Quote from: BalbinusRe 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.

I think that one will depend a lot on how much the Labourites manage to distance themselves from Blair.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Akrasia: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.

Its what they've been doing thus far, and people have been telling the Reform crowd (who still basically run things in the new Tory part) the same thing for the last fifteen years or so, so what makes you think they're going to do anything different this time?

Quote(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.)

Dude, I've lived in Alberta for more of my life than any other place on earth. I speak from personal experience. Outside of Edmonton and some of Calgary (to a much lesser extent), Alberta is pretty well chalk-full of social conservatives that are way more in line with, say, Georgia or Texas, than they are with the rest of Canada.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts what they've been doing thus far ...

:confused:

The Tories have been in power for a year now.  I have yet to see signs of Canada becoming a reactionary theocracy.  

Gee, could it be because Harper wants to stay in power in a fundamentally socially liberal country, and is smart enough to know that alienating the majority of Canadians is not the way to do that?  Could it be that he's not the religious zealot that you make him out to be, but rather a crafty quasi-libertarian instead?

Quote from: RPGPundit... and people have been telling the Reform crowd (who still basically run things in the new Tory part) the same thing for the last fifteen years or so, so what makes you think they're going to do anything different this time?...

Well, contrary to what you claim, the new Conservative Party includes many folks from the old PC party in significant positions (including my old mate, Brian Mulroney, giving advice behind the scenes).

In any case, it is simple self-interest and rationality that will prevent the Tories under Harper from acting on any of the wing-nut policies that you attribute to them.

Harper and the Tories want to win majority governments.  Notice the plural tense.  That means that they simply will not impose socially conservative policies that only 10-20 percent of Canadians support.  They are not suicidal.  They want to win and keep Ontario.

Think about it.  The 'religious right' (to the extent that a Canadian version of that exists in small enclaves around Red Deer Alberta, bits of northern Ontario, and fragments of inland B.C.) have no where to go.  Are they going to defect to the NDP?  Give me a break.  So all the Tories need to do is throw them a few bones once in a while (e.g. the 'gay marriage' free vote last December, which they knew they would lose), and appeal to the mainstream 'middle' most of the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit...
Dude, I've lived in Alberta  .... I speak from personal experience. Outside of Edmonton and some of Calgary (to a much lesser extent), Alberta is pretty well chalk-full of social conservatives that are way more in line with, say, Georgia or Texas, than they are with the rest of Canada...

Cool, dude, I have 'personal experience' in Alberta too (born in Calgary).  And Vancouver and Toronto as well.  Plus, I lived in the States for 10 years.  If you think Alberta is anything close to Georgia or Texas (aside from Austin) in terms of 'social conservatism', you're living in a fucking fantasy world.

Quote from: BalbinusRe 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.

Brown will soon face humiliation when Labour is defeated by the SNP in the upcoming Scottish election.  Given that Scottish support is key to Labour's present majority status, this will be a rather large blow (albeit not a direct one to their majority in the HC).  Also, English resentment with the unresolved 'West Lothian question' will greatly undermine the new Scottish PM's popularity.  Plus, polls indicate that most Britons want Brown to call an election within a year of becoming PM -- postponing that will generate further resentment.

In short, the dark clouds are gathering around Brown.  

But you're right, a Tory victory is hardly a certainty.  But I think Labour's position is rather weak in England.

Quote from: Akrasia:confused:

The Tories have been in power for a year now.  I have yet to see signs of Canada becoming a reactionary theocracy.  

They  have a minority government. This means, on the one hand, that if Harper does anything really fucked up, the other parties (none of which are particularly ideologically conservative) will dump his ass where he stands and use it against him in the election; and on the other hand that he can temporarily hold off his rabid extremist base by claiming (correctly) that the minority government makes it impossible for them to implement their "real" platform.

QuoteGee, could it be because Harper wants to stay in power in a fundamentally socially liberal country, and is smart enough to know that alienating the majority of Canadians is not the way to do that?  Could it be that he's not the religious zealot that you make him out to be, but rather a crafty quasi-libertarian instead?

Everything I've seen just tells me that he's a crafty social conservative.

QuoteIn any case, it is simple self-interest and rationality that will prevent the Tories under Harper from acting on any of the wing-nut policies that you attribute to them.

Only in the hope that they get a majority government.

QuoteHarper and the Tories want to win majority governments.  Notice the plural tense.  That means that they simply will not impose socially conservative policies that only 10-20 percent of Canadians support.  They are not suicidal.  They want to win and keep Ontario.

The problem is they can't do that. Let's say they do win a majority. If Harper doesn't implement the crazy batshit social conservative agenda, then he'll lose the west the same way that the old PCs lost the west.

QuoteThink about it.  The 'religious right' (to the extent that a Canadian version of that exists in small enclaves around Red Deer Alberta, bits of northern Ontario, and fragments of inland B.C.) have no where to go.  Are they going to defect to the NDP?  Give me a break.  So all the Tories need to do is throw them a few bones once in a while (e.g. the 'gay marriage' free vote last December, which they knew they would lose), and appeal to the mainstream 'middle' most of the time.

This was the old PC's way of thinking too, and the west's response was to create the Reform party. Next time, it'll be the "Cascadia Separatist Party" or the "New Social Credit" or whatever. The point is, Harper actually BEING from the west, he won't make that mistake. Like it or not (and I suspect he does like it, because I've seen nothing in his history in Alberta politics or now that tells me he's not a dyed-in-the-wool socialcon) Harper knows that he's beholden to the christian wester-canadian right-wing.

QuoteCool, dude, I have 'personal experience' in Alberta too (born in Calgary).  And Vancouver and Toronto as well.  Plus, I lived in the States for 10 years.  If you think Alberta is anything close to Georgia or Texas (aside from Austin) in terms of 'social conservatism', you're living in a fucking fantasy world.

I lived a while in New Orleans, and while New Orleans is (was?) always a very liberal place in the American south, it was definitely less right-wing than, say, Medicine Hat.
And the things conservative politicians in/from Alberta say sound much more like the sort of things Trent Lott or Ralph Reed say than what the typical Canadian from Vancouver or Toronto (where I've also lived) tend to believe.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit.... This was the old PC's way of thinking too, and the west's response was to create the Reform party...

Yeah, and that didn't work out that well for them, did it?  The REFORM party is now a member of the CONSERVATIVE party, n'est pas?

Look, the social conservatives know that they cannot win a majority in Canada.  (I dislike so-cons even more than socialists, but at least I'm willing to recognise -- unlike yourself -- that they're basically rational.)

Moreover, if you knew anything about the nature of Parliamentary democracy, you would realise that even if the 'so-con nuts' managed to win one majority government, nothing that they did would last longer than then next election.  The next government would win with a landslide, and undo all their 'horrible' so-con legislation.

In short, your analysis is mere scare-mongering, completely detached from the reality of parliatmentary democracy.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe point is, Harper actually BEING from the west, he won't make that mistake. Like it or not (and I suspect he does like it, because I've seen nothing in his history in Alberta politics or now that tells me he's not a dyed-in-the-wool socialcon) Harper knows that he's beholden to the christian wester-canadian right-wing.

Actually, Harper is originally from Ontario.  But you're whole analysis is mistaken.  

He is not 'beholden' to the 'Christian Western Canadian Right Wing'.  Rather, he needs to win Ontario and make significant inroads into Quebec.  This is the only way that he is going to win a majority government (let alone win another one).

You obviously fail to understand the basics of parliamentary democracy.  If a party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons, it cannot simply do whatever it wants.  Get a grip.

Quote from: RPGPundit....
I lived a while in New Orleans, and while New Orleans is (was?) always a very liberal place in the American south, it was definitely less right-wing than, say, Medicine Hat.

Oh sure.  And Ann Arbor is very left wing for Michigan, Austin is very left wing for Texas, Madison is very left wing for Wisconsin, and so forth.  So what?  There are liberal enclaves throughout the U.S.   Big deal.  Edmonton and Calgary are far more socially liberal than most big cities in the 'Bible Belt' of the U.S.

In terms of overall social views, Alberta is, at best, Michigan, and not Alabama.

In any case, why not just let Alberta be Alberta?  If Albertans don't like it, they can move to the socialist utopia of Quebec.  

That's the great thing about a federal system of government -- it lets provincial governments experiment in terms of policy, and leaves it to the people to vote with their feet.

But of course the Ottawa Grits 'know better', and should rule with an iron fist!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: AkrasiaThat's the great thing about a federal system of government -- it lets provincial governments experiment in terms of policy, and leaves it to the people to vote with their feet.

QFT.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat 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?

Separate issues and if you want to talk about them, start your own thread.  I have met people who will deny basic, empirically tested, facts about human reproduction biology and, when confronted with the evidence, interpret it as part of a Conspiracy

For what it's worth, they're usually also Creationists

I think it might be rather more touch-and-go for the Australian Libs than you think. It depends on whether Kevin Rudd can look like a leader in the next six months. It also depends on whether Howard will contest the election (and if he does, whether he can convince the public he'll stay the term). You might know that the primary vote in the last election was for the ALP.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonSeparate issues and if you want to talk about them, start your own thread.  I have met people who will deny basic, empirically tested, facts about human reproduction biology and, when confronted with the evidence, interpret it as part of a Conspiracy

For what it's worth, they're usually also Creationists

Well, I entered challenging, or trying to understand, the inclusion of abortion as a scientific issue in response to Pundit's assertion.

It's a neat trick people do here (myself included).  You derail a thread, and then when someone responds, you claim that to discuss it would require another thread. I mean, after you claim it needs another thread, why do you respond further?

The fact is there are lots of people who are not for unlimited, all access abortion who are not creationists. And, lo and behold, this view is based on  - you guessed it - Science!  So, I'm challenging anyone's assertion that abortion is a "scientific" issue.

But we should have another thread for that discussion...

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I entered challenging, or trying to understand, the inclusion of abortion as a scientific issue in response to Pundit's assertion.

It is a scientific issue if the arguments of one group in the debate are at least partially based on ignorance or denial of human reproductive biology

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIt is a scientific issue if the arguments of one group in the debate are at least partially based on ignorance or denial of human reproductive biology

Unfortunately, that's not the basis of the argument...wait for it...on either side.  In both cases, pro-choice or anti-abortion, the argument is on moral grounds - not scientific.

The fact that you choose to focus on one aspect of the science does not nullify other scientific/rational approaches that disagree with your conclusion.  But neither side focuses on those, because it's the weak point for their side. So the abortion question, as it takes place in the mainstream of political debate, gets limited to a moral disagreement. "Women's right to choose" versus "Rights of the unborn." See any science in there?

And I think pundit kind of naturally internalized what I was saying, which is why he explained the reference. I'm not claiming abortion shouldn't be a scientific question, I'm saying it's currently not - from either point of view. I wish it were - I bet we could reach 60%-70% agreement (even including lay catholics, if only in secret) if we could get it there.

Quote from: AkrasiaYeah, and that didn't work out that well for them, did it?  The REFORM party is now a member of the CONSERVATIVE party, n'est pas?

The PCs won the name, Reform won the Party.

QuoteLook, the social conservatives know that they cannot win a majority in Canada.  (I dislike so-cons even more than socialists, but at least I'm willing to recognise -- unlike yourself -- that they're basically rational.)

That's where you'd be wrong. Everything they've done in the last 15 years goes against that line of thinking.  Its the main reason I'm not too worried, frankly, the Reformers are always going to end up shooting themselves in the foot with some outrageous statement in mid-election, and basically sink their own chances.

QuoteMoreover, if you knew anything about the nature of Parliamentary democracy,

You know, its really easy to tell when you're losing an argument, Akrasia.
That's when you start with the ad-hominem attacks accusing your opponent of ignorance ("if you just understood logic/atheism/christianity/conservatives/democracy as well as I do!!").
It really doesn't become you.

Quoteyou would realise that even if the 'so-con nuts' managed to win one majority government, nothing that they did would last longer than then next election.  The next government would win with a landslide, and undo all their 'horrible' so-con legislation.

In the meantime, they can do all kinds of serious damage to the social fabric and unity of the country.

QuoteActually, Harper is originally from Ontario.  But you're whole analysis is mistaken.  

Yeah, so am I. Born in Toronto, lived there a month or so. Its not relevant. He was "raised" (politically speaking) in the West.

QuoteHe is not 'beholden' to the 'Christian Western Canadian Right Wing'.  Rather, he needs to win Ontario and make significant inroads into Quebec.  This is the only way that he is going to win a majority government (let alone win another one).

You said that already, so let me repeat my response: If he tries to win Ontario by distancing himself from socially conservatives, the LOSES the west.
This is the constant problem of the Tories. If they win one side, they lose the other, and it kills them.  Its why there's been so relatively few Tory governments in Canada's history.

QuoteYou obviously fail to understand the basics of parliamentary democracy.  If a party wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons, it cannot simply do whatever it wants.  Get a grip.

Again with the ad hominems.. And perhaps YOU're the one who doesn't get parliamentary democracy... because you see, parliamentary democracy the way it works in Canada means precisely that, if a single party gets a majority government, it can do WHATEVER it wants (with its only possible barrier being the supreme court).  It is a 3-5 year dictatorship with virtually none of the checks and balances you see in, say, the U.S.

I mean sure, if Harper went absolutely insane and declared war on Norway, or that all people with nose hairs were to be rounded up and shot as degenerates, then his own party could turn on him and take him out. But otherwise, the concept of party unity and the obligation to vote along party lines means that the PM has a level of power and control over Canadian government that would make Dubya seethe with jealousy.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I entered challenging, or trying to understand, the inclusion of abortion as a scientific issue in response to Pundit's assertion.

It's a neat trick people do here (myself included).  You derail a thread, and then when someone responds, you claim that to discuss it would require another thread. I mean, after you claim it needs another thread, why do you respond further?

The fact is there are lots of people who are not for unlimited, all access abortion who are not creationists. And, lo and behold, this view is based on  - you guessed it - Science!  So, I'm challenging anyone's assertion that abortion is a "scientific" issue.

But we should have another thread for that discussion...

James, the "doesn't believe in science" quote was, just that, a quotation from ex-Tory/Reform party leader Stockwell Day (a very good buddy of current leader Harper's) who said that in response to the issue of creationism, not abortion.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditJames, the "doesn't believe in science" quote was, just that, a quotation from ex-Tory/Reform party leader Stockwell Day (a very good buddy of current leader Harper's) who said that in response to the issue of creationism, not abortion.

RPGPundit

Yup.  I understood when you explained it to me.  Hastur was having a difficult time with the concept, apparently.