Name the next CPC and NDP leaders

[Civis Romanus sum]

It's not just about policy. Justin's got the perfect family photos. Kenney doesn't. Raitt and Wall don't speak French AFAIK. Leitch sounds weird. Women have a harder time as leaders.

Speaking of French.

To be prime minister of Canada you have to know French. To be governor general of Canada you have to know French. To be chief justice of the Supreme Court you have to know French (and debate rages about the other eight). To be head of the Bank of Canada, the Canadian armed forces, the CRTC, or the CBC you have to know French.

In 2012 Parliament voted unanimously in favour of making it mandatory for the "auditor-general, the chief electoral officer and a number of commissioners, including those for privacy, information and ethics" to know French. Above a certain rank, most federal bureaucrats (regardless of what province they work in) invariably hit a promotional glass ceiling unless they know French.

This is an awful lot of power to concentrate in just 17 per cent of the population. If you heard of some third world dump where a linguistic minority of less than 20 per cent held a permanent, legally-protected monopoly on all of the country's top jobs, you'd probably think it wasn't much of a democracy.

You'd be right. Discriminatory, arbitrary barriers to full civic participation remain a blight no matter where they're practiced, and we undermine any pretence of being a truly egalitarian nation when we seek to normalize or rationalize them. Yet a lot of Canadians seem distressingly eager to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/bilingual-elite-canada_b_4977174.html

[ToadBrother]

You'd be right. Discriminatory, arbitrary barriers to full civic participation remain a blight no matter where they're practiced, and we undermine any pretence of being a truly egalitarian nation when we seek to normalize or rationalize them. Yet a lot of Canadians seem distressingly eager to do so.[/size]

Canada was founded as the merger of two founding nations; English and French. It has been guaranteed in every constitution since the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Canada was founded as the merger of two founding nations; English and French. It has been guaranteed in every constitution since the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And the French make up about 20% of the population now, yet a hugely disproportionate amount of federal jobs (and power) go to them given most bilinguals are French. Few of Canada's prime ministers have been bilingual, aside from those who are from Quebec .Diefenbaker was not nor was Pearson.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[-1=e^ipi]

So where are the female PMs in the last twenty years in Canada?

You realize that the lack of existence of female PMs over the past 20 years doesn't falsify what I wrote, right?

Maybe you need help figuring this out, so I'll point out two things for you.

Today != past 20 years. So saying that today being female gives you a higher chance of being elected says nothing about what affect being male/female had on being elected over the past 20 years.

2. there are various other reasons that could result in a candidate being elected or not being elected beyond gender.

Also you want the primary reason we don't have a female prime minister today? 1 reason: Justin Trudeau is male and is last name is Trudeau. Look who got 2nd and 3rd in the liberal leadership 2013 race: Martha Hall Findlay and Joyce Murray. If Trudeau didn't run, there is a good chance that one of these two might have been elected (although Garneau might have gotten it).

Personally, I think Martha Hall Findlay would have made the best PM out of all of them. But instead we get the airhead birthright PM.

[-1=e^ipi]

Canada was founded as the merger of two founding nations; English and French. It has been guaranteed in every constitution since the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

So. How does what happened hundreds of years ago and/or was decided by some ancient unelected monarchy justify things today?

[ToadBrother]

Personally, I think Martha Hall Findlay would have made the best PM out of all of them. But instead we get the airhead birthright PM.

I can't believe there are still people who want to assert Trudeau is a moron. He ran, by leaps and bounds, the best campaign, perhaps one of the greatest campaigns in Canadian history. He increased his party's seat count nearly five and a half times its pre-dissolution count. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of such an electoral feat anywhere in the First World.

I'm sure there were be plenty of things to disagree with Trudeau over in the months and years to come, but one thing is clear, he was cannier, more charismatic and generally just more effective than his opponents. This is a history making election that they will be writing about in fifty years; the rebirth of the Liberal Party.

[ToadBrother]

So. How does what happened hundreds of years ago and/or was decided by some ancient unelected monarchy justify things today?

Because each successive constitutional amendment up to the Constitution Act 1982 guarantees Francophone rights. It's in the DNA of the country and will remain so, so long as Quebec remains in Confederation.

[-1=e^ipi]

I can't believe there are still people who want to assert Trudeau is a moron.

He is a moron. George W. Bush is also a moron and he was elected President.

Fortunately for both Trudeau and Bush, Daddy already had the job before them, so they got name recognition.

[-1=e^ipi]

Because each successive constitutional amendment up to the Constitution Act 1982 guarantees Francophone rights. It's in the DNA of the country and will remain so, so long as Quebec remains in Confederation.

You realize your premise here is essentially your conclusion? This is circular reasoning.

[Guest]

Younger voters are more likely to vote NDP relative to liberal compared to the population at large. The 3 roommates in their 20's that I live with all voted NDP (to be fair my grandparents also voted NDP). I don't think your argument holds.

We had a dramatic influx of new voters, compared to the previous election and a significant decrease in NDP support. It is possible that only young voters supported the NDP and everyone else fled the party, but I suspect that our young, new and returning voters chose the more charismatic and positive JT.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Because each successive constitutional amendment up to the Constitution Act 1982 guarantees Francophone rights. It's in the DNA of the country and will remain so, so long as Quebec remains in Confederation.

Since when did any of those 'francophone rights' listed guarantee that all senior positions in government could only be held by those who can speak French?

[-1=e^ipi]

We had a dramatic influx of new voters, compared to the previous election and a significant decrease in NDP support. It is possible that only young voters supported the NDP and everyone else fled the party, but I suspect that our young, new and returning voters chose the more charismatic and positive JT.

I suspect this to not be true. More likely middle aged voters that were infatuated with his father decades ago and like the name Trudeau.

[SpankyMcFarland]

You realize that the lack of existence of female PMs over the past 20 years doesn't falsify what I wrote, right?

Maybe you need help figuring this out, so I'll point out two things for you.

Today != past 20 years. So saying that today being female gives you a higher chance of being elected says nothing about what affect being male/female had on being elected over the past 20 years.

2. there are various other reasons that could result in a candidate being elected or not being elected beyond gender.

Also you want the primary reason we don't have a female prime minister today? 1 reason: Justin Trudeau is male and is last name is Trudeau. Look who got 2nd and 3rd in the liberal leadership 2013 race: Martha Hall Findlay and Joyce Murray. If Trudeau didn't run, there is a good chance that one of these two might have been elected (although Garneau might have gotten it).

Personally, I think Martha Hall Findlay would have made the best PM out of all of them. But instead we get the airhead birthright PM.

Thank you for trying to help me.

Certainly, there are more female Premiers these days.

[Civis Romanus sum]

We had a dramatic influx of new voters, compared to the previous election and a significant decrease in NDP support. It is possible that only young voters supported the NDP and everyone else fled the party, but I suspect that our young, new and returning voters chose the more charismatic and positive JT.

The NDP were hoist on their own strategic voting petard. They were so clear about the absolute need to get rid of Harper above all things that as soon as it looked like Trudeau might have a better chance tons of previous NDP supporters jumped ship. When you make it clear that hatred of the guy in charge should be the most important factor in who you vote for, and do everything you can to create that hate, well, you better expect it to turn on you.

[Newfoundlander]

Jason Kenney's close ties with Harper may hurt him after the crushing defeat last night.

I'd like to see a fresh face optimistic conservative take over the party. The idea of Michael Chong is quite intriguing but I don't know if he could pull off a win in the party after everything that's happened. However, he or someone else could come in and pull a Patrick Brown. There are some new MPs in Quebec - Gerald Deltell being the most high profile - maybe someone from that province could become leader? Lisa Raitt is a good choice and could mount a strong campaign. Former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord. Give him some time and Erin O'Toole might be able to be a strong competitor. He'd be a fresh face, he's got a good background, and despite only being in politics a few years he moved up quickly and really cleaned up the mess he was left at Veteran's Affairs by Julian Fantino. I imagine his father having served as a provincial politician could also be a help when it comes to organization.

[-1=e^ipi]

Thank you for trying to help me.

Maybe I should also point out the following.

Let's say Martha Hall Findlay and Marc Garneau were running against each other.

Martha Hall Findlay would benefit from sexism today since she is a women and there are many voters that think along the lines of 'we need a women, it's time for a change to a women'.

On the other hand, Marc Garneau benefits from being an astronaut, and the reason why our first astronaut was male is very much due to sexism.

So Martha Hall Findlay would benefit from sexism of today (which in large part is due to trying to correct past sexism), where as Marc Garneau benefits from sexism of the past.

[Peter F]

Since when did any of those 'francophone rights' listed guarantee that all senior positions in government could only be held by those who can speak French?

Point of Order : As you pointed out earlier senior positions in government can only be held by those who speak French and English. A unilingual French speaker would be as unqualified for the position as a unilingual English speaker.

[ToadBrother]

You realize your premise here is essentially your conclusion? This is circular reasoning.

No, it's not. It's a statement of fact. From the British victory at the Plains of Abraham to this very day, Canada has been a country with a significant Francophone population, and with Federal institutions that have been fundamentally bilingual. That generally means that a number of senior Federal positions usually go to someone fluent in both languages.

I get that you don't like it. Your complaint is hardly new, and indeed it was the underlying intent of the Crown from the unification of Upper and Lower Canada that French eventually die out. It just so happens, Quebecers had a different idea.

So other than complain about it, I don't expect you're going to change that which has not been changeable since the 18th century.

[poochy]

Canada was founded as the merger of two founding nations; English and French. It has been guaranteed in every constitution since the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

An the American constitution seems to give them unfettered access to firearms, whoopity do.

So. How does what happened hundreds of years ago and/or was decided by some ancient unelected monarchy justify things today?

It conveniently justifies his opinion, thats the only reason.

[ToadBrother]

It conveniently justifies his opinion, thats the only reason.

It's hardly my opinion. It's been a feature of Canada since the very beginning, and will remain so so long as Quebec remains in Confederation. That generations of cranky Anglos still tie themselves in knots means not one single little thing.

[hitops]

I can't believe there are still people who want to assert Trudeau is a moron. He ran, by leaps and bounds, the best campaign, perhaps one of the greatest campaigns in Canadian history. He increased his party's seat count nearly five and a half times its pre-dissolution count. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of such an electoral feat anywhere in the First World.

I'm sure there were be plenty of things to disagree with Trudeau over in the months and years to come, but one thing is clear, he was cannier, more charismatic and generally just more effective than his opponents. This is a history making election that they will be writing about in fifty years; the rebirth of the Liberal Party.

There's nothing epic about it. It's the usual swing back to the Liberals.

Increasing your seat count 5x means nothing when you are coming from being totally destroyed. By that logic, the conservatives are the most amazing party ever, because after getting kicked down to 2 seats...they increased their seats by how many x?

The campaign was nothing special, Trudeau is neither canny nor smart. It was an anti-Harper election, full stop. Trudeau managed to speak in full sentences, not vomit on himself on tv and successfully walk on 2 legs, and dress well. That's all they needed. If you hate Harper but are not a lefty, that's your only option. Trudeau is a performer, nothing more. He is nauseatingly inauthentic.

He is not charismatic at all, IMO. He virtually never says anything of substance, his speeches have more common with miss America winners than statesmen. If he manages to sit in the same room as Putin and not wet his pants, I'll be surprised.

Fortunately the Liberals have a deep bench, and the grown ups who will actually run things are reasonably competent even if somewhat corrupt. Trudeau's vision extends to becoming PM. Fortunately Goodale and some of the others should have some reasonable guidance to give him.

Edited October 20, 2015 by hitops

[Peter F]

So. How does what happened hundreds of years ago and/or was decided by some ancient unelected monarchy justify things today?

I quote CRS's post on this bilingualism side-track:

In 2012 Parliament voted unanimously in favour of making it mandatory for the "auditor-general, the chief electoral officer and a number of commissioners, including those for privacy, information and ethics" to know French.

So, in the past Parliament voted on the matter and made it so and justifies it today. Do you see the relationship between what happened in the past has bearing on today? Things that happened in the past have a HUGE influence on what happens today. Thus the stink about citizenship oaths for example; or the Magna Carta; or Marriage; or anything else to do with society.

[ToadBrother]

There's nothing epic about it. It's the usual swing back to the Liberals.

Increasing your seat count 5x means nothing when you are coming from being totally destroyed. By that logic, the conservatives are the most amazing party ever, because after getting kicked down to 2 seats...they increased their seats by how many x?

The campaign was nothing special, and he neither canny nor smart. It was an anti-Harper election, full stop. Trudeau managed to speak in full sentences, not vomit on himself on tv and successfully walk on 2 legs, and dress well. That's all they needed. If you hate Harper but are not a lefty, that's your only option.

He is not charismatic at all, IMO. He virtually never says anything of substance, his speeches have more common with miss America winners than statesmen.

There's nothing typical about increasing your seat count over five times what it was.

But hey, you weren't impressed. That must somehow mean 40% of voters are wrong.

[poochy]

Considering the way things normally work in this country im not sure it matters, all Trudeau has to do is spew empty platitudes for the next 4 years and he is almost certain to be reelected. The natural governing party is back in.

[poochy]

There's nothing typical about increasing your seat count over five times what it was.

But hey, you weren't impressed. That must somehow mean 40% of voters are wrong.

Wait, aren't we going to figure out how much of a percentage of the total eligible voters they got and then disparage them for that low number for the next 4 years? Isn't that how it's done now?