Just finished watching the Conservative anti-Trudeau video called
Wacko.
Title self-explanatory, I'm sure.
I actually didn't think it was as bad as some commentators were saying, and in fact, I thought the worst part of it was the appropriation of a slur-word its theme-imbuing insult.
Other than that, it's mostly just a compendium of the standard negative talking-points from Conservatives. Probably the strangest part of it was that the narrator has a British accent. This was probably meant to lend a note of gravitas to his commentary, but for me, kinda gave the whole thing a Fleet Street feel. (The title actually reads like a Murdoch headline.)
Overall, I wouldn't expect it to much bother Conservatives or even most swing voters, as, unlike say, "Chretien's Face" from 1993, there's no one part that can really be isolated as offensive for counter-attack purposes. And even if someone thinks that most of the content is exaggerated in its horror, it's still not the kinda stuff the Liberals are gonna wanna draw attention to, eg. Trudeau saying he admires China's "basic dictatorship", the yearbook photos, the MP who appeared nude in the Commons via Zoom etc.
One attack discussed a grant the Liberals gave to an edible-cricket farm that later went bankrupt. Probably a reckless endeavour on the Libs' part, but it's pretty easy to find those kinda cockamamie deals with any government.
In the short term, it seems to have cooled the ardour of some Conservative-leaning writers in the Globe, who tend to writhe in distress faced with having to choose Polièvre over Trudeau. I'll have a look at it in a few days.
In the short term, it seems to have cooled the ardour of some Conservative-leaning writers in the Globe, who tend to writhe in distress faced with having to choose Polièvre over Trudeau. I'll have a look at it in a few days.
Yeah, I saw Robyn Urback's piece about the ad representing Conservatives' "worst impulses".
But with all due respect to Junius, I don't think the ad is really aimed at people who care what the Globe has to say about anything.
I’m still a bit puzzled about why Robyn Urback is on the Globe’s payroll. But doubtless that is another discussion.
I see it as a relevant discussion for this thread. If you're inclined, what incongruities do you see in her being at the Globe?
I can't get past the paywall, and only visit the library semi-regularly, so I'm not overly familiar with Urback. It seems to me she's rather pro-Israel, which isn't all THAT outta-place at the Globe. Other than that, can't say much about her.
Though Wente was actually a working journalist for much of her career and by all appearances she did solid work e.g. as editor of Report on Business. It’s unfortunate that she’s going to be remembered by many people mostly for her late-career columns which (like many of Urback’s) could fairly be characterized as attempts to be provocative without doing any intellectual heavy lifting.
Though Wente was actually a working journalist for much of her career and by all appearances she did solid work e.g. as editor of Report on Business. It’s unfortunate that she’s going to be remembered by many people mostly for her late-career columns which (like many of Urback’s) could fairly be characterized as attempts to be provocative without doing any intellectual heavy lifting.
Yeah, I was refering mostly to her columns. I know she was editor of RoB, but never read that one much.
As I recall, her columns often just rehashed some popular talking-point making the rounds, with "I consider myself a liberal, but some of this stuff is just taking things too far" a recurring theme.
His one regret is NOT CHANGING THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM????
Why didn't he do it then?!?!?! He never made a serious effort to do it.
Sorry about the repeat posts. I guess what I really want is to be live-tweeting this, but without having to go onto Twitter. I assume everyone else is watching this with such rapt attention they're not also posting on the Ship.
So, all legislation dies. No legislative changes can be made - means the increased capital gains inclusion rate cannot be instituted and the extended donation deadline cannot be made.
Also, will be extremely difficult to deal with the expected tariff challenge from the USA.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to take on the leadership role, given that the government will like fall almost immediately after it resumes in March.
Lame duck PM should have just asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.
@sharkshooter If parties chose their new leaders by a caucus or an executive vote, then a dissolution would be feasible, but everyone seems to believe that parties can't do this. The race seems to be compressed, but I agree with you on the importance of having leaders in the saddle for the challenges ahead with the Electoral College's choice; I am of the quick-choice school of thought and would hope that it would not take more than a few weeks. We'll see what the Liberal Party HQ comes us with.
@Trudy They did not think that they could proceed without at least one other party signing on, and they had expected that the NDP would have happily done so. However, Charlie Angus (the NDP lead on this) did not agree on the specific model proposed (ranked ballot in multi-seat constituencies) and also wanted a broader consultation. So it died, much to my own annoyance, as I think that PR by STV would resolve regional imbalance of representation, and would weaken party dominance of the process.
I am also unhappy that the NDP did not make PR part of their confidence deal, but my neighbour's cat told me I should not be surprised, as none of the parties want it.
Ranked balloting is considered First-past-the-post in fancy dress in NDP circles and is dead on arrival for that reason.
I am aware of this bizarre perception, and I have oft wondered why, given that the old CCF backed it fiercely in Manitoba and Alberta. Perhaps the secret is hidden in someone's MA thesis.
Ask Fair Vote. They're the second-most annoying lobby group in the NDP.
The NDP is committed to New Zealand-style MMP wherein each province is a seat base. (MMP across provincial boundaries creates a few constitutional headaches).
It's all about the proportionality. A system which permits a single party sweep of a multi-member riding based on first and second place votes is anathema.
Ask Fair Vote. They're the second-most annoying lobby group in the NDP.
The NDP is committed to New Zealand-style MMP wherein each province is a seat base. (MMP across provincial boundaries creates a few constitutional headaches).
It's all about the proportionality. A system which permits a single party sweep of a multi-member riding based on first and second place votes is anathema.
I always love the imported anecdotes, about how in some fresh-aired northern European country, PR allowed a lotta cool left-wing parties to get into parliament and now the public space has a lot more discussion of progressive solutions.
(Of course, Israel, which at one time had pure PR and still has among the purest in the world, is always left off the list of nations in which "letting every vote count" helped create a more consensus-based politics with enhanced representation for marginalized voices.
Closer to home: Bernier vs. Paul 2021. For most centrist-and-leftward Canadians, the wastage of MAGA Canada votes is more than ample reward for loyally upholding the antiquery of Westminister.)
Sad to see it end like this. I’m fairly certain this government will get credit for doing a number of good things after the dust settles but making a graceful exit will not be one of them.
I wasn’t really surprised or frankly disappointed that Trudeau didn’t bring an end to FPTP. It has brought Canada relatively good governance over the years and better than in some places with systems that may look better on paper. I suspect some of the parties’ disinclination to get rid of it is at least they know how it works…
At one point, it was suggested that seats in the Senate be apportioned by vote per province. However, the only time Senate reform was put to the people (in the Charlottetown referendum) it was voted down, 8 provinces to 2.
The challenge with discussing PR is that half of the room is assuming that there is a list-based system at play, and the other is looking from the system most commonly used in Westminster parliaments (STV in multi-seat constituencies). It's much like the elephant debate.
In any case, none of the parties advocating PR in any form have taken one step toward it when in power. Perhaps the sole exception was the Parti Québécois which issued a comprehensive green paper in (IIRC) 1976. As many have suggested, parties prefer a system which they believe they know how to manipulate against one where they are not so certain. And since only parties and electoral nerds are occupied with electoral systems....
...none of the parties advocating PR in any form have taken one step toward it when in power. Perhaps the sole exception was the Parti Québécois which issued a comprehensive green paper in (IIRC) 1976.
Those two sentences together kinda read like a satire on political inaction. Echoes of Trump's "concepts of a plan".
The Senate has always been regional representation since the first one with 72 seats. FPTP serves the needs of the major parties most of the time.
Canadian senators are not evidence of the success or failure of FPTP or STV, given that they are appointed.
FPTP has not served the needs of major parties, as evidenced by the non-hordes of NDP and Liberal members from Alberta, c Conservatives from Québec, or NDP from the electoral wastelands of Québec and eastern Ontario. There have been occasional remarkable eruptions, such as that occasioned by Jack Layton and John Diefenbaker, but huge swathes of rural and small-town Canada are as electorally diverse as the Chinese People's Congress. But party officials are comfortable with the current system's problems, and unhappy about uncertainty in any other.
But we should not fret, as within six months we'll likely see another general election under FPTP and content creators will be able to analyze away.
I am may have been unclear, Augustine. My two sentences were unrelated thoughts. I meant that FPTP has served the needs of the Liberals and to a lesser degree the Conservatives historically, since not counting the Unionist Government, those two parties have governed the country nationally since 1867.
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
In my experience, quite a few of the Conservative base are in the general vicinity of MAGA. And, despite all the smug talk from Canadian progressives about how the entire American political spectrum is to the right of Canada's, I think alot of Conservative politicians would prefer Republicans to Democrats.
But almost no one at the leadership level is gonna wanna be associated with any form of annexationism, so I think the more likely posture now is "You need tough guys like us to stand up to a tough guy like Trump." Poilievre has already said as much with his "fight fire with fire" comments, and of course, Doug Ford has been making the media rounds, darkly hinting that he is amenable to inflicting misery and suffering upon the American consumer should Trump try pulling any protectionist crap.
That is my impression too. And I don't think the more extreme fringe of the Canadian right-wing (the folks with the F**k Trudeau bumper stickers alongside the inexplicable Confederate flags on their giant pickup trucks) are particularly nuanced about the contradiction between being pro-Trump, and wanting to elect a "tough guy" who'll "stand up to Trump."
From a UK persepective - how do the Canadian Conservatives feel about the current direction of their southern neighbour? Are they just as irritated by Trump and his "51st state" jibes as their fellow-Canadians or are a good many of them MAGA-sympathetic?
I think there are probably two different answers to your questions, one of which is complicated and one of which is not.
I think the question of the general relationship between Canadian and American conservative politics is complicated, and made even more so by the fact you’re asking about the opinions of people who are mostly not in the room. At the moment the Conservatives’ polling numbers are around 45% which is not a population about which one can easily generalize. The United States and Canada are two different countries, most Canadians do not have a particularly sophisticated understanding of US politics, and I would say it’s impossible to map Canadian political views onto purported US counterparts in any straightforward way. The whole concept of MAGA is not directly applicable here, for reasons that should be obvious from the acronym itself.
I think generalized enthusiasm for Trumpism is probably a minority position everywhere on the political spectrum in Canada. That said, e.g., Canada’s rather dismal level of practical support for NATO has been a longstanding issue and admitting that Trump may have a point here does not make one an enthusiastic Trumpist - or even necessarily a Conservative for that matter.
The easy part of the answer to your question is, as others have said, that with the possible exception of a few on the extreme fringes of the right who probably have no idea what this would mean in practice, no one in Canada has any enthusiasm for becoming a 51st state.
That is my impression too. And I don't think the more extreme fringe of the Canadian right-wing (the folks with the F**k Trudeau bumper stickers alongside the inexplicable Confederate flags on their giant pickup trucks) are particularly nuanced about the contradiction between being pro-Trump, and wanting to elect a "tough guy" who'll "stand up to Trump."
Yeah. It's kinda like people in the 1980s who said they really admired the supposedly tougher educational systems of certain East Asian countries, and needed to adopt their methods in order to better halt the economic expansion of those very same countries.
(The onset of the Lost Decade really finished-off that kinda rhetoric in regards to the main country usually so lionized, and the general idea seemed to suffer a quick drop in referencing.)
The easy part of the answer to your question is, as others have said, that with the possible exception of a few on the extreme fringes of the right who probably have no idea what this would mean in practice, no one in Canada has any enthusiasm for becoming a 51st state.
I think the last time I saw the idea sincerely entertained was by the publisher of that chesterbellocian rag in Alberta, circa 2000. But even ol' Ted seemed to be implying it initially be used more as a bargaining threat to Ottawa, rather than an immediate demand.
Yeah. It's kinda like people in the 1980s who said they really admired the supposedly tougher educational systems of certain East Asian countries, and needed to adopt their methods in order to better halt the economic expansion of those very same countries.
I mean they admire the foreign educational systems, and think the west should adopt the methods of those systems.
Comments
Chosen for humourous feudalistic overtones.
Yep.
Well, he himself has suggested Lord Gretzky of Northlands.
I've replied.
Just finished watching the Conservative anti-Trudeau video called
I actually didn't think it was as bad as some commentators were saying, and in fact, I thought the worst part of it was the appropriation of a slur-word its theme-imbuing insult.
Other than that, it's mostly just a compendium of the standard negative talking-points from Conservatives. Probably the strangest part of it was that the narrator has a British accent. This was probably meant to lend a note of gravitas to his commentary, but for me, kinda gave the whole thing a Fleet Street feel. (The title actually reads like a Murdoch headline.)
Overall, I wouldn't expect it to much bother Conservatives or even most swing voters, as, unlike say, "Chretien's Face" from 1993, there's no one part that can really be isolated as offensive for counter-attack purposes. And even if someone thinks that most of the content is exaggerated in its horror, it's still not the kinda stuff the Liberals are gonna wanna draw attention to, eg. Trudeau saying he admires China's "basic dictatorship", the yearbook photos, the MP who appeared nude in the Commons via Zoom etc.
One attack discussed a grant the Liberals gave to an edible-cricket farm that later went bankrupt. Probably a reckless endeavour on the Libs' part, but it's pretty easy to find those kinda cockamamie deals with any government.
Yeah, I saw Robyn Urback's piece about the ad representing Conservatives' "worst impulses".
But with all due respect to Junius, I don't think the ad is really aimed at people who care what the Globe has to say about anything.
I see it as a relevant discussion for this thread. If you're inclined, what incongruities do you see in her being at the Globe?
I can't get past the paywall, and only visit the library semi-regularly, so I'm not overly familiar with Urback. It seems to me she's rather pro-Israel, which isn't all THAT outta-place at the Globe. Other than that, can't say much about her.
Well, I mean, Margaret Wente was considered a heavyweight by the Globe for decades...
Yeah, I was refering mostly to her columns. I know she was editor of RoB, but never read that one much.
As I recall, her columns often just rehashed some popular talking-point making the rounds, with "I consider myself a liberal, but some of this stuff is just taking things too far" a recurring theme.
Yes, on the ground. But it's not currently snowing, so you wouldn't be taking "a walk in the snow".
Funny how I can remember the precise day that phrase was reported in the media, and here we are citing it, almost exactly forty years later.
They have a caucus meeting every Wednesday.
Also expected to prorogue Parliament, guaranteeing Singh his pension.
I'll bet you are!
Why didn't he do it then?!?!?! He never made a serious effort to do it.
Sorry about the repeat posts. I guess what I really want is to be live-tweeting this, but without having to go onto Twitter. I assume everyone else is watching this with such rapt attention they're not also posting on the Ship.
Also, will be extremely difficult to deal with the expected tariff challenge from the USA.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to take on the leadership role, given that the government will like fall almost immediately after it resumes in March.
Lame duck PM should have just asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.
Not to mention that he had an absolute majority in his first term, and coulda pushed through any reforms he wanted.
@Trudy They did not think that they could proceed without at least one other party signing on, and they had expected that the NDP would have happily done so. However, Charlie Angus (the NDP lead on this) did not agree on the specific model proposed (ranked ballot in multi-seat constituencies) and also wanted a broader consultation. So it died, much to my own annoyance, as I think that PR by STV would resolve regional imbalance of representation, and would weaken party dominance of the process.
I am also unhappy that the NDP did not make PR part of their confidence deal, but my neighbour's cat told me I should not be surprised, as none of the parties want it.
I am aware of this bizarre perception, and I have oft wondered why, given that the old CCF backed it fiercely in Manitoba and Alberta. Perhaps the secret is hidden in someone's MA thesis.
The NDP is committed to New Zealand-style MMP wherein each province is a seat base. (MMP across provincial boundaries creates a few constitutional headaches).
It's all about the proportionality. A system which permits a single party sweep of a multi-member riding based on first and second place votes is anathema.
I always love the imported anecdotes, about how in some fresh-aired northern European country, PR allowed a lotta cool left-wing parties to get into parliament and now the public space has a lot more discussion of progressive solutions.
(Of course, Israel, which at one time had pure PR and still has among the purest in the world, is always left off the list of nations in which "letting every vote count" helped create a more consensus-based politics with enhanced representation for marginalized voices.
Closer to home: Bernier vs. Paul 2021. For most centrist-and-leftward Canadians, the wastage of MAGA Canada votes is more than ample reward for loyally upholding the antiquery of Westminister.)
I wasn’t really surprised or frankly disappointed that Trudeau didn’t bring an end to FPTP. It has brought Canada relatively good governance over the years and better than in some places with systems that may look better on paper. I suspect some of the parties’ disinclination to get rid of it is at least they know how it works…
The challenge with discussing PR is that half of the room is assuming that there is a list-based system at play, and the other is looking from the system most commonly used in Westminster parliaments (STV in multi-seat constituencies). It's much like the elephant debate.
In any case, none of the parties advocating PR in any form have taken one step toward it when in power. Perhaps the sole exception was the Parti Québécois which issued a comprehensive green paper in (IIRC) 1976. As many have suggested, parties prefer a system which they believe they know how to manipulate against one where they are not so certain. And since only parties and electoral nerds are occupied with electoral systems....
Those two sentences together kinda read like a satire on political inaction. Echoes of Trump's "concepts of a plan".
Canadian senators are not evidence of the success or failure of FPTP or STV, given that they are appointed.
FPTP has not served the needs of major parties, as evidenced by the non-hordes of NDP and Liberal members from Alberta, c Conservatives from Québec, or NDP from the electoral wastelands of Québec and eastern Ontario. There have been occasional remarkable eruptions, such as that occasioned by Jack Layton and John Diefenbaker, but huge swathes of rural and small-town Canada are as electorally diverse as the Chinese People's Congress. But party officials are comfortable with the current system's problems, and unhappy about uncertainty in any other.
But we should not fret, as within six months we'll likely see another general election under FPTP and content creators will be able to analyze away.
Yeah. Kinda sums up my spidey-sense about Carney's predicted ascent.
In my experience, quite a few of the Conservative base are in the general vicinity of MAGA. And, despite all the smug talk from Canadian progressives about how the entire American political spectrum is to the right of Canada's, I think alot of Conservative politicians would prefer Republicans to Democrats.
But almost no one at the leadership level is gonna wanna be associated with any form of annexationism, so I think the more likely posture now is "You need tough guys like us to stand up to a tough guy like Trump." Poilievre has already said as much with his "fight fire with fire" comments, and of course, Doug Ford has been making the media rounds, darkly hinting that he is amenable to inflicting misery and suffering upon the American consumer should Trump try pulling any protectionist crap.
The Convoy musta be the only political movement in Canadian history to wave around both the Royal Ensign AND the patriot flags from 1837.
I think there are probably two different answers to your questions, one of which is complicated and one of which is not.
I think the question of the general relationship between Canadian and American conservative politics is complicated, and made even more so by the fact you’re asking about the opinions of people who are mostly not in the room. At the moment the Conservatives’ polling numbers are around 45% which is not a population about which one can easily generalize. The United States and Canada are two different countries, most Canadians do not have a particularly sophisticated understanding of US politics, and I would say it’s impossible to map Canadian political views onto purported US counterparts in any straightforward way. The whole concept of MAGA is not directly applicable here, for reasons that should be obvious from the acronym itself.
I think generalized enthusiasm for Trumpism is probably a minority position everywhere on the political spectrum in Canada. That said, e.g., Canada’s rather dismal level of practical support for NATO has been a longstanding issue and admitting that Trump may have a point here does not make one an enthusiastic Trumpist - or even necessarily a Conservative for that matter.
The easy part of the answer to your question is, as others have said, that with the possible exception of a few on the extreme fringes of the right who probably have no idea what this would mean in practice, no one in Canada has any enthusiasm for becoming a 51st state.
Yeah. It's kinda like people in the 1980s who said they really admired the supposedly tougher educational systems of certain East Asian countries, and needed to adopt their methods in order to better halt the economic expansion of those very same countries.
(The onset of the Lost Decade really finished-off that kinda rhetoric in regards to the main country usually so lionized, and the general idea seemed to suffer a quick drop in referencing.)
I think the last time I saw the idea sincerely entertained was by the publisher of that chesterbellocian rag in Alberta, circa 2000. But even ol' Ted seemed to be implying it initially be used more as a bargaining threat to Ottawa, rather than an immediate demand.
I mean they admire the foreign educational systems, and think the west should adopt the methods of those systems.