| MadTheSwine73 31.12.2011 00:11 |
Hi everyone. Yes, this is another political thread. No one yell at me, I'm just trying to get people's opinions on things. This time I'm asking this; Who were the best Prime Ministers Canada never had? They had to be party leaders, at some point. Here's my list: 1.Sir John Alexander Macdonald (Conservative) 2.***Edward Blake (Liberal) 3.Alexander Mackenzie (Liberal) 4.Sir John Abbot (Conservative) 5.Sir John Thompson (Conservative) 6.Sir Mackenzie Bowell (Conservative) 7.Sir Charles Tupper (Conservative) 8.Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Liberal) 9.Sir Robert Borden (Conservative) 10.Arthur Meighen (Conservative) 11.William Lyon Mackenzie King (Liberal) 12.Richard Bedford Bennett (Conservative) 13.Louis St. Laurent (Liberal) 14.John Diefenbaker (Conservative) 15.***Tommy Douglas (New Democrat) 16.Lester Bowels Pearson (Liberal) 17.***Réal Caouette (Social Credit) 18.Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal) 19.***Robert Stanfield (Conservative) 20.***David Lewis (New Democrat) 21.Joe Clark (Conservative) 22.John Turner (Liberal) 23.***Ed Broadbent (New Democrat) 24.Brian Mulroney (Conservative) 25.Kim Campbell (Conservative) 26.Jean Chrétien (Liberal) 27.***Jean Charest (Conservative) 28.***Lucien Bouchard (Conservative) 29.***Preston Manning (Reform) 30.Paul Martin (Liberal) 31.Stephen Harper (Conservative) 32.***Jack Layton (New Democrat) 33.***Gilles Duceppe (New Democrat) As for Duceppe and Bouchard, well, I know they were separatists (or still are), but Lulu was part of the PCs before he crossed the floor, and the Bloc is basically the NDP, just remove the separation and focus on Quebec. Let's just pretend the Bloc never existed. Sure some of this wouldn't make sense, but hey, it's just a survey. |
| mooghead 31.12.2011 04:24 |
Didnt you just ask this not so long ago? |
| tcc 31.12.2011 09:04 |
See: link |
| MadTheSwine73 31.12.2011 09:56 |
No, I asked who was the best. Now I'm asking who we didn't have that could have been great. |
| The Real Wizard 01.01.2012 13:31 |
It's kind of a silly list to begin with, because over a dozen of them were prime minister at some point. No contest, the best PM Canada never had was Jack Layton. Many conservatives will even tell you that. Only Trudeau matched his charisma and love for his country. Layton would have loosened the corporate/American stranglehold on our political process, moved us closer to the Nordic model that has thrived in northern Europe, and raised the corporate tax rate to balance the budget. He would've built the country from the bottom up instead of trickling down. Everything Layton put his hands on was progressive, practical, and most importantly, had the average Canadian citizen in mind. He was truly a needle in a haystack of politicians. A close second is Tommy Douglas. Although he was never PM, even as a third party he gave the country our greatest gift - universal health care. And please fix the typo that suggests Gilles Duceppe was a New Democrat. Thankfully this separatist is now unemployed (although his politics weren't all bad). |
| mooghead 01.01.2012 14:48 |
Captain Kirk |
| MadTheSwine73 01.01.2012 23:17 |
Sir GH/ Real Wizard/ Bob: To begin with, I put in all 22 prime ministers, so obviously most of them already had the post. As for the best, I agree with you when you say that Jack would have been the best PM we never had. I've only met 2 people that said that they wouldn't want him as PM. One a right-wing extremist, and one a left-wing extremist. Not too surprisingly, the lefty was a Liberal. I personally am still a little undecided as to where I stand on the line of politics, but I can tell you that I think that "The Right Honourable Jack Layton" would be a good title for him. As for Tommy Douglas, personally, I think he is an absolute must, since, like you mentioned, he was the father of Canadian Medicare. About Gilley from the Bloc, well, the only reason I put him as a New Democrat was because the Bloc is basically a Quebec version of the NDP. I'll eemove it if it really bothers you. Mooghead: Yes, Bill would be awesome, but the economy would plummet faster than a two ton ball from one mm off the ground. |
| MadTheSwine73 01.01.2012 23:33 |
By the way, thanks to the both of you for answering on both of the "political" threads I have posted so far. Your satire and wisdom both give me knowledge. |
| GratefulFan 03.01.2012 11:36 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: As for the best, I agree with you when you say that Jack would have been the best PM we never had. I've only met 2 people that said that they wouldn't want him as PM. One a right-wing extremist, and one a left-wing extremist. Not too surprisingly, the lefty was a Liberal. I personally am still a little undecided as to where I stand on the line of politics, but I can tell you that I think that "The Right Honourable Jack Layton" would be a good title for him. ================================== Pffft. Career politician who could yammer on about whatever knowing his policies and promises would never, ever be put to any real test at a federal level. Put a total neophyte in charge so he could smoothly reclaim the reins of power if he survived his illness, which he was well less than forthcoming about to say the least. Now the NDP's fortunes are predictably falling in Quebec where they posted all their gains in the first place, and neither opposition party has a permanent leader or a clear direction with which to effectively stand up to the bully government we have. The media still goes to Bob Rae for opposition comment event though the NDP is the official opposition. LOL All utterly predictable, just like every political speech Jack Layton ever made. How ironic that the traditional third party so important to the conscience of the country and the political system may have been the one to put a bullet in the three party system through their own brand of hubris and political greed. Micheal Ignatieff who somewhat inexplicably didn't even make your list (and perhaps somewhat more explicably neither did Stephane Dion) had an excellent piece in the G & M last week. |
| MadTheSwine73 03.01.2012 11:48 |
Ignatieff as PM? Sure, he's smart, but I'd never want to see that. As for Dion, well, personally, I like him, and I think he would have done a good job as PM, but the reason he didn't make the list is... You know what, I think I might have just skipped it. Oops! I'll add him in when I get the chance :) As for Layton, I would have only wanted him as PM under a minority government. The NDP support is fading here in Quebec; if for some reason a by-election is to be taken place, I'm sure another Bloc seat would get it. Pity, but I'm sure Gilles is loving it. I just now realized that I only had one Liberal added to the list. I'm going to now re-do it, with insight from you two, and maybe Moog. |
| MadTheSwine73 03.01.2012 11:52 |
I just want to remind you all that I'm only 14, so who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll become a right-wing conservative, and the day after, a left-wing extremist New Democrat. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 14:03 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: About Gilley from the Bloc, well, the only reason I put him as a New Democrat was because the Bloc is basically a Quebec version of the NDP. I'll eemove it if it really bothers you. ==================== I personally don't have any stake in the outcome, so feel free to say whatever you'd like. But for the sake of accuracy, the distinction needs to be made because they are two completely different parties. They both lean to the left, but that's where the similarities end. The Bloc only ran candidates in one province, so nothing they did acted in the interest of the rest of the country. And I use past tense because the Bloc doesn't even have official party status anymore. They're now irrelevant, and thank goodness. The one truly good thing about the last election is that Quebec turned out to be part of Canada after all. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 17:16 |
GratefulFan wrote: >>Pffft. Career politician who could yammer on about whatever knowing his policies and promises would never, ever be put to any real test at a federal level.<< For someone as articulate and level-headed as yourself, I'm really disappointed to hear such baseless partisan drivel coming from you. >>Put a total neophyte in charge so he could smoothly reclaim the reins of power if he survived his illness, which he was well less than forthcoming about to say the least.<< How could he have possibly been more open about it? Show pictures of his ultrasounds? His job was to serve his country, not provide his health records. The list of things Layton accomplished as Toronto councilor and NDP leader is very lengthy. His biggest legislative accomplishment should have been his 2009 environmental bill that would have made Canada a world leader on the subject. After passing through the house (i.e. the people we elect), the largely unelected (i.e. hand-picked by Harper) senate shut it down with no debate. This is the first time such a thing ever happened in the country's history. The liberals and conservatives have sold out our sovereignty to the US over the last 50 years (everything from the recent wheat board deal to NAFTA to the Avro Arrow). Every piece of legislation that goes through our house is run by the white house first. The only chance of this country re-establishing its autonomy is if the NDP get a majority, and stand up to the US to loosen the corporate stranglehold they have on our system. But obviously this won't be any time soon. The average joe isn't ready for social equity, balance of wealth, environmental sustainability and civil political discourse. If Layton's style of politics never thrives in this country, then the people of Canada only have themselves to blame. |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 17:26 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: I just want to remind you all that I'monly 14, so who knows, maybe tomorrow I'll become a right-wing conservative, and the day after, a left-wing extremist New Democrat. ==================== Good on you for wanting to learn. And if I may say so, you still have plenty to learn. First of all, the NDP are no longer left-wing extremists. Maybe they were a decade ago, but Layton moved them closer to the centre. He made the NDP much more accessible, which explains their 67 seat gain in the last election. Their brand of politics is "social democracy," which is centre-left: a mixed market system (both private and public sectors), and a bottom line that consists not only of money, but also social equity and environmental sustainability (the "triple bottom line" as Layton called it). This is the style of politics used in much of Europe - the part that's thriving, anyway. Countries like Austria, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and Finland have had centre-left governments for decades. Most of them are world leaders in the areas of environment and social equity. This is the style of politics that Jack Layton seeked to emulate, but the people of Canada just weren't ready for it. We are still in the fear tactic and attack ad stage, and showing little signs of moving forward. All I can suggest to you is read. Read lots. Read all the different news sources. And talk to people of all stripes. Listen with interest, even if you disagree with them. The one thing you'll come to see is most people have absolutely no clue what they're talking about when it comes to politics. Most people just remember what attack ads say, or propaganda spread by parties that stand much to gain from it. Still, find common ground with people you disagree with instead of pointing out where you differ. It's the best way to reaffirm your own beliefs. Even if you're not from Ontario, this is an excellent place to start - link |
| MadTheSwine73 03.01.2012 19:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Good on you for wanting to learn. And if I may say so, you still have plenty to learn. First of all, the NDP are no longer left-wing extremists. Maybe they were a decade ago, but Layton moved them closer to the centre. He made the NDP much more accessible, which explains their 67 seat gain in the last election. Their brand of politics is "social democracy," which is centre-left: a mixed market system (both private and public sectors), and a bottom line that consists not only of money, but also social equity and environmental sustainability (the "triple bottom line" as Layton called it). This is the style of politics used in much of Europe - the part that's thriving, anyway. Countries like Austria, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and Finland have had centre-left governments for decades. Most of them are world leaders in the areas of environment and social equity. This is the style of politics that Jack Layton seeked to emulate, but the people of Canada just weren't ready for it. We are still in the fear tactic and attack ad stage, and showing little signs of moving forward. All I can suggest to you is read. Read lots. Read all the different news sources. And talk to people of all stripes. Listen with interest, even if you disagree with them. The one thing you'll come to see is most people have absolutely no clue what they're talking about when it comes to politics. Most people just remember what attack ads say, or propaganda spread by parties that stand much to gain from it. Still, find common ground with people you disagree with instead of pointing out where you differ. It's the best way to reaffirm your own beliefs. Even if you're not from Ontario, this is an excellent place to start - link ===================================================================================================== Thanks for the site dude. I took the test, and no joke, it turns out I'm 64% NDP, 64% Liberal, 48& Green, and 44% Conservative. I always thought I was more right-wing than I was left. Also, thanks fort the support about finding politics interesting! |
| The Real Wizard 03.01.2012 23:32 |
No problem man. Enjoy your lifelong search for truth and fairness. I didn't think you were a conservative. Most conservatives don't seek answers - they think they've already got them. Here's some more essential reading: link |
| GratefulFan 04.01.2012 15:21 |
Bob, you know, I hope, that I generally enjoy your posts and appreciate sharing this little corner of the internet with you. That said, you referring to anything anybody says as 'partisan drivel' is a bit like Brian May calling people blinkered and opinionated. You don't know whether to laugh or cry. A level head is precisely what one needs to see through the absolute folly of the St. Jack meme. It's truly, truly absurd. It doesn't take away from his accomplishments to acknowledge that he was as much canny political animal as all of them, and more so than some of them. That the NDP was as responsible for the muck racking and general decline of political discourse as anybody else. That there is NOTHING different about their politics other than the fact that they can play the sunny optimists because they've never governed federally and had to deal with having their policies stand up to economic reality. I live in a largely blue collar lunch bucket town and I see first hand the divisive class baiting rhetoric of the NDP that happens all the time outside of the spot light. It's barely related to reality. Bob Rae had to deal with reality, and he's a Liberal now. Speaks volumes about the fact that while the NDP is an incredibly important force in Canadian politics and an incredibly important force in some of the bests parts of our Canadian identity, they just can't pay the bill for their policies at this point. Despite the rightward drift of all the national parties in the last two decades, they have not yet substantively moved past their traditional role as hard left (in a relative sense) agitators and social conscience. It's theatre as often as it's anything else. The sponsor of C-311 pledged to reintroduce it as often as it took to become law. Well, that bill that was supposed to pick up where Kyoto left off (nowhere, you'll notice - how embarassing) in 2012 is not going to become law anytime in the next few years. Nobody benefits from the spectre of NDP theatre further politicizing an issue that has been politicized to the point of complete obfuscation by just about everybody just about everywhere. Sadly, the economy boogeymen have won this round. Stop posturing in Question Period and organize something at the grass roots for individuals. That's where little changes will make a big difference. Despite your recent slam of the US over consumption in another thread there is no list on which Canada appears after the US on per capita consumption of oil. We're worse, consistently worse, have been for years, and are doing little on a grand scale individual basis to change that. And yes, too, Layton lied to the country about his health. Baldly, by both omission and commission. I talked once about talking to Adam Lambert on my TV all by myself in a dark room, telling him to get his hands off Brian May. I had an oddly similar outburst directed at Jack Layton as I watched him bob and weave and dissemble like a true master politician about his mysterious hip fracture to a reporter on CBC back in the early spring of 2011. What Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein called 'non-denial denials' in the Watergate era. I would have bet my house, and still would, that what he had was one of the the most common complications of prostate cancer - a critically weakening metastasis to the bones of the hip. So, no, he was not honest about it. An almost certain fact. However that does not imply that I think he was obligated to do anything differently than he did. I recognize on a human level that there would have been remarkable pressure to carry on. A remarkable sense of responsibility to the party, to other cancer victims, and a personal desire to seize the moment. It's easy to understand too how his own hope and faith would have demanded a belief in the future. People fighting cancer have to be optimistic to have any chance at all. Still, there was another path open to him that would have demanded a different kind of courage and one that at least to me would have been honourable in a more enduring way. What he did was ultimately short sighted, and given how gruelling the campaign trail is, could even have cost him months and even years of life. And for what. It's a difficult question to answer honestly, with a level head. But the answer is for not much. Both the CPC and the NDP have lost popular support. Liberals have benefited. Rhetoric meets reality. Happens every time. |
| The Real Wizard 05.01.2012 00:22 |
GratefulFan wrote: Excellent post overall. But there are still a few places where I disagree. >>That the NDP was as responsible for the muck racking and general decline of political discourse as anybody else. That there is NOTHING different about their politics other than the fact that they can play the sunny optimists<< Completely untrue. One example - when the conservatives and liberals talk about "stimulating the job creators" (i.e. corporate tax cuts, and the private sector sits on the money while it outsources the job to the US or the third world), in the last election campaign the NDP suggested an incentive to reward the company AFTER it creates the job here, not before. One of countless examples of how they are more than just rhetoric. Turn on CPAC and watch question period. Conservatives are 99% talking points with no connection to reality, liberals somewhat less so, but NDP members consistently state studies and facts to support their claims and goals. It has hit a point where I can close my eyes and tell which party a member is from based on their demeanour. >>they've never governed federally and had to deal with having their policies stand up to economic reality.<< And that's the biggest myth about the NDP right there. Yes, they haven't governed on the federal level, but on the provincial level (particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan), the NDP have almost always left a surplus. Most people in this country do not know that, and the liberals and conservatives will do everything in their power to ensure it remains that way. The current government spends like drunken sailors, and in five years they have turned a budget surplus into our worst ever deficit. And they want to drop billions on fighter jets and mega-prisons, despite the fact that crime at its lowest rate since 1973? No conservative has left a surplus since 1896. Indeed, the NDP have been the social conscience in the house of commons for the last 50 years, but they have paid their dues and proven that they can lead this country towards the successful Nordic model, and finally loosen up the Americanization of our political system. NDP-style governments rule most of the thriving European countries, and there's no good reason why that style of governance cannot thrive here too. It will never happen under the liberals. They are the conservative party with a different sales pitch - they just appear to move left whenever it's convenient. >>Stop posturing in Question Period and organize something at the grass roots for individuals.<< And that's exactly what Layton did. He is responsible for countless grass roots movements battling for the little guy, many of them successful. >>I would have bet my house, and still would, that what he had was one of the the most common complications of prostate cancer - a critically weakening metastasis to the bones of the hip. So, no, he was not honest about it.<< Err, he did tell the country very openly that he had prostate cancer. I watched the press conference. And every intelligent Canadian knew the bad hip was directly related to the cancer. I didn't think that was any kind of secret. >>What he did was ultimately short sighted, and given how gruelling the campaign trail is, could even have cost him months and even years of life. And for what.<< He gave the NDP 67 more seats. That's what! But was it worth his life? Only he knows. Or knew.. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.01.2012 07:13 |
Bob: Holland had a centre-left government only once in its entire history (the cabinet of PM Den Uyl, 1973-1977). The closest we have come since then was the "purple coalition", which was a centrist government consisting of classical liberals, liberal democrats and democratic socialists, which nevertheless had a 100% free market-agenda. For most of Dutch history since WWII, Christian parties have had a majority of the seats in parliament. Until the last elections, in 2010, the Christian parties and classical liberals combined have always had a majority in parliament. Holland never really had particularly progressive governments, conservative governments were just often forced to take very moderate measures because the people just wouldn't accept anything else. Sadly, since 2001 the climate has dramatically deteriorated. The Social Democratic Party is no longer a serious force, the classical liberal party has endorsed racism as a good election-strategy, the Christian Democrats are bitterly divided between an ultra-conservative and a moderate wing (and, I might add, hopelessly corrupt), and the two parties gaining from this are the two populist factions: the far-right Freedom Party of Geert Wilders (an interesting side-note here is that approximately 30% of their elected officials have a criminal record), and the europhobe Socialist Party. |
| GratefulFan 06.01.2012 18:00 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Completely untrue. One example - when the conservatives and liberals talk about "stimulating the job creators" (i.e. corporate tax cuts, and the private sector sits on the money while it outsources the job to the US or the third world), in the last election campaign the NDP suggested an incentive to reward the company AFTER it creates the job here, not before. One of countless examples of how they are more than just rhetoric .========================================== A perfect and I can only assume unwittingly provided example of exactly what I'm talking about. First, the idea of somehow tying rewards to performance is not new. The Liberals for example campaigned against profligate 'no strings attached corporate tax breaks' themselves as recently as the last election cycle. Regardless, no matter who promotes the idea it's nothing but jejune fluff until you can make it work in the real world. Job creation is a statistic that is generally considered in the aggregate. Business creates jobs not only by direct hiring but by reinvesting money back into equipment or third party services. As we saw through statistics highlighted by the media during the last election cycle, business is not doing much of that right now and they're not doing much hiring either. Those same stats indicated that they're largely sitting on their money in reserves, just like individuals do in uncertain times. Adding layers of government bureaucracy trying to sort out who has done enough to create a job three arm's lengths away and expecting corporations to make long term commitments on short term money at the whim of some government committee or something is problematic to say the least. Canadians do have a right to be annoyed at what could be their money endlessly idling on the bank balances of businesses and corporations (or being given away in large unearned bonuses) and there is little doubt that the Conservatives are ideologically married to the idea of trickle down economics more than they are to results. But it's an extraordinarily complex question tied in part to extraordinarily complex global systems that are largely out of our control, and to find deep significance in any political party's incorporeal and untested idea about withholding incentives (i.e. withholding the ability for a company to have sufficient information to plan) until after they do A, B or C is pie in the sky partisanship at it's most useless. The NDP's deep and reflexive suspicion of business in general sees them consistently fail to differentiate, for their own political gain, the truly predatory capitalism that haunts parts of the system from perfectly healthy profit motives. A big part of why they still make far more Canadians nervous than not. Turn on CPAC and watch question period. Conservatives are 99% talking points with no connection to reality, liberals somewhat less so, but NDP members consistently state studies and facts to support their claims and goals. It has hit a point where I can close my eyes and tell which party a member is from based on their demeanour. ============================================== I do watch Question Period. On demeanor: McMaster U did a study that rated the MPs by their level of civility which included things like rudeness, ad hominem, yelling and the use of anger as a rhetorical device. Most uncivil MP? Jack Layton. Michael Ignatieff was right behind so it's partly a function of what gets rewarded with a nightly news sound bite, but yelling and posturing while holding up graphs and charts (and how easy it is for anybody to tell any story with statistics) is still yelling and posturing. The NDP are no better in general than anybody else and anybody that thinks so genuinely needs to take off their partisan glasses. Question Period has devolved over the last two or three decades into a truly embarrassing farce. It's terrible. Few deserve kudos for anything. Except maybe Justin Trudeau sticking up for an NDP member by spontaneously announcing at the top of his lungs that Peter Kent was a piece of shit. Now that's bipartisanship. Ha ha. No, that was bad too. But funny. And that's the biggest myth about the NDP right there. Yes, they haven't governed on the federal level, but on the provincial level (particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan), the NDP have almost always left a surplus. Most people in this country do not know that, and the liberals and conservatives will do everything in their power to ensure it remains that way. The current government spends like drunken sailors, and in five years they have turned a budget surplus into our worst ever deficit. And they want to drop billions on fighter jets and mega-prisons, despite the fact that crime at its lowest rate since 1973? No conservative has left a surplus since 1896. Indeed, the NDP have been the social conscience in the house of commons for the last 50 years, but they have paid their dues and proven that they can lead this country towards the successful Nordic model, and finally loosen up the Americanization of our political system. NDP-style governments rule most of the thriving European countries, and there's no good reason why that style of governance cannot thrive here too. It will never happen under the liberals. They are the conservative party with a different sales pitch - they just appear to move left whenever it's convenient. =========================================== You'll get no argument out of me about this conservative government. But on your other point there are two things: First, what the NDP did in Saskatchewan et al might be key if the entire country was a giant wheat field with strategically placed hockey rinks and beer stores. Ha ha. I exaggerate. But in all seriousness the population of either one of those entire provinces is smaller than several individual major urban centres in Canada. BOTH provinces combined have less people than just the City of Toronto. Not the GTA - just the City of Toronto. Governing policies in small and less complex cultural and economic systems won't necessarily scale up. What happened when the NDP earned a surprise victory in Ontario - what was then the clear economic engine of the country - still simmers in the memory here nearly a generation later. But second and probably more important is the degree to which autonomous provincial parties who share the national brand in name shift right and left in response to the facts on the ground. I recall the NDP government in BC going on about "layabouts and welfare bums" or something like that around the same time as the Harris revolution in Ontario was doing the same thing. Not exactly your standard NDP platform. In a piece in the Globe and Mail today by Jeffrey Simpson titled "What to like and fear about the NDP" he noted that Brian Topp advocates the "classic social democratic model, largely abandoned in Europe and in provinces where the NDP governs or has governed, but one that apparently remains dear to the hearts of some federal New Democrats." Point being that once NDP actually have power they've found they had to adjust. The federal NDP has never governed, and never had to adjust. It's easy to be widely if largely benignly liked and respected when you've never had to break a promise or answer for your dumb ideas like everybody else has. To hold them up as something special, some great hope, is blinkered and frankly naive. Their influence in important to the country and our collective character, but that's as far as it goes for most people. Far cry from some of the overwrought and demonstrably inaccurate claims about Layton, his record, his substance and his party that have been made here when the subject has come up. |
| GratefulFan 06.01.2012 18:04 |
Err, he did tell the country very openly that he had prostate cancer. I watched the press conference. And every intelligent Canadian knew the bad hip was directly related to the cancer. I didn't think that was any kind of secret. ============================================ That's totally revisionist. Yes, he told the country he had prostate cancer and every single public statement after that was designed to communicate that he was doing great and the treatments had been successful. The doctors were no longer worried. Questions about his hip injury were flat out rebuffed by his organization and his personal responses were avoidant generalities, politician speak and non denial denials. Every intelligent Canadian DID NOT know it was related to his cancer because they chose to believe Layton when he straight up said there was no known medical explanation for the injury. There was no detailed press conference about the "second cancer" - and in what would be funny if the subject wasn't cancer, that's how most people eventually consciously or unconsciously reported it - with those you're-essentially-full-of-shit quotation marks. We don't even know what that cancer was because apparently it would discourage others suffering from it and that's why they wouldn't name it. But that didn't apply to prostate cancer apparently, even when the outcome was unknown, or something. Yeah, okay. Really, it's not inappropriate to use language as strong as cover up. If his chosen course of action was the unambiguous right thing to do it seems to me that nobody would need to lie about it. In the interest of political expediency we've lost an opportunity to have a frank and compassionate national conversation about the line between public and private information with the precious input of Jack's private thoughts, feelings and reasoning as he made his choices before his death. Here is a CTV piece by an oncologist who thinks Layton may have known he likely had a terminal illness since 2010. It's hard to read in it's way because it feels invasive given the subject has lost his life. That illustrates I think how important a different kind of courage from Layton might have been, because every decent human impulse works against a frank and honest assessment of a delicate but really important public issue. http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/Did-prostate-cancer-kill-Jack-Layton.aspx He gave the NDP 67 more seats. That's what! But was it worth his life? Only he knows. Or knew.. ================================================ 10 of which would already have evaporated in Quebec alone if an election were held today based on popular vote shifts since his death. Not unexpected when people in that province made their voting decisions around what was essentially a cult of personality that grew out of watching one televised debate. I wonder if that waitress from Ontario that can't speak French ever did find her way to the Quebec riding she was elected in. |
| MadTheSwine73 06.01.2012 23:20 |
GratefulFan, I respect you, and you bring up several good points. I just have one thing to say; Stop mentioning Michael Ignatieff. Sure, he's extremely smart, but he has no charisma. Put him next to Stephen Harper, and Steve will seem like most charismatic person on earth. He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps. |
| GratefulFan 07.01.2012 19:41 |
1) No. 2) Go to your room! ;) |
| inu-liger 08.01.2012 03:27 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps.I'm sorry, but Stephane Dion already had a MAJOR headstart to that unfortunate honour. Dion was a blundering idiot on many levels. Remember that Carbon Tax idea of his? Ignatieff was much more brilliant and also had MORE charisma than Dion, however he was no Layton either! |
| MadTheSwine73 08.01.2012 11:17 |
inu-liger wrote:MadTheSwine73 wrote: He led the greatest party Canada ever had into the dumps.I'm sorry, but Stephane Dion already had a MAJOR headstart to that unfortunate honour. Dion was a blundering idiot on many levels. Remember that Carbon Tax idea of his? Ignatieff was much more brilliant and also had MORE charisma than Dion, however he was no Layton either! True, but Dion can't be "officially" blamed, since he only brought them down to 77 seats. But you're completely right about everything else. |
| MadTheSwine73 26.07.2012 21:45 |
Well then. It's taken me a little while, but I finally came up with a new list. I did some thinking, maturing, and a little bit more reading, and this is what I've got. I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine. However, I do have some exceptions. Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake as the second PM. Reason: As Macdonald resigned due to the Pacific Scandal, Edward Blake was offered the post, but turned it down due to ill health. Should he have accepted the post, he would have most likley done what his Mackenzie did; call a snap election and get a majority, and then lose in 5 years to John A. Now, as Macdonald died during his last term in office, there were FOUR designated PMs to take his place. I'm removing them all, and pretending that there was a confidence vote in the house instead, and Laurier took over 5 years prior to his first of FOUR consecutive majority governments, therefore giving him 20 years in office. (more normal stuff) The 1925 election gave Meighen's Tories a minority. However, King got support from the third-party Progressives, so he stayed in office. However, due to (I think) the King-Byng affair, Meighen became Prime Minister again, and his government lasted three days before King called a confidence vote, and another election was called. I'm switching those two around, so King still got all his time in office, as did Meighen, just in a different order. Lester B. Pearson/Tommy Douglas (normal-ish) As Pearson never had a majority, he was (un)officially supported by Tommy Douglas' New Democrats. I'm going to go a bit further, to the degree that Douglas actually had power for a while, however only as acting PM while Pearson was not in Parliament or out of the country. Douglas would have never won an election, being the most influential politician in Canadian history to NOT win an election. Now, I'll actually add detail. Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1968-1973) In the unlikely event that Trudeau would have lost a confidence vote in 1973, and the Governor General decided to go to the second party instead of calling an election, Trudeau would have lost, and Robert Stanfield would have won. Robert Stanfield (1973-1974) Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1974-1979) However, Trudeau would have come back to power with a majority, before losing to Clark. Joe Clark (1979-1980) Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1980-1984) Jean Chrétien (1984-1989) In the event that Chrétien should have won the leadership race in 1984, according to his book, "Straight Through The Heart," he would have waited until Parliament expires (I'm not sure if that's the right word), and then called an election in 1985. I think he would have won a majority. Brian Mulroney (1989-1992) Mulroney would have had to win AT LEAST one election. Just by the popularity he had in the 80's, and only then. He would have had a strong minority, with support from Reform. Jean Chrétien (1992-2001) I'm sure Chrétien would not have resigned as leader, so I think he would have won a few more majorities, as he did in the real 1990's. Paul Martin (2001-2006) This time, Chrétien would have resigned earlier, as he did have more time prior to the 90's, and Paul Martin would have taken over sooner. I take it that Martin would have waited about a year, (2002-ish) before calling an election, in which he would have won a majority. Then, the Sponsorship Scandal happened, and lost in 2006, just like in real life, to Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper (2006-2008) However, Harper's government would have been a minority, and would have been defeated by the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition. Stéphane Dion (2008-2011) Dion takes the rest of Harper's term... Jack Layton (2011) ... And Jack Layton and the NDP win a suprising minority government in the 2011 election. However, Jack died later that year, and so in this scenario, I'm sure a confidence vote would have been called, in which case they would have most probably lost, and so guess who's back? Stephen Harper (2011-present) And here we are at our current state. Except in this scenario, they have a minority. However, I'm sure Harper would have called a quick election to win his majority. So here it is, with the repeated terms. John A. Macdonald Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake John A. Macdonald Wilfrid Laurier Robert Borden Arthur Meighen William Lyon Mackenzie King Arthur Meighen William Lyon Mackenzie King R. B. Bennett William Lyon Mackenzie King Louis St. Laurent John Diefenbaker Lester B. Pearson Tommy Douglas (acting) Pierre Trudeau Robert Stanfield Pierre Trudeau Joe Clark Pierre Trudeau Jean Chrétien Brian Mulroney Jean Chrétien Paul Martin Stephen Harper Stéphane Dion Jack Layton Stephen Harper And WITHOUT the repeated terms: 1. John A. Macdonald 2. Alexander Mackenzie OR Edward Blake 3. Wilfrid Laurier 4. Robert Borden 5. Arthur Meighen 6. William Lyon Mackenzie King 7. R. B. Bennett 8. Louis St. Laurent 9. John Diefenbaker 10. Lester B. Pearson 11. Tommy Douglas (acting) 12. Pierre Trudeau 13. Robert Stanfield 14. Joe Clark 15. Jean Chrétien 16. Brian Mulroney 17. Paul Martin 18. Stephen Harper 19. Stéphane Dion 20. Jack Layton ONE LAST THING: The only person I was not able to place in this list was George-Étienne Cartier. If anywhere, he would have been acting PM, as he died before Macdonald did. Anyway, here's the updated list. And for those of you wondering, YES, I have a life. |
| GratefulFan 27.07.2012 09:08 |
It's great that you're interested in politics. Hope you're enjoying your learning. :) You probably at this point have a greater on hand knowledge of Prime Ministerial history than most of us. Now you're all set in a few years to vote in your first election and be annoying at parties. :P |
| MadTheSwine73 27.07.2012 09:27 |
GratefulFan wrote: It's great that you're interested in politics. Hope you're enjoying your learning. :) You probably at this point have a greater on hand knowledge of Prime Ministerial history than most of us. Now you're all set in a few years to vote in your first election and be annoying at parties. :PI am enjoying what I'm reading. Who knew Canadian politics is actually interesting? ;) Can't wait for my first election! It'll either be the 2015 federal election or another election in 2015 (Municipal or Provincial), since I've aged now, as I am currently 15. |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2012 11:40 |
Well done. Indeed, it seems you've learned quite a lot ! The history of Canadian politics is coloured and overall very interesting.
This is the only statement I take exception with:
I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine.I'm not sure what you mean by "fine" ... but look up Diefenbaker and the Avro Arrow, and you will find the beginnings of Canada selling out our sovereignty to the US. |
| MadTheSwine73 27.07.2012 12:09 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Well done. Indeed, it seems you've learned quite a lot ! The history of Canadian politics is coloured and overall very interesting. This is the only statement I take exception with:I determined that the Prime Ministers of Canada before 1963 (Pearson) are fine.I cannot possibly tell you how much I disagree with this. Look up Diefenbaker and the Avro Arrow, and you will find the beginnings of Canada selling out our sovereignty to the US. Ha! I understand. Trust me, I know what Diefenbaker did. The only reason I didn't change that part in history is because it couldn't have happened. Diefenbaker was popular, so his two minorities and majority would not have been changed. Sure, I would have preferred for Pearson to be designated from St. Laurent, but that would have never happened. I'm not really a huge Mulroney fan (don't hate him, don't love him), but I still had to put him in there, as people loved him (at the time) and he was young and charismatic. So in the end, "fine," in this case meant that I don't think any significant changes could have been possible. |