CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[KrazyHorse]

Where was I mistaken?

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, French people don't vote for the new conservatives? If I really wanted to drink some of the kool ade, I could give 2 ridings that could go to the Conservatives, in Quebec.

But I won't.

As for that prediction being unreasonable, all I have done is assume that the Liberal party support is less then last time around (which we see), and suggest that every seat under a 3k plurality is vunerable.

I have seen plenty of predictions that suggest the Liberals might only win 8 in all of Quebec, so we shall see.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The bit about Reid supposedly saying "Alberta can blow me" sounds like a rumour to me. If he had said it, it would be reported by the media. I did a google search and didn't find any news reports about this.

It is possibly fabricated, but it is just now hitting talk radio, big time. I would expect to see a clarification from the Calgary Herald writer soon.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Where was I mistaken?

In just about everything you said after I posted a response to RedFred where I was supposing a reason for solid support for Liberals in Ontario and you started giving reasons for people in Quebec not voting Tory.

[notyoueither]

Tell you what. Let's say there was a misunderstanding, and that we were having two entirely different conversations. Chalk it up to the Twilight Zone, and call it a day.

[KrazyHorse]

U.S. ambassador should stay out of election: Harper
Last Updated Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:59:16 EST
CBC News

The U.S. ambassador to Canada should not be intervening in this country's federal election, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Wednesday.

"I actually think the ambassador intervention was inappropriate," Harper said in Vancouver while campaigning for the Jan. 23 vote.

"I understand that the ambassador is concerned about our relationship, but there's inevitably going to be dialogue in that relationship among the parties during an election campaign."

Harper was responding to comments by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Wilkins implicitly rebuked Liberal Leader Paul Martin for attacking U.S. policies to score political points, suggesting it could have an effect on the future of the cross-border relationship.

"I don't think foreign ambassadors should be expressing their views or intervening in an election," Harper said.

Harper, who appears to be trying to distance himself from the Bush administration, suggested Martin has been neither effective nor tough enough with Washington. He said he couldn't understand why Wilkins intervened, saying that in terms of Canada-U.S. relations, nothing Martin says can be taken seriously.

Harper compared Martin to a sneaky schoolboy.

"I always remember when you had the kid who was always name-calling from a safe distance. There really wasn't much risk of a fight, and Mr. Martin reminds me of that kid."

"Mr. Martin. He's the kid name-calling from a safe distance. He couldn't throw a punch to save his llfe.

NDP Leader Jack Layton also said Martin was posturing.

"The fact is, he's electioneering," Layton said at a Vancouver-area high school Wednesday. "He'll say anything to get elected. And whipping up the rhetoric against George Bush is very easy to do. The problem is, he hasn't delivered the goods."

"He thinks he can stand up and wag his finger at George Bush and somehow impress somebody," Layton added. "It's time he started delivering results. That would allow Canadians to be able to speak to the world."

"Canadians have known that the Liberals will say anything in an election to get elected. I think now the ambassador has discovered the same thing."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/14/harper-wilkins051214.html

[Kuciwalker]

"I don't think foreign ambassadors should be expressing their views or intervening in an election," Harper said.

Nor should your head of state be using anti-US rhetoric as part of his campaign.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

"I don't think foreign ambassadors should be expressing their views or intervening in an election," Harper said.

Nor should your head of state be using anti-US rhetoric as part of his campaign.

This causes me great pain.... Martin was right.

The trade issues are election issues.

As to Kyoto, Martin was wrong, but it will help him politically.

[November Adam]

KH, why do you think an equal number of senators for each province is wrong?

I understand that rep by pop is a fair way to do things, and thus should be the case for the Commons, but there needs to be a balance to the regionalism that is created by this.

Wezil is correct IMO, our countries handling of trade disputs SHOULD be an election topic.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Alienation doesn't play well in Central Canada.

Reform screwed the pooch for you. Harper's doing his damnedest, but that kind of damage takes a long time to repair.

Which part of Alienation where you refering to?
The fact that a party formed in the West due to its feelings of alienation by the Central region? Should the west NOT feel alienated, and why should alienation play well in Western Canada?

[Tingkai]

To the Conservatives, thank you for playing and we have some nice parting gifts.

Vancouver — An eight-year-old speech by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in which he calls Canada a welfare state and says the unemployed are happy to be living off their benefits is being circulated by his critics.

The speech, delivered to a group of Americans in 1997 when Mr. Harper had left politics and was a vice-president of the National Citizen's Coalition, was discovered on the website of the Council for National Policy.

In it, Mr. Harper tries to describe Canada to Americans, as he praises U.S. social policies while deriding bilingualism and the gay-rights policy of the former Progressive Conservative party.

"Canada is a Northern welfare state in the worst sense of the term," he says.

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million and a half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

The Council for National Policy's website describes it as an "educational foundation" with more than 600 members drawn from "the fields of government, business, the media, religion and the professions." The site says the group's members believe in "a free-enterprise system, a strong national defence and support for traditional western values."

The speech was sent to several media outlets yesterday by people opposed to Mr. Harper's stand on social policies -- particularly his view that the same-sex marriage issue should be revisited.

It comes at a time when the relationship between Canada and the United States has become an election issue and shortly after Mr. Harper had written to the Washington Star to distance himself from American-style conservatism.

His thoughts on that subject were apparently different in 1997.

"Your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to the people in this country and across the world," he said in his speech.

The Conservative Party acknowledged yesterday that the speech was given by Mr. Harper. But they pointed out that it was delivered many years ago and much of it was tongue-in-cheek.

"There is nothing new about that speech. He gave it almost a decade ago," Mr. Harper's spokesman, William Stairs, said in an e-mail.

"It's been on the public record ever since. And it has been raised on various occasions, including the last leadership contest. As you can see from the remarks, it has a Press Gallery Speech flavour to it at the beginning. He is warming up his audience with some tongue-in-cheek remarks, albeit remarks that in some areas I think he would acknowledge would not be appropriate today. But as I say, it was done in a tongue-in-cheek manner."

But the Liberals were not about to accept that it was done in jest.

"This is very serious," said Liberal spokesman Ken Polk. "These are the words and the views of a man who aspires to be prime minister of Canada in 40 days. This is how he describes our country to an American audience."

Bilingualism is largely propaganda, Mr. Harper tells the group. Canada "is basically an English-speaking country," he says.

In describing Canada's political system, he says the New Democrats are worse than a party of liberal Democrats. "The NDP is kind of proof that the devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men."

And on the Progressive Conservatives -- the party that amalgamated with his Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party -- he points out they were "in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion-on-demand."

NDP spokesman Jamey Heath said, "This is the attitude which shows why Stephen Harper is dead wrong for working families."

With reports from Michael den Tandt and Bill Curry

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by November Adam
KH, why do you think an equal number of senators for each province is wrong?

I understand that rep by pop is a fair way to do things, and thus should be the case for the Commons, but there needs to be a balance to the regionalism that is created by this.

By giving the maritimes 40% of the representation in this proposed new Senate?

Thanks, but no thanks.

There's no reason that in any chamber of our government PEI should be given the same say as Ontario, with 1% of the population. It's ridiculous, unfair and repugnant to me. It will also have very real negative effects, the same sort of which you see in other organisations where small minorities have veto power (for instance farm subsidies in the US and EU). Equal Senatorial representation per province is an unimaginative, unfair, and luckily unrealistic solution.

I've already detailed my proposition to take care of the perceived regional balance in another thread. Fundamentally it involves the four "regions" of Canada (West, Ont, QC, Maritimes) each getting to select a number of Senators which is based on its population. These Senators are selected via proportional representation (to ensure that they represent the region as a whole), and are not given the same freedom to propose and pass new legislation as is the US Senate. They are, however, given veto power, but must bring all proposed legislation to a vote within a fixed timeframe of being presented with it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by November Adam


Which part of Alienation where you refering to?
The fact that a party formed in the West due to its feelings of alienation by the Central region? Should the west NOT feel alienated, and why should alienation play well in Western Canada?

I'm explaining attitudes. The perception of the Conservatives in QC and ONT is that they're the same old, same old Reformers (though I feel that they're actually finally breaking loose from this). How are you going to win votes in Ontario and QC when you're perceived as living off of dislike for Ontario and Quebec?

The attitude is shifting, but it takes time. Eventually the Conservatives will win an election. Then everybody can realise how much they dislike not having the Liberals in charge and Turf the Cons the next go around.

[Richelieu]

[Ben Kenobi]

There's no reason that in any chamber of our government PEI should be given the same say as Ontario, with 1% of the population. It's ridiculous, unfair and repugnant to me. It will also have very real negative effects, the same sort of which you see in other organisations where small minorities have veto power (for instance farm subsidies in the US and EU). Equal Senatorial representation per province is an unimaginative, unfair, and luckily unrealistic solution.

As opposed to recieving 10 percent of the seats in the commons?

I think your opposition is more directed to the fact that the west would get 40%, and poor old Central Canada 20%. Right now the deal is 25% for the West, 25% for Ontario, 25% for Quebec and 25% fo the Maritimes. Why should the Maritimes receive equal representation to Ontario in parliament? The trade off for this would have to be rep by pop in the commons, which is a substantial benefit to Ontario, moreso then Quebec who would lose 60% of their representation in the Senate, and 5% of their representation in the commons.