Canada Election 2015

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Right wingers who actually, sincerely do believe in small government are vanishingly few...

Well, the way I personally see it, the main characteristic of the "right" is to want a smaller government and therefore less taxes. The logic being that the people's interests are generally served better when they're mostly responsible for themselves. At the other end of the spectrum, the nanny state who takes care of the most things it can for you (using your tax money to do so) is the main characteristic of the left.

What you're actually talking about is some sort of ideologically pure wing of the libertarian crowd that essentially wouldn't care if shoddy aspirin killed hundreds at a time, because "freedom." They're a whole other level of insane.

Kind of, except that of course everyone admits humans need some basic rules to function properly in society -- the jungle (or anarchy) is not a system that works.

Putting an aspirin that kills people on the market would be extremely poor business practice and would likely result in huge problems for the people in charge of that company, so even under a relatively libertarian system I don't see why you'd be more likely to see that happen. A faulty aspirin can very well end up on the market even in a "big government" environment... In fact, a bloated government is IMO more likely to be harboring incompetence, and therefore might well sometimes be letting such things slip through the cracks, even if in theory everything should be controlled. i.e. being in practice a more inept watchdog than private interests would be.


Anyway, it's not like "left" and "right" are always super clear cut and can be characterized that easily beyond just the basic "cores" that I personally think are what the "left" and "right" are built on. Case in point, using the criterion in red below, Stalin's Soviet Union was very right wing.

Originally Posted by geotag277

I would actually characterize the "political right" around Government enforced social intervention (anti gay marriage and anti abortion), favouring military involvement and expanded military presence, ...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It's kind of funny how obvious the politically charged language is being used here. All parties are polling at about the same support but somehow if Conservative representatives get more votes and representatives in the house in a minority government situation, somehow this is a grave fault of our FPTP system.

I haven't noticed any great discussion going on about this, outside this forum.
I'm not an opponent of FPTP (although I prefer preferential ballots), but we may be looking at a scenario where the Liberals (and the NDP?) receive more votes than the Conservatives but the Conservatives win the most seats. I don't know how likely that is, but it would certainly focus public attention if it happened.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Great interview! Thanks for posting that. One of the biggest reasons I want the Conservatives to lose is the TPP. My only fear is that the Liberals will just ratify it anyway if they win.

Of course they will. I wouldn't expect them to do anything else.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

but it would certainly focus public attention if it happened.

It's happened before. I don't see why it would be that different this time. I don't hate FPTP. My problem, is a riding like mine. It will go Conservative now, and probably in 40 years. My vote against will matter not.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, the way I personally see it, the main characteristic of the "right" is to want a smaller government and therefore less taxes. The logic being that the people's interests are generally served better when they're mostly responsible for themselves. ....

It leads to the same end result but I think in fact Harper and his think-tank believe in lower taxes (more broadly less revenue) specifically in order to shrink government and its role in society. The lower tax thing that can be promoted with the electorate to garner support is just a political bonus.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It leads to the same end result but I think in fact Harper and his think-tank believe in lower taxes (more broadly less revenue) specifically in order to shrink government and its role in society. The lower tax thing that can be promoted with the electorate to garner support is just a political bonus.

Well, the order of the two (if that's your point) doesn't matter, they go hand in hand...

In theory maybe they're supposed to be for that, in practice though I really don't think the diet has given impressive results after four+ years.

(In theory, the CPC was all about extra transparency as well...)

[geotag277]

You shrink government you piss someone off. That's just how it goes. Look at all the discussion over the justice department earlier and all the cries of incredulity and not once was it articulated in any way shape or form how to justify this department, in fact the main response was complete ignorance in it's functioning, and yet still cries of dissent.

Same thing is happening with the long form census. Cries of chaos and pandemonium as the federal government is no longer responsible for market research across the country.

You cut a swath of programs, you build a swath of enemies. It's just not politically feasible unfortunately, and as demonstrated in this particular thread, not enough people actually care enough to move the needle on it.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by travis3000

My guess is ... strong Con minority of around 160 seats. You'll see them pick up in support as we head into October. Trudeau will be official opposition with around 100 seats. The rest go to NDP, maybe 1-3 Green/Bloq seats.

Where the hell are you coming up with 160 seats?

Even if there is a resurgence in Tory support and no one decides to vote strategically {which will be a Canadian first} no one is even remotely close to that kind of number. There are simply not that many seats up for grabs.

Even when you look at potential riding battles where the party's estimated chances of winning at a very respectable 70% still leaves you with at most 25 battleground seats and you are assuming that all of them and more will go 100% Tory. My god, the Tories will probably do cartwheels if they manage to head into Ontario with 16 seats from both Atlantic Canada and Quebec and in reality they will be damn lucky to get even 10.

Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it's going to.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It's not that 2/3s don't want Conservatives. 2/3s don't want NDP and 2/3 don't want Liberals either.

1/3 of us want the government to focus on cutting government services, lowering our taxes, and take the government to task over ensuring government initiatives are economically justified.Those are conservatives.

1/3 of us want the government to consider wide sweeping federal programs such as national pharmacare and national child care. These are NDP supporters.

1/3 of us want the government to increase it's spending and invest more in existing programs, especially during a time of recession. These are the Liberals.

It is completely insane that we cannot expect a minority government with almost equal representation across three parties to come to a reasonable compromise in representing the Canadians that want these things.

I couldn't disagree more. I've traditionally been an extremely strong NDP supporter having worked on numerous provincial and federal campaigns spanning roughly 15 years, having held party membership (although long since lapsed) and never voted for any other party. But I would gladly vote LPC if it meant no more Harper. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being most prefered and one being least (in terms of major mainstream parties and omitting fringe parties), the CPC would be a 3, the NDP would be 8 and the LPC would be 7.5.

What we're talking about is 1/3 wanting strawberry ice cream, 1/3 wanting vanilla ice cream, and 1/3 wanting mince meat pie.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by geotag277

You shrink government you piss someone off. That's just how it goes. Look at all the discussion over the justice department earlier and all the cries of incredulity and not once was it articulated in any way shape or form how to justify this department, in fact the main response was complete ignorance in it's functioning, and yet still cries of dissent.

Same thing is happening with the long form census. Cries of chaos and pandemonium as the federal government is no longer responsible for market research across the country.

You cut a swath of programs, you build a swath of enemies. It's just not politically feasible unfortunately, and as demonstrated in this particular thread, not enough people actually care enough to move the needle on it.

For some reason I'm reminded of the frog that's put into cool water that is then brought to a boil. Canadians are the frog. Harper Conservatism is the burner.

[Ayreonaut]

Yeah, I think close to 100% of NDP voters would prefer a Liberal gov't (and vice versa) to more Harper.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

Yeah, I think close to 100% of NDP voters would prefer a Liberal gov't (and vice versa) to more Harper.

The stat I saw the other day (can't remember where so feel free to take with a grain of salt) was that 80% of Liberal supporters had the NDP as 2nd choice and 20% had the Conservatives.

EDIT: Found my source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-undecideds-sep21-1.3237086

The Conservative path to victory relies on peeling away the one-fifth of Liberal supporters who have the Conservatives as their second choice

[ssiguy]

It will be interesting to see what will happen if the NDP vote continues to drop in Quebec.

The Cons may take a couple of rural ridings, nearly all the Liberal gains will be in crucial Greater Montreal, and the BLOC may actually get a couple seats.

On a side note there is one thing that is happening in Greater Vancouver which seems to be a bit of an anomaly.............there are quite a few legitimately 3-way races. Nearly all ridings in the country are between 2 parties and then the also-ran third but some here really are too close to call for any of the parties.

[*Stardust*]

Let's do a ranked ballot vote! Let's say FPTP was gone. Put in order your first to fourth choice of government. Mine would be...

1) NDP
2) Liberal
3) Green
4) Conservative (or leave blank haha)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Let's do a ranked ballot vote! Let's say FPTP was gone. Put in order your first to fourth choice of government. Mine would be...

1) NDP
2) Liberal
3) Green
4) Conservative (or leave blank haha)

1) Green
2) Liberal
3) NDP
4) Conservative

[Ayreonaut]

Green
NDP
Liberal
Marijuana
Christian Heritage
Rhinoceros
Libertarian
Conservative

[geotag277]

There aren't many "second choice" polls out there, but this is an actual EKOS poll result:



Again, the quality of the poll itself is somewhat in question, but there is significant non trivial support for Conservatives as a second choice and it has to be coming from somewhere.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by geotag277

There aren't many "second choice" polls out there, but this is an actual EKOS poll result:



Again, the quality of the poll itself is somewhat in question, but there is significant non trivial support for Conservatives as a second choice and it has to be coming from somewhere.

A mix of Liberals and with some NDP voters from Quebec perhaps?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The stat I saw the other day (can't remember where so feel free to take with a grain of salt) was that 80% of Liberal supporters had the NDP as 2nd choice and 20% had the Conservatives.

EDIT: Found my source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-undecideds-sep21-1.3237086

Found the source ^

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

Anyway, it's not like "left" and "right" are always super clear cut and can be characterized that easily beyond just the basic "cores" that I personally think are what the "left" and "right" are built on. Case in point, using the criterion in red below, Stalin's Soviet Union was very right wing.

Much of the modern right philosophy on military is directly inspired by cold war era policies regarding the Soviet Union and that whole "gap war" as justification for expanding military power.

A lot of the thinking on the right is essentially assuming the cold war never ended. So yes, a lot of these modern policies can be directly attributed to the Soviet Union, somewhat embarrassingly if I might add.