50 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
Die Macher said on March 29th, 2011 at 10:24 am

As long as we’re listing the failings of the Torys, let’s not leave out:

1) Deciding that getting 35% support of the 40% of Canadians who voted gave them a supreme mandate to change the fundamental laws of mathematics and science (the long-form census idiocy, which I hope gets brought up again).

2) Constantly demonizing the idea of a Liberal-NDP-BQ “coalition” as some kind of Satanic death cult, when he was quite happy to make sweet, tender coalescence with the BQ when it suited his purposes.

3) Giving Toronto a G20 we didn’t want, positioned so as to guarantee maximum social & economic damage to the city.

And on and on and on.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mitchell Hundred said on March 29th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Some good points, although the post as a whole would have been a lot more interesting if you had embedded a Rebecca Black video. I guess you can’t do that until Friday, though.

ReplyReply
mygif

I am so emailing my Dad (a long-time Red Tory voter) a link here. Well done.

— Steve

ReplyReply
mygif

Aren’t the Tories blue here in Canada? I could have sworn the Liberals were the red ones. NDp is orange, Green is green, and the Bloc’s colour is irrelevant.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Red Tory” is generally indicative of a (Progressive) Conservative viewpoint that is a little more progressive than conservative, i.e. left-leaning. See Wikipedia for examples.

ReplyReply
mygif
DistantFred said on March 29th, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Yes, Jonathan, Tories are blue in Canada, as they are most places. Red Tories are centrist/centre right voters that tend to vote Conservative. ie: Tories who are more like Liberals than the general population of their party.

ReplyReply
mygif

Jonathan, “Red Tories” was (and I lament the past tense) the nickname for moderates in the Progressive Conservative party who held views not terribly far from those of the Liberals, whose party colour is red. The Conservatives are indeed blue.

— Steve

ReplyReply
mygif

“The Liberals, despite their name, are centrist.” It seems that way in the U.S. sometimes, too.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mary Warner said on March 29th, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Parliamentary government always sounds so strange to me. Party leaders are a difficult concept to grasp fully, since we have nothing equivalent here. But I’m sure our system (whatever it’s called) sounds just as weird to you guys. (And I can certainly point out a lot of flaws.)
I usually hate Left-Wing nuts more than I hate Right-Wing nuts for some reason, but everything I’ve heard about your current Tory government has been bad, especially that crime bill (take it from an American– mandatory sentences are always a disaster).

ReplyReply
mygif

Ha. An excellent explanation.

ReplyReply
mygif
Die Macher said on March 29th, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Also, they want to build huge expensive megaprisons even though the crime rate is falling, to deal with all the “unreported crimes”. What fun!

ReplyReply
mygif

To really understand this election, you need to see Stephen Harper for what he really is…the SCARIEST PM in Canadian history! http://www.FireHarper.com

ReplyReply
mygif

“Not unless something crazy happens, but then again, part of politics is that you never know when something crazy will happen.” One can only hope.

ReplyReply
mygif
quirkygeekgirl said on March 29th, 2011 at 4:46 pm

You forgot to mention that Harper has staff from Bush’s reign of terror.

ReplyReply
mygif

[…] Christopher Bird explains the upcoming Canadian election to non-Canadians. […]

mygif

If/when Ignatieff goes, expect Justin Trudeau to sweep in.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Crazed Spruce said on March 29th, 2011 at 7:02 pm

I’m a die-hard, dyed-red-in-the-wool Liberal, so I’m probably gonna wind up voting for him anyway (mostly because our local Liberal MP is a pretty stand-up guy), but oh, man, Ignatief is such an arrogant prick, I’m seriously tempted to vote NDP this time ’round.

Harper lost the few shreds of respect I had for him when he prorogued Parliament to avoid being put out of office by a coaltion government, on the heels of making over a dozen Conservative Senate appointments (including Mike Duffy, essentially the Canadian equivalent of Bill O’Reilley or Sean Haggardy), despite calling the Liberals to the dirt in the last election for doing essentially the same thing (though they made more appointments in this move than the Liberals did during their entire term of office). Besides, I really can’t trust a politician who uses Federal funds to run attack ads on their opposition throughout their entire frikkin’ term.

Oh, if only Brian Tobin hadn’t retired when he did. Hey, maybe the Liberals can woo Danny Williams….

ReplyReply
mygif

Surely Arthur Meighan was “the most right-wing prime minister in Canadian history”? Or arguably Macdonald?

ReplyReply
mygif

@MaryWarner: Actually, you do have equivalents to our party leaders. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is essentially our Prime Minister, while the minority leader of the House is equivalent to our Leader of the Official Opposition. The big difference is that we have a much weaker Senate and Executive, which is a good thing (for us) since they aren’t elected.

ReplyReply
mygif
Andrew Jeanes said on March 29th, 2011 at 11:21 pm

Red Tories are not simply Conservative Party supporters who are a little more centrist/moderate/closer to the Liberals. That’s more than an oversimplification, it’s outright wrong.

True red Tories combine a strong belief in traditional Judeo-Christian values with a sense of communitarianism and a suspicion of big corporations. A red Tory might simultaneously oppose equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians while being in favour of higher corporate taxes and more spending on social programs. By contrast, a neo-liberal Conservative like John Baird might well be in favour of gay marriage while calling for lower corporate taxes and much less government spending.

Most of ex-Reform Party supporters combine extreme social and economic conservatism. It would be correct to say that the modern Conservative Party of Canada is really three parties in one, except that there are barely any red Tories left in the party, so it’s really just a mix of neo-liberals and social conservatives–making it a lot more like the U.S. Republican Party than like the old Progressive Conservative Party under John Diefenbaker, Bob Stanfield or Joe Clark.

ReplyReply
mygif

As my comment I’m going to rattle off a string of obscenities, because that does sum up how I feel about this and the last few elections.

ReplyReply
mygif

Harper’s been in power since 2004, not 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2004

ReplyReply
mygif

Wow. I feel like an idiot and a big idiot at that. I am familiar with red Tories. Thanks for not mocking my stupid, stupid question.

ReplyReply
mygif

@ Leo: No, Harper has led the Conservatives since 2004 (and the Alliance since 2002), but he’s only been PM since ’06.

ReplyReply
mygif
Lawnmower Boy said on March 30th, 2011 at 6:54 am

I sure hope Red Tories don’t have to oppose gay marriage and embrace “Judeo-Christian values.” I’m not a huggy type, and more importantly, that adjective gives me hives.

ReplyReply
mygif
E. Brown said on March 30th, 2011 at 7:02 am

Great summary, explaining to this expat Cdn WTF’s going on.
To me, Harper’s biggest flaw aside from arrogance is his rampant climate-change-denialist stance. Canada likes to think of itself as nice, but the pollution it’s generating and enabling (think tar sands) is shameful.
Unfortunately, little will change til the voting system actually represents the public opinion of the voters who participate, so I suppose you can count me as NDP until Canada takes on some form of proportional voting system.

ReplyReply
mygif

Question for clarification here. I’ve asked this before, but I’ve never really gotten a satisfactory answer.

How the hell do you snow-people chose your party leaders, anyway? Is it just a matter of convincing all the other MPs of your particular stripe that you ought to be the one to by PM?

I live in a border state, and have a bunch of friends up north of the Liberal persuasion, and the nicest thing I’ve ever heard any of them say about Ignatieff is that he’s useless. More common is ‘I will not vote for the Liberals if it means Ignatieff in the PM chair where he can further destroy our brand and our principles, I will vote NDP and/or suffer through Harper until he implodes first.’

Now, in the US, the question would be ‘Why the hell do the rank-and-file keep nominating him, then?’ because to become the guy who represents your party in a major election and gets to sit in the big chair, you have to win through in a primary where all the ordinary voters approve you. Even sitting Presidents need to do this.

But it kinda seems like Ignatieff doesn’t need to give a flying fuck what the, you know, actual Liberal VOTERS think of him in order to continue being their standard bearer. So who the hell puts him in charge, anyway? How does THAT work?

ReplyReply
mygif

You think “this time he’s GONE TOO FAR” is a piss-poor rallying cry, this election cycle in New South Wales has had nothing better against the Liberals (our centrist-conservative party also) than “don’t write them a blank cheque.” so, you know, don’t vote for them TOO HARD, just in case they get FUNNY IDEAS.

ReplyReply
mygif

The Liberals, despite their name, are centrist.

Hey, at least you aren’t in Australia.

Here, the Liberal party, despite their name, are actually the conservatives.

And are rapidly marching right-wards, followed only slightly less quickly by the so-called ‘leftist’ party, the Australian Labor Party.

*sigh*

ReplyReply
mygif

HTML fail. *sigh*

(fixed. –MGK)

ReplyReply
mygif

How the hell do you snow-people chose your party leaders, anyway? Is it just a matter of convincing all the other MPs of your particular stripe that you ought to be the one to by PM?

Party leaders are elected by the party membership (people who pay the party for a membership card); there are periodic leadership reviews (ie, basically conventions where delegates vote approval or disapproval), but leaders normally serve as long as they want. There were only two Liberal Party leaders between 1887 and 1948.

ReplyReply
mygif

Should add, the circumstances surrounding Ignatieff’s ascent are somewhat different; he was voted in by caucus as interim leader in the midst of a parliamentary crisis, and then basically acclaimed at the convention (though there’s no doubt he would have won in a straight convention too, given his opponents).

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s also fair to say that Iggy was expected to be more impressive than he has turned out to be. “He’s educated, obviously intelligent, respected, and a good speaker. He’ll pull us from the Stephane Dion mire!”

Ha!

ReplyReply
mygif

@SC – Re: your comment on the immanent rise of Justin Trudeau. Definitely the case.
If Ignatieff loses, I expect a Liberal Leadership convention. Trudeau will have to work hard to NOT be seen as one of the strongest contenders going into that convention.
Should Ignatieff pull off a win, Justin will probably get a high-profile cabinet post, and if he doesn’t crash and burn, it will set him up to be the likely successor when Ignatieff steps down as party leader.

I admit that I grew up during his father’s time as PM, and had my political “Coming of Age” during that period. Whether one loved him, or one hated him – and there was almost no middle ground – his passion for Canada was one of his defining characteristics. If he passed that passion on to his son, and I believe he did, then if and when Justin gains the Liberal leadership, there will be a generational change in the party, and in the politics of Canada, just as there was when his father became PM.

ReplyReply
mygif

@SC

You have to pay money to be a member of a political party in Canada? I did not know that.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mary Warner said on March 30th, 2011 at 4:12 pm

I think you have to pay to join a party in most countries. The US is very unusual, maybe unique, in the way our parties work. Here in the States, party membership is entirely self-identified– if you say you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you are, no matter what your political views may be. In other countries, parties have more control over who their members are and they can kick out politicians who vote against the party on some issue they consider important.
And as far as I know, the US is the only country in which parties don’t actually choose their candidates, since we usually use primaries.
It’s all just a quirk of history. Organised parties were invented in the 19th Century, and they were invented separately in Britain (and maybe other parts of Europe) and the US. Before that, it was just informal factions. The rules for how parties work were just improvised gradually over time, and the US and Europe ended up with very different systems. And then everybody else except the US just adopted the European forms (or the Leninist type of party organisation in less democratic countries).

ReplyReply
mygif
quirkygeekgirl said on March 30th, 2011 at 7:02 pm

@Murc to join the Liberal Party it’s $10 a year, considering getting a membership so I can vote when new leadership is picked.

I don’t know about the other parties but I suspect its about the same amount.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Mary-

Not entirely true. You can’t just SAY you’re a Democrat or a Republican to be one. You have to register as a Democrat or as a Republican. However, said registration is entirely free.

I’m curious as to your rationale that the parties don’t actually choose their candidates in the U.S because of our primary system. A primary is the purest form of party-driven candidate choosing; it broadens the field of decision-makers from men in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms to literally every party member in a geographical area.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Murc

Except it doesn’t really. It only allows those wealthy enough to run on their own to run, or those with the financial support of the party to run. So you’re still left with smoke-filled room dude.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Sivi-

Parties do not typically bankroll primary candidates in the U.S, nor do they endorse primary candidates.

Individuals (politicians, prominent private citizens, etc.) will often endorse primary candidates, but they do not speak on behalf of the party. In fact there’s a long tradition (not an absolute one, but its there) for party leadership to stay the hell out of contentious primaries.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Murc- In some states (like IL), anyone can vote for any party in the primaries, whether you’re a registered member or not. You just show up, show your ID, and tell the precinct worker which party’s ballot you want.

Sure, most folks just take “their” party’s ballot, but there can be quite a bit of aisle-crossing, as it were, in order to try to make a lousy candidate win the other party’s primary.

ReplyReply
mygif
Enlight_Bystand said on March 31st, 2011 at 7:07 pm

Heck, at least in Canada you don’t get the spectacle of the PM actually driving to the papace to ask the Queen in person to let you have an election.

On party Membership, yeah in general you have to pay to be a full member of a political party. For example here in the Uk the party membership are as follows:

Lib Dems (Centerist party): 65,861 as of the Nov 2010 Presidential Election
Labour (Left Wingers): 177,559 members, plus 2,747.030 affiliate members (Mostly trade unionists) – as of the September 2010 Leadership election
Toreis (Right Wingers): 198,844 as of the 2005 leadership election

(Note that these are the total number of ballot issued in the respective elections. In general that’s how many members the parties had when the electorate was detirmined for that election, so may have changed (The Tories will certainly have changed as that’s an old election result)

As for electing a leader, each party has a different method. For us Lib Dems, the parliamentary Party chooses candidates (who must get the support of a certain number of MPs), who go to the full membership for an elcetion by AV. In theory there is a leadership election within a year of the general election, but it is very unusual for anyone other than the present leader to run in it.

The Tories have a series of rounds of vote only within the MPs, eliminating weaker candidates, until there are only two candidates. These then go to the party in a straight election.

Labour have, welll…

Each candidate has to get 12.5% of the MPs supporting them. They then go on to the ballot. There are three constituencies; the party membership, the affiliates who are mostly unions, and all MPs & MEPS. each of these gropus get equal weighting, so that the 2.7 m affiliates are equvalent to the 177k members, and also to the 271 elected officilas. The election is also run under AV. As the MP/MEPs have trheir vote published after the fact, it is actually possible to calculate the if six people had changed their vote at the last leadership election, the result would have been different (and it’s possible to identify the six people!)

Also quite often parties will reduce their subscription fee before an election to drive up numbers – you could become a Labour member for £1 ($1.50) last year if you were under 25.

ReplyReply
mygif
piranhtachew said on April 1st, 2011 at 5:32 am

If Her Majesty doesn’t like the candidates running over there, Can she do something about it? 😀

ReplyReply
mygif
lilacsigil said on April 1st, 2011 at 10:52 pm

Hey, you never know – something awesomely exciting could happen like at the Australian Federal Election! Politics here haven’t been so entertaining since Mark Latham (great sledger, horrible leader).

ReplyReply
mygif

“If Her Majesty doesn’t like the candidates running over there, Can she do something about it?”

Any power she still has to do so would be taken away from her if she ever actually used it.
So it’s hard to give a yes or no answer.

ReplyReply
mygif
Malovich said on April 2nd, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Just to keep things even here and to help the economy…

http://i.imgur.com/757PM.png

A jobs ad for a ‘social media company’ for writers to ‘make up facts and statistics’ as long as they can ‘repeat specific talking points’.

I’m sure it’s just to stir up some excitement and dialogue in our country, eh?

ReplyReply
mygif

Here’s a suggestion to all Canadians:

Don’t vote Republican.

Signed, Americans.

ReplyReply
mygif
Die Macher said on April 4th, 2011 at 10:49 am

Just saw on the news Harper pledges to abolish the long gun registry. You know, the one all the cops say is a good thing.

This after abolishing the long-form census, which every scientific and business group says was something we needed.

Does Stephen Harper have some kind of pathological grudge against long things?

ReplyReply
mygif
Lethargy said on April 8th, 2011 at 3:31 am

This has to be the best run-down of Canadian politics I’ve ever seen, so thanks! Even though I’m Canadian, I’ve never really understood our politics. I’m pretty sure I know more about American politics than ours.

ReplyReply
mygif

“I’m pretty sure I know more about American politics than ours.” – Actually, I think most Canadians know more about American politics than most Americans. We compare and contrast our system with theirs on a regular basis, where the Americans don’t do that with anybody else’s.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments