#Canada150 (Canadian politics and related issues)

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
28,563
There was a recount in my riding, and the results reduced the difference between the winner and the loser to a small enough amount that there's now going to be a judicial recount.
 

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,465
Western separatism would have to face treaty nations, say First Nations leaders


I've been saying this literally for weeks IRL when anyone has mentioned Wexit to me.

When I said it everyone looked at me like I had 10 heads. :rolleyes:

Someone is finally writing about it in the media. :respec:

Vindication is mine. :glamor: :lol:

It is! I've been thinking this for awhile-- echoes of Quebec.

Some ridiculous separatists want to straight up join the (Trump-led) US. However, I used to see a lot of people talk about using "Wexit" as a way to force the re-negotiation of confederation.

Speaking of Quebec, Wexit pisses me off because I have to actually hand it to La Belle Provence. Their desire to self-lead comes out of a cultural assimilation dating back centuries-- which they fought and lost wars to fight. For me, every time I read about it, Alberta's is about oil. Better service and care for families left afloat, and job security for workers, yes-- and those SHOULD be dealt with regardless-- but every branch Trudeau actually reaches out is just slapped away. It's getting ridiculous, but that is from an admittedly Ontarian purview.

What I want to hear is anyone's (#@*& defence of Jason Kenney, wholly damn. That budget is a nightmare.
 

pat c

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,460
Western separatism would have to face treaty nations, say First Nations leaders
Someone is finally writing about it in the media. :respec:

Vindication is mine. :glamor: :lol:
It is. The one thing all the politicians and media forget. We signed treaties with the First Nations. It's not something you can sweep under the rug or steam roll over.

Politicians using the rhetoric of separatism to gain and keep power without ever looking at practicalities. Journalists promoting that narrative for clicks (back then paper sales) creating an isolationist environment where everyone not exactly like you is the enemy.

I’m sad to see that Canada has learned nothing over the past decades and continues the “us against them” rationale to everyone’s detriment.

This, absolutely this. Rhetoric.........And who said those who don't study history........

All I can come up with is that there was definitely a perception in Saskatchewan when I was growing up that Quebec got a lot of concessions and special treatment from threatening to separate (whether they actually did get that, I don't know...but the perception is what matters). Assuming there was a similar perception in Alberta, perhaps there are some people just want to use it as leverage to get concessions of their own? Although unfortunately, I think there are plenty of people who are also genuinely supporting the movement who just don't understand the consequences.

Perception, not taking the time to actually read what transfer payments are about, believing in social media rather than reputable news sources........on and on.

No one has thought the separation logistics through. And when push comes to shove, the west won't separate. And some very good reasons why: 1. we're land locked. 2. First Nations 3. currency/military/trade........

Unfortunately, politicians are really rattling chains and whoever said that Kenney wants to be PMO? Oh yeah.

The one thing that might have side stepped a lot of the wexit talk is if Trudeau would have gone for proportional representation. Something has to be done so that votes do matter. In some areas right now, and I live in one, the ruling party could run a goat and still win. Not really a good thing. But you have to remember that O&G have a lot of $$ at their disposal to stir things up. The west has a lot of that kind of industry, but it's not the only one. Politicians do forget that.
 

coppertop1

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,386
Only that I'm glad he's gone. Just a loudmouth and an embarrassment to Canada. I'm hearing various reports. Did he step down or was he fired?

You can't fire me, I quit.

His comments were inappropriate and using Remembrance Day to spout his racist views was far more disrespectful than not wearing a poppy. So he can cry me a river. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences.

Imagine Rod Black saying those words. Of course he wouldn't.

Exactly. Rod is a professional
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,260
Cherry had fallen into irrelevancy years ago, but I guess they kept him on trying to please everyone, especially after they tried to do a lot of radical changes to the format/personal and then ended up rolling a lot of it back. But onward

Interesting interview with the head of the debate commission - backstory - you may recall the commission was formed because in previous elections every media outlet and their website was trying to host debates and in our short election cycles, it was hard to every leader to do every debate. (Some complained that so-and-so was skipping a debate, but it also makes sense - it's a big country to cover in a short time, so taking several days out to prepare and appear in every debate is difficult.) The other issue, if we recall in 2015, is that the debates were hard to access - on obscure channels in off hours, not streamed, and much of the country was left to the soundbites the next day, which in turn made the leaders focus more on soundbites than substance.

So now, dude is saying maybe we should only include the serious contenders (sorry Green Party and People's Party), but then of course, where do you draw the line? I think we need the NDP to continue to be part of debates, and what happens in a situation like Ontario, where one crazy election reduced a major party to just 7 seats? Are they not to be included? And of course I imagine there will be much :argue: if the Bloq gets knocked out of major debates.

Also some comment about the debate that also included 5 moderators. I see what they were trying to do, but I didn't like it - every time they had to introduce someone new, it cut into the time when we really need to hear from the leaders. (Ditto going to "real" Canadians for questions - either it's a debate or a town hall, pick one.) I really hated that in some cases, the moderator took so long to ask a multi-part question and then the leader only had 45 seconds to answer a complex question - at one point with the moderator even scolding the leader for not answering more fully! (Lookin at you Ms Barton.)

I did like that they were all in prime time (or, sorry those of you in other timezones, at least they weren't at 11:00 at night, and we do have the technology to record dontcha know) on major stations, and in one language or the other so we didn't have the disruptive spectacle of leaders switching languages mid sentence, and the somewhat annoying translators stuttering to keep up.

Thoughts?
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,164
I think having rules for who qualifies for the debates that are known ahead of time works the best. They shouldn't be things like already having been elected (in your case, having seats) but more things like how many people support your individual candidacy (vs. your party).

Something like: if you fundraised a certain amount from a certain number of donors (i.e., not 1 large one) and were polling above a certain amount, you got included.

Both parties do this in the US for their primary debates. I think it's also done for the Presidential debates but it's rare that more than 2 parties qualify.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,260
Interesting, but consider this - these debates are not about choosing a leader of a party (as in US primary debates) - each of the parties already has a leader who has been representing a riding and participating in the current government.

And, while many Canadians are of course heavily influenced by the person who is the leader of a party, we don't vote directly for the person who will lead the country - we vote for a local representative and then the party with the most local representatives forms the government, and the leader that the party has chosen internally is then the prime minister.

Sorry if I'm overexplaining and you know all this, but I'm not seeing how the debate participants can be determined based on how many people support the individual in question. The only way to do that, I think, would be to go by the popular vote in the previous election. Which is an interesting idea in itself ...

Couldn't be based on the individual, because by the time we get to the next election, one or more parties might have chosen a new leader. However, if the party had significant enough support in the form of popular vote, then it does stand to reason that voters would like to hear what the party leader has to say in the next election.

In that scenario, if say the cutoff is generously set at 10% of the popular vote, then in the next election, only 3 parties would be eligible for participation in national debates. This actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Dude in the interview linked above did suggest that there be secondary debates, so perhaps the other parties that have won seats but not enough of the popular vote could have a debate on their own to give voters a chance to hear them. At this point that's only two parties, but in the election that just happened, it also would have knocked out a third (the People's Party - no idea how they got in on any debates).

As for the unique problem that is the Bloq Quebecois suggests that on French language debate could be arranged that follows the same formula, only looking at the popular vote and/or having at least one seat in that province only. Mind you, once again, this being a bilingual country, I'm sure there would be much :argue: from francophones outside Quebec (because the Bloq will make it about Quebec, not French Canadians).
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,164
I was thinking that people run for positions and to do so they have to fundraise and they appear in polls. This would be regardless of what party they are in. Is that not correct? I definitely remember polls about Rob Ford and his chance of re-election.
 

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,465
I'm soooooo relieved this Don Cherry business didn't happen before the election. I buy the theory that Sportsnet gave him an opportunity to apologize/reposition, and he refused. It's also the best way out of a waning situation for all parties. Canadian NHL coverage will suffer but temporarily, and that's the real victim here. I sadly know too many men who are too upset about this. An acquaintance claimed it would be a day of mourning for his family when Don died. I'm sure he's flipped his lid over this.

That aside, Ron MacLean has been a real one-in-a million guy who has a truly specific way with words, but my blind spot is finally clear there. Be interesting to see what his future with Sportsnet is like. I swear, I hear every few years he's being let go, but Cherry protects him. Who's his audience now? Does he still have one without Don? Not to mention, and most importantly, he apologized for staying silent during Don Cherry's rant. He didn't stay silent-- he nodded and gave a thumb's-up sign. Now he can't even properly address his actions, meaning he's definitely not sorry.

And this wasn't even the worst thing Don's ever said. Something about this feels more opportunistic, but it would be nice if attitudes really have evolved.

So now, dude is saying maybe we should only include the serious contenders (sorry Green Party and People's Party), but then of course, where do you draw the line? I think we need the NDP to continue to be part of debates, and what happens in a situation like Ontario, where one crazy election reduced a major party to just 7 seats? Are they not to be included? And of course I imagine there will be much :argue: if the Bloq gets knocked out of major debates.

Also some comment about the debate that also included 5 moderators. I see what they were trying to do, but I didn't like it - every time they had to introduce someone new, it cut into the time when we really need to hear from the leaders. (Ditto going to "real" Canadians for questions - either it's a debate or a town hall, pick one.) I really hated that in some cases, the moderator took so long to ask a multi-part question and then the leader only had 45 seconds to answer a complex question - at one point with the moderator even scolding the leader for not answering more fully! (Lookin at you Ms Barton.)

I fully admit I didn't bother with a single debate for many reasons. But what you describe sounds like attempts to Americanize and better commodify them, which is horrifying.

If the CBC is a public broadcaster, they should be hosting official debate(s) and making it available across platforms and timezones. Who should come to them? Until I can be convinced of a better way, whoever has seats in the house going into an election-- leaders of the party, obviously, and not independents. But that's my politically-frustrated minimalist approach after an election that was a whole lot of noise.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,260
re the Cherry thing - husband listened to a CBC panel on the topic that he said was interesting; it included one of the Punjabi NHL broadcasters who pointed out that Ron is the one wearing an earpiece throughout the segment - so someone is yattering in his ear about keeping Don to time, remembering to talk about this topic or that, cue up the tapes, all that. I've often watched and thought Ron was barely listening as Don ranted on.

But that's no excuse, he knows him better than anyone, it's not like they don't talk before the segment is taped because Ron so often says "you wanted to talk about ..." and of course anyone who's ever watched Don knows that aside from the Bruins and minor hockey his #1 topic has been veterans. There's no way he hasn't said things like he did off air, around the studio, to his buddies in the hockey world.

Ron and everyone else should have been on high alert this time and every time, so I'd say the responsibility falls as much to Don's many, many enablers as it does to the old fart himself.
 

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,465
Ron and everyone else should have been on high alert this time and every time, so I'd say the responsibility falls as much to Don's many, many enablers as it does to the old fart himself.

Agreed 100%. I'd add if Ron couldn't handle keeping firebrand Don in line, he shouldn't be his wrangler. So at least that's taken care of for him. Not a stitch of what went down was new, and the only change seems to be our attitudes, and those of their bosses.
 

coppertop1

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,386
Just imagine if a woman, or POC said half of what Cherry did? They'd be fired. People like him and Trump are the worst kind of privilege. I'm beyond sick of rich, white idiots getting away with so much. It needs to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mag

pat c

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,460
Agree. This isn't anything new. The ptb turned a blind eye/condoned Cherry's rants. The trash talking was ok, until it wasn't anymore. They could have reined him in years ago and didn't. McLean wasn't Cherry's boss, he was there as damage control and he failed, and he apologized. I watched the video and I think McLean wasn't paying attention. Oh well.

The debates? That's a hard one. I think for national debates only parties that run in all the provinces should have air time. But that horse has left the stable.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,198
re the Cherry thing - husband listened to a CBC panel on the topic that he said was interesting; it included one of the Punjabi NHL broadcasters who pointed out that Ron is the one wearing an earpiece throughout the segment - so someone is yattering in his ear about keeping Don to time, remembering to talk about this topic or that, cue up the tapes, all that. I've often watched and thought Ron was barely listening as Don ranted on.

But that's no excuse, he knows him better than anyone, it's not like they don't talk before the segment is taped because Ron so often says "you wanted to talk about ..." and of course anyone who's ever watched Don knows that aside from the Bruins and minor hockey his #1 topic has been veterans. There's no way he hasn't said things like he did off air, around the studio, to his buddies in the hockey world.

Ron and everyone else should have been on high alert this time and every time, so I'd say the responsibility falls as much to Don's many, many enablers as it does to the old fart himself.

IMHO the only person responsible for what Don said, is Don. No one held a gun to his head. Ascribing responsibility for one person’s words or actions onto someone else is dangerous.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,260
I get what you are saying @mag but in this case it's about more than a single person saying something offensive. In this case, show producers and the network chose to broadcast it to millions of people, so they also share responsibility IMO.

Even if the segment was live (they often aren't), Cherry's long history of controversial and inappropriate comments should have been taken into consideration before giving him a very prominent platform to share his personal views.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
37,164
I hate these kinds of rants because they assume that everyone who didn't do whatever it is you want them to be doing (or did whatever it is you don't want them to do) -- in this case wear a poppy -- must belong to whatever group you don't like. You can't look at someone and know if they are an immigrant. You can't look at someone and know how much they support veterans either. Maybe their poppy blew off. Maybe they didn't buy one for some reason but gave thousands of dollars to a group that helps veterans.
 

Andora

Skating season ends as baseball season begins
Messages
11,465
I hate these kinds of rants because they assume that everyone who didn't do whatever it is you want them to be doing (or did whatever it is you don't want them to do) -- in this case wear a poppy -- must belong to whatever group you don't like. You can't look at someone and know if they are an immigrant. You can't look at someone and know how much they support veterans either. Maybe their poppy blew off. Maybe they didn't buy one for some reason but gave thousands of dollars to a group that helps veterans.

I can't remember the last time I wore a poppy consistently - either it was too warm for a regular coat, I lost it, or I'm just plain not Canadian/Fastidious enough to put it on every day. I would think some of the worst "offenders" are younger people to boot.

Yet Trump says far worse and nobody seems to mind.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where Don Cherry won the election we just had in order to deserve this kind of ludicrous comparison. Even trying to understand this comparison, two over-glorified TV hosts given more importance than they ever should have been, but still. What's your point?

Who are the people who don't mind? Well, besides people who don't mind what Cherry said.

I don't think there's much separation on that Venn diagram.

Maybe Winnipeg could defend Don instead of just bandying Trump's name about?
 

coppertop1

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,386
I'm seeing so many people try to bring up Trudeau's black face incident to defend Cherry. Yes, the blackface incident was stupid, but Trudeau took responsibility and he's changed. Plus, it was a while ago. Don Cherry has a long history of these kind of comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mag

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information