Quote from: AkrasiaSince when is Charest a 'spearatist'?  He leads the Quebec Liberal party, for crying out loud!

Harper isn't 'cutting backroom deals with the separatists'.  He's giving Quebec voters who are not separatists, but who don't like the Liberals, an option.

That's just the image that he wants people to see, its damage control now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaLike MacKenzie King, the longest serving PM in Canadian history?  Or Lester B. Pearson?  Your grasp of Canadian political history appears to go back to only 1968, when the father of the present Canadian 'nanny-state' appeared on the stage.

For the record, I actually have a lot of respect for the pre-Trudeau Liberal Party.  If only such a party still existed!  I would likely support them with enthusiasm.

Ahh, right. But you're not a Tory, huh?

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaThe thing is, the traditional dynamics of Canadian political history are no longer in play.  It cannot be assumed that the Liberal Party is still the 'natural' governing party of Canada.

Yes it can, and it is.  The fact that Paul Martin fucked up an election doesn't change anything.

I mean shit, there were people talking about the Joe Clark revolution back when he won his brief term as PM, how now everything would change forever.  Didn't happen.
In the Mulrooney years, the PCs were going around claiming that from here on in the PCs were the "Natural governing party" and the Liberals were has-beens, forever; and of course one election later the PCs effectively ceased to exist as a party, while the Libs got back into power for a decade and a half.

There's no ifs ands or buts; Canada is Liberal.

QuoteThroughout much of Canadian history, the Liberal party had a near-monopoly on Quebec which helped to ensure their dominance.  However, the emergence of the Bloc has changed that -- since 1993 the Liberals have never captured a majority of seats (and usually far less) in Quebec.

Now this erosion in the Liberal Party's position was concealed during Chretien's time in power because the political right in Canada was divided between the PCs and the Reform/Alliance parties.  This division in the right allowed Chretien to win majority governments with only around 40 percent popular support.  But the Liberals' position in Quebec remained fundamentally weak.

Now that the right is no longer divided, the new reality is beginning to emerge: the Liberals are no longer the de facto 'ruling party' precisely because of the changes in Quebec politics.  The Tories and Liberals have roughly equal support across the country, and both are vying for scraps (10-13 seats each) in Quebec.  The current Quebec Liberal party is an ally of the federal Tories!

One very positive thing about the next election -- irrespective of whether the Tories or Liberals win -- is that the Bloc will be further squeezed.  But, significantly, the Tories look just as likely to pick up seats as the Liberals.

I very much doubt that. But that's certainly Harper's theory, which explains why he's willing to betray the country, his own party, his constituents, and everything that had been done for the last 25 years to defeat separatism just to try to fuck over the Liberals.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAhh, right. But you're not a Tory, huh?

RPGPundit

If Michael Ignatieff hadn't imploded during the leadership campaign, and had been elected leader of the Liberal Party, I'd very likely support him now.  

There are many things about the current Canadian Tory party that I quite dislike (e.g. everything and anything that smacks of 'social conservatism'; Harper's obsession with caucus discipline, etc.).

I'm a social liberal and fiscal moderate/conservative.  I oppose the 'nanny state'.  I'm in favour of respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial authority.  I also think that it is important that Canada not weasel out of its international obligations (which is something Dion looks tempted to do with respect to Afghanistan).

Based on those principles, I decide whether to support the Liberals or Tories on a case-by-case basis.  

But, just to be clear, my election predictions are based on my sense of what is probably going to happen -- not what I would like to happen.  I do think it is distinctly possible that the Liberals will win the next election.  A 1-in-4 probability is not nothing.

Quote from: RPGPundit... There's no ifs ands or buts; Canada is Liberal.

Asserting this does not make it true.  I point out again that not since Trudeau has the Liberal party surpassed more than 43 percent popular support -- more often, their support has been in the 30-40 range.  (They are now down to 31 percent.)

I do agree that Canada is socially liberal (at least in contrast to the U.S.), and the Tories need to be aware of that.

But I think we are moving into an era when we have two parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, who are more evenly balanced in terms of national support than ever before.

If the Liberals could somehow absorb the NDP, things might change.  But I don't see that happening in the very near future.  (And such a move could scare many moderate/conservative Liberals over to the Tories.)

Quote from: RPGPundit...
I very much doubt that. But that's certainly Harper's theory, which explains why he's willing to betray the country, his own party, his constituents, and everything that had been done for the last 25 years to defeat separatism just to try to fuck over the Liberals..

This is just hot air.  :rolleyes:  What exactly has Harper done to 'betray' his country, party, etc.?  

If you mention the recent 'Quebecois constitute a nation within a united Canada' motion, you must realise that Harper consulted with Dion prior to introducing that motion in the House, and Dion supported it.

Beyond that, I'm not seeing any great acts of 'betrayal' by the Tories. :confused:

Quote from: AkrasiaIf Michael Ignatieff hadn't imploded during the leadership campaign, and had been elected leader of the Liberal Party, I'd very likely support him now.  

There are many things about the current Canadian Tory party that I quite dislike (e.g. everything and anything that smacks of 'social conservatism'; Harper's obsession with caucus discipline, etc.).

I'm a social liberal and fiscal moderate/conservative.  I oppose the 'nanny state'.  I'm in favour of respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial authority.  I also think that it is important that Canada not weasel out of its international obligations (which is something Dion looks tempted to do with respect to Afghanistan).

Based on those principles, I decide whether to support the Liberals or Tories on a case-by-case basis.  

Huh.. fascinating.  So at the moment, you seriously want to keep your vote away from the guys you feel are sort of fiscally irresponsible by giving it to the guys who DON'T BELIEVE IN "SCIENCE"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHuh.. fascinating.  So at the moment, you seriously want to keep your vote away from the guys you feel are sort of fiscally irresponsible by giving it to the guys who DON'T BELIEVE IN "SCIENCE"?

RPGPundit

Who 'doesn't believe in science'?  :confused:  By all indications, Harper does 'believe in science'.  (Stockwell Day is no longer leader of the party, and is not determining science policy.)

If you had some evidence that the Tories were in favour of giving money to creationists, astrology-advocates, or any other 'anti-scientists', then I would reconsider my vote indeed!

God knows there are some kooks in the Conservative party.  But fortunately, they're pretty much powerless.  (And the Grits have their share of kooks too.)

Quote from: AkrasiaGod knows there are some kooks in the Conservative party.  But fortunately, they're pretty much powerless.  (And the Grits have their share of kooks too.)

Pretty much powerless?! Come on, they RUN the Reform Party wing of the Tory machine!  I strongly question Harper's personal views, since I know the fucker and experienced him in Alberta. But even if he was a dyed-in-the-wool secularist, he knows that should he win a majority government he would be strongly beholden to the whole radical lunatic fringe that would want him to repeal same-sex marriage, ban abortion, and stop teaching evolution in Canadian schools.  Alberta, the central power-base of the modern canadian right-wing, is chalk full of a social-conservative political culture that would be more at home in the far right nook of the US Republican party than anywhere in Canada, and they are DYING to impose their views on the rest of the country whether the rest of the country even vaguely wants it or not.

If you really believe that, should Harper win a majority, he would not impose a hardline social-conservative agenda on the country, you've bought into the Tory spin-doctoring hook, line and sinker.

RPGPundit

Now I'm not Canadian, but you two are putting on quite a good show about the politics north of the border. But Pundit, I have to ask...

Quote from: RPGPunditthe guys who DON'T BELIEVE IN "SCIENCE"?

Quote from: RPGPunditBut even if he was a dyed-in-the-wool secularist, he knows that should he win a majority government he would be strongly beholden to the whole radical lunatic fringe that would want him to repeal same-sex marriage, ban abortion, and stop teaching evolution in Canadian schools.

You provide three policy issues, only one of which has anything to do with science.  I mean, same sex marraige and abortion are not scientific questions, are they?

So in what other ways is Harper someone who doesn't believe in science? Or is this just your blanket judgement of any conservative or anyone who disagrees with you on same sex marriage and abortion? I'm not being snarky, just honestly asking.

Quote from: James J SkachYou provide three policy issues, only one of which has anything to do with science.  I mean, same sex marraige and abortion are not scientific questions, are they?

So in what other ways is Harper someone who doesn't believe in science? Or is this just your blanket judgement of any conservative or anyone who disagrees with you on same sex marriage and abortion? I'm not being snarky, just honestly asking.

Sorry, my bad; the phrase is one that wouldn't be familiar to non-Canadians.  Stockwell Day, the previous leader of the party that would come to be known (again) as the Conservatives, had once famously stated when interviewed about evolution that he "didn't believe in science".

Stockwell Day was a Conservative Christian from southern Alberta who'd been tapped from the extremely insular, extremely right-wing Albertan Conservative party to be leader of the then-Reform Party, as a very foolish attempt to give the party a fresh face that was supposed to be radically different from their previous leader... a Christian Conservative from southern Alberta who'd come from the Albertan Conservative party.

The current leader of the Federal Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, is a Conservative Christian from southern Alberta who's been tapped from the Albertan Conservative Party.  So of course he's going to be completely different from those other two guys.  :rolleyes:

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachYou provide three policy issues, only one of which has anything to do with science.  I mean, same sex marraige and abortion are not scientific questions, are they?

Well if you take the Christian Lawncrapper* view that an embryo is a human being then you have two alternatives:

a) an all-loving God has created a universe at least 75% of human beings don't make it through the first few days of their existance and all non-barrier methods of artificial contraception are morally equivalent to murder

or

b) ignore basic facts of human biology

(*I'm trying it out as a synonym for fundamentalist evangelical Christian)

Re Britain, it's actually pretty unlikely the Tories will win the next election.  It's a question of maths really, New Labour still has a very high majority, so you would need a massive electoral swing.  There is no evidence in the polls for anything like that kind of swing, currently it looks like the Tories will gain ground, but that the next government is highly likely to be New Labour still.

It's the election after the next one the Tories are really aiming at, unless Gordon does something insane it would be quite hard for him to lose the next one.

Quote from: RPGPundit... he knows that should he win a majority government he would be strongly beholden to the whole radical lunatic fringe that would want him to repeal same-sex marriage, ban abortion, and stop teaching evolution in Canadian schools.  Alberta, the central power-base of the modern canadian right-wing, is chalk full of a social-conservative political culture that would be more at home in the far right nook of the US Republican party than anywhere in Canada, and they are DYING to impose their views on the rest of the country whether the rest of the country even vaguely wants it or not ...

:rolleyes:

"Beholden"?  Please.

Harper strikes me as far more of a libertarian than a social conservative.  And, moreover, he wants to keep the Tories in power.  Appeasing a very small number of MPs from parts of Alberta (viz. Red Deer) would forever ruin their chances of re-election.

Canada is fundamentally a socially liberal country (which the Grits arrogantly assume means 'Liberal').  Any party that wants to maintain a majority government has to recognise that reality.  The Tories under Harper certainly have.

(Your comments on Alberta are pretty fucked up as well, by the way.  Some parts of Alberta are indeed pretty social conservative in nature, but other parts are reasonably liberal -- certainly more liberal than most of rural/northern Ontario.  You seem to have bought into the Toronto elite picture of Alberta as land filled with cowboy religious zealots.  Fortunately, that picture has no relation to reality.)

Quote from: RPGPundit... want him to repeal same-sex marriage, ban abortion, and stop teaching evolution in Canadian schools...

Same-sex marriage is now a settled issue in Canada.  The free vote last December prevented that topic form being re-opened.  Same-sex marriage is the law in Canada, and Harper has no interest in re-opening it again (especially since any new law would be struck down by the SC).

Abortion has been a settled issue for years in Canada, and Harper has stated many times that he has zero interest in reopening debate on it.  Given the public hostility that would result form any move to introduce serious restrictions on abortion, only a knee-jerk anti-Tory would claim that this is going to be an issue for any furture government.

As for not teaching evolution ... fuck man, that's not even on the map of Canadian political debate.  What kind of Kool-Aid have you been drinking? :confused:

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWell if you take the Christian Lawncrapper* view that an embryo is a human being then you have two alternatives:

a) an all-loving God has created a universe at least 75% of human beings don't make it through the first few days of their existance and all non-barrier methods of artificial contraception are morally equivalent to murder

or

b) ignore basic facts of human biology

(*I'm trying it out as a synonym for fundamentalist evangelical Christian)

What if you believe that an embryo is a human being but you don't believe in god? Do you know when life begins?  Where's your "cut-off" point?  If a baby was to be born on February 1st, could the prospective mother get an abortion on January 31st? For what reasons?

I don't take any of these as my position (I don't believe a 2 week old embryo is a human), but I don't act so superior to those that do.