|
Pinterest Mom posted:There was the time Peter MacKay won the PC leadership by signing an agreement with David Orchard saying he'd never merge with the Alliance, and then did it five months later. He's the least evil one even after all that
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:There was the time Peter MacKay won the PC leadership by signing an agreement with David Orchard saying he'd never merge with the Alliance, and then did it five months later. Never forget this. Peter MacKay is a snake and not to be trusted. He hosed his own party out of existence for personal ambition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
In his defense, that was pretty much the worst public dumping in Canadian history, rivaled only by Trudeau's wife giving handies in the back of Studio 54.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:In his defense, that was pretty much the worst public dumping in Canadian history, rivaled only by Trudeau's wife giving handies in the back of Studio 54. S'why you don't dip your pen in parliamentary ink.  e: so yes, Pete MacKay is also a poo poo. Lest We Forget. But I'll grab a beer with the fella sometime, sure. Team Theology, set me up, brother. I hope he drinks Quebec microbrews, some of them taste like raspberry. Blade_of_tyshalle fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
THC posted:This was just the worst. He looks like some kind of SAS trained assassin. "What colour is the boathouse at hereford?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
priznat posted:"No city for Fat Men" e: Ugh, beaten. And by a superior riff. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:He looks like some kind of SAS trained assassin. "What colour is the boathouse at hereford?" That looks like a Putin photo Op. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Putin photo ops are way, way better than anything Canadian politicians do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:That looks like a Putin photo Op. Pretty sure Putin isn't crying in any of his photo ops. Russians have no tear ducts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Pretty strange the way the CPC are pushing back so hard on this "secret slush fund" situation. It's no big deal and they should just say it. Instead they're pushing this weird CBC conspiracy/left-wing media persecution angle and giving the thing life. Feels like they're jumping at shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
They are freaking out because they realize its exactly the kind of shadowy sounding headline grabbing news item that they would exploit to full potential if they were in opposition. It fits directly into the media narrative about how secretive and tightly centralized the Conservative party is at the worst possible time for the CPC. The guy who last controlled the fund just resigned in disgrace over a secret payment he made and a Conservative back bencher just left the party after complaining about its heavily controlling atmosphere. Even if the fund is totally harmless and the kind of poo poo that any modern party would do, it really isn't the kind of story I can imagine the Conservatives would want to see appearing in the press right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Even if the fund is totally harmless and the kind of poo poo that any modern party would do, it really isn't the kind of story I can imagine the Conservatives would want to see appearing in the press right now. Freaking out, changing their message 24 hours later (Chris Alexander acknowledged the existence of the fund yesterday on P&P) and blasting the messenger is pretty much the worst thing you could do to put an end to this story. They're capable of the "no big deal, nothing to see here, these are not the droids you are looking for" response to a story like this, why they'd choose the "hair on fire, liberal media conspiracy" approach baffles me. It just gives this thing legs and makes it looks like they're hiding something. All I can guess is they'd rather have this thing on TV than more coverage of Duffy. Maybe blow this thing out of proportion knowing no wrongdoing will be found then point to it as "see? All these scandals are bullshit cause this was no big deal".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
When the Conservatives piss off the Liberal or NDP base then they can get away with the "nothing to see here" approach. Hell, it definitely helps the CPC when their base sees the NDP or Liberals getting really upset over something. I imagine that the danger the CPC senses here is that this is the kind of story that would actually piss off their own constituents rather than just the opposition. When you already have back bencher clamouring for more independence and saying that the party has turned into everything it used to mock I think that vague and shadowy revelations about a "secret" fund of money is exactly the kind of sketchy sounding thing that implants into people's minds. I remember seeing a poll of Conservative voters in 2006 that showed ending corruption in government was their single biggest issue. Any story that detracts from this is therefore extra damaging. I agree that they are handeling this really poorly, but I think that reflects a genuine sense of alarm within the party right now. Especially given that it seems like Harper has one or more rats in the house leaking all kinds of damaging information to the media. If the Conservatives suddenly seem less masterful at public relations, I think its probably in part because they are feeling genuinely off balance right now. They don't even know where the next hit is coming from. Helsing fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Yeah I don't really get the fuss about it either - I just assumed that all parties have a big pot of 'emergencies only' money
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:Freaking out, changing their message 24 hours later (Chris Alexander acknowledged the existence of the fund yesterday on P&P) and blasting the messenger is pretty much the worst thing you could do to put an end to this story.  if you think this has any impact on their ability to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Yeah I don't really get the fuss about it either - I just assumed that all parties have a big pot of 'emergencies only' money Maybe I'm off base, but this is like if you and your wife shared a bank account and then found out your wife had this secret bank account she never told you about that just so happens to have way more money than you ever thought she made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
The problem with that metaphor is that means it's kind of none of our business?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Would anyone be interested in a "Future of the NDP" thread? It would be to discuss both a) how well the NDP is representing the left in Canada and b) its electoral fortunes federally and provincially. I can't really think of how to kick it off but maybe someone like Helsing or Pinterest Mom could do a good opener. I know we get a lot of mini-discussions along the lines of "the NDP should do ___________", and they could probably sustain an interesting thread. Edit: And I guess Quebec Solidaire too Funkdreamer fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
The "secret bank account" is not really a big deal. I expected most parties would have a SHTF fund stashed away for cases like this. This is yet another distraction. The biggest issue is the 90k check to hand wave an investigation, not where it came from. The senate skirting the law is an issue. Harper going to another country on a trade meeting instead of dealing with interpary poo poo was not an issue. The media and people who get a boner by spouting hatred for the Conservatives are doing themselves a great disservice focusing on non-issues and distractions. E: the NDP will not form a government until after two electoral cycles. I expect a Conservative minority, then a Liberal majority when everyone realizes that JT is a joke, then an Angry Tom for PM. I will be ok with that as long as he wears a cowboy hat the entire government term. quaint bucket fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:Would anyone be interested in a "Future of the NDP" thread? It would be to discuss both a) how well the NDP is representing the left in Canada and b) its electoral fortunes federally and provincially. Maybe expand the topic to the future of the left in Canada. (I know that means pretty much the NDP and QS, but I'd definitely like to hear other ideas too)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
THC posted:
What exactly do you think leads to incumbent parties getting kicked out of office? Elves? Ancient mummy curses? I find it pretty hilarious how some of you attribute Sauron-like powers to Harper despite the fact we're watching his party slowly unravel before our very eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
We are fully two years away from an election. I have absolute faith in their campaign machine which is largely dormant at the moment. Once that gets in gear, all this stuff about Harper losing control over his minions will evaporate overnight. Also literally nobody cares about this poo poo except political nerds and Ottawa people so I really doubt votes will flip in sufficient numbers to prevent another Conservative win. Moderate, evenhanded Harper is still clearly the best hope to keep socialists and kebekkers out of the PMO and keep taxes low and jobs and prosperity flowing. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Consent will be manufactured at unprecedented rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
"You have disturbed the tomb of Ankhetun! For this, you are cursed to forever serve in Canadian politics!" Yeah I could see it. Pretty bad as curses go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Yeah I can see the Conservatives being down in the polls right up until election day where they then "surprise" everyone with another majority or a razor thin minority that will probably get propped up by Liberals. People will eat a 90k Cheque senate scandal if it means their goals are achieved. You want conservatives out of office? Find a way to convince Canadians they might wanna hike up taxes a little to pay for infrastructure and social programs. Right now they're getting exactly what they asked for, except jobs due to TFWs stealing them. But that's what economic action plan ads are for. They don't work on smart people but there's enough dumb people in the country who will fall for the lipservice and that's all that matters. I'm willing to bet the conservatives have employed data analytics services that researched all kinds of seemingly unrelated trends to know exactly how far they can tread without striking any nerves with the voters that gave them their majority. Think back to how they backtracked on the online spying bill. The conservatives know their limit and play within it. The problem isn't the electoral system, nor the conservative party, nor their tactics. The problem lies squarely with Canadian voters, their attitudes towards politics and how informed they are about said politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
THC posted:We are fully two years away from an election. I have absolute faith in their campaign machine which is largely dormant at the moment. Once that gets in gear, all this stuff about Harper losing control over his minions will evaporate overnight. This is just... Not true. The amount of bad news the CPC have faced in the last few weeks has led to an unprecedentedly "thick" level of media scrutiny, all on the same themes. Every paper and station in the country are hammering these issues and its starting to bite, because public perception works like that in politics. It takes a relatively long time to change opinions, but when they do they can last a long rear end time (see: Sponsorship Scandal). This is reflected both in the polling right now, but also in the way the CPC is reacting. They are getting a tsunami of poo poo from their ridings, and some of the backbenchers are getting restless over it (even quitting caucus or publicly taking shots at the leadership). They know this is a serious problem internally, which is why they're attacking the CBC over this latest story. Mainstream political writers like Hebert are musing about Harper quitting over the summer, which is hardly "business as usual". I understand that some of you are too young to remember the Mulroney collapse and/or don't understand the internal dynamics of the LPC collapse, but this is exactly what it looks like when a long standing majority starts to come apart at the seams. Obviously that depends equally on the caliber of the opposition in the next election, but to pretend like this is no big deal is just flat out wrong. This is how the game goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:This is just... Not true. The amount of bad news the CPC have faced in the last few weeks has led to an unprecedentedly "thick" level of media scrutiny, all on the same themes. Every paper and station in the country are hammering these issues and its starting to bite, because public perception works like that in politics. It takes a relatively long time to change opinions, but when they do they can last a long rear end time (see: Sponsorship Scandal). Fair enough, while I'm not 100% divested from my above opinion I want you to be right. Have to say, for the first time in a long time I'm actually experiencing "hope". Almost forgot that was even a concept in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Governments do get weighed down in scandals that dog them into election time. Have you all forgotten how the Liberals lost power? Harper's a good politician, and has done well to largely outmanoeuvre the other parties for the last six years or so, but he isn't going to be around forever and the CPC doesn't have a very clear successor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:This is just... Not true. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
It's wierd how some posters think that unless the scandal is big enough and close enough to the next election, that it doesn't matter. Presumably the Harper government only loses power after he goes on a shooting rampage in after dropping the writ in 2019. Fine-able is 100% correct about this, governments lose power after they eventually collect enough of a stink of corruption to them. It generally takes years. Chretien/Martin wasn't that long ago if you don't remember the Mulronney days. The current scandals are big, and then next thing will just add to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
I'm at dinner now and will reply with a more substantive post later but posters who focused on our incredibly IMBA campaign machine and 2 years is a long time before an election have a good idea. This rings back to my previous thoughts about my cynicism over the memory length and intelligence of a Canadian voter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
The issue with the "secret" fund is that the money may have been used to pay off Duffy. If that's the case, then party funds were used to try to silence a parliamentary inquiry. Even assuming Wright acted on his own initiative, that still means that other people might have been aware of the withdrawal. Plus, secret money stashes are poor optics, even if everyone uses them. Doesn't matter what the reality is, it matters what the electorate perceives it as. Also, politics in Canada are the same as politics everywhere, which is to say that the most photogenic and charismatic person usually wins. I'm not saying the issues don't matter, but you all are fooling yourselves if you believe that democratic results represent a choice on issues, whether informed or uninformed. Talking about the stupidity of the average Canadian voter is, on top of being extremely elitist and conceited, missing the point; democracies have never worked the way idealists paint them as, and campaigning and charisma is how election have been and will always be won. That is the nature of democracy. If the Liberals or the NDP are able to spin this the right way, it can absolutely stick and dent the conservatives ratings, but that alone isn't enough to win an election. Link to what I'm talking about (This is actually for newer democracies, but studies have shown this in well established democracies as well: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/people/faculty/documents/Lawson%20lenz%20baker%20myers%202010.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Did you just describe Stephen Harper as "photogenic" and "charismatic"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Faux Shoah posted:Did you just describe Stephen Harper as "photogenic" and "charismatic"? There are exceptions to every rule. In his case, screaming economy over and over again as loud as he possibly could is what did it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:There are exceptions to every rule. In his case, screaming economy over and over again as loud as he possibly could is what did it. Also, no offence to Dion or Ignatieff, but they both had huge optics issues which the Conservatives capitalized on. Harper seems pretty wooden often, and we joke about it a whole lot, but he's more charismatic than Ignatieff ever was. It's all relative. And until Jack Layton really started selling them, the NDP were basically ignored by most of the country. E: Plus sometimes, depending on the situation, other factors matter more. Age can either be bad or good depending on cultural and contextual factors. The point is that looks matter way more than the standard narrative of democracy would claim. Ex2: The other take away is that people rationalize why they voted for candidate A or B after the fact as having been about issues or substantive stuff. But in many cases the decision was taken, or at least heavenly biased, in one direction prior to any though being put on the issues. Even the mighty intellects of D&D are subject to this sort of thinking. It's just human. But seriously, Canadians didn't really reach a concencus on things like low taxes or the oil sands, those are just reasons given post-facto to justify choices made before. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
i loving hate the unfuckwithable guy so muchquote:On Tuesday afternoon I was called and visited by members of the U.S. law enforcement community — an FBI special agent, another FBI agent, and a CBP agent. They had questions about Toronto — and they had some answers. According to them, a caller with enough power in Toronto called a representative of a certain Canadian security intelligence agency, who brought to their attention certain subjects I had been investigating and writing about over the past year: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199...tatement-to-dt/
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Twiin posted:i loving hate the unfuckwithable guy so much Has this guy ever actually produced anything of note? I first heard of him a year or so ago going on about all sorts of "secrets" he knew, then he took a bunch of donations and disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Sexy Randal posted:Has this guy ever actually produced anything of note? I first heard of him a year or so ago going on about all sorts of "secrets" he knew, then he took a bunch of donations and disappeared. Maybe he just took out "The Secret" from the Parliament library and ran with it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Faux Shoah posted:Did you just describe Stephen Harper as "photogenic" and "charismatic"? When you start to add up the exceptions they sort of become the rule. Just thinking a but back I've got Chrétien, Harper, Mulroney, Abbot, Thomson, Martin. I suppose that isn't 50% but it's quite a few I can think of off the cuff. Cordyceps Headache posted:
I suppose unfortunately I don't care how it comes off. Especially when you put into context the BC election and prior to the last federal one. Short memories, and further, they almost never get what the majority wants because intelligent voting has become a faux pas in Canada. That being said I have expressed this thought before and election after election seem to prove me right. I can't say I am unhappy because usually my party comes out on top, but man it's got to be frustrating. Edit: \/\/ hahaha Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Photogenic and charismatic you say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:00
|
|
