Let's talk about the issues, eh?
August 7, 2015 7:12 AM Subscribe
There was a another major political debate last night. It was held in Canada, between the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens. It may have produced less bang and flash than the US Republican primary debate, but there was an important divide between the two parties most likely to win, the neo-liberal ruling Conservatives and the previously socialist NDP.
But we didn't learn what any of the candidates talked about with God the last time they were on the phone.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:41 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:41 AM on August 7, 2015
There was another debate of some kind last night?
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 7:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 7:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Greens are quite strong in Greater Victoria. The Green constituency and organizing team elected the current mayor of the City of Victoria last fall, and the same organizing team is working hard to elect Jo-Ann Roberts as a Green MP in the federal riding of Victoria.
It's going to be a close race. The current MP, the NDP's Murray Rankin, beat his Green competitor by just 2 percentage points in the by-election a couple of years ago. There is visceral hatred between the Green and NDP camps in Victoria, that's for sure.
From my point of view, Murray Rankin has a lot more experience and, dare I say it, intellect than Jo-Ann Roberts.
I do wonder if Elizabeth May will succeed in getting re-elected in Saanich / Gulf Islands. It's a four-way race between the Cons, Libs, NDP and the Greens there, in what has traditionally been a Conservative riding for the past 25 years or so.
posted by Nevin at 7:49 AM on August 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's going to be a close race. The current MP, the NDP's Murray Rankin, beat his Green competitor by just 2 percentage points in the by-election a couple of years ago. There is visceral hatred between the Green and NDP camps in Victoria, that's for sure.
From my point of view, Murray Rankin has a lot more experience and, dare I say it, intellect than Jo-Ann Roberts.
I do wonder if Elizabeth May will succeed in getting re-elected in Saanich / Gulf Islands. It's a four-way race between the Cons, Libs, NDP and the Greens there, in what has traditionally been a Conservative riding for the past 25 years or so.
posted by Nevin at 7:49 AM on August 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
I thought Elizabeth May did wonderfully last night
Me too, I'm traditionally an NDP guy but May was the only one that didn't take the "my audience is stupid" approach. Frankly to me it seemed like she absolutely trounced the others, but I guess she was just speaking my language or something because none of the "commentators" seemed to take any notice...sigh
Fuckin Harper. When they brought up changing first-past-the-post, he's all "hey relax guys we got this Westminster system, it works", then 10 minutes later he's all "ya but fuck the senate tho right guys?" and even later he's trying to tell us that the Westminster system doesn't have a tradition of coalitions despite the fact that the original fucking Westminster system had been running under a coalition for like 5 years up until like 2 months ago.
posted by Hoopo at 7:56 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Me too, I'm traditionally an NDP guy but May was the only one that didn't take the "my audience is stupid" approach. Frankly to me it seemed like she absolutely trounced the others, but I guess she was just speaking my language or something because none of the "commentators" seemed to take any notice...sigh
Fuckin Harper. When they brought up changing first-past-the-post, he's all "hey relax guys we got this Westminster system, it works", then 10 minutes later he's all "ya but fuck the senate tho right guys?" and even later he's trying to tell us that the Westminster system doesn't have a tradition of coalitions despite the fact that the original fucking Westminster system had been running under a coalition for like 5 years up until like 2 months ago.
posted by Hoopo at 7:56 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Elizabeth May was the big winner of the debate, in part because she had the least to lose - she's not going to lose her seat in Saanich-Gulf Islands (especially when the Tory she unseated, who was her only real competition, isn't running again - and she's the incumbent now, and her office has been very good at constituent service from all accounts) and she knows that Harper will try to avoid debating ever again, so she used her time to relentlessly attack him on substance - which made her appear much more intelligent and competent to govern. She came across as more economically knowledgeable than Harper did during the economy portion of the debate, and during end comments pointed out the numerous important issues that weren't discussed and which should be, which earned her a lot of respect across the political spectrum. It was an amazing, gutsy, brilliant debate performance and the Greens might actually pick up one or two seats as a result (most likely in BC).
Thomas Mulcair did reasonably well. He started out very stiff but relaxed as the debate went on and became more natural. His big weakness was exposed badly last night - which is that a lot of the NDP's support in Quebec does have at least slightly separatist leanings since they're crossover voters from the Bloc, the voters who aren't hardcore separatists by any means but are entirely willing to use the threat of separatism to get Quebec more stuff. He has to pander to them at least a bit, and that can hurt him with English Canada. On the other hand, that was the worst attack Harper and Trudeau could throw at him and he weathered it quite acceptably. His relentless opposition on C-51 is going to be a big winner for the NDP because Canadians really don't like that bill, and his tax message (slight increase in corporate taxes, no increase in personal taxes) probably isn't realistic but it's what many Canadians like to hear. He's positioned the NDP well for a minority or even majority government so far.
Trudeau was okay at best. He absolutely flailed on C-51 and weirdly attacked Mulcair for being afraid for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is as insane an attack as it sounds. He's got the Trudeau charisma and he comes across as likeable enough, but also came across as slightly over-rehearsed. That having been said, his best moment was during the Clarity Act stuff when Mulcair kept needling him about "what number" over fifty percent was needed for a referendum to succeed and he yelled "NINE" and explained that nine Supreme Court Justices had said that fifty-one percent wasn't enough. It was humanizing and made him look knowledgeable. But that C-51 stuff is going to hurt the Grits a lot and I don't know how Trudeau can get around it, because he gets flak from both the Tories and the left for indecisiveness.
Harper got bloodied but he stuck to his game plan, which was blatant lying. Lying about how good Canada's economic record is compared to the rest of the G7, lying about Canada's carbon emissions decreasing (they aren't), lying about his economic proposals, lying about the other parties' proposals. Not spin, lying. But it doesn't matter, because Harper has decided to run a bubble campaign - he's only going to interact with supporters at planned events, he's going to refuse to debate as much as possible, he's going to avoid the media. It's not actually the wrong strategy from a tactical standpoint, because his record is bad and every time he gets questioned by an even slightly neutral party he looks worse. He's relying on lack of voter knowledge and turning out the base. It has a chance of working.
posted by mightygodking at 7:57 AM on August 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
Thomas Mulcair did reasonably well. He started out very stiff but relaxed as the debate went on and became more natural. His big weakness was exposed badly last night - which is that a lot of the NDP's support in Quebec does have at least slightly separatist leanings since they're crossover voters from the Bloc, the voters who aren't hardcore separatists by any means but are entirely willing to use the threat of separatism to get Quebec more stuff. He has to pander to them at least a bit, and that can hurt him with English Canada. On the other hand, that was the worst attack Harper and Trudeau could throw at him and he weathered it quite acceptably. His relentless opposition on C-51 is going to be a big winner for the NDP because Canadians really don't like that bill, and his tax message (slight increase in corporate taxes, no increase in personal taxes) probably isn't realistic but it's what many Canadians like to hear. He's positioned the NDP well for a minority or even majority government so far.
Trudeau was okay at best. He absolutely flailed on C-51 and weirdly attacked Mulcair for being afraid for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is as insane an attack as it sounds. He's got the Trudeau charisma and he comes across as likeable enough, but also came across as slightly over-rehearsed. That having been said, his best moment was during the Clarity Act stuff when Mulcair kept needling him about "what number" over fifty percent was needed for a referendum to succeed and he yelled "NINE" and explained that nine Supreme Court Justices had said that fifty-one percent wasn't enough. It was humanizing and made him look knowledgeable. But that C-51 stuff is going to hurt the Grits a lot and I don't know how Trudeau can get around it, because he gets flak from both the Tories and the left for indecisiveness.
Harper got bloodied but he stuck to his game plan, which was blatant lying. Lying about how good Canada's economic record is compared to the rest of the G7, lying about Canada's carbon emissions decreasing (they aren't), lying about his economic proposals, lying about the other parties' proposals. Not spin, lying. But it doesn't matter, because Harper has decided to run a bubble campaign - he's only going to interact with supporters at planned events, he's going to refuse to debate as much as possible, he's going to avoid the media. It's not actually the wrong strategy from a tactical standpoint, because his record is bad and every time he gets questioned by an even slightly neutral party he looks worse. He's relying on lack of voter knowledge and turning out the base. It has a chance of working.
posted by mightygodking at 7:57 AM on August 7, 2015 [23 favorites]
The three-way mid-to-left split versus the hammerlock of the Conservatives of every right-wing voter in the country gives me the heebie-jeebies, again. I hope we don't wind up with another repeat of the last election, where the Conservatives won a majority in Parliament with less than 40% of the vote.
posted by Shepherd at 7:57 AM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Shepherd at 7:57 AM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
My impression as an American:
Harper was smirking the whole time, and clearly thought he was way too important to be there
Mulcair seemed wonky and not fully comfortable; it seemed obvious from the way he looked at the camera and how stilted his gestures sometimes were that he had only recently gotten media training for an event like this. Still, it didn't come off badly -- it added to his wonky, trustworthy old uncle vibe. He seemed like a nerd who isn't great at TV.
Trudeau was very sleek and EXCELLENT at pivoting to his talking points, which gave me the impression that he didn't have as much substance as the other two men. I don't know if that was true, or just because I am so alert to the pivot (as I have had media training on how to pivot myself), it made me feel like he had less of substance to say.
May seemed clearly not to be running for PM, but determined to get her agenda on the national agenda, and I thought she did a really good job of that. She was tenacious, clear, demanding, and she returned to her major points over and over again. People who watched the debate will remember the points she made (even if they don't remember that she made them).
Also I learned that the sickest burn one Canadian politician can give another is, "He says one thing in English and the opposite in French."
I really liked watching -- Parliamentary debate really gives these guys a lot more confidence with the debate format than American politicians exhibit, and even when everyone was trying to talk at once, it sorted itself out pretty quickly and never got incoherent or irritating. Of course of particular interest to me as an American were discussions of energy policy and trade policy (w/r/t America), to see how different Canadian governments might affect my country, so I paid closer attention to those sections and I feel like I learned a lot, especially about the TPP and the Keystone pipeline.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 AM on August 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
Harper was smirking the whole time, and clearly thought he was way too important to be there
Mulcair seemed wonky and not fully comfortable; it seemed obvious from the way he looked at the camera and how stilted his gestures sometimes were that he had only recently gotten media training for an event like this. Still, it didn't come off badly -- it added to his wonky, trustworthy old uncle vibe. He seemed like a nerd who isn't great at TV.
Trudeau was very sleek and EXCELLENT at pivoting to his talking points, which gave me the impression that he didn't have as much substance as the other two men. I don't know if that was true, or just because I am so alert to the pivot (as I have had media training on how to pivot myself), it made me feel like he had less of substance to say.
May seemed clearly not to be running for PM, but determined to get her agenda on the national agenda, and I thought she did a really good job of that. She was tenacious, clear, demanding, and she returned to her major points over and over again. People who watched the debate will remember the points she made (even if they don't remember that she made them).
Also I learned that the sickest burn one Canadian politician can give another is, "He says one thing in English and the opposite in French."
I really liked watching -- Parliamentary debate really gives these guys a lot more confidence with the debate format than American politicians exhibit, and even when everyone was trying to talk at once, it sorted itself out pretty quickly and never got incoherent or irritating. Of course of particular interest to me as an American were discussions of energy policy and trade policy (w/r/t America), to see how different Canadian governments might affect my country, so I paid closer attention to those sections and I feel like I learned a lot, especially about the TPP and the Keystone pipeline.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:05 AM on August 7, 2015 [20 favorites]
He's relying on lack of voter knowledge and turning out the base. It has a chance of working.
It has more than a chance, at this point it's a tried-and-true strategy for him.
posted by Hoopo at 8:10 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
It has more than a chance, at this point it's a tried-and-true strategy for him.
posted by Hoopo at 8:10 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Shepherd: I hope we don't wind up with another repeat of the last election, where the Conservatives won a majority in Parliament with less than 40% of the vote.
Winning a majority with less than 40%-or-so of the vote has been a typical feature of Canadian politics ever since the NDP was founded, for both the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Eyebrows McGee: Also I learned that the sickest burn one Canadian politician can give another is, "He says one thing in English and the opposite in French."
Back in the day, that was a usable (and sometimes useful) strategy.
posted by clawsoon at 8:16 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Winning a majority with less than 40%-or-so of the vote has been a typical feature of Canadian politics ever since the NDP was founded, for both the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Eyebrows McGee: Also I learned that the sickest burn one Canadian politician can give another is, "He says one thing in English and the opposite in French."
Back in the day, that was a usable (and sometimes useful) strategy.
posted by clawsoon at 8:16 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lying about how good Canada's economic record is compared to the rest of the G7
I saw that bit. Then stopped watching for the three seconds necessary to search the web for the economic stats that confirm it was deliberate deception or complete incompetence, nowhere near close enough he could've been understandably mistaken. Then I kind of lost interest. If Stephen Harper keeps his promise to not show up for the traditional TV debates that people are actually going to watch, maybe Donald Trump could fill in and keep us entertained by explaining how childhood vaccination causes political correctness.
posted by sfenders at 8:17 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I saw that bit. Then stopped watching for the three seconds necessary to search the web for the economic stats that confirm it was deliberate deception or complete incompetence, nowhere near close enough he could've been understandably mistaken. Then I kind of lost interest. If Stephen Harper keeps his promise to not show up for the traditional TV debates that people are actually going to watch, maybe Donald Trump could fill in and keep us entertained by explaining how childhood vaccination causes political correctness.
posted by sfenders at 8:17 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I miss Jack Layton so much.
posted by Sternmeyer at 8:21 AM on August 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Sternmeyer at 8:21 AM on August 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
The debate was a weird mix of utterly boring and rage-inducing. And Eyebrows, I think your assessment of Trudeau is spot-on.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:21 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:21 AM on August 7, 2015
I thought it was too bad the debates were and will continue to be male-dominated. But it was interesting how Rachel Notley did play a significant role in the discussion about the debates.
posted by Nevin at 8:22 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by Nevin at 8:22 AM on August 7, 2015
I didn't watch last night - I just can't handle paying attention to this yet, after a provincial election in the spring. But as a result of that provincial election, I might just be living in a city/province that is considered "in-play" at the federal level for the first time in a very very long time, so this might get entertaining close to home.
Looks to me like the Conservative Strategy is simply to rally the base in the hopes that getting them out will win enough seats to form another majority, and that might just work. I keep having to explain to my mother-in-law, who is outraged by many of the things Harper is saying so far, that he doesn't care about her and her opinion - he cares about making sure that everyone who voted Conservative last time hears and gets out to vote - it doesn't matter whether what he is saying is true or not, or whether it is offensive or not, he's signaling the base and that's all that counts from the Conservative perspective.
Trudeau and the Liberals just don't do it for me, for whatever reason - he's got charisma, but I find the Liberals not well thought out on some of policy stuff. I need to have a closer look at what Mulcair is saying, and I've always liked May, so it will probably come down to looking at the policies of both parties and seeing what the local candidate is like (and the NDP candidate pool in Alberta right now is very, very thin - they are still nominating in 23 of the 34 ridings).
Anyways, a transcript from last night, and Maclean's election issues primer.
posted by nubs at 8:25 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Looks to me like the Conservative Strategy is simply to rally the base in the hopes that getting them out will win enough seats to form another majority, and that might just work. I keep having to explain to my mother-in-law, who is outraged by many of the things Harper is saying so far, that he doesn't care about her and her opinion - he cares about making sure that everyone who voted Conservative last time hears and gets out to vote - it doesn't matter whether what he is saying is true or not, or whether it is offensive or not, he's signaling the base and that's all that counts from the Conservative perspective.
Trudeau and the Liberals just don't do it for me, for whatever reason - he's got charisma, but I find the Liberals not well thought out on some of policy stuff. I need to have a closer look at what Mulcair is saying, and I've always liked May, so it will probably come down to looking at the policies of both parties and seeing what the local candidate is like (and the NDP candidate pool in Alberta right now is very, very thin - they are still nominating in 23 of the 34 ridings).
Anyways, a transcript from last night, and Maclean's election issues primer.
posted by nubs at 8:25 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
My thing about Trudeau is C51. Voting in favour of that unconstitutional and anti-Canadian monstrosity is unforgivable, period.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:26 AM on August 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:26 AM on August 7, 2015 [17 favorites]
It has more than a chance, at this point it's a tried-and-true strategy for him.
It's worked before, but in the face of Liberal-fatigue (2006), weak opposition (2008) and truly unprecedented votesplitting (2011). This time he's going up against challengers who are ready and who are hungry, and most of Canada realizes that the Tories have simply not been particularly good at governance (and that is the best-case description). And this time around, the Liberals and NDP are ready to form a coalition government if the Tories don't get a majority.
It's a cynical strategy and it can work. I don't think it can work as well this time.
posted by mightygodking at 8:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's worked before, but in the face of Liberal-fatigue (2006), weak opposition (2008) and truly unprecedented votesplitting (2011). This time he's going up against challengers who are ready and who are hungry, and most of Canada realizes that the Tories have simply not been particularly good at governance (and that is the best-case description). And this time around, the Liberals and NDP are ready to form a coalition government if the Tories don't get a majority.
It's a cynical strategy and it can work. I don't think it can work as well this time.
posted by mightygodking at 8:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm actually getting tempted to go door-knocking for the NDP
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:30 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:30 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Trudeau and Harper did about as well as you'd expect of them, Trudeau perhaps a little better than expectations. It doesn't matter though, as he's not really important at the moment. He didn't really change the all talk, no substance perception for me.
May did fine, but as said above, she doesn't really have a chance to change her position, unless something radical happens.
Mulcair held ground, but didn't excel, which is what he needs to do to capitalize on his momentum. He loosened up toward the end, but he seemed too scripted at the start. The trick to a good debate is not to just barf up your talking points---that's defense, that's all Harper ever does in these things. Stephen is terrible at debates, the worst PM we've had under those lights for decades. Mulcair needs to show some of the fire and adroitness he has in Question Period. He was getting there, but he still needs to find his voice.
posted by bonehead at 8:45 AM on August 7, 2015
May did fine, but as said above, she doesn't really have a chance to change her position, unless something radical happens.
Mulcair held ground, but didn't excel, which is what he needs to do to capitalize on his momentum. He loosened up toward the end, but he seemed too scripted at the start. The trick to a good debate is not to just barf up your talking points---that's defense, that's all Harper ever does in these things. Stephen is terrible at debates, the worst PM we've had under those lights for decades. Mulcair needs to show some of the fire and adroitness he has in Question Period. He was getting there, but he still needs to find his voice.
posted by bonehead at 8:45 AM on August 7, 2015
Trudeau was very sleek and EXCELLENT at pivoting to his talking points, which gave me the impression that he didn't have as much substance as the other two men.
Trudeau can pivot, but he doesn't know how to pirouette. If he can learn that....
posted by bonehead at 8:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Trudeau can pivot, but he doesn't know how to pirouette. If he can learn that....
posted by bonehead at 8:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
My thing about Trudeau is C51. Voting in favour of that unconstitutional and anti-Canadian monstrosity is unforgivable, period.
I'm acutally kind of hoping to catch my Conservative MP at the door. I would like to ask her why they scrapped the long gun registry, since privacy issues and "criminalizing" law-abiding citizens was a big part of that, and then how she justifies bill C-51.
posted by nubs at 8:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm acutally kind of hoping to catch my Conservative MP at the door. I would like to ask her why they scrapped the long gun registry, since privacy issues and "criminalizing" law-abiding citizens was a big part of that, and then how she justifies bill C-51.
posted by nubs at 8:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
So what is the deal with the NDP removing references to socialism from their charter? The linked article said that the phrase "democratic socialism" was preserved (rather than just the weaker "social democracy"), so this is in fact not as big a deal / as big a shift to the right as it seems, right? Or did official opposition status bring with it an influx of new members who are to the right of where the party's historically been?
(apologies for the super-basic questions; when I get busy with work, I stop following international politics as closely as I'd like... and I've been busy for a while...)
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:03 AM on August 7, 2015
(apologies for the super-basic questions; when I get busy with work, I stop following international politics as closely as I'd like... and I've been busy for a while...)
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:03 AM on August 7, 2015
The Calgary Sun's giant-word-for-the-subliterate front page headline today is something about the debate being a draw, so it seems pretty clear that Mulcair must have won.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:32 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:32 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mulcair may have won, but who is actually paying attention in August? Obviously low voter turnout amplifies every vote for the Conservatives, and I suspect one reason we are experiencing the longest election since the founding of Stadacona or whatever is to turn people off the relentless nattering about politics, and keep them at home on election night (which seems like it is going to be held on Christmas Eve, it's so far away).
So, thank you Stephen Harper.
Also: living in Victoria, I don't think Elizabeth May is necessarily a shoo-in for re-election. Saanich Gulf Islands is a 4-way race.
posted by Nevin at 9:37 AM on August 7, 2015
So, thank you Stephen Harper.
Also: living in Victoria, I don't think Elizabeth May is necessarily a shoo-in for re-election. Saanich Gulf Islands is a 4-way race.
posted by Nevin at 9:37 AM on August 7, 2015
Buick: As I understand it, the change in language was about using terms that matched where the NDP platform had been for a while. But it took place at a time when the NDP was also engaged in a debate about whether to shift towards the centre, and intra-party tensions were generally high.
Wikipedia's definition of democratic socialism seems pretty well in line with the NDP platform, supporting the viewpoint that the change isn't a big deal.
Some of the old-school NDP supporters I know are viewing Mulcair with a lot of side-eye for moving towards the centre, and they very much want their party of conscience back, with its small caucus and ideological purity. The removal of the word socialism was a thorn in their sides, but not nearly as much as supporting TPP, being cozy with Israel, de-emphasizing the poor and the homeless, etc.
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:45 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wikipedia's definition of democratic socialism seems pretty well in line with the NDP platform, supporting the viewpoint that the change isn't a big deal.
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. Sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is added to distinguish democratic socialism from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism.But after Jack Layton's death, there was also an internal NDP debate about where the party should go: whether to expand towards the centre and pick up more votes or whether to stay true to their roots. In the leadership race, Brian Topp was more supportive of the true to our roots wing of the party, but he lost to Mulcair. A recent bio of Mulcair from the Ottawa Citizen says that the expansion towards the centre was a project that began under Layton, but that could be a bit of revisionist history for all I know.
Some of the old-school NDP supporters I know are viewing Mulcair with a lot of side-eye for moving towards the centre, and they very much want their party of conscience back, with its small caucus and ideological purity. The removal of the word socialism was a thorn in their sides, but not nearly as much as supporting TPP, being cozy with Israel, de-emphasizing the poor and the homeless, etc.
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:45 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
National Observer: How Harper Will Win The Election
Harper & the Tories win by micro-targeting that 1/10th of all the ridings which can be flipped Conservative or retained Conservative by slim margins: that is their obvious, unabashed strategy for a decade and it works very well. They win ridings by surprisingly few votes (it happened in our riding) and JFC, people, every vote counts so vote suppression and relying on people's apathy works a treat. They really DGAF about anyone else - their core base are extremely reliable & reliably turn out to vote, lefties will never vote for them and are much more unreliable voters anyway who split between the other parties - so they have piles of money to focus relentlessly on the relative handful of voters who will win it for them.
The only defense the people really have against this is strategic voting and in my experience many Canadians either do not understand this (why it's important b/c first-past-the-post) or think it is somehow unprincipled/wrong/bad. Then they are upset when the Tories win again and tweak the rules so they can keep winning, handwave all the unethical things they did to win and pass more laws ensuring severe long-term damage to the country.
I continue to cross my fingers for an orange wave that results in an NDP gov't rather than a CCRAP majority like 2011 - we are due for a wide-enough backlash after almost a decade of Harper's damage. Or for Trudeau to get his head out of his ass re: a Lib-NDP coalition... I spent a couple years thinking Trudeau could manage it, he was young & had the name and slick optics, but he fucked up bad on C-51 and hemorrhaged many of his "realistically our best chance" and "hold-my-nose" left/progressive votes.
But I am very scared the Fair Elections Act will provide enough voter suppression that Harper will eke it out again. I am so hoping the conditions are just right (tanking loonie, recession, dissatisfaction, a groundswell of time-for-a-change bolstered by Mulcair pulling off a soundbite or two at exactly the perfect time to sweep the nation) that we will finally get Harper out but I am not holding my breath and I am so sad and angry about that.
posted by flex at 9:50 AM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Harper & the Tories win by micro-targeting that 1/10th of all the ridings which can be flipped Conservative or retained Conservative by slim margins: that is their obvious, unabashed strategy for a decade and it works very well. They win ridings by surprisingly few votes (it happened in our riding) and JFC, people, every vote counts so vote suppression and relying on people's apathy works a treat. They really DGAF about anyone else - their core base are extremely reliable & reliably turn out to vote, lefties will never vote for them and are much more unreliable voters anyway who split between the other parties - so they have piles of money to focus relentlessly on the relative handful of voters who will win it for them.
The only defense the people really have against this is strategic voting and in my experience many Canadians either do not understand this (why it's important b/c first-past-the-post) or think it is somehow unprincipled/wrong/bad. Then they are upset when the Tories win again and tweak the rules so they can keep winning, handwave all the unethical things they did to win and pass more laws ensuring severe long-term damage to the country.
I continue to cross my fingers for an orange wave that results in an NDP gov't rather than a CCRAP majority like 2011 - we are due for a wide-enough backlash after almost a decade of Harper's damage. Or for Trudeau to get his head out of his ass re: a Lib-NDP coalition... I spent a couple years thinking Trudeau could manage it, he was young & had the name and slick optics, but he fucked up bad on C-51 and hemorrhaged many of his "realistically our best chance" and "hold-my-nose" left/progressive votes.
But I am very scared the Fair Elections Act will provide enough voter suppression that Harper will eke it out again. I am so hoping the conditions are just right (tanking loonie, recession, dissatisfaction, a groundswell of time-for-a-change bolstered by Mulcair pulling off a soundbite or two at exactly the perfect time to sweep the nation) that we will finally get Harper out but I am not holding my breath and I am so sad and angry about that.
posted by flex at 9:50 AM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
Anyways, I came in here to join in the praise for Elizabeth May. I thought she did a great job of being wonky but understandable, and proving that she's no dummy even though she's a minor-party leader. And she was cagy: Her strongest hits on Mulcair were on a Vancouver-area pipeline where, not coincidentally, her party has the best odds of electing more MPs.
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:55 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by Banknote of the year at 9:55 AM on August 7, 2015
Some of the old-school NDP supporters I know are viewing Mulcair with a lot of side-eye for moving towards the centre,
It's interesting that the NDP in Canada has basically become a Blairite party, even as UK Labour is about to split between Blairite and more traditionally socialist factions.
On the other hand, traditionally in Canada the only thing that really differentiates the NDP and the conservative movement is social policy. In BC in particular, union-affiliated voters in the old mill and smelter towns swing between conservative and NDP. Both parties tend to run on unsophisticated populist platforms. They have the same economic policy, basically.
posted by Nevin at 9:55 AM on August 7, 2015
It's interesting that the NDP in Canada has basically become a Blairite party, even as UK Labour is about to split between Blairite and more traditionally socialist factions.
On the other hand, traditionally in Canada the only thing that really differentiates the NDP and the conservative movement is social policy. In BC in particular, union-affiliated voters in the old mill and smelter towns swing between conservative and NDP. Both parties tend to run on unsophisticated populist platforms. They have the same economic policy, basically.
posted by Nevin at 9:55 AM on August 7, 2015
May is... problematic. She can sound great in scripted and controlled situations, but she drinks far too heavily from the lunatic fringe for my liking. She's in favour of homeopathy, thinks wifi is dangerous, she was a 9/11 Truther, she's called the right for women to chose abortion "frivolous", and on and on. She's done a lot for the Greens in terms of getting them on their feet as a real party, but in other ways she's a real millstone for them.
posted by bonehead at 10:04 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 10:04 AM on August 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I agree with everything everybody has said about May outright winning, with Trudeau doing little but putting on a very rehearsed performance, Harper lying through his teeth and Mulcair being stiff. I did love that he got Harper to admit we're in a recession. I hope that gets played on the news today.
But what I really want to do is complain about the format. I'm getting really fed up with recent debates filling the time with video clips and bumpers and man-on-the-street questions, and this one was even worse. Fine it's the Maclean's debate, but I don't need to see ads for you magazine every few minutes ("look, we wrote about the topic!"). I don't need to have facebook (or whatever social media site it was--I started flipping channels during those segments) tell me who was winning. I really don't need to see videos of people tweeting while watching themselves being interviewed during the debate.
If they didn't waste time with all that crap, maybe there would have been opportunities to speak about how this country treats its First Nations members, or how to evolve the medicare system, or any number of other issues that should be important during this election.
Besides the last thing these politicians need is breaks in the middle of the debate. Keep the pressure up on them and keep sending questions their way. That's what I want in a debate.
posted by sardonyx at 10:11 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
But what I really want to do is complain about the format. I'm getting really fed up with recent debates filling the time with video clips and bumpers and man-on-the-street questions, and this one was even worse. Fine it's the Maclean's debate, but I don't need to see ads for you magazine every few minutes ("look, we wrote about the topic!"). I don't need to have facebook (or whatever social media site it was--I started flipping channels during those segments) tell me who was winning. I really don't need to see videos of people tweeting while watching themselves being interviewed during the debate.
If they didn't waste time with all that crap, maybe there would have been opportunities to speak about how this country treats its First Nations members, or how to evolve the medicare system, or any number of other issues that should be important during this election.
Besides the last thing these politicians need is breaks in the middle of the debate. Keep the pressure up on them and keep sending questions their way. That's what I want in a debate.
posted by sardonyx at 10:11 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's very weird to work in an office full of Conservative voters who go off book by talking to me--their sole American Democrat employee--about the recognition of class and poverty, the distress of not being very environmental in Canada anymore, and their anguish at ole Steve's obsession with keeping Canada safe. I just want to go, "You know, you don't HAVE to vote Conservative. I'm just sayin'."
posted by Kitteh at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 10:16 AM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
I am also hoping (and will be so delighted if) Harper's long-election-campaign strategy bites him in the ass if it ends up giving enough time to build NDP support so they actually win it... that's just a nice long stretch of media attention and opportunities for people to get used to the idea of an NDP prime minister, for Mulcair to smooth up his image (he needs work but did okay in the debate so there's potential), and for the media to report how the NDP are steadily gaining in the polls which will get more swing voters on board - it happened in 2011 after all - the NDP went from 36 to 103 seats!
People follow the crowd - people like a winning team... but mostly people want hope we can really, actually, finally get Harper out and I think something that got potential voters excited to get out and vote would swing it. Harper is blatantly using a neo-con Republican playbook... but in the US that created a groundswell for Obama.
posted by flex at 10:21 AM on August 7, 2015
People follow the crowd - people like a winning team... but mostly people want hope we can really, actually, finally get Harper out and I think something that got potential voters excited to get out and vote would swing it. Harper is blatantly using a neo-con Republican playbook... but in the US that created a groundswell for Obama.
posted by flex at 10:21 AM on August 7, 2015
While I agree May did an admirable job I don't know if anybody shone for me. Mulcair faltered at the start but found his footing, Trudeau had some good zingers towards Mulcair with the Clarity Act & the Beard's bilingual two faced pipeline statements, and Harper's smirk kept me from actually watching (listened to the audio only for the sake of my sanity). In short, nobody changed my opinion of themselves or their parties. Though Harper's Netflix tax commercial made me hate him more.
I didn't notice this linked above but this article is useful:
Fact-checking 7 claims in the leaders debate
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:22 AM on August 7, 2015
I didn't notice this linked above but this article is useful:
Fact-checking 7 claims in the leaders debate
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:22 AM on August 7, 2015
I thought Mulcair was supposed to be the angry bulldog but really dialed it down towards calm and measured (in a good way) at the start. It turns out everyone else but me just thought he sounded stiff and unnatural. Mulcair and Trudeau going at each other over the Clarity Act and making Harper look good in comparison kind of bothered me though.
posted by The arrows are too fast at 10:26 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by The arrows are too fast at 10:26 AM on August 7, 2015
Mulcair may have won, but who is actually paying attention in August?
From an American perspective, knowing that your election is just a little over two months away, I laugh so, so bitterly at the contrast.
posted by psoas at 10:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
From an American perspective, knowing that your election is just a little over two months away, I laugh so, so bitterly at the contrast.
posted by psoas at 10:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mulcair and Trudeau going at each other over the Clarity Act
Talking about the Clarity Act was a distraction. No one should be talking about it - this election is about getting rid of Harper. Though Trudeau was right about calling Mulcair on his bilingual flip flopping in regards to the pipelines.
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:31 AM on August 7, 2015
Talking about the Clarity Act was a distraction. No one should be talking about it - this election is about getting rid of Harper. Though Trudeau was right about calling Mulcair on his bilingual flip flopping in regards to the pipelines.
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:31 AM on August 7, 2015
I'm getting really fed up with recent debates filling the time with video clips and bumpers and man-on-the-street questions...
Oh, God, the polls. "According to a self-selecting, unrepresentative sample of people on Facebook, 65 per cent say..." Nobody fucking cares!
Those breaks were the worst.
posted by Banknote of the year at 10:35 AM on August 7, 2015
Oh, God, the polls. "According to a self-selecting, unrepresentative sample of people on Facebook, 65 per cent say..." Nobody fucking cares!
Those breaks were the worst.
posted by Banknote of the year at 10:35 AM on August 7, 2015
The Calgary Sun's giant-word-for-the-subliterate front page headline today is something about the debate being a draw, so it seems pretty clear that Mulcair must have won.
Keep in mind that the Calgary Sun, like every other major newspaper in Canada, is now owned by Postmedia. Don't expect it to have the independent troglodyte editorial line that it had in the past.
posted by clawsoon at 10:40 AM on August 7, 2015
Keep in mind that the Calgary Sun, like every other major newspaper in Canada, is now owned by Postmedia. Don't expect it to have the independent troglodyte editorial line that it had in the past.
posted by clawsoon at 10:40 AM on August 7, 2015
I find it amazing that Harper attacks Trudeau for having no prior experience before running for PM, and attacks Mulcair for having too much political experience... when Harper himself had no prior experience before running for PM, and has more political experience than Mulcair. No wonder he's smirking - he's outright lying to Canadians and nobody calls him on it.
I have yet to see the attack ads against Mulcair here in Atlantic Canada - this region is so deeply red that there's no point for the CPC to run them. And I just don't see C-51 being a problem for Trudeau either - nobody is talking about it here.
The Conservative strategy to dismiss Trudeau ("he'll exceed expectations if he shows up wearing pants") is going to backfire. Trudeau's had too much time to polish and prepare, and attacks like that won't land anymore.
Nobody's going to push the Harper vote, so it's up to Mulcair and Trudeau to battle for the top spot. One of them is going to take it (likely Mulcair at this point), and the other one is going to have to make nice and play kingmaker.
And hopefully May draws a bit more support to take an extra seat or two.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:47 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have yet to see the attack ads against Mulcair here in Atlantic Canada - this region is so deeply red that there's no point for the CPC to run them. And I just don't see C-51 being a problem for Trudeau either - nobody is talking about it here.
The Conservative strategy to dismiss Trudeau ("he'll exceed expectations if he shows up wearing pants") is going to backfire. Trudeau's had too much time to polish and prepare, and attacks like that won't land anymore.
Nobody's going to push the Harper vote, so it's up to Mulcair and Trudeau to battle for the top spot. One of them is going to take it (likely Mulcair at this point), and the other one is going to have to make nice and play kingmaker.
And hopefully May draws a bit more support to take an extra seat or two.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:47 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, traditionally in Canada the only thing that really differentiates the NDP and the conservative movement is social policy.
That is... that is not reflective of reality as I have experienced it, not by a very long shot. Perhaps provincially, in BC. Certainly not in Ontario, and definitely not federally.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
That is... that is not reflective of reality as I have experienced it, not by a very long shot. Perhaps provincially, in BC. Certainly not in Ontario, and definitely not federally.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2015 [7 favorites]
Trudeau isn't especially popular in eastern Newfoundland as far as I can tell, and the Green party is barely even an afterthought here. I'm pretty sure this wasn't quite what Danny Williams had in mind when he coined the Anyone But Conservative line.
posted by peppermind at 10:55 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by peppermind at 10:55 AM on August 7, 2015
I was not impressed with Mulcair at all, I think I must be one of those side-eye-viewing old-school NDP guys talked about upthread. I know he's coming at this like he has the PM job in his sights but I feel like he is a bit too comfortable changing what the NDP is and has been to get there. I didn't like listening to him, I felt he was not very strong on a good number of points. I'm not as turned off by what he supposedly said in Quebec, but his points on the economy seemed too simplistic, his answers on the military and security questions seemed about 15 years out of date (though thumbs up to you Tom for fighting C-51). Depending on how the race in my riding shakes out, I would still like to vote NDP as the least bad realistic option, but this is Hedy Fry's riding and a red seat is still better than a blue.
If Mulcair doesn't succeed in this election, I am throwing my support behind Paul Dewar, because this is the approach a debate with Harper requires.
posted by Hoopo at 11:24 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
If Mulcair doesn't succeed in this election, I am throwing my support behind Paul Dewar, because this is the approach a debate with Harper requires.
posted by Hoopo at 11:24 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Good spot to post a reminder that threehundredeight.com moved its Poll Tracker and Seat Projections to the CBC website now. CPC and NDP neck-and neck for first place, with both short of majority territory.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2015
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2015
It's interesting that the NDP in Canada has basically become a Blairite party, even as UK Labour is about to split between Blairite and more traditionally socialist factions.
On the other hand, traditionally in Canada the only thing that really differentiates the NDP and the conservative movement is social policy. In BC in particular, union-affiliated voters in the old mill and smelter towns swing between conservative and NDP. Both parties tend to run on unsophisticated populist platforms. They have the same economic policy, basically.
Wow. Not a single word of this is even remotely true. It's like you're talking about a different party or a different country than the rest of us.
The NDP always was and still is the progressive choice. In fact, the only place they differ from May's Greens is in their environmental focus. They both want similar change, but the NDP is more concerned with the job losses that would result from some of the Greens' policies.
posted by rocket88 at 11:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
On the other hand, traditionally in Canada the only thing that really differentiates the NDP and the conservative movement is social policy. In BC in particular, union-affiliated voters in the old mill and smelter towns swing between conservative and NDP. Both parties tend to run on unsophisticated populist platforms. They have the same economic policy, basically.
Wow. Not a single word of this is even remotely true. It's like you're talking about a different party or a different country than the rest of us.
The NDP always was and still is the progressive choice. In fact, the only place they differ from May's Greens is in their environmental focus. They both want similar change, but the NDP is more concerned with the job losses that would result from some of the Greens' policies.
posted by rocket88 at 11:27 AM on August 7, 2015 [12 favorites]
The Globe & Mail: How strategic voting might play out in October
Vice: Canada's PM Contenders Clash Over the Economy, Terrorism, and Pipelines
posted by flex at 11:30 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Strategic voting assumes a high degree of knowledge in a riding of the candidates, the parties’ standings and chances and attention being paid to the general drift of the overall election. It assumes, in short, a high degree of political literacy. Everything we know about politics, however, suggests detailed political literacy is low among the general voting public.The Guardian: The Guardian view on Canada’s elections: is the Stephen Harper era over?
Conservatives must hope “strategic voting” remains more talked about than acted upon... Their best chance to grow is to attract Liberals, about 30 per cent of whom (according to Nanos Research) list Conservative as their second choice, compared with only 12 per cent of New Democrats. Those ubiquitous Conservative attack ads undermining Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau are targeted at shaky Liberals.
The trouble – and this is where strategic voting could enter the equation – is that more Liberals prefer the NDP as their second choice than Conservatives. Shaking Liberals’ faith in their leader might disproportionately help the NDP, if Liberals are motivated by a desire, above all, to rid the country of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, an enormously polarizing figure.
Vice: Canada's PM Contenders Clash Over the Economy, Terrorism, and Pipelines
posted by flex at 11:30 AM on August 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow. Not a single word of this is even remotely true. It's like you're talking about a different party or a different country than the rest of us.
The NDP always was and still is the progressive choice.
Oh, yeah, so you forget that the largest mass arrests - for civil disobedience - in history occurred under an NDP government. Over resource extraction. I'm not going to link to it because I assume you're already familiar with it, living in the same country as I do.
Not a single word is remotely true, eh? What is true is that NDP followers - much like the Conservatives and also the Greens - are tribal, and willing to "overlook" key points like that.
Mulcair's willingness to ditch the Clarity Act, while understandable, has grave implications for federalism in Canada - the federalism that the Conservatives have worked so hard to dismantle.
posted by Nevin at 11:46 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The NDP always was and still is the progressive choice.
Oh, yeah, so you forget that the largest mass arrests - for civil disobedience - in history occurred under an NDP government. Over resource extraction. I'm not going to link to it because I assume you're already familiar with it, living in the same country as I do.
Not a single word is remotely true, eh? What is true is that NDP followers - much like the Conservatives and also the Greens - are tribal, and willing to "overlook" key points like that.
Mulcair's willingness to ditch the Clarity Act, while understandable, has grave implications for federalism in Canada - the federalism that the Conservatives have worked so hard to dismantle.
posted by Nevin at 11:46 AM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I found the debate painful to watch. The level of dishonesty and the stick-to-the-talking-points superficiality is so much higher than it was even a decade ago.
I hope I'm not the only one who is sickened by the fact that the candidates will only talk about the middle-class and usually specifically middle-class families. I listened carefully and I don't think any of the candidates ever spoke about doing anything for any group of people other than the middle class. I understand why they do it (essentially, almost everyone, poor and rich included, tends to think of themselves as middle-class), but it makes me pretty sad to think that helping those who have less is no longer part of the discourse.
The relentless focus on the economy and in particular our statistically tiny "recession" is depressing. I wish May would speak up and say, hey, look, we are incredibly rich by global standards and the difference between -0.2% growth and +0.2% growth is just not important to most Canadians, so let's focus on more important things right now like doing something about our obscene carbon emissions and doing something for people at home and abroad who really need our help.
Finally, while Harper and Trudeau obviously just don't really care about carbon emissions, I find Mulcair really slippery on the issue. He wants a polluter-pays system, but doesn't elaborate on what that might be. It sounds OK, but then there are no details on what they might entail on their website. And he wants to go to the Paris summit. Great, but that is essentially meaningless. We've had decades of summits and nothing comes of them. Where is the real plan for Canada? How are the NDP going to reduce emissions? Last time their policy was a vague hand-wave about cap and trade. I just can't see how we can trust Mulcair on the environment if he doesn't seem to have a real policy on the most important environmental issue we face.
posted by ssg at 11:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hope I'm not the only one who is sickened by the fact that the candidates will only talk about the middle-class and usually specifically middle-class families. I listened carefully and I don't think any of the candidates ever spoke about doing anything for any group of people other than the middle class. I understand why they do it (essentially, almost everyone, poor and rich included, tends to think of themselves as middle-class), but it makes me pretty sad to think that helping those who have less is no longer part of the discourse.
The relentless focus on the economy and in particular our statistically tiny "recession" is depressing. I wish May would speak up and say, hey, look, we are incredibly rich by global standards and the difference between -0.2% growth and +0.2% growth is just not important to most Canadians, so let's focus on more important things right now like doing something about our obscene carbon emissions and doing something for people at home and abroad who really need our help.
Finally, while Harper and Trudeau obviously just don't really care about carbon emissions, I find Mulcair really slippery on the issue. He wants a polluter-pays system, but doesn't elaborate on what that might be. It sounds OK, but then there are no details on what they might entail on their website. And he wants to go to the Paris summit. Great, but that is essentially meaningless. We've had decades of summits and nothing comes of them. Where is the real plan for Canada? How are the NDP going to reduce emissions? Last time their policy was a vague hand-wave about cap and trade. I just can't see how we can trust Mulcair on the environment if he doesn't seem to have a real policy on the most important environmental issue we face.
posted by ssg at 11:48 AM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mulcair has definitely moved the NDP towards the centre, even compared to Layton (who was himself pretty centrist compared to, say, Broadbent). The NDP has had to make the journey from the 1980s to now away from being the party of just the unions and book socialism and looking toward more the issues of social fairness and human rights, social democracy. Their new constitution in 2013 was an important part of that.
The shift has also been important from a foreign affairs point of view. With the failure of communism, a socialist foreign policy is incoherent at best now (and where Mulcair got into the most trouble last night). A social democrat foreign policy, in contrast, based on human rights, self-determination and freedom for citizens, rather than corporations, makes a lot more sense to many voters and is actually possible to govern from.
They're still the party most strongly committed to worker's rights, but they've considerably expanded their focus and interest in the past few decades. Layton was a real force for that, as can be seen in his letter to Canadians (are we teaching this in school yet? if not, why not?). Mulcair has, to his credit, kept that focus, and continued to build on that work.
I really wish that the NDP would go more strongly forward on environmental issues, but that's been tricky for them: jobs (and union jobs in resource industries) are often at odds with increased environmental protection. They're getting better on this, but, in my view have a long way to go yet.
posted by bonehead at 11:49 AM on August 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
The shift has also been important from a foreign affairs point of view. With the failure of communism, a socialist foreign policy is incoherent at best now (and where Mulcair got into the most trouble last night). A social democrat foreign policy, in contrast, based on human rights, self-determination and freedom for citizens, rather than corporations, makes a lot more sense to many voters and is actually possible to govern from.
They're still the party most strongly committed to worker's rights, but they've considerably expanded their focus and interest in the past few decades. Layton was a real force for that, as can be seen in his letter to Canadians (are we teaching this in school yet? if not, why not?). Mulcair has, to his credit, kept that focus, and continued to build on that work.
I really wish that the NDP would go more strongly forward on environmental issues, but that's been tricky for them: jobs (and union jobs in resource industries) are often at odds with increased environmental protection. They're getting better on this, but, in my view have a long way to go yet.
posted by bonehead at 11:49 AM on August 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, yeah, so you forget that the largest mass arrests - for civil disobedience - in history occurred under an NDP government. Over resource extraction.
Oh, come on. The BC provincial NDP are not the same thing as the federal NDP. BC politics are special. You know that.
Also, the largest mass arrest in Canada was the G20 summit in Toronto. Harper all the way.
posted by ssg at 11:51 AM on August 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
Oh, come on. The BC provincial NDP are not the same thing as the federal NDP. BC politics are special. You know that.
Also, the largest mass arrest in Canada was the G20 summit in Toronto. Harper all the way.
posted by ssg at 11:51 AM on August 7, 2015 [9 favorites]
helping those who have less
This is currently a politically toxic idea.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:13 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is currently a politically toxic idea.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:13 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
12 Invisible Things You May Have Missed At The Leaders Debate
posted by randomnity at 12:19 PM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by randomnity at 12:19 PM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
If Mulcair doesn't succeed in this election, I am throwing my support behind Paul Dewar, because this is the approach a debate with Harper requires.
I'm with you on that. I love Paul Dewar. I'm sad he's no longer my MP (because I moved neighbourhoods).
posted by aclevername at 12:30 PM on August 7, 2015
I'm with you on that. I love Paul Dewar. I'm sad he's no longer my MP (because I moved neighbourhoods).
posted by aclevername at 12:30 PM on August 7, 2015
this may bring some joy
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:44 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:44 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Though Harper's Netflix tax commercial made me hate him more.
Ah, the things you miss when you've given up TV thanks to Netflix (and less legally-constrainted streaming video services). So who is proposing a Netflix Tax? Nobody. Who is making moves that suggest they probably would want a Netflix Tax? The CRTC, the Conservatives, The NDP, and the Liberals. Politics as usual.
posted by sfenders at 12:47 PM on August 7, 2015
Ah, the things you miss when you've given up TV thanks to Netflix (and less legally-constrainted streaming video services). So who is proposing a Netflix Tax? Nobody. Who is making moves that suggest they probably would want a Netflix Tax? The CRTC, the Conservatives, The NDP, and the Liberals. Politics as usual.
posted by sfenders at 12:47 PM on August 7, 2015
Man, that Guardian op-ed just brings it all home how much Harper has horribly shaped current Canada.
posted by Kitteh at 12:55 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 12:55 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here's something to scare small children with, taken from last night's debate.
posted by bonehead at 1:09 PM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 1:09 PM on August 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is currently a politically toxic idea.
To some, but I don't think it is to all Canadians. Those policies are certainly in the Green platform, but I just wish that Elizabeth would have strongly taken that angle, instead of following the others. There's a whole constituency of people who would like to help those that have less and no other party is speaking to them!
posted by ssg at 1:53 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
To some, but I don't think it is to all Canadians. Those policies are certainly in the Green platform, but I just wish that Elizabeth would have strongly taken that angle, instead of following the others. There's a whole constituency of people who would like to help those that have less and no other party is speaking to them!
posted by ssg at 1:53 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hope I'm not the only one who is sickened by the fact that the candidates will only talk about the middle-class and usually specifically middle-class families.
posted by ssg at 11:48 AM on August 7
Absolutely not. I kept thinking during the debate, "what about the people who can't claw their way into the middle class exactly what "middle class" are they talking about? Because what a lot of politicians seem to view as "middle class" reads as upper middle/wealth to me. Plus, as we all know, in the land of milk and honey (or oil and natural gas) there are no poor or working class people.
posted by sardonyx at 2:00 PM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ssg at 11:48 AM on August 7
Absolutely not. I kept thinking during the debate, "what about the people who can't claw their way into the middle class exactly what "middle class" are they talking about? Because what a lot of politicians seem to view as "middle class" reads as upper middle/wealth to me. Plus, as we all know, in the land of milk and honey (or oil and natural gas) there are no poor or working class people.
posted by sardonyx at 2:00 PM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
So who is proposing a Netflix Tax? Nobody.
Yet. Overton Window, dude. Who brought it up?
posted by bonehead at 2:03 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yet. Overton Window, dude. Who brought it up?
posted by bonehead at 2:03 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's interesting that the NDP in Canada has basically become a Blairite party,
it's interesting how thoroughly wrong this characterization is.
posted by philip-random at 2:11 PM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
it's interesting how thoroughly wrong this characterization is.
posted by philip-random at 2:11 PM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
From Now Magazine in Toronto - 10 numbers that define a decade of Stephen Harper's attempts to remake the political face of Canada.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:04 PM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:04 PM on August 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Clarity Act is bullshit. Imagine, if you will, a provincial referendum happening.
First, the province has to word a question. Are they given guidance by the feds on how to word it? No.
However, the feds will then pass a Bill within 30 days saying "ok, we allow you to use this question. It's not necessarily unclear."
Then, there's a referendum. We have a question, but we don't know what the vote threshold is.
After the referendum, the feds get to yet again decide if they accept the vote. They have to choose if the majority is clear, depending on:
1. The percentage of votes for/against
2. The percentage of voters/not voters
3. Anything else they consider relevant.
So ok. That's a little bit different than normal election. Why is this night not like other nights? Why do we care about the percentage of voters? We never care any other time. But more importantly, what happens if Parliament rejects a majority-passed vote? Riots, punditry, and yet another reference to the Supreme Court.
The Clarity Act is a cop-out. It let Parliament "respond" to the SCC without doing anything, and it's built to not provide any, well, clarity. A true Act would say: "here is the format of question that shall be used. We shall accept nothing else. Here is the vote percentage we will accept. We shall accept nothing less." That would be clear.
After all those words, Mulcair's 50%+1 is bullshit. It's a bad idea. And I say that as a happy NDP voter. But goddamn did Trudeau's "nine" comment piss me off. Parliament has the authority to respond to the SCC, and argue with them. There is an entire cottage industry of academics talking about how the "dialogue" model works. There are legit hard decisions to make. This is one of them. It's a political question, it needs a political answer.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:41 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
First, the province has to word a question. Are they given guidance by the feds on how to word it? No.
However, the feds will then pass a Bill within 30 days saying "ok, we allow you to use this question. It's not necessarily unclear."
Then, there's a referendum. We have a question, but we don't know what the vote threshold is.
After the referendum, the feds get to yet again decide if they accept the vote. They have to choose if the majority is clear, depending on:
1. The percentage of votes for/against
2. The percentage of voters/not voters
3. Anything else they consider relevant.
So ok. That's a little bit different than normal election. Why is this night not like other nights? Why do we care about the percentage of voters? We never care any other time. But more importantly, what happens if Parliament rejects a majority-passed vote? Riots, punditry, and yet another reference to the Supreme Court.
The Clarity Act is a cop-out. It let Parliament "respond" to the SCC without doing anything, and it's built to not provide any, well, clarity. A true Act would say: "here is the format of question that shall be used. We shall accept nothing else. Here is the vote percentage we will accept. We shall accept nothing less." That would be clear.
After all those words, Mulcair's 50%+1 is bullshit. It's a bad idea. And I say that as a happy NDP voter. But goddamn did Trudeau's "nine" comment piss me off. Parliament has the authority to respond to the SCC, and argue with them. There is an entire cottage industry of academics talking about how the "dialogue" model works. There are legit hard decisions to make. This is one of them. It's a political question, it needs a political answer.
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:41 PM on August 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Here's something to scare small children with, taken from last night's debate.
That's probably the face Harper makes every time he thinks up a new way to make Canada a worse place to live.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's probably the face Harper makes every time he thinks up a new way to make Canada a worse place to live.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's probably the face Harper makes every time he thinks up a new way to make Canada a worse place to live.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on August 8 [1 favorite +] [!]
Hey say and think what you want. But do you really think Harper wants to make Canada a worse place to live? The same guy who wrote an extensive book on the history of hockey in Canada? The same guy who took an extreme interest in the Franklin expeditions?
There's no self-interest other than bettering Canada, in his eyes. There's no Dick Cheney. Our "Haliburton" controversy is the parks and infrastructure that Clement funded for the Muskoka G8.
Disagree with his politics and actions all you want. But to question the man's love of country is insane.
posted by raider at 4:51 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:54 AM on August 8 [1 favorite +] [!]
Hey say and think what you want. But do you really think Harper wants to make Canada a worse place to live? The same guy who wrote an extensive book on the history of hockey in Canada? The same guy who took an extreme interest in the Franklin expeditions?
There's no self-interest other than bettering Canada, in his eyes. There's no Dick Cheney. Our "Haliburton" controversy is the parks and infrastructure that Clement funded for the Muskoka G8.
Disagree with his politics and actions all you want. But to question the man's love of country is insane.
posted by raider at 4:51 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
From The Toronto Star: A Decade of Change Under Stephen Harper:
Vowing to clean up Ottawa, Harper brought in the Federal Accountability Act in 2006. But the Conservatives over the years have been plagued by a wide range of criminal charges and ethical lapses related to influence-peddling, violation of election law, mishandling of taxpayers’ money and conflict-of-interest cases. The Conservatives have also been accused of undermining the authority of Parliament by ceding too much power to the prime minister, misusing the Access to Information law, muzzling scientists, keeping budget-implementation information secret, driving legislation through the Commons without proper scrutiny and using the prime minister’s ability to arrange for a temporary shutdown of Parliament to avoid defeat at the hands of opposition parties.
Harper has avoided previous prime ministers’ practice of holding regular first ministers meetings with the premiers.
The use of more than $750 million in taxpayers’ funds to promote federal government programs since 2006 has been controversial. So has the earmarking of $13.4 million for Canada Revenue Agency to audit charities, including environmental groups, to see if the organizations broke the rules by engaging in too much political advocacy. Critics said the Conservatives were using the taxman to intimidate their critics; the government denied it.
The Conservatives changed election rules to establish a four-year fixed election date, setting the stage for longer campaigns, and tightened voter ID requirements, prompting complaints that students, aboriginals, the homeless and others may be discouraged from turning out to vote.
Does that sound like someone who loves Canada more than he loves power and control? It doesn't to me. I think he is absolutely full of self-interest.
He may love hockey and the Franklin Expedition, but to me that doesn't prove a love of Canada as much as it would if he showed he cared about democracy and good governance, a strong social safety net, a strong public healthcare system, and our role as well-respected international peacekeepers.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:26 PM on August 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Vowing to clean up Ottawa, Harper brought in the Federal Accountability Act in 2006. But the Conservatives over the years have been plagued by a wide range of criminal charges and ethical lapses related to influence-peddling, violation of election law, mishandling of taxpayers’ money and conflict-of-interest cases. The Conservatives have also been accused of undermining the authority of Parliament by ceding too much power to the prime minister, misusing the Access to Information law, muzzling scientists, keeping budget-implementation information secret, driving legislation through the Commons without proper scrutiny and using the prime minister’s ability to arrange for a temporary shutdown of Parliament to avoid defeat at the hands of opposition parties.
Harper has avoided previous prime ministers’ practice of holding regular first ministers meetings with the premiers.
The use of more than $750 million in taxpayers’ funds to promote federal government programs since 2006 has been controversial. So has the earmarking of $13.4 million for Canada Revenue Agency to audit charities, including environmental groups, to see if the organizations broke the rules by engaging in too much political advocacy. Critics said the Conservatives were using the taxman to intimidate their critics; the government denied it.
The Conservatives changed election rules to establish a four-year fixed election date, setting the stage for longer campaigns, and tightened voter ID requirements, prompting complaints that students, aboriginals, the homeless and others may be discouraged from turning out to vote.
Does that sound like someone who loves Canada more than he loves power and control? It doesn't to me. I think he is absolutely full of self-interest.
He may love hockey and the Franklin Expedition, but to me that doesn't prove a love of Canada as much as it would if he showed he cared about democracy and good governance, a strong social safety net, a strong public healthcare system, and our role as well-respected international peacekeepers.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 6:26 PM on August 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Participants at Conservative events must agree to gag order.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:09 PM on August 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Members of the public who attend Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign events are being required to agree to a gag order before they can walk through the door, iPolitics has learned.The true north, strong and [REDACTED].
While attendance is by invitation only, and attendees are vetted by the Conservative Party before receiving a ticket, those who want to attend a campaign event in person are also being asked to agree to a number of conditions including not to transmit any description of the event or any images from it.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:09 PM on August 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm with you on that. I love Paul Dewar. I'm sad he's no longer my MP (because I moved neighbourhoods).
I used to be your neighbour, and also miss Dewar. In 2006, I answered a knock at my door a few weeks before the election to find Dewar and Ed Broadbent standing in my apartment hallway.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:35 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I used to be your neighbour, and also miss Dewar. In 2006, I answered a knock at my door a few weeks before the election to find Dewar and Ed Broadbent standing in my apartment hallway.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:35 PM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Disagree with his politics and actions all you want. But to question the man's love of country is insane.
I question his love of this country precisely because of his actions and his politics. The Canada that Harper loves bears no resemblance to the country I grew up in, the country I want to live in, or the country that we must leave to those who will live beyond us.
The Canada I love is a country that values openness from its politicians. The country that I love places great weight on science, and facts, and truth. The country that I love is a country where a neighbour--a stranger!--is given a warm welcome. The Canada I love is a Canada that unites because of our differences, and is not divided by them. The country I love thinks about the future, and lays down bedrock for it. The country I love is the country of universal healthcare, and open arms for immigrants (for aren't most of us immigrants?), it is the True North, strong and free. Strength does not come from bluster on the international stage, nor does it come from setting factions of the country against each other. Freedom is not a Prime Minister who refuses to meet anyone who isn't vetted and has signed a gag order. From far and wide, we in Canada are a glittering mosaic of different origins and beliefs and values and Harper snuffs that out. The Canada I love is dying, and Harper is wielding the knife.
My name is Daniel and I am Canadian, goddammit, and I am sick of demagogues like Harper and Manning and all the rest trying to import the toxic politics of division that are destroying our neighbour to the south.
So yes. Yes I will absolutely question Harper's love of this country we share, a mari usque ad mare. His rich white little bubble is not the entirety of this country, never has been, and never will be.
Go read Jack Layton's letter and tell me again that Harper loves this country.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:29 PM on August 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I question his love of this country precisely because of his actions and his politics. The Canada that Harper loves bears no resemblance to the country I grew up in, the country I want to live in, or the country that we must leave to those who will live beyond us.
The Canada I love is a country that values openness from its politicians. The country that I love places great weight on science, and facts, and truth. The country that I love is a country where a neighbour--a stranger!--is given a warm welcome. The Canada I love is a Canada that unites because of our differences, and is not divided by them. The country I love thinks about the future, and lays down bedrock for it. The country I love is the country of universal healthcare, and open arms for immigrants (for aren't most of us immigrants?), it is the True North, strong and free. Strength does not come from bluster on the international stage, nor does it come from setting factions of the country against each other. Freedom is not a Prime Minister who refuses to meet anyone who isn't vetted and has signed a gag order. From far and wide, we in Canada are a glittering mosaic of different origins and beliefs and values and Harper snuffs that out. The Canada I love is dying, and Harper is wielding the knife.
My name is Daniel and I am Canadian, goddammit, and I am sick of demagogues like Harper and Manning and all the rest trying to import the toxic politics of division that are destroying our neighbour to the south.
So yes. Yes I will absolutely question Harper's love of this country we share, a mari usque ad mare. His rich white little bubble is not the entirety of this country, never has been, and never will be.
Go read Jack Layton's letter and tell me again that Harper loves this country.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:29 PM on August 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
tl;dr
"Peace, order, and good government."
Harper has shown only devotion to the second of those, and nothing but derision for the first and the third.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:32 PM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Peace, order, and good government."
Harper has shown only devotion to the second of those, and nothing but derision for the first and the third.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:32 PM on August 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure the Canada you love has ever existed except in rose-tinted shades and Molson commercials.
I don't question the love of the country of any of the leaders (well, maybe Duceppe, but he runs by a different definition of country) because I think they just have different ideas of how the country should be. Their ideals are often compromised by practicalities, and it's then easy to justify shenanigans to attain and maintain power in order to shape the country to their vision. Sometimes politicians even fall to more naked self-interest because "they've earned it". And I hope voters punish those that step too far out of line.
When was the last time a federal government was voted in rather than the previous one voted out? It seems like (in the last few decades) it's always been scandals or unpopular policies toppling a government rather than genuine excitement carrying a new one in.
posted by The arrows are too fast at 9:56 AM on August 9, 2015
I don't question the love of the country of any of the leaders (well, maybe Duceppe, but he runs by a different definition of country) because I think they just have different ideas of how the country should be. Their ideals are often compromised by practicalities, and it's then easy to justify shenanigans to attain and maintain power in order to shape the country to their vision. Sometimes politicians even fall to more naked self-interest because "they've earned it". And I hope voters punish those that step too far out of line.
When was the last time a federal government was voted in rather than the previous one voted out? It seems like (in the last few decades) it's always been scandals or unpopular policies toppling a government rather than genuine excitement carrying a new one in.
posted by The arrows are too fast at 9:56 AM on August 9, 2015
you can't love your country if you don't trust your neighbours
posted by philip-random at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2015
posted by philip-random at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2015
I'm not sure the Canada you love has ever existed except in rose-tinted shades and Molson commercials.
I have lived in that country my entire life, until Harper started tearing it to pieces.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:10 AM on August 9, 2015
I have lived in that country my entire life, until Harper started tearing it to pieces.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:10 AM on August 9, 2015
The Canada that muzzles scientists did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that dismantles the long-gun registry because of privacy, and then implements C51, did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that virtually removes the utility of the census did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that goes to war (not peacekeeping) did not, in general, exist before Harper.
The Canada that spends nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money to toot the party's horn did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that unprotects all but a handful of previously-protected bodies of water did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that defunds the largest system of research on freshwater bodies did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that finds its own government in contempt of Parliament did not exist before Harper.
The Canada where the ruling party is found to be in violation of election law multiple elections in a row did not exist before Harper.
The Canada with a $56bn deficit did not exist before Harper. (Okay, it was $38bn when we booted the Tories out the last time--and that was paid off in the Liberal years.)
The Canada that wants to scrap the Canada Health Act did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that prorogues Parliament to avoid failing a vote of no confidence did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that defunds programs for women did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that fires inspectors for telling the truth did not exist before Harper.
...shall I go on? Harper has been systematically dismantling everything about this country that we, as a nation, believe in. Environment, science, aboriginal and First Nations people, women--all victims of Harper's knife.
Don't tell me that the Canada I believe in only exists in bloody Molson commercials when the evidence is right before you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:29 AM on August 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
The Canada that dismantles the long-gun registry because of privacy, and then implements C51, did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that virtually removes the utility of the census did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that goes to war (not peacekeeping) did not, in general, exist before Harper.
The Canada that spends nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money to toot the party's horn did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that unprotects all but a handful of previously-protected bodies of water did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that defunds the largest system of research on freshwater bodies did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that finds its own government in contempt of Parliament did not exist before Harper.
The Canada where the ruling party is found to be in violation of election law multiple elections in a row did not exist before Harper.
The Canada with a $56bn deficit did not exist before Harper. (Okay, it was $38bn when we booted the Tories out the last time--and that was paid off in the Liberal years.)
The Canada that wants to scrap the Canada Health Act did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that prorogues Parliament to avoid failing a vote of no confidence did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that defunds programs for women did not exist before Harper.
The Canada that fires inspectors for telling the truth did not exist before Harper.
...shall I go on? Harper has been systematically dismantling everything about this country that we, as a nation, believe in. Environment, science, aboriginal and First Nations people, women--all victims of Harper's knife.
Don't tell me that the Canada I believe in only exists in bloody Molson commercials when the evidence is right before you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:29 AM on August 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
Disagree with his politics and actions all you want. But to question the man's love of country is insane.
It doesn't matter how many times I tell you I love you if I spend my time finding new and innovative possessions of yours to take a shit in.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 AM on August 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
It doesn't matter how many times I tell you I love you if I spend my time finding new and innovative possessions of yours to take a shit in.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 AM on August 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
Sigh. I refuted one and only one point but allow me to re-iterate: the fact that that your vision of an ideal Canada differs from Harper's is not an indication that he is TRYING to ruin it.
He is trying to mold it in the image that he idealizes. Isn't that the idea?
And if you're studying politicians who do so, you have a lot of reading to do. Start at 1867 or prior.
My only contention was with the comment that Harper was TRYING to harm Canada which seemed false and unfair. The rest is what elections are for.
posted by raider at 3:06 PM on August 10, 2015
He is trying to mold it in the image that he idealizes. Isn't that the idea?
And if you're studying politicians who do so, you have a lot of reading to do. Start at 1867 or prior.
My only contention was with the comment that Harper was TRYING to harm Canada which seemed false and unfair. The rest is what elections are for.
posted by raider at 3:06 PM on August 10, 2015
Harper is systematically dismantling all the things that make Canada, well, Canada. That is harm. That is what he is doing.
I really don't need the patronizing 'start at 1867,' thanks. The image that Harper idealizes is missing all of the important things that most people in this country believe in. He has sailed into office on a wave of fostering division and dissent--it's hardly a coincidence that in the last Ontario election, and on Harper's campaign staff, political advisors to the Tea Party of all bloody things are prominent on the Tory side.
For the most part, politicians since 1867--at least those not calling themselves Conservative/Reform/Alliance/Tory--have, at times in fits and starts, pushed ever forward with the ideas that science matters, that women are equal and we need to spend to reflect that, that openness and transparency matter, healthcare matters, that (again, for the most part) we are peacekeepers not war-makers, that Parliamentary rules exist for a reason (first government ever to be held in contempt of Parliament!), etc etc etc.
(The outright maliciousness and contempt for First Nations people is a blight to which virtually every politician in our history has contributed, nobody gets a pass on that.)
That we don't crib from the PATRIOT act down south to enact our own unconstitutional laws, too.
If you want to talk about false and unfair, why don't you start with the outright lies he was spewing at the debate? It is absolutely not false to say that Harper is tearing Canada apart. Nor is it unfair. It's accurate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:20 PM on August 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I really don't need the patronizing 'start at 1867,' thanks. The image that Harper idealizes is missing all of the important things that most people in this country believe in. He has sailed into office on a wave of fostering division and dissent--it's hardly a coincidence that in the last Ontario election, and on Harper's campaign staff, political advisors to the Tea Party of all bloody things are prominent on the Tory side.
For the most part, politicians since 1867--at least those not calling themselves Conservative/Reform/Alliance/Tory--have, at times in fits and starts, pushed ever forward with the ideas that science matters, that women are equal and we need to spend to reflect that, that openness and transparency matter, healthcare matters, that (again, for the most part) we are peacekeepers not war-makers, that Parliamentary rules exist for a reason (first government ever to be held in contempt of Parliament!), etc etc etc.
(The outright maliciousness and contempt for First Nations people is a blight to which virtually every politician in our history has contributed, nobody gets a pass on that.)
That we don't crib from the PATRIOT act down south to enact our own unconstitutional laws, too.
If you want to talk about false and unfair, why don't you start with the outright lies he was spewing at the debate? It is absolutely not false to say that Harper is tearing Canada apart. Nor is it unfair. It's accurate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:20 PM on August 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I know we are having our Harper-hate fest, but can I say that I'm just disgusted by the NDP's dishonest climate stance in recent days.
Apparently, the idea that we might have to leave some of the oil sands in the ground, which one NDP candidate made the error of voicing, is not at all NDP policy. No, apparently, Mulcair is going to develop the oil sands sustainably. How? Who knows? He says that: " “sustainable development is not a slogan, it’s something that has to become very real.”
But there is no way to develop the oil sands sustainably. The oil sands are huge carbon emitters with an end product that ends up as carbon emissions. What is Mulcair going to change? It simply isn't physically or chemically possible, absent some yet to be discovered feasible carbon capture and storage method. Right now, with oil prices so low, the situation is grim for oil sands producers and any additional costs are not going to help.
And yet, Mulcair is standing up to tell us not to worry, he's got some kind of very real plan that is of course completely imaginary. He's lying to us.
posted by ssg at 11:04 PM on August 10, 2015
Apparently, the idea that we might have to leave some of the oil sands in the ground, which one NDP candidate made the error of voicing, is not at all NDP policy. No, apparently, Mulcair is going to develop the oil sands sustainably. How? Who knows? He says that: " “sustainable development is not a slogan, it’s something that has to become very real.”
But there is no way to develop the oil sands sustainably. The oil sands are huge carbon emitters with an end product that ends up as carbon emissions. What is Mulcair going to change? It simply isn't physically or chemically possible, absent some yet to be discovered feasible carbon capture and storage method. Right now, with oil prices so low, the situation is grim for oil sands producers and any additional costs are not going to help.
And yet, Mulcair is standing up to tell us not to worry, he's got some kind of very real plan that is of course completely imaginary. He's lying to us.
posted by ssg at 11:04 PM on August 10, 2015
Yeah, that's fair. He's trying to thread the needle of environment-without-losing-jobs.
My wild-ass guess is that this will evaporate three seconds after the polls close, or his plan involves planting a bazillion trees.
Still better than Harper.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:09 AM on August 11, 2015
My wild-ass guess is that this will evaporate three seconds after the polls close, or his plan involves planting a bazillion trees.
Still better than Harper.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:09 AM on August 11, 2015
Mulcair is going to develop the oil sands sustainably. How? Who knows?
If you look past the screaming and the headlines, there actually is an issue here.
Steam-assisted gravity drainage is the name of the most common (~80%) process used to get bitumen out of the ground. It involved used oil fired boilers to produce steam, which is then injected into the source rock. The steam heats the molasses-like bitumen to a point at which it can flow and be collected by drainage systems under the steam pipes.
This steam production needs about 2/3 of a barrel of oil to produce one barrel. Every barrel of bitumen produced has a carbon cost of 5/3 compared to a barrel of say, Saudi Arabian Heavy, which has almost no extraction cost.
To (more) sustainably develop bitumen from the sand source rock, we need to move the oil companies away from just stupidly using oil to produce their hot water. They do this of course because it's the cheapest option (in the short term) and they control the fuel as well. There are other options: northern Alberta has abundant natural nuclear material, for example. It's one of the largest uranium sources in the world. Most reactors can produce steam directly, making them quite efficient, as well as producing no carbon. Northern Alberta isn't the best place for solar, but wind generation might be a very useful supplement to a nuclear base load as well. The point is that there are options that could drastically reduce the carbon foot-print of extraction that government could provide incentives and leadership for.
Water use is another problem: what happens to the water in the source rock and the water that's used to wash the bitumen after extraction? Right now it goes into the infamous tailings ponds. Anyone who has worked in the Canadian petroleum, chemical or environmental sectors is painfully aware of how pig-headedly resistant all of the oil companies are to implementing research on tailing pond remediation. The crazy thing is that it's not that research isn't being done---it is, and it's well funded in both academic and government research labs---but industry is famously resistant to use any of it. Breaking that log-jam is something that will likely require political will and is a place where government intervention may be necessary.
So there's at least two major things a federal government could do to improve sustainability of the oil sands operations: get the SAGD process away from carbon-intensive steam production and develop an effective tailing ponds management (and monitoring) strategy.
posted by bonehead at 9:18 AM on August 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you look past the screaming and the headlines, there actually is an issue here.
Steam-assisted gravity drainage is the name of the most common (~80%) process used to get bitumen out of the ground. It involved used oil fired boilers to produce steam, which is then injected into the source rock. The steam heats the molasses-like bitumen to a point at which it can flow and be collected by drainage systems under the steam pipes.
This steam production needs about 2/3 of a barrel of oil to produce one barrel. Every barrel of bitumen produced has a carbon cost of 5/3 compared to a barrel of say, Saudi Arabian Heavy, which has almost no extraction cost.
To (more) sustainably develop bitumen from the sand source rock, we need to move the oil companies away from just stupidly using oil to produce their hot water. They do this of course because it's the cheapest option (in the short term) and they control the fuel as well. There are other options: northern Alberta has abundant natural nuclear material, for example. It's one of the largest uranium sources in the world. Most reactors can produce steam directly, making them quite efficient, as well as producing no carbon. Northern Alberta isn't the best place for solar, but wind generation might be a very useful supplement to a nuclear base load as well. The point is that there are options that could drastically reduce the carbon foot-print of extraction that government could provide incentives and leadership for.
Water use is another problem: what happens to the water in the source rock and the water that's used to wash the bitumen after extraction? Right now it goes into the infamous tailings ponds. Anyone who has worked in the Canadian petroleum, chemical or environmental sectors is painfully aware of how pig-headedly resistant all of the oil companies are to implementing research on tailing pond remediation. The crazy thing is that it's not that research isn't being done---it is, and it's well funded in both academic and government research labs---but industry is famously resistant to use any of it. Breaking that log-jam is something that will likely require political will and is a place where government intervention may be necessary.
So there's at least two major things a federal government could do to improve sustainability of the oil sands operations: get the SAGD process away from carbon-intensive steam production and develop an effective tailing ponds management (and monitoring) strategy.
posted by bonehead at 9:18 AM on August 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
And yet, Mulcair is standing up to tell us not to worry, he's got some kind of very real plan that is of course completely imaginary. He's lying to us.
I really can't tell if he is lying or not, but for better or worse I don't think anyone really goes too in-depth into the nuts and bolts of their policies on the campaign trail. They speak in soundbites and simple rhetoric, and at least he is talking about what his party will supposedly do, rather than what everyone else is doing wrong. Again, I'm not Mulcair's biggest fan by a long shot and I've voted NDP all my life. And I am sympathetic to what you're saying here because I don't think he's communicating very effectively to people that want more than the standard stump speech. It's something even Jack Layton was guilty of; I remember gong to see him and Ed Broadbent when they came to my university on a campaign stop and thinking afterwards how disappointing it was that they stuck to the script the whole time even in a place with people as passionate about politics as university students (hey it was true in the early 2000s anyway). But ultimately Jack's approach worked to get the NDP where it is today so I'm not sure what to say or how much to read into Mulcair not giving us the details of how his plan to make the oil sands sustainable is supposed to work.
posted by Hoopo at 9:38 AM on August 11, 2015
how much to read into Mulcair not giving us the details of how his plan to make the oil sands sustainable is supposed to work.
I think it all hinges on how you want to define "sustainable" - because by a lot of measures, they aren't. Once you've dug it up, it's gone. And some of it is too deep or too difficult to get at.
I'm assuming what the plan is/will be is around reclamation and restoration and some better regulations and monitoring of the horrific waste that is being created. Of course, you can't "reclaim" or "restore" what's being destroyed up there, but that is my sense of what people mean when they talk about sustainability and the oilsands.
posted by nubs at 9:43 AM on August 11, 2015
I think it all hinges on how you want to define "sustainable" - because by a lot of measures, they aren't. Once you've dug it up, it's gone. And some of it is too deep or too difficult to get at.
I'm assuming what the plan is/will be is around reclamation and restoration and some better regulations and monitoring of the horrific waste that is being created. Of course, you can't "reclaim" or "restore" what's being destroyed up there, but that is my sense of what people mean when they talk about sustainability and the oilsands.
posted by nubs at 9:43 AM on August 11, 2015
To clarify, while the oil sands issues to do with land use, water use, etc. are all pretty horrific, these particular statements were specifically about climate change.
I don't think think is much controversy over the fact that if we dig up all the oil sands that would be fairly bad for our climate. Of course we need to leave a lot of it in the ground.
I know exactly what game Mulcair is playing here - pretending that by fiddling around some parameters about reclamation or water use, the oil sands will become sustainable. But that's not true because the issue being discussed is climate. It's misdirection and it's dishonest.
Why can't we have a leader that is honest with us?
They speak in soundbites and simple rhetoric, and at least he is talking about what his party will supposedly do, rather than what everyone else is doing wrong.
But he isn't doing that. He's telling us what he won't do (leave any oil in the ground) and that he has some vague plan. That's not saying what he will do, that's just saying he'll do ... something. Anyone can put the word sustainable in a sentence.
posted by ssg at 2:29 PM on August 11, 2015
I don't think think is much controversy over the fact that if we dig up all the oil sands that would be fairly bad for our climate. Of course we need to leave a lot of it in the ground.
I know exactly what game Mulcair is playing here - pretending that by fiddling around some parameters about reclamation or water use, the oil sands will become sustainable. But that's not true because the issue being discussed is climate. It's misdirection and it's dishonest.
Why can't we have a leader that is honest with us?
They speak in soundbites and simple rhetoric, and at least he is talking about what his party will supposedly do, rather than what everyone else is doing wrong.
But he isn't doing that. He's telling us what he won't do (leave any oil in the ground) and that he has some vague plan. That's not saying what he will do, that's just saying he'll do ... something. Anyone can put the word sustainable in a sentence.
posted by ssg at 2:29 PM on August 11, 2015
30 seconds of googling shows:
-the "sustainable" talk is in reference to a broad legislative approach that would effect oil sands operations among other things, I don't think he means that he's going to make it completely clean
-it would include "polluter pays" provisions where the developers would be responsible for cleanup.
-he also wants environmental safeguards, assessments, and review for the use and exploitation of our natural resources.
-he wants Canada to comply with international commitments on emissions and climate change.
To me, if we have a government willing to make the companies exploiting the oil sands have to reduce their emissions and clean up after themselves, that is a move in the right direction.
posted by Hoopo at 3:38 PM on August 11, 2015
-the "sustainable" talk is in reference to a broad legislative approach that would effect oil sands operations among other things, I don't think he means that he's going to make it completely clean
-it would include "polluter pays" provisions where the developers would be responsible for cleanup.
-he also wants environmental safeguards, assessments, and review for the use and exploitation of our natural resources.
-he wants Canada to comply with international commitments on emissions and climate change.
To me, if we have a government willing to make the companies exploiting the oil sands have to reduce their emissions and clean up after themselves, that is a move in the right direction.
posted by Hoopo at 3:38 PM on August 11, 2015
-he wants Canada to comply with international commitments on emissions and climate change.
Sounds great! Oh wait, Canada doesn't have any international commitments on emissions and climate change. So perhaps these are just empty words?
The Conservatives also say that we should have environmental safeguards and assessments, that developers should be responsible for cleanup, and talk about sustainability. I'm sure Mulcair would be better, but what we need is not similar rhetoric and a slight improvement, but real change if we are going to do anything about climate change.
posted by ssg at 5:57 PM on August 11, 2015
Sounds great! Oh wait, Canada doesn't have any international commitments on emissions and climate change. So perhaps these are just empty words?
The Conservatives also say that we should have environmental safeguards and assessments, that developers should be responsible for cleanup, and talk about sustainability. I'm sure Mulcair would be better, but what we need is not similar rhetoric and a slight improvement, but real change if we are going to do anything about climate change.
posted by ssg at 5:57 PM on August 11, 2015
We did have international committments.
Three guesses as to who took us out of them.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:59 PM on August 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Three guesses as to who took us out of them.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:59 PM on August 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Canada that dismantles the long-gun registry because of privacy
Hey, you accidentally included one of the few good things they did. Stick to the unambiguously bad wrecking democracy stuff please, of which there is plenty. I'm trying to convince myself to vote Not Harper here.
posted by sfenders at 9:14 AM on August 12, 2015
Hey, you accidentally included one of the few good things they did. Stick to the unambiguously bad wrecking democracy stuff please, of which there is plenty. I'm trying to convince myself to vote Not Harper here.
posted by sfenders at 9:14 AM on August 12, 2015
Just to clarify, it's not as if there's any chance I'd vote *for* a party led by Harper, but it looks like it might be one of those "strategic voting" situations here, of the sort that would mean I'd have to vote NDP. And that is a bit difficult, since both their party leader and the local MP are making a big deal out of their treasonous plan to abolish the senate. It's something of an obstacle for me to accepting them, takes a lot to get over. Then they sent me mail indicating one of their most important issues is rural Internet access. Well, me too obviously since I sort of could use some personally. I said to myself, and to others; that's nice, but you know they won't actually do anything about it. Next week, there's a letter to the editor from our illustrious NDP member of parliament in the local newspaper, suggesting that maybe the municipality could set up a wireless mesh network based on "park lights". This is not at all realistic in our particular municipality, even if leaving it to the municipal level of government is actually the NDP's big plan.
Fucking politicians, how do they work?
posted by sfenders at 9:36 AM on August 12, 2015
Fucking politicians, how do they work?
posted by sfenders at 9:36 AM on August 12, 2015
Seems a bit treasonous yeah, conspiring to usurp the power of the upper house on the pretext that you don't approve of its decisions. We badly need a stronger senate, the fabled "sober second thought" being in notably short supply. Having none at all is not a great way to get there.
posted by sfenders at 9:58 AM on August 12, 2015
posted by sfenders at 9:58 AM on August 12, 2015
Aboloshing the Senate isn't a thing that's going to happen. I've said it before: after Meech Lake etc the last thing any PM wants to do is reopen the Constitution, which is what it would take.
My point about the long-gun registry is they claimed it had to be abolished because of privacy. And then they enacted C51, which erodes privacy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:39 AM on August 13, 2015
My point about the long-gun registry is they claimed it had to be abolished because of privacy. And then they enacted C51, which erodes privacy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:39 AM on August 13, 2015
They also abolished the long-form census because of privacy.
posted by nubs at 10:07 AM on August 13, 2015
posted by nubs at 10:07 AM on August 13, 2015
Aboloshing the Senate isn't a thing that's going to happen.
You're very probably right about that, yes. Yet if they promised to abolish the law of gravity, gave every appearance of being sincere, made it a top priority, and claimed that a vote for them counted towards their mandate for doing it, then that too would make me hesitant to vote for them.
The senate could use some kind of reform, even just to undo the damage that's lately been done to it. Anyone who would rather see it eliminated is most likely going to do like Harper has been doing, and reform it where possible in the direction of being ever more dysfunctional. There are tales of him doing so, ignoring senate conventions and subverting the rules much like has been happening in parliament. Maybe it's just Harper using any means to get his own way as usual, but maybe sometimes he's happy to take any opportunity to turn people against the idea of the senate existing at all, since he'd rather be rid of it. He boasts about getting away with this. It's true you can get away with a great deal for a fairly long time, and so for things to function properly we need to be able to have some amount of trust in our politicians. Trust that they will fight honourably for what they believe in, and not trample all over the traditions of good government.
That the promises they make are impossible as well as inadvisable doesn't make it that much less alarming that they're making them.
posted by sfenders at 10:25 AM on August 13, 2015
You're very probably right about that, yes. Yet if they promised to abolish the law of gravity, gave every appearance of being sincere, made it a top priority, and claimed that a vote for them counted towards their mandate for doing it, then that too would make me hesitant to vote for them.
The senate could use some kind of reform, even just to undo the damage that's lately been done to it. Anyone who would rather see it eliminated is most likely going to do like Harper has been doing, and reform it where possible in the direction of being ever more dysfunctional. There are tales of him doing so, ignoring senate conventions and subverting the rules much like has been happening in parliament. Maybe it's just Harper using any means to get his own way as usual, but maybe sometimes he's happy to take any opportunity to turn people against the idea of the senate existing at all, since he'd rather be rid of it. He boasts about getting away with this. It's true you can get away with a great deal for a fairly long time, and so for things to function properly we need to be able to have some amount of trust in our politicians. Trust that they will fight honourably for what they believe in, and not trample all over the traditions of good government.
That the promises they make are impossible as well as inadvisable doesn't make it that much less alarming that they're making them.
posted by sfenders at 10:25 AM on August 13, 2015
it would include "polluter pays" provisions where the developers would be responsible for cleanup.
Note that "polluter pays" also extends to potential polluter pays for the necessary work in advance of any release too. That also implies that the polluter, solely or at least primarily, gets to decide what work and/or research is done, as well (government and academia can review and dispute, but don't get to initiate or make the plan). If something is too expensive or too messy or too complicated, the polluter might argue that it isn't necessary or is to big a job and beyond their ability to deal with, so it doesn't get done. It's also tends to deal with issues in a piece meal fashion, with every company implementing their own special-snowflake databases and plans. We don't have really strong, that is to say, detailed policies on how to present a GIS database listing resources at risk, for example, how those surveys should be done, at what level of detail, etc...
posted by bonehead at 12:19 PM on August 13, 2015
Note that "polluter pays" also extends to potential polluter pays for the necessary work in advance of any release too. That also implies that the polluter, solely or at least primarily, gets to decide what work and/or research is done, as well (government and academia can review and dispute, but don't get to initiate or make the plan). If something is too expensive or too messy or too complicated, the polluter might argue that it isn't necessary or is to big a job and beyond their ability to deal with, so it doesn't get done. It's also tends to deal with issues in a piece meal fashion, with every company implementing their own special-snowflake databases and plans. We don't have really strong, that is to say, detailed policies on how to present a GIS database listing resources at risk, for example, how those surveys should be done, at what level of detail, etc...
posted by bonehead at 12:19 PM on August 13, 2015
Not to mention that "polluter pays" in terms of carbon emissions is very vague - and that's intentional. Carbon emissions are not something you can realistically pay to clean up, so the only way to deal with them is to avoid them in the first place. In financial terms that means a carbon tax that is high enough to reduce carbon emissions by making alternatives cheaper relative to fossil fuels. I don't think the NDP is suggesting a carbon tax, especially at that level, so what are they suggesting? Last time around, they were proposing some sort of cap-and-trade system, but it isn't clear if they mean the same thing this time around.
Not to mention that cap-and-trade systems have some very serious flaws.
posted by ssg at 2:55 PM on August 13, 2015
Not to mention that cap-and-trade systems have some very serious flaws.
posted by ssg at 2:55 PM on August 13, 2015
« Older The Cat Who Hunts for Dinner | "Women – Love each other, support each other... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by peppermind at 7:22 AM on August 7, 2015 [8 favorites]