How is it that the Conservatives (Canadian election) are gaining in numbers? Is the sweater really changing people's minds? Why are the opposition parties not laying out the many things that Harper has done in the past two years that went directly against what he ran for? What does this mean for our political system and campaign promises if he gets re-elected?
Is this why American candidates refuse to put out much of a platform?
30 comments:
what's a sweater? (an article of clothing?;)
Really?
See, the interesting things that we never realize are different 10 driving hours to the south!
Yes, a sweater- like a cartigan, or a sweatshirt, but not really either. More a knit sweatshirt. It's a "nice" thing to wear.
I'll try to post a picture.
At any rate, the point is that our PM was seen as being rather ruthless and mean, so in this election, he's been wearing a sweater and holding lots of babies to make him seem nicer. I never thought it would work but his support as been growing even though his governance was very different from his campaign promises the last time around.
even better! A sweater and a kitten!
This would be considered a sweater, but a more sporty type. A sweater is also a term for something that your Grandmother would knit for you.
haha -- yes, that's what i'd call a sweater too :) (i just didn't have the context, so i thought you were talking about a person who was a "sweater" because i thought you meant a person changing someone's minds:)) (sorry about that -- but thanks for the great pic... like you said, i love the cat:)
Can you clarify about what you mean about not putting out much of a platform?
Sure. Perhaps by explaining more about what is normal to have happen here. Usually by the 2nd week of the election, all parties have published a book (usually 50-100 pages, school note book size) of their exact plans if they get into office. All of it is budgeted with dollar amounts as specific is possible and projections for what they'll do if the economy goes up or down. If they end up as an opposition party (which 4 of the 5 will) then their book becomes their major set of issues that they will stand up for.
Perhaps this does happen in American politics, and I've just missed it, but so far all I've heard is very abstract ideas with no real plans or budgets about how to make their ideas into reality. News organizations are always looking back into the canidates past to try and figure out what they would do in a certain situation- which makes me think that it's not readily out there to read. What do you think?
Everything out there is readily available to read--you can look at the senate reports to learn what they've done in the past if they're a senator, and there are executive reports done on all laws passed/vetoed by governors. The problem is most Americans sadly don't take the political process seriously and don't research their candidates--instead they rely on the media to give them the highlights. Both of their websites tell their positions on the issues, but it is best to look at their voting record when possible to get through their political speak.
The budget thing you mentioned is a good thing and I like that idea. However, that wouldn't necessarily work for the president of the US. As far as I know, they don't do that (and I might be wrong about that, but I don't remember seeing it) and I can think of a few reasons why. The president is not really in charge of spending for the most part. That is the legislature's job. The president has the power to veto their budget, but Congress comes up with the budget. The president's job (VERY simply) is to appoint various cabinet posts to be in charge of various agencies, to appoint Supreme Court Justices, to be Commander and Chief of the military, and to have veto power over laws.
That is why when we look at the president, we vote according to their views on the issues and their past voting record...because they will most likely appoint judges and will veto/approve bills that align with their values.
When the legislative branch has a majority that is different than that of the executive branch it makes it difficult for the president to get any of his policies put in place and things typically stay the same unless people stand up and talk to their representatives.
Did I answer the question clearly???
Yes, very clear. Thank you!
The budgeting thing is very central to Cdn party platforms so no, that wouldn't work in the American system. I thought, however, that the President created the budget and then sent it to Congress..?
Your right, he does submit one every year, but then Congress has to vote on it and they change it so much that it really isn't the same budget as what he submits originally. They really have the most say in it.
From Project Vote Smart....
The Budget Process:
The President's Budget is sent to Congress in early February. This proposal is his/her plan for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. This plan, however, only becomes official after Congress passes, and the President signs spending bills and legislation creating new taxes and entitlements.
After receiving the President's budget, Congress examines it in detail. Scores of committees and subcommittees hold hearings on proposals under their jurisdiction. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, for instance, would hold hearings on the President's defense plan. If the President's plan contains proposals that affect Federal revenues, the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees would hold hearings. The President, the Budget Director, the Cabinet, and others work with Congress as it accepts some proposals, rejects others, and changes still others.
Each year Congress must pass and the President must sign, 13 appropriation bills that include all of the discretionary spending. The President and Congress do not have to enact new laws governing entitlements or taxes. If they do not, the Government will pay the benefits for Social Security and other programs and collect the taxes required by laws in place.
you're not your ;-P
Ah!
So then how is there cohesion between all the different commitees? Does the House majority leader then craft the general idea of where the budget will go?
hmmm...not sure...
That might really be the biggest problem leading to the constant deficit! If there's no one sitting there with a calculator, you don't know when you need to stop spending!
I was just about to say, "There isn't!" to your question about how is there cohesion, Kimberly. ;)
I'm learning so much! Sad that it took me so long to want to though... apathy and frustration about the politicians, I guess, and those people I mentioned before acting like anybody thinking differently than them is "crazy" -- really turned me off to politics, because I felt attacked all the time! Plus, it all seems so overwhelming; maybe the system needs to be changed so that it isn't so overwhelming & a bit simpler;) (But I know I'm still guilty for all my apathy, inaction, ignorance, etc., etc. -- sorry)
chelley you should look up http://www.votesmart.org It is truly non-partisan and full of great information!
Hey, Kimberly, I just watched a debate on CTV! (well, online:) And I got to see the 5 candidates. They were saying more than our candidates do, that's for sure! (at least in the part that I saw -- I didn't see the whole thing) Anyway, re: the guy in the picture, it seemed like they were all attacking him -- I almost liked him just because of that. :))
Chelly! Good job watching foreign politics!!!!!
Josh and I had missed the first part of the debate when it was on and only caught it yesterday. It was interesting that they just said Harper (sweater guy) was the leader of the Conservative party. He is, but the Conservative party is currently our government, making him the Prime Minister (basically like your President.) The others were all attacking him because they want his job!
The actual underdog in the debate was the woman sitting beside him (Elizabeth May) who is the leader of the newest and smallest party (the Green Party) on the national scene. An independent in Parliment (like Congress) joined the Greens right before the election, giving them their first elected member of parliment and turning them into a "viable" party. Even with that, the debate people didn't want to let her have a spot on the debates, but she fought, and Canadians yelled, and she got on.
Interestingly, the Conservatives (the government) had not put out a platform until today, so the other leaders were mostly attacking Harper on what he's done so far. It was very very odd that there had been no platform, especially since advance polling has already started. All the other platforms came out ages ago- which is why the other leaders were very ready with "I will do this..."
Oh- also (just in case you really are interested :) )
Another reason why the other parties were mainly attacking him is because his party alone is on the right side of the Canadian center. Everyone else is on the left (can we say vote-splitting!) There were 2 parties on the right but they joined together because the Liberal Party was always winning a majority after the last right PM made a mess of the economy. So now the right is the government and we've got 4 parties on the left! (Although the Greens have some of the same campaign promises that have traditionally been in the right camp- like an elected Senate.)
Also interesting- the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is not someone I can actually vote for since they only run canidates in Quebec. They are a seperatist party, although they seem to have abandoned that for the time being. Don't ask me why a seperatist party is in the federal government! :) (well it's for regional representation- but the logic is rather flawed in my view- but funny!)
so confusing... ;)
Actually the Conservative's numbers are going down now... I think that their numbers were rising at first (even without explaining their plateform) just because lost of people were mostly happy with the job they were doing so far. But delaying their platform announcement so long did come to hurt them (finally now, on Tuesday!).
Now that the economy is so shaky, however, voters who felt stable with the Conservatives aren't feeling so stable with them anymore (although I have yet to see that the Cnd Conservatives are to fault for the economic instability that is coming from the USA).
The Conservatives have terrible media relations and very bad charisma; their commercials are pathetic; I agree that the kitten commericals are cheesy; but their other ads on radio and tv are even worse. They look like something done by junior high students. The Liberals and NDP have much better ads (still not as impressive as most USA ads, however!)
But I still think the Conservatives will win, because people think they have had fairly good success at getting things done in their 2.5 years in office. And I think they are the safest and best option for the economy overall.
really? In my opinion, they were riding on the management of the Liberals for the decade before they took power. They have started to deregulate the banking system (American style- I'm guessing they would reverse that now) and have brought our surplus from 9 billion a year to just over 1 billion, even taking out the 3 billion buffer zone that was always supposed to stay there in case of economic trouble.
I realize I'm incrediably anti-Conservative and seriously, it's not just because of their platform. (I have voted for them in the past.) It's more because they don't talk to Canadians and have repeatedly gone against their 2006 promises- even that 2nd day after the election! I really didn't care when they eventually put out a platform because I really don't trust them to live up to anything they say. Who knows, maybe they'll abolish abortion after all! :)
Chris- are you enjoying this or just getting frustrated with me..?
There are kitten commercials??!! I've only ever seen the picture.
Here are reasons why people are voting for the Conservative party, as far as Nancy and I can see:
1. They seem the most economically stable party among the 4/5 options:
a. They have proven to be paying down the deficit so far; and plan to keep paying it down as much as they can.
b. They are reducing unneeded government spending for unneeded programs.
c. They aren't proposing drastic changes to the whole economy (like the Liberal "Green Shift" plan that would tax so many companies, possibly create job losses, and probably raise costs of everything.
d. They generally seem intelligent and even-minded when they discuss the economy (they aren't making too big promises; they sound realistic; they are working with the Banks and don't see a need to do a big 'bail out' like in the USA).
2. Lots of people in Nancy's family are not interested in the NDP because they see NDP as too much into "big government spending" and also too much "pro-union," in their opinion.
The only way to pay for such increases in government spending is to raise taxes; and take away tax-cuts for businesses; but that would seem to hurt the economy (and we already pay enough taxes in Canada in many people's opinion).
Also, they also seem too soft on criminal justice issues.
3. Lots of people around us who are voting Conservative have had their opinion much improved about the Green Party, because of Elizabeth May's intelligent explanation of her ideas and increasingly conservative economic ideas. But the Greens still seem very very unproven and unreliable and too much of a sudden, unneeded, radical change. She also supports a radically different "Green Shift" plan, which has too many question marks in most people's minds. And most of their people who are running have little or no credentials. And their proposal to legalize marajauna still makes them sound like too much of an unhealthy fringe group.
So the Conservatives aren't a perfect party, but these are the reasons we see why people are voting for them, instead of other parties.
Whoops, I didn't read your 2 posts before I wrote my last one...
No, I'm not frustrated at all... I'm enjoying thinking in typed words about these things...
Responding to your comment: I actually don't vote conservative because of abortion or homosexual issues. I don't think those issues can be changed these days, apart from a vast change in public thinking at the grassroots level (masses of people becoming biblical Christians).
My priorities in considering who to vote for in government include: economy, criminal justice, environment (in that order); the gay/abortion issues are only like a final tiebreaker in my view, when comparing parties.
Regarding trustability... what broken promises are you specifically refering to?
When they allowed the Liberal MP to become a Conservative 2 days after the last election, that was not a broken promise. Yes they complained when Belinda did it to them (just before the election), but Harper specifically said, before he was elected, that he would not change the rules, its part of the system of our government.
Regarding the fixed election date... I'm under the understanding that there was still a technicality that allowed them to call the election this time. And the GG still had to approve it. But if it was a broken rule or broken promise, it seems rather minor to me. I'm still more interested in looking at overall positions of the parties (and I know that no party will fulfill all of its promises; c'est la vie).
I'm not wanting to totally defend the conservatives. I don't think they are a perfect party. I also wish they would communicate better with the media. And I wish they would totally get rid of Maxim Bernier and probably others. (But other parties have their problems with particular people also.)
I do think that the Conservatives are the worst party regarding public image and communication, but they haven't done anything so bad (yet!) to make me think they have "a big hidden agenda" like people were saying before the last election.
I think we were fortunate not to have them in power when the Iraq war started (or else we would have been stuck there too); I think the conservatives can (and need to) learn from what deregulation did in the USA. But I do think that they have so far avoided big problems in these areas.
Are there other broken promises you are thinking about?
I'm enjoying this too!
That is so interesting that Nancy's family is anti-NDP since everybody but you has had a union job.
The NDP are not planning on raising corporate taxes beyond where they were under John Chretien- they're just planning on canceling the promised Conservative corporate tax cuts. So in other words, there would be no change, and we would still have some of the lowest corporate tax rates of G8 countries- including the US.
Perhaps "broken promises" was the wrong term to use. No, Harper hasn't directly broken promises except in the income trust issue. However, he did take in Emerson, and he appointed an unelected cabinet member (who he put in the Senate) after claiming that they would be an ethical party that supported Senate reform. It wasn't a promise as much as creating a deliberate perception. The same thing with the election debate- why did they bother to pass the law if they were going to use a tiny loophole to render it completely ineffective?
Have the Conservatives said anything about deregulation in the economy and if they're planning on changing their policies in that regard?
I think my priorities in government are as follows: poverty in Canada, poverty around the world, dipolmacy around the world, health care, economy, environment.
I live in the camp that criminal justice issues are best met at the source- which is (in my view) often poverty and unstable families.
I TOTALLY agree with you that none of the parties are perfect, and are really quite far from it!
I do think that elections are just the time for change- especially when it becomes clear that what has been happening in the world is not working too well. Change can only happen if you vote for it!
I would disagree that the Conservatives were a "practiced" party at the last election- in fact, I would have placed them as less practiced than the NDP at that time. Before the past 2 years, very few people in the Conservative party had been part of any government- because of the total collapse under Kim Campbell. At least the NDP have some provincial government members in their team. At any rate, I agree that the Greens are a little too green :) to form a government- I would like to see them have a few more members in Parliment though.
sorry if everyone got 3 versions of that last comment! My brain was working a bit slower than my fingers!
looks like things are getting interesting in Canada politics! sheesh, it's like a reality show -- drama, drama, drama! ;)
Bah! I'm so excited! I wasn't sure anyone wanted to talk about things anymore! I just did the silliest happy dance around the room! :)
I'll start a new question! :)
Kimberly, that's actually 4 new questions. :P
(glad I could help -- although I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute to the new questions; we'll see;)
Post a Comment