Canadian Election 2019

Evilroddy said:

Rather than going so heavily negative, what are the most attractive policies of the political parties which you may not support or vote for but which are good ideas nonetheless? Maybe an exploration of what is good about each parties platform will lead to a more centrist position being adopted by some parties?

I would like to see parties from different positions on the political spectrum poach good ideas from each other and use them rather than operating so much on ideological grounds.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I vastly prefer European centrism (see the NDP) to Canadian centrism (European conservatism) any day. I don't buy the argument to moderation fallacy.

Evilroddy said:

Rather than going so heavily negative, what are the most attractive policies of the political parties which you may not support or vote for but which are good ideas nonetheless? Maybe an exploration of what is good about each parties platform will lead to a more centrist position being adopted by some parties?

I would like to see parties from different positions on the political spectrum poach good ideas from each other and use them rather than operating so much on ideological grounds.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

When he was in office I strongly disliked Jean Chretien, ( I was young and live in Alberta) but with hearing a few interviews from him, he was truly centrist. He would and did take ideas from everywhere. When the government had to cut spending he did it reasonably and over time, leading to surplus's for the federal government. I hate to say it but I think we could do with having another Chretien as PM (someone like him)

Lord Tammerlain said:

When he was in office I strongly disliked Jean Chretien, ( I was young and live in Alberta) but with hearing a few interviews from him, he was truly centrist. He would and did take ideas from everywhere. When the government had to cut spending he did it reasonably and over time, leading to surplus's for the federal government. I hate to say it but I think we could do with having another Chretien as PM (someone like him)

Click to expand...

I would absolutely prefer him to Trudeau or Harper; he was a competent, clever manager smarter than both of them combined which I have to respect, though he lacked vision.

Though I would agree overall that Chretien was a centrist, I also don't think centrism is or should be conflated with the state of taking ideas from everywhere, or something as elating as pragmatism. In this case it simply is the position of being between opposing sides of ideological lean. Sometimes that means taking the best of each, and sometimes that means taking the worst. Sometimes, one of those sides is utterly or predominantly wrong, and the other is utterly or predominantly right, hence the possibility of argument to moderation fallacy.

Moreover, it's generally a myth that austerity was the cure to what ailed Canada in the 90s; recovery had more to do with currency depreciation (making it a much more competitive exporter) and interest rate cuts/availability of capital.

I've voted Liberal, NDP and Conservative in my life, but the only NDP Candidate I have really ever voted for was Jack Layton, and unless he's resurrected, I doubt I will ever vote NDP again. I voted NDP in the last provincial election, but I knew the Conservative would win. This riding is so blue, the Conservatives could run a paper cup and they'd re-elected her anyway. The only Conservative candidate I voted for was a personal friend, and a red Tory. Given the current Conservative leadership and the policies and practices, I really don't see any way I'd ever vote for them again, either.

I would have voted Conservative in the last provincial election, if they hadn't election Dug Ford as their leader. I would have voted for two of the three women who were running for leader, but not the one issue loon who wanted to scrap the sex ed program. As long as the Conservative Party continues to promote racism, xenophobia and fear, I will not voted for them. I have found their negative advertising, and outright lying about the opposition to be completely off-putting. Tell what you would do if in power, because if all you can do is lie about the other guys, you clearly have nothing to tell me about your programs. Either you don't have any plans, or like Dug Ford, they are so odious that no one would vote for you if you told them what you're really going to do.

Upthread, someone mentioned that "fiscally conservative" means "austerity". To me, "fiscally conservative" means you don't create programs without the means to pay for them. My apologies for using an American example but, when W created Medicare Part D, he didn't fund it. There is no tax, tariff or levy that is designated to pay for this program. He just added it to the deficit. While I would love to see a national child care program, which would be a huge boon to working families, and a big help in keeping low income workers off the welfare rolls, but I want to see how it would be paid for. Perhaps we should be looking at a PPP for this. Get employers involved in funding it. This will help them as well.

I believe in Keysesian economics, and the running of deficits during a recession to stimulate the economy (preferrably through infrastructure and development spending), and to cut deficits during boom times. And I believe in well-regulated capitalism, which restrains the worst impulses of the capitalism (profits good, bigger profits better,, regardless of how they're achieved). Given the massive transfers of wealth from the working and middle classes throughout the world, it's not unreasonable to say that the elites have hijacked western goverments and tilted the table so that all of marbles are flowing to the top, and the middle and working class are getting screwed. We the people need to reverse this trend, and get a fairer share of the profits our work generates.

I will vote Liberal, not because I'm especially enamoured of Justin Trudeau, but because there isn't a reasonable alternative. The whole SNC Lavelan mess was not his best moment, but that snakepit of a firm has been in bribery scandals and other financial messes for generations. The crimes the Justice Department was going after them for happened when Harper was Premier. This is nothing new for this firm. Big money construction is the dirtiest big business you can get into. Yes, Trudeau handled this very badly, but the people they were charging and punishing are not even the people who were running SNC when all of this happened, and it happened in another country. Raybould's actions, in some ways were worse than Trudeau's. While it's really, really hard to look at all of the **** SNC pulls and not want to take them down, I don't see how putting their all their workers out of jobs solves anything.

The NDP haven't impressed me that they have the first clue on how to govern, at least nationally. I like Horvath provincially, but her fiscal policies are just to airy fairy pixie dust for my taste. Singh seems like a nice guy but I had to google to remind myself who the national NDP leader is and that's not a good sign at this point, plus I know nothing of his platform.

To those who think that anyone in Ontario would ever vote for Jason Kenney, here's why they won't:

Jason Kenney's 10 Biggest Blunders as Immigration Minister | HuffPost Canada

Dragonlady said:

I've voted Liberal, NDP and Conservative in my life, but the only NDP Candidate I have really ever voted for was Jack Layton, and unless he's resurrected, I doubt I will ever vote NDP again...

...Upthread, someone mentioned that "fiscally conservative" means "austerity"...

Click to expand...

I take it you might be referring to me. To be clear, what I said is that 'fiscal responsibility' is often a code phrase or nice sounding Orwellian euphemism for austerity, and excessive cuts, downsizing of govt and privatization. Indeed it can mean many things, and many of them good, but this is generally, especially these days, what it tends to translate to in practice (and often while cutting taxes for the rich, or giving them some special subsidy, and thus not being fiscally responsible at all, etc and so on).

I believe in Keysesian economics, and the running of deficits during a recession to stimulate the economy (preferrably through infrastructure and development spending), and to cut deficits during boom times. And I believe in well-regulated capitalism, which restrains the worst impulses of the capitalism (profits good, bigger profits better,, regardless of how they're achieved). Given the massive transfers of wealth from the working and middle classes throughout the world, it's not unreasonable to say that the elites have hijacked western goverments and tilted the table so that all of marbles are flowing to the top, and the middle and working class are getting screwed. We the people need to reverse this trend, and get a fairer share of the profits our work generates.


I will vote Liberal, not because I'm especially enamoured of Justin Trudeau, but because there isn't a reasonable alternative...

...The NDP haven't impressed me that they have the first clue on how to govern, at least nationally. I like Horvath provincially, but her fiscal policies are just to airy fairy pixie dust for my taste. Singh seems like a nice guy but I had to google to remind myself who the national NDP leader is and that's not a good sign at this point, plus I know nothing of his platform.

Click to expand...

But Trudeau is ankle deep (at the least) in that very same corruption and skewing of the economy you lament.

I agree that as a leader Singh is pretty lacking in terms of charisma and exposure, but I'll be damned if he isn't miles better than the alternatives, mainly due to how repugnant they are.

In Trudeau we have a demonstrably corrupt PM who broke his by far most important promise regarding democratic reform, disregarding the advice of the panel he commissioned because he felt it was politically expedient, and who didn't reinstate the public vote subsidy that Harper rescinded, thus making our political parties more dependent than ever on private money predominantly sourced from the rich and their corporations, as well as their attendant corrupting influence, nevermind that business with Aga Khan, or his sweet heart deal with Kinder Morgan, where he vastly overpaid for their partly completed pipeline.

The less said about Andrew Scheer the better.


Provincially, per Ontario, a return to the Liberals is all but untenable barring those with a rodent's memory, after the insanely costly gas plant circus (complete with partisan attempted cover up), eHealth and Presto debacles along with sundry cronyism and egregious incompetence. Meanwhile, Doug Ford is a demonstrable disaster and a liar, both actively and by omission, seeking to cut public services as he does favour for rich friends per the typical Conservative credo. NDP just wins by default. It's not that they're especially good necessarily, it's that they're an order of magnitude better than the alternatives that are just utterly hideous and unthinkable by comparison, and they at least have some constructive vision and ideas unlike said counterparts. Also I'm not sure what you meant by Horvath having fairy pixie dust fiscal policies; of all the parties her platform was the most fiscally responsible: Doug Ford’s PCs would run higher deficits than NDP and Liberals, economists say | Globalnews.ca

I can't help but wonder if your view of the NDP is more coloured by your prejudices than your facts. If so, that's certainly nothing unusual: many Ontarians simply can't let go of the Bob Rae days no matter how much the NDP has changed and how completely different the party now is compared to that time.

First off, I don't think Bob Rae was nearly as bad a Premier as you do. The civil service was pissed about "Rae Days", and elected Mike Harris. When he slashed jobs in the civil service, laying off hundreds of employees, I commented that they voted against Rae Days, and got Mike Months instead.

What was your issue with changes to rental contracts? I don't remember anything about that. I remember the environmental laws because of the issue of making past owners financially responsible for cleanup of pollution on property under their ownership, even if they no longer own the property and haven't owed it for years. It had a real chilling impact on development in downtown Toronto, especially in the Port Lands east of Yonge Street, along the Lakeshore and Gardner Expessway.

Dragonlady said:

First off, I don't think Bob Rae was nearly as bad a Premier as you do. The civil service was pissed about "Rae Days", and elected Mike Harris. When he slashed jobs in the civil service, laying off hundreds of employees, I commented that they voted against Rae Days, and got Mike Months instead.

Click to expand...

To be clear, I don't look at Bob Rae as a demon, I'm just saying many people look at him as one, and have their perceptions of the NDP forever and unfairly coloured by his example.

What was your issue with changes to rental contracts? I don't remember anything about that. I remember the environmental laws because of the issue of making past owners financially responsible for cleanup of pollution on property under their ownership, even if they no longer own the property and haven't owed it for years. It had a real chilling impact on development in downtown Toronto, especially in the Port Lands east of Yonge Street, along the Lakeshore and Gardner Expessway.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with this; are you addressing me?

Carjosse said:

We can see what happens with that in other countries, they just become the new elite and use removing the old elite as an excuse to remove any checks or balances to their power. It only makes things much worse.

Click to expand...

So are you basically suggesting we should give up on the idea of representative democracy and accept the slow frog boiling of increasingly normalized cronyism and corruption in favour of the rich that we're currently suffering through as any and all alternatives are worse?

Afraid I can't agree, and if I must, this isn't a country I wish to live in; I would sooner take to political violence than accept this as a reality.

Surrealistik said:

So are you basically suggesting we should give up on the idea of representative democracy and accept the slow frog boiling of increasingly normalized cronyism and corruption in favour of the rich that we're currently suffering through as any and all alternatives are worse?

Afraid I can't agree, and if I must, this isn't a country I wish to live in; I would sooner take to political violence than accept this as a reality.

Click to expand...

Did you even read my post? I am railing against populism and the decline of liberal democracy.

Carjosse said:

Did you even read my post I am railing against populism and the decline of liberal democracy.

Click to expand...

I did. Liberal democracy is in decline due to the proliferation of money in politics of all kinds, and the directly resulting undue, disproportionate influence of the rich, which has bred well-deserved frustration.

Populism, as in representative populism, not the hijacked or outright feigned sort which Trump is the most emblematic representative of, is pretty much the only foreseeable remedy to the existing calcification of corrupt, decadent elites like Macron and Trudeau that are more concerned with serving the interests of their donors and wealthy benefactors and friends than the people. We need reps like Sanders, and Corbyn who will actually enact the will of the people rather than status quo frog boilers like Biden or Justin, or pretenders like Trump.

I don't accept there is no peaceable, political alternative to continuing with a slowly worsening status quo per the likes of Trudeau and similar.

Surrealistik said:

I did. Liberal democracy is in decline due to the proliferation of money in politics of all kinds, and the directly resulting undue, disproportionate influence of the rich, which has bred well-deserved frustration.

Populism, as in representative populism, not the hijacked or outright feigned sort which Trump is the most emblematic representative of, is pretty much the only foreseeable remedy to the existing calcification of corrupt, decadent elites like Macron and Trudeau that are more concerned with serving the interests of their donors and wealthy benefactors and friends than the people. We need reps like Sanders, and Corbyn who will actually enact the will of the people rather than status quo frog boilers like Biden or Justin, or pretenders like Trump.

I don't accept there is no peaceable, political alternative to continuing with a slowly worsening status quo per the likes of Trudeau and similar.

Click to expand...

So institute reforms then, don't throw out everything. Left-wing populism is no different than right-wing populism, different means same end. They are two sides of the same coin, one blames immigrants and globalism, the other blames corporations.

Why do you believe the destruction of checks and balances and removing guarantees of rights and freedoms will bring about the change you want? The people can be wrong, just like the politicians.

I want a government and people kept in check both by each other and the institutions of the nation, not supremacy of one or the other. Reforming liberal democracy is what is needed.

Carjosse said:

So institute reforms then, don't throw out everything. Left-wing populism is no different than right-wing populism, different means same end. They are two sides of the same coin, one blames immigrants and globalism, the other blames corporations.

Click to expand...

Actually they are very different, because corporations and their owners are indeed those directly and predominantly responsible for the degradation and plutocratization of democracy. Right wing populism seeks to deflect anger so that the wealthy and powerful retain their control, left wing populism seeks to reclaim power for the people.

Why do you believe the destruction of checks and balances and removing guarantees of rights and freedoms will bring about the change you want? The people can be wrong, just like the politicians.

I want a government and people kept in check both by each other and the institutions of the nation, not supremacy of one or the other. Reforming liberal democracy is what is needed.

Click to expand...

I don't think that 'destruction of checks and balances' or that 'removing guarantees of rights and freedoms' is the way forward, nor is that the position of left wing populism. If anything left wing populism seeks to reinforce and strengthen such things through democratic reform, and getting money out of politics, blunting the influence of wealth over the political process to the utmost degree possible, such that we have a more representative and integral government. In fact, progressive and left populist candidates are pretty much the only people talking about such things these days. Where Trudeau rejected proportional representation per the recommendation of his own committee on the basis of myopic and selfish political expediency, we would enact it. Where he declined to reverse Harper's elimination of the per vote subsidy for similar reasons, because the Liberals are perhaps the party presently most advantaged by private donations, we would seek to reassert it as quickly as possible.

I agree reform is needed, and we are the ones who would be doing the reforming; not the likes of Macron or Biden or Trudeau who are all evidently and clearly very comfortable with the status quo as it exists.

Surrealistik said:

Actually they are very different, because corporations and their owners are indeed those directly and predominantly responsible for the degradation and plutocratization of democracy. Right wing populism seeks to deflect anger so that the wealthy and powerful retain their control, left wing populism seeks to reclaim power for the people.



I don't think that 'destruction of checks and balances' or that 'removing guarantees of rights and freedoms' is the way forward, nor is that the position of left wing populism. If anything left wing populism seeks to reinforce and strengthen such things through democratic reform, and getting money out of politics, blunting the influence of wealth over the political process to the utmost degree possible, such that we have a more representative and integral government. In fact, progressive and left populist candidates are pretty much the only people talking about such things these days. Where Trudeau rejected proportional representation per the recommendation of his own committee on the basis of myopic and selfish political expediency, we would enact it. Where he declined to reverse Harper's elimination of the per vote subsidy for similar reasons, because the Liberals are perhaps the party presently most advantaged by private donations, we would seek to reassert it as quickly as possible.

I agree reform is needed, and we are the ones who would be doing the reforming; not the likes of Macron or Biden or Trudeau who are all evidently and clearly very comfortable with the status quo as it exists.

Click to expand...

Populism of both sides seeks the destruction of liberal democracy and what it brings: the rule of law, checks and balances, removing gurantees of freedoms and rights. Power of the wealthy and corporations needs to be kept in check as well as the popular will. Look at the nowithstanding clause, a populist measure, all it does is allow provinces to infringe on people's rights, justifying it by saying it is what the public wants. See Quebec's religious symbols ban.

I find that quite often left-wing populists have no interest in finding the optimal measures, often ignoring the real economic or social impacts to institute feel good measures. You can't just raise taxes on the wealthy you need to find the balance between revenue and investment, and taking into account competition, same with corporations. You also can't ignore illegal immigration and the need for agencies to enforce immigration law.

I am not opposed to many of the things that left-wing parties advocate but I often disagree with how and quite often the lack of a plan to implement them. Like the NDP, they can't even run their own party, how you can expect them to run a country.

Carjosse said:

Populism of both sides seeks the destruction of liberal democracy and what it brings: the rule of law, checks and balances, removing gurantees of freedoms and rights. Power of the wealthy and corporations needs to be kept in check as well as the popular will. Look at the nowithstanding clause, a populist measure, all it does is allow provinces to infringe on people's rights, justifying it by saying it is what the public wants. See Quebec's religious symbols ban.

Click to expand...

According to what evidence?

What has Bernie or Jagmeet or Corbyn proposed that is disenfranchising? How have they advocated for anything that corrodes democracy unlike the demonstrable examples of Trudeau?

Regarding the notwithstanding clause:

The notwithstanding clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect, it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982.[3] Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression.[2]

No, assertion of British parliamentary traditionalism is clearly not a populist measure.

I find that quite often left-wing populists have no interest in finding the optimal measures, often ignoring the real economic or social impacts to institute feel good measures. You can't just raise taxes on the wealthy you need to find the balance between revenue and investment, and taking into account competition, same with corporations. You also can't ignore illegal immigration and the need for agencies to enforce immigration law.

Click to expand...

This is effectively the domain of propaganda and partisan myth. As with conservatives, or even 'moderates', some left-wing populists indeed have positions more couched in ideology than pragmatism, while others draw upon tried and proven precedent and research to craft their policy. This is a nonsense tar and feather that isn't specific to or even particularly disproportionately true of left populists (multi-trillion wars in the middle east, tax cuts for the rich that ultimately add to the debt and deficit while adding little if anything to the economy, austerity in general, refusal to enact SP or even a hybrid health provider system in the states, trade pacts like the TPP that massively and disproportionately empower corporations, etc and so on). Yes, you certainly and absolutely can raise taxes on the wealthy after years and years of irresponsible cuts. Yes, society can brook taxes as high as the likes of Scandinavian countries or say America pre-1970s and work out fine.

Also open borders or a refusal to deal with illegal immigration is not necessarily the position of left wing populism; to be honest that's more of a peculiarity of the American 'left' such as it is, and I would suspect much (not all) of it among established politicos is predicated on a cynical and unfortunate goal of maintaining a supply of cheap, literally criminally compensated labour for agricultural and other corporations rather than per some humanitarian concern. Remember that the majority of the American 'left' isn't left.

I am not opposed to many of the things that left-wing parties advocate but I often disagree with how and quite often the lack of a plan to implement them. Like the NDP, they can't even run their own party, how you can expect them to run a country.

Click to expand...

Again, the lack of concrete 'plans' isn't specific to or disproportionately true of left-wing parties. In fact many do indeed have plans that increase in detail and nuance closer to the date of election. NDP may indeed have weak leadership, but that's with respect to charisma and ability to grab attention/spotlights, not because they are unable to administer and run their party. Sadly Jagmeet is no Layton.

Surrealistik said:

According to what evidence?

What has Bernie or Jagmeet or Corbyn proposed that is disenfranchising? How have they advocated for anything that corrodes democracy unlike the demonstrable examples of Trudeau?

Regarding the notwithstanding clause:

The notwithstanding clause reflects the hybrid character of Canadian political institutions. In effect, it protects the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy under the American-style system of written constitutional rights and strong courts introduced in 1982.[3] Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien also described it as a tool that could guard against a Supreme Court ruling legalizing hate speech and child pornography as freedom of expression.[2]

No, assertion of British parliamentary traditionalism is clearly not a populist measure.



This is effectively the domain of propaganda and partisan myth. As with conservatives, or even 'moderates', some left-wing populists indeed have positions more couched in ideology than pragmatism, while others draw upon tried and proven precedent and research to craft their policy. This is a nonsense tar and feather that isn't specific to or even particularly disproportionately true of left populists (multi-trillion wars in the middle east, tax cuts for the rich that ultimately add to the debt and deficit while adding little if anything to the economy, austerity in general, refusal to enact SP or even a hybrid health provider system in the states, trade pacts like the TPP that massively and disproportionately empower corporations, etc and so on). Yes, you certainly and absolutely can raise taxes on the wealthy after years and years of irresponsible cuts. Yes, society can brook taxes as high as the likes of Scandinavian countries or say America pre-1970s and work out fine.

Also open borders or a refusal to deal with illegal immigration is not necessarily the position of left wing populism; to be honest that's more of a peculiarity of the American 'left' such as it is, and I would suspect much (not all) of it among established politicos is predicated on a cynical and unfortunate goal of maintaining a supply of cheap, literally criminally compensated labour for agricultural and other corporations rather than per some humanitarian concern. Remember that the majority of the American 'left' isn't left.



Again, the lack of concrete 'plans' isn't specific to or disproportionately true of left-wing parties. In fact many do indeed have plans that increase in detail and nuance closer to the date of election. NDP may indeed have weak leadership, but that's with respect to charisma and ability to grab attention/spotlights, not because they are unable to administer and run their party. Sadly Jagmeet is no Layton.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between left-wing policy and left-wing populist policy. Scandavian social democracy is not populist. I don't know enough about Sanders to comment on what he does. Jagmeet hasn't really been advocating for much of anything. Corbyn though, has in the past expressed replacing the check and balances of the UK political system with a republican system closer to that of the US. Supports continuing with Brexit (the biggest populist failure so far) and is a Eurosceptic. Wants to nationalize many industries with no plans for actual improvement. He also has no plans for protection of rights and freedoms in the UK.

The nowithstanding clause is a populist measure, it epitomizes everything populists want, regardless of where it originated from.

The NDP are failing to run their own party, they are having money problems and are bleeding a lot of support to the Greens.

Dragonlady said:

First off, I don't think Bob Rae was nearly as bad a Premier as you do. The civil service was pissed about "Rae Days", and elected Mike Harris. When he slashed jobs in the civil service, laying off hundreds of employees, I commented that they voted against Rae Days, and got Mike Months instead.

What was your issue with changes to rental contracts? I don't remember anything about that. I remember the environmental laws because of the issue of making past owners financially responsible for cleanup of pollution on property under their ownership, even if they no longer own the property and haven't owed it for years. It had a real chilling impact on development in downtown Toronto, especially in the Port Lands east of Yonge Street, along the Lakeshore and Gardner Expessway.

Click to expand...

Dragonfly:

I was the one grumbling about the missteps of the Bob Rae NDP in Ontario, not Surrealistik. So don't blame Mr. S for Mr. ER's indictment of Mr. Race's governance. Regarding rental law, Mr. Rae created a draconian bureaucracy which made renting and leading immoveable property much more difficult and risky in Ontario. Although I lived and worked in Quebec I owned a house and rented it out for thirty years in Ontario. Mr. Race's reforms made that much, much more difficult and resource consuming.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Carjosse said:

So institute reforms then, don't throw out everything. Left-wing populism is no different than right-wing populism, different means same end. They are two sides of the same coin, one blames immigrants and globalism, the other blames corporations.

Why do you believe the destruction of checks and balances and removing guarantees of rights and freedoms will bring about the change you want? The people can be wrong, just like the politicians.

I want a government and people kept in check both by each other and the institutions of the nation, not supremacy of one or the other. Reforming liberal democracy is what is needed.

Click to expand...

Carjosse:

What checks and balances are you referring to in Canada. There aren't any except the nearly moribund Senate as a body of sober second thought. The prime minister and the cabinet have almost no checks and balances against their power unless we've got a hung parliament and a minority government. Unlike in America where there are constitutionally enshrined legal and political checks and balances, in Canada governments are constrained or rights and freedoms are protected by political activism in the electorate. If the PM and Cabinet trend out of control the electorate kicks them to the curb/kerb or their own party turns on them to avoid anihilation in the next election. The Supreme Court (a creation of parliament which can be reversed), the Governor General and even the Queen herself cannot effectively constrain a radical or rogue majority government in Canada. Only the electorate can by using the ballot box or taking to the out of doors in mass protests and the very occasional parliament burning.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Carjosse said:

There is a difference between left-wing policy and left-wing populist policy. Scandavian social democracy is not populist. I don't know enough about Sanders to comment on what he does. Jagmeet hasn't really been advocating for much of anything. Corbyn though, has in the past expressed replacing the check and balances of the UK political system with a republican system closer to that of the US. Supports continuing with Brexit (the biggest populist failure so far) and is a Eurosceptic. Wants to nationalize many industries with no plans for actual improvement. He also has no plans for protection of rights and freedoms in the UK.

Click to expand...

Uh, Jagmeet in fact has:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh unveils platform ahead of 2019 federal election - National | Globalnews.ca

Scandinavian social democracy is absolutely populist in that it is concerned foremost with the welfare and representation of the people primarily and not an elite.

Also what is the exact nature of Corbyn's once proposed plan? Does it actually erode rights and political representation or strength them? Replacing checks and balances with better ones is not nefarious.

Brexit was firmly and concretely a right wing populist failure. Corbyn's concern with Brexit is mainly deciding how to best proceed when it is enacted. He has expressed support for a second referendum and his preference on the whole at the present appears to be to want to remain. What he has aspersions about is remaining in a single market subject to EU rules without having a say in EU policy. Moreover, any of Corbyn's 'euroskepticism' is more concerned specifically with serious flaws that merit correction, such as a common currency that creates or at least calcifies winners and losers (exporters that would otherwise have higher value currencies win as EU averages them with the weaker economies making them more competitive and everyone else less competitive) and robs member countries of the ability to decide their own economic destinies with the elimination of the central bank of participants (something which has largely been borne out) that has no codified system of transfer payments to compensate, brutal, excess austerity and campaigns of privatization that are chiefly counterproductive (again borne out), and past concerns with inadequate representation and imposition.

The nowithstanding clause is a populist measure, it epitomizes everything populists want, regardless of where it originated from.

Click to expand...

Nothing of what is defining about populism inherently finds solidarity with the notwithstanding clause. Your definition of it is generally couched in a prejudiced disdain that looks to all populism as being concerned with the erosion of democracy in favour of pure mob rule, when in reality, left populism is actually the most concerned with democratic revitalization, and in fact may be the only major political force that is concerned with it. Again, no one else is seriously trying to tackle money in politics and plutocratization which are by far the two most serious threats to the integrity of modern liberal democracy. Moreover, no left populist leader in a social democracy has espoused views that seek to overturn Charter or constitutional rights (unless you count the ability to spend unlimited money on political ends per the States given the disastrously idiotic Buckley v Valeo 76 ruling).

The NDP are failing to run their own party, they are having money problems and are bleeding a lot of support to the Greens.

Click to expand...

A substantial decline of NDP financing was pretty much guaranteed per the elimination of the per vote subsidy. In fact that was one of the major political objectives per the Conservative party when it phased it out, and the Liberal party when it decided not to reverse that phase out. I take it you're at least not foolish enough to believe that monied private donors expecting a return on investment, who flush the Liberals and Conservatives with cash due to their willingness to sell out, are inclined to reward the political party likewise that intends to limit rather than expand their power? Meanwhile, now that they have less money to get out their message, they are likely to receive fewer donations in turn, and thus the spiral goes.

Having said that, aggregates of small donations are absolutely possible, but not with a leadership that lacks charisma or the ability to inspire; in that sense, yes, the NDP is failing, which I have admitted, but in no other.

Surrealistik said:

Uh, Jagmeet in fact has:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh unveils platform ahead of 2019 federal election - National | Globalnews.ca

Scandinavian social democracy is absolutely populist in that it is concerned foremost with the welfare and representation of the people primarily and not an elite.

Also what is the exact nature of Corbyn's once proposed plan? Does it actually erode rights and political representation or strength them? Replacing checks and balances with better ones is not nefarious.

Brexit was firmly and concretely a right wing populist failure. Corbyn's concern with Brexit is mainly deciding how to best proceed when it is enacted. He has expressed support for a second referendum and his preference on the whole at the present appears to be to want to remain. What he has aspersions about is remaining in a single market subject to EU rules without having a say in EU policy. Moreover, any of Corbyn's 'euroskepticism' is more concerned specifically with serious flaws that merit correction, such as a common currency that creates or at least calcifies winners and losers (exporters that would otherwise have higher value currencies win as EU averages them with the weaker economies making them more competitive and everyone else less competitive) and robs member countries of the ability to decide their own economic destinies with the elimination of the central bank of participants (something which has largely been borne out) that has no codified system of transfer payments to compensate, brutal, excess austerity and campaigns of privatization that are chiefly counterproductive (again borne out), and past concerns with inadequate representation and imposition.




Nothing of what is defining about populism inherently finds solidarity with the notwithstanding clause. Your definition of it is generally couched in a prejudiced disdain that looks to all populism as being concerned with the erosion of democracy in favour of pure mob rule, when in reality, left populism is actually the most concerned with democratic revitalization, and in fact may be the only major political force that is concerned with it. Again, no one else is seriously trying to tackle money in politics and plutocratization which are by far the two most serious threats to the integrity of modern liberal democracy. Moreover, no left populist leader in a social democracy has espoused views that seek to overturn Charter or constitutional rights (unless you count the ability to spend unlimited money on political ends per the States given the disastrously idiotic Buckley v Valeo 76 ruling).



A substantial decline of NDP financing was pretty much guaranteed per the elimination of the per vote subsidy. In fact that was one of the major political objectives per the Conservative party when it phased it out, and the Liberal party when it decided not to reverse that phase out. I take it you're at least not foolish enough to believe that monied private donors expecting a return on investment, who flush the Liberals and Conservatives with cash due to their willingness to sell out, are inclined to reward the political party likewise that intends to limit rather than expand their power? Meanwhile, now that they have less money to get out their message, they are likely to receive fewer donations in turn, and thus the spiral goes.

Click to expand...

Again I think you are getting confused on what populism is. Democratic reform of liberal democracy is not populism. Social democracy is not populist, democratic socialism is. Do you think that Guy Verhofstadt (with his reform plans for the EU) and the ALDE parties are populist?

Populism of both political stripes seeks to remove the cornerstones of liberal democracy as I have said before they want to remove things like the rule of law, checks and balances of power, and gurantees of rights and freedoms especially those of expression and the press. They all get in the way of popular democracy whether that be courts, constituional protections, etc. All in the name of "just doing what the people want" and the current elites and/or corporations are stopping that. Corbyn policies all about taking control. Right wing populists never campaign on explicitly dismantling those things either.

The notwithstanding clause is a great representation of that, it allows governments to void people's rights in the name of popular will. The NDP are not left-wing populists, they just have incompetent leadership not just isolated to Singh and the Green party is stealing their votes because of it. Give it another election cycle and I guarantee the Liberals will take up their healthcare reforms.

Do you think we should elect judges like the US?

Carjosse said:

Again I think you are getting confused on what populism is. Democratic reform of liberal democracy is not populism. Social democracy is not populist, democratic socialism is. Do you think that Guy Verhofstadt (with his reform plans for the EU) and the ALDE parties are populist?

Populism of both political stripes seeks to remove the cornerstones of liberal democracy as I have said before they want to remove things like the rule of law, checks and balances of power, and gurantees of rights and freedoms especially those of expression and the press. They all get in the way of popular democracy whether that be courts, constituional protections, etc. All in the name of "just doing what the people want" and the current elites and/or corporations are stopping that. Corbyn policies all about taking control. Right wing populists never campaign on explicitly dismantling those things either.

The notwithstanding clause is a great representation of that, it allows governments to void people's rights in the name of popular will. The NDP are not left-wing populists, they just have incompetent leadership not just isolated to Singh and the Green party is stealing their votes because of it. Give it another election cycle and I guarantee the Liberals will take up their healthcare reforms.

Do you think we should elect judges like the US?

Click to expand...

Carjosse:

I think you're being a bit hard on populism here. Aside from the Union Natuonale under Maurice Duplessis which did trample rights and undermine the Rule of Law, which Canadian populist parties behaved as you have described? I can't think of any from the Social Credit Party in the East and BC to the CCF in the West. Populism in Canada has usually produced grass-roots political movements which have been beneficial to Canada. Populist parties got us old age pensions and Medicare for instance.

The notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Constitutional Act of 1982 was created by a mainstream liberal-democratic party, namely the Liberal Party of Canada in consultation with 10 provincial governments of all stripes. You can hardly blame that clause on populists as it is a statement of the primacy of statism over democracy, the rule of law and individual rights and freedoms.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Carjosse said:

Again I think you are getting confused on what populism is. Democratic reform of liberal democracy is not populism. Social democracy is not populist, democratic socialism is. Do you think that Guy Verhofstadt (with his reform plans for the EU) and the ALDE parties are populist?

Click to expand...

No, I believe you are the one that is wholly and notably confused as to the definition of left populism which has no intrinsic connection to democratic socialism.

Populism is concerned primarily with representation of the people versus representation of an elite. If anything it technically is more a mode of branding than having any attachment to specific policies, though left and right variants of it naturally have their own zeitgeists specific to a given context.

Populism of both political stripes seeks to remove the cornerstones of liberal democracy as I have said before they want to remove things like the rule of law, checks and balances of power, and gurantees of rights and freedoms especially those of expression and the press. They all get in the way of popular democracy whether that be courts, constituional protections, etc. All in the name of "just doing what the people want" and the current elites and/or corporations are stopping that. Corbyn policies all about taking control. Right wing populists never campaign on explicitly dismantling those things either.

Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing left populism and populism in general with a governing ethos of mob rule which is completely ignorant, disingenuous and fallacious.

I'd really like to see some links and evidence of contemporary left wing populism in the developed world doing or purporting to support any of what you claim in this paragraph. If you're going to continually throw about nonsense, vague allegations, at least have the decency to provide some proof of that.

The notwithstanding clause is a great representation of that, it allows governments to void people's rights in the name of popular will. The NDP are not left-wing populists, they just have incompetent leadership not just isolated to Singh and the Green party is stealing their votes because of it. Give it another election cycle and I guarantee the Liberals will take up their healthcare reforms.

Click to expand...

Again as before, the notwithstanding clause is a product of the Liberal party with an aim to uphold British parliamentary traditionalism; it has exactly nothing to do with left wing populism.

Again, populism does not invariably seek to deprive or rescind rights in favour of mob rule per your tiresome, constant, and factually incorrect allegations. Further, yes NDP is indeed populist per the quality of its statements and goals; it recognizes, unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, that there is a very serious problem with monied elites having undue power over the political process and endeavours to correct that. That Singh lacks the charisma necessary to accrue Bernie style small dollar donations in the funding gap that was left by Conservative dismantling of the per vote subsidy and subsequently upheld per Liberal political expediency is no evidence to the contrary. I will never trust the Liberals as they exist today, and certainly not while they are lead by a corrupt, shameless liar like Trudeau; if I can't trust them to deliver on their own ****ing promises, how could I possibly trust that they will enact NDP reforms and policy that are important to me?

Do you think we should elect judges like the US?

Click to expand...

No, but that isn't remotely a core tenancy of modern populism, whether left, or, so far as I know, right. Populism today, at least per left wing populism, no matter how much you would like to deny it per your clearly intractable political biases and prejudices, is primarily concerned with enfranchisement of the people first and foremost, the revitalization of democracy, and the elimination of the vastly disproportionate and toxic political influence of elites, particularly economic elites, not by denying them their rights, but through campaign finance and lobbying reforms.

Surrealistik said:

No, I believe you are the one that is wholly and notably confused as to the definition of left populism which has no intrinsic connection to democratic socialism.

Populism is concerned primarily with representation of the people versus representation of an elite. If anything it technically is more a mode of branding than having any attachment to specific policies, though left and right variants of it naturally have their own zeitgeists specific to a given context.



Again, you are confusing left populism and populism in general with a governing ethos of mob rule which is completely ignorant, disingenuous and fallacious.

I'd really like to see some links and evidence of contemporary left wing populism in the developed world doing or purporting to support any of what you claim in this paragraph. If you're going to continually throw about nonsense, vague allegations, at least have the decency to provide some proof of that.




Again as before, the notwithstanding clause is a product of the Liberal party with an aim to uphold British parliamentary traditionalism; it has exactly nothing to do with left wing populism.

Again, populism does not invariably seek to deprive or rescind rights in favour of mob rule per your tiresome, constant, and factually incorrect allegations. Further, yes NDP is indeed populist per the quality of its statements and goals; it recognizes, unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, that there is a very serious problem with monied elites having undue power over the political process and endeavours to correct that. That Singh lacks the charisma necessary to accrue Bernie style small dollar donations in the funding gap that was left by Conservative dismantling of the per vote subsidy and subsequently upheld per Liberal political expediency is no evidence to the contrary. I will never trust the Liberals as they exist today, and certainly not while they are lead by a corrupt, shameless liar like Trudeau; if I can't trust them to deliver on their own ****ing promises, how could I possibly trust that they will enact NDP reforms and policy that are important to me?



No, but that isn't remotely a core tenancy of modern populism, whether left, or, so far as I know, right. Populism today, at least per left wing populism, no matter how much you would like to deny it per your clearly intractable political biases and prejudices, is primarily concerned with enfranchisement of the people first and foremost, the revitalization of democracy, and the elimination of the vastly disproportionate and toxic political influence of elites, particularly economic elites, not by denying them their rights, but through campaign finance and lobbying reforms.

Click to expand...

We clearly have very different defintions of what populism is. I don't have a problem with the vast majority of things you can talk about, we just disagree on what is and what is not populist. Let's focus on my last question. Why do you not support electing judges surely that would allow the people to get rid of elites?

According to my definition the NDP and other social democratic parties are not populist as they seek to simply reform liberal democracy. I just don't support the NDP be sure I think they are an inherently weak poorly led party with insufficient policy planning, usually on the fiscal side. The NDP lacks any strong leaders within the party.

Carjosse said:

We clearly have very different defintions of what populism is. I don't have a problem with the vast majority of things you can talk about, we just disagree on what is and what is not populist. Let's focus on my last question. Why do you not support electing judges surely that would allow the people to get rid of elites?

According to my definition the NDP and other social democratic parties are not populist as they seek to simply reform liberal democracy. I just don't support the NDP be sure I think they are an inherently weak poorly led party with insufficient policy planning, usually on the fiscal side. The NDP lacks any strong leaders within the party.

Click to expand...

Because I'm not comfortable with judicial posts being political contests, and because judges don't actually have enough power at non-national levels to foment a serious imposition on rights and freedoms, unlike politicians at even a municipal level. Arbiters and interpreters of law can indeed have significant impacts on the broader whole of society, but generally only at the highest levels. To be clear, I actually would support an election of supreme justices as curated by nominations of say law societies, in the event that their appointment ever becomes a disgusting case of political football as it has been in the States pretty much since that country was founded.


Though I agree that the NDP suffers from weak leadership in terms of charisma and thus fundraising (though I would disagree on a lack of 'planning'; certainly no less planning than Trudeau's last platform with grand, vague promises), as it has thankfully not sought to compromise policy for the sake of corporate donations, I find that your definition of populism to be completely erroneous given what populism actually is, being far more concerned with justifying your own die hard support of the Liberals by unjustly disparaging the alternatives rather than being accurate:

Wikipedia said:

Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the "voice of the people". According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there exists both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.

Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster said:

populist noun
pop·​u·​list | \ ˈpä-pyə-list \
Definition of populist (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people
especially, often capitalized : a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

Click to expand...