Modern Political Spectrum?

[Handsome Rob]

DISCLAIMER: Below is a crude MS Paint image. Please, no criticism of the artwork. Also note I've done my best to make fun of all political figures and parties equally in an entirely satirical fashion.

Spectrum

I'm curious of opinions on both the idea and positioning.

[Michael Hardner]

DISCLAIMER: Below is a crude MS Paint image. Please, no criticism of the artwork. Also note I've done my best to make fun of all political figures and parties equally in an entirely satirical fashion.

Spectrum

I'm curious of opinions on both the idea and positioning.

Some questions:

Mao and Bush are side by side ?

Which Bush ?

And finally:

Huh ?

[youshouldknowbetter]

Some questions:

Mao and Bush are side by side ?

Which Bush ?

And finally:

Huh ?

I think I get it. Political philosophy is not a straight line, it's cyclical. Therefore extreme right and extreme left on a spectrum would be side-by-each. I'm pretty sure he means W. GHW Bush was much more "big tent."

Where would you put the Bloc, Social Credit and Creditists?

[Michael Hardner]

I think I get it. Political philosophy is not a straight line, it's cyclical. Therefore extreme right and extreme left on a spectrum would be side-by-each. I'm pretty sure he means W. GHW Bush was much more "big tent."

Where would you put the Bloc, Social Credit and Creditists?

I don't think you can really compare politics over time so easily. The 3 main parties in Canada are pretty similar right now. The US isn't as different as it may seem, but they're also electing people who have bold ideas on how to change.

The Bloc is a regional mushy liberal populist party and the SC... I never really understood them. They wanted to print more money, as far as I remember.

[Evening Star]

I don't get this at all. What are the colours supposed to indicate? And why would the Pearson Liberals be so far from the Trudeau Liberals or even the NDP? Political Compass has problems but it at least seems to make sense.

[GWiz]

The 3 main parties in Canada are pretty similar right now.

IMHO you may want to add "IMO" or "IMHO" to an OPINION like that because I see very little simularity between the 3 main parties and I absolutely have no problem making my choice as to which party I support based on those VAST differences...

[Evening Star]

In terms of the big picture, the whole spectrum of political ideology, they are pretty obviously similar. They all believe in constitutional Parliamentary democracy, federalism, Charter rights, and a market economy with welfare state social programmes. They even all agree on many of those specific programmes, such as socialized health insurance. Just because one party favours tilting the balance slightly in favour of military and security spending over social programmes and another party favours spending a little extra on social programmes and less on the military does not really constitute a giant ideological chasm.

[Evening Star]

(That doesn't mean that I'm going to vote Conservative though. I'm just saying that the differences are relatively slight if one takes a long view.)

[Michael Hardner]

IMHO you may want to add "IMO" or "IMHO" to an OPINION like that because I see very little simularity between the 3 main parties and I absolutely have no problem making my choice as to which party I support based on those VAST differences...

Ok, IMO then. But seriously, they are not that different. We're not talking about nationalizing the oil companies or privatizing healthcare... but squabbling about the finer points....

Oh, and then there's the outrage. But let's face it, that's just politics.

[bloodyminded]

In terms of the big picture, the whole spectrum of political ideology, they are pretty obviously similar. They all believe in constitutional Parliamentary democracy, federalism, Charter rights, and a market economy with welfare state social programmes. They even all agree on many of those specific programmes, such as socialized health insurance. Just because one party favours tilting the balance slightly in favour of military and security spending over social programmes and another party favours spending a little extra on social programmes and less on the military does not really constitute a giant ideological chasm.

I'm inclined to agree. In a political climate in which the NDP is sometimes spoken of as "extreme left" [sic], it's pretty plain that any actual ideological chasm is simply not welcome within the political culture.

[Pliny]

Better to have a straight line with the true opposites of anarchy on one end and total government on the other. It is easier to see the similarities between Mao and Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, a constitutional monarchy and a strict monarchy and the varying degrees of all, different republics, different dictatorships, NDP, conservatives and liberals.

As to our Canadian parties being similar, they do have the parameters set by our Constitution and parliament to fall within the Liberals and conservatives are fairly similar with different special interests, the NDP are more socialistiic and more big government than the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals like to intervene socially and thus like to intervene more economically for egalitarian purposes. The Conservatives, although considered less interventionist socially have not recently lived up to that image and have over time become more progressive, until they look quite similar to the Liberals.

The current Conservatives Party in Canada has responded somewhat to a move to smaller government but there is resistance to cutting the size and budget of government - a similar and stronger move exists in the US with the emergence of the TEA party with the same predictable resistance.

That's my humble opinion.

[GWiz]

Ok, IMO then. But seriously, they are not that different. We're not talking about nationalizing the oil companies or privatizing healthcare... but squabbling about the finer points....

Oh, and then there's the outrage. But let's face it, that's just politics.

Maybe, but I do see big differences in political philosophies between the 3 major parties on almost any given issue I care about...

One has to think about it (beyond the system's inherent restrictions) when a so called "conservative" party is the historically bigest spending party that has been found IN CONTEMPT of Canada's long standing political system, all it's flaws included... Plus well after the so called "recession" ended delivers a record $56,000,000,000.00 added burdon on EVERY resident of Canada...

The "little guy" and Unionist party could care less about what the actual COSTS of "social programs" are and what affect implementing their policies would have on Canadian society within the CURRENT Global economy... Canada's debt and deficit spending isn't even on the radar for them...

The other party trys to balance those two diametrically opposed viewpoints...

I see a significant difference there... Don't you?

[Evening Star]

Even going by the way you spin them, the two viewpoints you describe are not "diametrically opposed".

Maybe, but I do see big differences in political philosophies between the 3 major parties on almost any given issue I care about...

One has to think about it (beyond the system's inherent restrictions) when a so called "conservative" party is the historically bigest spending party that has been found IN CONTEMPT of Canada's long standing political system, all it's flaws included... Plus well after the so called "recession" ended delivers a record $56,000,000,000.00 added burdon on EVERY resident of Canada...

The "little guy" and Unionist party could care less about what the actual COSTS of "social programs" are and what affect implementing their policies would have on Canadian society within the CURRENT Global economy... Canada's debt and deficit spending isn't even on the radar for them...

The other party trys to balance those two diametrically opposed viewpoints...

I see a significant difference there... Don't you?

[bloodyminded]

Maybe, but I do see big differences in political philosophies between the 3 major parties on almost any given issue I care about...

Plus well after the so called "recession" ended delivers a record $56,000,000,000.00 added burdon on EVERY resident of Canada...

The "little guy" and Unionist party could care less about what the actual COSTS of "social programs" are and what affect implementing their policies would have on Canadian society within the CURRENT Global economy... Canada's debt and deficit spending isn't even on the radar for them...

The other party trys to balance those two diametrically opposed viewpoints...

I see a significant difference there... Don't you?

I don't see what are the diametrically opposed viewpoints of the Cons and the NDP, as you've laid them out.

Both are irresponsible big spenders, according to your formulation here. How are they diametrically opposed?

Which begs the quesiton...how could the Liberals find a "balance" between two parties with the same philosophy?

[Handsome Rob]

Some questions:

Mao and Bush are side by side ?

Which Bush ?

And finally:

Huh ?

Michael, sorry, you took this far too seriously. I tried to avoid that at the top. I heard the idea and quickly put some thoughts on paint. The placement of particular individuals was thrown on quickly because people need to be placed for it to make a remote amount of sense. They are not placed to enhance the idea, they are placed satirically, with people arguably who were the most destructive/extreme reaching further from 'centre.'

I usually read this board for pretty interesting debate, I thought I could extract some, and failed miserably. Too much satire/poor humour and far too goofy in delivery. Learned my lesson.

I don't get this at all. What are the colours supposed to indicate? And why would the Pearson Liberals be so far from the Trudeau Liberals or even the NDP? Political Compass has problems but it at least seems to make sense.

The colours are meant to indicate a Green/Yellow/Orange/Red transition in the natural sense of heat. People/parties are placed just to fill in the blanks with a tiny shot of thought as to where, nothing sophisticated. I agree it doesn't make sense because it's so far out of the box in thinking, but it is an interesting idea I thought.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Handsome Rob

[GWiz]

I usually read this board for pretty interesting debate, I thought I could extract some, and failed miserably. Too much satire/poor humour and far too goofy in delivery. Learned my lesson.

The colours are meant to indicate a Green/Yellow/Orange/Red transition in the natural sense of heat. People/parties are placed just to fill in the blanks with a tiny shot of thought as to where, nothing sophisticated. I agree it doesn't make sense because it's so far out of the box in thinking, but it is an interesting idea I thought.

Very misguided, very "IN the box" (sorry), but still funny...

[William Ashley]

THEY ARE TOTALITARIAN FASCISTS GET IT STRAIGHT.

THEY ARE SCREWING OVER CANADIANS WITH HUGE DEBT AND SELLING OFf GOVERNMENT ASSETS.

THEY CONTINUOUSLY BUY PEOPLE OFF... AND ARE TOTALLY MORALLY CORRUPT, ILLEGAL, SCUM.

THAT IS THE CPC... anything else is for show.

Do you even get they are spending 40 billion MORE this year than last?

and so on.. there was a 50 billion dollar hike for action plan.. the budget didn't come down.... GET THAT THEY ARE STILL DEBT SPENDING AND PLAN ON DEBT SPENDING FOR SERVERAL MORE YEARS. (without action plan, that is investing in infrastructure)

They cut a plan to transfer an additional 100 billion to the banks... to prevent the government from running 100 billion dollar deficits.

50 billion of that debt is money they gave to the banks while they were said to be fully healthy and vibrant.

THEIR PLANS ARE LOADED FULL OF FUNNELS AND KICKBACKS.. they are totally corrupt.

They have 80+ billion lined up in 30 year purchases on technology that really SUCKS.. and will suck even more in 5 years, let alone 20 to 40 years it is suppose to be in service "hypothetically" considering that technology is progressing in 5 or less year leaps now. so a 20 year purchase is just STUPID. These 80 billion in purchases will be absolutely worthless 5 or 10 years down the road. It is already 15 year old technology being pumped out now. really neat but 5 years from now when it is delivered it will be mediocre. A huge purchase is just stupid.

Also these 80 billion dollar purchases arn't paid for upfront.. they are spread out to deaden the appearance.. over 10 to 20 years... meaning every single year that goes by for likely the rest of Canada's life span.. will be debt laden from this archaic choice in 2011.

They are forcing taxes up by 1+ Billion dollar per year which works out to 0.8% increase in income taxes for the next 20 years. (probably closer to 1%) this not counting fuel and personnel etc.. costs.

f35 ='s a 1% income tax increase for 20 years. by 1% this means everyone is paying 1% more on their taxes, not the tax percent.

So if you pay $100 you are paying 1$ more for the next 20 years.

If you paid $10,000 that is $100 more for the next 20 years.

Meanwhile the boats are another 1%

Meaning you pay 2% more on your taxes + interest for the next 20 years. and canada will still be stomped by any major player.

It is only for supporting US takeover of foreign countries not for northern sovereignty unless you count nato's mission to conquer russia and mcarthyism against the SCO as arctic defence.

.............. It'd be a whole lot quicker just to nuke the planet and save people time of the moral deprevation and soulless inhumane endevour.

I'm geussing the vast majority of Canadians don't care about a 2% tax on their taxes (for the next 20 years) for 10 or so boats and 65 planes.

Funny how corporate taxes are going down by 2% where is this 2% tax increase coming from Mr. Harper? debt... well that is holding it off for a bit huh.. now it can be 3 or 4% increase...

well I think the first place this money should come from is the Conservative Government if they are booted out and the bill isn't paid by confiscating their property and their childrens property and so on, until it is paid off and putting them all into slavery working out of a prison until this theft from Canadians is paid back.

Well if they get a majority you know it is going ahead... it is enders game none the less. but it is really a disgrace - imo. It is what the CF asked for, but this tax is totally bs.

I don't want it. I'd sooner just nuke Canada and f*** the invader with nuclear fallout

There is way better technology and spending than the f35. Its for iran most likely.

Edited April 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

William - why the ALL ALL CAPS ? It reads like somebody shouting at the top of their lungs.

[Smallc]

Much like a raving lunatic. Very fitting, in fact.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

Much like a raving lunatic. Very fitting, in fact.

Not really - if you noticed, William wants to use facts and numbers to back up his argument which means "rational" which is the opposite of lunatic.

[Smallc]

Not really - if you noticed, William wants to use facts and numbers to back up his argument which means "rational" which is the opposite of lunatic.

Whether or not someone is rational is all in their interpretation of numbers, often.

[Michael Hardner]

Whether or not someone is rational is all in their interpretation of numbers, often.

That sentence is hard to interpret. It sounds sarcastic, with the double modification: "all","often".

But I don't hear a lot of street corner lunatics doing good arithmetic.