I'm interested to see how the parties play out their election strategies, but I'm not ideologically tethered to any of the parties yet. However, most of my fellow poli sci majors seem to wear their affiliation on their sleeves, which means... a lot of "fun."

pragmatica posted:

I know looks and charisma aren't supposed to play a role in who gets votes, but Stephane Dion gets low marks in that department and unfortunately some people really do vote for things that are that superficial. The Liberals need a stronger more commanding leader to capture an audience.

This is particularly odd in Canada since, as I'm sure most people who will actually bother to read this thread already know, we don't vote directly for our Prime Minister.

I'm not sure how I'd feel about an NDP/Green merger. It may be what the Green Party will need to do to survive in the long run, but I'd worry too much about them just being swallowed by the NDP. The Green Party was pretty sketchy for a while - they had some seriously questionable leadership - but they've turned around lately and I hope for the best for them.

And yeah, some form of proportional representation could be a very good thing, but getting the balance right is a lot more difficult than it initially seems. Lots to consider there.

MRR posted:

pragmatica posted:

I know looks and charisma aren't supposed to play a role in who gets votes, but Stephane Dion gets low marks in that department and unfortunately some people really do vote for things that are that superficial. The Liberals need a stronger more commanding leader to capture an audience.

This is particularly odd in Canada since, as I'm sure most people who will actually bother to read this thread already know, we don't vote directly for our Prime Minister.

- but as we also know, the perception of a party leader is crucial. Lots of people don't want to get "bogged down" in policy details and debates, and will use the leader as a proxy representation for the values of the party itself. Where I live in BC, I get a lot of mailings which imply that Harper is a strong-valued Western Canadian ("just like us!" ) and that Dion is a weak, indecisive person, who, most importantly, is "foreign" to our [Western Canadian] values. I know a lot of people who won't vote for Dion because of the way he looks and because of his "obvious" French accent, and they're not even conservatives.

QuantumEpiphany posted:

that Dion is a weak, indecisive person, who, most importantly, is "foreign" to our [Western Canadian] values. I know a lot of people who won't vote for Dion because of the way he looks and because of his "obvious" French accent, and they're not even conservatives.

Stephane Dion doesn't look like he could lead anything. He comes across as so befuddled and weak. I'll be watching the upcoming debate with much interest, but I just wish that we had better leaders to choose from.

Stephane DUH-ion:


Then you have Stephen Harper who looks like a wolf, and not a very nice one:


This one made me laugh:


MRR: I agree the Bloc has an excellent environmental policy. I was quite impressed with Gilles in the debates last time - he is obviously a very sharp man with good presence. He may be a bit goofy looking, but his overall body language is fine and he comes across as strong, not weak like Dion. Too bad he isn't leading the Liberals, eh?

pragmatica posted:

the overly pro-union stance of the NDP party. The Greens have a sounder economic model than the NDP does, too, in my opinion.

It'll be interesting to see who the new CAU leader will endorse.

pragmatica posted:

They did that in the last provincial election.

You know that the majority of provincial parties only share the name of the the federal ones, right? Alberta Provincial Liberal's certainly don't act like the Federal Liberal's I've met (ditto for Green and Conservative). Hell, the Alberta NDP's don't act the Federal nutjobs I've met.

CPAC is fun sometimes.

NscafeUnleaded posted:

The Conservatives will win.

Because they don't have any real competition and because they haven't messed up the country while they've been in power.

Yeah, that's kindof a no-brainer. The only real questions are "by how much?" and "how much power will the official opposition have?"

NscafeUnleaded posted:

I strongly disagree with all of party the descriptions in the first post.

Then write your own, and if they serve the purpose better I'll edit them into my post. If you disagree so strongly, I'd like to see why.

NscafeUnleaded posted:

Why bother comparing the Canadian parties to US based ones if they don't fit (that, in addition to the obvious biases shown don't really make the descriptions ... trustworthy).

I compare our parties to the US ones because (as I explicitly state) the summaries are there for people who are not already familiar with Canadian politics, and 99% of the people on these boards who fit into that category will be from the USA. I'm honestly not all that sure why you have such a problem with my descriptions, since they're very, very generalized. Do you disagree that the Conservatives are right-wing, the Liberals are centrist, and the NDP somewhat left-wing? I'm not trying to give people a proper education on Canadian politics (because, really, who would expect them to care?), I'm only trying to provide a frame of reference.

MRR: here you go

-=-

The Conservative Party of Canada (also known as The Tories; official website) - Taken from Wikipedia (source):
The new Conservative Party is an amalgam of two contrasting views about conservatism in Canada. Historically, the Progressive Conservatives touted traditional Red Tory ideals like state funded social programs, rejected closer ties with the United States and attempted to model Canada after centuries-old British institutions. Western Canadian conservatism, embodied in the Canadian Alliance party, was more inspired by U.S.-based conservatism; it espoused closer ties with the United States, Blue Tory conservatism, privatization, smaller government as well as reform and overhaul of political institutions (on the American/Australian model) and a decentralized federalism (a limited government in Ottawa with stronger provinces, as also advocated by Brian Mulroney). The new party generally supports a market economy approach to the economic sphere. The Conservative Party also provides a home for a multitude of other conservatives, such as libertarian conservatives, environmental conservatives, Canadian republicans, monarchists, and many others.

(personal notes: currently the most professional looking of the parties, Stephen Harper needs to stop wearing eye liner in the commercials and needs to learn how to emote like a human being on camera. They still need to grow on the international stage. They also need to appeal more to Atlantic Canadians, but not alienate the rest of the country in the process)

The Liberal Party of Canada (also known as The Grits; official website) - Taken from Wikipedia (source):
In the present times, the Liberal party has favoured a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum. Since the 1990s it has been a strong champion of balanced budgets, and it eliminated the deficit completely from the federal budget in 1995 by reducing spending on social programs or downloading them to provinces. It had legalized same-sex marriage and use of cannabis for medical purposes, and has been proposing complete decriminalization of possession of small amounts of it. The party also holds progressive views on various other social issues like abortion. In spite of this, a socially conservative wing does exists within the party. For example, when the Civil Marriage Act was passed in 2004 (which legalized same-sex marriage), over a quarter[citation needed] of the Liberal caucus voted against the act.

(personal notes: they need to stop just pandering to southern Ontario and southern Quebec for votes, this is what has been killing them in seats in recent years. They also need to move past an apparent entitlement to power and earn the respect of voters all across the country. They need a leader who at least looks like they aren't confused all of the time)

The Bloc Quebecois (also known as the BQ; official website) - Take from Wikipedia ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Québécois]source[/url]): The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to the promotion of sovereignty for Quebec.

(personal note: they need to stop living in Lower Canada and actually develop some sort of non-regional support to help them be taken seriously outside of Quebec, that being said... they seem to exist solely to give some Quebecers visible support in federal politics)

New Democrat Party (also known as the NDP; official website) - Taken from Wikipedia (source): The NDP grew from populist, agrarian and democratic socialist roots. Today it is known for its relationships with non-governmental organizations and organized labour. While the party is secular and pluralistic, it has a longstanding relationship with the Christian left and the Social Gospel movement, particularly the United Church of Canada. However, the federal party has broadened to include concerns of the New Left, which advocates issues such as gay rights, peace, and environmental protection.

(personal note: they hurt my head. Well, they used to hurt my head. Blindly following union leaders is not the way to govern a country, but at least recently they have leadership worth paying attention to. Not only that, leadership that thinks beyond the end of his nose)

The Green Party of Canada (also known as the Green; official website) - Taken from Wikipedia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Canada#Policies]source[/url]): An emphasis on a green tax shift in the 2004 platform, which favoured partially reducing income and corporate taxes (while increasing taxes on polluters and energy consumers), created questions as to whether the Green Party was still on the left of the political spectrum, or was taking a more eco-capitalist approach by reducing progressive taxation in favour of regressive taxation. Green Party policy writers have challenged this interpretation by claiming that any unintended "regressive" tax consequences from the application of a Green Tax Shift would be intentionally offset by changes in individual tax rates and categories as well as an 'eco-tax" refund for those who pay no tax.

(personal note: they need to develop bigger picture thinking for governing rather than niche ideas that get scooped up by the larger parties. A bit tough to take seriously, but amusing enough to split votes in ridings to make the larger parties take some notice that they can't just keep operating in a business as usual model)

-=-

Your original post wouldn't have bothered me so much if you would have separated your personal feelings/thoughts away from the descriptions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2008 11:07AM by NscafeUnleaded.

Wow, that copy/paste job from Wikipedia was enlightening. I'm sure that all of our non-Canadian readers know exactly what the difference between Red Tory ideals and Blue Tory conservatism is.

I'll admit that my comments about the NDP - other than mentioning that they're left-leaning, which they are - aren't exactly factual, but I don't really see many problems with the rest of it. The Conservatives are right-wing and have had very shady dealings in the past, the Liberals are centrist and have had very shady dealings in the not-so-distant past, the NDP are left-leaning and seem unsure of themselves, and the Bloc is, well, the Bloc. I mean, if anyone really takes my comments about CN Tower penis envy seriously they need to get themselves checked.

Speaking of which:

NscafeUnleaded posted:

...they need to stop living in Lower Canada and actually develop some sort of non-regional support to help them be taken seriously outside of Quebec...

That's pretty hilarious.

HyPrPWr posted:

There is a BIG difference between the right wing federal conservatives in Canada vs the American Republican party. To compare the two is ridiculous. Speaking of ideology, the federal conservative party is more on par with the American Democratic party. Comparing American politics to Canadian politics is apples vs. oranges.

Oh yeah, the Green party.........no one can afford the changes these people would make. Call me selfish, but I have a family to feed.

Yeah, the Conservatives aren't as bad, I'll grant you that, but they've been steadily getting worse. Harper wanted us in Iraq (though, to his credit, he did change his mind after a while), the party has voted against gay marriage, they thrive on an oil-based economy... add in abstinence-only education and you've got a pretty clear picture.

90% of Conservatives voted no.

90% of Republicans voted against gay mariage equality in a 2007 New York state vote.

Wow, my comparison between the Republicans and Conservatives is SO off base! How could I ever think that the Republicans and Conservatives would have roughly the same views on the subject! I mean, if that were the case you'd expect to have similar portions of each party voting the same way! I guess I must just be out of touch. Yes, to compare the two parties would truly be ridiculous.

Okay, in all fairness I recognize that New York is a fairly liberal state and that the sample size of the parties are quite different (necessarily so since same-sex legislation is not a federal issue in the US), but regardless I believe I'm quite justified in making the generalization that the Conservatives vote against gay marriage when that's the way 90% of them vote. There are some liberal-minded Conservatives and there are some liberal-minded Republicans. Whether they voted as a block is of litte relevance to the generalization, since that's not typically the way things are done in the US anyway.

Regarding the oil issue: Whether the Liberal party favours a fuel-based economy has no bearing on the similarity between the Conservatives and the Republicans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2008 12:27AM by MRR.

I also think the decision of the broadcasting consortium based on the pouting of the other party leaders was complete bullshit. They have their seat, they field candidates nationally (unlike the Bloc) and they hover around the same percentage of the vote as the NDP does... not to mention over 80% of Canadians WANT them in the debate!

Just to correct your initial post, the Bloc is actually not against them participating. The Conservatives and NDP are.

The similar article about the Greens being shut out that appeared on The Star has generated tons of interesting comments by readers.

During the last Provincial elections in Ontario, the Greens were also shut out, but they held a simultaneous live debate via webcast. So, I sat watching the official debate on TV while also listening to he webcast on the computer with an earbud. Hopefully Ms. May will arrange something similar if the decision isn't reversed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2008 07:48AM by pragmatica.

snaapz posted:

Green Party shut out of debate Defiant May won't rule out legal challenge
Last Updated: Monday, September 8, 2008 | 9:00 PM ET Comments899Recommend666
[www.cbc.ca]

I also think it's stupid to exclude the Green Party from the televised debate. But will give them something to complain about if they don't get any seats.

That being said, having one seat does not make an official minority party in our government and that would be a leg to stand on for opposition to including them in any national debate.

Just fielding candidates apparently doesn't matter.

That being said, I'd really like to see local coverage of "town hall" debates will all of the candidates for their ridings happen, even the independents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2008 08:29AM by NscafeUnleaded.

NscafeUnleaded posted:

If your [sic] going to use propaganda, use it effectively.

So comparing the Conservatives to the Republicans is now propaganda? Please. It's a generalization - I know that, and I intended it as one - but it's a perfectly reasonable generalization. If you're going to nit-pick I can't stop you, but at least understand that your argument is pedantic and misdirected.

I'll admit that what I wrote about them "thriving on an oil-based economy" wasn't correct. What I should have said was that the Conservatives have a lot of support from oil-based business (as in, the business owners and corporations), particularly in Alberta, and this would seem to be a decent analogue to how the right-wing in the USA also plays along closely with that sort of industry.

HyPrPWr posted:

We are and will continue to be an energy based economy. The big difference between the Canadian and American models is that we don't have our energy policies being dictated to us by special interest groups. Lets face it, special interest groups run American politics.

Thankfully, Canada is not quite there yet

Agreed - we're not as bad yet, but I think it's naive to think that there isn't a lot of corporate pressure on Canadian politicians as well. Special interest groups definitely don't have the influence here that they have in the USA... unless you count Québec as a special interest group, haha.

Superdude posted:

NscafeUnleaded posted:

The Conservatives will win.

Because they don't have any real competition and because they haven't messed up the country while they've been in power..

But with a majority they will, if they will say goodbye to Canada as you know it.


What's all this talk of Dion not being a strong leader? we don't need a strong leader, we need a smart leader. Here are Dions credentials
- A bachelors degree and a masters degree in political science from Université Laval.
- A doctorate in sociology from the Institut d’études politiques de Paris.
- Taught political science at the Université de Moncton and the Université de Montréal.
- His wife, Ms. Krieber teaches Military Strategy at the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, Quebec. She has studied terrorism for 30 years.
- Like her husband, Ms. Krieber holds a degree in political science and "is an expert in strategic studies and counterterrorism issues" - Globe And Mail.

Wasn't Bush supposed to be a strong leader? That worked out well didn't it?

The problem is that Dion's stage presence (for lack of a better way to put it) will affect how most people vote, no matter how illogical that may be. Furthermore, charisma does matter for some things, like international relations, etc.