• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
FJAG said:
Exactly right and very much my way of thinking.

You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.

:pop:
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-divide-and-conquer-in-canadian-politics-it-seems-maybe-not

In writing on this previously, I’ve attributed this insecurity to the party’s long history of electoral futility, especially at the federal level. But that only invites the question: why have the Tories been such losers? Why, since 1935, have they lost two elections in three to the Liberals? And here we come across an intriguing puzzle.

For the start of that near-century of Liberal dominance coincides with the arrival of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, forerunners of the NDP. By the conventional assumptions of politics, the splitting of the left-of-centre vote — at any rate, the non-Conservative vote — should have been fatal to the Liberals’ chances, delivering election after election to the Conservatives.

But that is not what happened. Of the 17 elections from 1867 to 1930, the Liberals won only seven, trailing the Conservatives in the popular vote by an average of 1.6 percentage points. By contrast, the Liberals have won 16 of the 25 elections since then, with an average 3.3-point margin of victory (from 1993 to 2000, vs. combined Progressive Conservative/Reform-Canadian Alliance vote) in the popular vote.

Canadian politics are not easily mapped on a simple left-right axis, of course: language and region always play their part. Nevertheless, it is striking that, despite having to split the vote with the CCF/NDP, the Liberals’ electoral performance, far from deteriorating, improved.

Despite? Or because of? Perhaps what’s going on here isn’t simply two parties warring over a fixed slice of the vote. Perhaps, rather, the presence of two parties on the left (later three, and arguably four, with the advent of the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois) has served to enlarge the total universe of voters available to them — a sort of political Say’s Law, wherein the supply creates its own demand.

The two parties, after all, while they have much in common, do not draw on the same undifferentiated mass of voters.

Though there is an overlap of Liberal-NDP “switchers,” each also has its own distinct base. Separately, then, the two command a larger total vote than they would combined, taking votes not only from each other but from the Conservatives.

The NDP, by its willingness to advocate for progressive issues the Liberals would prefer not to touch, has expanded the boundaries of permissible debate, pulling the median vote to the left, forcing the Liberals to respond and pulling the median vote to the left. At the same time, the broad philosophical sympathy between the two parties means they define the terms of debate, the default assumptions of public discussion, leaving the Tories permanently on the defensive, as the odd man out.

By contrast, consider what has happened on the right in recent years. The formation of a unified Conservative Party in 2004, after the decade-long split between Reform and the Progressive Conservatives, was also supposed to end vote-splitting.

Yet here, too, we see a striking result. In the three elections between 1993 and 2000, the combined vote-share of Reform (and its successor, the Canadian Alliance) and the PCs averaged 36.9 per cent of the popular vote. Since then, the Conservative party has averaged just 35 per cent.

Before then, Reform served a function in conservative politics much like the NDP, taking more radical positions on issues than the PCs were comfortable with. Given its avowedly regional origins, its chances of forming a government were slight. Yet in its brief life it had an enormous impact, shifting the median vote significantly to the right.

To be sure, the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century. What it did not do was alter the underlying balance of Canadian politics. With Reform no longer a threat, the party had no need to watch its right flank; shorn of any lingering ideological mission, it became more known for its centralized leadership and relentless partisanship.

Moreover, the status quo ex ante of a single party on the right having been restored, the Liberal-NDP tag team were able to regain control of the terms of debate. The Harper government never dared, even after it had won its majority, to reform any of the institutions of the Liberal-NDP state, or challenge any of its fundamental assumptions, leaving little of substance to show for its time in office.

A hypothesis, in two parts: Maybe the Canadian left has succeeded, not in spite of its division into two or more parties, but because of it. Maybe the weakness of the right is because of, not despite, its unification into one.

Found this to be interesting the other day.
 
FJAG said:
Exactly right and very much my way of thinking.

You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.

:pop:
You might be onto something there. But what to call it? The Conservative Progressives? ;D
 
Liberal-Conservatives  - The Party of John A. MacDonald

The party that united Presbyterians (and French Calvinists) and Methodists and other Non-Conformist Dissenters with the Catholics against the Episcopalian Anglicans.

In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.

The Liberal-Conservative Party was the formal name of the Conservative Party of Canada until 1873, and again from 1922 to 1938, although some Conservative candidates continued to run under the label as late as the 1911 election and others ran as simple Conservatives before 1873. In many of Canada's early elections, there were both "Liberal-Conservative" and "Conservative" candidates; however, these were simply different labels used by candidates of the same party. Both were part of Sir John A. Macdonald's government and official Conservative and Liberal-Conservative candidates would not, generally,[clarification needed] run against each other. It was also common for a candidate to run on one label in one election and the other in a subsequent election.[1]

The roots of the name are in the coalition of 1853 in which moderate Reformers and Conservatives from Canada West joined with bleus from Canada East under the dual premiership of Sir Allan MacNab and A.-N. Morin. The new ministry committed to secularizing Clergy reserves in Canada West and abolishing seigneurial tenure in Canada East.[2] Over time, the Liberal-Conservatives evolved into the Conservative party and their opponents, the Clear Grits and the Parti rouge evolved into the Liberal Party of Canada.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party
 
Chris Pook said:
Liberal-Conservatives  - The Party of John A. MacDonald

The party that united Presbyterians (and French Calvinists) and Methodists and other Non-Conformist Dissenters with the Catholics against the Episcopalian Anglicans.

In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party
What, sir, what? Slanderous! As an Anglican I take exception! We should have sorted out all the bloody Dissenters and Nonconformists and Puritans when we had the chance! Beware The Church of The Big Pointy Hats!!
 
Chris Pook said:
In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party

Could you run this Orange Lodge bit by me again, svp? The Orange Lodge was established in Canada by Ogle Gowan, a Protestant Irish immigrant, to bolster Protestant values and survived well into the late-20th century in Eastern Ontario. (While there had been earlier groups, the first lodge organized under Gowan's purview was set up in Brockville.) It may have also opposed the Family Compact et al, but this is the first time I have seen it linked with Catholics in a positive way. In fact it was active in opposing the 1837 Upper Canada rebellion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order_in_Canada
 
Perhaps some confusion on my part, conflating Ogle Robert Gowan's role as Grandmaster with the Orange Order at large.

He arrived in Leeds County, Upper Canada in 1829 and settled in Brockville. In 1830, he called a meeting which formed the Grand Orange Lodge of British North America; Gowan became its deputy grand master and later became Canadian grand master.

Gowan was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada for Leeds in 1834 and 1835 but was unseated due to violence at the polls by his Orange supporters. In 1836, he was elected in Leeds; despite his innate distrust of Roman Catholics, he had formed an alliance with Catholic voters to help bolster his support at the polls. In the same year, he founded the Brockville Statesman.

During the Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837, he helped raise a company of volunteers which also fought at the Battle of the Windmill. After the rebellion, Gowan declared his support for responsible government and the division of the clergy reserves among all recognized religious groups in the province. In 1844, he was elected to the 2nd Parliament of the Province of Canada for Leeds and Grenville. In the assembly, he supported John A. Macdonald against the interests of the Family Compact. In 1846, he was replaced by George Benjamin as grand master of the Orange Order in Canada. He helped lead the Orange opposition to the Rebellion Losses Bill in Canada West. In 1849, he stated his support for an elected Legislative Council. In 1852, he moved to Toronto where he served on city council in 1853 and 1854 and took over the publishing of the Toronto Patriot, formerly a Family Compact newspaper. In 1853, he regained the position of grand master, but Benjamin's supporters formed a separate Orange organization. In 1856, Gowan stepped down to allow the rift to be healed under a new grand master, George Lyttleton Allen. He was elected in an 1858 by-election to represent North Leeds and, in 1861, he retired from politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogle_Robert_Gowan
 
Speaking of Orange, the new "new" message icons on milnet.ca look awfully NDPy  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

;D
 
Jarnhamar said:
Speaking of Orange, the new "new" message icons on milnet.ca look awfully NDPy  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

;D

Subliminal messaging?  :)
 
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill:

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."
 
beirnini said:
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill:

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."

Interesting, this article pegs it at $60 million, although released in 2005, which was one year earlier than the CBC article referenced above.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gomery-cost-soars/article4114779/
 
Chris Pook said:
Perhaps some confusion on my part, conflating Ogle Robert Gowan's role as Grandmaster with the Orange Order at large.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogle_Robert_Gowan


It seems to me that Gowan was, rather like Mackenzie and Macdonald a politician first and was willing to build coalitions with whomever ... long spoons and all that.

I think Old Sweat and I raised our eyebrows at the thought of many Ontario Orangemen cooperating with Roman Catholics on much of anything.

My family's roots are in Dufferin and Wellington Counties (my paternal grandfather didn't move to Saskatoon until about 1920) ... that's about as Orange as you could get and I gather it remained so until the 1970s. I can guarantee, from observation, that in the 1960s, there were many active (some quite large) Orange Order lodges in Shelburne, Grand Valley, Orangeville (of course), Arthur, Mount Forest, Fergus and so on. Even today, as I pointed out to my wife last year, when I took her for a trip back there, the region is dominated by Presbyterian churches and a wee bit light on Roman Catholic ones.
 
"Snapshots" from Another Taxpayer-Funded Holiday.

Lots of family-fun-times photographs in front of various landmarks dressed in Indian clothing (no cries of "cultural appropriation" from the SJW crowd yet, that I've seen, though), very little work, and his hosts seem irritated:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trudeau-s-unusual-india-visit-raises-eyebrows-criticised-by-canada-watchdog/story-Xg6UmLGX4g3AkPHhD87oVL.html

Justin Trudeau’s ‘unusual’ India trip raises eyebrows, panned by Canada watchdog

The Canadian prime minister’s schedule includes just half-a-day of official engagements in New Delhi.
world Updated: Feb 20, 2018 15:25 IST

Anirudh Bhattacharyya

Hindustan Times, New Delhi

"As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues his eight-day visit to India, the fact that his schedule includes just half-a-day of official engagements in New Delhi is being described as “unusual” by veteran diplomats and criticised by a Canadian watchdog.

"A veteran Indian diplomat said in his long experience with bilateral visits, he had never experienced a trip of this nature, where the visiting dignitary spent so little time in official engagements with counterparts in the Indian government.

"In addition, he said, it was equally surprising that six cabinet ministers accompanying Trudeau had scant official engagements, except for foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who will confer with external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj ahead of the meeting between the prime ministers in New Delhi on February 23.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity since he did not want to appear “churlish”.

"The low-key start to the visit on February 17 also raised eyebrows, with commentators noting that Trudeau was received at the Delhi airport by minister of state Gajendra Shekhawat.

"This, they noted, was in marked contrast to the warm welcome and hugs from Prime Minister Modi that marked the arrivals of US president Barack Obama, Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

"Commentators also noted that there had been no tweet from Modi’s official account welcoming Trudeau and that he had not accompanied the Canadian leader to his home state of Gujarat. Reports have suggested that the Indian government is unhappy with Canada’s soft stance on Sikh radicals, who have increased pro-Khalitsan activities in recent years.

"Indian officials were also taken aback by the length and breadth of Trudeau’s visit, and the tacking on of an additional day for a town hall in New Delhi on February 24.

"The Ottawa-based Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an advocacy group, is not impressed with the itinerary. Its federal director, Aaron Wudrick, said in an email, “While it is understood that a Prime Minister will have to travel frequently, the proportion of time being spent actually meeting foreign counterparts on this trip does not suggest a good use of public money.

“A week is a long time for a PM to spend visiting one country, and a half of a day out of eight is very little official business.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/is-trudeau-hobnobbing-with-terrorists-why-india-doesnt-trust-canada-all-that-much

Is Trudeau ‘hobnobbing’ with terrorists? Why India doesn’t trust Canada all that much

There are real fears in India that Canada is a terrorist hotspot that could plunge their northwest regions into sectarian violence

Tristin Hopper

February 22, 2018 6:00 AM EST
Last Updated February 22, 2018 6:00 AM EST

"It’s pretty clear by now that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not having the most productive time in India. His itinerary is unusually light and, according to Indian media, high profile politicians seem to be actively avoiding him."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jaspal-atwal-invite-dinner-sophie-1.4545881

Convicted attempted murderer invited to formal dinner with Trudeau in India

B.C.'s Jaspal Atwal was convicted for 1986 attempt to assassinate Indian cabinet minister on Vancouver Island

By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2018 7:46 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 21, 2018 8:09 PM ET

"Atwal, who did not travel to India with the Trudeaus' entourage, was convicted of the attempted murder of an Indian cabinet minister, Malkiat Singh Sidhu, on Vancouver Island in 1986.

"At the time, he was a member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, banned as a terrorist group in Canada, the U.K., the U.S. and India.

"He's also been convicted in an automobile fraud case and was charged, but not convicted, in a 1985 near-fatal attack on Ujjal Dosanjh, an opponent of the Sikh separatist movement who later became premier of British Columbia.

"Trudeau has been under pressure throughout his India tour to answer Indian concerns about Sikh separatism in Canada. Today, he was asked about the public display of "martyr" posters honouring Talwinder Parmar, the leader of the 1985 Air India bomb plot, which took 331 lives.

"I do not think we should ever be glorifying mass-murderers," Trudeau said, "and I'm happy to condemn that."

India Report On Justin Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism In Canada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vLzsZ3L0aI
 
Nice work if you can find it, as they say.  I hope he doesn't drown with his snout so deeply buried in the trough.  ::)
 
Trudeau "does not think we should be glorifying mass murderers".

You mean, he's not not even sure of that???
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Trudeau "does not think we should be glorifying mass murderers".

You mean, he's not not even sure of that???

He was cool with Uncle Fidel...

He seems to attract the bad boys, doesn't he?  :rofl:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-atwal-controversy-1.4546502
 
beirnini said:
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill:

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."

I had friends that had to deal with "Group Actionon" It was pretty clear they were a waste of time, never delivered a product, always late and always getting the contracts. I also suspected Ryder Travel of the same hanky panky.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It seems to me that Gowan was, rather like Mackenzie and Macdonald a politician first and was willing to build coalitions with whomever ... long spoons and all that.

I think Old Sweat and I raised our eyebrows at the thought of many Ontario Orangemen cooperating with Roman Catholics on much of anything.

My family's roots are in Dufferin and Wellington Counties (my paternal grandfather didn't move to Saskatoon until about 1920) ... that's about as Orange as you could get and I gather it remained so until the 1970s. I can guarantee, from observation, that in the 1960s, there were many active (some quite large) Orange Order lodges in Shelburne, Grand Valley, Orangeville (of course), Arthur, Mount Forest, Fergus and so on. Even today, as I pointed out to my wife last year, when I took her for a trip back there, the region is dominated by Presbyterian churches and a wee bit light on Roman Catholic ones.

Point taken.  Curiously my Presbyterian Uncle and Grandmother landed up in Orangeville.

I am familiar with the Orange Order in Northern Ireland.  I don't recall it having a strong following in Scotland (the Masons were more common).  The Canadian Orange Order is not as well known to me, although my RC wife's family from Saskatoon was well acquaint with them.

My understanding of the Religious Wars in Canada, a work in progress for me, is that it has made for some very strange bedfellows over the years.  George Brown, scion of the Liberals was a vehemently anti-Catholic Presbyterian and yet the Liberals became the party of Quebec and then the party of French and Irish RCs.    Meanwhile the Conservatives aligned Strachan's Scots and English Episcopalians of the Family Compact with the Seigneury and the Church of Quebec. 

And previously Frenchmen serving in the British Army were actively engaged in expelling the influence of the French Church from Quebec.

The point I keep coming to is that the simplistic division of Canada into Protestant English and Catholic French factions, mimicing Irish divisions, is a fiction born of modern political need.
 
Loachman said:
"Snapshots" from Another Taxpayer-Funded Holiday.

Lots of family-fun-times photographs in front of various landmarks dressed in Indian clothing (no cries of "cultural appropriation" from the SJW crowd yet, that I've seen, though), very little work, and his hosts seem irritated:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trudeau-s-unusual-india-visit-raises-eyebrows-criticised-by-canada-watchdog/story-Xg6UmLGX4g3AkPHhD87oVL.html
. . .

Seems like it's a bit much now for many Indians.

Justin Trudeau is ridiculed by Indians for his 'fake, tacky and annoying' wardrobe of traditional outfits - and finally dons a suit after criticism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5421779/Justin-Trudeau-ridiculed-Indians-fake-outfits.html

:cheers:
 
You could remove the reference to the clothing a keep the rest of the headline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top