Support NeoGAF

[maharg]

And someone from Mexico City, Tokyo, or Beijing would say that Tabris and his Toronto friends are all country hicks, too.

There is no such thing as a defining line of what is urban/suburban/rural, and there is definitely more than 2 experiences in Canada.

I don't think it would come off as any less dickish coming from people from any of those cities. But there is a pretty clear difference between what 'urban', 'suburban', and 'rural' are and you'd have to be blind not to see it. It's certainly fair to say that, say, Edmonton's urban centre is small and short and somewhat homogenous, but it's definitely got more in common with Toronto or even Mexico City than it does with Taber.

 

[Boogie]

That's not a 5 minute drive away either. You can access that from downtown Vancouver the same way you would access it from a suburban city.

I am addressing this point:

"They are bad though in comparison. There is not a single experience they provide that I can't get better in the top 3 cities"

An experience "accessible" from the city, is not an experience in the city.

And to handwave it away by saying this:

Here's an example of a view accessible from public transit in Vancouver. Not any different from your image except summer vs winter:

...saying that these experiences are "not any different", is just as ignorant.

 

[Pedrito]

Unfortunately Tabris, we can't all live in 500 000 $ condos in downtown Vancouver. Some of us have to settle for a life in the burbs, with an inferior experience and no multiculturalism. I know it makes us less enlightened but it's not our fault.

 

[Walpurgis]

(But then, here I am caught in an argument with Tabris. Joke's on me )

Exactly. You've all been lured in by Tabris' elitism.

Dude's a master fisherman.

I doubt a lot of people would disagree on the fact that you should show your face when you want your citizenship but to make it an election issue is of poor taste.

I strongly disagree with it. It's a stupid thing that has no effect on anyone except for the woman who is humiliated by being forced to remove her covering. It's unfair that Muslim women have to suffer the most attacks from bigots and the government.

 

[Vamphuntr]

Exactly. You've all been lured in by Tabris' elitism.

Dude's a master fisherman.


I strongly disagree with it. It's a stupid thing that has no effect on anyone except for the woman who is humiliated by being forced to remove her covering. It's unfair that Muslim women have to suffer the most attacks from bigots and the government.

I agree that making this an electoral issue is humiliating for the women and shouldn't have been done. But I can't agree with the rest. I really don't care if she wants to live with it and wear it at school or in the street and I applaud her for living fully with her beliefs (which is rather rare today) but I think the minimal effort is to show your face and identity to the country that will be your new home. Do you think someone with physical deformities on their face or hate how they look would be allowed to wear a mask if not worn for religious reason?

It seems rationality is out of the window as soon as issue as these pop up. If you don't allow everything you are a bigot and a racist.

 

[Terra Firma]

You have to give props to Harper on the Niqab controversy. He had planned this all along. if he had wanted to close the debate he would have passed the law banning it from citizenship ceremonies before the election instead of introducing the idea at the last minute before the campaign.

I doubt a lot of people would disagree on the fact that you should show your face when you want your citizenship but to make it an election issue is of poor taste.

Why? The actual ceremony is nothing but a formality. Her identity is already known by the government. She also has no problems with removing her face covering in front of other women so security isn't a concern. Her beliefs are covered under the Charter of Rights, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. If she was forcing others to wear the niqab, then yeah, that's something to be concerned about but no one should have a say in what she wears in Canada.

 

[Emperor Bohe]

has this been posted yet? tells you how to strategically vote in your riding if you don't want Harper
www.anyonebutharper.net

 

[Walpurgis]

I agree that making this an electoral issue is humiliating for the women and shouldn't have been done. But I can't agree with the rest. I really don't care if she wants to live with it and wear it at school or in the street and I applaud her for living fully with her beliefs (which is rather rare today) but I think the minimal effort is to show your face and identity to the country that will be your new home. Do you think someone with physical deformities on their face or hate how they look would be allowed to wear a mask if not worn for religious reason?

It seems rationality is out of the window as soon as issue as these pop up. If you don't allow everything you are a bigot and a racist.

It's really not a big deal. I cannot understand why it bothers you people so much. It's completely irrational. Think of it this way, it's a huge deal to the woman - having to remove her covering in front of men, being humiliated and having her rights trampled on. What is it to you?

 

[Vamphuntr]

It's really not a big deal. I cannot understand why it bothers you people so much. It's completely irrational. Think of it this way, it's a huge deal to the woman - having to remove her covering in front of men, being humiliated and having her rights trampled on. What is it to you?

I see as a matter of respect personally. I see it as showing you can make compromise and show a minimal respect to the country you are becoming a part of. Like I said I'm not sure many people would be able to get the same treatment if they wanted to hide their face for a humiliating reason too if the reason isn't a religious one. I doubt that people would get the same legal aid and media coverage either.

I find it pretty funny that If I attend a demonstration wearing a mask I can get fined and arrested because I'm not showing my face even if it's humiliating or not to my advantage for me for being seen there but it should be ok to be allowed to take a citizenship oath face covered because it's humiliating to be seen by other men.

But like I said it's her life and she can live the way she wants and I'm okay if she wants to live her life according to her beliefs. I'm not voting cons either.

 

[Quick]

Recently, I got a call from an unknown number, named me specifically, and asked if I would lend my support to my local Liberal riding.

The problem is that the person on the phone incorrectly named the Liberal candidate running in my riding. And I would assume that anything official would clearly label its phone number.

Is this fishy, or am I just paranoid?

 

[maharg]

I find it pretty funny that If I attend a demonstration wearing a mask I can get fined and arrested because I'm not showing my face even if it's humiliating or not to my advantage for me for being seen there but it should be ok to be allowed to take a citizenship oath face covered because it's humiliating to be seen by other men.

I think both these things should be allowed. The encroachment of the security state is visible in both of these attacks on individual rights for the sake of nationalistic power enforcement.

 

[Socreges]

I grew up in Vancouver. I now live in Victoria. I consider myself an authority on such comparisons.

Vancouver is a beautiful city. It has many advantages over smaller cities and rural areas.

That said, its access to nature (Stanley Park, the ocean, the North Shore mountains) is obviously, obviously deficient when compared to other places.

Tabris, stop embarrassing yourself. Feel free to place disproportionate importance on the advantages that you value, but don't bother glossing over its disadvantages.

 

[Terra Firma]

has this been posted yet? tells you how to strategically vote in your riding if you don't want Harper
www.anyonebutharper.net

I'm still going to vote NDP despite the fact that my riding is overwhelmingly expected to be Liberal. I don't like the Liberals for their support of C51. Call it single issue voting but it really made me angry that Liberals would do such a thing.

 

[Apathy]

It's really not a big deal. I cannot understand why it bothers you people so much. It's completely irrational. Think of it this way, it's a huge deal to the woman - having to remove her covering in front of men, being humiliated and having her rights trampled on. What is it to you?

While I am no expert on Islam, her argument is that it goes against her religious beliefs right? From what some Muslims say is that it is not a rule as set forth in the Quran, but rather the interpretation as some see it (otherwise every Muslim woman would be wearing it, which clearly isn't the case). But if people can't agree whether it is mandatory or not within their own religion then what stops say some jackass from going in with a Darth Vader mask, saying he follows the Sith religion and he needs to wear that when taking his citizenship oath or drivers license or whatever. I mean at the end of the day, just have her in a private room show her face to a female officer of Canadian immigration to make sure it's her and let her take the oath in the room with everyone else covered up, but I just wanted to play devils advocate and see how this might open up a larger can of worms with people trying to get away with some other stuff.

 

[maharg]

While I am no expert on Islam, her argument is that it goes against her religious beliefs right? From what some Muslims say is that it is not a rule as set forth in the Quran, but rather the interpretation as some see it (otherwise every Muslim woman would be wearing it, which clearly isn't the case). But if people can't agree whether it is mandatory or not within their own religion then what stops say some jackass from going in with a Darth Vader mask, saying he follows the Sith religion and he needs to wear that when taking his citizenship oath or drivers license or whatever. I mean at the end of the day, just have her in a private room show her face to a female officer of Canadian immigration to make sure it's her and let her take the oath in the room with everyone else covered up, but I just wanted to play devils advocate and see how this might open up a larger can of worms with people trying to get away with some other stuff.

They do more or less exactly the bolded. The ceremony is just that: ceremony. The identity of everyone at it has been verified already where it actually mattered.

This fight is only about what happens in the ceremony.

 

[Apathy]

They do more or less exactly the bolded. The ceremony is just that: ceremony. The identity of everyone at it has been verified already where it actually mattered.

This fight is only about what happens in the ceremony.

Oh I know, maybe I should have worded it better.

 

[Terra Firma]

While I am no expert on Islam, her argument is that it goes against her religious beliefs right? From what some Muslims say is that it is not a rule as set forth in the Quran, but rather the interpretation as some see it (otherwise every Muslim woman would be wearing it, which clearly isn't the case). But if people can't agree whether it is mandatory or not within their own religion then what stops say some jackass from going in with a Darth Vader mask, saying he follows the Sith religion and he needs to wear that when taking his citizenship oath or drivers license or whatever. I mean at the end of the day, just have her in a private room show her face to a female officer of Canadian immigration to make sure it's her and let her take the oath in the room with everyone else covered up, but I just wanted to play devils advocate and see how this might open up a larger can of worms with people trying to get away with some other stuff.

That's a false equivalence that gets tossed around a lot. A similar issue was brought up with religious Sikhs carrying the kirpan, especially to school and even in courthouses. Thankfully, Canada is not like America (yet...) so accommodations are made for sincerely held beliefs.

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's definitely elitism but the experience difference is so large that we consider anything different as rural. Sub-urban is as bad as rural to me.

Recently, I got a call from an unknown number, named me specifically, and asked if I would lend my support to my local Liberal riding.

The problem is that the person on the phone incorrectly named the Liberal candidate running in my riding. And I would assume that anything official would clearly label its phone number.

Is this fishy, or am I just paranoid?

It's possible that they just misidentified you (i.e. for some reason the Liberals think I live in Ottawa Centre, even though I've told them countless times I live in Ottawa West-Nepean)...or, alternatively, it's part of another robocall scheme. Hopefully it's the former, but you never know about the latter. Just be careful if you get a call telling you where you can vote.

I don't understand. Why can they do it and we can't?

The money's just not there -- they can do it in the US because there's lots and lots of money involved, even at the congressional level. No one has the same kind of money here to spend on third-party polling.

And speaking of the niqab issue, apparently an NDP candidate is pretty set on giving the Conservatives a run for the Quebec racist vote: Reopen the Constitution to deal with the Senate and the niqab: NDP candidate

"Thomas Mulcair is ready to open the Constitution for the Senate, so why wouldn't he be ready to open it up on this issue?" Delisle asked during an interview with The Canadian Press at a cafe in Lac-Megantic, Que., on Friday.

Delisle doesn't hide his disagreement with the wearing of a niqab while swearing the oath of citizenship.

"To have one's face covered for a swearing-in ceremony, I'm not in agreement with that," said Delisle, who is seeking to win Megantic-L'Erable, the riding held by outgoing Conservative cabinet minister Christian Paradis.

"I'm comfortable saying that and I think my party is also comfortable saying that."

And now people are suddenly noticing an interview an NDP MP gave back in March, in which he:

...told TVA his party is “totally uncomfortable” with the idea of female public service employees wearing a niqab, and in society generally.

He also called for the establishment of a national commission on reasonable accommodation, as Quebec has done with the Bouchard-Taylor commission.

This is absolutely vile. This goes way beyond the Senate stuff. I'm opposed to reopening the Constitution to deal with the Senate because it seems like the extreme option to me -- but at the same time, I assume that a lot of the people here raising it are either uninformed about how the process works, or way too optimistic about the outcome of that action. I don't ascribe any ulterior motives to them.

This, though? This is appalling. Opening the constitution to ban specific religious symbols? We're a pluralistic, multicultural society, and using the constitution to target specific religious groups is the antithesis of that. The impulse behind it disgusts me. Mulcair had better come down hard on this guy, in both official languages.

 

[Apathy]

That's a false equivalence that gets tossed around a lot. A similar issue was brought up with religious Sikhs carrying the kirpan, especially to school and even in courthouses. Thankfully, Canada is not like America (yet...) so accommodations are made for sincerely held beliefs.

But those were instances where they wanted to ban the kirpan entirely. In fact int he school case it was ruled that the ban on the kirpan was a violation of the rights of the student, but a comprimise was met that a kirpan in school should be sealed and secured. Just in the cases with the kirpan, small compromises can be made if people really tried.

 

[maharg]

To balance out the universe, Nanos was commissioned (by the friends of public broadcasting) to do a 300 sample riding poll in Del Mastro's riding and found the liberals with a nice lead there. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...als-leading-in-del-mastros-old-seat-poll-says

 

[Apathy]

To balance out the universe, Nanos did a 300 sample riding poll in Del Mastro's riding and found the liberals with a nice lead there. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...als-leading-in-del-mastros-old-seat-poll-says

BTW this reminded me, are the multiple daily polls annoying anyone else? We got like a month more of this but every day on the news it's a 1% change for one of the 3 parties, like it even matters from day to day. Hell yesterday 3 different polls had the each of the 3 parties in the lead.

 

[matthewwhatever]

To balance out the universe, Nanos did a 300 sample riding poll in Del Mastro's riding and found the liberals with a nice lead there. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/polit...als-leading-in-del-mastros-old-seat-poll-says

I love that this is the picture they put on top of the article:

Only way it would be better was if it was him in his jail cell.

 

[Walpurgis]

And speaking of the niqab issue, apparently an NDP candidate is pretty set on giving the Conservatives a run for the Quebec racist vote: Reopen the Constitution to deal with the Senate and the niqab: NDP candidate



And now people are suddenly noticing an interview an NDP MP gave back in March, in which he:



This is absolutely vile. This goes way beyond the Senate stuff. I'm opposed to reopening the Constitution to deal with the Senate because it seems like the extreme option to me -- but at the same time, I assume that a lot of the people here raising it are either uninformed about how the process works, or way too optimistic about the outcome of that action. I don't ascribe any ulterior motives to them.

This, though? This is appalling. Opening the constitution to ban specific religious symbols? We're a pluralistic, multicultural society, and using the constitution to target specific religious groups is the antithesis of that. The impulse behind it disgusts me. Mulcair had better come down hard on this guy, in both official languages.

Holy crap. This is disgusting. I never would have expected this from the NDP. That guy needs to be kicked from the party. That garbage should not be tolerated. Now that he has a shot at Prime Minister, he needs to make his position clear. Is he an alternative to Harper? Or is he another Harper? I still want him to win for PR.

But those were instances where they wanted to ban the kirpan entirely. In fact int he school case it was ruled that the ban on the kirpan was a violation of the rights of the student, but a comprimise was met that a kirpan in school should be sealed and secured. Just in the cases with the kirpan, small compromises can be made if people really tried.

Compromises shouldn't have to be made to accommodate intolerance. It's not your business what a woman wears to her citizenship ceremony, man. Don't worry about it.

 

[gabbo]

I don't know what it is, but a lot of the NDP as of late has got me feeling like I might want to vote for Trudeau.

 

[Parch]

I'm still going to vote NDP despite the fact that my riding is overwhelmingly expected to be Liberal. I don't like the Liberals for their support of C51. Call it single issue voting but it really made me angry that Liberals would do such a thing.

Never forget.
I'm voting NDP but I expect them to have good showing in the west.
I'm actually disappointed to see the Liberals doing well in the polls. It's a wasted vote IMO, and exactly the vote splitting I was hoping wouldn't happen.

 

[maharg]

BTW this reminded me, are the multiple daily polls annoying anyone else? We got like a month more of this but every day on the news it's a 1% change for one of the 3 parties, like it even matters from day to day. Hell yesterday 3 different polls had the each of the 3 parties in the lead.

I'm pretty happy to have them, but I think a lot of education needs to happen around how polls work in a world where they're happening frequently. They're still reporting on them as if they're infrequent snapshots and that's what wears you out. Really the reporting should happen when there's some measurable change in the consensus. Two weeks of "YEP STILL IN A TIE! BUT LOOK WHO'S ON TOP OF THE ERROR BAND TODAY!" is pretty grating.

 

[Walpurgis]

I don't know what it is, but a lot of the NDP as of late has got me feeling like I might want to vote for Trudeau.

I'm feeling pretty apathetic as well. I know how important it is for the NDP to win because of things like PR and C-51 and I will vote NDP no matter what because of my riding, but I don't feel good about their actual plans. It all seems way too slow and uncertain for me. I don't feel much better about the Liberals though.

 

[Apathy]

Holy crap. This is disgusting. I never would have expected this from the NDP. That guy needs to be kicked from the party. That garbage should not be tolerated. Now that he has a shot at Prime Minister, he needs to make his position clear. Is he an alternative to Harper? Or is he another Harper? I still want him to win for PR.

Compromises shouldn't have to be made to accommodate intolerance. It's not your business what a woman wears to her citizenship ceremony, man. Don't worry about it.

As i clearly said early, I was playing devils advocate. You don't know me enough to tell me not to worry about things. In fact I don't give a shit about this.

Similarly as with the Kirpan, it's not intolerant to ask for a small compromise from a person if both sides can agree and it's not some wildly crazy request. It's what people rational people in a society can do if we speak with each other.

No one is asking her to give up her religion, no one is barring her from practicing Islam as she wishes, and no one has the right to do that either. They simply were making some valid points that could have been taken into consideration. Fine, they will just look at her face in a room and do the ceremony normally so be it and let this whole thing die down and we don't have to deal with it again.

The less we can talk about religion the better.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm feeling pretty apathetic as well. I know how important it is for the NDP to win because of things like PR and C-51 and I will vote NDP no matter what because of my riding, but I don't feel good about their actual plans. It all seems way too slow and uncertain for me. I don't feel much better about the Liberals though.

The NDP are really banking on the loyalty of their members while they espouse a cautious platform try to woo disaffected socialism fearing conservatives.

The Liberals are tilting hard left to try to grab NDP supporters, but don't forget which opposition party is the real left wing party. The Liberal candidate for Richmond for example is an ex-Canadian Alliance MP, which I think is fairly indicative of where the Liberal Party sits on the idiological spectrum.

 

[Cynar]

The NDP are really banking on the loyalty of their members while they espouse a cautious platform try to woo disaffected socialism fearing conservatives.

The Liberals are tilting hard left to try to grab NDP supporters, but don't forget which opposition party is the real left wing party. The Liberal candidate for Richmond for example is an ex-Canadian Alliance MP, which I think is fairly indicative of where the Liberal Party sits on the idiological spectrum.

That's who is running the Cons right now. That old party/reformers are parasites.

 

[gabbo]

The NDP are really banking on the loyalty of their members while they espouse a cautious platform try to woo disaffected socialism fearing conservatives.

The Liberals are tilting hard left to try to grab NDP supporters, but don't forget which opposition party is the real left wing party. The Liberal candidate for Richmond for example is an ex-Canadian Alliance MP, which I think is fairly indicative of where the Liberal Party sits on the idiological spectrum.

I'm just worried this dog and pony show of 'the NDP is centrist you guys, don't worry' will last beyond the election (unless they get walloped) and the NDP I want (ie the leftist guys Ive voted for in the past) will have absolutely no voice in Mulcair's Canada

 

[Azih]

I'm just worried this dog and pony show of 'the NDP is centrist you guys, don't worry' will last beyond the election (unless they get walloped) and the NDP I want (ie the leftist guys Ive voted for in the past) will have absolutely no voice in Mulcair's Canada

That's why PR is important. It allows disgruntled Dippers to effectively punish an unprincipled NDP anywhere by threatening to vote Green.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Holy crap. This is disgusting. I never would have expected this from the NDP. That guy needs to be kicked from the party. That garbage should not be tolerated. Now that he has a shot at Prime Minister, he needs to make his position clear. Is he an alternative to Harper? Or is he another Harper? I still want him to win for PR.

I get that PR is important to some people, but as far as I'm concerned, vowing to institutionalize discrimination trumps any concerns about...well, pretty much everything.

I'm a little concerned that this campaign is about to get very, very ugly, too, since the Bloc just released an ad attacking the NDP for supporting pipelines and niqabs. I know the BQ is getting desperate, since they're currently locked in a tight battle for 4th with the Conservatives, but playing on bigotry and racism for votes seems beyond the pale.

I'm pretty happy to have them, but I think a lot of education needs to happen around how polls work in a world where they're happening frequently. They're still reporting on them as if they're infrequent snapshots and that's what wears you out. Really the reporting should happen when there's some measurable change in the consensus. Two weeks of "YEP STILL IN A TIE! BUT LOOK WHO'S ON TOP OF THE ERROR BAND TODAY!" is pretty grating.

I'm starting to feel like Elections Canada would be totally justified in banning the reporting of polls during election periods. Anything that forced the media to talk about policy over horse race reporting is a good thing, no matter how much of a little thrill I get from a poll like today's, that has the NDP down to third after losing 2.4 points.

The NDP are really banking on the loyalty of their members while they espouse a cautious platform try to woo disaffected socialism fearing conservatives.

The Liberals are tilting hard left to try to grab NDP supporters, but don't forget which opposition party is the real left wing party. The Liberal candidate for Richmond for example is an ex-Canadian Alliance MP, which I think is fairly indicative of where the Liberal Party sits on the idiological spectrum.

That particular candidate also split from the Alliance because of the merge with the PC Party, though I can't find any explanation for why he jumped over a decade ago. In any case, if he's stuck with them for this long, I don't think we need to worry that he's some secret CPC mole.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Delisle already walking that comment back

what an actual jerkoff (even if the Bloc are slightly bigger ones for releasing the ad that seems to have prompted this)

 

[gutter_trash]

People need to understand that before the Quiet Revolution that Quebec was under the rule of an ultra Catholic Premier and that the Church was involed in Education, Health Care and dictated what a good Catholic was supposed to be, Quebec families pre-Quiet revolution popped out many babies, like lots of babies. That was the woman's job back then.

Quebec underwent a very quick rapid transformation over night and become quickly secular during the late 1960s. That transition was not gradual and was very quick

The whole thing about Gender Equality is a big big thing in Quebec of today and religion takes a back seat.

That said, it is true there is a portion who are ultra conservative on Identiy Politics and against Multiculrism, yes, those still exist and are xenophobic.

But you guys need to realize that the Left leaning Nationalists are die hard secularists and pro-Gender Equality.

Before people go around Quebec bashing, you need to Time Travel yourself pre 1970 when a woman's job was to make lots of babies or else she would be going to hell

 

[Quick]

It's possible that they just misidentified you (i.e. for some reason the Liberals think I live in Ottawa Centre, even though I've told them countless times I live in Ottawa West-Nepean)...or, alternatively, it's part of another robocall scheme. Hopefully it's the former, but you never know about the latter. Just be careful if you get a call telling you where you can vote.

I just hung up on them when they got the candidate's name wrong. Either they were going to ask for a donation, or it was some sort of scam. I leaned in towards the latter.

It went exactly as this: "Hi, is this Quick? I'm calling on behalf of [Wrong Candidate Name] of the Liberal party, and was wondering if you would lend him your support this coming election?"

 

[maharg]

I just hung up on them when they got the candidate's name wrong. Either they were going to ask for a donation, or it was some sort of scam. I leaned in towards the latter.

It went exactly as this: "Hi, is this Quick? I'm calling on behalf of [Wrong Candidate Name] of the Liberal party, and was wondering if you would lend him your support this coming election?"

Cell phone? Keep in mind that there's an area associated with the exchange part (the second group of 3 digits) of your phone number that they may or may not be anywhere near where you live, but they may have used it to try to identify what riding you live in. An example exchange code list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_780

 

[Tiktaalik]

I'm just worried this dog and pony show of 'the NDP is centrist you guys, don't worry' will last beyond the election (unless they get walloped) and the NDP I want (ie the leftist guys Ive voted for in the past) will have absolutely no voice in Mulcair's Canada

I'd be worried about that too but I can't think of anyone on the NDP front bench that is to the right of Mulcair. Possibly the former Sask finance minister that is running against Joe Oliver's seat. Top shadow cabinet people like Cullen, Dewar, and McQuaig are clearly on the left. There's a whole NDP caucus that is going to want to move the country left.

In contrast there's a significant amount red tory types sitting as Liberal MPs. MPs that have mainstream liberal social views paired with fiscal conservatism (eg. Scott Brison PC floor crosser). This extends to the party supporters as well, where 26% would rather have a Conservative government than a Mulcair lead coalition.

When I look at these two parties I see that for both should they form government in the long term there will be significant pressure from their bases on the leaders. The difference I see is that for the NDP that pressure will be coming from its left wing activist base and left wing MPs, but for the Liberals, that pressure will be coming from its fiscal conservative wing, to restrain the party from going too far left.

None of this "who is the most left wing" dick measuring matters if you're an ABC centrist Canadian that is mostly ok with Harper's fiscal policies but wants the guy out for other reasons. Vote for either party in this case. If you want real, significant change for Canada over the long term however, then you should be considering the most radical and left wing of the two opposition parties, which is the NDP.

 

[gabbo]

I'd be worried about that too but I can't think of anyone on the NDP front bench that is to the right of Mulcair. Possibly the former Sask finance minister that is running against Joe Oliver's seat. Top shadow cabinet people like Cullen, Dewar, and McQuaig are clearly on the left. There's a whole NDP caucus that is going to want to move the country left.

In contrast there's a significant amount red tory types sitting as Liberal MPs. MPs that have mainstream liberal social views paired with fiscal conservatism (eg. Scott Brison PC floor crosser). This extends to the party supporters as well, where 26% would rather have a Conservative government than a Mulcair lead coalition.

When I look at these two parties I see that for both should they form government in the long term there will be significant pressure from their bases on the leaders. The difference I see is that for the NDP that pressure will be coming from its left wing activist base and left wing MPs, but for the Liberals, that pressure will be coming from its fiscal conservative wing, to restrain the party from going too far left.

None of this "who is the most left wing" dick measuring matters if you're an ABC centrist Canadian that is mostly ok with Harper's fiscal policies but wants the guy out for other reasons. Vote for either party in this case. If you want real, significant change for Canada over the long term however, then you should be considering the most radical and left wing of the two opposition parties, which is the NDP.

Touche.

 

[gutter_trash]

308 has both Cons and NDP at 114 seats each and Libs at 108

 

[matthewwhatever]

I'd be worried about that too but I can't think of anyone on the NDP front bench that is to the right of Mulcair. Possibly the former Sask finance minister that is running against Joe Oliver's seat. Top shadow cabinet people like Cullen, Dewar, and McQuaig are clearly on the left. There's a whole NDP caucus that is going to want to move the country left.

In contrast there's a significant amount red tory types sitting as Liberal MPs. MPs that have mainstream liberal social views paired with fiscal conservatism (eg. Scott Brison PC floor crosser). This extends to the party supporters as well, where 26% would rather have a Conservative government than a Mulcair lead coalition.

When I look at these two parties I see that for both should they form government in the long term there will be significant pressure from their bases on the leaders. The difference I see is that for the NDP that pressure will be coming from its left wing activist base and left wing MPs, but for the Liberals, that pressure will be coming from its fiscal conservative wing, to restrain the party from going too far left.

None of this "who is the most left wing" dick measuring matters if you're an ABC centrist Canadian that is mostly ok with Harper's fiscal policies but wants the guy out for other reasons. Vote for either party in this case. If you want real, significant change for Canada over the long term however, then you should be considering the most radical and left wing of the two opposition parties, which is the NDP.

1) Scott Brison was my first boss, and I'd take his vision for Canada over anyone in the NDP.

2) Andrew Thompson isn't winning Eglinton. Most local polls -- suspect as they are -- have him getting 15-20% of the vote. Best case scenario from a progressive perspective: he doesn't prevent the Liberals from winning the riding. (And considering his bookkeeping skills make the Conservatives look trustworthy, that's a good thing.)

3) I love how you handwave away the influence a leader has on the direction of a party. I know for a fact that there were plenty of moderate Red Tories in the Conservative Party when it first started, but they were all marginalized by Harper as he molded the party machinery and policies to align with his ideology -- much like Mulcair has made sure to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with him. I'm not saying he'd start privatizing national parks and selling off our water his very first day in office, but considering statements he's made in the past and his continued love of Margaret Thatcher, those things aren't exactly off the agenda under him, either.

(And tangentially, the fact that they didn't immediately dismiss that anti-niqab bigot in Quebec, but instead put out a statement from him saying his remarks were "ill-considered" , astounds me. I know that they're trying to have it both ways -- pretending to be progressive in English Canada while still appealing to former Bloc-voting nativists in Quebec -- but that speaks volumes about just how progressive Mulcair is, as far as I'm concerned.)

 

[Walpurgis]

The whole thing about Gender Equality is a big big thing in Quebec of today and religion takes a back seat.

That said, it is true there is a portion who are ultra conservative on Identiy Politics and against Multiculrism, yes, those still exist and are xenophobic.

But you guys need to realize that the Left leaning Nationalists are die hard secularists and pro-Gender Equality.

I just wish they were actually pro-gender equality and would allow women to wear what they want. They just come across as racist hypocrites. I just can't like Quebec as a province.

 

[The Last Emperor]

Anyone here self-identify as an old stock Canadian?

 

[maharg]

I just wish they were actually pro-gender equality and would allow women to wear what they want. They just come across as racist hypocrites. I just can't like Quebec as a province.

Well, I mean, obviously nothing says "gender equality" like white dudes telling women of colour what to wear, right?

 

[Popstar]

Anyone here self-identify as an old stock Canadian?

My grandparents immigrated from Scotland on one side and Poland on the other. So no, I don't identify as "old stock" (de souche) because the term refers to people with roots in colonization-era Canada.

Considering the origins of the modern Conservative Party its a really odd term for Harper to use since it pretty much excludes everyone west of Winnipeg regardless of ethnicity.

 

[RevoDS]

Anyone here self-identify as an old stock Canadian?

I do. I know I'm a descendent of my hometown's founder, so my roots as Canadian go at least as far back as the mid-1800s, and I don't know any of my origins besides Canadian (no idea where or when my ancestors immigrated from)

 

[gutter_trash]

I just wish they were actually pro-gender equality and would allow women to wear what they want. They just come across as racist hypocrites. I just can't like Quebec as a province.

There is a percentage that does chose to wear it meanwhile there is percentage that have it imposed by the husband.

I don't believe it's 100% choice or 100% imposed, but among secularists it is the imposed portion that bothers them after their mother's and grandmas struggled within the dogma of the Catholic Church before the Quiet Revolution.

Harper however is just playing politics with this

 

[Tiktaalik]

) I love how you handwave away the influence a leader has on the direction of a party. I know for a fact that there were plenty of moderate Red Tories in the Conservative Party when it first started, but they were all marginalized by Harper as he molded the party machinery and policies to align with his ideology -- much like Mulcair has made sure to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with him. I'm not saying he'd start privatizing national parks and selling off our water his very first day in office, but considering statements he's made in the past and his continued love of Margaret Thatcher, those things aren't exactly off the agenda under him, either.

The "Mulcair is a secret conservative" thing is a pretty bizarre tin foil hat theory.

 

[The Last Emperor]

I do. I know I'm a descendent of my hometown's founder, so my roots as Canadian go at least as far back as the mid-1800s, and I don't know any of my origins besides Canadian (no idea where or when my ancestors immigrated from)

Lmao.

Your not native....

 

[Tiktaalik]

Here's a good article by Andrew Coyne about why First Past the Post is terrible and we should move to Proportional Representation.

Minority Rule by Any Other Name
The case against first past the post

AMONG THE hoary traditions that attend every federal election in Canada is the enduring media fascination with so-called battleground ridings and provinces—the places where the election will be “won or lost.” And why not? Unlike the safe seats and regional power bases that cover much of the country, in these ridings the outcome is not preordained. So, unusually, it really does matter what their voters decide, or whether they bother turning out.

In a similar vein are the customary messages from the parties to potential supporters not to “waste” their ballots on a party that can’t win and “split” the vote merely because they happen to prefer that party and its policies. Instead, they are enjoined to vote for a party they don’t much like, for fear of letting in a party they detest. This, too, we think of as normal and natural, part of the ordinary run of democracy.

Likewise, we hardly bat an eye when a party is said to have won a sweeping “majority” mandate with as little as 39 percent of the vote. Nor do we find it strange that the Green Party should be all but shut out of Parliament despite getting as much as 4 percent. And while we may decry the state of our political discourse—the partisan viciousness, the policy emptiness, the disproportionate influence of swing voters, and so on—we take for granted that this is how democracy works. It’s normal, isn’t it?

Well, no. It’s distinctly abnormal, all of it. The things we accept as just “part of the game” are not integral to democracy, only to the bizarre and aberrant form of it practised in Canada and other countries still governed by an electoral system known colloquially as first past the post, or more formally as plurality voting.

As the name implies, under such a system, the plurality, rather than the majority, rules: the “majority” governments it elects are in fact typically representative of less than 50 percent of voters, as are the members of Parliament they’re composed of. All that’s necessary is to have more votes than your nearest rival.

While proponents often speak of the system as having the virtue of local representation, in fact representation is restricted to those who happen to vote for the winning party. Again, we think of this as normal—one alternative, known as proportional representation, is often derided as having been designed for “losers”—when a moment’s thought should reveal how arbitrary it is. Why should only the “winners” be represented in a democracy? The point of an election, surely, is to represent the people—all the people, not just some of them. To be sure, the majority must ultimately rule. But why shouldn’t everyone be represented in the body from which that majority is drawn?

It is only under such a system as first past the post that vote splitting and its strategic-voting corollary become an issue: in other systems, if you vote for the party you like, you help to elect that party’s representatives, rather than to keep another party out. It is only, likewise, under first past the post that we see the false majorities, the regional ghettoes, the rank discrimination against smaller parties we so unthinkingly accept.

But the distortions of first past the post are not confined to what happens periodically on election day. Far worse is what happens every day in between. The system of representation in a democracy—how the seats are apportioned, how power is won and lost—is its currency, the means by which certain types of behaviour are rewarded and others punished. It should not be surprising, then, to see these incentives reflected in the actions of politicians.

In particular, ours is a highly leveraged system: a relatively small change in the popular vote can lead to big changes in the number of seats a party holds in Parliament. Why do our parties tend to cling together in the centre of the political spectrum? Because, being risk-averse, they fear a drop of a couple of points in support more than they desire a possible rise—and because the stakes are so high either way.

Why, instead, do they offer partisan nastiness? Because, in our system, there is little upside to broadening their base—it isn’t a majority they need, but a passionate plurality—and no downside to alienating supporters of other parties. Whereas in systems in which voters’ second- and third-place choices are counted, parties can and must appeal across the partisan divide.

Defenders of the status quo worry that, under proportional representation, smaller parties would hold the balance of power, giving disproportionate influence to a small slice of the electorate. And yet that is exactly what happens under the present system: vastly disproportionate attention (and therefore power) is given to that small sliver of the electorate known as swing voters, and only in those aforementioned battleground ridings.

We do not live under the system we think we do. We think we live under a system of one person, one vote. And yet at present some votes count for much more than others. We think we live under a system of majority rule, fearing that any other system would mean endless “minority governments.” But in fact it is the present system that condemns us to minority government. We just don’t call it that.