awful lot of baggage.

Its a great question and I dont think there is an easy answer but I will do my best.

There is a fair amount of constutitional law to help define it and you are quite right it does come laden with baggage for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is it is one of the key concepts which helps define the boundaries of jurisdiction between Provincial and Federal powers.   

The political meaning of POGG is I think a basic recognition that Order and Good Government go hand in hand.  In other words a measure of Good Government is the maintenance of Order.  This is in contrast to the American model where liberty is expressed as an ideal - something Order and Good Government may well infringe upon.

[Malthus]

I'm curious if the rest of y'all Great White Northerners define "good government" the same way Yakie does.  To me it seems to come with an awful lot of baggage.

To my mind, the concept of peace, order and good government has much in common with the saying "happy families tend to be happy in the same way, whereas all unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique manner" - that is, that there is some essence of good government - making stuff work, not indulging in outrageous boondoggles and corruption, showing care for society's unfortunate but not by unduly bankrupting innovation - that goes beyond ideology in the sense that a "good government" from any end of the ideological spectrum can, in their own ways, aspire to achieve it.

The notion is that there is some irreducable commonality to the mechanics of government - that, however much one might dislike the Cons as a party, or distrust the NDP as a party, persons from either will buy into the notion that it is their job, once elected, to roll up their sleeves and get to work.