Canadian politics just isn’t that interesting when you compare it to the gong show south of the border. That’s actually a good thing.....aside from Indian fancy dress parades and drug dealers heading up political parties it’s reasonably tame. Unfortunately that also has the side effect of not motivating the 40 characters or more crowd. Provincially exactly how hurt how much of an impact has a Wynn government had on your average millennial? Not as much as on the boomers/tax payers/business owners.
|
|
|
Return of Ford Nation
- Thread starter Baggsy
- Start date
Canadian politics just isn’t that interesting when you compare it to the gong show south of the border. That’s actually a good thing.....aside from Indian fancy dress parades and drug dealers heading up political parties it’s reasonably tame. Unfortunately that also has the side effect of not motivating the 40 characters or more crowd. Provincially exactly how hurt how much of an impact has a Wynn government had on your average millennial? Not as much as on the boomers/tax payers/business owners.
They're going to pay down the road for the excesses of now. The province is carrying a $312-billion dollar debt. Millennials will be paying in the form of reduced services, higher borrowing costs etc when the cost to serve the debt forces cuts elsewhere.
Boomers and today's taxpayers and business owners have it made. For decades Boomers, for example, paid far less than the true cost of electricity (when one factors in the long term costs of stuff like nuclear plant refurbs, transmission and distribution upkeep etc etc) resulting in a massive debt situation that cost todays ratepayers. So it will be with Millennials: the fact that we aren't paying for all the stuff we're buying today means more burden on them later on down the road. Even better, we're all going to be old farts stricken with Alzheimers and Parkinsons and looking for someone to wipe our ***** and spoon feed us jello; they're going to be paying for that too.
These are people that in general don’t look further than what’s going to happen tomorrow let alone in a few years time. The ones that do care do get out and vote but I don’t think it’s the majority at all. They really need to get the message across better to the majority if they want them to bother making a change.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
There are usually more left than right.
Leftist dogma is easier to understand and it's more comforting. Talk about the give, worry about the pay later. Government on a credit card.
Right dogma is often harsh, which only resonates when the left goes sour (like now). It's more technical, harder to understand, and includes pain.
My feeling is a majority of voters don't really understand either. Their votes are won and lost on the candidates charisma and current election topics not on allegiances to ideology.
What i'm hating is the pendulum is swinging further and further away. Each election goes further to the left or further to the right to counterbalance the previous administration/govt in place. And that's how we end up with crazy situations going on in a few places in the world.
Some left social programs with some right financing and we'd have a govt that the majority of the population would be happy with. But it's one extreme or the other these days.
Politicians aren't stupid. If you're on the fringes you aren't going to get elected. What you need to do, is to join a Centrist party, become the leader and then swing it sharply to the left or right.
Some may have too much honour and not do it, but you can't rely on that as a fact.
Some may have too much honour and not do it, but you can't rely on that as a fact.
Define Centrist?
Dr Peterson regards himself a Centrist but look at the crap he has to put up with.
It's a moving target. At one point it may have been, and is still supposed to be the Liberals.
In my view, they're now left of the NDP on many issues.
Does that make the NDP centrist now, even though people won't vote for them?
Since the PC's have moved left as well, and may be left of where the Liberals were originally, are then now centrist?
Maybe I should stick with popular, and parties that people will actually vote for in modestly large numbers?
Kathleen Wynne, the most dangerous woman in Canada.
http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/most-dangerous-woman-in-canada-prof-jordan-peterson-rips-wynne
http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/most-dangerous-woman-in-canada-prof-jordan-peterson-rips-wynne
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I have 3 educated millennials in my house, and dozens coming through on a weekly basis. Here are my observations:
Some have political opinions, few have enough political or civics knowledge to explain or debate them.
They mostly vote with their parents.
Issues get their attention, political affiliations and voting duties mean little.
They are most likely to vote when pulled along by a friend or family member
Some have political opinions, few have enough political or civics knowledge to explain or debate them.
They mostly vote with their parents.
Issues get their attention, political affiliations and voting duties mean little.
They are most likely to vote when pulled along by a friend or family member
I believe they call themselves "classical liberals" now.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
It's find a couple of things quirky in with Canadian political parties:
1) Canadian political parties use ideological terms in their names, but those names don't accurately reflect their ideology. Progressive Conservative are Economic Liberals, Liberals are Social Democrats.
2) Leaders define how far to the right or left the pendulum swings -- not the party. For instance, the Ontario liberals are traditionally close to being Economic Liberals however under Kathleen Wynne their ideology is left of the NDP, Ontario's real social Democrats.
Voters tend to keep their ideology, it's the parties that move the lines. The dumbest of voters never notice the lines moving, they are the base, hard core and often get branded the party bigots (right) or nutbars (left). Once you get the base voters out of the way, the rest are voting on the leader and issues.
1) Canadian political parties use ideological terms in their names, but those names don't accurately reflect their ideology. Progressive Conservative are Economic Liberals, Liberals are Social Democrats.
2) Leaders define how far to the right or left the pendulum swings -- not the party. For instance, the Ontario liberals are traditionally close to being Economic Liberals however under Kathleen Wynne their ideology is left of the NDP, Ontario's real social Democrats.
Voters tend to keep their ideology, it's the parties that move the lines. The dumbest of voters never notice the lines moving, they are the base, hard core and often get branded the party bigots (right) or nutbars (left). Once you get the base voters out of the way, the rest are voting on the leader and issues.
So to sum it all up. Get rid of leaders. Ask a questionnaire that asks your position on certain issues (with each party's position on said issue) and elect that way placing each party's expert in the position where their party won for the issue.
You can still have a minority/majority govt to make decisions but at least the right people will be in the right place.
But we're talking electoral reform and that won't happen soon...or at last until the old guard retires.
I can't believe my vote carries the same weight as these guys
First, one has to figure out IF they are one of them. The basic acid test (see what I did there), when is the last time you voted for a different party... (think for yourself and not just voting the party brand).
Theoretically, the system should weight a vote based on this, if someone keeps voting for the same party election after election then their vote becomes worth less at each election. Of course this would not work for MANY reasons....
Mad Mike
Well-known member
uhhh Nonsense. First, party loyalty doesn't mean one is incapable of voting on the issues, it means they have deeply rooted beliefs in the party doctrine. If you believe in liberal economics, it's very unlikely you will ever vote for a socialist party -- not because you're neanderthal (as you implied).
And what theory are you referencing? One's vote has the same weight every time it is cast, doesn't matter for whom.
Tip: Take a few minutes to 'acid test' yourself. There are a bunch of free quizzes at study.com, if you can't pass chapters 1 and 2, you'll probably embarrass yourself in a political discussion. https://study.com/academy/course/political-science-course.html
The PCs moved left under Brown. I've got a feeling there will be more than a few cases of whiplash under Ford, when they shift back.
|
|
|
|
|