SpankyMcFarland
-
Posts
4,333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SpankyMcFarland
-
-
1. Kenney.
2. Raitt.
3. O'Toole.
4. Rempel.
I'm liking the cut of Erin's jib more each day. Ontario, vet, moderate.
-
No. It's not 40% of the vote. It's actually winning those 55% of the seats. 338 separate local elections that everyone has an equal opportunity to grab.
It's 40% of the votes however you cut it. The idea that these performing seals are conducting separate elections while chanting the party line is hard to swallow. Local issues do not loom large in these contests.
I suspect Sunny Boy won't be so keen on PR, now that FPTP has served him so well. That's the sad pattern in these things. I believe the only truly legitimate government is one supported by a majority of voters, which would mean a coalition.
-
I kind of feel bad for Joe. He seems like a stand up guy. The polar opposite of Pierre Poilievre. Yet he has his seat still and Joe doesn't.
Yes, he seems decent. These politicians are made of sterner stuff. To be doing that kind of work, with all the concomitant grief, at his age passes all understanding.
-
You estimate something you do not know, so always be humble and be not arrogant.
I hope there is a prize of some sort.
-
So leaders, guys. How would you rank the contenders?
-
I heard Erin O'Toole on the Current today. He is staying visible, or audible anyway. If Raitt does not run, he may carry the Ontario banner (although Kenney may claim he's carrying that banner in the ethnic suburbs). He ticks a lot of boxes and has definite appeal to the centre right 10% the Cons are looking for beyond their devout believers. Fiery oratory doesn't seem to be his forte which may be no bad thing.
-
The game has speeded up and there is a premium on quick passes and stealing ball at the rucks, two skills that Oz and NZ excel at. For 50 minutes, the Puma scrum drove Oz backwards in disarray and all they got was a few penalties out of it when at least one YC should have been shown. Argentina will be In a rugby WC final soon.
-
Actually, I don't think that they did know. I think that Bush and Blair thought that if they just toppled the Baathists, the country would somehow just end up a relatively stable democracy. They forget the hard-won lessons of the Truman presidency, that transforming war-torn former dictatorships is actually very expensive. Turning West Germany and Japan into stable, democratic states took a helluva lot of effort, and wasn't simply accomplished by hanging some Nazis and Japanese generals.
They were also highly homogeneous societies.
-
Nicholson is hopelessly ponderous and dull. Just compare him to Baird for a second. He was kept under wraps as much as possible since taking the job.Kenney has Alliance connection and Nicholson was a PCer, so Nicholson at least , bring it back to a PC connection but personally, I don't like either of them. No matter who it is, Harper will probably be directing unless they tell him his time is over.
Conservative party fans can probably give us names I have barely heard of who could get traction in a longer campaign as compromise candidates. Based on just how much they impress me on TV (not QUITE the whole story) I would go with:
1. Kenney.
2. Raitt.
3. Moore if he could be persuaded to come back.
4. Rempel. Smirky is annoying but she has talent.
5. O'Toole - a huge improvement on Fantino. Like Kenney, gives actual answers to questions in a fairly non-partisan way. I can't imagine him having too many enemies. Veteran and lawyer is a sound cv and unusual in our Parliament.
6. Ambrose. Has never impressed me at all.
-
Back to topic. I see Kenney as a brooding Gordon Brown-type figure who may not be the right man to sell the Conservative message now. On PandP the other day, Ian Capstick (admittedly of the NDP persuasion) was quite adamant that Kenney should be the Interim leader rather than a contender in the contest. Potential rivals like Rempel and Raitt are already insinuating the need for a more female-friendly and upbeat message.
-
Buddy, if you can't explain the difference, then no, you can't.
Friend, I am quite sure I could not explain it to you. What you need is sunny ways.
-
As opposed to Chretien getting us involved in Afghanistan which brought misery to many Canadian families?
Pal, if you can't tell the difference, I really can't help you.
-
Misery???
Death.
-
I think government ineptness explains far more about almost everything than conspiracy theories.
The Iraq war was an entirely avoidable disaster. Questionable intelligence was used in a wilfully dishonest way. One of Chretien's 'greatest' achievements was keeping us out of that mess when Harper and his friends at the National Post were baying for involvement. He never apologized for that error which would have brought misery to many Canadian families.
-
The most respected country in the world. One of the richest, most stable, most successful countries in the world. One of the few western countries which has managed to balance its budget amid social peace and economic prosperity. What exactly is so horrible about all that?
Politicians take way too much credit for such successes. Canada is well run mainly because of ordinary Canadians.
-
Greatness is rare - otherwise, the honour is devalued. Off the top of my head, I can recall only one English king who was called great in well over a thousand years. So, by that yardstick, I think you'd have to limit the great PM title to no more than five which is probably too generous. Who are your five great PMs and why?
-
I predict the next leader will not contest five elections. Utter megalomania.
-
2008????
The financial crisis looked bad at the time but the world economy did not collapse. It's typical of Harper that he showed no gratitude to Chrétien and Martin for the state they left the country and banks in that enabled us to weather the storm so well.
-
You compare those events to the birth of a nation, to a world war that could easily have ended in Canada's disappearance? There is a modern tendency to think we are living in the scariest times EVER, every day. The markets have their problems, oil goes up and down in price and the world goes on.Global crisis, chretiens mess in afghanistan , the list goes on. And comparing harper to those two is disgusting. It seems to me ,you do not know history at all. Grow up.
Who are considered the greatest US Presidents? I would say Washington and Lincoln would feature in most lists, and probably Roosevelt too. What makes them great is the ordeals they suffered, the extraordinary wars they led their nation through.
-
Harper did not have an opportunity to achieve greatness. There were no serious crises in his time. Certainly, he could not be ranked with Trudeau, whose legacy is still all around us for good or ill, Mackenzie King or Macdonald. Dull times are good for most people. Harperism will not become a commonplace word. He managed the economy well enough but he left a mixed legacy elsewhere, dividing Canadians relentlessly and further diminishing Parliament's role in government.
Has any defeated PM who was resigning failed to announce his resignation in a concession speech before?
-
I have a very different view of human nature - that we don't even control much of how we think about a political candidate. A lot of it is unconscious. We TEND to prefer tall, slim, good-looking candidates. Obviously, other factors come into play or Jean Chrétien would never have had a career. He was fit, though. And humorous.To me that's shallow. My BMI is in check, but if I make it to 40 without suffering some sort of cancer, that'd be impressive.
I don't think people are that shallow.
-
Do people really care about people's BMI?
I think they do subliminally and I would venture to suggest that most US Presidents have been leaner than Kenney which is probably a good indicator of where we are going in these matters as we move towards a more presidential system. If he is going to be leader for an extended period, it could be a sign of health problems to come.
-
Kenney will perform well in Parliament, as he has already. Were I a Conservative, I would have no worries on that front (actually, as a Lib voter, I am concerned for JT in there). The challenges are more outside the chamber. Is he likeable enough? And can we cope with a single man in charge? It's a long time since Mackenzie King and his Irish terriers.
-
I'm trying to consider the candidates objectively but I may not really want the best one there. My main exposure to these guys is on CBC shows like PandP. Kenney impressed because he seemed to come up with his own answers rather than relying on PMO boilerplate like Rempel, who did improvise, Calandra, who had a sense of humour, James, who was a bit of a zombie and the utterly dire Parm Gill. This can be dangerous, of course, as he found out at Defence, but it does command respect. Although it could be claimed he never had one of the really big ministries, Immigration has become that in any Western democracy and he certainly left his imprint there.
On the campaign front, the pivot to target new Canadians was brilliant and completely unexpected by the likes of me, anyway. It became a third limb in the Reform/PC chimera.
On the downside, I would put: another Calgary pol; male; single; small 'sunny ways' rating: BMI. I was surprised at his relatively young age. He looks older and the bod ain't great. There could be health issues ahead. Even Harper got leaner. JT sets a new standard in these matters.
Proportional Representation Discussion
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
What I mean is, I would prefer a coalition whose combined vote was greater than 50% of votes cast e.g. liberal/NDP. Of course, they don't need to do that in FPTP.