The Fora: A Higher Education Community

So?


One thing I'd like to know is why Michael Adamson leaked the photo to an American media outlet. It's not like there's a dearth of them in Canada (especially not a dearth of Conservative ones, even if you buy the usual "CBC suxorz" line). I hope someone asks.



For my part, in my brand new riding, I'm deciding between the Green and NDP candidates. Currently, I'm leaning harder towards the Greens, largely because I'd like to see them have a bigger role on our political scene, and I think that this is a likely time for it (plus, I live in an area where they have a real chance). But I could swing back to the NDP over the course of the campaign.

I live in a riding that is heavily conservative, making my vote essentially meaningless.  I was really hoping Justin would follow through with his promise of electoral reform so I would have a voice, but that didn't happen and my vote remains moot.  That being said, I have been voting green for a while now and will do so again this year.  I know it does nothing for them in any real sense, but at least it shows support at the popular vote level and they always make a lot of sense when you hear them interviewed etc.

I live in Canada but don't (yet) get to vote. (If it's a Liberal government that maintains immigration laws as they currently are, I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship in about a year. If it's a Conservative government that takes Harper's approach, as I vaguely remember, I've got a couple years after that.)

That said, if I could vote, I'd want to vote Green, but I live in a riding where strategic voting makes sense, and I'd vote Liberal. But possibly with a clothes-pin on my nose for performance value.

For us Yankees who are sadly stuck with a two party duopoly, remind us what the differences are between the Greens and the NDP?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/trudeau-brownface-canada.html

Did Justin do a stupid thing 20 years ago?  Certainly seems like it.  Should the stupid thing carry the political equivalent to the death penalty.  IMHO no.  Justin is not his father (I grew up in the era of Trudeaumania v 1.0) and I suspect he's stronger on imagery than policy.  But flaws and all, I'd offer he's not as bad as the hit piece in the times makes him out to be

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 19, 2019, 08:56:27 PM
For us Yankees who are sadly stuck with a two party duopoly, remind us what the differences are between the Greens and the NDP?

The NDP was founded in 1960 as an amalgamation of the social democratic CCF and the Canadian trade union movement. Its platform has always included comprehensive universal health insurance, benefits for wage labour, workers' rights, guaranteed annual income--in short emphasis on social economic welfare and justice.  More recently it has added environmental policy.

Historically it has formed provincial governments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. In 2011 it managed for the first time to become the official opposition in Ottawa.  Trudeau's election in 2015 knocked it back to third party status in the federal parliament. The NDP's current federal leader is Jagmeet Singh, the first person of colour to lead a federal party in Canada. Human rights, immigration and the environment, plus expansion of national health insurance and student debt forgiveness are part of its election platform.

The Green Party was founded in the 1980s with a much smaller membership and platform. It might be fairer if one of its supporters expanded on this. In this election, for the first time, there has been some nastiness between the NDP and the Greens, and I'm very much on the side of the former.

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 19, 2019, 09:53:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/trudeau-brownface-canada.html

Did Justin do a stupid thing 20 years ago?  Certainly seems like it.  Should the stupid thing carry the political equivalent to the death penalty.  IMHO no.  Justin is not his father (I grew up in the era of Trudeaumania v 1.0) and I suspect he's stronger on imagery than policy.  But flaws and all, I'd offer he's not as bad as the hit piece in the times makes him out to be

But it's exactly what he deserves. All his smug, self-righteous virtue signalling about how HE's so much better than all of THOSE people. It's very entertaining.

I've voted Green for several elections, federal and provincial. I don't agree with everything they propose, but the other parties have always been kind of "utilitarian" about the environment; something to talk about during a campaign, but drop when it suits them.

I DON'T consider it a "wasted" vote, because as the Greens consistently get around 10% of the vote, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the other parties can't afford to give up on that big a chunk of voters. It's not coincidence that the other parties are gradually getting a bit more serious about it.

The big question for me this time around is whether the NDP will fall behind the Greens. They've become simply the "party of the disgruntled" with a fairly negative message, while the Greens have a more optimistic tone. I think if the Greens pass the NDP, the latter may never recover. (Their zenith came under Jack Layton, who had a much more positive approach.)

Quote from: Catherder on September 20, 2019, 04:51:42 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 19, 2019, 08:56:27 PM
For us Yankees who are sadly stuck with a two party duopoly, remind us what the differences are between the Greens and the NDP?

The NDP was founded in 1960 as an amalgamation of the social democratic CCF and the Canadian trade union movement. Its platform has always included comprehensive universal health insurance, benefits for wage labour, workers' rights, guaranteed annual income--in short emphasis on social economic welfare and justice.  More recently it has added environmental policy.

Historically it has formed provincial governments in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. In 2011 it managed for the first time to become the official opposition in Ottawa.  Trudeau's election in 2015 knocked it back to third party status in the federal parliament. The NDP's current federal leader is Jagmeet Singh, the first person of colour to lead a federal party in Canada. Human rights, immigration and the environment, plus expansion of national health insurance and student debt forgiveness are part of its election platform.

The Green Party was founded in the 1980s with a much smaller membership and platform. It might be fairer if one of its supporters expanded on this. In this election, for the first time, there has been some nastiness between the NDP and the Greens, and I'm very much on the side of the former.

On paper they are quite similar, both are very progressive and have similar policies but I would say that the green party has a stronger focus on the environment and is more democratic as a party.  For example, they mandate that MPs put the interest of their riding above leader or party interests rather than pushing them to vote along party lines (this could change if they got into power though...).  What first attracted me to the greens is that they had their policies clearly posted (most parties don't) on their website and members had the ability to provide input on each item, presumably meaning that they would alter them based on the beliefs of their voters.  This just felt very democratic and I liked that.  Also, despite some areas where I disagree with them, their general philosophy is very much in line with mine, so it seemed like a good fit.

Some of my issues with the NDP are that there are several examples when they get into power and do not following through with their stated beliefs.  For example, they were all for conservation of old growth forests until they got into power in BC, then out came the chainsaws.  Even worse, during the last election they swung their platform to the centre in an attempt to win votes but the liberals swung their policies to the left and won the election easily.  To me, these are just signs that they pander and I don't feel they would implement much of what they say they would if they won.  This could also be true if the greens ever get into power, but for now I will give them the benefit of the doubt. 

One of the main problems with the Canadian system though, is that we currently have 4 main parties, one is conservative while the other three lean to the left to varying degrees.  This ends up splitting the liberal vote between three parties such that the Conservatives have a much better chance of winning than they should based on Canadian beliefs.  As with the American system, we end up with majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote, which is ridiculous.  This also leads to strategic voting, and I am convinced that the greens would do a lot better if not for this.   

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 05:56:53 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 19, 2019, 09:53:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/trudeau-brownface-canada.html

Did Justin do a stupid thing 20 years ago?  Certainly seems like it.  Should the stupid thing carry the political equivalent to the death penalty.  IMHO no.  Justin is not his father (I grew up in the era of Trudeaumania v 1.0) and I suspect he's stronger on imagery than policy.  But flaws and all, I'd offer he's not as bad as the hit piece in the times makes him out to be

But it's exactly what he deserves. All his smug, self-righteous virtue signalling about how HE's so much better than all of THOSE people. It's very entertaining.

I've voted Green for several elections, federal and provincial. I don't agree with everything they propose, but the other parties have always been kind of "utilitarian" about the environment; something to talk about during a campaign, but drop when it suits them.

I DON'T consider it a "wasted" vote, because as the Greens consistently get around 10% of the vote, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the other parties can't afford to give up on that big a chunk of voters. It's not coincidence that the other parties are gradually getting a bit more serious about it.

The big question for me this time around is whether the NDP will fall behind the Greens. They've become simply the "party of the disgruntled" with a fairly negative message, while the Greens have a more optimistic tone. I think if the Greens pass the NDP, the latter may never recover. (Their zenith came under Jack Layton, who had a much more positive approach.)

We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 05:56:53 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 19, 2019, 09:53:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/trudeau-brownface-canada.html

Did Justin do a stupid thing 20 years ago?  Certainly seems like it.  Should the stupid thing carry the political equivalent to the death penalty.  IMHO no.  Justin is not his father (I grew up in the era of Trudeaumania v 1.0) and I suspect he's stronger on imagery than policy.  But flaws and all, I'd offer he's not as bad as the hit piece in the times makes him out to be

But it's exactly what he deserves. All his smug, self-righteous virtue signalling about how HE's so much better than all of THOSE people. It's very entertaining.

I've voted Green for several elections, federal and provincial. I don't agree with everything they propose, but the other parties have always been kind of "utilitarian" about the environment; something to talk about during a campaign, but drop when it suits them.

I DON'T consider it a "wasted" vote, because as the Greens consistently get around 10% of the vote, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the other parties can't afford to give up on that big a chunk of voters. It's not coincidence that the other parties are gradually getting a bit more serious about it.

The big question for me this time around is whether the NDP will fall behind the Greens. They've become simply the "party of the disgruntled" with a fairly negative message,

Because for the NDP to win, they have to get a large group of people to change their votes. Anger is a powerful motivating force in getting people to make a change.

Quote
while the Greens have a more optimistic tone. I think if the Greens pass the NDP, the latter may never recover. (Their zenith came under Jack Layton, who had a much more positive approach.)

Greens can afford to be happy-go-lucky and talk about what they want because they know they aren't going to win. (See above.)

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 06:29:51 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 05:56:53 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 19, 2019, 09:53:56 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/trudeau-brownface-canada.html

Did Justin do a stupid thing 20 years ago?  Certainly seems like it.  Should the stupid thing carry the political equivalent to the death penalty.  IMHO no.  Justin is not his father (I grew up in the era of Trudeaumania v 1.0) and I suspect he's stronger on imagery than policy.  But flaws and all, I'd offer he's not as bad as the hit piece in the times makes him out to be

But it's exactly what he deserves. All his smug, self-righteous virtue signalling about how HE's so much better than all of THOSE people. It's very entertaining.

I've voted Green for several elections, federal and provincial. I don't agree with everything they propose, but the other parties have always been kind of "utilitarian" about the environment; something to talk about during a campaign, but drop when it suits them.

I DON'T consider it a "wasted" vote, because as the Greens consistently get around 10% of the vote, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the other parties can't afford to give up on that big a chunk of voters. It's not coincidence that the other parties are gradually getting a bit more serious about it.

The big question for me this time around is whether the NDP will fall behind the Greens. They've become simply the "party of the disgruntled" with a fairly negative message, while the Greens have a more optimistic tone. I think if the Greens pass the NDP, the latter may never recover. (Their zenith came under Jack Layton, who had a much more positive approach.)

We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Everyone uses Ray as an example of the NDP's inherent failure, but this is flawed without some context.  This was a little before I was paying attention, but from my understanding he came to power as the ship was sinking, so there would have been pain regardless of who was in power.  Perhaps Ray messed up, I dont know if his approach was the best, but it is not completely fair to blame him for the economy he was handed.

If you take a broader look at NDP governments across Canada, you will see that they are actually relatively good at balancing budgets compared to the other parties.  It is ironic, but in both the US and Canada, conservative governments tend to generate more debt...   

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 06:40:26 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 06:29:51 AM


We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Everyone uses Ray as an example of the NDP's inherent failure, but this is flawed without some context.  This was a little before I was paying attention, but from my understanding he came to power as the ship was sinking, so there would have been pain regardless of who was in power.  Perhaps Ray messed up, I dont know if his approach was the best, but it is not completely fair to blame him for the economy he was handed.

Of course not, but he got hoist on his own petard, by promising unions pie in the sky, which he couldn't actually deliver. (And if he'd been honest, he never would have promised as much.)  I enjoyed the fact that it was the NDP government that had to stand up to the unions that they had courted with big promises when reality hit them in the face.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 07:28:20 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 06:40:26 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 06:29:51 AM


We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Everyone uses Ray as an example of the NDP's inherent failure, but this is flawed without some context.  This was a little before I was paying attention, but from my understanding he came to power as the ship was sinking, so there would have been pain regardless of who was in power.  Perhaps Ray messed up, I dont know if his approach was the best, but it is not completely fair to blame him for the economy he was handed.

Of course not, but he got hoist on his own petard, by promising unions pie in the sky, which he couldn't actually deliver. (And if he'd been honest, he never would have promised as much.)  I enjoyed the fact that it was the NDP government that had to stand up to the unions that they had courted with big promises when reality hit them in the face.

Had the Ontario economy been in free fall at that time, Peterson would not have called an election.  He called a snap election believing he could maintain/enhance his majority.  His party lost the election and he lost his own seat.  Bob Rae woke up the next morning and found out "Holy crap, I'm actually going to have to govern now!!"  And then it all went to he77 and Mrs Artem & I moved to the US.

As to the ongoing travails of Trudeau the lesser -- I heard a commentator on NPR this morning claiming that the history of black/brown face in Canada means Justin's sins must be seen in a different context.  Unlike the US where blackface was used to denigrate blacks, she claimed that Canadian black/brown face historically did not serve that purpose.  It may be incredibly stupid and distasteful, but she saw Canadians believing this is a forgivable sin, unlike the US where it's a political death sentence.  Not sure I agree, but there you are.

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 09:15:23 AM

As to the ongoing travails of Trudeau the lesser -- I heard a commentator on NPR this morning claiming that the history of black/brown face in Canada means Justin's sins must be seen in a different context.  Unlike the US where blackface was used to denigrate blacks, she claimed that Canadian black/brown face historically did not serve that purpose.  It may be incredibly stupid and distasteful, but she saw Canadians believing this is a forgivable sin, unlike the US where it's a political death sentence.  Not sure I agree, but there you are.

I'm skeptical that this isn't primarily a case of Trudeau not being Trump, and therefore his feces are not as odorous, on principle.

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 09:15:23 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 07:28:20 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 06:40:26 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 06:29:51 AM


We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Everyone uses Ray as an example of the NDP's inherent failure, but this is flawed without some context.  This was a little before I was paying attention, but from my understanding he came to power as the ship was sinking, so there would have been pain regardless of who was in power.  Perhaps Ray messed up, I dont know if his approach was the best, but it is not completely fair to blame him for the economy he was handed.

Of course not, but he got hoist on his own petard, by promising unions pie in the sky, which he couldn't actually deliver. (And if he'd been honest, he never would have promised as much.)  I enjoyed the fact that it was the NDP government that had to stand up to the unions that they had courted with big promises when reality hit them in the face.

Had the Ontario economy been in free fall at that time, Peterson would not have called an election.  He called a snap election believing he could maintain/enhance his majority.  His party lost the election and he lost his own seat.  Bob Rae woke up the next morning and found out "Holy crap, I'm actually going to have to govern now!!"  And then it all went to he77 and Mrs Artem & I moved to the US.

As to the ongoing travails of Trudeau the lesser -- I heard a commentator on NPR this morning claiming that the history of black/brown face in Canada means Justin's sins must be seen in a different context.  Unlike the US where blackface was used to denigrate blacks, she claimed that Canadian black/brown face historically did not serve that purpose.  It may be incredibly stupid and distasteful, but she saw Canadians believing this is a forgivable sin, unlike the US where it's a political death sentence.  Not sure I agree, but there you are.

Well, as mentioned I was not really paying attention at the time, too busy with lego and such.  However, everything I read would argue that the economy was indeed in trouble before he took office.  Perhaps not free fall, but not pretty and getting worse due to things far out of his control.  Just because that may not have been a good time to implement NDP policy dosnt mean it is wrong.  Building social programs takes time to build up and likely should be done while things are economically solid. 

As for Black/Brown face in Canada, I remember friends doing this for halloween costumes around the same period and it didnt really raise any eyebrows at the time (in my admittedly small, very white town).  I understand the issue with it, but he was a drama teacher dressing up as a character almost 20 years ago and has apologized profusely so I dont think it is really a big deal.  I am far more concerned with people's stances that would impact their policy decisions.  However, given his focus on diversity etc., it is quite ironic that he was a serial black/brown facer...   

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 09:15:23 AM

As to the ongoing travails of Trudeau the lesser -- I heard a commentator on NPR this morning claiming that the history of black/brown face in Canada means Justin's sins must be seen in a different context.  Unlike the US where blackface was used to denigrate blacks, she claimed that Canadian black/brown face historically did not serve that purpose.  It may be incredibly stupid and distasteful, but she saw Canadians believing this is a forgivable sin, unlike the US where it's a political death sentence.  Not sure I agree, but there you are.

I don't know that the history is significantly different here, apart from our relationship to slaves and slavery being significantly different. What I do know is that Canadians are much less aware of race and and racism than Americans are. I would bet good money that in the early aughts, the overwhelming majority of Canadians had no clue about the history of blackface or why it's wrong. I think this is still true for Canadians who are Gen X and older. And, by golly, it's absolutely true for Québec; I would be surprised if even most millennials in Québec (but outside Montréal) currently think it's bad. (In part, this is due to lack of access to American and English-language media.)

I think that what's important, in Trudeau's case, is that he does have a record to fall back on, and that record has been pretty good on issues of race, and that he's apologized unreservedly. I don't think that's true for most of the American politicians who've been caught in similar scandals (although IIRC most of them were also younger than Trudeau when they last did it...). So I think he'll be given a pass, and I suspect it won't make much of a difference overall. Québec will shrug and look confused, and Ontario will go back to its red vs. blue contest (with occasional orange pockets), figuring that between someone who did some racist things and someone who's currently still an avowed homophobe (Scheer), it's a wash, and everyone will go back to justifying their votes in terms of parties and MPs rather than leaders, while secretly caring more about leadership. Oh, and I think that the Liberals have already lost a lot of the new voters they won over the last time around, simply by not delivering on any key promise except for cannabis legalization.

But it's worth noting that this isn't surprising. Before entering politics, Trudeau was widely seen as a playboy and a clown--a total lightweight. If any of Pierre's children were going to be politicians, Justin would have been almost everyone's last bet. And Trudeau has a pretty long history of cultural appropriation and other dodginess--as the Haida tattoo on his left shoulder amply testifies. So, again: why is this coming out now, in his third election, and why in Time magazine? A lot of this wasn't hidden, and high school yearbooks are where you start for opposition research, so... what gives?

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 09:58:15 AM

As for Black/Brown face in Canada, I remember friends doing this for halloween costumes around the same period and it didnt really raise any eyebrows at the time (in my admittedly small, very white town).  I understand the issue with it, but he was a drama teacher dressing up as a character almost 20 years ago and has apologized profusely so I dont think it is really a big deal.  I am far more concerned with people's stances that would impact their policy decisions.  However, given his focus on diversity etc., it is quite ironic that he was a serial black/brown facer...

Would you say the same if it was Andrew Scheer or Maxime Bernier?

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 09:58:15 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 09:15:23 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 07:28:20 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2019, 06:40:26 AM

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 06:29:51 AM


We were living in Toronto in 1990 when David Peterson (Lib - Premier) called a snap election.  The Libs lost and Bob Rae (then NDP, now Lib i understand) found himself the premier of the biggest economy in Canada.  Historically, the NDP had acted as a sort of "conscience" for the party in power.  They seemed to be able to stop Lib and Con governments from running wild but never seriously had a chance of winning power.

And then they did.  Poor Bob Rae had espoused all of these wonderful social democratic policies and, once in office, had no way or money to implement them.  I was working in a hospital at the time and all of us had to take unpaid "Rae days" to try and bring some balance back to the provincial budget.

So... vote Green or NDP or libertarian as you wish.  But in my experience all the fine rhetoric in the world runs into a propeller blade when it's time to lead a government.  Campaign in poetry, govern in prose as they say.

Everyone uses Ray as an example of the NDP's inherent failure, but this is flawed without some context.  This was a little before I was paying attention, but from my understanding he came to power as the ship was sinking, so there would have been pain regardless of who was in power.  Perhaps Ray messed up, I dont know if his approach was the best, but it is not completely fair to blame him for the economy he was handed.

Of course not, but he got hoist on his own petard, by promising unions pie in the sky, which he couldn't actually deliver. (And if he'd been honest, he never would have promised as much.)  I enjoyed the fact that it was the NDP government that had to stand up to the unions that they had courted with big promises when reality hit them in the face.

Had the Ontario economy been in free fall at that time, Peterson would not have called an election.  He called a snap election believing he could maintain/enhance his majority.  His party lost the election and he lost his own seat.  Bob Rae woke up the next morning and found out "Holy crap, I'm actually going to have to govern now!!"  And then it all went to he77 and Mrs Artem & I moved to the US.

As to the ongoing travails of Trudeau the lesser -- I heard a commentator on NPR this morning claiming that the history of black/brown face in Canada means Justin's sins must be seen in a different context.  Unlike the US where blackface was used to denigrate blacks, she claimed that Canadian black/brown face historically did not serve that purpose.  It may be incredibly stupid and distasteful, but she saw Canadians believing this is a forgivable sin, unlike the US where it's a political death sentence.  Not sure I agree, but there you are.

Well, as mentioned I was not really paying attention at the time, too busy with lego and such.  However, everything I read would argue that the economy was indeed in trouble before he took office.  Perhaps not free fall, but not pretty and getting worse due to things far out of his control.  Just because that may not have been a good time to implement NDP policy dosnt mean it is wrong.  Building social programs takes time to build up and likely should be done while things are economically solid. 

As for Black/Brown face in Canada, I remember friends doing this for halloween costumes around the same period and it didnt really raise any eyebrows at the time (in my admittedly small, very white town).  I understand the issue with it, but he was a drama teacher dressing up as a character almost 20 years ago and has apologized profusely so I dont think it is really a big deal.  I am far more concerned with people's stances that would impact their policy decisions.  However, given his focus on diversity etc., it is quite ironic that he was a serial black/brown facer...

When I was about 7, my parents purchased a sombrero and some makeup and sent me out for Hallowe'en dressed as a "Mexican". The next year, I sported a feathered head-dress and makeup of a more reddish hue. I had no idea 7 year olds could be racists. There goes my dream of being elected Prime Minister. Honestly, standards and expectations change. Indeed, the very definition of racism has been moving from "don't say bad things" to a much more general definition of cultural appropriation, systemic advantage for whites, racial/class privilege etc. As these more expanded aspects of racism gain further support, we are stumbling across a lot of people who engaged in an activity decades ago that we now decry. Fair enough - make 'em understand they did wrong. But the endless pillorying of people who did a stupid thing 30 years ago is not helping matters. As for Justin, well, he certainly ain't his father. But as to his political opponents reviewing old year books looking for dirt? C'mon. Seriously??

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 10:26:56 AM

Would you say the same if it was Andrew Scheer or Maxime Bernier?

Scheer's homophobia is still real, live, unapologetic, and continues to inform his actions in Parliament. Bernier's straight-up racism likewise continues to inform his politics. Those are meaningful differences.

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 20, 2019, 11:01:14 AM


When I was about 7, my parents purchased a sombrero and some makeup and sent me out for Hallowe'en dressed as a "Mexican". The next year, I sported a feathered head-dress and makeup of a more reddish hue. I had no idea 7 year olds could be racists. There goes my dream of being elected Prime Minister. Honestly, standards and expectations change. Indeed, the very definition of racism has been moving from "don't say bad things" to a much more general definition of cultural appropriation, systemic advantage for whites, racial/class privilege etc. As these more expanded aspects of racism gain further support, we are stumbling across a lot of people who engaged in an activity decades ago that we now decry. Fair enough - make 'em understand they did wrong. But the endless pillorying of people who did a stupid thing 30 years ago is not helping matters. As for Justin, well, he certainly ain't his father. But as to his political opponents reviewing old year books looking for dirt? C'mon. Seriously??

But why endlessly pillory people who are long dead, who no doubt, if they were alive today, would not do the things they did then?
That's why this whole thing is so stupid, and why he deserves what he gets because of his own moral grandstanding.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2019, 11:02:52 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2019, 10:26:56 AM

Would you say the same if it was Andrew Scheer or Maxime Bernier?

Scheer's homophobia is still real, live, unapologetic, and continues to inform his actions in Parliament. Bernier's straight-up racism likewise continues to inform his politics. Those are meaningful differences.

Exactly. 

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2019, 10:19:24 AM
So, again: why is this coming out now, in his third election, and why in Time magazine? A lot of this wasn't hidden, and high school yearbooks are where you start for opposition research, so... what gives?

That crossed my mind too!  The same was raised when a photo of blackface was discovered in Virginia Governor Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook earlier this year.

So let's follow up.  How does one get to be a parliamentary candidate in Canada?  Is the system the same as parties in Britain use, the 'selection weekends' and all, or do ordinary voters get a say?  And how does one become a party member, potentially be removed as one, etc., and do parties charge membership dues as they do in Britain?  I do know that Canada permitsto minority governments, which would seem to preclude two or three of the left leaning parties whose total number of MPs may equal a majority from forming a coalition, should the Conservatives have won a plurality?  Or am I missing something?  In any case this setup seems vastly different from the US o e?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 20, 2019, 09:47:28 PM
So let's follow up.  How does one get to be a parliamentary candidate in Canada?

Depends on the party. Every party has a different constitution, and different rules and regulations. All appointments are ultimately up to the leader, but the names that go before her can get there in different ways, depending on the party. For most parties, you need a certain number of signatures from citizens in your riding, plus you need to fundraise a certain amount (often absurdly high) and gift it to the party. For the Greens, there's no fundraising: you get voted in by Green party members in your riding, and the leader respects the results of the election.

Leadership selection is also variable. Sometimes it's party members who vote. Sometimes, any Canadian can (this is how the Liberals ran their last leadership contest).

Quote
And how does one become a party member, potentially be removed as one, etc., and do parties charge membership dues as they do in Britain?

To become a member, you click a link/write a letter, pay a nominal, tax-deductible fee (usually 5$), and wait to get your membership card in the mail. You can only belong to a single party at a time. Methods of removal also vary, but generally the leader can remove you, as can (IIRC) your riding association.

QuoteI do know that Canada permitsto minority governments, which would seem to preclude two or three of the left leaning parties whose total number of MPs may equal a majority from forming a coalition, should the Conservatives have won a plurality?  Or am I missing something?

It's not precluded. Minority governments can be formed, and sometimes are. Generally, whoever's won a plurality gets the first shot at forming government, but a coalition can approach the Governor General/Queen with the intent of forming government.

What you're missing is that this is actually quite rare because of the first past the post system. As soon as a party takes a plurality of votes in a riding, they win that entire riding. And seats in Parliament are based on ridings. So, usually, if a party wins around 31-33% of the vote, that translates into a majority government. What the minority parties need, collectively, in order to form a government, is not a plurality of votes, but a plurality of ridings.

Quote
In any case this setup seems vastly different from the US o e?

Well... yeah? We're a Westminster democracy. You're not.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2019, 09:10:52 AM
What you're missing is that this is actually quite rare because of the first past the post system. As soon as a party takes a plurality of votes in a riding, they win that entire riding. And seats in Parliament are based on ridings. So, usually, if a party wins around 31-33% of the vote, that translates into a majority government. What the minority parties need, collectively, in order to form a government, is not a plurality of votes, but a plurality of ridings.

Thanks for this explanation. I've lived here (in Canada) nearly five years -- and my first book even concerns the Canadian constitution! -- but this is the clearest explanation I've seen of the first-past-the-post system.

Thanks.  The U.S. Obviously isn't a Westminster system, but we have first past the post here too.  The difference is that with really only two parties plus the very occasional independent winning seats in the U.S. Congress, a 31 percent of the vote getting party, even with gerrymandering, really ain't going to win a majority of seats in either house of congress.  Is gerrymandering even possible in Canada, btw?  Otoh our political primary system allows for direct popular voter ability to choose candidates, which does seem more democratic, and which severely limits the ability of party leaders in either house to enforce lockstep party discipline.

Can Canadian parliamentarians challenge their party leader for the leadership at any time, or is this only possible at certain fixed intervals?

I'm a member of the Green party, but considering voting for the PPC. Why would I vote for these right-wing nutcases? Easy: 1) they have zero chance of winning in my riding and 2) if enough people vote for them they might continue, which will mean splitting the vote on the right in the future, ensuring we don't ever get Conservative majority governments in power again.
If we can create some balance so we split the right as much as we split the left, then governments will be forced to abandon FPTP and we may have some real democracy again.

What is FPTP?

btw someone above alluded to possibly voting 'libertarian' in the upcoming Canadian national election?  Is there indeed a 'Libertarian' party up north contesting national parliamentary elections there, and, if so, how strong is it?

FPTP: first past the post. The electoral system in Canada.
There is no national libertarian party that I'm aware of but all kinds of small parties run candidates in most jurisdictions. Last election I saw the Marxist party, the Animal Rights party, maybe  a Libertarian on the ballot I can't recall... we have lots of options.

So how many parties figure to win at least one seat in the upcoming election?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 23, 2019, 09:46:08 PM
So how many parties figure to win at least one seat in the upcoming election?

Bloc Québecois (but they only run in Québec)
Conservative Party
Green Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
People's Party of Canada

Quote from: traductio on September 21, 2019, 08:53:10 PM

Thanks for this explanation. I've lived here (in Canada) nearly five years -- and my first book even concerns the Canadian constitution! -- but this is the clearest explanation I've seen of the first-past-the-post system.

Flattery will get you everywhere!

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 21, 2019, 10:04:11 PM
Is gerrymandering even possible in Canada, btw? 

Ridings are delimited by an independent commission in each province, so no, not really. Riding boundaries are reviewed every ten years, after the census.

Quote
Can Canadian parliamentarians challenge their party leader for the leadership at any time, or is this only possible at certain fixed intervals?

Pretty much only at a party convention, and there are procedures governing that. Basically, if you become the leader, you pretty much aren't replaced until you step down or die. It's very difficult to oust a sitting leader. Canadian MPs (and backbenchers especially) have way less control and power than their UK counterparts (by some measures, anyway).

Thanks.

Would the Bloc Quebecois be willing to sit in a national governing coalition?

What is the nature of The People's Party of Canada?

Btw, while we're at it, anyone want to explain what real role the Canadian Senate has?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 23, 2019, 10:15:30 PM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 21, 2019, 10:04:11 PM
Is gerrymandering even possible in Canada, btw? 

Ridings are delimited by an independent commission in each province, so no, not really. Riding boundaries are reviewed every ten years, after the census.

This has always weirded me out about the American system, that this is NOT independent of the governing party.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 23, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Thanks.

Would the Bloc Quebecois be willing to sit in a national governing coalition?

Actually, some years back they formed the official opposition when votes on the right were split. In a minority government they would probably vote for anything which they saw as in the best interests of Quebec.

Quote
What is the nature of The People's Party of Canada?

The party was started by a former Conservative cabinet minister and leadership candidate. It's more libertarian than the conservative party. While I don't agree with many of their policy ideas, and I wouldn't likely vote for them, I don't see them as xenophobic bigots* or anything like that. It's better to have a broad debate of issues than a very narrow one, in my opinion.

*(Every party has bigots and so on; it's not limited to a particularly ideology. All that changes is who they think the "bad hombres" are.)

Quote
Btw, while we're at it, anyone want to explain what real role the Canadian Senate has?

Most Canadians would appreciate that as well :)

In principle, I think their main purpose is to propose amendments to bills before their final adoption.

It used to be to provide a sinecure for party faithful who couldn't get elected.......

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 23, 2019, 10:41:34 PM

Would the Bloc Quebecois be willing to sit in a national governing coalition?

You've got it backwards. The question isn't whether the Bloc would want to be part of a coalition--it might well--but rather whether the other parties, and Canadians in general, could stomach it. The Bloc is a separatist party. Which means that it draws a lot of ire outside Québec, and any party that entered into a governing coalition with it would take a ton of flak. Given the likelihood of a an election in any coalition near future, most parties would think of that as shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed, the Conservatives wouldn't hesitate to demonize any such coalition. Not only have they consistently demonized the Bloc to rally the ROC, but they employed just this tactic in 2008, when the Liberals and NDP were proposing a coalition (supported unofficially by the Bloc) to replace Harper's minority government. It never happened, though, because Harper prorogued Parliament after the no-confidence vote was scheduled, but before it had taken place. (IMO, this was a huge anti-democratic deal).

Canada has only ever had a single coalition government, the Union government, and it governed from 1917-1918.

Quote
What is the nature of The People's Party of Canada?

Maxime Bernier, a Québec conservative politician (they're extremely rare there), was unhappy about losing the Conservative leadership race again. He also hates supply management, and thought the Conservatives were insufficiently concerned about it. So he formed his own party and rode the anti-immigrant wave to this election. They don't have a proper platform yet (two weeks into the six-week campaign), but it'll feature the end of supply management and corporate subsidies, ending the GST and health transfer payments, encouraging privatization in healthcare, significant cuts to immigration, and total inaction on climate (because climate change is a hoax).

Quote
Btw, while we're at it, anyone want to explain what real role the Canadian Senate has?

In theory, close to none. It's a sinecure, and supposed to have no real power, except to amend bills or delay their passing, and to conduct investigations. Bills can also be introduced in the Senate, provided they don't impose taxes or concern appropriations. Senators are appointed by the PM at his sole discretion, although the Tories tried to set up elections, and the Liberals have set up an appointments commission. There are only Liberal, Conservative, and independent senators. This is because those are the only two parties ever to have held power in this country, and thus, they're the only parties to have rewarded their followers. The NDP has long thought the Senate should be abolished, and so would not appoint any of its own to the chamber even if it could (and would oppose the appointment of any NDP member).

In 2010, the Conservative Party instructed its senators to reject a climate change bill that was passed by every party in the House except the Conservatives. There was hardly any debate before its rejection. This was extremely unusual (as I said, the practice has been for the Senate to accept the will of Parliament; it's a power they technically have, but aren't really supposed to exercise, much like the Queen's powers), and has heralded the dawn of a much more active Senate, which sort of confuses the issue since we only have one elected legislative body, and its will is now subject to the whims of appointed hacks from just two parties.

Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:43:23 PM
FPTP: first past the post. The electoral system in Canada.
There is no national libertarian party that I'm aware of but all kinds of small parties run candidates in most jurisdictions. Last election I saw the Marxist party, the Animal Rights party, maybe  a Libertarian on the ballot I can't recall... we have lots of options.

And the Rhinoceros party is running a candidate in at least one riding!

Quote from: ursula on September 24, 2019, 09:07:02 AM

Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:43:23 PM
FPTP: first past the post. The electoral system in Canada.
There is no national libertarian party that I'm aware of but all kinds of small parties run candidates in most jurisdictions. Last election I saw the Marxist party, the Animal Rights party, maybe  a Libertarian on the ballot I can't recall... we have lots of options.

And the Rhinoceros party is running a candidate in at least one riding!

Maxime Bernier in Maxime Bernier's Beauce riding? :D

Quote from: ursula on September 24, 2019, 09:07:02 AM

Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:43:23 PM
FPTP: first past the post. The electoral system in Canada.
There is no national libertarian party that I'm aware of but all kinds of small parties run candidates in most jurisdictions. Last election I saw the Marxist party, the Animal Rights party, maybe  a Libertarian on the ballot I can't recall... we have lots of options.

And the Rhinoceros party is running a candidate in at least one riding!

And if you're old enough to remember the Natural Law party, that was going to have yogic fliers on Parliament Hill (seriously!!!!), then you know how fascinating it can be!

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 24, 2019, 09:10:56 AM

Quote from: ursula on September 24, 2019, 09:07:02 AM

Quote from: pedanticromantic on September 23, 2019, 09:43:23 PM
FPTP: first past the post. The electoral system in Canada.
There is no national libertarian party that I'm aware of but all kinds of small parties run candidates in most jurisdictions. Last election I saw the Marxist party, the Animal Rights party, maybe  a Libertarian on the ballot I can't recall... we have lots of options.

And the Rhinoceros party is running a candidate in at least one riding!

And if you're old enough to remember the Natural Law party, that was going to have yogic fliers on Parliament Hill (seriously!!!!), then you know how fascinating it can be!

As I recall the magician Doug Henning was one of their candidates.  One would think they would have realized that yogic flying (i.e. bumping around on your butt) was fundamentally incompatible with the natural law of gravity.  And if he was such a great magician, why didn't he make all the competing magicians disappear and have the market all to himself????

What ever happened to the SoCreds up there in the Great White North?  Are they still kicking around in BC or elsewhere?  I used to think their policy of a guaranteed national income was pretty crazy but one of the D's running here in the US (Andrew Yang) is proposing a "Freedom Dividend" of $1000 a month and as technology starts displacing more and more people from jobs, there are more and more test cases of a basic minimum income that does not depend on being employed. 

Too bad nobody from this party is running:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 24, 2019, 01:07:31 PM
What ever happened to the SoCreds up there in the Great White North?  Are they still kicking around in BC or elsewhere?  I used to think their policy of a guaranteed national income was pretty crazy but one of the D's running here in the US (Andrew Yang) is proposing a "Freedom Dividend" of $1000 a month and as technology starts displacing more and more people from jobs, there are more and more test cases of a basic minimum income that does not depend on being employed. 

Too bad nobody from this party is running:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

I forgot about the Loony party. And I guess now that pot is legal there will no longer be a marijuana party (another I already forgot), although the next battle is legal mushrooms.
Pretty sure there was a really right-wing party last time in my riding but can't remember their name.
It's sad how fractured the Left are, though. It's like we can't decide on anything. It's why I gave up working in politics. I kind of feel that way about the university too sometimes--it's great that some things are democratic, but it means we get far less done than if we just had a benevolent dictator making decisions and informing us.  Every meeting we have to be sure to give everyone their voice, but most of the time it's just blow-hards puffing themselves up to hear themselves speak rather than contributing anything meaningful.

I hope the Greens can make some real gains this time. It won't be in my riding, but as a member I like how they put forward ideas and we all voted on them, and then those are what made up the platform. There seems to be a lot more room for direct democracy with our current technologies, and yet we're still stuck in the 1800s when it comes to entire structure of our government and democracy.

Thanks again.  Random additional thoughts and questions:

1. This Bernier chap sounds like a nut and one whose views sound far outside of the Canadian mainstream.  Who's gonna vote for him?
2. What is supply management?
3. Could Commons, by itself, vote to abolish the Senate?  Canada has no written constitution, right, since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just a bill of rights, right?
4. A UK politicians I know told me once that the House of Lords's sole remaining inviolable power is to force the government to call a new election when the HOL determines that the national emergency the government cited to postpone the normal end of mandate-timed election no longer exists, as it ultimately did in 1945.  Does the Canadian Senate have anything like this, and can Commons ever postpone elections?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 24, 2019, 09:47:03 PM
Thanks again.  Random additional thoughts and questions:

1. This Bernier chap sounds like a nut and one whose views sound far outside of the Canadian mainstream.  Who's gonna vote for him?

I don't think he's a nut, although as I said, I wouldn't likely vote for him. There are a lot of issues that are worth discussing.....

Quote
2. What is supply management?

..including this one.

Supply management (or the "quota" system) works like the New York city taxi medallion system. Dairy farmers buy "quota" at auction, which determines how much milk they can sell. By limiting the amount sold, (i.e. "supply management"), prices can be kept from falling arbitrarily low.

A few points:

• The system has been around since the 70's at least.
• Only a small part of the agriculture system has supply management. (Dairy is the big one.)
• It accounts for a tiny part of the economy, and affects some regions much more than others.
• Trump pointed to it and got a lot of mileage out of it in the NAFTA talks as an example of how the US was being treated unfairly by NAFTA.

My own $0.02:

Since it's been around for half a century, and technology and the global economy have changed drastically in that time, it's at least worth discussing whether something like this is necessary, and even if SOMETHING is needed, whether this is the best model.  Since other sectors of agriculture get along without it, is it possible that if it were phased out, even over 10 or 20 years, that it could be done without destroying that sector? This should be able to be discussed.

While Trump brought it up for NAFTA, the fact remains that it has been and will be a challenge for Canada in ANY trade agreements as long as it's in place.


I'll leave the Senate questions to someone else.

Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

On cancelling elections: the CBC tackled that one this AM--

Can elections be postponed or cancelled?

Yes. It hasn't happened in the 99-year history of Elections Canada, but that's not to say it couldn't happen.

Election Canada says in "extreme situations" in which it is "practically impossible" to carry out the election in one or more ridings, their Chief Electoral Officer could recommend the election be postponed by up to a week or completely start over. Reasons could include floods, fires or other unforeseen disasters.

Elections Canada says the final decision about setting a new election date would rest with the current prime minister and the cabinet. Parliament would remain dissolved.

Elections have been postponed in individual ridings before. During P.E.I.'s provincial election in April, Green Party candidate Josh Underhay died just ahead of election day, postponing the vote in the Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park riding by almost three months.

Quote from: Catherder on September 25, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2019, 05:43:35 AM

Quote from: Catherder on September 25, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Yes, the black and white nature of the debate is a problem. 

Supply management is often supported based on maintaining family farms, but a lot of the quota gets gobbled up by large farms.  We have a chicken farm in my area (another supply managed sector) that has been expanding like crazy and by my estimates has over a dozen barns with capacity for millions of birds at any given time.  Meanwhile, a friend of mine with a farm growing cash crops wants to start farming chickens (beyond his limit allowed without quota) and cant because there is no quota available and when it becomes available it gets bought up by these large farms.  The value of quota itself is an issue since farmers can sell quota and it has become a commodity making farmers with quotas very protective of the system (its like cash in the bank).  So, a major issue with supply management is that while it is pitched as a mechanism to preserve the family farm it actually creates a barrier for small farmers to enter. 

Does this mean the whole system should be scrapped?  I dont think.  Some of the oversupply issues in some American states are a good example of why not.  However, this dosnt mean it should be left untouched and as a country we should be able to discuss the future of it to make sure that it actually protects family farms and allows would be farmers to enter the market without unreasonable barriers.

It is also an issue with all trade agreements.  Before Trump and NAFTA, we had to compromise for the TPP as well.  However, I view food security and self sufficiency as a national interest and dont think we should compromise too much on this.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 25, 2019, 05:56:45 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2019, 05:43:35 AM

Quote from: Catherder on September 25, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Yes, the black and white nature of the debate is a problem. 

Supply management is often supported based on maintaining family farms, but a lot of the quota gets gobbled up by large farms.  We have a chicken farm in my area (another supply managed sector) that has been expanding like crazy and by my estimates has over a dozen barns with capacity for millions of birds at any given time.  Meanwhile, a friend of mine with a farm growing cash crops wants to start farming chickens (beyond his limit allowed without quota) and cant because there is no quota available and when it becomes available it gets bought up by these large farms.  The value of quota itself is an issue since farmers can sell quota and it has become a commodity making farmers with quotas very protective of the system (its like cash in the bank).  So, a major issue with supply management is that while it is pitched as a mechanism to preserve the family farm it actually creates a barrier for small farmers to enter. 

Does this mean the whole system should be scrapped?  I dont think.  Some of the oversupply issues in some American states are a good example of why not.  However, this dosnt mean it should be left untouched and as a country we should be able to discuss the future of it to make sure that it actually protects family farms and allows would be farmers to enter the market without unreasonable barriers.

It is also an issue with all trade agreements.  Before Trump and NAFTA, we had to compromise for the TPP as well.  However, I view food security and self sufficiency as a national interest and dont think we should compromise too much on this.

Now that weed is legal, should we expect quotas/supply management/Canadian Ganja Marketing Board sort of tomfoolery?

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 25, 2019, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 25, 2019, 05:56:45 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2019, 05:43:35 AM

Quote from: Catherder on September 25, 2019, 05:15:57 AM
Living in a rural area among dairy farmers facing multiple threats to the survival of family farms, I think supply management is vital.

I grew up in a rural area, and both of my parents grew up on farms. I don't mean to understate the challenges faced by family farms. But I don't see how it's helpful when the only two positions that can be heard are "Get rid of supply management!" and "Don't touch supply management!"
Great as dramatic headlines, but hardly conducive to any rational change, including change for the better.

Yes, the black and white nature of the debate is a problem. 

Supply management is often supported based on maintaining family farms, but a lot of the quota gets gobbled up by large farms.  We have a chicken farm in my area (another supply managed sector) that has been expanding like crazy and by my estimates has over a dozen barns with capacity for millions of birds at any given time.  Meanwhile, a friend of mine with a farm growing cash crops wants to start farming chickens (beyond his limit allowed without quota) and cant because there is no quota available and when it becomes available it gets bought up by these large farms.  The value of quota itself is an issue since farmers can sell quota and it has become a commodity making farmers with quotas very protective of the system (its like cash in the bank).  So, a major issue with supply management is that while it is pitched as a mechanism to preserve the family farm it actually creates a barrier for small farmers to enter. 

Does this mean the whole system should be scrapped?  I dont think.  Some of the oversupply issues in some American states are a good example of why not.  However, this dosnt mean it should be left untouched and as a country we should be able to discuss the future of it to make sure that it actually protects family farms and allows would be farmers to enter the market without unreasonable barriers.

It is also an issue with all trade agreements.  Before Trump and NAFTA, we had to compromise for the TPP as well.  However, I view food security and self sufficiency as a national interest and dont think we should compromise too much on this.

Now that weed is legal, should we expect quotas/supply management/Canadian Ganja Marketing Board sort of tomfoolery?

They had it for tobacco, so it wouldn't be out of character.  Also, LPs are licensed based on production capacity, so they are capped in some ways, but officially there is no overall cap.

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1178027994285260800
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/all-of-trudeaus-blackface-moments-so-far/

New video and pictures of Trudeau in black face.

Quote from: Anselm on September 29, 2019, 07:49:52 AM
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1178027994285260800
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/all-of-trudeaus-blackface-moments-so-far/

New video and pictures of Trudeau in black face.

Those aren't new instances.

Met my local Green and Liberal candidates this weekend. They drew similar crowds, but the Green candidate was way, way better organized (and more articulate and substantial in his responses) than the Liberal, whose whole event was surprisingly rinkydink and ramshackle. His campaign team must be sucking up the party's money, because they're not getting much bang for their bucks.

The Conservative candidate came by to plant signs a few weeks ago, but it doesn't seem like she'll be doing a meet and greet here. Nor does it seem like the Poople's Party candidate will. No word from our NDP candidate, either.

The Greens here came second to the Liberals in the last provincial election. I wouldn't be suprised if they took it this time around. Everyone was laser-focused on climate change and the environment, and apparently that's been the story throughout the whole riding.

One more set of questions.... Exactly what powers and duties does the governor-general have, how does one get to be that, and after an election if the ruling party switches, can the new PM immediately replace the GG with a member of his own party?

The GG is basically The Queen unless Her Majesty is in the country. She has almost all of the Queen's powers, but can't really exercise them independently of Parliament without precipitating a constitutional crisis.

Governors General are appointed by the Queen, on the PM's advice. They serve at her pleasure, and so are only turfed or replaced by her. Usually, though, the minimum term is five years. The PM can't just replace her, because she's the head of state, and thus outranks him. Traditionally, GGs alternate between a Francophone and an Anglophone.

The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

Along with half the Senate. The Senate has a purpose, I believe, to some extent, but I think we could do with half the numbers. Then again, I also think we should have more direct democracy and fewer MPs! Just too many servants on the public dime getting full pensions after only a few years.

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2019, 05:11:13 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 07:44:11 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2019, 05:11:13 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

And then Trudeau and future leaders could have new coins issued every year or so as the people pictured on them fall out of favour.

I actually have long supported sundering the roles of head of state and head of government here, and giving the head of state president the authority to sack the head of government, whatever we'd end up calling that office, if he proved incompetent, corrupt, or mentally incompetent, and if needed to call a new election.  Our founding fathers never anticipated the imperial presidency as it has developed.

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2019, 07:53:16 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 07:44:11 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2019, 05:11:13 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 04:16:01 AM
The GG is in essence just a figure head with no actual power.  They host visitors, give speaches, and live in a fancy house on our dime.  Obviously, I think the position should be abolished ..

The best argument I heard for the monarchy (and by extension, the GG) was that the monarch represents the institution of government, independent of the current partisan head of government (prime minister). We can give the Queen or her representative the pomp and circumstance due to the office, and not have to bestow all of that on the prime minister. You only have to look south of the border to see what it looks like to have the current office holder get all of the flag-waving, motorcades, etc. to see the alternative. (And also, in the US "First Lady" (or presumably some day, "First Gentleman") is a role with almost as much profile as the GG, but similarly ceremonial.) In politics as elsewhere, nature abhors a vacuum.

That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

And then Trudeau and future leaders could have new coins issued every year or so as the people pictured on them fall out of favour.

Well that doesn't have to be the case: look at our paper money, as an example. Plenty of great Canadians to celebrate, and I vote for Tommy Douglas to be the first!

I like the original US constitution as a model, although I agree with Kaysixteen that the founding fathers never anticipated anything like today. The religion in politics, taking the currency off gold, and giving power to corporations has destroyed the original ideals. If the USA could go back to what the founding fathers had in mind, the country would be a much better place, IMO.

Actually, the "real" Hamilton (not the character portrayed in the rap show) had precisely those fears.

M.

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 02, 2019, 09:38:14 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 01, 2019, 07:53:16 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 01, 2019, 07:44:11 AM


That may be the best argument, but I still dont buy it.  I generally oppose the monarchy and everything it represents.  I also wish the queen would get off my coins and we could celebrate Canadians instead.       

And then Trudeau and future leaders could have new coins issued every year or so as the people pictured on them fall out of favour.

Well that doesn't have to be the case: look at our paper money, as an example. Plenty of great Canadians to celebrate, and I vote for Tommy Douglas to be the first!

He was, if I recall, a preacher, so he probably said some things which would now be politically incorrect. He also probably drove a gas-guzzling car, which would now be (or soon will be) environmentally incorrect. Someone would be sure to nix him pretty quickly.

Quote from: mamselle on October 02, 2019, 09:43:25 AM
Actually, the "real" Hamilton (not the character portrayed in the rap show) had precisely those fears.

M.

And an interesting Atlantic article considers the issues that arise between John Jay and Jefferson (and others) re: the Presidential invocation of "Executive privilege," or not, in a different setting.

(Sorry, can't link from this phone...)

M.

Did my duty and voted yesterday.

Also, I finally got around to watching the first English-language debate (the Maclean's debate). I cannot believe Scheer said all that about indigenous peoples on camera, live, and so explicitly. What. The. FUCK?


EDIT: He stuffed his foot further down his throat in the French debate. Man alive, what is he doing? Has nobody coached him?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 08, 2019, 02:45:49 PM
Did my duty and voted yesterday.

Also, I finally got around to watching the first English-language debate (the Maclean's debate). I cannot believe Scheer said all that about indigenous peoples on camera, live, and so explicitly. What. The. FUCK?


EDIT: He stuffed his foot further down his throat in the French debate. Man alive, what is he doing? Has nobody coached him?

Maybe he thinks "If Trump can win that way..."

Our fault, sorry...

M.

I voted in the advance polls yesterday. There were 4 people in line ahead of me--and 2 of them were young, first-time voters. That's a good sign! I've never seen young people get so involved before.
Unfortunately I live in a region where it's always a toss-up between Libs and Cons, so most people vote strategically. I did not. I voted for the candidate I want to win, which I feel is effectively throwing my vote away in this stupid system, but oh well. I'm hoping for a minority government so whoever wins has to negotiate with the NDP, Bloc and Greens to get anything done.

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 15, 2019, 09:19:23 AM
I voted in the advance polls yesterday. There were 4 people in line ahead of me--and 2 of them were young, first-time voters. That's a good sign! I've never seen young people get so involved before.
Unfortunately I live in a region where it's always a toss-up between Libs and Cons, so most people vote strategically. I did not. I voted for the candidate I want to win, which I feel is effectively throwing my vote away in this stupid system, but oh well. I'm hoping for a minority government so whoever wins has to negotiate with the NDP, Bloc and Greens to get anything done.

Yay! My vote may also have been thrown away, but then again, anybody who votes for a candidate that doesn't win has thrown their vote away, so...

Honestly, I'm not at all moved by arguments for strategic voting. To my mind, it's a recipe for perpetual strategic voting. The other side is always the main threat, and they're always worse. I'd rather do my part to help make our lower-tier parties into viable options.

It would be nice if the social conservatives could hive off their progressive fellows, though. The Progressive/Reform merger was a bad deal for the country (including progressive conservatives).

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 15, 2019, 09:19:23 AM
I voted in the advance polls yesterday. There were 4 people in line ahead of me--and 2 of them were young, first-time voters. That's a good sign! I've never seen young people get so involved before.
Unfortunately I live in a region where it's always a toss-up between Libs and Cons, so most people vote strategically. I did not. I voted for the candidate I want to win, which I feel is effectively throwing my vote away in this stupid system, but oh well. I'm hoping for a minority government so whoever wins has to negotiate with the NDP, Bloc and Greens to get anything done.

I also voted in the advanced polls for a candidate that has no chance of winning.  I am in a deeply conservative riding though, so there is no strategic voting possible here.  If there were, I may consider it, even though I agree that it is problematic.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 15, 2019, 09:35:44 AM

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 15, 2019, 09:19:23 AM
I voted in the advance polls yesterday. There were 4 people in line ahead of me--and 2 of them were young, first-time voters. That's a good sign! I've never seen young people get so involved before.
Unfortunately I live in a region where it's always a toss-up between Libs and Cons, so most people vote strategically. I did not. I voted for the candidate I want to win, which I feel is effectively throwing my vote away in this stupid system, but oh well. I'm hoping for a minority government so whoever wins has to negotiate with the NDP, Bloc and Greens to get anything done.

Yay! My vote may also have been thrown away, but then again, anybody who votes for a candidate that doesn't win has thrown their vote away, so...

Honestly, I'm not at all moved by arguments for strategic voting. To my mind, it's a recipe for perpetual strategic voting.

I'd go even farther than that. If the winning candidate won by 5000 votes, then in principle even 4999 of the people who voted for that candidate "wasted" their votes; ie. they were unnecessary.

So taking it to its logical conclusion, only a small fraction of votes aren't "wasted" in the strictest sense.

ChantaL Hebert wrote a column a couple of weeks ago that basically expressed my feelings; the Greens will keep picking up votes until the major parties convince people they're serious about the environment. (And FWIW, I don't see the environment as specifically a "left" issue; there are lots of reasons that many more conservative voters, who often are more rural and have to deal with things like pollutants in their groundwater, can be very strongly in favour of environmental protection.)

Greens and Tories are currently tied for second in my riding. It would be amazing if the Greens could win it, and shake things up a bit.

Too bad the Liberal candidate is just another poteau de téléphone, as we say. He'll earn his sinecure and largely ignore the interests of the riding.

Correct me if I err, but seeing as Canada has several parties credibly contesting parliamentary elections, do ant provinces have something like a handful of US states do, where if no candidate wins an absolute majority in the general, the top two finishers square off in a runoff, assuring that the eventual victor ultimately did earn a majority of sorts, rather than letting someone take the seat who may not even have gotten a third of the vote?  Many big US cities do this for mayoral elections as well, though those races are usually nonpartisan.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 18, 2019, 09:27:49 PM
Correct me if I err, but seeing as Canada has several parties credibly contesting parliamentary elections, do ant provinces have something like a handful of US states do, where if no candidate wins an absolute majority in the general, the top two finishers square off in a runoff, assuring that the eventual victor ultimately did earn a majority of sorts, rather than letting someone take the seat who may not even have gotten a third of the vote?  Many big US cities do this for mayoral elections as well, though those races are usually nonpartisan.

No. Plurality takes all.

This is certainly proving to be an interesting election. The system is positively broken if someone getting only 30% of the vote is allowed to govern. I'd be happy with a minority coalition government: The NDP apparently made it one of their pre-reqs to any coalition to open electoral reform. Then again, I trust all politicians about as far as I can throw them. We've been let down too many times, and most will grab power whatever way they can (I think of what the Lib Dems did in the UK... utter disgrace).
A minority is how our system should work: parties working together to get things done for the common good, not for their own point-scoring.

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 19, 2019, 03:28:42 PM
This is certainly proving to be an interesting election. The system is positively broken if someone getting only 30% of the vote is allowed to govern. I'd be happy with a minority coalition government: The NDP apparently made it one of their pre-reqs to any coalition to open electoral reform. Then again, I trust all politicians about as far as I can throw them. We've been let down too many times, and most will grab power whatever way they can (I think of what the Lib Dems did in the UK... utter disgrace).
A minority is how our system should work: parties working together to get things done for the common good, not for their own point-scoring.

But periodically you need majorities so that tough necessary things can be done. Reigning in deficits, for example; in a minority situation no-one wants to be the bad guy so hard things just get ignored.

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 19, 2019, 05:10:45 PM

Quote from: pedanticromantic on October 19, 2019, 03:28:42 PM
This is certainly proving to be an interesting election. The system is positively broken if someone getting only 30% of the vote is allowed to govern. I'd be happy with a minority coalition government: The NDP apparently made it one of their pre-reqs to any coalition to open electoral reform. Then again, I trust all politicians about as far as I can throw them. We've been let down too many times, and most will grab power whatever way they can (I think of what the Lib Dems did in the UK... utter disgrace).
A minority is how our system should work: parties working together to get things done for the common good, not for their own point-scoring.

But periodically you need majorities so that tough necessary things can be done. Reigning in deficits, for example; in a minority situation no-one wants to be the bad guy so hard things just get ignored.

I'm not sure how a minority fixes that... after all, the biggest deficits we've had have been in recent years under majority governments. I think in general the 4-year cycle means that no party wants to actually reduce deficits because raising taxes and cutting programs are never popular.
No party should be able to make a hard decision if they only have 30% of the population's support anyway... this is why I think the system is completely broken.

Liberals are predicted to hold on to power:

QuoteCBC have called the election for Trudeau, though have said "whether it will be a minority or majority government remains to be seen."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/oct/22/canada-election-2019-justin-trudeau-faces-reckoning-as-polls-predict-close-result-live

My sister is trailing in the polls, but her riding has only counted a few hundred votes so far.

I'm delighted by the Green breakthrough in Fredericton, and hope it firms up as the night goes on!

Polls only just closed on the west coast, though, and it looks like BC will matter quite a bit to the overall picture. Too soon to know how it's breaking.

Interesting to see and hear how these elections are playing out....

M.

Well, that's a relief. Pretty much the best outcome I could realistically hope for. I hope the NDP can push the Liberals harder on the environment.

(Also, without a majority, TransMountain is in some trouble. Whew!)

Sooo...for those of us watching along at home...who/what is TransMountain?

Thanks d'avance

M.

For all of the Americans who thought it a tragedy that Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election, the Conservatives won the popular vote but the Liberals won the election.

Different systems, but it's just worth pointing out that quirks in the system are not the end of the world, and politicians need to focus more on communicating honestly and productively with voters than on micromanaging the process (or whining when some detail doesn't work in their favour.)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 21, 2019, 11:48:19 PM
Well, that's a relief. Pretty much the best outcome I could realistically hope for. I hope the NDP can push the Liberals harder on the environment.

(Also, without a majority, TransMountain is in some trouble. Whew!)

Agreed, and I hope they push for electoral reform as well 

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 22, 2019, 05:03:00 AM
For all of the Americans who thought it a tragedy that Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election, the Conservatives won the popular vote but the Liberals won the election.

Different systems, but it's just worth pointing out that quirks in the system are not the end of the world, and politicians need to focus more on communicating honestly and productively with voters than on micromanaging the process (or whining when some detail doesn't work in their favour.)

Yes, in many ways ours is worse since you can end up with a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote and our new government will be governing with low 30s of the popular vote. 

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 22, 2019, 05:32:20 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 21, 2019, 11:48:19 PM
Well, that's a relief. Pretty much the best outcome I could realistically hope for. I hope the NDP can push the Liberals harder on the environment.

(Also, without a majority, TransMountain is in some trouble. Whew!)

Agreed, and I hope they push for electoral reform as well

No way at all! Given that Trudeau dropped it with a majority, there's no way he'll go for it with a minority where it would have made him much worse off!

Quote from: mamselle on October 22, 2019, 02:26:57 AM
Sooo...for those of us watching along at home...who/what is TransMountain?

Thanks d'avance

M.

Nevermind. I found it. It's a pipeline.

M.

Quote from: mamselle on October 22, 2019, 07:37:32 AM

Quote from: mamselle on October 22, 2019, 02:26:57 AM
Sooo...for those of us watching along at home...who/what is TransMountain?

Thanks d'avance

M.

Nevermind. I found it. It's a pipeline.

M.

Through BC, and which BC does not want. So they managed to scupper it with litigation, then the Liberals bought it for $4.5 billion so that they could build it and sell it back once it was built (rather than, say, nationalizing it and using the profits to green the economy). They basically bought it to get Alberta on board with their national carbon tax scheme, but Alberta doesn't care. It wants the pipeline built, and the carbon tax gone (even though it was introduced by the Harper Conservatives).

It's a horrid idea to begin with, and a total subsequent boondoggle.

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 22, 2019, 06:48:27 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on October 22, 2019, 05:32:20 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 21, 2019, 11:48:19 PM
Well, that's a relief. Pretty much the best outcome I could realistically hope for. I hope the NDP can push the Liberals harder on the environment.

(Also, without a majority, TransMountain is in some trouble. Whew!)

Agreed, and I hope they push for electoral reform as well

No way at all! Given that Trudeau dropped it with a majority, there's no way he'll go for it with a minority where it would have made him much worse off!

Yeah, can't see it happening, but one can hope.

There are some iterations such as ranked ballot that could work for the liberals and basically prevent conservatives from having much chance