SpankyMcFarland
-
Posts
4,333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SpankyMcFarland
-
-
You are saying the Conservatives will get a majority of seats? I think it's a little premature for that. As a clear majority of voters, non-Conservatives can still win this election, or at the very least stop a Harper majority, by coalescing behind Trudeau.This election is over.
A soon to be released Leger poll confirms the continuing disintegration of the NDP's Quebec core, and it's not Trudeau's Liberals benefiting from this crumbling NDP base - it is the Bloc and Conservatives. The Bloc's prospects are now 17 seats and Conservatives can expect 11-12 elected MPs.
Mulcair's stand on niqabs at citizenship swearing in ceremonies is entirely responsible for this situation. His principled but somewhat foolish stand has not only cost his party a legitimate shot at power, his controversial stance has handed Harper the extra seats required to form another govt.
All the strategic voting that can realistically be mustered will not offset the 'bonus' MPs handed to Harper over the niqab issue.
This election is over.
-
Well, on the bright side, my income tax bill won't go up if the Conservatives stay in power. It's not all negative.
-
The party machine types would never allow somebody like that to become leader. I would certainly consider voting for them if they did.Personally, I think Micheal Chong would make a good conservative leader...
To the topic, Harper has said that he would go if the Conservatives lost even one seat. So I suspect he'll go. He's had a good run, and I shudder to think who will actually take his place at the head of the Cons.
I suspect Muclair will be gone after this election, unless by some chance they win.
Trudeau has a ways to go yet. It would take an extraordinarily bad showing for him to be ousted. (Like being reduced to 2 seats...)
-
They are centrist on some issues - abortion, the economy - but they are the only party that appeal to the Reform crowd. Nobody else is competing for that vote. Their left wing is the old PC end and the right is beyond Reform. Conservatives have never gotten near getting a majority of the popular vote. Most people in this country are to the left of the Conservatives. That is where their paranoia about the media etc. comes from. The BQ compete with them for the xenophobe vote in Quebec.Socialists are an even smaller minority. Most people are right in the middle, willing to give anyone a try if what they happen to be selling lines up with what they feel they need at the time. Conservatives have been successful in recent years because they moved to the middle.
And who is talking about 'Socialists' here and nationalizing the means of production etc? That's usually a pejorative term for someone to the left of the person using it. There are no big socialist parties in Canada.
-
Brad Wall strikes me as a logical choice for the Conservatives as the most popular premier in the country, but the timing of the upcoming Saskatchewan election might make that a tough scenario. Peter MacKay probably wouldn't be a bad option either, but with his recent retirement from politics, I kind of doubt he'd come back so soon. Maybe Joe Oliver, then?
Olivia Chow comes to mind for the NDP with hopes of reminding the electorate of Jack Layton, but her third place finish in the Toronto mayoral election might hurt her chances. It might be a little soon for her to make the jump from provincial politics to federal, but I'd think Rachel Notley could be a strong candidate as well. Anyone who can turn Alberta orange is obviously a skilled politician.
Ralph Goodale is the first name that I think of for the Liberals. He seems to be something of a Teflon Don. He dealt with a scandal and survived. His party was decimated in 2011 and he survived. The fact that he's about to turn 66 might hurt him though. Christy Clark is another thought I have. She defied expectaions in the provincial election a couple of years ago, so I can't help but wonder if she might be able to do the same think on a federal level. If the Liberals are looking for a leader, they'd probably be coming off of a brutal election, so that kind of thing couldn't hurt. She might also help them grow outside of the Vancouver area.
Well, Mr. Oliver would have to check out of the nursing home first, Olivia Chow is a little charisma-challenged and Ralph Goodale? Maybe a rival for Paul Martin perhaps. We need more young people, not geezers.
-
To see who has more support than the others. Everyone else so far has had even less support than him.
Four left wing parties. One right wing party. The left wing vote is larger. Conservatives are a minority in this country as they are well aware. Their views are different from the majority. And if you can only survive by avoiding votes in Parliament, you are not really playing the game, are you?
-
Harper's a smart cookie. I have faith that he'll find something to keep him in power.
You have faith that a person supported by a minority of voters and MPs could hang onto power? Why bother having elections?
-
So our voting system is ancient. Is that necessarily a recommendation for indefinite use? Do we still have horse-drawn carriages in the gaslit streets? Of course not. FPTP's time has come and gone. It is not fit for purpose when more than two parties are involved.So, you don't like Harper. Why does your dislike of Harper motivate your desire to change Canada's voting system? Our voting system has existed for over 100 years. It works. (Canada is a democratic, civilized state.) You would change all this because you happen to dislike one guy?Marcus, people like you scare me. You'd change something, even if it works, on a whim.
I dislike Harper but that has nothing with my antipathy to FPTP. It simply produces unrepresentative results. If we believe that every vote counts, we should replace it.
-
I have no issues jailing them for life, other than the cost, but I'm willing to pay for the cost. The issue is that our judicial system can't do so. One of them is eligible for parole in 2016. Unreal.
They should be classed as dangerous offenders and detained indefinitely.
-
The LDs in the UK are a small party, VERY much the junior partner, and in some ways to the left of Labour so not natural allies of Cameron at all. Small parties usually suffer badly in coalitions especially if they are from a different part of the political spectrum.I've been less convinced than many that the opposition parties will do anything to get the Conservatives out of power for a couple of reasons. 1) Trudeau and Mulcair seem to truly despise one another and may not be able to work together well. 2) There's the chance of the "junior" partner in a coalition being marginalized, a la the Liberal Democrats in the UK. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if today's polling numbers are accurate, if that would make it even less likely. Assuming the Conservatives finish 7 or 8 points ahead of the second place party, it might not go over so well for the opposition to try to topple them. I'm sure many wouldn't mind, but it would probably seem a bit off to quite a few as well.
We need to get over our neuroses about coalition in Canada. We have four left wing parties and one right wing party, so the Conservatives will be a minority of the popular vote even with a majority of seats. With a minority, they will have about a third of voters. Nothing would be more natural than a coalition of Libs and NDP politically which would represent a majority of voters across the country. If their leaders can't stomach the proposition, then new ones are required.
If the Conservatives get a majority of seats, then there will have to be a merger of the two large left wing parties in Canada. FPTP doesn't work well with more than two choices and, for reasons that truly escape me, Canadians seem to want to keep FPTP.
-
So my take on this is if they're doing it, we better as well!
I think we have a responsibility to manage these people ourselves if they were raised in Canada. They are our problem.
-
harper wont stay very long if he gets minority but will stay long enough to allow the Con party time to get a new leader and allow that person to be PM before calling election. The other parties wont bring down the government in fear of ticking off the electorate by playing politics.
But isn't that the game they are supposed to be playing? Without a majority, Harper can only stay PM by avoiding a vote in Parliament. What opponent would feel bad about getting rid of such a person?
-
Good piece on the citizenship debate here by Kady:
It would surprise me if at least one foreign country does not revoke citizenship on one of these guys before Canada does. Sending these people back is not exactly a friendly gesture - to the UK for example or 'our ally' (when contracts are involved) Saudi Arabia. What happens when somebody does that to us?
-
On revoking citizenship of dual citizens, what if the other country gets wind of what's going on and revokes it first? I suspect they are in no pressing need of more jihadis.
I heard two lawyers, Jackman and Taub, debating the issue on CBC radio. That poor lady Taub sounded very doddery and made a bunch of irrelevant statements about the Holocaust. A new spokesperson should be sought.
-
Funny thing is I never see the Conservatives talking about it. It's always being brought up by NDP supporters in order to show how inclusive they are, and how evil the Conservatives are.
It's all Harper talks about in Quebec any more. And a nice person translates it into English as well.
-
Parties should not pander. They should put out a platform based on their core beliefs and see who wants to vote for it. Far more objectionable is promising one thing before an election and doing something different afterwards. For the NDP and Liberals, this is a matter of principle, defending pluralism and tolerance in Canada. They know full well they will lose votes because of it. I admire anybody who does that. And I see Andrew Coyne doesn't think too much of this debate either:I don't believe it's strictly about the niqab issue. I think many Canadians are turned off by the Liberals and the NDP going counter to the stated wishes of the majority of Canadians who do want the niqab removed when the oath of citizenship is taken. If those parties disregard what they knew full well was of concern to the majority, how would they act on other issues if they win government? No doubt, many Canadians are asking themselves that question, me included.
-
-
It's a dreadful system, no matter who is in power. It encourages apathy and cynicism and makes incumbents arrogant. Look at the Anders fiasco. Imagine if you are a party loyalist but can't stand the local MP. Under STV, you can vote for another guy in the the same party.This was the post I was responding to:
Reform had a different solution to the problem but they still protested ('cried about') the same issue. In fact, the local Reform candidate spoke to my history/civics class in 1993 and told us that our electoral system amounted to "elect[ing] a dictator" every four years. (I remember leftists complaining about it as well. I despised Chrétien as a further-left-than-now teenager and resented the concentration of power.) I actually prefer Reform's solution in this case. My point, however, was that the opposition to how our electoral system leads to a concentration of power in the hands of leaders whose parties won less than half of the popular vote is not something that has begun under Harper, as much as his supporters want to believe that he is a modern-day Joan of Arc. People complained about it under Chrétien too.
-
That's all "inside the Ottawa bubble" stuff. I know I'm boring some - but "everyday" Canadians really don't care that much about the Ottawa bubble......that's why "gut" issues like the Niqab carry so much weight......and now that people are starting to pay attention, it's showing up in the polls.
I hope the election is not won on the niqab. That would be a very sad reflection on the maturity of the electorate.
-
Sona was a patsy who took the fall for others - a much more serious case IMO than Del Mastro's who refused to reach a reasonable deal. Re Duffy, the PMO had to get caught doing something wrong eventually given that it runs the country now, which is the real scandal.Honestly - that's really a valid view and I understand it. I personally think that our government is more open and accountable than it was 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. It seems that you can't really hide much anymore......and you only need to look at Sona, Del Maestro, Duffy and Wright to know that there is more accountability.
One example from too many of a lack of accountability - oversight of CSIS. C-51 was a chance to put the Porter years behind us but the Conservatives blew it. An extraordinary amount of information can now be shared among various agencies and the public has no way of knowing if this will be done appropriately. Only the government will have its privacy protected.
-
Validly so.....but again, that does not affect everyday Canadians.....nor does it affect our democracy or fundamentally, Canada. You are just talking about a government style. Nothing prevents the next government from changing that style - splitting up bills, reducing Cabinet and the PMO. Do you really, seriously think that either Mulcair or Trudeau will do that? With Mulcair's concentration of inexperienced Quebec candidates - he'll need all the help he can get and if Trudeau gets in, he'll need the same and more than likely will "owe" a lot of people. So sure, be frustrated with Harper - but be careful what you wish for - it may in fact be worse.
If you have a losing coach, you fire them. You don't say, well, the alternative might be worse. That's a really lame argument for a sports team or a country. Harper has failed UTTERLY to make government more accountable or open. There can be no argument about that. He has definitely made things worse in that regard. Somebody else now deserves a chance.
I dislike the phrase 'everyday Canadians' - it is often used in a patronizing way to imply that your average prole doesn't need to concern himself with the big picture. All citizens are affected by a diminution in democracy and that is what we are seeing right now.
So after ten years of failure, I am prepared to take a chance on somebody else.
-
What's the two biggest specific changes (not generalities, perceptions, opinions or platitudes) that you've noted - the ones that concern you the most......because I know that people can validly not like his personal style. but I'm having trouble seeing how individual Canadians are worse off under Harper - even economically.....in spite of all the Global troubles.
I have done as well financially under Harper as I did under Chretien. I ascribe that to the fact that Canada is a well run country no matter who is in charge. We have had a broad economic consensus on how to run the country since Michael Wilson's time and I expect that to continue regardless of personnel. Then again, my own prosperity depends as much on provincial politics as the federal variety. Ottawa is quite remote from my concerns.
What annoys me most about Harper? I have a very long list starting with the PMO and omnibus bills - the usual stuff. My basic concern is the quality of our democracy. I think our parliamentary system is slowly dying.
-
I agree, she should have just apologized, everyone has said something dumb and inappropriate but it amazes me how many people do it on social media and don't expect it to come back at them. A school trustee claiming they have never heard of Auschwitz.. That's pretty bizarre.
It's generational. Younger people see social media like talking. To stay away is social death. When enough of them run the parties, such remarks will be viewed more indulgently.
-
I read the chorus of harper haters in the Globe, thanks. You want to see mindless bile and rage, just glance through those.
Mulcair and Trudeau practice the same politics as Harper does, appealing to this or that nich or ethnic group. It's only sinister when the Tories do it.
Only a loyalist like yourself is blind to the change in Canada under Harper.
Stripping citizenship.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
There are a lot of legal issues, though. The Nazis were immigrants who were deported for lying on their citizenship
applications.
Nobody wants these guys - is it a friendly act to an ally to send them over there when we have raised them? All
Pakistan (or the UK, what about that scenario?) need to do is revoke first. And what if they start sending Canadians
back here?