Thread: A Canadian Election Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029508

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
So as it is the longest election in Canadian history*,** and there still hasn't been a Purg thread on it, and the writ was dropped four weeks ago, here it is.

Of interest Tom Mulcair will be making a SECOND appearance in Peterborough tomorrow, conveniently after work so I can attend. The Central Campaign wouldn't send him back to Peterborough unless they thought the riding was in play.

*since the advent of single-day national polling in 1876, and even before since the writ wasn't even dropped at the same time.

**Yes, yes, the Americans among the Ship's crew can stop laughing now.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The main problem with Canada is that Ontario and Quebec vote and the rest of us in the centre and west and in the Martimes and Nfld don't matter because you have so many seats. But that's also because you have all those people. Which you may please keep.

But this time, it looks like it matters because the parties are close, and with redistribution we may get something other than Harper-Cons. Here's hoping.

Election day is 19 Oct. Which SPK seems to have missed in my read of this with bifocal eyes on a phone.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The main problem with Canada is that Ontario and Quebec vote and the rest of us in the centre and west and in the Martimes and Nfld don't matter because you have so many seats. But that's also because you have all those people. Which you may please keep.

But this time, it looks like it matters because the parties are close, and with redistribution we may get something other than Harper-Cons. Here's hoping.

Election day is 19 Oct. Which SPK seems to have missed in my read of this with bifocal eyes on a phone.

---

So that we do not mislead the occasional US reader who might think, on the parallel of votes for the electoral college where generally winner-takes-all, here voters choose individual MPs by district. In most provinces, we end up with MPs of different parties (Alberta & Newfoundland have often only elected MPs of the same party).

It is now five weeks before the election, which is our normal length of campaign. With several debates coming, it is too soon to make any predictions -- looking at analyses, I think that over two-thirds of seats are in play-- but there might well be some significant shifts to come. Certainly the Conservatives did not expect to be in third place at this point.

I did a walk to the west end yesterday (about 14km) and the sign war in Ottawa Centre seems to be just over half NDP, the rest Liberal, and only a small sprinkling of Conservative, but this might have to do with Conservatives not wanting to embarrass themselves in front of their neighbours. My Conservative contacts are a bit too frazzled these days to chat, so I'm not sure what is happening there internally, but I gather that they are having trouble getting volunteers to do second and third canvasses, blaming this on people not having yet closed up their cottages.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Last week, before the refugee crisis hit, I noticed a comment by John Ibbotson (not a notably Liberal or NDP commentator). After more or less pooh-poohing a supposed "senior Liberal"s thought that the Conservatives might be about to implode, he continued: "But... campaigns that are falling apart have a certain stench. And I'm beginning to catch a whiff..."

Checking the Eric Grenier poll analysis on the CBC site, what his "poll of polls" seems to me to be suggesting seems unbelievable in the case of BC and Saskatchewan/Manitoba, though the rest of the region by region predictions appear to be, if unlikely, at least within the ball park. A decline in the NDP seats in Ontario, for example, could happen but...

John
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The Conservative campaign office in Peterborough is right across the street from my place of work. My work neighbourhood is currently suffering from urban blight.

OTOH, I just got back from an NDP Rally in the South End which had a packed house of 400 people. Mulcair came to speak.

Ah, lovely Momentum. How wonderful are thy ways.
 

---

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
The neighbours noted in another thread now have lawn signs out for all three parties - one for each family member... Interestingly, the Tory is the only one who doesn't have his unlovely face on the big signs around the town.
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 
I'm afraid I don't really follow Canadian politics. What's the reasons for the Tories' recent dip in popularity?
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
The incumbent government is often lower in the polls because, as the government, they had to make the hard decisions for the past number of years. Something the opposition and the third and lower parties have not had to do. It is easy to be the opposition and even easier to be the third, fourth, etc. party, because you have not had to upset anybody, and you can promise the moon and the stars.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I think it is different at the moment than incumbency as you've suggested. It's a different form of that. It's a pursuit of ideological goals, the avoidance of actual data, and the presentation of themselves and their ideas as the answer. Any time a party says they have simple answers to complex questions, they should be tossed. In the Conservative situation, they currently believe that unbridled resource exploitation, money and business are the Way. They ignore and even suppress contrary data, about quality of life and science. I shudder to think about personal debt levels due to high consumer prices and what will happen when interest rates move up.

In Saskatchewan, of 14 seats, we will continue to have one Liberal (Ralph Goodale) in Regina, and will elect 2 or 3 NDP in Saskatoon, 1 or 2 NDP in Regina, and the rest of it will probly continue with Conservative. Thank God for reorganization of boundaries of ridings so that urban are not washed out by rural.

Manitoba will have probably an equivalent number of NDP/Liberals, i.e. non-Conservative. Let's hope both get at least that many non-Cons.

(I have lived most recently in both of these provinces, and also in Alberta, which I am no longer qualified to comment about all given the recent provincial Orange Crush)
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
... It's a pursuit of ideological goals, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sorry, SPK...you guys already had an election recently. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sorry, SPK...you guys already had an election recently. Cameron gets to remain prime minister. Better luck next time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sorry, SPK...you guys already had an election recently. Cameron gets to remain prime minister. Better luck next time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Won't the NDP have to elect that Corbyn fellow as party leader before you can have another election?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh? Global News has an NDP lead, and Eric Grenier's reaults at CBC are due to one Nanos poll, if you check his results.

And the NDP's serious election ad campaign starts today.

The results from Quebec are still looking mighty fine.

---

Exactly. At this point, they are useful indicators, but nothing on which to place real money. I have, however, placed money on a few individual seats, and am optimistic. In any case I am off to the Yukon in a few hours and will doubtless hear tales of the local Conservative candidate who apparently keeps handcuffs in his car for citizen arrest purposes. If only Robert Service were here to sing his tale.
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Even if this a long campagin it's a better way than in the SA. Their system is well a puzzlement, confounds the mind and is eith/or borinng or insulting.
Who'll win . Only HE knows for sure .
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm afraid I don't really follow Canadian politics. What's the reasons for the Tories' recent dip in popularity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As of today, the CBC is reporting ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd be interesting in comments on the spin doctor, who operated in Australian, and UK elections. Lynton Crosby. He's said to be anti just about everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd be interesting in comments on the spin doctor, who operated in Australian, and UK elections. Lynton Crosby. He's said to be anti just about everything.

---

If you want to know about Crosby's style here's an ad he did attacking the Australian Labor Party in the 2004 election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M6GpuUTJ0E

And here's a nearly identical ad attacking UK Labour in the 2015 election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=23&v=0oo5ZbQDfwY

In both elections the party Crosby was working for not only won but increased their seat share so he's obviously good at his job.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Anti Immigration? Not going to work for his new client, the Tories are as pro-immigration as any party in Canada and have made great hay courting the Immigrant vote in the GTA and Vancouver. So that's a self-inflicted wound waiting to happen.

Anti Labour? The Federal Government has little to do with labour issues, which general fall under provincial jurisdiction. Good luck getting the public to understand Bill C-525, the unions couldn't get the public to understand either.

Religious divide? See the first item for what will happen if Harper goes too anti-Muslim.

And then there's the recession to dampen Harper's economic claims.

So

Attack ads? The NDP has it's own attack ads: See here.

That's my former MP being led away in shackles after his conviction for election offences. By happy coincidence the Conservative candidate's office in this riding is conveniently only a block away from the same provincial court house.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
SPK wrote:

quote:

---

Anti Immigration? Not going to work for his new client, the Tories are as pro-immigration as any party in Canada and have made great hay courting the Immigrant vote in the GTA and Vancouver. So that's a self-inflicted wound waiting to happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Anti Labour? The Federal Government has little to do with labour issues, which general fall under provincial jurisdiction. Good luck getting the public to understand Bill C-525, the unions couldn't get the public to understand either.

---

The massive cutbacks to federal public service and now apparently having a whopping surplus looks like a terrible disconnect to me. As if departments giving money back is a good.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Yet another CON bites the dust!

This would be if it weren't so pathetic. All the parties have had trouble with prospective MPs, but the CON party more than others.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Yet another CON bites the dust!

This would be if it weren't so pathetic. All the parties have had trouble with prospective MPs, but the CON party more than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's the same reason everyone was so well dressed at the last Federal Convention.

---

Just another sure sign that the Dippers are indistinguishable from the Libruls.. I note they're shooting themselves in the foot again, and the Tories will sneak up the middle as their vote collapses.

It's a sad, sad day for the Left.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 


Oh ye of little faith.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Insofar as politics are concerned I lost faith many years ago. 30 second sound bites as opposed to serious discussions are as dead as a dodo. Bob Rae demonstrated that in the 1994 convention when he came down on the side of Sunday shopping and over-rode Convention. Power brokers rule. The people are no longer heard. I certainly wasn't terribly surprised when he joined the Federal Liberals. The man has no principles. I expect Mulcair will be sucked into the power vortex if he ever wins.
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
As an American I don't have much to contribute, except:

1. I would KILL for an election season as "long" as 11 weeks.

2. I LOVE this guy's campaign ad: Wyatt Scott for Parliament
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
If its any comfort, the current party in power has been in campaign mode since the morning after the last election. In effect, their campaign has been around four years long, not 11 weeks.

John
 

---

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
If its any comfort, the current party in power has been in campaign mode since the morning after the last election. In effect, their campaign has been around four years long, not 11 weeks.

John

---

Oh, so you have that too!
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Only since the 2011 election. Before that, there was a certain amount of decorum. Since the present government got a majority, all sense of decency has departed.

John
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Since this election has a decent chance of producing a minority government, how is it that the Canadian political system seems to be able to handle minority governments with greater stability than in other countries? Canadian minority governments, whatever challenges they may have, seem to last longer and function better than minority governments elsewhere. Why is this? Do Canadian parties have lower party discipline that allow majorities to be built to pass laws one at a time?

And why don't the Canadian people ever talk seriously about coalitions, given that Canada seems even farther from a two-party system than the UK and regularly produces election results with no majority for any party even with a first past the post system?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I wouldn't say it's more stable than other countries, but Canada has minority governments far more than the other Westminster democracies do. We haven't had a completely two-party system since 1921.

The stability, such as it is, is that as minorities in Canada are a mixture of the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP in provinces that are prone to minorities and at the Federal level, and there are few coalition partners. I really can't see a Tory/NDP coalition, can you?

There has never been a case where a third party supports a minority government and then switches sides and supports another party in forming a government without an election. Most parties in that position feel there is more to gain from an election.

It usually takes two and half years for the opposition to build up sufficient steam to campaign against a minority government on its record and force an election.

In fact, party discipline in Canada is incredibly tight, tighter than even in the British House of Commons, but in the modern period the trend has been a minority government to cut deals on a bill-by-bill basis as this leaves all parties with the most flexibility. But this is a case where the House Leaders, the caucus MP's from all parties charged with managing the agenda of the house, procedure matters and shepherding bills through the Commons.

And the reason nobody talks about forming coalitions is that nobody wants to be the junior partner. See the Country/National Party in Australia or the recent Lib Dems in the UK for examples.
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
So if deals are cut on a bill by bill basis in a minority government and parties tend to vote in lock step in Parliament, that means that any party that joins the government for a particular bill can be blamed for that bill. Did the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc (back when they mattered) take turns joining in on bills as a whole party when Harper had minority governments? Was there ever much backlash to being in bed with the Tories even if it was just on a single bill (or a single budget)? And did the Tories (or their predecessor parties) ever help get budgets and bills passed when there was a Liberal minority government? Did they suffer backlash as a result? And how much compromise would a party that joined in on a particular bill or budget insist upon? Would a non-government party ever insist on getting a bill of its own passed or at least voted on as a condition of supporting the PM in votes of confidence?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes, during the Harper Minorities all three parties took turns supporting Harper. Each would vote for the bill that did not offend their core supporters; as for the budget it was a bidding game. Of course the price for supporting a minority was that you wouldn't get much traction by growing your support, you'd just keep your base. But it was a taste of power.

There were a few instances of the opposition parties forcing non-government bills through the House, but they were killed in the Senate. Budgets are a different matter, as they are on their face confidence matters.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Stonespring asks a few questions:

quote:

---

Was there ever much backlash to being in bed with the Tories even if it was just on a single bill (or a single budget)?

---

quote:

---

And did the Tories (or their predecessor parties) ever help get budgets and bills passed when there was a Liberal minority government? Did they suffer backlash as a result?

---

I think that I'd have to spend a fair bit of time to research this question to find an instance. Normally it was a matter of the NDP backing a Liberal government measure (for which the price was exacted in several ways, most frequently through improvement of the legislation involved but, in the case of budget measures, by adopting particular NDP requests).

Often there was turmoil among Tories when some Conservatives supported a particular government measure-- there were some fights dating back to Joe Clark days. In Mr Stanfield's period as leader (1967-1976), he and Mr Trudeau negotiated a number of things directly, which caused some bitterness in the PC caucus at that time.
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
If the three largest parties are almost tied in their share of votes in the election results, and the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons is very far from majority, will a stable minority government be possible? Will there be likely another election in not too much time because of the instability of such a result? It seems that NDP and Liberal voters at the federal level share much more in common politically than they do with Conservative voters, at least based on polls of what two parties voters are considering voting for. Would either some kind of bargain (although perhaps not a coalition) to allow for a stable government or even electoral reform (ie, IRV or some kind of PR) to prevent the Conservatives from getting a majority or a near-majority from a much smaller share of the votes be possible?
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
In pure theory (which none of the party leaders seem to know), Harper can continue as PM until he has to meet the House of COmmons. As long as he can win a vote of confidence, he can carry on. THe longer he is able to carry on, the more likely it is that he will continue to carry on.


Theory says that if he loses his first vote of confidence he has to go to the GG and resign. If this is the first vote of the session, the GG can ask anyone else -- but in reality the leader of the (next) largest party if he can command a majority. At which point negotiations begin. The result need not be a coalition -- because of our history, probably not. But two parties could agree on legislation and a program, probably to cover up to 2 years after which an election would happen.

Harper has already said he will not carry on without at least a plurality. Which gets the GG into action at once.

John
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
What will happen if there be a three-way tie? Stability is not necessarily connected with numbers, but with the will of the parties to make it work.

In any case, the GG's real headache would be if Mr Harper announced departure on election night, à la Paul Martin in 2006. Either he could seek the departing PM's advice on whom to summons (I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation) or he would summon the party leader with the larger number of MPs. Several European countries (Netherlands, for example) have protocols all laid out for the sovereign, but normally things have been made pretty clear by the parties-- one of my constitutional contacts states that it is the duty of party leaders to not place the Crown in a difficult position. But as John Holding notes, none of our party leaders appear to have more than a tenuous grasp on our constitution. Would that they be made to read Eugene Forsey's book on taking office.

But this might be a bit much like Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe, where parliamentarians would be selected through competitive examination.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
If it's a bit messy, it's because we don't do it all that often, compared to mainland Europe. I personally prefer a Constructive Vote of No-Confidence, in which the House votes "that His Excellency's present government does not have the confidence of the House, and that this House commends X to his Excellency's consideration for the formation of a government."

Thus giving the Governor General ample indication of the House's opinion. The Constructive Vote of No Confidence has never been reliably used or recognized in Canadian practice, and that is the root of the problem.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Second NDP canvass yesterday afternoon while I was holding a birthday lunch for a friend-- so far no CPC (remember when that was the identifier for the Communist Party of Canada?) or Liberal or Green in my neighbourhood in the Italian barrio.

My Montréal visit on Thursday revealed a few more Bloc & Green posters, but it was generally a contest between Liberal and NDP signs, with the latter having a slight edge. Several of the Rachel Bendayan signs had vampiric insignia grafittid on to them, perhaps suggesting that the graphically dramatic red-and-black motif of these posters had perhaps evoked a full-moon response from the masses.

My demographically savvy contact there predicts a strong Conservative majority result, but I wagered a bottle of decent red that they could not break 130 seats. That may have been reckless of me, but I am seeing a slow movement away from them, likely peaking next week.

Still, I am off to avoid the lineups and vote in the advance polls on the 9th, emulating a late Squadron Leader RCAF who advised me that it was one thing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers, but quite another to have to stand in line with them.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes, I have to do the advance poll as I am being a driver for supporters on Election Day. I had one spare vacation day left, so I took it that day.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Update!! Canvassed by the Communists!! Still no Tories.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Bonus points if you found an expired NDP membership card in their wallet.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bonus points if you found an expired NDP membership card in their wallet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
SPC, does that mean you think the Conservatives are likely to get the most seats?

And everyone:

If the Tories get the most seats and fail to form a government, would the Canadian public think it "unfair" if a party without the highest number of seats managed to form a government, even if it is perfectly constitutional? Is there any precedent for this and, if so, how recent is it?

I know people vote because of party loyalty, culture, gut feeling, etc. But for those voters who vote primarily on issues/ideology, what differentiates Liberal voters from NDP voters? Is it as simple as Liberals being centrists (or slightly left of center) and Dippers being more left of center? Do voters for the two parties differ much in social class (income, education, etc)? (Of course, it is increasingly common here in the US for the many of the wealthiest and most educated to support the most left of center major party - so I have no assumptions in asking this question.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I though that with the exception of the NDP, provincial and federal parties were completely separate? I already knew that the BC state Liberal party was pretty coonservative to the point where it is the main center right party in that province. But I assumed that this didn't mean that people in BC who vote Liberal in Federal elections weren't necessarily conservative. Are you saying that there is somewhat of a correlation between what party someone votes for provincially and federally, even when the party in a given province is quite different than the federal party that shares its name?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: ...Liberals in BC tend to be right-wing, many in Ontario are quite bolshie....

Other shipmates may have their own oar to add to this. [/QB]

---

Bolshie!?! Bolshie!?! Liberals in Ontario are bolshie?

Liberals in Ontario don't even register as champagne socialists, let alone bolshies.

Now if you want some decent examples of the various species of Trot, you have to look to my fellow members in the NDP.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: ...Liberals in BC tend to be right-wing, many in Ontario are quite bolshie....

Other shipmates may have their own oar to add to this.

---

Bolshie!?! Bolshie!?! Liberals in Ontario are bolshie?

Liberals in Ontario don't even register as champagne socialists, let alone bolshies.

Now if you want some decent examples of the various species of Trot, you have to look to my fellow members in the NDP. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: ...Liberals in BC tend to be right-wing, many in Ontario are quite bolshie....

Other shipmates may have their own oar to add to this.

---

Bolshie!?! Bolshie!?! Liberals in Ontario are bolshie?

Liberals in Ontario don't even register as champagne socialists, let alone bolshies.

Now if you want some decent examples of the various species of Trot, you have to look to my fellow members in the NDP. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Uh, yeah, Og, I remember that election. The fact that the NDP FIRST proposed the very pension proposal Wynne ran on, and that "to the right" thing is a result of that wretched letter from some constant malcontents, for which they deserve to be planked.

---

Oh please.

Your own party refused to support that pension plan because the Libs ran on it. Ur own darn fault for putting being against somebody over doing the right thing (and I'm no Lib BTW)


***


Anyhoo,

I think we've finally figured out what the ballot question is for this election:

Do you want change or not? Shocked I am.


And if you do want change, who's going to bring that?


We thought this was going to be the question but lots of people brought up other ideas - Bill C51, the Niqab, the recession. But, ultimately, that's what people are deciding on now. Do you want change and how is that going to happen?


This is what I love about this country - those of us who vote take this all seriously and think it through. We come to different conclusions but people do think about it.

[ 09. October 2015, 03:07: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Og, but what concerns me as an outside observer is that, because in Canada a party can often win a seat with barely 30% of the vote in that riding (and because of the tradition of functioning minority governments), you can wind up with a large majority of voters voting for change of some kind (they may not agree on which party should provide the change, but they all would agree on that it shouldn't be the current governing party) and have an electoral result where the incumbent party stays in power. Why don't more Canadians want Instant-Runoff Voting or something that would help to rectify this?
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Stonespring-- likely because we are very conservative constitutionally, and from observing the UK Westminster & US first-fast-the-post for many years, assume that this is the only way of voting. We have had other systems used in parts of the west in the past, but party managers disliked them.

There have been recent attempts to bring STV to BC, which failed because it required a super-majority in a referendum; and additional-member-by-list in Ontario, which also failed (IMHO because it was a really bad idea, but likely because it was not marketed well).

One problem is that parties with proportionality in their platforms grow distinctly unenthusiastic when they get a majority, presumably assuming that they always will. One can only point to the Parti Québécois as an example, although they got to the point of producing an excellent green paper under Louis O'Neill, outlining how it could work in Québec.

The Ford episode in Toronto has moved many people to look at a ranked ballot (aka preferential) and so there may be some movement. Both Liberals and NDP are making noises about it, but we'll see in 10 days who might be doing what.

I think about a good third of the electorate will be making up their minds over turkey carcasses and pumpkin pie this weekend.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
That does not include me as I am voting today come hell or high water. And it's the first time in my life that I will go into a polling station still unsure as to just exactly who I will vote for. There may be a disturbance in the atmosphere.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
Is the NDP's current poll slide in Quebec really because of the whole niqab issue? I get that Francophone parts of North America and Europe seem to have a very strong antipathy to public wearing of the niqab, but whenever I see it result in discriminatory legislation or even influence an election I get really sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
SPK wrote:

quote:

---

Anti Immigration? Not going to work for his new client, the Tories are as pro-immigration as any party in Canada and have made great hay courting the Immigrant vote in the GTA and Vancouver. So that's a self-inflicted wound waiting to happen.

---

Well, the Harper Conservatives have kind of mastered the art of dog-whistling in both directions.

Yes, they show up at the ethnic barbecues to hand out the cheques and dress their Immigration Minister up in turbans or whatever the apt sartorials are for a given occassion.

But then, they also push for unveiled citizenship-oaths, and newcomers' guides that denounce FMG(as if any practitioner of that will be dissuaded by a pamphlet), and get-tough on queue-jumping refugees.

And for the most part, they've gotten away with it, because these measures only target a tiny percentage of the immigrant community, and(contrary to the wishes of progressive utopians), a lot of immigrants don't regard "an attack on one as an attack on all". A Korean Christian who thinks all non-believers are going to hell probably doesn't care if Harper makes disparaging remarks about Muslim headgear, as long as the funds for his church's bulgogi barbecue come through.

---

quote:

---

Exactly. The Harperites don't have to make immigrants all over Canada like them; they just have to convince the ones who live in certain ridings to vote for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Despite the usual moaning and groaning about Advanced Polls, the numbers of people attending have been astronomically above 2008, and also much higher than 2011. This is good news as high polling numbers now mean a change in Government. We can only hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The system is a fine balance of accounting, record-keeping and secrecy.

Improve it?!? And mess with what works? Never!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
How much do you suppose Mulcair and Trudeau would be able to work together if no one gets a majority? Mulcair is now proposing a coalition with the Liberals if the Tories get the most seats but not a majority, but Trudeau has said there is no way that will happen. If one of them forms a minority government with cooperation on a bill-by-bill basis from the other, will there be enough clashes of personality and/or politics between them to make that government ineffective and/or short-lived? It seems that it will be hard for either party or either leader to be the junior partner in a coalition or informal arrangement given how close all three major parties are now in terms of electoral support.

---

Which has been making me absolutely crazy for the last 10 years. Hey, Justin and Tom, listen up: most of us aren't fussed about who gets to be Prime Minister as long as it's not Stephen Helmethair. If you and your predecessor leaders had ccoperated, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess created by the Reform Party, the University of Calgary "economists" and a bunch of oil-addicted dinosaurs. What's more important right now? Your fucking egos or our country?
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I had to sit through another discussion on this last night (luckily, there was a very good turkey tetrazzini and a nice burgundy on the table to distract me)-- we will have to wait until the numbers are in to see what will happen. I would imagine that, should there be a Liberal minority, the Throne Speech will be written up as to be palatable to the NDP for at least a year. If there be a Conservative minority and they try to get a throne speech through, they will fall fairly quickly and then the GG has his work to do.

If there be a NDP minority (now looking less likely than before but the votes have yet to be counted), then they will tailor the Throne Speech so as to be palatable to the Liberals for a while.

The only situation where a coalition would be considered seriously would be if the NDP & Liberals had the same number of seats. I am not certain if this be likely, but with lots of three-way races, a few small surprises could add up to a bigger surprise.

Must now look out the window to see where the local brothel and drug market will be established after the election.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
How much do you suppose Mulcair and Trudeau would be able to work together if no one gets a majority? Mulcair is now proposing a coalition with the Liberals if the Tories get the most seats but not a majority, but Trudeau has said there is no way that will happen. If one of them forms a minority government with cooperation on a bill-by-bill basis from the other, will there be enough clashes of personality and/or politics between them to make that government ineffective and/or short-lived? It seems that it will be hard for either party or either leader to be the junior partner in a coalition or informal arrangement given how close all three major parties are now in terms of electoral support.

---

Which has been making me absolutely crazy for the last 10 years. Hey, Justin and Tom, listen up: most of us aren't fussed about who gets to be Prime Minister as long as it's not Stephen Helmethair. If you and your predecessor leaders had ccoperated, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess created by the Reform Party, the University of Calgary "economists" and a bunch of oil-addicted dinosaurs. What's more important right now? Your fucking egos or our country?

---

You make the fundamental mistake that there are no significant differences between the Liberals and the NDP. Flat wrong.

This ersatz attempt to collapse the NDP and Liberals into a single political fraction is doomed to fail.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
It's attitudes like that that will ensure the election of the CONs.

Many European governments would sink into chaos if they had your same feelings.

There are those of us who would wish that all of the opposition parties would pull up their big boy/girl panties and get rid of Harper and his voting seals altogether.

You can all work out your pou sto (place to stand) after the election.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Strategic voting here. I vote for the turkey tetrazzini. The leftovers shall be lunch.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Soror Magna wrote:

quote:

---

Which has been making me absolutely crazy for the last 10 years. Hey, Justin and Tom, listen up: most of us aren't fussed about who gets to be Prime Minister as long as it's not Stephen Helmethair. If you and your predecessor leaders had ccoperated, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess created by the Reform Party, the University of Calgary "economists" and a bunch of oil-addicted dinosaurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Most politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths while making others cross the road for them don't they? Justin wants some seats in Alberta - might get some apparently. We have not idea what these opportunists really think. We can only decide which injury is worse. I am tired of being harpooned.

---

All we can do right now is to use our common sense and judgement about where we want the country to go as best as we can; and to be the instruments of our own judgement rather than the tools of others. As far as I am concerned, I did not need a 78-day campaign to do that.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
To follow on about the differences between the Liberals and the NDP, they boil down to one word: class.

The NDP is a working-class party and a mass party. The Liberal Party, OTOH, is an elite party. Therein lies the rub.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
Working class? The NDP hasn't been a movement since the days of the CCF. And it represents in leadership and MPs the views of the upper middle class. You've been brainwashed.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I found the class question interesting enough to do a rough-guess poll of my acquaintances (Canadian FB friends) and came up with a very rough picture: of upper class (viz., rich people, fully tenured profs, retired EX bureaucrats and their military equivalents), it was 4 C, 7 L, 5 NDP; of working class (including badly paid artists, people on assistance, scrabbling together jobs-- roughly those folk under $40k) it was 9 C, 26 Lib, 22 NDP; of the middle I found 12 C, 35 Lib, 42 NDP. I had about 50 I could not classify & my other FB friends were foreigners.

Going through my list, I saw that only a minority of my contacts were voting on economic and class grounds. Regional and historic factors were evident (e.g., a really wealthy franco-Ontario businessman stated that he voted on the basis of Regulation 17, a WWI-era provincial Conservative measure on francophone education), two formerly Conservative doctors (Muslim) now went Liberal on account of the niqab issue, a retired general went NDP as he felt the Conservatives abused security issues for political reasons. Anglicans leaned NDP, RCs split between Liberal and NDP, with a few rosary rattlers going Conservative for pro-life reasons, Jews split evenly three ways, once-Conservative Muslims now predominantly Liberal with a few NDPs, UCC NDP with a few Liberals. The three cops in my survey are Liberal and former military split three ways. The academics, once 6 Con, 7 Lib, 8 NDP, are now 1 Con, 9 Lib, 10 NDP. The 9 on social assistance continue to be split evenly between the three parties. The 6 aboriginals are split evenly between the Liberals and the NDP, but only one of them (to my knowledge) voted at the last election.

This poll was most unscientific, both in the selection (some would say that people who ended up as my FB friends would be an abnormal selection by definition) and the methodology (my memory of political comments they made), but I wonder if class basis is not necessarily the greatest deciding factor in how people vote.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Working class? The NDP hasn't been a movement since the days of the CCF. And it represents in leadership and MPs the views of the upper middle class. You've been brainwashed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
To follow on about the differences between the Liberals and the NDP, they boil down to one word: class.

The NDP is a working-class party and a mass party. The Liberal Party, OTOH, is an elite party. Therein lies the rub.

---

Not in Toronto.

The working class party in this city is the Tories.

The NDP and the Libs are seen as cut from the same cloth - people who mean well but don't have the life experience of most of us.

That most of the city federally and provincially sees the Tories as not good for governing tells us more about how many working class people who want to vote are left in Toronto - not many.

Mind you, if Doug Ford got in as CPC leader (and don't bet against it folks), all this stands on its head.
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Voted last week with the child - driven to the polling booth here in inner suburb Toronto by my Mum. It was a grand exercise.

One person in the line in front of us.

Quick in and out.

A family came after.

ID wasn't an issue for me as I have a bank account and a few pill bottles to my name. Kid has the purple ID card so she can drink - no issue for her.


I think advance polling numbers were up because so many people were home for the holidays and had 4 days to figure out when they could vote. A grand idea that.

As against tomorrow, when many people will be rushing back from work to vote. I pity the people in BC - get up early on a Monday or run around after work ends


*************

On another note, I kind of like this long election time in some ways because we got to see all 3 major parties react to different things and figure out what they might do when leading. Reduces the impact of "He is x" labelling.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I am afraid the the NDP hasn't been what it was when it couldn't put together the rural west with eastern unions. Co-ops, small farms, businesses with less than 10 employees and corporation-unions are a diificult rainbow. It's been a follow the votes and money which, while understandable is a different basis than principles. Strategic voting is 1/3 of us locally.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
In Toronto the Anglo working class moved between the Tories and the CCF. There were a few Anglo workers, mainly artisanal, in the Liberals (the old Clear Grits) and in the Labour Progressives/ Moscow line CPC, but their vote was strongly Orange (the Lodge, not the Crush).

Jewish and Italian workers tended to be Liberal or Communist, as the Tories didn't want them at their party or in it (with exceptions such as the Grossman father & son). It took almost a century for this pattern to be broken, although Jewish Communists began to move to the CCF from the 1940s. Jewish & Italian working class (or Ford nation class) Tories were really a post-1980 phenomenon. North of Eglinton, one will still find rather few working class NDP Italians or Jews-- some Portuguese, perhaps.

Still, things are shifting all over the place, and quickly. There will be many happy analysts at work 32 hours from now.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It's interesting that on the prairies that the rural farm vote is solidly Tory, but the children exported to the cities in the past were NDP, now shifting in polls between them and Liberals province to province. Several families no doubt had tense Thanksgiving Dinner conversations when the kids came home to the farm for the weekend.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
ah the dialectic between objective and subjective class identifiers!! Reminds me of my student union days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Oops, I think I lost my vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
... The Conservatives are running a no-name candidate who doesn't even live in the province, just to have a name to put on the ballot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Our ABC has the Liberals with 179 seats, but only 46.9% of the vote. Guardian much the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Well, that was a bloody disaster.

Good night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Well, that was a bloody disaster.

Good night.

---

While I would not purport to lecture you, of all people, on this history of social democracy, I will say that by the time you are my age, you will probably have become inured to the ongoing cycle of federal-NDP false starts. Lots of hoopla surrounding better-than-expected outcomes(eg. holding their own federally in 1984), followed by the reassertion of Liberal hegemony in the next election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Well, that was a bloody disaster.

Good night.

---

While I would not purport to lecture you, of all people, on this history of social democracy, I will say that by the time you are my age, you will probably have become inured to the ongoing cycle of federal-NDP false starts. Lots of hoopla surrounding better-than-expected outcomes(eg. holding their own federally in 1984), followed by the reassertion of Liberal hegemony in the next election.

---

Ain't that the truth.

I think that Mulcair shuffled so far to the centre that even if he had sustained his early momentum and we were saying "Prime Minister Mulcair" this morning, his government would not have fulfilled the wishes of most longtime NDP voters. I think we have about as good a chance of achieving a good post-Harper outcome under Trudeau as we would have under Mulcair. The NDP has only had two leaders that I considered great in my lifetime -- one is dead and one is very very old. And Mulcair, the man who could make that "concession" speech last night and not say a word acknowledging all that his party had lost, not take and responsibility for it, and especially not mention by name any of the great MPs who lost their seats last night ... that man lost a lot of what respect I still had for him, so I'm not crying too hard about him not being Prime Minister.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Well, that was a bloody disaster.

---

We actually agree!!!
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
May Brad Wall be attracted away from Sask premiership.

May science be spoken of.

May energy alternatves and the environment be spoken of.

May people wear and smoke what they will.

May water fit to drink flow into all communities, and may the racism and corruption which prevents this be stopped.

May violence against people be investigated and stopped, whether personal and institutional.

May we avoid, in this return to 1980, Quebec alienation and western alienation.

Amen.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
In the circle of my artsie and sometimes younger friends, I had noticed a curious silence about Mr Trudeau a few weeks ago but had assumed that they were ignoring him; I wonder now if they were not assessing him. I should have started putting clues together when there was a surge of participation at the advance voting, as this usually means that voters are getting ready for a throw-out exercise.

For RL reasons, I had been in touch lately with a number of graduate students and other folk of First Peoples provenance, and they were talking of candidates and also referring to how many of their relatives on the reserve would be voting. This should have been a third clue to me as this is a cohort which had always indulged in studious abstention from voting. I should have also picked up on a fourth clue, that many of my Montréal friends, while living in ridings where the local NDP member had been hard-working and capable, were only vaguely aware of their names, if at all.

I also had a coffee with two of my modern dance friends who had been working Liberal Party phone banks (dancers?? volunteering in politics??? I shallow-like assumed it was for the free food set out on tables for volunteers) and they told me that in almost none of their calls -- using the Elections Canada lists provided to all parties -- were people aware of the local candidate's name, but that conversation was always of the leaders or parties and that Mr T was well at the lead. Digression alert**One of them, a blazing fury of a performer whose name will surely be noted in years to come, was of Iraqi Muslim origins, and had been casing the niqab question closely with Muslim names, coming up with opposition to the niqab's use coupled with distress and anger that the Conservatives had made it an issue.

All of these, when put together, should have given me the indicators I needed to make a useful prediction, but I was too distracted by candidate issues and the uncertainties of three-way candidacies to feel comfortable about a prediction. Too bad-- if I had just read the signs well, I could have collected many bottles of Lagavulin 16-year old.

Still, it was unfortunate that many good MPs went down in the crimson tide. At least a few of us appreciated their contribution.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Uncle Pete wrote:

quote:

---

The Dippers made one error in their search for electoral respectability. They expected a former Liberal to perform the same miracle as a centrist populist, Layton.

---

quote:

---

One of them, a blazing fury of a performer whose name will surely be noted in years to come, was of Iraqi Muslim origins, and had been casing the niqab question closely with Muslim names, coming up with opposition to the niqab's use coupled with distress and anger that the Conservatives had made it an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I was surprised at the depth of the NDP collapse for a brief moment, but then I recalled the feast and famine roller-coater of the Dippers and its morally staunch predecessor, the CCF.

The Dippers made one error in their search for electoral respectability. They expected a former Liberal to perform the same miracle as a centrist populist, Layton.

In moving to the Centre (or trying to) the Dippers lost any claim to be the party of the Left. (Not that it is all Mulcair's fault - their last several leaders all share the blame)

Frankly, I gave up on them 10 years ago, and have yet to find a socialist home. I gave them money this year, but only because I rather liked the local candidate, not out of any hope of success for the pseudo-Left. And I confess it here: I parked my vote with a no-hope party in 2011, and considered doing the same this year.

---

quote:

---

One of my friends said, of the Liberal response in favour of not imposing a niqab ban, was that this is what Québécois expected of Liberals, who always had minority participation, so there was no unease with their stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:

---

One of my friends said, of the Liberal response in favour of not imposing a niqab ban, was that this is what Québécois expected of Liberals, who always had minority participation, so there was no unease with their stand.

---

Interesting. So, assuming this attitude was held by people who disliked the niqab, it seems to boil down to "Well, the Liberals almost have no choice but to pander to the niqab-wearers, 'cuz that's what Liberals do, but we're a little more suspicious of Mulcair's motivations for doing so."

As an historical parallel, the NDP back in the day was almost certainly more intervenionist in regards to the oil industry than the Liberals, and they DEFINITELY supported the NEP, but in Alberta, it was the Liberals who got blamed for it. You never heard the same boiling hatred of the NDP, and in fact, when the Conservative hegemony first began to crack in the 80s, it was the NDP who were the biggest beneficiaries.

---

I would caricature it differently; the Liberals are full of these ethnic people but we had thought that the NDP were like us and would agree with us.

While I think that this rationale is peculiar on a range of fronts, I don't think it got to the stage of thinking of pandering-- at least I never heard that on the streets or on French radio.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I await the next six months. Mr. Trudeau has achieved the Prime Ministership on his father coattails (as demonstrated by his repeated allusions to his father when his polls needed a boost). I await to see what happens when the nostalgia rubs off.

24 Sussex Drive is the new filming location of "That '70's Show."
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I await the next six months. Mr. Trudeau has achieved the Prime Ministership on his father coattails (as demonstrated by his repeated allusions to his father when his polls needed a boost). I await to see what happens when the nostalgia rubs off.

24 Sussex Drive is the new filming location of "That '70's Show."

---

quote:

---

I would caricature it differently; the Liberals are full of these ethnic people but we had thought that the NDP were like us and would agree with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I await the next six months. Mr. Trudeau has achieved the Prime Ministership on his father coattails ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:

---

I would caricature it differently; the Liberals are full of these ethnic people but we had thought that the NDP were like us and would agree with us.

---

Hmm. All I can say to that is, if people in Quebec thought that the federal NDP would be on board with ban-the-niqab, well, they really are out of touch with English Canadian politics.

It's true that "multiculturalism" was always more of a Liberal thing, me-tooed by the NDP. But, even without an officilly articulated mulcultural policy, the underlying spirit was always very much in sync with what post-1960s anglosphere social democracy is supposed to be about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Would you like me to post quotes for that assertion, Og? I have lots. It is quite clear what he did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I was surprised at the depth of the NDP collapse for a brief moment, but then I recalled the feast and famine roller-coater of the Dippers and its morally staunch predecessor, the CCF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Would you like me to post quotes for that assertion, Og? I have lots. It is quite clear what he did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Orfeo: The Atlantic provinces would probably closely align with Scotland and Ireland (the Island). On the Prairies, most align with their ancestors, the Ukraines. Fiercely independent people, those ancestors. Alberta aligns with the US oil interests Which is why the CON party does so well there. It was a great shock to their hegemony when the province went NDP earlier this year. But that was probably a reaction to increasingly pitiful CON government there. And the NDP have the task of clearing up the mess so there will probably be another correction by the next election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:

---

I would caricature it differently; the Liberals are full of these ethnic people but we had thought that the NDP were like us and would agree with us.

---

Hmm. All I can say to that is, if people in Quebec thought that the federal NDP would be on board with ban-the-niqab, well, they really are out of touch with English Canadian politics.

It's true that "multiculturalism" was always more of a Liberal thing, me-tooed by the NDP. But, even without an officilly articulated mulcultural policy, the underlying spirit was always very much in sync with what post-1960s anglosphere social democracy is supposed to be about.

---

quote:

---

One of the underreported aspects of this election has been that the Tories more than doubled their seat-count in Quebec, and the Bloc(who admittedly had nowhere to go but up) quintupled theirs.

So, contrary to any Liberal spin about everyone uniting under Justin in some sort of multicultural love-in, there may have been some not insubstantial movement in Quebec toward anti-"accomadationist" parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Stetson writes:

quote:

---

One of the underreported aspects of this election has been that the Tories more than doubled their seat-count in Quebec, and the Bloc(who admittedly had nowhere to go but up) quintupled theirs.

So, contrary to any Liberal spin about everyone uniting under Justin in some sort of multicultural love-in, there may have been some not insubstantial movement in Quebec toward anti-"accomadationist" parties.

---

The seat count might be a bit misleading here-- with the very small percentages involved in many of these victories, I am not sure that we can talk about an insubstantial movement. By my quick count, 17 Québec seats were won with a third or fewer (in several cases, 29%) of the votes cast-- 7 of these went to the Bloc. I would account these as (to use a boxing term) technical knock-outs rather than resounding moral victories. I have always wondered why we cannot use ranked ballots or a run-off vote for situations when margins are so low.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
How likely is it now that the Grits have a majority, that they will go through in passing the electoral reform they said they would which would allow voters to list candidates in order of preference (some form of instant-runoff voting). Note that this is not proportional representation, but at least means that whoever wins a seat is more likely to have some degree of support from a majority of voters. Were the Liberals just offering this to draw votes from NDP supporters? Will they actually pass it?

And is it just a matter of passing a law at the federal level or is it more complicated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
How likely is it now that the Grits have a majority, that they will go through in passing the electoral reform they said they would which would allow voters to list candidates in order of preference (some form of instant-runoff voting). Note that this is not proportional representation, but at least means that whoever wins a seat is more likely to have some degree of support from a majority of voters. Were the Liberals just offering this to draw votes from NDP supporters? Will they actually pass it?

And is it just a matter of passing a law at the federal level or is it more complicated?

---

An amendment to the Elections Act is all that's needed. The only constitutional provision is that no province may have fewer MPs than it has senators.

The sooner anything happens, the more likely it is that it will happen. If it is put off, then its likelihood diminishes. If it's looked at in the context of a bunch of election changes and reforms, who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
On the Prairies, most align with their ancestors, the Ukraines. Fiercely independent people, those ancestors.

---

quote:

---

The curious thing about it is that the origins of socially conservative but cooperative, but not government, was the foundations of the CCF/NDP in our mythology.

---

quote:

---

Why didn't a social democratic party supplant other parties as the main party of the center-left in Canada in the early twentieth century as it did in many countries in Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand?

In the US, people often answer this question by saying that divisions between families who had been in the US for several or more generations and recent immigrants, coupled with racism against African-Americans, helped prevent the American working class from coalescing into a movement that could succeed at the polls without the support of large parts of the middle class. When socialism was gaining popularity in Europe, the US middle class, and even portions of the US working class, could be scared off any association with it by opponents who used rhetoric that connected Socialism with Eastern European and Southern European Immigrants and African Americans.

---

quote:

---

When socialism was gaining popularity in Europe, the US middle class, and even portions of the US working class, could be scared off any association with it by opponents who used rhetoric that connected Socialism with Eastern European and Southern European Immigrants and African Americans.

---

quote:

---

Why didn't a social democratic party supplant other parties as the main party of the center-left in Canada in the early twentieth century as it did in many countries in Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand?

---

quote:

---

(c) The Liberals survived partly as a party of brokerage, and partly because of WWII. Specifically C.D. Howe filled the wartime government with "Dollar-a-year" men who were business executives. It meant that the crème of Canadian business was Liberal until the 1970's, when by rights they should have supported the Tories.

---

As important as this was the role of religion and tribe, which extended to the most plutocratic of all. In Ontario, most notably, the Conservatives were exclusively Protestant (this does not mean that all Protestants, Anglican included, were Tory) and most RCs, particularly franco-ontarian and Irish, were Liberal.

This situation only began to break down in the mid-1980s, due to a combination of things (Mulroney as the RC leader of the federal Conservatives, and the extension of public funding to Ontario RC schools post grade-X under Conservative premier Bill Davis, and pro-life RCs drifting away from the Liberals, who were seen to be mad abortionists).

In speaking with both US and Chinese scholars (which I had to do IMFRL), I have found that the most difficult aspect of describing our politics was the non-ideological aspect. A second toughie was, as SPK has described, is the rural roots of Canadian socialism.

As a minor tangent, I have seen some polling information from two years ago which had just over half of Muslims leaning Conservative--- I suspect that this percentage is much lower now.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Well, I only had so much space.

The big, but silent story of 2011 was that rural, Catholic Quebec decided to give the NDP a try. The CCF and NDP had been irrelevant in Quebec for decades not because of the socialist ideology, which did grate the Quebec Catholic hierarchy the wrong way, but because both stank of Protestantism and the Social Gospel.

Which, in truth, was a fair assessment, but it did make us a non-starter. The NDP still does a fair traffic in what I call Orange Tories, those who would join the Orange Lodge as much as they would a union.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The NDP stories miss the "eastern bastards" part of the story. One of the points of the NDP in the Sask context was the exploitation by Ontario so they could become rich and pay off Quebec so Quebec wouldn't make trouble. The NDP support of the unions who conspired to rip off western industries and farmers really meant something. Grain handler strikes in Thunder Bay. The demise of the Crow Rate.

The only holdover from those days is Medicare, which is really Doctor Payment Scheme and kinda sucks outside of seeing a GP or hospital care. The NDP will form provincial governments but probably not federal if Sask, Alta and Man has their way.
 

---

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

The big, but silent story of 2011 was that rural, Catholic Quebec decided to give the NDP a try. The CCF and NDP had been irrelevant in Quebec for decades not because of the socialist ideology, which did grate the Quebec Catholic hierarchy the wrong way, but because both stank of Protestantism and the Social Gospel.

---

quote:

---

(b) Federal and provincial politics have little to do with one another, so reading in support at one level to another level is just wrong. Witness Alberta.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
How likely is it now that the Grits have a majority, that they will go through in passing the electoral reform they said they would which would allow voters to list candidates in order of preference (some form of instant-runoff voting). Note that this is not proportional representation, but at least means that whoever wins a seat is more likely to have some degree of support from a majority of voters. Were the Liberals just offering this to draw votes from NDP supporters? Will they actually pass it?

And is it just a matter of passing a law at the federal level or is it more complicated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Pigs will fly before it is implemented. No party will implement a system that would deprive them of their majority.

---

I think ur wrong but we will see.

I would say preferential is likely to provide a 20 year battle between the NDP and the Libs for a majority at the expense of the Conservatives (assuming the Conservative's grassroots do not adjust from their penchant for red meat until there is generational change)
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
So now that this campaign has concluded in definitive fashion; when does the next campaign start?

In the United States it can be said that the next Presidential campaign starts the day after the mid term elections. And the mid term elections probably got going a year after the election.

Given the lack of a definitive schedule, will Canada maintain a limited campaign that starts with the announcement of the election or will it start to creep ever earlier as it has in the U.S.?
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Theoretically, under the mendaciously-named Regular Elections Act, there will be an election in October 2019, but there can be a dissolution at any time before then.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The next campaign starts in six months, in a low-key fashion, when the Tories start their leadership campaign and the NDP decides whether to replace Mulcair or not. That will happen at the next Federal Convention, which takes place next spring.

Then all parties will need time to accumulate funds, so the serious pre-campaign won't start until the last year of the mandate.
 

---

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
The new cabinet is 31 members. Excluding the PM, gender parity was achieved for now. The new minister of Veteran's Affairs and the Associate Minister of National Defense (a not uncommon pairing of the two posts) is a crip ( ) albeit a former TAB. And a Liberal from Alberta, until recently a rara avis. The number of aboriginals in the cabinet is stunning. Justice Minister and Attorney General for Canada comes to mind.

And Bill Blair didn't get in - nor did Andrew Leslie, which was a surprise, indeed. A Shik is the new Min. Defence. Albeit only a Lieutenant- Colonel, he has combat and command experience. Guess Leslie was too much a WASP, even if both his grandfathers had headed Defence.

Exciting times ahead, I hope. I will not say "Sunny days" but I think a few clouds have lifted. We shall see.

PS - for the edification of Americans and others, Leslie is a former Lieutenant- General. His Grandfathers were Andrew McNaugton and Brook Claxton. (His father changed his name to Leslie to receive a benefit.That explains McNaughton, who was a WWII general and non-elected minister of Defence.)

[ 04. November 2015, 18:11: Message edited by: Uncle Pete ]
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
General Leslie suffered for being from Ottawa, which already had a minister (Catherine McKenna, my local MP, who went to Environment) as well as a minor controversy over his retirement moving expenses-- remember that this is a country were an expensed glass of orange juice got a minister turfed out.

Colonel Sajjan got spontaneous cheers from the crowd outside Rideau Hall, as did Stéphane Dion (Foreign Affairs), Carolyn Bennett (Indigenous Affairs), Wilson-Raybold (the BC Kwakwaka'wakw lawyer to Justice), Hehr of Calgary (whom PeteC mentions), and Afghan refugee Maryam Monsef (Democratic Institution).

There were a few nice elements introduced into the ceremony, but one of my cynical friends said that the giggles from the 11-year old throat singers were enough to kill a diabetic at 20 paces.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I'm absolutely over the moon about Jody Wilson-Raybould in Justice. I now have acquaintances in high places.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Oh my! Recommend calmness. Politics is never anything to get over the moon about, better to hope that they remain honest and mostly the people they were. So many compromises have to be made, and one's person can become something changed.
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Cause its 2015

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Colonel Sajjan got spontaneous cheers from the crowd outside Rideau Hall, as did Stéphane Dion (Foreign Affairs), Carolyn Bennett (Indigenous Affairs), Wilson-Raybold (the BC Kwakwaka'wakw lawyer to Justice), Hehr of Calgary (whom PeteC mentions), and Afghan refugee Maryam Monsef (Democratic Institution).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have been told that Maryam Monsef of Peterborough attends mosque (but did volunteer work at Casa Maria, run by the RCs).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Anti Immigration? ... So that's a self-inflicted wound waiting to happen....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I have been told that Maryam Monsef of Peterborough attends mosque (but did volunteer work at Casa Maria, run by the RCs).

---

We only have one mosque in the city too; it's out on Parkhill Road West, just west of Jackson Park.

---

Resurrecting this comment to report that apparently there was a fire at the mosque last night and the arson is suspected.

Some people are twits. (I hope that comment passes the Purgatory hosts)
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Sorry to bump this thread, but they just had the new government's throne speech, and it looks like the only plan for Senate reform is to have "merit based" appointment of "non-partisan" Senators, rather than an elected Senate or Senate abolition, both of which would require a constitutional amendment. What provincial parliaments would be opposed to an elected Senate? Why is a constitutional amendment not worth trying?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
1) Pretty much every provincial legislature and government is opposed to Senate reform, for one reason or another. Ontario, BC and Alberta are underrepresented and don't want to cede more influence to smaller provinces. As the size difference between Ontario and PEI is twice that of New South Wales and Tasmania (to give a comparison), balancing the Senate has always been nearly impossible. The smaller provinces do not want to lose influence nor remove the floor that the Senate puts under their House of Commons representation (which this, PEI would only have 1 MP instead of 4).

2) Quebec would not consider it unless it gets other substantial concessions on the powers of the provinces vs. the federal government, which the other provinces will not consider, nor would the federal government entertain. Nobody outside Quebec wants to talk about Quebec's concerns, because we did that to death in the 1980's and 1990's and we're not going down that road again.

3) The Constitution requires unanimous consent of All Ten Provinces for Senate reform, which gives Quebec or PEI outsized bargaining leverage. All Ten Provinces haven't agreed on anything since the 1940's.

4) Confederation evolved in a freakish and unintended direction. Given the institutional weakness of the Senate and the provincialist rulings of the Privy Council from the 1880's to the 1930's, provincial emerged as the main institutional opposition to the Federal Government. Any innovative federal policy change usually touches off a Division-of-Powers appeal to the Supreme Court or in former days to the Privy Council.

An elected Senate which legitimately represents the view of a province's population is a direct challenge to provincial political legitimacy, which the premiers have never wanted.

5) What, you expected that Justin Trudeau was actually going to keep his promises on Senate reform and proportional representation?

And in other news, the Peterborough Mosque has found a new temporary home at the Peterborough Synagogue (I know their president personally, he is a very good man).

The Mosque received enough money in donations to cover the costs of their repairs, which thankfully were mostly smoke damage. In fact, the Imam had to ask people to stop donating.

The Mosque building itself will be back in service in a few weeks after the renovations are done.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
SPK wrote:

quote:

---

3) The Constitution requires unanimous consent of All Ten Provinces for Senate reform, which gives Quebec or PEI outsized bargaining leverage. All Ten Provinces haven't agreed on anything since the 1940's.

---

quote:

---

1) Pretty much every provincial legislature and government is opposed to Senate reform, for one reason or another. Ontario, BC and Alberta are underrepresented and don't want to cede more influence to smaller provinces.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0