2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Geilinor]

You said "Anyone who still thinks Trudeau is a leftist is kidding themselves at this point" in response to an article that shows him privatizing some infrastructure. The clear implication, because this is how the English language works, is that this capitalist action should make it clear to people that Trudeau is not a leftist.

Either you made a logically unsound conclusion by implying that doing something capitalist makes it clear that Trudeau is not a leftist, or you butchered your syntax. I assumed the former because I don't regularly see you do the latter.

I'm saying doing something neoliberal makes him a rightist, or at the very least a centrist, i.e. promoting market solutions over public ones.

That makes him a centrist, which he is. He prefers public solutions in many other cases, such as healthcare, education, and retirement pensions.

[MERIZoC]

I'm saying doing something neoliberal makes him a rightist, or at the very least a centrist, i.e. promoting market solutions over public ones.

You are aware that neoliberals are socially left-wing capitalists, right?

Neoliberal doesn't make much of a "social" claim, if by social you mean issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

[Camicon]

I'm saying doing something neoliberal makes him a rightist, or at the very least a centrist, i.e. promoting market solutions over public ones.

That makes him a centrist, which he is. He prefers public solutions in many other cases, such as healthcare, education, and retirement pensions.

Given that he and the Liberals have undertaken a number of decidedly not capitalist measures on the economy, I'd label them as centre-left: economically centre, socially left.

[MERIZoC]

I'm saying doing something neoliberal makes him a rightist, or at the very least a centrist, i.e. promoting market solutions over public ones.

That makes him a centrist, which he is. He prefers public solutions in many other cases, such as healthcare, education, and retirement pensions.

So do plenty of right wingers.

[Camicon]

You are aware that neoliberals are socially left-wing capitalists, right?

Neoliberal doesn't make much of a "social" claim, if by social you mean issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

If you're calling the Liberals neoliberal, then yeah. They are an economically centrist socially left political party.

[Geilinor]

That makes him a centrist, which he is. He prefers public solutions in many other cases, such as healthcare, education, and retirement pensions.

So do plenty of right wingers.

So do many on the left-wing. So again, neoliberal in some ways but not in others.

[Oneracon]

So Trudeau and his cabinet have rejected Northern Gateway, but approved Trans-Mountain and Line 3. They also announced they plan to introduce legislation banning oil tankers along the BC north coast.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal ... -1.3872828

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So Trudeau and his cabinet have rejected Northern Gateway, but approved Trans-Mountain and Line 3. They also announced they plan to introduce legislation banning oil tankers along the BC north coast.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal ... -1.3872828

Do Trans-Mountain and Line 3 go thru First nations land?

Anyway, this seems like a good compromise.

[Camicon]

So Trudeau and his cabinet have rejected Northern Gateway, but approved Trans-Mountain and Line 3. They also announced they plan to introduce legislation banning oil tankers along the BC north coast.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal ... -1.3872828

Don't know why people are upset about the Trans-Mountain expansion. It's just twinning an existing line. That means twice as much care will be paid to both lines, and while you might argue that second line will double the chance of a leak, proper maintenance and lots of watchful eyes are the best defence of that. And Line 3 is literally the replacement of an existing pipeline with newer, safer materials and construction methods.

Put this check in the "win" column.

[Camicon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry- ... -1.3866879

Electoral reform committee recommends that Canada adopt proportional representation.

Liberal members of the committee "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election".

The committee is going to speak to reporters at 10:30ET. The NDP will be speaking at 12:00ET, and the Liberals on the committee at 12:30ET.

[MERIZoC]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

Ayyyy, lets go.

e: dammit, camicon

[MERIZoC]

Sarcasm aside, this is rather disappointing. A referendum is bound to be filled with a bunch of vile misinformation that we really don't need, and the fact that the liberals on the committee are saying we cant do it before the election is comical. We'll see though, these are just first impressions. Stay tuned.

[Camicon]

Sarcasm aside, this is rather disappointing. A referendum is bound to be filled with a bunch of vile misinformation that we really don't need, and the fact that the liberals on the committee are saying we cant do it before the election is comical. We'll see though, these are just first impressions. Stay tuned.

Honestly, what they think doesn't matter any more. They've made their recommendation, and now it's up to Trudeau and his Cabinet to follow through on their campaign promise and make 2019 a PR election.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

Electoral reform committee recommends that Canada adopt proportional representation.

Liberal members of the committee "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election".

The committee is going to speak to reporters at 10:30ET. The NDP will be speaking at 12:00ET, and the Liberals on the committee at 12:30ET.

So, wait, is there going to be a referendum? And if so, when?

[Sanctissima]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

Electoral reform committee recommends that Canada adopt proportional representation.

Liberal members of the committee "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election".

The committee is going to speak to reporters at 10:30ET. The NDP will be speaking at 12:00ET, and the Liberals on the committee at 12:30ET.

By "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election", I imagine they mean "we think we have a better shot at winning again with FPTP, so we're going to stick with that". Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Regardless, proportional representation isn't all that great an electoral system. I'd rather they adopt instant run-off.

[Camicon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

Electoral reform committee recommends that Canada adopt proportional representation.

Liberal members of the committee "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election".

The committee is going to speak to reporters at 10:30ET. The NDP will be speaking at 12:00ET, and the Liberals on the committee at 12:30ET.

So, wait, is there going to be a referendum? And if so, when?

The committee recommended a referendum, though the NDP members and Elizabeth May question the need for it. They gave no suggested timeline, though for anyone who wants this to happen in time for 2019 I think the implication was "ASAP".

[Camicon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879

Electoral reform committee recommends that Canada adopt proportional representation.

Liberal members of the committee "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election".

The committee is going to speak to reporters at 10:30ET. The NDP will be speaking at 12:00ET, and the Liberals on the committee at 12:30ET.

By "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election", I imagine they mean "we think we have a better shot at winning again with FPTP, so we're going to stick with that". Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Regardless, proportional representation isn't all that great an electoral system. I'd rather they adopt instant run-off.

PR is better than FPTP and, in a state that isn't so strongly divided along regional lines like Canada is, might work better than IR/AV.

I agree though, I'd rather Canada adopt IR/AV.

[Sanctissima]

By "suggest that electoral reform cannot be implemented in time for the 2019 election", I imagine they mean "we think we have a better shot at winning again with FPTP, so we're going to stick with that". Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Regardless, proportional representation isn't all that great an electoral system. I'd rather they adopt instant run-off.

PR is better than FPTP and, in a state that isn't so strongly divided along regional lines like Canada is, might work better than IR/AV.

I agree though, I'd rather Canada adopt IR/AV.

True, but like you say, instant run-off is preferable.

I mean, if you're going to fix the electoral system, you might as well do it properly.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, wait, is there going to be a referendum? And if so, when?

The committee recommended a referendum, though the NDP members and Elizabeth May question the need for it. They gave no suggested timeline, though for anyone who wants this to happen in time for 2019 I think the implication was "ASAP".

I hope it happens soon. FPTP is a silly system. (Still better then the Electoral College but then again what isn't?)

[Nurkama]

I'd like a better electoral system, but if you're going to make one, make it an actually great electoral system such as instant run-off.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I'd like a better electoral system, but if you're going to make one, make it an actually great electoral system such as instant run-off.

Baby steps. First an upgrade from FPTP, then instant runoff.

[Camicon]

PR is better than FPTP and, in a state that isn't so strongly divided along regional lines like Canada is, might work better than IR/AV.

I agree though, I'd rather Canada adopt IR/AV.

True, but like you say, instant run-off is preferable.

I mean, if you're going to fix the electoral system, you might as well do it properly.

Not everyone shares my opinion that IR/AV would be better for Canada than PR, and really, it's a judgement call in any case. There's really no objective measure for it. Is a system better if it gives representation in the government to everybody's first choice? Or is it better if every representative in the government has the broadest possible support from their riding?

Anyways, looks like May, the NDP members, and the Liberals, all seem to have doubts about the efficacy or necessity of a referendum on the issue. The Liberals seem to be sticking to their "not without broad support" line, though, and while I don't agree with that stance their justification for having it are not without merit.

[Sanctissima]

True, but like you say, instant run-off is preferable.

I mean, if you're going to fix the electoral system, you might as well do it properly.

Not everyone shares my opinion that IR/AV would be better for Canada than PR, and really, it's a judgement call in any case. There's really no objective measure for it. Is a system better if it gives representation in the government to everybody's first choice? Or is it better if every representative in the government has the broadest possible support from their riding?

Anyways, looks like May, the NDP members, and the Liberals, all seem to have doubts about the efficacy or necessity of a referendum on the issue. The Liberals seem to be sticking to their "not without broad support" line, though, and while I don't agree with that stance their justification for having it are not without merit.

Eh, if a democracy is to have any merit to it, instant run-off is the way to go. Although proportional representation is preferable to FPTP, with it, all you get is representation based on party lines. We should at least try to pretend that our electoral system isn't just a dick-measuring contest between political parties.

In terms of the whole "not without broad support" thing, to be quite blunt, it's just posturing. I don't know what the Liberals' motive is behind it (although to be frank I imagine it's that they think they'll do better come next election with FPTP), but they're pussyfooting around the issue. It's already quite evident that the majority of Canadians are dissatisfied with the current electoral system. All a referendum would do is confirm what is already known. Realistically, its purpose would be to buy time, and avoid having to make changes the Liberals seem to not be willing to make.

[Geilinor]

Sarcasm aside, this is rather disappointing. A referendum is bound to be filled with a bunch of vile misinformation that we really don't need, and the fact that the liberals on the committee are saying we cant do it before the election is comical. We'll see though, these are just first impressions. Stay tuned.

A referendum campaign would take time and then the implementation would have to occur. So they're probably right.

[The Blaatschapen]

The best voting system, in my opinion, is one that minimises voter loss. The less voters who are not represented the better. FPTP is terrible in that regard.