It's Election Season in Canada(?)

Who would you vote for?


  • Total voters
    94
Closest to Liberals, though not far off from the Bloc and Greens. Though I thought I would get a bit higher on Social liberalism.

 
The compass shows me a bit closer to social conservatism than I would have thought though. Must have been those immigrant/Quebec questions :lol:

Indeed, it seems to be really easy to get a middle-ground social score, most likely because of the Quebec issues.
 
Not to derail the thread, but it is somewhat related to the topic and not worth a separate thread:
Why is it that Quebec wants to be independant, or at least have a far greater amount of autonomy? I know that they are heavily French, but is simple cultural differences enough for them to get a large enough party?
 
Basically cultural differences as well as historical differences and events that have caused Quebec to consider themselves very different from Anglophone Canada.

EDIT: From what I understand.
 
Not to derail the thread, but it is somewhat related to the topic and not worth a separate thread:
Why is it that Quebec wants to be independant, or at least have a far greater amount of autonomy? I know that they are heavily French, but is simple cultural differences enough for them to get a large enough party?

I find most anglophone Canadians are very blind to the past in this regard. They see it as francophones just not getting over losing the 7 year's war (as evidenced by the post preceding this) and there not being much more to it.

After gaining Quebec from the French, the British did indeed pass some rather liberal laws for the place, ensured the right of the population to remain Catholic for instance. But for the next 200 years, Quebec was not treated fairly. Unlike every other Province, Quebec was never asked to join Canada. The French-speaking population was limited in upwards social advancement, while all the upper class was anglophone.

A lot of radicals in Quebec would compare their plight to blacks in America. I think that's an exaggeration, but not a wholly unfair comparison when talking about economic opportunity (perhaps a much better comparison would be the class disparity in Northern Ireland).
 
A lot of radicals in Quebec would compare their plight to blacks in America. I think that's an exaggeration, but not a wholly unfair comparison when talking about economic opportunity (perhaps a much better comparison would be the class disparity in Northern Ireland).
It's more than an exaggeration - it's utterly ludicrous. There are (and never have been, to my knowledge) any public places in English Canada sporting signs saying that French speakers are not allowed on the premises. I've never heard of anybody ever being lynched merely for speaking French.

I have heard, on the other hand, of a janitor at a Quebec school being fired for speaking French with a Spanish accent. As for economic opportunities... the federal civil service requires its employees to be bilingual. Some western Canadians see that as a ridiculous requirement, given the relatively small number of Francophones out here who would require French-only services. There are far more people who would benefit from English and Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Cree bilingualism in this part of the country, or English/Inuit bilingualism in the Territories.

Part of the cultural divide also comes from the Riel Rebellions. Louis Riel tried to get fair treatment for the Metis (French/Indian people)... and he was eventually hanged as a traitor, in 1885. I've never thought it right that he was executed - in fact, he is the only elected member of the Canadian Parliament to ever have been killed. I'm one of the Western Canadians who considers that he was not merely executed - what was done to him amounts to a political assassination.
 
What I am trying to address is the root of the separatist movement. You're listing reactions to that movement. For all the complaining I hear about Quebec and language laws, I never once hear any acknowledgement of why the situation has come about. I'm not a fan of language laws, nor am I a fan of Quebec being given special treatment in regards to immigration, or being able to black mail the rest of the country for more favourable terms. But I'm not going to pretend they're acting the part of a spoiled child. Like I said, the comparison to the economic disparity in Northern Ireland is much more apt.
 
:wallbash: Aaaagh! Not another Quebec separation discussion!!!!!!! :wallbash:
 
Quebec is such a boring issue.
 
Boring, overdone and irrelevant to this election. Not even the Bloc is talking separatism.
 
Also, let us have a moment of silence in respect for Roger Abbott of Air Farce who passed away last night. :(

I met him once, a very nice man.
 
What I am trying to address is the root of the separatist movement. You're listing reactions to that movement. For all the complaining I hear about Quebec and language laws, I never once hear any acknowledgement of why the situation has come about. I'm not a fan of language laws, nor am I a fan of Quebec being given special treatment in regards to immigration, or being able to black mail the rest of the country for more favourable terms. But I'm not going to pretend they're acting the part of a spoiled child. Like I said, the comparison to the economic disparity in Northern Ireland is much more apt.
As a Western Canadian, I can't help but understand the reactions more than the roots. :huh: I do know that there was a time when francophones were not well-treated. However, it's not Western Canada's fault that Duplessis controlled Quebec the way he did. Western Canada didn't create that stifling environment - it was elements that existed in Quebec that did that. And yes, I do think that 250 years is a long enough time to at least partially get over a war that actually started in Europe, not here. If we hold on to grudges that happened because of events in 1759, we'll get into the Middle Eastern mindset - they fight because they can't let go of grudges that are thousands of years old! At least we brought our fighting down to a dull roar; it's been ~40 years since anybody was killed in the cause of separatism.

I'm glad that separatism won't be (hopefully) any noticeable part of this election. Believe it or not, if not for that one flaw, I could really respect Duceppe. He had a lot of good ideas in some of the recent elections, and I remember thinking how sad it was that he leads a party that wants to harm the country, because otherwise he'd have made a decent Prime Minister.

EDIT:

Also, let us have a moment of silence in respect for Roger Abbott of Air Farce who passed away last night. :(

I met him once, a very nice man.
Oh, damn. :(

How did he die?
 
Not to derail the thread, but it is somewhat related to the topic and not worth a separate thread:
Why is it that Quebec wants to be independant, or at least have a far greater amount of autonomy? I know that they are heavily French, but is simple cultural differences enough for them to get a large enough party?

It basically comes down to protecting/preserving a cultural heritage that many feel is under threat, real or not. In order to do so, they've had to implement some draconian laws (e.g. language of instruction, signage, etc.) that put the province at odds with constitutional rights and thus the Federal government. Solutions to this impasse have so far been through greater autonomy, but not without attempts at outright secession.

As for economic opportunities... the federal civil service requires its employees to be bilingual. Some western Canadians see that as a ridiculous requirement, given the relatively small number of Francophones out here who would require French-only services. There are far more people who would benefit from English and Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Cree bilingualism in this part of the country, or English/Inuit bilingualism in the Territories.

There's no doubt a 'glass ceiling' for unilingual public servants wishing to rise through the ranks to senior positions where operational requirements demands bilingualism, but that's not the Federal government's problem so much as it is theirs.

Boring, overdone and irrelevant to this election. Not even the Bloc is talking separatism.

Agreed.
 
Sadly, the start of the campaign has degenerated into a pissing match between Harper and Ignatieff about coalitions, which is rubbish and then some, for two main reasons:

First is that both the Conservatives and Liberals have attempted coalitions in the past, so it is hypocritical for them to accuse each other whilst playing innocent.

Second, and more importantly, there's nothing wrong with forming coalitions. It's well within the realm of our Parliamentary rules, and has already happened at the provincial level in this country, and there is currently a coalition government in the UK. (@ Arwon, have there ever been any coalition governments in Australia?)

People are saying that it is undemocratic, but that claim is crap, and strong evidence of how little Canadians understand their own system of government.

In a coalition, all elected members of Parliament remain elected members of Parliament. No unelected people are brought in. Add to that, since a coalition increases the number of represented voters on the government side of the house, it's actually more democratic.
 
Yes a coalition is undemocratic, but 37% of the population voting in a government is okay :lol:

I really wish Iggy hadn't bitten on this bait. I'm not sure if he could have ignored Harper's claims, but being on the defensive isn't doing him any favours.

Aussies have a long tradition of right-of-centre coalitions. That's actually, I think, the norm in Australia.
 
Yeah, the traditional two sides of Australian politics are Labor and the Coalition. The Coalition has existed for decades - every conservative government has therefore been a coalition unified mostly around being anti-Labor.

The two components of the anti-Labor coalition are the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Nats are a country-based party who have seats in NSW, QLD and Victoria. The Libs are national, more urban, more liberal and theoretically free markety (though not really), but they also exist rurally in South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia and parts of the other states.

We usually don't even really bother distinguishing them, the distinction is really only relevant in Queensland (the one state the Nats are bigger than the Libs). They've actually merged into the liberal National Party in Queensland, with the Nationals as the senior partner. In the Northern Territory they jointly became the Country Liberal Party in like the 1970s.

It gets a little weirder at a state parliament level - in Western Australia and South Australia there is no coalition, and in SA the Nationals helped Labor form a minority government a few years ago, while the WA Nats currently support a minority Liberal government in WA. When the WA Nats got a federal member last year, he announced he wouldn't sit in party room meetings with the Coalition or the federal Nationals and would not be bound to vote along party lines with the other Nationals. The WA Nationals have a weird history and could be politely be described as the feral branch of the party. The South Australian Nationals barely exist, having won like 2 seats ever.

This isn't to say, though, that formal coalitions are the norm when no party wins an absolute majority of seats.

When the Greens, or independents, have gotten the balance of power at a state or federal level, there hasn't been a formal coalition set up (whatever News Limited hacks say about the current situation) the result has been a looser arrangement of supporting a minority government on confidence and supply, sometimes drawing up some sort of temporary accord type arrangement on certain policy or reform issues. The WA Nationals and Liberals have now set up the same arrangement on the right.

This looser arrangement has occurred in nearly every Australian state at one point or another, and is now the norm in Tasmania and the ACT, where minority governments are a regular feature of our multi-member proportional representation system.
 
Top Bottom