BC_chick Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 No BQ will ever be PM and now they don't even have official party status. Seems the rules get made up as they go along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The shouting and interruptions were bad. The moderator should have been on guard and prepared for that. But.......... a debate on one given topic - the economy in this case - is an excellent idea! If only Mulcair and Trudeau would have spoken out in detail instead of having spouted platitudes all night! Because that is what they did and the moderator let them! Only Harper explained some of his vision in details. The details about his immigration policy: the balance between economic immigrants and the family reunification ones. The level of immigration kept steady even in economic downturns, etc etc. And what did Justin answer to that? That Harper has completely stopped family reunification!! The moderator should have stepped in right there and then and he should have asked Justin where he had the proof of his claim that Harper has stopped all family reunification immigration!! The problem in this debate was, that every time a topic was deepened out by Harper, the moderator simply let Mulcair and Justin shout it down with the same platitudes they shouted out all night long. That was the problem. The moderator should have put his foot down when all that nonsense was being offered as a counter point to Harper's details. Too bad our democracy was badly served by those who consider platitudes to be more important than actual details about a proven government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 No BQ will ever be PM and now they don't even have official party status. Seems the rules get made up as they go along The BQ wasn't in the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 They aren't but such is democracy.. You keep talking about democracy but have you ever looked up the definition of democracy? "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Whole population. How does the Bloc represent the whole population? I couldn't vote for them if I wanted to. They are not a national party and should not be at a federal election based on the fact they don't represent the whole population Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The BQ wasn't in the debate. I was addressing the reasons people are giving for this exclusion but I was talking about debates in general. Strength in Democracy and the Green Party are treated differently than BQ when they have the same number of seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The BQ was the official opposition at one point in its history. Strength in Democracy and The Green Party have never been officially recognized in the house. That's the difference between the parties.I support Elizabeth May and wish she was in the debate, but I can understand why they would exclude her. She's simply not a contender. Not even close. And that's why organizers don't invite her to the debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 I think they are different because they actually say other things occasionally. Harper seems to want to bore us into submission on how wonderful the economy has been these last ten years. Most Canadians care an awful lot about the economy, and the economy was the subject of the debate. And it HAS been awfully good here the last ten years, at least as compared to just about anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Most Canadians care an awful lot about the economy, and the economy was the subject of the debate.And it HAS been awfully good here the last ten years, at least as compared to just about anywhere else.It has not been great for a lot of young people who are underemployed. Canada's performance has been anemic in the last five years and I never hear Mr. Harper give any credit to his predecessors for leaving him a country with solid banks, a manageable national debt and no Iraq war dead. You can argue these economic things till the cows come home. Canada has done well enough but is not head and shoulders over the much bigger economies of the G7 nor of its real peer group, the G20. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spin-cycle-does-canada-s-economic-performance-really-top-the-g7-1.3178235 This whole where would you rather be is a Catch-22 thing. What pol could say I'd rather have been in Britain? Edited September 19, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) This whole where would you rather be is a Catch-22 thing. What pol could say I'd rather have been in Britain? OMG, I would not rather have been in the UK but, yes, your point is well taken: "actually, Mr. Speaker, Norway has a stronger economy with a higher rate of public savings, more robust welfare state, and lower crime. I'd much rather have lived there. Also, I hear the south of France has lovely weather and scenery, with stunning women. GOOD food too, not this Tim Horton's garbage. Who wouldn't want to live there...?" Edited September 19, 2015 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Thanks Huxley, i didnt know about the other planned debates so you have a good point. I guess, to be fair (or a jerk) i would need more context on the issue of Harper and Mulcair choosing one vs the other. Is it common in 50 years of debates for one debate to be held while 3 are cancelled or only get to the proposal stage. This is where we are at correct? Is this the first time a proposed debate was not held for one reason or other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Winners - none Losers - Canadians and the reputation of Canada. One of these guys is going to be the next PM. None of them acted or appeard capable of leading and representing Canada on the International stage. Time to end these useless debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Winners - none Losers - Canadians and the reputation of Canada. One of these guys is going to be the next PM. None of them acted or appeard capable of leading and representing Canada on the International stage. Time to end these useless debates. Some of us enjoy them. If you don't then don't watch them. Quite simple actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted September 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) I think they are different because they actually say other things occasionally. Harper seems to want to bore us into submission on how wonderful the economy has been these last ten years. The fact that wants to get boring and give the numbers and wonk about the minutia, is a feature not a bug. Harper says more than any of the other leaders of terms of real life, regular boring reality. Mulcair also tried to hit a lot of firm, fact-based points. Nobody can touch Trudeau when it comes to saying nothing. It has not been great for a lot of young people who are underemployed. Canada's performance has been anemic in the last five years.... Ya, that's true for almost the whole developed world, with Canada performing at or near the best of the bunch. The only country who is turning things around of the OECD is the US, after spending a trillion dollars per year in additional debt. Ya, if we spend $100 billion per year more than revenue, we can make things seem better to. That doesn't make it a good idea, since in the end you pay for it. Edited September 19, 2015 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted September 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 They aren't but such is democracy. They deserve a chance to like everyone else. Quebec deserves representation of their choice like all the other provinces. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a fair chance like everyone else. Even if they don't form the government they can still have influence. Again since we have a parliamentary system it isn't winner takes all like it is with the presidential system in the States. It isn't winner take all in the states either. The electoral college is for each state, not the whole country. Not all states give all their electoral college votes to the winner of that state. The house, senate and executive are not usually all the same party. Even within parties they do not always agree. Unlike here where it is pretty much 100% expected lockstep vote with the leader, in the US there is very often differences in votes within the same party. In that sense they are far more democratic than we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) The electoral college is winner take all though. Because the results of the electoral college are what determine who the next president is. You're right though that the parties in Canada are more tyrannous to their own members. Step out of line or say something sleightly which they don't want the public to hear and they get booted out of the party. Edited September 19, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The electoral college is winner take all though. Because the results of the electoral college are what determine who the next president is. Nope...Maine and Nebraska do not follow the winner-take-all rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 The fact that wants to get boring and give the numbers and wonk about the minutia, is a feature not a bug. Harper says more than any of the other leaders of terms of real life, regular boring reality. Mulcair also tried to hit a lot of firm, fact-based points. Nobody can touch Trudeau when it comes to saying nothing. Ya, that's true for almost the whole developed world, with Canada performing at or near the best of the bunch. The only country who is turning things around of the OECD is the US, after spending a trillion dollars per year in additional debt. Ya, if we spend $100 billion per year more than revenue, we can make things seem better to. That doesn't make it a good idea, since in the end you pay for it. Our economic performance has not been way better than the rest. Harper's claim on that is flat-out wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Our economic performance has not been way better than the rest. Harper's claim on that is flat-out wrong. It's been better than just about anyone I can think of, certainly better than the other G7 nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 Thanks Huxley, i didnt know about the other planned debates so you have a good point. I guess, to be fair (or a jerk) i would need more context on the issue of Harper and Mulcair choosing one vs the other. Is it common in 50 years of debates for one debate to be held while 3 are cancelled or only get to the proposal stage. This is where we are at correct? Is this the first time a proposed debate was not held for one reason or other? In my memory this is the first time this has ever happened. Harper's official reasoning for not attending the consortium debate is that he called it "A cabal" paranoia talk. So then he goes to elitist organizations that excluded the Greens in the new debate. So his talk about cabal was double think, his real problem was that it wasn't cabal enough for him. Mulcair's reasoning is that he would only debate in debates the Prime Minister was in. In other words going along with Harper's exclusionary tactics because it would keep May out of the debates and improve his numbers. His predecessor Jack Layton for a time tried to keep May out of the debates until enough people in his party protested at his anti-democratic position. That process resulted in May finally being allowed in the debates previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) You keep talking about democracy but have you ever looked up the definition of democracy? "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." Whole population. How does the Bloc represent the whole population? I couldn't vote for them if I wanted to. They are not a national party and should not be at a federal election based on the fact they don't represent the whole population "You keep talking about democracy but have you ever looked up the definition of democracy?" I've written papers on the origin of Democracy. "Whole population. How does the Bloc represent the whole population?" Simple answer. Each segment of the population makes up the whole. The Bloc represents a significant portion of the Canadian population, so to exclude them from the process is anti-democratic. "I couldn't vote for them if I wanted to." I've never voted for them either, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't have the option of voting for them. "They are not a national party and should not be at a federal election based on the fact they don't represent the whole population" They are a national party and no party represents the whole population. The current party in power doesn't even represent a majority of voters. Edited September 19, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 It's been better than just about anyone I can think of, certainly better than the other G7 nations. It is not, by any stretch, 'head and shoulders' above the G7 countries. We have done OK. To big it up any more is not accurate. BTW G7 are not our peers - they are all way bigger than we are. We do not really belong in that group any more given the size of our economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 We do not really belong in that group any more given the size of our economy. Since we've actually gained ground on most of the rest of them in terms of size, any more seems like the wrong thing to say there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Simple answer. Each segment of the population makes up the whole. The Bloc represents a significant portion of the Canadian population, so to exclude them from the process is anti-democratic. What do you define as significant? Quebec is about 23% of Canada, population wise. Even if every person in Quebec voted for this party they wouldn't have a chance of getting in however you think they should represent Canada as a whole? I've never voted for them either, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't have the option of voting for them. I didn't ask if you have or would vote for them, I am asking if you 'can' vote for them. If you don't live in Quebec then you certainly cannot vote for them. Democracy is about choice....so how's my inability to vote for the Bloc democratic? Its not. I have never voted for the Greens nor will I probably ever however they have a candidate in my riding and the vast majority of Canadians have the opportunity to vote for them....hence they are a National party that is representative of democracy since people actually have the choice to vote for them. They are a national party and no party represents the whole population. The current party in power doesn't even represent a majority of voters. Not true. The three major parties give you the option to vote for them in almost every constituency. The Greens aren't in every riding but a good majority of them (80% I believe). The opportunity to vote for the party is what matters. Again...this is all about being given the opportunity to choose the party which the Bloc will never do outside of Quebec. Hence should not be considered a national party. Edited September 19, 2015 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 19, 2015 Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 It's been better than just about anyone I can think of, certainly better than the other G7 nations. Providing you ignore Germany, whose productivity is so high that it has basically been keeping an ailing Eurozone afloat single-handed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted September 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Our economic performance has not been way better than the rest. Harper's claim on that is flat-out wrong. Not better than 'the rest'. Obviously nations catching up in development like China and India are going to have better performance on growth, but compared to the US and Europe, ya we did quite well, very near or at the best. The whole developed world has sucked during this time, we just sucked somewhat less. Obviously Harper cannot do anything about the housing and then liquidity crisis from the US to the rest of the world, nor falling oil prices recently. Given the various trials over the last decade, he was in general quite competent. By far the most harmful thing he did is never mentioned - in 2007 allowing people to get no money down, 40 years mortgages with CMHC insurance. It was the spark that lit the housing bubble, by far the biggest threat to our economy currently. A very stupid, very un-conservative move. Edited September 19, 2015 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.