Democracy in Canada shut down
- Thread starter sysyphus
- Start date
I don't quite follow how this tangent came about. Seems to be veering off into the hypothetical, and I'll leave it at that. Sorry..
All I can say is that I'd trust them more to 'do the right thing' (e.g. climate change) or at least work on finding broad consensus on whatever. Layton and the NDP, because of I forget what, is struck out as being too disagreeable in their politics.
In any case, they'd have to prove their worthiness by at least being more assertive, coherent, clear on the alternative that they have to offer. Which isn't the case for the Liberals at the moment.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
From what I gather, Harper's more a fascist disciple.eoc said:
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Dude, what don't you understand?
Three premises:
1) A: Layton has enough seats to be PM
2) If A then B: If Layton has enough seats to be PM, then he becomes PM
3) If B then C: If Layton were PM, then he would be a better PM than Harper
Conclusion
4) C: Layton would be a better PM than Harper
The three premises were not mentioned as they were thought to be completely self-evident. You started arguing about Layton not having enough support to be PM, which showed that you failed to assume the missing premises. I have been trying since to explain one of the simplest freaking statements of all time. Layton would be a better PM than Harper.
As for Harper proving himself, what has he done and what will he do? As soon as the stimulus runs out they will probably just cut taxes and slash spending on useful things. That isn't particularly good policy. I would rather have a Liberal government with policies not defined in advance than one with the knee-jerk Conservative ideology of Harper. The worst the Liberals can do is mimic the policies Harper would have carried out, but to a lesser extent. That is basically what happened in the Chretien-Martin era. Manning and Day would have been worse. The Liberal Party hasn't really changed much from that time and neither has the Refor... er... Canadian Allia.... er.. Conservative Party.
Three premises:
1) A: Layton has enough seats to be PM
2) If A then B: If Layton has enough seats to be PM, then he becomes PM
3) If B then C: If Layton were PM, then he would be a better PM than Harper
Conclusion
4) C: Layton would be a better PM than Harper
The three premises were not mentioned as they were thought to be completely self-evident. You started arguing about Layton not having enough support to be PM, which showed that you failed to assume the missing premises. I have been trying since to explain one of the simplest freaking statements of all time. Layton would be a better PM than Harper.
As for Harper proving himself, what has he done and what will he do? As soon as the stimulus runs out they will probably just cut taxes and slash spending on useful things. That isn't particularly good policy. I would rather have a Liberal government with policies not defined in advance than one with the knee-jerk Conservative ideology of Harper. The worst the Liberals can do is mimic the policies Harper would have carried out, but to a lesser extent. That is basically what happened in the Chretien-Martin era. Manning and Day would have been worse. The Liberal Party hasn't really changed much from that time and neither has the Refor... er... Canadian Allia.... er.. Conservative Party.
History has already proven you correct on this point, most notably Tommy Douglas during the Pearson government.
If anyone wants to know what we're in for with the Harper government, review the Mike Harris government in Ontario. The Harper government has many of the players from the Harris years, including Flaherty, Baird and Clement.
In short, Harris was a disaster for this province. He ripped the health and education systems to shreds and grew the deficit after claiming he'd eliminate it, downloaded a mass of responsibility to the municipalities without giving them any additional revenue or means to raise it themselves, all for a pittance in tax cuts. Now we have long queues at doctor's offices and hospitals, a poorly educated generation with all of the social problems that come with that, and cities that can barely afford to function.
People are kidding themselves if they think that there is any Progressive Conservative element to the CPC. They've all gone or been kicked out.
The CPC should be better known as the RHM party (Reformers, Harrisites and Mackay).
Absolutely nothing.
Oerdin
Deity
I dunno, unrealistic hypothetical scenarios have never been my cup of tea. Again, sorry for not having been able to entertain the idea?
That's why I only reluctantly support the status quo after all that's happened last year. Whatever cuts that may come about in the future can, and maybe even should, only happen under a minority government. Ideally with an opposition ballsy enough to say and vote 'NO', as opposed to abstaining/absenteeing.
Those'd be good enough reasons to shut them out provincially, but other than that, not much more than a bogeyman of what could happen under a Conservative majority..
This isn't about punishing them for past transgressions in Ontario, it's about preventing them from doing the same damage to the whole country.
As I said, the same ideology and many of the same characters. There's every reason to believe that we'll get more of the same, this time hitting the entire country. It can already be seen in some respects. The listeriosis outbreak has many parallels to the Walkerton disaster.
Sadly, the Harper government plays the "least bad of a bad bunch" card to retain power, and maintain it through smear campaigns. They are in fact, the worst of a medicore bunch.
What they did in Ontario isn't relevant to anyone else outside of the province, IMHO and TBQH. Besides Western Canada, the remnant bulk of their seats come from Ontario. It thus seems that Ontarioans either have a short memory, what was done really wasn't all that bad and/or couldn't quite be pinned to ON Conservatives, or that they agreed with most of what was done enough to vote for them again.
It's not so much Harper playing cards to retain power as it is the opposition ultimately propping up his government time and again.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Actually in Ontario, the large wealth-producing centres are being screwed over by rural and small town areas that vote more heavily Conservative. The real problem lies in the Alberta cities, which strangely vote against the rest of the urban areas, tilting the balance of power.
What is really surprising is that rural and small-town/city Southern Ontario voted as Liberal as it did for as long as it did, federally. The Canadian Alliance needed to change their uniform and allude to the past CPC to win the fools over.
What is really surprising is that rural and small-town/city Southern Ontario voted as Liberal as it did for as long as it did, federally. The Canadian Alliance needed to change their uniform and allude to the past CPC to win the fools over.
Could be that the Liberals have long since only held a plurality of votes necessary to elect an MP in an FPTP electoral system, thanks to a fractured 'right', but eventually met their maker when the right-wing political parties were finally united as the CPC.
Similar to how the Bloc dominates most Quebec ridings or the Cons. out west, I guess.
Similar to how the Bloc dominates most Quebec ridings or the Cons. out west, I guess.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Very true, but the same could be said today about people voting Conservative in Ontario. This has also applied to BC in a very big way. Certainly way more so than in Alberta where it generally is heavily Conservative, except for pockets in the cities which don't show up in the relatively large federal ridings.
Still, having any Liberals ever elected in rural Ontario is hugely different than Alberta. People are more likely to vote Green than Liberal in lots of areas.
Still, having any Liberals ever elected in rural Ontario is hugely different than Alberta. People are more likely to vote Green than Liberal in lots of areas.
Liberals still suffer from the 'western alienation'/Trudeau NEP thing out west, I gather? I don't think they've ever addressed what was done, or what they propose to do with the current second oil boom, being a start for them to start making gains there.
I honestly don't think Alberta is any moreso Conservative than the rest of the country, but is actually an exception because of past politics affecting the province in particular (i.e. WA/NEP). That, along to do along with extensive voter fatigue, protest votes, etc.
I honestly don't think Alberta is any moreso Conservative than the rest of the country, but is actually an exception because of past politics affecting the province in particular (i.e. WA/NEP). That, along to do along with extensive voter fatigue, protest votes, etc.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
@Kerozine. It is incorrect to generalize the west so strongly. BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are very different than Alberta. BC is kinda indifferent and snotty about the rest of the country, but the federal Liberal Party is not demonized for perceived wrongs to Alberta. It is a far more competitive three-way race, which the Conservatives happen to be a bit ahead in at the moment. Manitoba and Sask have some heavy NDP roots which preclude the Liberals doing too well, but I don't think the brand is demonized like in Alberta.
To a certain extent it really is a brand thing. To Albertans, the Liberal brand is toxic and by default the Conservatives are the home team. In Ontario, things are far more fluid. In my experience, if you interrogate people on individual issues, they aren't that different. The non-unionized Ontario work force seems just as hostile as in Calgary. People seem just as aroused by the idea of selling off the LCBO and the utilities, and they are just as critical (if not more so) of a perceived anti-car agenda (except in the heart of Toronto). Yet you ask them who they support, and there is a good chance it is still Liberal. The heat David Miller gets from everyone... I can't believe it.
Two big differences: Unionized industries still exist and there is the Toronto Star, which is simply a godsend.
To a certain extent it really is a brand thing. To Albertans, the Liberal brand is toxic and by default the Conservatives are the home team. In Ontario, things are far more fluid. In my experience, if you interrogate people on individual issues, they aren't that different. The non-unionized Ontario work force seems just as hostile as in Calgary. People seem just as aroused by the idea of selling off the LCBO and the utilities, and they are just as critical (if not more so) of a perceived anti-car agenda (except in the heart of Toronto). Yet you ask them who they support, and there is a good chance it is still Liberal. The heat David Miller gets from everyone... I can't believe it.
Two big differences: Unionized industries still exist and there is the Toronto Star, which is simply a godsend.
lol
classical_hero
In whom I trust
You read too much into what I said. I was just making a statement of fact, not a judgement call. Some people say that it was the right thing to do and others will say that is was not. As in the famous line from the previous PM, "God may save the Queen, but nothing will sae the Govoner General."
I think there are too many checks and balances to stop that from ever happening. Typically in Australia we have had very stable governments and generally one party in is for at least two terms in office, being six years. So the situation in Canada is unlikely in Australia, since we have a different set up.
Until the current government came into power, we too had stable governments. The fact that Australia has dodged this kind of situation is due to the characters who have been elected up until now.
Our two systems of government are fundamentally the same. The only significant differences are that your senate is elected and you use the STV voting system. Neither of those provides any significant protection to our current situation.
If someone comes in who is hell bent on pushing the limits to the system agaisnt a weak enough opposition, they will do so. Your public is no less gullible than ours.
Does Australia have fixed election dates? Or is it like Canada, where the government can be brought down at any time that a vote of non-confidence happens?
We usually had stable governments. I still remember the "18-cent-a-gallon election" that brought down Joe Clark in 1979. His government lasted less than a year, if I recall correctly. Not that I'm upset that the Liberals got back into power (although I suppose I should be, if I'm to be a sufficiently
It wasn't until we had the absurd circumstance of the Bloc Quebecois as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the Reform/Alliance essentially hijacking the real Conservative Party that the federal governments started to destabilize, with people realizing we could actually have these crazy situations and the country wouldn't explode.
But it still doesn't make for good government, the Conservatives think people are so short on memory that they don't remember when Harper did the very thing he accuses the Opposition of doing (trying to form a coalition government), and there is still the Ultimate Threat of some province using the notwithstanding clause to disallow significant legislation (ie. the same-sex marriage law).
Some days I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Even in Alberta, people are fed up with the Conservatives to the extent that two MLAs crossed the floor to the Wild Rose party - which is basically just a more religious form of the Conservatives.
