Ignatieff v. Harper

[Mr.Canada]

Saying something that's wrong over and over again doesn't make it right.

Smallc, he and his party received many more votes then the Liberals did.

[Smallc]

Smallc, he and his party received many more votes then the Liberals did.

That doesn't mean he got a majority of the votes.

[LesterDC]

59% of Canadians voted first of all.

Next. In a three party system anything over 33% is a majority. Harper got 38% of the vote.

What kind of alternate reality do you live in?

[Mr.Canada]

That doesn't mean he got a majority of the votes.

He got the majority of the votes smallc. Maybe not in seats but he won more votes than the other guys, right?

[Smallc]

He got the majority of the votes smallc. Maybe not in seats but he won more votes than the other guys, right?

Yes, he won more than the other guys. He didn't get a majority of the seats OR the votes. Ends of story.

[Mr.Canada]

What kind of alternate reality do you live in?

Why is this so hard to fathom guys?

Mr. Harper and the Tories won more votes than anyone else. Garnering the support from the majority of Canadians.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, he won more than the other guys. He didn't get a majority of the seats OR the votes. Ends of story.

I guess it depends on ones view of what a majority is.

[Smallc]

I guess it depends on ones view of what a majority is.

Or rather, one's understanding of math.

[LesterDC]

Why is this so hard to fathom guys?

Mr. Harper and the Tories won more votes than anyone else. Garnering the support from the majority of Canadians.

I guess it depends on ones view of what a majority is.

Nobody cares what your personal views are.. By law, we have something called a majority government and another thing called a minority government. Harper runs a minority government.

[Mr.Canada]

Or rather, one's understanding of math.

I understand it sounds a bit silly, even to me.

I was trying to make the point that since the Tories got the most votes they then had the support of the majority of Canadians and won the election. My argument is falling apart someplace...lol.

Ok I'm done trying that argument, after going back and rereading it I'll admit I sound like a jackass again. It does sound funny though...lol.

[cybercoma]

He got the majority of the votes smallc. Maybe not in seats but he won more votes than the other guys, right?

Majority by definition means a number more than half the total.

And it's not even necessarily so that the Conservatives received more votes than the other parties. It depends on the size of the ridings and the margin of victory.

[August1991]

Well, Canadians have spoken and Harper was the choice by the majority of Canadians.

English Canadians have spoken, and they chose Stephen Harper.

---

Returning to my OP where I may have confused Michael's father George, for some 40 years now, English Canadians have accepted a leader in federal politics who is not one of their own. It is a curious situation.

And then, who speaks best for English Canada - Ignatieff or Harper?

[cybercoma]

Mr. Harper and the Tories won more votes than anyone else. Garnering the support from the majority of Canadians.

That second part isn't even remotely close to being true. Only 68% of eligible voters voted. 100% of eligible voters is not 100% of Canadians. Furthermore 43% of 68% of eligible voters is not anywhere near "the majority of Canadians".

[cybercoma]

I guess it depends on ones view of what a majority is.

Or whether one actually understands what "majority" means.

[cybercoma]

And then, who speaks best for English Canada - Ignatieff or Harper?

I think the question is faulty from the start. It assumes that a single person speaks for all of English Canada. That idea is as wrong as assuming Mr. Duceppe speaks for all of French Canada, or more appropriately Quebec.

Regardless, if one were to accept the question at face value, it is very difficult to assess Mr. Ignatieff's position since he hasn't really said anything or taken a stance anywhere yet. All we've really seen is a man who was not as zealous about the coalition as Bob Rae. It will take time to understand Mr. Ignatieff and where he stands.

[August1991]

I think the question is faulty from the start. It assumes that a single person speaks for all of English Canada. That idea is as wrong as assuming Mr. Duceppe speaks for all of French Canada, or more appropriately Quebec.

On election night, Charest said that he would speak for all Quebecers and I`m sure Harper is aware that he represents all of Canada when he`s abroad.

Cybercoma, my point was different. For some 40 years or so, WASP English Canada has agreed to let someone else take the baton, or megaphone.

But what does WASP English Canada think? Who speaks best for English Canada? Who is the interlocuter?

[cybercoma]

On election night, Charest said that he would speak for all Quebecers and I`m sure Harper is aware that he represents all of Canada when he`s abroad.

Cybercoma, my point was different. For some 40 years or so, WASP English Canada has agreed to let someone else take the baton, or megaphone.

But what does WASP English Canada think? Who speaks best for English Canada? Who is the interlocuter?

I guess I wasn't thinking when I said that no particular person speaks for "French Canada". Clearly, Quebec nationalist arrogance leads it to believe that "French Canadians" outside Quebec don't deserve a voice. In that regard, anyone who speaks for Quebec, speaks for "French Canada".

Also, I would disagree that anyone has spoken for "English Canada". In fact, Philip Resnick, political scientist at UBC, wrote a book called Thinking English Canada where he said that if dualism is ever to succeed, the RoC needs to identify itself as a nation. English Canadians do not view themselves as a single cohesive nation distinct from a multicultural Canadian society that includes French Canadians. What it boils down to is the "English Canada" label. Quebeckers have given that title to the ROC, but that doesn't mean the ROC identifies with it. IOW, English Canada is not something that actually exists, therefore not any one politician can speak for it.

Am I making any sense? lol

Edited December 12, 2008 by cybercoma

[August1991]

Also, I would disagree that anyone has spoken for "English Canada". In fact, Philip Resnick, political scientist at UBC, wrote a book called Thinking English Canada where he said that if dualism is ever to succeed, the RoC needs to identify itself as a nation. English Canadians do not view themselves as a single cohesive nation distinct from a multicultural Canadian society that includes French Canadians. What it boils down to is the "English Canada" label. Quebeckers have given that title to the ROC, but that doesn't mean the ROC identifies with it. IOW, English Canada is not something that actually exists, therefore not any one politician can speak for it.

Am I making any sense? lol

Make sense? Sort of.

When push comes to shove, and it always eventually does in Canada, "English" Canada will have to speak. For some 40 years, English Canada has been silent.

What does English Canada want?

[August1991]

Double post.

Edited December 13, 2008 by August1991

[blueblood]

Make sense? Sort of.

When push comes to shove, and it always eventually does in Canada, "English" Canada will have to speak. For some 40 years, English Canada has been silent.

What does English Canada want?

That would depend on what part of English Canada your in. That would also depend on which party's platform English Canada buys into.

What English Canada wants is irrelevant. There are 3 national parties vying for government with 3 different philosophies. The question is what does French Canada want? They are the king makers and the ticket out of this minority gov't nonsense.

[na85]

Make sense? Sort of.

When push comes to shove, and it always eventually does in Canada, "English" Canada will have to speak. For some 40 years, English Canada has been silent.

What does English Canada want?

Well I can't speak for English Canada as a whole, but I know a number of people, myself included, who feel that French Canada gets too much emphasis placed on it come election time.

[cybercoma]

Make sense? Sort of.

When push comes to shove, and it always eventually does in Canada, "English" Canada will have to speak. For some 40 years, English Canada has been silent.

What does English Canada want?

English Canada does not recognize itself as such. You're coming at the question from a dualist view of the country and English Canada wholly rejects that idea. Actually, it doesn't make sense to say it that way because that recognizes an English Canada, something people outside of Quebec do not do. Quebec recognizes itself as one half and lumps everybody else together as "English Canada", whether they have ties to the English or not. The problem is impossible to solve because it is being approached from two-different angles. Quebec sees itself as French Canada and the RoC as "English Canada". The RoC sees this country as Canada first and foremost and Quebec as a province, equal to the rest, within Canada. The idea of dualism is completely rejected, so a solution is not possible when there isn't even agreement on the very foundation of the issues.

Edited December 12, 2008 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

That is very well said, cybercoma. The question "what does English Canada want?" carries the implicit assumption that English Canada is a homogenous entity. Is that how Quebec still views us? "TRoCs"?

If not "English Canada" then what "Canadas" are there? East/Central/West? Rural/Urban?

At this point in our history, is there any relevant way of breaking Canada into relevant sound-bite-sized groups for handy analysis?

-k

[cybercoma]

Quebec would like to be an equal partner with The Rest of Canada; however, dualism was put into a coffin in 1840 with the Act of Union, buried with Confederation in 1867 and flowers laid upon it in 1982 with the Constitution Act. Quebec can continue to demand that it is une province pas comme les autres, but all it will ever be is une province différente.

Edited December 13, 2008 by cybercoma

[August1991]

English Canada does not recognize itself as such. You're coming at the question from a dualist view of the country and English Canada wholly rejects that idea. Actually, it doesn't make sense to say it that way because that recognizes an English Canada, something people outside of Quebec do not do. Quebec recognizes itself as one half and lumps everybody else together as "English Canada", whether they have ties to the English or not.

If not "English Canada" then what "Canadas" are there? East/Central/West? Rural/Urban?

At this point in our history, is there any relevant way of breaking Canada into relevant sound-bite-sized groups for handy analysis?

----

I have been debating on this forum long enough to understand, if I didn't before, that English Canada is hardly homogeneous. And for that matter, neither is French Canada. Nevertheless, Canada has a fundamental divide on language. We have one public conversation in one language, and another in another language. (As a comparison, most Canadians can participate in the American public discussion but few Americans can participate intelligently in ours.) So, I think it's naive to pretend (in PC fashion) that Canada does not have a basic duality. It does.

My point is that for the past 40 years, Canada's main spokesman has come from Quebec. English Canada has not had an authentic voice. (Mulroney is a possible exception.) Stephen Harper is the first WASP since Lester Pearson. (Even Quebec is fed up of this state of affairs and Dion's defeat is something like American blacks voting against Obama III.)

It's an interesting point that Michael Ignatieff is the federal Liberal Party's first non-English, non-French leader. To the extent Ignatieff's religious, he's Russian Orthodox.

So, I think that it's a legitimate question to ask who speaks best for "English-Canada" (such as it is)? I suspect that in English Canada, the answer to this question will determine who will become PM.

Edited December 14, 2008 by August1991