And they're off...the election thread
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify the terms:
There's no proposal of a "merger." That would be two parties becoming one. Like the Alliance - Progressive Conservative merger. Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau have even raised the possibility of a merger. Mulcair has said he would be open to a coalition government - in which both Liberals and NDPers would hold Cabinet posts and presumably the leader of the larger party being PM. Trudeau has said he'd work on the basis of issue by issue co-operation.
Not a misrepresentation! Yes, he said he would cooperate, of course he said that (do you expect him to say he wouldn't?) but he flat out said no to a coalition. Mulcair is open to doing what it takes to get the Conservatives out, Trudeau isn't, even though that is very important to 2/3 of both of their voters collectively. Mulcair points out that in 2008, the NDP was willing to form a coalition with the Libs, even let their leader lead it, just to defeat Harper, but they said no and we got stuck with a Conservative government for 7 more years. Good point - and he has been willing to do the same. Trudeau hasn't.
Here's the latest Mansbridge interview with Mulcair. He gives detailed answers, like a wise and experienced leader, specifics, about what he would do in specific instances. I found Trudeau to be speaking in more vague talking points more often. He's enthusiastic but less clear on specifics. The two problems I had from Mulcair's interview are 1) the senate - How does he plan to pass things through a senate comprised of a lot of Conservatives, and less so Liberal senators, whom he wants to phase out? 2) he kept talking politics when asked to give a more personal statement about who he is - but that was minor. It was an illuminating interview. Here are both interviews - Trudeau's and Mulcair's - for comparison.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV Shows/The National/ID/2675137335/
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2675171145/
Last edited:
Sorry - coalition. It is a merger of parties, with the biggest one's leader being PM, most likely. Yes. Wrong word. Trudeau saying he's willing to cooperate after being elected - I would be shocked if he said otherwise. It's not nearly the same thing as being willing to sacrifice your party brand because of deep concern for the country.
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
Hopefully everyone heard CBC last night
Mulcaire
50% is enough to break up the country
Quebec is the same as Scotland ( scotland was a separate country that joined England. Quebec was part of the founding of Canada)
ISIS is free to rape and pillage with out any fear of us
Who needs a Senate. Lets just make surethey agree to everything I want to do. And people think Harper is arrogant
$15 day care. Who cares that the provinces wont pay their 40 % of the cost. Again, who is arrogant?
Increase corporate tax rate. Hey thats a great idea to attract business
Seriously People still will vote for him
Gotta say that even though I dislike Trudeau at least these arent his policies. A liberal vote is safer than this
Mulcaire
50% is enough to break up the country
Quebec is the same as Scotland ( scotland was a separate country that joined England. Quebec was part of the founding of Canada)
ISIS is free to rape and pillage with out any fear of us
Who needs a Senate. Lets just make surethey agree to everything I want to do. And people think Harper is arrogant
$15 day care. Who cares that the provinces wont pay their 40 % of the cost. Again, who is arrogant?
Increase corporate tax rate. Hey thats a great idea to attract business
Seriously People still will vote for him
Gotta say that even though I dislike Trudeau at least these arent his policies. A liberal vote is safer than this
He made the point that Canada should be doing more for peace - that more war has just culminated in more war.
50.1 is enough to break up the country - as the rule has been in the past and with the latest Scottish referendum - but he doesn't want it broken. He's saying that over half is a fair number. Otherwise, what number do you set and how?
Harper said he didn't want a senate - sorry, he wanted an elected senate, with term limits (reasonable idea) - then proceeded to fill positions with Conservative senators who would agree with him. Now he's letting it die. Too much of a headache for him now.
$15 day care - will Mulcair speak with provincial leaders - he said twice per year, Harper not once - maybe he will get a plan going ensuring provinces will pay their share. But why should poorer provinces pay the same rate as wealthier ones, anyway? Shouldn't it be scaled to affordability - so that poorer working families in provinces that are having tough times, have access to it without losing out somewhere else?
Increase corporate taxes so that people who work for them for low pay don't shoulder the burden while the big wigs don't - yes. If that changes all over the world then we'll be no worse off. Why do people who need government help get pooped on, and corporations who get huge breaks - some would say government welfare for the wealthy - not criticized?
Last edited:
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
You have drunk the koolaide
If you invest in more people who struggle at the bottom they have a chance to join the middle. Trickle down doesn't work. I guess that makes me a "socialist". 
a social democrat, actually.
a social democrat, actually.
Last edited:
No, I think you have.
Helping the poor, being fair and democratic, working for peace - what insane ideas! Whoever would support that?
All ribbing aside - I think Mulcair would work to do that, bringing with him wisdom and experience. I do question, however, his willingness to, in earlier years, export Canadian water for sale. I want to hear more from him about that.
All ribbing aside - I think Mulcair would work to do that, bringing with him wisdom and experience. I do question, however, his willingness to, in earlier years, export Canadian water for sale. I want to hear more from him about that.
ISIL does scare me. They are a brutal and ruthless monster that just seemed to spring up just over a year ago when no one had heard of them before - they were all of a sudden a huge threat. They've been destroying lives as well as important historical places - in barbaric fashion. I don't know how they can be stopped without force - and yet, more war in the Middle East has not lead to more peace there, has it? I'd like to hear from Mulcair what his peace plan is. I support peace, I just don't know how we can help achieve it and protect people ravaged by war there as it continues to happen. it's a terrible situation. And most of the refugees in exodus - they wouldn't want to leave their homes, that wouldn't have occurred to them, say, 5 years ago or less, but through no fault of their own are being forced out by brutal violence.
Last edited:
Even the Pope, who calls for peace continually, supports military force to stop ISIS. They're that bad. They are brutal and unscrupulous - they are not a normal "army" of any sort that can be negotiated with. It's extremely unfortunate that the world is in this position, but I do agree with Harper to a point - that we need to be helping refugees and that the violence there has to be stopped somehow. Doing nothing won't solve it. So, I'd like to hear from Mulcair what Canada's plan would be. I agree with you @Lastpointe , I think, on that. Those refugees - growing in unprecedented numbers, that's how bad things are - want, above all, for the violence to end.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm sure that Mulcair isn't willing to sacrifice his party's brand. I'm assuming that Mulcair raises the possibility of a coalition on the assumption (no longer certain according to the polls) that the NDP would be the larger party and he would be PM. Junior partners in a two party coalition tend not to do very well. They just get linked in with the policies of the government, which is dominated by the larger party, and the larger party tends to get the credit for any successes the government has had. Often the junior partner then fades away into irrelevance. The most recent example is the virtual disintegration of the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK in the last election after they had governed in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives. People thought of that government as a Conservative government and those who approved of the government voted according to that perception. Trudeau's issue by issue suggestion is the only one that makes sense from the perspective of a smaller party.
That's your opinion - but 50% of voters across Canada, and 2/3 of both Liberal and NDP supporters disagree. At this point, they just want "ABC". He should, given that, be willing to consider a coalition. They could, technically, break apart at some later point, for a future election, anyway. It's a marriage of convenience that most to the left of centre would support at this point.
Canada was a French colony in part what is now Quebec, that ceded to Britain. Scotland as a country was a rival to England for a long time. I don't remember my history lessons in detail but what was called "Canada" then was one of several french colonies that went from what is now Quebec, to south of what is now the US/ Canada border - the British won a bunch of wars and all of what is now Quebec became part of what was expanded to be the entire region we know as Canada now.
The process of how Quebec became part of (what is now) Canada is because the British Empire won. (and I don't remember dates and details and names of the wars that lead to that. Sorry. We need Graeme to jump in. I could read up all about it but after this long I am not sure if the details matter.)
You know, it's been a long time and I believe they should stay part of Canada - but they didn't join what is now Canada voluntarily. And many Scots would say they didn't join England voluntarily either - hence the referendum. In both cases, I think it's better for them to be seperate regions of one united country, with distinct cultural attributes - that's interesting and a good thing.
From what I have heard, Mulcair is not a seperatist, but there are die hard seperatists there and if they did have another referendum - just exactly what number would be a fair number? I don't think it's likely to happen again anytime soon - I hope Mulcair or Trudeau could establish good relations with (those who are now) seperatists, maybe work to change their minds and improve Canada so that everyone is proud to call themselves Canadian, and noone wants to seperate - but, failing that, if another referendum happened, what's a fair number?
Last edited:
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
If you dig a little deeper, you'll find some of the roots in the current crisis in Syria in climate change.A severe drought from 06-10 forced some 75% of small farmers off their land and into the cities. It's tempting to look at the most recent agents as being the change starters, but loses the nuance of a much more complex problem that, I would argue, no amount of violence is going to fix.
What will fix the violent ISIL - who I would argue are off their rockers and cannot be negotiated with because what they want is so far from civilized - from chasing people out of their homes? What will stop ISIL from destroying historical treasures?
We don't know how that monster was created, but now that it exists, how can it be stopped without force?
Even if droughts drove people into cities - huge masses of people are leaving Iraq and Syria altogether because the violence has destroyed cities and towns all over.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Well, actually, it's not my "opinion" that junior partners tend to do poorly in coalition governments because they get submerged by the dominant party in the coalition. There's plenty of historical precedent for that. I've offered you the most recent one. The Liberal Democrats in the UK.
Personally, I'd have no problem with a coalition. But I can see why the Liberals (as, for the moment at least, the smaller party) wouldn't want any part of it. Nor do I think Trudeau is under any obligation to agree to a coalition. He's under an obligation to share his position so that voters know what they're voting for when they vote. He's done that.
You see, the problem with a coalition is that you have no idea what it is that you're voting for. The Liberals and NDP have different policies - and, in some cases, opposite policies. A coalition is going to mean backroom dealing and backroom deals to find out what the policies of the coalition government will be. If you're satisfied with just getting Harper out then it's fine. If you actually want to be able to make any sort of reasoned choice and to be able to hold anybody responsible then a coalition takes that away from you.
I guess my issue is, and I don't think I am alone, that neither Trudeau or Mulcair are perfect choices anyway but they're both better than the Conservatives - so whatever combination of policies they came up with we'd still be better off.