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

Politics & Elections
101

:confused:

Peter Kent is a Conservative MP. What’s he supposed to do, talk nice about the Liberal Chretien government?

I think this was a reference to the Liberals’ moniker as “Canada’s Natural Governing Party”, which I’ve heard bandied about a bit. I think it’s in reference to the fact that the politics of Canadians as a whole are most closely matched to the Liberal Party. (Plus, there’s also the fact that Canada has been ruled by a Liberal government more than any other party (even if you include all stripes of the Conservatives together).

:confused:

But why would He change parties? (Old punchline)

102

Agreed. But in both cases they made the right choice for the country.

I voted Liberal in 1993. I haven’t since, but never say never.

103

Apologies. Somehow I thought I remembered you supporting the NDP.

104

Let’s talk about Gilles. I like Gilles, strangely enough.

I like him, but abhor the Bloc.

Gilles is in the unique position when discussing national politics, that he can just tell it like it is without worrying about the consequences. He’s only in it for the best interests of Quebec, makes no apologies about it, and doesn’t have to dance around issues like everyone else does.

He’s a pretty straight-up guy and would be awesome if he wasn’t supporting the separatists. He comes across very well in the debates, and I’m looking forward to his crazy-eyed comments this time around. As usual.

YMMV.

105

Not necessarily “nice” but also, top-level Conservatives should leave throwing mud to lower level operators. As a Cabinet Member I expected him to state what exactly was the issue with Chretien’s time because I lived through those and somehow I cannot comprehend why use such an extreme and vulgar term. Who does he think he is attracting with venom like that?

Yes, that’s what I meant.

Anyways, it’s set for May 2nd. Saw Mr. Harper this morning after his meeting with GG and couldn’t help but notice his talking points on “coalition” and on and on… and on. It was funny when CBC reporter commented afterwards that his use of the word is to scare people, almost like “coalition will burn your house down” - it was refreshing to see reporter calling it right away. Also, Harper’s avoidance of the word “illegal” in reference to coalition was a sign that his at least aware (I think he said that it would not be principled - like we all know he is so “principled”).

And then Iggy came and said there will be no coalition. Somehow, methinks it wont help because the word is out and coaltion scare will be major campaign tool for Cons.

106

In my opinion, ‘contempt’ is a far dirtier word that ‘coalition’.

107

No need to apologize - I am not a member of any political party at present, though I could see myself joining the Liberals. Particularly on environmental issues and progressive social areas like same-sex marriage, I’m far enough left that the red seems to shift to orange…

108

I gotta agree with this. Frankly, if the Bloc eased back on the separation thing (yes I know it’s one of their main platform pieces), and ran candidates outside of Quebec, say in Ottawa Centre, among others, I could see myself supporting them.

The rest of their platform seems pretty reasonable, and I do like the aforementioned “tell it like it is” stance.

That’s one of the reasons that I could never run for office - I’d like to see more free votes, because party A has some good ideas, so does party B, party C less appealing, we’ve covered the Bloc, and the Greens are just nuts.

MPs should be able to vote their constituents voices instead of having to tow the party line in most cases.

YMMV on this as well.

109

Here’s an interesting article about how Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe sent a letter to the Governor General in September of 2004, outlining the possibility their ‘co-operation’ in the event of the downfall of the Liberal government of the time.

is already my favourite quotation of the election campaign.

110

Maintaining stealth features?

You need to explain that to me. Stealth is provided by the use of composite materials for the exterior skin that lasts as long if not longer than aluminum which is subject to corrosion as well as careful surface profile design and tucking away normally exterior equipment. None of these criteria for stealth is subject to maintainence requirements as far as I can determine.

There is no avionics providing a cloak of invisibility in stealth technology.

Wikipedia

111

Why the heck did Canada buy the CF-18s to begin with? There was absolutely no reason to get rid of the CF-104 “Widow Makers”.

112

He’s neither a Liberal nor a Senator anymore - he was kicked out of the caucus in 2006.

He was kicked out of the Senate in 2007.

While I’d prefer some form of corporal discipline taken from the 19th century Royal Navy, I will have to content myself with the punishments the court has established. I don’t promise, however, that I won’t kick him sharply in the balls if I’m ever introduced to him. I hate it when people are a disgrace to parties that I admire.

113

Now I’ve got MY favourite quote from this election season. :smiley: (And it’s quite a mind picture!)

Threads like this really do make me appreciate the Dope - we have people posting intelligent, well-thought-out, logical perspectives from the entire political spectrum here; we’re obviously not all wrong, nor all right. There’s a whole lot of subjective in politics, and anyone who thinks differently is probably kidding themselves.

114

Cat Whisperer - you’ve just given me an excellent idea. The SDMB version of C-pac, being like a cross between MST3K and the standard network talking heads from the three parties kind of show. We could heckle question period live like Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet Show while asking the intelligent questions the MPs are trying their hardest to duck. Off to get my cable license…

115

And here is a link to an interesting CBC article about coalitions as they apply to Canada.

116

Sign me up! I love heckling!

117

This ties in to the popularity of the Bloc in Québec, too. People here feel their needs are being better addressed than before the Bloc formed, and everyone knows that the sovereignty issue won’t be resolved at the federal level anyways. Duceppe is a popular, charismatic leader who has had a lot of success representing this province. So voting for the Bloc doesn’t really mean a vote for sovereignty, it’s just a vote for good representation of Québecois needs in the House of Commons, though they do use sovereignty as a weapon to get what they want. Every region in Canada wishes their MP/party of choice would represent them well…Québec has actually found a way to do that!

That said, I don’t vote for the Bloc. I don’t really need to, given as I live in Duceppe’s riding (and at minimum not voting for him means my $2 or whatever doesn’t go towards those terrible pamphlets with the crap photography Duceppe sends out every few months…the man is horribly unphotogenic!).

In a sense, I’m free to vote my conscience, and choose the MP/party that meets my views the best. That party never has been - and likely never will be - the Conservatives. I find I disagree with them on the topics I’m knowledgeable enough about, and expect that the more I learn, the more I’d disagree with them on other topics too. I’m also very uncomfortable with the behind-closed-doors, secrecy, controlling the media and all the other shit they’ve been pulling the past few years. “Harper Government” sums it up well enough - they aren’t working for Canada, they are working for themselves. That might be true of every damn party, but most don’t advertise it! I think I would very much dislike a Conservative majority government.

118

Too bad the Bloc does not run outside of P.Q. It would be funny as hell if the separatist party ended up running the country. Only in Canada, eh!

119

*Bolding mine

It’s the conservatives total sidelining of professional and academic knowledge and advice that has me longing for more enlightened leadership. Their killing of the long-form census and their deep desire to move Canada toward an American style prison-industry complex (and they call Iggy an American…)

120

No snark intended at mnemosyne; but her (and others’) use of this seems to have become an issue in the media, and consequently, among Canadians, lately.

It shouldn’t be. The PM’s name, followed by the word “government” has long been a way for the media to present news and commentary about Canadian politics. Some cites:

Trudeau government calls off P.E.I. causeway plan, CBC, March 8, 1969.

The CF-18 fighter jet acquisition by the Trudeau government, in “Not so fast on F-35 purchase,” Toronto Star, July 18, 2010.

Schreiber … received $6.5 million when the Mulroney government agreed in principle to manufacture the vehicles in Canada, in “Money from Schreiber ‘retainers,’ Mulroney says,” Toronto Star, May 13, 2009.

[Michael] Wilson, part of the Mulroney government…, in “Mulroney urges Harper to loosen Canada-U.S. border,” CTV News, March 25, 2011.

The Rae government began to “own” the recession, in “Déjà vu all over again for Ontario?” Toronto Star, March 22, 2009.

And lest anybody think that it is merely the media that uses such a phrase, I’ll offer a cite from Pierre Elliot Trudeau himself, in which he uses the phrase, “my government,” indicating that even PMs will use the possessive when describing their years as head of government:

“I know, of course, that the record of my government is still attacked rather vigorously and almost obsessively by our Conservative successors.” Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Memoirs, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1993, p. 355. (Cite.)