Canada Election 2011

[Mytiwar]

I find it rather amusing that the conservatives often play the fear card in ads or whatever and the other parties never resort to it. We're Canadians, we aren't supposed to like the fear card, we're supposed to notice when it's being played and hate the player.

I guess not though, as he's still on his way to majority. . .

[Thoronas]

Thought this was an interesting tool to see where I stand on different topics and how my answers relate to the different parties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...1/votecompass/

[Chips]

Leftist economic liberal! wooo

[aurik]

That's funny, the compass pegs me as a liberal and I'm anything but. I'd vote green before I'd vote liberal.

[Chips]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vqyfY7cZPk

[Mytiwar]

That's funny, the compass pegs me as a liberal and I'm anything but. I'd vote green before I'd vote liberal.

Tells me I'm Bloc Quebecois and i'd rather lose my left nut than vote for Duceppe.

Seems like if you live around people voting massively for a party the compass forces you to vote for them <.<

[Bikpik]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-fees-954.html

A good move by the NDPs

[WrenDraco]

Tells me I'm Bloc Quebecois and i'd rather lose my left nut than vote for Duceppe.

Seems like if you live around people voting massively for a party the compass forces you to vote for them <.<

Can't be, I live in an extremely Conservative riding and it still pegged me Liberal. Even though I tend to vote NDP.

[Mazmaz]

The compass is dumb because it pretty much asks you which party you like best at the end lol.

PS. I think the Liberal plan was much better than the NDP plan

[Mazmaz]

Thoughts on Elizabeth May being excluded from the leaders' debate?
The given justifications are obviously laughable.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...onsortium.html

The broadcast consortium has confirmed the dates and location for the federal election leaders' debates have been set with the parties, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is still not invited.

In a statement Wednesday evening, the consortium confirmed that it and the four federal parties represented in the House of Commons have reached an agreement.

"The leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have agreed to participate in the debates as organized by the broadcasting consortium," said the networks, which are comprised of CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA.

The English television debate will take place on April 12. The French debate will take place two days later on April 14. Both debates will occur in Ottawa.



"The decision was based on the application of journalistic principles, and the fact that the Green Party has never elected a member to Parliament," the statement said.

"The consortium has also considered in its decision that leaders' debates are not the only opportunities for a party to gain access to the airwaves during an election campaign."

Conservative sources told CBC News that their party was open to any format and interested in a modification of the traditional process. The sources said their representatives proposed to include an hour of debate between Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, but in the end accepted the traditional format with some one-on-one engagement at the beginning of each segment.

Debate over debate dominates campaign trail

The consortium's initial invitation to the four leaders triggered a fierce debate on the campaign trail Wednesday over whether May should be included, as well as the consortium's control over the events.


Conservative Leader Stephen Harper also said he was willing to debate Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff one-on-one after Ignatieff said he would debate Harper face-to-face "any time, any place."

That prompted NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to accuse the Liberals and Conservatives of being anti-democratic. Duceppe also said the move toward a two-leader debate was an attempt to exclude Quebec.

As for her exclusion, May said the broadcasters are trying to silence a leader who will talk about climate change, First Nations issues and foreign policy.

"There are issues that will be raised when my voice is in the debates, and there will be issues that will be shut down if my voice is shut down. And that's anti-democratic," May said in Vancouver.

"What the media is essentially saying to the Canadian public is, as journalists, we're telling you who is a serious political party and who isn't. And that is not the role of journalists."

May has hired lawyer Peter Rosenthal to help her fight her case and argue the airways are public, not owned by broadcasters.

[plue]

If this country elects conservatives again, I've lost hope for the future of mankind. Honestly though, all the parties are pretty crap (yet again). Layton is a dipshit with a mustache, Bloc is a fucking joke, Ignatieff just looks like he's totally useless, and I don't understand why the green party even exists...

EDIT:

Duceppe also said the move toward a two-leader debate was an attempt to exclude Quebec.

Fucking lol'd at this, just give it up you idiots...

[aurik]

It's very likely the conservatives are headed for another minority government. Which is why spending hundreds of millions on an election right now is a pretty big waste of money. They don't seem to get it, that most people are actually pretty content right now. The economy is recovering, the government isn't pushing through any massively contentious legislation, the Libya situation is seemingly being handled well, we just came off of a very successful Olympics which did wonders for our national pride.

The only people upset and appalled at the "Harper government" are the people who are always upset and appalled when their party of choice isn't in power.

[Amiricle]

It's very likely the conservatives are headed for another minority government. Which is why spending hundreds of millions on an election right now is a pretty big waste of money. They don't seem to get it, that most people are actually pretty content right now. The economy is recovering, the government isn't pushing through any massively contentious legislation, the Libya situation is seemingly being handled well, we just came off of a very successful Olympics which did wonders for our national pride.

The only people upset and appalled at the "Harper government" are the people who are always upset and appalled when their party of choice isn't in power.

This. Every poll I've seen shows/predicts no more than a 2-3% sway, and we will very likely end up with a minority conservative government yet again, making this shit a giant waste of time and money.

[Mazmaz]

It's very likely the conservatives are headed for another minority government. Which is why spending hundreds of millions on an election right now is a pretty big waste of money. They don't seem to get it, that most people are actually pretty content right now. The economy is recovering, the government isn't pushing through any massively contentious legislation, the Libya situation is seemingly being handled well, we just came off of a very successful Olympics which did wonders for our national pride.

The only people upset and appalled at the "Harper government" are the people who are always upset and appalled when their party of choice isn't in power.

Fucking lol at trying to take credit for Olympics. I live in Vancouver, the Feds didn't have anything to do with that shit get outta here.
As for the rest of it, we've already had this debate 2 pages back so fuck it.

[Thoronas]

Fucking lol at trying to take credit for Olympics. I live in Vancouver, the Feds didn't have anything to do with that shit get outta here.
As for the rest of it, we've already had this debate 2 pages back so fuck it.

I don't think he's saying the Conservatives are responsible for the Olympics, more that Canadians are relatively content and the Olympics are partially the cause of that.

[Skjie]

I don't think he's saying the Conservatives are responsible for the Olympics, more that Canadians are relatively content and the Olympics are partially the cause of that.

The problem is too many Canadians see the current situation, figure that the party currently in the PMO must be running everything well, and vote for them. When the reality is that most things that have been going on that Canadians feel are good have very little to do with the current Government. Case in point is the guy a few posts back who feels good about the Tories because his street is getting paved, when every single government of any stripe is throwing money at make work projects to get out of the recession.

[Anton]

Case in point is the guy a few posts back who feels good about the Tories because his street is getting paved

Hello.

, when every single government of any stripe is throwing money at make work projects to get out of the recession...

As you rightly said, you can offset the effects of impending employment doom by starting a bunch of government make-work projects. It averages out the initial pain of the crunch using time and some public money, ultimately it helps calm the rout down and gets "confidence" - money flows, borrow, spend, lend - back that much sooner.

In other words,

Canadians see the current situation, figure that the party currently in the PMO must be running everything well, and vote for them

[Syntex]

I read this as Canada Erection 2011.

Carry on...

[Cadsuane]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...coalition.html

Here's a little test: what would the Conservatives do if they found a clip of Michael Ignatieff calling Canada a "benign dictatorship?"

Right: they'd put it in an attack ad.

Another test: what would the Liberals do if they caught Stephen Harper saying that?

Right: nothing. At least, that's what they've done with it so far.

So, let's consider that obscure but intriguing article, written in 1997 by two brainy conservatives, Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper. Yes, it calls Canada "a benign dictatorship."

Oh, and it's a passionate defence of coalition governments.

That's right: the whole article is a detailed, persuasive and deeply-researched plea for governments to be forced to compromise with opposition coalitions. That's the only way, said Harper and Flanagan, to curb the tendency to a "one-party state" induced by Canada's "winner take all" system.

At the time, Harper was on a break from active politics, working at the National Citizens' Coalition. When he returned as Opposition leader, Flanagan became Harper's chief of staff in 2003 and became campaign co-chair in the 2004 election.

Their article is lucid, but it's way too long for the Age of Twitter. In fact, it's a slog. But for political geeks, it's a fascinating review of the Canadian scene, asking, why can't we have a system like those in Europe, where coalitions prevent governments riding roughshod over their critics?

Here's how Flanagan and Harper begin:

"Although we like to think of ourselves as living in a mature democracy, we live, instead, in something little better than a benign dictatorship, not under a strict one-party rule, but under a one-party-plus system beset by the factionalism, regionalism and cronyism that accompany any such system. Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities."

What do they mean by "update our political structures?"

It emerges that Harper and Flanagan wanted a "strategic alliance" of opposing parties to dislodge the Liberals, aided by reforms of the electoral system to ensure that those parties get more seats in Parliament.

For examples of superior democratic systems, they point to the Clinton administration's forced cohabitation with a Republican Congress after 1996, and to numerous European examples. Only Britain, they say, gives all power to the winner. (And even that example no longer holds. It's another coalition country now.)
The TV pitch

Harper's views on all this were not confined to academic articles. He laid them out forcefully in a 1997 interview with Paula Todd of TVO:

"The way the Liberals are eventually going to lose office," he said, "whether it's this election or the next one, is they are going to fail to win a majority. And that's where you're going to face someday a minority Parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats."

And the solution was — wait for it — a coalition! Never mind that the other guys won more seats.

"What will be the test is if there is any party in opposition that's able to form a coalition, a working one with the others, and I think we have the political system that's going to continue to have 3 or 4 different parties, or 5 different parties, and so, I think, parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to work together."

Asked about his past enthusiasm for coalitions, Harper sidestepped this week by saying he was just talking about 'uniting the right" — namely, his plan to merge the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties.

But that's not what he said at the time. In his article with Flanagan, he said the opposite:

"A merger between Reform and the PCs, though still discussed, seems to us out of the question. Too many careers would be at stake. Political parties almost never merge in the true sense of the term, and the gap between today's opposition factions is simply too great."

Well, times change. Another aspect of the article has attracted comment: the suggestion that an alliance of anti-Liberal forces might include a Quebec separatist faction. A careful reading shows the article doesn't rule that in or out.

It says "a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government."

A Quebec nationalist isn't necessarily a separatist. They're not the same thing. But "nationalists" don't have a party in Parliament; separatists do. The article does suggest that conservatives might have "little choice" but to deal with the separatist party — the Bloc — as the only political formation able to join such an alliance where it counts — in Parliament — along with the Reform and the PCs.

As the article puts it, "conservatives who are unhappy with a one-party-plus system featuring the Liberals as the perpetual governing party may have little choice but to construct an alliance, at least of the two anglophone sisters, and perhaps ultimately including a third sister. An alliance would face many difficulties, to be sure, but it would also have two great advantages. It would reflect the regional and cultural character of Canadian society, and it would give that character an institutional expression."

So - they're not saying an alliance with the "third sister" from Quebec would be easy, but it would have "advantages." Of course, the main advantage would be the possibility of replacing a Liberal minority, as Harper described in his TVO interview.

Now, talking about it in a pamphlet is one thing. As the Conservatives point out, Michael Ignatieff did more than talk about it — he signed the Liberal coalition agreement with the NDP - which, while it did not include the Bloc as a member, nevertheless enjoyed its support. That sounds a lot like the "strategic alliance" that Harper and Flanagan recommended in 1997. In 2004, of course, Harper did enter into a strategic alliance with the NDP and the Bloc, but that alliance did not actually attempt to topple the government.

The leaders of both the NDP and the Bloc both say Harper had that in mind. Harper says he didn't. Either way, it didn't happen.

The upshot? Stephen Harper is right to say that he never tried to seize power from a party which won more seats — which he now says is "illegitimate."

But he sure did think about it — and approved of it. He didn't think it was "illegitimate" when he was the one who came in second.

[Cadsuane]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226030310248

ON Friday, the minority Stephen Harper government fell on a confidence motion by a 156-145 vote. Speaking to the motion, Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff attacked the government for disrespecting Canadian democracy and treating parliament with contempt.

The myth of Canada being dull is captured in the apocryphal story that in an international competition for the most boring news headline of the year, the winning entry was "Yet another worthy Canadian initiative".

Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy.

The centralisation of power in the hands of the prime minister and political staffers - with the resulting diminution of the role and status of cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians - is common to Anglo-Saxon democracies in Australia, Britain, Canada and the US, but the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been worn away in Canada is cause for concern.

A minister told parliament she did not know who had altered a document that cut funding to a foreign aid group. Later, she admitted to ordering the changes, but did not know who had carried out the order. Lying to parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic.

Following rulings by Speaker Peter Milliken, for the first time in Canadian history, the government and a minister have been found to be in contempt of parliament for withholding information and misleading the house.

The Integrity Commissioner was so inept that she failed to uphold a single one of more than 200 whistle-blowing complaints.

Forced out of office by the ensuing public outcry, she was awarded a $C500,000 severance package on condition that neither she nor the government talk about it.

That is, a public servant paid by the taxpayer was financially gagged by yet more taxpayer money to stop taxpayers finding out what was going on.

When a foreign service officer blew the whistle on the Canadian military handing over detainees to Afghan security forces, in likely violation of international humanitarian law, the government tried to destroy him and refused to give documents to a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker reminded the government parliament controlled cabinet, not the other way round.

After the last elections, when the opposition parties were close to agreement on a coalition majority government, rather than face the house in a vote of confidence, Harper talked the governor-general into shuttering parliament for a month until he shored up his own support.

When the time came to choose a new governor-general, Harper opted for someone who had carefully drawn up terms of an inquiry commission to exclude the potentially most damaging aspects of a scandal involving a former conservative prime minister.

Four conservatives have been charged with exceeding campaign spending limits in the 2006 election that put Harper into power. A minister used public office and material to pursue party-political goals of courting ethnic vote banks for the conservatives.

Having come into office on campaign promises of greater transparency and accountability, Harper has silenced civil servants and diplomats, cynically published guidelines on how to disrupt hostile parliamentary committees, and suppressed research that contradicts ideologically-driven policy, for example data that show crime rates to be falling.

Judges who rule against the pet causes of the government's ideological base are not immune to attacks from cabinet ministers.

Civil society groups that criticise any government policy or ideology risk loss of funding and hostile takeovers by boards stacked with pro-government ciphers.

Little wonder Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin describes the government's "arc of duplicity" as "remarkable to behold". What remains unclear is whether this adds up to an indictment of Canadians' indifference to democratic rights being curtailed or of the opposition parties, which have failed to harness the silent majority's outrage.

As Canadians head for the polls in early May, it remains to be seen whether Liberal Party charges of the Harper government being obsessed with secrecy, control, spin and attack ads will resonate with voters. Until then, Oh Canada, we cry our hearts for thee.

Ramesh Thakur is professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and adjunct professor, Institute of Governance, Ethics and Law, Griffith University