So I think the Maritimes are going to be closing in an hour or two - thought I'd open up a thread to discuss the results tonight. Rememebr kids - be cool and edgy by breaking Elections Canada's rules right here!
And for kicks I'm going to post some election results. I steal my moto from TMQ - all results guaranteed correct or money refunded.
Conservatives: 143
Liberals: 64
NDP: 68
Bloc: 32
Green: 0
Independent: 1
What sites are you looking at for online coverage?
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 04:44:55 PM
What sites are you looking at for online coverage?
I'm trying to find some.
and hoping people here can give some links.
Once the main election results are released, I'll probably stick with CBC. Though I kind of want to check out Sun TV for a bit. :lol:
I must remind you that polls do not close here in B.C. until 7 p.m. Pacific. If you post any results here before that time you will be in violation of the Elections Act and poor BB will have to report himself for assisting, nay encouraging, people to violate the law.
For BB's sake wait until polls close.
How about links to where such despicable activities are taking place? Are they also in violation of the act?
BB just wants to prosecute us. :mad:
Can a provincial prosecutor prosecute for a violation of federal law?
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
How about links to where such despicable activities are taking place? Are they also in violation of the act?
So we can make sure not to visit them, even by accident. :yes:
And I'm no longer a Federal prosecutor, so I wouldn't be responsible for prosecuting charges under the federal Elections Act. :shifty:
Edit: Maximus knows the score.
If I was a dick, I'd post results tonight. WHAT CAN YOU FUCKS DO TO ME? NOTHING! HAHAHA.
Ahem. :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
How about links to where such despicable activities are taking place? Are they also in violation of the act?
Not sure.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
How about links to where such despicable activities are taking place? Are they also in violation of the act?
So we can make sure not to visit them, even by accident. :yes:
And I'm no longer a Federal prosecutor, so I wouldn't be responsible for prosecuting charges under the federal Elections Act. :shifty:
Edit: Maximus knows the score.
but you can pass the info along to your old federal buddies. easy convictioons to pad the stats :contract: :P
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
And I'm no longer a Federal prosecutor, so I wouldn't be responsible for prosecuting charges under the federal Elections Act. :shifty:
Even Canadians who are not Federal prosecutors are bound by Federal Election Laws.
But are they required to report violations?
Anyway, back on topic. News the last few weeks has me wishing I had gotten an absentee ballot.
Quote from: Maximus on May 02, 2011, 05:16:01 PM
But are they required to report violations?
Anyway, back on topic. News the last few weeks has me wishing I had gotten an absentee ballot.
I'm curious - which news was that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 05:09:40 PM
And I'm no longer a Federal prosecutor, so I wouldn't be responsible for prosecuting charges under the federal Elections Act. :shifty:
Even Canadians who are not Federal prosecutors are bound by Federal Election Laws.
This is true. -_-
But I am under no duty to report such offences to the proper authorities. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 05:18:46 PM
I'm curious - which news was that?
The surge in NDP support in the polls.
I voted. NDP ^_^
I also chatted with the chicks handing out Orange Crush out on the sidewalk. Win win.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
I voted. NDP ^_^
May God have mercy on your soul.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
I voted. NDP ^_^
I also chatted with the chicks handing out Orange Crush out on the sidewalk. Win win.
Good for you on both counts. :cheers:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 05:26:46 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
I voted. NDP ^_^
May God have mercy on your soul.
You doomsayers are funny as hell :lol: I've always been a lefty, I've voted once for the Bloc, the rest always Liberal. I was leaning NDP even before the campaign started. The debates convinced me, but I swear there might be a 10% motivation for my voting NDP that comes from all the angst of conservatards. It's all love baby :hug:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 05:37:35 PM
I've always been a lefty
There is still time in to repent in the next election.
Besides Zoupa, you make Josephus look right wing. I am just shocked you considered the NDP left enough for you. :P
Reported to Elections Canada. :mad:
I voted. :)
As announced I didn't vote. So - it's 15 past 8 - normally that's when they announce the winner. Who won? Minority Conservatives, or minority NDP?
G.
EPIC NDP VICTORY! 40 SEAT MAJORITY!
Won't be at least till 930 till they start announcing Ontario/Quebec results. And this time it might take until BC comes in until we know.
I voted. It wasnt for the NDP.
I voted. It was for the NDP. Testify.
I look forward to Comrade Layton sending Neil to the gulag.
Quote from: Fireblade on May 02, 2011, 07:26:53 PM
I look forward to Comrade Layton sending Neil to the gulag.
I would welcome an attempt by a leftist government to use force against me.
My riding will go Orange for shizzle. It's been Liberal since 1962 :menace:
RIDING THE WAVE!
I read somewhere PC 13 Lib 12 NDP 7
These might be fake results, who knows.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
My riding will go Orange for shizzle. It's been Liberal since 1962 :menace:
RIDING THE WAVE!
I approve of having Layton in Stornoway. Because he's not really a threat to form a government, he can do what he's good at: Advocate for certain issues.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 07:55:44 PM
I read somewhere PC 13 Lib 12 NDP 7
These might be fake results, who knows.
CBC is reporting something similar. Not quite the Orange surge in the east as was thought. Liberals lose six seats, 3 go to the Tories, 3 to the NDP.
Surprised they haven't made a projection yet. :lol:
Looking pretty much that that majority is in reach. :mad:
At 22:00 PM Radio - Canada predicts a Conservative govt. They can't say majority or minority so far...
G.
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 08:56:34 PM
Looking pretty much that that majority is in reach. :mad:
Well, it's still so early. Let's not go crazy here.
They're doing better than expected in Toronto. (The Cons). Their overall vote percentage hasn't seemed to change much, but they're winning seats. A lot of them may be very close though. Iggy's having a tough ride in his own riding.
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
They're doing better than expected in Toronto. (The Cons). Their overall vote percentage hasn't seemed to change much, but they're winning seats. A lot of them may be very close though. Iggy's having a tough ride in his own riding.
My riding.
Duceppe's trailing in his riding by 12%
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
They're doing better than expected in Toronto. (The Cons). Their overall vote percentage hasn't seemed to change much, but they're winning seats. A lot of them may be very close though. Iggy's having a tough ride in his own riding.
I noticed that the Tories were leading inside the 401, which sounded weird to me.
Iggy deserves to lose. Parachuting candidates are usually pretty bad.
BQ is being mangled in Quebec. 60 NDPs in advance, one elected. Only 6 BQ in advance. :bleeding:
I'm going insane, bangling my head on the wall.
The NDP will become the Official Opposition - as per Radio-Canada as of 22:13 PM
And the Bloc is collapsing... They reap what they sowed.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 09:15:34 PM
The NDP will become the Official Opposition - as per Radio-Canada as of 22:13 PM
:yeah:
Only 3 Liberal MPs in advance here.
This is not an election, it is a Orange Crush tidal wave.
Yes I can rejoice in a way - the Liberal Party is getting blasted as well.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 09:18:25 PM
Yes I can rejoice in a way - the Liberal Party is getting blasted as well.
G.
Yeah, but 3 BQ MPs in advance? Are u maddz?
The Conservatives are at 10 seats of the majority...
G.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:15:01 PM
BQ is being mangled in Quebec. 60 NDPs in advance, one elected. Only 6 BQ in advance. :bleeding:
I'm going insane, bangling my head on the wall.
Why?
NDP is in advance in Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe's riding. :lmfao:
Even if you dislike the NDP, It seems Quebec has finally woke up & join the Confederation.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:19:28 PM
Yeah, but 3 BQ MPs in advance? Are u maddz?
The Separatists need a serious whiplash to wake them up - the Liberals being destroyed in Qc is a bonus since they're the only possible organization with deep enough roots to challenge the Bloc - beyond this current orange wave.
G.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:20:20 PM
Why?
Had anyone told me that the NDP would elect 60 MPs here and the BQ not even 10, I would have had them locked at Pinel and the key thrown away.
Well, time for discussions over an NDP-Liberal merge of sometime to begin. The NDP nor the Liberals will never win as long as votes keep being split.
100 NDP MPs either in advance or elected. :wacko:
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:20:20 PM
Why?
Had anyone told me that the NDP would elect 60 MPs here and the BQ not even 10, I would have had them locked at Pinel and the key thrown away.
It's crazy but not bang your head in the wall crazy.
Ignatieff is finished and I'm wondering if the Liberal Party isn't as well... I can see the NDP swallowing the Liberals now. And that is the only way to challenge Harper in 4 years.
G.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:27:54 PM
It's crazy but not bang your head in the wall crazy.
Not crazy? At the height of his popularity, Ed Broadbent had less than 50 MPs. We're swimming in Orange Crush right now.
That NDP chick who went to Vegas during the campaign is leading her Quebec riding. :lol:
Conservative vote in Ontario up by five per cent; but seats up by 16.
150 Conservative in advance, 105 NDP, 32 Liberals and... 4 Bloc *shakes head*
Oh ... no offense westerners - Central Canada still decide what goes on in this country federation - no matter how deep blue the West is painted.
G.
This is done, we'll have a Harper dictatorsh... I mean a Conservative Majority government.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 09:28:26 PM
Ignatieff is finished and I'm wondering if the Liberal Party isn't as well... I can see the NDP swallowing the Liberals now. And that is the only way to challenge Harper in 4 years.
Back to two parties? It would actually be pretty even then, as the blue Libs flee the crazy NDP. Even if you think the Liberals are bloodied and disorganized right now, they still have a lot of brand value. Their long-term prospects are good.
So how many seats has NDP ever had in one government?
Quote from: katmai on May 02, 2011, 09:34:25 PM
So how many seats has NDP ever had in one government?
About 46 under Ed Broadbent, the Dear Leader(tm).
Never formed a government.
Quote from: katmai on May 02, 2011, 09:34:25 PM
So how many seats has NDP ever had in one government?
They've never had any.
I think just under 50, Kat, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: katmai on May 02, 2011, 09:34:25 PM
So how many seats has NDP ever had in one government?
I believe none. Before tonite the most seats they held was 48. In 1988?
No doubt, Neil, a merge would send a lot of Libs running to the Blues; but it's still something worth considering, I think.
I checked. 43 MPs under Broadbent.
Just reached 155 Conservative MPs.
The Cons will get their majority in the 416 area code.
And Toronto fucks the country yet again. Then they wonder why everybody hates on them <_<
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 09:33:53 PM
Back to two parties? It would actually be pretty even then, as the blue Libs flee the crazy NDP. Even if you think the Liberals are bloodied and disorganized right now, they still have a lot of brand value. Their long-term prospects are good.
Depends entirely on the next few years. Should the NDP sell themselves well enough to dislodge the Harper govt, which is sure to abuse its majority - considering how they did so while being a minority gvt, the Liberal brand would/will fade away.
Times are a-changing it seems.
Now we need the PQ back in power in Quebec.
G.
Difference between the NDP and BQ in Laurier-Sainte-Marie is actually increasing. Duceppe is on his way out. :moon:
:cool:
TVA gives a Majority Government to Harper.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:15:01 PM
BQ is being mangled in Quebec. 60 NDPs in advance, one elected. Only 6 BQ in advance. :bleeding:
I'm going insane, bangling my head on the wall.
Down to 4.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:44:20 PM
TVA gives a Majority Government to Harper.
I called it an hour ago!
I think the over-reported NDP surge scared many Toronto Liberals to the PC.
What's also encouraging is that senior ministers of the current govt in Quebec are being beaten. Hmmm This new NDP will be seriously Qc centric - yet also acceptable for outsiders.
Sadly Justin Trudeau is still surviving <_<
G.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
They're doing better than expected in Toronto. (The Cons). Their overall vote percentage hasn't seemed to change much, but they're winning seats. A lot of them may be very close though. Iggy's having a tough ride in his own riding.
I noticed that the Tories were leading inside the 401, which sounded weird to me.
Iggy deserves to lose. Parachuting candidates are usually pretty bad.
I was hoping for a minority gov't again - but I'm happy if Iggy loses in my riding.
Duceppe is officially defeated in Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 09:40:25 PM
The Cons will get their majority in the 416 area code.
And Toronto fucks the country yet again. Then they wonder why everybody hates on them <_<
I thought it was because the Leafs are a bunch of losers.
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 09:44:20 PM
TVA gives a Majority Government to Harper.
I called it an hour ago!
I think the over-reported NDP surge scared many Toronto Liberals to the PC.
Over-reported?
It's an NDP sweep of historic dimensions.
They have crushed the Bloc and damn near crushed the Libs!
So... the Bloc will likely commit suicide after tonight. That should be enough to whip the PQ into a frenzy. ^_^
And I'm watching Thomas Mulclair speaking before his own partisans. There's the next NDP leader methinks - a man acceptable for Quebec's nationalists.
G.
Liz may get her seat finally. That means she gets on the debate next time. :(
Although with Harper's dicta...majority, we probably won't get a next time. A decade's worth of proroguing.
CBC just called it MAJORITY
A sovereign Quebec is now a possibility.
This is good. As I said Harper will abuse this majority and then we'll be able to flush out the Conservatives.
G.
This has certainly been an interesting election, regardless of which party one supports. Who could have predicted the rise of the NDP in Quebec? Also I'm quite pleased to see that the Conservatives are set to win a majority.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
A sovereign Quebec is now a possibility.
Meh? A historic defeat for the party of sovereignty = sovereignty *more* popular?
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 09:14:39 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 02, 2011, 09:11:50 PM
They're doing better than expected in Toronto. (The Cons). Their overall vote percentage hasn't seemed to change much, but they're winning seats. A lot of them may be very close though. Iggy's having a tough ride in his own riding.
I noticed that the Tories were leading inside the 401, which sounded weird to me.
Iggy deserves to lose. Parachuting candidates are usually pretty bad.
I was hoping for a minority gov't again - but I'm happy if Iggy loses in my riding.
I don't think that a minority government was feasible.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 09:53:39 PM
This is good. As I said Harper will abuse this majority and then we'll be able to flush out the Conservatives.
G.
And a con majority = bad for the Cons?
What next - that this election is really a Lib win?
War is peace
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
A sovereign Quebec is now a possibility.
Meh? A historic defeat for the party of sovereignty = sovereignty *more* popular?
Sovereignty isn't achieve in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 07:25:29 PM
I voted. It was for the NDP. Testify.
You Quebecois that don't vote Bloc make me sick.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:58:02 PM
Sovereignty isn't achieve in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
Why would you be a sovereigntist anyways? Aren't you the kind of of guy who needs Canada to send money to Quebec so that they can support you?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:58:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:53:09 PM
A sovereign Quebec is now a possibility.
Meh? A historic defeat for the party of sovereignty = sovereignty *more* popular?
Sovereignty isn't achieve in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
We shall see - personally, seems to me that crushing the bloc is a signal.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:58:02 PM
Sovereignty isn't achieved in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
Yes that is so. On the one hand Harper and his cohort will go on doing what they do - and on the other Quebecers will soon realize this strong NDP contingent won't be able to deliver what they want: a weak federal govt and strong regional states. When you combine this with the upcoming election of the PQ in 2 years - and you have a nice setup for the next referendum.
G.
Iggy's getting hammered - he's trailing by over a thousand votes.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:02:30 PM
We shall see - personally, seems to me that crushing the bloc is a signal.
As always, the dynamics of sovereignty are so much more difficult to track - despite the everlasting wishful thinking in English Canada - than the vicissitudes of one or the other party.
My archsovereignist relatives voted NDP. It has nothing to do with their fervour, and everything to do with trying to dislodge the logjam that federal politics had become.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:02:30 PM
We shall see - personally, seems to me that crushing the bloc is a signal.
As always, the dynamics of sovereignty are so much more difficult to track - despite the everlasting wishful thinking in English Canada - than the vicissitudes of one or the other party.
My archsovereignist relatives voted NDP. It has nothing to do with their fervour, and everything to do with trying to dislodge the logjam that federal politics had become.
I think the wishful thinking is coming from our friends from Quebec - that the smashing of the Bloc is good for sovereignty, and a Con majority is bad for the Conservatives.
Somehow, if the Cons got smashed instead, and the Bloc won ever seat in Quebec, I doubt you guys would be saying the opposite ...
A Conservative majority, eh? I guess we'll see what Harper's all about now.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
I think the wishful thinking is coming from our friends from Quebec - that the smashing of the Bloc is good for sovereignty, and a Con majority is bad for the Conservatives.
Somehow, if the Cons got smashed instead, and the Bloc won ever seat in Quebec, I doubt you guys would be saying the opposite ...
Your stiff displeasure is indication enough we are right. There's nothing like the discomfiture of a Torontonian federalist to soothe our ego.
G.
Ahh Ignatieff is talking - I wonder if he's gonna announce his resignation.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:15:08 PM
Ahh Ignatieff is talking - I wonder if he's gonna announce his resignation.
G.
He'll get stabbed in the ribs by an angry mob of Liberal cronies if he doesn't, it's the closest to Caesar he'll ever get.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
My archsovereignist relatives voted NDP. It has nothing to do with their fervour, and everything to do with trying to dislodge the logjam that federal politics had become.
You know, this is something that I've noticed from actually reading up on what the NDP were saying lately. They've really played some of the elements of the Tea Party movement. Not so much the fiscal conservatism or the right-wing lunacy, but more the 'existing parties are evil' thing.
Quote from: Drakken on May 02, 2011, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:15:08 PM
Ahh Ignatieff is talking - I wonder if he's gonna announce his resignation.
He'll get stabbed in the ribs by an angry mob of Liberal cronies if he doesn't, it's the closest to Caesar he'll ever get.
He's saying that he'll serve in whatever role the party wants him. Since he won't be in the House of Commons, I think that he doesn't really have any chance of staying on as leader.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:14:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
I think the wishful thinking is coming from our friends from Quebec - that the smashing of the Bloc is good for sovereignty, and a Con majority is bad for the Conservatives.
Somehow, if the Cons got smashed instead, and the Bloc won ever seat in Quebec, I doubt you guys would be saying the opposite ...
Your stiff displeasure is indication enough we are right. There's nothing like the discomfiture of a Torontonian federalist to soothe our ego.
G.
I suppose your ego needs soothing this night. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
Somehow, if the Cons got smashed instead, and the Bloc won ever seat in Quebec, I doubt you guys would be saying the opposite ...
If the Bloc had won every seat in Quebec, we would have witnessed a different campaign in Quebec, so I don't know what I would have said. Obviously, you have been following the campaign in Quebec quite closely...
For my part, I'll simply say that I do not really understand why the Conservative won in the greater Toronto area. I'll defer to your expert judgement on that other part of the country.
I thought Iggy's speech quite dignified.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:22:29 PM
I suppose your ego needs soothing this night. :lol:
Why? He already wrote he did not vote.
But I suppose it is a sign that sovereignty is dying within Grallon. At least that is how one has to read it.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
I thought Iggy's speech quite dignified.
I agree.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
I thought Iggy's speech quite dignified.
As was the rest of his campaign, I thought. Even more so when compared to Harper's.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:22:29 PM
I suppose your ego needs soothing this night. :lol:
Why? He already wrote he did not vote.
But I suppose it is a sign that sovereignty is dying within Grallon. At least that is how one has to read it.
That's how I read it. Grallon's getting old, and passion for politics is a young man's game.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:23:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:11:07 PM
Somehow, if the Cons got smashed instead, and the Bloc won ever seat in Quebec, I doubt you guys would be saying the opposite ...
If the Bloc had won every seat in Quebec, we would have witnessed a different campaign in Quebec, so I don't know what I would have said. Obviously, you have been following the campaign in Quebec quite closely...
For my part, I'll simply say that I do not really understand why the Conservative won in the greater Toronto area. I'll defer to your expert judgement on that other part of the country.
My point is that no matter what the vote, you guys would - and do - say exactly the same thing: "this will be good for sovereignty".
The Bloc wins all the seats? Good for sovereignty. The Bloc wins no seats? Good for sovereignty. The Cons win a majority? Good for sovereignty ...
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:22:29 PM
I suppose your ego needs soothing this night. :lol:
No Malthus - you do not understand. Not for a lack of intelligence - but for a lack of empathy. I've often said Canada is built on the denial of what Quebec is and your interpretation of my reactions is an illustration of that. The Bloc had become a... road bloc to Quebec's progression. It needed to go. And now the opposition between the 2 countries existing in this federation will become even more tangible. A majority of Canadians chose the Conservatives on the right - while a majority of Quebecers chose the left with the NDP. You can't get any more obvious than that.
G.
QuoteTaken: Leading in: Percent:
Conservative 144 22 39.96
NDP 83 22 30.86
Liberal 24 9 19.38
Bloc 0 3 5.54
Green 0 1 3.51
lololol suck it frogs.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:26:36 PM
The Bloc wins all the seats? Good for sovereignty. The Bloc wins no seats? Good for sovereignty. The Cons win a majority? Good for sovereignty ...
Not quite. Some of it is quite probably wishful thinking. I do not, for instance, equate a strong Cons. government with something being good for sovereignty. I did not say that the Bloc's debacle was something good for sovereignty. What I did write was that one should not automatically track the fate of sovereignty as a political option with the fate of the BQ or the PQ. That is apparently something which is quite hard to fathom in the Rest of Canada, because we always hear, right on cue, on each defeat of the PQ, or - formerly, on each variation of the BQ's vote - "this time, sovereignty is really done for, right?". There are many more variables at play here.
Well, it ain't quite over yet... many of the mps that are "elected" aren't quite. 15 minutes ago they had a Conservative down as having won my local riding which was pretty weird in spite of him leading (with 40 out of 245 polls counted). Don Davis is a pretty strong incumbent, and this is Emerson's old riding; a Conservative win would be quite surprising.
And sure enough, now with 55 polls counted Don Davis is "elected". We may see a few switches, back and forth in the next couple of hours.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
I thought Iggy's speech quite dignified.
As was the rest of his campaign, I thought. Even more so when compared to Harper's.
That's the thing about this whole campaign - the Cons ran a campaign filled with gaffes and scandals; the Libs ran what I thought was a good clean campaign ... but there was no reason to vote for them, because they did not stand for anything. Any votes they shook loose, went to the NDP.
People held their noses and voted Con, if they did not want the economic activism of the NDP; they held their noses and voted NDP, if they did not want the social activism and dictatorial manner of the cons - but nobody held their noses and voted Lib, it seems.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
I thought Iggy's speech quite dignified.
As was the rest of his campaign, I thought. Even more so when compared to Harper's.
He didn't seem like a bad guy. The problem is that he seemed like an opportunistic empty suit. Layton had plans, and drive, and desire, as did Harper. Looking only at their TV ads, Layton and Harper really looked better than Ignatieff, who seemed passive.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 10:32:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:26:36 PM
The Bloc wins all the seats? Good for sovereignty. The Bloc wins no seats? Good for sovereignty. The Cons win a majority? Good for sovereignty ...
Not quite. Some of it is quite probably wishful thinking. I do not, for instance, equate a strong Cons. government with something being good for sovereignty. I did not say that the Bloc's debacle was something good for sovereignty. What I did write was that one should not automatically track the fate of sovereignty as a political option with the fate of the BQ or the PQ. That is apparently something which is quite hard to fathom in the Rest of Canada, because we always hear, right on cue, on each defeat of the PQ, or - formerly, on each variation of the BQ's vote - "this time, sovereignty is really done for, right?". There are many more variables at play here.
You may not have, but both sentiments have been expressed in this thread - one might almost say "right on cue".
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:33:26 PM
That's the thing about this whole campaign - the Cons ran a campaign filled with gaffes and scandals; the Libs ran what I thought was a good clean campaign ... but there was no reason to vote for them, because they did not stand for anything. Any votes they shook loose, went to the NDP.
Yep.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
A Conservative majority, eh? I guess we'll see what Harper's all about now.
Yep.
And if does well for some time in the future.
Duceppe - who lost his riding - is about to speak.
G.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
A Conservative majority, eh? I guess we'll see what Harper's all about now.
Yep.
And if does well for some time in the future.
The fate of Canadian political parties with majorities seems to be to become mired in complacency and corruption.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2011, 10:40:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
A Conservative majority, eh? I guess we'll see what Harper's all about now.
Yep.
And if does well for some time in the future.
The fate of Canadian political parties with majorities seems to be to become mired in complacency and corruption.
Agreed. But one can always hope - particularly now that the NPD is the alternative.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 10:41:05 PMAgreed. But one can always hope.
I'm sure the mire the Conservatives will find themselves in at some point, will be of a different consistency and odour than the previous mires :)
Duceppe has the best speech of the night so far. As much as I disagree with him, I always respected him.
He's leaving.... Good good!
G.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:21:25 PM
Even if you dislike the NDP, It seems Quebec has finally woke up & join the Confederation.
I dislike the NDP an awful lot, but I'd much rather have NDP MPs from Quebec than Bloc MPs. Oh Canada!
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 10:49:20 PM
Duceppe has the best speech of the night so far. As much as I disagree with him, I always respected him.
:rolleyes:
I thought Iggy's speech was fine. Nothing about Duceppe's speech has impressed (other than his resignation :yeah:).
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
as for the actual overall result.
One can always count on BB to be petty - predictable as the sun rises. :P
G.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 02, 2011, 09:40:25 PM
The Cons will get their majority in the 416 area code.
And Toronto fucks the country yet again. Then they wonder why everybody hates on them <_<
Today, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario. -_-
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:53:55 PM
One can always count on BB to be petty - predictable as the sun rises. :P
Predictable, I'm guilty.
But petty? :huh:
And I'm ecstatic that the Conservatives are leading in Yukon. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:55:38 PM
But petty? :huh:
Rejoicing at the weaknesses of others BB, since it must be spelled out for you.
Actually 'rejoicing' isn't the proper term: 'chortling' is more appropriate - therein lies your pettiness.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:58:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:55:38 PM
But petty? :huh:
Rejoicing at the weaknesses of others BB, since it must be spelled out for you.
If it's wrong to rejoice at the weakness of separatists, then I don't want to be right.
:Canuck:
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 10:12:12 PM
A Conservative majority, eh? I guess we'll see what Harper's all about now.
I predict that you won't like it, but that a slim majority of Canadians will find he isn't nearly so scary as they might have thought.
Wow, an interesting outcome.
The NDP's tsunami in Québec. :blink: :wub:
The Bloc should be wiped out for its own sake. Wonder what will happen with them?
As for the Tories, they won't have any excuse now to blame the opposition for deficits and bad decisions. Will be interesting to watch them.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:00:46 PM
If it's wrong to rejoice at the weakness of separatists, then I don't want to be right.
Keep on believing this BB. You and every Canadians. ^_^
C'est incroyable comment ces gens ne comprennent rien parce qu'ils ne veulent rien comprendre! *hoche la tête*
G.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:55:38 PMBut petty? :huh:
You do come across as quite petty on Canadian politics, yeah. I mean, you're a decent guy and we know that, but you seem to approach politics like the fan of a sports team which leaves you open to seeming petty.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:54:52 PMToday, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario. -_-
The most Western riding is trending NDP (more than 60%) with 104/250 polls counted.
Edit: Actually, no, the Western most riding is the Yukon and they look like they're going Con. But there are plenty of Westerners who aren't happy with the GTA and Southern Ontario swing to the Conservatives.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:52:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 10:49:20 PM
Duceppe has the best speech of the night so far. As much as I disagree with him, I always respected him.
:rolleyes:
I thought Iggy's speech was fine. Nothing about Duceppe's speech has impressed (other than his resignation :yeah:).
Maybe it didn't translate well.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:56:52 PM
And I'm ecstatic that the Conservatives are leading in Yukon. :cool:
Did you gaol all the dissenting voices?
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 11:08:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:54:52 PMToday, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario. -_-
The most Western riding is trending NDP (more than 60%) with 104/250 polls counted.
Edit: Actually, no, the Western most riding is the Yukon and they look like they're going Con. But there are plenty of Westerners who aren't happy with the GTA and Southern Ontario swing to the Conservatives.
You knew I wouldn't let that one go by. :)
And as far as I can tell the Conservatives got 50% or more of the vote in Western Canada, from 47% in BC, to 67% in Alberta. So not that many Westerners.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:56:52 PM
And I'm ecstatic that the Conservatives are leading in Yukon. :cool:
Did you gaol all the dissenting voices?
Ironically my wife knows the knew Conservative MP pretty well - he was a high up manager at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre / Yukon Justice.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:14:15 PM
And as far as I can tell the Conservatives got 50% or more of the vote in Western Canada, from 47% in BC, to 67% in Alberta. So not that many Westerners.
Surely you must understand that even 67% does not equal every?
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:06:04 PM
C'est incroyable comment ces gens ne comprennent rien parce qu'ils ne veulent rien comprendre! *hoche la tête*
Don't overstate your case there. It's not like the seperatist point of view is the only legitimate one in Quebec.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 11:08:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:54:52 PMToday, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario. -_-
The most Western riding is trending NDP (more than 60%) with 104/250 polls counted.
Edit: Actually, no, the Western most riding is the Yukon and they look like they're going Con. But there are plenty of Westerners who aren't happy with the GTA and Southern Ontario swing to the Conservatives.
Really? I am not sure what the final vote count will be in BC but it looks close to be a majority of Conservative seats here and certainly in the rest of the West.
I think what BB is referring to is the fact this is the first time, at least in my lifetime, that voters in Ontario and the West are of the same view. I just heard Elizabeth May say the voters wanted change and that one fact is certainly a big change.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:55:38 PMBut petty? :huh:
You do come across as quite petty on Canadian politics, yeah. I mean, you're a decent guy and we know that, but you seem to approach politics like the fan of a sports team which leaves you open to seeming petty.
I don't know what to say about that. I am NOT non-partisan, and I am not unbiased. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservatives. And a night like tonight... 21 years ago I remember going out to Reform Party meetings when we were some wacky fringe party who had just elected our first MP in a rural Alberta by-election, and in Manitoba we were polling low single digits. And now... with so many of the people from Reform in power - we ARE the government. At times I didn't think it would take this long, but at times I never thought it would happen.
I am passionate about politics. If that makes me seem like a sports fan, there's not much I can do about it.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:06:04 PM
C'est incroyable comment ces gens ne comprennent rien parce qu'ils ne veulent rien comprendre! *hoche la tête*
Ce qui m'étonne toujours, c'est l'assurance avec laquelle on se prononce sur les forces et les mouvances québécoises, en n'en ayant que ce qui m'apparaît qu'une compréhension finalement limitée. Il ne viendrait à l'idée de personne de pontifier sur la vie politique d'un pays étranger dont on ne comprendrait pas la langue, et pour lequel il faudrait se reposer sur de rares commentaires d'interprètes autorisés. Je lis l'anglais, et je m'intéresse à la vie politique canadienne (ce qui déjà n'est pas commun au Québec...) et je suis toujours très prudent à avancer des analyses sur ce qui peut bien expliquer la politique ontarienne ou britano-colombienne.
Elizabeth May being elected is a negative. Still, I'm certain she's a one-term wonder.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2011, 11:15:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:14:15 PM
And as far as I can tell the Conservatives got 50% or more of the vote in Western Canada, from 47% in BC, to 67% in Alberta. So not that many Westerners.
Surely you must understand that even 67% does not equal every?
Which is why I didn't use the word "every", or even "none". :mellow:
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:15:29 PM
Don't overstate your case there. It's not like the seperatist point of view is the only legitimate one in Quebec.
You know I do think you're the most lucid of all Canadians here. And it is to your credit. You are right of course, Quebecers did chose to give Canada another chance, in a way. But judging by your peers' reactions, it's only a matter of time before another disillusion materializes. One has to plan for the long term. ;)
G.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:19:36 PM
Elizabeth May being elected is a negative. Still, I'm certain she's a one-term wonder.
I dont think so. She is a reasonable candidate and the Greens will get a lot more exposure because of her election. It will also be a signficant issue for the Liberals and NDP to consider as they decide how to unite the left.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:18:43 PMI am passionate about politics. If that makes me seem like a sports fan, there's not much I can do about it.
I do not share the usual Languishite's scorn of partisanship. I think it is commendable to stand for a party, and play the game of politics. But there is a difference between a sports fan that will gracefully shake hands with the losers, and a hooligan that screams "you lose, suckers!" to the other team.
(That being said, I think you go only unfrequently into "hooliganism" territory).
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 10:58:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 10:55:38 PM
But petty? :huh:
Rejoicing at the weaknesses of others BB, since it must be spelled out for you.
If it's wrong to rejoice at the weakness of separatists, then I don't want to be right.
:Canuck:
I see it differently. I think the NDP victory in Quebec is exactly what the separatist side needed. The status quo was not working for them. If the NDP screw up, which is almost certain given all the rookie MPs they will have going to Ottawa, the Provincial Separatists will have a field day.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:06:04 PM
C'est incroyable comment ces gens ne comprennent rien parce qu'ils ne veulent rien comprendre! *hoche la tête*
Don't overstate your case there. It's not like the seperatist point of view is the only legitimate one in Quebec.
But it is indeed annoying to always overanalyzing the Bloc' or the PQ's outcome as a sign of the high/low vitality of the independantist idea. It is true to a certain extent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 11:26:32 PMIf the NDP screw up, which is almost certain given all the rookie MPs they will have going to Ottawa, the Provincial Separatists will have a field day.
They already have, in no small part thanks to the Provincial Liberals' tremendous ineptitude. A lot of the quality MPs of the Bloc will no doubt turn to Provincial political life. It is going to be interesting to see how the massive Quebec support to the NDP (nearly two thirds of the NDP caucus!) will transform (or not) the party.
And I think I gave only one strong prediction - that the NDP wouldn't be able to translate their support in Quebec into seats because they didn't have any ground support.
With 60 Quebec MPs, I clearly was dead wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 11:22:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:19:36 PM
Elizabeth May being elected is a negative. Still, I'm certain she's a one-term wonder.
I dont think so. She is a reasonable candidate and the Greens will get a lot more exposure because of her election. It will also be a signficant issue for the Liberals and NDP to consider as they decide how to unite the left.
My friends out there voted for her.... :ph34r:
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:22:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:15:29 PM
Don't overstate your case there. It's not like the seperatist point of view is the only legitimate one in Quebec.
You know I do think you're the most lucid of all Canadians here. And it is to your credit. You are right of course, Quebecers did chose to give Canada another chance, in a way. But judging by your peers' reactions, it's only a matter of time before another disillusion materializes. One has to plan for the long term. ;)
You do have a good point there. I wonder how things will turn out, and what sort of candidates the caucus from Quebec will turn out to be. After all, most of those people never thought they'd get elected, and didn't really have much in the way of plans at all. We'll have to see how much of a Quebec bent they'll be taking, and how strong they'll be in five years.
I wonder if my relative lucidity is relative to my ability to understand and speak the French language? ;)
Maybe I am just an ignorant American...but what good is a separatist party that never achieves, or gets anywhere close to achieving, their goal? :P
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:23:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:18:43 PMI am passionate about politics. If that makes me seem like a sports fan, there's not much I can do about it.
I do not share the usual Languishite's scorn of partisanship. I think it is commendable to stand for a party, and play the game of politics. But there is a difference between a sports fan that will gracefully shake hands with the losers, and a hooligan that screams "you lose, suckers!" to the other team.
(That being said, I think you go only unfrequently into "hooliganism" territory).
I think I've gone out of my way to avoid heaping scorn on the Liberals and NDP. It's the Bloc which I don't treat so gracefully.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 02, 2011, 11:32:36 PM
Maybe I am just an ignorant American...but what good is a separatist party that never achieves, or gets anywhere close to achieving, their goal? :P
I can ask my AIP friends.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:32:12 PMI wonder if my relative lucidity is relative to my ability to understand and speak the French language? ;)
As I said, it certainly gives you a better understanding of some of the peculiarities of Quebec's political life.
I don't know if lucidity is a word I would use to characterize your internet persona.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:33:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 11:32:12 PMI wonder if my relative lucidity is relative to my ability to understand and speak the French language? ;)
As I said, it certainly gives you a better understanding of some of the peculiarities of Quebec's political life.
I don't know if lucidity is a word I would use to characterize your internet persona.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:18:43 PM
I don't know what to say about that. I am NOT non-partisan, and I am not unbiased. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservatives. And a night like tonight... 21 years ago I remember going out to Reform Party meetings when we were some wacky fringe party who had just elected our first MP in a rural Alberta by-election, and in Manitoba we were polling low single digits. And now... with so many of the people from Reform in power - we ARE the government. At times I didn't think it would take this long, but at times I never thought it would happen.
I am passionate about politics. If that makes me seem like a sports fan, there's not much I can do about it.
I don't pay much attention to Canadian politics, but I remember the Reform party. When I was in Vancouver, I saw posters denouncing its leader (something Manning) everywhere in university campus. I only went to classes but even I couldn't miss those posters. When I listened to Chinese radio, the normally apolitical talk show hosts fiercely opposed Reform. Reason: it was anti-immigrant, or at least it was perceived to be.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 02, 2011, 11:32:36 PM
Maybe I am just an ignorant American...but what good is a separatist party that never achieves, or gets anywhere close to achieving, their goal? :P
This is a frequent comment (so it has nothing to do with you being an ignorant American) but it is the result of the distorsion of our political life, that the legitimacy of the MPs is being constantly undermined by the concentration of power within the Cabinet. Yet, in the British parliamentary system, sovereignty lies in the Parliament itself, and deputies still yield power to influence and shape laws and political debates.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2011, 11:26:32 PMIf the NDP screw up, which is almost certain given all the rookie MPs they will have going to Ottawa, the Provincial Separatists will have a field day.
They already have, in no small part thanks to the Provincial Liberals' tremendous ineptitude. A lot of the quality MPs of the Bloc will no doubt turn to Provincial political life. It is going to be interesting to see how the massive Quebec support to the NDP (nearly two thirds of the NDP caucus!) will transform (or not) the party.
Absolutely. While the Conservative Majority is the headline of the night, how the NDP manages this tremendous opportunity is #2.
This could be a tremendous realignment in Canadian politics. These things happen rarely, but they do happen, and sometimes all at once.
On the other hand, there are plenty of one election wonders. The NDP Government in Ontario. The ADQ in Quebec. The COR in New Brunswick. The Liberals in Manitoba in 1988. Plenty of pitfalls - in particular with so many unknown and inexperienced MPs. I know Reform wound up electing more than a few duds in 1993.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 02, 2011, 11:36:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:18:43 PM
I don't know what to say about that. I am NOT non-partisan, and I am not unbiased. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Conservatives. And a night like tonight... 21 years ago I remember going out to Reform Party meetings when we were some wacky fringe party who had just elected our first MP in a rural Alberta by-election, and in Manitoba we were polling low single digits. And now... with so many of the people from Reform in power - we ARE the government. At times I didn't think it would take this long, but at times I never thought it would happen.
I am passionate about politics. If that makes me seem like a sports fan, there's not much I can do about it.
I don't pay much attention to Canadian politics, but I remember the Reform party. When I was in Vancouver, I saw posters denouncing its leader (something Manning) everywhere in university campus. I only went to classes but even I couldn't miss those posters. When I listened to Chinese radio, the normally apolitical talk show hosts fiercely opposed Reform. Reason: it was anti-immigrant, or at least it was perceived to be.
According to a sound bite from Jason Kenney (the Minister of Immigration) the Conservative Party was polling a majority, or two-thirds (I can't remember which), of Chinese Canadians.
The "anti-immigrant" label against Reform was largely false, but to be fair they did at the time call for reductions in the overall # of immigrants being allowed in.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:33:55 PM
I don't know if lucidity is a word I would use to characterize your internet persona.
Oh sometimes his mask drops and he stops the trolling. I'm getting ... proficient at sniffing those rare instances out.
-----
Take Layton's speech right now. The disillusion is beginning under our very eyes. He's talking about a Canadian vision - as in a one unitary country... This, right there, doesn't bode well - for Canada *cackles*.
G.
Will there be a merging of NPD-Liberal Party?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:36:28 PM
This is a frequent comment (so it has nothing to do with you being an ignorant American) but it is the result of the distorsion of our political life, that the legitimacy of the MPs is being constantly undermined by the concentration of power within the Cabinet. Yet, in the British parliamentary system, sovereignty lies in the Parliament itself, and deputies still yield power to influence and shape laws and political debates.
That's an unavoidable effect of modern technology and media.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 02, 2011, 11:36:19 PMWhen I listened to Chinese radio, the normally apolitical talk show hosts fiercely opposed Reform. Reason: it was anti-immigrant, or at least it was perceived to be.
The Cons. had to walk a fine line. On the one hand, they now like immigrants, because they've come to realize many come from socially conservative backgrounds. On the other hand, they wanted to keep their fringe anti-immigrant early supporters. By now, I think the gambit was that the first group was fresh for the taking, while the second is more or less loyal to them. The take now was to subtly play on the fear of terrorism that some immigrant groups are supposed to represent (the manipulation of the whole Tamil incident struck me as especially cynical), and on their "law and order" stance - toughening immigration regulations on the pretext of "exploitation of refugees by human trafickers".
Considering the majority of Layton's caucus is from Quebec, you'd think he'd be speaking a lot more French.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:41:19 PM
Considering the majority of Layton's caucus is from Quebec, you'd think he'd be speaking a lot more French.
Yes, but he is doing his speech in Toronto. The crowd wouldn't know when to clap and cheer...
'Comme tous les autres Canadiens...' - Oh this is gonna be good ^_^
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:39:44 PM
Take Layton's speech right now. The disillusion is beginning under our very eyes. He's talking about a Canadian vision - as in a one unitary country... This, right there, doesn't bode well - for Canada *cackles*.
I wouldn't read too much into anything Layton says tonight. He's got 60-70 new MPs, most of which he's never met, and an enormous chunk of them are from Quebec. The NDP is a party without a strong identity, and that new blood can't help but distort the party a bit. Layton is going to have to get to know them.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:39:09 PM
According to a sound bite from Jason Kenney (the Minister of Immigration) the Conservative Party was polling a majority, or two-thirds (I can't remember which), of Chinese Canadians.
The "anti-immigrant" label against Reform was largely false, but to be fair they did at the time call for reductions in the overall # of immigrants being allowed in.
Chinese Canadians would likely vote for whichever party that supported (a) more immigrants from China, and (b) lower taxes.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:42:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:41:19 PM
Considering the majority of Layton's caucus is from Quebec, you'd think he'd be speaking a lot more French.
Yes, but he is doing his speech in Toronto. The crowd wouldn't know when to clap and cheer...
There is that.
Whenever I hear a politician in person start going into French I know and understand why they do it, but I have no idea what they are saying.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:42:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:41:19 PM
Considering the majority of Layton's caucus is from Quebec, you'd think he'd be speaking a lot more French.
Yes, but he is doing his speech in Toronto. The crowd wouldn't know when to clap and cheer...
There is that.
Whenever I hear a politician in person start going into French I know and understand why they do it, but I have no idea what they are saying.
Damn Manitoban yokel
Quote from: katmai on May 02, 2011, 11:44:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:42:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:41:19 PM
Considering the majority of Layton's caucus is from Quebec, you'd think he'd be speaking a lot more French.
Yes, but he is doing his speech in Toronto. The crowd wouldn't know when to clap and cheer...
There is that.
Whenever I hear a politician in person start going into French I know and understand why they do it, but I have no idea what they are saying.
Damn Manitoban yokel
:blush:
I don't know what to make of Layton's speech. It sounded more like a stump speech than anything else (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Wow there's some irony - "the NDP is represented in every province of Canada except for PEI and Saskatchewan".
The NDP was founded in Saskatchewan...
Well there's a number of people who must be getting slightly nervous in Quebec right now. First and foremost: Pauline Marois - so long as Duceppe was in Ottawa he wasn't a direct threat to her... shall we say lukewarm leadership. But now he's suddenly available. Yet the worst thing the separatists could do at this point would be to start fighting amongst each other. They need to concentrate all their attacks on the provincial Liberals. These I suspect are also quite nervous. The collapse of the Bloc didn't benefit 'their' brand and in fact it freed a lot of 'enemy assets' to return to the Quebec front...
The next few years should prove interesting.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Well there's a number of people who must be getting slightly nervous in Quebec right now. First and foremost: Pauline Marois - so long as Duceppe was in Ottawa he wasn't a direct threat to her... shall we say lukewarm leadership. But now he's suddenly available. Yet the worst thing the separatists could do at this point would be to start fighting amongst each other. They need to concentrate all their attacks on the provincial Liberals. These I suspect are also quite nervous. The collapse of the Bloc didn't benefit 'their' brand and in fact it freed a lot of 'enemy assets' to return to the Quebec front...
The next few years should prove interesting.
Duceppe's overall career may not be over, but in the short term he's no threat to anybody.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:02:41 AM
Duceppe's overall career may not be over, but in the short term he's no threat to anybody.
If "short term" means a couple of weeks, sure. But I don't think you quite grasp how the PQ works.
For he might be, as he once was, a threat to the current leadership of the PQ. And then, who know?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:02:41 AM
Duceppe's overall career may not be over, but in the short term he's no threat to anybody.
If "short term" means a couple of weeks, sure. But I don't think you quite grasp how the PQ works.
For he might be, as he once was, a threat to the current leadership of the PQ. And then, who know?
No, I am no expert on the PQ. You know that.
But from a distance I find it hard to believe that a leader who received such a humbling electoral loss could be a threat to anybody within a few weeks or months.
But if even Bob Rae could be rehabilitated, then anything is possible given enough time.
A Preston Manning shout-out. :worthy:
Results in Yukon are still tight - but the good guys are up by 200 votes with 1 poll remaining.
So I would like outside opinions. How was Harper's speech? He won the desired majority, but hardly overwhelmingly. Was it statesmanly? Did it reach out?
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:26:10 AM
Results in Yukon are still tight - but the good guys are up by 200 votes with 1 poll remaining.
NDP! yay!
Lol either of you guys live in the one little orange riding in sea of blue in Alberta?
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 12:33:02 AM
Lol either of you guys live in the one little orange riding in sea of blue in Alberta?
Neil. :nelson:
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 12:33:02 AM
Lol either of you guys live in the one little orange riding in sea of blue in Alberta?
Neil. :nelson:
I figured, as it was NDP last time out too iirc.
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 12:37:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:37:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 12:33:02 AM
Lol either of you guys live in the one little orange riding in sea of blue in Alberta?
Neil. :nelson:
I figured, as it was NDP last time out too iirc.
:yes:
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 02, 2011, 11:19:18 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:06:04 PM
C'est incroyable comment ces gens ne comprennent rien parce qu'ils ne veulent rien comprendre! *hoche la tête*
Ce qui m'étonne toujours, c'est l'assurance avec laquelle on se prononce sur les forces et les mouvances québécoises, en n'en ayant que ce qui m'apparaît qu'une compréhension finalement limitée. Il ne viendrait à l'idée de personne de pontifier sur la vie politique d'un pays étranger dont on ne comprendrait pas la langue, et pour lequel il faudrait se reposer sur de rares commentaires d'interprètes autorisés. Je lis l'anglais, et je m'intéresse à la vie politique canadienne (ce qui déjà n'est pas commun au Québec...) et je suis toujours très prudent à avancer des analyses sur ce qui peut bien expliquer la politique ontarienne ou britano-colombienne.
C'est une attitude assez specifique a Toronto. Bizarre, mais c'est ainsi.
Quote from: Grallon on May 02, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Well there's a number of people who must be getting slightly nervous in Quebec right now. First and foremost: Pauline Marois - so long as Duceppe was in Ottawa he wasn't a direct threat to her... shall we say lukewarm leadership. But now he's suddenly available. Yet the worst thing the separatists could do at this point would be to start fighting amongst each other. They need to concentrate all their attacks on the provincial Liberals. These I suspect are also quite nervous. The collapse of the Bloc didn't benefit 'their' brand and in fact it freed a lot of 'enemy assets' to return to the Quebec front...
The next few years should prove interesting.
G.
Could the man who destroyed the Bloc be a good choice for the PQ? I doubt it. Not that Marois is a good leader, or was even a good Minister, but Duceppe ain't any better.
The NDP came to 100 voice of winning my riding. I'm scared at so many commies around here.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:20:29 PMWhich is why I didn't use the word "every", or even "none". :mellow:
Uhm... you should probably go back to read the post that I replied to at the beginning of this exchange. It says:
Quote from: BarristerToday, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:20:29 PMWhich is why I didn't use the word "every", or even "none". :mellow:
Uhm... you should probably go back to read the post that I replied to at the beginning of this exchange. It says:
Quote from: BarristerToday, every Westerner loves Toronto and Ontario.
Fair enough -_-
QuoteCanada's Conservatives win coveted majority
By ROB GILLIES, Associated Press
TORONTO – Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted majority government in elections that changed Canada's political landscape with the opposition Liberals and Quebec separatists suffering a shattering defeat.
Harper, who took office in 2006, has won two elections but until Monday's vote had never held a majority of Parliament's 308 seats, forcing him to rely on the opposition to pass legislation.
While Harper's hold on Parliament has been tenuous during his five-year tenure, he has managed to nudge an instinctively center-left country to the right. He has gradually lowered sales and corporate taxes, avoided climate change legislation, promoted Arctic sovereignty, upped military spending and extended Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
Elections Canada reported preliminary results on its website, giving the Conservatives 167 seats, which will give Harper four years of uninterrupted government.
"We are grateful, deeply honored, in fact humbled by the decisive endorsement of so many Canadians," Harper told elated supporters at the Telus Convention Centre in Calgary, Alberta.
The leftist New Democratic Party was projected to become the main opposition party for the first time in Canadian history with 102 seats, tripling their support in a stunning setback for the Liberals who have always been either in power or leading the opposition.
"It's an historic night for New Democrats," NDP leader Jack Layton told a delirious crowd in downtown Toronto.
Harper was helped by the NDP surge, which split the left-of-center vote in many districts, handing victory to Conservative candidates, especially in Ontario, where the Liberals were decimated in their last national stronghold.
Former colleagues of Harper say his long-term goals are to shatter the image of the Liberals — the party of former Prime Ministers Jean Chretien, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau — as the natural party of government in Canada, and to redefine what it means to be Canadian.
Harper, who comes from the conservative western province of Alberta, took a major step toward that goal on Monday night as the Liberals suffered their worst defeat in Canadian history — dropping to 34 seats from 77, according to the preliminary results.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff congratulated Harper and New Democrat leader Jack Layton and accepted responsibility for the "historic defeat."
"Democracy teaches hard lessons, and we have to learn them all," Ignatieff told a somber gathering in Toronto.
Ignatieff, who even lost his own seat in a Toronto suburb, said, "I will play any part that the party wishes me to play as we go forward to rebuild."
Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said the 52-year-old Harper should now be considered a transformative figure in Canadian history.
"It's a sea change," Clarkson said.
The New Democrats' gains are being attributed to Layton's strong performance in the debates, a folksy, upbeat message, and a desire by the French-speakers in Quebec, the second most populous province, for a new face and a federalist option.
Voters indicated they had grown weary with the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which had a shocking drop to four seats from 47 in the last Parliament. Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe lost his own seat and immediately resigned.
Quebeckers said separatism was still an important force, despite the province's rejection of the Bloc.
"I would caution anyone to think that the independence movement is dead at any time," said Bruce Hicks, a political scientist at the Universite de Montreal. "This is one of those burning embers things. It takes very little to ignite it, but right now it's only embers."
The Green party won its first seat ever in the House of Commons with leader Elizabeth May winning in a British Columbia district.
The Conservatives got 40 per cent of the vote, compared to 31 per cent for the NDP and a dismal 19 per cent for the Liberals.
The NDP's gains marked a remarkable shift in a campaign that started out weeks ago looking like a straight battle between Harper and Ignatieff, a distinguished academic, with the 60-year-old Layton recovering from prostate cancer and a broken hip.
Harper counted on the economy to help hand him the majority. Canada has outperformed other major industrialized democracies through the financial crisis, recovering almost all the jobs lost during the recession while its banking sector remains intact. He said he would continue his plan to create jobs and growth without raising taxes.
He campaigned on a message that the New Democrats stood for higher taxes, higher spending, higher prices and protectionism. He called the election a choice between "a Conservative majority" and "a ramshackle coalition led by the NDP that will not last but will do a lot of destruction."
Gerry Nicholls, who worked under Harper at a conservative think tank, has said that having the New Democrats' as the main opposition party would be ideal for Harper because it would define Canadian politics in clearer terms of left vs. right.
The Conservatives have built support in rural areas and with the "Tim Horton's crowd" — a reference to a chain of doughnut shops popular with working class Canadians. They also have blitzed the country with TV attack ads, running them even during telecasts of the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl.
Lawrence Martin, a political columnist for The Globe and Mail newspaper and author of "Harperland: The Politics of Control," calls Harper "the most autocratic and partisan prime minister Canada has ever had."
But to remain in office through the longest period of minority government in Canadian history, Harper had to engage in a constant balancing act. The three opposition parties combined held 160 seats in the last Parliament, while the Conservatives held 143. The Liberals held 77, the New Democrats 36 and the Bloc Quebecois 47.
Harper has deliberately avoided sweeping policy changes that could derail his government, but now has an opportunity to pass any legislation he wants with his new majority.
Associated Press Writers Jeremy Hainsworth in Vancouver, British Columbia, Charmaine Noronha in Toronto, and Selena Ross and Sean Farrell in Montreal contributed to this report.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:28:25 AM
So I would like outside opinions. How was Harper's speech? He won the desired majority, but hardly overwhelmingly. Was it statesmanly? Did it reach out?
I am not the target of Harper's speech, but I rarely think his speech are statesmanly. They feel wooden, short and shallow, without breadth. "Lowering your taxes" rarely makes for inspiring moments or rhetoric; it seemed like a bad Throne Speech. Yet it looks like it's what conservative partisans like to hear, though he felt more human that his usual robotic-frozen self.
It was a nice touch that he semi-mocked his constant delivery of the exact same words. The weaving of the words of O Canada felt cheap. The last part was a bit more inspired, though.
It was strange that he needed to point out he would govern for everyone "even those who didn't vote for us". Well, duh. Lots of small hints of Harper's slightly twisted views (Canada's political life is turbulent??!?! It is time to go home?!? Didn't you just win the fight of your life?)
I especially thought the fearmongering was unbecoming ("this world is dangerous!, thank God Canada is an island of stability!").
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2011, 11:50:57 PM
I don't know what to make of Layton's speech. It sounded more like a stump speech than anything else (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Wow there's some irony - "the NDP is represented in every province of Canada except for PEI and Saskatchewan".
The NDP was founded in Saskatchewan...
They had a pair of close results in Sask (<1000 votes) and a few other respectable ones (35%+). In a different year, the close splits might have worked the other way. But the voters wanted to end minority status, and enough of the rump Liberal voters in the west went over to the Tories to ensure NDP pickups were thwarted. A great showing in Winnipeg for the Tories, dislodging the NDP from all but one riding, the NDP in turn almost completing the extinction of Liberals. Probably in 4 years' time Rebecca Blaikie will unseat the Libs if her party doesn't abuse its new enhanced status the way the Democrats did to a great extent south of the border.
The NDP will have to reorient itself a bit back towards its CCF side if its going to keep rural Quebec ridings and build in the BC interior and Saskatchewan at the end of the Conservative mandate. I'd suspect their distribution of sears is still too skewed towards urban ridings (St. Johns, Hallifax, QC/MTL, Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver) when the current distribution of the 308 seems to favour rural areas outside of the GTA.
The Conservatives just have to resist temptation to move right socially when they promised to focus on the economy. Achieve that, and Ontario will deliver for them again in 4 years. They were close to picking up a few more Ontario seats.
I've never voted for the other parties before, so I'll leave their electoral futures to the prognostications of others.
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 10:02:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:58:02 PM
Sovereignty isn't achieve in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
Why would you be a sovereigntist anyways? Aren't you the kind of of guy who needs Canada to send money to Quebec so that they can support you?
No more then you. Mister Oil subsidies.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on May 02, 2011, 11:40:13 PM
Will there be a merging of NPD-Liberal Party?
No.
Not yet. The Liberals are too proud and will refuse to negotiate with the NDP from a weaker position. No, they'll run one more election. And though they'll probably gain seats especially in Quebec, it won't be enough to stop another Conservative victory.
Then the NDP and Liberals may reconsider.
What really sucks is now an Open & affordable Internet is a thing of the past.
Thanks Ontario.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 05:48:06 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2011, 10:02:11 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 02, 2011, 09:58:02 PM
Sovereignty isn't achieve in Ottawa but in Quebec. An Harper majority will help the cause.
Why would you be a sovereigntist anyways? Aren't you the kind of of guy who needs Canada to send money to Quebec so that they can support you?
No more then you. Mister Oil subsidies.
Those aren't really important because Alberta is a producer of wealth.
Now that the Conservatives have their majority will they weaken the Feds and give more power to the provinces?
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 07:16:51 AM
Not yet. The Liberals are too proud and will refuse to negotiate with the NDP from a weaker position. No, they'll run one more election. And though they'll probably gain seats especially in Quebec, it won't be enough to stop another Conservative victory.
Then the NDP and Liberals may reconsider.
I would be surprised. A lot of the rise of the NDP has to do with the personal popularity and approachability of Jack Layton, who is not a well man. Will Layton be around for the next election? Will Mulcair be able to continue on from that? Or will the NDP be back to their 30 or so seats?
It will really depend on the NDP's performance in Quebec. Were I a Liberal supporter, I would at least wait a year or two to see how it turns out.
Quote from: Neil on May 03, 2011, 08:09:29 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 07:16:51 AM
Not yet. The Liberals are too proud and will refuse to negotiate with the NDP from a weaker position. No, they'll run one more election. And though they'll probably gain seats especially in Quebec, it won't be enough to stop another Conservative victory.
Then the NDP and Liberals may reconsider.
I would be surprised. A lot of the rise of the NDP has to do with the personal popularity and approachability of Jack Layton, who is not a well man. Will Layton be around for the next election? Will Mulcair be able to continue on from that? Or will the NDP be back to their 30 or so seats?
I agree about Layton's popularity; but I don't think he is necessarily entrenched in Quebec. I think Quebec will be wide open, and up for anybody to win, next time around.
Iggy to make press conference at 10 am ET
Can only mean one thing.......
.....Osama's dead.
People who are predicting the demise of the Liberal party are acting way too prematurely. The Liberal Party - the natural governing party of Canada - isn't going anywhere.
Nor do I believe the NDP can really gain any kind of permanent foothold in Quebec. Quebec voters are incredibly fickle, and when they realize the NDP can't deliver anything for Quebec, I am sure they will vote for the Next Big Thing in the next federal election.
I imagine the Conservatives will become increasingly scandal-prone and arrogant during their majority. This will lead to the election of the Liberal Party in the next federal election in 4-5 years. You heard it here first. :)
Iggy quit.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 09:12:39 AM
I imagine the Conservatives will become increasingly scandal-prone and arrogant during their majority. This will lead to the election of the Liberal Party in the next federal election in 4-5 years. You heard it here first. :)
With the death of public funding of political party, I wouldn't be so quick to predict the reelection of the Liberals. The Cons didn't simply win to have their ideas triumph. The won so that their hold onto power would remain for years to come.
Welcome to Ruth Ellen Brosseau btw. She campaing hard, very hard on the field to convince the voters she was the best choice.
meet Ruth (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-candidate-ruth-ellen-brosseau-wins-quebec-riding-042238054.html)
She's working in Ottawa, living in Gatineau, MP of a riding 1hr east of Montreal. And she doesn't speak French.
Although she's cute, since she lives in Quebec and not Ottawa, that doesn't disprove the general theory about girls over there.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 09:16:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 09:12:39 AM
I imagine the Conservatives will become increasingly scandal-prone and arrogant during their majority. This will lead to the election of the Liberal Party in the next federal election in 4-5 years. You heard it here first. :)
With the death of public funding of political party, I wouldn't be so quick to predict the reelection of the Liberals. The Cons didn't simply win to have their ideas triumph. The won so that their hold onto power would remain for years to come.
I need a ghost smiley.
This one :homestar: just isn't good enough.
The Cons won to replace the Libs as the natural governing party. There's no harm in that. It's not like the PQ expect to win so they can lose for the next 20 years after that.
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 11:05:17 AM
Welcome to Ruth Ellen Brosseau btw. She campaing hard, very hard on the field to convince the voters she was the best choice.
meet Ruth (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-candidate-ruth-ellen-brosseau-wins-quebec-riding-042238054.html)
She's working in Ottawa, living in Gatineau, MP of a riding 1hr east of Montreal. And she doesn't speak French.
Although she's cute, since she lives in Quebec and not Ottawa, that doesn't disprove the general theory about girls over there.
So she is the one who spent her campaign money and her whole campaign time whoring around in Vegas, eh?
Ah Drakkan, your misogyny shines through again :lol:
Quote from: Drakken on May 03, 2011, 11:15:29 AM
So she is the one who spent her campaign money and her whole campaign time whoring around in Vegas, eh?
She looks like a cheap lap dancer. Maybe she'll go on doing that in Ottawa.
-----
Incidentally it came to me this morning that Legault's group was in need of soldiers - and the Bloc's ex MPs are now out of a job...
G.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 08:21:33 AM
It will really depend on the NDP's performance in Quebec. Were I a Liberal supporter, I would at least wait a year or two to see how it turns out.
I agree. There are a lot of uncertainties that have to be answered. First, how will the NDP adapt to its new base of support in Quebec. Second, to what extent will Layton be able to fill the void the Liberals have historically filled. My first impression is that the left of the party will not allow Layton to move further to the middle.
That of course leaves a lot of Room for Harper to govern from the middle in order to capture that vote on the other hand Jacab et al. fear a right wing hidden agenda will govern Canada. We shall see, however, given how Harper has transformed the Reform/Alliance/PC merger into a governing party my bet is on the former rather than the latter.
If the NDP move left and the Conservatives move right then there may still be room for the Liberals but they have some big obstacles - no funding, no leader, no obvious appealing leader waiting to take over.
Quote from: Grallon on May 03, 2011, 11:30:37 AM
Incidentally it came to me this morning that Legault's group was in need of soldiers - and the Bloc's ex MPs are now out of a job...
Won't do for many of them. Legault took great pains to create an agonisticist "movement" regarding the constitutional struggle, hence the presence of Sirois by his side, a convinced federalist, and the Bloc had moved to the left, and shed many of their more right-wing MPs (though not all of them).
It'll be interesting to see what happens next. I think the big questions are:
How much will Harper use his majority to enact a social conservative agenda? Personally, I expect he'll aim to be a stable government without too much extremism, with a few signficant moves here and there. If he avoids stepping on any landmines he could keep this majority for quite a while, assuming he keeps the natural accumulation of arrogance and corruption of governing parties under control.
How will the NDP adjust? Will they make a credible opposition that convinces former Liberal voters to support them and makes them a "not scary" alternative for middle of the road Canadians whenever Harper pisses them off? Will they be able to do that while still maintaining the newly found support in Quebec? It seems like a tricky balancing act, but it's possible.
How will the Liberals go about reinventing themselves? Are they far enough in the wilderness now to start getting their shit together and set out a positive vision for the country rather than simply "we're not the Conservatives and we're not the NDP"? I expect they'll need one more electoral defeat before they get it together (and the Conservatives accumulate enough baggage ). Of course, if the NDP look more credible over the next parliament and move a bit to the middle, it may be a hard battle for the Liberals. Nonetheless, if you're young and want a career in politics, it may not be a bad move to get into the Liberal establishment now. You'd get a chance to define the potential rebirth of the party and "be someone" by the time (if) they actually get a shot at being in charge again.
And for Quebec... certainly it will be intersting to see how the provincial scene changes in response to this. I agree that it's much too simplistic to say "seperatism is dead" due to the BQ defeat. In fact, I'm fairly comfortable in predicting that either Harper or Layton will have a big messy Quebec-induced headache on their hands within the next five or six years.
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 11:06:46 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 09:16:39 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 09:12:39 AM
I imagine the Conservatives will become increasingly scandal-prone and arrogant during their majority. This will lead to the election of the Liberal Party in the next federal election in 4-5 years. You heard it here first. :)
With the death of public funding of political party, I wouldn't be so quick to predict the reelection of the Liberals. The Cons didn't simply win to have their ideas triumph. The won so that their hold onto power would remain for years to come.
I need a ghost smiley.
This one :homestar: just isn't good enough.
The Cons won to replace the Libs as the natural governing party. There's no harm in that. It's not like the PQ expect to win so they can lose for the next 20 years after that.
The Liberals still have deep roots in Canada and established supporters / donors that they can draw upon.
Let's not forget that the NDP's surge largely came from Quebec - support which IMO is likely to evaporate as quickly as it appeared. Much of the NDP support in the rest of Canada (and to some extent in Quebec as well, presumably) came from voters who were turned off by Iggy and this year's incarnation of the Liberal platform.
Of course, the Liberals will need to get their shit together to provide a credible alternative for the next election, which will be easier said than done. But 4 years is a long time in politics, and certainly long enough for a messiah to emerge. When large swathes of the Canadian population become disenchanted with the inevitable Conservative scandals (scandals that are part and parcel of being the governing party for a prolongued period of time) or simply sick of the status quo and want a change, are they going to turn to the NDP? I doubt it. The natural governing party of Canada will be there to offer a credible alternative - much in the same way Harper was elected for the first time, in fact.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 12:03:34 PMThe natural governing party of Canada will be there to offer a credible alternative
Quite frankly, I think that schtick is dead. The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away. I think we will have two governing parties from now on.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 12:03:34 PMThe natural governing party of Canada will be there to offer a credible alternative
Quite frankly, I think that schtick is dead. The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away. I think we will have two governing parties from now on.
I do agree with you that that shtick certainly seems less believable now. My point in using that phrase was to suggest the permanence of the Liberal Party as a credible institution in Canada.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 07:24:32 AM
What really sucks is now an Open & affordable Internet is a thing of the past.
Thanks Ontario.
let me remind you, that your party, the Bloc, was in favour of a total interdiction of free digital copies of the music/movies you own. The Bloc's proposal was to make you pay once per medium.
And also, I have to remind you the the Conservatives are the ones who asked the CRTC to go back to its homework concerning the unlimited internet access plans.
Quote from: Drakken on May 03, 2011, 11:15:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 11:05:17 AM
Welcome to Ruth Ellen Brosseau btw. She campaing hard, very hard on the field to convince the voters she was the best choice.
meet Ruth (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-candidate-ruth-ellen-brosseau-wins-quebec-riding-042238054.html)
She's working in Ottawa, living in Gatineau, MP of a riding 1hr east of Montreal. And she doesn't speak French.
Although she's cute, since she lives in Quebec and not Ottawa, that doesn't disprove the general theory about girls over there.
So she is the one who spent her campaign money and her whole campaign time whoring around in Vegas, eh?
yes :)
Quote from: Grallon on May 03, 2011, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: Drakken on May 03, 2011, 11:15:29 AM
So she is the one who spent her campaign money and her whole campaign time whoring around in Vegas, eh?
She looks like a cheap lap dancer. Maybe she'll go on doing that in Ottawa.
-----
Incidentally it came to me this morning that Legault's group was in need of soldiers - and the Bloc's ex MPs are now out of a job...
G.
they already attacked Legault on his proposals and opinions that sovereignty wasn't for now. They'd be hypocrites to rally him.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away.
:yeahright:
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 12:28:47 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 07:24:32 AM
What really sucks is now an Open & affordable Internet is a thing of the past.
Thanks Ontario.
let me remind you, that your party, the Bloc, was in favour of a total interdiction of free digital copies of the music/movies you own. The Bloc's proposal was to make you pay once per medium.
And also, I have to remind you the the Conservatives are the ones who asked the CRTC to go back to its homework concerning the unlimited internet access plans.
I also didn't vote for the Bloc. It's also not my party, I'm flaky. I'm not BB or you.
Yet we need more telecom regulation to ensure more competition, not less.
a non lurking moment.
Not an unexpected turnout for me, though I had in y mind less seats going to NDP from Libs. Decimated, are the Libs. meh. They have no one to blame but themselves there. The biggest gains were for the NDP, so I have some hope at least of a reasonable voice or two on the floor. In a country that's become a nation of fearful nellies, that's as much as you can ask for.
My family (big big big big) back east all voted Con (Ontario/NB) and in my sad arguments with them over voting they all trotted out Law & Order, fear of terrorism first and foremost. FEAR is the real reason anyone wins anything in this nation. And well whatever. It's sad to me, but there's nothing I can do about it.
I will keep giving my half assed opinions whether anyone agrees with them or not. But I don't see the need for such acrimony over it. I disagree.... so what. dissent is the cornerstone of democracy.
So what will be Harper's first priority, Y'all... putting more people in Jail, Buy airplanes we can't afford (nor need) ? or is he just as wrapped up in the playoffs as everyone else?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 03, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
So what will be Harper's first priority, Y'all... putting more people in Jail, Buy airplanes we can't afford (nor need) ? or is he just as wrapped up in the playoffs as everyone else?
Well his first priority will be to pass the budget which the opposition defeated.
After that... I suspect he wants to move on all the stuff the opposition wouldn't let him pass. Abolish the gun registry. Elected senators. Change party financing rules.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away.
:yeahright:
i.e., "elect us! or rather, elect one of *you* for us! we will look after your community's interest". This had formerly been solidly held by the Liberals until now. The Cons have succeeded in dislodging the Liberals from that monopoly in Ontario, at least.
At least that's been my understanding of it, and a huge part of their strategy on the island of Montreal.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:43:38 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 03, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
So what will be Harper's first priority, Y'all... putting more people in Jail, Buy airplanes we can't afford (nor need) ? or is he just as wrapped up in the playoffs as everyone else?
Well his first priority will be to pass the budget which the opposition defeated.
After that... I suspect he wants to move on all the stuff the opposition wouldn't let him pass. Abolish the gun registry. Elected senators. Change party financing rules.
will it be the same budget? I think with a majority, it may be a bit less non-partisan, but maybe that's just my own "fear" talking. I think he should abolish rather than elect Senators. Biggest waste of tax money going is the Senate, who mostly rubber stamp shit anyway.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:43:38 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 03, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
So what will be Harper's first priority, Y'all... putting more people in Jail, Buy airplanes we can't afford (nor need) ? or is he just as wrapped up in the playoffs as everyone else?
Well his first priority will be to pass the budget which the opposition defeated.
After that... I suspect he wants to move on all the stuff the opposition wouldn't let him pass. Abolish the gun registry. Elected senators. Change party financing rules.
I wish he scrap the Planes & spend the money on Deep Sea Artic ports & a couple nuclear powered ice breaker.
We need that alot more then jets.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:45:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away.
:yeahright:
i.e., "elect us! or rather, elect one of *you* for us! we will look after your community's interest". This had formerly been solidly held by the Liberals until now. The Cons have succeeded in dislodging the Liberals from that monopoly in Ontario, at least.
At least that's been my understanding of it, and a huge part of their strategy on the island of Montreal.
:huh:
That's been a staple of politics since 1867. The Conservatives have gotten more effective at it, but it is soemthing all parties have practiced.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
Yet we need more telecom regulation to ensure more competition, not less.
Does that mean you're against the "regulation" that awards monopolies to telecoms in Canada?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:45:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
The Cons have tapped into ethnic clientelism - and that won't go away.
:yeahright:
i.e., "elect us! or rather, elect one of *you* for us! we will look after your community's interest". This had formerly been solidly held by the Liberals until now. The Cons have succeeded in dislodging the Liberals from that monopoly in Ontario, at least.
At least that's been my understanding of it, and a huge part of their strategy on the island of Montreal.
As well as in some ridings here in BC where the Chinese vote and East Indian vote make up most of the voting population. In fact the Conservative candidate in Vancouver South refused all invitations by mainstream (English) media and only spoke to the Chinese media outlets here in Vancouver.
One local commentator said he was amazed the Liberals didnt react at all to the Conservatives taking over their traditional areas of support. I think the Liberals simply took that support for granted and didnt think the Conservatives would have any chance in attracting that part of the electorate. That certainly had an impact in the Libs going down to just two seats in BC.
But I think that is a minor factor comparied to the movement by the right of centre Liberals flocking to the Conservatives in this election. My riding is a perfect example. Going into election day the Liberal Candidate had a healthy lead in the polling. The Conservative candidate won in a landslide. The reason? Nobody wanted to take the chance that the NDP might squeeze up the middle and the Conservatives were the best choice for fiscally conservative voters.
The days of the Liberals being the "natural party" for fiscal conservative/social liberals is now dead. The Liberals are going to have to earn that back or at least wait for the Conservatives to give back that ground.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 12:03:34 PM
The Liberals still have deep roots in Canada and established supporters / donors that they can draw upon.
They dont have the donors. That is why Chretian instituted the funding formula. The Conservatives and NDP on the other hand have donors. If the Liberals are going to come back this is going to be a major issue for them.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 12:53:11 PM
:huh:
That's been a staple of politics since 1867. The Conservatives have gotten more effective at it, but it is soemthing all parties have practiced.
Of course, but I wasn't refering to polities (i.e., a village being a community), nor to old communities (Franco-Ontarians, etc.), but the more recent newcomers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
But I think that is a minor factor comparied to the movement by the right of centre Liberals flocking to the Conservatives in this election. My riding is a perfect example. Going into election day the Liberal Candidate had a healthy lead in the polling. The Conservative candidate won in a landslide. The reason? Nobody wanted to take the chance that the NDP might squeeze up the middle and the Conservatives were the best choice for fiscally conservative voters.
The days of the Liberals being the "natural party" for fiscal conservative/social liberals is now dead. The Liberals are going to have to earn that back or at least wait for the Conservatives to give back that ground.
I don't know. "Fiscal conservativeness" sounds like something that was susceptible to work for you - hence, more convincing - or others in your situation. Just like I appreciated Ignatieff for carrying one of the messages that was important for me.
My guess is the "major factor" was precisely the fact that the Cons decided that such factors varied considerably from one region to the next, and played very tightly controlled messages which differed from one part of the country to the next. The difference between the Quebec and ROC campaign being only one example.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 01:17:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
But I think that is a minor factor comparied to the movement by the right of centre Liberals flocking to the Conservatives in this election. My riding is a perfect example. Going into election day the Liberal Candidate had a healthy lead in the polling. The Conservative candidate won in a landslide. The reason? Nobody wanted to take the chance that the NDP might squeeze up the middle and the Conservatives were the best choice for fiscally conservative voters.
The days of the Liberals being the "natural party" for fiscal conservative/social liberals is now dead. The Liberals are going to have to earn that back or at least wait for the Conservatives to give back that ground.
I don't know. "Fiscal conservativeness" sounds like something that was susceptible to work for you - hence, more convincing - or others in your situation. Just like I appreciated Ignatieff for carrying one of the messages that was important for me.
My guess is the "major factor" was precisely the fact that the Cons decided that such factors varied considerably from one region to the next, and played very tightly controlled messages which differed from one part of the country to the next. The difference between the Quebec and ROC campaign being only one example.
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.
This election made Federal politics into something very similar to BC politics. The NDP on the left and a coalition of voters to the right of the NDP coming together to stop the NDP from forming a government.
Does the NDP now, or has it ever, controlled a provincial government? How much leeway does a province have to fuck up its own finances?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 12:45:04 PM
At least that's been my understanding of it, and a huge part of their strategy on the island of Montreal.
But what about outside the island?
http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/2011/05/01/laval-appel-au-vote-ethnique-grec/ (http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/2011/05/01/laval-appel-au-vote-ethnique-grec/)
What about the whole Bloc campaign,
Parlons Qc? The aim of voting for the Bloc is to put Québécois in a position of relative power by opposition of the non-Québécois in the other political party. As Drainville said himself, a real Québécois votes Bloc. That may not be 100% ethnic, but it's close.
I think you read too much of Le Devoir. It's a good newspaper when you're an adept of literature, but it wrongly represents the reality outside a certain part of Montreal and it tends to distorts the fact when it doesn't suit the pro-PQ/Bloc journalists.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 01:17:34 PM
I don't know. "Fiscal conservativeness" sounds like something that was susceptible to work for you - hence, more convincing - or others in your situation. Just like I appreciated Ignatieff for carrying one of the messages that was important for me.
Wich one? The one where he says he's the heir of Trudeau or the one where he says he's the heir of Laurier? ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
I also didn't vote for the Bloc. It's also not my party, I'm flaky. I'm not BB or you.
Yet we need more telecom regulation to ensure more competition, not less.
What exactly did the Conservatives do to ensure less competition in telecom?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 01:31:25 PM
Does the NDP now, or has it ever, controlled a provincial government? How much leeway does a province have to fuck up its own finances?
It has, at different times, controlled BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba (current government), and Ontario.
It hasplenty of leeway to fuck things up. They did so in Ontario and BC.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 03, 2011, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
Yet we need more telecom regulation to ensure more competition, not less.
Does that mean you're against the "regulation" that awards monopolies to telecoms in Canada?
Yes. Our Big 5 are too big. Too much vertical integration. No one can enter the market.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 01:31:25 PM
Does the NDP now, or has it ever, controlled a provincial government? How much leeway does a province have to fuck up its own finances?
Yes, they have and the leeway to fuck up is large. Their ability to govern at the Provincial level varies across provinces. In BC and Ontario they were disasters.
edit: BB beat me to it.
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 12:34:58 PM
I also didn't vote for the Bloc. It's also not my party, I'm flaky. I'm not BB or you.
Yet we need more telecom regulation to ensure more competition, not less.
What exactly did the Conservatives do to ensure less competition in telecom?
Nothing but Clement said he's against Structural Separation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
In BC and Ontario they were disasters.
Please elaborate.
So BB, what are the big agenda items we're going to see in the next four years? What's policy differences should we expect to see with a Conservative majority? What policy differences *may* we see?
Are we really going to get a seriously reformed Senate? Personally, I'm okay with the Senate that we have now, but I'd still definitely respect a civic minded reform by the Conservatives since they stand to benefit from the Senate status quo now that they have a majority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
In BC and Ontario they were disasters.
Please elaborate.
Disasterous, as in never to be repeated in my lifetime with any luck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
In BC and Ontario they were disasters.
Please elaborate.
Personally I contend that at least the Ontario situation a significant part of the "disaster" rap was due to events beyond the government's control, i.e. the recession.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:50:58 PM
In BC and Ontario they were disasters.
Please elaborate.
Personally I contend that at least the Ontario situation a significant part of the "disaster" rap was due to events beyond the government's control, i.e. the recession.
And your personal contention is built on what exactly? In your answer please compare on contrast how other non NDP provinces did during the same period of time. :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
So BB, what are the big agenda items we're going to see in the next four years? What's policy differences should we expect to see with a Conservative majority? What policy differences *may* we see?
Are we really going to get a seriously reformed Senate? Personally, I'm okay with the Senate that we have now, but I'd still definitely respect a civic minded reform by the Conservatives since they stand to benefit from the Senate status quo now that they have a majority.
I think we're going to see the various efforts that were tried by Harper, but he could not pass. Abolish the gun registry. Pas various anti-crime bills. Abolish subsidies to political parties. And yes Senate Reform.
What Harper has long been pushing was that since the Constitution couldn't be changed, he wanted to push for amendments that could happen without a constitutional amendment. So no changes to the distribution of seats, but senators to sit for fixed terms, not for life. Senators to be elected, not appointed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:58:07 PMAnd you personal contention is built on what exactly? In your answer please compare on contrast how other non NDP provinces did during the same period of time. :P
And your personal contention that it was exceptionally disastrous is built on what exactly? Please provide an argument beyond "never again" and "if you don't know already, you don't know anything at all."
We've been over this ground already, and you've refused to elaborate at all on why you proclaim "disaster." I don't see why I should go beyond what you're willing to do, especially since I'm happy to be swayed by reasoning beyond "it's true, just trust me."
Hmmm...my response to CC and BB got lost into the ether.
It went something like this:
Christ, the rhetoric in this thread has exceeded normal Languish levels.
What disaster are you talking about? I keep hearing that but don't recall it. I can't speak for B.C.; but I lived in Ontario and the early-mid 90s were pretty good. Oh yeah it was lean times, mostly due to the recession and the post Mulroney days (talk about a fiscal fuck up); but honestly...I finished school, found work immediately, got married, bought a car. Christ, I yearn for those days again.
But I have provided many examples of why Provincial leaders are incompetant. You have responded by saying you dont think the Federal NDP would be that incompetant. I countered by saying there is every reason to beleive they would be even more incompetant. Thankfully I wont be proven right.
I dunno Josephus, the whole notion that a single province ws going to "spend its way out of recession", when the recession was in fact a global phenomenon, was the height of hubris. As conflicts Rae got into with his own public sector unions were just amusing as well.
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 02:05:36 PM
Christ, the rhetoric in this thread has exceeded normal Languish levels.
What disaster are you talking about? I keep hearing that but don't recall it. I can't speak for B.C.; but I lived in Ontario and the early-mid 90s were pretty good. Oh yeah it was lean times, mostly due to the recession and the post Mulroney days (talk about a fiscal fuck up); but honestly...I finished school, found work immediately, got married, bought a car. Christ, I yearn for those days again.
Christ, everyone agrees that period of time in Ontario was a disaster. Jacob and NDP apologists think it was through no fault of the NDP. You are the first to suggest, with rose coloured glasses firmly attached to your face, that things were actually ok in Ontario during that period of time.
Talk about revisionist thinking to justify a political view.
The problem with the public sector unions continued long into the Ontario Conservative era. They walked out a couple times during the Mike Harris days here. The Public Sector will never be satisified until they get full pensions after six or seven days of work. they're leeches.
Rae won power during one of the hardest recessions to hit Ontario ever. Same shit that's effecting Obama now. Like Obama he tried to walk the line between both sides and ended up alienating them both. Whatever happened, I wouldn't say he destroyed Ontario. Ontario survived nicely.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 02:05:36 PM
Christ, the rhetoric in this thread has exceeded normal Languish levels.
What disaster are you talking about? I keep hearing that but don't recall it. I can't speak for B.C.; but I lived in Ontario and the early-mid 90s were pretty good. Oh yeah it was lean times, mostly due to the recession and the post Mulroney days (talk about a fiscal fuck up); but honestly...I finished school, found work immediately, got married, bought a car. Christ, I yearn for those days again.
Christ, everyone agrees that period of time in Ontario was a disaster. Jacob and NDP apologists think it was through no fault of the NDP. You are the first to suggest, with rose coloured glasses firmly attached to your face, that things were actually ok in Ontario during that period of time.
Talk about revisionist thinking to justify a political view.
it was a recessionary period. Times were tough, yes.
It's liek blaming Obama for what's going on economically in the USA now.
Quote from: viper37 on May 03, 2011, 01:34:13 PM
But what about outside the island?
What about it? You quote Lagacé reporting about the PLC?
QuoteWhat about the whole Bloc campaign
The Bloc is explicitely about one community as a polity (i.e., Quebec), which I excluded from my post. It isn't really ethnic: you're really reaching now. What's next? You're going to quote Don Cherry in support for your arguments?
QuoteI think you read too much of Le Devoir. It's a good newspaper when you're an adept of literature, but it wrongly represents the reality outside a certain part of Montreal and it tends to distorts the fact when it doesn't suit the pro-PQ/Bloc journalists.
And I think you twist everything to fit your usual narrative peppered with your usual pet peeves, which I could easily claim is constructed out of your own selective reading of whatever crap you are reading or listening to. For someone quick to whine about people capable of making their own decisions, and not in thrall of the Quebec radio, you are awfully prompt to ascribe the same kind of argument to anyone who doesn't fit your partisan view.
Apart from party hacks, few look back fondly on the NDP government of Ontario. Certainly by the end of their time in power, there was the perception they had fucked things up something fierce. Ontario voters were so fed up with the NDP that they elected a provincial Conservative party with an unusually right-wing mandate - the so-called "Common Sense Revolution".
Contrast that to the current Ontario Liberals. They were victims of circumstance, too (the global financial crisis), but the perception that they have misgoverned the province is far less prevalent.
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 02:14:07 PM
Rae won power during one of the hardest recessions to hit Ontario ever. Same shit that's effecting Obama now. Like Obama he tried to walk the line between both sides and ended up alienating them both. Whatever happened, I wouldn't say he destroyed Ontario. Ontario survived nicely.
He came in with a policy to try to spend his way out of the recession. It was an idiotic idea and he didnt reverse course until it was too late. By that time he had lost the respect and trust of everyone. Ontario survived but that was in spite of the brief period in with the NDP ruled.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 03, 2011, 02:16:32 PM
Apart from party hacks, few look back fondly on the NDP government of Ontario. Certainly by the end of their time in power, there was the perception they had fucked things up something fierce. Ontario voters were so fed up with the NDP that they elected a provincial Conservative party with an unusually right-wing mandate - the so-called "Common Sense Revolution".
Contrast that to the current Ontario Liberals. They were victims of circumstance, too (the global financial crisis), but the perception that they have misgoverned the province is far less prevalent.
Also after in the next election the NDP immediately fell back to third place, where it has remained to this day.
Damn it I'm bushed today. Stayed up much too late watching election results. :(
One thing is for sure. With the NDP as the main rival now in Federal elections there will no longer be any complaints about the parties being too similiar.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 01:58:28 PM
I think we're going to see the various efforts that were tried by Harper, but he could not pass. Abolish the gun registry. Pas various anti-crime bills. Abolish subsidies to political parties. And yes Senate Reform.
What Harper has long been pushing was that since the Constitution couldn't be changed, he wanted to push for amendments that could happen without a constitutional amendment. So no changes to the distribution of seats, but senators to sit for fixed terms, not for life. Senators to be elected, not appointed.
I thought the gun registry already got abolished? I mean, personally I think a gun registry is a good idea, at least for cities, but not having one is not a big issue for me.
Same with the anti-crime bills. I don't think they're really necessary, but there's nothing there that gets me up in arms.
As for abolishing subsidies to political parties. Again, I think they're a good thing to have for a variety of reasons, but getting rid of them is not the stuff of nightmares. I'd prefer a political culture less dependent on fundraising, but that's just the Scandinavian in me (and maybe it's changed in Scandinavia by well as well). So yeah, not losing any sleep there.
Senate reform? Heh... that will be interesting. I'm alright with the status quo, but if he does go through with a reform that could be intersting to watch. I'll believe it when I see it, but if Harper undertakes a competent and civic minded reform of the institution then he'll get some significant respect from me there. I'm not sure two elected chambers is a good idea. As per the arguments about an elected house of lords in the UK, if the senators are elected they'll have more of a mandate and will end up exerting more influence on everyday government. I'm not sure that's a good direction to go in, but it might work out.
If that's the worst I can expect from Harper, who knows? Maybe the Jacob household may vote Conservative next time around, assuming the immigration issue I brought up earlier was just pre-election fearmongering and nothing of substance. We'll see, though with the Chinese community going pretty hard for the Conservatives we may see our concerns addressed one way or another; I think Oex is right about the Libs having lost their advantage when it comes to appealing to new immigrants.
That said, I expect some fucking around with climate issues, the census fuckery to stay in place and a general continuing weakening of services and help for the most vulnerable in our society (with a shifting of resources towards private, faith based initiatives). Are you thinking this will be pretty mild still, rather than a full blown front and centre agenda?
And what about health care? How much do you think they're going to play around with that? And abortion? I heard someone claim that Harper said he wouldn't touch abortion at all with a minority, implying that he had plans if he got a majority. Was that just more rumour mongering, or can we expect to see something there?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:17:06 PM
He came in with a policy to try to spend his way out of the recession.
Did he finance the spending through increased taxes or through deficit spending?
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 02:25:46 PM
I thought the gun registry already got abolished? I mean, personally I think a gun registry is a good idea, at least for cities, but not having one is not a big issue for me.
Its the long gun registry. Not the gun registry - that is still in place and there is no plan to remove that. Hand guns are still heavily restricted and iirc the new crime bills will put even more penalties on violating those restrictions.
The long gun registry was going to be abolished but at the last moment some rural NDP and Liberal candidates switched their votes to support the registery. Not sure if any of them got re-elected.
QuoteAnd what about health care? How much do you think they're going to play around with that? And abortion? I heard someone claim that Harper said he wouldn't touch abortion at all with a minority, implying that he had plans if he got a majority. Was that just more rumour mongering, or can we expect to see something there?
Harper expressly said during the election he would not touch the issue - so much for the rumour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:30:49 PMHarper expressly said during the election he would not touch the issue - so much for the rumour.
Well, I didn't hear it until after the election. I guess someone just insterted a "minority" into the quote, to cast some doubt on Harper's intentions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 02:28:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:17:06 PM
He came in with a policy to try to spend his way out of the recession.
Did he finance the spending through increased taxes or through deficit spending?
Deficit spending. His idea was that Ontario, on its own, could spend its way out. All major economists warned his plan would not work and that all that would be accomplished is that Ontario would end up with a high deficit, high unemployment and high taxes to pay for the fiasco.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 02:26:56 PM
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 dont know. I depend on you to tell me about why things occur in Quebec as they do. I do not pretend to understand politics within Quebec and I am very much an outside observer. You should read my comments as applying to areas outside of Quebec.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 02:26:56 PM
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?
Because there aren't that many fiscal conservatives to begin with.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 02:25:46 PM
That said, I expect some fucking around with climate issues, the census fuckery to stay in place and a general continuing weakening of services and help for the most vulnerable in our society (with a shifting of resources towards private, faith based initiatives). Are you thinking this will be pretty mild still, rather than a full blown front and centre agenda?
And what about health care? How much do you think they're going to play around with that? And abortion? I heard someone claim that Harper said he wouldn't touch abortion at all with a minority, implying that he had plans if he got a majority. Was that just more rumour mongering, or can we expect to see something there?
Not sure what you mean by "fucking around with climate issues". I think Harper's position is thathe is not going to take steps unilaterally. If there's a global agreement great, but he won't hobble Canadian business (and as both a northern nation, and an oil exporter, our per capita CO2 emissions are necessarily quite high).
I don't know what you mean by "general weakening of services" either. Any examples?
Health care is definitely going to be a big issue. The health care "deal" agreed to by Paul Martin, and lived up to by Harper, was to increase HC transfers 6% every year. Clearly that is not sustainable. Right now Harper has said he plans to continue with those increases, but that's going to make it VERY difficult to blance the budget any time soon.
CC set you straight on abortion. He said he has no plans, period. Same with dealth penalty.
Basically my take on Harper's Conservatism is that it definitely has a 'social conservative' side, but not really interested in sex. They want to support families, hard work, self-reliance, and taking responsibility for your actions, but aren't going to get worked up over who sleeps with who or profanity.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 02:43:10 PM
Basically my take on Harper's Conservatism is that it definitely has a 'social conservative' side, but not really interested in sex. They want to support families, hard work, self-reliance, and taking responsibility for your actions, but aren't going to get worked up over who sleeps with who or profanity.
And I think that is exactly why Harper has been successful. He is a true Conservative in the sense that he doesnt believe government should be interfering in private matters - which includes who sleeps with whom and the results of that.
The side of the Conservative movement that advocates for government inteference in those matters has always baffled me.
QuoteHealth care is definitely going to be a big issue. The health care "deal" agreed to by Paul Martin, and lived up to by Harper, was to increase HC transfers 6% every year. Clearly that is not sustainable. Right now Harper has said he plans to continue with those increases, but that's going to make it VERY difficult to blance the budget any time soon.
This will be the biggest issue of his mandate. I hope he continues to allow the provinces to create their own solutions regarding how to manage their own systems within the concept of a single payor system.
God damn Canadians fail at being conservative!
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
The side of the Conservative movement that advocates for government inteference in those matters has always baffled me.
Calvinism. We can only go to heaven if everyone in the community is God-fearing.
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 02:56:14 PM
God damn Canadians fail at being conservative!
Amercian Conservatism would never fly here. It is just too irrational and would only appeal to a fringe minority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 02:56:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
The side of the Conservative movement that advocates for government inteference in those matters has always baffled me.
Calvinism. We can only go to heaven if everyone in the community is God-fearing.
I understand its roots. I just dont understand why otherwise intelligent people still advocate the position.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 02:56:14 PM
God damn Canadians fail at being conservative!
Amercian Conservatism would never fly here. It is just too irrational and would only appeal to a fringe minority.
Ie Neil?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:59:29 PM
I understand its roots. I just dont understand why otherwise intelligent people still advocate the position.
The same reason there's so many shrill people on the left--it's a lot of fun to nag others for their moral failings.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 02:43:10 PMBasically my take on Harper's Conservatism is that it definitely has a 'social conservative' side, but not really interested in sex. They want to support families, hard work, self-reliance, and taking responsibility for your actions, but aren't going to get worked up over who sleeps with who or profanity.
That's a kind of social conservatism I can get behind, as long as it's open to go for results where the evidence supports it (i.e. rehabilitation programs that lower recidivism should be funded, because lower recidivism is a good thing).
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:54:29 PMAnd I think that is exactly why Harper has been successful. He is a true Conservative in the sense that he doesnt believe government should be interfering in private matters - which includes who sleeps with whom and the results of that.
The side of the Conservative movement that advocates for government inteference in those matters has always baffled me.
As long as that stays true, I'll be alright with Harper. Yeah, there'll be bits here and there I'll disagree with, but as long as harsh Social Conservatism remains a hobgoblin for debates rather than a matter of policy, it'll be alright.
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 02:56:14 PM
God damn Canadians fail at being conservative!
Amercian Conservatism would never fly here. It is just too irrational and would only appeal to a fringe minority.
Ie Neil?
Exactly.
I got my census form. I'll do the long form just to piss off the Cons.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 03:11:15 PM
I got my census form. I'll do the long form just to piss off the Cons.
That'll show em.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 03:12:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2011, 03:11:15 PM
I got my census form. I'll do the long form just to piss off the Cons.
That'll show em.
Only other thing would be to make Harper the PM that lost Quebec but I've got to wait 2 years to do that.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 03:09:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:54:29 PMAnd I think that is exactly why Harper has been successful. He is a true Conservative in the sense that he doesnt believe government should be interfering in private matters - which includes who sleeps with whom and the results of that.
The side of the Conservative movement that advocates for government inteference in those matters has always baffled me.
As long as that stays true, I'll be alright with Harper. Yeah, there'll be bits here and there I'll disagree with, but as long as harsh Social Conservatism remains a hobgoblin for debates rather than a matter of policy, it'll be alright.
Et Tu Yakob?
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 03, 2011, 02:56:14 PM
God damn Canadians fail at being conservative!
Amercian Conservatism would never fly here. It is just too irrational and would only appeal to a fringe minority.
Ie Neil?
No.
You don't have to lie to kick it Neil
I support Gray Wolfe's internet being metered.
I must admit Neil is an enigma to me. I can't quite figure him out.
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 04:49:36 PMEt 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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 04:49:36 PMEt 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.
Quote from: dps on May 03, 2011, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 04:49:36 PMEt 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.
Quote from: dps on May 03, 2011, 06:11:43 PMI 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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 02:26:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
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. :lol:
Don't feed the trope. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 06:51:24 PMGood 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...
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2011, 07:09:21 PMI 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 07:12:15 PMI'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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 07:12:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2011, 07:12:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2011, 05:46:45 PM
I must admit Neil is an enigma to me. I can't quite figure him out.
I'm not really all that mysterious. I just like what I like, and I like it forever.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 01:58:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 01:54:21 PM
So BB, what are the big agenda items we're going to see in the next four years? What's policy differences should we expect to see with a Conservative majority? What policy differences *may* we see?
Are we really going to get a seriously reformed Senate? Personally, I'm okay with the Senate that we have now, but I'd still definitely respect a civic minded reform by the Conservatives since they stand to benefit from the Senate status quo now that they have a majority.
I think we're going to see the various efforts that were tried by Harper, but he could not pass. Abolish the gun registry. Pas various anti-crime bills. Abolish subsidies to political parties. And yes Senate Reform.
What Harper has long been pushing was that since the Constitution couldn't be changed, he wanted to push for amendments that could happen without a constitutional amendment. So no changes to the distribution of seats, but senators to sit for fixed terms, not for life. Senators to be elected, not appointed.
My take:
Abolish the gun registry: who cares. Having a gun registry wouldn't bring the homicides down.
Anti-crime bills: some small adjustments would be needed. I fear the conservatives' approach will be wasteful at best and counterproductive at worst. Prevention is where the money is needed, community centres, revitalizing neighbourhoods and reserves. Not tougher sentences or building more prisons. That plays well in Alberta though. I was dumbfounded when I heard Harper's victory speech when he mentioned "finally we'll have safer streets and communities". What the fuck. As if that's a mjor problem in Canada.
Abolish subsidies to political parties: totally against. Cronyism at its best from the party that will naturally be favored the most from it.
Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.
What pisses me off the most is the corporate tax cuts, the cuts to funding for the arts and culture, those goddamn planes and the general attitude towards the media and other political parties.
We're in for 4 years of shit and deficits.
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2011, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: dps on May 03, 2011, 06:11:43 PMI 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.
Bolded part. Just watch them.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2011, 10:21:58 PMBolded part. Just watch them.
Well see soon enough.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2011, 10:21:01 PM
Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.
You clearly have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what actually has been happening in terms of senate reform.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2011, 10:21:01 PM
Anti-crime bills: some small adjustments would be needed. I fear the conservatives' approach will be wasteful at best and counterproductive at worst. Prevention is where the money is needed, community centres, revitalizing neighbourhoods and reserves. Not tougher sentences or building more prisons. That plays well in Alberta though. I was dumbfounded when I heard Harper's victory speech when he mentioned "finally we'll have safer streets and communities". What the fuck. As if that's a mjor problem in Canada.
If you're living in a nice high income area I guess you wouldn't see crime as a problem. But it is a substantial problem for a large number of Canadians.
What you're suggesting is not "small adjustments", but rather an almost complete rejection of the Conservatives strategy.
I will suggest that you're not terribly informed on the crime front. While "prevention" is of course an exceedingly good idea, in practice it is very hard to implement. Nobody knows who is going to become a criminal. "Revitalizing neighborhoods" sounds an awful lot like a slogan - what does that actually mean as a public policy? Community centres - sounds great, but there's almost no connection between community centres and crime. Building a community centre will not reduce the crime rate in any measurable way.
Prisons are badly crowded right now. Even if you didn't make one change to sentencing rules, we need new prisons. And guess what - modern, well funded prisons help reduce recidivism.
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!? :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2011, 11:27:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!? :mad:
When have I ever spoken out against transitional housing or drug and alcohol treatment centres? :huh:
Zoupa is really pissed off. Already a sign that things are going right.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:28:51 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2011, 11:27:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!? :mad:
When have I ever spoken out against transitional housing or drug and alcohol treatment centres? :huh:
Not so much that you've spoken against them, but your Machiavellian obsession with putting the accused in jail.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2011, 10:21:01 PM
Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.
You clearly have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what actually has been happening in terms of senate reform.
Most of what I heard is bitching and moaning about cronyism appointments when the cons where in the opposition just to have them do the exact same shit when they came into power.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
If you're living in a nice high income area I guess you wouldn't see crime as a problem. But it is a substantial problem for a large number of Canadians.
I live in Cote des Neiges, Montreal. Ask around, it's one of the most crowded and shit poor neighbourhood in the country. I'd like to see a national poll on crime perception throughout the country. I bet you it's wildly different than police stats that show crime is down across the board.
Quote
What you're suggesting is not "small adjustments", but rather an almost complete rejection of the Conservatives strategy.
I will suggest that you're not terribly informed on the crime front. While "prevention" is of course an exceedingly good idea, in practice it is very hard to implement. Nobody knows who is going to become a criminal. "Revitalizing neighborhoods" sounds an awful lot like a slogan - what does that actually mean as a public policy? Community centres - sounds great, but there's almost no connection between community centres and crime. Building a community centre will not reduce the crime rate in any measurable way.
All I can give you is my personnal experience: basically kids between 10-16 stealing shit or getting high/drunk and causing ruckus. And I can tell you they're out causing shit in our store or in the streets because there isn't any adult at home. Dad is either in jail, dead, a crackhead or simply ran away. Mom is out working her second job. I'm thinking if they're playing soccer or taking a swim, maybe they're not cutting each other or stealing my Tylenol PM.
Quote
Prisons are badly crowded right now. Even if you didn't make one change to sentencing rules, we need new prisons. And guess what - modern, well funded prisons help reduce recidivism.
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Shit dude. That sounds suspiciously NDP. Orange always was your colour :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2011, 11:30:45 PM
Zoupa is really pissed off. Already a sign that things are going right.
Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the discussion. :frog:
I'm not pissed off, yet. I'm sure it won't take long though. I'm thinking once the budget passes.
Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post. A serious response will need to wait till morning.
Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 01:03:12 AM
Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post. A serious response will need to wait till morning.
Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...
Never mind your wife. You probably have to go to work tomorrow too.
This thread is useless without pics.
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2011, 01:22:16 AM
This thread is useless without pics.
What would you like to see?
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Next time vote NDP. :huh:
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 06:25:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2011, 01:22:16 AM
This thread is useless without pics.
What would you like to see?
If these 20 year old NDP MPs are hot.
Quote from: Fireblade on May 04, 2011, 08:16:38 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 06:25:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 04, 2011, 01:22:16 AM
This thread is useless without pics.
What would you like to see?
If these 20 year old NDP MPs are hot.
Some of them are yeah, in a 20s sort-of-anarchist way.
Here's some:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/04/the-really-new-democrats/
But I like this one the most; with her gun and "I still hate Bush" shirt
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/985085--reality-show-stars-students-museum-guides-meet-the-new-ndp-mps?bn=1
Quote from: Josephus on May 04, 2011, 08:35:30 AM
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/04/the-really-new-democrats/
Left hand column, middle one is the hottest, but in an unfriendly sort of way. If I have to pick, I like the top left cornor one most.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 04, 2011, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 04, 2011, 08:35:30 AM
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/04/the-really-new-democrats/
Left hand column, middle one is the hottest, but in an unfriendly sort of way. If I have to pick, I like the top left cornor one most.
The "unfriendly" one was I think the part-time bartender who speaks no French and was on a vacation in Vegas during the election ... :lol:
Well, people were whining that the same old gang was in Ottawa and that there weren't any new blood coming through. That's as newbie as you can get.
That said, blasting their lack of experience and their pisspoor background is a little bit hypocritical. People ought to start somewhere, and by definition candidacy is open to any citizen of any background. What do we want, citizen candidates or elitists, white collar candidates? It's not as if the Natural Law Party had been elected, NDP is legit and they have next to no organization in Quebec. Now they have an eternity to build one, it's do or die for them.
Plus it doesn't mean they won't be doing a good job after a while, and they do have the point of being perceived as closer to the population compared to the white collar businessmen and laywers who surf on on their contact blackbooks and get elected in castle ridings in which they vote the same party from brother and sister.
But that party blonde in Vegas... nah. I'm not sure if she even knows she's the new MP.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 04, 2011, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 04, 2011, 08:35:30 AM
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/04/the-really-new-democrats/
Left hand column, middle one is the hottest, but in an unfriendly sort of way. If I have to pick, I like the top left cornor one most.
Yes, that's the one no one outside the party can find.
Besides...it's not difficult work. They're members of a minority opposition. All they have to do is heckle and vote "no." to everything.
Quote from: Josephus on May 04, 2011, 09:17:28 AM
Besides...it's not difficult work. They're members of a minority opposition. All they have to do is heckle and vote "no." to everything.
And work their asses off 90 hours per week in their riding, participate in parliamentary committees, do ground work, and represent their riding in meetings and cocktails. All of that, while being thrown shit at them by ungrateful electors, medias, and other MPs.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 04, 2011, 12:02:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2011, 10:21:01 PM
Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.
You clearly have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what actually has been happening in terms of senate reform.
Most of what I heard is bitching and moaning about cronyism appointments when the cons where in the opposition just to have them do the exact same shit when they came into power.
because the then-Liberal dominated Senate was blocking several peices of legislation, and the minority Parliament was blocking Senate reform legislation. What would you expect them to do?
In any event, all of their appointments promised to resign and run once elected senate legislation was passed.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 04, 2011, 12:18:45 AM
I'm not pissed off, yet. I'm sure it won't take long though. I'm thinking once the budget passes.
Since you already know what budget they are going to pass - the exact same budget that was introduced when the opposition parties brought the government down, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote from: Drakken on May 04, 2011, 09:20:22 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 04, 2011, 09:17:28 AM
Besides...it's not difficult work. They're members of a minority opposition. All they have to do is heckle and vote "no." to everything.
And work their asses off 90 hours per week in their riding, participate in parliamentary committees, do ground work, and represent their riding in meetings and cocktails. All of that, while being thrown shit at them by ungrateful electors, medias, and other MPs.
It can be either of these examples.
The hard-working MPs work extremely hard, as you point out.
However there have certainly been MPs that don't show up in Parliament, don't do the rubber chicken circuit in their riding. They of course tend not to get re-elected.
Looks like Viper's riding might go NDP in the end.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 12:13:53 PM
Looks like Viper's riding might go NDP in the end.
meh. fuck that. If I find 6 pro-Cons who didn't vote, I'll give them a good head slap à la Gibbs.
Eh. Non-voters are the worst.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 01:03:12 AM
Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post. A serious response will need to wait till morning.
Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...
Ahem.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 05, 2011, 12:21:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 01:03:12 AM
Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post. A serious response will need to wait till morning.
Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...
Ahem.
My apologies. I'll find the original post. I had forgotten.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 04, 2011, 12:15:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
If you're living in a nice high income area I guess you wouldn't see crime as a problem. But it is a substantial problem for a large number of Canadians.
I live in Cote des Neiges, Montreal. Ask around, it's one of the most crowded and shit poor neighbourhood in the country. I'd like to see a national poll on crime perception throughout the country. I bet you it's wildly different than police stats that show crime is down across the board.
Well first of all if you pull crime stats my beloved northern Canada is ahead in every category by a staggering degree. :( So Montreal doesn't compare. But yes, statisticians tell us crime rates are down. Which is great. But it also doesn't mean a lot of communities aren't substantially affected by crime.
Quote
What you're suggesting is not "small adjustments", but rather an almost complete rejection of the Conservatives strategy.
I will suggest that you're not terribly informed on the crime front. While "prevention" is of course an exceedingly good idea, in practice it is very hard to implement. Nobody knows who is going to become a criminal. "Revitalizing neighborhoods" sounds an awful lot like a slogan - what does that actually mean as a public policy? Community centres - sounds great, but there's almost no connection between community centres and crime. Building a community centre will not reduce the crime rate in any measurable way.
All I can give you is my personnal experience: basically kids between 10-16 stealing shit or getting high/drunk and causing ruckus. And I can tell you they're out causing shit in our store or in the streets because there isn't any adult at home. Dad is either in jail, dead, a crackhead or simply ran away. Mom is out working her second job. I'm thinking if they're playing soccer or taking a swim, maybe they're not cutting each other or stealing my Tylenol PM.
[/quote]
But here's the problem.
I'll certainly agree that kids growing up in a single family home, exposed to criminality at a young age, have an increased chance to turn to crime themselves. No doubt about it. But the correlation is a lot less than 100%. Being poor, from a single family, with a father in jail, isn't even close to guaranteeing that you yourself will turn to crime (at least in a significant way). A lot of people grow up in such environments and turn out... well maybe not great, but they aren't the people who have multi-page criminal records.
If you go out and fund an extra YMCA (or whatever), it won't be the most at-risk youths that take advantage of it.
I've also seen examples in small communities. An enterprising RCMP officer helps to rebuild the local community rink in a first nations community. It's great - but there's no measurable reduction in crime either.
I don't want to poo-poo building community services in under privileged areas. I'm all for it. Bt "midnight basketball" will not solve crime.
Quote
Prisons are badly crowded right now. Even if you didn't make one change to sentencing rules, we need new prisons. And guess what - modern, well funded prisons help reduce recidivism.
Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it). If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment. More supported and transitional housing. More women's shelters. More mental health facilities. But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.
Shit dude. That sounds suspiciously NDP. Orange always was your colour :P
[/quote]
Well for starters, I'm a big believer in both carrot and stick. You can't offer rehabilitation if you don't have a big stick in the other hand. The NDP certainly doesn't seem interested in deterrence and denunciation.
Secondly, nobody (including the NDP) seems interested in the targeted drug and alcohol treatment centres, the transitional shelters for the mentally ill, that I talked about.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2011, 12:57:49 AM
Well for starters, I'm a big believer in both carrot and stick. You can't offer rehabilitation if you don't have a big stick in the other hand. The NDP certainly doesn't seem interested in deterrence and denunciation.
Secondly, nobody (including the NDP) seems interested in the targeted drug and alcohol treatment centres, the transitional shelters for the mentally ill, that I talked about.
I hear ya. Who knows for sure though, maybe one of those young NDP MPs that got elected en-masse in Quebec (or perhaps elsewhere in Canada for other parties, we did turf incumbents out everywhere), will speak up for initiatives like those. We have the gal who helps operate a tavern, the other gal who can't do a good interview in french but got ironically voted in by the old boomer vote thats so stuck in the federalist vs sovereigntist civil war, the first year poli-sci student in montreal, the karate instructor that sent the foreign affairs minister to the unemployment line. They certainly aren't likely to be the mouth-foaming old ideologues that all parties including the NDP itself carry as baggage; they aren't policy wonks nor are they likely to be muzzled by the wonks as effectively as they would in past parliaments. I was just reading a very partisan blog site full of Liberals and Conservatives bashing eachother and racing to be the first to declare these rookie MPs are all just closet sovereigntists with no experience and no hope of reelection in 4 years.
Maybe its just a bias of being young myself, but perhaps a parliament with a bunch of young people who had no real expectations (or presumably desire; they ran for the also-rans after all) when they got nominated of being elected, much less becoming big political operators, money movers, or even a shadow cabinet as official opposition can be a very good thing. they have 4 years to prove themselves; give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they'll prove to be much more constructive than your typical political types in Ottawa. Before, you had the Liberal snob from Toronto who said "vote for us because we pretend to care about you, then watch as we use and abuse power and patronage," you might have had a extremist Alberta Reformer who said "Lets lock every petty criminal up for life!". Then you had the NDP union thug from Hamilton or BC who said "all markets are evil, lets go on strike and bankrupt our employers every chance we get!" and of course, the Bloc members who just got turfed out would still be whining and whining some more about how discriminatory everyone supposedly is towards their "nation."
At least a few of these political newbies don't sound like they fit any of those stereotypical categories above. Having been nominated as NDPers means they likely don't want to lock up as many people for as long as you feel it necessary BB. But certainly in the case of the university students, teachers, etc (even the fake blond from Vegas must have some interest in political and social issues to go and get nominated by a serious political party). But maybe a greater exposure to different viewpoints than their parents, grandparents had will make them more willing to think about middle-road carrot and stick approaches to pressing issues. Neither gaol for all nor welfare for all are affordable or smart in the long-term. They could just all turn out to be duds, embarassments, closet separatists. Some might just turn out to be effective MPs at the riding level, and the bringers of new solutions on the hill. Even in a majority government where these NDPers especially won't get to write government bills, one would hope that ideas which have merit and are well reasoned/developed/proven to work can get a hearing at committees and debates, even if they are proposed by a young karate instructor.
Speaking of government bills and issues, is there any prospect of reforming a major drain on public finances aka the monthly welfare cheques that go to Metis outside the reserves (who frankly often spend it on booze, drugs, or on making babies they can't be parents for) and to corrupt chiefs on the reserves who never use the $$$ to actually build infrastructure and an economy? Seems to me the other parties would never tackle the issues due to political correctness (Libs) or not pissing off some base vote (NDP in northern canada). I'm hoping the Conservatives can do something to make sure this money actually has to be spent on building economic and social life in aboriginal communities and for aboriginals/metis who aren't eligible to live on a reserve. If that can't be done, then there must be means of renegotiating 140 years or so of treaties, accords, agreements that allowed the current situation to develop without a constitutional crisis or years of court battles. Its not like we haven't paid them in full for the land our cities now occupy.
We should have been smarter back in the day and allowed the Metis to simply be given land titles for the plots they were happily farming already in Manitoba/Saskatchewan; might have prevented alot of problems today with the Metis population. Seriously, either make welfare achieve something, or find a way to scrap and put the money into improving technology use in classrooms, making payments on the national debt, hiring police officers, expanding transit and other infrastructure. Its not like there aren't plenty of needs for these other things in our country, and every taxpayer dollar should matter equally and be treated with respect when allocated.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.progressive-economics.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2FFiscal-Record-GDP-jpg.jpg&hash=84cc5a0d15588e447bafb8785ca5adf4c32e01c3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.progressive-economics.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2FFiscal-Record-balance-yrs1.png&hash=3cea07f5f9143e1a35d753537f1cfdc284fddee1)
Percentage of NDP governments in Ontario and BC who left their ecnomies in worse shape due to ill considered leftist policies - 100%
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2011, 09:53:48 AM
Percentage of NDP governments in Ontario and BC who left their ecnomies in worse shape due to ill considered leftist policies - 100%
Link?
Have the participation numbers been released? I'm curious about the turnaround.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 05, 2011, 10:44:41 AM
Have the participation numbers been released? I'm curious about the turnaround.
G.
Canada: 61,4%
Quebec: 62,2%
Ontario: 62,2%
Alberta: 56,4%
BC: 61,1%
Yukon: 67,8%
(I think I included every place susceptible to be of interest to Languish posters. If not, http://enr.elections.ca/Provinces_f.aspx )
Quote from: Grallon on May 05, 2011, 10:44:41 AM
Have the participation numbers been released? I'm curious about the turnaround.
G.
I think it ended up being a couple points higher than last election
Funny editorial cartoon in The globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-may-2011/article2006332/
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 12:32:10 PM
Funny editorial cartoon in The globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-may-2011/article2006332/
:D
Funny 'cause it's true. More or less.
Reason #3485 why the perennially amatuerish NDPers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306347 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306347)
Quote
Canada's NDP Deputy Leader questions bin Laden photo existence
Montreal - Canada's New Democratic Party is now the official Opposition party in the House of Commons after a historic federal election Monday. But the party's Deputy Leader is now in hot water after he questioned the existence of photos of Osama bin Laden.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has made the headline news quite a bit this week. It was earlier reported that Mulcair would take care of newly elected Member of Parliament Ruth Ellen Brosseau's Berthier-Maskinonge riding in Quebec until she learns how to speak French.
Despite his goodwill for the party, Mulcair may be in hot water with other members of his party, Canadian voters and the United States government.
In an interview with CBC Television Wednesday, Mulcair questioned the existence of the photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse, according to the Globe and Mail. The Deputy Leader's comments come after President Barack Obama refused to release the photos.
"I don't think from what I've heard that those pictures exist," said Mulcair during an interview with CBC's Power and Politics. "I think that if there is something that went on there, it requires a full analysis, and we have to understand whether or not there was an action where there was an action in self-defence or whether it was something that is more in the style of a direct killing. And that has to do with American law and international law as well." On Thursday morning, Mulcair retracted his comments on CBC Montreal's Daybreak. The New Democrat veteran blamed his "meandering" remarks on election "fatigue."
"I take full responsibility for the meandering nature of that back and forth," said Mulcair. "I'll put that on the account of a certain fatigue and our joy at our victory the other night."
Meanwhile, his NDP colleagues are attempting to distance themselves from Mucair's doubts.
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar issued a statement that said his party has no doubts that the photos are real and that they completely believe the U.S. President's accounts of bin Laden's death, reports CTV News.
"We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama's statement," said Dewar. "As (NDP leader) Jack Layton said the other day, we are happy the U.S. tracked down Osama bin Laden. The public's right to know must be balanced with public safety concerns."
:lol: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 12:32:10 PM
Funny editorial cartoon in The globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-may-2011/article2006332/
More or less the same in The Gazette: http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 05, 2011, 12:40:51 PM
Reason #3485 why the perennially amatuerish NDPers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306347 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306347)
Quote
Canada's NDP Deputy Leader questions bin Laden photo existence
Montreal - Canada's New Democratic Party is now the official Opposition party in the House of Commons after a historic federal election Monday. But the party's Deputy Leader is now in hot water after he questioned the existence of photos of Osama bin Laden.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has made the headline news quite a bit this week. It was earlier reported that Mulcair would take care of newly elected Member of Parliament Ruth Ellen Brosseau's Berthier-Maskinonge riding in Quebec until she learns how to speak French.
Despite his goodwill for the party, Mulcair may be in hot water with other members of his party, Canadian voters and the United States government.
In an interview with CBC Television Wednesday, Mulcair questioned the existence of the photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse, according to the Globe and Mail. The Deputy Leader's comments come after President Barack Obama refused to release the photos.
"I don't think from what I've heard that those pictures exist," said Mulcair during an interview with CBC's Power and Politics. "I think that if there is something that went on there, it requires a full analysis, and we have to understand whether or not there was an action where there was an action in self-defence or whether it was something that is more in the style of a direct killing. And that has to do with American law and international law as well." On Thursday morning, Mulcair retracted his comments on CBC Montreal's Daybreak. The New Democrat veteran blamed his "meandering" remarks on election "fatigue."
"I take full responsibility for the meandering nature of that back and forth," said Mulcair. "I'll put that on the account of a certain fatigue and our joy at our victory the other night."
Meanwhile, his NDP colleagues are attempting to distance themselves from Mucair's doubts.
NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar issued a statement that said his party has no doubts that the photos are real and that they completely believe the U.S. President's accounts of bin Laden's death, reports CTV News.
"We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama's statement," said Dewar. "As (NDP leader) Jack Layton said the other day, we are happy the U.S. tracked down Osama bin Laden. The public's right to know must be balanced with public safety concerns."
:lol: :rolleyes:
What he's trying to say in his meandering retraction is that he was quite drunk at the time. :lol:
Which was quite true. Dude was the sole NDP mp in Quebec, now he's got 58 other kids to look out for. I'd get drunk too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Flolharper.jpg&hash=36143e3411c7b2c0541b1f4c05dd23f3a8fa8f87)
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 01:46:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Flolharper.jpg&hash=36143e3411c7b2c0541b1f4c05dd23f3a8fa8f87)
Step 3: Profit!
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 01:46:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Flolharper.jpg&hash=36143e3411c7b2c0541b1f4c05dd23f3a8fa8f87)
Yes. I feel this was an issue for me and two or three other Canadians in all, unfortunately.
Was this just a political miscalculation by the Liberals of Franz von Papenesque proportions? People seemed to be predicting this outcome so why did they do it?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2011, 01:53:48 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 01:46:31 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Flolharper.jpg&hash=36143e3411c7b2c0541b1f4c05dd23f3a8fa8f87)
Yes. I feel this was an issue for me and two or three other Canadians in all, unfortunately.
Not really. Remember 60 per cent didn't vote for this git.
And, to fudge some figures. Harper only got 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of Canadians that voted.---Which is what? 24 per cent of the country, then that voted for him? Less than a quarter.
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PMNot really. Remember 60 per cent didn't vote for this git.
Perhaps, but I didn't feel the whole "Harper, the control freak who undermine our institutions" had lots of traction during the campaign.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2011, 02:04:48 PM
Was this just a political miscalculation by the Liberals of Franz von Papenesque proportions? People seemed to be predicting this outcome so why did they do it?
First, nobody predicted this would happen. Most assumed the results of this election would be more or less the same as the last - the implosion of the liberals, the extermination of the Bloc, the rise of the NDP and the Con majority came as a surprise to almost
everyone - the "joke" being, most of all a surprise to the NDP, who fielded "candidates" in Quebec who were
supposed to be purely nominal and in some cases did not bother to campaign (one was a part-time bartender who took a trip to Vegas during the short election period).
What the Libs appeared to want (or at least what the Cons accused them of) was to make some modest gains and put together a coalition with them in the lead. Since this was the only sensible reason for holding an election, it seemed to make sense.
So, having wandered by again and being too lazy to read over 46 pages worth (or more, if there are more than two threads) of posts...can anyone tell me what happened to the Bloc? Why did they collapse?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2011, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PMNot really. Remember 60 per cent didn't vote for this git.
Perhaps, but I didn't feel the whole "Harper, the control freak who undermine our institutions" had lots of traction during the campaign.
a good lie needs to contain a bit of truth. But it also must not be disproven as pure bs. It worked for the previous 2 election, all this while hidden agenda. Coming back at it for a 3rd time, with one of the worst control freak Quebec ever had for a politician was one too many times.
Gosh, if I ever have to hear about the whole "contempt of Parliament" thing again...
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2011, 03:55:20 PM
Gosh, if I ever have to hear about the whole "contempt of Parliament" thing again...
You're filled with contempt for "contempt of Parliament" aren't you?
Quote from: Agelastus on May 05, 2011, 02:24:45 PM
So, having wandered by again and being too lazy to read over 46 pages worth (or more, if there are more than two threads) of posts...can anyone tell me what happened to the Bloc? Why did they collapse?
Oex version: one dubious poll made people change their heart, lose their faith, abandon all hope, throw themselves at the mercy of the Devil.
PQ version: this vote had nothing to do with sovereignty, it does not concern us, it is meaningless, we are perfect, we have no need for this 'change' you speak of.
Cons version: this vote marks the end of the independance idea in Quebec. Quebecers are now happy citizens of Canada just like everyone else.
My version: Duceppe painted himself and his party into a corner. He made this on a left vs right basis because he knew people were tired of the sovereignty debate in Ottawa. Now, on the one hand, you have a control freak, just as bas as Harper, readily aligning himself with union leaders who are knee deep in the corruption scandals hitting the news for the last 2 years. On the other hand, you got this cool pappy walking with a cane, always smiling. The NDP came and proposed some things that pleased people a lot, like a grandfather giving candies to his grandchildren. The Bloc attacked Harper, painted him as a devil, his supporters as western cowboys and saying the only way to prevent the Western rightwingers with alien values of their triumph was to vote for him. Once he realized he got shifted by the turtle on his left, he changed his attack, going vicious on good ol' Jack. While demonizing Harper is easy, because he is cold, rational, totally unemotional, doing so with Jack Layton, the guy next door, who talks a lot but knows nothing was a no-win scenario for the Bloc. In the end, they tried to shift back their campaign on the sovereignty&nationalism issues: real Québécois only vote for the Bloc, it's a solemn duty to all those who favour independance to vote Bloc.
People here didn't want to vote for Harper, this utterly dangerous rightwing maniac (tm Bloc Québécois). they saw the NDP as a better left wing alternative than the Bloc.
Seriously, Viper, how did you come about your extraordinary talent for grossly caricaturing anyone you perceive as either your political opponents or even only remotely connected to your usual nemesis? You are dangerously close to becoming a caricature of yourself.
Quote from: Barrister on May 05, 2011, 03:55:20 PM
Gosh, if I ever have to hear about the whole "contempt of Parliament" thing again...
I've a feeling we'll be hearing a lot more from it over the next four years. :(
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2011, 04:13:28 PM
Seriously, Viper, how did you come about your extraordinary talent for grossly caricaturing anyone you perceive as either your political opponents or even only remotely connected to your usual nemesis? You are dangerously close to becoming a caricature of yourself.
Its not just his political opponents. C'est un talent que viper possede pour tout ce qui lui déplait.
plus ca change plus ca la meme chose :ph34r:
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PM
And, to fudge some figures. Harper only got 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of Canadians that voted.---Which is what? 24 per cent of the country, then that voted for him? Less than a quarter.
:lol: This sounds exactly like the nutbar Republicans in the US that try to rationalize away the fact that Clinton was elected, twice, with no majority.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PM
And, to fudge some figures. Harper only got 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of Canadians that voted.---Which is what? 24 per cent of the country, then that voted for him? Less than a quarter.
:lol: This sounds exactly like the nutbar Republicans in the US that try to rationalize away the fact that Clinton was elected, twice, with no majority.
True.
But I'm not saying that. ;) :contract:
Harper won his majority fair and square--that's how our system works. I don't hold that against him.
Oex said he was wondering with all the stuff about Harper being in contempt of parliament (sorry, Beeb) why so many voted for him.
I was merely correcting him.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PM
And, to fudge some figures. Harper only got 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of Canadians that voted.---Which is what? 24 per cent of the country, then that voted for him? Less than a quarter.
:lol: This sounds exactly like the nutbar Republicans in the US that try to rationalize away the fact that Clinton was elected, twice, with no majority.
The 'secret agenda' people are roughly as wretched as the US militia types, birthers or the more extreme Tea Partiers.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2011, 04:13:28 PM
Seriously, Viper, how did you come about your extraordinary talent for grossly caricaturing anyone you perceive as either your political opponents or even only remotely connected to your usual nemesis? You are dangerously close to becoming a caricature of yourself.
I knew you were gonna say something like this :)
I couldn't write a 300 page essay on the subject, that's why you find it imprecise.
But you said yourself earlier in this thread it was all because of one crappy poll. Don't have the heart to digg it, but I was disapointed to see you use the party line. Two different surveys around the same time showed a push for the NDP, those immediatly after showed a push to the NDP.
Saying it all started from a dubious poll was, imho, a bad attempt at rationalizing an irrational behavior.
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2011, 02:12:47 PM
First, nobody predicted this would happen. Most assumed the results of this election would be more or less the same as the last - the implosion of the liberals, the extermination of the Bloc, the rise of the NDP and the Con majority came as a surprise to almost everyone - the "joke" being, most of all a surprise to the NDP, who fielded "candidates" in Quebec who were supposed to be purely nominal and in some cases did not bother to campaign (one was a part-time bartender who took a trip to Vegas during the short election period).
There were lots of people, including me, who predicted that the Cons could very well end up with a Majority and for that reason the opposition forcing an election at this time was a daft idea. You just need to go to the beginning of this thread to see that. What surprised everyone is that the NDP would replace the Bloc in Quebec and that the Liberals would be destroyed. I thought it would be the NDP who would suffer the most.
However, as much as Jack is going to enjoy teaching the kids how to function as MPs, he still had more clout under a minority government then he does now. So the answer Valmy is Yes, it was a huge miscalculation for the opposition to force this election. Iggy's only hope was that the polls would change during the election. They did, but unfortunately for Iggy not in the way he was hoping.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 05, 2011, 06:10:50 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 05, 2011, 02:08:41 PM
And, to fudge some figures. Harper only got 40 per cent of the 60 per cent of Canadians that voted.---Which is what? 24 per cent of the country, then that voted for him? Less than a quarter.
:lol: This sounds exactly like the nutbar Republicans in the US that try to rationalize away the fact that Clinton was elected, twice, with no majority.
Yep, fact is 40% of the popular vote is considered a healthy majority by Canadian standards. 50% is almost impossible to achieve. Ironically for the left the last two governments to achieve that were both Conservative.
Also, Josephus should apply the same math to the percentage of people who voted for the NDP....
What I dislike by that math is that somehow all those people that didn't vote somehow made a choice to not vote for the cons.
They didn't, they didn't vote. They made no choice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2011, 11:34:15 AM
What I dislike by that math is that somehow all those people that didn't vote somehow made a choice to not vote for the cons.
They didn't, they didn't vote. They made no choice.
As the infamous Canadian philosopher Neil Peart once quipped.
"If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice." :)
EDIT: What Habbaku said.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 06, 2011, 11:52:00 AM
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
I haven't watch any Golf on tv this year. Did I made that choice is I wasn't aware that golf was on tv?
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2011, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 06, 2011, 11:52:00 AM
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
I haven't watch any Golf on tv this year. Did I made that choice is I wasn't aware that golf was on tv?
Was what fuck.
is=if?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 05, 2011, 02:12:47 PM
First, nobody predicted this would happen. Most assumed the results of this election would be more or less the same as the last - the implosion of the liberals, the extermination of the Bloc, the rise of the NDP and the Con majority came as a surprise to almost everyone - the "joke" being, most of all a surprise to the NDP, who fielded "candidates" in Quebec who were supposed to be purely nominal and in some cases did not bother to campaign (one was a part-time bartender who took a trip to Vegas during the short election period).
There were lots of people, including me, who predicted that the Cons could very well end up with a Majority and for that reason the opposition forcing an election at this time was a daft idea. You just need to go to the beginning of this thread to see that. What surprised everyone is that the NDP would replace the Bloc in Quebec and that the Liberals would be destroyed. I thought it would be the NDP who would suffer the most.
However, as much as Jack is going to enjoy teaching the kids how to function as MPs, he still had more clout under a minority government then he does now. So the answer Valmy is Yes, it was a huge miscalculation for the opposition to force this election. Iggy's only hope was that the polls would change during the election. They did, but unfortunately for Iggy not in the way he was hoping.
Heh, just for laughs I looked at what was said in the other thread - we both were tentative about the possibility of a con majority (I did not like it, for the same reason I don't now - fear it will lead to corruption etc.). I was more correct in predicting the lib implosion, though. Neither of us commented on the Bloc, and your one firm prediction was that the NDP would lose seats.
Your post was that the cons had a "shot at a majority or the status quo":
QuoteThis feels a bit contrived to me. There is no burning issue to go to the polls over. It seems to me the Liberals motivation is to see if Iggy will sink or swim and if he sinks to move on to another period of party "renewal". I have no idea what Layton's motivation is. The NDP will lose seats. The conservatives can't be all that unhappy because they have a shot at a majority or the status quo. I dont know enough about politics within Quebec to know what the Bloc is thinking but they might be forced to vote against the budget because they didnt get all the funding they wanted.
Mine, that a con minority was "most likely", but that the election did not "bode well" for the libs:
QuoteWhat annoys me is that, even after years in the wilderness, the Libs simply don't have their act together. They just don't. That bodes badly for this election. The most likely (and possibly best) outcome is another Conservative minority, with Iggy being dumped and the libs, finally, getting their game on. In short, that the next election will be the "real" election.
Worst case? Conservative majority, allowing the cons to get just as complacent and corrupt as the libs used to be - there are worrying signs already in that direction. It seems part of the natural life cycle of Canadian politics that some party get imbedded into power like a tick on a dog's balls, grow increasingly corrrupt, and then spectacularly implode - to make way for another party to do the same ...
Only time will tell if my "worst case" prediction will come true.
You are correct in that neither of us saw calling an election as being a particularly good idea for the opposition.
I was thinking more about my post in response to Josephus:
QuoteWhat a terrible rationale for forcing an election in which your party is going to lose seats. Not that I am complaining too much. Chances are the conservatives will finally win a majority and we can forget about the threat of the NDP trying to influence any policy in this country.
They can go back to heckling in the back rows as is their customary place.
The thing I got wrong was what would happen to the NDP.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4648.msg233121#msg233121
Malthus:
What I meant was that it seemed like people were predicting the Conservative majority if the Liberals forced an election. The other stuff: their implosion, the NDP wave of powah, and the Lettowist collapse were surprising but I presumed the very reason to force an election in the first place was to get a new government not change the nature of the opposition. Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2011, 02:02:00 PM
Malthus:
What I meant was that it seemed like people were predicting the Conservative majority if the Liberals forced an election. The other stuff: their implosion, the NDP wave of powah, and the Lettowist collapse were surprising but I presumed the very reason to force an election in the first place was to get a new government not change the nature of the opposition. Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.
Not necessarily: the issue was whether, following an election which gave the cons a minority, Iggy could cobble together a coallition gov't and become PM. That's what Harper accused him of, anyway, and it sorta stuck since it seemed likely enough.
In short - a con majority was always a
possibilty, but no-one right up to election night thought it was a shoo-in; anything less than a majority would provide good grounds for a coallition gov't; assuming of course that the Libs were alive to lead it.
In sum, Iggy was gambling on the vote spread panning out more or less the same (if not picking up some seats), which would enable him to create a governing coallition. The Lib implosion made that impossible - even assuming the Cons got a minority (which they didn't).
One of the factors that led to the current results was the dislike on the part of the public for having such an unstable coallition - I think that scared a good number of voters over to the Cons. It was of course assumed that the coallition would be led by the Libs but be beholden to the socialists and the seperatists.
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2011, 02:02:00 PM
Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.
It was a gamble that things would break his way. The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something. They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.
Layton just got lucky. The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2011, 02:02:00 PM
Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.
It was a gamble that things would break his way. The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something. They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.
Layton just got lucky. The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats.
I'm sure it will leak out eventually. I do wonder what the reasoning behind bringing down the Conservatives was.
Of course at the time nobody expected the NDP surge, and Liberal collapse, but even absed on the polls at the time it seemed a curious move.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2011, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 06, 2011, 02:02:00 PM
Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.
It was a gamble that things would break his way. The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something. They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.
Layton just got lucky. The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats.
I'm sure it will leak out eventually. I do wonder what the reasoning behind bringing down the Conservatives was.
Of course at the time nobody expected the NDP surge, and Liberal collapse, but even absed on the polls at the time it seemed a curious move.
I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:00:59 PM
I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.
And how do you think found the Conservatives were found in "contempt of Parliament"? :lol:
It was by the opposition getting together and voting on a motion saying they were - which I believe was felt to be a vote of no-confidence. It's not as if there was some neutral, independent party that made that pronouncement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Yep, fact is 40% of the popular vote is considered a healthy majority by Canadian standards. 50% is almost impossible to achieve. Ironically for the left the last two governments to achieve that were both Conservative.
Also, Josephus should apply the same math to the percentage of people who voted for the NDP....
Huh what?
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2011, 03:03:11 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:00:59 PM
I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.
And how do you think found the Conservatives were found in "contempt of Parliament"? :lol:
It was by the opposition getting together and voting on a motion saying they were - which I believe was felt to be a vote of no-confidence. It's not as if there was some neutral, independent party that made that pronouncement.
I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.
Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:06:34 PM
I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.
Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.
You said IMO, which I can respect. I found it meaningless, personally. Nobody has ever been held in "contempt of Parliament" because the opposition invented it.
If you have a majority of votes in Parliament, you can declare anyone, anything. You could be declared in contempt of Parliament tomorrow with 155 votes.
I can understand if Iggy didn't like, or didn't trust, Harper. But he should know it doesn't matter what he thinks - it matters what he thinks the voters will do.
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2011, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:06:34 PM
I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.
Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.
You said IMO, which I can respect. I found it meaningless, personally. Nobody has ever been held in "contempt of Parliament" because the opposition invented it.
If you have a majority of votes in Parliament, you can declare anyone, anything. You could be declared in contempt of Parliament tomorrow with 155 votes.
I can understand if Iggy didn't like, or didn't trust, Harper. But he should know it doesn't matter what he thinks - it matters what he thinks the voters will do.
Sometimes you need to do what honor demands :frog:
Professor Ignatieff has a certain panache, a je ne sais quoi. I don't expect you to understand. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 01:34:58 PM
I was thinking more about my post in response to Josephus:
QuoteWhat a terrible rationale for forcing an election in which your party is going to lose seats. Not that I am complaining too much. Chances are the conservatives will finally win a majority and we can forget about the threat of the NDP trying to influence any policy in this country.
They can go back to heckling in the back rows as is their customary place.
The thing I got wrong was what would happen to the NDP.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4648.msg233121#msg233121
And the one thing I will give you credit for is you stuck by "the Conservatives have a very good chance of winning a majority" from beginning to end, even when top analysts were starting to have doubts. At least you've been consistent from the get-go.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 06, 2011, 03:11:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:06:34 PM
I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.
Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.
You said IMO, which I can respect. I found it meaningless, personally. Nobody has ever been held in "contempt of Parliament" because the opposition invented it.
If you have a majority of votes in Parliament, you can declare anyone, anything. You could be declared in contempt of Parliament tomorrow with 155 votes.
I can understand if Iggy didn't like, or didn't trust, Harper. But he should know it doesn't matter what he thinks - it matters what he thinks the voters will do.
Sometimes you need to do what honor demands :frog:
Professor Ignatieff has a certain panache, a je ne sais quoi. I don't expect you to understand. :P
Yes. Which is why, to my credit, I always said since the beginning of the other thread, that Layton at least went by his principles. Even though, at the time it looked like a bad move for the NDP, and I even agreed, he still voted against the budget which his Party could not agree to as it stood.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:15:33 PM
Sometimes you need to do what honor demands :frog:
Professor Ignatieff has a certain panache, a je ne sais quoi. I don't expect you to understand. :P
Trust me, nobody understands betetr than I running a battle (e.g. a trial or a bail hearing) that I expect to lose, merely because circumstances demand that it must be done. :bowler:
But I have my doubts that makes for very good political strategy however. I would be disappointed if the election were held merely because the Liberals and NDP were trapped by their own rehetoric, although that does seem to be what happened. :hmm:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:03:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Yep, fact is 40% of the popular vote is considered a healthy majority by Canadian standards. 50% is almost impossible to achieve. Ironically for the left the last two governments to achieve that were both Conservative.
Also, Josephus should apply the same math to the percentage of people who voted for the NDP....
Huh what?
Now you are just being stupid. Do you have any idea what % of the vote majority government usually get in this country?
That last one to get 50% was Mulroney the time before that was Def the Chief. So
Huh what? right back at you.
and here is a handy chart for you. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-2004.html
you will notice a lot of majorities are elected with 40% or less - at least in the modern era after the NDP entered the fray.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 04:00:05 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 06, 2011, 03:03:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 06, 2011, 11:13:54 AM
Yep, fact is 40% of the popular vote is considered a healthy majority by Canadian standards. 50% is almost impossible to achieve. Ironically for the left the last two governments to achieve that were both Conservative.
Also, Josephus should apply the same math to the percentage of people who voted for the NDP....
Huh what?
Now you are just being stupid. Do you have any idea what % of the vote majority government usually get in this country?
That last one to get 50% was Mulroney the time before that was Def the Chief. So
Huh what? right back at you.
and here is a handy chart for you. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-2004.html
you will notice a lot of majorities are elected with 40% or less - at least in the modern era after the NDP entered the fray.
I know 40% is usually the magic number. I didn't know Mulroney got 50%. Why don't you calm the fuck down man.
Seriously, tone it down. You're coming across more and more as an arrogant asshole.
Jesus.