Can Trudeau Beat the Conservatives? Canadian Election... 2015?

[Madalch]

Trudeau ahead

Is this to stay? He was up with his leadership win and the failed Con ads. Now there's another scandal. Is this all just a temporary setback for Steve?

Yeah, well, they also said that the BC Liberals would be ousted by the NDP last week, and that didn't happen.

 

[Jimbo07]

Yeah, well, they also said that the BC Liberals would be ousted by the NDP last week, and that didn't happen.

... And in Alberta last time, Wildrose was supposed to have been more of a contender. The pollsters claim they saw a shift happening in the last week/weekend, but it was too late to get results out.

I guess it's important to keep mind that a poll is a snapshot based on already old information. Also, pollsters will tell you they get it right more often than not.

 

[Praktik]

Okay, now that the weekend is over how much fallout can we expect from the Nigel Wright revelations/resignation? I suspect no one will remember by September, let alone 2015.

Depressing though - every party at a bout this time in a tenure holding power will get into this nepotistic phase where hangers-on have ample opportunity to have their human fragility exploit their power advantage for their own personal gain.

So we condemn in the same ritual every 7-9 years, sometimes culminating in a change of parties.

Fewf <electorate rubs hands together> That took care of THAT! Now things will be different... (and our new politicians are happy to tell us so)

Fast forward, we repeat the cycle.

Something tells me a shift from looking at party/individuals, to the systemic incentives that continue to generate this behaviour, would be al-together the better strategy.

Since that won't happen, I am ok to let the cycle work its way through again and hope that it erodes Conservative power enough - at least with different parties, ANY other parties, we won't have this ridiculous relic of 80s-90s American hardball politics in the form of "tough on crime" and other ideological baggage that poisons an otherwise very milquetoast, middle of the road party...

Then they can shed that BS and come back a little less unfriendly to younger generations with their policy stance. Being cool w/ the weed would be a good way to unlock votes from my cohort, when the cons are looking to unseat PM Trudeau the 2nd...

 

[Blue Mountain]

So ... did he win?

[/thread necromancy]

 

[catsmate]

The Imperials should have executed him when they had the chance.

 

[Segnosaur]

The Imperials should have executed him when they had the chance.

From the article: Didn’t you know, Justin Trudeau got caught as a member of the Rebel Alliance by the Galactic Empire back in 2012 at Montreal Comic Con?

So what you're saying is Trudeau was associating with a bunch of Religious radicals in an attempt to overthrow the government.

I knew he was soft on terrorism....

 

[Corsair 115]

So ... did he win?

[/thread necromancy]

Yes, he did. Thanks in large part to his daddy's name. (Does anyone seriously think he would have won the leadership of the Liberal Party if his last name wasn't Trudeau?)

 

[Belz...]

The Imperials should have executed him when they had the chance.

The guy just went up on my respect chart.

Yes, he did. Thanks in large part to his daddy's name. (Does anyone seriously think he would have won the leadership of the Liberal Party if his last name wasn't Trudeau?)

I heard Jean Chrétien had something to do with it, too. Figures, since he's the Vader to Trudeau's Palpatine (to stay on topic).

 

[Horatius]

From the article: Didn’t you know, Justin Trudeau got caught as a member of the Rebel Alliance by the Galactic Empire back in 2012 at Montreal Comic Con?

So what you're saying is Trudeau was associating with a bunch of Religious radicals in an attempt to overthrow the government.

I knew he was soft on terrorism....

Soft? He's positively in favour of it!

 

[Praktik]

They always do (assuming they ever had it to begin with). I'm just surprised (and not a little depressed) that enough of the electorate buys into the snake oil once a generation until they realise they've been buying snake oil. We seem almost destined to imitate King Sisyphus in getting society back to around where it was before the snake oil salesmen took over before repeating giving them the keys to the kingdom again for long enough to undo the good that has been accomplished with great pain

Fitz

I've seen this comment in the wake of the election, and it assumes that people believe "corruption is over" after they change out a ruling party - I'm sure some may actually believe this, but that this also is a reflection of seeing the rest of the people around you as sheep.

I actually think the task of fighting corruption is Sisyphean and have no illusions that any party who's been in power for 8-10 years will have skeletons in their closet and deserve a changing out.

Its our job as voters to do this every 8-10 years - and it may be that more people than we imagine have this view too. They probably outnumber the people who are blinded by partisan blinkers or an unfounded optimism into thinking "corruption" is over.

Outside the die-hard party base - I actually expect Canadians to have a mature understanding that power corrupts and we'll always need to be changing 'em out.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!

 

[Segnosaur]

I actually think the task of fighting corruption is Sisyphean and have no illusions that any party who's been in power for 8-10 years will have skeletons in their closet and deserve a changing out.

Its our job as voters to do this every 8-10 years...

Here's a problem with that argument...

I agree that corruption is inevitable. But if your suggestion is "change the government every few years", then what incentive does a party have to do better? Wouldn't we ultimately be better off to look at a party's record and compare it to previous governments, and if there is significant improvement (even if it doesn't reach the status of "scandal free") then give the party an extra term?

If you always change governments every few years, they may end up saying "why even try to do better? We'll just get kicked out anyways. So where's the pork barrel?"

 

[Praktik]

Its kind of a logic of power thing, and its not "every few" but more like every 8-10 years. Once a party is in power they start to attract the people that are attracted to power - they get involved in more and more deals.

So I'm not making anything other than the kind of observation one would make of how cancer cells grow in the natural world - so too with corruption, once in power the opportunities for it multiply.

of course this will be influenced by the political culture and the legal environment and the kind of watchdogs that are in place - so to your point, as we are changing out the party in power every 8-10 years we should be continuing to make the enhancements we can to prevent corruption where we can, hopefully absolving us of this need.

I am not optimistic that "the perfect system" can be devised and that corruption rests mostly on human foibles which can never be fully overcome. I do believe, that compared to the rest of the world, there are things to admire about Canada's level of corruption (though this should not be seen as direction to be complacent!)

---

In any event, my broader point was that I think most Canadians "get" that a party long in power is likely also a party that has higher level of corruption - and they also "get" that an election will only bring a temporary relief to the corruption in-place as new corruption comes online in the ensuing years to replace it.

 

[Horatius]

Here's a problem with that argument...

I agree that corruption is inevitable. But if your suggestion is "change the government every few years", then what incentive does a party have to do better? Wouldn't we ultimately be better off to look at a party's record and compare it to previous governments, and if there is significant improvement (even if it doesn't reach the status of "scandal free") then give the party an extra term?

If you always change governments every few years, they may end up saying "why even try to do better? We'll just get kicked out anyways. So where's the pork barrel?"

Yeah, sure that'd be great, in theory. But we've just seen that no matter what nonsense a government gets up to, there's about 31% of the population who either can't understand the evidence, don't care about the evidence, or actually approves of the nonsense.

So if we don't have a big "Vote the bastards out" campaign every now and then, all they need a few more votes to turn that 31% into a majority.

 

[Stacko]

Yeah, sure that'd be great, in theory. But we've just seen that no matter what nonsense a government gets up to, there's about 31% of the population who either can't understand the evidence, don't care about the evidence, or actually approves of the nonsense.

So if we don't have a big "Vote the bastards out" campaign every now and then, all they need a few more votes to turn that 31% into a majority.

If this is true:

Yes, he did. Thanks in large part to his daddy's name. (Does anyone seriously think he would have won the leadership of the Liberal Party if his last name wasn't Trudeau?)

I heard Jean Chrétien had something to do with it, too. Figures, since he's the Vader to Trudeau's Palpatine (to stay on topic).

It's not like voting the bastards out teaches them any lessons. Seriously how is Chretein not seen as a persona non grata by the Liberal Party.

 

[Belz...]

Why would he be?

 

[Praktik]

i guess cause of the scandals that cropped up as the Liberals hit their 10 year mark?

I think Crouton managed to let most of that hit after he had left the stage, very canny man

 

[Stacko]

i guess cause of the scandals that cropped up as the Liberals hit their 10 year mark?

I think Crouton managed to let most of that hit after he had left the stage, very canny man

It's more that the scandals broke because he lost control of the party to the Paul Martin wing.

 

[Segnosaur]

i guess cause of the scandals that cropped up as the Liberals hit their 10 year mark?

I think Crouton managed to let most of that hit after he had left the stage, very canny man

Actually the Liberal scandals started a lot earlier than that...

APEC was (I think) in Chretien's first term. And while there was no wrongdoing on the part of Chretien himself, it was found that Liberal organizers in his office had a part in police attacking student protesters.

The first big one was probably Shawinigate, which started in Chretien's first term.

Then there was the HRDC boondogle which happened near the end of his second term (which, because Chretien had a habit of calling early elections, fell far short of 10 years.)

The big one was probably adscam, which yes, probably was more of a nightmare for Martin than it was for Chretien. But even then, there were hints something was wrong long before Chretien left office.

 

[Corsair 115]

I heard Jean Chrétien had something to do with it, too. Figures, since he's the Vader to Trudeau's Palpatine (to stay on topic).

Heh. To be honest, I'd much rather have the early years of the Chretien-Martin Liberal government than this Trudeau incarnation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Heh. To be honest, I'd much rather have the early years of the Chretien-Martin Liberal government than this Trudeau incarnation.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that?

Chretien-Martin was far from squeaky clean (their scandals started in the first term), and I'm willing to give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt.

The Chretien government did address the deficit (something Trudeau doesn't plan to do), but much of their actions involved cutting provincial transfers for things like health care (something many people would oppose.)

So to me, it seems like a wash.