The NDP is the party keeping minority governments afloat.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
The NDP is the party keeping minority governments afloat.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, I still think Mulroney's downfall was some special, but it was a combination of extraordinary events happening at around the same time. The rise of Quebec nationalism, Albertan discontent, an ineffective new leader, a polarizing ballot box issue...
The difference this time is that all these scandals hit too early and by the time we vote, no one will remember any of them. Remember earlier in the year when every other week something was wrong? The fighter plane thing, the Bev Oda thing, the Penashue thing, the missing billion dollars, the 100 million dollar ship blueprints, and on and on. None of that is even a blip on the radar any more.
If the Conservatives were smart, they'd bury this Senate thing ASAP and trust in the low standards and short memories of the Canadian electorate to vote them back in two years from now.
Actually, my only hope would be if Baird and McKay (or whomever) start tearing each other apart in an attempt to be the next heir of the party and the CPC destroys itself from the inside.
Oh, right, so I am completely ignorant about Saskatchewan politics, but if you want to invoke Tommy Douglas... we should point out that the Saskatchewan Party is a merger of the Conservative and Liberal parties - a merger made explicitly to take out the NDP. And it worked.
I'm not sure if there's a lesson there, but if you want to take down an incumbent, joining forces is one way to do it.
I'm not talking about Saskatchewan. I'm talking about Canada. Universal health care across the country was a condition of the NDP propping up the Liberals when they won a minority in the mid-60s.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, there are also many different factors at play though. The fact that the Liberal brand is meaningless west of Manitoba means a Liberal minority isn't as easy to achieve as it was back then. And even when we had Martin-Layton, it's not like we got expansive programs that people talked about.
I remember when we had a dream of nationalised child care based on the Quebec model. Ten years later, all we can hope for is more tax credits for parents. lol
Also, I look at what happened to Nick Clegg in the UK coalition government. The third party there has turned into a big fat joke.
Yes. Because things change! The world is not static!
Here's the electoral map of that election:
And here's 2006 when the CPC took over as a minority:
It's losing Quebec that's made a Liberal minority hard to achieve. The Liberals haven't done well in the prairies for many decades now. They lost it near permanently because of the NEP, but only rarely have they been even competitive since the 50s or so.
National healthcare, the Canadian Flag, the Canadian Pension Plan, all came about in a minority government. Pearson/Douglas was one amazing governance team. I wish we had something even remotely similar today federally.
The only reason Martin/Layton didn't go in a similar direction is that Martin was no Pearson. He could have governed his minority for way longer if he kept on throwing Layton the bones he was asking for (seriously, all Layton wanted for his second vote of confidence was a public declaration of support for universal healthcare. That's it) . But no Martin seems to have been unable to handle the give and take of a coalition (especially seemed to have an issue with needing the support of the third place NDP for anything).
The full majority power is so easy to get in winner take all systems like FPTP/AV that really corrupts the whole thing. Every big party just slavers at the thought of it and can't clam down and just cooperate and govern.
The PQ/Lib two party structure in Quebec is poisonous bullshit. It means the province's politics can't pull away from the nationalist/federalist question as voters have incredibly limited means to vote for parties and politicians that don't give a shit about it. Federalists have to vote for the Libs and Nationalists have to vote for the PQ.
The only reason Martin/Layton didn't go in a similar direction is that Martin was no Pearson. He could have governed his minority for way longer if he kept on throwing Layton the bones he was asking for (seriously, all Layton wanted for his second vote of confidence was a public declaration of support for universal healthcare. That's it) . But no Martin seems to have been unable to handle the give and take of a coalition (especially seemed to have an issue with needing the support of the third place NDP for anything).
The full majority power is so easy to get in winner take all systems like FPTP/AV that really corrupts the whole thing. Every big party just slavers at the thought of it and can't clam down and just cooperate and govern.
The PQ/Lib two party structure in Quebec is poisonous bullshit. It means the province's politics can't pull away from the nationalist/federalist question as voters have incredibly limited means to vote for parties and politicians that don't give a shit about it. Federalists have to vote for the Libs and Nationalists have to vote for the PQ.
matthewwhatever
Member
Yes. Because things change! The world is not static!
Here's the electoral map of that election:
And not put words in your mouth, but if you really want to prove your point, here's the electoral map from five years before that:
And then from five years later:
You'd get similar crazy shifts if you compared 1984 (largest majority ever, for the Mulroney PCs) to 1993 (pretty sizable Liberal majority). Heck, you could even compare the shift from 2000 (big Liberal majority) to 2011 (big Conservative majority).
Point being: looking at the electoral landscape today and thinking it'll be exactly the same in just a few years -- and then using that as a reason to merge two parties because it's otherwise hopeless-- is foolish.
Also, Firehawk, don't go thinking that scandals being remembered or not will have some impact on whether the Conservatives win or lose in 2015. Just look back at 2000 -- the Liberals were getting bad press daily for months in the spring before the election because of the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle". You'd think that the scandal being so fresh in people's minds would have some impact at the ballot box -- and as someone who was working in the PC war room at the time, I know I did -- but the Liberal majority actually increased. All that will matter in 2015 is how the parties are able to define themselves and each other, who's the most organized, etc.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Not for nothing, but you guys also had to deal with Refooooooooorm and the venerable Stockwell Day on your right flank back then too.
(God, I miss those days. Probably my favourite election. lol).
I feel like with waning voter turnout numbers and general disinterest in politics, all Harper has to do is not kill a child to win the next election at this point. Hell, he's getting away with proroguing once again and no one cares! This is a government that can take a break for three months and we just see that as normal now!
And anyway, in terms of just pure machinery, the CPC destroys both organizations. It's why they were able to do something silly like the robocalls in Guelph, since they could pinpoint exactly who was not going to vote for their man and send them to false polls.
(God, I miss those days. Probably my favourite election. lol).
I feel like with waning voter turnout numbers and general disinterest in politics, all Harper has to do is not kill a child to win the next election at this point. Hell, he's getting away with proroguing once again and no one cares! This is a government that can take a break for three months and we just see that as normal now!
And anyway, in terms of just pure machinery, the CPC destroys both organizations. It's why they were able to do something silly like the robocalls in Guelph, since they could pinpoint exactly who was not going to vote for their man and send them to false polls.
You guys experimented with the ADQ, but that kind of went nowhere fast, for what that's worth.
Not from Quebec but I always understood that a vote for the PQ or BQ isn't necessarily a vote for seperatism, it's just that for the longest time they were the only possible alternative to the Liberals due to winner take all FPTP and that's just not a healthy situation.
gutter_trash
Banned
Conservatives can win majorities without Quebec and without Atlantic Canada.
It's all Ontario now, Ontario has grown and is has gained more ridings.
Harper's majority was all Ontario
Quebecers don't vote on Right or Left. They vote on emotions.
How can Quebec City be Conservative in 2008 then go NDP in 2011? It's all about riding a wave of emotions, bandwagon jumping and rooting for the most popular leader.
Provincially, the provincial Liberals are the only Federalist party. Francois Legault is an ex-separatist and still a hard core Nationalist, he voted YES in 1995. Mario Dumont also voted YES in 1995.
Fedearlly, Thomas Mulcair rectuited Alexandre Boulerice who voted YES in 1995 and Nicole Turmel who also voted YES in 1995.
Azih, you got to understand: The Liberals are the only true Federalist party
It's all Ontario now, Ontario has grown and is has gained more ridings.
Harper's majority was all Ontario
Quebecers don't vote on Right or Left. They vote on emotions.
How can Quebec City be Conservative in 2008 then go NDP in 2011? It's all about riding a wave of emotions, bandwagon jumping and rooting for the most popular leader.
Provincially, the provincial Liberals are the only Federalist party. Francois Legault is an ex-separatist and still a hard core Nationalist, he voted YES in 1995. Mario Dumont also voted YES in 1995.
Fedearlly, Thomas Mulcair rectuited Alexandre Boulerice who voted YES in 1995 and Nicole Turmel who also voted YES in 1995.
Azih, you got to understand: The Liberals are the only true Federalist party
CitizenVectron
Member
It's less about "emotions" as about interests. They will vote who they think can best represent them and get stuff for them, much like anyone else. Looking at Saskatchewan, who went from strong CCF/NDP to strong reform/Conservative. It's a protest movement, and the different between say, the west and Quebec is that Quebec hasn't yet gained power through their votes where the west eventually did. If the NDP had won the last election or wins in 2015 then Quebec voters wouldn't look so emotional, they would look rational (in terms of gaining power).
gutter_trash
Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/09/mulcair-trudeau-attack-ad-ndp-election_n_3882433.html
Muclair to air attack ads........... against the Liberals?
LOL instead of going after the Harper, hw is going after the Justin LOL
Muclair to air attack ads........... against the Liberals?
LOL instead of going after the Harper, hw is going after the Justin LOL
This doesn't make sense to you.. why? The CPC is currently down about 9 points from their election results in the polls and the Liberals are in the lead. Liberals are also more likely to switch their vote to the NDP than CPC, and CPC voters are more likely to switch to the Liberals than the NDP.
It's pretty simple math: Attacking the CPC right now benefits no one but the Liberals. It works to the detriment of the NDP.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I think we should wait and see if it is Harper-style attack ads. Nothing wrong with reminding people that the Liberals are going to govern more like Conservatives in terms of economics.
CitizenVectron
Member
Yeah it makes perfect sense from the NDP's perspective.
matthewwhatever
Member
Fixed that for you. Liberals actually know what they're doing when it comes to managing money, whereas big-C Conservatives have shown time and again that they don't.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Good point, but I meant the Liberals are more like the Conservatives than they are the NDP (in terms of economic ideology). Most people assume Liberals to be closer to the NDP, but the NDP needs to dispel that misunderstanding if they want to stop bleeding votes.
It's also important to differentiate normal attack ads from negative ones. Regular ones state what policies others are going to implement and why it's wrong, and then state why you are better. Jack Layton used those all the time despite what the meltdowns in the comment section say(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIH-dknpjVQ). Mulcair is pretty stupid to announce it to the media as if it were something special, not sure who he is trying to impress.
The negative attack ads that Harper puts out are a different ball game, it makes people cynical and it's tasteless.
And, sadly, they work.
gutter_trash
Banned
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ter-ads-mcgill-lakeridge-oshawa-hospital.html
''An Ontario hospital is trying to lure Quebec-trained health-care workers by tapping into the controversy surrounding Quebecs values charter''
Pauline Marois has taken the low road with the Charter of Quebec Values barring religious signs from public employees.
So a an Ontrario hospital has taken the initiative to lure bright young minds who might be disenfranchised by the Quebec Values Charter.
Ontario wins by getting talent, while Quebec loses with longer hospital wait times.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Chantal Hebert positing that this is all a ploy to trigger early elections makes sense when you think about it, especially since this bill of values is popular across Quebec. Trigger an election then make this the ballot box issue... it's safer than separation but you still get to wrap yourself in Quebec values and all that nonsense.
Funny enough, a Bloc MP got kicked out of the party for speaking out against the bill. Whoops. lol
Funny enough, a Bloc MP got kicked out of the party for speaking out against the bill. Whoops. lol
gutter_trash
Banned
Hebert is right about it being a ploy
-PQ has a minority government so the Charter cannot pass as it stands.
-PQ is losing on the economy and jobs so creating a wedge issue against minorities is the way to go to boost nationalisme pride.
-PQ always wants a fight from Ottawa to boost support from nationalists.
BUT BUT BUT
by pissing off minorities in Quebec via alienation, this guarantees that the ''ethnic vote'' will vote NO again in any future Referedum... again
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, but even white, Francophone Quebecers are bored of that question and have moved on with their lives. Better to just win majorities by doing everything to preserve culture without nationhood instead.
That said, another funny thing is Montreal asking for permission to opt out of this bill of values... which just goes back to the fact that Montreal would try to separate from Quebec if Quebec separated from Canada. lol
gutter_trash
Banned
that is why this wedge issue has been created, to bring back the spark
Montreal is the only place in Quebec where there are any immigrants anyway. Making this Charter fully pointless.
Quebeckers please let me know if I'm wrong but seriously I just go to Montreal whenever I head to la belle province anyway aside from the one time I drove to Quebec City with my family.
Quebeckers please let me know if I'm wrong but seriously I just go to Montreal whenever I head to la belle province anyway aside from the one time I drove to Quebec City with my family.
gutter_trash
Banned
PQ is using the Republican card of pitting the hinterland against the urban metropolis. Creating an US vs THEM climate. Which is quite sad when they resort to divisive politics to wedge people
This Maria Mourani person is pretty awesome. I don't agree with her about seperatism sure but kudos to her for standing up to her leadership.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...split+sovereignty+movement/8903445/story.html
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...split+sovereignty+movement/8903445/story.html
gutter_trash
Banned
Justin Trudeau and two of his economic advisers will be hosting an online video Q&A about the economy at 4:30 PM EST today.
http://www.liberal.ca/live/
EDIT: Link to the Q&A on youtube
http://youtu.be/lwW2Rm6I5Zg?t=23m
http://www.liberal.ca/live/
EDIT: Link to the Q&A on youtube
http://youtu.be/lwW2Rm6I5Zg?t=23m
Wow. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-dean-del-mastro-quits-caucus-1.1869649
The amounts involved are small, but having DDM leave caucus and be charged is a huge deal. He's not a nobody backbencher taking a fall, that's for sure.
The amounts involved are small, but having DDM leave caucus and be charged is a huge deal. He's not a nobody backbencher taking a fall, that's for sure.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Why aren't the Conservatives defending him like they did with Penashue? lol
Interesting video of Justin Trudeau discussing "pot" with a concerned Steinbach, Manitoba mother, and local food bank manager. (26/09/2013) Discussions of this type as she was presenting it usually go nowhere, but I thought he handled the encounter quite well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHmO_wK7UI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHmO_wK7UI
killer rin
Member
Pretty interesting video....Though I could have sworn that the guy at the end mentioned something about Vic Toews. But yeah, Justin handled that pretty well. He broke down the topic into ways that the layman could understand and made a solid argument.
They did the first time the allegations cropped up. Apparently Del Mastro has had too many kicks at the can.
One thing I will give Harper. He doesn't try to defend the indefensible and cuts people off when they fall to that level.
I'm pretty sure there've been more than a couple times he's defended the indefensible.
But that aside, sometimes what this really means is that people are being thrown under the bus before anything more damaging to the party is discovered.
I have a feeling we'll see a lot of these things occur until October 16th. Throw any and everything under the bus now while they're not in session and hope nothing bigger is uncovered in the mean time.I'm pretty sure there've been more than a couple times he's defended the indefensible.
But that aside, sometimes what this really means is that people are being thrown up the bus before anything more damaging to the party is discovered.
BladeWorker
Member
Yes, the gentleman at the end mentioned that the woman's husband worked for Toews (secretary or personal/principal secretary iirc, couldn't quite make it out in the video).
I'd like to think of Canada as being an inclusive and progressive country, but the popularity of Quebec's proposed charter of values is just embarrassing. And earlier today I made the mistake of reading some comments on the CBC article "Group seeks to make O Canada's English lyrics gender-neutral". There's a ton of opposition to the idea with the same trite arguments: political correctness run amok, don't feminists have better things to do, there's no problem with it (because I'm a man and have no empathy), etc. My goodness. Maybe the proposed line isn't great, but women just want to feel included in the patriotism. We've changed the lyrics national anthem before, we can do it again.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Not to sound ageist but it's usually retired, white, male, 60-somethings that post on news sites, so 1950s social conservatism is pretty much the name of the game.
matthewwhatever
Member
Yeah, you should never read comments on CBC stories if you want to keep your faith in humanity. It's not quite Yahoo- or YouTube-level stuff, but it's generally pretty terrible.
It's odd but The Star's comments section is much more horrific than either the Globe and Mail's or the National Posts.
Embarrassingly in my university bubble I've been kind of detached from Canadian politics for the past couple of years aside from the big news stories that garner broader attention. What would be the best way to get a well-rounded re-introduction to...well, everything? I plan to read up on the daily news more often, but if there are any other resources to recommend I would appreciate it.
Sorry if it's a dumb question, feel free to mock; just not as informed a citizen as I would like to be and wanting to be more in tune with the political landscape.
Sorry if it's a dumb question, feel free to mock; just not as informed a citizen as I would like to be and wanting to be more in tune with the political landscape.
I'd suggest picking up a daily newspaper if your school provides one/some (mine did). Of course, that may also depend on where in the country you are, and the quality of the dailies you have access to.
I would suggest reading the CBC/watching their newcasts (the National/5th Estate/Market Place). I don't know of a lot of 'unbiased' sources that we may all agree on in here, so I'll leave it at that.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
People keep threatening to relaunch Frank magazine and I think at this point that might be the best way to get into the dirt. If only because Canada doesn't really have a Jon Stewart nowadays.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Totally forgot about the throne speech today. It's such a major panderfest that I wonder if people will be tricked by the lure of ala carte cable. lol
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2013/10/liberals-widen-lead-on-eve-of-throne-speech/
I found this on reddit. Seems like the Liberals are going to take back their 1st/2nd place spot next election. But what I found most interesting was this chart.
Does anyone else think they electoral reform is probably going to happen if the Liberals/NDP get elected? Ranked voting would surely benefit the Liberals more than anyone else electorally, which should provide them plenty of motivation to push for it. And the NDP seem to be a pretty popular second choice as well according to that chart, so maybe they would support an effort to change the way we vote as well.
I found this on reddit. Seems like the Liberals are going to take back their 1st/2nd place spot next election. But what I found most interesting was this chart.
Does anyone else think they electoral reform is probably going to happen if the Liberals/NDP get elected? Ranked voting would surely benefit the Liberals more than anyone else electorally, which should provide them plenty of motivation to push for it. And the NDP seem to be a pretty popular second choice as well according to that chart, so maybe they would support an effort to change the way we vote as well.
NDP maybe, Liberal no. The Liberals bolstered by a win would aim to keep the system that could give them (or keep them) a majority. The NDP might be fresh enough to power that they'd do something that would prevent them from ever having a majority government.
Proper electoral reform will end majority governments. Only a party willing to give that up would ever do it.
'Ranked voting' can mean two different things. AlternateVote/Instant Runoff Voting that is for all intents and purposes a more expensive way of getting very similar results to what we already get with FPTP (possibly better for fake Liberal majorities though) or Single Transferable Vote which is a sane, proportional system that will spell the end of constant fake majority governments.
AV/IRV is a horrific system that 'seems' like true reform which probably explains why Justin Trudeau is pushing it so hard.
The difference between AV and a truly proportional system is kinda like the difference between the insane politics of Australia and the incredibly sensible politics of New Zealand.
AV/IRV is a horrific system that 'seems' like true reform which probably explains why Justin Trudeau is pushing it so hard.
The difference between AV and a truly proportional system is kinda like the difference between the insane politics of Australia and the incredibly sensible politics of New Zealand.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Australia's politics over the last two decades have been stable. The only reason why the Rudd/Gillard run was so terrible was because both Rudd and Gillard were terrible and they paid for it with a minority and then a big defeat that is threatening to destroy the party as much as the shitty Dion/Iggy fight.
But anyway, the Duffy revelations today are hilarious. I really don't know how Harper weasels his way out of this one, or why he even tried to hide this shit back in the day because he must know that, unlike all the other MPs he's crushed (Helen Guergis and Jaffer), Duffy is both savvy and willing to basically nuke everyone if he is taken down.
I have no idea what this will mean for the Conservatives in the Senate. I can't imagine he'll ever be in a position to appoint new Senators again. At least not until the next cycle begins.
But anyway, the Duffy revelations today are hilarious. I really don't know how Harper weasels his way out of this one, or why he even tried to hide this shit back in the day because he must know that, unlike all the other MPs he's crushed (Helen Guergis and Jaffer), Duffy is both savvy and willing to basically nuke everyone if he is taken down.
I have no idea what this will mean for the Conservatives in the Senate. I can't imagine he'll ever be in a position to appoint new Senators again. At least not until the next cycle begins.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked