It's a strawman. People shouldn't have to go through visible purity or loyalty tests and be judged on them. This isn't the red scare.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
It's a strawman. People shouldn't have to go through visible purity or loyalty tests and be judged on them. This isn't the red scare.
Diaspora already made the point above, but highlight the strategy behind it: if he doesn't answer it, it'll tarnish his character. If he does answer, Martin will seem weak in the face of Layton. This exact analysis was covered extensively during Martin's tenure.
The whole thing wasn't a policy move. It's a power politics move, plain and simple.
It was a minority government. That requires give and take and Layton's ask was beyond reasonable. Especially considering it was a time where single payer health care was under a lot of pressure from provincial governments not cracking down on private clinics.
From Layton's point of view the NDP couldn't just go along with a scandal tainted Martin government without some kind of concession. And the concession shouldn't even have been viewed as such. It's single payer health care!
Did you believe that it was right for a minority government to not be conciliatory to the parties holding it in power when Harper took the reins as well? This is silly. A minority government *should* be cooperative with the votes keeping them in power. The fact that's seen as weak is part of the problem.
Party power and ideology trumps actually having a functional House that passes legislation. It's sad that this and coalitions have become such bogey men in Canadian politics (or politics in general)
But the NDP during the Layton years never dealt in good faith, having agreements intended to topple both the Liberal and CPC minority governments in their respective years. It was never about cooperation, but rather about Layton taking advantage of the political environment to bolster the NDP.
That whole era of federal politics was a complete circus, and it was extremely telling when Duceppe was the most principled and honest out of all parties.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think it's unprincipled for a left social democratic party to oppose a right-liberal party (which the Liberal party was for most of the 90s and arguably some of the 00s) with the same ferocity they oppose a right-conservative party. I don't think there's any essential tension between trying both to engineer the defeat of the centre-right AND trying to drag them leftward through policy concessions in the meantime.
In fact, the objection to the NDP trying to tank the Liberals is that it's poor strategy, not that it's unprincipled. Consider the flak Horwath rightfully got for turning down a progressive, conciliatory Ontario budget only to hurt her own party's standing, give Wynne a majority, and have her subsequent budget be further to the right. That's bad strategy, not unprincipled. It's exactly principled to say "This is not left enough for me, so I will vote against it, consequences be damned".
I think there's definitely reason to scrutinize Layton's strategy during the Martin years, and I think it's reasonable enough to argue that the most effective opposition builds up the government rather than tearing it down--maharg's point that mutual cooperation is the ideal outcome of a minority government is very well taken--but I can't for the life of me see a reading that finds it insincere or unprincipled.
In fact, the objection to the NDP trying to tank the Liberals is that it's poor strategy, not that it's unprincipled. Consider the flak Horwath rightfully got for turning down a progressive, conciliatory Ontario budget only to hurt her own party's standing, give Wynne a majority, and have her subsequent budget be further to the right. That's bad strategy, not unprincipled. It's exactly principled to say "This is not left enough for me, so I will vote against it, consequences be damned".
I think there's definitely reason to scrutinize Layton's strategy during the Martin years, and I think it's reasonable enough to argue that the most effective opposition builds up the government rather than tearing it down--maharg's point that mutual cooperation is the ideal outcome of a minority government is very well taken--but I can't for the life of me see a reading that finds it insincere or unprincipled.
First of all, I'm typing this on my phone due to late night insomnia so I apologize in advance for any typos on this post.
The bad faith portion had always stemmed from the political opportunism -- supporting the budget with laughable concessions, only to defeat the government a year or so later, reading that public sentiment was on their side while not taking the real opportunity to extract more concessions. There were a few others, such as working with the CPC (and Bloc) in 2004 to upend the Liberals; reaching out to Broadbent for a coalition in 2008 when the Liberals were at its weakest; leaning right-ward to pick up left-leaning Liberals, sensing the Liberals' weakness on the right.
Both the NDP and CPC of the era had a common goal: decimation of the center Liberals, leading to a polarized left-right political system. Much of what the NDP did during this era can be argued as politically driven, and not from policy.
The culmination of all this was the election of Mulcair as the leader of the NDP, selected not because he was ideologically aligned with classical NDP ideals, but because he engineered their gains and ground game in Quebec.
(If it sounds like I'm bitter about the NDP at times, it's because I was a very left NDP/Liberal supporter up until 2008 or so, when I went over to the Greens.)
The bad faith portion had always stemmed from the political opportunism -- supporting the budget with laughable concessions, only to defeat the government a year or so later, reading that public sentiment was on their side while not taking the real opportunity to extract more concessions. There were a few others, such as working with the CPC (and Bloc) in 2004 to upend the Liberals; reaching out to Broadbent for a coalition in 2008 when the Liberals were at its weakest; leaning right-ward to pick up left-leaning Liberals, sensing the Liberals' weakness on the right.
Both the NDP and CPC of the era had a common goal: decimation of the center Liberals, leading to a polarized left-right political system. Much of what the NDP did during this era can be argued as politically driven, and not from policy.
The culmination of all this was the election of Mulcair as the leader of the NDP, selected not because he was ideologically aligned with classical NDP ideals, but because he engineered their gains and ground game in Quebec.
(If it sounds like I'm bitter about the NDP at times, it's because I was a very left NDP/Liberal supporter up until 2008 or so, when I went over to the Greens.)
The thing is though that the 2nd lifeline Layton threw Martin was an eminently reasonable one. It was Martin who rejected it out of hand and decided that he'd rather face the electorate than.... Support Single Payer health care? There are certainly grounds to criticize Layton but his actions during the Martin minority were completely reasonable and examples of how a smaller party should act in a minority.
And frankly let's not forget how much pressure the Canada Health Act was under at the time. Hell one of the principal jerks pushing for two tier at the time, Dr. Brian Day, is still at it with a legal challenge to single payer.
I'm sorry but this is mind reading motivation guessing nonsense and certainly doesn't fit the second Layton offer to Martin. Hell Layton and Dion almost managed to cooperate and kick Harper the hell out before he could do too much damage. The tactical mistake they made was including Duceppe which allowed Harper to cynically rile up enough ROC anger to undermine one of the unspoken principals of Canadian democracy to hang on to power. How the heck does that gibe with your NDP/Con conspiracy theory? How does the NDPs constant whinging for PR fit that conspiracy theory?
matthewwhatever
Member
It's a matter of public record that the NDP and the Conservatives under Layton and Harper coordinated on some things, both when they were both in opposition, and after Harper became PM. I even recall there being a book that mentioned how they were collaborating during Question Period to beat up on Martin, but now I can't find the details. Some journalists believed it went farther than that, and even Dion suggested they were working together to bring down the Liberals.
That said...while CPC-NDP cooperation may come off as being a little shady, I don't see a problem with it. Both of those parties benefit from a weakened Liberal Party, so it makes sense that they'd work together to achieve that goal. The Liberals should've responded by getting better at governing and campaigning, not complaining about it.
Likewise, while there was something a little unseemly about making Martin publicly state his support for health care (in that it's a little like questioning someone's patriotism)...so what? The onus wasn't on Layton to save Martin's skin. A Liberal government may come closer to meeting the NDP's goals and wishes than a CPC government, but in the end, if you're an NDPer, you probably think that neither of them goes as far as you'd like.
Besides that, I think history shows that Paul Martin's political instincts were garbage. He may have been great at organizing a behind-the-scenes coup against Chretien (or, at least, people on his team were), but he was a disaster of a PM. I'd think that the mere fact he did something is argument enough it was a bad idea.
That said...while CPC-NDP cooperation may come off as being a little shady, I don't see a problem with it. Both of those parties benefit from a weakened Liberal Party, so it makes sense that they'd work together to achieve that goal. The Liberals should've responded by getting better at governing and campaigning, not complaining about it.
Likewise, while there was something a little unseemly about making Martin publicly state his support for health care (in that it's a little like questioning someone's patriotism)...so what? The onus wasn't on Layton to save Martin's skin. A Liberal government may come closer to meeting the NDP's goals and wishes than a CPC government, but in the end, if you're an NDPer, you probably think that neither of them goes as far as you'd like.
Besides that, I think history shows that Paul Martin's political instincts were garbage. He may have been great at organizing a behind-the-scenes coup against Chretien (or, at least, people on his team were), but he was a disaster of a PM. I'd think that the mere fact he did something is argument enough it was a bad idea.
matthewwhatever
Member
Apologies for posting twice in a row, but just saw this on Twitter and wanted to share: Alexandre Boulerice won't be running for the NDP leadership, even though he'd been hinting pretty broadly that he would be prior to the summer.
The total number of NDP leadership candidates remains at 0 -- which, really, makes stories like this, about NDP MPs trying to oust Mulcair, kind of bizarre. Who do they think is going to jump in to take his place?
The total number of NDP leadership candidates remains at 0 -- which, really, makes stories like this, about NDP MPs trying to oust Mulcair, kind of bizarre. Who do they think is going to jump in to take his place?
I'm pretty sure they assumed Cullen. But Cullen, like May, is laser focused on reform and I applaud both for it.
Matthew: I agree broadly with your earlier post but Layton was very up front about being willing to work with anyone to advance his policy objectives.
It's not bizarre, IMO. The NDP is fractured as a party both in terms of policy and leadership as evidenced by the ideological clashes during their convention earlier this year. There definitely are factions within the party that want Mulcair gone, regardless of the consequences.
I think it's safe to assume that the core Quebec MPs would be the ones that want Mulcair to stay. Any other MPs would likely have different priorities and loyalties.
So it turns out that Forum Research Inc. put out a poll on the topic of screening immigrants for anti-Canadian values that I had posted about above. Unfortunately, the numbers are kind of depressing. According to their poll they found that 67% of Canadians would be in favour of screening immigrants for anti-Canadian values.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ur-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html
How would you actually screen for these qualities?
More details:
Thankfully, I don't think the current Liberal party would take this stance, and while the NDP is going through it's own internal turmoil I can't see them supporting this either. But 87% support among Conservatives is definitely going to be cause for concern, especially with the CPC's statements during the last federal election.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ur-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html
How would you actually screen for these qualities?
More details:
Thankfully, I don't think the current Liberal party would take this stance, and while the NDP is going through it's own internal turmoil I can't see them supporting this either. But 87% support among Conservatives is definitely going to be cause for concern, especially with the CPC's statements during the last federal election.
chaobreaker
Member
My gut tells me that these values tests would be an easy way for a politcal party to filter out potential political opponents from immigrating and voting against them.
Regardless, this survey is dumb. It's not like we don't already screen people immigrating here anyway. Same could be said for the US but look at all those idiots who eat up Trump's bullshit.
Regardless, this survey is dumb. It's not like we don't already screen people immigrating here anyway. Same could be said for the US but look at all those idiots who eat up Trump's bullshit.
Silent Chief
Member
Provinces didn't get screwed over in PET's time because they weren't important (NEP came about precisely because prairie resource extraction was important). They got screwed over because they had no meaningful representation in government.
Which is why I consider our electoral system a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed before a lot of other people's wishlists can even be meaningfully attacked.
NEP came about because of the 73 and 79 oil crisis and their impact on the Canadian economy.
Is anybody here old enough to remember that? It's like everybody here are older than 50 suddenly. Trudeau tried to develop the energy sector to the benefit of the whole country and the west was just interested in short term profits which is why no pipeline was ever built across the country. Now, it's becoming a priority because the US has so much oil it doesn't even need to buy discounted Canadian oil anymore.
Anybody still have their "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark" bumper stickers?
Imagine Kelly Leitch as leader of the CPC based on this.
killer rin
Member
Doesn't surprise me. All these questions do is take advantage of the electorates ignorance when it comes to our own immigration system which already more or less does a good job of filtering out applicants which would fit any potential "anti-canadian values" you were to put to an easily faked test
Not exactly that big a surprise, unfortunately, when you consider that over 80% of Canadians supported the niqab ban when that was a thing, especially in Quebec.
Yeah, that's what I find astounding. It's not like we don't already have a vetting process.
Man that's disheartening.
killer rin
Member
So the Ontario Government just held a new Speech from the Throne where they outlined a plan of Removing HST from Hydro Amungst other things like creating 100,000 new daycare spaces
PumpkinSpice
Banned
The daycare situation in this province is completely fucked. We signed up for a slot in Ottawa around 6 months ago, and it said there was a 2 year waiting list.
Wait, wouldn't this make Ontario's finances worse? How would removing HST from the power bill solve anything?
Zombie James
Banned
Looking at my bill, that's going to save me about... $2.50 every month and a half.
The biggest problem with hydro bills is the fucking delivery charge, not taxes. My delivery charge is about 2x more than the actual electricity I use.
Cutting Hydro bills polls well you see...
The soap opera with Hunter Tootoo continues, as we now learn that the inappropriate relationship that got him turfed from Cabinet and the Liberal caucus was that he was dating a younger female staffer while at the same time, and unbeknownst to her, carrying on a serious relationship with her mother.
I think the voters are well beyond a HST reduction on their Hydro bill to even consider voting for the Liberals...
Alberta gets nailed by the delivery and rider charges too. The actual cost of electricity is peanuts compared to every other tacked on charge on the bill. Same with my natural gas.
That's... uh... I really have no words for that.
matthewwhatever
Member
So Peter Mackay won't be running for CPC leadership. I don't think he would've won for all kinds of reasons -- not enough money, no base, no seat, etc. -- but I'm still surprised. I know a few Cons who are going to be shaken by this news. I started my Master's program last week, and there are tonnes of Tories in it who lost their jobs after the last election, and all of them thought Mackay was going to be their saviour.
...wow.
...wow.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Disappointing
https://twitter.com/SeanAvolio/status/775407814181163008
(Referring to this https://ca.news.yahoo.com/justin-trudeau-visits-mosque-eid-170000610.html )
https://twitter.com/SeanAvolio/status/775407814181163008
(Referring to this https://ca.news.yahoo.com/justin-trudeau-visits-mosque-eid-170000610.html )
That mosque is, one expects, not compulsory for people to attend. I don't think it's the PM's job to determine seating arrangements.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I understand, but it's also not the PM's job to encourage places with regressive gender beliefs either.
Then we'd get snarky tweets from dingus's saying
"Apparently self-proclaimed tolerant @JustinTrudeau is OK w/snubbing religious meetings as long as it's against Islamic Canadians!"
Outreach to Canada's Islamic communities, particularly those that are more conservative, is very important at this particular moment in history.
He can do more good by going and talking the people there, than he can be staying home and casting aspersion at them from afar.
Nothing of value lost, other than seeing him saddened by not winning, again.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I predict the CPC will not win in 2019.
I think if the decision is "two mosques want to host me, do I attend the one that has more gender intergration or less", it should be the one with more, probably. I think if the decision is "should I boycott all mosques because Islam has hangups about women", I don't think so. I think the dual objectives of being inclusive to Muslims and encouraging the spread of liberal values and dignity for women in Islam are better served by engaging that shutting off.
(also "self-proclaimed" is the stupidest adjective ever. there's no feminist bureau. everyone who identifies as feminist is "self-proclaimed", including the guy calling out trudeau who has "feminist" in his twitter bio)
Speaking as a Muslim at a time when mosques and Muslim women are being set on fire in the West.... Screw your disappointment Morrigan.
And screw that guy's tweet.
That tweet reminds me of an op-ed Maclean's put out a few days ago titled "Is Trudeau a Fake Feminist?" Skimmed through it, and despite the clickbait headline the article seems less focused on dismissing Trudea's feminism as disingenuous, and more interested in suggesting ways that he and the federal government can improve.
I really wish Maclean's didn't use such an awful headline though.
I really wish Maclean's didn't use such an awful headline though.
matthewwhatever
Member
Not denying the inherent misogyny behind gender-separated worship, but the frontrunner for the Conservative leadership is someone who a) wants to implement a values test for immigrants, b) was the face of her party's proposal to have a "barbaric cultural practices" hotline, through which people could snitch on their neighbours, and c) was part of a government that enacted legislation that could've allowed them to take away the citizenship of people they didn't like. The takeaway from Trudeau attending an Eid celebration isn't "He's not really a feminist", it's "These people are just as Canadian as everyone else."
Probably not. But it's still pretty surprising that Mackay isn't running, after it seemed like he'd spent the last few months hinting pretty broadly that he was going to. Like I said, I don't think he would've won, but he would've entered the race with pretty high name recognition, and the media would've viewed him as the frontrunner even if he wasn't.
With him out, it'll be really interesting to see what happens. Leitch is suddenly the one driving the conversation, and she was already leading in terms of money. The newest CPC poll has her ahead of Tony Clement (who's already trying to one-up her on the terrorism front), Andrew Scheer (who just quit as House Leader), and Erin O'Toole (whom I know nothing about). I could see the CPC GOP-ifying itself, as leadership contenders race to the right to appeal to their party's membership, only to find that they've basically made themselves unelectable outside of Alberta and rural Canada.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I understand your point, but I don't quite agree, because I don't think "engaging" them really won't change anything with regards to their regressive beliefs. Personally I think gender equality to be far more important than coddling religious beliefs. If Islam has hang-ups with women, it's Islam's responsibility to change.
FWIW I do agree that this doesn't really make Trudeau "less" feminist (I mean I do think he's a sincere feminist), and the tweet was just an easy dig at him. But I do wish he had spoken out more about this. He actually kind of threw some very subtle shade, I guess, mentioning "this beautiful room ... <pause> with the sisters upstairs...".
But when he was grilled about it, he just spouted platitudes about diversity and bringing people together and then just dodged the question to talk about his economic plans (WTF), instead of addressing the actual gender issue. So yeah, he could have done better.
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Well that's rude.
Thought you all would like to read this article from the G&M about foreign mortgage financing.
Canadian banks’ mortgage guidelines favour foreign home buyers
Canadian banks’ mortgage guidelines favour foreign home buyers
At a time when Muslims need as much solidarity and support from people in leadership positions in society posts like yours and tweets like that guy's have everything to do with the alienation and insecurity that Muslims feel in the West.
Here's what I heard you say: "Muslims are so terrible that no elected official should associate with them on their religious holidays. Let alone the PM of the country". Now you tell me what's rude.
Can anything besides public outcry be done to change this situation? It's having a terrible affect on the housing markets
Woah, hold on a second. Income verification isn't a part of their due diligence for foreign clients? Speculation of housing prices aside, wouldn't that leave those banks with an unacceptable amount of risk?
Prodigal Son
Member
I'm way, way, way out of the loop of Canadian politics. Can someone give me a brief rundown of what's going on right now?
Trudeau is having quite a long honeymoon phase despite the economy being not great. The Cons and the NDP are messes in completely different ways though neither have leaders at the moment. That's about it I'd think.
Yeah, compared to some countries that will remain nameless, our politics are downright boring right now.
I swear the biggest thing to make a ripple was the Tragically Hip concert in Kingston.
And elbowgate
.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked