Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[Next of Kin]

If it wasn't good enough for him to live here before he decided to come back and run for leadership, it shouldn't be good enough for him now.

Do you realize how foolish your post reads!?!

Ignatieff followed some great opportunities abroad that helped shape his experiences. Who cares that he lived in the U.S. or England? Does anyone else have a problem with this? Apparently, only you.

[Ryan Thunder]

Explain why the Canadian government would work better with an American-style system like that which you are proposing, or concede.

Hey, calm yourself. What I suggested is nothing like the American two-party system.

Do you realize how foolish your post reads!?!

This is about as loaded a question as "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Ignatieff followed some great opportunities abroad that helped shape his experiences. Who cares that he lived in the U.S. or England? Does anyone else have a problem with this? Apparently, only you.

You make it sound so... noble.

Look, he left because it wasn't good enough for him here. It took an offer to run the country he left to bring him back. What's so great about that?

It might not disqualify the man, but it certainly comes as a surprise to me that he's so successful.

[Next of Kin]

Thunder,

your distorting of facts is starting to wear quite thin. Prove that the liberals asked Ignatieff to leave where he currently was to become the boss of Canada or shut the fuck up.

[Ryan Thunder]

Also, the Liberal party (or rather, certain members of the Liberal Party) reached out to him in England and asked him to come back to Canada as a leadership canidate.

He said it. I assumed he was correct.

[Archon]

Thunder,

your distorting of facts is starting to wear quite thin. Prove that the liberals asked Ignatieff to leave where he currently was to become the boss of Canada or shut the fuck up.

A Maclean's Magazine article concerning the return of Ignatieff to Canada.

[Ryan Thunder]

Thanks for clearing that up, but how do you find this stuff? I googled him and got nothing better than a (brief) biography and campaign page.

The relevant part:

[...]and so in late 2004, Davey and two Liberal lawyers from Toronto decided to visit Ignatieff in Cambridge, Mass., where he was teaching at Harvard. That meeting led to his decision to return to Canada, after spending most of his adult life in England and the U.S., to win a seat in Parliament, and then seek to succeed Paul MARTIN as leader.

[Aaron]

Thanks for clearing that up, but how do you find this stuff? I googled him and got nothing better than a (brief) biography and campaign page.

The relevant part:

[...]and so in late 2004, Davey and two Liberal lawyers from Toronto decided to visit Ignatieff in Cambridge, Mass., where he was teaching at Harvard. That meeting led to his decision to return to Canada, after spending most of his adult life in England and the U.S., to win a seat in Parliament, and then seek to succeed Paul MARTIN as leader.

Would you kindly shut this tangent down. The only thing that should matter about Ignatieff is that he is competant and qualified to lead the Liberals and the country. Would you have complained about Sir John A MacDonald because he was born in Scotland?

[Ryan Thunder]

Would you kindly shut this tangent down. The only thing that should matter about Ignatieff is that he is competant and qualified to lead the Liberals and the country. Would you have complained about Sir John A MacDonald because he was born in Scotland?

Not if he lived here most of his life, no.

But fine, have it your way.

[Aaron]

Would you kindly shut this tangent down. The only thing that should matter about Ignatieff is that he is competant and qualified to lead the Liberals and the country. Would you have complained about Sir John A MacDonald because he was born in Scotland?

Not if he lived here most of his life, no.

But fine, have it your way.

Thank you. I appreciate it as I'm sure others do.

[TheKwas]

I personally wish that all regional parties -- especially those with a separatist agenda -- could be outlawed, but that's a topic for another time.

The Bloc could just reform as a national French Language Party, though, so banning regional parties would accomplish nothing, even if the branches outside of Quebec would all be bad jokes they could keep them running to keep up appearances.

Oh no, my idea to do away with regional parties involves party subsidies, or rather the withholding and distribution of them. I posted something about it elsewhere, I think, but in brief:

- require any party which gets federal funds to run at least one candidate in each province
- require that any funds get allocated (approximately) by province by population. For example, if Quebec has 35% of Canada's population, then you can spend, say, 30-40% of your federal funds there, however they like.

This wouldn't eliminate regional parties, but would effectively cripple them, or at least diminish their ability to play to their market. There are at least two problems with this plan: it would create a backlash against the party or parties that implemented it; and it would become a rallying cry for the types of party that would be affected by it.

It isn't that I don't like Quebec, it's that I don't like federal parties that are beholden to only one region of the country. We have provincial governments to look after provincial interests.

That's a terrible idea, it would hurt all small parties just as much as regional parties. The Greens and even the NDP heavily focus their campaign funds (the greens have some of the silliest and most inexperianced candidates in ridings they have no intention of winning) on seats they believe they can win and steal away from the bigger parties. If they have to spend equal amounts of money in all ridings, then they lose all their monetary competitiveness. Also, this would basically make it impossible for new political parties to be formed (few 'new' political parties start out with members across the nation). The only parties that would benefit from this would be the Conservatives and the Liberals and, unless you want a 2-party sustem, I don't see how that would be healthy for democracy at all. I'd much rather have regional-based multi-party system than a two-party system.

Also, it would prevent special-interest parties, as special interest parties almost naturally have regions where their interests are most predominate. A Federal French national language party, for example, still would only have political clout in Quebec, Eastern and Northern Ontario, and New Brunswick.

[SCRawl]

That's a terrible idea, it would hurt all small parties just as much as regional parties.

I'm not sure what you mean by small parties. If by "small" you mean parties with little support, then I don't see how.

The Greens and even the NDP heavily focus their campaign funds (the greens have some of the silliest and most inexperianced candidates in ridings they have no intention of winning) on seats they believe they can win and steal away from the bigger parties. If they have to spend equal amounts of money in all ridings, then they lose all their monetary competitiveness. Also, this would basically make it impossible for new political parties to be formed (few 'new' political parties start out with members across the nation).

I never said that they had to divide up their funds evenly between their ridings. I suggested that they could mandate that the funds are divided up by province, with some additional leeway for that division as well. (To use the example I already gave, if Quebec has 35% of the population, then any party would be free to spend between, say, 30% and 40% of their federal funds in Quebec, again divided up however they like within Quebec as circumstances dictate. Rural ridings cost more to campaign in, due to the greater distances involved. Anyways, if a party wanted to spend 40% of their funds in Quebec, that would leave less money per capita to spend elsewhere, but it would still be capped at my 40% (a number which was pulled out of my ass.))

The only parties that would benefit from this would be the Conservatives and the Liberals and, unless you want a 2-party sustem, I don't see how that would be healthy for democracy at all. I'd much rather have regional-based multi-party system than a two-party system.

No, any truly federal party would be largely unaffected by my suggestions.

Also, it would prevent special-interest parties, as special interest parties almost naturally have regions where their interests are most predominate. A Federal French national language party, for example, still would only have political clout in Quebec, Eastern and Northern Ontario, and New Brunswick.

And I'm absolutely fine with that. In fact, it's exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to prevent.

[TheKwas]

Again, it hampers smaller parties abilities to operate. Manitoba only makes up about 3% of the Canadian population, yet I'm pretty sure that NDP spends upwards of 10% of it's campaign funds in the province because relative to many places east of Ottawa and between Regina and Kamloops, it's fairly competitive in Manitoba.

No, any truly federal party would be largely unaffected by my suggestions.

Exactly what 'new' political party starts out running at the federal level? Even the current Conservatives were born primarily out of the Reform party, which didn't run candidates in Quebec or in many parts of the Atlantic until they became the Canadian Alliance, and even so they never move more eastward than a single seat in Ontario. The greens only started running in every riding and region in 2004 if I remember correctly (even if I don't, I'm certain they started with less than 70 candidates), and didn't run any candidates in Newfoundland during the election in 1997.

Also, there's the small issue of manipulating democracy to fit your political wants. If the people of Quebec, Eastern and Northern Ontario, and New Brunswick want a party at the federal level that protects federal bilingualism and their access to french media (this is a regional issue that goes beyond provincial boundaries, btw), why wouldn't they be allowed in a democracy to form that party? If BC wants to vote in a Marijuana party that protects that province's tradition of getting stoned in cafes from federal laws, they should have that democratic right. Manipulating the democratic electoral system for the sake of political outcomes (rather than merely promoting those outcomes in a democratic fashion) is fundamentally undemocratic.

Furthermore, the best way to make a region feel even more alienated is to shut out their democratically-elected officials, which is exactly what you're doing to the Bloc and Quebec. The west was bitching for ages about their democratic officials being alienated; eliminating parties through legislation would result in the same on a much-more grandiose scale.

[SCRawl]

Again, it hampers smaller parties abilities to operate. Manitoba only makes up about 3% of the Canadian population, yet I'm pretty sure that NDP spends upwards of 10% of it's campaign funds in the province because relative to many places east of Ottawa and between Regina and Kamloops, it's fairly competitive in Manitoba.

Which is why I suggested that leeway, rather than having funding exactly mirror population. Further, I never said that the leeway percentages I suggested were the ones that made sense; they were only an example.

No, any truly federal party would be largely unaffected by my suggestions.

Exactly what 'new' political party starts out running at the federal level? Even the current Conservatives were born primarily out of the Reform party, which didn't run candidates in Quebec or in many parts of the Atlantic until they became the Canadian Alliance, and even so they never move more eastward than a single seat in Ontario. The greens only started running in every riding and region in 2004 if I remember correctly (even if I don't, I'm certain they started with less than 70 candidates), and didn't run any candidates in Newfoundland during the election in 1997.

Any new party would start out without federal funding anyways, since it doesn't have any votes before it starts. It's a fact of life that there are barriers to starting up new political parties.

Also, there's the small issue of manipulating democracy to fit your political wants. If the people of Quebec, Eastern and Northern Ontario, and New Brunswick want a party at the federal level that protects federal bilingualism and their access to french media (this is a regional issue that goes beyond provincial boundaries, btw), why wouldn't they be allowed in a democracy to form that party? If BC wants to vote in a Marijuana party that protects that province's tradition of getting stoned in cafes from federal laws, they should have that democratic right. Manipulating the democratic electoral system for the sake of political outcomes (rather than merely promoting those outcomes in a democratic fashion) is fundamentally undemocratic.

Furthermore, the best way to make a region feel even more alienated is to shut out their democratically-elected officials, which is exactly what you're doing to the Bloc and Quebec. The west was bitching for ages about their democratic officials being alienated; eliminating parties through legislation would result in the same on a much-more grandiose scale.

This is indeed one of the problems with implementing such a plan as I suggested. I never said that it was perfect. I'm just indifferent to the feelings of a group that says that the only way it can be represented on the federal level by a regional party.

With respect to your francophone example, the provinces involved do have a voice, and the MPs for those ridings have a voice within their party or parties. If, to continue with your example, it isn't an issue that's big enough for a large number of MPs to be elected for that cause, then they wouldn't have a very large voice in Parliament anyways.

All of your examples miss the point slightly. I'm not saying that people can't or shouldn't vote for whatever party suits them best (though I do believe that parties in a federal legislature that are regional in nature are a bad idea). What I am saying is that federal funds should not be spent on political entities that can only ever represent one small region.

Here's a question. If I want to run as an independent candidate, I have that right -- I pay a nominal fee, and as long as I fulfill the basic requirements I can run in any election. Should I get public funding? If not, why should an effectively independent group without a federal platform get funding for a federal election campaign?

[TheKwas]

Again, it hampers smaller parties abilities to operate. Manitoba only makes up about 3% of the Canadian population, yet I'm pretty sure that NDP spends upwards of 10% of it's campaign funds in the province because relative to many places east of Ottawa and between Regina and Kamloops, it's fairly competitive in Manitoba.

Which is why I suggested that leeway, rather than having funding exactly mirror population. Further, I never said that the leeway percentages I suggested were the ones that made sense; they were only an example.

Fair enough.

Here's a question. If I want to run as an independent candidate, I have that right -- I pay a nominal fee, and as long as I fulfill the basic requirements I can run in any election. Should I get public funding? If not, why should an effectively independent group without a federal platform get funding for a federal election campaign?

If you get the minimum amount of votes for such funding (indicating seriousness and enough support making your cause atleast somewhat plausible), I see no reason why you shouldn't get federal funding. Significant amounts of people want your voice to be heard at the Federal level and that's their democratic right. I see no reason why you should be put at a disadvantage because of your beliefs.

With respect to your francophone example, the provinces involved do have a voice, and the MPs for those ridings have a voice within their party or parties. If, to continue with your example, it isn't an issue that's big enough for a large number of MPs to be elected for that cause, then they wouldn't have a very large voice in Parliament anyways.

What if the big parties simply don't allow their MPs to pursue these goals within their parties?

That's essentially how the Bloc got started: The Bloc members, before they formed the Bloc, wanted to pursue 'distinct society' rights for Quebec during constitutional talks, and both the mainstream bodies of the Liberals and PCs sabatoged their efforts and closed the talks without addressing their wants. It wasn't a big enough voice within the respected parties, but now with the Bloc as their own party they have probably done more for their cause than would have been possible as simply an extension of the Quebec wing of the Liberal or Conservative party.

Inner-party politics often isn't as good at promoting certain agendas as creating your own party. Inner-party politics tend to be dominated by big players while little players get overlooked.

Also, in regards to Federal services, the provinces do not have much say, and in Ontario there is reason to believe that the government has an incentive to promote english services over french ones for numerous reasons, making a federal voice, united with francophones across Canada, a useful tool against harmful provincial trends.