Support NeoGAF

[Fuzzy]

As much as he's simply riding his dad's coattails... he's better than all other options.

Name one other "senior" Liberal who's worth a damn.

(The Liberal Party is an "old boys club" at this point, and it needs new blood. Badly.)

Jim Karygiannis but the Conservatives would probably attack him on not being born in Canada even though there's no rule against it and it has happened in the past.

 

[BigJonsson]

If you want to help choose the next leader, sign up as a supporter

 

[maharg]

Well, the situation as it stands now means Conservative majorities or minorities for a while unless Mulcair steps up and becomes someone that people can rally behind.
Besides, it's not like we weren't in a defacto two party system for as long as the country has been around anyway.

I really find this line of thinking baffling. Somehow 61% of the electorate can't possibly divvy up the vote in any way that will result in an outcome other than the party that wins 39% of it at *best* doesn't form government? Nonsense. This line of thinking is as realistic as people in 1998 thinking the Liberals would never lose another election or people in 2004 thinking the Conservatives would never form government. Things aren't that static.

And really, this country hasn't been a 2 party state in any meaningful sense since the CCF came along. We've had a party polling around where the Liberals currently poll for most of the last century and it's never stopped either of the other two parties from forming majority governments before. Why should it now?

Really this defeatist nonsense has got to stop.

 

[gabbo]

I really find this line of thinking baffling. Somehow 61% of the electorate can't possibly divvy up the vote in any way that will result in an outcome other than the party that wins 39% of it at *best* doesn't form government? Nonsense. This line of thinking is as realistic as people in 1998 thinking the Liberals would never lose another election or people in 2004 thinking the Conservatives would never form government. Things aren't that static.

And really, this country hasn't been a 2 party state in any meaningful sense since the CCF came along. We've had a party polling around where the Liberals currently poll for most of the last century and it's never stopped either of the other two parties from forming majority governments before. Why should it now?

Really this defeatist nonsense has got to stop.

Glad I'm not the only one who felt this way looking over the most recent posts.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I really find this line of thinking baffling. Somehow 61% of the electorate can't possibly divvy up the vote in any way that will result in an outcome other than the party that wins 39% of it at *best* doesn't form government? Nonsense. This line of thinking is as realistic as people in 1998 thinking the Liberals would never lose another election or people in 2004 thinking the Conservatives would never form government. Things aren't that static.

And really, this country hasn't been a 2 party state in any meaningful sense since the CCF came along. We've had a party polling around where the Liberals currently poll for most of the last century and it's never stopped either of the other two parties from forming majority governments before. Why should it now?

Really this defeatist nonsense has got to stop.

Very well said. It seems like a lot of the dislike of having more than two viable parties is driven by a media that's 1) obsessed with covering horserace elections politics and 2) can't figure out how to cover things in a way other than he said, she said. And, of course, both the Cons and the NDP have a strong interest in pushing the Liberals aside, since they both think that a two-party system would leave them in power perpetually.

In any case, as a full-on Liberal Party member, I'm eager to see who ends up running. In all likelihood, I'll end up supporting Trudeau -- I don't care what his policies are, just that he's young (so he can last more than one election), telegenic and understands how modern communications work. That said, I'm curious about Mark Carney, and I'm wondering who else will run.

 

[firehawk12]

I really find this line of thinking baffling. Somehow 61% of the electorate can't possibly divvy up the vote in any way that will result in an outcome other than the party that wins 39% of it at *best* doesn't form government? Nonsense. This line of thinking is as realistic as people in 1998 thinking the Liberals would never lose another election or people in 2004 thinking the Conservatives would never form government. Things aren't that static.

And really, this country hasn't been a 2 party state in any meaningful sense since the CCF came along. We've had a party polling around where the Liberals currently poll for most of the last century and it's never stopped either of the other two parties from forming majority governments before. Why should it now?

Really this defeatist nonsense has got to stop.

I'm not saying that the NDP have existed as the equivalent of the Marijuana or Marxist-Leninist Party, but this last election's results were born out of a protest vote than any real desire to see the NDP actually govern. The results in Quebec were an anomaly based on the fact that, other than the PQ, they had no one else to vote for.

Federally, when we've created an electoral system and a political system where even the idea of a coalition is a non-starter, we're just going to see more of the same until either the NDP and the Liberals get their act together or when regional factionalism tears apart the Conservatives again and someone is able to take advantage of that.

So sure, it's fairly unpredictable. But I don't think anyone seriously thought that everything would remain the same after the Alliance and the PC merged. It's probably why Chretien was ready to let Martin take over the sinking ship (the Sponsorship scandal probably was the other reason lol).

I'm ready to accept that we're going to get more of the same for the rest of my life here though.

 

[maharg]

The idea that the NDP in 2011 was a protest vote would hold some water if the Liberals and the NDP had even once traded places in the polls since the election.

 

[firehawk12]

The idea that the NDP in 2011 was a protest vote would hold some water if the Liberals and the NDP had even once traded places in the polls since the election.

I haven't been following polls, but I just don't see the NDP keeping all their Quebec seats in the next election.

Maybe I'm wrong and Quebec is willing to go NDP federally while playing around with the PQ provincially. I suppose other than the whole sovereignty thing, their other political agendas match up at least fairly loosely.

 

[maharg]

It's completely disingenuous to mark the rise of the NDP in 2011 as being exclusively in Quebec. The NDP became the first or second choice pretty much across the country, and their gains have held across the board or improved in every part of the country as well. If they lose seats in Quebec in 2015 it probably won't be many and they will probably pick up elsewhere.

Again, your extrapolations make no sense. They assume the conservative voting base is unable to shrink or shift.

 

[gabbo]

I haven't been following polls, but I just don't see the NDP keeping all their Quebec seats in the next election.

Maybe I'm wrong and Quebec is willing to go NDP federally while playing around with the PQ provincially. I suppose other than the whole sovereignty thing, their other political agendas match up at least fairly loosely.

The PQ is a rather left-leaning, and the NDP is too most of the time. It makes sense there would be a voting base for them in Quebec that won't leave them on a whim. Harper is seemingly making sue of that.

 

[firehawk12]

It's completely disingenuous to mark the rise of the NDP in 2011 as being exclusively in Quebec. The NDP became the first or second choice pretty much across the country, and their gains have held across the board or improved in every part of the country as well. If they lose seats in Quebec in 2015 it probably won't be many and they will probably pick up elsewhere.

Again, your extrapolations make no sense. They assume the conservative voting base is unable to shrink or shift.

The vote splitting that ruined the Conservatives chances in Ontario is what's going to damage the NDP/Liberal voting block the next time around. Besides, as we've seen over and over again, just because someone gets a certain percentage of the vote, doesn't mean they get an equal percentage of the seats. Polling (and by implication popular vote) is an indicator, but it also doesn't tell us what happens on a riding per riding basis.

Now I don't know anything about East Coast politics, so it's entirely possible that voters in the Maritimes are much more fluid and aren't tied to any particular party. Maybe we'll have another Danny Williams tell voters in their province to vote anyone but Conservative because of some bad deal the Federal government is trying to impose on one of the provinces. But that seems to be the only real place where serious gains can be made for the NDP... and even then, seat wise, assuming the Conservatives keep most of Ontario, it's not enough.

Of course, I also understand that not every Liberal vote is an NDP vote. If the Liberal brand died, some of them would move to the Conservatives and some may choose not to vote. But people probably said the same about CRAP (sorry, I will never let that go) and PC supporters after that merger and... well, if you're not voting for the new Conservative party, all you are doing is cutting off your nose to spite your face and denying yourself a vote.

The PQ is a rather left-leaning, and the NDP is too most of the time. It makes sense there would be a voting base for them in Quebec that won't leave them on a whim. Harper is seemingly making sue of that.

I just wonder if a Federal party can support itself without any local support. I mean, we all heard the stories of candidates who were on vacation or who didn't have any offices in their ridings because they just assumed that they would lose. I'm sure the NDP is pouring a crap load of money and man-power into Quebec to beef up phone banks and all that logistical stuff, but this is something that's much easier to do when you already have Provincial and Municipal party structures and people to rely on.

I'm assuming that, for instance, the PQ isn't going to hand over voter lists and whatnot to the NDP just because they share similar social values.

 

[RevoDS]

I just wonder if a Federal party can support itself without any local support. I mean, we all heard the stories of candidates who were on vacation or who didn't have any offices in their ridings because they just assumed that they would lose. I'm sure the NDP is pouring a crap load of money and man-power into Quebec to beef up phone banks and all that logistical stuff, but this is something that's much easier to do when you already have Provincial and Municipal party structures and people to rely on.

I'm assuming that, for instance, the PQ isn't going to hand over voter lists and whatnot to the NDP just because they share similar social values.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably not from Quebec, right?

I say that because you seem to basically be talking without knowing how things are actually doing.

I'm guessing you don't know that Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the very MP you're referring to that was on vacation during her campaign, has actually been a pleasant surprise. She's loved in her riding and it would be very surprising to see her not win again at the next election.

And that's the case for most Quebec NDP MPs, really. There haven't been a lot of complaints overall, and that explains why they remain so high in polls a year and a half after the election. As far as I can tell, the NDP does have local support in Quebec at the moment.

 

[firehawk12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably not from Quebec, right?

I say that because you seem to basically be talking without knowing how things are actually doing.

I'm guessing you don't know that Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the very MP you're referring to that was on vacation during her campaign, has actually been a pleasant surprise. She's loved in her riding and it would be very surprising to see her not win again at the next election.

And that's the case for most Quebec NDP MPs, really. There haven't been a lot of complaints overall, and that explains why they remain so high in polls a year and a half after the election. As far as I can tell, the NDP does have local support in Quebec at the moment.

Nope, so I will readily admit that I'm making a lot of assumptions. But I just look at it historically is all - so I remember when the ADQ were going to be a real alternative party in Quebec... until they weren't. I don't know enough about Quebec to understand how things work there, so I know it's not fair to say that the NDP are the next ADQ, but I'm just saying that I would be very surprised if the NDP held all its seats in Quebec next time around.

Besides, I say this as someone who voted for Jack Layton in every Federal election. In fact, the first time I didn't vote in Toronto-Danforth was the by-election that happened earlier in the year (mostly because I knew that the NDP candidate would automatically win). If you told me that the NDP would be able to capture more seats in Ontario, keep Quebec, and win seats in the Maritimes and the West and form the next government of Canada, it would be a dream come true. I'm also realistic though. Or maybe I'm a cynic. lol

My question to you would be - where did all the riding leaders and staff from the Liberals and the BQ go? Did they retire? Are they gearing up for 2015? Did they switch to the NDP or the Conservatives? I honestly don't know, but the decimation of the BQ means that there is a lot of political brain power in Quebec without a home.

 

[Ether_Snake]

So Trudeau will run for the PLQ's leadership, and of course win.

NDP was neck-to-neck against the CPC with a leaderless-PLQ.

So this makes my scenario of Harper winning again in the next elections once again very likely. Harper till 2017 at least. Good luck, Canada.

 

[firehawk12]

So Trudeau will run for the PLQ's leadership, and of course win.

NDP was neck-to-neck against the CPC with a leaderless-PLQ.

So this makes my scenario of Harper winning again in the next elections once again very likely. Harper till 2017 at least. Good luck, Canada.

Eh, I don't know anything about Quebec politics, but isn't the Trudeau name fairly problematic there (to put it mildly)?

 

[Ether_Snake]

Eh, I don't know anything about Quebec politics, but isn't the Trudeau name fairly problematic there (to put it mildly)?

Not at all, he's very popular and likeable. He always wins his riding. The PLQ would come back rather strongly with him at the head, and certainly not just in Quebec.

 

[gabbo]

Eh, I don't know anything about Quebec politics, but isn't the Trudeau name fairly problematic there (to put it mildly)?

It's probably a 60-40 split towards positive light.

 

[IISANDERII]

Nobody's mentioned the Nexen deal.
China is close to buying Nexen, which has major stakes in Alberta oil sands so this would be selling control of those resources for cash.
Seems like a terrible deal that will have lasting repercussions. Harper strikes again.

 

[firehawk12]

Nobody's mentioned the Nexen deal.
China is close to buying Nexen, which has major stakes in Alberta oil sands so this would be selling control of those resources for cash.
Seems like a terrible deal that will have lasting repercussions. Harper strikes again.

I'm sure the hope is that China will let Canada sell... Blackberries or whatever it is that we make (Assassin's Creed games?) to Chinese people I suppose. But my understanding is that there isn't really reciprocity on that front.

Not at all, he's very popular and likeable. He always wins his riding. The PLQ would come back rather strongly with him at the head, and certainly not just in Quebec.

It's probably a 60-40 split towards positive light.

Oh really? So all that FLQ/Martial Law stuff is history now? I wonder when Alberta will get over the NEP. lol

 

[maharg]

I think that for both the prairies and Quebec there's a lot of rose tinted glasses that will come off the closer we get to the reality of another Prime Minister named Trudeau. People liking Justin when he's content to be a backbencher or a quiet critic concerned more with his constituency than with national office is a far cry from wanting him acclaimed leader of the Liberal party and running for PM.

I think this will end badly for the Liberals. Just another in a string of "One Leader Away From Success" bungles.

 

[lupinko]

Okay, I'm hyped for Trudeaumania 2. I'll go to his event in Richmond tomorrow after my work and volunteer work.

 

[SickBoy]

I'm sure the hope is that China will let Canada sell... Blackberries or whatever it is that we make (Assassin's Creed games?) to Chinese people I suppose. But my understanding is that there isn't really reciprocity on that front.

There's definitely some hope for reciprocity from what I've read (I'll be damned if I can remember on what fronts), but I'm pretty sure the going thought is that increasing foreign (and in particular, Asian) ownership in the energy industry will continue to nudge along the development of export infrastructure, which is good for the broad industry. Definitely there seems to be a prevailing view among industry observers that we've got to sink our hooks into China before they find some other source for their energy needs.

 

[firehawk12]

I think that for both the prairies and Quebec there's a lot of rose tinted glasses that will come off the closer we get to the reality of another Prime Minister named Trudeau. People liking Justin when he's content to be a backbencher or a quiet critic concerned more with his constituency than with national office is a far cry from wanting him acclaimed leader of the Liberal party and running for PM.

I think this will end badly for the Liberals. Just another in a string of "One Leader Away From Success" bungles.

I think the problem is far bigger than who their leader is. I bet the Liberals would lose even if they had '08 Obama working for them.

There's definitely some hope for reciprocity from what I've read (I'll be damned if I can remember on what fronts), but I'm pretty sure the going thought is that increasing foreign (and in particular, Asian) ownership in the energy industry will continue to nudge along the development of export infrastructure, which is good for the broad industry. Definitely there seems to be a prevailing view among industry observers that we've got to sink our hooks into China before they find some other source for their energy needs.

At the moment Australia is the biggest resource exporter to China and I'm sure Harper/Canada wants a piece of that pie. Global warming opening up the shipping through the north will probably make Canada a prettier target.

I guess there's other issues though. Why is it okay to support China but not Iran, for example? If Iran had billions of dollars worth of wealth, would we have pulled our embassy?

 

[lupinko]

If you want to help choose the next leader, sign up as a supporter

Ok I did just that, rock us Trudeau!

 

[gabbo]

There's definitely some hope for reciprocity from what I've read (I'll be damned if I can remember on what fronts), but I'm pretty sure the going thought is that increasing foreign (and in particular, Asian) ownership in the energy industry will continue to nudge along the development of export infrastructure, which is good for the broad industry. Definitely there seems to be a prevailing view among industry observers that we've got to sink our hooks into China before they find some other source for their energy needs.

We can sell them oil without having to sell the companies in the process

 

[Ether_Snake]

I think that for both the prairies and Quebec there's a lot of rose tinted glasses that will come off the closer we get to the reality of another Prime Minister named Trudeau. People liking Justin when he's content to be a backbencher or a quiet critic concerned more with his constituency than with national office is a far cry from wanting him acclaimed leader of the Liberal party and running for PM.

I think this will end badly for the Liberals. Just another in a string of "One Leader Away From Success" bungles.

I don't think so, he's really clever and plays Obama-like 4th dimensional chest. He should do pretty well.

 

[matthewwhatever]

I think the problem is far bigger than who their leader is. I bet the Liberals would lose even if they had '08 Obama working for them.

I don't think that's the case at all. Arguably their biggest problem for the last half-decade or so has been messaging. Martin was always saying everything was an extremely important top priority, and as a result -- like the Economist said -- it was easy to label him as a spineless ditherer. Dion and his team were completely inept at messaging, and I say that as someone who joined the party because I liked him so much. Iggy could've/should've been an improvement, but he never settled into any kind of coherent theme, and that made it impossible for him to gain any traction. (It also didn't help that he didn't hit back at all over the "Just Visiting" ads.) At the very least, I think Trudeau should be a huge improvement over each of them.

That's not to say he wouldn't face some issues as leader. I don't know what kind of infrastructure the Liberals have left outside of the Maritimes and parts of Ontario, so he may face a huge challenge in reviving all the Electoral District Associations and making the competitive again. And, of course, he'd need to be ready to take on the Conservatives' negative ads right out of the gate; while the Liberals have been surprisingly successful at fundraising as a third-place party (I got a fundraising email a few days ago that said that they've consistently outraised the NDP every quarter since the 2011 election; if true, that's astounding), there's no way they can compete with the Conservatives financially, so he'd have to figure out how to respond strongly in a cost-effective way.

 

[lupinko]

Just got back from Justin's event in Richmond, this is like Obamarama again. Justin FTW.

He's just too damn pimp.

 

[gabbo]

Just got back from Justin's event in Richmond, this is like Obamarama again. Justin FTW.

He's just too damn pimp.

Convincing Liberals is one thing....

 

[Ether_Snake]

Convincing Liberals is one thing....

Forget it, people are gonna love him. Harper is a constipated robot next to this guy.

 

[lupinko]

Convincing Liberals is one thing....

I dunno, I rocked my Obama 2012 shirt during this event. Obama2012 Trudeau2015

 

[firehawk12]

I don't think that's the case at all. Arguably their biggest problem for the last half-decade or so has been messaging. Martin was always saying everything was an extremely important top priority, and as a result -- like the Economist said -- it was easy to label him as a spineless ditherer. Dion and his team were completely inept at messaging, and I say that as someone who joined the party because I liked him so much. Iggy could've/should've been an improvement, but he never settled into any kind of coherent theme, and that made it impossible for him to gain any traction. (It also didn't help that he didn't hit back at all over the "Just Visiting" ads.) At the very least, I think Trudeau should be a huge improvement over each of them.

That's not to say he wouldn't face some issues as leader. I don't know what kind of infrastructure the Liberals have left outside of the Maritimes and parts of Ontario, so he may face a huge challenge in reviving all the Electoral District Associations and making the competitive again. And, of course, he'd need to be ready to take on the Conservatives' negative ads right out of the gate; while the Liberals have been surprisingly successful at fundraising as a third-place party (I got a fundraising email a few days ago that said that they've consistently outraised the NDP every quarter since the 2011 election; if true, that's astounding), there's no way they can compete with the Conservatives financially, so he'd have to figure out how to respond strongly in a cost-effective way.

Well, I suppose the dirty secret is that the Conservatives are crushing both in terms of money raised anyway, so it's not like it matters. If the Liberals are focused on trying to convince people that they are somehow more legitimate than the NDP, then we're just going to have more Conservative governments for a while. I think even Stockwell Day couldn't screw up at this point. lol

I just think the Liberal brand is so damaged that it doesn't really matter. Provincially, Liberal governments seem to exist by sheer accident than by any real desire to keep them in power. God knows how McGuinty will manage to hold on to Ontario the next time around anyway.

Maybe an effective leader would help with messaging and branding the party - for a while, I at least believed that Liberals cared about the environment when Dion was the leader - but other than somehow being "centre-left", I'm not sure what being a "Liberal" actually means. It probably doesn't help that the platform changes with every leader and they've been leaderless for so long that they haven't had a chance to redefine themselves again, but really, the only thing the Liberals have going for them is that they're not the Conservatives.

Well, sorry, but the NDP have that as well. And Mulcair can still probably ride the legacy of Layton and Layton's social activism in the next election barring some massive screw up on his part.

Of course, one thing I totally forgot about is how the Greens fit into all of this. Assuming May doesn't squander her one victory and actually focuses on winning key ridings rather than trying to pretend that the Green brand is a national brand, you basically have two centre-left parties and a leftist party all eating out of the mostly the same voting base. It's going to be a massacre in a few years unless something changes. :/

 

[lupinko]

I'll just say this last, I've never seen anything like what I saw tonight at Justin's speech in Richmond for any Canadian politician or political figure.

Also old people should go away already jeez.

 

[SketchTheArtist]

Forget it, people are gonna love him. Harper is a constipated robot next to this guy.

Robot Personality VS The Very Definition of Fake! FIGHT!

 

[gabbo]

I'll just say this last, I've never seen anything like what I saw tonight at Justin's speech in Richmond for any Canadian politician or political figure.

Also old people should go away already jeez.

What's the comment about old people getting at?

 

[Zips]

I don't know how much I'd be able to believe in Justin Trudeau. I'm not a fan of family dynasties in politics, and I heard from a former part-time co-worker who has worked with him that he's pretty flaky and constantly changes his mind on whether to do something (such as whether to announce his run for leadership).

There really needs to be a second Conservative party. It's not fair that there's just the one on that side of politics, while there's several on the left, causing the majority of votes that go for the left having less effect than the minority of votes for the right. Either the system needs to change, or the right needs to be broken up party-wise.

 

[Stumpokapow]

There really needs to be a second Conservative party. It's not fair that there's just the one on that side of politics, while there's several on the left, causing the majority of votes that go for the left having less effect than the minority of votes for the right. Either the system needs to change, or the right needs to be broken up party-wise.

This is what the right complained about all through the 90s when they were votesplitting, the McDonough and McLaughlin NDP were marginal, and the Liberals got back to back mega-majorities with plurality votes.

I'm for changing away from FPTP, but as long as we have it, game theory (Duverger's law) will suggest a tendency towards 2 party or 2 party plus systems, and by definition we can't change in a majority government since FPTP->MMP (or IRV or...) benefits those not in power and not those in power.

 

[Zips]

This is what the Conservatives complained about all through the 90s when they were votesplitting, the McDonough and McLaughlin NDP were marginal, and the Liberals got back to back mega-majorities with plurality votes.

I'm for changing away from FPTP, but as long as we have it, game theory (Duverger's law) will suggest a tendency towards 2 party or 2 party plus systems, and by definition we can't change in a majority government since FPTP->MMP (or IRV or...) benefits those not in power and not those in power.

I was too young to be paying much attention to politics back then, but it was probably a valid assertion by the Conservatives then as well if neither of the Conservative parties were marginal like the NDP were.

I don't think a 2-party system provides the options people should have with their votes, and leads to the parties becoming warped versions of themselves over time. 2-party is where things currently seem to be heading though, unless Canada is doomed to be dominated by Harper and the Conservatives for all time due to vote splitting. I don't know who would actually have the convictions and guts to try and change the system, unfortunately.

 

[gabbo]

I was too young to be paying much attention to politics back then, but it was probably a valid assertion by the Conservatives then as well if neither of the Conservative parties were marginal like the NDP were.

I don't think a 2-party system provides the options people should have with their votes, and leads to the parties becoming warped versions of themselves over time. 2-party is where things currently seem to be heading though, unless Canada is doomed to be dominated by Harper and the Conservatives for all time due to vote splitting. I don't know who would actually have the convictions and guts to try and change the system, unfortunately.

The [Progressive] Conservatives made themselves irrelevant in the 90's and Manning and his Reform were basically what Harper is now (but their stances seemed crazy as fuck at the time). That being said, Chretien's Liberals were then basically allowed to put through what amounts to a Conservative budget, with all the spending cuts, transfer payment changes, and NAFTA.

2-party systems have a purpose, but when that purpose is served and the system isn't changed, things get out of hand. I don't think we'll ever have a true 2-party system here, too much animosity towards the two big parties (well one big party and whats left of the other at this point) even if the guys in charge right now like to cry bogey man at the idea of a perfectly legitimate coalition. If the party leaders who aren't Harper would get their heads out of their asses during minority governments, we could avoid the problem.

 

[Flash]

The [Progressive] Conservatives made themselves irrelevant in the 90's and Manning and his Reform were basically what Harper is now (but their stances seemed crazy as fuck at the time). That being said, Chretien's Liberals were then basically allowed to put through what amounts to a Conservative budget, with all the spending cuts, transfer payment changes, and NAFTA.

2-party systems have a purpose, but when that purpose is served and the system isn't changed, things get out of hand. I don't think we'll ever have a true 2-party system here, too much animosity towards the two big parties (well one big party and whats left of the other at this point) even if the guys in charge right now like to cry bogey man at the idea of a perfectly legitimate coalition. If the party leaders who aren't Harper would get their heads out of their asses during minority governments, we could avoid the problem.

I seriously hate how the cons made the idea of a coalition seem undemocratic... if anything it's the very definition of it. Two parties willing to put aside their differences in order to run for the majority of the voters.

Harper has the liberals and ndp exactly where he wants them. They can't work together or else the "coalition! undemocratic!" stuff will hurt them, so instead they have to focus on competing against each other. So unless Trudeau's popularity takes off big time I foresee another conservative majority government.

And it is absolutely important that Liberals pick a leader and STICK WITH THEM. god damnit that party is just shameful right now... As a party they are very undefined both in their policies and in their leadership. When you think of the current liberals there is nothing really standing out. They really need to work on their brand and I think Trudeau would be great for that.

 

[BigJonsson]

I'll probably support Trudeau but there has to be a full leadership contest or the Liberals are going to look stupid again

 

[maharg]

The [Progressive] Conservatives made themselves irrelevant in the 90's and Manning and his Reform were basically what Harper is now (but their stances seemed crazy as fuck at the time). That being said, Chretien's Liberals were then basically allowed to put through what amounts to a Conservative budget, with all the spending cuts, transfer payment changes, and NAFTA.

Just a note: NAFTA was put through by Mulroney, not Chretien. Chretien promised to repeal it (and the GST) but didn't.

 

[gutter_trash]

a Justin Society is the only way

 

[firehawk12]

I'm for changing away from FPTP, but as long as we have it, game theory (Duverger's law) will suggest a tendency towards 2 party or 2 party plus systems, and by definition we can't change in a majority government since FPTP->MMP (or IRV or...) benefits those not in power and not those in power.

No, people don't want it for some silly reason. BC and Ontario had referendums on it and of the people who actually bothered to vote (because hey, let's make voting voluntary because that makes sense!), they turned it own.

That means that of the people who actually care enough to vote in Canada, they're perfectly fine with the status-quo. Bleh.

I'll probably support Trudeau but there has to be a full leadership contest or the Liberals are going to look stupid again

It'll be Martin all over again. Hopefully he burns after the next election and we can finally get a "unite the left" movement going when we realize that we've been sitting under a Conservative government for over a decade.

Just a note: NAFTA was put through by Mulroney, not Chretien. Chretien promised to repeal it (and the GST) but didn't.

But the secret is that the Liberals wanted both of those things too. lol

 

[Glorified G]

I'll just say this last, I've never seen anything like what I saw tonight at Justin's speech in Richmond for any Canadian politician or political figure.

Also old people should go away already jeez.

If his name was Justin Smith, you wouldn't even know he exist.

It's amazing he's the frontrunner for the Liberal leadership based on nepotism alone.

 

[maharg]

No, people don't want it for some silly reason. BC and Ontario had referendums on it and of the people who actually bothered to vote (because hey, let's make voting voluntary because that makes sense!), they turned it own.

That means that of the people who actually care enough to vote in Canada, they're perfectly fine with the status-quo. Bleh.

I think all you can draw about public opinion from those referendums is that it's easy to exploit uncertainty about what a changed system would look like. Especially when it comes to changing something as fundamental as how we vote. The campaigns against them were not really campaigns for the status quo, but mostly against the specific implementation on offer (or the lack of a specific implementation on offer).

I think support for changing the system is high even so.

 

[gabbo]

No, people don't want it for some silly reason. BC and Ontario had referendums on it and of the people who actually bothered to vote (because hey, let's make voting voluntary because that makes sense!), they turned it own.

That means that of the people who actually care enough to vote in Canada, they're perfectly fine with the status-quo. Bleh.

But the secret is that the Liberals wanted both of those things too. lol

I don't know what it was like in BC, but there was a rather vocal anti-PropRep movement here around the time of that particular election, AND it was terribly worded on the ballot. hell, I knew what it was asking going in and still wasn't sure if I should actually check the damn box based on how it was written.

 

[firehawk12]

I don't know what it was like in BC, but there was a rather vocal anti-PropRep movement here around the time of that particular election, AND it was terribly worded on the ballot. hell, I knew what it was asking going in and still wasn't sure if I should actually check the damn box based on how it was written.

I think that if you're making your decision based on the ballot question, you probably aren't inclined to vote in favour anyway because it's an issue that doesn't matter to you. In the same way that if you're confused because put the party names in small print or something, chances are you're not voting for a candidate because you're informed about their policies or something.
(I like how in the US you just vote Democrat or Republican, because the individual candidates for local positions don't matter to most people).

It probably doesn't help that we don't have much of a referendum culture here (unlike in the US where everything is voted on), so preparing beforehand to be informed is probably too much to ask as well.

I think all you can draw about public opinion from those referendums is that it's easy to exploit uncertainty about what a changed system would look like. Especially when it comes to changing something as fundamental as how we vote. The campaigns against them were not really campaigns for the status quo, but mostly against the specific implementation on offer (or the lack of a specific implementation on offer).

I think support for changing the system is high even so.

Well, I think the problem is that the issue has been buried for another few decades. It's almost like senate reform (or abortion) in that no one wants to talk about it because it interests no one and no one wins from having the debate/discussion.

 

[gabbo]

I think that if you're making your decision based on the ballot question, you probably aren't inclined to vote in favour anyway because it's an issue that doesn't matter to you. In the same way that if you're confused because put the party names in small print or something, chances are you're not voting for a candidate because you're informed about their policies or something.
(I like how in the US you just vote Democrat or Republican, because the individual candidates for local positions don't matter to most people).

It probably doesn't help that we don't have much of a referendum culture here (unlike in the US where everything is voted on), so preparing beforehand to be informed is probably too much to ask as well.


Well, I think the problem is that the issue has been buried for another few decades. It's almost like senate reform (or abortion) in that no one wants to talk about it because it interests no one and no one wins from having the debate/discussion.

I knew about and supported the motion (hell I tried to get as many people to vote for it as I could). The reason I heard most (from my rather conservative-leaning family) was that they didn't like not knowing who their local rep would be before an election, as if they really know them now. They weren't informed and were scared by what they had heard in the media.

It never gets brought up because it doesn't favour the current governing party in any way. Stephen Harper may stand up and bark about any number of things, but none of those things will ever be to give the NDP/Lib/Green more power in an election at his expense.

 

[Azih]

Long suffering member of Fair Vote Canada and heavily involved in the failed 2007 Ontario refrendum....

Barely anybody knew what the vote was even about or even that it was happening. I was manning a phone at the 'Yes' side of the campaign a day before the election and I got a grand total of TWO calls throughout the day asking for information.

The level of coverage in the run up to the election was abysmal and spreading FUD on issues people don't know much about is incredibly easy.