The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[borschevsky]

Business as usual over here with Ralph. My coworker brought up an interesting idea - Goodale running for Liberal leadership. I don't know if the Liberals would go for a prairie leader though.I'm not sure whether that's really an ambition of his. He's got a pretty good gig just cruising along every election without much trouble. Although, he must be pretty high up the list now in terms of experience in the party.

There's one way I'm happy about the majority; in a sense, we can just get it over with now. Maybe the Cs will be fine and people can relax, or maybe they'll be insane and we can throw them out in a few years. I have sort of had this feeling that it was inevitable they'd get a majority one of these times, and in such cases it's best not to keep delaying the inevitable.

Regardless, I think the majority is perfect for the NDP.

[Spoons]

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported Harper's victory. Cite (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/canadas-pm-harper-wins-majority-reports-20110503-1e60f.html). Looks to be the same wire story that Cunctator linked to above, but it seems that the news is getting out there.

[Shmendrik]

CTV quoted a tweet from someone which is just rather funny (paraphrased) : "the Conservatives are like Nickelback. No one likes them, but they always seem to do well!" I admit....I do dislike Nickelback...!

Shades of Pauline Kael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael#Alleged_Nixon_quote)...

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Congratulations to the Conservative party and its supporters. I hope the next four to five years bring us the prosperity you believe it will.

[Cunctator]

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported Harper's victory. Cite (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/canadas-pm-harper-wins-majority-reports-20110503-1e60f.html). Looks to be the same wire story that Cunctator linked to above, but it seems that the news is getting out there.Yes, the SMH has the same feed as The Australian, just an hour later.

[mnemosyne]

mnemosyne, there's no general ban on campaigning on election day. There are restrictions on campaigning in or near individual polling stations (see Canada Elections Act, ss. 165 and 166 (http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-68.html#h-67)). Now, it used to be customary that politicians would taper off and not campaign on election day, but that was simply a tradition, not a statutory prohibition.

The linked (http://www.examiner.com/canada-headlines-in-canada/stephen-harper-breaks-election-rules-campaigns-on-radio-on-election-day)article links directly to Elections Canada (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/bck&document=index&lang=e) and that page seemed to confirm the claim in the article. It's interesting that it's a commonly-held belief that campaigning is illegal on election day. I'll defer to your legal knowledge, so let me modify my statement: if any party or party member was found to violate election law - including, and perhaps especially, the Prime Minister - then I want them to be held accountable (and yes, I feel the same way regardless of what party they are on). Our own government members should not be violating Canada's laws and each and every opportunity to discipline should be taken. Past actions by other parties should not ever be seen as an excuse to justify the same behaviour by current parties.

[Spoons]

Yes, the SMH has the same feed as The Australian, just an hour later.Well, you got me curious. I had to check the West Australian, and found a long story off the Reuters wire. Here it is (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9304860/conservatives-romp-to-crushing-canadian-election-win/).

[RickJay]

The linked (http://www.examiner.com/canada-headlines-in-canada/stephen-harper-breaks-election-rules-campaigns-on-radio-on-election-day)article links directly to Elections Canada (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/bck&document=index&lang=e) and that page seemed to confirm the claim in the article.
What on the EC page says that Harper's statement was illegal?

[Gorsnak]

Is Jack looking at the same election results as I am?

[Cat Whisperer]

Really? I'd love to see a sample poll of who actually votes compared to all the hot air blown on the social media. My guess is that the old farts probably still show up in greater numbers over the young hipsters tweeting each other about how useless it it is to go out and vote since "they're all liars and crooks anyway"
Well, it's a theory. I think we saw a lot of that in Calgary during our last mayoral election, where the winner used social media masterfully.

[mnemosyne]

What on the EC page says that Harper's statement was illegal?

I meant that the quoted boxes on that article were straight off the EC website, so the wording wasn't changed. I guess I assumed that the phrase "illegally attempting to influence the vote of an elector or the results of an election" was within the context of wording specifically prohibiting campaigning on Election Day itself, and that statements like Harper's on the radio would therefore be an illegal attempt to influence a vote at the last minute. Same with "election advertising during the blackout period" - a statement like "vote Conservative" by the Prime Minister could, IMHO, be interpreted to be advertising during the blackout period. I really thought campaigning today was illegal - it's a myth/"fact" that in my experience seems to have been around for years.

Were it in fact illegal to campaign today, Harper's words were pretty clearly in violation of that. Since it seems to not be illegal (though I'll leave that up to Elections Canada to be certain!), then I guess I can't be too upset about it.

[CurlyBrow]

Yay, Harper in with a majority!

Good job as always Canada.

I look forward to Harper continuing to circumvent real issues (hello equality and civil rights) and fuck over everybody who doesn't reside in Alberta.

27/28, glad to know some things never change; like inbreeding.


Bah! I'm completely bummed out, time to go cover my despair in queso and pass out.

[Northern Piper]

The linked (http://www.examiner.com/canada-headlines-in-canada/stephen-harper-breaks-election-rules-campaigns-on-radio-on-election-day)article links directly to Elections Canada (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/bck&document=index&lang=e) and that page seemed to confirm the claim in the article. It's interesting that it's a commonly-held belief that campaigning is illegal on election day.

There is a black-out on election advertising the day of the election - s. 323 (http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-121.html). However, "election advertising" is a defined term, in s. 319 (http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-120.html), which does not include speeches or interviews:

“election advertising” means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated. For greater certainty, it does not include

(a) the transmission to the public of an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, a commentary or news;

I would think it would be difficult to argue that an interview with a candidate on election day would count as "election advertising" under this definition.

[Spoons]

The linked (http://www.examiner.com/canada-headlines-in-canada/stephen-harper-breaks-election-rules-campaigns-on-radio-on-election-day)article links directly to Elections Canada (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/bck&document=index&lang=e) and that page seemed to confirm the claim in the article.I've been looking, but I cannot find any other verification of the Examiner's claim: it's not in any mainstream media that I can find; and even a check of the online log of the the radio station and host (http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/News/TheBillGoodShow.aspx) mentioned in the Examiner item show that while Good had many guests on the air via telephone this morning, and topics included the election, it doesn't seem that Harper was among the guests. Maybe I'm missing something though. Can anybody confirm or deny through other news sources that what the Examiner said happened, actually happened?

[JimmyFlair]

I've just found another silver lining: my favourite racist idiot Jim Pankiw is polling dead last in Saskatoon-Humboldt with 2% of the vote.

I was unfamiliar with this fellow so I pulled up his wikipedia page:

"On February 4, 2010, Pankiw announced that he would once again run as an Independent candidate in the next federal election (which will be held May 2, 2011), in his old riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. In the press conference in which he announced his candidacy, Pankiw informed the news reporters that he had invited that he did not need the media to win, that he had invited them to "rub it in your face", and refused to answer a question over whether or not he was sober"

Are you really saying that you DIDN'T vote for this gem? I can't imagine why!

[mnemosyne]

Thank you, Northern Piper. As I've said, this is clearly something that has really been misunderstood by a lot of people, in the past and now. Facebook/chat discussions show that many of my friends also believed that active campaigning on Election Day was illegal. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it.

[Sam Stone]

Looking at the Globe and Mail election maps shows some interesting things:

- The Conservatives used to be a western regional party, and generally only managed to sneak into power if they picked up enough votes in Ontario. They were also more rural. But in this election, the Conservatives have widespread support across Canada, except in Quebec. They also won a lot of the big cities.

- The Liberals are now an eastern regional party - they only managed to pick up two seats west of Ontario.

- The NDP are now heavily beholden to Quebec politics. The bloc basically folded into the NDP. In addition, they elected a lot of fringe candidates with questionable resumes and no political experience, making for a potentially raucus and undisciplined back bench. I think the NDP is going to be very interesting to watch. They're either going to move hard left, in which case they will lose a lot of the support gained tonight, or Layton is going to be herding cats for the next four years. A lot of the new NDP members are community activists or labor leaders, and I don't think there's much tolerance for either group among Canadians in general.

The liberals screwed the pooch by moving to the left. What they should have done is emphasized that they cut spending and balanced the budget and that they were the 'safe' economic stewards of Canada. Instead, they tried to chase Layton by becoming 'NDP Lite', and it destroyed them. Well, that and their weak leader.

The Conservatives had better not blow this. If they take this for some big mandate to enact sweeping social change, or they become the next Mulroney government and turn into low-tax, big spending deficit monsters, their support will evaporate fast.

But Layton's got the toughest job. Somehow he has to make the NDP appealing to the rest of Canada while maintaining his core constituency of Quebec. That's not going to be easy. It'll be nice to have a charismatic, in-your-face kind of leader to go up against Harper, though. It'll be good for Canadians, too - I think we're going to get more political clarity than we've had for some time. Layton will force the debate.

The biggest danger for center-left Canadians (the Liberal's constituency) is that the Liberals continue to melt down, and Canada winds up with two parties - one hard left, and the other center-right. That would push the center-left towards the Conservatives and make them the new 'natural governing party' of Canada - the role the liberals enjoyed when the Conservatives went too far to the right with the Alliance.

[mnemosyne]

Turns out I am going somewhere....to bed. But I'll be back :) Good night, all!

[The Flying Dutchman]

Conservatives.......149
NDP.......................101
Liberals...................34
Bloc.........................24


Actual Result as of 9:50 PDT

Conservatives................166........................................variance 17
NDP.................................103.......................................variance 02
Liberals..............................34......................................variance 00
Bloc.....................................04.....................................variance 20
Green...................................0.......................................variance 01


Total Variance..............................................................................40


Not bad. I think I got the best prediction.

[Gorsnak]

I was unfamiliar with this fellow so I pulled up his wikipedia page:

"On February 4, 2010, Pankiw announced that he would once again run as an Independent candidate in the next federal election (which will be held May 2, 2011), in his old riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. In the press conference in which he announced his candidacy, Pankiw informed the news reporters that he had invited that he did not need the media to win, that he had invited them to "rub it in your face", and refused to answer a question over whether or not he was sober"

Are you really saying that you DIDN'T vote for this gem? I can't imagine why!

Well, I'm in Blackstrap, not Saskatoon-Humboldt for starters. If I resided north of 8th St, who knows?

[Spoons]

Follow-up to my post above ... when I stop looking for reportage of the Examiner's "Harper campaigned on election day" incident in mainstream media, I do find much in what seem to be agenda-driven blogs: such sites as "democraticunderground" and "pushedleft.blogspot" and "fucorporatemedia" are reporting it. However, many of them cite the Examiner item and copy it wor-for-word.

Interestingly, the radio log I linked to above does say that "Stephen Harper also made a statement last night on the death of Bin Laden but was careful not to turn it into a partisan campaign speech as it is Election Day today." They then list the guests that discussed the election: a UBC professor and a Conservative strategist. However, again, it does not seem that Harper was a call-in guest.

I'm tempted to believe that the incident never occurred, and it was simply invented out of whole cloth by the Examiner writer. But I'll keep an open mind for now, and if I find anything in the mainstream media, I'll post it.

[Raygun99]

- The Liberals are now an eastern regional party - they only managed to pick up two seats west of Ontario.

Small correction: Four.

[Baffle]

- The Conservatives used to be a western regional party, and generally only managed to sneak into power if they picked up enough votes in Ontario. They were also more rural. But in this election, the Conservatives have widespread support across Canada, except in Quebec. They also won a lot of the big cities.The wave of blue across southern Ontario drove this Conservative majority. The Left is going to have a lot of Reform-style discussions about vote splitting coming soon.

- The Liberals are now an eastern regional party - they only managed to pick up two seats west of Ontario.Currently 3 - Ralph Goodale plus two in Vancouver. But you can't be surprised.

- The NDP are now heavily beholden to Quebec politics. The bloc basically folded into the NDP. In addition, they elected a lot of fringe candidates with questionable resumes and no political experience, making for a potentially raucus and undisciplined back bench. I think the NDP is going to be very interesting to watch. They're either going to move hard left, in which case they will lose a lot of the support gained tonight, or Layton is going to be herding cats for the next four years. A lot of the new NDP members are community activists or labor leaders, and I don't think there's much tolerance for either group among Canadians in general.Thankfully they're not forming the government, Bob Rae style. This will give them time to find the good apples, marginalize the bad ones, and prepare real candidates for next election.

The liberals screwed the pooch by moving to the left. What they should have done is emphasized that they cut spending and balanced the budget and that they were the 'safe' economic stewards of Canada. Instead, they tried to chase Layton by becoming 'NDP Lite', and it destroyed them. Well, that and their weak leader.This election was a choice between no fiscal restraint, or almost no fiscal restraint combined with no concern for Canadian democracy and freedoms.

The Conservatives had better not blow this. If they take this for some big mandate to enact sweeping social change, or they become the next Mulroney government and turn into low-tax, big spending deficit monsters, their support will evaporate fast.Wait, what? They're already low-tax, big spending deficit monsters. You think that'll change now?

But Layton's got the toughest job. Somehow he has to make the NDP appealing to the rest of Canada while maintaining his core constituency of Quebec. That's not going to be easy. It'll be nice to have a charismatic, in-your-face kind of leader to go up against Harper, though. It'll be good for Canadians, too - I think we're going to get more political clarity than we've had for some time. Layton will force the debate.I agree, this part is good. I would have preferred him to be facing another Conservative minority. These twenty unexpected Conservative seats surprised me significantly.

The biggest danger for center-left Canadians (the Liberal's constituency) is that the Liberals continue to melt down, and Canada winds up with two parties - one hard left, and the other center-right. That would push the center-left towards the Conservatives and make them the new 'natural governing party' of Canada - the role the liberals enjoyed when the Conservatives went too far to the right with the Alliance.The NDP aren't really hard left, you know. And neither are Canadians, or they'd be voting for the Communists. I'll wait and see if the Tories can still be considered center-right in a year.

[Baffle]

Not bad. I think I got the best prediction.

I think Stephen Harper's advisors won that one.

[Spoons]

Okay, I was able to get confirmation for the Examiner's claim from the Vancouver Province. Looks like it actually did occur: cite (http://www.theprovince.com/news/decision-canada/Harper%2Baccused%2Bbreaking%2Belection%2BVancouver%2Bradio%2Bshow/4713842/story.html) from the Province. The Province, however, stops short of reporting that Harper broke a law; but rather, that "An encouragement to vote for the Conservative party during an appearance on a Vancouver radio station has some saying Stephen Harper broke Canadian law by campaigning on election day." Emphasis added.

The Province then goes on to debunk the claim that Harper campaigned, using the same legislation and logic that Northern Piper did: briefly, according to s. 319 of the Elections Act, campaigning does not include an interview.

[tingbudong]

Any word on voter turnout figures?

[Cat Whisperer]

We saw 61% general turnout. Not bad.

[Cat Whisperer]

Yay, Harper in with a majority!

Good job as always Canada.

I look forward to Harper continuing to circumvent real issues (hello equality and civil rights) and fuck over everybody who doesn't reside in Alberta.

27/28, glad to know some things never change; like inbreeding.


Bah! I'm completely bummed out, time to go cover my despair in queso and pass out.
Well, at least you're keeping an open mind. :)

[Savannah]

I am so freakin' depressed about a Harper majority.

I am cautiously hopeful about the strength of the NDP.

I am astonished at how poorly the Liberals did.

I guess I need to become more involved and vocal every time the Harper government does something I disagree with. I imagine that will be often.

I vow to make my voice heard while he is in power, instead of just thinking about it, and toddling off to vote when an election is called. I need to do more than vote.

[Gorsnak]

So here's a question. Ignatieff hasn't stepped down, but he doesn't have a seat. How long does that last?

[CurlyBrow]

Well, at least you're keeping an open mind. :)

heh, I try. =p

In all seriousness though, The thought of a reform-conservative majority government in Canada for the next 4 years is nothing short of terrifying.

Freeze me in carbonite and wake me when it's 2015. I don't wanna live through this nightmare. =P

[tingbudong]

The center was totally vacated. I'm worried about that and feel a bit like an orphan.

[CurlyBrow]

I am so freakin' depressed about a Harper majority.

I am cautiously hopeful about the strength of the NDP.

I am astonished at how poorly the Liberals did.

I guess I need to become more involved and vocal every time the Harper government does something I disagree with. I imagine that will be often.

I vow to make my voice heard while he is in power, instead of just thinking about it, and toddling off to vote when an election is called. I need to do more than vote.


Spoken like a true Canadian! I implore you to take up a stance on something you are adamant about, as there is utterly no shortage of things the Harper government is jeopardising.


Really, now is the time for everyone who didn't vote Harper to make their voices more audible. Otherwise you might as well get down on your knees and start praying to the new Christian nationalist dictatorship we are about to be transformed into.

[Uzi]

In all seriousness though, The thought of a reform-conservative majority government in Canada for the next 4 years is nothing short of terrifying.

Terrifying? You do know you live in Canada, right?:rolleyes: Land of the boring, home of the inane.

[Shmendrik]

Spoken like a true Canadian! I implore you to take up a stance on something you are adamant about, as there is utterly no shortage of things the Harper government is jeopardising.


Really, now is the time for everyone who didn't vote Harper to make their voices more audible. Otherwise you might as well get down on your knees and start praying to the new Christian nationalist dictatorship we are about to be transformed into.

Sheesh, talk about a parody being indistinguishable from the real thing. 10 points either way, well done sir.

[Baffle]

The center was totally vacated. I'm worried about that and feel a bit like an orphan.

Can't we have a Conservative party that actually cares about improving the lot of common people and families? One that can be relied upon to support our rights when we find ourselves up against major corporations? One that supports common rights towards intellectual property, promotes universal access to education and the internet, and seriously tries to conserve our democratic ideals and freedom of expression? I'd vote for that party in a heartbeat.

[CurlyBrow]

Sheesh, talk about a parody being indistinguishable from the real thing. 10 points either way, well done sir.

Any sufficiently accurate parody is indistinguishable from the real thing.

[Shmendrik]

Any sufficiently accurate parody is indistinguishable from the real thing.

As I understand it, that's only true of certain things which you can't possibly parody by being too over the top. Originally stated in reference to religious fundamentalism, it appears to be equally true of political partisanship.

[Uzi]

Can't we have a Conservative party that actually cares about improving the lot of common people and families?

By having a healthy economy that ensures the improvement of 'common people and families'.

One that can be relied upon to support our rights when we find ourselves up against major corporations?

When are you up against major corporations? They are run by people, too. But it is why we also have laws.

One that supports common rights towards intellectual property,

Usually it is major companies that sue the 'common man' for downloading stuff they didn't pay for. What is it? For intellectual property or against your 'rights'?

promotes universal access to education and the internet,

You have essentially free education up until you graduate high school and heavily subsidized education after that. A healthy economy allows you to pay for the internet. Or are you suggesting that we also subsidize computer purchases because one without the other is pretty meaniingless?

and seriously tries to conserve our democratic ideals and freedom of expression?

You can beak off all you want right here. No one is stopping you other than the 'facist' moderators. I'm not sure what you mean otherwise, or why it will change now.

I'd vote for that party in a heartbeat.

So you did vote Conservative then?

[straight man]

The center was totally vacated. I'm worried about that and feel a bit like an orphan.
Me too. If there isn't a Liberal resurgence, well... I dunno. It will be bad for Canada, anyway.

[Baffle]

By having a healthy economy that ensures the improvement of 'common people and families'.
Stephen Harper's party has made some progress here, I will grant. When I got married it was actually a fiscally irresponsible choice, but there have been some improvements here.


When are you up against major corporations? They are run by people, too. But it is why we also have laws.Our communications monopolies come to mind. Canadians pay a great deal more than comparable countries for Internet and cell phone access. Stephen Harper's government has worked against the need for common people to access communication technology, by supporting bandwidth limitations for heavy users.



Usually it is major companies that sue the 'common man' for downloading stuff they didn't pay for. What is it? For intellectual property or against your 'rights'?The Copyright Modernization Act is "flawed but fixable". (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5080/125/) The problem is the concept of a 'digital lock', which, if implemented, will infringe on Canadians' rights.

The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used - whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices - the lock trumps virtually all other rights. In other words, in the battle between two sets of property rights - those of the intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property - the IP rights holder always wins.



You have essentially free education up until you graduate high school and heavily subsidized education after that. A healthy economy allows you to pay for the internet. Or are you suggesting that we also subsidize computer purchases because one without the other is pretty meaniingless?We need to invest in broadband access for rural Canadians; there are many places that really don't have access to the internet. This at the same time that organizations like Ontario's Independent Learning Center have moved their correspondence courses online. This has seriously hampered rural Canadians' access to improving their qualifications -- which is almost certainly the best way to improve their standard of living.



You can beak off all you want right here. No one is stopping you other than the 'facist' moderators. I'm not sure what you mean otherwise, or why it will change now.There are many local and national examples to convince me to doubt the Conservatives' commitment to Canadian, Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Here's my list:

- Locally, our candidate's staff tried to shut down polling stations, steal ballot boxes, intimidate voters, and make misleading phone calls. He refused to participate in debates, and when my brother actually did manage to meet the guy, he expressed ignorance about local voting, specifically, he "had no idea" that there was a voting station at a local high school.

- I shouldn't have to say more than "G20" to convince you of the Conservatives' attitude towards freedom of speech and assembly. Nine hundred million dollars wasted to send paramilitary forces to attack Canadians and detain them without cause. I personally witnessed the irresponsible behaviour of the police officers, who are supposedly hired to preserve public order, but instead actually created mayhem, panic, and pandemonium as they forced a crowd to stampede in Queen's Park. It was a terrible, wasteful decision, that turned into a spectacle of political intimidation by the ruling party against dissenters.

- "Bev Oda." Again, a party that campaigned on openness runs a secretive government, lying to Parliament. You might reply that 'The Liberals do it too.' I don't care. The Conservatives do it now. I don't support that.

- "The guy who lost the election doesn't get to run the country." This misinformation about Parliament shows a great contempt for our Westminster-system ideals, and contempt for Canadians who Stephen Harper clearly thinks are too dumb to know better. By dishonestly framing the debate in these terms, Stephen Harper shows his disregard for open political discourse.



So you did vote Conservative then?

No. I want my Conservative government, not this one.

[CurlyBrow]

By having a healthy economy that ensures the improvement of 'common people and families'.

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

We are renters in our own home so-to-speak and you equate this with a healthy economy that will ensure the improvement of 'common people and families'?

When are you up against major corporations? They are run by people, too. But it is why we also have laws.

Telecommunications say allô to you, sir.

You have essentially free education up until you graduate high school and heavily subsidized education after that. A healthy economy allows you to pay for the internet. Or are you suggesting that we also subsidize computer purchases because one without the other is pretty meaniingless?


Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar 'defence' plans.

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper's ambitious interest in privatization it's not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that 'essentially free and highly subsidized' education will begin to vanish.


You can beak off all you want right here. No one is stopping you other than the 'facist' moderators. I'm not sure what you mean otherwise, or why it will change now.

Oh I don't know, social progress was never much of an ideal for Canadians I suppose. It's not like we have a reputation for being socially progressive, forward-thinking and freely expressive. =)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn't be all bad if it didn't extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure. What on earth makes you think a government that openly declares it should be run solely by people of faith has any interest in preserving the ideals and freedoms of the modern person?

So you did vote Conservative then?

Quite a troll. It seems this theme of parody will continue throughout.

[Uzi]

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

That's right. Protectionism is the way to go.:rolleyes:

Telecommunications say allô to you, sir.

I'll agree to this. The telecom industry in Canada sucks. I just signed up for 100Mb/sec internet in HK for about $30CDN/mth. Mobile phone rates are unbelievable in Canada. So, you want protectionism in all other industries other than telecom, right?

Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar 'defence' plans.

You're right again. Lets get rid of the military. No need for it now that Osama is dead.:rolleyes:

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper's ambitious interest in privatization it's not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that 'essentially free and highly subsidized' education will begin to vanish.

Yep, the NDP could tell them how to run a balanced budget....No, I can't say that with any sort of a straight face:)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn't be all bad if it didn't extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure.

There has already been an offer of a bet upthread around this. You can always put your money where your mouth is. I personally wouldn't if I were you because I think you'd lose. Harper isn't an idiot. If he manages to introduce legislation that stops abortions or SSM, he wouldn't be able to get elected dog catcher whenever the next election occurs.

[Baffle]

This 'CurlyBrow' fellow does not speak for me. You can continue to engage him in his histrionics, but I'd enjoy it more if instead I got to hear what you think of my last post, #1041.

[CurlyBrow]

That's right. Protectionism is the way to go.:rolleyes:

Opinions, my point wasn't necessarily to argue over fair trade. I'm more curious where your idea of Harper being a champion for the economy (other than by his own declaration) comes from since he doesn't know the A-B-C's of industry.

I'll agree to this. The telecom industry in Canada sucks. I just signed up for 100Mb/sec internet in HK for about $30CDN/mth. Mobile phone rates are unbelievable in Canada. So, you want protectionism in all other industries other than telecom, right?

No, those can remain Canadian as well. If i'm going to be fucked I'd like it to be by someone I at least know on a first name basis. =D


You're right again. Lets get rid of the military. No need for it now that Osama is dead.:rolleyes:

Well I'm not sure if you are aware, but F35 fighter jets can't be used defensively. Perhaps Harper has been in contact with our lord and knows where to strike to prevent any impending acts of terrorism? Most likely.

It's funny, I'm glad we can both agree to be afraid of incurring their wrath with Harper on the hill. He does have that Bush like flair for it.


Yep, the NDP could tell them how to run a balanced budget....No, I can't say that with any sort of a straight face:)

Whoa, who said anything about balance? If we are going to blow the roof off with the spending then I would at least like to be in agreement with the majority of the expenditures. Layton certainly has a more attractive plan than some fancy jets. =)


There has already been an offer of a bet upthread around this. You can always put your money where your mouth is. I personally wouldn't if I were you because I think you'd lose. Harper isn't an idiot. If he manages to introduce legislation that stops abortions or SSM, he wouldn't be able to get elected dog catcher whenever the next election occurs.

It's tempting. I'm aware of what a delicate balance Harper applies to his craft, and he has been quite good at already swinging the pendulum back on or social and political systems with stealthy precision. However if his relentless attack ads are anything to go by, he can't keep that mean streak from falling on some of the things he feels are unobjectively wrong now that he has his majority.

[CurlyBrow]

This 'CurlyBrow' fellow does not speak for me. You can continue to engage him in his histrionics, but I'd enjoy it more if instead I got to hear what you think of my last post, #1041.

Baffle! I thought us good friends! We've had such good rapport in these few posts.

I assure you, if appeasing my histrionics I would engage in this attention seeking somewhere other than the SD forums. =)

Perhaps my obvious secularlism divides us from being truly agreeable, as I detect your fear of the UBB recurring puts us in similar social interests. A shame. =/

[Baffle]

You're right, I shouldn't be so snarky. I'll address your points one by one.

You seem to be misguided that the Conservatives have anything to do with a healthy economy. Particularly when they are rubber-stamping the most basic Canadian resource industries over to foreign control.

We are renters in our own home so-to-speak and you equate this with a healthy economy that will ensure the improvement of 'common people and families'?
These 'foreign-controlled resource industries' still need to hire Canadians to get the resources out of the ground and into usable form. And they pay for the privilege. Are some resources being sold and rates too low? Perhaps. But if you change the rates, you change the profitability for the investors, increase the production cost, and now the product is less competitive. The end result? Potential plant closures, and Canadians out of work. Messing around with the resource payments is delicate and should be done with great care. And remember, these 'foreign-owned' corporations are usually multi-national, publicly traded, and thus owned by many Canadians as well.



Telecommunications say allô to you, sir. Here, I'm glad to see, we all agree. There is something wrong.

Lord no. There is no way we have the means to subsidize computer and internet when we need to make room for thirty-billion dollar 'defence' plans. Our national defense has been seriously neglected in the past twenty years. As oil becomes scarcer, exploration in the Arctic will become more viable, and Canadians need to be able to exploit these resources. There are currently several territorial disputes in the Arctic. If we're unable to show an ability to defend our Arctic waters from intrusion, the international courts will not rule in our favour. These 'defense' plans, like the completion of the Dempster Highway, the new arctic deep-water port, and the expansion of our icebreaker fleet, are all necessary Conservative platform planks.

With the deficit skyrocketing and Harper's ambitious interest in privatization it's not uncalled for Baffle here to fear that 'essentially free and highly subsidized' education will begin to vanish.Yes, I do worry that a conservative government will start to cut back on student subsidies. But they do have a platform plank (a weak one, though) about tax credits for textbooks. The problem is, non-refundable tax credits really make no difference to the actual lives of poor students, who already aren't paying taxes. It's a tax break for people who pay, not one that helps those who can't afford to. But I'm more concerned about increased connectivity, which, in addition to letting everyone play Minecraft and stream Netflix, is vitally important in helping improve the education levels of lower-income Canadians.



Oh I don't know, social progress was never much of an ideal for Canadians I suppose. It's not like we have a reputation for being socially progressive, forward-thinking and freely expressive. =)

Now we have an energized opposition to social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, this wouldn't be all bad if it didn't extend to our judicial, media, political, and social infrastructure. What on earth makes you think a government that openly declares it should be run solely by people of faith has any interest in preserving the ideals and freedoms of the modern person? There's a lot of back-and-forth this election between 'they're just the Reform party in disguise!' and 'They're not that stupid!' I frankly don't know what to believe, but I fervently hope that there are enough Red Tories in blue seats to balance out the whackjobs.


Quite a troll. It seems this theme of parody will continue throughout.These are the histrionics I'm concerned about. I'm genuinely curious how Uzi feels about the current Conservatives and their affronts to democracy. It's a little bewildering to me that it seems to register so low on most people's radar, but for some reason I've always had a soft spot for our historic institutions. And watching the kids in the Middle East fight just for the chance, reminds me to really be vigilant that our own freedoms aren't being whittled away at the same time.

[Frank]

Astonishing results.

Congratulations to Harper and the Conservatives; it was a hard-fought and well-earned victory.

Congratulations are also due to Jack Layton and the NDP, Quebec, and Elizabeth May.

[Frank]

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don't get why that's such a terrible thing.
Take a look south of the border and see what unlimited and uncontrolled funding has done to pervert the electoral process.

[Baffle]

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don't get why that's such a terrible thing.

Missed this the first time.

The problem with this situation is, every political party still has to find money to operate. If the government doesn't support political parties, then they have to go elsewhere. To the only other group that has money -- wealthy people and corporations, and those people have vested interests that are not always aligned with the interests of the poor and middle class working people.

To have a political party that's not beholden to the rich, who actually speaks for the workers, we need government-funded political parties.

[CarnalK]

Okay, I was able to get confirmation for the Examiner's claim from the Vancouver Province. Looks like it actually did occur:
Sorry to waste all your researching, but Annie linked the interview (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13755897&postcount=904) and I had listened to it and gave a paraphrasing of it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13755978&postcount=908) three pages back.

[Northern Piper]

why is it an either-or: "either gov't funding or wide-open donations"? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what's the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that's in reply to Baffle's post #1050.

[Northern Piper]

Thank you, Northern Piper. As I've said, this is clearly something that has really been misunderstood by a lot of people, in the past and now. Facebook/chat discussions show that many of my friends also believed that active campaigning on Election Day was illegal. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it.

You're welcome!

[Baffle]

why is it an either-or: "either gov't funding or wide-open donations"? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what's the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that's in reply to Baffle's post #1050.

The limit, as I understand it, is $1,100 per person. Yes, you might need to find more donors, and therefore need to court some not-as-wealthy donors, it's still not an incentive for parties to court the lower classes. As it stands, we have a relatively inexpensive program, the removal of which would be to the detriment of the less fortunate members of our society. That, to me, is a good argument for keeping it.

[CarnalK]

why is it an either-or: "either gov't funding or wide-open donations"? there already are strict limits on how much an individual can donate, and bans on corporations and unions donating. If you get rid of the subsidy, and keep those restrictions in place, what's the problem? parties then would have to depend solely on their individual supporters for funding.

ETA: that's in reply to Baffle's post #1050.

Well, right NOW it's not an either-or. I think you missed the thrust of Baffle's post. If a party was mostly appealing to the poor and down-trodden, then their supporters probably don't have a lot of money to donate so that party would be at a serious disadvantage when campaigning. So government subsidizing of any party based on it's election results allows a more inclusive field of candidates.

[Northern Piper]

this is what I was responding to:


So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don't get why that's such a terrible thing.
Missed this the first time.

The problem with this situation is, every political party still has to find money to operate. If the government doesn't support political parties, then they have to go elsewhere. To the only other group that has money -- wealthy people and corporations, and those people have vested interests that are not always aligned with the interests of the poor and middle class working people.(my underlining)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but Baffle seemed to me to be saying that if you get rid of the subsidy, you have to allow parties to seek corporate donations, which is not the case now. Plus, the cap on individual donations applies to all individuals. Wealthier people may have more disposable income, but they're limited in how much they can donate. Why not keep those restrictions, and drop the subsidy?

[CarnalK]

But even with a $1000 dollar limit, one wealthy person can donate many multiples more than some poor. So ultimately, this skews the field. I don't think Baffle was suggesting opening up corporate donations, but I'll let him answer to that.

Why not keep the restrictions AND the subsidies? That way, people can invest in the party they prefer AND we get a more representative field of candidates to choose from. I can understand objections to it, "Why should my tax money support the Marxist-Leninist party?" but I think of it as supporting our democratic system, keeping it a little more secure against our capitalist system.

[Baffle]

But even with a $1000 dollar limit, one wealthy person can donate many multiples more than some poor. So ultimately, this skews the field. I don't think Baffle was suggesting opening up corporate donations, but I'll let him answer to that.

Why not keep the restrictions AND the subsidies? That way, people can invest in the party they prefer AND we get a more representative field of candidates to choose from.

Honestly, I was under the impression we still allowed corporate donations, but a bit of research shows I'm about six or seven years behind the times.

I believe democracy is meant to be executed by living, breathing people. I have little love for the concept of corporate personhood, and have no interest in seeing more democratic privileges extended that way.

I can understand objections to it, "Why should my tax money support the Marxist-Leninist party?" but I think of it as supporting our democratic system, keeping it a little more secure against our capitalist system.
There's no moral ground in disallowing a politlcal party's ability to compete. I actually signed the local Communist's nomination papers, not because I supported his platform, but because I believe in his right to have it.

[Baffle]

double post

[RickJay]

Take a look south of the border and see what unlimited and uncontrolled funding has done to pervert the electoral process.
The electoral process south of the border is marked by unlimited SPENDING, not funding. The U.S. has donation limit laws, in fact, but lacks election spending laws.

As to the issue, frankly I can see the point in every direction. On one hand the idea of me being forced to donate to political parties frankly makes my skin crawl. On the other, fairness in elections is worth a couple of bucks. But the in the middle, the old system was simply stupid; it effectively favours whomever won the last election. It's not a coincidence that the Liberals loved the old system enough to create it when they were the ones getting the most votes.

[CarnalK]

But the in the middle, the old system was simply stupid; it effectively favours whomever won the last election. It's not a coincidence that the Liberals loved the old system enough to create it when they were the ones getting the most votes.
Nor is it a coincidence that the Conservatives want to dismantle it while they are dominating fund raising.

If we are going to have tax supported election campaigns, I frankly can't think of a better allocation system than previous election results - not to say it's perfect.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I would not be surprised to see the Conservatives slowly (or not) raise the $1000 limit. This, combined with the fact that it is quite easy for an individual to circumvent this limit (ie give a $1000 "bonus" to your 50 employees, with the "wink wink" proviso that it be contributed to the conservatives)
Are there any rules against me giving $1000 to every single riding association across the country if I have a spare $300,000 to give away?

There were already examples in the last election in Gary Lunn's riding, where several "independent" groups were found to be spending money on election advertising - trouble is these groups were effectively run out of the same place and were in reality one and the same group. A "tsk tsk" was all that happened to them.

I say keep the current system that gives the parties a sum of money based on the number of votes they get across the country. I expect that my wishes will not be respected by the current government, because they will do anything to get an advantage, the public's wishes be damned.

[Marley23]

No. You're a perpetual whiner. Calling my party a "band of idiots." Go away.
Leaffan, calling a political party idiots has always been allowed here. Calling another poster a whiner is not. You either need to get your feelings under control or you need to open a new thread in the Pit.

[Euphonious Polemic]

One more thing:

I can't wait to see how Harper is going to appoint future senators, and supreme court justices. No doubt he will take into consideration the 60% of the Canadian voters who chose other parties.

No doubt.

Because that's just the kind of guy he is.

<snort>

[kushiel]

I'm actually not opposed to a Tory majority as long as they don't go Republican socially. That's what I'm scared of. I'm a young, single, educated childless female. Of course I vote on social issues! ;) I know people in the East aren't as worried about it, but I'm just down the road from Brad Trost (http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Conservative+Brad+Trost+proud+helping+defund+abortion+provider/4656016/story.html) and Maurice Vellacott (http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2011/01/11/16849806.html).

[Leaffan]

One more thing:

I can't wait to see how Harper is going to appoint future senators, and supreme court justices. No doubt he will take into consideration the 60% of the Canadian voters who chose other parties.

No doubt.

Because that's just the kind of guy he is.

<snort>

Yes. Because the Liberals never stacked the senate with Liberals.

With a majority, I think now Harper can actually get on with his task of senate reform. Because that's the kind of guy he is.

[Baffle]

Yes. Because the Liberals never stacked the senate with Liberals.

With a majority, I think now Harper can actually get on with his task of senate reform. Because that's the kind of guy he is.

I'd rather he just abolish the damn thing altogether. I have nothing against the idea of a chamber of sober second thought, but I'd really prefer to avoid American-style bill reconciliation and not have to deal with the pork that tags along.

[Leaffan]

I'd rather he just abolish the damn thing altogether. I have nothing against the idea of a chamber of sober second thought, but I'd really prefer to avoid American-style bill reconciliation and not have to deal with the pork that tags along.

I could get behind that.

[Leaffan]

Leaffan, calling a political party idiots has always been allowed here. Calling another poster a whiner is not. You either need to get your feelings under control or you need to open a new thread in the Pit.
Gotcha. It was the heat of the moment, and all that.

And I see now I have my first official infraction.

[Rysto]

With a majority, I think now Harper can actually get on with his task of senate reform.
Actually he can't, because reforming the Senate requires a constitutional amendment.

[Leaffan]

Actually he can't, because reforming the Senate requires a constitutional amendment.

Well, he's certainly talked about senate reform, but he's also stated he wasn't big on opening up the constitution; so I guess we're stuck for now.

[wolfstu]

Actually he can't, because reforming the Senate requires a constitutional amendment. Does it? Certainly abolishing the Senate would. But since the senators are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, is it possible that the PM could implement some half-baked scheme where the provinces run plebiscites as to who should be a senator, and then advise the Queen to appoint the winners? The result could effectively be that senators are chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister as directed by the results of an election.

Is there a constitutional barrier to that? I suppose my question is, with a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate, how far can a PM go to change the Senate single-handedly?

[Sam Stone]

Take a look south of the border and see what unlimited and uncontrolled funding has done to pervert the electoral process.

The problems of the U.S. political system are unique, and stem from the fact that every Congressman and Senator essentially has a free vote all the time. That means they can be influenced on every single issue, and they become pawns of special interest groups which pour huge money into their campaigns. It's like a big funding arms race.

In a parliamentary democracy with strong party discipline such as we have in Canada, there is a lot less incentive for lobbyists and special interests to pour money into the system. Politicians are somewhat protected from the consequences of making decisions that don't bring the bacon home to their constituents. While this has good points and bad, it means we're not likely to wind up with the kind of dysfunction the U.S. has in terms of campaign financing.

Federal funding of political parties has the large negative effect of freezing out new parties and new ideas because it's very hard to compete until you reach the threshold where you can receive federal funds. It hurts grassroots organization.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Yes. Because the Liberals never stacked the senate with Liberals.

With a majority, I think now Harper can actually get on with his task of senate reform. Because that's the kind of guy he is.

Yes, yes they did. A happy tu quoque day to you!

Harper said he would not stack the senate. Senate reform from Harper now? It is to laugh.

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

Yay, Harper in with a majority!

Good job as always Canada.

I look forward to Harper continuing to circumvent real issues (hello equality and civil rights) and fuck over everybody who doesn't reside in Alberta.

<snip>

As an Albertan, I agree with you 100%. In your face, ROC! Payback is a bitch!

Incidentally, I'd also like to thank the rest of Canada for helping to produce this Conservative majority -- we literally could not have done it without you.

:D

[Euphonious Polemic]

I read that we had relativelylow turnout (http://news.ca.msn.com/federal-election-2011/low-turnout-helps-deliver-tory-majority) again for this election.

I'm sure that Harper will bear in mind that less than 25% of eligible voters (60% turnout giving him under 40% of the vote) actually voted Conservative this election.

He will, of course, govern accordingly, and not push through his more right-of-center policies that even some in his own party do not like.




Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm hilarious!

[Cat Whisperer]

I could give up the idea of dropping public money political subsidies in favour of reforming the senate. Does the senate actually perform any useful function at this point?

[Rain Soaked]

I won't be coming to the Dope as often.

Apparently, a few months ago while filling out some RRSP forms, I accidentally signed some NDP nomination papers.

Last night I was phoned and told I had been elected as an MP in Quebec.

Tomorrow I head to Ottawa as the new MP for the riding of “Plaisanterie de Mai”.

I’ll send postcards.

:)

[Leaffan]

I won't be coming to the Dope as often.

Apparently, a few months ago while filling out some RRSP forms, I accidentally signed some NDP nomination papers.

Last night I was phoned and told I had been elected as an MP in Quebec.

Tomorrow I head to Ottawa as the new MP for the riding of “Plaisanterie de Mai”.

I’ll send postcards.

:)
Good luck. Please say hello to the part time bartender who, I hope, is on her way back from Las Vegas.

[Mikemike2]

I read that we had relativelylow turnout (http://news.ca.msn.com/federal-election-2011/low-turnout-helps-deliver-tory-majority) again for this election.

I'm sure that Harper will bear in mind that less than 25% of eligible voters (60% turnout giving him under 40% of the vote) actually voted Conservative this election.

He will, of course, govern accordingly, and not push through his more right-of-center policies that even some in his own party do not like.




Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm hilarious!

Or maybe he feels he was given a strong mandate to implement his right of centre policies, and if the other 40% of eligible voters who did not vote had an issue with that, they had a pretty simple option.

[Cat Whisperer]

I won't be coming to the Dope as often.

Apparently, a few months ago while filling out some RRSP forms, I accidentally signed some NDP nomination papers.

Last night I was phoned and told I had been elected as an MP in Quebec.

Tomorrow I head to Ottawa as the new MP for the riding of “Plaisanterie de Mai”.

I’ll send postcards.

:)
Congratulations! Are you the potted plant that I heard was elected? :D

[CarnalK]

I could give up the idea of dropping public money political subsidies in favour of reforming the senate. Does the senate actually perform any useful function at this point?

What has one got to do with the other?

Federal funding of political parties has the large negative effect of freezing out new parties and new ideas because it's very hard to compete until you reach the threshold where you can receive federal funds. It hurts grassroots organization.
Not really, unless it was the sole source of funding. Fed funding only to groups who have a minimal support level doesn't encourage startup parties but it certainly doesn't freeze them out.

[Baffle]

Or maybe he feels he was given a strong mandate to implement his right of centre policies, and if the other 40% of eligible voters who did not vote had an issue with that, they had a pretty simple option.

Polling being what it is, chances are we got a pretty good representation of how the other non-voters would have voted anyway.

---

Straight from today's 308 update:

Of the 308 ridings in the country, ThreeHundredEight.com correctly called 235 of them. That's an accuracy rate of 76.3%, which is absolutely unacceptable. (Note: I had incorrectly calculated the accuracy rating at 71.8% earlier this morning).

That's incredible, he made a mistake while admitting a mistake. This guy should find a different job.

[Rysto]

Does it? Certainly abolishing the Senate would. But since the senators are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, is it possible that the PM could implement some half-baked scheme where the provinces run plebiscites as to who should be a senator, and then advise the Queen to appoint the winners? The result could effectively be that senators are chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister as directed by the results of an election.

Is there a constitutional barrier to that? I suppose my question is, with a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate, how far can a PM go to change the Senate single-handedly?

There are several major problems here. First, this would be working on the honour system. That's a terrible way to run a democratic institution. Second, absent a constitutional amendment there is no way to remove a Senator before they hit the mandatory retirement age. Senators would not face any accountability. Third, what do you do about the current, unelected Senators? They will have a vote for a long time. Fourth, the current allocation of Senators to provinces is absurdly unbalanced. The composition of the Senate would need to be reformed(via a constitutional amendment) before it should get any legitimacy.

[Baffle]

There are several major problems here. First, this would be working on the honour system. That's a terrible way to run a democratic institution. Second, absent a constitutional amendment there is no way to remove a Senator before they hit the mandatory retirement age. Senators would not face any accountability. Third, what do you do about the current, unelected Senators? They will have a vote for a long time. Fourth, the current allocation of Senators to provinces is absurdly unbalanced. The composition of the Senate would need to be reformed(via a constitutional amendment) before it should get any legitimacy.

The honour system, enforced solely by precedent, has long been exactly how we ran our country. It's only been in the last couple decades that we've moved to a more codified system.

The rest of your points are valid though.

[CarnalK]

And let me be the first to say Iggy resigns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/05/03/cv-election-ignatieff-future.html

[Cat Whisperer]

And let me be the first to say Iggy resigns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/05/03/cv-election-ignatieff-future.html
And he flits off into the night. :)

[Cat Whisperer]

What has one got to do with the other?<snip>Not much; I was just stating a preference if I had to only get one passed.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Polling being what it is, chances are we got a pretty good representation of how the other non-voters would have voted anyway.


No, that's not the general consensus. Voters are overrepresented among the older demographic, who tend to vote conservative. They are underrepresented among the young (under 30) demographic, who tend to vote more to the left of the spectrum.

Low turnout is usually thought to favour right-of-center parties.

Why do you think the Conservative lawyer had a problem with voting at the University of Guelph? (yes, I'm sure that they just wanted the proper process followed, and they would have done the same thing if it had occurred in a retirement home. Riiiight.)

[gonzomax]

I was watching a critique of the results. They said the results are weird. The Quebeckers got swallowed up by national politics. THe Liberals got knocked down . The corporate party got a majority of the seats but only 40 percent of the vote. The second place party is equivalent to the Green party in America passing up the Democratic party here.
Can you translate this for an American? Is public health care under fire now?

[antonio107]

Globe and Mail is reporting that CBC broadcast results before polls closed:

CBC appears to break Elections Act, broadcasts results before polls close (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cbc-appears-to-break-elections-act-broadcasts-results-before-polls-close/article2007524/)

They did! I was watching them from 9:00 to about 9:26 here in Ottawa, until mid-sentence they got cut off with a "technical difficulties" message. :D

I have a lot of lefties on my Facebook, and I'm saddened by their level of disrespectfulness. If Jack Layton won a minority government, I sure as shit wouldn't be wishing death on him. Get over yourselves...

[CarnalK]

No, that's not the general consensus. Voters are overrepresented among the older demographic, who tend to vote conservative. They are underrepresented among the young (under 30) demographic, who tend to vote more to the left of the spectrum.

Low turnout is usually thought to favour right-of-center parties.

Why do you think the Conservative lawyer had a problem with voting at the University of Guelph? (yes, I'm sure that they just wanted the proper process followed, and they would have done the same thing if it had occurred in a retirement home. Riiiight.)

Regardless, you are basically implying that Harper should run his government based on what a bunch of people might have wanted if they had bothered to vote, rather than on the election results.

[Leaffan]

No, that's not the general consensus. Voters are overrepresented among the older demographic, who tend to vote conservative. They are underrepresented among the young (under 30) demographic, who tend to vote more to the left of the spectrum.

Low turnout is usually thought to favour right-of-center parties.

Why do you think the Conservative lawyer had a problem with voting at the University of Guelph? (yes, I'm sure that they just wanted the proper process followed, and they would have done the same thing if it had occurred in a retirement home. Riiiight.)
I guess the conclusion we can draw here is that the older you get, the smarter you get. :)

[Marley23]

Gotcha. It was the heat of the moment, and all that.

And I see now I have my first official infraction.
The infraction was actually for the "fuck off" post, so the post from this morning could just as easily have been your second. I'm assuming Canada will continue to have a political system for some time, so like I said, in the future please keep your feelings in check during these threads.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I guess the conclusion we can draw here is that the older you get, the smarter you get. :)

That's one way to look at it.

Or, the older you get, the more cynical and venal you get...

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Not much; I was just stating a preference if I had to only get one passed.

Hey, the Conservatives now have carte blanche - they control the House of Commons and the Senate. The only difficulty about constitutional issues is the consensus required from the provinces.

[Leaffan]

The infraction was actually for the "fuck off" post, so the post from this morning could just as easily have been your second. I'm assuming Canada will continue to have a political system for some time, so like I said, in the future please keep your feelings in check during these threads.

Well, thankfully we don't have to do this again for 4 years.

Of course Ontario has an election coming up in the fall. But that's OK. We know the Liberals will be kicked out of here too.






I'll be a good boy.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Regardless, you are basically implying that Harper should run his government based on what a bunch of people might have wanted if they had bothered to vote, rather than on the election results.

Not quite. I would ask him to bear in mind that although he does have his majority government, it may not benefit him in the long run to behave as if he had carte blanche to jam unpopular legislation through Parliament.

Cutting programs for poor families and youth and then using the savings to build more prisons for poor people and youth is one example.

[Leaffan]

Not quite. I would ask him to bear in mind that although he does have his majority government, it may not benefit him in the long run to behave as if he had carte blanche to jam unpopular legislation through Parliament.

Cutting programs for poor families and youth and then using the savings to build more prisons for poor people and youth is one example.

nm.

I'll just get another warning.................

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I was watching a critique of the results. They said the results are weird. The Quebeckers got swallowed up by national politics. THe Liberals got knocked down . The corporate party got a majority of the seats but only 40 percent of the vote. The second place party is equivalent to the Green party in America passing up the Democratic party here.
Can you translate this for an American? Is public health care under fire now?

No. Or at least, not in the sense I think you mean. None of our parties would campaign on a promise to eliminate our universal health care system; that would be political suicide.

Opinions differ sharply on the benefits of what the different parties propose under the aegis of 'improving' or 'protecting' our universal health care system, and you will often hear any party's proposal attacked as being 'the death of medicare in this country'.

The Conservatives may suggest proposals which will open the door to more private sector involvement in the system of delivery of our health care system. I don't agree with that idea, but my party just lost the election in a resounding manner.

[The Tooth]

Well, we can, but no one's gonna listen. :)

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don't get why that's such a terrible thing.

You do pay attention to American politics, yes? Our policies are now for sale to the highest bidder. Appalling.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Euphonious Polemic[/B];13757932]Not quite. I would ask him to bear in mind that although he does have his majority government, it may not benefit him in the long run to behave as if he had carte blanche to jam unpopular legislation through Parliament.

Cutting programs for poor families and youth and then using the savings to build more prisons for poor people and youth is one example.

I'm sorry, Euphonious Polemic, Stephen Harper does have carte blanche to enact whatever legislation he wishes. He has a majority in the House of Commons and he has control of the Senate. He has that control for anywhere up to five years. I do not know if his fixed date election law will now trigger an election on the third Monday in October, 2015 or not. If it does not suit the Prime Minister, he has the ability to change it or ignore it. That is what was decided last night.

[Spoons]

Sorry to waste all your researching, but Annie linked the interview (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13755897&postcount=904) and I had listened to it and gave a paraphrasing of it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13755978&postcount=908) three pages back.:smack: D'oh! Well, the thread was moving quickly, and I guess I missed it. Good jobs, Annie and CarnalK!

[MoodIndigo1]

I'm sorry, Euphonious Polemic, Stephen Harper does have carte blanche to enact whatever legislation he wishes. He has a majority in the House of Commons and he has control of the Senate. He has that control for anywhere up to five years. I do not know if his fixed date election law will now trigger an election on the third Monday in October, 2015 or not. If it does not suit the Prime Minister, he has the ability to change it or ignore it. That is what was decided last night.

Agreed. Harper behaved as though he had carte blanche and was accountable to no-one even though he had a minority government. If it's different now, it won't be for the better. We will become more and more Americanized, and not in the better aspects of the US.

[Sam Stone]

No. Or at least, not in the sense I think you mean. None of our parties would campaign on a promise to eliminate our universal health care system; that would be political suicide.

Opinions differ sharply on the benefits of what the different parties propose under the aegis of 'improving' or 'protecting' our universal health care system, and you will often hear any party's proposal attacked as being 'the death of medicare in this country'.

The Conservatives may suggest proposals which will open the door to more private sector involvement in the system of delivery of our health care system. I don't agree with that idea, but my party just lost the election in a resounding manner.

The Conservatives campaigned on a platform of increasing health transfer payments to the provinces by 6% per year.

As for privatization, Canada already has a mixed-mode health care delivery system, and Canadians pay more out of pocket for health care expenses than do people in many other countries with public health care. For example, dentistry and prescription drugs are privatized in Canada, as well as a host of non-essential medical services.

In addition, some of the biggest moves towards allowing private competition to public health care have come from NDP governments in BC and Manitoba. Reality tends to assert itself even for left-wing governments once they get into power and realize how expensive it is to provide universal health care for everyone with no cost controls.

[Sam Stone]

Agreed. Harper behaved as though he had carte blanche and was accountable to no-one even though he had a minority government. If it's different now, it won't be for the better. We will become more and more Americanized, and not in the better aspects of the US.

No, if we were becoming more Americanized we'd run huge deficits and expand the size of government dramatically.

Canada is now the right-wing, fiscally responsible, low-tax and low deficit alternative to a U.S. suffering from runaway government spending, out of control entitlement benefits and an unsustainable deficit/debt situation.

Maybe the Americans will elect Republicans next time around and become 'Canadianized.' (-:

[tingbudong]

Me too. If there isn't a Liberal resurgence, well... I dunno. It will be bad for Canada, anyway.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. It's not even a Liberal thing for me...they just seemed to be the ones who best fit the center, which is where I like to be. Now there is nothing.

I'm not confident that either Layton or Harper will move their parties to the center. Just my thoughts.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, I see an NDP candidate won in my riding (ew) but the Conservatives won overall, so okay.

It occurs to me that we don't have the same wedge issues as Americans. Abortion? We got it, nobody cares. Gay marriage? Ditto. Capital punishment? Not enough people want it back. We can afford to concentrate on economic issues and not get sidetracked.

[RickJay]

I'm sorry, Euphonious Polemic, Stephen Harper does have carte blanche to enact whatever legislation he wishes.
Did we recently repeal the Constitution? Unless we did, then of course he cannot enacy "whatever legislation he wishes," since of course many theoretically wishable laws are not legal. There's also, even in a majority government situation, a wide host of things that simply are not politically feasible even if they are legal. If, for instance, Stephen Harper introduced legislation to repeal public health insurance, the government would fall and his party would be annihilated five weeks later and blown out of politics for fifty years.

Honest to God, you may not support the guy, but he's not Genghis Khan. The histrionics over this are becoming unreal. Of course I don't expect it would have been any different had, say, things turned out so that Jack Layton led a coalition government - we'd now be hearing about how he was Lenin planning to turn Canada into a Communist state. The Toronto Sun tried to link Michael Ignatieff to Mao, I swear to God.

I said it before but now I have to comment on it; the political tone in this thread, and to be honest in a lot of other places, is (in many, though not all posts) absolutely disgraceful, from all sides, I might add. The level of ignorance, both willful and not, is shamefully extreme. For all they bitch about Conservatives being the puppets of America, I have never in my life heard the Canadian left sound more like Republicans. Everything they disagree with is un-Canadian, everything is un-democratic (never mind we just had one of them election thingies) any voter who disagrees with them is stupid or evil, and Stephen Harper is absolutely on par with Pol Pot and plans nothing but death and destruction. And make no mistake, the Conservative side has been spewing as much venom - not right this minute as they're too busy gloating, but according to them the Liberals and NDP were dedicated to nothing less than the overthrow of the government and the use of nuclear weapons to incinerate every Canadian and sink the entire country into the sea.

The differences among our political parties are, in the actual real world made of matter and energy and inhabited by sane people, not really that big in the grand scheme of things. None of the serious parties, save the BQ, was advocating any major, life-changing adjustments to the manner in which this country is founded. None advocated any significant change to civil rights or equality. (Shamefully so, as the ongoing travesty of the living conditions of our aboriginal peoples was not an issue in this campaign.) Nobody advocated getting rid of public health insurance, contrary to the bullshit you've all heard. Nobody advocated getting rid of any social program of any consequence, in fact. All three parties advocated continued defense spending at current levels, continuing to tax young people and give the money to old people, and most of the fundamental assumptions of Canadian governance built up over the last four decades or so.

To suggest that the election of any one of the three big parties - I could have written this not even knowing who had won - is somehow the death of democracy, or will irreparably harm Canada, or make it (here is a phrase I read 10 times in the papers and that marks the author as either a liar or a mouth-breathing imbecile) "unrecognizable" or some similar turn of phrase - is absolutely, positively stupid. In 2015 or 2016, when the next election takes place, Canada will be very much like it is in 2011. The odds are, given the broad trend over the years, that we will be slightly better off, but some of us might not be. We will have problems, but it'll be a free and nice country, just as is the case today. We will enjoy political and personal freedom. We'll be a reasonably wealthy country, with government health insurance. Sometimes the government will screw up but most of the time we will have an effective civil service. Problems will be dealt with as best as political reality and resources allow. The Maple Leafs will still be losing. Perhaps the Conservatives will do a good job. Perhaps they will do a shitty job. Either way it will not be enough of an effect to destroy the country.

This is hardly the first time we've had a realignment of the political parties, either. Ten years ago absolutely no one could have believed anything other than Liberals on top, Conservatives in an angry second, NDP in a nattering third outside Quebec, and the BQ dominating Quebec politics. And ten years before THAT, in 1991, if you had told a Canadian that in just two years the PC party would be almost annihilated, the NDP devastated, and opposition run by someone called the "Bloc Quebecois" and "The Reform Party" they would have thought you insane. And yet Canada recovered from those upheavals and continued to run itself pretty well.

This was mostly a pretty good thread for a lot of pages but now, like my Facebook feed - well, no, it isn't nearly that bad, that's unfair. But it's now a litany of sniping and doomsday predictions that to be honest isn't worthy of this message board or what I, probably stupidly, think is the civic spirit of Canadian politics. I sure hope the next election can be discussed with a little less in the way of spittle-flying screaming and wrist-slashing keening over the death of all that is good and holy. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[kushiel]

Well, I see an NDP candidate won in my riding (ew) but the Conservatives won overall, so okay.

It occurs to me that we don't have the same wedge issues as Americans. Abortion? We got it, nobody cares. Gay marriage? Ditto. Capital punishment? Not enough people want it back. We can afford to concentrate on economic issues and not get sidetracked.

As long as Harper placates the East by not touching those wedge issues again. Sask, Manitoba and the Territories don't have enough clout to get anything done, but if Alberta joined in now?

Cat Whisperer and Spoons, you understand what's going on in Alberta better than I do - would Edmonton and Calgary shut down any attempts at social conservatism? Would it be enough to beat the rural constituencies?

[CarnalK]

This was mostly a pretty good thread for a lot of pages but now, like my Facebook feed - well, no, it isn't nearly that bad, that's unfair. But it's now a litany of sniping and doomsday predictions that to be honest isn't worthy of this message board or what I, probably stupidly, think is the civic spirit of Canadian politics. I sure hope the next election can be discussed with a little less in the way of spittle-flying screaming and wrist-slashing keening over the death of all that is good and holy. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Hah! Read the comments section of any CBC article, those guys are sniping all year long, let alone after a bitter election.

Well, I'm interested in what the Conservatives will try to put through. I mean everyone remembers the party funding issue and that was the trigger for the coalition talks. Everyone seems to forget that they were also going to suspend the right of public servants to strike. And despite Conservative election ads only mentioning the wise steering of the economy through the recent crisis, the House rebellion also forced them to fatten up their stimulus package. I am honestly a little worried about what they'll do with no check on their power.

[Sam Stone]

Excellent post, RickJay.

While all of us display partisanship from time to time, it's important to pause and reflect on what that does to rational thinking.

For example, the largest decrease in the size of the federal government we've seen in our lifetimes came from the Martin Liberals. While that was happening, partisan Conservatives continued to bash them as socialists, while Partisan Liberals kept quiet or didn't even notice what was going on. As I mentioned above, some of the biggest moves to open up medical treatments to private clinics have come from the NDP in BC and Manitoba.

This is a form of confirmation bias that all partisans share. To a Liberal partisan, Harper's secrecy is destroying the country, but the Liberal's secrecy and sponsorship scandals were no big deal. To a Conservative partisan, Harper's spending increases are no big deal, but the Liberal's big cuts in spending didn't save them from charges of socialism.

It's totally fair to attack any specific policy, and to keep politician's feet to the fire when they overstep their boundaries. You need partisans in the opposition for that, because we tend to excuse our own. But try to keep some perspective. I have no doubt that all three leaders believed that they were promoting policies that were best for Canada. All three major parties have their share of idiots and good, patriotic Canadians. All of them can be tempted by power or ideology to do things they shouldn't do. So it will always be with politicians.

I actually like Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff. And I like Stephen Harper. I think we're very lucky to live in a country where our major leaders seem like decent people trying to do what they believe is right for their country.

On a lighter note, this is the facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ruth-Ellen-Brosseau/196281490417162?sk=info) for one of the newly-elected NDP members. Party on!

[Euphonious Polemic]

I actually like Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff. And I like Stephen Harper. I think we're very lucky to live in a country where our major leaders seem like decent people trying to do what they believe is right for their country.



I've actually said this same thing myself from time to time.

[MichaelEmouse]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the NPD-Liberal situation looks a lot like the Tory-Reform Alliance did back in the days.

A smaller faction (Reform/NDP) that would normally be part of one of the two big national parties eventually gets better election results than the big party, resulting in the resignation of the big party leader (1993Campbell/2011Ignatieff). They split the vote, reinforcing their common adversary, so they eventually merge.

Do you think we'll see a merger between the Liberals and the NDP?

Granted, the history of the NDP isn't the same as that of the Reform party. The Reform was a breakaway faction of the Tories whereas the NDP was a whole other party since its inception.

[Rysto]

I think that an NDP-Liberal merger would be a disaster. It would be just like the Conservatives vs. Labour in Britain -- the Conservatives would win the lion's share of elections. Moving left economically is not a winning mode in Canada.

[Raygun99]

On a lighter note, this is the facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ruth-Ellen-Brosseau/196281490417162?sk=info) for one of the newly-elected NDP members. Party on!

I wonder what's with the telephone poles.

[CarnalK]

I wonder what's with the telephone poles.

Ha ha. 10 minutes ago when I looked at it there was casino and party pics. I guess a photo essay of phone poles was the quickest replacement they had handy. That young lady is going to have to learn politics on a steep curve.

[antonio107]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the NPD-Liberal situation looks a lot like the Tory-Reform Alliance did back in the days.

A smaller faction (Reform/NDP) that would normally be part of one of the two big national parties eventually gets better election results than the big party, resulting in the resignation of the big party leader (1993Campbell/2011Ignatieff). They split the vote, reinforcing their common adversary, so they eventually merge.

Do you think we'll see a merger between the Liberals and the NDP?

Granted, the history of the NDP isn't the same as that of the Reform party. The Reform was a breakaway faction of the Tories whereas the NDP was a whole other party since its inception.

I came here to post precisely on this point. I think it WILL happen before the next election, that is my prediction. But I was dead wrong in the first round of the playoffs, so what the hell do I know? I can see the left of the Liberal party merging to form the Liberal-Democrats under PM Layton. They will be a centre-left party, and it will temper the more extreme socialist fringe of the NDP. Sounds pretty simple to me!

Harper would be wise to hold off on slashing vote subsidies, though. If he did, that would be the last nail in the coffin for the Liberals, that would GUARANTEE such a merger, IMO. I'm still waiting for Grit heavyweights like Allan Rock or John Manley to come out of retirement to lead the party to recovery in four-eight years.

[Cat Whisperer]

As long as Harper placates the East by not touching those wedge issues again. Sask, Manitoba and the Territories don't have enough clout to get anything done, but if Alberta joined in now?

Cat Whisperer and Spoons, you understand what's going on in Alberta better than I do - would Edmonton and Calgary shut down any attempts at social conservatism? Would it be enough to beat the rural constituencies?There are rednecks in Alberta like there are in every province, of course, but I don't think there is any groundswell movement here to change any of those things, or that any idea like that would gain much traction.

<snip>
I actually like Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff. And I like Stephen Harper. I think we're very lucky to live in a country where our major leaders seem like decent people trying to do what they believe is right for their country.<snip>I think it would be the biggest hoot in the world to sit down and have a couple of beers with the five leaders. :)

I'm a conservative; you guys have known me here for over 10 years. Why do you think that the Conservative party is full of evil baby-eating American wannabes? It's full of people like me, and as far as I know, I don't have a reputation here as wanting to destroy Canada and everything we hold dear.

[Leaffan]

There's no way a surging NDP would entertain merging with the Liberals at this point. The NDP is going to enjoy official opposition status for 4 or 5 years and then make another run at forming a government after that.

If, after the next election, we have similar results and a Conservative majority, I would think anything would be on the table for the NDP and Liberals at that point.

[RickJay]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the NPD-Liberal situation looks a lot like the Tory-Reform Alliance did back in the days.
There's a huge difference in that the merger of the Alliance and PC parties was a reconcilation of two parties who had - quite recently - been one party anyway, more or less. The Liberals and NDP have never been the same party and have totally different origins.

But then you mention that, but the other things is, the Liberals have, without the NDP's help, won many elections against the Conservative Party. It would be shortsighted to assume it's suddenly impossible to win elections from the middle when they were doing exactly that for generations.

[Spoons]

Cat Whisperer and Spoons, you understand what's going on in Alberta better than I do - would Edmonton and Calgary shut down any attempts at social conservatism? Would it be enough to beat the rural constituencies?I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd suggest that Alberta is not what you might think.

Here in the Bible Belt of southern Alberta, where "diversity" means that we have both Mormons and Fundamentalists, things aren't much different from what I've found elsewhere. Many liquor stores, places open Sundays, bars, strip clubs (well, one in Lethbridge anyway),and other vices that are not popular with the religious. We don't have a Gay Pride parade, but the local LGBT community (yes, we have one, complete with married gay couples) does have a rally at City Hall annually. As far as I am aware, the local hospital has never been picketed for doing abortions. In short, we're not Bible-totin', preachin' hell-and-damnation, lurch the country to the far right in the name of Jesus, types; most people around here have little interest in that. In fact, I think it is safe to say that most Albertans are not like that, contrary to the way we are often portrayed elsewhere.

The big issue, as I see things, always boils down to taxes. Generally speaking, Albertans hate taxes, though they recognize why they pay them. To use a more specific example, taxes on defense = good, taxes on environmental initiatives = bad. So, the average Albertan thinks, "Buy those fighter jets, but don't raise my taxes to pay for curbside recycling pickup. And you kids get off my oil sands!"

Continuing through with the tax thinking, health care as we currently know it is generally seen as a good thing. As might be expected, there is griping about what we pay, and what we receive--mostly along the lines of wait times, though this complaint is common in all provinces. But current initiatives by the provincial Tories to rein in health care spending through consolidating provision facilities and groups and such are being met with complaints from all sides in all locations. As such, I cannot see the Alberta contingent of MPs spearheading a radical change in federal health care thinking. While I am sure the issue will arise in Parliament, and some discussion will occur in the Commons; I feel confident in saying that the public system won't go away, in other words. And abortion is just another item covered by Alberta Health's schedule of benefits; no different from appendectomies or other surgical procedures--yes, every RC church and a few of the Fundamentalist ones have a sign against abortion, but it's not a common topic of conversation; and it seems to be very low on the list of priorities for most people.

Gay marriage is a non-issue. Most Albertans recognize that the courts have settled that one and it is useless to try to reopen it; and from what I can see, most Albertans don't want to open that one anyway. Oh sure, a few of the more radical and vocal Fundamentalists are up in arms, but nowhere along the lines of Fred Phelps. The extent of our Fundies' public ire seems to be expressed in letters to the editor. Many of the more moderate religious people are simply glad that gay marriage doesn't cost them any tax dollars--see, it's the tax thinking again.

Capital punishment? No, that's not coming back either. Yes, there are calls for it every time a monster such as Paul Bernardo or Robert Pickton comes along; and again, the far right blasts off angry letters to the editor. But (and you know by now I'm going to say this) most Albertans are not that far right. "Just put the monster away; make sure he's no danger to me or my family" seems to be the thinking. Calls from death penalty supporters tend to be met with a counter-argument from the more moderate, who like to point out how much it costs to have a death penalty (appeals, motions, research, special death rows, etc.) as opposed to simply having a fair trial, perhaps an appeal, and then incarceration for life: once again, cost through taxes is being considered. But I will also state that when there are no Bernardos or Picktons in the news, capital punishment is off the radar of most people.

It is true that there is a perception that courts and judges are soft on crime, but I'd suggest that it is equally true that to most Albertans, "crime" consists of armed robberies, sexual assaults, first-degree murders, and other serious crimes that make the front page. Very little thought (if any) is given to the string of DUIs, shoplifters, guys who punch other guys in bar fights, and others who troop through provincial courtrooms every day. I haven't heard many Albertans complaining that these latter criminals present enough of a threat that they deserve onerous (compared to now) sentences. I may be wrong, but I think Albertans, including those in Calgary and Edmonton, would like to see sentences "strengthened" for major crimes such as I described above, but are willing to leave the small stuff alone. So here, we may see a change; and I don't think that more liberal voices in Calgary and Edmonton will have much influence.

In brief, with the exception of a few changes to the criminal law, I don't see a radical shift to the far right--it's not something that I see most Albertans as wanting. As I said, there are those exceptions, but while they tend to be good and loud at getting their message out there, they also tend to be relatively few in number. Where we may see change occurring is in fiscal conservatism--remember, taxes and what they are spent on are important to Albertans, and I can see some influence in Ottawa occurring here. What form that will take, I don't know. But I guess we'll find out.

[Cat Whisperer]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd suggest that Alberta is not what you might think.<snip>I'm getting that impression, too.

[kushiel]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd suggest that Alberta is not what you might think.

I didn't think that Saskatchewan was full of backward hicks either. Saskatoon is like what you describe in your post but still manages to elect homophobic pro-lifers. *shrug* I hope the Conservative victory is over finances.

[mnemosyne]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd suggest that Alberta is not what you might think.

Given some of the posts about Québec earlier in this thread...this is priceless. Isn't it absolutely frustrating when people paint with such broad brushes? ;)



I was all set to concede that, despite the Conservatives winning this election, the sun still came up today. Only it kind of didn't...it's really dark, rainy and gloomy out here and has been all day! :dubious:

There's been a lot of talk about this election, obviously; it was nearly all I heard about at school (other than, you know, course matter). I don't seem to remember there being this much discussion around campus leading up to and after the previous elections, though I could be wrong. I actually kind of feel like this is the first election I've been in where my vote may have mattered, and I've heard that echoed at school today (though most of my classmates have probably only been able to vote in one or two before this). It's almost a shame the next one is in 4.5 years; suddenly it seems people are really interested in talking about politics and what they want from Canada, but I think that will fade quickly and certainly be gone by the next one (although there is a provincial one coming up soonish). I hope people remember their reactions to this round, and make a (another) strong push towards getting informed and voting next time.

[Sam Stone]

The major defining attributes of Albertans as compared to some other Canadians:

- Albertans are generally pro-business. They love small business, entrepreneurs, and 'rugged individualists', but they don't mind big business either. You won't see Wal-Mart protests here. There's a lot of Texas in Alberta.

- Albertans are fiscally conservative. We hate deficits, and we throw out governments that start generating them. We re-elected Ralph Klein by landslides when he took an axe to the Provincial budget when it got out of whack. Right now, the government here is in big trouble because they are perceived as being big spenders. The next election could see the Wild Rose Alliance party kick out the Progressive Conservatives.

- There are a lot of social conservatives in the south, but they don't have that much power because the real center of conservative power in Alberta is with the pro-business side, and they're not about to screw up their agenda by pandering to a lot of religious talk. The most popular Premier we had was Ralph Klein, and he was a hard-drinking ex-liberal.

As an example of our most 'extreme' element, the Wild Rose Alliance Party had its leadership race last year - the race was between an old school social conservative vs a libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative. because that party is to the right of the conservatives, all the pundits assumed it was Reform party 2.0 and the social conservative would win the day. But the libertarian beat him like a rented mule.

The Wildrose Alliance got its start not because the PC government went socially liberal, but because it started spending a lot of money and running up big deficits.

The Wildrose Alliance is the farthest-right party in the most right-wing province in Canada, and they have already stated that they fully recognize the rights of gay people to marry and that they fully respect current abortion law and would not raise the issues of either gay marriage or abortion in any way. They have also said that they fully respect the Canada Health Act and would not seek to limit Albertan's access to public health care. Their main issues are election reform (fixed election dates and the right of recall), low taxes, low regulations, and smaller government. They're also opposed to policies like cap and trade and other restrictions on oil development, but then so is every other party in Alberta other than the greens and NDP, and they are a miniscule presence.

The Wildrose Alliance is currently the most popular party in Alberta, and as of last year was leading the ruling PC's by 15 points in the polls.

[Sam Stone]

I should add that one way in which Alberta is changing is through immigration. We have a lot of immigrants, but they tend to be the kind of immigrants drawn to a conservative culture. We have large communities of immigrants from India, China, and other parts of Asia, and they tend to be quite conservative communities. They are conservative but they're not part of the Christian right. So the commonality between them tends to be on economic issues.

[CarnalK]

- Albertans are fiscally conservative. We hate deficits, and we throw out governments that start generating them. We re-elected Ralph Klein by landslides when he took an axe to the Provincial budget when it got out of whack. Right now, the government here is in big trouble because they are perceived as being big spenders. The next election could see the Wild Rose Alliance party kick out the Progressive Conservatives.


That seems like a bit of an odd perception. The Conservatives have been in power in Alberta for 40 frigging years. Before that the Social Credit party was in power for 35 years. So, unless you are including party leadership changes, you maybe threw out 1 government in the last 70 years and unless I'm mistaken Alberta wasn't in deficit in 1970/71 when it happened*.

*eta: though I don't know the timing between OPEC glutting the oil market and the election. I believe that's when deficit loomed for Alberta.

[Frank]

I said it before but now I have to comment on it; the political tone in this thread, and to be honest in a lot of other places, is (in many, though not all posts) absolutely disgraceful, from all sides, I might add.
Your post is, I hope, something that can be taken to heart by all Canadians.

[Raygun99]

The thing about Alberta provincial politics is that it's very political machine driven. I like to joke that you can be any kind of Progressive Conservative you want, even an NDP conservative, as long as you work with the machine. In some ways we're (or at least have been) a one-party state like Mexico.

[Uzi]

These are the histrionics I'm concerned about. I'm genuinely curious how Uzi feels about the current Conservatives and their affronts to democracy. It's a little bewildering to me that it seems to register so low on most people's radar, but for some reason I've always had a soft spot for our historic institutions. And watching the kids in the Middle East fight just for the chance, reminds me to really be vigilant that our own freedoms aren't being whittled away at the same time.

So, you equate the Conservatives with those who run Libya, Syria, and Iran? There is this little thing called 'perspective' that I think you are missing.

Democracy is the right to vote for who you want to. I've not seen the Conservatives aborting this at any time in their history in Canada. Why do you think they'd do it now?

What historic institutions are the Conservatives threatening?

But, just on the assumption you are referring the protests at the G20, I'll adress that. And I agree people's rights were violated, but not who you think.
Where should protestors be allowed?
In the meeting room with the government representatives? What about their rights to represent their governments without uneccesary interuptions?
In the hall outside the room where reps are meeting? What about security considerations for the people who have to represent their governments?
In the streets outside the buildings where the reps meet? How about the rights of those people going to work and the business owners carrying on their trade that is disrupted by the protestors?
If you want to gather in the streets, you get valid permission to do so like any other group who wants to stage a parade. Otherwise, you get a fine and possibly carted away by the police if you don't move along. Or, you book a venue and use that to put up signs and protest things you don't like.
I agree that you have the right to protest, but I don't agree you have the right to do it anywhere you please. Sucks to be you that the only media that cares to cover your issues are the ones hoping to see a police baton split open your head.
Maybe you, or to clarify - the protestors, should pick better things to protest. But that is their business on how they waste their time, not mine.
Don't assume that I agree with how the government spent our money, either. I'm sure there are remote locations that are easier to secure that could handle such meetings far better than major cities. And if that meant representatives had to leave some of the lesser hanger ons at home, so be it.

[dhkendall]

On a lighter note, this is the facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ruth-Ellen-Brosseau/196281490417162?sk=info) for one of the newly-elected NDP members. Party on!

Cite?

(For the fact that's it's actually run by and endorsed by her rather than someone just putting that up in her name. I'm very much inclined to believe the latter unless I get a cite.)

[mnemosyne]

Cite?

(For the fact that's it's actually run by and endorsed by her rather than someone just putting that up in her name. I'm very much inclined to believe the latter unless I get a cite.)

I'm inclined to think it's fake. Her "award" is a Brownie badge for sewing, and all the photos of phone poles and posts...the NDP candidates who were not really expected to win but were running in a lot of these ridings are being referred to as candidats poteaux - "post candidates"- in the media here. I'm not sure if the term pre-dates this election or not; it refers to candidates in unwinnable ridings that are recruited to just spread the party's message.

Besides, the only photo that seems to actually be of her is the NDP photo. She either has a fantastic self-deprecating sense of humour, or it's a total fake.

[medicated]

The major defining attributes of Albertans as compared to some other Canadians:

- Albertans are generally pro-business. They love small business, entrepreneurs, and 'rugged individualists', but they don't mind big business either. You won't see Wal-Mart protests here. There's a lot of Texas in Alberta.

- Albertans are fiscally conservative. We hate deficits, and we throw out governments that start generating them. We re-elected Ralph Klein by landslides when he took an axe to the Provincial budget when it got out of whack. Right now, the government here is in big trouble because they are perceived as being big spenders. The next election could see the Wild Rose Alliance party kick out the Progressive Conservatives.

- There are a lot of social conservatives in the south, but they don't have that much power because the real center of conservative power in Alberta is with the pro-business side, and they're not about to screw up their agenda by pandering to a lot of religious talk. The most popular Premier we had was Ralph Klein, and he was a hard-drinking ex-liberal.

As an example of our most 'extreme' element, the Wild Rose Alliance Party had its leadership race last year - the race was between an old school social conservative vs a libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative. because that party is to the right of the conservatives, all the pundits assumed it was Reform party 2.0 and the social conservative would win the day. But the libertarian beat him like a rented mule.

The Wildrose Alliance got its start not because the PC government went socially liberal, but because it started spending a lot of money and running up big deficits.

The Wildrose Alliance is the farthest-right party in the most right-wing province in Canada, and they have already stated that they fully recognize the rights of gay people to marry and that they fully respect current abortion law and would not raise the issues of either gay marriage or abortion in any way. They have also said that they fully respect the Canada Health Act and would not seek to limit Albertan's access to public health care. Their main issues are election reform (fixed election dates and the right of recall), low taxes, low regulations, and smaller government. They're also opposed to policies like cap and trade and other restrictions on oil development, but then so is every other party in Alberta other than the greens and NDP, and they are a miniscule presence.

The Wildrose Alliance is currently the most popular party in Alberta, and as of last year was leading the ruling PC's by 15 points in the polls.

I get it. You like them. Good for you.

Just so long as you realise that this party wouldn't get more than about 4-5% nationally. And also that there's a good reason for that. Running a libertarian in a Canadian federal election would be like running an avowed socialist for US president. It might be fun to watch, sort of like a train wreck.

But hey, dream on brother...

:D

[Sam Stone]

The page has been changed. Earlier in the day the pictures were all pictures of Vegas and of her partying in Vegas, which is why I said 'party on'. But whatever... If you want to believe it's fake, that's fine. I don't really care. I'm not looking to attack her, or the NDP. I just thought it was funny.

By the way, what would constitute a cite for a link to a facebook page? Am I supposed to get a sworn affidavit from someone that it's real?

[Sam Stone]

I get it. You like them. Good for you.

Just so long as you realise that this party wouldn't get more than about 4-5% nationally. And also that there's a good reason for that. Running a libertarian in a Canadian federal election would be like running an avowed socialist for US president. It might be fun to watch, sort of like a train wreck.

But hey, dream on brother...

:D

I was just describing Alberta politics, because someone asked. Some of us Albertans get tired of being painted as religious right rednecks all the time. No one said she should or would run for Federal office. But thanks for putting us in our place. We'll just stay here in Alberta so you don't have to get your panties in a twist.

[Frank]

The page has been changed. Earlier in the day the pictures were all pictures of Vegas and of her partying in Vegas, which is why I said 'party on'. But whatever... If you want to believe it's fake, that's fine. I don't really care. I'm not looking to attack her, or the NDP. I just thought it was funny.

I believe you, and it is funny. Somebody never imagined they'd be elected.

Which to me, is the telling point here. Quebec has re-engaged, and has done so by an overwhelming margin. Let's hope that neither the NDP nor the Rest of Canada blows this opportunity.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

RickJay - I just wanted to post a quick reply before going to bed. Respectfully, you are reading more into my post than I intended. I grant you that in the context of my earlier postings, 'whatever legislation he wishes' was a poor choice of words. Yes, of course the Conservatives will have to work within the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. They will also have to work with the provinces. I have always taken that as a given, and I was assuming that everyone else was, too.

The specific point of my post was to address something the Euphonious Polemic had said, to the effect that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should not use his mandate to ram through unpopular legislation. Prime Minister Harper, in concert with the Conservative MPs, have the freedom to pursue whatever legislation they feel is best for the country, within, of course, the bounds of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and the proper relationship between the federal and provincial governments. I am sorry if, in light of earlier posts expressing my concern with their social Conservatism, you took my post as stating that they have assumed ultimate power.

Believe it or not, I have intended my last few posts to be conciliatory and respectful towards the Conservatives and their supporters. The tone is difficult - like the other 18.91 % of the voters who supported the Liberals, I'm extremely disappointed and unsure of what to do from here. I respect your point of view, even when I disagree with you, RickJay. And I agree - for the good of the country, we all now have to move forward.

[Uzi]

The tone is difficult - like the other 18.91 % of the voters who supported the Liberals, I'm extremely disappointed and unsure of what to do from here.

What would you expect those people who voted for the Conservative option to do if they had not won a majority and Layton or Iggy managed to gain control of Parliament?
I guess you could put a rope around your neck and end it all, but that is bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

[RickJay]

What would you expect those people who voted for the Conservative option to do if they had not won a majority and Layton or Iggy managed to gain control of Parliament?
I guess you could put a rope around your neck and end it all, but that is bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?
You responded to a respectful, reflective and honest post with an amount of (rather pointless) snark that suggests my concerns are valid ones. A person admits that they're really disappointed by the election result, something we've all felt, does it in a mature and insightful manner in terms of explaining how they feel, and you come back with that? What did you accomplish there, exactly?

Le Ministere, everything after my first paragraph was directed at everyone in general (and not just folks in this thread), not you in particular.

[Spoons]

But thanks for putting us in our place. We'll just stay here in Alberta so you don't have to get your panties in a twist.Aw, man! Does this mean I don't get to wear my cowboy hat to Toronto any more? :cool:

[Uzi]

You responded to a respectful, reflective and honest post with an amount of (rather pointless) snark that suggests my concerns are valid ones.

Your concerns?

A person admits that they're really disappointed by the election result, something we've all felt, does it in a mature and insightful manner in terms of explaining how they feel, and you come back with that? What did you accomplish there, exactly?

The sky didn't fall, nor is it likely to. Evil Incarnate wasn't elected to parliament. I guess if you are used to playing soccer as a kid where they don't keep score, you're not capable of understanding what it is to 'lose', but otherwise, Little Miss Princess, will just have to suck it up and bear it. What response should he expect when he says, "I'm extremely disappointed and unsure of what to do from here"? Maybe I misinterpreted his tone, but it sounds more like whining than respectful. 'Poor me'.

Okay, here is what he should do. Make sure his party next time doesn't have such a pathetic leader that was parachuted into place after spending 25 years outside of Canada. Make sure they know enough not to force an election that they are pretty much guaranteed to lose in the hopes of doing an end run to power in anticipation parliament returned the same head count after the election. He didn't look like he forced the election because of what was good for Canada, he looked like he did it to make himself PM. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what it looked like to me and probably to a lot of others.

If you read my tone as gloating, I'm not. I'm just a little pissed that the insinuation is that the party I support, and the 39% of his fellow Canadians who voted Conservative, will now send Brown Shirts to kick down doors and paint big 'L's on people's windows.

[Muffin]

I believe you, and it is funny. Somebody never imagined they'd be elected.She is an assistant university pub manager who does not speak French well and was on a trip to Vegas during the election. Her Vegas pics are still up on her facebook page, including the NSFW painted titties pic (though sadly not her titties). https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/224606_196393887072589_196281490417162_577466_4278415_n.jpg

Too bad Mrs. Grundy holds so much sway in our society.

[Northern Piper]

Cat Whisperer
Well, we can, but no one's gonna listen. :)

So all the parties will have to get their own funding instead of sucking the public money tit. I still don't get why that's such a terrible thYou do pay attention to American politics, yes? Our policies are now for sale to the highest bidder. Appalling.

Here are the contribution limits, as posted by Elections Canada (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&dir=faq&document=index&lang=e#finan2):

What are the new limits to contributions?

New contribution limits have been set for individuals.

Only an individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make political contributions:


up to $1,000* in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party

up to $1,000* in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party

up to $1,000* in total to a candidate in an election who does not represent a registered party

up to $1,000* in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest

In addition, a person who is a nomination contestant or a candidate of a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

A candidate who is not a candidate for a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

A person who is a leadership contestant may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

For more details, see Information Sheet 2: Limits on Contributions by Individuals under the Canada Elections Act (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/inf&document=fs02&lang=e).

So, only real people, either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, can make political contributions, and those limits apply to the candidates themselves. No unions, no corporations, no foreigners.

And, that's a maximum of $2,000 per year per person for political parties in ordinary electoral cycles; a maximum of $1,000 for a donation to an independent candidate; and a maximum of $1,000 for leadership campaigns.

How does that amount to policies being on sale to the highest bidder? It's not an auction where you can just keep raising the bid - everyone has the same ceiling.

[Northern Piper]

The electoral process south of the border is marked by unlimited SPENDING, not funding. The U.S. has donation limit laws, in fact, but lacks election spending laws.


But if you have very strict contribution laws, that has the effect of limiting spending. Reduced input => reduced output. So the Canadian approach also limits spending.

Plus, the donation laws in the US are not nearly as strict as in Canada, in my understanding. For example, (and I'm open to correction from any of our American posters) they don't apply at all if a candidate doesn't accept any federal matching funds. So Barack Obama, because he was such a cash machine in 2007-2008, didn't need to take any federal funds, and therefore wasn't subject to the contribution rules.

[Northern Piper]

It's not a coincidence that the Liberals loved the old system enough to create it when they were the ones getting the most votes.

Actually, the Liberals took quite a hit when Chétien brought in the new system towarrds the end of his time in office. The Liberals were the champions of corporate fund-raising, raising far more from corporate donations than other parties. Chrétien ended that, and brought in a system that favours the Conservatives, who have always been better at grass-roots fund-raising. I remember reading in the papers at the time that he took considerable heat from inside his party for doing it, but was able to sell it to the caucus because of concerns that corporate donations could lead to a situation where the corporate donors had more financial sway than voters.

And, the results of the past three electoral cycles show that the concerns of the worried Liberals were correct - the new system has favoured the Conservatives over the Liberals, who have never since raised as much money as they did under the old system, where corporate donations were allowed.

[Northern Piper]

I would not be surprised to see the Conservatives slowly (or not) raise the $1000 limit. This, combined with the fact that it is quite easy for an individual to circumvent this limit (ie give a $1000 "bonus" to your 50 employees, with the "wink wink" proviso that it be contributed to the conservatives)

Sure, quite easy to do, so long as you don't mind breaching s. 405.2 of of the Canada Elections Act (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part18_div02&lang=e#sec4052):

No circumvention of limits
405.2 (1) No person or entity shall

(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under subsection 404(1) or a limit set out in subsection 405(1) or section 405.31; or


(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.


No concealing of source of contribution

(2) No person or entity shall

(a) conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution governed by this Act; or


(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.

Which are federal offences, contrary to s. 497(3)(f.13) and (f.14) and (f.15) of the Canada Elections Act (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part19&lang=e#sec498):497. (3) Every person is guilty of an offence who
...
(f.13) being an individual, wilfully contravenes subsection 405(1) (exceeding contribution limit);

(f.14) being a person or entity, knowingly contravenes subsection 405.2(1) (circumventing contribution limit);

(f.15) being a person or entity, knowingly contravenes subsection 405.2(2) (concealing source of contribution);


which carry punishments of:

500(5) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections ... 497(3) ... is liable

[indent](a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or


(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.[/indent

Other than that, not a problem...

[Euphonious Polemic]

Sure, quite easy to do, so long as you don't mind breaching s. 405.2 of of the Canada Elections Act (http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part18_div02&lang=e#sec4052):


Other than that, not a problem...

Not really much of a problem - at least for some in the 2008 election (And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding. If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.):

And while there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it appears third-party advertisers played a disproportionate role in the riding.

If nothing else, the events raise questions about the effectiveness of current laws and enforcement efforts.

At least Gary Lunn is not there anymore to flout the laws

[Bryan Ekers]

Better to have some flouters than just discard the law entirely.

[Sam Stone]

But if you have very strict contribution laws, that has the effect of limiting spending. Reduced input => reduced output. So the Canadian approach also limits spending.

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

[Implicit]

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

Which is why candidates are treated the same as individuals in Canada, and limited to the same $1000 contribution (extra $1000 for a leadership campaign).

[Cat Whisperer]

I'm still reading about contribution law changes, and I'm not entirely sure what they would mean for Canadian politicians going forward (I don't speak Legalese fluently), but this is what I do want:
- Limited public moneys going towards political parties/candidates.
- Limited private moneys going towards political parties/candidates.
- Parties being expected to raise their own money.

I DO NOT want an American style system where you buy yourself politicians, elections, and government positions. I hope what we have (or will probably soon get) will accomplish these things, without loopholes that only the rich can exploit.

[dhkendall]

The page has been changed. Earlier in the day the pictures were all pictures of Vegas and of her partying in Vegas, which is why I said 'party on'. But whatever... If you want to believe it's fake, that's fine. I don't really care. I'm not looking to attack her, or the NDP. I just thought it was funny.

By the way, what would constitute a cite for a link to a facebook page? Am I supposed to get a sworn affidavit from someone that it's real?

I believe you, and it is funny. Somebody never imagined they'd be elected.

Which to me, is the telling point here. Quebec has re-engaged, and has done so by an overwhelming margin. Let's hope that neither the NDP nor the Rest of Canada blows this opportunity.

The thing that twinged my BS-meter was the following:

Activities: poker, black jack, vacation, bar, running for MP and not giving a fuck

(emphasis mine). I think, even if the NDP didn't expect her to win, they would have had something to say about that, especially when the NDP's Quebec fortunes started turning around. (Plus, those activities are her "most famous ones", she took a vacation during the campaign, but I doubt that she likes to take a vacation all the time (especially since she has/had a pretty demanding day job as the manager of a campus pub), it'd be like listing Nero's favourite activity as "fiddling".)

Finally, the other things that twinge the BS-meter is that it was created just this week, and "her" French seems to be a lot better than what the media gives her credit for.

I will agree, though, it is funny. But fake as all getout.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I guess you could put a rope around your neck and end it all, but that is bit of an over-reaction, don't you think?

I was thinking more along the lines of becoming a voting member of the Liberal party, despite how busy I am in the rest of my life. Perhaps it is time to serve.

[Northern Piper]

One big difference: A system that allows unlimited spending but limited contributions is going to skew the field towards very wealthy people who can self-fund a campaign. You get a lot more Michael Bloombergs and Donald Trumps.

Implicit already replied to this point, but it's also covered by the extract from the Canada Elections FAQ which I posted earlier:

In addition, a person who is a nomination contestant or a candidate of a registered party may give contributions that do not exceed $1,000 to his or her own campaign without it counting toward his or her contribution limits.

So the candidate gets to donate $1000 to his/her own campaign, in addition to the campaign limits that apply to all. The ability to contribute an extra $1000 isn't going to give any Canadian Bloomberg or Trump much of an advantage.

I said earlier that Canada has stricter campaign contribution rules than in the US. This is simply one example of it. Put strict limits on how much can be contributed, and you automatically are restricting funding.

[Northern Piper]

sorry - that last line should read: "Put strict limits on how much can be contributed, and you automatically are restricting spending."

[Northern Piper]

Not really much of a problem - at least for some in the 2008 election:


link doesn't work - could you re-post? thanks.

[mnemosyne]

Finally, the other things that twinge the BS-meter is that it was created just this week, and "her" French seems to be a lot better than what the media gives her credit for.

I will agree, though, it is funny. But fake as all getout.

Yeah, the French on that Facebook page is way too good to be her, since she apparently doesn't even speak it. I was in Brownies in Québec, and even I forgot the name "Jeanettes", since it's the name used in France: Girl Guides of Canada and Guides Québec calls them Brownies (http://www.girlguides.ca/brownies) now, even in French. Also, the phrasing of the photo captions is definitely from a native French speaker...I struggle to imagine someone writing "on s'en criss" if they don't speak the language!

[Muffin]

I think you are right. Her Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ruth-Ellen-Brosseau/196281490417162?sk=info) set out: "Activities
poker, black jack, vacation, bar, running for MP and not giving a fuck"

[antonio107]

She is an assistant university pub manager who does not speak French well and was on a trip to Vegas during the election. Her Vegas pics are still up on her facebook page, including the NSFW painted titties pic (though sadly not her titties). https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/224606_196393887072589_196281490417162_577466_4278415_n.jpg

Too bad Mrs. Grundy holds so much sway in our society.

I'd like to add that, as a soon to be graduate of Carleton, having spent seven years there, that the number of times Olivers has lost its liquour license for selling booze to minors in my time is probably in the double digits.

As well, they consistently lose TONS of money despite having the most simple of business models: our client base lives 100 meters from us, and has a substantial cash line from mummy and daddy. Finally, when they remodeled it, they got rid of their patios, and made the interior look like a Swiss Chalet. I wouldn't brag about being part of the administration of that place. Mike's Place (the graduate student bar)? Yeah, I'd be more inclined to put that on the CV. :D

[mnemosyne]

This is too funny not to post. I'll grant that Harper's French has improved over the past five years, but...well...someone might want to teach him that we don't generally replace Ls with rolling Rs....!

Les érections fédérales de Stephen Harper. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P08sAY1P4&feature=player_embedded)

Only 4 erections in 7 years. Poor guy! :D :smack:

[Northern Piper]

An update on Ms Brosseau:

NewNDP MP accused of falsifying noination papers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-ndp-mp-accused-of-falsifying-nomination-papers/article2009898/):

Already infamous as the NDP candidate who vacationed in Las Vegas during the election campaign, newly elected Quebec MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau is now accused of having bogus names on her nomination paper.

Four people whose names are on Ms. Brosseau’s endorsement list have told The Globe that they don’t remember signing the document.
...
Other names on the list aren’t riding residents or say that they weren’t told who the candidate was, another breach of electoral rules.

The allegations, first made by the defeated Liberal and Conservative candidates, raise further questions about Ms. Brosseau, one of many political neophytes who rode the NDP wave that swept through Quebec.

[Leaffan]

An update on Ms Brosseau:

NewNDP MP accused of falsifying noination papers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-ndp-mp-accused-of-falsifying-nomination-papers/article2009898/):

That's some serious shit.

[Leaffan]

This is too funny not to post. I'll grant that Harper's French has improved over the past five years, but...well...someone might want to teach him that we don't generally replace Ls with rolling Rs....!

Les érections fédérales de Stephen Harper. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P08sAY1P4&feature=player_embedded)

Only 4 erections in 7 years. Poor guy! :D :smack:

Yeah. It's generally hilarious to make fun of someone who slips up while not speaking in his mother tongue. You wouldn't believe the knee-slapping hilarity we all had with Jean Chretien.

[RickJay]

I remain amazed that something like this could be allowed to happen with a major national party. Seriously, you only need to come up with 308 people. That's it.

I know parties put up sacrificial lambs (btw, where the hell is matt and why wasn't he running in this one?) but you can't find 75 party volunteers and check out their nomination papers? Jesus, it can't be that hard.

[Uzi]

An update on Ms Brosseau:

NewNDP MP accused of falsifying noination papers (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-ndp-mp-accused-of-falsifying-nomination-papers/article2009898/):

Tsk, tsk, tsk. A simple vetting by the party could have confirmed her qualifications amd eligability, but the requirement to run candidates in every riding was more important than ensuring quality candidates. Seems like a basic disregard for the Canadian people and what they expect from their elected representatives. And this Layton fellow would make a good PM when he can't get such simple things like this correct? Imagine what he would ignore or overlook if he was in power especially those things that are far more complex than a simple candidate vetting?

[Spoons]

btw, where the hell is matt and why wasn't he running in this one?Where is Matt? He's always had interesting and informed commentary during elections, but I don't recall seeing him much during this past campaign. Is he just busy?

[Northern Piper]

I don't recall seeing him much during this past campaign. Is he just busy?

I think you just answered your own question. :)

[Gorsnak]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. A simple vetting by the party could have confirmed her qualifications amd eligability, but the requirement to run candidates in every riding was more important than ensuring quality candidates. Seems like a basic disregard for the Canadian people and what they expect from their elected representatives. And this Layton fellow would make a good PM when he can't get such simple things like this correct? Imagine what he would ignore or overlook if he was in power especially those things that are far more complex than a simple candidate vetting?

You realize that it's not up to the leader of a party to select or vet nominees, yes? NDP organization in much of Quebec has always been pretty thin on the ground, so it's scarcely surprising that something like this could happen. It would have just been an amusing footnote like that candidate from 2006 or 2008 (can't remember) who had videos of himself smoking dope online, except apparently the voters of Quebec don't pay attention to who they're voting for aside from party affiliation.

[Uzi]

You realize that it's not up to the leader of a party to select or vet nominees, yes?

You do realize that if the Conservatives had done this there would be any number of reasons why Harper was responsible according to his opponents?

I'm just turning the tables, so to speak.

It is the responsibility of the party to ensure that the people who represent it are the best people for the job. Layton is the leader of that party. The buck stops with him. Now I don't expect him to be a mind reader and know the innermost mind of every candidate out there. But come on. Very minor and little leg work would have caught this.

[Gorsnak]

You do realize that if the Conservatives had done this there would be any number of reasons why Harper was responsible according to his opponents?

I'm just turning the tables, so to speak.

It is the responsibility of the party to ensure that the people who represent it are the best people for the job. Layton is the leader of that party. The buck stops with him. Now I don't expect him to be a mind reader and know the innermost mind of every candidate out there. But come on. Very minor and little leg work would have caught this.
No, actually, I don't realize that. Party leaders who try to overrule riding associations on nominees have historically taken flak for doing so. The political leader of a party is not responsible for the running of the organizational apparatus of the party. That is the job of the party president. In the case of the Tories, that'd be John Walsh. In the case of the NDP, it's... well, I can't actually find that information on their website. But it's not Layton. I'm very confident that the NDP party constitution spells out the process for choosing nominees, and I'm equally confident that it doesn't include a step where the political leader of the party is obliged to review anything. I would expect the riding association holds a nomination meeting during which local party members vote for a nominee.

[Uzi]

...and I'm equally confident that it doesn't include a step where the political leader of the party is obliged to review anything.

Then I'm sure you will be front and center if the Conservatives, or any other party you may not be a supporter of, runs into the same issue in the future with your support.

I, on the other hand, expect the leader of a party to show some interest in ensuring the people he expects support from are worth supporting in turn. Because it isn't the party president who has to stand up in front of everyone to support them. And even if the doesn't have a say, he should have a clue just in case he does form a government so he doesn't give the person a position they are totally unsuited for or overlook someone who would be a better candidate than he'd normally choose because of other reasons.

In the case of the NDP, it's... well, I can't actually find that information on their website.

A Peggy Nash? I found an old press release from 2009. Maybe they are so disorganized they don't really know? Or are embarrased to say? Who knows.

[CarnalK]

I guess we'll see what becomes of it; no one has actually filed a formal complaint yet, afaik. It's a little odd though. One person who complained said "I don't remember signing it. Sure that looks like my signature, but that other one is definitely not my wife's signature."

But anyway, if it turns out there are a couple of dicey signatures on a Conservative candidate's nomination papers, I pinky swear not to rake Harper over the coals for it.

[Muffin]

Too bad Matt didn't run. Would have been fun for him to become MattMCLMP.

[orcenio]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. A simple vetting by the party could have confirmed her qualifications amd eligability, but the requirement to run candidates in every riding was more important than ensuring quality candidates. Seems like a basic disregard for the Canadian people and what they expect from their elected representatives. And this Layton fellow would make a good PM when he can't get such simple things like this correct? Imagine what he would ignore or overlook if he was in power especially those things that are far more complex than a simple candidate vetting?Tsk nothing, an accusation is an accusation and we'll see what substance is behind it soon. In the meantime Brosseau was knowingly elected by the people of her riding; I'd call that a strong confirmation of both her qualifications and eligibility. The exit poll analysis found that everyone knew about the NDP’s so-called “Vegas girl.” Indeed, Ms. Brosseau won office even though it was well-publicized that she barely spoke French, that she had spent little time during the election in her Quebec riding and that she went to Vegas on holiday. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-voters-elected-the-ndps-vegas-girl-anyway/article2010885/)Take that with the fact that There’s nothing new about placeholder candidates becoming MPs (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/theres-nothing-new-about-placeholder-candidates-becoming-mps/article2001781/?service=mobile)Brian Mulroney had more than 100 rookie MPs among the 211 elected September 4, 1984. Among them was a Purolator driver enlisted to run by party activists when he was delivering a package. Some went on to infamy in the many scandals that plagued Mr. Mulroney’s government.
Others, such as school principal Benoît Bouchard, went on to become one of Mr. Mulroney’s most reliable ministers.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Another one of Mulroney's rookies in 1984 was Jean Charest.



For me, one of the strangest events of this election was that we lost Gerard Kennedy, Mario Silva, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay from the Liberal caucus, but managed to keep Jim Karygiannis, who, as far as I can tell, is a clever device for turning water into piss but has no other notable talents. Of all the Liberals to have kept...

Just as the Conservatives lost Verner, Blackburn and Cannon, but managed to keep a knob like the fellow in Lethbridge...

[Raygun99]

I think you literally could run a door knob in Lethbridge under the Conservative banner. Although they did take an 11% hit with this guy.

[Uzi]

Tsk nothing, an accusation is an accusation and we'll see what substance is behind it soon. In the meantime Brosseau was knowingly elected by the people of her riding; I'd call that a strong confirmation of both her qualifications and eligibility.

Obviously we'll have to wait until the accusation is proven to see about eligibility, which has nothing do with how many people voted for her.
You can't believe that just because a person is elected that they are qualified, can you? Really?
Note: I'm not saying she can't do a good job, because I don't know. Maybe she can. People surprise me every day, good and bad.

[antonio107]

Another one of Mulroney's rookies in 1984 was Jean Charest.



For me, one of the strangest events of this election was that we lost Gerard Kennedy, Mario Silva, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay from the Liberal caucus, but managed to keep Jim Karygiannis, who, as far as I can tell, is a clever device for turning water into piss but has no other notable talents. Of all the Liberals to have kept...

Just as the Conservatives lost Verner, Blackburn and Cannon, but managed to keep a knob like the fellow in Lethbridge...

Also amazed Joe Volpe lost, but apparently I've overestimated his star power in the past!

[Spoons]

Just as the Conservatives ... managed to keep a knob like the fellow in Lethbridge...

I think you literally could run a door knob in Lethbridge under the Conservative banner. Although they did take an 11% hit with this guy.Well, we didn`t actually keep him. This Conservative was new--he replaced the very popular, non-knob, previous MP, who was also Conservative. So yes, the riding remains Conservative, although we now have a knob representing us.

But Raygun is correct--you could run a doorknob under the Tory banner in Lethbridge, and it would be elected. I think I said upthread that the Tory candidate could kick puppies, strangle kittens, and streak down Third Avenue, and still get elected. Either way, the CPC has a lock on this riding.

What was interesting was the strong showing of the NDP here. No, it was not a tight race, but the NDP candidate did come second to the CPC knob, with the Liberal candidate a distant third. And for all that we have our share of Fundamentalists, the Christian Heritage party came in dead last. Even the Greens beat them.

[orcenio]

You can't believe that just because a person is elected that they are qualified, can you? Really?
Note: I'm not saying she can't do a good job, because I don't know. Maybe she can. People surprise me every day, good and bad.Yes, that's exactly what I believe.

If you can vote (and don't fall under any of these areas of the Canada Elections Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-27.html#h-31)), you're eligible. If you get elected, you're qualified. What your criteria?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

It will depend on the next 4 years. The impression I get is that the Conservatives are not perceived as being Québec-friendly.
They actually lost votes and seats (and three ministers) in Quebec while winning this majority, so this will obviously be a challenge for them. Much earlier in this thread I mentioned the (unlikely) possibility of the Conservatives forming a majority government with the Bloc as Official Opposition if the Liberals really tanked. If we look at the current situation, it's actually not far from what happened.

There's a worry that the NDP MPs might not be able to continue to represent Québec as strongly as the Bloc has; that's Layton's challenge, basically.
This is a worry. You're currently in Quebec -- and I'm not -- so you'll know this better than I, but as I understand it Quebecers are as shocked as anyone else by the NDP wave and are wondering if it didn't go too far. One of the professors in my department apparently apologized for voting NDP and thereby contributing to the Bloc defeat in Sherbrooke. So I figure that everyone will be looking at Layton and his caucus and expect something to happen.

And as Sam Stone pointed out, the NDP now has more than 50% of his MPs from Quebec, which will definitely change the party dynamics. This reminds me of the Social Credit, which was a small Western Canadian socially conservative party until 1962 when they suddenly exploded with 26 Quebec MPs (and four in BC and AB combined). The strain split the party in two. Of course the conditions are different: the Socreds didn't want to attract the Quebec vote (Layton has been courting it) and there were ideological differences between Quebec and Western Socreds. Will there be major ideological differences between NDP MPs from Quebec and from the other provinces? There might be. The NDP has a traditional base of blue-collar, unionized, somewhat conservative workers, while many of the new Quebec MPs appear to be university students in political science, and therefore perhaps comparable to Québec solidaire's voting base: urban alter-globalists, feminists and other activists, with a certain amount of Quebec nationalism wrapped in terms of social justice. I know at least one NDP candidate (who's presumably been elected) described himself as a sovereigntist, and among the francophone NDP MPs he's probably not the only one with some sympathy for the option. Contrary to what English Canadians seem to believe, there isn't a discrete choice between "federalist" and "separatist"; most people fall somewhere on the spectrum.

If things go wrong - if Québec feels ignored/robbed/marginalized/etc over the next 4 years, it could mean a resurgence of sovereignist sentiment, or perhaps simply a backlash against the NDP...which could benefit the Liberals depending on how they rebuild.
And there is of course the fact that many of those NDP MPs are rookies with no experience of electoral politics, and (even among those who were politically active before the election) some unrealistic expectations about the role they'll be able to play. But this said, one thing is sure: some of them will be duds, but others will become important politicians in the future. There's no other way. Many have compared the NDP caucus to Mulroney's caucus in 1984. During the electoral night broadcast on Radio-Canada (which failed on me just as it was becoming interesting!) they mentioned the case of one Conservative MP, named Lopez or something like that, whom nobody knew anything about, and who completely mystified the interpreter when he first spoke in the Commons, because they couldn't figure out if he was speaking French or English. But other rookies (they mentioned Benoît Bouchard as an example) were much more successful. So we'll see; right now I cannot say much more than you.

I'm not too sure if we'll see the Liberals rise back to the level of major national party after this, though. I get the impression that they might reinvent themselves as a third party concentrated in a few regions.

As for those who talked about Senate reform: it won't happen. Harper was theoretically committed to it, as part of his Reformer background, but he's figured out that it's a political minefield because it raises constitutional concerns and questions of provincial sovereignty. And there's nothing in it for Harper since he can just continue appointing Conservative senators. So forget about it.

[RickJay]

As for those who talked about Senate reform: it won't happen. Harper was theoretically committed to it, as part of his Reformer background, but he's figured out that it's a political minefield because it raises constitutional concerns and questions of provincial sovereignty. And there's nothing in it for Harper since he can just continue appointing Conservative senators. So forget about it.
This is the problem with electoral reform in a nutshell;

1. It's never to the benefit of the people who won the last election, and

2. You can't do it without pissing someone off.

Even if Harper and Layton were to work together on Senate reform - and I suspect Harper would still love to change it, but has been stacking it simply because he didn't have any politically realistic alternatives - there's no way they could devise a solution that wouldn't open the Constitutional barrel of monkeys, and that wouldn't piss off a huge number of their constituents.

Even electoral riding reform is going to be a shitstorm. There remains the proposition to add seats to the House for Ontario, Alberta and B.C., whose voters have their votes substantially watered down by underrepresetation. (The riding of Brampton West has more people and voters than does Prince Edward Island, which has four ridings.) It's the fair thing to do and it's the right thing to do, but if they try it the shrieking from the Maritimes and Quebec will be unbelievable. Harper will risk losing fragile but seat-rich support down East and Layton will probably have no choice but to oppose it to keep his Quebec base happy.

[orcenio]

The issue seems to be as good as (legally) dead:

The Conservative Party will not contest New Democrat Ruth Ellen Brosseau’s victory in Berthier-Maskinongé, even though the local Tory candidate had called for a by-election over allegations of forged nomination signatures.

Fred DeLorey, a spokesman for the Conservative Party, is categorically ruling out a court challenge over the issue. (snip)

Elections Canada spokesman Diane Benson said in a statement that Ms. Brosseau remains the MP unless it is challenged and overturned by a court.

“The result of the election is valid and stands unless a court rules otherwise. The recourse is to contest an election before a court,” she said Friday. (snip)

One issue is that the law requires candidates to obtain 100 signatures, but Ms. Brosseau’s nomination papers carry 128 names. That suggests a court challenge might hinge on whether more than 28 names could be disqualified. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-wont-challenge-election-of-absentee-new-democrat/article2012943/)

[Sam Stone]

Of course the Conservatives won't contest it - if there was another election, they wouldn't win it anyway. All it would do is remove a weak NDP MP and replace her with a better one.

The fact that the NDP now has a bunch of inexperienced flakes and students in their caucus is good news for Conservatives. If the Liberals can be marginalized and the Conservatives and NDP become the major two parties, the Conservatives want the NDP to be as weak and unelectable as possible.

[Polycarp]

Too bad Matt didn't run. Would have been fun for him to become MattMCLMP.

Application of Murphy's Law: Matt runs for four straight [sic ;)] elections as NDP candidate in a Montreal suburb; the election where Quebec goes overwhelmingly NDP, he doesn't run. Maybe we can get him in at a by-election?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Even if Harper and Layton were to work together on Senate reform
The NDP favours abolishing the Senate. So no.

Application of Murphy's Law: Matt runs for four straight [sic ;)] elections as NDP candidate in a Montreal suburb; the election where Quebec goes overwhelmingly NDP, he doesn't run.
I don't think he was running last time around either. That might be the only consolation for him. Also he doesn't seem to have posted since March 18 (though he's visited the SDMB today), so I assume he's just super-busy.

[Lord Feldon]

The Liberal candidate is challenging her election: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-candidate-challenges-election-of-absentee-new-democrat/article2012943/)

New Democrat MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau’s surprise victory in Berthier-Maskinongé is being challenged by the defeated Liberal candidate, who unveiled new allegations of irregularities Friday.

Francine Gaudet said a formal complaint has been made with Elections Canada by a voter in the riding alleging there are at least 90 invalid signatures on the elected NDP candidate's nomination papers.

[Grey]

The Liberal candidate likely would've done better to flag all this to the residents before the election.

[orcenio]

Now I'm confused as hell:

Libs, Tories protest controversial NDP MP's win, but won't challenge it in courtDenis Coderre, a Liberal MP from Montreal, said six of the 11 pages of signatures for Brosseau did not contain her name, which was only added later by an Elections Canada official.

Though the Liberals appear willing to contest the legitimacy of Brosseau's election, Elections Canada made it clear Friday that only a court challenge could annul her victory.

"The results of the election are valid unless a court decides otherwise," Elections Canada said in a statement.

During the campaign, each party has the chance to verify the signatures on each other's nomination papers.

The Liberals acknowledge they never bothered to do so for Brosseau because they felt she didn't stand a realistic chance of winning.

"We didn't verify the NDP's at the beginning because they weren't in the running; it's more Conservative and Bloc Quebecois," said Sylvestre. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jKSES69vHIn2cHHkZBMNXJ29nsnQ?docId=6779334)

[Uzi]

The fact that the NDP now has a bunch of inexperienced flakes and students in their caucus is good news for Conservatives.

Could be a bad one if these flakes and students prove to be an effective opposition.

[Frank]

The fact that the NDP now has a bunch of inexperienced flakes and students in their caucus is good news for Conservatives.
Those inexperienced flakes have exactly the same potential to become usefull and competent members of Government as the inexperienced flakes of the Conservative Party not all that long ago.

Or not.

We shall see.

[Grey]

Young, earnest and eager is a potent weapon, assuming it's pointing the right way of course.

[Leaffan]

Young, earnest and eager is a potent weapon, assuming it's pointing the right way of course.

That's what she said!

[Muffin]

The young MPs now have several years to learn their trade before having to prepare for the next election. Gotta start somewhere.

[Muffin]

Brosseau has surfaced, and stated that she has never set foot in the riding (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/201105/06/01-4397108-ruth-ellen-brosseau-sort-de-son-mutisme.php).

Ruth Ellen Brosseau l'admet sans ambages: elle n'a jamais mis les pieds dans Berthier-Maskinongé. Et elle a bien l'intention de le faire au cours des prochains jours.

«Je suis vraiment excitée à l'idée de me rendre dans la circonscription. On m'a dit que c'était une très belle région. Tout le monde a été tellement gentil depuis l'élection», explique celle qui dit avoir reçu beaucoup de courriels et de messages de soutien malgré la tempête médiatique au coeur de laquelle elle se retrouve.

[Polycarp]

Brosseau has surfaced, and stated that she has never set foot in the riding (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-nouvelliste/actualites/201105/06/01-4397108-ruth-ellen-brosseau-sort-de-son-mutisme.php)
Ruth Ellen Brosseau l'admet sans ambages: elle n'a jamais mis les pieds dans Berthier-Maskinongé. Et elle a bien l'intention de le faire au cours des prochains jours.

«Je suis vraiment excitée à l'idée de me rendre dans la circonscription. On m'a dit que c'était une très belle région. Tout le monde a été tellement gentil depuis l'élection», explique celle qui dit avoir reçu beaucoup de courriels et de messages de soutien malgré la tempête médiatique au coeur de laquelle elle se retrouve. .

Traduisez ceci en anglais, s'il vous plait.

[Cat Whisperer]

Here, I've translated it:
Ruth Ellen Brosseau l' admits to the point: it n' put forever feet in Berthier-Maskinongé. And it has l' well; intention to do it during the next days. “I am really excited with l' idea to return to me in the district. One m' said that c' was a very beautiful area. Everyone was so nice since l' election”, that which explains says to have received many emails and messages of support in spite of the media storm in the middle which it is found.:)

[Muffin]

Traduisez ceci en anglais, s'il vous plait.
Google it yourself if you don't think my translated synopsis was correct.

[Muffin]

And for those of you who are not yet familiar with Google: http://translate.google.ca/translate_t?rlz=1C1RNNN_enCA372CA372&q=Ruth+Ellen+Brosseau+l%27admet+sans+ambages:+elle+n%27a+jamais+mis+les+pieds+dans+Berthier-Maskinong%C3%A9.+Et+elle+a+bien+l%27intention+de+le+faire+au+cours+des+prochains+jours.%0A%0A%C2%ABJ e+suis+vraiment+excit%C3%A9e+%C3%A0+l%27id%C3%A9e+de+me+rendre+dans+la+circonscription.+On+m%27a+dit +que+c%27%C3%A9tait+une+tr%C3%A8s+belle+r%C3%A9gion.+Tout+le+monde+a+%C3%A9t%C3%A9+tellement+gentil+ depuis+l%27%C3%A9lection%C2%BB,+explique+celle+qui+dit+avoir+re%C3%A7u+beaucoup+de+courriels+et+de+m essages+de+soutien+malgr%C3%A9+la+temp%C3%AAte+m%C3%A9diatique+au+coeur+de+laquelle+elle+se+retrouve .&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wT#

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Ruth Ellen Brosseau plainly admits it: she's never set foot in Berthier-Maskinongé. And she's fully intent on going there in the next few days.

"The opportunity of visiting my riding really excites me. I've been told that it's situated in a very beautiful region. Everybody's been so nice since the election," says Brosseau, explaining that she's received many supportive e-mails despite the media storm in which she finds herself.
That wasn't so easy. I understand why translators are advised to translate into their primary language instead of the other way around.

[Spoons]

I found this, from Saturday's Globe and Mail interesting:

Fear and loathing among the eastern elites (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/fear-and-loathing-among-the-eastern-elites/article2013140/)

It's a column by Margaret Wente. Regardless of what one may think about the election's outcome, I think this column has a lot to say. I certainly knew the people whom she is speaking of when I lived in Toronto; and (horror of horrors) I've heard the same as they say from people here in Alberta. Only a few, and none of them Conservative supporters (obviously), but I've heard it nonetheless.

Of course, we can compare this to Heather Mallick's column in the UK Guardian, where she calls Stephen Harper, "a Canadian version of George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect." Cite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics).

Does anybody honestly believe that the new Harper majority will, in Ms. Wente's words, "turn Canada into a right-wing theocracy where women have no abortion rights and petty criminals are executed at dawn"? Ms. Wente was speaking satirically; but Ms. Mallick seems to be serious when she says,

What happens now is the full-scale Americanisation of Canada....

Harper's Conservatives will pass an omnibus law and order bill within 100 days to make jail sentences mandatory for many offences, and begin building super-jails....

The Evangelist Christian right is at the heart of Harper's Conservative party, and after years of being shushed, it will now demand an end to a number of things, including abortion rights. Canada has no law against abortions, and they are available free.Do any reasonable-thinking people honestly believe this? Abortions, their availability, and their coverage by provincial health plans, have been settled law for decades. Gay marriage has a shorter timeframe, but the law has said that it's okay too. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to go against the Reference re Same-Sex Marriage (http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc79/2004scc79.html).

On another note, I was amused by this, from Wente's (linked) column above:

Still, the eastern elites of downtown Toronto and Ottawa can’t quite shake the conviction that most western conservatives are a bunch of rubes. After all, they didn’t go to McGill or the U of T. They don’t read Harper’s Magazine or The Atlantic, and some of them have never even been to Europe.FTR, I live in Alberta, I did my undergraduate work at U of T, and I occasionally read Harper's, which is available on the newsstand here. And I've been to Europe, a number of times.

[Uzi]

FTR, I live in Alberta, I did my undergraduate work at U of T, and I occasionally read Harper's, which is available on the newsstand here. And I've been to Europe, a number of times.

I call it the goatfucker (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goatfucker) effect. You're from Alberta, you're a redneck. Learn to embrace your red neck, you evil anti-abortionist, creationist, anti-same sex marriage, American loving western rube.

[Sam Stone]

It's just pure bigotry. The fact is, both Edmonton and Calgary have tremendous, sophisticated culture. In Edmonton we have the second largest fringe festival in the world. We have a great symphony, we're home to many great actors and comedians (SCTV shot out of Edmonton). Edmonton and Calgary have excellent universities. We have thriving immigrant cultures in both major cities.

It doesn't matter. There will always be people who take it as a given that Alberta is some kind of redneck haven where we all wear cowboy hats, listen to country music, and oppress the gays and women. Oh, and the workers. We also oppress the workers. We don't tend to picket our Wal-Marts.

In the states, the sophisticates on the coasts look down at Texas and Alabama and other 'flyover' states. It's the same thing. Bigotry.

[Spoons]

I call it the goatfucker (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goatfucker) effect. You're from Alberta, you're a redneck. Learn to embrace your red neck, you evil anti-abortionist, creationist, anti-same sex marriage, American loving western rube.Y'know, I was about to say that I'm originally from Toronto.

But as it is, I guess I'd better put on my favourite cowboy hat, jump in my Ford F-350 pickup, and waste a bunch of natural resources revving it up in the great outdoors! Hell, we've got plenty of natural resources! Put that in your Smart Cars, Ontario! Gays can be cured! And you girls seeking an abortion--have you found Jesus yet? Yee-haw!

Naw ... just doesn't fit me. And nor is it the way a lot of people out here feel. I know you're only having fun, Uzi, and so am I; but let's face it--Torontonians would never believe it.

And I drive a Chevy. :D

[Uzi]

Y'know, I was about to say that I'm originally from Toronto.

But now that you've fucked the goat (moved to Alberta), it doesn't matter to....

Torontonians would never believe it.

Bingo

And I drive a Chevy. :D

You're supposed to drive a RAM (giggity).

[mnemosyne]

But then again, the attitude of "anyone who dislikes Harper is an Eastern EliteTM snob ...damn them and their education at McGill/UofT/Western/whatever example serves my purpose most.." is just as bad, really. The idea that conservatives = ordinary Canadians and everyone else=rich elite snobs who think they are better than everyone else (and I guess would be unCanadian? Or perhaps just extraordinary...?) is just as ridiculous as the redneck stereotype. It doesn't stop some people from using it though, like in that article, which was kind of an embarrassment to read from either perspective.

[CarnalK]

What happens now is the full-scale Americanisation of Canada....

Harper's Conservatives will pass an omnibus law and order bill within 100 days to make jail sentences mandatory for many offences, and begin building super-jails....

The Evangelist Christian right is at the heart of Harper's Conservative party, and after years of being shushed, it will now demand an end to a number of things, including abortion rights. Canada has no law against abortions, and they are available free.
Do any reasonable-thinking people honestly believe this? Abortions, their availability, and their coverage by provincial health plans, have been settled law for decades. Gay marriage has a shorter timeframe, but the law has said that it's okay too. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to go against the Reference re Same-Sex Marriage (http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc79/2004scc79.html).

Well, it's quite easy to believe the omnibus crime bill part. The conservatives have already indicated that's the plan and imho it will lead to a boom in the prison business. The social conservatives in the party will undoubtedly try to push their agenda now that there's a majority, but I doubt anything will come of it.

[Malthus]

But then again, the attitude of "anyone who dislikes Harper is an Eastern EliteTM snob ...damn them and their education at McGill/UofT/Western/whatever example serves my purpose most.." is just as bad, really. The idea that conservatives = ordinary Canadians and everyone else=rich elite snobs who think they are better than everyone else (and I guess would be unCanadian? Or perhaps just extraordinary...?) is just as ridiculous as the redneck stereotype. It doesn't stop some people from using it though, like in that article, which was kind of an embarrassment to read from either perspective.


Yup, absolutely.

You know, the more I read, the more I realize that just about every segement of Canada has an unsavory stereotype about every other ... and people are not shy of invoking theirs on the slightest of pretexts, certain that *they* are the only ones who are the unfair targets of bigotry! :D

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

That's the thing about stereotypes - they don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.

[Cat Whisperer]

After the over-the-top hysteria we saw in this thread after the election, I don't think any non-Conservatives have any leg to stand on to refute articles like that.

[mnemosyne]

Really? Not one? At all, on any issue or opinion whatsoever? Every non-Conservative who posted in this thread, nevermind anywhere else, is automatically wrong about everything and they are all Eastern Elites? And all the Conservatives were calm, sane and rational about every issue?

I doubt it.

See, that's the problem with labels. People hand them out freely, regardless of whether the recipients want them, and oftentimes people reject the labels pinned on them. It isn't all or nothing.

[Raygun99]

After the over-the-top hysteria we saw in this thread after the election, I don't think any non-Conservatives have any leg to stand on to refute articles like that.

How about the non-Conservatives who weren't hysterical? Or the Conservatives who were?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Well, it's quite easy to believe the omnibus crime bill part. The conservatives have already indicated that's the plan and imho it will lead to a boom in the prison business. The social conservatives in the party will undoubtedly try to push their agenda now that there's a majority, but I doubt anything will come of it.
Yes, this I can definitely believe. No, petty criminals won't be "executed at dawn;" that's just an exaggerated image. (Though my own favourite image is "11-year-olds who shoplift candy bars will have a hand severed.") But obviously with a Conservative majority government, criminal sentences will be strengthened and more people will be sent to prison, and judges will have less latitude in rendering decisions, with more offenses having mandatory minimum sentences. And I'd say this will be done for ideological reasons, because Conservative voters believe in being "tough on crime" whether or not it actually decreases crime or not. And I believe it won't.

And while this may be popular in some parts of Canada (I won't say Alberta by name, but I think Sam Stone in a previous post did point out that it is true that Albertans feel concerned by criminality) it will create resentment in other parts of the country. I know that Quebec has a relatively low crime rate, and while we do have our own believers in being "tough on crime," and the recent scandals about white-collar criminals have made harsher sentencing more popular at least for fraud cases, it is still widely thought that the reason why we have relatively little crime is that we tended to promote rehabilitation instead of punishment, punishment, punishment. I remember this was discussed even back when the Liberals were in power, with Anne McLellan (an Albertan!) as minister of Justice. Personally I don't fear crime and criminals. To me it just isn't an issue. And to me being "tough on crime" means giving our citizens (perhaps even me some day) fewer chances, sending otherwise upstanding citizens to crime school instead of working something out with them, and in time increasing our crime rate. I don't welcome it, it's what scares me the most about the next few years in Canada, and it even makes me wonder if Canada shouldn't do like the US and make criminal law an area of provincial responsibility. (Yes, I know, the Constitution and all that.) Or, alternatively, if Quebec shouldn't become independent.

Really, I think there's just a disconnect between how different parts of Canada view criminality and criminals, and I don't know if it's even possible to reach an understanding.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Oh, and here's something funny. One of my friends, when she learned the Conservatives had their majority, changed her MSN status to (my translation) "Conservative MAJORITY! Now I just need to change countries!" Said friend has just done her bar exam to become a lawyer, and from what I understand she is interested in criminal law. When I saw this, given how I think criminal justice will orient itself in the next few years in Canada, all I could think of was Back to the Future II: (my paraphrase, since I don't think I've ever seen this movie in English) "Justice moves a lot more swiftly now that they've eliminated lawyers!"

[RickJay]

But then again, the attitude of "anyone who dislikes Harper is an Eastern EliteTM snob ...damn them and their education at McGill/UofT/Western/whatever example serves my purpose most.." is just as bad, really. The idea that conservatives = ordinary Canadians and everyone else=rich elite snobs who think they are better than everyone else (and I guess would be unCanadian? Or perhaps just extraordinary...?) is just as ridiculous as the redneck stereotype.
Heck, just drive around greater Toronto. People in Toronto Centre find it absolutely mystifying why people in Mississauga-Brampton South voted Conservative, and people in M-B.S. can't understand why the folks in Toronto Centre voted Liberal. The two ridings are, in bad traffic, maybe 35 minutes' drive apart. I haven't heard anyone from downtown Toronto complain about how Alberta voted, but I've heard some amazingly hateful things said about how people voted in Toronto, and in cities immediately adjacent to Toronto. Michael Ignatieff himself was beaten by a Conservative in a Toronto riding - Etobicoke Lakeshore - and this totally mystifies people just a few miles away.

One of the more amusing parts of the Liberal meltdown is their horror at the fact that visible minorities are starting to vote Tory. It's a constituency the Liberals courted for decades and eventually just took for granted; now tha tthe Conservatives do a better job of marketing to visible minorities (which is why they snagged so many GTA ridings) the Liberals feel betrayed, and some commentary veguely hints that it's somehow unfair and racist that the Tories would do that.

People tend to associate with people with the same political viewpoint, so they only hear political talk in an echo chamber. I know many people who work in the theatre and entertainment industry in Toronto, and they're positively hysterical about the Conservatives; the Tories will cut all arts funding, shoot gays, the works. When mot of your friends and associates are in the same industry as you and very few are, say, oil sands workers or small business owners, the concerns of theentertainment industry seem like the whole economy. I know people who are legitimately furious at other Canadians for voting Conservative because they feel they voted that way just to take away arts subsidies and therefore put them out of a living. That voting NDP would have put people in OTHER indsutries out of a living is something that just isn't even thought of.

People tend to assume their their perspective and their place in life is The Way It Really Is. It's not bigotry so much as it's simply a lack of perspective.

[Uzi]

Personally I don't fear crime and criminals. To me it just isn't an issue.

Well, until someone is stealing your car, or vandalizing your property that is. Personally, I'd rather give breaks to those who are doing things that only affect them (drugs, prostitution, etc) breaks rather than those people who deliberately and with little concern do things to others. Not everyone is stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family.

[Malthus]

Heck, just drive around greater Toronto. People in Toronto Centre find it absolutely mystifying why people in Mississauga-Brampton South voted Conservative, and people in M-B.S. can't understand why the folks in Toronto Centre voted Liberal. The two ridings are, in bad traffic, maybe 35 minutes' drive apart. I haven't heard anyone from downtown Toronto complain about how Alberta voted, but I've heard some amazingly hateful things said about how people voted in Toronto, and in cities immediately adjacent to Toronto. Michael Ignatieff himself was beaten by a Conservative in a Toronto riding - Etobicoke Lakeshore - and this totally mystifies people just a few miles away.

One of the more amusing parts of the Liberal meltdown is their horror at the fact that visible minorities are starting to vote Tory. It's a constituency the Liberals courted for decades and eventually just took for granted; now tha tthe Conservatives do a better job of marketing to visible minorities (which is why they snagged so many GTA ridings) the Liberals feel betrayed, and some commentary veguely hints that it's somehow unfair and racist that the Tories would do that.

People tend to associate with people with the same political viewpoint, so they only hear political talk in an echo chamber. I know many people who work in the theatre and entertainment industry in Toronto, and they're positively hysterical about the Conservatives; the Tories will cut all arts funding, shoot gays, the works. When mot of your friends and associates are in the same industry as you and very few are, say, oil sands workers or small business owners, the concerns of theentertainment industry seem like the whole economy. I know people who are legitimately furious at other Canadians for voting Conservative because they feel they voted that way just to take away arts subsidies and therefore put them out of a living. That voting NDP would have put people in OTHER indsutries out of a living is something that just isn't even thought of.

People tend to assume their their perspective and their place in life is The Way It Really Is. It's not bigotry so much as it's simply a lack of perspective.

Heh, all politics is local ... I can answer for Etobicoke Lakeshore (my riding): Iggy was "parachuted" into this riding, because it was safely Liberal (two others who sought nomination for that riding were disqualified on grounds that were sorta suspect). He then went on to basically ignore the riding.

This is sort of emblematic of the Liberal approach to politics lately - to take their supporters for granted, and concentrate on the "big picture". Unfortunately, it does not come with any real "big picture" vision.

Liberals in this riding resented being used as Iggy's stepping-stone, and either stayed home or voted Con in droves.

[mnemosyne]

Well, until someone is stealing your car, or vandalizing your property that is. Personally, I'd rather give breaks to those who are doing things that only affect them (drugs, prostitution, etc) breaks rather than those people who deliberately and with little concern do things to others. Not everyone is stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family.

But that's just it. How often does that happen (yes, I know, statistically it does happen in non-insignificant amounts)? Sure there's graffiti around town, both my husband and my cars have been keyed, and I know maybe 2 people in my whole life who have had a car radio/cd player stolen, but it's rare enough that I doubt we need a ton of new prisons and really super duper tough crime bills to defend us from spray paint and the odd stolen car. A problem? Yes. A problem as described by some conservatives (and probably some others as well, I don't really pay attention to who says what)? Not so much. It just isn't a big scary monster of OMG!!CRIMINALS!!!

I also feel that drugs and prostitution should be treated differently than they are, to the point of legalizing some of it. But why is it one or the other? Why would you "rather" one in place of the other... it isn't a binary choice about what crimes to be tough on.

[Cat Whisperer]

Well, until someone is stealing your car, or vandalizing your property that is. Personally, I'd rather give breaks to those who are doing things that only affect them (drugs, prostitution, etc) breaks rather than those people who deliberately and with little concern do things to others. Not everyone is stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family.
I've lost track of how many times I've been a victim of theft or property damage in Calgary. I'm guessing that most of the perpetrators were young offenders. If someone wanted to try to fix things so that everything that isn't bolted down isn't stolen or defaced, I would support that.

[RickJay]

I've lost track of how many times I've been a victim of theft or property damage in Calgary.
I wonder if the higher crime rates out West don't have a lot to do with different attitudes towards this particular issue.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I wonder if the higher crime rates out West don't have a lot to do with different attitudes towards this particular issue.

Are they higher across the board out West? I've seen the stats showing crime, including violent crime, is down and has been trending downward for the last 5 years at least. I haven't seen them broken down by province.

[RickJay]

Generally speaking, crime rates out West have been higher for pretty much my lifetime, whether the national rate's trending up or down.

[mnemosyne]

From Statistics Canada (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal50b-eng.htm) -

Crime rate per 100 000 population - All violations, 2009:

Canada: 7723.80

Quebec - 5845.73
Ontario- 5269.65
NL - 7340.18
PEI - 7057.49
NS - 7730.90
NB - 6394.27
Man - 10517.82
Sask - 14345.00
Alta. - 9514.62
BC - 10207.02
YT - 25322.07
NWT - 45848.20
Nvt - 39887.52


(transcribed simply in order that I clicked on links, any typos are my fault). Rather fascinating tables, but I'm way too exhausted right now to really comprehend it all and come to any conclusions, though on first glance RickJay's hypothesis might be valid. I wasn't paying enough attention to look for or find any trends, but there's all kinds of stuff on these sites if you have the patience to look through it!

[Leaffan]

In Ottawa, when I was a single apartment-dwelling carefree bachelor, my car was broken into more times than I can remember. It might have been 5 times; it might have been 8 times. All I know is that I seriously wanted to break the fucking legs of whoever kept doing it.

I'm all for minimum sentences for crime. This isn't about "US Style Prisons" whatever that means. It's about finally realizing that victims have more rights than the convicted. Elimination of "two for one" and the faint hope clause is a start.

As a law-abiding, tax paying citizen I have nothing to worry about when it comes to mandatory sentences. Fuck the criminals.

[Spoons]

I wonder if the higher crime rates out West don't have a lot to do with different attitudes towards this particular issue.This would be my guess. In the newspapers out here, once a week, there is a list of all crimes committed that week, broken down by neighbourhood (for example, "Sunnyside" or "Forest Lawn"). Most of them are small stuff: graffiti, "car prowlings," a garage broken into, and so on. Even the campus newspaper at the U of Alberta lists crimes that took place on the campus over the past week.

Compare that to when I lived in Toronto, and nothing like this was ever in the paper. Of course, the dailies reported major crimes: shootings, drug busts, home invasions ending in murder, and so on; and there might be the occasional "filler" column reporting lesser crimes (for example, stolen cars) in a paragraph. But there was nothing like out here: minor, petty stuff broken down by neighbourhood and simply listed.

It is easy to see how Albertans believe that they are surrounded by crime; because they get a weekly report of what happened in their neighbourhoods. Similarly, it is easy to see how Torontonians believe that they live in a safe city, because they don't get these kind of reports. Even though the same petty things happen in Toronto.

[Cat Whisperer]

I do think I live in a safe city; I'm just tired as hell of all the thefts and damage.

ETA: And wow, I guess there isn't much else to do in the north other than doing crimes!

[ElvisL1ves]

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country"
— Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC

[Uzi]

I do think I live in a safe city; I'm just tired as hell of all the thefts and damage.

The West's problem is all them Eastern bums, who can't find work or the pogey has run out on, coming west and stealing our stuff and wimen' folk.:)

[Baffle]

The local biweekly paper in Guelph has those reports (or at least they did ten years ago). As well, the local paper in Wellington County keeps tabs on it.

And when I lived in Calgary, I lived in some sketchy neighbourhoods (Kingsland by the Chinook Centre, and then an apartment overlooking the 7-11 on 17th and 5th). But I was never the victim of a crime, nor did I know anyone who was. And one week I parked my car at my cousin's house (NE Calgary) so she could watch it while I was out of town. She left the door unlocked the whole week and there was still money in the dash when I returned.

I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as 'more newspaper reporting'. There has to be some other factor, or more likely a variety of factors, leading people to push for harsher criminal penalties.

[CarnalK]

In Ottawa, when I was a single apartment-dwelling carefree bachelor, my car was broken into more times than I can remember. It might have been 5 times; it might have been 8 times. All I know is that I seriously wanted to break the fucking legs of whoever kept doing it.

I'm all for minimum sentences for crime. This isn't about "US Style Prisons" whatever that means. It's about finally realizing that victims have more rights than the convicted. Elimination of "two for one" and the faint hope clause is a start.

As a law-abiding, tax paying citizen I have nothing to worry about when it comes to mandatory sentences. Fuck the criminals.

Well, if longer/minimum sentences didn't actually improve crime statistics but merely increased Justice spending and the percentage of our citizens in jail, would you still be all for it? Because that's kind of what the US experiment in this area has shown.

[Uzi]

Well, if longer/minimum sentences didn't actually improve crime statistics ...

I guess it depends on which criminals you lock up. Victimless criminals filling prisons don't benefit anyone and I don't care how many times they repeat their 'offenses'. Empty the prisons of those people and fill them will the ones where there is an actual victim. Logically victim related crime should fall as most people who are caught for such crimes don't just do it once.

[CarnalK]

Well, that's the thing, Uzi. This isn't a logic problem, it's a human one. While the "War on Drugs" is the worst contributor to the US's skyrocketing prison population, getting tough on victim related crimes hasn't helped much that I have seen in that area either.

It should also be noted that the proposed Conservative legislation included tougher sentences for drug crimes, so they are not planning to empty the prisons of victimless criminals.

[Cat Whisperer]

I would be more interested in the perpetrators being forced to pay for the damage or theft or insurance deductible that I have to pay because of them than have them in jail. You want to break my car window and steal my $100 stereo? Fine, now pay me back for it - none of that was free for me, and now it's not free for you, either.

[mnemosyne]

A judicial recount (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Recount+gives+Quebec+seat+nine+votes/4785126/story.html) in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup bumped the NDPs up by one seat (François Lapointe) - taking it away from a Tory (Bernard Généreux) who had initially been given the win. The final vote count differential was 9 votes. This gives the NDP 59 seats in Québec, 103 nationally and brings the Conservatives down to 5 in Québec, 166 nationally.

There are three other recounts happening:

Automatic recounts have also been ordered in the Ontario ridings of Etobicoke Centre, where Conservative Ted Opitz leads Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj by 25 votes, and Nipising-Timiskaming, where Conservative Jay Aspin leads Liberal Anthony Rota by 15 votes.

Elections Canada announced Friday that a recount has also been requested in Winnipeg North, where Liberal Kevin Lamoureux leads New Democrat Rebecca Blaikie by 45 votes.

Not power-shifting results or anything, but I felt they were worth mentioning.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Now that the election is over, I started a new thread over in MPSIMS - The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13804656#post13804656) - just because I have enjoyed our conversations here for the last couple of months, and I'm hoping we can continue once all the election results are in.

And mnemosyne - I think it's incredible that four seats hang on a total of less than 100 votes.