Canada's next Prime Minister?

Moonmoth said:

It may be, right this instant, unfortunately that Canadians don't see the environment and the economy as one and the same, but I sense a paradigm shift in our very near future.

Click to expand...

Given Dion's abysmal failure at selling the marriage between the environment and the economy, I strongly suspect it will be a very, very long time before any politician puts the environment first. As Whoaccio pointed out, Mulroney was arguably the greenest PM in history, and a Conservative one at that....look where it got him. A PM and a potential PM have both failed to make any gains from the environment as an issue. You can guess what lessons most of the political parties will learn from that.

Moonmoth said:

I will tell you this, Canadians have a LOT of experience administering taxes, we clearly know how to do this. The Carbon Tax isn't something to be afraid of, if you have a clean, non-polluting business or small business or home or office. It serves as an incentive to clean up. We (collectively) have to stop assuming that creating pollution is 'free' or that soiling our environment comes without a cost.

The cap & trade, I am not such a fan of. Simply because it will create secondary markets and we don't need more middle-men.

Click to expand...

Cap and trade may well be the most politically palatable way to attach a cost to those externalities. Heck, Jack Layton is doing a great job selling the myth that cap and trade will not cost the consumer a dime.

Also, given the fact that our large scale de-industrialization has largely resulted in rising income inequality, it's going to be hard to sell an industrial green shift (which requires mostly skilled workers) to the average canuck. If they have to choose between union jobs at GM or 'team oriented' employment at Starbucks, I think they'll prefer the dirty industry....

Keith, I have to disagree with the 'equal but different' stance that many were proposing as a 'moderate' solution. The only way that I think 'civil unions' would have been acceptable would be to abolish the term marriage and call any legal arrangement between two spouses a civil union. There is no good reason for government to tread in the definition of marriage if that definition is going to be religiously charged.

Either marriage is a legal term, or a religious one. If the former, marriages for all; if the former, marriages for none (as a legal term).

afransen said:

Keith, I have to disagree with the 'equal but different' stance that many were proposing as a 'moderate' solution. The only way that I think 'civil unions' would have been acceptable would be to abolish the term marriage and call any legal arrangement between two spouses a civil union. There is no good reason for government to tread in the definition of marriage if that definition is going to be religiously charged.

Click to expand...

Afransen,

Keep in mind that as a society we still deny or limit rights where and when we consider such limits to be for the benefit of society at large. There is no absolute claim to any right in Canada. We don't have property rights for example. We don't allow hate speech. We set an arbitrary bar for adulthood which gives parents an incredible amount of authority over their child, etc. The rights we confer speak directly to our social values. For whatever reason, at the time many Canadians simply did not believe that same-sex couples should get 'married'. You may disagree with it, but for a lot of people in this country who vote across the political spectrum, the traditional definition of marriage held special meaning within the context of Canadian social values, and outside of any specific religious definition per se. That was a majority of the country at the time. So are our political masters only supposed to believe in democracy when things go their way?

As a nation shouldn't we decide who gets what rights and when? Or are we to be held hostage by every group that believes it deserves specific Charter protection? I am waiting to see what happens when the wonderful folks of Bountiful use the crack in the door to fling it open.....What's happening now is ridiculous....like the Knights of Columbus getting sued for not renting the hall to a same-sex couple....wait till that one gets to the supreme court. I am also waiting for the first same-sex couple to take on the Catholic Church for discrimination....should be interesting....

afransen said:

Either marriage is a legal term, or a religious one. If the former, marriages for all; if the former, marriages for none (as a legal term).

Click to expand...

I am with the latter. Marriage is largely a religious construct. Take it out of the legal code. Heck, it would make divorces history too. No marriage, no divorce. Or leave it as a civil union with religious institutions left to decide on the definition of marriage. For everyone else, it'll be a civil contract witnessed by a JP. We are always worrying about the divide between church and state. Here's clear opportunity.

Harper won....the sky didn't fall..... now let's move on to doing something about the economy....anyone up for a deficit?

low voter turnout had a real effect.


Liberals that won handily in the last elections now won by 500-1000 votes now in many places.


It was a combination of liberals not showing up and liberals switching parties.

It is time for electoral reform

Check it out how the exact same votes for each party would have turned out had we proportional representation:

Conservatives: 38% of the popular vote, 117 seats (not 143)
Liberals: 26% of the popular vote, 81 seats (not 76)
NDP: 18% of the popular vote, 57 seats (not 37)
Bloc: 10% of the popular vote, 28 seats (not 50)
Green: 7% of the popular vote, 23 seats (not 0)


www.fairvote.ca

Northern Ontario is now orange, one riding that has gone liberal for 80 years is now NDP orange, and for the first time in history, the liberals lost the Sudbury riding in a general election (it happened once before in 67in a byelection, and it only lasted a year). Both of Sudbury ridings are now oranage. It was once said if you want a automatic trip to Ottawa to be the liberal representative in Sudbury, heh, not anymore.

I predict NDP will have reached their peak in this election, unless the situation stays the same.

The second Layton is gone, the party will go back to the Hinterlands were it belongs.

I rather support the Bloc.

lordmandeep said:

I predict NDP will have reached their peak in this election, unless the situation stays the same.

The second Layton is gone, the party will go back to the Hinterlands were it belongs.

I rather support the Bloc.

Click to expand...

Haha yeah, I have the feeling unless the Liberals are able to regain their steam the NDP will continue to leech support from the Libs.

I always thought that if the word "Quebec" was exchanged for the word "Canada" in everything Duceppe says, he would make a great Prime Minister for Canada. But the fact remains, as long as him & his party remain separatist, that is out of the question.

Well the Liberals are a tough spot.

They have to get a leader who appeals to the Liberals who went NDP and the Liberals who went Tory.

I think Kennedy and Gerard are the best for that.


Rae would get some soft Liberal support but a lot of centrist Liberals would stay with the Tories.


Actually I would not vote Liberal if rae is in charge.



Now Igantieff and Rae sway the sword of Damocles over the head of Dion.

lordmandeep said:

Well the Liberals are a tough spot.

They have to get a leader who appeals to the Liberals who went NDP and the Liberals who went Tory.

I think Kennedy and Gerard are the best for that.

Rae would get some soft Liberal support but a lot of centrist Liberals would stay with the Tories.

Actually I would not vote Liberal if rae is in charge.

Now Igantieff and Rae sway the sword of Damocles over the head of Dion.

Click to expand...

Gerard Kennedy would not be able to take on Harper, Harper would cream him. Unfortunately, the Liberals are infighting too much, to focus their choice of leader towards: "who can take on the conservatives". They wouldn't have selected Dion had that been their goal. Too much infighting there's the Paul Martin camp and the Chretien camp. Actually I blame Paul Martin for unseating Chretien which paved the way for Harper to become PM. If Paul Martin would have waited, then gone for the leadership when Chretien retired, not booted Chretien out so horribly, we may not have Harper right now......

actually if Prime Minister Martin acted more like Fiance Minister Martin, he would still be comfortably in power.

The Liberals are completely dead in the West. Gerrard Kennedy is a Western guy, and they could plop him in an Alberta riding. He has a national appeal that Rae and Ignatieff lack (although Rae is still hated within Ontario).

Rae is the best politician (Ignatieff is gaff-prone), but GK may have the best shot.

Personally, I'd like to see Frank McKenna in the mix.

lordmandeep said:

I think Kennedy and Gerard are the best for that.


Rae would get some soft Liberal support but a lot of centrist Liberals would stay with the Tories.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I believe Rae tends to be more pragmatic (if the party lets him be that way), whereas Kennedy is more left leaning. Rae was hamstrung by the times, and the party to which he lead - which reduced the room for him to be pragmatic.

Kennedy was the king maker for Dion - so his decision making has to be questioned (either he chose the wrong person to crown; or he chose Dion for reasons that were not in the Parties best interest).

The Liberals ran to the left, and got creamed. They now have to move back to the center with a new leader.

kEiThZ said:

Given Dion's abysmal failure at selling the marriage between the environment and the economy, I strongly suspect it will be a very, very long time before any politician puts the environment first. As Whoaccio pointed out, Mulroney was arguably the greenest PM in history, and a Conservative one at that....look where it got him. A PM and a potential PM have both failed to make any gains from the environment as an issue. You can guess what lessons most of the political parties will learn from that.

Click to expand...

You'll believe that until we experience a natural catastrophe parallel to say, Katrina. That's BS about Mulroney being the greenest, he's senile and tooting his own horn for no discernible reason. That's like saying how great Ronald regan was and how great they will say GWB was 20 years from now.

kEiThZ said:

Cap and trade may well be the most politically palatable way to attach a cost to those externalities. Heck, Jack Layton is doing a great job selling the myth that cap and trade will not cost the consumer a dime.

Click to expand...

It still creates a middle market that's completely unecessary. In any case it's not going to be one solution to all our environmental problems but a dynamic mix of several alternatives.