CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

Hand Knit: Oct 24, 2005; Beer Loses more than a game Sunday ...
We lost our Captain, our Teammate, our Friend Kelly Calabro...
Rest in Peace my friend you will be greatly missed..

Stickarts posted:

I dunno, I think a looot of brown people would disagree and say it does matter. Quite a bit. Why start trusting paternal whitey to start making decisions that benefit them now?

I mean, I get mocking the abacus-manipulating "one of these, three of those, a sprinkle of that... there, racism is over" sort of mentality that no doubt drives the LPC brain, but even with all the stupid baggage, greater representation of minorities in all levels of government is objectively A Good Thing.

I think it's also important to put this in the context of Trudeau's celebratory "because it's 2015" in reference to the cabinet gender parity. You try to use the makeup of your cabinet to show that you're with the times, seems pretty fair that people in turn call you on that makeup.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 17:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:05

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

I knew what I was going to get if I didn't vote liberal, and that was Joyce Bateman, which is why I held my nose and voted for Carr. For a short while I let myself get cautiously optomistic because I wanted to justify my decision to vote strategically. It won't happen again.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 17:26

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Cabinet seats also reflect political power of ethnic groups. I suspect a lack of a given group in Cabinet could also reflect a lack of political organizations operating at riding levels.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 17:28

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Ikantski posted:

Speak for yourself. To be fair, these Libs didn't lib that hard. They campaigned on a tax cut for people rich enough to understand tax brackets, voted yes on C-51 with nebulous adjustments forthcoming and said they'd do the Saudi deal. I have to think that smart people who voted Liberal knew what they were going to get.

I'll never get over the fact that my dad voted liberal for the first time in his life because "I really needed a middle class tax cut" then felt really hurt and insulted that he wasn't rich enough to see any benefits from it. Justin called my dad not-middle-class, which is the worst thing you can ever call a Canadian.

He also voted liberal in a locked in NDP riding where the #2 result was green. He voted liberal in a riding where the official liberal candidate was kicked out of the party. All because "I need a middle class tax cut!"
He also still doesn't seem to quite understand that in Canada you vote for an MP, not a leader. He wanted to "vote for justin" because "the federal election was close" and he wanted to vote strategically. I don't think he understands progressive taxation, our basic electoral system, or what class he is

# ? Sep 9, 2016 17:39

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

How does he feel about Justin now?

It'll always boggle me how badly the NDP missed that opportunity. The Liberals were allowed to say they were running to the left of the NDP with that ridiculous cut as the central plank in their platform. Instead of making educational charts to explain what that tax cut was, they were doing whatever this is. http://www.ndp.ca/harper-is-bad-for-the-planet

# ? Sep 9, 2016 17:52

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Thanks for the tax cut Trudeau, two professional salaries is middle class lol :feelsgood:

edit: These timelines are awful http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/release-dates-diffusion-eng.cfm

Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Sep 9, 2016

# ? Sep 9, 2016 18:25

Tan Dumplord: Mar 9, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Tony Clement, proving he knows how to speak to his base:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-new-immigrants posted:

OTTAWA � Conservative leadership candidate Tony Clement says he will propose enhanced security screening for immigrants � but not a values test � as part of a broader plan for countering the threat of terrorism.

�If we can give our security personnel the right tools to identify potential threats to our country, then I believe that is exactly what we should be doing and quite frankly, that is where the threat is,� Clement said Thursday as he shared part of the national security platform he plans to unveil in greater detail next week.

�It�s people who take their thoughts and then process those thoughts and then act on those thoughts to do damage to our society and to do violence to our society. That�s where our focus should be,� Clement said in an interview from Montreal.

So... we need tools to identify people who think thoughts and then act on those thoughts, presumably before they act. Got it.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 18:27

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Haven't you seen Minority Report?

# ? Sep 9, 2016 18:37

Heavy neutrino: Sep 16, 2007; You made a fine post for yourself. ...For a casualry, I suppose.

Yeah I have no idea how the NDP let the Libs get away with the wording "middle-class tax cuts" for a plan that gave $675 to someone making 200k and $0 to someone making 40k.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 19:51

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

They had planned to run against the Tories that election. The grits were an afterthought, if anything. They didn't have the agility to turn the ship around once the campaign was underway.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 19:57

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Ikantski posted:

How does he feel about Justin now?

It'll always boggle me how badly the NDP missed that opportunity. The Liberals were allowed to say they were running to the left of the NDP with that ridiculous cut as the central plank in their platform. Instead of making educational charts to explain what that tax cut was, they were doing whatever this is. http://www.ndp.ca/harper-is-bad-for-the-planet

What really blows my mind about the 2015 election is how the NDP completely ignored the lessons of their own success during the 2011 election. Remember how stupid Ignatieff looked when he said you had to choose either a Conservative or a Liberal? Remember how voters seemed to react to his comment by switching to the NDP in greater numbers? So which braniac at NDP headquarters thought it was a good idea to repeat the exact same rhetoric about how only the NDP could beat Harper, when the mere fact that the NDP was now the official opposition clearly disproved that argument?

# ? Sep 9, 2016 19:57

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Heavy neutrino posted:

Yeah I have no idea how the NDP let the Libs get away with the wording "middle-class tax cuts" for a plan that gave $675 to someone making 200k and $0 to someone making 40k.

They had to because calling them out on that would risk defining middle class and this is a conversation we can not have as a country, it was settled a long time ago that Canadians are all middle class, some are just more middle class than others.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:01

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

I think the NDP was genuinely terrified of seeming to have ideas. They literally went out of their way to emphasize that the left-leaning instincts of their own base would have no impact on party policy, which is how you got poo poo like this:

quote:

The NDP has removed a detailed policy book from its main website that spells out the party�s beliefs on a wide range of issues and it now says voters should look to another document � a yet-to-be released campaign platform � for an idea of what Tom Mulcair would do as prime minister.

The party�s 29-page policy document reflects resolutions passed by the grassroots members at past conventions.

It includes dozens of proposals for policies, legislation and spending on issues such as climate change, foreign investment, energy, employment insurance, privatization of the public sector, post-secondary education, gun control, abortion, protection of gays and lesbians, the Middle East and the role of the military.

However, a party spokesman said that just as the Conservative and Liberal leaders aren�t bound by the policy resolutions of their own members, Mulcair is not obliged to campaign on everything his grassroots put in their policy booklet.

�The policy document is not the platform,� senior NDP campaign advisor Brad Lavigne said in an interview.

�The policy document is an expression of the will of the delegates at our convention.�

The party�s policy book was on the NDP�s main website until mid-July, when Lavigne said it was removed because a campaign was in the offing and the party wanted to put the focus on the election.

�The policy document gives the average Canadian a sense of what our value systems are, what our belief systems are. But they�re not a prescription, per se, of what the next government would necessarily do. That�s in the platform.�

Lavigne said the platform has been created with �input� from the party, caucus and leader, and added that affordability is one factor behind promises being made.

He said that �in the modern era,� the platform is based on �financial considerations� that will face the next government.

�The obligation of the campaign is to rank the priorities of all that it wishes to achieve. You have to boil down what it is that is achievable and what it is that you can do in a mandate.

�Platforms have to be embedded in the realities of the current state of finances as well as the current needs of the country. Whereas policy booklets from a convention are an overall expression of overall objectives and values.�

Elements of the NDP platform are gradually being rolled out and the full plan won�t be released until later in the campaign, said Lavigne.

�We�ll have plenty to say about much of what we want to place as our top priorities if elected government. The guiding document that does that is the platform.�

For the first time in the party�s history, the NDP is in contention in this campaign to emerge as the victor. As part of its strategy to attract new voters, the party is adopting a cautious approach to counter criticisms that the NDP would spend recklessly.

So far, the party is keeping its campaign promises to a handful of themes. Six of those themes � jobs, childcare, environment, communities, retirement security and health care � are now highlighted on the website.

Moreover, this week Mulcair pledged that the NDP would not run a deficit � a commitment that has drawn criticism from the Liberals who accuse the New Democrats of planning to govern with austerity.

On Wednesday in London, Ont., Mulcair rejected the criticism.

�We�re going to have a fully-costed program that will be released during the course of the campaign,� Mulcair told reporters.

�We�re always going to show where the money is going to come from.�

Among the major promises made so far are a national child care program, a $15-minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors, and an increase to the Guaranteed Income Supplement paid to seniors.

And this is coming from Brad Lavigne, a guy who inbetween working for the party was working for Hill+Knowlton Strategies, you know, the same firm that was instrumental in drumming up support for the Gulf War and all kinds of other awful and reprehensible poo poo. Lavigne has occupied all kinds of positions within the upper bureacracy of the party in recent years under Layton and then Mulcair, he's exactly the kind of person the NDP has cultivated. People who are better at knifing the left-wingers in their own party than they are at actually winning elections. In fact the only thing the NDP has demonstrated any competence at in years seems to be de-activating their own base.

I think this had had a pretty clear impact on what kind of people end up getting hired by the party or recruited as MPs / MPPs. I thought this article summed it up pretty well:

quote:

Almost invariably, there is nobody less politically minded than somebody who gushes, "I'm a total political junkie!"

What they usually mean is that they are thrilled by the horse-race aspects of politics, the wheeling and dealing; they can't get enough of the panel shows that parse strategy and tactics without ever really getting into who will be affected by a particular set of policies, or how, or in whose interest they're being advanced. In this West Wing view of the world, triangulation and chess-playing are everything; the possibility of genuine political feeling among people who aren't already players is precluded.

quote:

Despite itself -- despite taking Jack Layton, a leader from the party's genuine left, to the tepid centre -- the NDP benefited from the Canadian franchise of what was clearly a global desire for change in both years. In 2015 -- the year of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, the election and re-election of Syriza in Greece -- they were well-positioned to get lucky one more time.

But the people who run the NDP are political junkies. The clutch of strategists who steer the party, incapable of thinking politically or historically, were convinced that the breakthroughs in 2008 and 2011 owed to the fact that they'd suddenly gotten better at sending emails, were suddenly running more efficient campaigns. They favoured what was not only a purely national explanation for what was clearly at least partially an international phenomenon, but one that even more specifically rested on the story of their own personal genius.

My general experience of NDP staffers has been that their the kinds of people who show up for a casual meeting in suits and make a huge show of knowing the preicse ins-and-outs of parliamentary procedure, are very proud and credulous of their knowledge of mainstream economics and public policy concepts, and woefully ignorant about any political or historical facts that aren't firmly within the realm of electoral politics. Which maybe helps explain why they have continued to make the same failure again and again, whether it's in BC, Ontario, Toronto or now federally, and also why there's been zero indication that anyone with any influence in the party has any desire to actually make a real course correction.

That having been said, I think the following corrective is in order before anyone gets any grandiose ideas about the viability of left-wing politics in Canada:

quote:

Would a more left-wing NDP have been more successful?

Maybe, but this isn't the right question. In fact, this question is so theoretical that it leads progressive pundits into the territory of fantasy writing. The Left is already dangerously disconnected from average people: we need a better understanding of where the NDP is to be able to know what needs to happen to get the party to be "further left."

The NDP doesn't currently have the capacity to be much more progressive than they were during this election. Many of the folks who analyzed the failures of the NDP hung their theses on the assumption that being progressive is something that can be switched on and off at party HQ.

Progressive politics must be built, not announced. Systems were in motion for too long for the NDP to have been able to change course for this election.

The NDP didn't drift to the centre when it promised to balance the budget, or when it elected Mulcair as leader. As many have pointed out, the NDP's centrism is part of a decades-long slide that has ravished all aspects of the left, not just mainstream political parties.

The Liberals, as one of two governing parties in Ottawa, have the luxury to turn left or right at the whims of central command. They don't need to be in direct contact with their members. They can change their policies with the predictions of the pollsters and they won't be punished. In fact, they'll be lauded, if the gamble pays off.

The principal failure of the NDP was to form a strategy premised on the notion that they had this ability too. But they aren't the Liberals. They probably would have been skewered by the press if they had promised to run a $30 billion deficit.

It was the combination of a failure to communicate a progressive vision that was firm enough to convince Canadians that the NDP could beat Harper, and a failure of organizing between elections that sank the NDP.
Imagine if the NDP had organized its MPs to vocally oppose the Values Charter during the 2014 Quebec election. Imagine if they had allowed more of their MPs to intervene publicly on debates. Imagine if the party worked closer with social movement organizations and labour between 2011 and 2015 to build a relationship to withstand the fragility of poll-based politics.

Imagine if Angry Tom had made an appearance. Indeed, there is currency in a politician who is comfortable in his own skin, something that Mulcair didn't quite project during the 11-week campaign.

Where were the YouTube ad buys, the clever commercials and the risks that were taken in 2011? Why was the Pharmacare promise announced as if it were accidentally leaked by a backroom operative?
When the NDP announced it would run a balanced budget, where was the communications strategy addressing the resistance they should have anticipated? Who thought leading with announcing a balanced budget was a good idea? Was no one in the war room from Quebec who could have said "Um, guys, d�ficit z�ro won't play super well among progressives in that province..."

Why didn't the party assume that the knives would come out for them from the mainstream press the second there was a whiff that the NDP might form government?

The NDP's communications strategy should have anticipated these problems. It should have been bold and creative. It should have taken risks. It should have been sensitive to sentiment on the ground and acted accordingly. Instead, it was as if party operatives figured that they could win the election by hiding under some coats and hope that no one noticed when the laundry was brought into the PMO by an unwitting caretaker.

The #hashtagfail of a communications strategy was a shame for many reasons. It cost the party many talented MPs, especially the young Quebecers who proved that mainstream politics in Canada don't have to be a game limited to old men. It helped the Liberals create the false narrative that their plan outflanked the NDP platform to the left even though it didn't by any measure.
(Of course, collateral damage from the failed ONDP campaign in 2014 helped fuel this narrative, but that could have been managed as well. At the very least, that should have been anticipated and addressed through the national strategy.)

The NDP was more cowardly and incompetent than they had to be, and I think it's fair to condemn the specific people in charge of the party for doing such a terrible job in 2015 but the fact is that analyzing the failures of the NDP only gets you so far. Yes, the NDP could have been a bit more competent, yes they could have communicated better, and for God's sake they didn't need to pick a symbolic fight over an unpopular and blatantly misogynistic piece of headgear as the moment to rediscover their principles (if ever there was a chance to be electorally opportunistic, this was it), but ultimately the NDP could have done better on all those fronts and it's still far from clear we would have gotten a significantly better government than the one Trudeau is overseeing.

At this point I've honestly all but given up on the NDP as it currently exists. I've been waiting for someone with some level of influence in the party to acknowledge how bad things have gotten and so far the silence has been deafening -- one or two predictable voices speaking up, but absolutely zero indication that the party establishment holds itself responsible for what happened. I think at this point it's clear that the left, or any kind of genuine progressive sentiment in general that aspires to go beyond some vague brand of Lean In style feminism, needs to set more achievable tasks for itself.

It doesn't help that the remaining people who are still willing to identify as being left-wingers are quite often coming out of university campus environments that train them to speak in an esoteric language that's alien to normal people, or that their focus is overwhelmingly on issues of identity and representation and victim-hood rather than articulating any kind of broad based populist economic programmer. A left that exclusively identifies itself with victims and victimized groups, while expressing open contempt for the majority, is never going to be an effective political force.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:33

The Gunslinger: Jul 24, 2004; Do not forget the face of your father.; Fun Shoe

THC posted:

They had planned to run against the Tories that election. The grits were an afterthought, if anything. They didn't have the agility to turn the ship around once the campaign was underway.

Exactly. Mulcaire correctly picked up on the fact that people hated Harper and re-positioned himself as a Harper alternative, giving a lot of centrist views and platform pieces that were in the works for awhile. He simply forgot he wasn't running as a Conservative. His base was frustrated with the about face and the Liberals ran on surface issues familiar to them. After that I'm not sure if it was just too late or he didn't take the threat from the Liberals seriously.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:39

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

I'm a lone voice on this one, but I still think the NDP fortunes really turned when they stood up for the niqab (in early August if memory serves) while the Liberals and Conservatives played cynical and divisive politics.

It's easy to forget but Canadians outside the urban cores are white and racist as gently caress.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:44

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

I'm a lone voice on this one, but I still think the NDP fortunes really turned when they stood up for the niqab (in early August if memory serves) while the Liberals and Conservatives played cynical and divisive politics.

It's easy to forget but Canadians outside the urban cores are white and racist as gently caress.

The polls all showed that the NDP really started taking on water when Mulcair uttered the phrase "balanced budget". The Liberals started attacking them on whether they were going to balance the budget or deliver their promises hurr ndp don't understand math. The same attack that eviscerated Hudak's million jobs plan. I just wish somebody had executed it on the middle class tax cut, it was so ripe.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:47

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

When they started talking about balanced budgets and then caved to a small handful of whiny Vancouver tech startups was the moment they lost the election. Sorry but you can't blame the NDP loss on ~horrible rural whites~, no matter how much you want that narrative to be true.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:52

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

I'm a lone voice on this one, but I still think the NDP fortunes really turned when they stood up for the niqab (in early August if memory serves) while the Liberals and Conservatives played cynical and divisive politics.

It's easy to forget but Canadians outside the urban cores are white and racist as gently caress.

Oh I think it played a role. It actually irritates the hell out of me because I view the niqab / head scarf as a blatantly misogynistic symbol. I can accept that in a pluralistic society people may choose to wear it and it doesn't bother me enough that I feel a need for the government to legislate against it, but I sure as gently caress don't admire Mulcair for taking a principled stand in defense of what I view as a fundamentally regressive cultural practice. It's even worse because Mulcair was so willing to throw the economic principles I care about under the bus, and yet he was willing to risk the entire election over an issue that I'm at best, indifferent toward. Of all the issues to take a bold and principled stand on, why that one?!

That having been said, I think the blowup over headgear reflected a general lack of ideas or enthusiasm. The NDP's really wasn't offering enough, specifically, to Quebec. The $15 an hour daycare obviously isn't going to appeal to the province upon which the policy is modeled, and the NDP didn't talk very much about their plan for a government provided drug plan. The result was a general void of ideas or discussion in Quebec which I think helped allow the headscarf issue to take on such prominence. If the NDP had been more proactive about giving left-leaning Quebeccers reasons to vote for Mulcair instead of just against Harper and Trudeau then I suspect that the impact of the entire incident would have been reduced.

There's probably a bit of wishful thinking here on my part (and I'd want to look at internal polling numbers before every trying to base any kind of strategy around my line of thinking here) but I can't help but think that the headscarves issue caught on because the NDP allowed it to. I don't think it was inevitable it would have this kind of impact: I think it inflicted damage because the NDP essentially had nothing to counter it with that Quebeccers really cared about. In a more substantive campaign environment with more issues under discussion and a generally bolder and more progressive sounding NDP, I think the losses in Quebec wouldn't have been so bad.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 20:52

Jordan7hm: Feb 17, 2011; Lipstick Apathy

What was wrong with the Liberal stand on that one? They seemed to basically have the same stance as the NDP, but rather than address it directly they chose to just ignore it and deflect conversation by saying there were more important issues. Which was probably the correct reaction.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 23:01

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Ikantski posted:

Speak for yourself. To be fair, these Libs didn't lib that hard. They campaigned on a tax cut for people rich enough to understand tax brackets, voted yes on C-51 with nebulous adjustments forthcoming and said they'd do the Saudi deal. I have to think that smart people who voted Liberal knew what they were going to get.

There was definitely CBC commentators that complained that they would end paying because they made $210,000 a year

EvilJoven posted:

I knew what I was going to get if I didn't vote liberal, and that was Joyce Bateman, which is why I held my nose and voted for Carr. For a short while I let myself get cautiously optomistic because I wanted to justify my decision to vote strategically. It won't happen again.

I honestly can't remember who the Conservative was in my area because Shelly Glover resigned, but the NDP candidate was loving Erin Selby.

# ? Sep 9, 2016 23:08

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

All three panelists on the NEB's Energy East review have stepped down. Note that they only did this after weeks of intense criticism, yet they are praised for having "acted in good faith".

Scrap the NEB already Trudeau you loving dingus

# ? Sep 9, 2016 23:34

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

THC posted:

All three panelists on the NEB's Energy East review have stepped down. Note that they only did this after weeks of intense criticism, yet they are praised for having "acted in good faith".

Scrap the NEB already Trudeau you loving dingus

*Trudeau turns towards you, smiles gently, and makes deep eye contact with you*

I'm really glad you've taken the time to share your opinions with me today THC.

*You feel as though you have his full attention, you can't remember the last time it felt like someone was really listening to you before*

The opinions of all Canadians are incredibly important to me, and it's important that we listen to each other to find the best path forward for all of us.

*You realize you have begun to nod without even realizing it*

I'm going to take what you said to heart and think deeply upon it. Compromise and mutual understanding are the key to revitalizing our economy and strengthening the middle class.

*Trudeau reaches out and gives your shoulder a light squeeze before turning away to the person beside you. A security guard moves between you and Trudeau as you feel yourself being swept back into the crowd.*

*You feel confused, but somehow at ease. You don't really remember what he said to you, but for some reason you clearly remember the subtle yet firm musculature of his shoulder and bicep when he reached out to you. You think to yourself... *

"You know, I think things are going to be OK."

The Butcher fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 07:19

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

In these uncertain times, Canada needs the firm guiding hand of a strong leader like Justin Trudeau.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 08:40

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

eXXon posted:

In these uncertain times, Canada needs the firm guiding hand of a strong leader like Justin Trudeau.

Also firm guiding pecs, delts and lats. Just to be safe. Against Putin you know.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 09:37

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Antoine Vaillant for Prime Minister, I agree.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 12:32

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

This thread title gets more appropriate all the time.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:54

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Helsing posted:

Oh I think it played a role. It actually irritates the hell out of me because I view the niqab / head scarf as a blatantly misogynistic symbol. I can accept that in a pluralistic society people may choose to wear it and it doesn't bother me enough that I feel a need for the government to legislate against it, but I sure as gently caress don't admire Mulcair for taking a principled stand in defense of what I view as a fundamentally regressive cultural practice. It's even worse because Mulcair was so willing to throw the economic principles I care about under the bus, and yet he was willing to risk the entire election over an issue that I'm at best, indifferent toward. Of all the issues to take a bold and principled stand on, why that one?!

That having been said, I think the blowup over headgear reflected a general lack of ideas or enthusiasm. The NDP's really wasn't offering enough, specifically, to Quebec. The $15 an hour daycare obviously isn't going to appeal to the province upon which the policy is modeled, and the NDP didn't talk very much about their plan for a government provided drug plan. The result was a general void of ideas or discussion in Quebec which I think helped allow the headscarf issue to take on such prominence. If the NDP had been more proactive about giving left-leaning Quebeccers reasons to vote for Mulcair instead of just against Harper and Trudeau then I suspect that the impact of the entire incident would have been reduced.

There's probably a bit of wishful thinking here on my part (and I'd want to look at internal polling numbers before every trying to base any kind of strategy around my line of thinking here) but I can't help but think that the headscarves issue caught on because the NDP allowed it to. I don't think it was inevitable it would have this kind of impact: I think it inflicted damage because the NDP essentially had nothing to counter it with that Quebeccers really cared about. In a more substantive campaign environment with more issues under discussion and a generally bolder and more progressive sounding NDP, I think the losses in Quebec wouldn't have been so bad.

I like your run down of the NDP's wasted opportunity, some smart points here.

RE: what I was saying about Canadians being racist as gently caress:

quote:

OTTAWA�Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for �anti-Canadian� values, a new poll reveals, lending support to an idea that is stirring controversy in political circles.

Conservative MP Kellie Leitch, a candidate in her party�s leadership contest, has floated the idea of screening newcomers for their attitudes on intolerance toward other religions, cultures and sexual orientations and reluctance to embrace Canadian freedoms.

A new Forum Research Inc. poll for the Star shows that Leitch may be tapping into an idea that Canadians favour with 67 per cent saying immigrants should indeed be screened for �anti-Canadian values.�

More importantly for Leitch, the poll shows that the idea is especially popular among Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.

[...]

When asked to choose the values respondents believe are important, equality came out on top (27 per cent), followed by patriotism (15 per cent), fairness (12 per cent) and tolerance (11 per cent).

Given that 59% of NDP voters (albeit self-identified) support this, I guess my whole point about the election turning on the niqab isn't right at all. *sigh*

Also, fuckin' lol that we can't even really agree on what Canadian values are. 3 of those top 4 seem to be directly in contrast to the 'screening' idea and the fourth (patriotism) is ridiculous. "You want to immigrate to our country? You better be a patriot, even though you don't live here yet!"

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/10/canadians-favour-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html

Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 15:00

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Why would you want to import people with anti-canadian values? Non-canadian I could understand but anti-canadians? No thanks buddy

# ? Sep 10, 2016 15:07

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

I assume we'll also be administering this test to all current residents as well? We can't have anyone guilty of thoughtcrime.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 16:23

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Lobok posted:

I assume we'll also be administering this test to all current residents as well? We can't have anyone guilty of thoughtcrime.

I look forward to deporting all conservatives when they fail the equality values section.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 16:25

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Lobok posted:

I assume we'll also be administering this test to all current residents as well? We can't have anyone guilty of thoughtcrime.

The anti-canadian values are coming from inside the country! :tinfoil:

# ? Sep 10, 2016 16:25

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

It's a smart play by Leitch to distinguish herself from the crowd of leadership rivals. The fact it pisses off a lot of journalists and other pointy headed types will make it more popular with the Conservative base, who don't really trust or like those folks to begin with. Most regular people also probably won't see much to object to in screening "anti-Canadian values" even if there's no ready consensus on what those values are.

This policy only really breaks down when you try to imagine how it would be implemented. If somebody can dust off the ol' fruit-machine and recalibrate it detect anti-Canadian values then they could make a lot of money under the next Canadian government :v:

# ? Sep 10, 2016 16:25

Tan Dumplord: Mar 9, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Values are something that can be tested via interview if you're willing to discount dishonesty, so it would integrate with the current immigration process just fine.

Technically feasible, otherwise abhorrent.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:15

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Are these your ethics? Did you pack them yourself? Are you carrying anyone else's ethics with you into Canada today?

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:22

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

How would the interview be conducted and what questions would you ask? That's where I see the process breaking down.

I mean, honestly, and I suppose I'm out of step with the thread here, but I don't think there's anything abhorrent in principle about screening out people with strongly misogynistic or homophobic or anti-democratic beliefs. I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world if we were a bit more like France or America and had a more defined sense of what values undergird our common life. I think it's naive to think a political community can govern itself without having some common ethos or set of beliefs and practices. It's part of why I was saying a few weeks ago that I'd be in favour of better cross-country french language education.

The thing is, I see our huge suburban communities as a far greater threat to our national life than immigrants. Depositing millions of newly arrived Canadians into isolated, inwardly focused and car-dependent communities with very little social life beyond your private circle of family and acquaintances seems like an awful long term policy for national unity and identity. I'd far rather target that then play into some silly racially coded anxieties about sharia law or whatever it is Leitch is hinting at. The real danger here seems to be how we design our communities and run our economy. Leave it to a conservative to look past all that and to invent a self serving and vaguely xenophobic way of blaming immigrants for our own failures.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:26

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

I'm not sure I follow PK loving SUBBAN's thinking here. It's racist to determine whether or not someone is a good cultural fit for Canada? Like, let me toss out a few "Canadian values" that I think almost everyone in this thread would agree with: sexuality shouldn't be legislated against, maple syrup should be consumed, women should be treated fairly and equally. Presumably someone who thinks that the gays should be illegal, maple syrup should be tossed out, and women should be subjugated would not be a good fit for Canada.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:31

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Personally, I think cishet people who have opinions about pride shouldn't be allowed in the country.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:36

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Pinterest Mom posted:

Personally, I think cishet people who have opinions about pride shouldn't be allowed in the country.

Are gay and bi people typically cis-gendered?

Brannock posted:

I'm not sure I follow PK loving SUBBAN's thinking here. It's racist to determine whether or not someone is a good cultural fit for Canada? Like, let me toss out a few "Canadian values" that I think almost everyone in this thread would agree with: sexuality shouldn't be legislated against, maple syrup should be consumed, women should be treated fairly and equally. Presumably someone who thinks that the gays should be illegal, maple syrup should be tossed out, and women should be subjugated would not be a good fit for Canada.

He's assuming, and not without reason, that this is a coded appeal to racists that tries to set up an us-and-them mentality about immigrants. Sort of like the Quebec values charter had some precedents in French secularism but was clearly designed, in practice, to drum up xenophobic votes for fairly cynical electoral reasons.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:40

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

... and the fourth (patriotism) is ridiculous. "You want to immigrate to our country? You better be a patriot, even though you don't live here yet!"

Shouldn't a prospective immigrant at least like the idea of Canada and want to live in Canada and participate in Canadian society? Wouldn't it be strange if someone showed up to the citizenship ceremony wrapped in an American or Chinese flag?

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:05

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Ikantski posted:

Why would you want to import people with anti-canadian values? Non-canadian I could understand but anti-canadians? No thanks buddy

which values would these be?

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›2341 »