-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
BigJonsson
Member
Is it the part about giving the portfolio to one of the ministers responsible for the fuck ups and lying to Canadians or the part where they've already spread the blame to everyone else possible and no has been fired yet? In Harperland, responsibility lies with those opposed.
DreamMachine
Member
We should find that out, when Marc returns before the parliament recesses in the summer.
For those paying attention to the Alberta election:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/03/alberta-election-2012-22-minutes_n_1400747.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/03/alberta-election-2012-22-minutes_n_1400747.html
I have no idea who to vote for in this election. Despite high spending, the I feel significant investments on infrastructure were needed due to our past neglect of our infrastructure and our rapid population growth. I guess I just don't believe the Wild Rose guys could do much better. Aside from a few fuckups, I've been mostly happy. The lack of savings over these past ten years are unfortunate, but understandable.
Any thoughts on the accusations of fiscal profligacy levelled at the PCs?
Any thoughts on the accusations of fiscal profligacy levelled at the PCs?
As much as people ragged on Stelmach, he at least attempted to renegotiate the royalty rates with the oil industry. Shame about the character assassination afterward.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/02/f35-auditor-general-report.html
Yeah... pretty sure those three are foreign concepts to the Harper government.
Also, anyone remember during the campaign when Harper stated, The contract we signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs, so were very confident of our cost estimates.
Yeah... pretty sure those three are foreign concepts to the Harper government.
Also, anyone remember during the campaign when Harper stated, The contract we signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs, so were very confident of our cost estimates.
Zombie James
Banned
What great job creators the Conservatives are.
Adding advertising to Radio2 is insult added to injury of the massive job loss/budget cuts.
Fuck, I just checked the friend I have that works at CBC's facebook page - this news made him worried.
Harperland, cultural disaster.
650 jobs being eliminated at CBC/Radio-Canada... Ouch! It's also a bit awkward that there will be ads on Radio 2 and Espace Musique from now on. I guess it's okay in the end since there are tv ads on CBC/SRC channels.
NFB/ONF are also closing their Cinerobotheque in MTL on September 1st (they didn't update the page yet) and some of their viewing rooms in the greater toronto area. At least they still have their website :/
These cuts and 19 000 positions eliminated in the governement will probably help fund those F-35, right?
NFB/ONF are also closing their Cinerobotheque in MTL on September 1st (they didn't update the page yet) and some of their viewing rooms in the greater toronto area. At least they still have their website :/
These cuts and 19 000 positions eliminated in the governement will probably help fund those F-35, right?
And thus, the Conservatives give up on Quebec for like an entire generation.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
So is this F-35 thing going to be a big scandal or will it be forgotten like everything else?
Death by a thousand paper cuts. It won't matter until the writ is dropped.
edit: Their demise would probably be similar to how the PCs are dropping in Alberta. Just replace the WR with some other party...
firehawk12
Subete no aware
The problem is that the only way the Liberals lost (all those years ago!) was when they lost Quebec... The Conservatives would have to lose support in Alberta/BC and I don't see people there running to the NDP any time soon...
Well, unless the WR becomes a national regional party like the Bloc. lol
DreamMachine
Member
Eh, the Liberals lost one regional support base (starting with the prairies) after another until the only one they were left with was Ontario and the meritimes. Ontario is key to winning, but Ontario alone can't win.
The same is true of Alberta for the Conservatives, except even more so. I don't think you can consider the CPC's support base in BC or the other two prairie provinces to be quite as much like the Bloc's dominance of Quebec as the CPC's support base in Alberta is.
But mild erosion of support in Alberta and more significant erosion in BC, Sask, and Manitoba would do huge harm to the CPC's ability to form a majority government, and all those things are actually happening right now. It's just a question of whether or not they persist through to the next election.
Frankly, I think the odds of the CPC forming a majority government in 2015 are fairly low. Canadian political pundits have a habit of turning short term trends into ridiculous long-term prophesies, and I don't see Harper's CPC's dominance being any more permanent and perpetual than the Liberal party's 90s dominance, the PC Party's dominance in Alberta (look at it crumble), or any of the other myriad ubermensch party prophecies we've heard in this country. And in 2015, the CPC will have been in power for over 10 years, and that's a long time for any political dynasty in Canadian politics.
As much as I was planning to vote for the Wild Rose (only to stick it to the PCs and try and wake them up) the prospect of the Wild Rose actually winning, and putting giving rural Alberta more of a voice over the inner city mentality you see in Alberta, means that I am sure as fuck voting PC.
The Alberta election is peculiar to me.
You have a lot of people complaining about excessive spending, yet they never want to see cuts in healthcare and education, which are the two largest sources of expenditures last time I checked. A lot of conservatives here in Alberta point to the deficits to back up their argument that collectively the government is spending too much, yet completely neglect to ask whether the problem is revenue related. A huge portion of royalty revenue is actually from natural gas, which if you haven't checked lately is sitting at a 10 year low.
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that an infrastructure build-out in the public sector to support the expanding economy is going to be extremely expensive, especially when one factors in that inflation is almost surely higher in Alberta than any other province. I don't believe per capita expenditures are completely accurate when comparing expenditures across provinces because costs are going to be higher in Alberta. Expenditures as a percentage of GDP would potentially be more accurate. Unfortunately I'm having trouble with Cansim so I can't look it up right now.
Does this completely explain the deficits? No, but it is a start, and a lot more intellectually honest that what the WR often puts out.
I'm not saying the government hasn't wasted money (see the stupidity of the carbon capture projects), just that anyone who thinks electing the WR will somehow fix the deficits is naive.
You have a lot of people complaining about excessive spending, yet they never want to see cuts in healthcare and education, which are the two largest sources of expenditures last time I checked. A lot of conservatives here in Alberta point to the deficits to back up their argument that collectively the government is spending too much, yet completely neglect to ask whether the problem is revenue related. A huge portion of royalty revenue is actually from natural gas, which if you haven't checked lately is sitting at a 10 year low.
Revenue said:
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that an infrastructure build-out in the public sector to support the expanding economy is going to be extremely expensive, especially when one factors in that inflation is almost surely higher in Alberta than any other province. I don't believe per capita expenditures are completely accurate when comparing expenditures across provinces because costs are going to be higher in Alberta. Expenditures as a percentage of GDP would potentially be more accurate. Unfortunately I'm having trouble with Cansim so I can't look it up right now.
Does this completely explain the deficits? No, but it is a start, and a lot more intellectually honest that what the WR often puts out.
I'm not saying the government hasn't wasted money (see the stupidity of the carbon capture projects), just that anyone who thinks electing the WR will somehow fix the deficits is naive.
I don't think that policy really plays a large role in Alberta politics as a rule. Dogma, "who's got our back," and just a generally massive concentration of power into the hands of a relatively small political elite rule the day.
I don't think the plausible WR victory is really a lot like the previous upsets in Alberta politics in that the elite of Alberta politics seem to have just shifted their power base to a new party. This is why, for example, you wouldn't ever see WR become a federal bloc party. The powerful people in the WR party, and really no longer the PC party, are essentially the same as in the provincial arm of the federal CPC. They have no desire to conflict with that.
The CPC and the WR would, if anything, probably enjoy a much closer relationship than the PCs and the CPC ever did.
I agree. The main problem with Alberta is that the governing parties keep the illusion of populism, but could not be further away from it. Much of their fundraising dollars come from industry or from peoples with a vested interest in the direction of the province.
All in all, both PC and WR have zero direction for Alberta. There is no plan, but to keep the oilsand gravy train rolling for the short term. I'll vote for whichever party has the best long-term strategy for this province, because shit will hit the fan once the boom goes bust, as it always does.
BladeWorker
Member
Governments usually fall through a confluence of factors, this will add to the pile. That said, we're headed into a constit break for Easter, so it's entirely possible that this will be gone and forgotten in two days.
After all, little money of the giant $60B claim (or whatever it was) has actually been spent. No matter how abhorrent the (non) procurement process and oversight processes are, they don't resonate. Administrative, hypertechnical errors may well come across as hinky, but they rarely - if ever - stick.
I think this will resonate a lot more than it did when it caused our last election. Now it stinks of a massive coverup of incredible misspending. That won't play well at all.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I guess the real question is who would anyone in the west vote for except for the CPC? Even if Mulcair ends up being better than Jack Layton, the NDP is dead in non-GTA/Hamilton Ontario and Alberta and the Liberals are still trying to figure out how to be relevant, I suppose.
Eh, you're extrapolating far too much here. We're one year off one election and 3 years from the next. Trying to prognosticate where any given party is 'dead' from that is just ridiculous. Such guesses in 2003 would have had the Liberals ruling into eternity. Basically, your post is doing the exact thing I mentioned. Turning a short term trend into some kind of permanent fact.
Um, not sure if you read the poll numbers, but the NDP is enjoying an up-tick in BC. Also, the NDP is gaining in the Atlantic provinces too.
maharg is right in that, if current projections hold, the CPC will be back in minority territory in 2015.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Eh, I think most people saw the Liberals crumbling the moment Chretien jumped ship. The same thing happened with Blair and Labour in the UK after all.
I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the last couple of decades of election results that suggest that the only real Federal battleground is Ontario and that the NDP have no real chance here. And looking at the Liberals, we've gone through three ineffective party leaders to an interim leader that the Conservatives are already attacking with smear ads (Rae ruined Ontario, etc, etc). Is it possible something will change in the next couple of years to revitalize the Liberal party? Would an NDP-Liberal merger be on the table if either side of that little debate becomes desperate? Any of that can happen. But I'm looking at trends that begin with Layton being made NDP Leader and Martin floundering his way to a minority government.
I suppose the real sign of any change in the winds would be whenever Harper decides to retire. I imagine he's learned that much from his predecessors that he doesn't want to stick around just to be labelled a loser. Let the next guy who takes over be burdened with that label.
I'm sure current polls are based on presumed discontent with the CPC rather than any real support for the NDP though - especially since Mulcair hasn't really had any time to make his mark (outside of his party anyway). If the strategy is to just be personality-less like Harper was when he was in opposition and let the government destroy itself? Maybe those poll results are onto something. But unlike the CPC, the NDP has to define itself against both the government and the Liberals, so they don't have the luxury of "at least we're not them" as a form of attack.
Ok, so let's take a time machine back to 2003:
Throwing your question back to you, in 2003 the "liberals were crumbling", but who are people going to vote for? A Toronto city councilor with delusions of grandeur or a hardcore conservative from Alberta? Obviously the Liberals are in bad shape, but the new CPC has to deal with their legacy of being a bunch of redneck hicks merged with the party that lost official party status only 10 years ago! And the NDP, hah. They're lucky when they can muster up more than 10 seats.
I dunno if you were paying attention then, but that's pretty much exactly what someone would have said if you'd suggested a CPC government in 2003. By 2005 things may have been a bit more obvious, but ehhh, the idea of Liberal hegemony over the government was still pretty firmly entrenched and it led to just as ridiculous prophesies about parties never being able to make a vote in X region or Y region.
At any rate, Quebec is key to the NDP the way Ontario (not Alberta) is key to the CPC. I think both are taken on much more faith than they deserve for their respective parties, but it's the CPC's game to lose here.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Bloc will gain back votes for sure though in Quebec, so NDP has to make a lot of gains outside Quebec.
The thing with the Liberals is they they've never recovered from "losing" Chrétien. Paul Martin wasn't the best replacement and was at the center of many controversies. He had all of his ships in The Bahamas to save taxes, he nominated Michaëlle Jean as the GG to gain sympathy of immigrants even though her husband Jean Daniel Lafond had been making movies about Quebec independance for years and Martin was also burned by the sponsorship scandal in QC badly. He didn't get formally blamed but his image and that of the party took a hit. Let's not forget how he had Stronach switch side at the last minute so his goverment could survive. If they want to make a comeback they will need Ontario and QC.
After Martin we got Stéphane Dion, a smart politician but he had no charisma and didn't have the right priorities for the country. His Green Shift/Tournant Vert was bound to fail as soon as it was announced. At that time the economy was starting to decay so having stricter environmental policies wasn't a very popular propositon nor was the hefty carbon taxes he wanted to put in place. It probably killed the party in Alberta even more I guess. His attempt to overthrow Harper's minority government was also amateurish. No one remember his infamous tape? He was an intellectual more than a public speaker. We had a show here called "Infoman" on SRC where the host mocked and followed Dion everywhere for several seasons before he became the party's leader so it probably didn't help. I also don't think he was popular at all in Ontario and BC.
Then came Ignatieff. He had an amazing background and had the rights qualifications (smart, university professor, human rights activists, international studies) for the job but unfortunately for him he had two weaknesses. He didn't have that spark in him that great politician have that make you trust them and listen to what they have to say and secondly he had skeletons in his closet the CPC could exploit. He had been living abroad for a while and also had an impressive list of work he published. Unfortunately those published papers and books contained many political ideas that the conservatives could use against him. It sure didn't help here in QC that he published works about how he preferred France's french and how he found Quebecers to be inferior because of the whole independance thing. The best he could do was to say he changed his mind since then but the books still existed and these quotes were used in TV ads here by the CPC.
I still can't believe no one checked his background for such weaknesses. I can't believe they elected Dion either. Hopefully they do a thorough background check for the next leader.
I just wonder if it's possible to the NDP to overthrow Harper's government. If the Liberals make a comeback, the votes will be split between the two and since the CPC is the only right wing party they might have it easy again.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, I voted for Jack Layton in every Federal Election I was eligible to vote in so... :lol
I don't really remember what the pundits were saying back then, but I remember thinking about how odd it was Chretien would finally acquiesce to Martin's power play after all that time. Whether he knew that the sponsorship thing would blow up a few years later or if a "united" right would change the landscape of the politics of the country, I don't know, but after hanging on so bitterly for so long for him to leave just felt odd (to the point where Martin was dumped for John Manley, if you remember that whole mess!).
I know the only thing the last two decades have proven is that you can win a majority while alienating large sections of the country (whether all of Alberta or all of Quebec), with Ontario (and really, that just means not-Toronto and not-Hamilton) being the Province that swings the results one way or another.
As for whatever may happen next, I really don't know beyond an educated guess. I haven't looked at the math recently, but I think the NDP would need to find a way to pick up 50ish seats in order to win a majority. Maybe 30-40 to get a minority? Outside of Ontario, I don't know where those seats are supposed to come from (and that assumes they don't lose Quebec, as you suggest).
I think your skepticism comes from an assumption the Liberals have any hope of a comeback in 2015. I don't think they do. Their Ontario base is all they have left and they really have nothing to offer in any kind of agreement with the NDP anymore. All that leaves is whether or not the Liberal voters in Ontario will buy in with the rest of the country on the NDP being the new federal party of the left and start doing what NDP voters have been doing for decades: Vote strategically.
That said, I never said I thought anyone but the CPC would form government in 2015. I consider it more possible than maybe a lot of people, but what I said I felt was unlikely was the CPC forming a *majority*. I don't, personally, think anyone will form a majority in 2012. The electoral math is against the current state being stable, ESPECIALLY if the Bloc makes a comeback, imo.
That said, I never said I thought anyone but the CPC would form government in 2015. I consider it more possible than maybe a lot of people, but what I said I felt was unlikely was the CPC forming a *majority*. I don't, personally, think anyone will form a majority in 2012. The electoral math is against the current state being stable, ESPECIALLY if the Bloc makes a comeback, imo.
Except the money hasn't really been spent.
I mean I guess that's why Bob Rae's so angry, when you want to overspend you do what he did and do it fast with nothing to show for it. Whereas the Harper's overspend is paper projections on contracts that remain relatively liquid given the US considering complete renegotiation of the F-35.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Although I think the American primary process is a bit ridiculous, if each of the former Liberal party leaders had to go from province to province to get votes from local Liberals, those weakness probably would have been exposed fairly quickly.
Looking at how all this stuff happens, it's all back room deals anyway. The frontrunners promise the losers-to-be something in order to get their endorsement and hopefully their delegate votes for the next ballot. There's no real vetting process.
(Remember, Peter McKay only became PC leader after he made a promise to not merge with the Alliance. Of course, we know how that turned out. I'm sure that guy wishes he could have taken that back.
)He was good at exploiting it. I mean, sure he won based on various lies (we'll kill GST) and incompetent moves from Campbell's campaign (the ad with his face), but he was also able to destroy Day as well - split base or not.
Yeah, I think the Liberals are mostly done. The problem is that as long as both parties exist, the votes in the Maritimes end up being a toss-up and work against whoever is able to be a credible alternative to the Tories.
But yeah, it all depends on Quebec and what happens there. I think conventional wisdom is that Layton's homespun Montrealer attitude combined with indifference toward Nationalism (at least in Federal politics) was enough to give them the province (complete with university students and other people who didn't even bother campaigning in their ridings). That's definitely not going to happen again so who knows.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Haha, fair enough.
Although I think the American primary process is a bit ridiculous, if each of the former Liberal party leaders had to go from province to province to get votes from local Liberals, those weakness probably would have been exposed fairly quickly.
Looking at how all this stuff happens, it's all back room deals anyway. The frontrunners promise the losers-to-be something in order to get their endorsement and hopefully their delegate votes for the next ballot. There's no real vetting process.
(Remember, Peter McKay only became PC leader after he made a promise to not merge with the Alliance. Of course, we know how that turned out. I'm sure that guy wishes he could have taken that back.
I can agree with this idea. If it was similar to the American process you could be sure that his competitors would have tried to find these flaws beforehand. Instead, they were revealed to the world days after he was elected as the leader or the Liberal party. The only way Dion made it to the top was because of these back room deals too. I'm quite happy these kind of shady deals didn't seem to be present during the NDP leadership campaign. After each rounds, the defeated candidates simply told their supporters to vote for who they thought would be the best leader and it didn't seem like there were some forced rallying like analysts suspected there would be.
I have an open-ended question for every user that frequents this thread:
How long have you been studying, keeping up with, or participating in politics?
I read this thread and become jealous of how one can talk about these matters. I've only just recently decided to try and become interested/follow Canadian politics (mostly because I live here). Over the past year I have tried to keep up with the majority of events happening within Canadian politics, but I don't feel as though I can discuss it with as much ease and intelligence like I have seen other members/people do. It bothers me that I am so ignorant about this topic. I guess I have a couple of other questions:
How do you become aware of these stories? Do you visit a popular news site on a regular basis, have a schedule that you follow everyday?
How many hours per day would you say that you spend discussing/reading different news stories?
Do you do it because you are passionate about it, or because you feel as though you need to in order to become a better human being?
How long have you been studying, keeping up with, or participating in politics?
I read this thread and become jealous of how one can talk about these matters. I've only just recently decided to try and become interested/follow Canadian politics (mostly because I live here). Over the past year I have tried to keep up with the majority of events happening within Canadian politics, but I don't feel as though I can discuss it with as much ease and intelligence like I have seen other members/people do. It bothers me that I am so ignorant about this topic. I guess I have a couple of other questions:
How do you become aware of these stories? Do you visit a popular news site on a regular basis, have a schedule that you follow everyday?
How many hours per day would you say that you spend discussing/reading different news stories?
Do you do it because you are passionate about it, or because you feel as though you need to in order to become a better human being?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think Mulcair had it wrapped up so much that there wasn't any real point. I'm sure some of them found the anti-Mulcair stuff a bit counter-productive as well (Certainly, all of the Republicans are damaged goods in some way at this point).
I think it was Coyne who said that it was interesting that the final debate took place off prime-time so that no one would be paying attention outside of NDP supports and political nerds anyway.
At the height of my nerdiness, I was lucky enough to live in Ottawa and be able to watch both the House and the Senate meet. It was fun to watch government in process and actually legitimized the function of the Senate in my eyes.
At that point I followed both CTV and CBC news and the political show that Don Newman hosted, so I was pretty invested.
Now I mostly just follow the news as it happens - I still like the CBC power panel thing and they helpfully make that into a podcast, so at the very least I can see that if I skip the news. I listened to Evan Solomon's show (he replaced Newman) in podcast form during the election but haven't really picked it up since. When it's off election, it mostly turns into people from the parties trying to score points off each other. The Friday show is worth catching if you care because they usually have a panel then too.
For me, I follow it out of interest because I'm a process nerd. Growing up watching The West Wing probably helped a lot too, because it made me go out and just look at how things were done in Canada and around the world (like, what exactly DOES a Governor General do and why is she/he important?).
It's certainly why I watch party conventions though. Seeing those in motion is fascinating, because it's essentially how power really shifts in Canadian politics. Watching Peter MacKay win the PC leadership was really watching the beginning of Harper's PM run.
The NDP's dogmatic anti-senate position is something that really irks me about them.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, it's the one thing that I wish they'd drop, since it's such a pointless thing to bring up and isn't anything that anyone in Canada is ready to tackle in the short or long-term anyway.
Heck, even Harper gave up and started stacking the Senate with Conservatives. It's just a reality of our system, for better or for worse.
I can't even imagine what they'll do if they form government. The CPC could really screw them over with their control of the senate if they refuse to seat anyone. Here in Alberta where we actually have the whole senator-in-waiting elections, the NDP refuses to nominate anyone.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Mulcair (or whomever) will learn the hard lesson that Harper learned when he tried to play that game - that their legislative process will grind to a halt and that the only way to fight it is to stack the upper house.
They'll probably invent some stupid rule like the Conservatives to make it look like they care about Senate reform/abolishment. "You can't stay for more than 4 years and you can't vote without our approval!" or whatever.
For me, the seeds were probably planted in 1995 with the Separation Referendum. Being a teenager and seeing my country on the possible verge of cracking in half was terrifying and extremely interesting all the same for its intricacies. Then in high school civics and law classes kept it alive. After that I studied political science in university at York, though Canadian politics wasn't my main area of focus (Europe was for the most part).
In that time I saw the Liberals take over Ontario, lose the country, and Toronto go from Miller to the gravyboat Ford
In some way the Daily Show (and eventual Colbert Report) as well as This Hour Has 22 Minutes (before Mercer left) helped as well, as it made the mundane day to day politics seem a lot more intriguing, and the CBC for actual news coverage. When I was home before/between/after classes, I would keep the TV on CBC New Channel and I'd read certain sections of the the Star.
Now it's mainly through certain news websites and the CBC that I follow the news, much like firehawk, as it happens. I was horrified when Don Newman left 'Politics', because panel shows where everyone is shilling for a party line tend to be annoying as hell, but Power and Politics hasn't been too bad. I refuse to watch CTV coverage of anything, let alone politics though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked