The Fora: A Higher Education Community

So... September 20th, friends. Wanna kvetch or talk about it?

I see the Tories released their platform this morning. And I see that they're sticking to their last plan for climate change: personal low-carbon savings accounts...


...


...



I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that they weren't able to get the party membership to vote in favour of stating that climate change is real.

It's depressing that we're doing this again so soon. And for what? So the Liberals can form another minority government.

My application for Canadian citizenship is still being processed. I had hoped to vote in the next election, whenever it was, either provincial or federal. But processing times, which were already long, are even longer now because of Covid.

Alas.

Why did the govt call for an early election,  if the results of said election will likely be status quo ante.   IOW, since Canada, unlike the UK, allows for a minority government, why would the opposition majority-totalling parties bother to collapse the government and force an early vote, especially since they may end up worse than they are now?

The opposition parties didn't force the vote. The minority Liberal government called the early election because they think that they can possibly get a majority while the other parties are in (at least partial) disarray. If the Liberal party gets another minority, they can make deals to govern. If the Conservative party happens to get a minority government, it's unlikely to survive long. And then we go to the polls again.

Ok-- are they right to think this?   I get that there are several parties with parliamentary seats, but what is the nature of their current 'disarray'?

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 17, 2021, 08:59:52 PM
Ok-- are they right to think this?   I get that there are several parties with parliamentary seats, but what is the nature of their current 'disarray'?

The Tory leader is polling at the lowest point in the last twenty years, well behind the last useless idiot they ran. The Libs are polling high from COVID management. The Bloc is weak a d fractious, and the Greens were in the process of ousting their leader. The NDP is the only opposition party that was holding steady.

Quote from: Morden on August 17, 2021, 08:54:05 PM
The opposition parties didn't force the vote. The minority Liberal government called the early election because they think that they can possibly get a majority while the other parties are in (at least partial) disarray. If the Liberal party gets another minority, they can make deals to govern. If the Conservative party happens to get a minority government, it's unlikely to survive long. And then we go to the polls again.

A similar situation happened provincially in Ontario in 1990. From Wikipedia:

Quote
The governing Ontario Liberal Party led by Premier David Peterson was unexpectedly defeated. Although the Peterson government, and Peterson himself, were very popular, he was accused of opportunism in calling an election just three years into his mandate. In a shocking upset, the New Democratic Party, led by Bob Rae, won a majority government. This marked the first time the NDP had won government east of Manitoba, and to date the only time the NDP formed the government in Ontario.

It doesn't always work out as planned.....

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 18, 2021, 05:39:39 AM

A similar situation happened provincially in Ontario in 1990. From Wikipedia:

Quote
Although the Peterson government, and Peterson himself, were very popular, he was accused of opportunism in calling an election just three years into his mandate.

It doesn't always work out as planned.....

A part of the public appreciates it when the politicians that represent their views act opportunistically to increase their power. That means the politicians are skilled at politics. It creates a synergy between constituents and politicians so that part of the electorate gets what it wants.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the left-leaning electorate punishes politicians for doing the things it takes to get left-leaning policies enacted, like winning a majority mandate. It sounds like exactly that happened to the Liberals in Ontario.

Quote from: Hibush on August 18, 2021, 05:53:06 AM


A part of the public appreciates it when the politicians that represent their views act opportunistically to increase their power. That means the politicians are skilled at politics. It creates a synergy between constituents and politicians so that part of the electorate gets what it wants.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the left-leaning electorate punishes politicians for doing the things it takes to get left-leaning policies enacted, like winning a majority mandate. It sounds like exactly that happened to the Liberals in Ontario.

Well, in that case it was the left that ousted the centrists.

It's worth observing, however, that Ontario politics still (thirty years later!) uses the bogeyman of the one and only NDP government in that province, despite innumerable (worse!)  scandals and serious fuckups from the Liberals and Conservatives which get memory-holed every few years.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 18, 2021, 08:00:40 AM

Quote from: Hibush on August 18, 2021, 05:53:06 AM


A part of the public appreciates it when the politicians that represent their views act opportunistically to increase their power. That means the politicians are skilled at politics. It creates a synergy between constituents and politicians so that part of the electorate gets what it wants.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the left-leaning electorate punishes politicians for doing the things it takes to get left-leaning policies enacted, like winning a majority mandate. It sounds like exactly that happened to the Liberals in Ontario.

Well, in that case it was the left that ousted the centrists.

It's worth observing, however, that Ontario politics still (thirty years later!) uses the bogeyman of the one and only NDP government in that province, despite innumerable (worse!)  scandals and serious fuckups from the Liberals and Conservatives which get memory-holed every few years.

Well, the left in Ontario still use the bogeyman of the Mike Harris Conservative government (which followed the NDP government), so there are enough bogeymen to go around.

At least there's been more than one Conservative government on which to base that induction.

Correct me if I err, but doesn't Trudeau have some real scandal issues?   Mightn't it have been better for the Liberals to move on from him, lest the voters do it for them?

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 18, 2021, 08:57:41 PM
Correct me if I err, but doesn't Trudeau have some real scandal issues?   Mightn't it have been better for the Liberals to move on from him, lest the voters do it for them?

Nothing major. Governments here can rack up some pretty hefty scandals before they get turfed (and they tend to, over a governing period of 5-10+ years). The previous Conservative government was no exception.

Besides which, they can't turf him (or: couldn't). It's incredibly hard to get rid of a party leader, and it requires a leadership review. For the Liberals and Conservatives, those only happen at the convention following an electoral loss. And the vote threshold is really high--I don't remember it offhand for the Libs, but think along the lines of 66% or so. Plus, Trudeau is a net winner for the party. He's fairly charismatic, and he drives out the votes. Look at all the goofballs they tried before him.

Lots of scandals, but nothing sticks. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government (https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 18, 2021, 09:44:25 PM

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 18, 2021, 08:57:41 PM
Correct me if I err, but doesn't Trudeau have some real scandal issues?   Mightn't it have been better for the Liberals to move on from him, lest the voters do it for them?

Nothing major. Governments here can rack up some pretty hefty scandals before they get turfed (and they tend to, over a governing period of 5-10+ years). The previous Conservative government was no exception.

Besides which, they can't turf him (or: couldn't). It's incredibly hard to get rid of a party leader, and it requires a leadership review. For the Liberals and Conservatives, those only happen at the convention following an electoral loss. And the vote threshold is really high--I don't remember it offhand for the Libs, but think along the lines of 66% or so. Plus, Trudeau is a net winner for the party. He's fairly charismatic, and he drives out the votes. Look at all the goofballs they tried before him.

In my decades of voting in elections and observing others, more are decided by people NOT liking the alternative(s) to a candidate or party than by people EXCITED about voting for a candidate or party. This applies across the political spectrum. The party/leader combination that annoys the fewest people succeeds.

Well, that was a pretty shitty set of debates. Everyone disappointed, save Anamie Paul, who shone by  comparison. Ugh.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 13, 2021, 12:14:38 PM
Well, that was a pretty shitty set of debates. Everyone disappointed, save Anamie Paul, who shone by  comparison. Ugh.

Didn't watch the debates, but everything I've read makes me glad I didn't waste my time. Not thrilled by any of the parties. I've always voted on platforms and have switched who I've voted for over the years. Still sent in my mail ballot. Looks to be another minority government if polls are correct (either Lib or Con) so not sure why a vote was called during an ongoing pandemic, but whatever. I'm not a politician or political scientist.

Wish all parties would condemn the protests outside of hospitals and the harassment of health care workers and patients. Protest at the provincial legislatures, not as hospitals! Health care workers and patients don't set policy (I agree 100% with vaccine and mask mandates).

Quote from: marshwiggle on August 19, 2021, 04:26:25 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 18, 2021, 09:44:25 PM

Quote from: kaysixteen on August 18, 2021, 08:57:41 PM
Correct me if I err, but doesn't Trudeau have some real scandal issues?   Mightn't it have been better for the Liberals to move on from him, lest the voters do it for them?

Nothing major. Governments here can rack up some pretty hefty scandals before they get turfed (and they tend to, over a governing period of 5-10+ years). The previous Conservative government was no exception.

Besides which, they can't turf him (or: couldn't). It's incredibly hard to get rid of a party leader, and it requires a leadership review. For the Liberals and Conservatives, those only happen at the convention following an electoral loss. And the vote threshold is really high--I don't remember it offhand for the Libs, but think along the lines of 66% or so. Plus, Trudeau is a net winner for the party. He's fairly charismatic, and he drives out the votes. Look at all the goofballs they tried before him.

In my decades of voting in elections and observing others, more are decided by people NOT liking the alternative(s) to a candidate or party than by people EXCITED about voting for a candidate or party. This applies across the political spectrum. The party/leader combination that annoys the fewest people succeeds.

Yeah, it is quite demoralizing.  I dont know many people who actually vote "for" a party at all.  I blame our voting system (and Trudeau for waffling on electoral reform) for a lot of it.  My riding is "safe" for a party I dont care for, so I dont even know why I bother voting as it really has no impact.  I still vote, but it seems so pointless.

I really think the NDP would do a lot better if we had a different system.  They lose so many votes to the liberals in anti-conservative votes...

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 13, 2021, 01:28:12 PM

I really think the NDP would do a lot better if we had a different system.  They lose so many votes to the liberals in anti-conservative votes...

Yeah, they'd probably form the government once in a while. Or, at least, come close and be the official opposition.

The other thing I wish is that I didn't have to feel like a Conservative win was such a fucking disaster every time. Maybe the party could re-split and we could get the ProgCons back?


I voted today.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 13, 2021, 03:10:07 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 13, 2021, 01:28:12 PM

I really think the NDP would do a lot better if we had a different system.  They lose so many votes to the liberals in anti-conservative votes...

Yeah, they'd probably form the government once in a while. Or, at least, come close and be the official opposition.

Except for Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan, they haven't had a great track record when they've formed provincial governments.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 05:45:21 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 13, 2021, 03:10:07 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 13, 2021, 01:28:12 PM

I really think the NDP would do a lot better if we had a different system.  They lose so many votes to the liberals in anti-conservative votes...

Yeah, they'd probably form the government once in a while. Or, at least, come close and be the official opposition.

Except for Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan, they haven't had a great track record when they've formed provincial governments.

I disagree.  They have proporionatly run more balanced budgets and lower deficits than the PC or Liberals.  Check the numbers...

I know there is more to governing than deficits and budgets, but this is the usual concern people have regarding NDP and it is not founded on facts.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 05:59:51 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 05:45:21 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 13, 2021, 03:10:07 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 13, 2021, 01:28:12 PM

I really think the NDP would do a lot better if we had a different system.  They lose so many votes to the liberals in anti-conservative votes...

Yeah, they'd probably form the government once in a while. Or, at least, come close and be the official opposition.

Except for Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan, they haven't had a great track record when they've formed provincial governments.

I disagree.  They have proporionatly run more balanced budgets and lower deficits than the PC or Liberals.  Check the numbers...

I know there is more to governing than deficits and budgets, but this is the usual concern people have regarding NDP and it is not founded on facts.

I'll correct my statement above. In a few provinces, (not just Saskatchewan),  the NDP have solid history.
The NDP has been a consistent contender in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC, and Yukon, having formed the government several times in each of those. However, in other provinces they have been one hit wonders.

• Ontario; 1990-1995, lost official status in 1999 and 2003
• Alberta; 2015-2019, only time a first term government hasn't gotten a second term
• Nova Scotia; 2009-2013

So in Ontario and Alberta they really didn't convince voters once they actually formed the government.

So what you are saying is that they have mostly performed well, but there are a few exceptions?  Cant we say that for any party?

You bring up  Roy Romanow, didn't he clean up a conservative disaster?

It's crazy how much Rae dominates any NDP talk, even though he is a bit of an outlier (and was in a tough situation in general).  I dont know that Alberta even counts.  It was an anomoly that they were elected and really didnt mess anything up that I know of.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 06:45:17 AM
So what you are saying is that they have mostly performed well, but there are a few exceptions?  Cant we say that for any party?

You bring up  Roy Romanow, didn't he clean up a conservative disaster?

From wikipedia:

Quote
Romanow's government was more conservative than previous NDP administrations, and was considered a practitioner of Third Way policies. Romanow, who inherited a $14 billion debt from the previous Conservative government, eliminated the annual budgetary deficit by closing rural hospitals, cutting services and raising taxes. Romanow's government also had the benefit of substantially lower interest rates at a national level than did his predecessor in the 1980s. The Romanow NDP explained the cutbacks to the left wing of the party by claiming Romanow's range of political action was limited by the large debt accumulated by previous governments.

So yes he inherited a big deficit from the Conservatives.

Quote
[Ed Schreyer in Manitoba] differed in some ways from the previous leaders of Manitoba's NDP: he came from a rural background and was not committed to socialism as an ideology; he won the support of many centrist voters who had not previously identified with the party.

So in both these cases, the successful NDP leaders avoided following the typical NDP ideology.  (In Ontario, Bob Rae angered unions by having to reduce the deficit.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 07:01:35 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 06:45:17 AM
So what you are saying is that they have mostly performed well, but there are a few exceptions?  Cant we say that for any party?

You bring up  Roy Romanow, didn't he clean up a conservative disaster?

From wikipedia:

Quote
Romanow's government was more conservative than previous NDP administrations, and was considered a practitioner of Third Way policies. Romanow, who inherited a $14 billion debt from the previous Conservative government, eliminated the annual budgetary deficit by closing rural hospitals, cutting services and raising taxes. Romanow's government also had the benefit of substantially lower interest rates at a national level than did his predecessor in the 1980s. The Romanow NDP explained the cutbacks to the left wing of the party by claiming Romanow's range of political action was limited by the large debt accumulated by previous governments.

So yes he inherited a big deficit from the Conservatives.

Quote
[Ed Schreyer in Manitoba] differed in some ways from the previous leaders of Manitoba's NDP: he came from a rural background and was not committed to socialism as an ideology; he won the support of many centrist voters who had not previously identified with the party.

So in both these cases, the successful NDP leaders avoided following the typical NDP ideology.  (In Ontario, Bob Rae angered unions by having to reduce the deficit.)

Sure, and Harper ran massive deficits despite conservative ideology (not a criticism, just a fact). 

All this shows me is that the NDP can be fiscally responsible and is not the harbinger of economic collapse.  They may advocate for left leaning policies, but in practice typically do not implement them when not fiscally possible/responsible.  Again, if you look provincially, the NDP balances more budgets than liberals or conservatives. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should vote NDP if they are not aligned in principle, just trying to dispel the myth that they are absolute economic disasters since it simply isn't backed up by facts.  For anyone who agrees with NDP principles but is fearful of the economic side, I think this is important.



   

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 07:40:33 AM

Sure, and Harper ran massive deficits despite conservative ideology (not a criticism, just a fact). 

All this shows me is that the NDP can be fiscally responsible and is not the harbinger of economic collapse.  They may advocate for left leaning policies, but in practice typically do not implement them when not fiscally possible/responsible.  Again, if you look provincially, the NDP balances more budgets than liberals or conservatives. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should vote NDP if they are not aligned in principle, just trying to dispel the myth that they are absolute economic disasters since it simply isn't backed up by facts.  For anyone who agrees with NDP principles but is fearful of the economic side, I think this is important.

It illustrates the basic principles that any party, to get elected, has to move relatively close to the political centre, since that's where most voters are, and that once governing, their range of options is much narrower than their platforms would suggest because they have to deal with reality.

On a side note, the best finance minister in a long time was actually Paul Martin, who did more to get the budget in line than any conservatives before or after (as you suggest).

I think the NDP's limitations federally have at least as much to do with being extremely socially progressive as with their economic platform. Since most voters are near the centre, being even more woke than the Liberals is going to prevent them being considered by many.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 07:52:06 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 14, 2021, 07:40:33 AM

Sure, and Harper ran massive deficits despite conservative ideology (not a criticism, just a fact). 

All this shows me is that the NDP can be fiscally responsible and is not the harbinger of economic collapse.  They may advocate for left leaning policies, but in practice typically do not implement them when not fiscally possible/responsible.  Again, if you look provincially, the NDP balances more budgets than liberals or conservatives. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should vote NDP if they are not aligned in principle, just trying to dispel the myth that they are absolute economic disasters since it simply isn't backed up by facts.  For anyone who agrees with NDP principles but is fearful of the economic side, I think this is important.

It illustrates the basic principles that any party, to get elected, has to move relatively close to the political centre, since that's where most voters are, and that once governing, their range of options is much narrower than their platforms would suggest because they have to deal with reality.

On a side note, the best finance minister in a long time was actually Paul Martin, who did more to get the budget in line than any conservatives before or after (as you suggest).

I think the NDP's limitations federally have at least as much to do with being extremely socially progressive as with their economic platform. Since most voters are near the centre, being even more woke than the Liberals is going to prevent them being considered by many.

Well, I think their real problem is our electoral system.  I know many people who vote liberal simply to vote against conservatives.  This is why Justin waffled on his electoral reform promises.  He used it to swing a lot of would be NDP voters to vote for him, then back-peddled because it would be bad for liberals longer term.  Yet, many will still vote liberal as the perceived lesser of two evils.

Canada is generally left leaning, so I really dont think it is their social liberalism that sinks them.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 06:41:56 AM

• Alberta; 2015-2019, only time a first term government hasn't gotten a second term

That was a weird outlier, and you can't conclude much from it. But you should note that the NDP in Alberta are the only party in Alberta, other than the Conservatives (now the UCP), to have formed a government in the last what, seventy years? (Edit: correction, 44 years.) Alberta is a fucked up province with one-party rule, and that kind of inertia is hard to overcome. (And yes, I've lived there.)

And, if we're being at all fair to them, they did a fine job of governing Alberta in that period. And since the last provincial election was in 2019, it's not like they've had much a shot at a second kick at the can. IIRC, however, current polling in Alberta has the NDP doing very well, because Jason Kenney's government has been an utter failure.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 07:52:06 AM

I think the NDP's limitations federally have at least as much to do with being extremely socially progressive as with their economic platform. Since most voters are near the centre, being even more woke than the Liberals is going to prevent them being considered by many.

This is absolutely the wrong diagnosis. Kron3007 is correct: the NDP routinely bleeds support to the Liberals when they run left (especially in Ontario). A swing like that is exactly what got Trudeau into power the first time. In provinces like BC, the three-way contest between Liberals, NDP, and Greens likewise splits the vote just enough to keep the NDP and Greens out of those seats.

I suspect things would change significantly even without electoral reform if only a third party could manage to form a government just once, since so much of what pushes left-leaning people to vote Liberal is just the feeling that the NDP and Greens (or Bloc!) are not serious contenders. But FPTP and a united Conservative Party make that very unlikely.

QuoteThat was a weird outlier, and you can't conclude much from it. But you should note that the NDP in Alberta are the only party in Alberta, other than the Conservatives (now the UCP), to have formed a government in the last what, seventy years? Alberta is a fucked up province with one-party rule, and that kind of inertia is hard to overcome. (And yes, I've lived there.)

And, if we're being at all fair to them, they did a fine job of governing Alberta in that period. And since the last provincial election was in 2019, it's not like they've had much a shot at a second kick at the can. IIRC, however, current polling in Alberta has the NDP doing very well, because Jason Kenney's government has been an utter failure.

Alberta is weird, and it's worth noting that before the Conservatives broke into power in the 1970s, Albertans consistently voted Social Credit. They just haven't got the hang of a two (or more) party system. Notley's NDP did a really good job and were fiscally responsible during their brief time in power (unlike Kenney).

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 14, 2021, 08:17:17 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 14, 2021, 07:52:06 AM

I think the NDP's limitations federally have at least as much to do with being extremely socially progressive as with their economic platform. Since most voters are near the centre, being even more woke than the Liberals is going to prevent them being considered by many.

This is absolutely the wrong diagnosis. Kron3007 is correct: the NDP routinely bleeds support to the Liberals when they run left (especially in Ontario). A swing like that is exactly what got Trudeau into power the first time. In provinces like BC, the three-way contest between Liberals, NDP, and Greens likewise splits the vote just enough to keep the NDP and Greens out of those seats.

It's a matter of degree. If the average voter is socially between the Liberals and NDP, and economically between the Conservatives and the Liberals, then to get enough votes the Liberals can crowd the NDP socially and the conservatives economically. (Which is what they typically do.) They're aren't enough votes for either extreme left social policies or extreme right economic policies to guarantee power to either the NDP or Conservatives.

I was pleased that all of the party leaders came out against the anti-mask protests in front of hospitals. (How sad is it that that is even a question/talking point)

Quote from: Morden on September 14, 2021, 11:00:10 AM
I was pleased that all of the party leaders came out against the anti-mask protests in front of hospitals. (How sad is it that that is even a question/talking point)

Yes, it's depressing that we can barely claim to be better about the whole thing than south of the border.....

Obama has endorsed Trudeau for the second time.


This kind of interference really gets my goat. Vive le Québec libre, anyone?

Hmm, that's an interesting thing.

I wonder why....

M.

A question for the Canadians here-- given the multiparty nature of Canadian politics, exactly how 'conservative' is the Canadian conservative party?  Should it win, and even gain a parliamentary majortity, how different would it likely govern from the 'Liberals', seeing as there are several parties that seem to be to the left of the Liberals, and perhaps some (People's Party?   Bloc Quebec?) to the right of the Conservatives?  Or do I err?

I am thinking that the sort of right-wing whackjobbery that we are now seeing from the GOP here is not really seen in Canada, at least not in the Conservative Party, and perhaps the lack of political primaries there accounts for at least some of this?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:44:46 PM
A question for the Canadians here-- given the multiparty nature of Canadian politics, exactly how 'conservative' is the Canadian conservative party?  Should it win, and even gain a parliamentary majortity, how different would it likely govern from the 'Liberals', seeing as there are several parties that seem to be to the left of the Liberals, and perhaps some (People's Party?   Bloc Quebec?) to the right of the Conservatives?  Or do I err?

I am thinking that the sort of right-wing whackjobbery that we are now seeing from the GOP here is not really seen in Canada, at least not in the Conservative Party, and perhaps the lack of political primaries there accounts for at least some of this?

The conservatives have swung more to the centre to capture votes, so it wouldn't be dramatically different that liberal governance in many ways (but different enough to matter). 

The people's party of Canada (PPC) launched a few years ago and is filling the further right side of things, but the only have about 6% of the vote, and even that seems to be driven by anti-vax, anti shutdown items as they were only polling around 2% before.  The basically seem like the reform party was years ago, but it's good to see the conservative vote split.

The Bloc only runs in Quebec and only cares about Quebec issues, so they don't really count.

Has Marine Le Pen offered to "Come over and help them?"

;--》

M.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2021, 03:25:22 AM
The Bloc only runs in Quebec and only cares about Quebec issues, so they don't really count.

I saw a polling prediction where the PPP surpassed Bloc in national popularity (each about 6.5%) but Block was predicted to get ~35 seats vs PPP's zero.
The difference is the geographic distribution of those voters, of course.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:44:46 PM

I am thinking that the sort of right-wing whackjobbery that we are now seeing from the GOP here is not really seen in Canada, at least not in the Conservative Party, and perhaps the lack of political primaries there accounts for at least some of this?

Canadian Conservatives are much different from Republicans in the US. One major difference show up in healthcare. Some years ago, a poll was done of what government services people valued most. Healthcare came first; national defence came second. Universal healthcare is never going away, and no party that ever dreams of forming a government can touch that. (As has been pointed out, there are service that aren't covered, which varies by province, such as dental and vision care, but the vast majority of voters believe basic healthcare should be pretty much a human right. Any serious talk about private healthcare tends to be primarily related to services which aren't covered publicly.)
Another example, while there have been some anti-vax and anti-mask protest, covid is VASTLY less politicized here than in the US. Even in Alberta, the most conservative province in Canada, there were lockdowns, mask mandates, etc. They removed restrictions early this summer, have had a big fourth wave spike, and a couple of days ago re-imposed restrictions, and the premier went on TV and admitted "I WAS WRONG." How many governors in the US have done that?

The gun lobby here is not remotely as strong as in the US, and the main gun owners tend to be farmers and others in rural areas. Again, no  party who dreamed of governing could propose the kind of free-for-all in the US.

Immigration has support of about 2/3 of Canadians. Because of our points system, people mostly realize that immigrants are good for the economy.

Post secondary education is pretty much exclusively public, and that's not going to change.

Public education is decently funded, and there's no serious lobby to reduce funding.

I'm sure there are lots more examples, but these are a few big ones.

Oh yeah, election rules, boundaries, etc. are set by ELECTIONS CANADA, which is at arm's length from the government, so we don't get all of the jackassery that happens in the US.

Both Conservatives and conservatives in Canada are a lot different than Republicans and conservatives in the US.

We most definitely have Republican style conservatives in Canada, they are just a small minority.  I have met a number of Canadians who love trump, and wish we had him up here.  Fortunately, they are on the fringe up here. 

As for health care, the fear is that conservatives will erode it by introducing two tier systems and private options.  I don't see anyone being successful pitching private health care, but if we are not careful it could slowly deteriorate.

I was in rural Saskatchewan recently and was amazed at all the maverick party signs.  Pretty sure these guys are Republican style western separatists.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2021, 05:30:38 AM
We most definitely have Republican style conservatives in Canada, they are just a small minority.  I have met a number of Canadians who love trump, and wish we had him up here.  Fortunately, they are on the fringe up here. 

Very much so.

Here's another factoid.
Vaccination rates (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/track-how-many-people-have-been-given-the-covid-19-vaccine-across-canada-1.5870573) across Canada:

Highest: Yukon 80% single dose, 76% fully vaxxed
Lowest: Nunavut: 61% single dose, 54% fully vaxxed

National: 75% single dose, 69% fully vaxxed

Given how vastly spread out the population is in Nunavut, that's not bad. How's that compare to the best and worst US states?

Also, governments that didn't want to introduce vaccine mandates and/or passports, even conservative ones, have been forced to do so by public opinion.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:44:46 PM
A question for the Canadians here-- given the multiparty nature of Canadian politics, exactly how 'conservative' is the Canadian conservative party?  Should it win, and even gain a parliamentary majortity, how different would it likely govern from the 'Liberals', seeing as there are several parties that seem to be to the left of the Liberals, and perhaps some (People's Party?   Bloc Quebec?) to the right of the Conservatives?  Or do I err?

I am thinking that the sort of right-wing whackjobbery that we are now seeing from the GOP here is not really seen in Canada, at least not in the Conservative Party, and perhaps the lack of political primaries there accounts for at least some of this?

The Conservative Party currently has a Progressive Conservative in charge, and he's trying to shift the party back to the centre. But he's faced a lot of resistance--at their recent party convention, for example, the party refused to declare that climate change is real and anthropogenic. That's because since the Progressive Conservatives and Reform Party (the social conservatives) merged under Harper in 2003-04, the show's been mostly run by the Reform Party and its hacks, and they're pretty much just a regional voting block (viz. Alberta + Saskatchewan + some of Manitoba). It's still very much Harper's party, and shifting it to something more nationally palatable has proven... difficult.

The PPC is a fringe right party concerned with two issues: (1) eliminating supply management, and (2) non-white immigration. That's pretty much it.

The Bloc was founded by defectors from the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, and was a centrist party for a while. Then, under Gilles Duceppe (1997-2015), it moved left. After his departure from the helm in 2015, it's moved right and is now somewhere in the progressive conservative area, although it's complicated.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 17, 2021, 05:11:13 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 16, 2021, 11:44:46 PM

I am thinking that the sort of right-wing whackjobbery that we are now seeing from the GOP here is not really seen in Canada, at least not in the Conservative Party, and perhaps the lack of political primaries there accounts for at least some of this?

Canadian Conservatives are much different from Republicans in the US. One major difference show up in healthcare. Some years ago, a poll was done of what government services people valued most. Healthcare came first; national defence came second. Universal healthcare is never going away, and no party that ever dreams of forming a government can touch that. (As has been pointed out, there are service that aren't covered, which varies by province, such as dental and vision care, but the vast majority of voters believe basic healthcare should be pretty much a human right. Any serious talk about private healthcare tends to be primarily related to services which aren't covered publicly.)
Another example, while there have been some anti-vax and anti-mask protest, covid is VASTLY less politicized here than in the US. Even in Alberta, the most conservative province in Canada, there were lockdowns, mask mandates, etc. They removed restrictions early this summer, have had a big fourth wave spike, and a couple of days ago re-imposed restrictions, and the premier went on TV and admitted "I WAS WRONG." How many governors in the US have done that?

The gun lobby here is not remotely as strong as in the US, and the main gun owners tend to be farmers and others in rural areas. Again, no  party who dreamed of governing could propose the kind of free-for-all in the US.

Immigration has support of about 2/3 of Canadians. Because of our points system, people mostly realize that immigrants are good for the economy.

Post secondary education is pretty much exclusively public, and that's not going to change.

Public education is decently funded, and there's no serious lobby to reduce funding.

I'm sure there are lots more examples, but these are a few big ones.

Oh yeah, election rules, boundaries, etc. are set by ELECTIONS CANADA, which is at arm's length from the government, so we don't get all of the jackassery that happens in the US.

Both Conservatives and conservatives in Canada are a lot different than Republicans and conservatives in the US.

I want to go to there!

Question: does a retired 68 year old US Citizen with plenty of savings have any chance of residency in Canada?

Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 17, 2021, 08:22:43 AM

I want to go to there!

Question: does a retired 68 year old US Citizen with plenty of savings have any chance of residency in Canada?

Our points system is not good for you if you're not working and are older. Having a lot of money helps, however. You could get yourself sponsored by someone, however.

Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

A friend of mine with a devious sense of humour made this prediction for today's outcome:

Liberals 135
Conservatives 135
Bloc 33
NDP 33
PPC 1
Green 1
____
Total 338

Ha!

That would be... amazing!

But also horrific.

If tonight turns out as expected, Trudea will have "progressed" from

• 2015- majority
• 2019- minority
• 2021 - smaller minority

I can't recall anyone pulling off that trajectory. Is it novel? (Or maybe happened in a province?)

Quote from: traductio on September 20, 2021, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

A friend of mine with a devious sense of humour made this prediction for today's outcome:

Liberals 135
Conservatives 135
Bloc 33
NDP 33
PPC 1
Green 1
____
Total 338

Would have have to get the Queen to step in?

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2021, 01:38:26 PM

Quote from: traductio on September 20, 2021, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

A friend of mine with a devious sense of humour made this prediction for today's outcome:

Liberals 135
Conservatives 135
Bloc 33
NDP 33
PPC 1
Green 1
____
Total 338

Would have have to get the Queen to step in?

I believe, constitutionally, the GG in this case would first ask the incumbent, (Trudeau), if he is able to forma government, and if he isn't then the GG would ask the other leader with the most seats (O'Toole),  if he can form a government.  So as long as either one could get 3 of the smaller parties on board, they'd be good to go. (And given that it would be the only way the Greens and PPC could have any influence,  there'd be a strong incentive for them to agree, at least for a while.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2021, 01:43:50 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2021, 01:38:26 PM

Quote from: traductio on September 20, 2021, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

A friend of mine with a devious sense of humour made this prediction for today's outcome:

Liberals 135
Conservatives 135
Bloc 33
NDP 33
PPC 1
Green 1
____
Total 338

Would have have to get the Queen to step in?

I believe, constitutionally, the GG in this case would first ask the incumbent, (Trudeau), if he is able to forma government, and if he isn't then the GG would ask the other leader with the most seats (O'Toole),  if he can form a government.  So as long as either one could get 3 of the smaller parties on board, they'd be good to go. (And given that it would be the only way the Greens and PPC could have any influence,  there'd be a strong incentive for them to agree, at least for a while.)

But what if no one can form government.  I'm sure there is a protocol in place, but I prefer the image of the queen coming in to break it up.

What--Striding crowned, across the seas, scimitar in one hand, Doomsday Book in the other?

That would be a sight.

We dispensed with that option in 1776.

But it would be an interesting sight.

M.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 20, 2021, 01:43:50 PM

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 20, 2021, 01:38:26 PM

Quote from: traductio on September 20, 2021, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 20, 2021, 09:27:40 AM
Here we go, today's the day.

This was possibly the most dismal campaign I remember.

A friend of mine with a devious sense of humour made this prediction for today's outcome:

Liberals 135
Conservatives 135
Bloc 33
NDP 33
PPC 1
Green 1
____
Total 338

Would have have to get the Queen to step in?

I believe, constitutionally, the GG in this case would first ask the incumbent, (Trudeau), if he is able to forma government, and if he isn't then the GG would ask the other leader with the most seats (O'Toole),  if he can form a government.  So as long as either one could get 3 of the smaller parties on board, they'd be good to go. (And given that it would be the only way the Greens and PPC could have any influence,  there'd be a strong incentive for them to agree, at least for a while.)

That's my understanding as well.

But you can bet there'd be some serious efforts to court defectors, and weeks of recounts.

Quote from: mamselle on September 20, 2021, 02:30:15 PM
What--Striding crowned, across the seas, scimitar in one hand, Doomsday Book in the other?

That would be a sight.

We dispensed with that option in 1776.

But it would be an interesting sight.

M.

YES! 

I'm not a fan of the monarchy, but this is an exception to the rule.

One more question regarding Canadian electoral rules: assuming Party X wins a plurality but not a majority.   It wants to form a minority government.   But can two or more of the other parties whose combined seats would make a majority decide to establish a coalition majority government, and freeze out the plurality party?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 20, 2021, 09:09:16 PM
One more question regarding Canadian electoral rules: assuming Party X wins a plurality but not a majority.   It wants to form a minority government.   But can two or more of the other parties whose combined seats would make a majority decide to establish a coalition majority government, and freeze out the plurality party?

Any government has to win a majority of votes in Parliament in order to form, including minority governments.

That means, in order to form a minority government, a party has to get support from other parties agreeing for it to form a government.  It does happen that Party B will strike some sort of deal allowing Party A to form a government without Party B, usually because Party B doesn't really want to go through another election (which is what happens if no one can form a government) but doesn't want to appear responsible for government policies.

A plurality is irrelevant.  If no one can get a majority of votes allowing it to form a government (even if not all the votes come from parties in the government), then there are new elections.

Quote from: quasihumanist on September 20, 2021, 09:16:59 PM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 20, 2021, 09:09:16 PM
One more question regarding Canadian electoral rules: assuming Party X wins a plurality but not a majority.   It wants to form a minority government.   But can two or more of the other parties whose combined seats would make a majority decide to establish a coalition majority government, and freeze out the plurality party?

Any government has to win a majority of votes in Parliament in order to form, including minority governments.

That means, in order to form a minority government, a party has to get support from other parties agreeing for it to form a government.  It does happen that Party B will strike some sort of deal allowing Party A to form a government without Party B, usually because Party B doesn't really want to go through another election (which is what happens if no one can form a government) but doesn't want to appear responsible for government policies.

A plurality is irrelevant.  If no one can get a majority of votes allowing it to form a government (even if not all the votes come from parties in the government), then there are new elections.

You mean a majority of seats, not necessarily votes.  Sorry to nitpick, but this is a major difference and one that really bugs me about our system.

The implication is that we end up with parties forming majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote.

Now that the election is over


I'd just like to point out what we don't have here.

• We don't have claims the election was "stolen" by any combination of russian bots, targeted advertising, voter suppression, or mail-in ballots.(And we had a record number of mail-in ballots. No biggie.)
• We don't have people rioting in Ottawa because they didn't like the outcome.

This is because we do have

• The logistics of federal elections handled by a non-partisan national organization, Elections Canada, so things are consistent across the country.
• Several parties that all get seats, which reminds people that there aren't just two perspectives on any given issue. (i.e. It's NOT a battle between Good and Evil; it's hearing from a lot of voters with differing concerns.)

And Her Majesty shouldn't have to step in to break up the fights. (That would probably stress out the Corgis if it came to that.)

Oh, right, the Corgis, I forgot about them...

She'd have to hold their leashes in one hand, and the scimitar and Doomsday book both in the other.

That could make waving difficult.

She does have to balance a lot.

(Meant kindly...)

M.

Things are basically unchanged, but I think it's more or less a win for the Liberals. The NDP won't be able to afford triggering another election soon, and nobody else is going to want to do so, politically, for fear of being punished for it. That buys them at least 18 months, maybe longer, and insulates them somewhat from having to run a campaign when unemployment is high(er), assuming it will be thanks to the delta variant.

As for the Tories... if they want to have a chance in 2023+, they'll have to stick with O'Toole. Whether they realize that is another matter. I imagine he's going to have a hard time keeping the Reformists at bay, given that this is on par with Scheer's historic failure. It's also worth noting that the PPC definitely bled their votes in Ontario. Hopefully they won't wake up and realize that's what they did and return to the Conservative fold.

Singh's campaign wasn't great, but the results are fine. He can hope to do better next time, although the depleted war chest will be a big problem.

Anamie Paul is toast. But that means the Greens are pretty much forfeiting the next election, too.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2021, 08:13:05 AM
Things are basically unchanged, but I think it's more or less a win for the Liberals. The NDP won't be able to afford triggering another election soon, and nobody else is going to want to do so, politically, for fear of being punished for it. That buys them at least 18 months, maybe longer, and insulates them somewhat from having to run a campaign when unemployment is high(er), assuming it will be thanks to the delta variant.

It does provide a kind of cautionary tale for Trudeau about calling another early election, even if covid is over in 18 months. Just because he doesn't like the minority situation doesn't mean voters have a problem with it.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2021, 08:13:05 AM
Things are basically unchanged, but I think it's more or less a win for the Liberals. The NDP won't be able to afford triggering another election soon, and nobody else is going to want to do so, politically, for fear of being punished for it. That buys them at least 18 months, maybe longer, and insulates them somewhat from having to run a campaign when unemployment is high(er), assuming it will be thanks to the delta variant.

As for the Tories... if they want to have a chance in 2023+, they'll have to stick with O'Toole. Whether they realize that is another matter. I imagine he's going to have a hard time keeping the Reformists at bay, given that this is on par with Scheer's historic failure. It's also worth noting that the PPC definitely bled their votes in Ontario. Hopefully they won't wake up and realize that's what they did and return to the Conservative fold.

Singh's campaign wasn't great, but the results are fine. He can hope to do better next time, although the depleted war chest will be a big problem.

Anamie Paul is toast. But that means the Greens are pretty much forfeiting the next election, too.

Is there wider Tory leadership that is willing to let PP have the crazies and go after the moderate Liberal voters instead?

North Americans who are active in the Green party tend not to be the best organizers. Is that going to be a challenge for Canadian Greens going forward? Or do they have a good organizer who can also draw the support of the party members (or attract the politically sympathetic who want to see stuff get done)?

Quote from: Hibush on September 21, 2021, 08:53:37 AM

Is there wider Tory leadership that is willing to let PP have the crazies and go after the moderate Liberal voters instead?

I think Kron had it about right.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 17, 2021, 03:24:34 AM
The people's party of Canada (PPC) launched a few years ago and is filling the further right side of things, but the only have about 6% of the vote, and even that seems to be driven by anti-vax, anti shutdown items as they were only polling around 2% before. 

I think post-pandemic they'll probably subside somewhat.

Quote
North Americans who are active in the Green party tend not to be the best organizers. Is that going to be a challenge for Canadian Greens going forward? Or do they have a good organizer who can also draw the support of the party members (or attract the politically sympathetic who want to see stuff get done)?

The Greens need to not just be another shrill protest voice, like the NDP often is.  To be fair, their problems in this election stemmed from the party executive shooting themselves in the foot. If they can chill out and get behind a reasonable leader they should be able to recover. (But since Anamie Paul has again failed to win her own seat, and even lost ground, she's not wise to continue.)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 21, 2021, 08:13:05 AM
Things are basically unchanged, but I think it's more or less a win for the Liberals. The NDP won't be able to afford triggering another election soon, and nobody else is going to want to do so, politically, for fear of being punished for it. That buys them at least 18 months, maybe longer, and insulates them somewhat from having to run a campaign when unemployment is high(er), assuming it will be thanks to the delta variant.

As for the Tories... if they want to have a chance in 2023+, they'll have to stick with O'Toole. Whether they realize that is another matter. I imagine he's going to have a hard time keeping the Reformists at bay, given that this is on par with Scheer's historic failure. It's also worth noting that the PPC definitely bled their votes in Ontario. Hopefully they won't wake up and realize that's what they did and return to the Conservative fold.

Singh's campaign wasn't great, but the results are fine. He can hope to do better next time, although the depleted war chest will be a big problem.

Anamie Paul is toast. But that means the Greens are pretty much forfeiting the next election, too.

I dont see it as a liberal win at all.  More like everyone lost, including us.  They did not get their majority, which is what they were after.  Now they have to get someone on board with any bill they want to pass.  Sure, no one wants another election (or this one) and are inclined to go along, but they still need to appease someone to move their agenda forward.  They will be swimming up river all the time. 
 
Conservatives are no better off with Erin than they were before.  He might be their best bet, but he just seems so fake. 

Pretty much status quo for NDP.  It will be very hard for them to ever break free without electoral reform.  This should be a major focus for them IMO, but the liberals are unlikely to move on it in any real way since they are the real winners of the current system. 

I dont see the PPC joining the conservatives any time soon.  As long as the cons have a more PC type of leader (which they need to win), I only see the PPC growing stronger (which is good, to a degree).

As for the greens, this was really poor timing and they need to sort themselves out.

What ever happened to the Social Credit Party?  If memory serves, once upon a time, they were kind of a big deal in BC.  Do they even exist any more?  Or did they get subsumed into another party?

Quote from: secundem_artem on September 21, 2021, 11:22:46 AM
What ever happened to the Social Credit Party?  If memory serves, once upon a time, they were kind of a big deal in BC.  Do they even exist any more?  Or did they get subsumed into another party?

It fragmented along regional lines and was taken over by social conservatives, and died out in 1984 or so, although it didn't officially cease to exist until the early '90s.

Hmmmm... I did not see an answer to my question... could two or more of the sub-plurality parties whose combined total would be a majority of seats establish a coalition without the plurality party?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 21, 2021, 10:22:58 PM
Hmmmm... I did not see an answer to my question... could two or more of the sub-plurality parties whose combined total would be a majority of seats establish a coalition without the plurality party?

Yes.

They could, but they're all dead-set against it. We don't have a tradition of doing so.

Ok, but failing to do that means all those parties continue to be on the outside of government looking in.... why would that be preferable to governing in coalition?

I'm pretty sure it has happened on occasion; I just can't recall exactly when. Minority governments happen only about 1/3 of the time, IIRC, and that situation happens only a small proportion of those, so they're quite uncommon.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 22, 2021, 10:11:25 PM
Ok, but failing to do that means all those parties continue to be on the outside of government looking in.... why would that be preferable to governing in coalition?

It's not preferable for the population or those parties. But it's preferable for the Liberals and Conservatives, because even without a coalition, they're bound to get 18 months or so to govern, then another chance at a majority. Their party coffers are sufficiently full that they can afford to run a couple of campaigns in short succession; the other parties, not so much.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 23, 2021, 05:02:09 AM
I'm pretty sure it has happened on occasion; I just can't recall exactly when. Minority governments happen only about 1/3 of the time, IIRC, and that situation happens only a small proportion of those, so they're quite uncommon.

There were several prior to Confederation, including the Great Coalition of 1864. But at the federal level, I don't think there's been one since then (there have been plenty of provincial coalition governments, especially in Manitoba). When the Liberals and NDP tried to form one in 2008, the Conservatives argued it was illegal (which it of course isn't).

Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 24, 2021, 12:04:24 AM
Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

Sort of, but there is always hope that they could gains steam and form government.  More importantly, or more immediately, in a minority parliament a smaller party can hold the balance of power and influence policy.  Many people give a lot of credit to the NDP for pushing universal healthcare through in a minority government, but they have never formed government on their own.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 24, 2021, 03:16:40 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 24, 2021, 12:04:24 AM
Correct me if I err, but what I am getting from this most recent Canadian election is that, fundamentally, only the Liberals and hte  Cons ever have any realistic chance of being the government party.   In this country, of course, that is true of the GOP and the Dems, but our third parties are so obviously irrelevant that their presidential nominees almost never even get invited to a debate, and none of the third parties has elected a US rep or Senator in more or less forever, etc.   But north of the border, there are other parties who play the game, but they seem consigned to perpetual loserdom nonetheless.   So what exactly is in it for them, or for their voters?

Sort of, but there is always hope that they could gains steam and form government.  More importantly, or more immediately, in a minority parliament a smaller party can hold the balance of power and influence policy.  Many people give a lot of credit to the NDP for pushing universal healthcare through in a minority government, but they have never formed government on their own.

Also, in the last few decades, the official opposition (party with 2nd most seats) has included

• NDP
• Reform
• Bloc Quebecois

In each of these cases, it has happened because either the Liberals or Conservatives had a big fall-off in support, typically after having become unpopular in power.

So even parties which have never formed the government can be quite influential under certain circumstances.

I think the NDP will probably form the government at some point in my life, even under FPTP. Dissatisfaction with the Liberals runs pretty high in those of my generation and younger. Some were conned by Trudeau in 2015, and that hasn't helped. And as the climate crisis worsens and governments continue to fail to deliver anything, I think that dissatisfaction will hit critical mass. Could be a while, though.

But we'll see.

Then again, FPTP is also increasingly unpopular...

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2021, 09:11:54 AM
I think the NDP will probably form the government at some point in my life, even under FPTP. Dissatisfaction with the Liberals runs pretty high in those of my generation and younger. Some were conned by Trudeau in 2015, and that hasn't helped. And as the climate crisis worsens and governments continue to fail to deliver anything, I think that dissatisfaction will hit critical mass. Could be a while, though.

But we'll see.

Then again, FPTP is also increasingly unpopular...

I hope you are right.  It would be good to at least see how they do.

Trudeau has again mentio Ed electoral reform, but has rejected proportional representation outright.  I assume this is because it would be bad for the liberal party's future.  In contrast, ranked ballots could actually help them as they would be the second choice for a lot of NDP voters, so it would likely hurt the conservatives.  I think this would be a step in the right direction at least.

I think he just chucked that out there to see if he could win back some of the 2015ers. Certainly, I don't expect any movement on that front until and unless they have a majority, and even then I expect it, too, will go to committee to die.

I'd like to see the per-vote subsidy reinstated, and a move towards full public funding of parties. But that's not on anyone's radar.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 24, 2021, 09:44:18 AM
I think he just chucked that out there to see if he could win back some of the 2015ers. Certainly, I don't expect any movement on that front until and unless they have a majority, and even then I expect it, too, will go to committee to die.

I'd like to see the per-vote subsidy reinstated, and a move towards full public funding of parties. But that's not on anyone's radar.

Yeah, I am not confident.  The only chance I see is if they have done the math to determine that ranked ballots actually works well for them, which it might.

The issue with subsidies per vote is that it also favours the big parties. Give a little incentive to vote your conscience but is also flawed.  No perfect solution though...

WRT the party with the 2d most seats being the 'Official Opposition' party-- what if any special rights or status does this confer?

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 24, 2021, 11:44:46 PM
WRT the party with the 2d most seats being the 'Official Opposition' party-- what if any special rights or status does this confer?

Others can chime in but a few include:

• Extra administrative support (offices, staff, etc.)
• *Ability to ask questions in the House
• Official residence for the leader

*This one is important, because small parties aren't guaranteed opportunities to comment on government statements.

That's part of why their complete title is "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"; their recognized purpose is to question the government.

I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:19:15 AM
I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2021, 06:29:40 AM

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:19:15 AM
I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:31:53 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2021, 06:29:40 AM

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:19:15 AM
I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

I think it refers to the fact that long ago there were two parties, the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party and they merged. (Somebody can correct me on that.)

My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

They are progressive relative to the other conservative parties that are further right (previously the reform, now the PPC).  I always assumed it was to try gaining voters from the centre, which is pretty essential to actually form government, but could be wrong.

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:19:15 AM
I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

The Conservative Party is the original party, and it was always split between the red- and blue-Tory wings, with the reds being more British-style (communitarian economic protectionists) and the blues being more American-style (socially conservative free-market types). In the early forties, some disaffected Tories published a declaration calling for free markets and conscription, but also full employment, subsidized housing, and medicare. They were also pro-union. They had some clout, and the subsequent party convention elected some guy who wasn't even a member to be the party leader, and he changed the name to the 'Progressive' Conservatives to mark their influence.

In terms of actual policy, though, I don't remember what their schtick was, apart from being pro-bilingualism (the old Conservative Party was assimilationist). By the '90s they'd embraced what we now call neo-liberalism, but they might have been more libertarian on the social front--I don't recall.

The Reform Party (/Canadian Alliance) was always basically just a prairie grievance ("Western alienation") party, and their grievances included atheists, French, gays, and universal healthcare.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 25, 2021, 07:09:40 AM

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:31:53 AM
My puzzlement remains! I can't quite fathom how a progressive party and a conservative party (note the lower case titles there) would join, but I also know how the word "progressive" changed over the course of the 20th century in the United States. Its meaning in the 1930s was very different from its meaning now.

They are progressive relative to the other conservative parties that are further right (previously the reform, now the PPC).  I always assumed it was to try gaining voters from the centre, which is pretty essential to actually form government, but could be wrong.

From Brittanica.com:

Quote
The Progressive Conservatives traced their roots to the informal groups of government supporters, or Tories, that operated in the nascent party system that existed in the century prior to the establishment of the country's confederation as the Dominion of Canada in 1867. The opposing groups of Tories and Reformers were factional and unstable until 1854, when a government of Reformers fell as a result of internal division. Thereafter, disciplined new parties were formed, and they have dominated Canadian politics ever since. The old Tories and other conservatives, including a majority of conservative French Canadians, joined with a group of moderate liberals to form the Liberal-Conservative Party under the leadership of John A. Macdonald; except for a period during and after World War I, the party kept this name until 1942, when it was renamed Progressive Conservative.

So I stand corrected. At any rate, the party was more moderate than the *Tories (I'd guess by the name that the "Reformers" were less conservative), and thus the name.


*(For people unfamiliar with the terms, the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada will still at times be referred to as "Tories" and "Grits" respectively; the latter term refers to the earlier name of "Clear Grits".)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2021, 08:20:30 AM

Quote from: traductio on September 25, 2021, 06:19:15 AM
I've been finding this thread really interesting! I moved to Canada in 2014, and even though I pay a lot of attention to politics and government, I feel like I get a lot of it. But there are subtleties I have never understood.

If you don't mind my adding a question, back when Conservatives still has "Progressive" in their name, what did "progressive" mean? I lived in Toronto during Mike Harris's government (I've moved back and forth between Canada and the United States a few times -- it was only in 2014 that we came to stay), and he was a Progressive Conservative (admittedly at the provincial level). But he must have understood that word differently than I do.

The Conservative Party is the original party, and it was always split between the red- and blue-Tory wings, with the reds being more British-style (communitarian economic protectionists) and the blues being more American-style (socially conservative free-market types). In the early forties, some disaffected Tories published a declaration calling for free markets and conscription, but also full employment, subsidized housing, and medicare. They were also pro-union. They had some clout, and the subsequent party convention elected some guy who wasn't even a member to be the party leader, and he changed the name to the 'Progressive' Conservatives to mark their influence.

In terms of actual policy, though, I don't remember what their schtick was, apart from being pro-bilingualism (the old Conservative Party was assimilationist). By the '90s they'd embraced what we now call neo-liberalism, but they might have been more libertarian on the social front--I don't recall.

The Reform Party (/Canadian Alliance) was always basically just a prairie grievance ("Western alienation") party, and their grievances included atheists, French, gays, and universal healthcare.

Good summary.  However, I do remember the reform party having a pretty big presence in Ontario, a
Or at least where I lived.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 25, 2021, 01:23:57 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2021, 08:20:30 AM

The Reform Party (/Canadian Alliance) was always basically just a prairie grievance ("Western alienation") party, and their grievances included atheists, French, gays, and universal healthcare.

Good summary.  However, I do remember the reform party having a pretty big presence in Ontario, a
Or at least where I lived.

And the Bloc Quebecois is a regional (i.e. Quebec) grievance party. The NDP also has certain regional strongholds, like northern Ontario.

Regional grievances are a staple of Canadian politics. One of the big arguments for some kind of proportional representation is that it wouldn't give as many seats to parties trading in these regional grievances as FPTP does. In principle, parties that have to have broad national support are better for the country.

The biggest thing holding Canada together is a universal loathing of Toronto.  Even the rest of Ontario reserves a special hate for Hogtown.

I mean, sovereignty is at least a real grievance. "Western" "alienation" is bullshit pretty much the whole way through, right up to the name.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2021, 02:34:03 PM
I mean, sovereignty is at least a real grievance. "Western" "alienation" is bullshit pretty much the whole way through, right up to the name.

I grew up as an anglo in Quebec. Sovereignty is a lot of BS as well. Support for it has dropped off over the decades as the hippies from the 60's die off. The younger generations don't have the same sense of "oppression" by the English overlords. And the allophones, i.e. immigrants, even if they have adopted French, just don't have a dog in this fight.

Weren't many of the allophones French-speaking Haitians, Congolese, Nigerians, etc.?

They might have very mixed feelings about any allegiance with French culture given their own colonial experiences as well.

M.

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 25, 2021, 03:41:48 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2021, 02:34:03 PM
I mean, sovereignty is at least a real grievance. "Western" "alienation" is bullshit pretty much the whole way through, right up to the name.

I grew up as an anglo in Quebec. Sovereignty is a lot of BS as well. Support for it has dropped off over the decades as the hippies from the 60's die off. The younger generations don't have the same sense of "oppression" by the English overlords. And the allophones, i.e. immigrants, even if they have adopted French, just don't have a dog in this fight.

Sure, but it's a real issue. "Western" "alienation" is about the national energy board, which lasted all of 1980-1985, and equalization payments, which they consistently describe (or maybe it's 'fundamentally misundersand'). There's not really anything more to it than that. Whereas sovereignty is at least still part of the policy agenda for all but one of Québec's political parties.

I agree that sovereignty is stupid, but it's much less stupid than "Western" "alienation", which isn't even a thing (apart from Alberta being pissed off that it isn't Ottawa, anyway, and a general feeling that "Westerners" hated their French classes in elementary and high school). It's a substantial, if fundamentally flawed, issue. The other just isn't.

Quote from: mamselle on September 25, 2021, 04:20:55 PM
Weren't many of the allophones French-speaking Haitians, Congolese, Nigerians, etc.?

They might have very mixed feelings about any allegiance with French culture given their own colonial experiences as well.

M.

IIRC if they have French (or English) as a mother tongue, they aren't allophones (despite being immigrants). At least, I'm pretty sure that's how I learned it.

Right, going by the Latin "alter-" as the root source for "allo," which I should have realized.

I guess I was using it as I thought it was being used, to indicate those not from Canada.

Thanks.

M.

Random points and questions:

1)'allo-' is a Greek word, for 'other'.   

2) WRT Canadian political parties, how exactly does one become a member of one?   Does one simply 'register' to vote as one, as is normal in the US (in most states), or does one have to apply for membership and pay dues, as in the UK?   Also, what percentage of Canadians identify with a party, vs. are independents?

3) I recall reading a news story about the failed 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which seemed to say that the faction that put the 'non' vote over the top, by virtue of its over 95% non vote, was Quebeck 1st Nations people, most of whom apparently do not speak French, and were overwhelmingly in support of remaining in Canada, to the extent of threatening to secede large parts of Northern Quebec from a newly independent Quebec, in order to stay in Canada?

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2021, 02:34:03 PM
I mean, sovereignty is at least a real grievance. "Western" "alienation" is bullshit pretty much the whole way through, right up to the name.

I guess, but I think it runs deeper than just energy and French class.  I think it also has to do with the fact that the election is decided in Quebec and Ontario for the most part.  Of course, this is part of democracy, but I remember elections that were decided before the polls were even closed in BC.  It would feel pretty crappy to know the outcome of the election before you even cast your vote

These feelings are not unique to the west though.  Even within Ontario, most ridings are in the GTA.  If you look at the map, most of Ontario (geographically) is blue and orange, but it is red in number of ridings.

The reason this matters and can be alienating is that parties focus on the vote rich regions that have a chance of flipping and ignore the others.  I am in Ontario, but in a rural, solid blue, riding.  This type of riding is not even a thought during the election etc.  For Alberta, this represents most of the province.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 25, 2021, 10:17:27 PM
Random points and questions:

1)'allo-' is a Greek word, for 'other'.   

2) WRT Canadian political parties, how exactly does one become a member of one?   Does one simply 'register' to vote as one, as is normal in the US (in most states), or does one have to apply for membership and pay dues, as in the UK?   Also, what percentage of Canadians identify with a party, vs. are independents?

It's more like the UK. As far as what percentage of voters belong to a party, it would be tiny. We don't have primaries like in the US, so the only people who would belong to a party would be people who are very political and partisan.

Quote
3) I recall reading a news story about the failed 1995 Quebec independence referendum, which seemed to say that the faction that put the 'non' vote over the top, by virtue of its over 95% non vote, was Quebeck 1st Nations people, most of whom apparently do not speak French, and were overwhelmingly in support of remaining in Canada, to the extent of threatening to secede large parts of Northern Quebec from a newly independent Quebec, in order to stay in Canada?

Sovereignty in Quebec is not just about language; it's also about the superiority of "pur laine" (pure wool) identity which means your Francophone ancestors had to be here for *generations. Immigrants from French-speaking countries don't count. And neither do indigenous people.

(Since before the battle on the Plains of Abraham, when the English defeated the French. Car license plates in Quebec say "Je me souviens" (I remember). What they remember is the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. In 1759.)

Anamie Paul announced her resignation today. So, short of May coming back in, the Greens will basically sit the next election out (too).

Is there any significant level of popular support in Canada for the development of political primary elections there, or are Canadians more or less willing to let party honchos keep choosing who will be candidates for office, and esp candidates for the prime ministership?

Party leaders are voted in by the party membership, so that's how prime ministers are selected.

As for candidates... it's very complicated. Most nominees actually win a nomination contest, but some are appointed for various reasons, and each party has its own rules for the nomination process, what kinds of protections exist for incumbents, etc. Although leaders generally have the final veto.

In other words, we have primaries but don't call them that.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 27, 2021, 09:16:21 PM
Party leaders are voted in by the party membership, so that's how prime ministers are selected.

As for candidates... it's very complicated. Most nominees actually win a nomination contest, but some are appointed for various reasons, and each party has its own rules for the nomination process, what kinds of protections exist for incumbents, etc. Although leaders generally have the final veto.

In other words, we have primaries but don't call them that.

A leadership convention doesn't have all of the months of theatre that seem to be an essential part of primaries in the US. Also, since parties have their own rules about when a leadership review is required, the process doesn't have to happen EVERY.SINGLE.ELECTION cycle.

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

Both systems have their pros and cons.  I don't think either are "better".

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

But as I explained, voters do choose the candidates?

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 29, 2021, 05:29:23 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

You can only be a member of a single federal party at a time. When you purchase your membership, each party has you declare that you are not a member of any other federal party.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 29, 2021, 08:12:44 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

But as I explained, voters do choose the candidates?

Quote from: marshwiggle on September 29, 2021, 05:29:23 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

You can only be a member of a single federal party at a time. When you purchase your membership, each party has you declare that you are not a member of any other federal party.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: Kron3007 on September 29, 2021, 03:26:00 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 28, 2021, 11:03:24 PM
There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

Both systems have their pros and cons.  I don't think either are "better".

There really is no one US system for primaries-- it is specific to the state, and in some cases the party. There is nothing in the constitution or US law about how parties must select their candidates, so there is a lot of variety.

For example, for non-Presidential primaries, some states now use a top-2 system where all candidates are on one ballot and the top two of any party advance to the general election. At the Presidential level, the parties can set the rules pretty much however they like, and this can vary by state-- some do winner-take-all, others apportion delegates by vote count with certain thresholds, some of course use caucuses rather than primaries, some are open only to party members and others are open to independents too and others are open to anyone, etc.

Also, the modern primary system is relatively new in US history-- prior to about the 70s, it was much more like the Canadian system, with party insiders making the decisions in the proverbial smoke filled rooms (and they probably were quite smoke filled in those days).

This is true.   But it is one of those historical developments which is a one-way street.   Neither Democrats nor Republicans, in general, would ever accept a return to the old ways.   No matter how much party elders do not like this (and they don't), and no matter that our current system occasionally produces awful nominees like Trump.  The Canadian system just is not like this, all the more so because one actually has to 'buy' membership in the party of one's choice, and unaffiiated voters can have no say in the selection of any party's nominees.

Quote from: kaysixteen on September 29, 2021, 10:46:45 PM
This is true.   But it is one of those historical developments which is a one-way street.   Neither Democrats nor Republicans, in general, would ever accept a return to the old ways.   No matter how much party elders do not like this (and they don't), and no matter that our current system occasionally produces awful nominees like Trump.  The Canadian system just is not like this, all the more so because one actually has to 'buy' membership in the party of one's choice, and unaffiliated voters can have no say in the selection of any party's nominees.

This is misleading. Every member of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, has to be elected in their own riding. There have been cases of party leaders losing their own seats, and they can't serve in the House until they do. When this happens, typically some MP in a "safe" seat will take one for the team and step down, so there can be a by-election, and the party leader will then run in that riding. Since it's a "safe" seat, AND voters like to pick a winner, then the party leader usually wins. If they didn't, the party would have to pick a new leader if they were going to form the government.

And, as I said earlier, if I want to have a vote for the leader of my party of choice, I just have to join that party and vote in their leadership convention. It's never been a burning desire of mine.

Also worth noting that the cost of party membership is a tax-deductible $5 donation.

How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:10:11 AM
How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

I don't think so.  We don't elect nearly as many posts as in the IS.  I was surprised when I lived in the US and there were signs for Sherif, judges, and all sorts of posts.  We only vote on a couple.

Of course, I always wondered how much sense it really made.  Do people down there even know enough about all the peoples stances and background to make informed decisions?  Seems unlikely.

It's often an excuse to vote for your friends and the people your friends tell you to vote for.

M.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 01, 2021, 12:10:11 AM
How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

Traditionally, you had to travel to wherever the party decided to host it. But since about 2015, you've also been able to vote online. (IIRC most parties had a mail-in option prior to that.)

Quote
In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

I think you missed my explanation earlier:

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 27, 2021, 09:16:21 PM

As for candidates... it's very complicated. Most nominees actually win a nomination contest, but some are appointed for various reasons, and each party has its own rules for the nomination process, what kinds of protections exist for incumbents, etc. Although leaders generally have the final veto.

Quote from: mamselle on October 01, 2021, 06:00:45 AM
It's often an excuse to vote for your friends and the people your friends tell you to vote for.

M.

That's what I assumed.  There is no way the general public is informed enough on so many different positions.  Seemed like a popularity contest, and not likely to result in the best person for the job. 

The part about 'the leader having the final veto' would be the part that would make most Americans rebel.   Americans love their primary elections, the chance to select whomever they choose, irrespective of whether party bigshots like it.   Sometimes, sadly, this gives us, well...

And I was unaware that Canada had, taken as a whole, fewer elective positions than the US does (though the number of positions elected here varies somewhat significantly from state to state-- here in Mass., for instance, 100% of judges are appointed by the governor, never elected, whereas in some states, more or less all judges are elected).   I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?   Does Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
The part about 'the leader having the final veto' would be the part that would make most Americans rebel.   Americans love their primary elections, the chance to select whomever they choose, irrespective of whether party bigshots like it.   Sometimes, sadly, this gives us, well...

And I was unaware that Canada had, taken as a whole, fewer elective positions than the US does (though the number of positions elected here varies somewhat significantly from state to state-- here in Mass., for instance, 100% of judges are appointed by the governor, never elected, whereas in some states, more or less all judges are elected).   I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?   Does Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

This does seem to be very regional in the US. In the western states I previously lived in we voted for absolutely everything-- not only sheriff, judges and school board, but also coroner, port commissioners or ditch wardens (don't laugh, water rights are a big deal in the arid parts of the west) depending on the place, etc. Ballot measures (initiatives and state constitutional amendments) are also very common. I think it comes from a long history of small-l libertarianism in the west going back to pioneer days. When I moved east I was surprised at how slim the ballots were!

And apologies to the Canadians for hijacking their thread with comparative US politics. I've enjoyed learning more about the Canadian system as well.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

QuoteDoes Canada even maintain the office of 'sheriff'?

No? To be honest, I don't even know what a sheriff is, other than a medieval tax collector or someone in charge of local cops.

Quote
  What about school boards, and things like treasurers/ comptrollers?

Some school boards are, but increasingly less so (many are also being dissolved). As for the rest, see 'sheriff' above.
There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM

There are advantages to appointed offices, of course, esp in small cities/ rural areas, where the sheer smallness of the population renders it less likely that signifcant offices will find a local candidate qualified to hold it.

Appointed offices run the risk of nepotism. Elected offices run the risk of demagoguery. The US looks at their history with England and it fuels their fear of nepotism. Canadians don't have to look across an ocean to see examples that make them fear demagoguery.

Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2021, 11:07:15 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2021, 12:14:16 PM
Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2021, 11:07:15 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

Yeah, totally. And since 2016, any qualified lawyer or judge can apply to be on the court. At one point in the Harper years, 7/9 of the justices were appointed by him, and he was still losing cases (including major ones) left and right. It's just not the same kind of partisan entity. Also, the mix of law degrees is a lot better than in the US: in addition to the obligatory McGill/Toronto/Osgoode trifecta, the current justices have degrees (often several law degrees) from Laval, Victoria, Ottawa, Alberta, Yale, and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

On the language thing, it makes sense as a requirement since it's a bijural court whose jurisdiction includes Francophone stuff. But, if you'll allow me to wade into the current tempest in a teapot: in my view, bilingualism is an important requirement, but I'd accept fluency in an Indigenous language in lieu of French (in principle, in lieu of English too, except that the judge wouldn't be able to perform most of their duties, then). That seems totally fair to me.

QuoteI'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

For appointing a judiciary, that's not a terrible system, by the way.

In the US, the outcome will not be much different on average over time, as the political parties alternate in office. But, of course, each time it looks like there's more at stake than in Canada, so it's worth making more noise.

Quote from: dismalist on October 02, 2021, 02:04:36 PM

QuoteI'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

The only regional regional requirement is that 3 of the 9 must come from Québec--because Québec uses civil law instead of common law. The rest of the apportionment (3 from Ontario, 2 from the west and prairies, and 1 from the Maritimes) is just convention (roughly based on population).

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2021, 04:06:45 PM

Quote from: dismalist on October 02, 2021, 02:04:36 PM

QuoteI'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.

Well, appointments are apportioned by Province or region. If Provinces or regions are relatively stable in their political preferences, that amounts to a quota system. That's fine unless or until some come about who are unconsidered. Looks like Canada gets nice and quiet appointments to its Supreme Court because the powers that be can live with current quotas.

The only regional regional requirement is that 3 of the 9 must come from Québec--because Québec uses civil law instead of common law. The rest of the apportionment (3 from Ontario, 2 from the west and prairies, and 1 from the Maritimes) is just convention (roughly based on population).

Conventions are solutions to problems we have forgotten. Were the conventions lifted, the problems would re-emerge.

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2021, 12:14:16 PM
Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2021, 11:07:15 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

Quote from: secundem_artem on October 02, 2021, 05:56:27 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on October 02, 2021, 12:14:16 PM
Sorry for the double post, but this raises an interesting point.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 02, 2021, 11:07:15 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I take it no law enforcement positions in Canada are ever elected, including judges, prosecutors, and cops?

Correct. Even our Supreme Court is not a political entity. I couldn't even name a single serving judge.

I stand to be corrected, but I'd say our Supreme Court appointments are far less controversial than the American "public" process.
(The biggest controversy is often about how fluent they are in both official languages.)

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

Dictatorship of Parliament.

So the Canadian supreme court cannot, ultimately, nuke a law passed by Parliament on grounds of unconstitutionality?   What is the current state of abortion law in Canada?

Quote from: secundem_artem on October 02, 2021, 05:56:27 PM

I cannot confirm or deny the veracity of this statement, but one of the Con Law faculty at Artem U once told me that decisions made by the Supremes in Canada are made in such a way as to allow a later Parliament to address the issue, correct the error, redress the wrong etc.  He felt it was one reason why appointments and decisions from the Supremes in the Great White North tend not to be controversial.

I don't see how this wouldn't be the case anywhere; the point is that by specifying how a law violates the constitution, it suggests ways that a different law might try to address the same issue without violating the constitution.

Why wouldn't that be a good idea? (Unless one sees a law as pure evil, with evil intent from the get-go.)

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 02, 2021, 08:53:06 PM
So the Canadian supreme court cannot, ultimately, nuke a law passed by Parliament on grounds of unconstitutionality?

Sure they can and do. There's often (usually?) a phase-in period that governments have to adapt where just removing the law instantly would be chaotic.

Quote
  What is the current state of abortion law in Canada?

There is none. When the court struck down the previous law, successive governments have been too afraid to touch the third rail, even though most Canadians favour some restrictions.

Yeah, any and all abortions are legal, at any point in the pregnancy. But you're not going to find anyone who performs them at week 40.

All kinds of laws have been struck down as unconstitutional, including (relatively recently) laws against physician-assisted suicide and sex work. In those cases, governments were given a certain amount of time to pass new, constitutional, laws.

So ultimately, if the govt refuses to rewrite the law to comply with the court's objections, the court's view wins out and the law is nuked?

BTW, exactly what comprises the 'constitution' in Canada?   Is this essentially just equal to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or is there more to it?   And how might it be amended?   I have read that the US constitution is essentially the hardest current constitution in a democratic country, to amend, but maybe this is wrong?

Quote from: kaysixteen on October 03, 2021, 09:09:58 PM
So ultimately, if the govt refuses to rewrite the law to comply with the court's objections, the court's view wins out and the law is nuked?

BTW, exactly what comprises the 'constitution' in Canada?   Is this essentially just equal to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or is there more to it?   And how might it be amended?   I have read that the US constitution is essentially the hardest current constitution in a democratic country, to amend, but maybe this is wrong?

The Constitution Act of 1982* and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms together make what govern Canadian law.

Regarding amendments (https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/amending-formula/):

Quote
There must be at least seven provinces that approve the change, representing at least 50% of Canada's population. This is often called the 7 + 50 rule.

*The Constitution Act of 1982 updates/replaces the Consitution Act of 1867, from Confederation, also known as the British North American (BNA) Act.

One thing that has been alluded to earlier, but in federal politics in Canada, regional representation is much more of a concern than ideological issues. For almost any issue, the variations by region will encapsulate or colour any ideological differences.

To give an example, consider bilingualism, which is a big issue. Four provinces where this is a particular concern are New Brunswick (in the East), Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba (in the West). The ramifications of any law around bilingualism will be different in each of these provinces.

After any election, but especially one producing a minority government, a much-discussed topic will be what regions are poorly-represented in the governing party. (Typically, Liberals are strong in Quebec, and very weak in the West. For the Conservatives, it tends to be the reverse.)
A government which managed to have decent representation in all regions of the country would probably be pretty effective and reasonable.

One more example regarding regional variations: Even the NDP, which gets seats in remote Northern Ontario and urban Toronto, will have very different pitches to those regions, because the issues are very different.