en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1619079 Comments by Phil_King http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/looking-north-ii/#IDComment150400106 Sorry, but the whole accusation, if you can call it that really, was lame from the start and continues to be lame. It's bizarre and irrational. It's simply a round about way of suggesting he's not patriotic. That he doesn't "care" about his country, and is merely seeking power or money while exhibiting his ignorance. It's a mean spirited and baseless attack, and everytime I see something like this, no matter who it's aimed at, I'm disgusted. But what bothers me the most is the willingness of political parties to use what is essentially subliminal messaging to alter public opinion. Human beings have a large portion of their brains dedicated to facial recognition. Project enough negative facial shots of an individual, and eventually you're going to end up with some sort of pavlovian conditioning. 24/7 messaging is a great way to do that. It should be banned outside election periods. I suppose somehow I just expect better of ourselves in this day and age, but at the heart of it, we're still a terribly irrational species, organizing in clans for emotional safety and comfort. Mon, 9 May 2011 20:29:30 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/looking-north-ii/#IDComment150400106 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150393953 LOL Mon, 9 May 2011 20:03:59 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150393953 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150391983 Gee, and here I was thinking how much I loved the fact that this comment site was less busy but more full of intelligent commentary. Weird eh? Mon, 9 May 2011 19:56:44 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150391983 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150391510 "...It kinda feels like you just showed up at our village, announced the great plans you have to improve the village by taking it all down and rebuilding it on higher and more stable ground, and oh, by the way, the bulldozers will be here in a few hours..." Channelling "Hitch Hiker's Guide to Galaxy" to some degree eh? Didn't you know the plans for this change has been on display at the Alpha Centauri office for six months now? LOL Mon, 9 May 2011 19:54:50 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/09/ch-ch-changes/#IDComment150391510 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/thats-kind-of-the-sentiment-were-getting-at#IDComment150388951 Wow, bitter much? Allow me to paraphrase your comment: "I don't like what you have to say Andrew, so I hope you burn in hell" Nice. Real nice. Sheesh. Mon, 9 May 2011 19:43:21 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/thats-kind-of-the-sentiment-were-getting-at#IDComment150388951 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/thats-kind-of-the-sentiment-were-getting-at#IDComment150323003 My concern is that not only have we justified negative tactics and anti-democratic behaviour by electing a conservative majority in this election, and thus propogating more of the same, but that it represents just how little regard people have for Canadian democracy at all. As though we simply CAN'T expect any better, and thus have given up hoping for better. And while I recognize that people voted in large numbers for the NDP based on their positive messaging, it drove enough people to vote FOR Harper that he actually got a majority. 40% is a significant number of voters for a single party to gain in a five way split afterall, and unless the NDP suddenly moves further right, or unless another competitive party rises closer to the center, you're looking at multiple conservative majorities in the future. Mon, 9 May 2011 14:57:55 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/thats-kind-of-the-sentiment-were-getting-at#IDComment150323003 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149558910 Depends on who you ask I suppose, but you only have the choices you have right? Preference is one thing, options another. I lived through the Harris years, and while many were flabergasted that he got a second term, he had provided fairly good government and people didn't see a solid/stable alternative. Ontarians just want government that works and isn't in their face too much. Not too far left or right and given that option, they take it. That's why so many Ontarians, previously wary of Harper and thinking the Liberals provided solid/stable/not in your face governing, were so suddenly moved when it looked like any coalition would have Jack at its head. The Liberals seemed to have ceased to be an option. IMO of course. Fri, 6 May 2011 19:41:22 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149558910 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149527172 Check your junkmail inbox? Fri, 6 May 2011 17:13:28 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149527172 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149526215 I wouldn't rule out a return of the Liberal Party, especially if they finally get off their rears and start rebuilding. The lack of focus on them for a few years is probably a plus. In fact sometimes I wonder if this minority situation didn't seriously contribute their decaying state. If Harper had won a majority earlier, they could've counted on a few years of down time, instead of having to focus on the next possible election and putting up the pretense of being ready for it. To me that explains their obsession with finding "the right leader" more than any other single factor. They didn't want to risk looking weak, which they were, and the time they should've spent rebuilding was wasted, undermining them further. That said, they've still got the machinery of a national alternative, the branding in the minds of Canadians and a few years to work it out. The only thing left is to hope the NDP can't climb the incredibly steep learning curve they're facing over the next couple years and there's hope for Liberals on that score too, given that the NDP is the only opposition. All the focus is going to be on them, at a time when they need to learn and grow stronger too. Fri, 6 May 2011 17:08:58 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149526215 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149524024 One has to ask though, how much more polarized could things get compared to the past five years? If anything, in their search for the majority center vote, both parties are likely to get less polarized than they've been. That said, I have serious doubts about the NDP ever moving right enough to win a majority. They're fightning 50 years of their own history as heavy spending socialists after all, and were barely able to run 308 candidates, the quality of which is certainly wanting. They're going to face intense scrutiny as the only viable opposition, while most of their MPs are from Quebec, so they're going to have to seriously change their issue focus to reflect that. That's a steep bloody learning curve if I ever saw one, and Quebec voters are not very forgiving. They've got this one term to get it right in my opinion. Fri, 6 May 2011 16:59:09 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149524024 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149523232 And the rightwing would say they were fairly leftwing with a few feints to the right. Thus the center. LOL Fri, 6 May 2011 16:55:38 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149523232 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149522671 For once I can honestly say we completely and utterly agree with no caveats. The majority of Canadians are centrists, and speaking from the perspective of my own province Ontario: We like our governments boring, thank you very much. Do a good job and otherwise don't make me think about you too much. After all, I may eat sausages every sunday morning, but I sure as hell don't want to see how they're made! LOL Fri, 6 May 2011 16:53:16 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/will-canadian-politics-turn-more-polarized/#IDComment149522671 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149518862 Harper has a great opportunity here, but he has to be careful. Ontarians have proven over the years both provincially and federally that they prefer their governments boring. Yes that's right: boring. A bit of nonsense here or there doesn't move them in great numbers and they almost eschew idealogical bandwagons, as witnessed by the 3D center split this election where as many voters ran from Jack as ran to him. Don't give them too much reason to pay attention and you can get elected over and over. Delve too much into the wings however, and they're likely to toss you and go for the next most boring party they can find. LOL Fri, 6 May 2011 16:36:24 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149518862 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149514822 It's likely true that we are looking at CPC majorities over the next decade. After all, there is no alternative anymore, with the only other healthy party being a hollow leftwing shell poorly prepared for the scrutiny that comes with being official opposition, let alone government. The NDP has one hell of a learning curve ahead of them and I suspect they really wish now that they had spent more time focusing on the quality of their candidates. Clearly though, running 308 was a stretch for them. In this country, if you can't capture a sizable portion of the center, you don't form government. That's where the single largest group of voters sit afterall, and from my perspective so-called fiscal conservatives sit on the right edge of that center. You need them to form government. But what happens when you're back to a two party system, and the surviving opposition has 50 years of history as tax and spend socialists? You have a one party state, that's what. Fri, 6 May 2011 16:18:02 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/a-new-power-couple/#IDComment149514822 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/back-to-school-ii/#IDComment149488555 I can't help but think that if he's been more himself and told the LPC bigwigs to go hang, he would've done a lot better as leader. Based on the articles and comments I'm reading on this site, it seems a lot of people share that persepective. Fri, 6 May 2011 14:24:08 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/back-to-school-ii/#IDComment149488555 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/back-to-school-ii/#IDComment149487757 Agreed. I never thought he was a great politician, but I always thought he was a good man. Now of course politics is politics, but the past two years must have been a brutal ego beating. I really wish we had a little more sophistication in our politics, like say the British. Even when they're tearing each other to pieces, at least they're polite about it. And let's face it, the British parliament makes ours look like reccess in a primary school playground. It's bloody embarrassing on all sides. Fri, 6 May 2011 14:20:40 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/back-to-school-ii/#IDComment149487757 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/04/a-personal-reflection-on-the-ignatieff-era#IDComment149479641 Perhaps a simplified example will clarify my point: 20 voters support Party A. They are lower middle class and can only donate $10, so the party has a $200 budget for advertising. 10 voters support Party B. They are upper middle class and can donate $100. The resulting budget is $1000. The two parties must now attract the remaining 70 voters. Who do you think has the greater power to do so? Is it really democratic that the richer yet smaller group can mount so much more of a campaign? And consider: During election time the media pays a lot of attention to all the parties, and the election period is only six weeks, so ask yourself: How much more influence is given Party B if it can use its war chest 24/7 all year around to grab attention when the media isn't as active? Fri, 6 May 2011 13:43:07 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/04/a-personal-reflection-on-the-ignatieff-era#IDComment149479641 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/what-just-happened-v/#IDComment149238947 Yeah it's amazing isn't it? How the party with the most votes wins? Crazy stuff that. LOL Too bad that has nothing to do with vote splitting, or she may have actually had a point or somethin'. Thu, 5 May 2011 20:09:30 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/what-just-happened-v/#IDComment149238947 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/what-just-happened-v/#IDComment149236105 Doesn't seem so to me. My understanding is that she's suggesting the vote split essentially didn't happen. That there was merely movement one way or another. I'm saying that it was 3D split, wherein both the NDP rise in support AND the perception of that rise, drove voters to either join the rise, or resist it by voting CPC, both leading to abandonment of the LPC position. Perhaps the main the difference is what we attribute to causing the shift. She seems to think Liberal voters were "converted" whereas it seems clear to me they were running like hell from Jack. LOL Thu, 5 May 2011 19:55:00 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/what-just-happened-v/#IDComment149236105 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/from-the-archive-the-secret-plot-to-destroy-the-liberals/#IDComment149232412 Oh Ha ha. My point is that the NDP history and branding is so entrenched that it practically precludes them from gaining the fiscally conservative vote unless they completely change the nature of their party. And without that vote they can't win government, let alone win a majority. Unless the Liberals rebuild or another party fills its shoes, we no longer have an alternative government party that can garner fiscal conservative votes. We've essentially moved to a one party state with an eternal opposition party for quite some time to come. Jokes about "arrogance" can only take you so far. At some point we're going to need to replace this government for one reason or another. You want that party to be the NDP? I'm more comfortable with Harper, and I can't stand the guy. Thu, 5 May 2011 19:38:45 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/05/from-the-archive-the-secret-plot-to-destroy-the-liberals/#IDComment149232412