Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Power & Politics put together a little fact check regarding what Harper has said re: the Duffy affair vs. what actually happened - http://t.co/okoZsW4OBB

Ah. So this is why they wanted an extremely long campaign. Time enough for a Conservative leadership race.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by starseed

Ah. So this is why they wanted an extremely long campaign. Time enough for a Conservative leadership race.

Didn't hit the link but a new conservative leader would get my vote. There should definitely be term limits in our country. Harper has just become too 'Teflon don' for my liking.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by SebC

A single raindrop in a flood is negligible.

So if not that raindrop, which raindrop is responsible for the flood?

Some of them are going to have to get their act together and fall somewhere else.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by chedder

Didn't hit the link but a new conservative leader would get my vote. There should definitely be term limits in our country. Harper has just become too 'Teflon don' for my liking.

We can't find nearly enough good leaders as is. Why on earth would we want to term-limit a future PM who is well-liked?

Also, term limits are far more difficult to handle in our form of government vs the American way. Without true fixed terms, term limits are rather untenable.

That said, obviously I agree that Harper's cold, calculating, quasi-sociopathic style of governing needs to be turfed ASAP.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by chedder

Didn't hit the link but a new conservative leader would get my vote. There should definitely be term limits in our country. Harper has just become too 'Teflon don' for my liking.

The problem in simply replacing Harper with another conservative leader is that it wouldn't succeed in fixing the problem. The conservative party has been built from the ground up by Harper and works as a very tightly managed machine. Harper's not just a head man, he's the guy who has defined the culture of the party. The scandal with Duffy right now show's so clearly that it's not just a problem with the current PM. The party leadership would need a thorough cleaning out and some time for a new leadership group to set a new culture.

[Harry Lime]

Any possibility of getting any traction on limiting the number of people entering politics from one particular profession? Let's say only 50% of politicians running for office can have more than half of their previously taxed income coming from the same profession as other candidates. There is a huge untapped well of excellent leadership of people who are not lawyers.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Any possibility of getting any traction on limiting the number of people entering politics from one particular profession? Let's say only 50% of politicians running for office can have more than half of their previously taxed income coming from the same profession as other candidates. There is a huge untapped well of excellent leadership of people who are not lawyers.

I admit my bias, but this seems a strange suggestion in an election year when none of the party leaders are lawyers.

I also note that, frankly, lawyers have an undeniable familiarity with legislation, rhetoric, and advocacy that makes them a natural fit for politics (for better or worse.)

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Any possibility of getting any traction on limiting the number of people entering politics from one particular profession? Let's say only 50% of politicians running for office can have more than half of their previously taxed income coming from the same profession as other candidates. There is a huge untapped well of excellent leadership of people who are not lawyers.

These days it isn't the lawyers, it's the career politicians who have never had any real non-political career at all. I'd love to see a scenario where the people running are those who have been successful at other things and are now entering political life as a service to the country, but most of our best and brightest have no interest in getting into modern politics.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by John Doe

If Harper was/is lying about or involved in the coverup then he was/is doing bad things too.

But why are you talking about Redford? How is she relevant to the federal election as anything but a diversion as to what is emerging from the Duffy trial?

The only reason is I bring up Redford is I think the Duffy thing is a little overblown. It seems people are more hung up on this Duffy thing than the Redford thing. Redfords transgression was far worse than Duffy/Harper in my opinion.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The only reason is I bring up Redford is I think the Duffy thing is a little overblown. It seems people are more hung up on this Duffy thing than the Redford thing. Redfords transgression was far worse than Duffy/Harper in my opinion.

Seriously? Redrord's political career was absolutely destroyed and a 50? year political dynasty collapsed all around her? Harper has, somehow, remained relatively unscathed.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

These days it isn't the lawyers, it's the career politicians who have never had any real non-political career at all. I'd love to see a scenario where the people running are those who have been successful at other things and are now entering political life as a service to the country, but most of our best and brightest have no interest in getting into modern politics.

You mean like Donald Trump?

[Swift]

He said brightest.

[White Out 403]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16...html?referrer=

from article:THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has called an election for Oct. 19, but he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

He has chosen not to participate in the traditional series of debates on national television, confronting his opponents in quieter, less public venues, like the scholarly Munk Debates and CPAC, Canada’s equivalent of CSPAN. His own campaign events were subject to gag orders until a public outcry forced him to rescind the forced silence of his supporters.

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

These days it isn't the lawyers, it's the career politicians who have never had any real non-political career at all. I'd love to see a scenario where the people running are those who have been successful at other things and are now entering political life as a service to the country, but most of our best and brightest have no interest in getting into modern politics.

This is a very good point, though having lawyers at the helm isn't a good thing either.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

This is a very good point, though having lawyers at the helm isn't a good thing either.

Who do you consider to be the best Prime Ministers in our history, out of curiosity?

I bet most of them are lawyers.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

These days it isn't the lawyers, it's the career politicians who have never had any real non-political career at all. I'd love to see a scenario where the people running are those who have been successful at other things and are now entering political life as a service to the country, but most of our best and brightest have no interest in getting into modern politics.

And can we blame them?

There is so much focus on image, so much mudslinging and perfectionism, so much focus on campaigning, so little time for proper debate, so little collegiality, so little cooperation in the good of the country. I have a couple of good friends and relatives who would make excellent candidates but I would never recommend that they run for office particularly in a leadership role.

I don't think there's enough value placed on service to one's community anymore, and certainly not enough to overcome the drawbacks of political life. Basically it seems like a tough, dirty job that exposes your personal life to all sorts of stress and scrutiny. Why would you leave a successful career for that?

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I admit my bias, but this seems a strange suggestion in an election year when none of the party leaders are lawyers.

Both May and Mulcair are lawyers.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Both May and Mulcair are lawyers.

Was just going to say...literally half of the party leaders that were in the only debate thus far are lawyers.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16...html?referrer=

from article:THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has called an election for Oct. 19, but he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

He has chosen not to participate in the traditional series of debates on national television, confronting his opponents in quieter, less public venues, like the scholarly Munk Debates and CPAC, Canada’s equivalent of CSPAN. His own campaign events were subject to gag orders until a public outcry forced him to rescind the forced silence of his supporters.

Jason Kenney tweeted about this article claiming it wasn't accurate. Pretty laughable. I'd like to know what exactly he thinks the NY times "made up"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16...html?referrer=

from article:THE prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has called an election for Oct. 19, but he doesn’t want anyone to talk about it.

He has chosen not to participate in the traditional series of debates on national television, confronting his opponents in quieter, less public venues, like the scholarly Munk Debates and CPAC, Canada’s equivalent of CSPAN. His own campaign events were subject to gag orders until a public outcry forced him to rescind the forced silence of his supporters.

Some of this stuff (although well known by many) is just appalling behaviour in a so-called democracy.

His relationship to the press is one of outright hostility. At his notoriously brief news conferences, his handlers vet every journalist, picking and choosing who can ask questions. In the usual give-and-take between press and politicians, the hurly-burly of any healthy democracy, he has simply removed the give.

Mr. Harper’s war against science has been even more damaging to the capacity of Canadians to know what their government is doing. The prime minister’s base of support is Alberta, a western province financially dependent on the oil industry, and he has been dedicated to protecting petrochemical companies from having their feelings hurt by any inconvenient research.

In 2012, he tried to defund government research centers in the High Arctic, and placed Canadian environmental scientists under gag orders. That year, National Research Council members were barred from discussing their work on snowfall with the media. Scientists for the governmental agency Environment Canada, under threat of losing their jobs, have been banned from discussing their research without political approval. Mentions of federal climate change research in the Canadian press have dropped 80 percent. The union that represents federal scientists and other professionals has, for the first time in its history, abandoned neutrality to campaign against Mr. Harper.

His active promotion of ignorance extends into the functions of government itself. Most shockingly, he ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Catholic Council of Bishops. In the age of information, he has stripped Canada of its capacity to gather information about itself.

After the 2011 election, a Conservative staffer, Michael Sona, was convicted of using robocalls to send voters to the wrong polling places in Guelph, Ontario. In the words of the judge, he was guilty of “callous and blatant disregard for the right of people to vote.” In advance of this election, instead of such petty ploys, the Canadian Conservatives have passed the Fair Elections Act, a law with a classically Orwellian title, which not only needlessly tightens the requirements for voting but also has restricted the chief executive of Elections Canada from promoting the act of voting. Mr. Harper seems to think that his job is to prevent democracy.

But the worst of the Harper years is that all this secrecy and informational control have been at the service of no larger vision for the country. The policies that he has undertaken have been negligible — more irritating distractions than substantial changes. He is “tough on crime,” and so he has built more prisons at great expense at the exact moment when even American conservatives have realized that over-incarceration causes more problems than it solves. Then there is a new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or high treason — effectively creating levels of Canadianness and problems where none existed.

If you removed all the references to Canada and Harper from the article, would any of the CPC supporters on here think the article was talking about an open and fair democracy? I think that's what's most frustrating about hearing the "Yeah, but oil! Ma jerb!" or the "Well I benefit from UCCB and income-splitting" stuff. We seem to be perfectly okay to sacrifice real, fundamental, democratic principles in exchange for minor economic benefits or the fear of hypothetical economic consequences. You're selling your democracy for pennies on the dollar, IMO.

I'll also admit that my opinion is probably skewed by not having any kids or owning home.