Evening Star

I still don't think it's obvious in context but I'm not going to argue against generalized assumptions about what the nebulously defined 'left' did in response to a government that predates my first post here by half a decade or what they/'we' might do in response to a hypothetical future government.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this BQ ad yet, where they try to compete with the Tories for the bigot vote in Quebec. Roughly: I'm actually a little touched that the Bloc is so concerned about the sanctity of the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

Yeah, the requirement for a clear question seems sensible enough to me. I take some issue with the ambiguous requirement for a 'clear majority' to be left to the discretion of a federal court. I have my issues with the Sherbrooke Declaration as well, tbh: I'm not crazy about opting out with full compensation.

Yeah, I haven't posted here nearly as much as Argus but even I know that ToadBrother is far from a partisan of either the Liberals or the NDP.

If you don't see the difference between these things, I'm not sure what to say.

Which do you think is American? Most people in MA seem to say "day-ta". (This is how I usually say it, although I grew up in Ottawa.)

Really? I'm not sure that the referendum question itself was that clear on the matter: People were voting, first, on whether to make a formal offer to the federal government for a new constitutional arrangement. It is not specified what exactly "sovereign" means, and "secession" is not what I would assume.

I'm no Harper fan (nor am I 'old stock', although I was born in Canada) but I tend to agree with this tbh.

'Seat in the House' and 'official party status' both seem like fair criteria to me. By one standard, the BQ would be excluded; by the other, they would be included.

Yeah, this basically sounds correct to me. It's not like the BQ has ever been in government, nor could they be except as part of some coalition, so I am not sure how they would even negotiate this if things got to this stage. Negotiations would take place between QC's provincial government and the federal government, which would most likely be led by the Liberals, Conservatives, or NDP. The BQ did not even exist at the time of the 1980 referendum. Edit: I've got no problem with them being in national debates, though. Duceppe has added value before.

Yes, but it goes further than this. I recognise the flaws with the peer review system but I do think it's better, and more tolerant of diversity, than the alternatives I can imagine (direct state control, commercial marketplace mechanisms). I would also have an easier time believing that your view on this is not politically driven if you didn't refer to 'left-wing academics' as the problem. Do the social mechanisms you describe also apply to e.g. Friedmanites in the field of economics and Straussians in political philosophy?

The thing is that even if that were true, he would still be acknowledging that the Tories are being partisan and politically-driven in how they handle research - and I would still take issue with it and want to vote against them, even if it were just to get someone newer and less arrogant. He's just saying that other governments do it, too.

OK, I'll give you that one. Sorry, Argus.

Deleting data is contemptible - and this is why the Liberals are under investigation. The issue is that nothing seems to be stopping the Conservatives, federally.

In context: Thus, the Tories dislike (and presumably take action against): i) academics and scientists with biased studies (evidence of bias, or the qualification of politicians to recognize this bias, not shown) ii) people who contradict their policies I excerpted ii) since this seemed like the crux of the problem. There was also a claim that ii) is held in common with every other government in history - and I don't believe this. It may be the case that every government has disliked researchers and scientists who 'contradict their policies' but I am not convinced that every government has actively taken action to cripple them as a result.

Just saving this one.

I'm sceptical, although I haven't read your link yet, and don't think this is true in my field, but is your argument that the actions described by Maclean's are justified because of this?

Are there cases of the OLP doing the sorts of things described in the article?

Because they use different electoral systems. That's a different issue.

But, I mean, someone could even argue that your criterion of 'fielding 20 candidates' is arbitrary and undemocratic. Why exclude parties that field fewer candidates than that, or independents for that matter?

Wait, do these countries really have leaders' debates with 10+ people on the stage debating every question?

I remember that, at one time, there used to be a second debate that included national leaders of fringe parties.

Oh, interesting. So the Communists, Marxist-Leninists, and Libertarians would all be included. That could get pretty messy.

I agree with Clark but I also wonder if this would change if May (or another Green leader) were to become a serious contender for PM. People do tend to become much more cautious when they have to reach the largest number of people.

So what criteria would you use, Huxley and WestCoastRunner? Whether a party holds a seat in the House or not?