Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drogoth on May 03, 2011, 01:42:57 am
-
For any and all Canadians (and anyone else who wants to weigh in), thoughts on the results of our election?
-
I'm surprised that bald communist guy did so well.
-
Some have said that they've wanted an NDP Federal Government, but my opinion of them is tainted by experiences with Bob Ray here in Ontario. I was however open to the idea of them forming the official opposition, that way they can shed the stigma of being the joke party, to earning some respect. They can't be just dismissed as they typically are, but they didn't just suddenly get thrust into the front row unexpectedly and have to take over the government without a solid plan. I guess I got my wish. As for the Conservatives, while I'm not entirely pleased with some of the choices they've been making, they are, as the saying goes, the devil we know... and this time there's no threat of a motley-crew coalition or going back to the poles six months from now. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the PC votes came from people who chose to have a stable government.
-
Hope it goes well for you all, hey?
Is it parliamentary system?
-
Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.
-
Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.
I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.
Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.
The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.
-
Hope it goes well for you all, hey?
Is it parliamentary system?
We use the Westminster system just like the UK does. I'm not familiar enough with all of the background to say that it's identical... I'm sure there are some differences but at the basic level yes it's a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.
I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.
Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.
The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.
The election only cost us a small percentage of what we spent on that ridiculous G8/G20 meeting last summer. I know some people are ticked off that we "have so many elections" but I think that's stupid. The last one was three years ago which is just short of the four-five years that we normally go between elections. I was hoping for minority... I worry about quite a few things now like copyrights, future of the CBC, healthcare, and further ****ups with the economic situation (not that I trust the NDP to do a better job there either). Oh and that little thing called being found in contempt of parliament.
-
Yeah, I was disgusted that the whole contempt of Parliament didn't stop conservatives from voting for the CPC. The first government in history to fall on contempt of parliament charges, and we just give him a majority. It's like conservatives are so blinded by ideology that they vote in the most corrupt party in Canadian history, all the while complaining about corruption in other parties. It's like some horrible joke.
Nobody even seems to notice the dictatorial qualities of Stephen Harper. Like he changed the "Government of Canada" into the "Harper Government", then proceeded to take down photos of past prime ministers and replace them with various photos of himself.
-
Hope it goes well for you all, hey?
Is it parliamentary system?
We use the Westminster system just like the UK does. I'm not familiar enough with all of the background to say that it's identical... I'm sure there are some differences but at the basic level yes it's a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
The Federal system is pretty much identical (with a less useful Senate and less members [every one gets a table! None of this sitting on each others laps. :)]). Though I assume some of the unwritten rules have changed, the written part of our constitution is pretty much a direct copy of the act (sorry I can't remember its name) that the UK's "federal" government operates under. We only have modified our constitution once and that was to add the Charter of rights and freedoms.
Honestly, the biggest difference is that we don't have just 1, we have 11 :D
Well, let's just put it this way.
At least now they don't have an excuse to waste our money on campaigns for another few years.
I would have been in support of a minority with a binding agreement with the Governor General to not call an election for a set amount of time, minorities keep the government accountable.
Because yeah the election was a lot of money, but so were the attack ads that the conservatives were running for count em - TWO years. Talk about wasted money.
The Vote split on the left was murderous though, and the Bloc is thankfully gone. Wish the Grits could've done a lot better though... then again let's get serious, they'll be back.
The election only cost us a small percentage of what we spent on that ridiculous G8/G20 meeting last summer. I know some people are ticked off that we "have so many elections" but I think that's stupid. The last one was three years ago which is just short of the four-five years that we normally go between elections. I was hoping for minority... I worry about quite a few things now like copyrights, future of the CBC, healthcare, and further ****ups with the economic situation (not that I trust the NDP to do a better job there either). Oh and that little thing called being found in contempt of parliament.
I agree, the elections are really not that expensive, and honestly a small price to pay for the damage that Harper can now cause with immunity. Including a DCMA style copyright system, Usage Base Billing (which don't get me wrong, is not a horrible thing, but the way that most of our ISPs behave it is purely a cash grab)(also I hope the tories don't sell out now that they have a majority).
Healthcare is a provincial concern, though the feds have been messing with the transfer payments (not that Alberta really cares) and the extra Federal money for Healthcare.
I am not sure what you are getting at with the economic comment.
The whole contempt of parliament thing is really disappointing. Technically, they never were actually found in contempt because the session was dissolved because of the vote of no confidence was passed (which did cite the contempt admittedly). Sadly, we instead gave them a majority and the MP that was the cause of the entire thing kept her seat. The worst part of it is, because of how Harper runs his party, we know that the addition of the 'not' on the document came directly from Harper. Of course there is no proof of that (which is probably why Harper let Layton let the Government fall).
@Drogoth: I wouldn't say the Bloc is gone good, but on the other hand I would rather have the Bloc than the FLQ.
Overall, I think the nicest thing about this election is that the Greens finally have won a seat.
Now for a lighter note, how much fine money do you think Elections Canada is going to be collecting in response to the Australians, the Americans, and other Twits that were violating the restriction on the broadcast of election results before the polls closed in BC? Its a $25 000 fine if you are a Canadian citizen.
-
On the topic of frequent elections I am fully in agreement, I just think the written agreement would placate the people who dont like frequent elections, I think they should be more often if anything.
As far as the future of the CBC, healthcare, etc. I dont think they're in to much danger, the Conservatives have to keep their newfound Ontario support happy afterall
-
Fingers crossed.
As far as the future of the CBC, healthcare, etc. I dont think they're in to much danger, the Conservatives have to keep their newfound Ontario support happy afterall
Fingers crossed.
My biggest fear is that when elections come around in four years it will be impossible to remove him from power. Everything he's done in the past four years has been to secure his power. Firing critics, muzzling his MP's and government officials. Removing public funding for opposition parties. Election fraud (criminal charges pending). Lying to parliament.
And all that as a minority government. As a majority I don't expect his behaviour to become more democratic.
-
I would have preferred a Conservative minority with a strong NDP official opposition, but hopefully the majority won't be all that bad. I was thrilled to see both the Liberals and the Bloc get decimated, and even more happy to see Elizabeth May got a seat.
One thing... that dead horse called "contempt of Parliament." Being a little bit of a history nut, let me PLEASE point out to anyone who wishes to flog this horse again in the future: the Liberals pulled exactly the same **** in the 90s and no one made a fuss because - surprise! - they had a majority. The only reason for the contempt declaration is because the Conservatives didn't have a majority in the committees and couldn't block it the same way the Liberals got away with it. Also, as someone will undoubtedly say "well, they shouldn't govern like they had a majority with a minority" I will also say this: better to govern the way they plan to govern than all of a sudden switch tactics when their seat count hits magic number 155. The contempt ruling was political gamesmanship, nothing more, nothing less. As for the "sky is falling" nonsense that the Conservatives are the most corrupt in our history, that Harper will be the end of the country - anyone spouting this patent nonsense has a really poor grasp of our country's history, and I invite them to study it. The truth is that the Liberals and Conservatives, in their various iterations, have taken turns in varying forms of corruption and neither is particularly worse than the other, especially given that the corruption in Canada is such that it wouldn't even be called that in some less-democratic [and uptight] countries. Even our most major scandals are sadly insignificant affairs.
I don't have a problem with minorities (Lester Pearson's still holds the record for being the most productive parliament in the history of this country) and would have liked to see another. On the plus side, maybe - finally! - BC, Alberta, and Ontario will get the additional Commons seats their populations warrant, and maybe we'll see some serious attempt at reform of our broken Senate. If there are two things that rank right at the top of my "**** needs to get done" list, those are them.
My final thought is this: So long, Mr. Duceppe. While you had conviction and integrity (traits which I respect immensely), your toxic brand of single-province favoritism and attempts to split my country will not be missed in the slightest. Good riddance.
-
My biggest fear is that when elections come around in four years it will be impossible to remove him from power. Everything he's done in the past four years has been to secure his power. Firing critics, muzzling his MP's and government officials. Removing public funding for opposition parties. Election fraud (criminal charges pending). Lying to parliament.
1. See my post above this one.
2. Do you have any concept of how our country's governance structure works? There is nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - that any political party in this nation can do to ensure a grasp on power beyond the legislated limits set out in our laws and constitution. To do so, they would either have to amend the Constitution and bypass the Supreme Court (good luck!), or stage a military coup. Since our military is apathetic to politics, and our head of state is a monarch that resides in a foreign country with a supremely more powerful military at her disposal, either scenario is patently ludicrous.
There are a lot of things I dislike about the Conservatives, but none of the issues anyone has raised concerning their behaviour are even abnormal for our system, nevermind unprecedented (notwithstanding the contempt finding, which has its own intricacies).
-
I'm not suggesting that Stephen Harper will make it illegal to vote (although he has expressed his distaste of elections many times).
All those things that I mentioned in my previous post are things he's already done. They are not hypothetical or fear mongering. He has done those things already, and there's no reason to assume he'll magically change his ways.
No, my concern is that what he'll do will make it hard to shake him from power. He doesn't have to change the constitution. He just has to erode the principles of democracy (like access to information and funding for all political parties), and our system will keep him in power.
-
I would have preferred a Conservative minority with a strong NDP official opposition, but hopefully the majority won't be all that bad. I was thrilled to see both the Liberals and the Bloc get decimated, and even more happy to see Elizabeth May got a seat.
I was also happy to see May get a seat, and happy to see the Bloc get decimated as they are you know... separatists, but I couldn't disagree more when it comes to the Liberals.
We NEED a middle ground party. Badly. I don't care who it is but we need them. If the Liberals dissolve and it becomes just left versus right, NDP versus Conservative, the system will degenerate into a lot of partisan hatred. (I give you the Republicans and the Democrats ladies and gentlemen). The Liberals need to get their house in order (and pick a decent leader for christs' sake) but if they go under.. who's going to be the middle ground?
-
I'm not suggesting that Stephen Harper will make it illegal to vote (although he has expressed his distaste of elections many times). However all those things that I mentioned are things he's done. They are not hypothetical or fear mongering. He has done those things already, and there's no reason to assume he'll magically change his ways.
No, my concern is that what he'll do will make it hard to shake him from power. He doesn't have to change the constitution. He just has to erode the principles of democracy (like access to information and funding for all political parties), and our system will keep him in power.
That's a naive interpretation. Access to Information (be it the formal ATIP process or the informal accessibility of government information to the public) is a relatively new phenomenon in this country at best. There is no evidence to suggest that more or less accessibility influences the outcome of our electoral process. ATIP (formal) was virtually insignificant in the late 1980s, and that didn't stop Mulroney's Conservatives from going from majority to 2 seats (loss of official party status) in a single election in 1993. And that's just a recent example. Restricting access is not what I'd term a good thing; however, it is not a system-breaker.
Vote-based funding for political parties is NOT a principle of democracy. In fact, the history of political parties is such that they have always been funded by their supporters. This vote-based system we have now is unprecedented and, frankly, offensive. Political party donations already receive higher tax breaks than those to charitable organizations - now, each party is funded based on the proportion of votes they receive in an election, which is locked to an initial threshold. So you tell me - why should any political party receive tax-based funding just for receiving votes? I don't care to donate to a political party, so why am I forced to do so? If the tax breaks were eliminated on donations and private donations themselves were also banned then I might get on board with this as an equitable solution, but I would hesitate to ever call it fair, as it eliminates my right to choose (as a matter of interest, I disagree with the entity of political parties to begin with and thus choose to place my votes for candidates rather than the parties to which they belong, which makes this system even more unfair).
This is the same "Chicken Little" mentality that is pervasive in the comments section of the Globe and Mail (my preferred paper, incidentally) and I've yet to see a shred of evidence that backs up any of it. Yes, the CPC is very controlled, close-doored, and down-right secretive. Yes, they do a lot of things that I don't particularly agree with. Is any of this system-breaking? No. Not in any way, shape, or form.
In 2015/6 (I can't remember if the new fixed dates are 4 or 5 years it's been so long since they've actually been talked about, and I can't be bothered to look right now), we will have another federal election. All the parties will re-iterate the same tired arguments. All the parties will pander for votes in Quebec. Most of the parties will run atrocious attack ads. And after the campaign is said and done, a small proportion of Canadians will go to the polls and cast educated votes based on party platforms and their beliefs as to who charts the best course for their riding and the country. A much larger proportion will then cast their votes based on whatever media soundbyte of the previous week caught their attention the longest. And we will elect a new government - maybe CPC, maybe NDP, or maybe the Liberals will get some credibility again. Regardless, the CPC will not be locked into power because they somehow broke our democratic system.
Democracy is adversarial. Saying it is broken because the nature of the adversarial relationship between the parties has/is shifting is silly.
-
We NEED a middle ground party. Badly. I don't care who it is but we need them. If the Liberals dissolve and it becomes just left versus right, NDP versus Conservative, the system will degenerate into a lot of partisan hatred. (I give you the Republicans and the Democrats ladies and gentlemen). The Liberals need to get their house in order (and pick a decent leader for christs' sake) but if they go under.. who's going to be the middle ground?
You are aware that the Canadian versions of the CPC, Liberals, NDP, and Greens all occupy the same political space, right? Run a political compass on their policy platforms (ignore that ridiculous CBC compass that amplified the axes and do it yourself). They are all IDENTICAL, politically-speaking with the exception of a few very minor policies. They are all the middle ground. Liberals are middle with a right tilt (fiscally, central socially), CPC is the same, NDP is middle with a left tilt, as are the Greens, but those tilts are so tiny that they make very little difference.
The Liberal Party is not an essential feature of Canadian politics, but that line of thinking is exactly why their seat totals just fell to a massive low and (for the first time in our history) they are neither the governing party nor the Official Opposition.
I agree with you that a two-party system is a bad idea. I would personally prefer to see a switch to proportional representation (and the permanent minority governance structure that would yield) and elimination of the non-confidence vote with enforcement of fixed election dates. "Oh, you didn't present a budget that other people can agree to? Shucks... well, we're not having an election for another three years so you better start making some tweaks or its going to be a long summer..." Our system is horrible for a country of this size and geocultural diversity.
EDIT: Now you've done it. You've gone and got me up on my soapbox! =)
-
I agree with you that a two-party system is a bad idea. I would personally prefer to see a switch to proportional representation (and the permanent minority governance structure that would yield) and elimination of the non-confidence vote with enforcement of fixed election dates. "Oh, you didn't present a budget that other people can agree to? Shucks... well, we're not having an election for another three years so you better start making some tweaks or its going to be a long summer..." Our system is horrible for a country of this size and geocultural diversity.
EDIT: Now you've done it. You've gone and got me up on my soapbox! =)
I agree with proportional rep, and the permanent minority that would ensue, although I would rather limit non-confidence votes then ban them. (only allowed so many...? even if they fail?) The thing I have against fixed elections, is. Well look at how much people complained about 'wasted money' in this campaign. Now look at American campaigns. They start over a YEAR in advance!
If political parties KNOW without a doubt when each and every election will be, campaigns will get longer and longer and consequently more expensive.
-
If political parties KNOW without a doubt when each and every election will be, campaigns will get longer and longer and consequently more expensive.
Yeah, but if we eliminate the vote-based subsidy then WE aren't paying for it, and the parties may bankrupt themselves trying to run national campaigns and *gasp* local candidates might actually have to get out and explain who they are and what THEY represent! What a novel idea, these candidates that actually represent their constituents along more than party lines! Who would have thought! /sarcasm =D
(To be fair, my MP is heavily involved in his riding and also sits on one of the Commons commitees for industry, and I would have voted for him even had I not preferred the leader he happens to be attached to).
But seriously now, long and expensive campaigns are a result of parties that are too well-funded and too entrenched. If they actually had to pay for their expenses out of pocket or seriously start soliciting private donations, there would be a lot less money spent. Right now the Coonservatives are laughing all the way to the bank - not only did corporate/union donations get banned (the biggest contributors to the Liberals and the NDP), but the old Liberal tax rules give private donors a break and the CPC has the largest collection of private donors in the country... and to top it all off, they are funded per-vote. Now wonder they can afford attack ads. Did you see some of the vote margins they won by?
EDIT: Mother of pearl, it's 00:56 hours and I have a work meeting at 08:30. Will continue this tomorrow if anyone's interested. G'night.
-
Yeah, but if we eliminate the vote-based subsidy then WE aren't paying for it, and the parties may bankrupt themselves trying to run national campaigns
There are what 34-35 million people in this country? Assuming 100% voter turnout (which lets get serious, is a pipe dream), the 2$ per vote subsidy can only ever reach a MAXIMUM of 70 million. This last election cost the public 300 million. The vote based subsidy isn't the only public funding of political campaigns, and we'd have to eliminate ALL public funding if we were to have set election dates because of the longer and consequently eventually terminally expensive campaigns that would result. Because even with the elimination of that 70 million, double the campaign length and that 70 million has been spent twice over + change + the original 230000000.
As for completely eliminating public funding, I disagree completely on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility, collectively, as a people to help fund additional democratic discourse. Mix in the fact that if we eliminate any and all public funding, then the parties that will be the most effective will be the parties that cater to the interests of the rich. How often to the ultra rich work in the interests of the entire country? Even if champion of the poor party A has an excellent fund raising structure, champion of the rich party B can have an EQUALLY good fund raising structure and make truckloads more money. This will create a serious economic bias in favor of the upper class into politics. That's why I think supplemental public funding of political parties is essential to a level playing field that opinions can be heard on.
-
That's a naive interpretation. Access to Information (be it the formal ATIP process or the informal accessibility of government information to the public) is a relatively new phenomenon in this country at best. There is no evidence to suggest that more or less accessibility influences the outcome of our electoral process. ATIP (formal) was virtually insignificant in the late 1980s, and that didn't stop Mulroney's Conservatives from going from majority to 2 seats (loss of official party status) in a single election in 1993. And that's just a recent example. Restricting access is not what I'd term a good thing; however, it is not a system-breaker.
Are you arguing that a government does not need to be honest with the citizens of a country merely because it probably won't break the system? The old "Harper Government" lied time an time again about where money was being spent, how much was being spent. They also blocked many access to information requests, even proroguing parliament to stop the release of the Afghan detainee documents.
And for those bemoaning the "costly and unnecessary" election, both times he prorogued parliament it resulted in the termination of a lot of pieces of legislature. Which meant that all the time and money spent on committees and research all went down the drain, merely to avoid having an election.
@MP-Ryan: before you drag up the old Liberals-did-it-first arguments, remember that when Jean Chretien prorogued parliament they had finished all the work for that session.
Also, you bring up the Liberals-did-it-first argument for the contempt of parliament. I've never heard of it so it would be nice if you'd explain the circumstances around it. Not all things are created equal.
-
There are what 34-35 million people in this country? Assuming 100% voter turnout (which lets get serious, is a pipe dream), the 2$ per vote subsidy can only ever reach a MAXIMUM of 70 million. This last election cost the public 300 million. The vote based subsidy isn't the only public funding of political campaigns, and we'd have to eliminate ALL public funding if we were to have set election dates because of the longer and consequently eventually terminally expensive campaigns that would result. Because even with the elimination of that 70 million, double the campaign length and that 70 million has been spent twice over + change + the original 230000000.
You're confusing cost of election with money spent by political parties on campaigns. Election cost is a fixed beast, and a necessary expenditure. Those costs will not be increased by fixed election dates.
The cost that will potentially increase is the cost to candidates to run their campaigns (longer campaign, higher cost). That cost right now is partially passed along to taxpayers through political party subsidies (in their various forms; the vote-based is only part of it). However, none of those subsidies take into account the length of the campaign. The cost to the taxpayer isn't affected by campaign length.
As for completely eliminating public funding, I disagree completely on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility, collectively, as a people to help fund additional democratic discourse. Mix in the fact that if we eliminate any and all public funding, then the parties that will be the most effective will be the parties that cater to the interests of the rich. How often to the ultra rich work in the interests of the entire country? Even if champion of the poor party A has an excellent fund raising structure, champion of the rich party B can have an EQUALLY good fund raising structure and make truckloads more money. This will create a serious economic bias in favor of the upper class into politics. That's why I think supplemental public funding of political parties is essential to a level playing field that opinions can be heard on.
As with my thoughts on the rational for eliminating the vote-based subsidy, this is your opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject (since we both have reasonable opinions on the subject).
Are you arguing that a government does not need to be honest with the citizens of a country merely because it probably won't break the system? The old "Harper Government" lied time an time again about where money was being spent, how much was being spent. They also blocked many access to information requests, even proroguing parliament to stop the release of the Afghan detainee documents.
Not unprecedented. Doesn't make it right, but this is not the first Canadian government to be less-than-forthcoming with information. Nowhere am I saying that any of this behaviour is justified; I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of screaming going on about things that have been a feature of our political system since time immemorial.
And for those bemoaning the "costly and unnecessary" election, both times he prorogued parliament it resulted in the termination of a lot of pieces of legislature. Which meant that all the time and money spent on committees and research all went down the drain, merely to avoid having an election.
I'm not bemoaning the election as particularly costly or unnecessary, but I will point out that legislation dies on the order paper all the time. That's just a bad feature of our political system.
@MP-Ryan: before you drag up the old Liberals-did-it-first arguments, remember that when Jean Chretien prorogued parliament they had finished all the work for that session.
There was that nasty business of the sponsorship scandal report due out in 2002 that was delayed because Chretien specifically asked for prorogation to avoid it. But let's not stop there - prorogation of Parliament to avoid potential scandals is a grand old tradition going back to the time of Sir John A. MacDonald himself. Justified? Of course not. But Harper has grand company in the tradition, and to be outraged about his manipulation of our system and make excuses for all the previous bunch is hypocrisy of the highest order. I merely accept that so long as mechanisms of potential abuse exist in our system, politicians can be expected to utilize them. Don't like it? Cease the whining about Harper and push for systemic reform.
Also, you bring up the Liberals-did-it-first argument for the contempt of parliament. I've never heard of it so it would be nice if you'd explain the circumstances around it. Not all things are created equal.
No, I said the contempt of Parliament ruling only occurred because the Conservatives played the games that all political parties play, but in a minority situation. Let's be clear: the contempt of Parliament ruling is not just a result of the Bev Oda affair, but also the issue of refusal to disclose financing information on the crime legislation that was coming forward. The Oda mess never came to a formal contempt ruling against her, but the government was found to be in contempt over their failure to disclose the financial costs of the crime bills.
However, failure to disclose the cost of legislation is another handy tradition that majority governments have gotten away with for ages (honestly, pick a majority session of Parliament and you'll find at least one instance - and yes, the Chretien Liberals did it too). The truly historic item at issue is this is the first time a minority tried to get away with the same thing and got caught in the process. Put in perspective - that this is the same political gamesmanship that has gone on in this country for years - and the contempt ruling is a tired issue.
Wow, I sound really cynical.
Point is, I hear all kinds of arguments that the CPC is evil because of __________________ [fill in the blank]. However, nothing they've done is new. It doesn't make it excusable, acceptable, or justified, but it makes it really difficult for me to be outraged because these things are a feature of our political system.
So, rather than engage in exercises of hyperbole proposing that thew Conservatives are the source of all evil in Canadian politics and have engaged in all kinds of unprecedented unethical action, I choose to acknowledge our history and exercise a little perspective. Our system permits [relatively minor] abuses. Always has. Instead of whining about the latest manifestation of them, I'd rather point out that they are really quite common and advocate for reform of our political process.
I only really disagree with you on the contextual significance of the points you raise, not their content.
-
Point is, I hear all kinds of arguments that the CPC is evil because of __________________ [fill in the blank]. However, nothing they've done is new. It doesn't make it excusable, acceptable, or justified, but it makes it really difficult for me to be outraged because these things are a feature of our political system.
I've never said that the Conservatives are the first corrupt politicians. From my experience, however, that's no reason to give them a majority. The old Liberal government fell because conservatives across the country claimed that they were corrupt, and offered no accountability.
So they elect the CPC bring transparency and accountability to government. The CPC proves to waste even more money that the Liberals and make the government even more opaque and dishonest. So ... conservatives across the country give them a majority.
It's a double standard. Maybe conservatives feel they can't vote for any party that doesn't have the word "conservative" in their name. I know if the either the NDP or the Liberals got into power and proved to be corrupt, I'd switch my vote. Even if previous incarnations of that party had been labelled corrupt in the past. There is a turnover of politicians.
In this last election the Liberals were judged based on what their predecessor's did, even though the people responsible for past problems were gone. I even heard people bring up the NEP! Seriously, Trudeau's been dead (of old age) for a few years now and people still bring it up. Harper has been corrupt right up to the point of the election, and got away scott free.
-
*snip*
Obviously you're entitled to your opinions. There's very little that I can actually respond to in your post.
Clearly, the corruption narrative didn't resonate with voters (how else to take Ignatieff's local defeat, nevermind the Liberal decimation). Politics isn't the most rational discourse in this country. I hear your frustration, but it just isn't echoed by the mechanics of the way our political system elects MPs.
You're young yet. Political turnover happens regularly, even though it doesn't feel like it. Before you know it, someone else will be drawing the ire of political observers.
-
I'd rather you not bring my age into this discussion.
As for my opinions, don't believe for a minute that I am against changing my views on a topic. For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?
I certainly agree with you that political discourse isn't rational or well thought out.
-
For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?
My purpose here hasn't been to attempt to sway you (or anyone else) to vote one way or another. You are correct that I have been providing examples or perspective on the history of certain political behaviours in Canada. That was my point right from the beginning of this quasi-tangent: I was never saying the CPC was the best party to vote for; I was merely pointing out that the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding their behaviour is not being given the appropriate historical context. There is a lot of hysterical nonsense on the Canadian left about Harper being the demise of democracy, and historical fact simply does not bear out that assertion. That's all.
I get the feeling that you and Drogoth seem to think I'm a rabid CPC supporter. That, I assure you, is not even remotely the case. I'm just exercising a little perspective. I think I actually mentioned that my personal feelings don't support parties in general.
-
For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?
My purpose here hasn't been to attempt to sway you (or anyone else) to vote one way or another. You are correct that I have been providing examples or perspective on the history of certain political behaviours in Canada. That was my point right from the beginning of this quasi-tangent: I was never saying the CPC was the best party to vote for; I was merely pointing out that the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding their behaviour is not being given the appropriate historical context. There is a lot of hysterical nonsense on the Canadian left about Harper being the demise of democracy, and historical fact simply does not bear out that assertion. That's all.
I get the feeling that you and Drogoth seem to think I'm a rabid CPC supporter. That, I assure you, is not even remotely the case. I'm just exercising a little perspective. I think I actually mentioned that my personal feelings don't support parties in general.
No not at all, I dont think your a rabid CPC supporter, I just, disagree with you on certain things, but I like that you didn't get angry about it, and I feel like we had a good discussion. <--- The reason I favor minority parliaments even if my own party were to be the majority. Civil discussion. That is of course, provided our politicians can discuss things civilly and reasonably.
As for my particular position, I'm a Grit, through and through... and I live in Alberta. Its hard to find people who AREN'T conservative around here :(
--Edit
On the topic of age. Bleh. I missed eligible voting age by three months and I'm pretty raged about it
-
Let's vote for the Axem party!
This whole election sounds exactly like the US's.
-
@MP-Ryan: I never thought you where a rabid conservative either. I haven't actually met too many who are a rabid conservative. Just people who voted conservative without being able to articulate why. I wasn't sure if you were one of them or not
@Drogoth: I take it you're not from the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, then?
-
@MP-Ryan: I never thought you where a rabid conservative either. I haven't actually met too many who are a rabid conservative. Just people who voted conservative without being able to articulate why. I wasn't sure if you were one of them or not, and I
Hey, I am a rabid conservative and I am able to articulate why!
In all honesty though I think the conservatives in the US and probably Canada have gotten too far into the libertarian thing to the point where they've become liberals, and I'd be happy to vote for a center party as long as they didn't impose their stupid carbon taxes.
-
I don't think libertarians and liberals are all that compatible. A strong government that protect every citizen's rights and protect them from exploitation and oppression. Even women, immigrants, and members of the LGBT community. A weak or non-existent government couldn't do that...
-
You know you're a liberal when you make arguments based on rights as an end rather than a means. Like property rights.
Libertarians are closest to what the world "liberal" originally meant. Read Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me. The association of "liberal" with "social progressive" only really holds in the United States. In the rest of the world it retains it's original meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
-
Please elaborate on "rights as an end instead of a means". I'm unfamiliar with that phrase.
-
When you say "people shouldn't steal because that would destroy the incentive to work" you're speaking of the property right as a means to another end. When you say "don't steal his property because property is a right" you're treating property rights as an end in themselves. A similar example could be made about something like yelling theater in a crowded fire.
-
Not at all. Rights aren't something that we make just because we want to make them. Living in a community requires all of us to follow certain rules, so that society can run smoothly. These rules are both what we can do and what we can't do. If I have a right to freedom of speech, then my responsibility is to not interfere with another's freedom of speech. I don't think there are really natural rights, per say. I think that whatever a group of people value can be considered a right, provided everyone reciprocates.
For instance there are Health Care and The Right To Bear Arms. Both of these could be considered rights in a society, if the society feels that these issues are important. It's all a matter of fairness, and we primates put a lot of importance on fairness. It is in fact an important adaptation to community living.
We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.
p.s. You'll notice that I understand that you meant "shouting fire in a theatre". You probably knew that I meant liberal in the more common meaning ;)
-
We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.
I don't know if you speak for all liberals. In any case there are liberals, of both the classical and progressive type, who are quite adamant about upholding particular rights in all situations.
Take for instance the distinction between the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movement. The latter just wants to keep animals from harm, the former believes it's morally wrong to kill animals. Disregarding the whole you-kill-more-rats-harvesting-a-wheat-field-than-cows-from-making-a-hamburger shtick this shows how rights can go from means to ends or nearly so.
edit: But whatever, I'm just trying not to lose whatever debate we're in. I'm not trying to turn you into a warped troll.
-
@Drogoth: I take it you're not from the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, then?
Nope. Riding just west of Calgary, where the conservative candidate (Blake Richards) won with a handy 75% of the vote.
Allthough funny that you should bring up Edmonton-Strathcona as I think one of the reasons Linda Duncan was able to win there is the conservatives ran a campaign like half dead monkeys here. None of them showed up to their forums, there were a total of THREE campaign events held by any and all parties by any kind of high profile person - province wide. And all of them were around Edmonton. I think if the Liberals or the NDP attack the Conservatives pure casualness when it comes to Alberta we might not have a chance at winning - but we can begin to chip away at support, and if anything force to cons to go far right to show the more right wing in Alberta that they should still support them, and that will hurt Harper in the east. Obviously, we can't attack the conservatives policies in Alberta for now, because no matter how right we might be, 99 times of 100 it won't gain traction. People here still shout NEP for gods sake! But if the opposition parties emphasize how much the Cons take Alberta for granted (phrase like the cons only really care about Ontario) and that generates some serious backlash and the cons will have to address it - to the detriment of their holding in the east. We've got 4 years...
Let's chip away at the boulder
-
We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.
p.s. You'll notice that I understand that you meant "shouting fire in a theatre". You probably knew that I meant liberal in the more common meaning ;)
+1
Rights and a functioning society are co-dependent. One cannot exist without another, therefore rights are simultaneously inalienable and a means to an end.
As for classical liberals its an interesting debate but we were I think, referring to the Liberal Party of Canada, which sits center or center left.
When you get in classical liberal you have to get into both the economic and social spheres of debate and the odd thing is, these days the economic classical liberals (our cons) tend to be socially classically conservative and vice versa. I tend to be a stronger proponent of modern liberalism tempered with realism - center to center-left economic policy, and progressive social change. Classical liberalism generated quite a few problems anyways, when the value of god given rights was taken to far, freedom for example. Yes everyone is free, and this should be protected to our maximum capability, but you are not free to for example, steal from your neighbor. If we place such a high value on ALL rights, then what gives when contradictory facets of each right collide?