30 thoughts on “Ahoy!

  1. They ARE your Marxist-Leninists now, they’re out front wearing coveralls and hoping to be the new ruling oppressors by annoying workers.
    Hey, I’m a small “a” anarchist, if there is no dancing in your revolution, I will have no part of it.

  2. I think if the Bloc ran outside of Quebec, they’d have a chance at taking the election.

    Separatist stuff aside, they’ve got an impressive platform, for the most part.

  3. separatism aside, the Bloc runs on essentially a (sometimes somewhat protectionist) progressive leftist platform.

  4. heh. NDP! (100) hehe. then bloc and liberal tied(75). Odd, I thought I’d have had liberal first.

    silly conservatives (17)

    the only one I wasn’t too sure of was the whole Senate thing.. elected? What would that mean for Canada I wonder.

  5. wtf!?

    Jack Layton NDP = 100%
    Gilles Duceppe BQ = 74%
    Paul Martin L = 35%
    Stephen Harper Con = 13%

    Fuck. Maybe I should run for office…

  6. You? NDP? Nooooo! That’s crazy talk!!! ;)

    Hmmm… want to start a new political party? Basically we take all the the best features/accomplishments of the other parties *very short list for some*, learn from their mistakes and call ourselves the House Party.
    I didn’t want to say it just because well… House Party. But because thinking of your country as your home does help put and keep things in perspective.


    ps – If I become Prime Minister, I must be referred to as High Lord Tyrant, His Supreme Super Coolness and Totally Right All the Time Tony (no last name necessary).

  7. hmmm. i got 100 for NDP too, and i can’t even vote, but i noticed a lot of people got 100 for layton, it’s not an NDP sponsored site is it? steering any stray sheep in to the slaughter house??
    conspiricy theory!!

  8. Hmmm. i just traced the domain for the politics watch, and found it listed to the address 85 albert st ottawa… looking further into this i decided to look up the headquarters for the NDP in ottawa…funny, they hold the address…Yep you guessed it, 85 albert street ottawa!

  9. Nooo… *You’re* All Commie!!!! (That’ll teach ya!)
    What Canada needs is a feudal society with me as it’s emperor…

  10. Actually, I just checked… 85 Albert is an office building, the suite number for the DomainWatch organization (Public Interests Research and Communications Inc.) is different than the NDP suite.

  11. ‘Bout time the NDP acquired some ninja skills!
    shit. may have to vote for them just for that! ;) Showin initiative and the like.

    My next question (really first question) would be:
    Are they, the NDP party, the sole occupants of that building?

  12. oh well, nevermind! it was fun while it lasted! i bet they talk to each other at the coffee machine though! ;0)

  13. Thanks Jai! That’s a really neat quiz. Of course I ended up with NDP, my usual pick. Stephen Harper scored a 3, which surprised me since if I’d had a say in the matter he would have gotten a big fat zero.

  14. a couple elections ago,
    I wanted to start the Party party.
    with the platform that if we win,
    there will be a coast to coast party …
    We weren’t very forward thinking,
    we werent sure if the party would just be
    the day after election day, or for the next 5 years.

  15. I got NDP 100%… I do support many of their ideas, but I will definitely not vote for them:
    1) because I don’t trust Layton. He seems to be too self-congratulatory.
    2) because they have no satisfactory explanantion of how they plan to accomplish their platform goals.
    3) because the NDP are not going to win, and in my riding especially strategic voting is needed to keep the Tories out. (There will be no Harper leading my Canada.)

    I hope everyone plans to vote on the 28th!

  16. 1) He can be self-congratulatory because he hasn’t taken the same actions as Martin. Don’t get me wrong, the liberals did accomplish some good:
    – they ended a conservative gov’t
    – they did put Canada on the int’l map for advances in accountability and transparency
    – in principle, their ‘redbook’ was truly innovative too bad they didn’t follow through..
    He’s allowed to be as confident as he wants to be so long as he isn’t self-righteous because as far as I can recall, the NDP have never made a mistake. Granted they’ve never really had the opportunity to make one, but they haven’t made one yet. Pretty good track record…

    2) go to their website and read their *summaries* for each goal. Their’s a reason why it’s called a summary. It’s so that, in brief, they can explain as quickly as possible what they intend to do. If you then, as a citizen in this nation, contact them and ask for specific details or ask specific questions, they will answer them. unlike… the liberals who laid everything out (eventually) only to bounce back and forth in committee, out of committee and research groups and not actually follow through. See 1) for how the NDP look a lot prettier…

    3) So you only vote for the winning team? That’s not really voicing your opinion and who you support then… Strategic (ps – I hate this put in front of anything as it’s so much rhetoric) voting isn’t just voting to block or deny. It isn’t just, at the end of the day, casting a vote. It’s about speaking with your community/neighbour, instead of maintaining ‘sovereignty of home’ and hoping that ppl will vote the same way you do based on thoughts that you have.

    At it’s most basic level, the easiest way to stop the Tories from having your riding is to not vote for them. Fundamentally. If you agree with the ideas that another platform has, then maybe you should support that platform in your riding assuming that it has some form of representation.
    I think part of the reason why ppl consistently vote Liberal or Conservative is that a) we ‘know them’ and thus are familiar with them (yay comfort regardless of price) and b) we are so easily caught up in pendulum antics; one end makes this mistake, the other end points out the error and says they’ll avoid it in the future, we shift to that end. That end makes a mistake, the other end points it out, we shift again after they say ‘we won’t do it again, we promise’ with a smile on their face and we eat it up. Totally knee-jerk.
    Nothing strategic about that. That’s instinctive.
    The effective strategy would be for individuals to speak to members of their community and surrounding environs to build support for the goals and views that they have. That’s effective strategy as it leads to accomplishing something other than stagnation or more politely, stalemate.

    And another thing… Canada really should adopt the system that Australia uses (or at least part of that mechanism). Mandatory voting with the inclusion of a “These guys all suck balls and thus I have no confidence in any of them!” box. Enough of this reactive citizen-gov’t relationship bullshit. We’ve done it for a while now; only addressing immediate symptoms instead of creating long lasting solutions. Give people a two-fold reason to vote:
    a) because it’s the law and fines suck balls
    b) if sufficient numbers of ‘no-confidence’ votes come in, action will be taken to rectify.
    We don’t have a solid mechanism for that and we should. A fucking island descended from fucking british fucking criminals (fuck, because I want to say fuck not because I don’t like them) have their act more together than we as maple syrup eating, moose dodging, apoligizing-for-our-neighbours, people do. Makes me want to throw a shrimp on the BarBee…

    You know what Canada needs? Canada needs me as it’s ruler. In fact, the world needs me as it’s ruler. Hell. Why stop there? Let’s go for Known Universe and call me the padishah emperor just so that I can dangle it in front of Dana!
    Alright… now I’m rambling…



  17. What I would like to see…

    NDP majority with Strong Opposition being lead by the Liberals.
    We don’t need ‘another Trudeau’, we need to get off the seesaw.

  18. hmmm… could be interesting… we could merge the parties if necessary.
    But it still has to be called the House Party.

  19. I agree in principle to almost every thing you’ve said, but in practical terms I don’t see that these principles will work.

    1) The fact that they haven’t had the chance to make a mistake is what makes me dislike his self-congratulatory position. In almost every interview I have seen/heard/transcribed he avoids answering direct question on how they plan to enact NDP policies and instead points out the downfalls and broken promises of the Liberals.

    2) From the above statement, Layton’s platform does not satisfactorily answer my questions (and from what I can tell many others concerns) about how the NDP will be different from the Liberals and keep their platform promises.
    I have looked at their platform summaries (in fact we have all party platforms in full at my house due to our company). While it does go into further detail of where they plan to put funding and how they want to reformat many of the existing systems it does not expand on where they plan to get the money for this funding while still making their promised tax cuts and maintaining their promised balanced budgets. They do say that they will have more money to do so by avoiding misspending as the Liberals have had (ie: Sponsorship Scandal) and by raising taxes for the rich and corporations, but that is not nearly enough to offset their promised fundings.
    I also have a bit of a problem with raising taxes and decreasing tax breaks for corporations. Although many corporations are rich and don’t need tax breaks and should be taxed more, there are many businesses that are registered as corporations for legal reasons but are not even close to those financial positions (such as my parents’ company). If the government reformated the tax system to give tax cuts to smaller businesses and corporations while raising taxes on businesses and corporations that yield much higher profits I would be wholeheartedly supportive, but this is not the case for any of the three main parties.
    When I contacted the NDP with my concerns they just gave me the runaround and reworded what was stated in their platform summaries, while also saying that their financial associates have calculated a way to fulfill their promises. But I was never told what those calculations entailed or who to contact to get further information.

    3) I don’t only vote for the winning team, but I do see the necessity in some ridings for strategic voting. As much as I don’t agree with its need in principle, I am practical enough to realize that by voting for the party I am most in accordance with I am essentially splitting the non-Tory vote and thereby allowing the Tories to win the seat in my riding.
    Since in many ridings the votes are closely split between the Tories and the Liberals voting for the lesser of the two evils is the only way to keep the Tories out. While I’d prefer to actually give the Green Party my vote, I know that they do not have a chance to get in, especially in my riding, no matter how many people I could conceivably convince to vote Green. (The same goes for the NDP.) So by voting for a party other than the Liberals I am essentially spoiling my ballot, and giving the Tories a higher percentage fo votes in my riding.

    4) This leads me to your last point. Tha Australian system is nice and can be equated here with the movement of spoiling your ballot (not voting for anyone or adding your own option – like voting for you.) The number of spoiled ballots is counted and can possibly provoke change in the system. I do support the idea of this method.
    I will, however, not spoil my ballot because of the close split in my riding. As I have stated above, if I don’t vote Liberal the Tories will win the greatest number of votes in my riding. Beyond all other considerations, I DO NOT want Harper as Prime Minister!

    And yes, that last thought is rambling. Tony as Padishah Emperor is a scary thought!

  20. While I’d prefer to actually give the Green Party my vote, I know that they do not have a chance to get in, especially in my riding, no matter how many people I could conceivably convince to vote Green.

    That’s not the only reason to vote for a party. They all receive funding based on the number of votes they get.

  21. True, but I’d prefer to use my vote to make sure that Harper does not run the country over aiding another party’s funding. The amount my vote would generate in funding I can donate in time and money directly to the party and know better how it is spent.

  22. 1-2) fair enough. at least now I have context on why you dislike his attitude/stance. I know too many people that actually dislike others if they demonstrate any degree of self-confidence. I can understand why there would be an issue with an individual or group of individuals having confidence in themselves, but frankly very few people are willing to support leaders that demonstrate any degree of uncertainty. Personally I feel that such confidence can be warranted (this is making a *HUGE* assumption on my part by the way…) provided that they’ve learned from the previous mistakes made by others and have developed solutions or the means of preventing similar situations from development from occurring under their administration.
    As I was saying to Geoff (Walls): It may be time for a change from the pendulum of getting fucked in the ass by the Conservatives, getting picked up by the Liberals, wiped off and then bent over with a cock in our mouths from them (not necessarily attached or even fresh).
    In any case, I’m wondering to what degree did they hedge when you requested more information on their methodology (notice how I’m staying away from saying Strategic or Strategy? I just hate that term in politics…) as the information should be readily available to citizens. That’s the entire point of transperancy which apparently we as a nation are a leading authority on as well as concepts of accountability.
    In regards to the taxes, I have to say that I agree with you but the money has to come from somewhere. The hardest question is ‘where?’ will it come from? Certainly not the working-poor (or lower) even though there are a lot of them. There really are. I think that a system needs to be developed that reduces tax breaks but somehow gives incentives to upper levels of income (yes I understand that the statement is selfcontradictory). The trick being finding a means to do it and once the resources have been collected, allocating it wisely; not just letting it sit.
    Back to their plan though for a minute… have you tried calling again? You should be able to get results by saying that you want to know more about the formula(s) and systems they plan on using in order to determine whether or not you can support their platform in the upcoming election. And in order to have such confidence in it, they should provide you with the necessary information or contact coordinates of the responsible individuals so that you can determine if their plans and goals best reflect yours.

    3-4) I dislike the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. It, ideally, shouldn’t be necessary to vote for a lesser evil; it’s like going to a store and buying a half moldy loaf of bread. It also serves to maintain the pendulum. I dislike it so much because just like with consumerism, we do have a significant potential power over politicians and bureaucrats which they love to try to make us forget. Ultimately, they are our employees. We collectively pay them to represent our needs and views. Am I willing to pay 2 bucks for a half moldy loaf of bread? No. Am I willing to throw my support in with a platform that less than half the time represents my opinions/wants? No.
    And that’s why I like the Australian system. See, you’re right. In Canada, a spoiled ballot can eventually provoke the possibility of change. Notice the lack of commitment in that statement? In Australia, everyone votes. You fail to vote, you get your ass fined. Apparently it’s a rather significant fine so people tend to vote regularly. Apparently also on that ballot is a ‘no opinion’/’no confidence’ option. Which is tallied and if the numbers are significant, change occurs. This isn’t the same as provoking potential change. Why does change occur? It’s because a hard and consistent value has been attached to voting. Since a mechanism was put in place to effectively force people to vote, a mechanism was also implemented to lend authority to the results, especially the result of the people saying in significant numbers, ‘no confidence’.
    When we spoil a ballot, it doesn’t have the same impact.

    In any case, i prolly should get back to work.
    So. Australia: Good system, great ideas behind them.
    Tony: Emperor with a big metal spike on his head.

Leave a Reply