I don’t see the Green Party winning any seats at all. There is no riding in which they have even a close shot. But perhaps the campaign will cause a lot of disgust in the other parties and they’ll pick one off.
5? Fantasy.
Since the Conservatives have started the campaign off by enthusiastically basting themselves in both feet with a 20-gauge, I must conclude they have learned nothing and that their brain trust still hates the East too much to woo it. I thus offer my early predictions:
Liberals 127
Conservatives 84
Bloc Quebecois 64
New Democratic Party 31
Green Party 1 (what the hell)
Independent 1, but hopefully not that moron Carolyn Parrish
I also predict:
Paul Martin and Stephen Harper will both be ousted before Christmas 2006
Jack Layton will be leader of the NDP for a loooong time
Olivia Chow still isn’t going to get elected to Parliament
Belinda Stronach is dead meat; Newmarket will go Conservative again
In 2008 we’ll be fearing for the future of our country. Referendum!
All right, I believe you. As for your comment about the media, I agree that the media has a part of responsibility for straining regional relations in Canada (see my earlier post), but I think that this is mostly due to the fact that it always makes for better news when someone says something inflammatory; and I think that the media in all Canada is guilty of this. There is no concerted goal by our media to convince us that English Canadians dislike us (if you think there is, I’d like to hear about it), but if some extremist political leader says something stupid, it will be reported just because it is news. And the English Canadian media will do the same thing.
I said that I feel greater affinity for Québec than for Canada. Doesn’t mean that I feel no affinity towards Canada. Many people I’ve spoken to tell me that they don’t even consider themselves Canadians; this is also something I have trouble understanding. I certainly am a Canadian.
Yes, I agree, but do notice that the federal government will go out of its way not to say it, even though it’s a quite noncommittal thing to say. Québec is a distinct society in Canada: so what? Doesn’t change anything. But if someone important says it, others will scream murder.
Well, I’m not afraid of losing any regional identity. I think that most Quebecers realise that we are a large enough people that our culture will not disappear. I have no doubt that you consider our contribution to Canadian culture to be valuable, and that you’re not the only one. But do note that it’s entirely possible to think that we brought interesting things to Canadian culture, but that we’re now rather useless to Canada. I know that’s not what you and the people you know think, but I just wanted to point out that it’s possible.
All right then. I had pegged you as the typical Liberal, who’s very proud of Canada and the “Canadian values” but at the expense of denying regional differences in the country. That’s why I mentioned this about the current deal between the federal and the provinces: the federal Liberals don’t seem to want to renegociate this; they seem quite happy to starve the provinces and then invade their responsibilities. I accept that I was wrong; I’ll look more carefully at your posts in the future.
I don’t think this is what I’m doing. I’m not claiming that Canada should be disbanded. I just refuse to unconditionally think that Canada is a great experiment that has to work. I want to be convinced. And I think that I’m more sympathetic to your position than you might think. I do believe that there is a way that Canada can work. But I don’t think the current government can do it, and the result might not be what you would like to see.
Of course. I’m not proposing to split the country in small territories on which everyone has the same idea; that would require all of us to have our own territory. All I’m saying is that there’s no denying that Quebecers are currently sending a message to the rest of Canada that they disagree with the way the game is run. I think that’s quite obvious when you look at surveys who indicate that 60 % of us will vote Bloc in the next election. And maybe I’m wrong, but I think that a large proportion of Quebecers (not all, of course) have a greater trust in the province’s capacity to take decisions impacting them than in any federal government’s. That’s all. And nothing really earth-shattering is required: just a federal government that recognizes this and that doesn’t mind giving the province means to do its job without being strangled.
As to why Quebecers prefer (in my opinion) leaving the province rather than Canada take decisions on their behalf, I think the reason is simply that they feel more connected to Québec than to Canada. Yes, I know that if you try to deconstruct this, it may seem silly: as someone from Gatineau, I have more in common with someone from Ottawa than with someone from Natashquan. Maybe we’re still somewhat clinging to the traditional concept of a nation-state (although I’m not ready to buy that one entirely, at least not without proof). But even if we assume that it’s mostly a question of feelings, I think there’s no doubt that, Québec being smaller than Canada, both in terms of geography and population, it’s easier for a Québec government to hear its citizens than a Canadian government.
I don’t know about any “increase”, but yes, these conflicts would indeed continue. I’m not advocating separation as a solution to all of our problems; I’m not even really advocating it for anything. But I do think that among those problems who may be solved by having the will to tackle them as a people, separation would not make them harder to solve and might actually make them easier at times.
That’s your opinion; it’s not the first time I’ve heard someone from the right, in Canada or the United States, say that Québec is the reason why the two countries are not closer. And it’s true, of course, that the majority of Quebecers are opposed to many of the current policies of the American administration, moreso than in other provinces. That, of course, doesn’t mean that we’re responsible for anything; some of these policies are opposed by the majority of Canadians, regardless of province.
Also, I’ve heard a bit about Naomi Klein, and I’ve never had the impression that she had anything against Americans. Her opinions, at least what I know of them, seem rather sensible to me. Oh well.
As for the Ottawa Citizen, it might not be as highly considered as the big national papers are, but among the English-language Ottawa newspapers, it is the “respectable” one. Many people get their news in it.
No, probably not. I think that Switzerland, for one, is more decentralized; and in any case we have to do what is good for the country, not what other countries do. As I’ve said: I just don’t think Quebecers want a “strong” federal government that is always putting its nose into provincial affairs and starving the provinces of cash so they can’t do anything. Maybe that’s what you want; maybe you think it’s a good thing to prevent the wackos in charge of our provinces from doing stupid stuff that would undermine the good Canadian unity and image, but I think that’s insulting the voters who chose the people to represent them, and if you agree with this you can figure out why I thought you were a Liberal.
This seems so hopelessly vague to me. Practically speaking, what does it mean? Sure, there’s no way I can disagree with that, but really, it doesn’t mean anything.
Actually, Bev Desjarlais will seek re-election. She’s sitting as an independent since losing the NDP nomination in her riding.
If he were to do that, it would be a nasty precident. Personally, I feel the Prime Minister should never envoke the Notwithstanding clause. It doesn’t feel right that the leader of the country would use it to limit the rights if their citizens.
My ‘away-from-home’ ballot arrived today. Imagine my joy when I rushed to the Elections Canada website to find that no candidates have registered for Vancouver-Centre…
I don’t think the Liberals have quite reached the point at which the electorate will turf them out en mass, like they did the Mulroney Conservatives (although they’re getting close). I think the problem is that, while the former PC voters were positioned midway between the Liberals and the Alliance/Reform parties, and could move to the one that best fit them, current Liberal voters are more isolated, as the current alternatives are further to the left and right. IMHO this is one of the reasons for the upsurge in Green votes, as this is seen as a “safe” way to avoid voting Liberal while not giving support to parties that you strongly disagree with.
As far as Harper’s announcement on same-sex marriage is concerned, I doubt that he is is really stupid enough to think he can change this without using the notwithstanding clause, but I don’t know whether he is counting on the voters to be too stupid to understand this (with the ready-made excuse about “we tried to change the law but the activist judges won’t let us do it” when it doesn’t work), or if he is really planning to try to put through a piece of notwithstanding legislation. His proposal to get tough on crime by cracking down on drug crime seems to be an equally stupid stance - like this has worked so well in the US :rolleyes: .
Frankly, I like a lot of the Conservative economic policy (although there isn’t that much difference from the Liberals in what’s announced so far), but I see them as regressive and intolerant on social issues. So for me, it comes down to:
**Liberals ** - agree with most economic issues, agree with most social issues, consider corruption to be inevitable with any group of politicians in power for any length of time.
Conservatives - disagree with most social issues (very strongly in some cases), agree with most economic issues, corruption see above.
NDP - agree with most social issues, disagree with most economic issues, corruption see above.
Yeah, Elections Canada is often slow, because the deadline to officially register is January 2.
However, checking the weekend Globe & Mail, I see the candidates for my riding are Hedy “Crosses are burning” Fry, and Svend “How did that get in my pocket” Robinson. Colour me unimpressed.
You and me both. Harper spent the first week of the campaign completely alienating me.
Who is the genius in the Conservative party who thinks the road to victory is paved with law and order, social conservatism, and other issues guaranteed to alienate the east? Bloody morons.
It seems to me the road to electoral success is clear: The Conservatives should do this:
[ul]
[li]Talk economic conservatism. Tax cuts, business-friendly, trade, etc.[/li][li]Talk up Canada. Talk about restoring the military, regaining our place on the world stage.[/li][li]Ixnay on the gay marriage issue. Just don’t bring it up.[/li][li]Point out that if elected they will undoubtedly be a minority government, and therefore they pledge to work with other parties. In fact, point out that they HAVE to work with other parties. Neutralize the scaremongering of the Liberals.[/li][li]Talk about a competitive, dynamic, respected Canada. Point out that our constant government scandals hurt us on the world stage, and that while it’s important to protect our own interests, reflexive anti-Americanism is damaging to us when the U.S. is our largest trading partner and ally. [/li][li]Never stop talking about Liberal corruption. That’s the key issue. Hammer it home, over and over again.[/li][/ul]
That’s the kind of stuff that can win over moderates. If people complain that Harper would have sent Canadians to Iraq, fire back that Canada had no say in that war at all, in large part because no one listens to us or cares what we think because the Liberals let our military atrophy to the point where it can’t engage in its own operations overseas any more and is of limited help to anyone. Point out Canada’s long history of peacekeeping, and how that gained us much respect and allowed us to punch above our weight in world affairs. Then show how the Liberals have weakened Canada’s ability to do these things.
Economic conservatism, Canadian nationalism, optimism, and above all reassurance that you can’t and won’t dismantle the country is what the Conservatives should be hammering home right now. Instead they’re running around yammering about free votes on gay marriage and mandatory sentencing for drug offenders - issues that aren’t even most Canadian’s radar, but which reinforce the fears people have about Conservatives. Gah.
I was wondering the same thing. For a party that has the most money are those ever terrible ads. I am part of the MTV generation, or whatever, this ads make the Conservative Party look like a joke.
I also agree with what Sam Stone said. Wow, are the Conservatives up to this point running a dumb campaign.
What do the rest of you think of Harper’s baby bonus program? The NDP and liberals say this is not the way to help young families, a national childcare program is a better way to spend the money. But doesn’t the childcare program discriminate against stay at home parents?
We’ve done the baby bonus before, right? What were its goals and how well did it work?
My very limited reading of the proposal is that each family gets a set amount per year for each kid under a certain age, right? I seem to remember amounts of $1200/year being mentioned. That’s a lot less that the cost of daycare…
Yeah, that’s what I gather. We have an 18 month old at home and it is impossible to get him into anything other than private in-home daycare. The waiting lists for public daycare can be upwards of two years long. Good luck if you happen to move during that time (We’ve tried to find something in Halifax,NS and now Waterloo,ON). The government daycare program has done absolutely nothing for us. At least a baby-bonus would subsidise our costs a bit.
Hallelujah! Exactly. This is a good program. Of course my kids just passed the age where it would benefit me. But if people really pay attention to the details here it will win votes. Of course the Liberals are putting their spin on it already and have some people convinced it benefits only the rich. Bull! If fact the so-called “rich” wouldn’t benefit at all since it would be taxed back.
What if, instead of giving you the money, they put it into the public day-care system to reduce waiting times and improve service?
I know, I talk crazy. But I’m well sick and tired of the trend of cutting back funding to government programs, and then when (inevitably) service levels decline, they say “See? I TOLD you government programs don’t work and it has to be private!”
I would so much rather have free, reliable day care than money to be able to buy it somewhere. I’d like an assurance that there will be accessible, affordable daycare, and extra money in my pocket earmarked for daycare does not give me that assurance at all.
What a bunch of crap! You trust the government, the LIBERALS, to be fiscally responsible with this money and use it wisely? Just what we freakin’ need: more government programs. Unbelievable…
For me personally that would be great. However, that would not work for everybody because:
Government subsidised daycare can be very rigid. You often have to have you child there by a certain time, and they have to stay there for a minimum number of hours. If not, they assume you don’t really need the sevice and will remove you. This can be very difficult for a family that needs more flexibility, and hence sometimes private care is preferable.
Some people would rather stay at home with their children.
I think families in the above two cases should also get some help.
My neighbour seems to be one of the main consultants on this issue for the conservative party. Those are some of his arguments against the current program (even one with more funding). He would prefer a child-care system more like Finland’s where you are essentially given a baby bonus which you can use for your preferred childcare. (His personal choice was also public daycare BTW but beleived people should have the freedom of choice).
