Election 2015

[Fishbone Jones]

Silly me, I thought someone said something about lightening up. Lesson learned, won't fall for it again.

Sarcasm Kat. Sarcasm.

 

[Jed]

“She’s a lightning rod, partly because of her personality, but also because she’s a woman,” said the source. “She’s going to bear the brunt of a lot of knifing because she’s a woman at the top of the food chain.”

Why does somebody always drag the gender status into an issue? Personality certainly, but gender? This is so 1960's.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Silly me, I thought someone said something about lightening up. Lesson learned, won't fall for it again.

Hey, Kat, maybe this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, offers a fitting end to this thread:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-good-day-for-canada-an-awful-one-for-ndp/article26901780/
My emphasis added

A good day for Canada, an awful one for NDP

GERALD CAPLAN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015

Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, a former NDP national director and a regular panelist on CBC’s Power & Politics.

Have you heard the one about what Stephen Harper faced when he awoke in Calgary yesterday morning? Naheed Nenshi is his mayor. Rachel Notley is his premier. And of course “Justin” is his Prime Minister. How can this be a bad day for Canada?

Any day that saw Paul Calandra lose his seat is a good day for Canadian democracy. Any day that saw Liberal candidate Dr. Jane Philpott defeat Paul Calandra is a very good day for Canadian democracy. Dr. Jane for Minister of International Cooperation?

Any day that saw Julian Fantino, Joe Oliver and Chris Alexander all get defeated is a triumph for simple old-fashioned decency in government.

Any day that saw the citizens of Canada end the “rotten culture” of the Harper government, as the Globe editorially described it this past weekend, is a victory for those who are fed up with Harperland and won’t take it any more.

Any day that sees a clean, hopeful, positive, sunny campaign – by the Liberals! – triumph in the face of the usual Conservative bully tactics is a day to celebrate.

So part of me is euphoric, ebullient, thrilled. My Canada is at least starting to come back.

But of course for New Democrats, the day was also a disaster. And the party’s role for the next four years is by no means obvious.

First, these rolling political waves are promiscuous. They sweep up all in its wake. So some of Canada’s best Members of Parliament, part of the minority that truly deserve to be called parliamentarians, have been swept away in the red tsunami.

The likes of Megan Leslie – surely a future NDP leader – Peter Stoffer, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash and other defeated NDP MPs were an ornament to parliament, never ever descending to the gutter in which too many Conservative MPs seemed to be most comfortable. They were competent, thoughtful and knowledgeable and would have been an entirely constructive opposition to the new Liberal government. And every government, not least a new excited one, needs constructive opposition. Hey, maybe they can become Senators…

NDP expectations could hardly have been more cruelly shattered. The party lost not only the government it had the right to dream of. Its very role in Canada’s political process is now in doubt. There is no balance of power to hold. There is no coalition to join. There is, in fact, no one in Ottawa who needs to pay it the slightest attention.

The Trudeau government has its clear priorities, many of them embarrassingly more progressive than the NDP’s platform. The NDP caucus can hardly oppose any of them, but nor can it expect the Government to pay attention to NDP overtures. Why should they? To fight the dreaded Harperman, the Liberals, and specifically their leader, received nothing but abuse during the campaign, often gratuitously personal and always strategically dubious. The Liberals will hardly be grateful for NDP advice about the right way to run Canada.

Now that it can’t seriously pretend to be the government-in-waiting, the NDP must rethink its role in parliament and indeed in the country. For decades the NDP were policy pioneers, promoting social policies especially until the governing party was forced to accept them – old-age pensions, medicare, unemployment insurance, and much more. Where are the equivalent NDP policies of today? Where are the tough but realistic policies that would address Canada’s scandalous inequality?

The NDP campaign tried to prove how trustworthily conservative it was. But voters supported the real conservative party. The NDP campaign chose to allow the Liberals to present the most progressive platform. So voters looking for progressive change chose the more liberal platform.

Of course it’s also arguable that the NDP made the ultimate sacrifice: In the face of Harper cynically playing the anti-Muslim card, the NDP threw away votes on a matter of principle – supporting the right to wear a niqab – and indeed fully paid the penalty for doing so. It cost the party their Quebec base, and with it any reason why the large “Anyone But Harper” crowd across the country should think of supporting the NDP. The noise you heard in the last week of the campaign was of progressive ABH voters flocking in their tens of thousands to the Liberals.

And where does it leave the party now? That’s the question that New Democrats must start debating, the sooner the better. The answer is by no means preordained. For me, keeping the new government honest remains a pretty good cause.

Liberals notoriously like to campaign from the left and govern from the centre-right. They promised unequivocally to introduce proportional representation before the next election can be held. Now that they have directly benefited from the first-past-the-post system, however, can they be trusted to keep their word? After all, they themselves got 54 per cent of the seats on Monday night but only 39 per cent of the vote. The NDP would have had considerably more seats in a proportional representation system. Keeping the Liberals to their commitment sounds like a good third-party priority.

As well, the last-minute Liberal scandal, featuring Trudeau campaign co-chair Dan Gagnier, reminded the world of the close ties between senior Liberals and the energy industry. As the government fleshes out its commitments to reduce global warming, it may well require New Democrats to point out this potentially very real conflict of interest.

Of course none of this is as thrilling as watching the first NDP federal cabinet get appointed. But there’s nothing to watch. The NDP needs new progressive ideas to fight for and a new government to keep a close eye on. It’s a crucial role that mustn’t be disdained.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I do agree that keeping the Liberal's feet to the fire of "introducing some proportionality" in the voting system should be done, if only for the entertainment value of seeing them try to wiggle their way out of it.  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

any particular reason for all the hate for Chris Alexander?

 

[Altair]

The Ottawa Citizen reports on some of the fallout from the 2015 election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/blame+great+tory+implosion+campaign+manager+jenni+byrne+booted/11453597/story.html
There was some earlier dissatisfaction with Ms Byrne, as reported, back in early September, by CTV News.

                    Jennie Byrne

A senior party source said the party will be in debt after this election is through, something the members aren’t used to.

They have 4 years to replenish their coffers, but if this was a minority situation and they needed to run another election shortly I wonder how this would have played out

 

[Privateer]

They promised unequivocally to introduce proportional representation before the next election can be held.

Wrong.  Here is what the Liberals said:

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal
election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that
electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional
representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully
and fairly studied and considered. This will be carried out by a
special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring
recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow
for action before the succeeding federal election. Within 18
months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation
to enact electoral reform

Source:  June 2015 "Real Change" document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/06/a-fair-and-open-government.pdf

I think that proportional representation is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  I would be interested in ranked ballots, as it lets people try to get a longer-shot candidate elected, without the fear that they are throwing away their vote.  Mr. Trudeau has, I believe, said that he himself likes a ranked ballot system, as opposed to proportional representation.

 

[Altair]

Wrong.  Here is what the Liberals said:

Source:  June 2015 "Real Change" document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/06/a-fair-and-open-government.pdf

I think that proportional representation is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  I would be interested in ranked ballots, as it lets people try to get a longer-shot candidate elected, without the fear that they are throwing away their vote.  Mr. Trudeau has, I believe, said that he himself likes a ranked ballot system, as opposed to proportional representation.

I think ranked ballots will be the way he will go. PR is always a radical way to go when the party is in power, RB not so much.

He can keep his promise without crippling his party.

 

[Pencil Tech]

Who was the main force behind the changes? The government of the day? Or senior DM's?

I feel that the sick day's issue is the same as the military's old practice of banking leave, which TB quashed in the 90's.
Or am I out to lunch on that idea?

It's not the same thing. Banked Public Service sick days have no cash value.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.

 

[dapaterson]

Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.

That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.

 

[Altair]

Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.

thankfully he has 4 years to figure that out. 12-18 months in a minority situation would lead to rushing into one system or another without sufficient input and time to implement properly.

 

[Altair]

Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.

That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.

I'm confused. Sucks because that was suppose to be the simple idea...

 

[Kirkhill]

One thing that makes me happy is the immediate return of the long form census and the creation of a Chief Science Office. This is just common sense, we shouldn't be afraid of facts.

https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/

I think I may have to go to jail.

Chief Science Officer = Head of the Sacred Congregation for Propaganda?

"Habemus Veritatem!"

Or it is time to move on.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm confused. Sucks because that was suppose to be the simple idea...

My fast writing is probably the problem.  Here's my proposal (a little more wordy):

Assume a House of Commons of 350 members.  Of those, 300 would be elected exactly as they are now.  No change at all.

For the remaining 50 members, we apportion seats based on popular vote in the election.  So we tally up every vote in the country, and award seats based on that.  So if the national vote was Liberals 40%, Conservatives 30%, NDP 18%, and Bloc and Green 6% each, then those 50 seats would be Liberals 20; Conservatives 15, NDP 9, Bloc 3 and Green 3.  They would be members at large, and not constituency MPs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.

That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.

Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.

 

[Altair]

My fast writing is probably the problem.  Here's my proposal (a little more wordy):

Assume a House of Commons of 350 members.  Of those, 300 would be elected exactly as they are now.  No change at all.

For the remaining 50 members, we apportion seats based on popular vote in the election.  So we tally up every vote in the country, and award seats based on that.  So if the national vote was Liberals 40%, Conservatives 30%, NDP 18%, and Bloc and Green 6% each, then those 50 seats would be Liberals 20; Conservatives 15, NDP 9, Bloc 3 and Green 3.  They would be members at large, and not constituency MPs.

Who would decide those members though? The party?

 

[GAP]

Who would decide those members though? The party?

have xxx members prenamed from each party

 

[Kirkhill]

Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.

The Irish manage - despite the double handicap of Guiness and being Irish. >

 

[The Bread Guy]

Who would decide those members though? The party?

In other places where something similar happens, you have party-generated lists to draw from - no idea how the lists are drawn up/developed.