Canada Election 2011

[Mazmaz]

Great read on the second one. I do hope people start to wise up about these things no matter which party is in power. I really don't wanna end up like the US.

[aurik]

Just a little loaded.

[Jememy]

The smear campaigns on TV really piss me off. I can only assume the parties running these are gonna do the exact same shit they fear the other will do. Based on the adds so far I might vote Liberal but I'm really leaning toward putting Donald Trump on my voting sheet.

[Ddboner]

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

Quote Originally Posted by CBC
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.

The CBC is pro liberal?..... I never would have guessed....

/sarcasm off

Canadian media is a pathetic joke, especially the CBC. I wouldn't trust anything by them ever... That article looks like a classic case of cut and pasting out of context to further the writers agenda. I'm sorry but I'm supposed to call the conservative party hypocrites because of their ideology 25 years ago? Thanks CBC but I can draw my own conclusions about the conservative party's retartedness on my own. Whatever you want to think, the last election and this one are both a waste of our time and money. Forcing more Canadian's into political apathy mode.

The bullshit excuses of the "consortium" to keep the green party leader out of debates, again, is pretty obvious. Rogers, and Bell have this country's balls in a vice, and sadly they don't even bother hiding it now. Maybe they are afraid Elizabeth May will make Harper/Whoever that wet towel they have leading the liberal party look like unintelligent idiots again. Or I guess they just really want to look out for my best interest, by telling me what is and what isn't a legitimate political party.

Anyhow, I guess I'm pretty fired up because I am by no means a die hard conservative fan, but after the sponsorship scandal and Dion then Ignatieff as leaders, how can I trust the liberal party. The conservative, while hasn't run our country in the ground is seriously losing the whole "the Liberal party stole your money 8 years ago" shine and really needs to focus on their platform, not how retarded Ignatieff is. (Seriously, people need to stop trying to form my opinion on things...thanks, but I can do that on my own.... really, I can.) That leaves the NDP, bloc and all the random fringe parties.

In my opinion, that's the one of many huge issues in Canadian politics really. Most people vote "I don't want X leading my country therefor I have to vote Y, because Z (who I like) will never win any seats anyhow"...

It's a two party system, lets call a spade a spade here..

The second huge issue is that all the leaders, of every party, are clear full on liars.

How are Canadians not supposed to be apathetic?

Anyhow, that's my massively uninformed opinion on the political landscape, which I don't mind posting because I feel like most Canadians are pretty uninformed. We cannot trust Rogers, Bell, CBC to be unbiased. We can't trust any of the party leaders to present a truthful, honest platform either. It makes it very hard to vote for something you want, so I'll just do what most Canadians (I think at least) do and vote to cockblock something I don't want.

[Ratatapa]

I'm not voting

[Takedown3]

big fucking surprise u french piece of shit.

should make voting mandatory, works in Australia.

[Ratatapa]

Well well well takedown going back with his racism comment

Nothing new

[Takedown3]

being french is worse then any racist term that i could come up with for blacks or chinamen. if i'm being racist at all it's being directed at complete retards.

[Mytiwar]

big fucking surprise u french piece of shit.

should make voting mandatory, works in Australia.

I'm a french piece of shit and I'm voting.

Also, you guys hear aboot the conservatives saying they'll take everyone's money and invest a ridiculous amount of dineros (3 billion or something) into a power line connecting Newfoundland and New brunswick so that the Newfoundland can export eletricity to the U.S. and benefit from it? (Making them directly compete against Hydro-Quebec who's been doing just that for a long while now without any form of federal monetary support)

Edit: Nvm Takedown I see you're just trollin'...

unless you're really wearing a helmet right now.

[Ratatapa]

Takedown always had that attitude against me

That's life but what can you do, that guy loves to hate better people then him

[Takedown3]

I'm a french piece of shit and I'm voting.

Also, you guys hear aboot the conservatives saying they'll take everyone's money and invest a ridiculous amount of dineros (3 billion or something) into a power line connecting Newfoundland and New brunswick so that the Newfoundland can export eletricity to the U.S. and benefit from it? (Making them directly compete against Hydro-Quebec who's been doing just that for a long while now without any form of federal monetary support)

Edit: Nvm Takedown I see you're just trollin'...

unless you're really wearing a helmet right now.

nothing against french people, just against french people who are a complete waste of space. If you come in to a politcal thread and say 'LOL IM NOT VOTAN' you can have my dick.

You contribute you get a pass for being one of the cooler frencholes.

only semi-trollan btw

[Cadsuane]

I'm a french piece of shit and I'm voting.

Also, you guys hear aboot the conservatives saying they'll take everyone's money and invest a ridiculous amount of dineros (3 billion or something) into a power line connecting Newfoundland and New brunswick so that the Newfoundland can export eletricity to the U.S. and benefit from it? (Making them directly compete against Hydro-Quebec who's been doing just that for a long while now without any form of federal monetary support)

Edit: Nvm Takedown I see you're just trollin'...

unless you're really wearing a helmet right now.

Consider that Hydro Quebec buys power from the Labrador Churchill falls project. Now, since Quebec is the only place you can transmit power overland to from Labrador, they have a monopsony over that power. Naturally, Quebec Hydro prohibits Newfoundland from transmitting through Quebec and selling to the US or the rest of Canada, buying all the power itself instead at criminally low rates, while it sells power to the US through Ontario at very high rates. Billions flow into Quebec, scant millions into Newfoundland.

It's not as if Hydro Quebec hasn't been benefiting enormously off Newfoundland since fucking forever. The fact that they've been doing so is the only reason the lower Churchill project was delayed indefinitely.

[Mytiwar]

Naturally, Quebec Hydro prohibits Newfoundland from transmitting through Quebec and selling to the US or the rest of Canada

What company would ever permit such a thing?

Ok guys you can use our infrastructures and sell to our only clients through it. Sounds like a fair deal!

And the fact Quebec has been profiting from the labrador churchill falls project is another issue entirely and it's far more complicated than you make it seem.

[aurik]

You are dumb if you are supporting the rent-seeking behavior that Que Hydro is exhibiting.

"No you can't use our infrastructure. Also, you're not allowed to build your own. Oh and we'll buy your product for a pittance and resell it at a huge markup!"

Quebec is corrupt as shit, as usual. What do you expect from a province that elects a party whose entire reason of being is to benefit itself at the direct expense of the rest of Canada.

[Cadsuane]

You are dumb if you are supporting the rent-seeking behavior that Que Hydro is exhibiting.

"No you can't use our infrastructure. Also, you're not allowed to build your own. Oh and we'll buy your product for a pittance and resell it at a huge markup!"

Quebec is corrupt as shit, as usual. What do you expect from a province that elects a party whose entire reason of being is to benefit itself at the direct expense of the rest of Canada.

There's not much else to say really, except to note that Quebec still considers Labrador part of its territory to an extent that it's amazing the IOC iron mining in Labrador isn't similarly fucked having to ship by rail to sept-illes.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...f-6a8b7d004957

[Mytiwar]

Sigh.
No I don't support everything Hydro Quebec is doing, they are a company after all and are seeking profit over everything else. I'm just saying it would be extremely counter productive, for a company, to freely allow direct competition (actually providing direct competition in this case) over their own product.

And as an individual, I refuse to pay money from my own pocket to fund a project that will be detrimental to my own province's economy. (Paying taxes to fund newfoundland's exportation of electricity, if anyone isn't following)

Please people, start seeing things as they would be if you lived here instead of just jumping on the "nobody cares aboot Quebec" bandwagon train. You'd be pissed about the whole Harper idea.

For the record, I don't think Hydro Quebec has been very fair with Newfoundland's hydroelectricity projects for a long time now, and ultimately I would be delighted if they both would reach some sort of agreement where they'd sell electricity to Hydro Q for a reasonable amount of dineros but let's face it, it's a company world and it's not gonna happen.

My point is, using federal dollars to fund a project that is good for a province but detrimental to another is a very very very bad idea, no matter what the province is.

[Cadsuane]

It's only detrimental to Quebec to the extent that it's detrimental to not be able to fuck Newfoundland up the ass with a contract of dubious legality. Policy that corrects that isn't just equitable and ethical, it's economically a no-brainer since the lower churchill project could proceed more quickly creating the single largest hydroelectric project in Canada (it's already the second largest). What is the power share in Quebec nowadays anyway? Time was Churchill alone was enough to power the entire province.

Seriously fuck Quebec and fuck the Quebecois. We actually have to deal with the sort of anti-federalist sentiment that argues against a policy that would create 100s of billions of dollars of revenue for the federation and further cements Newfoundland as a have province in Canada, the kind of anti-federalism that insists everyone be worse off so one group can be slightly relatively better off.

[aurik]

So stupid.

"This situation is patently unfair and everybody knows it. But it would be a terrible idea to fix it, because then how will Quebec benefit at the expense of others?!?!"

Also if you don't want your province's money to be invested in building the infrastructure, that's fair enough, but you must also waive the rights to the return on the investment which will probably return hundredfold.

[Bikpik]

The Lower Churchhill project that Newfoundland has in the works will bypass Quebec and go through Nova Scotia, so fuck Quebec

Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Churchill_Project

[Takedown3]

fuck quebec is right, and i dont even give a shit about newf hydro.