TheRPGSite

Based on my limited knoweldge, here are my predictions.

Please expand to include more countries and/or add more information to these predictions!

Danke! :D
 
AUSTRALIA: The Labor opposition party will not seriously threaten the ruling coalition of the Liberal and National parties. Prime Minister John Howard will be given a fifth term in power (90 percent likelihood).

CANADA: There will almost certainly be a federal election this year, ending the current Tory minority government. While the Liberals have received a slight boost with the selection of Stephane Dion as leader earlier this month, I think that the election remains one for Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lose. Moreover, I think that an election-focused budget will greatly boost his prospects this spring.

My odds: Tory majority (35 percent); Tory minority again (40 percent); Liberal minority (23 percent); Liberal majority (2 percent).

IRELAND: The Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats coalition will likely win another election (50 percent). Failing that, there will either be a hung parliament (25 percent), or the Fine Gail-Labour Party alliance will finally depose Taoiseach Bertie Ahern (25 percent).

UNITED KINGDOM: Prime Minister Tony Blair will step aside to be replaced by his chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown. Brown's leadership will not be long lived, though, as Labour will likely lose to the Tories in the next election (60+ percent likelihood). However, that election will not happen in 2007.

UNITED STATES: Presidential bids will continue to unfold in anticipation of the 2008 federal election. Unsurprisingly, Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama will continue to be the stars among the Democratic candidates, but John Edwards should not be discounted (indeed, he may eventually emerge as the 'safe choice' for Democrats). Beyond those three, though, it is hard to see any candidate that will emerge as a very strong one (sorry, Joe Biden!).

As for the Republicans, John McCain looks stronger than ever, especially now that he seems to have won much of the 'religious right' over. Rudy Giuliani is simply too liberal on social issues to win the Republican primaries, and Mitt Romney is too Mormon. So unless a very strong 'anyone-but-McCain' candidate emerges, the Republican nomination looks like McCain's to lose.

Methinks your predictions about Canada and the U.K. are a bit peppered by your unfortunate case of Toryism.

RPGPundit

Canada is going to be stuck in a perpetual case of minority, until one of two things happen:

1)  The Tories finally oust Harper, and revert back to the old days of more Progressive" than "Conservative" (I find it odd, as a Canuck, I long for the days of Mulroney brand Conservatives...the halcyonity of looking back at the man who was one of the most reviled figures in Canadian politics says something for where the Tories have gone).  You can't purge all the Calgary think tankers, but they need to be reigned in more, and embrace the more moderate of the old Reformers.

2)  Dion proves he is nothing like Martin or Cretien.  Thast going to be harder to do.  Dion was in too deep in the Liberal governments of old, even though he was really involved with none of the problems they had.  I like Dion, moreso than I thought I would.

I REALLY pray for the NDP to kick Layton out, and find a guy more in the Ed Broadbent mold, but that will just muddy the waters even further, and entrench us even more into Minority.  There are THREE parties splitting the left vote (Four in Quebec), but only one Conservative.  If Harper gets ousted, Dion does nothing to improve his profile, and a new NDP leader actually looks competent to many, as wellas a rise in Green support, it could signal a Tory majority.

I think Dion will surprise everyone.

This is all par for the course for Canada. Three out of four years of Canada's history, it has had a liberal government.
Also, the Libs have always gone from an anglo leader to a francophone leader, and the anglo leaders have always performed poorly, and the francophone leaders have always had long terms in government.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Dion will surprise everyone...

I think that there is a 25 percent chance of this happening (as stated in my  original post) -- definitely possible, but not likely.

People continually underestimate Harper (and I'm not a Harper fan!  or a Tory!).  

He is presently working with Charest to come up with a budget that will address the (largely mythical) 'fiscal imbalance' between Ottawa and the provinces (especially Quebec).  This will boost Charest's re-election chances in Quebec greatly (which already look surprisingly solid, thanks to Boisclair's weakness as PQ leader), and make Harper far more attractive to Quebec 'soft nationalists'.  Between Dion and Harper, the Bloc look to lose at least 8 seats in the next federal election (more likely 12+).

Also expect the Tories cut a deal with the NDP on an environmental bill before the next election, thus undercutting this issue for Dion (which really shouldn't be his anyway, given his abysmal record as environmental minister under Martin).  This is in interest of both the Tories and the NDP ('my enemy's enemy ...').

Finally, Harper has the power to table a pre-election budget.  Don't underestimate the boost that this will give him, especially if it includes tax breaks for the middle-class (which it will), and other goodies.

Already, the post-leadership race boost for Dion is over.  In the most recent poll, the Tories had 34 percent support, and the Liberals 31 percent.  With control of the next budget (and the government agenda more generally), and a divided left, I find it hard not to conclude that the coming election is Harper's to lose.  Whether he manages to get a majority government this time, however, is anybody's guess.

And you overestimate Harper's appeal outside the west.

He has the most secretive, insular government since Mackenzie King.  He hands everyone in his government a party line, and by golly they'd better tow it.  For all his noise about "open and fair government" given the Liberal predilection for forcing party line votes on most issues, he rules his cabinet with an iron fist, and if anyone says anything that might deviate from it a bit, they are a) hung out to dry in the media and b) reamed a new asshole in closed door meetings.

He has had the worst media relations of any prime minister in recent history.  He shuts down media scrums, only allows pro-Harper press to have access to vertain things, and basically gives the finger to everyone else.

If his budget is anything like his last budget, I doubt it will do anything to win anyone over.  

I must say, I'm happy with his new Environment Minister - Ambrose was an abysmal failure on all levels, and while it wasn't only her fault - after all, she's just doing what she's told by Harper - the change was needed.  We'll see if Harper's interests in big oil in Canada and his Alberta constituents have him hamstring any real environmental policy of substance.

And fixing the "fiscal imbalance" means squat when Alberta runs its own show over there, yet is STILL whining it needs more money from Ottawa.  The fiscal imabalance that needs fixing is between the have and have not provinces - which means Atlantic Canada.  Not between Alberta and Ontario and Quebec.

Fundamentally, there's only one party in Canada that's really a NATIONAL party, with appeal of varying degrees throughout the entire country, and that's the Liberal Party.  They always come into the game because of that with half the battle won; which means that if they lose, its because someone fucked up royally (like Paul Martin did).

The Conservatives are unelectable in the east, the NDP unelectable in the West, and the Bloc.. well, obviously the Bloc are just a factor that is set up to rob votes from the Liberals in Quebec, but have no other influence.

Its smart, really, that Harper is making filthy little backroom deals with the separatists, he knows that he can't win in Quebec ever, but the Bloc can COST liberals seats in quebec, so on a purely mercenary level it serves his interests for the Bloc to do as well as possible.

And why not? After all, they both want exactly the same thing for Canada: An impotent virtually non-extant federal government and semi-autonomous self-governing province-states each ruled by their own little gang of corrupt local fanatics. They are really a marriage made in heaven, meant for each other, with the one sole exception that Harper would have a devil of a time explaining to Average Joe Albertan why he's sucking Quebecois cock.  See, Albertans may be a rustic lot, but they still know High Treason when they see it.

So he has to do the delicate little dance of trying to do everything possible to Prop up the Bloc in practice, while still seeming as rabidly anti-Quebec in general back home in prairie country.

Trust me on this one, Dion will kick this slimy little fucker's ass seven ways to Sunday. Harper won't have a clue what hit him.

RPGPundit

Are you sure Harper isn't related to GWB?  Like, a second cousin or something?

I love how every deal he makes is a slimy filthy backroom deal.  I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to find deals being made in politics to stay in power.

Hehehe...fucking idiots...

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd why not? After all, they both want exactly the same thing for Canada: An impotent virtually non-extant federal government and semi-autonomous self-governing province-states each ruled by their own little gang of corrupt local fanatics.

Man, if this happens, I might have to move to Canada. It's what I always wanted for the US - an impotent virtually non-existent federal government and semi-autonomous self-governing province/states.

Sweet....

The US presidential election lead up is going to be an interesting thing to witness.  Especially with so many people just being happy that there is a two term limit and GWB is on his way out for good.  I think there will be a lot of focus on avoiding 'cowboy politics' and a sway to the more logical thinkers.

I've always been a supporter of Independent Parties and hopefully they will be able to stand out just a little more this election year.  Yeah I know they don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of making it into the presidental office but the more they get noticed the better.

Well there's my two cents.

Quote from: James J SkachMan, if this happens, I might have to move to Canada. It's what I always wanted for the US - an impotent virtually non-existent federal government and semi-autonomous self-governing province/states.

Sweet....

Set the way back machine to the halycon days pre-civil war.  The greatest debates between Jefferson and Hamilton (or was it Burr... no Hamilton) was over the power of the Federal government. Jefferson won, natch, and the power of the Fed in the early days of the US was pretty weak.  

No way back machine? Fine, move to Canada, you nanny-stater! :p

Quote from: HackmastergeneralAnd you overestimate Harper's appeal outside the west..

Quote from: RPGPunditThe Conservatives are unelectable in the east...

Well, given that the party had existed for less than 2 years when the last federal election was held, the Conservatives managed to win 9 seats in Atlantic Canada and 10 in Quebec (the Liberals only won 13 in Quebec).  In Ontario the Tories won 40 seats to the Liberals 54.

Not quite as strong as the Liberals in the east, but hardly 'unelectable'!  And, as far as I can tell, a 'national' party just as much as the Liberals are: whereas the Tories have their main strength in the west, and the Liberals in the east, both parties managed to get people elected across the country.

Quote from: RPGPundit... Its smart, really, that Harper is making filthy little backroom deals with the separatists, he knows that he can't win in Quebec ever, but the Bloc can COST liberals seats in quebec, so on a purely mercenary level it serves his interests for the Bloc to do as well as possible....

Since 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.

And the Tories won 10 seats in Quebec in the last election -- almost as many as the Liberals (13 seats).

Quote from: RPGPundit... and the anglo leaders have always performed poorly ...

Like 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit.... Three out of four years of Canada's history, it has had a liberal government....

The 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.

Throughout 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: James J SkachYup.  I understood when you explained it to me.  Hastur was having a difficult time with the concept, apparently.

I understood it as well, but I think we're talking past each other.  I'll avoid cluttering up this thread any further

Quote from: RPGPundit... 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. ...

Well, that didn't happen in the last in the last federal election, did it?  I think that you underestimate Harper's shrewdness.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time a Liberal fan did that.

Quote from: RPGPundit...
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 ...

:rolleyes:
I'm not losing anything here.  

I just pointed out that your claims about a Tory quasi-theocracy in the event of a majority government revealed a failure to understand how Canadian parliamentary democracy actually works.  I'm sorry if I upset you.

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

You seem to think that the Tories would go completely insane if they won a majority government and pass all kinds of laws that would almost certainly  either (a.) be struck down by the Supreme Court, or (b.) ensure their complete destruction in the next election.

Sorry, but I find your analysis so implausible that I am astonished that you take it seriously.

The political process in Canada creates strong pressures towards moderation.  It should not be surprising that the Tory platform is far more mainstream than the Reform platform of 10 years ago -- the Tories know that they might actually form (and mantain over time) a majority government.

Quote from: RPGPundit...
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.  
...

He won't 'distance himself' from the so-cons.  Rather, he'll throw them a few bones to keep them happy.  In any case, the so-cons also want greater provincial autonomy, which the Tories will be happy to provide -- thereby appeasing both the Western so-cons and Quebec in one fell swoop!

As I've already said, the so-cons realise now that they have nowhere else to go.  So, as long the Tories do a minimum amount to appease them (e.g. the lame 'free vote' on gay marriage last December), they'll support them federally.

Quote from: RPGPundit...
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 am well aware of how parliametnary democracy works in Canada.  

What you fail to realise is that:
(a) Canada has a Supreme Court that strikes down federal legislation (on an alarmingly regular basis);
(b) matters of provincial jurisdiction limit what the federal government can do (especially in a Tory government committed to provincial autonomy); and
(c) governments want to get re-elected, hence they tend to become more 'moderate' once in power.

Obviously, you're committed to the view that the Tories have some kind of 'secret agenda' that they will unleash on unsuspecting Canadians once they gain power.  I find that view laughable, but it is a testament to the Liberals' propagandizing abilities that so many people believe it.

Quote from: AkrasiaHe won't 'distance himself' from the so-cons.  Rather, he'll throw them a few bones to keep them happy.  In any case, the so-cons also want greater provincial autonomy, which the Tories will be happy to provide -- thereby appeasing both the Western so-cons and Quebec in one fell swoop!

By Balkanizing the country and giving justification to separatist claims. Yeah, that's a great plan that has always historically worked really well for countries that have gone that route.. :rolleyes:

QuoteAs I've already said, the so-cons realise now that they have nowhere else to go.  So, as long the Tories do a minimum amount to appease them (e.g. the lame 'free vote' on gay marriage last December), they'll support them federally.

Social conservatives will only take so many non-measures and "free vote" failures before they show massive dis-satisfaction.  This will inevitably lead to the same problems that ended up wiping out the PC party.

QuoteI am well aware of how parliametnary democracy works in Canada.  

What you fail to realise is that:
(a) Canada has a Supreme Court that strikes down federal legislation (on an alarmingly regular basis);
(b) matters of provincial jurisdiction limit what the federal government can do (especially in a Tory government committed to provincial autonomy); and
(c) governments want to get re-elected, hence they tend to become more 'moderate' once in power.

Obviously, you're committed to the view that the Tories have some kind of 'secret agenda' that they will unleash on unsuspecting Canadians once they gain power.  I find that view laughable, but it is a testament to the Liberals' propagandizing abilities that so many people believe it.

I think you grossly underestimate the Social Conservatives (of which Harper is no reluctant fan) and their sense that their desired policies are a moral crusade.  Not to mention their respect for the views and desires of others, regardless of whether those others are a "majority" or not. I'm not saying that they could do anything irreparable (with the sole exception of balkanizing the country, that's where they'd be most dangerous; their desire to impose private healthcare and anti-gay measures in Alberta can easily end up leading to Quebec separation and the collapse of the entire country), but they could easily do a shitload of damage along the way if they have a safe and uncontestable 3-5 years to do so.

RPGPundit

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'm holding out for a hung parliament so that the liberals can leverage it into electoral reform in favour of PR.

One can hope, after all, it was part of Labour's proposals up until the system started favouring them again. *sigh*.

Quote from: RPGPunditBy Balkanizing the country and giving justification to separatist claims...

The Harper Tories have given no more 'justification to separatist claims' in Quebec than Dion himself (let alone former Liberal leadership candidate Ignatieff, who reignited the whole 'Quebec is a nation' debate!).

Personally, I think that the federal government should respect the constitutional division of powers (something that you -- like most big government, centalising Grits -- oppose for unclear reasons).

Quote from: RPGPundit...
Social conservatives will only take so many non-measures and "free vote" failures before they show massive dis-satisfaction.  This will inevitably lead to the same problems that ended up wiping out the PC party...

I disagree.  The events that lead to the collapse of the old PC party were historically unique (Western alienation -- a problem that Harper does not have, especially if he keeps emphasizing Senate reform and respect for provincial autonomy -- and Quebec dissatisfaction with the failure of Meech Lake).

Nothing in what you have asserted convinces me that a similar such schism/collapse is likely to occur in the future.

In any case, I think it is likely that the next election will result in another minority government (I predicted a 63 percent overall likelihood in my original post; 40% likely a Tory minority, 23% likely a Liberal minority), so unfortunately I doubt that the alarmist nature of your claims will be approriately falsified in the near future.

I continue to argue that it will be a Liberal majority government.  we'll see who's right.

RPGPundit