Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia

Status
Not open for further replies.
firehawk12 said:
Well, if the issue is that it's absurd to waste so much money to have off-seasonal foods in supermarkets here, it doesn't matter if it comes from America or Africa or Asia.

Also, I feel dumb, but I just realized that the Clinton thing is basically the American version of Dion/Iggy. Basically mostly uncontested leadership contests that were essentially coronations put bad people in charge of a party where they assumed that they would win by default.

I suppose Trudeau was the same, although the death of the NDP and Harper-apathy probably helped him avoid a similar fate.
Click to expand...

aslo, don't forget the Pet Food scandal where thousand of pet owners had their pets killed by pet food incoming from China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls
 
SheepyGuy said:
For example, if they really believe that a carbon tax is a "tax on everything," put forward your own plan for tackling emissions. One where you don't just take credit for the work of provincial governments, preferably.
Click to expand...
Tell me how it isn't a tax everything tax, how that tax is supposed to save the planet? All it means is more money out of taxpayers pockets. People still have to heat their homes, get to work etc. How is me spending another 300 a year saving the planet?
 
Even Chinese people don't buy Chinese products. They all come down to Hong Kong, or buy it overseas and ship it back -- and it would still be cheaper than buying domestically.

There's another scandal recently with reprocessed oil too...

Edit: to firehawk: it isn't a waste of money to ship produce most of the time. In fact, it saves money and greenhouse gases to grow overseas with the right climate than it is to grow locally.


pr0cs said:
Tell me how it isn't a tax everything tax, how that tax is supposed to save the planet? All it means is more money out of taxpayers pockets. People still have to heat their homes, get to work etc. How is me spending another 300 a year saving the planet?
Click to expand...

A part of the problem is that multiple governments clearly want a market based approach rather than a legislative one. While I don't agree with the approach, I can see the validity of relying on market forces rather than an overly cumbersome legislative framework.
 
maharg said:
I absolutely agree we need to be on guard, and I said "when" not "if" very much intentionally. I just don't think she's it and I'm not sure she's worth this much energy. The problem is we need to be on guard for it even after trump starts feeling "normal" and this isn't so fresh in our minds.
Click to expand...

She is a complete shitbag according to the people I know who have worked with her. They described her as being cruel to immigrants and anyone that had an accent pretty much. And being the person that spear headed Harper's barbaric practices hotline, I don't want to see her anywhere near any sort of power.
 
Divvy said:
She is a complete shitbag according to the people I know who have worked with her. They described her as being cruel to immigrants and anyone that had an accent pretty much. And being the person that spear headed Harper's barbaric practices hotline, I don't want to see her anywhere near any sort of power.
Click to expand...

lol what's she gonna do if she campaigns in the GTA?
 
It looks like stephen harper now has an Alberta PC membership.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...kenney-urging-wildrose-members-to-do-the-same

DMB4237 said:
Could we just call Leitch our "Marine Le Pen" then? All I'm saying is be careful with the populist that puts into question people's alignment to "Canadian values". That can resonate with people if we don't talk to them.
Click to expand...

Le Pen is worse and is nowhere near as electable as Leitch would be. Leitch is awful and she would probably be beat easily by trudeau especially if she continues her anti-immigrant rhetroic and becomes the next CPC leader but her loss would look tiny to the loss Le Pen will probably have to experience next year.
 
firehawk12 said:
Also, I feel dumb, but I just realized that the Clinton thing is basically the American version of Dion/Iggy. Basically mostly uncontested leadership contests that were essentially coronations put bad people in charge of a party where they assumed that they would win by default.
Click to expand...
Dion was the exact opposite of a coronation. He was a come-from-behind winner who was in fourth place in the pre-convention estimates and scraped into third place on the first ballot by two votes.

I suppose Trudeau was the same, although the death of the NDP and Harper-apathy probably helped him avoid a similar fate.

(Martin was crowned too, actually. And so was Gordon Brown, come to think of it. I guess you shouldn't just hand off leadership to someone just because "they deserve it" because that seems to bite you in the ass).
Click to expand...
Those people cruised to victory because they were incredibly popular, not because people thought they deserved it. Few politicians in this country have ever been as well-regarded as Martin was at the time he took office, before the sponsorship stuff knocked him permanently off-balance.
 
Sean C said:
Dion was the exact opposite of a coronation. He was a come-from-behind winner who was in fourth place in the pre-convention estimates and scraped into third place on the first ballot by two votes.
Click to expand...

Also, both the Democrat and Republican nominations this time around were pretty hard fought battles between the establishment and grassroot wings of their parties. I wouldn't describe either of them as coronations.
 
Mr.Mike said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPoli..._member_of_the_conservative_party_of/da07htk/

So the leadership election will be organized by your local EDA, and how exactly the voting is conducted is up to them. Probably in person will be available, but also/or maybe by mail. It's not mentioned in the linked comment, but I saw other comments talking about how some might try online voting.

Each riding has 100 votes, and the votes for a riding are allocated based on the percentage of support for a candidate in a riding. So if 80% of people in your riding vote for A, and 20% for B, your riding contributes 80 votes to A and 20 votes to B. It is a ranked ballot and a candidate has to get a majority of the votes to win.

And it is 100 votes per riding regardless of how many members are in your riding, so if you're somewhere where there wouldn't be many members of the CPC your vote will actually be pretty significant.
Click to expand...

I knew about the points (not votes!) system for awhile, but the part about each EDA getting to set their own voting system sounds...weird. I appreciate that every EDA is different, so some are more competent and organized than others, but it strikes me as unwieldy. The candidates are already having to organize operations in 338 ridings; why make them have to account for different voting systems in each one, too? It just seems like a weird extra hoop.

Mr.Mike said:
Maybe. I would imagine that the number of people who are members of political parties is really small though, even if it's the one that dominates the riding. It doesn't seem unlikely that in some places a single voter might control multiple votes by themselves, and there are only 33800 in total. (A candidate needing 16901 to win)

If you ever wanted to really feel like your vote mattered, this would be it.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is why Bernier shouldn't be discounted. There are apparently quite a few rural Quebec ridings where the EDAs exist mainly on paper. If he can get a dozen or so members signed up, that's 100 points for each riding.

firehawk12 said:
Also, I feel dumb, but I just realized that the Clinton thing is basically the American version of Dion/Iggy. Basically mostly uncontested leadership contests that were essentially coronations put bad people in charge of a party where they assumed that they would win by default.

I suppose Trudeau was the same, although the death of the NDP and Harper-apathy probably helped him avoid a similar fate.

(Martin was crowned too, actually. And so was Gordon Brown, come to think of it. I guess you shouldn't just hand off leadership to someone just because "they deserve it" because that seems to bite you in the ass).
Click to expand...

Not to pile on, since Sean and maharg have already shown that this analogy fails on multiple levels, but...Martin won Liberal leadership because he spent the better part of a decade organizing and getting a stranglehold on the party. When he finally took over from Chretien I don't think you would've been able to find a more popular politician in Canada. Obviously it was a) to the party's (and the country's) detriment in the long run and b) because he'd promised everyone in the party everything (which was why he disappointed so many people so quickly), but people legitimately believed that he was going to win 200+ seats on the strength of him being so popular. Susan Delacourt even wrote a book called Juggernaut, about how he was practically unstoppable.

(The early 2000s were a weird time in Canadian politics.)

Iggy was a coronation, but no one else in the entire analogy fits in, including Trump and Clinton. Clinton, if anything, was more like Martin, in that she spent a long time building support and putting in the work, but ultimately wasn't able to pull it off (though even here, it's not quite 1:1, since Martin did win that minority in 2004).
 
matthewwhatever said:
Yep. This is why Bernier shouldn't be discounted. There are apparently quite a few rural Quebec ridings where the EDAs exist mainly on paper. If he can get a dozen or so members signed up, that's 100 points for each riding.
Click to expand...
I'd have to imagine that the most valuable voters in the country are in the territorial ridings.

Not to pile on, since Sean and maharg have already shown that this analogy fails on multiple levels, but...Martin won Liberal leadership because he spent the better part of a decade organizing and getting a stranglehold on the party. When he finally took over from Chretien I don't think you would've been able to find a more popular politician in Canada. Obviously it was a) to the party's (and the country's) detriment in the long run and b) because he'd promised everyone in the party everything (which was why he disappointed so many people so quickly), but people legitimately believed that he was going to win 200+ seats on the strength of him being so popular. Susan Delacourt even wrote a book called Juggernaut, about how he was practically unstoppable.

(The early 2000s were a weird time in Canadian politics.)
Click to expand...
Martin circa 2003 was basically Justin Trudeau with a lot less flash but the perception of tremendous accomplishment (not that he didn't actually accomplish a lot, but his taking office seemed to portend a new era in governance).
 
For those following the electoral reform debate, major developments in PEI in the last two days. Yesterday the Tories and the Green Party tabled a motion in the legislature calling for the next election to be held under MMP -- not terribly surprising that the Greens would favour that, I'm more surprised the Tories backed it. Premier MacLauchlan (who from what I gather isn't a big fan of MMP) countered today by tabling a motion in the legislature calling for a binding referendum to be held as part of the next provincial election in 2018.

He's calling for a ballot with two options, one of them MMP; the other option will be chosen by MLAs in the legislature. I don't know if they're just going to put FPTP as the other, or else they're going to offer up some milder electoral reform alternative.
 
Sean C said:
I think that a referendum is the right way to go. I'm skeptical about the level of actual civic engagement, but the electoral system is maybe the one thing that politicians shouldn't be able to mess around with without some level of independent public approval.
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't mind a referendum if not for the fact that almost every time we have ever had a referendum, it has been used to kill the topic at hand... or in the case of the recent PEI one, had the results thrown completely out the window. Given the history on the file, I don't trust the government enough to not half-ass an Electoral Reform Referendum in favour of the status quo
 
referendums are stupid because parties will just campaign on what serves them best.

We don't need that shit. Fuck the NDP and Conservatives for trying to shit on the country even more.
 
gutter_trash said:
A Referendum is an automatic lose.

Remember BC and Ontario.

Best have have MPs go at it first
Click to expand...
In BC the majority voted in favour the first time. The threshold for success there was artificially high.

DopeyFish said:
referendums are stupid because parties will just campaign on what serves them best.
Click to expand...
How's that any different from the legislature, where they would only vote for it if they thought it served them?
 
gutter_trash said:
A Referendum is an automatic lose.

Remember BC and Ontario.

Best have have MPs go at it first
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Even take into account that in BC 57% voted in favour with it failing because it didn't meet an arbitrary 60%, and in PEI the government looks to be planning on tossing the results out the window because turnout was only 36%... despite the fact that if an actual election was held that only had a 36% turnout, the powers that be would gladly take whatever results came from it.

You Are Viewtiful said:
It better not be on election day again with uninformed people voting.
Click to expand...
In my ideal world, the way I would do it is change the system, but have the bill state plainly that after 2-3 elections a referendum is forced on keeping the new system or going back to the old.
 
Sean C said:
I'd have to imagine that the most valuable voters in the country are in the territorial ridings.

Martin circa 2003 was basically Justin Trudeau with a lot less flash but the perception of tremendous accomplishment (not that he didn't actually accomplish a lot, but his taking office seemed to portend a new era in governance).
Click to expand...
Not to reply to every one, but I just remember Sheila Copps basically being thrown under the bus after she dared run against Martin in that leadership contest, to the point where she was basically "primaried" out of her seat (well, the closest thing to a Canadian version I suppose).

The first post-Martin field was wide open, and I remember some Canadian country singer decided that he would run as well for whatever reason, but at least in my memory it closed fairly quickly and the backroom deals lead to Dion winning while Iggy was forced to pretend he didn't know the results for half an hour because the Liberals wanted more TV coverage past the hour. Of course, once Dion flamed out, Iggy was basically the next guy in line by default.

maharg said:
Also, both the Democrat and Republican nominations this time around were pretty hard fought battles between the establishment and grassroot wings of their parties. I wouldn't describe either of them as coronations.
Click to expand...
I got the impression that none of the establishment Democrats chose to run because it was seen as Hilary's turn. Particularly after Obama "stole it" from her in 2008.
Biden might have been the only serious contender, but the death of his son basically meant that she had no real opposition from the establishment. It's certainly why there was/is so much resentment against Bernie for getting in her way with a Quixotic primary campaign.
 
firehawk12 said:
Not to reply to every one, but I just remember Sheila Copps basically being thrown under the bus after she dared run against Martin in that leadership contest, to the point where she was basically "primaried" out of her seat (well, the closest thing to a Canadian version I suppose).
Click to expand...
Martin purged (or tried to purge) basically anyone who hadn't been with him, not just Copps for running against him, to make more room for all of his own supporters. Dion, for instance, successfully fought off the attempt to oust him.

The first post-Martin field was wide open, and I remember some Canadian country singer decided that he would run as well for whatever reason, but at least in my memory it closed fairly quickly and the backroom deals lead to Dion winning while Iggy was forced to pretend he didn't know the results for half an hour because the Liberals wanted more TV coverage past the hour.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "close fairly quickly". Going into the convention there were four candidates who had a reasonable chance of winning. Dion won because he and Kennedy agreed to support which of them was in the stronger position past a certain point, which was, at it turned out, Dion.

killer rin said:
Even take into account that in BC 57% voted in favour with it failing because it didn't meet an arbitrary 60%, and in PEI the government looks to be planning on tossing the results out the window because turnout was only 36%... despite the fact that if an actual election was held that only had a 36% turnout, the powers that be would gladly take whatever results came from it.
Click to expand...
In PEI, 36% turnout would be a calamitously low electoral result, but regardless, you don't have any choice but to take the results. An election is binding. This was a non-binding plebiscite, as opposed to the binding referendum that's being proposed to run alongside the next election.
 
No referendum, put MMP into a new law and let's be done with this awful FPTP system. Does no one remember the last time we had a referendum (Charlottetown Accord) and how that went?
 
CazTGG said:
No referendum, put MMP into a new law and let's be done with this awful FPTP system. Does no one remember the last time we had a referendum (Charlottetown Accord) and how that went?
Click to expand...
The Charlottetown Accord was a bad deal that was thankfully rejected, so that's actually an endorsement of referenda.
 
Sean C said:
In PEI, 36% turnout would be a calamitously low electoral result, but regardless, you don't have any choice but to take the results. An election is binding. This was a non-binding plebiscite, as opposed to the binding referendum that's being proposed to run alongside the next election.
Click to expand...

That's the problem though. If a government has the audacity to call a referendum on a topic they better will willing to implement whatever the citizenry decides on. If they aren't prepared to do that, they should call the damn things what they are. Costly Opinion Polls.
 
killer rin said:
That's the problem though. If a government has the audacity to call a referendum on a topic they better will willing to implement whatever the citizenry decides on. If they aren't prepared to do that, they should call the damn things what they are, Costly Opinion Polls.
Click to expand...
Some sort of minimum turnout threshold is not unreasonable, in my opinion (and, as noted, it was never a binding vote). Whether 36% is enough for you or not is a matter of opinion.
 
Sean C said:
Some sort of minimum turnout threshold is not unreasonable, in my opinion (and, as noted, it was never a binding vote). Whether 36% is enough for you or not is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

I personally disagree.

If someone isn't willing to spend five minutes to vote in a referendum, all that means is that they couldn't be bothered to vote. It shouldn't be an automatic vote for the status-quo and it shouldn't be a vote for change. All it means is that the person either doesn't care enough to let their opinion be heard, they don't think they are educated enough on the matter to have a proper opinion, or even the other major factor of they don't think it matters because "they know" the government won't do anything anyways.

Which as for that last option, is a major factor in non-binding referendums since it's only obvious that voter turnout would be low if the electorate knew upfront that there is a good chance nothing will come from their vote.
 
killer rin said:
Which as for that last option, is a major factor in this non-binding referendums since its only obvious that voter turnout would be low if the electorate knew upfront that there is a good chance nothing will come from their vote.
Click to expand...
If people would turn out in large numbers, the results wouldn't be ignored.
 
I hope the unite-the-right plan fails. Conservatives are not what Alberta needs despite all the oil rig/ndp hating bumper stickers that say otherwise. The wild rose called me asking if they could count on my support last go around, it wasn't a fun phone call.
 
bremon said:
I hope the unite-the-right plan fails. Conservatives are not what Alberta needs despite all the oil rig/ndp hating bumper stickers that say otherwise. The wild rose called me asking if they could count on my support last go around, it wasn't a fun phone call.
Click to expand...

Who made who cry by the end of that call?
I do agree with your initial point of hoping the right remains fractured, and it looks like Jason Kenney may be doing as much harm to his own cause as help.
 
gabbo said:
Who made who cry by the end of that call?
I do agree with your initial point of hoping the right remains fractured, and it looks like Jason Kenney may be doing as much harm to his own cause as help.
Click to expand...

I don't think the right needs to be united to win in Alberta. The PC's can win mostly wildrose supporters as previous elections like the 2012 election showed. The PC's or any political party's route to victory in Alberta next time will be through the major cities in Alberta.
 
There is pretty much no way they can win without wildrose supporters. Not unless the Liberals resurge (which is ridiculously unlikely any time soon).

Whether that means they unite or the WRP deflates somehow, they still absolutely need those voters and it's silly to think they don't. At best a random party might win a minority with three parties as viable as they are right now.

Edit for your edit: In 2012 the Liberals and the NDP were splitting their vote.
 
maharg said:
There is pretty much no way they can't win without wildrose supporters. Not unless the Liberals resurge (which is ridiculously unlikely any time soon).

Whether that means they unite or the WRP deflates somehow, they still absolutely need those voters and it's silly to think they don't. At best a random party might win a minority with three parties as viable as they are right now.

Edit for your edit: In 2012 the Liberals and the NDP were splitting their vote.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it a bit. Yeah. I'm not completely sure if the NDP loses an election in the future they will completely collapse like what happened to other political parties in Alberta in the past after losing an election. So technically the Alberta PC's do need to win some rural areas back from the NDP and wildrose but they will still have to rely on the cities a lot to win like the Alberta NDP in 2012 because I don't think there is a chance of them making signficant inroads into some of the really rural areas in Alberta they lost in 2012 and 2015 to the wildrose. Technically the Alberta PC's don't need to pander like crazy to wildrose supporters to win but they can possibly steal some of the soft ones to win if they have attractive poliices and an attractive leader.
 
gabbo said:
Who made who cry by the end of that call?
I do agree with your initial point of hoping the right remains fractured, and it looks like Jason Kenney may be doing as much harm to his own cause as help.
Click to expand...
No tears, but I was annoyed after the call and I'm sure she was too. It was a fairly brief conversarion haha.
 
That's the thing, though. In the cities it's the NDP who will eat into them, in rural areas it's the WRP. To win, either the NDP or the WRP can eat one party's lunch (the PCs), but the PCs need to eat two party's lunch. It's much more difficult to successfully juke to the left *and* the right, and the PCs fall from power is probably partly from trying to do just that too many times.

I wouldn't rule out a PC comeback, but I don't think it'll be by 2019 unless they unify.
 
maharg said:
That's the thing, though. In the cities it's the NDP who will eat into them, in rural areas it's the WRP. To win, either the NDP or the WRP can eat one party's lunch (the PCs), but the PCs need to eat two party's lunch. It's much more difficult to successfully juke to the left *and* the right, and the PCs fall from power is probably partly from trying to do just that too many times.

I wouldn't rule out a PC comeback, but I don't think it'll be by 2019 unless they unify.
Click to expand...

All the PC's need to do to win is to steal the soft wildrose and NDP supporters because I don't expect either party to collapse even if the PC's win a future election. They should not try to go after the hardcore supporters. I'm not sure how they do that at this point, but I don't think they will do it by 2019. Also I don't think Jason Kenney will help them appeal to soft NDP and wildrose supporters to much because he is to divisive.
 
killer rin said:
NDP says it’s willing to support an electoral reform referendum despite concerns

Buckle in everybody. If the NDP no longer has any faith in the government falling through, it looks like we will ultimately be heading towards a referendum on the matter of Electoral Reform.
Click to expand...

And now it appears that Fair Vote Canada got the Electoral Reform survey the government is mailing out to every household leaked to them. They are going ham on Twitter commentating on it. I'll link to their twitter, but you kind of have to ignore the speech bubbles they are overlapping on the survey to dog-whistle it out. I whited out this first part, but the rest are really in your face and would be hard to edit out unless I spent some extra time, or unless they released the un-bubbled survey

EDIT: Alright, I was bored and edited all the images. I put them in an album here http://imgur.com/a/tw345
PoCjDFj.jpg


https://twitter.com/FairVoteCanada/media (Just scroll down a bit to 9am for the first part of the leak.)
Click to expand...

Looking at my whited out images, it really does look like the government is trying to curtail this with either a result of "people are too averse to change" or something in favour of AV/IRV/Ranked Ballots
 
bremon said:
I hope the unite-the-right plan fails. Conservatives are not what Alberta needs despite all the oil rig/ndp hating bumper stickers that say otherwise. .
Click to expand...
I'm curious what you believe Alberta needs because what we have now clearly isn't working. Or is it your opinion that the high unemployment and poor future outlook is exactly what this province needs?
Not saying any political party in this province looks particularly attractive but the suggestion that the ndp is doing a bang up job here is laughable at best.
 
The NDP has been explicitly against a referendum since the beginning so the fact that they're now potentially onboard with one is unfortunately an indication that they believe the Liberals are going to use the lack of consensus as an excuse to kill election reform.
 
pr0cs said:
I'm curious what you believe Alberta needs because what we have now clearly isn't working. Or is it your opinion that the high unemployment and poor future outlook is exactly what this province needs?
Not saying any political party in this province looks particularly attractive but the suggestion that the ndp is doing a bang up job here is laughable at best.
Click to expand...

Unless you think the Tories can strong-arm OPEC in to raising oil prices to make extraction profitable again I'm not sure what you're expecting anyone to do.
 
pr0cs said:
I'm curious what you believe Alberta needs because what we have now clearly isn't working. Or is it your opinion that the high unemployment and poor future outlook is exactly what this province needs?
Not saying any political party in this province looks particularly attractive but the suggestion that the ndp is doing a bang up job here is laughable at best.
Click to expand...
The idea that Jim Prentice and his cronies would have us in a better position is also laughable at best. Brian Jean & Co.? Hilarious. But yes, you got me; misery and hard times are my main hopes for Alberta, just like Notley /s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia Season 17 | Abbott Teaser | Returns July 9
20
566
bitbydeath replied
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 18 coming in September
21
2K
Synless replied
Effective ways to start investing money
48
3K
devilNprada replied
Long Way Home — Official Trailer | Apple TV+
2
340
AJUMP23 replied
  • Locked
Tate brothers free and on their way to Freedomland
2
50
2K
RJMacready73 replied
Top Bottom