Languish.org

Option 1: Alberta Liberal Party
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Liberal_Party.jpg&hash=60d11f44c680c871684e6c1da8141860d9e9988f)
"Countries which out-educate and out-train us today will out-compete us tomorrow," says Alberta Liberal Leader Raj Sherman. "This is why the Alberta Liberals have introduced a fully-costed plan to immediately reduce tuition by $250 and progressively reduce it until it is eliminated completely by 2025."


Option 2: Alberta New Democratic Party
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FNDP.jpg&hash=9d28082df92ca8e7f8a7ad56795315cdb84a4208)
"Conservatives have delivered unacceptably low returns from our vast and valuable oilsands resources. It's time Albertans invest their prosperity with someone else" says Mason. "Liberals endorse the status quo. The Wildrose policy takes us further away from getting full value for our resources. New Democrats know that Albertans own the resource, so we'll do what it takes to get the most value, in terms of jobs and revenues."


Option 3: Alberta Party
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Party.jpg&hash=38631ae34d8be09504b2a9f450e22973fe11c062)
"I grew up in a Canadian military family with three brothers and a sister. In 1982 I moved to Alberta, settling in Hinton in 1986 where I have lived ever since. Hinton has been good to me; I met and married Donna and have two wonderful children. My daughter Kelsea is a nurse and son Zachary is a second year apprentice automotive mechanic. I love camping, quadding, fishing, and golfing – enjoying everything Alberta offers. When indoors I am often reading, balancing outdoor pursuits with continuous learning."


Option 4: Alberta Social Credit Party
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Social_Credit_Party.jpg&hash=77f159232cfc5e59cc890f291851d95e35c098a9)
"Social Credit is more than a political party.  It defines an economic system that enables a society to provide for the needs of its members. Enough money is provided to produce and consume the goods and services they need for a good standard of living. The Alberta Treasury Branch will be mandated to supply this money and will become the economic engine of Alberta.  Individuals, businesses and governments will keep the billions of dollars that are now being paid to banks and foreign shareholders as interest and dividends."


Option 5: Communist Party - Alberta
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FCommunist_Party_Alberta.jpg&hash=7b223b68870ed549bc5821137c11091c66f58c12)
"You have nothing to lose but your chains!"


Option 6: Evergreen Party of Alberta
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Evergreen.jpg&hash=7af8f455e248f2068e5b93eb099bf98e7a7fae0a)
"We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life."


Option 7: Separation Party of Alberta
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Seperation.jpg&hash=63e69abe28a8280ffe447ed03e84635f8e8fc135)
"I would like to apologize for the inactivity of the Separation Party of Alberta and the lack of updates on our web site. I take sole responsibility for this. In my own defense, I would point out that Mr. Harper had taken the wind out of the sails of the Separatist movement by keeping his promises, something that usually doesn't happen in federal politics. Add to that, life has been great in Alberta for the last few years and it seems that people grow complacent and don't take the time to look at what is happening around them when their pockets are full of money and for most people, politics is boring. Well, many Albertans pockets aren't full of money anymore and we are looking at an economic downturn, the likes of which many Albertans have never experienced."


Option 8: Wildrose Alliance Party
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Wildrose.jpg&hash=60a90dd369eb991fe55cb49dce69864ca0b56417)
"Albertans work hard, pay their taxes, and live within their means – and they expect their government to do the same. Each and every day, Alberta families make prudent and responsible spending decisions and save money for future expenses. Sometimes, this means making the tough choice to delay spending decisions and foregoing some luxuries until they can afford them."



Option 9: Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_PC.jpg&hash=ad870669b8c0be710c5c70e1056a9ccbf03b39e7)
"Alberta is a blessed province, filled with a wealth of natural resources and energetic, innovative people. But ensuring the future of our province can be as fortunate as our past means we need a plan now to address opportunities and overcome challenges."

What's this?  The right-wingers got the only babes?

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 03, 2012, 01:41:18 AM
What's this?  The right-wingers got the only babes?

In their defence they are Canadian right wingers... so a bit to the left of your Democrats.

Globe & Mail's poll of the standings as of April 2nd, 2012:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Farchive%2F01391%2Fnw-number-cruncher_1391085a.jpg&hash=efc4362438acac9b4cc41fc279540876cfb367e7)

Voted for the hottie.

Quote from: PRC on April 03, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Wildrose.jpg&hash=60a90dd369eb991fe55cb49dce69864ca0b56417)

I think I may have seen her (or someone looking rather similar) in a gangbang video once. I need to investigate.

Are all Albertans fat and ugly or is this just the politicians?

Quote"I grew up in a Canadian military family with three brothers and a sister. In 1982 I moved to Alberta, settling in Hinton in 1986 where I have lived ever since. Hinton has been good to me; I met and married Donna and have two wonderful children. My daughter Kelsea is a nurse and son Zachary is a second year apprentice automotive mechanic. I love camping, quadding, fishing, and golfing – enjoying everything Alberta offers. When indoors I am often reading, balancing outdoor pursuits with continuous learning."

Wtf. Is this a dating site entry or what? This does not present a single fact about that idiot's political platform.

Incidentally, maybe I'm slow this morning, but beats me if I could guess the political leanings of these people based on the blurbs that have been posted - this mostly seems like some general claptrap on how they love Alberta (which in itself should disqualify one from holding any job that requires a modicum of sanity) but no specific views are presented. Is this typical for Canada or are these blurbs posted ironically?

Progressive Conservatives?
LOL. Oxymoron much?

I don't know anything about that Wildrose party or its hottie leader but that quote makes me swoon so I voted for her.

I call rigged polling : the Progressive Conservative Party is not available.  :mad:

Quote from: Drakken on April 03, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
I call rigged polling : the Progressive Conservative Party is not available.  :mad:

:lol:  He's right!

Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2012, 03:58:52 AM
Incidentally, maybe I'm slow this morning, but beats me if I could guess the political leanings of these people based on the blurbs that have been posted - this mostly seems like some general claptrap on how they love Alberta (which in itself should disqualify one from holding any job that requires a modicum of sanity) but no specific views are presented. Is this typical for Canada or are these blurbs posted ironically?

I'm pretty sure the blurbs are posted somewhat ironically, but like any 21st century democracy the parties try very hard to avoid identifying themselves with any particular ideology.

I am amused by how wimpy the Lettowist part of Alberta is.  Harper is ever so dreamy and keeps his promises.  Yeah that will build up rage against the Federal State.

I took the quotes from the home pages  / leader pages of the parties websites. 

Option 7 is the Progressive Conservatives.

Quote from: PRC on April 03, 2012, 09:30:41 AM
I took the quotes from the home pages  / leader pages of the parties websites. 

Option 7 is the Progressive Conservatives.

So the Progressive Conservatives are Alberta's party of separatists?  :huh:

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 08:43:18 AM

Quote from: Drakken on April 03, 2012, 08:37:16 AM
I call rigged polling : the Progressive Conservative Party is not available.  :mad:

:lol:  He's right!

Fixed.

Thanks... this is the Alberta Elections site where you can learn more about the parties and their candidates: http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/603.cfm

If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

Wildrose seems to be polling pretty good in Calgary and they've got all the "water cooler" talk in the offices around me.

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

According to that I have a 76% match with the Liberals.

Quote from: Syt on April 03, 2012, 10:57:19 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

According to that I have a 76% match with the Liberals.

You suck. :mad:

 :(

68% match with the Wildrose Hottie.  Voted for her. :Canuck:

We had our first minor scandal during the campaign.  Launched from Twitter. :rolleyes:

A tweet was sent out questioning why, if Smith is so pro-family, she doesn't have any kids.  WRP's response is that her and her husband have tried, including seeing a fertility specialist, but haven't been able to conceive.  Tweeter turns out to work for the PCs and has been let go from his position.

How much of a real difference is there between the PC and the WRP?

Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
How much of a real difference is there between the PC and the WRP?

The buses.  That and the WRP apparently wants to bribe the people.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
How much of a real difference is there between the PC and the WRP?

My semi-outsider's impression is that Wild Rose is the PC's base showing dissatisfaction with the PC leadership's complacency.

So, here's the straight dope on all the parties:

The Liberals - They've decided to go all-in on health care.  Their leader is an MD and former Conservative MLA who was booted out of the party for criticizing the government's health policy, and they do have a bit of traction there, because health care is always a problem in every society.  Still, they're crippled by the 'Liberal' brand, and by their long-standing ties with the Alberta Teachers Association, the most hated union in the province.  The ATA is currently in a quiet period, but the last decade and change has been all about labour unrest for them, and their aggressive policies turned most of the province against them.  Unfortunately for the Liberals, they were with the ATA every step of the way.  They're in trouble, because a lot of the ridings that they relied upon for votes are in Edmonton, where NDP-voting has been gaining popularity.  Because I don't care about health care, I pretty much ignore these guys.

The NDP - They're the NDP.  Popular with college kids and the mentally ill, they're good advocates for some issues.  They're pushing the Liberals out of their traditional lefty strongholds in Alberta, but they're no threat to anyone.  They'd destroy the province if they got into government, just like they destroy every province they govern.  These guys are going to be what they always are.  2-5 seat tops.

The Alberta Party - Totally irrelevant.  Split off from the Liberals in an effort to ditch a toxic brand, something that had been done successfully in Saskatchewan and BC.  However, nobody went with them, and the best leadership candidate they could find was the mayor of Hinton, a small town near the Rockies.  They haven't had any interesting ideas, and as far as I can tell, the only thing they stand for is being elected.  They won't win a seat.

The Social Credit - Totally irrelevant.  The only people who even know who these guys are are the oldsters, and in a province full of young people here to work, they don't have a chance.

The Communists - They also have a woman leader (who is not even a little hot), and they do about as well as you would expect a communist party to do in North America.

The Evergreens - The rump of the old Green Party that fell apart due to lack of interest.  Becaue they're Greens, and as such are devoted to the destruction of Alberta's economy, their main constituency consists of a few weird hippies in the cities and ultra-right wing farmers who hate the oil industry.

The Separation Party - Totally irrelevant.  The election of the Conservatives to a majority government at the federal level has pretty much shut these guys up.  Also, the Wildrose is gobbling up the right-wing kooks that would normally fill their ranks.  If these guys manage more than a thousand votes province-wide, I'd be shocked.

The Wildrose - They'll probably win.  They have a young, well-spoken and charismatic leader whose party reflects the viewpoints of large swathes of Albertans.  However, these guys are free-marketeers, and deregulation has been a disaster in Alberta.  They also want to cut everybody a $300 cheque, which tells me that they're fiscally irresponsible.  I don't trust them with government.  They talk about property rights and choice in education, which is usually the sign of nutbars.

The PCs - The dynasty is crumbling, part of which is Redford's fault and part of which isn't.  They've been dead in the water in terms of direction and policy since the late Klein years, but Redford won the PC leadership contest with the help of the hated teachers union.  Some high-profile issues with MLAs getting their hand caught in the public purse, health care woes coupled with the governments attempts to coerce MDs into not speaking up about them and the government's plans to raise electricity rates that they already tripled via deregulation have hurt her, but all that might be survivable if it wasn't for the impression that she's just a Liberal who joined the Tories because she wanted to be in government.

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

71% PC and 70% WR

Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 12:47:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

71% PC and 70% WR

:hug:

I knew my brother-from-another-mother wasn't really a damn dirty liberal!  Strip away all the American labels and baggage and you're really a conservative!

Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 12:47:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
If anyone's curious there's a CBC "Voting compass" where you answer a series of questions, then it compares your answers to the 4 parties.

It placed me somewhere between Wildrose and the PCs, being somewhat closer to the PCs.  Which probably sounds about right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/features/votecompass.html

71% PC and 70% WR

Vote Neilist.

63% PC; 57 WR


But the questions were not balanced.  There was not one question reflecting the platforms of the communists or the separatists.

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 12:51:38 PM
I knew my brother-from-another-mother wasn't really a damn dirty liberal!  Strip away all the American labels and baggage and you're really a conservative!

People think I am a (NA flavor) liberal?  My rage at the Republicans probably makes me appear so but it is only because I really really really want to support them and be a Republican but they refuse to do anything that makes me feel able to do so.

Wildrose poised for majority according to polls: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wildrose-poised-for-majority-in-alberta-poll/article2391311/

Liberal 69%
NDP 61%
PC 60%

Wildrose 69%
PC 56%
Libs 54%
NDP 33%

WR: 63%
Lib: 63%
PC: 59%
NDP: 50%

LIB 74%
NDP 66%
PC 60%
WR 48%

Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 10:40:32 PM
LIB 74%
NDP 66%
PC 60%
WR 48%

Remember what I told Syt?

It goes double for you.
:mad: :mad:

PC 55%
WR 55%
LIB 48%
NDP 43%

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 12:51:38 PM:hug:

I knew my brother-from-another-mother wasn't really a damn dirty liberal!  Strip away all the American labels and baggage and you're really a conservative!

Did your dad sleep around a lot?

Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 11:38:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 03, 2012, 12:51:38 PM:hug:

I knew my brother-from-another-mother wasn't really a damn dirty liberal!  Strip away all the American labels and baggage and you're really a conservative!

Did your dad sleep around a lot?

:unsure:

He was and is a sportswriter... always on the road. Perhaps he grew lonely one night.

But still... in the 70s he was covering curling.  I doubt he made it down to DC or Texas.  AndI don't think the Winnipeg Tribune (now long since closed) sent him to cover the Redskins.

I rather call Valmy my "brother-by-another-mother" due the the uncanncy physical resemblance.

I got 71% Liberal, but as a Yanqui pigdog I had to vote for the separatist. :menace:

The Social Credit Party sounds like they know what they're talking about.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 03, 2012, 09:52:16 PM
WR: 63%
Lib: 63%
PC: 59%
NDP: 50%

You dont know what you want to be

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:53:13 AM
The Social Credit Party sounds like they know what they're talking about.

:yes:

A + B says it all.

Libertarian Socialists.

Quote from: Syt on April 03, 2012, 02:20:32 AM

Quote from: PRC on April 03, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Falberta%2FAlberta_Wildrose.jpg&hash=60a90dd369eb991fe55cb49dce69864ca0b56417)

I think I may have seen her (or someone looking rather similar) in a gangbang video once. I need to investigate.

That would certainly make the election more interesting, were it to go viral during the campaign.  :D

I don't understand what the PCs are doing.  So far their campaign is just releasing one bland announcement after another.

Wildrose is surging in all of the PCs strongholds.  They should be running some vicious attack ads against Wildrose for having no experience and being full of kooks.  Have they just plain forgotten how to run an election campaign?

How would they?  The last time the Alberta PCs faced a serious challenge was 20 years ago from Lawrence Decore's Liberals, after Getty tanked the province.

Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2012, 02:14:37 PM
How would they?  The last time the Alberta PCs faced a serious challenge was 20 years ago from Lawrence Decore's Liberals, after Getty tanked the province.

But surely they have some strategists who worked for Harper's Conservatives?

Perhaps the problem is that they in fact have strategists who worked for the federal Liberals instead.

Based on the compass:

PC - 60%
LIB - 58%
NDP - 49%
WR - 48%

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2012, 11:51:34 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:53:13 AM
The Social Credit Party sounds like they know what they're talking about.

:yes:

A + B says it all.

I don't get it. :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 06:28:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2012, 11:51:34 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2012, 01:53:13 AM
The Social Credit Party sounds like they know what they're talking about.

:yes:

A + B says it all.

I don't get it. :(

It's a SoCred joke. Major Douglass's whole economic philosophy/theory was summed up by A + B.

It was gibberish of course.

Wiebo Ludwig died...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/09/wiebo-ludwig-dead.html

Quote
Anti-oilpatch activist Wiebo Ludwig dies at 70

Controversial Alberta anti-oilpatch activist and convicted bomber Wiebo Ludwig has died, his son Josh has confirmed to CBC News.

Ludwig, 70, told CBC News last October that he had cancer of the esophagus and was not interested in undergoing chemotherapy or radiation treatment.

"Generally, they just extend your life a bit on all of those," he said. "And if that's all they're doing, I would just as soon sign off earlier."

Josh Ludwig released a statement Monday night saying his father had "entered eternal rest at home and surrounded by those he loved dearly."

Ludwig has long been a controversial figure in the Alberta oilpatch.

No one has ever been charged in the 1999 fatal shooting of teenager Karman Willis on his Trickle Creek farm.

In 2000, Ludwig was found guilty on five charges related to bombings and vandalism of oil and gas wells in northwestern Alberta. He served two-thirds of a 28-month prison sentence before he was released in 2001.

In January 2010, hundreds of RCMP officers searched his property looking for evidence related to six EnCana gas pipeline bombings. RCMP said they found his DNA on the envelope of a threatening letter sent to a local newspaper.

Ludwig was arrested and released after spending one night in jail. He was never charged.

In an interview last October with CBC News in Edmonton ahead of a screening of a documentary film about his life, Ludwig said he hoped he lived long enough to write a book about his fight.

"And probably publish it posthumously so they don't put me in jail," he said.

I voted before seeing the pics :(

Well, the Languish straw poll seems pretty definitely for the MILF Party.

Were I Albertan, I would take my chances with the WildRose.

The leader is a former CFIB regional director, so she knows about public policies.
The Conservatives have been there forever, time they go.

I kinda like Danielle Smith's backround at Fraser Institute and CFIB.

The CFIB seems to have taken up the language of the US Chamber of Commerce, and is thus not to be trusted.

I have: decided.

It was a combination of hearing several self-described 'liberals' or 'progressives' describe how they plan on voting PC, and now an endorsement from the one man whose endorsement would matter to me, Preston Manning.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/politics/6480559/story.html

I will be voting Wildrose next week.   :ph34r:

Poor Preston.  I mean, I can see why he did what he did, given that Redford has been shitting all over the Reform/Klein movement's record, but endorsing Wildrose?

Honestly, I think the time has come for me to create a new political party, one that can finally speak for all Albertans and which can govern the province according to principles of public order and justice, rather than falling upon the tired old tactics of bribery, corruption and hare-brained ideology.

Do you guys think that resembling Africa in the creation and extintion of political parties is a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Do you guys think that resembling Africa in the creation and extintion of political parties is a good thing or a bad thing?

Probably a good thing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Do you guys think that resembling Africa in the creation and extintion of political parties is a good thing or a bad thing?

We're not quite like Africa in that even though we only have a change in government every 20-40 years, those changes of government have been quite peaceful.

And it's worked for Alberta so far.   :)

Political parties Beeb, not government.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:42:30 AM
Political parties Beeb, not government.

It's quite common-place to say there has been a change in government when a new party takes power.  :huh:

I think the regular destruction of political parties is probably essential, certainly beneficial to healthy democracy.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 10:44:10 AM
I think the regular destruction of political parties is probably essential, certainly beneficial to healthy democracy.

I wouldn't go that far.  After all on the Federal scene the Liberals trace themselves right back to Confederation, as do the Conservatives (albeit with a couple of mergers and name changes along the way), and even the NDP has a heritage going back 80 years.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 10:44:10 AM
I think the regular destruction of political parties is probably essential, certainly beneficial to healthy democracy.

No.  I think it's for the best that the Tories and Liberals go back a couple hundred years.  Adds character :P

The Wild Rose leader has Hans writing her script on climate change. Her party is full of bigots and homophobes.  When she wins the migration from Alberta to this province will further support housing prices here.  Thank you BB and thank you Preston Manning.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
The Wild Rose leader has Hans writing her script on climate change. Her party is full of bigots and homophobes.  When she wins the migration from Alberta to this province will further support housing prices here.  Thank you BB and thank you Preston Manning.

Yeah, wish they'd tale a better stance on climate change than the "science is not yet settled" line.

Totally disagree about the 'bigots and homophobes' line.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
The Wild Rose leader has Hans writing her script on climate change. Her party is full of bigots and homophobes.  When she wins the migration from Alberta to this province will further support housing prices here.  Thank you BB and thank you Preston Manning.

I don't think that the homeless people we'll be putting on buses to Vancouver will do much for your property values.

At any rate, climate change policy simply doesn't matter in Alberta, and every party is full of bigots of various kinds.  One should oppose the Wildrose based on their poor public policy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Do you guys think that resembling Africa in the creation and extintion of political parties is a good thing or a bad thing?

I think the occasional creation and extinction of political parties is a good thing; competition in the marketplace of ideas and politics is generally healthy. Not sure why you're comparing it to Africa specifically; that seems both strangely specific and strangely broad at the same time.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:03:23 PM
I think the occasional creation and extinction of political parties is a good thing; competition in the marketplace of ideas and politics is generally healthy. Not sure why you're comparing it to Africa specifically; that seems both strangely specific and strangely broad at the same time.

I was looking for a place that had parties appear and disappear frequently.  My first thought was Latin America, but I think they tend to stick with "Conservative" and "Liberal." 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:05:45 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 12:03:23 PM
I think the occasional creation and extinction of political parties is a good thing; competition in the marketplace of ideas and politics is generally healthy. Not sure why you're comparing it to Africa specifically; that seems both strangely specific and strangely broad at the same time.

I was looking for a place that had parties appear and disappear frequently.  My first thought was Latin America, but I think they tend to stick with "Conservative" and "Liberal."

I don't think there's any place in the world with a more-or-less democratic system of government that has seen a pattern like Alberta, where the governing party tends to be replaced by a new party that is broadly pretty similar, with the old party to then wither away and die.

I think Yi knows this, but since Alberta was created in 1905 our governing parties have been:

Liberal Party: 1905-1921
United Farmers of Alberta: 1921-1935
Social Credit: 1935-1971
Progressive Conservative: 1971-present

For what its worth the Liberals and Social Credit haven't disappeared completely.  Liberals have almost always been the official opposition  (though not really ever competitive enough to win), and the SoCreds continue to exist as a fringe party.  Heck even the UFA still exists, but not as a political party.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 12:05:45 PMI was looking for a place that had parties appear and disappear frequently.  My first thought was Latin America, but I think they tend to stick with "Conservative" and "Liberal."

Once every few decades doesn't strike me as particularly frequent. Denmark and Israel have that sort of thing going as well.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Do you guys think that resembling Africa in the creation and extintion of political parties is a good thing or a bad thing?

Generally a good thing. Avoids the "I voted for Kodos!" quality of the US style system, with two seemingly eternal parties.  :lol:

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:06:08 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
The Wild Rose leader has Hans writing her script on climate change. Her party is full of bigots and homophobes.  When she wins the migration from Alberta to this province will further support housing prices here.  Thank you BB and thank you Preston Manning.

Yeah, wish they'd tale a better stance on climate change than the "science is not yet settled" line.

Totally disagree about the 'bigots and homophobes' line.

Ok, perhaps it is only a candidate who has won a nomination that is a bigot and a homophobe.  But one wonders who voted for him in the nomination meeting. :hmm:

And then there is the would be Premier's actions in defending these kinds of comments as an issue of separation between Church and State?!?!  One wonders why she tolerates this sort of thing.

QuoteEDMONTON - Allan Hunsperger, 64, is the Wildrose candidate in the new riding of Edmonton Southwest. According to his party website, he's a broadcaster, businessman, sports fan, and a leader in Alberta's Christian private school movement.

The website fails to mention he's also pastor at an evangelical church in Tofield, The House.

It also neglects to say that Hunsperger is an unabashed old-school homophobe who makes Rick Santorum look like a drag queen at a Pride Parade.

Last June, a few months before Hunsperger secured a Wildrose nomination, he published a pastoral letter on his church website, attacking the Edmonton public school board as "godless" and "wicked" and "profane," condemning the district's recent measures to protect gay and lesbian students and staff from discrimination. Hunsperger sees homosexuality as Satan's trap. Homosexuals who don't change, he writes, "will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering."

"Warning people not to live the way they were born is not judgment or condemnation — it is love!" Hunsperger writes. "Accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving."

Ironically, Hunsperger's party leader seems quite content to accept the pastor just the way he is.

"If Mr. Hunsperger were making those comments at a political forum, sure, I'd have something to say about it," Danielle Smith told the Edmonton Journal editorial board Monday. "But he's not. He's a pastor, and it's not my role as a politician to go dictating to pastors or religious leaders the language they use when talking to their parishioners and followers. I believe in the separation of church and state."

What sophistry. Hunsperger is entitled to his personal religious beliefs. The state cannot, should not tell pastors what to preach. Within his church, Hunsperger has a constitutional right to gay-bash as much as he pleases.

But Hunsperger isn't just a pastor. He chose to stand for office. Smith's Wildrose Party chose to elect and accept him as its nominated candidate. His public comments on gay rights and school board policy are entirely relevant to voters evaluating his fitness, and the fitness of his party.

Speaking briefly with reporters Monday, Hunsperger insisted his letter only expressed his private views, not party policy.

"I love people and everybody," he said. "I have no intolerance about anybody. But I do have a personal religious view and that's what I stated in the blog."

Private views, however, are generally private. Hunsperger's post was a public attack on the moral integrity of the Edmonton public school board, specifically designed to inflame a public audience.

On Monday, Smith repeated her rote assurance that her party would not legislate on "contentious social issues."

Smith likely wouldn't be clumsy enough to try to legislate directly on issues such as abortion delisting or gay rights. But her potential cabinet would deal with all sorts of issues — from school curriculum to private school funding, from the Alberta Human Rights Act to conscience rights for public servants — where the personal views of her caucus could come into play. Before people cast ballots for Wildrose candidates, they deserve to know who and what they're getting.

On Monday, Smith declined to critique Hunsperger's writings, saying she'll work to protect Albertans with strong religious views from state persecution.

"I'm not going to be the sort of politician who engages in discrimination against religious candidates," she said.

It's amazing rhetorical sleight-of-hand, as Smith strives to depict Hunsperger as the victim of liberal intolerance. Let's be clear. The issue isn't Hunsperger's constitutional right to his sacred beliefs. The issue is his public position that Edmonton schoolkids shouldn't be protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that public schools are wicked for trying to create safe, equal classrooms. He's not the victim here. The victims are our community's children, who deserve to go to school without fear, without being told by their aspiring MLA that they're damned to eternal torment because of who they are.

Danielle Smith is asking Albertans for our trust. This was an opportunity for her to show moral leadership, to stand up for children's' rights and against homophobic bullying. Sadly, she forfeited that chance.

"Leadership is not a position as much as it is a responsibility. Leadership is not pushing, controlling, or manipulating. It is leading with others choosing to follow or not. Leaders will be judged more strictly than those who follow."

Those aren't my words. They're the words of Pastor Allan Hunsperger, from another of his online sermons. Words, perhaps, Danielle Smith might want to take to heart.

Faggot nonsense.

A lot of people have moral and religious objections to homosexuality.  I'm not particularily troubled by the comments.

And in fact I live in that dude's riding.  So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You did cause me to look at the individual riding candidates though.  Hunsperger is clearly a career bible-thumper, involved in private Christian schools and religious radio stations.  Not a huge fan of that background.

But the PC candidate looks to be a wanna-be career politician.  Since graduating from university 8 years ago he has worked in various PC minister's offices.  Also not a huge fan.

I'll stick with Wildrose.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 10:45:59 AM

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 10:44:10 AM
I think the regular destruction of political parties is probably essential, certainly beneficial to healthy democracy.

I wouldn't go that far.  After all on the Federal scene the Liberals trace themselves right back to Confederation, as do the Conservatives (albeit with a couple of mergers and name changes along the way), and even the NDP has a heritage going back 80 years.

All of which doesn't contradict my statement.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 12:19:44 PMHeck even the UFA still exists, but not as a political party.

:D The only former political party to survive as a farm supply store?

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
:D The only former political party to survive as a farm supply store?

You have to love this province.  :lol:

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
:D The only former political party to survive as a farm supply store?

Sneed's Feed and Seed (formerly Chuck's)?

;)

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You are dead to me.

Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2012, 02:59:13 PM

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 02:13:02 PM
:D The only former political party to survive as a farm supply store?

Sneed's Feed and Seed (formerly Chuck's)?

;)

Uh, no.  They are cleverly named as the United Farmers of Alberta (or just UFA).

It's just that most gas stations / farm supply stores don't have a history of being a political party to boot.

Is it still owned by the political party?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2012, 03:23:40 PM
Is it still owned by the political party?

It's the same organization.  The UFA formed as a farmer's lobby group, formed a political wing in the 20s, won government, lost government, dissolved the political wing, then morphed into a farmer's co-operative.  But it's always been the same organization.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 03:00:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You are dead to me.

Who would you have me vote for, and why?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 03:00:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You are dead to me.

It doesn't make much sense to vote for the person in a parliamentary system.

Quote from: Maximus on April 20, 2012, 03:27:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 03:00:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You are dead to me.

It doesn't make much sense to vote for the person in a parliamentary system.

Well, it can in some situations.

Here though I don't really care for either local candidate, so I figure I might as well vote for the party.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 03:26:22 PMWho would you have me vote for, and why?

You didn't ask me, but: someone who doesn't espouse bigotry.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 03:46:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 03:26:22 PMWho would you have me vote for, and why?

You didn't ask me, but: someone who doesn't espouse bigotry.

You don't get to design your perfect candidate.  You have to actually vote for someone.

Plus Redford keeps making me question whether she is actually a conservative.  Latest story I just read: she figured she could work with the Liberals or NDP in a minority government, but not Wildrose.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/story/2012/04/20/albertavotes2012-redford-wildrose-minority.html

So who should I vote for?  Here are my options:

Rudy Arcilla Alberta Liberal Party 
Muriel Stanley-Venne Alberta New Democrats 
Bryan Peacock Alberta Party 
Matt Jeneroux Progressive Conservative Party 
Allan Hunsperger Wildrose 

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 03:53:39 PMYou don't get to design your perfect candidate.  You have to actually vote for someone.

Plus Redford keeps making me question whether she is actually a conservative.  Latest story I just read: she figured she could work with the Liberals or NDP in a minority government, but not Wildrose.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/albertavotes2012/story/2012/04/20/albertavotes2012-redford-wildrose-minority.html

So who should I vote for?  Here are my options:

Rudy Arcilla Alberta Liberal Party 
Muriel Stanley-Venne Alberta New Democrats 
Bryan Peacock Alberta Party 
Matt Jeneroux Progressive Conservative Party 
Allan Hunsperger Wildrose

What does the bigot candidate have that the non-bigot candidates do not, beyond the bigotry I mean?

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 03:55:32 PM
What does the bigot candidate have that the non-bigot candidates do not, beyond the bigotry I mean?

Here's the party bios of Hunsperger and Jeneroux:

QuoteAllan is one of the pioneers in the establishment of private schools in the late seventies in the Province of Alberta. He is the founder of Heritage Christian Schools which are still operating today after 30 plus years.

He pioneered the changing of the law in Canadian Broadcasting to have radio stations like Shine FM and AM 930 The Light. He is the founder of Touch Canada Broadcasting which today owns and operates five (5) radio stations in Alberta. He left the company in March 2009.

Allan has worked with professional athletes in the CFL and in triple A baseball. He works today with young people training them to become world-changers.

Allan and his wife Cindy of 43 years have two children and three grandchildren. They live in Edmonton since 1994 to the present.

QuoteMatt was born and raised in Edmonton and attended the University of Alberta, graduating with a BA in 2004. Since that time, he has gained several years of experience working with not-for-profit organizations, and has also worked at all levels of government (municipal, provincial and federal). Matt has served in an advisory capacity at the Alberta Legislature with the Minister of Environment and currently works as an Advisor for the Government of Canada with Health Canada. He has extensive public relations, policy and government knowledge which will allow him to bring a distinct perspective to the decision-making table.

Matt also has an extensive record of volunteer service. Starting at the age of 16, Matt worked on his first election campaign for the federal PC party folding envelopes and engaging in the political process. He's also volunteered extensively for organizations including:

Goodwill Industries of Alberta
Alberta Winter Games
United Way
Canadian Blood Services
Make-A-Wish Foundation
City of Edmonton Naming Committee (Chair)
Federal Government Youth Network
Rotary Club of Edmonton (Downtown)
Blackmud Creek Community League
Edmonton-Rutherford PC Association (President)
Edmonton-South West PC Association (VP Policy)

So one is a professional Christian evangelist expanding into party politics, and the other is a professional politician?

I'd take the politician. Canadian politics do not need professional evangelists; especially if they're homophobic bigots.

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
So one is a professional Christian evangelist expanding into party politics, and the other is a professional politician?

I'd take the politician. Canadian politics do not need professional evangelists; especially if they're homophobic bigots.

One's no worse than the other.

Myself, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2012, 04:31:38 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
So one is a professional Christian evangelist expanding into party politics, and the other is a professional politician?

I'd take the politician. Canadian politics do not need professional evangelists; especially if they're homophobic bigots.

One's no worse than the other.

Myself, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

So who are you voting for (since the Neil party didn't quite make it on the ballot)?

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 03:26:22 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2012, 03:00:57 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
So I guess that's who I'll vote for.

You are dead to me.

Who would you have me vote for, and why?

I would have voted for anyone with a shot to defeat the preacher who thinks he is doing gays a favour by making their life more difficult.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 04:34:50 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2012, 04:31:38 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2012, 04:05:25 PM
So one is a professional Christian evangelist expanding into party politics, and the other is a professional politician?

I'd take the politician. Canadian politics do not need professional evangelists; especially if they're homophobic bigots.

One's no worse than the other.

Myself, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

So who are you voting for (since the Neil party didn't quite make it on the ballot)?

Undecided.  I won't vote for any of your candidates, since I'm in Strathcona.

Honestly, there isn't a single party running a candidate in my riding that isn't fairly abhorrent, to one degree or another.  I'd probably vote SoCred, if they were running a candidate, but as it stands my choice is between the PCs, Wildrose, NDP, Liberals and Evergreens.  At least my choice doesn't matter, since Strathcona is an NDP fortress riding.

Here's a piece that tickled my funnybone.  Fucking hippies lack perspective.

[Tim]

QuoteArts ignored in Alberta election, advocates say
CBC News Posted: Apr 20, 2012 12:02 PM MT

Some Calgary voters say arts and culture issues are getting short shrift in the Alberta election campaign.

Decidedly Jazz Danceworks General Manager Kathi Sundstrom said we should be talking about more than just roads and hospitals when choosing our next government.

"I have been reading the newspaper like a fiend ... everyday and I haven't heard anything from any ... particularly the Wildrose Party, on any statements of culture or the arts," she said.

The topic of arts and culture did pop up during Thursday's political forum hosted by the CBC

But according to Calgary art gallery owner Yves Trépanier, some of the parties don't even include the issues in their platforms, while others only make a brief mention.

"Art and visual arts and culture are equal to health care, education and all the social issues. It helps balance out how we are as a society. You can't have one without the other," he said.

Trépanier said party leaders need to think more about making a trip to the museum as affordable and accessible as a trip to the hospital.

[/Tim]

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2012, 05:11:47 PM
Here's a piece that tickled my funnybone.  Fucking hippies lack perspective.

Quote
"I have been reading the newspaper like a fiend ... everyday and I haven't heard anything from any ... particularly the Wildrose Party, on any statements of culture or the arts," she said.

I like that part.  If you haven't heard anything from any of the parties why are you singling out the Wildrose party more than any other party?  They've all said nothing, but the Wildrose party has said nothing a little more quietly?

Quote from: PRC on April 20, 2012, 05:18:47 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2012, 05:11:47 PM
Here's a piece that tickled my funnybone.  Fucking hippies lack perspective.

Quote
"I have been reading the newspaper like a fiend ... everyday and I haven't heard anything from any ... particularly the Wildrose Party, on any statements of culture or the arts," she said.

I like that part.  If you haven't heard anything from any of the parties why are you singling out the Wildrose party more than any other party?  They've all said nothing, but the Wildrose party has said nothing a little more quietly?

Hippies hate the Wildrose, which normally would be enough to get me to vote for them.  However, I can only go so far against my own interests, and the Wildrose is a bridge too far.

So, it turns out that my local candidate for the Progressive Conservatives is a black man and a trade unionist.  I have the chance to vote for Obama.

You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

You got problems with trade unionists?  :mad:

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

Between that and the fact that his party leader is a woman and a supporter of the teacher's union, I would think that I won't be voting Tory.

Paul Hinman is the incumbent and Wildrose candidate in my riding.  I still don't know who i'm going to vote for on Monday.

Quote from: katmai on April 20, 2012, 11:54:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

You got problems with trade unionists?  :mad:

Despite the fact my wife was the president of her local union, yes, I have a problem with trade unionists. :mad:

(just don't tell her I said so)

Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2012, 12:13:21 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

Between that and the fact that his party leader is a woman and a supporter of the teacher's union, I would think that I won't be voting Tory.

I think you, me (and PRC) are roughly in the same boat - not liking the PCs, right of centre, but not sure we can trust Wildrose.

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: katmai on April 20, 2012, 11:54:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

You got problems with trade unionists?  :mad:

Despite the fact my wife was the president of her local union, yes, I have a problem with trade unionists. :mad:

(just don't tell her I said so)

As member of two such unions, you have double the problem with me then lips.

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:45:58 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: katmai on April 20, 2012, 11:54:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

You got problems with trade unionists?  :mad:

Despite the fact my wife was the president of her local union, yes, I have a problem with trade unionists. :mad:

(just don't tell her I said so)

As member of two such unions, you have double the problem with me then lips.

Unlike my beloved wife, I have no trouble telling you to fuck off, mr. asshole.

I hope your son becomes member of NDP.

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I hope your son becomes member of NDP.

What an awful thing to say. :(

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:50:27 AM

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I hope your son becomes member of NDP.

What an awful thing to say. :(

Says the guy who told me to just fuck off....

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:54:36 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:50:27 AM

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I hope your son becomes member of NDP.

What an awful thing to say. :(

Says the guy who told me to just fuck off....

'Tis the languish way...

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:39:10 AM
I think you, me (and PRC) are roughly in the same boat - not liking the PCs, right of centre, but not sure we can trust Wildrose.

In Federal politics I'll swing right of centre but in Provincial politics I swing left.  In my five years here I've come to love Alberta... but at heart I'm still just a kid from the Island.

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:50:27 AM

Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I hope your son becomes member of NDP.

What an awful thing to say. :(

He could have done worse and hoped he becomes a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.  :P

Nah he'll be a flames fan as the jets will be a distant memory by the time he's a teenager.

Quote from: PRC on April 21, 2012, 01:04:31 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:39:10 AM
I think you, me (and PRC) are roughly in the same boat - not liking the PCs, right of centre, but not sure we can trust Wildrose.

In Federal politics I'll swing right of centre but in Provincial politics I swing left.  In my five years here I've come to love Alberta... but at heart I'm still just a kid from the Island.

Yeah, leftism in provincial and federal politics is two different things.  Federal leftists don't make any sense to vote for, as they want to shut Alberta down for the greater glory of Ontario and Quebec.  Provincial leftists for the most part aren't outright traitors.  Brian Mason will raise royalty rates, but he won't shut the oilpatch down.

Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2012, 12:39:10 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2012, 12:13:21 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
You can't possibly vote for a trade unionist.   :mad:

Between that and the fact that his party leader is a woman and a supporter of the teacher's union, I would think that I won't be voting Tory.

I think you, me (and PRC) are roughly in the same boat - not liking the PCs, right of centre, but not sure we can trust Wildrose.

Yeah, although I'm actually fairly certain I can't trust Wildrose.  And that puts me in a tough position.

The Wildrose Alliance is bad for Canadian unity, according to Coderre (Liberal Party of Canada, in case you forgot ;) ).

Be it know Wildrose supporters: you are one step from being branded anti-canadian and closet seperatist.

Quote from: viper37 on April 23, 2012, 04:13:24 PM
The Wildrose Alliance is bad for Canadian unity, according to Coderre (Liberal Party of Canada, in case you forgot ;) ).

Be it know Wildrose supporters: you are one step from being branded anti-canadian and closet seperatist.

:shifty:

Sounds like it could be the most interesting election in Alberta in the last 20 years.

There is still a Liberal Party of Canada

NOt really following this. But, is there any hope chance that Wildrose and Cons split vote and elect a Liberal of NDP-er?

Quote from: Josephus on April 23, 2012, 04:39:58 PM
NOt really following this. But, is there any hope chance that Wildrose and Cons split vote and elect a Liberal of NDP-er?

No.  Wildrose and PCs are the top two parties.  Plus the left is also divided with the Alberta party splitting the Liberal vote, and the NDP just not being very strong.

What could happen of course is a minority government, and Redford has indicated she is open to working with the Liberals / NDP (but not Wildrose).

And, to be fair, Redford is attracting a number of Liberal voters to her, which means that the Liberals are actually splitting three ways.

Why would Coderre think that a his voice would carry any weight whatsoever in an Alberta election?  If anything, a proper Albertan would conclude that anything that a federal Liberal is against must be a good thing, since that party has been unrelenting in their enmity towards the West and most especially Alberta.

Did you both go out and vote?

Quote from: Josephus on April 23, 2012, 05:09:22 PM
Did you both go out and vote?

I'm going to go with my wife this evening.  The problem is that I'm still undecided, as all of the parties oppose are attempting to damage my interests, either through corruption, having a woman leader, deregulation, support for the teachers union, a pro-family policy or espousing policies that college kids would like.

Quote from: Josephus on April 23, 2012, 05:09:22 PM
Did you both go out and vote?

Just got home, little guy is napping.  Once he wakes up we'll go as a family.

What is it with Parliamentary pages and the need to protest?

alright, now we know what Coderre was on about.  Iggy is coming out now warning of Quebec separation.  It appears the Federal Liberals have decided to play to their strength.  The one party that stands for a centralized Canada.

The problem for them is I think Canada has moved beyond that Liberal vision of the country.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2012, 07:06:05 PM
What is it with Parliamentary pages and the need to protest?

Attention whores need attention.

Have there ever been any Injun parties in Canada?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2012, 07:56:43 PM
Have there ever been any Injun parties in Canada?

Yes. Never amounted to anything.

So my wife and I went out to vote and promptly cancelled out each others votes. :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2012, 07:06:05 PM
What is it with Parliamentary pages and the need to protest?

It's the same one as last time I think.

So far votes are coming in PCs 44%, Wildrose 39%, which if it held would shape up as a PC majority.  Liberals and NDP in single digits.

Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2012, 09:47:00 PM
So far votes are coming in PCs 44%, Wildrose 39%, which if it held would shape up as a PC majority.  Liberals and NDP in single digits.

:console: :(

PCs being called as the winners.

This could be a best case scenario, or it could be terrible.  I'm still uneasy about Wildrose - just whether they have the experience to be government.  So now they are the clear second party, this could warn the PCs to straighten up and fly right.

Or...

There's a definite sub-text of strategic voting.  I've heard it myself.  Lots of Liberals voted strategically for the PCs, and the Liberal vote collapsed.  The PCs could now decide to govern from the centre / left.

Wow, wasn't expecting that outcome.  Could be a best case scenario as you say Beeb.

Quote from: Neil on April 23, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
Why would Coderre think that a his voice would carry any weight whatsoever in an Alberta election?  If anything, a proper Albertan would conclude that anything that a federal Liberal is against must be a good thing, since that party has been unrelenting in their enmity towards the West and most especially Alberta.

I don't think he thinks that.  But there's been a lot of articles in Quebec newspapers about how bad a Wildrose government in Alberta would have been bad for us.  Coderre is preaching to the choir, he's talking to Quebec leftists: "see, that's what happens when Harper is in power, everyone hates Quebec, we're the only option to protect you from Evil right-wing Alberta now".

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 23, 2012, 07:16:36 PM
The problem for them is I think Canada has moved beyond that Liberal vision of the country.

one could hope, but I don't think so.

For the record, I would have liked to see a WR govn't in Alberta, despite the radical social right-wing types.  The economic platform had a lot of nice ideas, and the talk about changing equalization payments appealed to me.

Quote from: viper37 on April 23, 2012, 11:08:15 PM
For the record, I would have liked to see a WR govn't in Alberta, despite the radical social right-wing types.  The economic platform had a lot of nice ideas, and the talk about changing equalization payments appealed to me.

Equalization is a purely federal formula.  I never heard Wildrose talk about it, nor is it within their jurisdiction.

so what do you think happened Beeb? People who said they were going to vote Wildrose changed their minds? Or were formerly Liberal voters scared of Wildrose and voted for the safe "enemy we know"?

It appears Albertans aren't quite as reactionary as they appear from the outside.



G.

Quote from: Josephus on April 24, 2012, 07:06:50 AM
so what do you think happened Beeb? People who said they were going to vote Wildrose changed their minds? Or were formerly Liberal voters scared of Wildrose and voted for the safe "enemy we know"?

Well, both.  Wildrose was polling higher than they got, so people did reconsider.  But the Liberal vote also dropped substantially - and you have to think that was strategic voting in favour of the PCs.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 07:32:58 AM

Quote from: Josephus on April 24, 2012, 07:06:50 AM
so what do you think happened Beeb? People who said they were going to vote Wildrose changed their minds? Or were formerly Liberal voters scared of Wildrose and voted for the safe "enemy we know"?

Well, both.  Wildrose was polling higher than they got, so people did reconsider.  But the Liberal vote also dropped substantially - and you have to think that was strategic voting in favour of the PCs.

Don't forget the huge undecided vote.

As for Liberal voters, why wouldn't they vote PC?  Redford is a Liberal.  Still, the complete corruption of the PCs seems preferable to the dangerous ideas of the Wildrose.  I just hope that this win doesn't embolden them to become even more corrupt.  Fortunately, Alberta is a strong province and easy to govern.  The oil money means that we can probably afford a term or two of Redford's centre-left policies.

The only thing that makes me sad about this whole thing is the victory for the teachers union.  Even so, in real life the bad guys sometimes win through sneakiness.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 07:47:55 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 07:32:58 AM

Quote from: Josephus on April 24, 2012, 07:06:50 AM
so what do you think happened Beeb? People who said they were going to vote Wildrose changed their minds? Or were formerly Liberal voters scared of Wildrose and voted for the safe "enemy we know"?

Well, both.  Wildrose was polling higher than they got, so people did reconsider.  But the Liberal vote also dropped substantially - and you have to think that was strategic voting in favour of the PCs.

Don't forget the huge undecided vote.

As for Liberal voters, why wouldn't they vote PC?  Redford is a Liberal.  Still, the complete corruption of the PCs seems preferable to the dangerous ideas of the Wildrose.  I just hope that this win doesn't embolden them to become even more corrupt.  Fortunately, Alberta is a strong province and easy to govern.  The oil money means that we can probably afford a term or two of Redford's centre-left policies.

The only thing that makes me sad about this whole thing is the victory for the teachers union.  Even so, in real life the bad guys sometimes win through sneakiness.

Bah - undecided voters are non-voters.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 08:32:29 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 07:47:55 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 07:32:58 AM

Quote from: Josephus on April 24, 2012, 07:06:50 AM
so what do you think happened Beeb? People who said they were going to vote Wildrose changed their minds? Or were formerly Liberal voters scared of Wildrose and voted for the safe "enemy we know"?

Well, both.  Wildrose was polling higher than they got, so people did reconsider.  But the Liberal vote also dropped substantially - and you have to think that was strategic voting in favour of the PCs.

Don't forget the huge undecided vote.

As for Liberal voters, why wouldn't they vote PC?  Redford is a Liberal.  Still, the complete corruption of the PCs seems preferable to the dangerous ideas of the Wildrose.  I just hope that this win doesn't embolden them to become even more corrupt.  Fortunately, Alberta is a strong province and easy to govern.  The oil money means that we can probably afford a term or two of Redford's centre-left policies.

The only thing that makes me sad about this whole thing is the victory for the teachers union.  Even so, in real life the bad guys sometimes win through sneakiness.

Bah - undecided voters are non-voters.

Are you sure?  I'm not so sure.

Barely 50% turnout.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 24, 2012, 09:26:26 AM
Barely 50% turnout.

That's disappointing (though at least an increase from last time).

I'd say it is much more than disappointing: it is cause for concern if it barely pushes past 50% in an actually contested election (as opposed to the routine of reelection of the PC).

I think this reminds me of John Major's election win in 1990(?) - new leader of a long-governing and somewhat tired party, goes into election night with pollsters predicting an opposition victory, only for voters to pull back from an opposition seen as just a bit too radical and reward another mandate.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 09:45:53 AM
I think this reminds me of John Major's election win in 1990(?) - new leader of a long-governing and somewhat tired party, goes into election night with pollsters predicting an opposition victory, only for voters to pull back from an opposition seen as just a bit too radical and reward another mandate.

That's what I thought reading it.  Worth saying that I think Labour are generally glad they lost that elections and the Tories regret winning it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 09:50:18 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 09:45:53 AM
I think this reminds me of John Major's election win in 1990(?) - new leader of a long-governing and somewhat tired party, goes into election night with pollsters predicting an opposition victory, only for voters to pull back from an opposition seen as just a bit too radical and reward another mandate.

That's what I thought reading it.  Worth saying that I think Labour are generally glad they lost that elections and the Tories regret winning it.

Well yes, that's the point of that comparison.

It's worth noting that Wildrose was only formed in 2007, and took only 7% of the vote (and zero seats) in the 2008 election.  They have gained in support, with one by-election victory and had three PC MLAs cross the floor to join them, but this really is an untested political party.

Mind you there is also the counter-example of the New Brunswick Confederation of Regions Party.  Based on dissatisfaction with the established parties it came out of nowhere to become the official opposition in 1991 - but once in legislature showed it did not have any real maturity or stability and quickly collapsed.

Or the ADQ in Quebec.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:04:11 AM
Or the ADQ in Quebec.

Also good example.

You could definitely see echoes of the former Reform / PC split - I even recognized a few names of Wildrose candidates as fellow travellers from my time in Reform.  There's no shortage of experienced political help for a right-wing party in Alberta - if they choose to take it.

So while the BC Liberals are really Conservative, the Alberta Conservative are really Liberals? I mean, the teachers' union?

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
So while the BC Liberals are really Conservative, the Alberta Conservative are really Liberals? I mean, the teachers' union?

The Alberta PCs seem to be morphing (in terms of both membership and policy) into the Liberals.  In 4-5 years the transformation may be complete.

But yeah, provincial politics can be a wild ride.

Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher. :mad:

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:44:45 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher. :mad:

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:00:10 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:44:45 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher. :mad:

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

:ike:

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
So while the BC Liberals are really Conservative, the Alberta Conservative are really Liberals? I mean, the teachers' union?

In BC the Liberal party is really the old Social Conservative party which was formed through a coalition of the then Liberal and Conservative parties.  After the Social Credit party collapsed in the early 90s the provincial Liberals were the brand name the coalition re-formed around.

Some interesting trivia.  Christy Clark was always a Liberal - both Federal and Provincial.  She was not part of the Social Credit party and so not part of the coalition per se, until the Social Credit collapsed and all those voters shifted to the provincial Liberals.  When that happened Gordon Campell won the leaderhip of the Party and the takeover of the Liberal party by the old coalition was essentially complete.

So what is the relevance of all that trivia today?  When you hear in the news that Christy Clark is having trouble with the "conservatives" in the Liberal party they dont mean "C" Conservatives.  They mean the people in the colation who were Social Credit and then Liberal.  ie the vast majority of the party.  That is why she had only one MLA support her in the leadership race and that is why the media continually speculates as to how strong her support is within the party.

tldr - the Leader of the Liberal party is and has always been a "real" liberal but she is leading a coaltion party primarily made up of non liberals - ie, ex social credit members.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:00:10 AM
Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

Maggie was a lawyer too.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 11:10:40 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:00:10 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:44:45 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher. :mad:

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

:ike:

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 11:14:38 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:00:10 AM
Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

Maggie was a lawyer too.

Maggie  :wub:

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:17:19 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 11:10:40 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:00:10 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:44:45 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:35:00 AM
Either way, the province was doomed.  Women make terrible leaders.

Margaret Thatcher. :mad:

Exception that proves the rule.

Besides, Thatcher was a chemist.  Redford was a human rights lawyer and Smith a journalist/pundit.  Thatcher had a brain in her head.  Lawyers and pundits have no place in government.

:ike:

You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda Meir. :perv:

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:17:19 AM
You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 11:24:17 AM
Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

You will have to excuse Neil.  There is something about living in Edmonton that is very isloating, with the Rockies cutting him off to the West and the great expanse of praire to the East, much of the world simply passes him by.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 11:24:17 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:17:19 AM
You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

I thought about mentioning Aquino, but I thought it was generally felt that her actions in the transition to democracy were wonderful, she had a less than successful government.  Same for Indira Gandhi - it's remarkable she was Prime Minister of India for such a period, but her overall record was mixed.

Can't say I'm familiar with Sirleaf or Clark. :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 11:24:17 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 11:17:19 AM
You're the one who brought Thatcher up as the one example of a woman who didn't fail as a leader.  Do you want to know why you always have to bring her up?  Because there are no other examples of a successful woman leading a democracy.

Golda.  Corazon Aquino.  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's doing well.  I've always been a fan of Helen Clark too.

I'll concede Meir, but your other examples are either third-world barbarians or republicans, and so are beneath contempt.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 11:10:59 AM
In BC the Liberal party is really the old Social Conservative party which was formed through a coalition of the then Liberal and Conservative parties.  After the Social Credit party collapsed in the early 90s the provincial Liberals were the brand name the coalition re-formed around.

Some interesting trivia.  Christy Clark was always a Liberal - both Federal and Provincial.  She was not part of the Social Credit party and so not part of the coalition per se, until the Social Credit collapsed and all those voters shifted to the provincial Liberals.  When that happened Gordon Campell won the leaderhip of the Party and the takeover of the Liberal party by the old coalition was essentially complete.

So what is the relevance of all that trivia today?  When you hear in the news that Christy Clark is having trouble with the "conservatives" in the Liberal party they dont mean "C" Conservatives.  They mean the people in the colation who were Social Credit and then Liberal.  ie the vast majority of the party.  That is why she had only one MLA support her in the leadership race and that is why the media continually speculates as to how strong her support is within the party.

tldr - the Leader of the Liberal party is and has always been a "real" liberal but she is leading a coaltion party primarily made up of non liberals - ie, ex social credit members.

Interesting.

How did she end up in charge? Was it that the the socred old guard thought she'd be the most "electable" or did she swing support from voters somehow, outside of the socred MLAs?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 12:35:03 PM
How did she end up in charge? Was it that the the socred old guard thought she'd be the most "electable" or did she swing support from voters somehow, outside of the socred MLAs?

When the Social Credit collapsed she was elected as a Liberal member along with a handful of other Liberals and she remained an elected MLA through a few elections and was a cabinet minister in the Liberal governments.  Then she retired from politics and ended up as a talk show host on CKNW.  She was quite popular and successful.  When Campbell had to step down over the HST that popularity gave her an advantage in the subsequent leadership race - ie she signed up a lot of new members to vote in the leadership convention. 

But now that she has lost much of that popularity she has a real challenge as she didnt have a lot of support amongst the rank and file as it were.

She may well still pull it out, and I hope she does, but she definitely has a hard road ahead.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 12:39:40 PM
I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

Whatever the state of your allergies a division in a coalition which gives any party unopposed power is not a good thing.  The Liberals time under Chretian showed us that.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 12:39:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
BB, while it didnt turn out the way you wanted I think the result is very positive in three ways:

1) It will allow Harper the leverage he needs to manage any rogue elements in his caucus - thinking about people like the right to life wing nut that makes news every 6 months or so.  If a party cant win a majority in Alberta by appealing solely to the right then for sure, one assumes the message to the Tory caucus will be, the Conservative party of Canada will not be able to win an election within staying firmling in the middle right.

2) Harper has been very successful in removing social conservative voices from government policy.  While people might quibble about how much impact the social conservative comments from Wild Rose candidates had on the Albera election it would be hard to deny it didnt have some negative impact.  This result will help Harper keep a focus on good fiscal conservative policy without feeling any need to appeal to social conservatism - which in my view would cost them the next election.

3) I hope this has an impact on the political scene in BC.  If Wild Rose had won in Alberta  The BC Conservative party would have been trumpeting that they can do the same thing here.  The dynamics are very different in BC of course - a split in the right means the NDP will win rather than the left vote going to the centre right party.  But that would not have stopped the BC Conservatives trying to play up the comparisons.

I agree that the first two are positive, and I agree on the facts on point 3) - but since I'm less allergic to the NDP than you I'll leave that as neutral rather than positive. Still, I if you and I agree something is good, I expect BB won't like it.

1. I doubt it has much impact on Harper.  He has his caucus well under control, and the wackier MPs he had from Reform days are all long gone.

2. It's not that social conservatism is some odious concept that must never be spoken of - but rather it's in how you present it.  The Hunsperger comments definitely hurt Wildrose - a message about the evil gays or abortion is just not going to resonate in 2012.  But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well.  So yes Wildrose must shut the hell up about homosexuality or abortion, but certainly still needs to court social conservatives with policies that play well outside of social conservative circles.

3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.

Hey, BB - what's the core of the right wing government you seek to build down the road?

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 12:52:13 PM
Hey, BB - what's the core of the right wing government you seek to build down the road?

I'm not sure how to answer this question.  Can you please re-phrase it? :)

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 12:56:30 PMI'm not sure how to answer this question.  Can you please re-phrase it? :)

You posit a "more right wing" government down the road.

What is the philosophical and political core of this "more right wing" government? I'm particularly interested in any points of contrast with current, presumably less right wing parties as well as left wing parties.

Similarly, what are some key policies you'd expect to see from your favoured "more right wing" government?

For example, you mentioned more room for religious charities. By more room, do you mean government funding for religious charities; a roll back on various forms of social services from the government, expecting and possibly encouraging religious charities to fill the gap; or something else?

As well, why is a greater role for religious charities attractive? Do you expect it to be cheaper for the tax payer somehow? Is it that religious charities being more active will have a chance to influence the people they provide services to, and that's good for society because more religion is a good thing? Is it that religious charities are being unfairly held back, and allowing them a greater role is simply the right thing to do in a free society?

Basically, what is a greater role for religious charities going to achieve, and why is that a good thing?

Similarly, what are the other key policy items you'd like to see from your (more) ideal government, what do they aim to achieve, and why is that a good thing?

What's your pitch?

I'm not really proposing any kind of comprehensive political platform here.

You often here complaints from activists on both the right and left that their current party is not firm enough in its convictions, and thus the desire to build a new party that is firmer.  It's the impulse that led to forming Wildrose, the BC Conservative Party, heck even the US Tea Party movement.  I'm not trying to impute some kind of value judgment here - you frequently hear this complaint.

IF people feel this way though, they have to balance the desire of having a more "pure" political party with the risk that by doing so you're just handing victory to those on the opposite side.

I'm pretty happy with the current Conservative government at the moment.

As for religious charities, it was just an example of a policy that comes from the social conservative side of the world that isn't as divisive and toxic as abortion.

All that's true enough. I just got the impression you were looking for a more Conservative government down the road, and I was wondering if there were any particulars you were hoping for.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
All that's true enough. I just got the impression you were looking for a more Conservative government down the road, and I was wondering if there were any particulars you were hoping for.

No, I was thinking of the past, when I was an idealistic teen who was dissatisfied by the federal PC Party.  I volunteered a lot of hours for Reform, which paid off in the end with the current Harper government, but led to a lot of Liberal majorities too.  I think it was worth it, but it was a heavy price.

And I feel a similar dissatisfaction with the Alberta PCs.  I still think it's ridiculous a province with this much oil money is running a deficit, and hasn't contributed to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund since 1987.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
2. But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well. 

Those are not social conservative agenda issues.  They are apple pie and motherhood issues. 

The social conservative agenda is to warp issues like support for families into nonsense like no sex education, no abortion and no gay rights.  I see nothing but bad policy coming out of any social conservative agenda.

Quote3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.

I dont want a more right wing party.  Apart from the fact it would never win, I would never want any party in power that has a social conservative agenda.  I want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 01:56:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
2. But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well. 

Those are not social conservative agenda issues.  They are apple pie and motherhood issues. 

The social conservative agenda is to warp issues like support for families into nonsense like no sex education, no abortion and no gay rights.  I see nothing but bad policy coming out of any social conservative agenda.

Quote3. Yes, with a much stronger NDP the dynamics are totally different in BC.  Doesn't mean you have to hold your nose and support any party as long as it can beat the NDP.  Sometimes you have to ask yourself if it is worth that risk to try and build a more right-wing party that can win government down the road.  But it is a tough question to ask.

I dont want a more right wing party.  Apart from the fact it would never win, I would never want any party in power that has a social conservative agenda.  I want a government that will be fiscially conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
No they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian. 

Everything is the opposite of Libertarian.  That analysis doesnt help.  If the social conservative arugment is that they are less crazy then libertarians that also hardly helps.

Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

So you are either socially conservative or libertarian?  I was not aware that was the dichotomy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 02:05:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:02:16 PM
Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

So you are either socially conservative or libertarian?  I was not aware that was the dichotomy.

More of a continuum that an either/or.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:02:16 PMNo they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

I have no problem with support for families... and I'm sure most NDP voters would be fine with that as well. As for alcohol and smoking controls, I think you'll find support for (and opposition to) that across party lines depending on the specifics.

I'm assuming you made a typo when you said "drug policy" is social conservative, and you meant to say something like "drug prohibition" or "criminalizing drug use" is socially conservative.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:02:16 PMNo they are "social conservative" issues, if you think of social conservative as the opposite of libertarian.  They are interventionist.  Support for families is, indirectly, discriminating against singles.  Drug policy is socially conservative, as are alcohol and smoking controls.  They are government telling you what you can and can't do.

Unless you think the label "social conservative" is limited only to issues of sex and abortion.

I have no problem with support for families... and I'm sure most NDP voters would be fine with that as well. As for alcohol and smoking controls, I think you'll find support for (and opposition to) that across party lines depending on the specifics.

I'm assuming you made a typo when you said "drug policy" is social conservative, and you meant to say something like "drug prohibition" or "criminalizing drug use" is socially conservative.

Much like with CC - do we really need to try and stake out the semantic high ground?

BB, you are the one trying to claim the virtues of social conservatism.  Your problem is that you are identifying issues that are not necessarily execlusive to social conservatives.

Try identifying policies that fall into that categorie.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:11:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

:rolleyes:

I don't mean to rag on you BB, but that's pretty much my understanding as well. It's about punishing teenage sluts, keeping the gays out of sight, making "those people" stick to themselves away from "us", pushing everyone to conform to a baseline behaviour anchored in an idealized version of the past, class divisions are entrenched, and making sure anyone who strays from that suffers (criminals are sanctioned harshly, there's little social structure to help the unemployed, teenage mothers, street kids etc).

Now, that may not be what social conservatism means to you, nor to the social conservative movement as a whole, but it's the impression I've been left with.

I'll be happy to be corrected though.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
But there are more positive aspects to a "social conservative" agenda that have much better traction.  Support for families and communities, more room for religious charities, all plays well.

All the jibber-jabber about families and stuff turned me off Wildrose.  Well, moreso than I was already turned off.

More room for religious charities?  Are they being boxed out by secular charities or something?

Social conservatism is about limiting tolerance, not abolishing it.  Social conservatism acknowledges that some things are intolerable.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
More room for religious charities?  Are they being boxed out by secular charities or something?

Well, it should help that some of the secular charities are going to stop being charities so that they can go to war against the federal Conservatives.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:15:48 PMMuch like with CC - do we really need to try and stake out the semantic high ground?

Honestly, I'm not trying to stake out the semantic high ground.

I'd like to get a grip on what it is you mean by socially conservative because it doesn't seem congruent with mine. What you posted, I thought was either pretty vague (drug policy - so I tried to clarify what I thought you meant, but maybe you mean something else?) or general enough that it wouldn't be a hard sell to a rank and file NDPer... so I'm not really any closer to understanding what you mean by socially conservative.

And just to be clear, that's my objective here: to get a better understanding of what you mean by socially conservative. I think we have some common ground on some issues, though I expect that we disagree on more.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 02:19:46 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:11:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Social conservative is the opposite of tolerance.

:rolleyes:

I don't mean to rag on you BB, but that's pretty much my understanding as well. It's about punishing teenage sluts, keeping the gays out of sight, making "those people" stick to themselves away from "us", pushing everyone to conform to a baseline behaviour anchored in an idealized version of the past, class divisions are entrenched, and making sure anyone who strays from that suffers (criminals are sanctioned harshly, there's little social structure to help the unemployed, teenage mothers, street kids etc).

Now, that may not be what social conservatism means to you, nor to the social conservative movement as a whole, but it's the impression I've been left with.

I'll be happy to be corrected though.

I agree with Jacob on this.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
Social conservatism is about limiting tolerance, not abolishing it.  Social conservatism acknowledges that some things are intolerable.

That's actually very apt, but I'm not sure BB is going to sign on to that  :lol:

Do you consider yourself a social conservative, Neil?

Thinking a bit more on it, by that definition I'm a social conservative as well. I put a limit on tolerance and won't tolerate severe intolerance and infringement on personal liberty. I guess it really comes down to what things you put into the intolerable category.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 02:18:44 PM
BB, you are the one trying to claim the virtues of social conservatism.  Your problem is that you are identifying issues that are not necessarily execlusive to social conservatives.

Try identifying policies that fall into that categorie.

I can tell this is going to be futile.

"Social conservatism" is government being active and interventionist in social (rather than economic) issues, whether that is restricting pornography or promoting policies that encourage families to have more children.

Picture a typical busybdy evangelical church lady who wants to tell everyone how to live.  There are things you and her would disagree on - certainly the sex and abortion issues.  But you and the church lady could probably agree on a lot of issues - that couple should generally stay together in committed relationships, that education and child care are important, that people should be more invovled in their local community, that alcoholism and drug use should be discouraged.

Or, picture that X/Y political axis for political ideologies:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FEuropean-political-spectrum.png%2F372px-European-political-spectrum.png&hash=2ac23ef9d70bb8f48421c38be110baddba5ae53e)

It's the Y axis.  Which here is simply labelled Authroitarian / "Conservative", but I have been calling social conservative (because I thought the terms liberal /conservative are more associated with the X axis).

As far as I can tell you're simply labelling a bunch of issues you disagree with as "socially conservative".  Those words are 100% negative to you, and I doubt anything I can say otherwise will convince you.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 02:28:10 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
Social conservatism is about limiting tolerance, not abolishing it.  Social conservatism acknowledges that some things are intolerable.

That's actually very apt, but I'm not sure BB is going to sign on to that  :lol:

Do you consider yourself a social conservative, Neil?

Thinking a bit more on it, by that definition I'm a social conservative as well. I put a limit on tolerance and won't tolerate severe intolerance and infringement on personal liberty. I guess it really comes down to what things you put into the intolerable category.

I don't think that my turn of phrase is an all-encompassing definition.  It describes socially conservative attitudes vis-a-vis tolerance, that's all.

I am not a social conservative.  I am something else.  But at the same time, I appreciate that there are limits to what should be tolerated (and not just that 'intolerant of intolerance' rhetorical trick that is popular amongst the extremely socially liberal) and that personal liberty should and must be limited for the good and coherence of society.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 02:40:03 PMI don't think that my turn of phrase is an all-encompassing definition.  It describes socially conservative attitudes vis-a-vis tolerance, that's all.

I am not a social conservative.  I am something else.  But at the same time, I appreciate that there are limits to what should be tolerated (and not just that 'intolerant of intolerance' rhetorical trick that is popular amongst the extremely socially liberal) and that personal liberty should and must be limited for the good and coherence of society.

Fair enough.

Wait did you just post something that described you as "authoritarian"?

QuoteBut you and the church lady could probably agree on a lot of issues - that couple should generally stay together in committed relationships, that education and child care are important, that people should be more invovled in their local community, that alcoholism and drug use should be discouraged.

But that is the problem BB, church lady, I, Jacob and every other thinking human being would likely agree to all of that.  Just because church lady agrees with the rest of us, doesnt mean she can make those issues social conservative issues.

What may make Church Lady different from me, and I daresay Jacob, is that Church lady may, depending on how extreme her social conservatism goes, say that commited relationships are so important that a womans ability to divorce her husband should be limited, that a woman should get limited spousal support; that education of the "proper" values is so important that intelligent design should be taught rather than evolution, that sex education plays no proper role in schools - other than teaching abstinence; that alcoholism and drug use should not just be discouraged but made illegal, that treating drug addiction as a medical issue is nonsense and that the insite clinic in Vancouver is an abomination.

You see, its easy to say one is for committed relationships.  The important part is what parties do to see that goal achieved.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:35:43 PMBut you and the church lady could probably agree on a lot of issues - that couple should generally stay together in committed relationships, that education and child care are important, that people should be more invovled in their local community, that alcoholism and drug use should be discouraged.

I think 95% of people could probably agree on that. The differences arise when you get down to if and how the government should intervene in any of those areas.

Sure, couples should stay together in committed relationships. That's nice. Does that mean we give tax credits for married couples or does it mean we ban divorce? Do we imprison fornicators, or do we provide good and comprehensive sex educations to young adults so they'll have better sex lives and thus be more likely to stay with their partners?

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 02:54:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 02:35:43 PMBut you and the church lady could probably agree on a lot of issues - that couple should generally stay together in committed relationships, that education and child care are important, that people should be more invovled in their local community, that alcoholism and drug use should be discouraged.

I think 95% of people could probably agree on that. The differences arise when you get down to if and how the government should intervene in any of those areas.

Sure, couples should stay together in committed relationships. That's nice. Does that mean we give tax credits for married couples or does it mean we ban divorce? Do we imprison fornicators, or do we provide good and comprehensive sex educations to young adults so they'll have better sex lives and thus be more likely to stay with their partners?

Well of course it's all a matter of degree.

I hardly want Big brother surveillance inside my home - but that doesn't mean the state doesn't have some role in people's private lives.

Committed relatinships - I mean I think we give tax credits and make divorce somewhat difficult.  Note of course how this is not very libertarian of me. ;)  We do ban fornication with children, I think we do privide some sex education but also discourage teenage sexuality and limit availability of sexually explicit material.  Again you might say these are fairly common political views - and they are.  But they're not socially libertarian.

BB, we really are not going to get anywhere if you keep asserting the only other comparitor is social libertarianism.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 03:11:49 PM
BB, we really are not going to get anywhere if you keep asserting the only other comparitor is social libertarianism.

But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 03:16:27 PMBut you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

Your point seems to be that "social conservatism" is the status quo, so I'm not sure how anyone could wish for a more socially conservative government.

I would venture that the main difference is not - precisely - on the "conservative" aspect of it, but what you pour into the "social". It is how much value you put into individualism, and how much value you put into the community. For many people, on both the left and the right, the ideal is that individuals should have very little accounts to give to any one, very little social obligation, so to speak, outside of their own whims and desire, and should be bound mostly by their consent. Social left and social right, on the other hand, believe that there is such a thing as a community, and that a community is not reducible to simply an aggregate of individuals. It is the idea that the individual owes something to the community (notably a certain confirmity to shared values), and that the community owes something to the individual (notably a place within the community). Left and right, social and individual will, of course, disagree with both the means (government? co-op? family?) and the values to be enforced. But that is precisely why I often repeated that while I disagree with BB on almost everything, he and I at least share a basic understanding of the value of community - as opposed to libertarians or liberal left, or fiscal conservatives.

Now, most of our celebrated theorists of classical liberalism wrote at a time when the community was such a truism that to gain a small measure of freedom from it, they devised systems which exalted the individual. They triumphed in the west, so the latter view is much more unpopular to state - even if it is still held as an admitedly elastic value amongst many. I see, and admire the appeal in individualism - but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
But you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

Truth is on my side. :D

QuoteAs I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

:lol:

I dont though.  The hot button social conservative issues of the day are abortion and gay rights.  At least here in Vancouver they are.  As an example there is a social conservative group that is taking a local school board to court over a decision to expressly include descrimination regarding sexual orientation as prohibited conduct in schools.

I have heard their arguments and cant quite make sense of it, but it has something to do with an assertion that the policy gives preferential treatment to gays and lesbians.

I am not sure where that kind of absurdity falls on your chart.  But I do know that intolerance of gays and lesbians is at the heart of the matter. 

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 24, 2012, 03:31:07 PM
why I often repeated that while I disagree with BB on almost everything, he and I at least share a basic understanding of the value of community - as opposed to libertarians or liberal left, or fiscal conservatives.

Why does valuing community mean using state resources?  I do not think any Libertarians or Liberals have any problem with voluntary associations that are not controled or defined by state power.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 03:19:37 PM
Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 03:29:02 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 03:16:27 PMBut you keep asserting the only other comparitor to "social conservative" is "goodness and light".

As I said my advocacy skills have failed me - there is nothing more I can say.  As I would say to a judge looking at me with a raised eyebrow "I believe you have my point".

Your point seems to be that "social conservatism" is the status quo, so I'm not sure how anyone could wish for a more socially conservative government.

Well as a conservative conservative, I'm not real interested in any particular dramatic changes.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 24, 2012, 03:31:07 PM
- but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

That is why I largely question the social/individual analysis you and BB ascribe to.

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance.  But tolerance cannot be mandated by criminal laws which try to make everyone conform to a particular behaviour - eg though shalt not be gay. (the social conservative route) Nor can tolerance be enforced by making everyone economically the same - eg wealth shall be redistributed so we are all functionally the same (the socialist route).

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
Why does valuing community mean using state resources?  I do not think any Libertarians or Liberals have any problem with voluntary associations that are not controled or defined by state power.

But their associations need to be bound, in their view, by a near-contractual consent, and hence, easily disbanded at the slightest whim. Communities do not need to be the 21st century state, but they can't be corporations. They have to have a kind of projection in the past, and in the future. Liberals went around the issue through the fiction of the social contract. Libertarians ignore the issue through the fiction of a neutral enforcer of contract (or a private one).

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 03:19:37 PM
Social Libertarianism is the only sane choice.  Otherwise you have valuable state resources being wasted on thought and behavior control and I am not convinced any tangible results result besides people in prison for victimless crimes.

I've spent the last year doing docket court - think the old TV series Night Court.  All the fresh arrests, all the shopliftings, the public intoxications, the prostitutes, the knife play.

These are people who do not have any social supports, and who we as a society (if not as a government) owe a real social duty to try and assist and help.

These are also people who remind me on a daily basis that "victimless crimes" very quickly turn into victim-filled crimes.  The drunk who randomly mugs passerbys.  The drug addict who robs the pharmacy to get more oxy.

Sorry.  I can absolutely not wash my hands of other people and say "well as long as the state doesn't bother me I'm fine".

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 01:56:05 PMI want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

The Liberal Party? :D

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 03:47:40 PM
Sorry.  I can absolutely not wash my hands of other people and say "well as long as the state doesn't bother me I'm fine".

What exactly are you doing for these people by outlawing things?  Throwing people in prison is assisting and helping people?

In that case Texas is a humanitarian mecca everybody should aspire to measure up to.

And my State is run by crazy nutcases so that sort of shapes how I view this issue.

Quote from: Josephus on April 24, 2012, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 01:56:05 PMI want a government that will be fiscally conservative and keep their nose out of social issues.

The Liberal Party? :D

You missed the fiscally conservative part....

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 03:43:09 PMTolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance. 

That seems to me a cop out. Of course, communities need tolerance - but they always have a varied tolerance to varied things. Communities are usually pretty intolerant of a large variety of behaviours; are pretty open to forgiveness on some and are willing to be voluntary blind to other infractions. The question remains: what kind of tolerance is our individualistic society is celebrating? The short version we have all heard, and often repeated, is "anything that does not infringe upon the liberty of others" - but that is hugely circular, and never truly addresses the kind of liberty our social context is liable to give us. To even get at that point in a conversation, you need to recognize the existence of social limits on liberty and therefore, to discuss what these limits are or should be... In other words: what should we be intolerant about?

And then, you run into another problem, which is that of social change. Obviously, values change and have changed, and I do think it would be difficult to say that regulations and, judgements arrived at by the play of courts and governments haven't had any impact - in other words, they cannot dictate change (what human force can?), but they certainly can steer it by broadcasting a plain message of what we should celebrate, and what we should shun. And thus we return to a discussion of what these norms and values should be. And this is something no fixation on fiscal conservatism (government as corporation), liberal left (anything goes!), or libertarianism (me & my consent) can solve on its own.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 03:43:09 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 24, 2012, 03:31:07 PM
- but I fear the celebration of tolerance is, in a way, a celebration of indifference towards our fellow citizens. Do what you want, as long as I don't have to care about it.

That is why I largely question the social/individual analysis you and BB ascribe to.

Tolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance.  But tolerance cannot be mandated by criminal laws which try to make everyone conform to a particular behaviour - eg though shalt not be gay. (the social conservative route) Nor can tolerance be enforced by making everyone economically the same - eg wealth shall be redistributed so we are all functionally the same (the socialist route).

Tolerance is important.  But surely it is not the only ingrediant to a healthy community.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 24, 2012, 03:56:05 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 03:43:09 PMTolerance is about community.  One cannot have a functional community without tolerance. 

That seems to me a cop out. Of course, communities need tolerance - but they always have a varied tolerance to varied things. Communities are usually pretty intolerant of a large variety of behaviours; are pretty open to forgiveness on some and are willing to be voluntary blind to other infractions. The question remains: what kind of tolerance is our individualistic society is celebrating? The short version we have all heard, and often repeated, is "anything that does not infringe upon the liberty of others" - but that is hugely circular, and never truly addresses the kind of liberty our social context is liable to give us. To even get at that point in a conversation, you need to recognize the existence of social limits on liberty and therefore, to discuss what these limits are or should be... In other words: what should we be intolerant about?

And then, you run into another problem, which is that of social change. Obviously, values change and have changed, and I do think it would be difficult to say that regulations and, judgements arrived at by the play of courts and governments haven't had any impact - in other words, they cannot dictate change (what human force can?), but they certainly can steer it by broadcasting a plain message of what we should celebrate, and what we should shun. And thus we return to a discussion of what these norms and values should be. And this is something no fixation on fiscal conservatism (government as corporation), liberal left (anything goes!), or libertarianism (me & my consent) can solve on its own.

I see Oex gave a much more thorough response.

Oex and BB have constructed a rather elabortate refutation of what I said based on something I didnt say.

But an  interesting read all the same.  Particularly the bit where Oex think fiscal conservatism means government as corporation.

Now there is an assumption that needs some unwrapping...

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 11:30:52 AM
I thought about mentioning Aquino, but I thought it was generally felt that her actions in the transition to democracy were wonderful, she had a less than successful government.  Same for Indira Gandhi - it's remarkable she was Prime Minister of India for such a period, but her overall record was mixed.

I think she's better than Indira, whose record, in my view is pretty negative.  I'd put Aquino in the same camp as Mandela or Walesa.  The quality of her government may have been mixed but the success of leading the movement that overthrew a regime and successfully transitioning to a pretty durable looking democracy shouldn't be underestimated.  Suu Kyi will join that group if Burma continues as it is.

QuoteCan't say I'm familiar with Sirleaf or Clark. :mellow:

Sirleaf's, I think, a former World Bank Governor and has been in my view a good post-civil war President for Liberia.  She's signed Africa's first Freedom of Information, been pretty tough on corruption, established universal free education and done a lot to establish and maintain respect for their constitution.  If growth continue and she steps down at the end of her second term I think she'll have been a great leader.

I just like Clark because I've got a thing for Kiwis, I also like the current PM and the magnificent David Lange.  But her government's record is pretty strong.

I agree with Oex and BB on the social conservative thing.  In this country we've largely got over the gay issues and abortion is an issue of conscience for individual MPs.  So for example the Tories want, for socially conservative reasons, to include a tax credit for married couples.  That's opposed by Labour, Leb Dems and, I imagine, more libertarian Tories (like Boris Johnson or George Osborne) as imposing a moral judgement that marriage is better and discriminating against cohabiting couples.  The social conservative point, in my opinion, would be that it definitely does impose a value judgement.  In their view marriage is a social and moral good which should be encouraged.

Here's Cameron's socially conservative pitch to Tory Party Conference last autumn:

QuoteI once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn't matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we're consulting on legalising gay marriage.

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 07:41:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:02:30 PMI disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So in addition to tax deductions for married couples (and NOT common law couples), what other things would you put down as part of a social conservative agenda?

Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2012, 11:04:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:02:30 PMI disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So in addition to tax deductions for married couples (and NOT common law couples), what other things would you put down as part of a social conservative agenda?

Again, I'm not trying to provide some comprehensive political agenda, or some overall social conservative philosophy.  Lots of other things might be part of a 'social conservative' agenda.  I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to pin me down on.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 10:02:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 07:41:39 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
I think if either social conservatives or outsiders focus just on gays and abortion then it distracts from their wider message - which is about things like drug policy, charity, community and an active, somewhat meddling society.  Basically what would social conservatives do if gays and abortion weren't an issue?  They wouldn't just wither away.

They would largely wither away in this country, since all the things BB mentioned are, as Jacob said, largely accepted by most  everyone here as being good and laudable.

In fact the main reason someone identifies themselves as being a social conservative in this country and espouses "family values" is precisely because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-sex education.  Once those issues are removed there isnt much more to argue about except on the social agenda.  The main arguments become economic in nature.

I disagree.  You are categorizing all the things that you personally agree with as "middle of the road", and everything you disagree with as "extreme".

Tax deductions for married couples (NOT common law couples) would be hugely controversial in this country.  Particularily in Quebec.

I agree with Jacob, we are now getting somewhere.  Please clarify BB, which of the things I mentioned :anti abortion, anti gay rights and anti sex education, do you say is NOT extreme.

I would have thought that access to abortion, gays rights and sex education were firmly in the middle of the road of Canadian politics.

Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

Quote from: Barrister on April 25, 2012, 12:02:41 AMAgain, I'm not trying to provide some comprehensive political agenda, or some overall social conservative philosophy.  Lots of other things might be part of a 'social conservative' agenda.  I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to pin me down on.

I'm trying to pin you down on what you mean by social conservative.

My understanding of what social conservatism is that it's anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex education, in favour of punishing extra-marital sex, possibly pro-specific versions of Christianity being explicitly imbedded in the legal framework of the country and possibly anti-immigration.

That's not really the vibe I get from you, however, so I'm curious what you mean when you speak of being a social conservative. Is it simply the things I mentioned above but in a weaker form? I.e. gay people are fine as long as they keep quiet, abortion should be difficult to get, sex education should focus on marriage and abstinence, tax incentives for married people, more room explicitly staked out for religious organizations in civic life including tax and other financial incentives?

Basically, my understanding of social conservatives is that they're pretty close to the raving bigot end of the scale. My impression of you is that you're quite far from the raving bigot end of the scale, yet you seem to consider yourself a social conservative (or at least have sympathies for social conservatives). I'm trying to get that squared away... since I don't think that you secretly have raving bigot sympathies it seems that I'm missing something in my understanding of what social conservatism is and stands for and I would like to find out what that is.

So far you've offered up some generalities in favour of community cohesion and social support, which I agree are (or can be) pretty attractive, but I don't see them as being particular to social conservatives... though, now that I think about it perhaps it's one of the things that sets them apart from other types of conservatives (except maybe the mostly extinct Red Tories) and that's your point? Because, like I said, many of those things you said are perfectly acceptable to your average Liberal or NDP supporter if you don't make it explicitly anti-gay etc.

This isn't meant to be an adversarial conversation either, by the way, so if you I'm coming across as such at some point let me know.

In the end, however, I'm still really vague on what you mean by social conservatism.

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

It is, however, bigoted.

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

I'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:38:52 PMI'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

Depends what "anti-abortion" means.

Does it mean that you look askance at anyone you know had an abortion, and wouldn't want one yourself?
Does it mean that you want to prevent everyone from having an abortion, ever?
Does it mean that you think it's okay to shoot abortion providers and publicly shame women who are known to have had an abortion?
Or does it mean something else?

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 12:38:32 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:03:14 AM
Anti-gay rights is not extreme.

It is, however, bigoted.

Yeah, but who cares about that?  The only people who get worked up about bigotry aren't worth knowing anyways.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:38:52 PMI'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

Depends what "anti-abortion" means.

Does it mean that you look askance at anyone you know had an abortion, and wouldn't want one yourself?
Does it mean that you want to prevent everyone from having an abortion, ever?
Does it mean that you think it's okay to shoot abortion providers and publicly shame women who are known to have had an abortion?
Or does it mean something else?

Exactly.

Does it mean you think abortions are okay if performed 24 hours before a natural birth would occur?
Does it mean you think abortion can be used as another form of birth control, like condoms or the pill?
Or does it mean something else?

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:44:11 PMExactly.

Does it mean you think abortions are okay if performed 24 hours before a natural birth would occur?
Does it mean you think abortion can be used as another form of birth control, like condoms or the pill?
Or does it mean something else?

Well, anti-abortion probably doesn't mean either of those two as there's very little "anti-" about them.

I tend to assume that anti-abortion in this country means attempts to legally limit access to abortion, and I consider that extremist (and thankfully likely to be politically self-destructive). If it's anything weaker than that, then I don't think it's extreme, but then I don't think that'd be called "anti-abortion".

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 12:42:19 PMYeah, but who cares about that?  The only people who get worked up about bigotry aren't worth knowing anyways.

I like to think I have other redeeming qualities, but if you don't agree then you don't.

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:44:11 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:38:52 PMI'm not sure that being "anti-abortion" is extreme either.

Depends what "anti-abortion" means.

Does it mean that you look askance at anyone you know had an abortion, and wouldn't want one yourself?
Does it mean that you want to prevent everyone from having an abortion, ever?
Does it mean that you think it's okay to shoot abortion providers and publicly shame women who are known to have had an abortion?
Or does it mean something else?

Exactly.

Does it mean you think abortions are okay if performed 24 hours before a natural birth would occur?
Does it mean you think abortion can be used as another form of birth control, like condoms or the pill?
Or does it mean something else?

More significantly does it mean a woman would choose not to have an abortion herself because she does not believe in it or does it mean she would use the coercive power of the law to prevent another woman from having an abortion.

That former is, I agree, not extreme.  The latter - yes, it is.  That is why we always call the Conservative right to life backbencher a wingnut:P

But what about providing increased funding or government support for, say, charities that counsel against abortion?  That's socially conservative but it's neither so coercive nor so crude as the other options you've suggested

I think BB's got a point that you seem to be defining social conservatism by positions you consider extreme and unpleasant.  Any position that's moderate isn't capable of being socially conservative.

QuoteOr does it mean something else?

What about disagreeing with abortion in principle, thinking it generally happens because of social failure and trying to put policies in place to discourage that social failure while encouraging women thinking about abortion to choose another option like adoption.  That would be my application of what BB said on drugs to abortion.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2012, 01:39:34 PM
I think BB's got a point that you seem to be defining social conservatism by positions you consider extreme and unpleasant.  Any position that's moderate isn't capable of being socially conservative.

I think legislation that makes abortion illegal is extreme and unpleasant.

That is what social conservatives, at least here, are advocating for.  There may be a kinder gentler version that you or BB might envision but until I see social conservates actually advocate for those positions I will continue to view them as I do.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 12:42:19 PMYeah, but who cares about that?  The only people who get worked up about bigotry aren't worth knowing anyways.

I like to think I have other redeeming qualities, but if you don't agree then you don't.

You just need to calm down a little bit is all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 01:44:04 PM
I think legislation that makes abortion illegal is extreme and unpleasant.

Yeah but that's only one way of being anti-abortion, another is to use social policy to try and prevent or reduce abortions in the way I described.

Similarly in this country it's different because abortion's an issue of conscience but there's MPs who are staunchly anti-abortion, they want it banned.  Then there are others who want abortion available for less time (I think from 24 to 20 weeks was a recent push) or for the circumstances in which it's available to be a bit narrower.  All of those positions are anti-abortion and socially conservative (as are the examples I gave) but only the most extreme and unpleasant would seem to count for you.

In the same way as I think you can have pro-gay, or even gay, social conservatives (we've a few in the Tories) I think you can have social conservatives who are anti-abortion, not necessarily that they want it banned but that they want the number, or the availability reduced.  Which is again not necessarily crude or extreme but still socially conservative.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 01:44:04 PM

I think legislation that makes abortion illegal is extreme and unpleasant.

That is what social conservatives, at least here, are advocating for.  There may be a kinder gentler version that you or BB might envision but until I see social conservates actually advocate for those positions I will continue to view them as I do.

I think the point is that your definition of a social conservative is something like that of a true scotsman.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2012, 01:52:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 01:44:04 PM
I think legislation that makes abortion illegal is extreme and unpleasant.

Yeah but that's only one way of being anti-abortion, another is to use social policy to try and prevent or reduce abortions in the way I described.

Similarly in this country it's different because abortion's an issue of conscience but there's MPs who are staunchly anti-abortion, they want it banned.  Then there are others who want abortion available for less time (I think from 24 to 20 weeks was a recent push) or for the circumstances in which it's available to be a bit narrower.  All of those positions are anti-abortion and socially conservative (as are the examples I gave) but only the most extreme and unpleasant would seem to count for you.

In the same way as I think you can have pro-gay, or even gay, social conservatives (we've a few in the Tories) I think you can have social conservatives who are anti-abortion, not necessarily that they want it banned but that they want the number, or the availability reduced.  Which is again not necessarily crude or extreme but still socially conservative.

I think of myself as anti-abortion, but I subscribe to the Bill Clinton formulation - that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.

I've commented before that I think Canada ought to have an abortion law - currently we have none.  I don't think that law needs to be, or should be, a complete ban on the procedure, but I think some level of federal guidelines and restrictions ought to be put in place. 

I think I've told Jacob and CC several times that it is a continuum.  They keep mentioning a certain stereotype of a "social conservative" and say they do not approve of that stereotype, but there are those who are on "that side" of the spectrum who are more moderate.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2012, 01:52:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 01:44:04 PM
I think legislation that makes abortion illegal is extreme and unpleasant.

Yeah but that's only one way of being anti-abortion, another is to use social policy to try and prevent or reduce abortions in the way I described.

Similarly in this country it's different because abortion's an issue of conscience but there's MPs who are staunchly anti-abortion, they want it banned.  Then there are others who want abortion available for less time (I think from 24 to 20 weeks was a recent push) or for the circumstances in which it's available to be a bit narrower.  All of those positions are anti-abortion and socially conservative (as are the examples I gave) but only the most extreme and unpleasant would seem to count for you.

In the same way as I think you can have pro-gay, or even gay, social conservatives (we've a few in the Tories) I think you can have social conservatives who are anti-abortion, not necessarily that they want it banned but that they want the number, or the availability reduced.  Which is again not necessarily crude or extreme but still socially conservative.

You sniped out the relevant part. You and BB may come up with all kinds of wonderful ways in which social conservatives might define themselves.  I am addressing the way in which social conservatives define themselves right now, in Vancouver.

It doesnt matter to me that social conservatism is potentially more enlightened.  Right now it is not.  For every BB (and who couldnt like BB) there is many more like the goofball that BB voted for.

So is social conservatism a big problem in Vancouver?  :huh:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2012, 01:39:34 PM
But what about providing increased funding or government support for, say, charities that counsel against abortion?  That's socially conservative but it's neither so coercive nor so crude as the other options you've suggested

I think BB's got a point that you seem to be defining social conservatism by positions you consider extreme and unpleasant.  Any position that's moderate isn't capable of being socially conservative.

Sure. But I've never heard such policies proposed by anyone and have them labelled as socially conservative prior to this thread.

I'm really interested in A) hearing some of these moderate socially conservative positions outlined (because they're new to me); and B) understanding who holds them in political arenas I'm familiar with (especially in Canada, but elsewhere as well).

I don't dismiss moderate social conservatives at all, I just haven't heard about them before, at least not labelled thus.

QuoteWhat about disagreeing with abortion in principle, thinking it generally happens because of social failure and trying to put policies in place to discourage that social failure while encouraging women thinking about abortion to choose another option like adoption.  That would be my application of what BB said on drugs to abortion.

Sounds reasonable to me (depending on exactly what is meant by "discourage that social failure" and "encouraging ... another option", but in principle it's reasonable). It's a position I've heard before, but not from people who describe themselves as socially conservative. If this is the socially conservative position on abortion, I'd like to hear a bit about how to discourage the social failure, and how to encourage alternatives to adoption.

I'd also like to hear about other moderate socially conservative positions (as distinct from the extreme ones I associate with the term social conservative). But, like I said, it's because I'm curious and interested, not as part as some knock-down-drag-out clash of ideologies (that can always come later ;) ).

Well you weren't specific enough that you meant as they are right now, in Vancouver. 

You said that 'the social conservative agenda is to warp issues like support for families into nonsense like no sex education, no abortion and no gay rights.  I see nothing but bad policy coming out of any social conservative agenda.'

I disagree and I'm not proposing some mythic social conservative platform but describing the varieties of social conservative - gay and straight - that we have in the Tory Party here.  I'm not going to start chastising them for being insufficiently staunch in their views. 

I'd note right now our welfare minister is Iain Duncan-Smith.  He was a disastrously right-wing Tory leader.  He's old army, strong Catholic and very socially conservative.  But all of that motivated his interest and work in welfare policy.  He founded a think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, and is a big one for pushing support for marriage because he thinks as well as pro-family policy (like tax cuts) being good in itself that family breakdown's the cause of a lot of social and economic problems.  I'd argue that's an example of thinking beyond gays and abortion.  It comes from the basic ideas of social conservatism and it's not an analysis you'll normally get from a left-wing perspective.

I think BB and Oex are right when they say the focus is on the social.  They're interventionist, so they want pro-family policies, interventionist drug, alcohol and smoking programs and so on.  The one's you know may be only about the gays and abortion but that doesn't mean that that's all social conservatism is about. 

My beef with the social conservative movement in Canada is that they advocate for making abortion illegal and removing the legal protection for gays and only teaching abstinance in sex education.

To the extent you think social conservatism has other attributes, that is all well and good. But I must deal with the reality of the poltical positions social conservatives are actually taking.  If they are more enlightened in your country that is wonderful.  Perhaps you could export a few of them here.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 02:23:30 PM
I'm really interested in A) hearing some of these moderate socially conservative positions outlined (because they're new to me); and B) understanding who holds them in political arenas I'm familiar with (especially in Canada, but elsewhere as well).

The best example I've got is Iain Duncan-Smith.  His entire analysis of poverty and 'welfare dependence' is based on an idea of social breakdown.  I think his view, or at least his think tank's view, is that to a large extent poverty is exacerbated by family breakdown and the failure of family network, the collapse of traditional community institutions (like churches) and the failure of community cohesion due to mass migration and the 'failure of multiculturalism'.

So in order to effectively deal with poverty you need to change the benefit system to reduce 'dependence' but you also need to have policies that try and increase community cohesion, tax and benefit policy should support married couples and you try and involve lots of charities to get involved and work on this rather than depending on the state alone.

A lot of his thinking and that of the Centre for Social Justice is hugely influential on the Christian wing of the Tory party.  As I say I think it's credibly socially conservative - that's certainly how they see it.  They stand in contrast with the more liberal Tories who are a bit more heartless and purely economically focused.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 02:31:16 PM
My beef with the social conservative movement in Canada is that they advocate for making abortion illegal and removing the legal protection for gays and only teaching abstinance in sex education.

To the extent you think social conservatism has other attributes, that is all well and good. But I must deal with the reality of the poltical positions social conservatives are actually taking.  If they are more enlightened in your country that is wonderful.  Perhaps you could export a few of them here.

It's not more enlightened necessarily.  IDS is very Catholic I'm fairly sure he's anti-abortion and hasn't got a great record on gays either.  But I think his politics are a bit broader than that, it's not that him or other social conservatives don't want to reduce abortions or, at best, want gays to be like traditional straight couples it's that they want that with other stuff.

His old Chief of Staff, Tim Montgomerie, now a big Tory blogger started in the Conservative Christian Fellowship - so socially conservative.  But his big obsession is what he calls the politics of 'and'.  So, say, 'faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders AND more care for the vulnerable children of prisoners'. 

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 12:49:55 PM

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 12:44:11 PMExactly.

Does it mean you think abortions are okay if performed 24 hours before a natural birth would occur?
Does it mean you think abortion can be used as another form of birth control, like condoms or the pill?
Or does it mean something else?

Well, anti-abortion probably doesn't mean either of those two as there's very little "anti-" about them.

I tend to assume that anti-abortion in this country means attempts to legally limit access to abortion, and I consider that extremist (and thankfully likely to be politically self-destructive). If it's anything weaker than that, then I don't think it's extreme, but then I don't think that'd be called "anti-abortion".

Well I don't self-identify as a social conservative as I think prostitution should be legal, drugs should be decriminalized / legal and I'm a fan of safe injection sites.  But when it comes to abortion I've no problem legally limiting access to abortion in cases where if at the time of the termination a natural birth would be viable and the birth doesn't threaten the health of the mother, ie limiting access to abortions after after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at stake. 

The points in the first sentence probably make me extremist but I don't think the point in the second sentence does even if you do, I consider that just the "right thing to do".

Quote from: PRC on April 25, 2012, 03:15:25 PMWell I don't self-identify as a social conservative as I think prostitution should be legal, drugs should be decriminalized / legal and I'm a fan of safe injection sites.  But when it comes to abortion I've no problem legally limiting access to abortion in cases where if at the time of the termination a natural birth would be viable and the birth doesn't threaten the health of the mother, ie limiting access to abortions after after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at stake. 

The points in the first sentence probably make me extremist but I don't think the point in the second sentence does even if you do, I consider that just the "right thing to do".

I don't think tweaking the parameters of abortion availability is extremist as long as it remains generally accessible. I may not agree with, say, moving the last time for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but I don't think wanting to move the window thus is extremist (unless it's just a tactical move in a march towards moving it to 0 weeks).

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 25, 2012, 02:37:31 PM
The best example I've got is Iain Duncan-Smith.  His entire analysis of poverty and 'welfare dependence' is based on an idea of social breakdown.  I think his view, or at least his think tank's view, is that to a large extent poverty is exacerbated by family breakdown and the failure of family network, the collapse of traditional community institutions (like churches) and the failure of community cohesion due to mass migration and the 'failure of multiculturalism'.

So in order to effectively deal with poverty you need to change the benefit system to reduce 'dependence' but you also need to have policies that try and increase community cohesion, tax and benefit policy should support married couples and you try and involve lots of charities to get involved and work on this rather than depending on the state alone.

A lot of his thinking and that of the Centre for Social Justice is hugely influential on the Christian wing of the Tory party.  As I say I think it's credibly socially conservative - that's certainly how they see it.  They stand in contrast with the more liberal Tories who are a bit more heartless and purely economically focused.

That's fair enough, and yeah I'd say that's moderate social conservatism as well. I may disagree with some or all of the particulars, but nothing you've said there is what I'd call extreme (leaving out the "not so good on the gays" etc as I don't know what that covers).

It is, however, not a position I'm used to seeing in the Canadian (or American) political discourse. As far as I can see, "Social Conservative" is synonymous with "Religious Right" which primarily stands for functionally outlawing abortion, dealing with drug use solely through the criminal justice system and explicitly bringing religious indoctrination into education and the law.

I'd be quite pleased if we had some more prominent moderate "social conservatives" here taking the mantle from the extremists. Maybe then moderate social conservatives like BB wouldn't feel compelled to vote for someone who actually espouses extremist views.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 03:57:39 PM
I'd be quite pleased if we had some more prominent moderate "social conservatives" here taking the mantle from the extremists. Maybe then maybe moderate social conservatives like BB wouldn't feel compelled to vote for someone who actually espouses extremist views.

Or maybe we could get BB to put down his robes and pick up the rubber chicken circuit and run for office himself.  It would be a refreshing change from the usual social conservative suspects.

If I may interject on a debate of a couple of days ago - to my mind the Alberta election emphasized what I've thought for a while - that overall Canadians will punish politicians who want to ignite cultural battles over social issues.

It isn't that Canadians are socially liberal, necessarily. Many Canadians echo BB's interests in conservatism of the respect-for-community type. It is just that they have no desire to bring US style ranting and raving about these issues north of the border, no matter what their own private views may be. 

Harper's political genius lies in knowing when to leave well enough alone. No doubt he disapproves of gay marriage and abortion - it's no secret. But he's savvy enough to avoid making a meal of this. The issues are settled for now, attempting to turn back the clock would carry a terrible political price, so aside from the occasional private member's bill - easy to ignore - he's willing to let sleeping dogs lie.

It may not be the principled thing, but if Canadian politics has a flavour, it is to temper principle with pragmatism - that whole "peace, order and good government" thing.

Wildrose would have won I think had they as a party been able to keep this firmly in mind - overall Canadians do not mind tossing the current set of bums out on the grounds that they have grown complacant and corrupt, and letting some young turks have a go - but not ranters and ravers on devisive social issues.   

I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 11:42:09 AM
I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 11:42:09 AM
I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

That wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 12:35:49 PMThat wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

I honestly had no idea that there were masses of Liberal voters in Alberta. How big a proportion of the electorate are they? What are the other significant groups and how big are they?

Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2012, 12:42:05 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 12:35:49 PMThat wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

I honestly had no idea that there were masses of Liberal voters in Alberta. How big a proportion of the electorate are they? What are the other significant groups and how big are they?

They fell from 26% of the electorate last election to 9% this time around.  The NDP polls under 5%, all the time.  Then there are the Tories and the Wildrose.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 12:46:06 PMThey fell from 26% of the electorate last election to 9% this time around.  The NDP polls under 5%, all the time.  Then there are the Tories and the Wildrose.

Interesting.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

Not in the forseeable future, as the Tories already have that space, and are a party with strong roots in the West.  There could always be another 90s-style Reform movement if the Tories lose their way again, but the heartland of US-style conservatism in Canada is southern Alberta, and the Wildrose as it is will have a hard time expanding beyond that.

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 11:42:09 AM
I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

I dont think anyone should underestimate the damage done to Wild Rose when they replaced original picture from the side of the bus.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 01:36:57 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 12:23:13 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 11:42:09 AM
I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

I dont think anyone should underestimate the damage done to Wild Rose when they replaced original picture from the side of the bus.

:lol:

The turning point of the campagn - identified!

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 09:01:57 AMIt isn't that Canadians are socially liberal, necessarily. Many Canadians echo BB's interests in conservatism of the respect-for-community type. It is just that they have no desire to bring US style ranting and raving about these issues north of the border, no matter what their own private views may be. 

I think this is key, but also only half-true. The last years have seen, on the right at least, an "Americanization" of the terms of debate and political culture; it is precisely because "US style raving and ranting" is already here that one can peg social conservatism as interested mainly in a replication of the old culture wars of the US. Conversely, while Harper has done his best to throw a bone from time to time to those of his base who subscribe to such, he is also a clear participant of the same Americanization, by blatantly imitating Rovian tactics, and getting a good number of his cues from Republican politicking. Which one is a by-product of the other, I am not sure - or perhaps they simply walk hand-in-hand.

'Imitating Rovian tactics'?  Harper never intimated that Ignatieff had illegitimate black babies.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 01:47:06 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 09:01:57 AMIt isn't that Canadians are socially liberal, necessarily. Many Canadians echo BB's interests in conservatism of the respect-for-community type. It is just that they have no desire to bring US style ranting and raving about these issues north of the border, no matter what their own private views may be. 

I think this is key, but also only half-true. The last years have seen, on the right at least, an "Americanization" of the terms of debate and political culture; it is precisely because "US style raving and ranting" is already here that one can peg social conservatism as interested mainly in a replication of the old culture wars of the US. Conversely, while Harper has done his best to throw a bone from time to time to those of his base who subscribe to such, he is also a clear participant of the same Americanization, by blatantly imitating Rovian tactics, and getting a good number of his cues from Republican politicking. Which one is a by-product of the other, I am not sure - or perhaps they simply walk hand-in-hand.

You are very much overstating your case.  We are nowhere near the kind of politics there are in the US.  We dont have any political party or any leader (or would be leader for that matter) advocating for denying a woman's right to abortion, questioning evolution (at least now that Stockwell Day is out of politics) or taking the position that gays should have no rights.

Those issues are settled in Canada.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 01:53:36 PM
'Imitating Rovian tactics'?  Harper never intimated that Ignatieff had illegitimate black babies.

Although the Liberals tried to paint Harper as a sinister figure who would eliminate abortion rights and put armed troops in Canadian streets.  Remember that Oex?

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

No.  Too closely aligned with the Conservatives.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 02:05:31 PM
You are very much overstating your case.  We are nowhere near the kind of politics there are in the US.

Perhaps. I did not write that we are clones of US political style, but there has been a definite - albeit perhaps more limited than I make it to be - import of language, tactics and practices, even if not strictly limited to the old American culture wars. Smear tactics are much more aggressive they used to be, negative advertising is more and more prevalent.  The PM's "spokesperson", the dividing up of ridings and "electoral clienteles" are other examples of what I think is clearly an American import. These are but example of rhetorical "cues" and tactices that one can, and should, get inspiration from whatever happens south of the border. This is what I meant - that by following models south of the border, the Conservative party is also showing, even if indirectly and unadvenrtantly, to the more radical members of its own party, similar models to follow.

That being said, I agree with you it is nowhere near the level of what we see in the US.

It doesn't have to be word-for-word import of discourses.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean by you overstating the first time, particularly when you said - "one can peg social conservatism as interested mainly in a replication of the old culture wars of the US".

As Malthus has already pointed out - there are many people in Canada who may be social conservative - Harper being one - that has no interest at all in "replicating" the "the old cutlure wars of the US"


To what you have now said, I find it intersting that you place blame on only on party in Canada.  You must have seen all the attack adds from the left.  What do you say about those?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 02:12:04 PM
Although the Liberals tried to paint Harper as a sinister figure who would eliminate abortion rights and put armed troops in Canadian streets.  Remember that Oex?

I didn't until you brought it back - simply because Quebec is its own different electoral market (can't even remember if I saw in French or in English). But I can't remember the Libs using the same tactics against, say, the Bloc, until we started seeing a more overall aggressive electoral market; before, it used to be the same crappy, sugary-sweet "leader-walking-in-a-summer-field-with-children".

But the one that stroke me was the character assassination of Stéphane Dion while there was no electoral campaign. Or the more recent one against Thomas Mulcair.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:23:22 PM
; before, it used to be the same crappy, sugary-sweet "leader-walking-in-a-summer-field-with-children".

The best was the ads featuring Harper wearing a sweater to humanize him - just a loveable, down-home kinda guy, right?  :lol:

http://thingsharperdoestoseemhuman.tumblr.com/post/4218297066/wearing-sweater-vests

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 02:21:30 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I mean by you overstating the first time, particularly when you said - "one can peg social conservatism as interested mainly in a replication of the old culture wars of the US".

But you were the one saying that, for you, social conservatism was just a bunch of intolerant people interested in curtailing gay rights and the like ! :D

If, for you, and before we started having this conversation, that was all that social conservatism was about, it might be because these admitedly minority groups have at least have some form of success in taking over the image of social conservatism, no?

QuoteTo what you have now said, I find it intersting that you place blame on only on party in Canada.  You must have seen all the attack adds from the left.  What do you say about those?

No, I haven't. I was in France last year. I am now in the US. I am more exposed to webads, and the Conservatives are much, much more effective on that front than any other party. I have the good fortune to being exposed to all the American rubbish though.   :bleeding:

That being said, I find it somewhat reasonable assessment that I can ascribe this to a party which has explicitely taken its cues from American political campaigning (I mean: Flanagan makes no secret of it all) as opposed to the incredibly naive, pisspoor campaigns of the Liberals of times past. Again, the Bloc had a different model anyway, until it tried desperately to play the ABC (anything-but-conservatives card).

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:32:46 PM
I have the good fortune to being exposed to all the American rubbish though.   :bleeding:

Hey least you get to go back to Canada someday.  Some of us live here and get to enjoy this our entire lives.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:32:46 PM
I have the good fortune to being exposed to all the American rubbish though.   :bleeding:

How do you immunize yourself? :D

 I rant on Languish :P

 :lol:

FWIW, there is definitely some sharing of advice and stategies between political professionals in US, UK and Canada.  At least on the right.

And on the left.

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 02:30:50 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:23:22 PM
; before, it used to be the same crappy, sugary-sweet "leader-walking-in-a-summer-field-with-children".

The best was the ads featuring Harper wearing a sweater to humanize him - just a loveable, down-home kinda guy, right?  :lol:

http://thingsharperdoestoseemhuman.tumblr.com/post/4218297066/wearing-sweater-vests

I loved this from that site:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F27.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_liw7hwHY0f1qiyg2io1_500.jpg&hash=fdeb66c2cad78f266646ae723b734779414a4b54)

Barely tolerating Bonhomme.


Reminded me of this: http://conaninto.danzinman.com/conaninto/triumph/outtakes.html  where Triumph calls Bonhomme the Michelin Man's gay cousin :lol:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_liw8s6HjJw1qiyg2io1_500.jpg&hash=798dfd4c74d57239a88860dbafd792009e9b8929)

Wait - that's the Conservative Party logo on those hockey sweaters. :lol:

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:23:22 PM
But the one that stroke me was the character assassination of Stéphane Dion while there was no electoral campaign. Or the more recent one against Thomas Mulcair.

If you had lived in English Canada, you would have seen the attacks that went out on Harper pretty much from when he united the parties.  The aggressiveness that the Conservatives have is a product of the circumstances of their birth.

Going through those pictures makes me regret asking BB to run for political office.  Such a thing is a fate worse than death.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 03:19:59 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 02:23:22 PM
But the one that stroke me was the character assassination of Stéphane Dion while there was no electoral campaign. Or the more recent one against Thomas Mulcair.

If you had lived in English Canada, you would have seen the attacks that went out on Harper pretty much from when he united the parties.  The aggressiveness that the Conservatives have is a product of the circumstances of their birth.

You know I kind of felt bad for the character attacks on Dion and Ignatieff, both of whom by all accounts seemed like pretty decent human beings.

Trouble is they were so damn effective - how can you not use such an effective strategy?

The thing is both would have been disasters as PM, particularly Dion.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
You know I kind of felt bad for the character attacks on Dion and Ignatieff, both of whom by all accounts seemed like pretty decent human beings.

had you lived in Quebec, you would not say that about Dion.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 01:47:06 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2012, 09:01:57 AMIt isn't that Canadians are socially liberal, necessarily. Many Canadians echo BB's interests in conservatism of the respect-for-community type. It is just that they have no desire to bring US style ranting and raving about these issues north of the border, no matter what their own private views may be. 

I think this is key, but also only half-true. The last years have seen, on the right at least, an "Americanization" of the terms of debate and political culture; it is precisely because "US style raving and ranting" is already here that one can peg social conservatism as interested mainly in a replication of the old culture wars of the US. Conversely, while Harper has done his best to throw a bone from time to time to those of his base who subscribe to such, he is also a clear participant of the same Americanization, by blatantly imitating Rovian tactics, and getting a good number of his cues from Republican politicking. Which one is a by-product of the other, I am not sure - or perhaps they simply walk hand-in-hand.

political analysts have said that at least since the 1993 federal election.  And before that, well, I heard how the NO side campaigned in 1980 from my history classes.  I wouldn't say they were nice to Lévesque &co. It just wasn't done in the media.

Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
You know I kind of felt bad for the character attacks on Dion and Ignatieff, both of whom by all accounts seemed like pretty decent human beings.

had you lived in Quebec, you would not say that about Dion.

I'm pretty sure I would.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 03:26:37 PM
The thing is both would have been disasters as PM, particularly Dion.

I doubt Dion would have amounted to anything as a PM - but would that justify the kind of attack ad he got?

Heck, I think Harper is a crypto-fascist and I don't think he should be the subject of attack ads...  :P

Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2012, 03:28:36 PM
political analysts have said that at least since the 1993 federal election.  And before that, well, I heard how the NO side campaigned in 1980 from my history classes.  I wouldn't say they were nice to Lévesque &co. It just wasn't done in the media.

Exactly. There is a qualitative difference between having an voice-over actor paid to recite lines about how evil, stupid, ugly (Mulroney's ad about Chretien, for instance) the other guy is - and having these lines repeated twenty times a day - and a politician owning to saying these things in person.

As for the referendum, you are right - but the stakes were quite a bit higher each time, as opposed to a federal election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 03:01:06 PM
And on the left.

Who?

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 03:31:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 03:26:37 PM
The thing is both would have been disasters as PM, particularly Dion.

I doubt Dion would have amounted to anything as a PM - but would that justify the kind of attack ad he got?

Heck, I think Harper is a crypto-fascist and I don't think he should be the subject of attack ads...  :P

Its not a justification. It is a reason the attacks ads worked as well as they did.  There was something to the suggestion that Dion would have been ineffective at best and there was something to the suggestion that Iggy was an elitist.

Its the same way attack ads against Harper work.  People believe there is a hidden agenda lurking in his black heart.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:30:11 PM

Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
You know I kind of felt bad for the character attacks on Dion and Ignatieff, both of whom by all accounts seemed like pretty decent human beings.

had you lived in Quebec, you would not say that about Dion.

I'm pretty sure I would.

nobody earns the nickname "federalist pit-bull" for being a decent human being.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 03:36:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 03:01:06 PM
And on the left.

Who?

The Liberals and US Democrats have strong ties.  I recall a story during Iggy's time about how the Liberals were getting campaigning lessons from their US counterparts.

The really funny one is how upset David Suzuki gets over his foundation actually having to follow the rules in the tax code regarding how many resources non profits can devote to engaging in politics and how the government is actually going to enforce it now.

As I side note it is odd that the left would not be behind such a move given the kind of third party political spending that goes on in the US.  But I digress.

In a recent interview Suzuki conceded that his foundation does recieve foriegn money but he was quick to add his group was always within the law regarding political activities and he was stepping down from his role there to ensure they stayed off side.

In reality he had stepped down months the new budget and before any announcements about enforcing the rules regarding nonprofits  and no interviewers have questioned his apparent grand standing now - but again I digress.

He also talked about how enviornmental groups on both sides of the border "communicate" within one another.  I wish the interviewer had pressed him on what that meant.  Turns out there are a number of people south of the border (from enviornment groups - and movie stars  :rolleyes: who want to speak at the Enbridge pipeline hearings.  I wonder if the two have anything to do with one another? :hmm:

Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2012, 03:51:02 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:30:11 PM

Quote from: viper37 on April 26, 2012, 03:27:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 03:24:50 PM
You know I kind of felt bad for the character attacks on Dion and Ignatieff, both of whom by all accounts seemed like pretty decent human beings.

had you lived in Quebec, you would not say that about Dion.

I'm pretty sure I would.

nobody earns the nickname "federalist pit-bull" for being a decent human being.

Pit pulls are a misunderstood breed.  They are cute and cuddly.  If you knew a bit pull you would never call Dion one.

Mulroney had an attack ad for Chretien?

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:08:21 PM
Mulroney had an attack ad for Chretien?

Yep, or at least the PCs did.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:08:21 PM
Mulroney had an attack ad for Chretien?

Sorry - Campbell:

Is this a Prime Minister?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F50%2FChretien_Ad.jpg&hash=7b3b81ae8346e42ef765db1fe1483f39de3b1d7e)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 04:09:52 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:08:21 PM
Mulroney had an attack ad for Chretien?

Yep, or at least the PCs did.

See, now I could see the PCs, but for Mulroney to run attack ads on Chretien when they never faced each other in an election makes no sense.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 04:12:38 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:08:21 PM
Mulroney had an attack ad for Chretien?

Sorry - Campbell:

Is this a Prime Minister?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F50%2FChretien_Ad.jpg&hash=7b3b81ae8346e42ef765db1fe1483f39de3b1d7e)

The answer was:  Yes.

I was a big Chretien supporter in '93, because the Tories had put a 7% tax on books.

And here I was blaming BB all these years.

What did you do when Chretian broke his promise and did not remove the GST?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 04:36:37 PM
And here I was blaming BB all these years.

What did you do when Chretian broke his promise and did not remove the GST?

Refoooorm.

That is a relief. I was blaming the correct person all along. :hug:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 06:06:49 PM
That is a relief. I was blaming the correct person all along. :hug:

What choice did I have?  When the Liberal government devoted themselves to their racist policies against Ethnic Albertans, only the Reform promised to stand up for us, even thought they also wanted a stupid triple-E senate.

OMG, you people are still talking about your politics?

Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
OMG, you people are still talking about your politics?

Yes, the ways of our people are strange and inscrutable to outsiders.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:54:19 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 04:36:37 PM
And here I was blaming BB all these years.

What did you do when Chretian broke his promise and did not remove the GST?

Refoooorm.

:w00t:

Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
OMG, you people are still talking about your politics?

We dont have Fox news to do the talking for us. :(

Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
OMG, you people are still talking about your politics?

most of our teams are out of the playoffs. there's little left for us to talk about :P

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 04:12:38 PM

Is this a Prime Minister?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F50%2FChretien_Ad.jpg&hash=7b3b81ae8346e42ef765db1fe1483f39de3b1d7e)

Yes.  Canada's best post-war Prime Minister, in fact.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 26, 2012, 08:46:50 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 04:12:38 PM

Is this a Prime Minister?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F50%2FChretien_Ad.jpg&hash=7b3b81ae8346e42ef765db1fe1483f39de3b1d7e)

Yes.  Canada's best post-war Prime Minister, in fact.

Nope.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 07:49:40 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 26, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
OMG, you people are still talking about your politics?

We dont have Fox news to do the talking for us. :(

Do you get Sun TV out there in B.C. Land, CC?

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 26, 2012, 08:46:50 PM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2012, 04:12:38 PM

Is this a Prime Minister?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F5%2F50%2FChretien_Ad.jpg&hash=7b3b81ae8346e42ef765db1fe1483f39de3b1d7e)

Yes.  Canada's best post-war Prime Minister, in fact.

*cough*

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata2.collectionscanada.gc.ca%2Fap%2Fc%2Fc006779.jpg&hash=e276124581d38c2fd9ad3f7c4c86b65d534a7d77)

Dief disagrees.

As does Harper.

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 02:14:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

No.  Too closely aligned with the Conservatives.

So they wouldn't even go like a CSU to the Tories CDU?  Would this be a threat they have over the Tories if they got weak or too liberal?

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 02:53:43 PM
FWIW, there is definitely some sharing of advice and stategies between political professionals in US, UK and Canada.  At least on the right.

Definitely.  Though from a UK perspective I think there's more Tory-Tory love because there's a Democrat in the White House and Republicans are probably too extreme.  I think Major's relations with Clinton were always hugely damaged because the Tories were seen as far too close to the Bush campaign and though the Tories had McCain address conference a few years back and, officially, backed him they were generally terrified of Palin.  I think most Tories backed Obama.

By contrast they admire Harper and the right-wing of the Tory party really like him and hold him (and Tony Abbott) up as examples of what Cameron should have been.  They have a point.

I think there's less cooperation on the left because the Canadian left is in disarray and the Tories are in power in both countries.  The Administration, to the best of my knowledge, gets on with Cameron and Harper so they don't want to help the opposition, like Clinton did with Blair.  That could change if it becomes very likely that the Tories in either country would lose.

One interesting thing is that I think in Britain we're stuck politically.  We've still got post-92 style spin doctors pushing a strict media line and pictures of Ministers or Shadow Ministers visiting factories etc.  But I think the voters have outgrown it.  I think they are now very adept at sniffing out a politician who's just pushing the line.  I think, as Iain Martin argues, voters can see the wiring now.  It's why I think the most popular politicians are the 'authentic' ones like Boris, Ken Clarke, Alastair Darling and, until recently, Ken.  Here's an article on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/9220239/Voters-have-lost-patience-with-the-culture-of-spin-and-fakery.html

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 11:39:42 PM
I think there's less cooperation on the left because the Canadian left is in disarray

:huh:

The left in this country is as strong as it has ever been.

The Liberals are not the left.  They are the once great goo that tried to be both.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2012, 03:48:57 AM:huh:

The left in this country is as strong as it has ever been.

The Liberals are not the left.  They are the once great goo that tried to be both.

That may be so but, as your post indicates, the Democrats and the Liberals have ties.  Until the last election it was also Labour and the Liberals who cooperated.  So the Liberals may not be left but they were your example when you answered Oex because in this context they were.  They may not have been members of Socialist International but they were the left-wing party of government who cooperated with other lefty parties of government like the Democrats and Labour.

That's changed from a British perspective because the Labour Party are now considering working with the NDP instead, but I don't think anything's actually happened yet.  I imagine the relationship between the Liberals and Democrats has also weakened.

Edit:  Apparently the NDP's had meetings with the Democrats who are thinking of shifting their international colleagues.  The Australian Labour Party already have.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 11:22:11 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2012, 02:14:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 26, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

No.  Too closely aligned with the Conservatives.

So they wouldn't even go like a CSU to the Tories CDU?  Would this be a threat they have over the Tories if they got weak or too liberal?

No.

Remember 25 years ago the one and only right-wing party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party.  It was perceived as being too centrist (and various other things) which led to the rise of the Reform Party, which ultimately merged with the federal PC Party.  But it wasn't a merger of equals.  Reform had the much larger membership and donorship base, and a former Reform MP (Harper) ultimately leads the party.  So the federal Conservative Party took the name and colour (blue) from the old PC Party, but behind the scenes are mostly Reformers.  There are still several old-school PCs who have nothing to do with the Conservative Party (former PMs Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney most notably).

Back in Alberta things were different.  It's always been the PC Party, which historically under guys like Lougheed was in tune with the federal PC Party.  Back in the early 90s when Reform really got going there were lots of rumbling about getting a similar party going on the provincial scene.  That was averted when the Alberta PC Party elected a very right-wing leader, Ralph Klein.  Klein was very popular with the wider electorate, but a portion of his own membership base wasn't always thrilled with him.

Klein is gone.  Last leader (Stelmach) was just ineffectual.  Current leader Redford is very much in the Red Tory mold.  That's what led to the rise of Wildrose.

But it might not be obvious from overseas, but Wildrose is very deliberately making itself out to be Reform Alberta.  A number of their policies are cut-and-paste jobs from Reform.  I recognized several names of people who had been involved in Reform.  Their signs and campaign material are in Reform coloured Green.

So this isn't a new movement - it's the same old movement under a new label.  It would be impossible for them to try and challenge the federal Conservative Party because so many of them are Conservative Party members.  Why do you think they were able to organize so effectively?  Because they got support from federal Conservatives.  Not formally of course.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2012, 04:47:04 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2012, 03:48:57 AM:huh:

The left in this country is as strong as it has ever been.

The Liberals are not the left.  They are the once great goo that tried to be both.

That may be so but, as your post indicates, the Democrats and the Liberals have ties.  Until the last election it was also Labour and the Liberals who cooperated.  So the Liberals may not be left but they were your example when you answered Oex because in this context they were.  They may not have been members of Socialist International but they were the left-wing party of government who cooperated with other lefty parties of government like the Democrats and Labour.

That's changed from a British perspective because the Labour Party are now considering working with the NDP instead, but I don't think anything's actually happened yet.  I imagine the relationship between the Liberals and Democrats has also weakened.

Edit:  Apparently the NDP's had meetings with the Democrats who are thinking of shifting their international colleagues.  The Australian Labour Party already have.

I think you're focusing too much on formal ties between parties.

Instead it's the behind the scenes networks of political lobby groups and think tanks.  Just as my own example in university I came out to Calgary to receive a few days training from a US-based conservative think-tank.  It was the early 90s so there was a very uneasy mixture of PCs and Reformers, and I think one loon from Christian Heritage.  In order to preserve right-wing unity we decided that we would all be BC SoCred members for the weekend (BC SoCred had been defeated and was clearly waning, but had a few delegates as well).

I understand the national Conservative Party has hired political consultants from the US from time to time.  Various Canadians have been hired in the US for political positions, then returned to Canada.  David Frum is the poster child for this phenomenon.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2012, 04:47:04 AM
That may be so but, as your post indicates, the Democrats and the Liberals have ties.  Until the last election it was also Labour and the Liberals who cooperated.  So the Liberals may not be left but they were your example when you answered Oex because in this context they were.  They may not have been members of Socialist International but they were the left-wing party of government who cooperated with other lefty parties of government like the Democrats and Labour.

That's changed from a British perspective because the Labour Party are now considering working with the NDP instead, but I don't think anything's actually happened yet.  I imagine the relationship between the Liberals and Democrats has also weakened.

Edit:  Apparently the NDP's had meetings with the Democrats who are thinking of shifting their international colleagues.  The Australian Labour Party already have.

Interesting, I assumed that there had always been ties between the Canadian NDP and British Labour.  A quick google search shows me that while the Federal NDP rejected The Third Way in 1999 it was embraced by the provincial wing of the party in at least BC and Saskatchewan and probably elsewhere - but I didnt spend much time looking for that. Despite the formal rejection the Federal NDP moved in that direction in any event. Although I concede they may have been forced to it given the political culture of the day and it may have had little to do with formal or informal ties with British Labour at that time.

Here is a good editorial about the Federal moves written shortly after the last leadership debate - and touches a bit on what you posted in your thread.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/the-eternal-leavening-of-the-canadian-left/article2396431/?service=mobile

It also appears that the NDP Socialist Caucus has extensive links to socialist movement internationally.  A good reminder that the old enemy still lurks.

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2012, 09:08:14 AM
Instead it's the behind the scenes networks of political lobby groups and think tanks.  Just as my own example in university I came out to Calgary to receive a few days training from a US-based conservative think-tank.  It was the early 90s so there was a very uneasy mixture of PCs and Reformers, and I think one loon from Christian Heritage.  In order to preserve right-wing unity we decided that we would all be BC SoCred members for the weekend (BC SoCred had been defeated and was clearly waning, but had a few delegates as well).

I understand the national Conservative Party has hired political consultants from the US from time to time.  Various Canadians have been hired in the US for political positions, then returned to Canada.  David Frum is the poster child for this phenomenon.

This is fair.  But I still think the links between movements on the left are bound to be weaker at the minute than those on the right simply because of the collapse of the Liberals and rise of the NDP and I imagine in general the informal relations follow in the channels of the formal ones.

QuoteIt also appears that the NDP Socialist Caucus has extensive links to socialist movement internationally.  A good reminder that the old enemy still lurks.

So does the Labour Party.  Blair occasionally went and spoke to Socialist International and sang the Internationale.  It's a broad church :P

Another factor is that Michael Foot was good friends with David Lewis (they were comrades in Oxford).  I imagine the NDP were out of favour in Labour for a long time after that :lol: