[Nevyn]

The cbc report i read suggested that when first introduced it was very popular, but by the time it passed more Canadians were against it than for it.

Of course, the conservatives don't really care about the overall numbers. It is a wedge issue, and one that hurts the Liberals more than the conservatives.

The bill helps the conservatives with both their base and with groups whose vote they think they have a chance of winning.

If the Liberals oppose it, it hurts them with those people. If they support it (as they did) it hurts them with more progressive voters. So regardless of the overall popularity, it is politically effective. Even if that is a disgusting reason to enact legislation that impacts the freedom and security of your citizens.

[Tsundoku]

Gold.

----------------------------------------

http://www.news.com....k-1227355340810

Conservative candidate ran a ‘fake campaign’ to ‘mess with’ political party
2 HOURS AGO MAY 14, 2015 5:46PM
The longest prank in history
Chris Llyod has spent many years working to infiltrate the Conservative Party for ‘art’ Source: YouTube
A CANADIAN politician has carried out what could be the longest troll in history after it was revealed his candidacy for the Conservative Party was part of an ongoing performance art piece.
Chris Lloyd has been forced to resign after he admitted he has been adopting “a persona” and has been operating within the Conservative Party in an effort to “mess with” them.
He has effectively been subverting the party for the better part of four years in an effort to push the boundaries of art and politics. Despite the fact that he didn’t go out of his way to conceal his motivations, Mr Lloyd says he is “surprised” his experiment lasted as long as it did.
“I have to admit, I think our democratic process is an incredibly cynical, broken, kind of twisted affair,” the artist told CBC Radio.
The former president of the electoral committee won the official Conservative Party candidacy for Papineau in February. However a CBC investigation has outed the art project and consequently Mr Lloyd has been forced to resign.
The stunt has cast doubt over the vetting process of candidates as Mr Lloyd did a number of strange and subversive things both before and after joining the party.
In April 2011, just months before going to work for them, Mr Lloyd sent the Conservative Party a cheque for $30 billion dollars for “F-35 Fighter Jets”.
In addition to running his conservative campaign, he was simultaneously a member of Leadnow, an advocacy group which actively seeks to prevent a conservative majority.

Amazingly, he even tried to tell the Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper (who took office in 2006) about his ongoing shenanigans.
Mr Lloyd wrote a letter to the incumbent PM nearly every day since 2001. Some were critical and dealt with serious issues, while others were humorous and at times, nonsensical diatribes. A few of the letters went into detail of his performance art piece but Mr Lloyd said he only received a “handful” of responses.
Despite all this, it was a talk he gave at an art centre in March, which was secretly recorded by a freelance journalist which led to his stunt being uncovered.
In the recording of the speech, obtained by CBC, Mr Lloyd told people at the art centre about his project and what he planned to do with the candidacy.
He told the crowd there was no real point to his art piece but that he was earnestly trying to unseat his Liberal opponent.
“The easiest persona I’ve been able to summon up is to somehow convince myself that by taking on the Conservative candidature, I’m doing it to defeat some greater evil which is perhaps Justin Trudeau,” he said.
“I’ve been telling the Prime Minister about this whole thing from the get go with all sorts of imaginings and fantasies,” he said. “Like yeah, I’m going to become the candidate and mess with your party.”

It’s been reported that Mr Lloyd first contacted the Conservative Party in 2011 and asked to attend the upcoming national convention. While he said they were initially suspicious of him as he didn’t “seem” like a conservative, he proceeded to gain more responsibility.
However when news broke this week of his ulterior motives it took just a few hours for Mr Lloyd to resign from his position.
A spokesperson for Mr Lloyd’s former opponent, Justin Trudeau said “the people of Papineau deserve the choice of credible candidates to represent them in Parliament. The Conservatives have not taken this obligation seriously.”
“It’s a joke, because they accept a guy like this, who is making a joke of them.”
Mr Lloyd hasn’t granted many media requests but has taken to his blog in an effort to clear things up with his former boss.
“I believe making art is an inherently political act — sometimes more political than we realise,” he wrote in his latest letter to the PM.
“I wanted to test the limits of free speech and explore the possibilities of voicing independent views within the confines of an electoral system that privileges dominant party ideologies,” he explained.

[QuickTidal]

So. Federal Election coming.

I gotta say I don't think Harper has much of a chance, and I'm surprised how close Mulcair is in early polls. Trudeau SHOULD win out, but Mulcair may give him a good race.

I'm not exactly thrilled about Trudeau having to capitulate on the pipeline (I feel that Oil Sands should be left the fuck alone, and un-mined/tapped), but at least he's fighting for the regulations to be in place.

[LinearPhilosopher]

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

So. Federal Election coming.

I gotta say I don't think Harper has much of a chance, and I'm surprised how close Mulcair is in early polls. Trudeau SHOULD win out, but Mulcair may give him a good race.

I'm not exactly thrilled about Trudeau having to capitulate on the pipeline (I feel that Oil Sands should be left the fuck alone, and un-mined/tapped), but at least he's fighting for the regulations to be in place.

The elections a while away so i'd take those polls with a grain of salt. Also what makes you say harper doesn't have much of a chance. His base which is what got him elected is still with him unless im mistaken. There's also the fact that NDP and Liberal vote splitting just helps him

[QuickTidal]

LinearPhilosopher, on 11 August 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

So. Federal Election coming.

I gotta say I don't think Harper has much of a chance, and I'm surprised how close Mulcair is in early polls. Trudeau SHOULD win out, but Mulcair may give him a good race.

I'm not exactly thrilled about Trudeau having to capitulate on the pipeline (I feel that Oil Sands should be left the fuck alone, and un-mined/tapped), but at least he's fighting for the regulations to be in place.

The elections a while away so i'd take those polls with a grain of salt. Also what makes you say harper doesn't have much of a chance. His base which is what got him elected is still with him unless im mistaken. There's also the fact that NDP and Liberal vote splitting just helps him

I'd argue that base is not nearly what it was. A lot of my elder family members have been lifelong Cons...and they've flipped over the last few years and really begun to resent Harper and the way he runs the show.

As someone who's never voted Cons in my life, I can't answer to it myself...but yeah I seriously don't see him getting in again.

[LinearPhilosopher]

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 11 August 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

So. Federal Election coming.

I gotta say I don't think Harper has much of a chance, and I'm surprised how close Mulcair is in early polls. Trudeau SHOULD win out, but Mulcair may give him a good race.

I'm not exactly thrilled about Trudeau having to capitulate on the pipeline (I feel that Oil Sands should be left the fuck alone, and un-mined/tapped), but at least he's fighting for the regulations to be in place.

The elections a while away so i'd take those polls with a grain of salt. Also what makes you say harper doesn't have much of a chance. His base which is what got him elected is still with him unless im mistaken. There's also the fact that NDP and Liberal vote splitting just helps him

I'd argue that base is not nearly what it was. A lot of my elder family members have been lifelong Cons...and they've flipped over the last few years and really begun to resent Harper and the way he runs the show.

As someone who's never voted Cons in my life, I can't answer to it myself...but yeah I seriously don't see him getting in again.

lifelong cons turning away from him? never thought i'd see the day. What is it that he did to make it happen?

[QuickTidal]

LinearPhilosopher, on 11 August 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

lifelong cons turning away from him? never thought i'd see the day. What is it that he did to make it happen?

You know, I've never asked. My parents and grandparents (aunts and uncles) have all kept their voting and reasoning rather mum (it's considered kind of taboo in my family to discuss politics as reasoning)...so I'm not exactly privvy. I just know that both my mom and dad seem to dislike Harper as a leader. Whether that's the Cons as a whole they've changed their minds about (I seriously doubt it) or Harper as a leader (much more likely), I dunno.

I remember my mother nearly having a raging fit when I was finally old enough to vote back in the 90's and I voted Liberal. She tried to talk me out of it by spouting traditionalist ideals and I was just like: "Mom, you're proving my reasoning."

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 August 2015 - 06:15 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

QuickTidal, on 11 August 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 11 August 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:

lifelong cons turning away from him? never thought i'd see the day. What is it that he did to make it happen?

You know, I've never asked. My parents and grandparents (aunts and uncles) have all kept their voting and reasoning rather mum (it's considered kind of taboo in my family to discuss politics as reasoning)...so I'm not exactly privvy. I just know that both my mom and dad seem to dislike Harper as a leader. Whether that's the Cons as a whole they've changed their minds about (I seriously doubt it) or Harper as a leader (much more likely), I dunno.

I remember my mother nearly having a raging fit when I was finally old enough to vote back in the 90's and I voted Liberal. She tried to talk me out of it by spouting traditionalist ideals and I was just like: "Mom, you're proving my reasoning."

i see.

[Nevyn]

Random thoughts on the election:

I would not definitively say Harper is in trouble. I WOULD say he is VERY unlikely to win more than a minority, and that things will get very interesting if a minority is the election result.

This will be a very long campaign, and potentially in two parts. Right now the Liberals and NDP are jockeying for positioning in the minds of the voters. If one of them begins to take momentum away from the other then they will be able to focus more on defeating Harper and Harper will be in trouble. Harper needs to keep his base motivated and his opposition split.

Harper does have a core of voters but how solid it is is overrated. There are still deep fissures among conservatives going back to the reform days and various mergers. Harpers has tended to carry reluctant eastern/red Tory support the last few elections in part due to the alternatives presented (read: the Liberals ran terrible campaigns). And for some ideologically centre-right people with no party he has carried the day for similar reasons. But the ones who are not brand loyal to the party are getting awfully sick of the party, to the point of finally considering BOTH other parties (this is a group famously averse to voting NDP, particularly in Ontario). And even those who consider themselves conservative consider Harper too far and are quite getable.

By now there are so many sources of anger. Even those who like 60% of what the cons have done almost all have at least one issue about them that drives them crazy.


The one thing Harper has going for him is again that people are not wild about the alternatives. Justin has had his missteps, and has not had a wider audience (due to 3rd party status). Many in the conservative-liberal divide also don't have fond recollections of his father. Meanwhile Mulcair has his own party's stigma to overcome, especially in Ontario, and it is also an open question how broadly he can connect with voters.

I will tell you this: my parents tend to fall in that Red Tory category, and they are currently leaning NDP, simply because of the many Harper issues (prime among them the disgusting new levels of government spending on partisan advertising), and because Trudeau has done zilch to inspire confidence. But that is quite soft support.

[HoosierDaddy]

So, I was watching the debate the other night on CSPAN because I'm an awesome person and not a nerd.

Harper looked every bit a leader, so I'm guessing I'm missing policy points here as to why he's so disliked.

Trudeau was pretty good as well, a bit slippery on some points but the term "Liberal" always makes me root for the person as it's such a poison pill in the U.S.

The NDP guy seemed really polished, but from what I watched it looks like he's the finished side of a faction battle within their own party on secession?

Also, the Green leader asking for them to show Canadian qualities and respect each other, when frankly, it's the most respectful debate I've seen in years says everything about Canada.

Interesting stuff. Who's going to win?

[Nevyn]

PS> Did any of you watch the first debate?

I think May did remarkably well, and it could be interesting if that leads to partial Green breakthrough or whether they stay at their typical levels. It isn't really fair to compare her performance, though, because as 4th leader she basically has a freeroll. No one cares about her platform and no one attacks her, so she gets to be the plain speaking fact checker for all of them.

Harper did what he does. The one crack that he showed was when after some back and forth he basically conceded Mulcair's point about being in recession.

Trudeau scored some good points and generally seems to have done ok in public perception, but I was struck by how many times he tripped over his own tongue and how sloppy his interjections were. He has some work to do on style. Also, while the camera may love him he does lack gravitas.

Mulcair scored a few votes and generally did no harm, but I think he missed a big opportunity for more. I think the NDP got him so scared of appearing fast talking or angry that he spent the whole debate with a big forced smile on and speaking as slowly as possible. And sadly the combination of those two make you sound condescending and passive-aggressive, not warm and fuzzy.

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 August 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

So, I was watching the debate the other night on CSPAN because I'm an awesome person and not a nerd.

Harper looked every bit a leader, so I'm guessing I'm missing policy points here as to why he's so disliked.

Trudeau was pretty good as well, a bit slippery on some points but the term "Liberal" always makes me root for the person as it's such a poison pill in the U.S.

The NDP guy seemed really polished, but from what I watched it looks like he's the finished side of a faction battle within their own party on secession?

Also, the Green leader asking for them to show Canadian qualities and respect each other, when frankly, it's the most respectful debate I've seen in years says everything about Canada.

Interesting stuff. Who's going to win?

Harper has been in power ten years, so running down every reason he is disliked would take some time.

Part of the problem with this comes down to modern era "truthiness" , and choosing what side of the coin you want to pick your facts from. Harper is very good at ignoring all other viewpoints and sticking to the 'facts' on his side of the coin. In short he is good at spinning his own record.

A short rundown on why he is disliked:

• Canada has for a long time seen itself as a nation devoted to international neutrality and peacekeeping. Harper has shifted that dramatically, siding hard with Israel, and taking big stands on other international conflicts. He has also focused more on military than peacekeeping.
• When his party came to power, the budget had been in surplus for several years in a row. He cut taxes, and then starting with the financial crisis we went into deficit and have been there until this year. This year it is debatable whether we will be in deficit or not, but it was meant to be the first surplus year and he has already spent much of that money pandering to voters.
• Harper has radically changed a lot of how politics are done here. He has centralized power within his office (it was previously more distributed among the cabinet), locked down media access and Q&A, and greatly increased US style permanent negative campaigning. He has also shifted campaign finance rules to benefit his party.
• He has appointed several corrupt Senators who are embroiled in scandal at the moment.
• He has really cut lines of communication with the provincial governments.
• He uses taxpayer money through official government resources to promote his own party and his own agenda, a little more blatantly each year.

etc etc


For an example of the taxpayer money one, this spring the conservatives released a budget with some boutique tax credits designed to buy votes. Immediately after the budget was announced, if you tried to go on the GOVERNMENT website to get specific details of the proposal, all that was available was a brochure to download.

That brochure labelled the government the Harper Government (vs Government of Canada), and instead of focusing on the current year's budget, had a run down of every tax break the conservatives had introduced in ten years in power. It was not information, it was an ad.

And on TV, you get paid for by taxpayers ads trumpeting these same tax cuts that are ostensibly information campaigns, but really political ads.

[HoosierDaddy]

So he is essentially Republican Lite for Canada on the national level, which is what I've always read but it's nice to have a breakdown as to why.

Could you go into more depth as to the provincial leadership and lack of communication/breakdown? Is it like a governorship in America or more important? It seems more important from what I'm reading.

Thanks so much!

[LinearPhilosopher]

Nevyn, on 11 August 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 11 August 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

So, I was watching the debate the other night on CSPAN because I'm an awesome person and not a nerd.

Harper looked every bit a leader, so I'm guessing I'm missing policy points here as to why he's so disliked.

Trudeau was pretty good as well, a bit slippery on some points but the term "Liberal" always makes me root for the person as it's such a poison pill in the U.S.

The NDP guy seemed really polished, but from what I watched it looks like he's the finished side of a faction battle within their own party on secession?

Also, the Green leader asking for them to show Canadian qualities and respect each other, when frankly, it's the most respectful debate I've seen in years says everything about Canada.

Interesting stuff. Who's going to win?

Harper has been in power ten years, so running down every reason he is disliked would take some time.

Part of the problem with this comes down to modern era "truthiness" , and choosing what side of the coin you want to pick your facts from. Harper is very good at ignoring all other viewpoints and sticking to the 'facts' on his side of the coin. In short he is good at spinning his own record.

A short rundown on why he is disliked:

• Canada has for a long time seen itself as a nation devoted to international neutrality and peacekeeping. Harper has shifted that dramatically, siding hard with Israel, and taking big stands on other international conflicts. He has also focused more on military than peacekeeping.
• When his party came to power, the budget had been in surplus for several years in a row. He cut taxes, and then starting with the financial crisis we went into deficit and have been there until this year. This year it is debatable whether we will be in deficit or not, but it was meant to be the first surplus year and he has already spent much of that money pandering to voters.
• Harper has radically changed a lot of how politics are done here. He has centralized power within his office (it was previously more distributed among the cabinet), locked down media access and Q&A, and greatly increased US style permanent negative campaigning. He has also shifted campaign finance rules to benefit his party.
• He has appointed several corrupt Senators who are embroiled in scandal at the moment.
• He has really cut lines of communication with the provincial governments.
• He uses taxpayer money through official government resources to promote his own party and his own agenda, a little more blatantly each year.

etc etc


For an example of the taxpayer money one, this spring the conservatives released a budget with some boutique tax credits designed to buy votes. Immediately after the budget was announced, if you tried to go on the GOVERNMENT website to get specific details of the proposal, all that was available was a brochure to download.

That brochure labelled the government the Harper Government (vs Government of Canada), and instead of focusing on the current year's budget, had a run down of every tax break the conservatives had introduced in ten years in power. It was not information, it was an ad.

And on TV, you get paid for by taxpayers ads trumpeting these same tax cuts that are ostensibly information campaigns, but really political ads.

just to add to this, he's slashed services for veterans and made it difficult for veterans to speak out about it

There a recent bill he tabeled where if you emigrated to canada, you could have your citenship stripped if the goverment wants to a whim

Bill c-51 which basically grants the goverment way to much power in terms of cracking down on people's liberties

He's gagged scientists so they wouldn't speak about environmental issues

He's burned scientific research as well as reducing science spending overall

and thats stuff in the last year or so. Isn't hard to dig further into the other stuff

He increased the amount of senators just so he could get a majority in the senate.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 11 August 2015 - 08:55 PM

[Nevyn]

Provinces are very similar to states, but just like at the national level we have a parliamentary system.

So the leader of a province is the leader of the party that wins the most seats (the Majority Leader is US parlance).

As for the breakdown between the levels, like many Republicans in the states, Harper tends to think a lot of things should be the responsibility of the provinces, not the federal government. Which is all very well except that some of them are funded through transfers from the federal to provincial goverment. And some things cannot be done as efficiently by 10 separate provincial entities as one provincial one. And a lot of those things have been done federally in the past.

There is always tension between levels of government. But for example all of the provincial leaders tend to get together now and then (called a First Ministers summit) to discuss areas of policy and trade and so on. Traditionally the federal government would also be a part of those meetings and negotiations, playing daddy now and again, and also getting policy feedback. Harper simply stopped going, basically leaving the provinces to figure it out on their own.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Nevyn, on 11 August 2015 - 08:54 PM, said:

Provinces are very similar to states, but just like at the national level we have a parliamentary system.

So the leader of a province is the leader of the party that wins the most seats (the Majority Leader is US parlance).

As for the breakdown between the levels, like many Republicans in the states, Harper tends to think a lot of things should be the responsibility of the provinces, not the federal government. Which is all very well except that some of them are funded through transfers from the federal to provincial goverment. And some things cannot be done as efficiently by 10 separate provincial entities as one provincial one. And a lot of those things have been done federally in the past.

There is always tension between levels of government. But for example all of the provincial leaders tend to get together now and then (called a First Ministers summit) to discuss areas of policy and trade and so on. Traditionally the federal government would also be a part of those meetings and negotiations, playing daddy now and again, and also getting policy feedback. Harper simply stopped going, basically leaving the provinces to figure it out on their own.

and to add to this, there isn't as big of a big goverment vs small goverment thing going on in canada. I'd also argue provinces are more homogenised than states in the US (interstate taxes in the US are a nightmare)

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 11 August 2015 - 08:57 PM

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 August 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

The NDP guy seemed really polished, but from what I watched it looks like he's the finished side of a faction battle within their own party on secession?

Not exactly.


The NDP has long been Canada's leftist third party. On a national level, they had never really risen above that status.

Last election (under a different, now diseased leader), the NDP broke through into second, becoming the Official Opposition.

They accomplished that in large part due to a large breakthrough in support in Quebec. A lot of the support that they attracted there were from voters who had previously been picking a regional separatist party every election.


Thus even though they are not a separatist party (none of the ones in that debate were), a LOT of their current support is among rural Quebec which has separatist leaning. The Liberal party leader was alleging that the NDP leader is giving quiet hints of support to those separatists while acting like a federalist when campaigning elsewhere. Its not really much of an issue, it is just about trying to create fear outside Quebec that the NDP leader would lead us back into a constitutional quagmire.


The funny thing about that is that in fighting so long with each other on what should be a small non issue, both the liberal and ndp leader passed up golden opportunities to attack Harper on his government's record on democratic issues.

[HoosierDaddy]

Thanks so much for helping to enlighten me! It was an interesting debate for sure.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd probably vote for Trudeau if I could. Green second. NDP third. Harper last.

[D'rek]

Trudeau really irked me in the debate. He had so much reluctance to engage on some issues just like Harper would. When the issue of updating our electoral process (to a system which better represents the total votes than FPTP) came up, both Harper and Trudeau's responses were basically along the lines of "Oh no, that would mean updating the constitution, how dare we consider touching that most sacred of documents" ... the same kind of rhetoric you see in the US over any issue pertaining to one of their almighty Amendments (gun ownership being the most obvious). Since when is our constitution some untouchable holy shrine that cannot be revised?

Same thing seems to apply to the Senate issue, C-51, environmental issues, etc... Trudeau always seemed to be saying he would oppose what Harper had done, in the exact same way Harper did it in the first place.

Mulcair and May on the other hand didn't seem to be afraid of thinking outside the box and changing things that don't work. I may not like all their proposed changes, but I'd rather reinforce the idea that our politics and society can be changed when there is reason to do so then reinforce increased political stagnation.