Jump to content


- - - - -

Canadian elections


76 replies to this topic

#21 TheNewSponge

TheNewSponge
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,015 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, N.S.
  • Original Name: TheNewSponge

Posted 11 September 2015 - 12:15 PM

But we do have "hung parliament". We just call it a "minority government".  They are typically short lived, because the governing party doesn't have the power to pass the laws they want, and the other parties vote them down, usually on a larger bill like a federal budget...



#22 Derf!

Derf!
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,053 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Original Name: TheDerf

Posted 11 September 2015 - 09:06 PM

How does one become a candidate for this business? Because I'd be interested in making a mockery of the system. 

 

 

VOTE FOR THE LEAST PALE CANDIDATE WHO ALSO IS MISSING A TOOTH!

 

 

I mean hell, if Deez nuts get votes, how can I not?



#23 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 12 September 2015 - 04:19 AM

Mansbridge is okay. Ha. 

 

We don't use the term hung parliament but I surmise that it's one with no majority?  

 

Mansbridge was calm but persistent, and got Mulcair setting out his stall and answering questions on policy and why he wants the job. Here we tend to have aggressive interviewers (like Jeremy Paxman) who shout down their subjects, trying to force them onto the back foot and get a 'gaffe' out of them. I don't think that's in the public interest. 

 

Yeah, a hung parliament is where there's no overall majority, and there is either a minority government, or some kind of coalition or confidence-and-supply deal. 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#24 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 12 September 2015 - 04:25 AM

How does one become a candidate for this business?

 

Well, if it's anything like UK politics (and much of the Canadian system is), you join a political party, help them campaign and get yourself known among the activists, and then put yourself forward next time there's a selection process for an election. I've been a member of the Labour Party for five years and have got friends who are now councillors. I think many people just don't realise how easy it is. I don't mean that in a "taking voters for granted" way, clearly it's hard work, but what I mean is anyone can do it. I know people who would make good councillors if they wanted to and would win if they stood. 

 

Sometimes internal selection processes (i.e. for the party members to select its candidate) are more difficult than the election itself. Some seats are 'safe' seats, for example in affluent areas in the South East of England you could put a collie dog in a blue rosette and it would get elected. I am guessing you have the same thing there. 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#25 sixgunsound

sixgunsound
  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: sixgunsound

Posted 12 September 2015 - 04:32 AM

chances are it will be a minority govt and who knows where the confidence of parliament will go. 


funny-pilots-blooper-airplane-comedy-pic


#26 Seán

Seán

    the one that slowly burns

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal Quebec
  • Original Name: seanpopowczak

Posted 12 September 2015 - 07:14 AM

How does one become a candidate for this business? Because I'd be interested in making a mockery of the system. 

 

 

VOTE FOR THE LEAST PALE CANDIDATE WHO ALSO IS MISSING A TOOTH!

 

 

I mean hell, if Deez nuts get votes, how can I not?

I'd vote for you. Which party would you join? Or would you make a new one?


everyone is bitches


#27 Derf!

Derf!
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,053 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Original Name: TheDerf

Posted 12 September 2015 - 07:21 PM

I don't imagine there's a party out there that would have me so I think I'd have to start a new...mayhaps The Peoples Front of Canada!



#28 Ayaura

Ayaura
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Terrace, BC Canada
  • Original Name: Ayaura

Posted 13 September 2015 - 02:58 AM

He's supportive of the C-51 thing mentioned before. Also he claims that if elected they will not run a deficit at all, which is unreasonable at a time like this, so either he's planning something sketchy or he's just making promises he knows he can't keep.

 

This is not correct, infact he plans to run deficiets consecutively, reasoning given for this is to stimulate the economy. Infact the Liberals are the only party that have told voters that they will increase spending for their first years in power.

 

Did anyone watch the candidate interviews with Peter Mansbridge? (hyperlink here) I managed to watch Trudeaus, Harpers and Mulcairs. Very informative for anyone who is interested in the parties platforms. Peter Mansbridge does a great job interviewing as expected, asking all candiates the same questions and waiting for all interviews to be complete before airing the results.

 

Being a single working middle class citizen with no children or disabilities, there has not been a single time that a budget change or new changes to government policies has had an impactful benefit to me. I have seen the majority of breaks go to families, and to the rich.

 

Trudeau represents the middle class man, promising tax breaks for the >42k income bracket, and ending Harpers income splitting which as he claims for the majority only benefits the richest 1% of Canadians, although he says he will leave it for retired Canadians. He also wants to change the recent universal child care benefit, which as of this year is putting extra tax dollars into the pockets of all parents of children up to the age of 18 (how many teenagers are getting babysat?), and is benefiting EVERY family in Canada, regardless of need or income. Trudeau will scale this back, taking it away from those families with combined incomes of >150k, and increaseing for those families who are in need.

 

I will vote Liberal this election.  I had been an NDP supporter in the past, but I don't feel that I fully agree with the NDP platform. How does everyone feel about NDP ending Canada's involvement with the fight against ISIS?

 

And I have to say that Elizabeth May is out to lunch, promising the moon. It all sounds good (well some of it), but I don't think it is realistic.

 

Also, has anyone on here completed Votecompass? You may actually be surpirsed where you sit.


 JupiterPillow.png

"Taken out of context, I must seem so strange" Music Share


#29 TheNewSponge

TheNewSponge
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,015 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, N.S.
  • Original Name: TheNewSponge

Posted 13 September 2015 - 03:18 AM

I tried VoteCompass, but it just called me commie scum, and then two men in black suits came to fix me.

#30 sixgunsound

sixgunsound
  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: sixgunsound

Posted 13 September 2015 - 05:28 AM

 

I will vote Liberal this election.  I had been an NDP supporter in the past, but I don't feel that I fully agree with the NDP platform. How does everyone feel about NDP ending Canada's involvement with the fight against ISIS?

 

Also, has anyone on here completed Votecompass? You may actually be surpirsed where you sit.

 

 

To quote Mulcair from his Mansbridge interview, "I am profoundly in favour of that [ending the bombing mission against ISIS]". 

 

And my vote compass results have me profoundly to the left of all the candidates. 


funny-pilots-blooper-airplane-comedy-pic


#31 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 13 September 2015 - 07:45 AM

Thanks for the link, I'll watch Harper and Trudeau's interviews. :)   Mansbridge is an impressive interviewer. I watched Mulcair's, I was quite impressed, although I guess some policies are disappointing. Why do you all think he's not pledging to increase spending? Does he think he's already got the Left and is now pivoting to the right to appeal to centre-ground moderates? If so that seems risky. It also seems risky for Trudeau to rule out any deal with the NDP after the election (if that's true). Constitutionally, is it regarded as legitimate to have a coalition government that doesn't involve the party with the most seats? I.e. a hung parliament but not a minority government, if the Liberals and NDP can outnumber the Tories. 

 

I tried Vote Compass but it needs a postal code so it doesn't seem that people outside of Canada can take part in it. :( 

 

Personally, I think the UK should bomb Isis in Iraq, along with the US. I'm not often in favour of military action, and opposed the Iraq war in 2003, but I think we have a responsibility to help the people of Iraq. From Canada's point of view though, did Canada ever participate in the 2003 invasion? I don't think they did so does this change the debate? In the UK many think the rise of Isis is partly our fault (and it is). 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#32 Seán

Seán

    the one that slowly burns

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal Quebec
  • Original Name: seanpopowczak

Posted 13 September 2015 - 08:04 AM

 

He's supportive of the C-51 thing mentioned before. Also he claims that if elected they will not run a deficit at all, which is unreasonable at a time like this, so either he's planning something sketchy or he's just making promises he knows he can't keep.

 

This is not correct, infact he plans to run deficiets consecutively, reasoning given for this is to stimulate the economy. Infact the Liberals are the only party that have told voters that they will increase spending for their first years in power.

 

Yeah I got it backwards somehow. 

As for ISIS, we need to stop being involved and to encourage, politically, the militaries in the area to deal with them. 


everyone is bitches


#33 sixgunsound

sixgunsound
  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: sixgunsound

Posted 14 September 2015 - 04:02 AM

Thanks for the link, I'll watch Harper and Trudeau's interviews. :)   Mansbridge is an impressive interviewer. I watched Mulcair's, I was quite impressed, although I guess some policies are disappointing. Why do you all think he's not pledging to increase spending? Does he think he's already got the Left and is now pivoting to the right to appeal to centre-ground moderates? If so that seems risky. It also seems risky for Trudeau to rule out any deal with the NDP after the election (if that's true). Constitutionally, is it regarded as legitimate to have a coalition government that doesn't involve the party with the most seats? I.e. a hung parliament but not a minority government, if the Liberals and NDP can outnumber the Tories. 

 

I tried Vote Compass but it needs a postal code so it doesn't seem that people outside of Canada can take part in it. :(

 

Personally, I think the UK should bomb Isis in Iraq, along with the US. I'm not often in favour of military action, and opposed the Iraq war in 2003, but I think we have a responsibility to help the people of Iraq. From Canada's point of view though, did Canada ever participate in the 2003 invasion? I don't think they did so does this change the debate? In the UK many think the rise of Isis is partly our fault (and it is). 

 

We did not participate in the 2003 invasion because it did not have UN Mandate. International law once meant something to Canada. 


funny-pilots-blooper-airplane-comedy-pic


#34 Seán

Seán

    the one that slowly burns

  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montreal Quebec
  • Original Name: seanpopowczak

Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:52 AM

I've always hated the way older generations will look at the time of their youth and talk about how things were so much better then, because more often than not it wasn't really, but this is definitely one of those times when we can say "remember when we didn't illegally invade other countries to try and look cool for the US and maybe get in on that sweet sweet oil?".


everyone is bitches


#35 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 14 September 2015 - 08:47 AM

Fair points. 

 

Just watched the interviews with Trudeau and Harper.

 

Trudeau's confident articulation of both Keynesian ideas on growth and redistribution of wealth is impressive, although he appeared to rule out tax rises which I'd raise an eyebrow at. He mentioned that the Liberals have 300,000 members, which is astonishing. On C51 he was triangulating, there's more than a hint of New Labour about him (interesting to see the extent to which Mulcair emphasises his “experience” in his interview, and attack “government by focus group”. I'm starting to see how they're defining themselves against each other).

 

Interesting to see Trudeau borrowing lines from Ed Miliband too (former Labour leader in the UK) – “the Canadian promise, that every generation does better than the last” is pure Miliband - although Ed Miliband lost so that's risky.

 

I'm intrigued by the constitutional possibilities though. When questioned on the situation of a minority government, all of the leaders seem to agree that the party with the biggest number of seats should lead a minority government. What happens if they are outvoted by the other parties? Another election? Has there been no discussion of coalitions or confidence-and-supply deals? 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#36 sixgunsound

sixgunsound
  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: sixgunsound

Posted 14 September 2015 - 04:02 PM

 

Fair points. 

 

Just watched the interviews with Trudeau and Harper.

 

Trudeau's confident articulation of both Keynesian ideas on growth and redistribution of wealth is impressive, although he appeared to rule out tax rises which I'd raise an eyebrow at. He mentioned that the Liberals have 300,000 members, which is astonishing. On C51 he was triangulating, there's more than a hint of New Labour about him (interesting to see the extent to which Mulcair emphasises his “experience” in his interview, and attack “government by focus group”. I'm starting to see how they're defining themselves against each other).

 

Interesting to see Trudeau borrowing lines from Ed Miliband too (former Labour leader in the UK) – “the Canadian promise, that every generation does better than the last” is pure Miliband - although Ed Miliband lost so that's risky.

 

I'm intrigued by the constitutional possibilities though. When questioned on the situation of a minority government, all of the leaders seem to agree that the party with the biggest number of seats should lead a minority government. What happens if they are outvoted by the other parties? Another election? Has there been no discussion of coalitions or confidence-and-supply deals? 

 

 

You must remember our proximity to the US has, in some ways, influenced our parliamentary system. Firstly, coalitions are nearly out of the question. Only the NDP and the BQ will even consider it. Teaming up with the BQ is political suicide owing to their sovereigntist goals. As for confidence, Harper passed legislation a number of years ago to standardize terms for the prime minister; much like what the Americans have. In the past a simple vote of no confidence could lead to an election. What will happen now with a minority government and a triple split electorate is a very good question. We're all watching just as intently as you !  


funny-pilots-blooper-airplane-comedy-pic


#37 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 17 September 2015 - 12:47 PM

Fair enough. I'm intrigued as to what would happen if it was a hung parliament and very close, if for example the Tories are the largest party but with no majority and are voted down by the Liberals and NDP. I'm getting a lot of deja vu though, from the Ed Miliband lines right down to the deadlocked polls.

 

It still might not happen though - in the UK, there was a lot of speculation before the election in May that it would be neck-and-neck, with virtually a photo-finish, and a strong role for third parties and nobody really knew who would be PM. As it happened, the Tories won a majority. :( 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#38 sixgunsound

sixgunsound
  • Ombudsman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Donator:No
  • Original Name: sixgunsound

Posted 18 September 2015 - 04:20 AM

We had some glorious years with a split right vote between the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. Then they merged into the Conservative Party and since then our split left has been to its benefit. 

 

Minority governments have worked in the past with limited success. It's like saying, well, we weren't going to accomplish anything anyway so who cares?


funny-pilots-blooper-airplane-comedy-pic


#39 richey

richey
  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,159 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Original Name: richey

Posted 18 September 2015 - 09:09 AM

FPTP isn't kind to that kind of multi-party system. Smaller parties are finding that out in the UK the hard way - UKIP for example (the UK Independence Party, a very right-wing anti-EU anti-immigrant party) got about 4.5 million votes and just one seat, won by a Tory who had held the seat for years and defected. 

 

Has there been any debate around changing the voting system, like to Alternative Vote or Proportional Representation? In the UK we had a referendum on AV in 2011 but it lost. 


My anger is a form of madness
And so I'd rather have hope than sadness

#40 TheNewSponge

TheNewSponge
  • GZ Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,015 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, N.S.
  • Original Name: TheNewSponge

Posted 18 September 2015 - 11:58 AM

Both Mulcair and Trudeau said they'd be in favour of some kind of electoral reform. Muclair said proportional representation, and Trudeau was more vague. I'm of the opinion that FPTP has absolutely got to go. When the government does not represent the majority of its citizens, there is a problem.





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Please consider donating to GuitarZone.com.
With more and more people using ad blocking add-ons for browsers, ad revenue has plummeted.
If you can spare even US$5 it would mean a lot to help pay for GZ's monthly server bill.
Thank you to all. Cheers! --Rob



Method #1: PayPal



Click 'Donate' above
to donate with any
major credit card or
existing PayPal funds.


E-mail on record with PayPal
[ ]



Method #2: Bitcoin


Option A )  Scan Bitcoin QR Code


Scan above box with mobile phone, or click...



Option B )  Copy and Paste Bitcoin Address

  13NA7exoZVPGBAxnKXcQAz35JQ5PvnhYDE  


Copy above address and paste into Bitcoin app...



Learn more about Bitcoin...