See, I think a Lib -NDP coalition could be pretty stable. But a 3 - way with the bloc? Would not last a month. The Bloc's whole purpose is to upset things on the national stage... Not actually have a say at ruling the country.
I love how all these herpa derp bloc bloc bloc comments ignore that they represent a province of 8 million people
While I agree that they get more flack than they deserve (I actually kind of like Gilles Duceppe, in spite of disagreeing with some key stances of his party), you have to keep in mind that separatism, no matter how unlikely, is one of the most undesirable things imaginable to the typical Canadian voter (outside of those who support it obviously). It's an issue where, if you don't support it, it can be downright offensive.
I mean, we had a referendum as recently as the 90s where Quebec only remained a part of this country by less than two percent of a vote. It's still a bit of a sore spot.
While I fully support their democratic right to vote for a party with sovereignty as part of their platform, you have to understand that there's a very valid reason for many Canadians to be uncomfortable with the Bloc.
On a side note, while they're a party exclusive to Quebec, they don't represent the entire province.
See, I think a Lib -NDP coalition could be pretty stable. But a 3 - way with the bloc? Would not last a month. The Bloc's whole purpose is to upset things on the national stage... Not actually have a say at ruling the country.
I think, if the election results in a balance of power in parliament similar to the current state, the Bloc would be quite glad to support a 3-party coalition. Support for Quebec sovereignty, in the present, seems to have slipped dramatically. Polls in '09 indicated that a majority of Quebecers were against separation, while only a third were for, and another poll in '10 indicated that a slim majority of Quebecers felt that the sovereignty issue had been settled.
The time limit for the next Quebec general election is December 2013. With Charest's current popularity levels and a Liberal majority, it seems unlikely that it will come soon. Without the PQ leading the Quebec provincial government and the the current middling sentiment towards the sovereignty issue, I doubt that the Bloc are really going to feel the impetus to make that tradeoff: upset things for no real shot at a referendum versus turning the governance of the country back over to a rather diametrically opposed, autocratic Conservative party, that has threatened their government funding and supports an elected Senate with seats distributed equally amongst the provinces. While yes, in the most abstract terms, the Conservatives and the Bloc are opposed to stronger federal governments in principle, their actual paths of action are in completely different directions. Plus the Bloc seem poised for a pretty good showing this election, at the expense of the Liberals.
I think the Bloc would be more than thrilled to support a coalition government until 2013, at which point the dice are up in the air with regards to the Quebec general election. But with little to gain from an earlier federal election and the alternative being a antithetical governing party, contrasted with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a regional party to take a major role in national governance, I don't really see why they wouldn't support a coalition government for the long-term.
Hah, as if he wouldn't go for it if they got enough seats. What a fucking liar. Christ I hate that guy so much.
edit: also, I finally got the opportunity to visit Toronto the other day, and I must say the secondary screening area of United States Customs at Toronto Pearson is lovely, very tastefully decorated, and the staff are so friendly I don't think it would be appropriate to describe the full experience in detail.
I think if you look at the way he phrased things, he didn't really say anything. All he said was that:
a) he wouldn't enter into a formal arrangement with the Bloc
b) whoever wins the most seats has to gain the support/confidence of the House, strongly implying that Harper might be unable to.
Not that I support the conservatives, or against this election being called. Because I am very much against the CPC and am happy that an election was called, but:
It is amusing when you twist the words to: The CPC as the minority government needs to work with the opposition parties to govern. But the opposition parties are unable to form and hold a coalition, because even they cant work with each other. :P
Ruling out the coalition has effectively guaranteed that the election will probably change nothing in the House of Commons, with the likely exception of who the leader of the Official Opposition is a year from now.
If nothing else changes I imagine the leadership of the three main parties may... If Stephen Harper doesn't win more than another weak minority the knives will come out - I would much rather see the CPC run by Peter MacKay although I'm not sure if he's cut out for the job (pun - what pun?), whereas if Michael Ignatieff makes no inroads I can certainly see the Liberals chasing down a more charismatic leader (Perhaps Gerrard Kennedy?).
As has already been speculated here I don't imagine Jack Layton has much left in him... his role as the terrier of the NDP has been long and arduous, I imagine his recent run of poor health may force him to step down after the next election - especially if the NDP drop seats. Who would replace him I have no idea...
Phisti on
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Who would replace him I have no idea...
Thomas Mulclair says hi.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
Yeah, assuming Mulcair gets re-elected, he is probably the favorite for the NDP leadership after Jack is gone.
I have a friend who moved to Outremont last fall, and he said he was eligible to vote in both Outremont and his old riding in Alberta, and asked me which he should vote in.
If nothing else changes I imagine the leadership of the three main parties may... If Stephen Harper doesn't win more than another weak minority the knives will come out - I would much rather see the CPC run by Peter MacKay although I'm not sure if he's cut out for the job (pun - what pun?), whereas if Michael Ignatieff makes no inroads I can certainly see the Liberals chasing down a more charismatic leader (Perhaps Gerrard Kennedy?).
As has already been speculated here I don't imagine Jack Layton has much left in him... his role as the terrier of the NDP has been long and arduous, I imagine his recent run of poor health may force him to step down after the next election - especially if the NDP drop seats. Who would replace him I have no idea...
It's too bad that the current Trudeau is stuck with his father's legacy, because I think he'd be a damn good leader. Of course, we should see how Ignatieff runs his campaign before we assume he's done.
“People who live in Brampton, Mississauga, Etobicoke: You have come to this country from the world over because you believe in this country,” Mr. Harper told a crowd of about 700 at the Pearson Convention Centre in Brampton, Ont.
The audience was almost entirely of South Asian origin and Mr. Harper was introduced by Jason Kenney who, as Immigration Minister, has been the king of Conservative outreach to new Canadians.
Mr. Harper said Canada is a relative oasis of calm, compared to “disaster in the Pacific and chaos in the Middle East,” and said he believed new Canadians wanted to avoid the upset in other countries.
What "Canadian calm" might look like to Stephen Harper
EDIT All things considered though let us take a moment to celebrate that we live in Canada and all this will be over in early may. Unlike those godless heathens in America who are right now gearing up for the Republican election to see who will run for president in the year of our lord two thousand and twelve.
I'm already sick of / pissed at Harper's fear-mongering.
"A stable national Conservative majority government or an unstable coalition and all the economic and political risk that goes with that - that's the choice," he said.
He said Canadians would be "crazy" to hand over power to a coalition of "arch-centralists and Quebec sovereignists." (sic)
He quickly withdrew a suggestion Saturday that it would not be "legitimate" to have separatists in a governing coalition.
"You can break up the country or you can govern the country but you can't do both," he said. "It's pretty fundamental."
I'm already sick of / pissed at Harper's fear-mongering.
"A stable national Conservative majority government or an unstable coalition and all the economic and political risk that goes with that - that's the choice," he said.
He said Canadians would be "crazy" to hand over power to a coalition of "arch-centralists and Quebec sovereignists." (sic)
He quickly withdrew a suggestion Saturday that it would not be "legitimate" to have separatists in a governing coalition.
"You can break up the country or you can govern the country but you can't do both," he said. "It's pretty fundamental."
Sigh. It's gonna be a long election
This is why Ignatieff is saying "No Coalition".
You'd have to be an idiot to think he wouldn't jump all over it when the time comes, but right now it's just politically stupid to be seen supporting a coalition government.
Saying you "hate the guy" or whatever for playing politics on this issue is really silly.
Apparently there is no party within my little "circle" based on my responses. The closest party to my circle is the Liberals, with the Cons being only slightly further away. I find that hilarious and kinda sad.
Also, according to that website, the Bloc, Green, NDP and Liberals are all essentially on the same page, whereas the Cons are off on their own.
1) Nothing changes, the Cons are unwilling to work with the other parties, and a liberal-led coalition emerges. Some legislation is actually passed by the three parties just to spite the Cons.
2) The Cons reap a slight majority, finally giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
Apparently there is no party within my little "circle" based on my responses. The closest party to my circle is the Liberals, with the Cons being only slightly further away. I find that hilarious and kinda sad.
Also, according to that website, the Bloc, Green, NDP and Liberals are all essentially on the same page, whereas the Cons are off on their own.
I got the same thing basically.
After I did the extra questions to make it more accurate I ended up even further into the no party zone.
Essentially, the centralist position is that political decision making and power should be centralized under the auspices of the federal government. That's the traditional stance of the Liberal Party and has had an effect on how things like our single payer health insurance system works. The "decentralist" position is that the provinces should have more power to make their own decisions, and so greater control of their own finances. That's the traditional position of the (Progressive) Conservative party. This is one of the reason why Mulroney was able to have both proto-Reformers and Quebec nationalists under the same tent, at least for awhile. I'm not sure what exactly an "arch-centralist" is supposed to be, but I suppose it's a message to those who want the provinces to have more power that they shouldn't vote Liberal.
Edith_Bagot-Dix on
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I'm right on top of BQ, which is weird, but it said I was closes to the Liberals. Which is who I am probably voting for despite the fact that there's no way in hell a Liberal is getting elected here.
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
Comahawk on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
A small group of anarchists did. The protesters who were arrested? They were pretty much innocent of any wrongdoing.
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
Apparently there is no party within my little "circle" based on my responses. The closest party to my circle is the Liberals, with the Cons being only slightly further away. I find that hilarious and kinda sad.
Also, according to that website, the Bloc, Green, NDP and Liberals are all essentially on the same page, whereas the Cons are off on their own.
I got the same thing basically.
After I did the extra questions to make it more accurate I ended up even further into the no party zone.
This survey really bothers me. I think it's well made, but it seems to be a mistake to mix a fun/infotainment survey with Canada's biggest broadcast news brand.
And god help the CBC if something goes wrong with it. The spectre of bias looms way too large, Sun media will probably beat them over the head with it. Also it is not news, it's more user generated BS that's problematic in the business.
The survey should be hosted on a different website, and it shouldn't be endorsed by the public broadcaster imo.
I found it to be incredibly Conservative Talking Point(tm) based in it's questions. But it told me Green and then NDP. Which considering my stance on Nuclear puts me at odds with the Green candidates I've seen.
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
In effect, the police brought the hammer down on all protestors to stop the chance of more anarchists causing trouble then?
Also, did those arrested get charged? Or just released afterwards?
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
In effect, the police brought the hammer down on all protestors to stop the chance of more anarchists causing trouble then?
Also, did those arrested get charged? Or just released afterwards?
I think like 20 out of hundreds of people were charged. It was pretty ridiculous. I'm unsure of what happened to the class-action lawsuits that were starting up shortly after.
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
In effect, the police brought the hammer down on all protestors to stop the chance of more anarchists causing trouble then?
Also, did those arrested get charged? Or just released afterwards?
The report from the auditor general is forthcoming, so I'm waiting for that to draw any broad or definitive conclusions. This is what I've heard trickling out of the media:
There were several incidences of protesters being held in conditions and for lengths that fall below the line of "okay," and people being held who weren't even protesting. Police isolated areas on the street and wouldn't allow people to leave. Some people were told by officers that they didn't have certain rights. There were a couple documented cases of excessive force, again, sometimes against people who weren't even protesting.
There is also suspicion that police cars were left unattended with their windows open for extended periods of time as provocation. I've heard that photos of the cars being burned were taken by police photographers, which doesn't look good if it's true.
The government invoked wartime law to justify increased security, which was controversial in and of itself. And there have been accusations that the security force, consisting of several different police forces, was inadequately co-ordinated, and officers were apparently ill-informed about what they could and could not do, where or how long to hold detainees, etc.
Actual destructive protests, such as those by the Black Bloc, were sporadic, highly isolated and represented a tiny fraction of all activity.
Long story short, it's hard to see the cops coming out of this looking good. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the above turns out to be exaggerated or false. But the overall picture does seem to reflect poorly on the law enforcement efforts. At best, they failed to effectively control the situation, and a few individual officers are liable for some serious abuses.
Oh, and it may also have been a massive waste of money.
Ending native apartheid will be my main local campaign issue. I will also make sure that 30% of my campaign office is Aboriginal by ancestry. I'm also 1/8 Native.
More ideology:
I'm with Buffett and Gates.
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Note: I agree with protection from financial liability. I DO NOT agree with any form of protection against civil or criminal liability.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative: My market ideology is - in cases where equilibrium has not met the ideal outcome - that supply should be regulated and demand should be subsidized. Consumers should be encouraged to buy (though subsides) while producers should be forced to sell (through regulation).
Citizens have rights. Corporations don't. Corporations aren't people. Citizens are.
I'm all for tax incentives over handing corporations publicly-funded blank cheques.
If the government is going to be directly paying for something with OUR tax dollars through subsidies, we should own it (through an arm-length crown corporation).
Oh and screw Reaganomics.
If you lower corp taxes, you theoretically give corps more money to innovate. However, if that money isn't spent towards labour or resources (it wasn't) and is just kept, the government is forced to cut services due to less revenue. This increases the cost of living and decreases the amount people can spend on non-essentials. Thus, it results in decreasing the demand and the GDP. EPIC FAIL.
The above is why Reagan and Mulroney were idiots.
Political BLASPHEMY:
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
Ok, someone give me some information since I was out of touch last summer...
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
In effect, the police brought the hammer down on all protestors to stop the chance of more anarchists causing trouble then?
Also, did those arrested get charged? Or just released afterwards?
Pretty much. That's exactly the kind of response that "Black Bloc" tactics are intended to provoke. I'm not sure how much stopping anarchists has to do with it. There's also a strong element of managing perceptions, both those of the public and those of leaders present for the conference.
There were around 1100 people arrested, of which 231 were charged. So far, charges have been dropped or withdrawn in 58 of those cases. That's in aggregate, so I'm not sure if charges against police officers, such as Constable Andalib-Goortani, are included in that number.
<-- was actually present on both days. Barely escaped the [strike]kettling[/strike] illegal detainment on Sunday at Queen and Spadina, though two people I was with were detained. Fun weekend.
<-- was actually present on both days. Barely escaped the [strike]kettling[/strike] illegal detainment on Sunday at Queen and Spadina, though two people I was with were detained. Fun weekend.
<-- was actually present on both days. Barely escaped the [strike]kettling[/strike] illegal detainment on Sunday at Queen and Spadina, though two people I was with were detained. Fun weekend.
Posts
While I agree that they get more flack than they deserve (I actually kind of like Gilles Duceppe, in spite of disagreeing with some key stances of his party), you have to keep in mind that separatism, no matter how unlikely, is one of the most undesirable things imaginable to the typical Canadian voter (outside of those who support it obviously). It's an issue where, if you don't support it, it can be downright offensive.
I mean, we had a referendum as recently as the 90s where Quebec only remained a part of this country by less than two percent of a vote. It's still a bit of a sore spot.
While I fully support their democratic right to vote for a party with sovereignty as part of their platform, you have to understand that there's a very valid reason for many Canadians to be uncomfortable with the Bloc.
On a side note, while they're a party exclusive to Quebec, they don't represent the entire province.
I think, if the election results in a balance of power in parliament similar to the current state, the Bloc would be quite glad to support a 3-party coalition. Support for Quebec sovereignty, in the present, seems to have slipped dramatically. Polls in '09 indicated that a majority of Quebecers were against separation, while only a third were for, and another poll in '10 indicated that a slim majority of Quebecers felt that the sovereignty issue had been settled.
The time limit for the next Quebec general election is December 2013. With Charest's current popularity levels and a Liberal majority, it seems unlikely that it will come soon. Without the PQ leading the Quebec provincial government and the the current middling sentiment towards the sovereignty issue, I doubt that the Bloc are really going to feel the impetus to make that tradeoff: upset things for no real shot at a referendum versus turning the governance of the country back over to a rather diametrically opposed, autocratic Conservative party, that has threatened their government funding and supports an elected Senate with seats distributed equally amongst the provinces. While yes, in the most abstract terms, the Conservatives and the Bloc are opposed to stronger federal governments in principle, their actual paths of action are in completely different directions. Plus the Bloc seem poised for a pretty good showing this election, at the expense of the Liberals.
I think the Bloc would be more than thrilled to support a coalition government until 2013, at which point the dice are up in the air with regards to the Quebec general election. But with little to gain from an earlier federal election and the alternative being a antithetical governing party, contrasted with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a regional party to take a major role in national governance, I don't really see why they wouldn't support a coalition government for the long-term.
Hah, as if he wouldn't go for it if they got enough seats. What a fucking liar. Christ I hate that guy so much.
edit: also, I finally got the opportunity to visit Toronto the other day, and I must say the secondary screening area of United States Customs at Toronto Pearson is lovely, very tastefully decorated, and the staff are so friendly I don't think it would be appropriate to describe the full experience in detail.
a) he wouldn't enter into a formal arrangement with the Bloc
b) whoever wins the most seats has to gain the support/confidence of the House, strongly implying that Harper might be unable to.
It is amusing when you twist the words to: The CPC as the minority government needs to work with the opposition parties to govern. But the opposition parties are unable to form and hold a coalition, because even they cant work with each other. :P
MWO: Adamski
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
As has already been speculated here I don't imagine Jack Layton has much left in him... his role as the terrier of the NDP has been long and arduous, I imagine his recent run of poor health may force him to step down after the next election - especially if the NDP drop seats. Who would replace him I have no idea...
Thomas Mulclair says hi.
I have a friend who moved to Outremont last fall, and he said he was eligible to vote in both Outremont and his old riding in Alberta, and asked me which he should vote in.
My response: "OUTREMONT OUTREMONT OUTREMONT"
It's too bad that the current Trudeau is stuck with his father's legacy, because I think he'd be a damn good leader. Of course, we should see how Ignatieff runs his campaign before we assume he's done.
What "Canadian calm" might look like to Stephen Harper
EDIT All things considered though let us take a moment to celebrate that we live in Canada and all this will be over in early may. Unlike those godless heathens in America who are right now gearing up for the Republican election to see who will run for president in the year of our lord two thousand and twelve.
Sigh. It's gonna be a long election
This is why Ignatieff is saying "No Coalition".
You'd have to be an idiot to think he wouldn't jump all over it when the time comes, but right now it's just politically stupid to be seen supporting a coalition government.
Saying you "hate the guy" or whatever for playing politics on this issue is really silly.
Realistically? Probably like the Conservatives and the NDP.
In Harper Speak? Anyone not Conservative.
Apparently there is no party within my little "circle" based on my responses. The closest party to my circle is the Liberals, with the Cons being only slightly further away. I find that hilarious and kinda sad.
Also, according to that website, the Bloc, Green, NDP and Liberals are all essentially on the same page, whereas the Cons are off on their own.
1) Nothing changes, the Cons are unwilling to work with the other parties, and a liberal-led coalition emerges. Some legislation is actually passed by the three parties just to spite the Cons.
2) The Cons reap a slight majority, finally giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with.
I got the same thing basically.
After I did the extra questions to make it more accurate I ended up even further into the no party zone.
Didn't expect that order.
So apparently you're a Separatist Hippy?
Too bad the Bloc isn't going to run on the super far west coast
Initially it put me partially in favor of the Bloc... despite me answering all the Quebec separatist questions negatively.
Essentially, the centralist position is that political decision making and power should be centralized under the auspices of the federal government. That's the traditional stance of the Liberal Party and has had an effect on how things like our single payer health insurance system works. The "decentralist" position is that the provinces should have more power to make their own decisions, and so greater control of their own finances. That's the traditional position of the (Progressive) Conservative party. This is one of the reason why Mulroney was able to have both proto-Reformers and Quebec nationalists under the same tent, at least for awhile. I'm not sure what exactly an "arch-centralist" is supposed to be, but I suppose it's a message to those who want the provinces to have more power that they shouldn't vote Liberal.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The G8 summit that caused all the protests, weren't the protestors in general setting shit on fire/wrecking shit before the police started to crack down?
A small group of anarchists did. The protesters who were arrested? They were pretty much innocent of any wrongdoing.
In general? No. There was a "Black Bloc" presence the first day, but that's a pretty small minority. The arrests and such all took place the next day, when those ne'er-do-wells were long gone.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
This survey really bothers me. I think it's well made, but it seems to be a mistake to mix a fun/infotainment survey with Canada's biggest broadcast news brand.
And god help the CBC if something goes wrong with it. The spectre of bias looms way too large, Sun media will probably beat them over the head with it. Also it is not news, it's more user generated BS that's problematic in the business.
The survey should be hosted on a different website, and it shouldn't be endorsed by the public broadcaster imo.
Interested in other people's thoughts though.
In effect, the police brought the hammer down on all protestors to stop the chance of more anarchists causing trouble then?
Also, did those arrested get charged? Or just released afterwards?
I think like 20 out of hundreds of people were charged. It was pretty ridiculous. I'm unsure of what happened to the class-action lawsuits that were starting up shortly after.
The report from the auditor general is forthcoming, so I'm waiting for that to draw any broad or definitive conclusions. This is what I've heard trickling out of the media:
There were several incidences of protesters being held in conditions and for lengths that fall below the line of "okay," and people being held who weren't even protesting. Police isolated areas on the street and wouldn't allow people to leave. Some people were told by officers that they didn't have certain rights. There were a couple documented cases of excessive force, again, sometimes against people who weren't even protesting.
There is also suspicion that police cars were left unattended with their windows open for extended periods of time as provocation. I've heard that photos of the cars being burned were taken by police photographers, which doesn't look good if it's true.
The government invoked wartime law to justify increased security, which was controversial in and of itself. And there have been accusations that the security force, consisting of several different police forces, was inadequately co-ordinated, and officers were apparently ill-informed about what they could and could not do, where or how long to hold detainees, etc.
Actual destructive protests, such as those by the Black Bloc, were sporadic, highly isolated and represented a tiny fraction of all activity.
Long story short, it's hard to see the cops coming out of this looking good. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the above turns out to be exaggerated or false. But the overall picture does seem to reflect poorly on the law enforcement efforts. At best, they failed to effectively control the situation, and a few individual officers are liable for some serious abuses.
Oh, and it may also have been a massive waste of money.
My riding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay%E2%80%94Atikokan_(provincial_electoral_district)
Ending native apartheid will be my main local campaign issue. I will also make sure that 30% of my campaign office is Aboriginal by ancestry. I'm also 1/8 Native.
More ideology:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
"Bill Gates Says Tax The Rich!"
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-state-income-tax-2010-9
Screw corporate personhood. Corporations are there to give people protection from financial liability, not give them a right to perpetual profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Note: I agree with protection from financial liability. I DO NOT agree with any form of protection against civil or criminal liability.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative: My market ideology is - in cases where equilibrium has not met the ideal outcome - that supply should be regulated and demand should be subsidized. Consumers should be encouraged to buy (though subsides) while producers should be forced to sell (through regulation).
Citizens have rights. Corporations don't. Corporations aren't people. Citizens are.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part18_div02&lang=e#sec404
I'm all for tax incentives over handing corporations publicly-funded blank cheques.
If the government is going to be directly paying for something with OUR tax dollars through subsidies, we should own it (through an arm-length crown corporation).
Oh and screw Reaganomics.
If you lower corp taxes, you theoretically give corps more money to innovate. However, if that money isn't spent towards labour or resources (it wasn't) and is just kept, the government is forced to cut services due to less revenue. This increases the cost of living and decreases the amount people can spend on non-essentials. Thus, it results in decreasing the demand and the GDP. EPIC FAIL.
The above is why Reagan and Mulroney were idiots.
Political BLASPHEMY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Pretty much. That's exactly the kind of response that "Black Bloc" tactics are intended to provoke. I'm not sure how much stopping anarchists has to do with it. There's also a strong element of managing perceptions, both those of the public and those of leaders present for the conference.
There were around 1100 people arrested, of which 231 were charged. So far, charges have been dropped or withdrawn in 58 of those cases. That's in aggregate, so I'm not sure if charges against police officers, such as Constable Andalib-Goortani, are included in that number.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Anyway.
Is there a Canadian version of 538?
Yes, sort of: ThreeHundredEight. Projection they have now is another Conservative minority.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Thanks. Bookmarking. Not really surprising, but there isn't anything I can do about it, what with my residence(s) solid NDP or Liberal, respectively.