A War on Knowledge is anathema not only to the basic tenets of western democracy but to the bedstone principles of human civilization itself. And for what? To save a few bucks? To push through policies and run contrary to reality? The venality is just breathtaking.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:28 AM on September 19, 2015 [14 favorites]

Everyone I've ever talked to who was affiliated with statscan in some way is furious about the elimination of the long-form census -- it is just a disaster on all fronts for data-informed public policy, as well as accurate projection in all sorts of domains. (E.g. everyone seems to think that the NDP victory in Alberta wouldn't have been a surprise at all if they'd had current data from it.) Of course, one of Harper's other "innovations" seems to have been suppression of government employees making public political statements -- for that matter, blocking flow of information out of the government altogether.
posted by advil at 9:34 AM on September 19, 2015 [7 favorites]

New party slogan:

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada: The venality is just breathtaking.

posted by Fizz at 9:35 AM on September 19, 2015 [11 favorites]

Knowledge is power, and the less you have of either, the happier the Harper Conservatives are.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:35 AM on September 19, 2015 [11 favorites]

Not that the US is much better in this regard, the Republican Party is working hard to lobotomize the nonpartisan organs of government that provide decades of institutional knowledge in governing (e.g. The CBO), because they call nonsense on the GOP's bullshit budget and policy claims. Then they term limit out the legislators, leaving a bunch of know-nothing rubes who are easy prey to the draft legislation prepared by ALEC and K Street and the like.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:36 AM on September 19, 2015 [7 favorites]

Eliminating the long-form census supposedly because it was a threat to citizens' privacy and then passing Bill C-51 is just...I don't know how you even come close to reconciling that if you're a Conservative voter. And yet, roughly a third of the voting public still wants these lunatics in office. I still think they're going to win a minority.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:40 AM on September 19, 2015 [15 favorites]

I still think they're going to win a minority.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but I can't imagine the liberals and NDP not working something out in such a case. If they let Harper run the show for another couple years when they have the political power to do something about it, they must know that this will piss of their voting base tremendously. More specifically, since it's apparently the Liberals who are in principle against this, it would be political suicide for them to be seen as enablers of more Harper.
posted by Alex404 at 9:46 AM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

We really do not need to bring the USA into the discussion, thanks.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:47 AM on September 19, 2015 [7 favorites]

We really do not need to bring the USA into the discussion, thanks.

I don't know. It makes me feel better about Canada knowing it's not just us, but everyone in the English speaking world (French Canada gets a pass on this one) who's gone off their rockers.
posted by Alex404 at 9:49 AM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

Macleans magazine is usually very pro Harper conservative. I don't know how this article slipped by the editors.
posted by dougzilla at 9:50 AM on September 19, 2015

I've already emailed my NDP MP, as well as the Liberal candidate in my riding, to let them know that if either party props up Harper after the election if he wins a minority I will never, ever donate time or money to them again.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:53 AM on September 19, 2015 [8 favorites]

Yeah, it's not as though Cameron and Abbott (ha ha!) aren't also massive shitstains in this department. Odd that the US would be the outlier so far as the ruling party is concerned.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:55 AM on September 19, 2015

We really do not need to bring the USA into the discussion, thanks.

We really do, since the "right wing" aspects of the USA is the model for much of the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour.
posted by Zedcaster at 10:09 AM on September 19, 2015 [6 favorites]

I should do the same, The Card Cheat. We're a pretty solid NDP riding, but would have gone PC in 2008 if the Liberals here had gotten their act together a little more.
posted by ODiV at 10:18 AM on September 19, 2015

I have a growing fear of a crushing NDP victory followed swiftly by the Harper chickens coming home to roost. The current government has gone to such extreme lengths to conceal things from the public and done such an effective job of eviscerating the public service then shaping its remnants to political ends. I fear that this means that the current economic state—with its stagnant wages and productivity plus precarious dependence on cratering resource prices and a massive housing bubble—is in even worse shape than the public knows.

Even if this fear proves to be unfounded, the killing of the long form census will still impair the ability to target social services, which can only cause harm in the long run.

But my primary fear remains that Tom Mulcair will end up being the Federal Bob Rae: heir to a terrible situation that he gets blamed for, despite dealing with it in a generally humane and intelligent way. I fear that the next government will inherit a basically non-functional civil service that they will have to rebuild with a budget constrained by enormous cyclical deficits that will be laid at the feet of the NDP, with the dissemblers pointing to the latest 'surplus' generated by creative accounting and literally clawing back money previously earmarked for things like processing Syrian refugee claims (sorry Aylan Kurdi, the government needed that money for electioneering, better luck next time).

Let me tell you, the press establishment that all fell lockstep behind Stephen Harper (if you need proof, check out this list of endorsements from 2011), those same cretinous Bay Street toadies will feel no shame in stringing up an NDP government faced with the prospect of deficits sufficient to push debt-to-GDP up several percent a year, the dollar falling to 50¢ US and 15% unemployment. Sure, that situation is far from guaranteed, but if it happens, I can fucking guarantee that the inane conventional wisdom of this idiot nation will be that NDP 'socialism' is what took us there.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:22 AM on September 19, 2015 [25 favorites]

Bob Rae was the best Ontario Premier in my lifetime.

I don't know. It makes me feel better about Canada knowing it's not just us, but everyone in the English speaking world (French Canada gets a pass on this one) who's gone off their rockers.

French Canada is too busy going off their rocker with xenophobia and racism. One Bloc Quebequois seems to say that if you vote Mulcair, you're voting for oil pipelines that turn into niqabs.
posted by jb at 10:32 AM on September 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

As for the data thing: I've worked on research on periods that predate an official census. So much is lost.

Harper is (quite literally) returning Canada to the Dark (aka we have no records) Ages.
posted by jb at 10:33 AM on September 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

The NDP is being really weird about the niqab issue. (The Bloc is just categorically against them, as are the Conservatives.)
posted by jeather at 10:37 AM on September 19, 2015

French Canada is too busy going off their rocker with xenophobia and racism. One Bloc Quebequois seems to say that if you vote Mulcair, you're voting for oil pipelines that turn into niqabs.

On the plus side, the polls seems to show that the pure laine xenophobes are a dwindling influence in Quebec. The PQ had that strategy blow up in their face and if current polls are to believed, the NDP are on the verge of extinguishing their federal counterparts for the foreseeable future. At this point it looks like the Bloc will be extremely lucky to retain even a single seat.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:40 AM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

>I still think they're going to win a minority.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but I can't imagine the liberals and NDP not working something out in such a case.

A likely scenario is that the Conservatives will be invited to form a minority government. Harper said he would step down if he didn't receive a majority, so perhaps Kenney or more likely a weaker member of the remaining front bench will head up the govt, as I imagine Kenney is going to try to make a run for the top job.

The Con minority govt will be defeated on its first supply bill, and then the Libs and the NDP will form a govt with an agreement to support supply bills and so (ie, not a formal coalition).
posted by Nevin at 10:47 AM on September 19, 2015

The NDP is being really weird about the niqab issue.

This also makes me think about something else the Harper government is really good at: distractions. Let me say upfront that the issue of civil liberties and religious garb/symbols is an important issue and it does impact many different people but I often feel that the Harper/Conservative government uses these issues to distract from other things that they're quietly working on.

Things that this article point to: how data is collected/reported. These more seemingly mundane issues that aren't as head-line worthy or "sexy". The media is far more likely to lead with a ban on the niqab and then bury a smaller story about the closing of a library or a policy on statistics reporting. Its terrifying in how clever and efficient this tactic is. The Conservative Party is a well-oiled machine.
posted by Fizz at 10:49 AM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

Progressive Conservative Party of Canada: The venality is just breathtaking.

It's just called the Conservative Party now. The Reform Party (aka Canadian Alliance, i.e. an alliance of the Reform Party with ...itself) ate the Progressive Conservative Party back in 2003.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:05 AM on September 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

Harper said he would step down if he didn't receive a majority,

I don't think Harper said he would step down if he didn't win (unless he said it more recently), he just said he wouldn't search for a coalition (because he can't get one).

Its terrifying in how clever and efficient this tactic is. The Conservative Party is a well-oiled machine.

There are a few hints, here and there, that they are falling apart a bit. And really, dumping the long form census (which is horrible, but also I have nothing else to say about it) was about the only thing they did about destruction of data that got any amount of headline.
posted by jeather at 11:09 AM on September 19, 2015

> There are a few hints, here and there, that they are falling apart a bit.

Others have pointed out here that as the U.S. goes, Canada often follows, and the merger of the Reform and PC Parties is just as awkward in many ways as the Republican Party's combination of social issue voters and big money interests, a model that seems to be bursting at the seams these days.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the Harper Conservatives once Harper leaves. He pretty much *is* the party.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:16 AM on September 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's just called the Conservative Party now.

Ah, I knew that, just an old habit.
posted by Fizz at 11:17 AM on September 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

>Progressive Conservative Party of Canada: The venality is just breathtaking.

It's just called the Conservative Party now.

Yeah, there is a huge difference between the PC's and the Harper Conservatives. Former PC Prime Minister Joe Clark is campaigning for the Greens now. Jean Charest, a former PC minister who was on track to lead the (much-diminished party) became the Liberal premier of Quebec, and was Mulcair's old boss.

A ton of former PC heavyweights, including most recently Pat Carney, have spoken out against Harper.
posted by Nevin at 11:49 AM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Whoops, I also said PC in my previous comment. Force of habit, I guess!
posted by ODiV at 12:37 PM on September 19, 2015

...bunch of know-nothing rubes who are easy prey to the draft legislation prepared by ALEC and K Street and the like.

I see them as tools of the same Neoliberal movement. In Canada, it's the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party, in the US it's parts (some? all?) of the Rebublican Party and organizations like ALEC, Heartland, Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute. Some of whom funnel money to the Fraser Institute* and its ilk here in Canada, and all of whom espouse the same free-market propaganda. Not the same way - they pick their audiences carefully, and here they're much more focused on "policy improvements", and "building democracy". We're measuring school performance, for example, because we know people are interested in how their money is being spent, and "tax freedom day" because, you know, the Conservatives are the only ones that align with this report our experts wrote about how corrupt and wasteful the Canadian Public Service is ("Unions!" "Gollum!").

*Fraser is connected to The Manning Centre for Democracy, the Canada West Foundation, and the Calgary School of Public Policy/Economics, which is essentially the organization Stephen Harper graduated from, and which was initially created/run by his mentor Tom Flanagan. All these groups have direct and personnel connections to both the provincial and federal conservative parties. Some of them have connections to the US organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Do I need to mention Harper's membership in the The Christian and Missionary Alliance, one of the large Evangelical churches in Canada and the US? (I don't know how big it is by US standards.)
posted by sneebler at 12:39 PM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

I have a growing fear of a crushing NDP victory followed swiftly by the Harper chickens coming home to roost.

In my more conspiracy-minded moments, I thing the Cons know full well that the ship is about to sink, and are deliberately throwing the election so as to ensure the NDP or Liberals take the fall. This will utterly annihilate the party for all time, allowing the Cons to sweep the next election and forever maintain power.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:45 PM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

I knew a tiny bit of the data destruction from Canadian science friends - but reading that article - the extent of this - it's appalling.

I left Ottawa around 1983 to seek my fortune in New York City, and I attribute a great deal of any subsequent success I might have had to a high-quality and extremely affordable education I got from Carleton University, Glebe Collegiate Institute (now sadly just Glebe High School) and a few other schools. I remember Canada as a prosperous, relaxed, tolerant country that sustained its weaker members - and look at what it has become, how did Canadians allow this to happen? No one can tell me.

(And they did the same thing in Australia, where most of my family lives. Why? I'm not looking for an answer, I'm simply lamenting...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:48 PM on September 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

> In my more conspiracy-minded moments, I thing the Cons know full well that the ship is about to sink, and are deliberately throwing the election so as to ensure the NDP or Liberals take the fall. This will utterly annihilate the party for all time, allowing the Cons to sweep the next election and forever maintain power.

The problem with that theory is that it involves Stephen Harper voluntarily giving up power, something I don't think he'd ever do.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:57 PM on September 19, 2015

I have a growing fear of a crushing NDP victory followed swiftly by the Harper chickens coming home to roost.

It doesn't matter what shape Canada is in. The biggest threat to any NDP government is the press. Destroying the NDP is like a game to them.

That, and an NDP victory is usually a protest vote so, by definition, things have already gone to shit once they come to power.
posted by klanawa at 1:55 PM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

I don't care who wins, as long as Harper loses.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:16 PM on September 19, 2015

And possibly tried for treason.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:16 PM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

This isn't that surprising to me; I live on a sailboat in Lake Ontario, and on hot days in the summer like to go for a swim to cool off. I used to check the water temperature off the nearest weather buoy to get a sense whether it was actually worth heading out to swim. Of course all the weather-buoys have been offline for years now (or at least not putting their data anywhere that a lowly citizen like myself could find it). I can only assume that's because temperature data might hinder climate change denial. Thank god the NOAA still operates a couple of buoys in the lake (and provides surface temperature maps and other such neat things).
posted by kiwano at 2:27 PM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

Harper has a graduate degree in social science so he knows exactly what he's doing and the value of the census.

So all it is is craven playing to his base. His goal has always been to appeal to the 30% or so of hardcore Canadians via wedge issues enough that they will turn out monolithically. It's worked well for him to be honest, buts craven and gross and straight out of Karl Rove. The census is his same sex marriage issue like Bush used in 2004.
posted by Rumple at 2:40 PM on September 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Conservatives love to channel ISIS.
posted by telstar at 2:50 PM on September 19, 2015

Except killing the long form census serves no political purpose. It serves his policy agenda by preventing the provision of services to disadvantaged groups.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:51 PM on September 19, 2015

I remember Canada as a prosperous, relaxed, tolerant country that sustained its weaker members - and look at what it has become

Quite honestly, I find the "look at what Canada has become" refrain kind of overblown.

You mentioned you graduated from uni in 1983. A few years earlier my parents nearly lost their house due to a massive interest rake hike (12%) and the fact that they were leveraged against my father's fledgling mechanical contracting business.

Unemployment in Canada in 1983 would have been about 10%, and a lot of jobs were tied to fishing, forestry and mining.

Gender equality in the workplace was just a concept, not a a prerogative for society, and it would have been startling to see female bus drivers, firefighters and even police officers.

While the 1980's eventually became a boomtime, and Mulroney effectively governed to the left of Justin Trudeau's platform today, by the early 1990's we were in a full-blown recession that took years and years and years to recover from.

I graduated from university in 1994 and had to leave Canada just to find a job. At the time you had to submit a resume just to get a goddamn line cook job.

Canada is more affluent now than it was back in 1983 and 1993. I don't know what the rest of the country is like, but here in Victoria (which I had to leave back in 93 as it was still a govt and tourist town) there are a ton of jobs in industries that didn't even exist back then.

The problems with Alberta's oil-based economy and Ontario's manufacturing-based economy are structural, not political.

Harper has very few levers to pull. How can either Ontario or Alberta resist the massive capital influx that came in to invest in the now-defunct auto sector, or the struggling oil patch?

I even question "Canada's tarnished reputation abroad" meme.

I have lived and worked abroad, and have worked in the realm of international trade policy.

Despite what Canadians think, Canada as a brand equals Niagara Falls, the Rocky Mountains and ice hockey. There is very little brand recognition outside of that, except for perhaps being sanctimonious, or, now, being weirdly anti-Putin or pro-Israel (although everyone agrees it's all about domestic politics).

I just don't think Canada is *worse off* than it was 30 years ago in the era of 10% unemployment and 12% interest rates.

The problems we do have are unaddressed in this election campaign:

20% of children live in poverty in this country. That's one in five children.

Or the shocking, horrific, chronic violence committed against aboriginal women.

Totally ignored.
posted by Nevin at 3:25 PM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

A War on Knowledge is anathema not only to the basic tenets of western democracy but to the bedstone principles of human civilization itself. And for what? To save a few bucks? To push through policies and run contrary to reality? The venality is just breathtaking.

Why? Because if you gut historic data and hamper people who collect, analyse and produce reports on said data, you will be ...

leotrotsky: leaving a bunch of know-nothing rubes who are easy prey to the draft legislation prepared by ALEC and K Street and the like.

Plus you can pick and choose the reality that gets out.

And that's a big win for Big Businesses of all sorts. Democracy of the dollar (and/or any local currency) at its finest, which actually sounds a good bit like current-day China. Huh.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:32 PM on September 19, 2015

Except killing the long form census serves no political purpose.

It does serve a purpose: it's red meat for his small-government base. He has, and has never had, any desire to create a broad consensus on anything. I agree it makes policy implementation easier but the political benefit is clear enough.

Nevin - I hear you but if you move the posts to 1980 or to 1986 it looks a little bit different. Child poverty is or should be #1 issue; it's a subset of poverty and social inequality of course. Even relatively affluent Victoria admits 1 in 7 households is food insecure. I have no idea who has the answers because as you say none of them are talking about. Harper has had his chance though, so not him.
posted by Rumple at 3:34 PM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

how did Canadians allow this to happen? No one can tell me.

Donald Gutstein would like to give it a try: Not a Conspiracy Theory - How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy [Amazon link]

Except killing the long form census serves no political purpose.

But it serves Harper's purpose, which is to discourage people who might want to "commit sociology". It's shallow anti-intellectualism masquerading as government, and you don't have to look any farther than Pierre Poilievre to find out where we're headed.
posted by sneebler at 4:09 PM on September 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

I just don't think Canada is *worse off* than it was 30 years ago in the era of 10% unemployment and 12% interest rates.

And you know this because........?

It's the point of the MacLeans article, we really don't know for sure anymore because of the immense damage done to statistical resource gathering by Harper's government.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 4:09 PM on September 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

In my more conspiracy-minded moments, I thing the Cons know full well that the ship is about to sink, and are deliberately throwing the election so as to ensure the NDP or Liberals take the fall. This will utterly annihilate the party for all time, allowing the Cons to sweep the next election and forever maintain power.

But that wouldn't work. The only hope the Tories have of maintaining any kind of power is by keeping the non-Con vote roughly split between the NDP and the Liberals, and slipping up the middle to get that sweet sweet FPTP in as many ridings as possible. Annihilating one of their opponents means that the other one gets 60% of the vote. I wish they were that dumb, but they haven't demonstrated any kind of suicidal urge in the last decade.

Their only other option is artificially reducing Liberal and NDP GOTV rates. The horrifying Fair Elections Act is certainly a stab in that direction, but I doubt they're counting on it.
posted by figurant at 4:43 PM on September 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

More than anything else Harper had done to fundamentally change the nature of Canadian government, this makes my heart truly ache. It's a travesty and I am truly ashamed this is what my country has become.

If you feel the same way, I sure hope you're getting out and helping during this election.
posted by dry white toast at 8:33 PM on September 19, 2015

>I just don't think Canada is *worse off* than it was 30 years ago in the era of 10% unemployment and 12% interest rates.

And you know this because........?

Sorry, I should have more clear that I believe killing the long form census was bad, and basically throwing out data is something close to a crime.

So now that I have firmly established that I am being politically correct (to your standards, that is), how do I know?

Because the Canadian census is not the only source of demographic information out there, ffs. Are you unfamiliar, for example, with the great work done by the TD Bank research unit into demographics (including poverty etc etc?)

If you have never heard of it, and many other publications and sources of research, I suggest you check them out.

How do I know that things are "better" now?

Interest rates are lower (good for people who already own a home, that is). Relative COL is certainly higher. Wages are likely stagnant.

The Census is just one data source (but a significant one). Judging by how muddy BC Stats can be sometimes, it's clear you have to triangulate from different sources to get a clear picture of how things are.

But don't tell me that just because I happened to have experienced something (it was terrifying as a child to hear that we might lose our house because of high interest rates combined with a recession that makes 2009 look like a slight hangover) that I am somehow unable to see patterns.

We all have brains, you know.
posted by Nevin at 5:53 PM on September 20, 2015

yes but we're getting away from the main point, which is: fuck Harper and the mangy horse he rode in on.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:36 PM on September 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

I don't know. Harper has his set of issues, but I worry that we focus too much of our interest on him and miss a lot of the stuff that's going on in the background. Here's an example (I know I'm HARPing on the Neoliberal agenda, but this stuff makes me crazy):

Today Elizabeth May and the Green Party are raising a legal challenge against the organization funding the next national leader's debate. This is to be the "Munk Leader's Debate" on Sept. 28, and will feature Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair, but not Ms. May. Their reasoning is that the Aurea Foundation can't exclude the leader of a national party because that would demonstrate partisanship on the part of a charity who must avoid political advocacy under tax laws.

At the end of the article, we find this nugget:

"The Aurea Foundation, with assets of almost $16 million, reported no political activities in its most-recent filing with the CRA last year. It helped fund a group of largely conservative think-tanks, including the Fraser Institute, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and the Montreal Economic Institute."

These are exactly the organizations I mentioned above as having close ties to the groups who trained Stephen Harper and built the political machinery that brought him to power. So here's a foundation that "reported no political activities" funding three determinedly right wing organizations, all of whom are charities that specialize in conservative public policy advocacy, although they say things like "We produce research about government actions in areas that deeply affect Canadians¡¯ quality of life", which is different from how they used to portray themselves: "The Fraser Institute focuses on the role competitive markets play in providing for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians and as an international forum for policy ideas."

The Aurea Foundation's about page says, "The Aurea Foundation gives special attention to the investigation of issues related to the political and economic foundations of freedom, the strengthening of the free market system, the protection and enhancement of democratic values, human rights and human dignity, and the role of responsible citizenship."

Woah, I can feel my markets loosening right up. Please note that I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be for free free freedom, markets or democratic values. My concern is that there's an identifiable set of think tanks who are spending big money to promote their corporate/business agenda at the expense of public transparency and democratic values.
posted by sneebler at 9:39 PM on September 20, 2015 [6 favorites]

I just noticed that the Munk Debates and the Aurea Foundation are the work of Peter Munk, founding chairman of Barrick Gold Corporation, the world¡¯s largest gold producer. It's not like he's a Koch Brother or anything, but he's certainly a favourite at the Fraser Institute, who awarded Barrick Gold chairman Peter Munk its T.P. Boyle Founder's Award at a gala dinner in Toronto in 2010.
posted by sneebler at 10:03 PM on September 20, 2015 [4 favorites]

> Harper has his set of issues, but I worry that we focus too much of our interest on him and miss a lot of the stuff that's going on in the background.

The older I get, the more I notice how easy it seems to be for neo-liberal talking points to spread in our society. Virtually any counter-narrative has to scrape and claw for any traction in the public mind's eye, and even if it does gain a foothold it can and often does disappear very easily. Meanwhile, anything that big business thinks is probably a good idea spreads like a wildfire that never burns out. Anyway, none of this is news, but it's really dispiriting.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:45 AM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

One of Philip Mirowski's points is that the "Neoliberal collective" is organized and very well funded, and over the last 90 years they've carefully planned and created these think tanks to influence public policy all over the world, while "the left" still believes they can succeed by winning elections.
posted by sneebler at 7:18 AM on September 21, 2015 [3 favorites]

I hope the Greens win in court, but I'm sure it is a very long shot. It is pretty awful that we let an organization with very clear political agenda host a debate like this.

Legally, though, the definition of political activity for charities under the income tax act is very different from a common sense definition of political activity. It may be quite correct that Aurea has not done any political activity from a legal standpoint. Now, that law sucks and the way it is being used against environmental groups is disgusting, but that's were it stands.

The issue the Greens are raising is about Aurea being partisan, which is legally a totally separate issue. Charities can't be partisan at all.

Unfortunately, what it comes down to is, as always, money. You have the money, you can make yourself heard a whole lot more than the other guy.
posted by ssg at 8:43 AM on September 21, 2015

I hope the Greens win in court, but I also hope Mulcair and Trudeau (and May) ditch that "debate," 'cause man oh man is that some bullshit.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:48 AM on September 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Of course Trudeau and Mulcair won't back away from the debate, because then Harper will accuse them of being big fraidy cats and running away scared. That they didn't do the same when Harper refused to participate in the consortium debate means nothing, and really ticked me off. I wanted to see them hammer him for his refusal to participate in an accessible, open arena.
posted by sardonyx at 10:31 AM on September 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mulcair and Trudeau are both treating Harper with kid gloves; I feel like they should really be constantly hammering on the fact that his administration's awfulness is really unprecedented in Canadian political history, but no. No doubt they've done their market research and concluded that "going negative" might cost them votes, but it plays into Harper's "I'm just a harmless, kindly old dad who likes the Beatles" persona.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:12 AM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's all tactical at this point. Mulcair doesn't want May in the debate, because the NDP doesn't want people voting for the Greens (which they see as reducing their own vote). He's focused on making it Mulcair versus Harper and trying to make everything else seem irrelevant. That's why he announced he wouldn't participate in any debate Harper didn't, essentially giving Harper veto power over all debates. Might make tactical sense for the NDP, but crappy for informed democracy in Canada.

Trudeau supports May being in the debates publicly because the Libs think the Greens will take votes away from the NDP, which will help the Libs in some ridings. They also think it will make Justin look better to Green-aligned voters who might vote Liberal strategically.

If only we could have some kind of electoral cooperation, even just in a few dozen key ridings, we could easily be rid of the Cons, but of course, the NDP and the Libs are more interested in winning than in doing the right thing.
posted by ssg at 11:58 AM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

> If only we could have some kind of electoral cooperation, even just in a few dozen key ridings, we could easily be rid of the Cons

Between the refusal of the NDP and Liberals to cooperate in this way, the new voter suppression laws and a little judiciously-applied election day chicanery that I fully expect to occur, I still see the Cons eking out a minority. And once that happens they'll pull out every procedural trick they can to remain in power while the other two parties bicker for position and ultimately fold the way they did in 2008.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:12 PM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Of course it's tactical on behalf of all the parties. It's also depressing as hell and leads to voters becoming more and more cynical about politicians and elections. Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's just the informed caring voters that this stuff bothers. I guess for the large portion of the population that doesn't vote this is all just background noise.
posted by sardonyx at 12:36 PM on September 21, 2015

Those informed, caring voters are willing to plug their noses and vote for this crap, over and over and over - so it doesn't make a difference at all. Maybe for a few people, but it sure feels like this election is entirely about voting against Harper for a lot of people and they don't really seem to care who they are voting for.

Our local NDP candidate doesn't even really say much other than to trumpet the get rid of Harper line and the strategic voting line.

On the other hand, there is so little difference between the NDP and the Liberals that it really doesn't really matter. Why run on policy when you're better off running on personality and anger against Harper? It's the basest form of democracy possible.

How can we possibly have real policy discussions about important issues (like climate change) when policy isn't a real part of the discussion at the only time when Canadian can actually change policy?
posted by ssg at 2:10 PM on September 21, 2015

How can we possibly have real policy discussions about important issues (like climate change) when policy isn't a real part of the discussion at the only time when Canadian can actually change policy?

There's a reason for that. Why do you think the Tories wanted to get rid of the long form census? Or silence scientists? Audit the hell out of charities? Or label lawful activists as terrorists? Harper & his cronies have stifled those conversations as a part of their strategy so that they can define the narrative. So until they are out of the picture we cannot have a policy discussion on anything that actually matters. I understand the frustration but there are very few options available to us.
posted by Ashwagandha at 4:00 PM on September 21, 2015 [2 favorites]

Really, we can't have policy discussions because the long form census is gone? Because scientists are silenced? I get it, those things are awful, and in the long term, they degrade civil society, but to suggest that we can't even have policy discussion because Harper has done these things is ridiculous. That's pretty classic letting them win, right there. Should we all just give up? I understand the impulse, but that's just sad.

Yeah, Harper is definitely not campaigning on policy. Why does that mean the NDP or Liberals can't discuss policy? Does it mean we can't have a real discussion about climate change? Does it mean we can't have a real discussion about poverty? Does it mean we can't have a real discussion about Canada's place in the world?

Of course not! But sadly, the NDP and the Liberals have decided they'd be better off campaigning on not being Harper than on anything substantive. And the really sad thing is that we'll all vote for them and thus encourage the same BS next time.

Not to mention that if all we are willing to campaign on is personality and vague thoughts on relatively minor issues, we have absolutely no way of stopping the next Harper. We just end up in the same endless back and forth, where we all vote against whatever we don't like, but never actually for anything. That's what modern Canadian politics has become, two sides voting against the other side, over and over.
posted by ssg at 7:09 PM on September 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

suggest that we can't even have policy discussion because Harper has done these things is ridiculous.

Sorry but yes. Those acts I described aren't why we can¡¯t have a deeper discussion on policy but a part of the strategy that the Tories use to derail the conversation. How do you create policy about poverty when just about all the statistics are taken away? How do you have a conversation on the homeless when the aid agencies are afraid to speak up because they could have their funding cut by an antagonistic government? Any attempt at a policy conversation regardless how minor in the previous elections has shown us that it does nothing but divides, frustrates and alienates progressives.

Ssg I¡¯m not disagreeing with you and I do respect your opinion. Trust me I¡¯d much rather have conversations about policy that could make our country a better place rather than, I don¡¯t know, talking about the F35s for instance. The problem is we have a powerful party with deep pockets who actively doesn¡¯t want us to have a conversation about things that matter. A party that has been very open about changing Canada in ways that are very negative for a great many of us. If Harper wins a majority or a strong minority this will continue. As progressive voters we have a choice to make. Focus on the policies that are not being discussed and give up or get rid of the impediment that prevents us from having the discussions in the first place by voting and mobilizing others to vote.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:56 AM on September 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

Well, this progressive finds that the lack of policy discussion is what divides, frustrates, and alienates me, and I'm not the only one.

How can we get people excited and interested in politics if all we can offer is not being Harper? How can we mobilize voters in the long term by telling them their most important job is to vote against someone. It isn't just this time. This is the dominant theme of most elections now. In my 15 years of voting nationally and federally, every single time I've been told that I need to vote strategically, that I need to vote against someone, that now isn't the time to discuss policy.

We've been selling this story to left-leaning voters that somehow if we all just vote against the right together, we'll be ushered into some new age where the bad guys are gone and we can finally make real changes. It ain't going to happen. Even when the sort-of-left-leaning party does win, not a whole lot changes and then we end up in the same situation at the next election, with everyone being told we need to vote for the same party to make sure the bad guys don't get in.

I think progressives are losing in this country. The discourse has shifted to the right in many ways. We've failed to provide a real alternative. We've failed to excite people with real policy. We've failed to give people anything to vote for, only against. I think it's time to make some changes, start offering some real alternatives, and start changing the discourse. Otherwise, we just look like a bunch of whiners complaining that Harper is so mean.
posted by ssg at 12:40 PM on September 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

You're not going to get what you're looking for during an election. Not from any party. Politics in Canada doesn't work like that anymore. Maybe you will get hints of it but overall you're not gonna get it. It sucks but there it is. Nobody wants to even attempt a grand vision for the country anymore because we've spent the last 9 long years being bombarded by the politics of division and drifting right. Look what happened to Dion and Ignatieff.

There are many ridings where strategic voting will make a difference. In some of my local ridings the conservatives won by a few thousand votes or less. Around 30% of young voters voted in the 2011 election so if that increased to say even 60% it could have easily changed my riding. I recognise that is not doable in some ridings so you need to make your voice is heard to your MP. Make it known that you don't want them to side with the government on some things.

If you have a better solution other than voting to get the bums out I'm all ears. Again I recognise it is frustrating but what can we do? I think our options are very limited.
posted by Ashwagandha at 2:30 PM on September 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

How about voting for what you actually believe in? Because you can vote strategically, and it just might work in some very rare cases (although the research on the subject shows that it only very rarely does work), but if you vote strategically you are encouraging more of the same. You are quite literally casting your vote for running against someone instead of running on policy. Do you think the people you vote for won't take note and do more of the same next time? How do you think we ended up with the NDP campaign that we have today?

If you vote for what you believe in, you stand up and tell everyone else in the country, in your own small way, what you want Canada to be. If you don't vote for what you believe in, how can you possibly complain when you get a government that you don't believe in?
posted by ssg at 9:03 PM on September 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

How about voting for what you actually believe in?

like the 3000 plus people who voted Green in the riding I'm currently in, in the last provincial election ... and the BC Liberals (Conservative by any other name) won the riding by around a thousand votes. As one friend who voted Green put it, "I voted my conscience and a guy that hates the environment won. Now that's on my conscience."

Parliamentary democracy and its first-past-the-post system of voting is inherently flawed. The NDP have promised the change this if elected. That alone gets my vote. Because then I can in good conscience vote my conscience.
posted by philip-random at 9:18 PM on September 22, 2015 [2 favorites]

Ok all you data-loving-election-following-mefites-of-Canada... the undergrads at the University of Victoria are really on this issue.

Tomorrow night Sept 23 they are hosting an all candidate forum on Science and Technology hosted by CBC Quirks and Quarks' own Bob McDonald.

Not in Victoria BC? It will be livestreamed.

Of course no CON will be there (so far) but the candidates for NDP, Green and LIB have all confirmed.
posted by chapps at 9:32 PM on September 22, 2015

Also because they are young and oh so nimble with the social media, they are also encouraging live tweeting with the hashtag #SciTechDebate so you can help elevate the debate to national visibility by doing that.
posted by chapps at 9:34 PM on September 22, 2015

like the 3000 plus people who voted Green in the riding I'm currently in, in the last provincial election ... and the BC Liberals (Conservative by any other name) won the riding by around a thousand votes.

Even if someone had managed to convince a full half of the Green voters to vote "strategically" for the NDP in the last BC election, that still would have only resulted in a tie. Maybe the problem is not that people vote their conscience, but that the NDP really offered absolutely nothing other than not being the Liberals. Maybe they'd do better if they had actually given anyone a reason to vote for them. There are certain parallels to the current situation.

Not to mention that the Greens have been more than willing to cooperate with the NDP electorally, but have been rebuffed again and again. The NDP could have won a majority by cooperating, but they chose not to take that path.

The NDP have promised the change this if elected.

I really, really hope that we can finally be rid of first past the post in Canada. The NDP haven't exactly promised to get rid of it though. They have promised to study and consult and then table legislation. Not quite the same thing. I really hope they would, but maybe we've learned our lesson from the Liberals in BC who campaigned on electoral reform and then suddenly became much less interested once they won a majority. You also have to wonder why the NDP is so dead-set against electoral cooperation when they surely know that they'd have a very hard time winning a majority in a proportional system.
posted by ssg at 10:19 PM on September 22, 2015 [1 favorite]

but maybe we've learned our lesson from the Liberals in BC who campaigned on electoral reform and then suddenly became much less interested once they won a majority

I learned everything I needed to from the BCLiberals long before they ever won an election. They're basically Socreds, except the the Socreds made such a mess of things with Bill Vanderzalm that they had to steal the the name from another party.

Please don't forward such leaky equivalencies.
posted by philip-random at 12:10 AM on September 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

Politics in Canada doesn't work like that anymore.

Agreed. We've entered the phase of permanent electioneering, where the Conservative brand is promoted not only by the government itself, but by a network of business-supported think tanks 12/365. It's worth noting that all the major papers in Canada are now "middle-of-the-road" Conservative (Globe & Male) or frank free-market boosters (National Post, Sun and a bunch of regional dailies all owned by Postmedia). The Conservative Party has an election budget that's many times the size of all the other parties together. (Supposedly - the story's still new) today CBC announced a major sell-off of land and facilities; ham-stringing the CBC has clearly been the goal of Canadian conservatives organizations for the last decade.

Where do we go from here? The only consistent message I see out there is the stream of anti-Harper invective, which many commenters have pointed out is counter-productive. There are other positions, but they require some knowledge of politics and history, while the anti-Harper stuff plays right into the politics of division and the CPC's strategists' tune.
posted by sneebler at 7:28 AM on September 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Please don't forward such leaky equivalencies.

I'm not making any kind of statement about the politics of the BC Liberals. I'm just pointing out that parties that campaign on electoral reform tend to not be so hot on electoral reform once they actually win and providing an example where exactly that happened. You can say that's because the BC Liberals are baddies, but I don't think it's that simple.

If Canada's three non-CPC parties got together to cooperate electorally with the goal of bringing about electoral reform, I'd be doing what I could to help whoever my local candidate was. But if the Libs and NDP would rather play winner takes all and make mealy-mouthed promises about electoral reform, I don't think I'm crazy to be suspicious.
posted by ssg at 8:03 AM on September 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Where do we go from here?

Much depends on what happens in this election, but I really encourage everyone who is supporting the NDP or the Libs this election to actually become party members and try to change those parties from the inside. Support the movements inside the Liberal Party and the NDP for electoral cooperation with the aim of electoral reform. Support better policies.

If you want to be a strategic voter, go all in on strategy and become a strategic party member.
posted by ssg at 8:09 AM on September 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

I don't think I'm crazy to be suspicious.

absolutely not, it's crazy to not be at least slightly suspicious of every politician.

But I'm pretty much always going to take issue with statements that fall into equivalency territory. Yeah, all the parties lie but some do it way more often, way more destructively than others. And the BC Liberals are particularly pernicious because they are effectively not a liberal party. As I suggested, they have a Big Lie built right into their DNA.
posted by philip-random at 10:15 AM on September 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yes, first past the post is a big part of our problem. I'm more than willing to change it if done correctly and carefully. I'd hate to have something worse!

The way I look at this election is if we get rid of Harper, that is to say remove his Tories from power, I think there is a good chance he'll step down as leader of the party. If he steps down those waiting in the wings are of a very different style. For instance I can't see Jason Kenney getting all Nixonian. So we'll likely see a decent period of time where they will be flailing around and have the Reform nuts might get more brazen and alienating.

As for BC politics, while every region has its nuances, even on the best of days BC is pretty nuts provincially and federally.
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:57 AM on September 23, 2015

Anyone else watch the french debate? I watched with the CBC translator (the Trudeau smooth talker was creeping me out!)

Glad to hear my top issue get back in there (c51).
posted by chapps at 10:45 PM on September 24, 2015

AND a whole section on democracy! I could have some more of that debate, please!
posted by chapps at 10:45 PM on September 24, 2015

I am getting very pessimistic about this election. The Lizard of Oz has riled up Canada's simmering racism. Harper could very well end up with a government again. And he is going to use the niqab as an excuse to use the Notwithstanding Clause, and Quebec will be in full support of that. And then he's going to use it to force in all the shitty stupid laws he's been trying to pass for the past decade. And when he's done, we won't recognize this country any more. Fucker. Goddamn hateful shitstain of a human.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:00 PM on September 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

Five fresh fish, I hear you! The Bloc ad is frighteningly xenophobic ... not saying it didn't exist before, but to have it so publicly, proudly proclaimed.
posted by chapps at 10:16 PM on September 25, 2015

Watched most of the first French debate, will watch the foreign affairs and the second French debate but honestly, I'm not expecting either of them to really make a difference nationally.

At this point I'm weighing my voting options. There is an impressively bad group of candidates running locally. I'm barely getting a "competent" vibe from any of them. In the past, I've avoided strategic voting and just voted for the best local person, which has meant my vote usually winds up going to somebody with no chance of winning a seat. This time around, I'm considering voting for the non-Conservative party most likely to win, even though that candidate is the weakest one of a weak bunch.
posted by sardonyx at 8:34 AM on September 28, 2015 [2 favorites]

Debate-wise this was the best outing of the bunch. At least the candidates looked and sounded as if they were actually alive, and not just Disney dead president robots spouting the same old cliches time and time again. I don't think there was a clear winner. All of the parties supporters can say their leaders did what needed to be done, but given that status quo, I'm guessing it sets up Harper for another victory (even though it's likely that only a tiny fraction of the voting population watched the debate).

I didn't even bother attempting to follow May on twitter, as last time it was nothing but posted videos, and I'm not going to play one video over another, especially as I wasn't watching it alone. I would be willing to cope with text via twitter, but not video.
posted by sardonyx at 8:03 PM on September 28, 2015

For anyone considering voting strategically, here are a couple links which should help with your decision:

http://www.votetogether.ca

and Eric Grenier on his website has a list of projections by riding:
http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:51 AM on September 29, 2015

Please also talk to people in the know in your riding. In 2008 we were labelled as safely NDP on these sites and the advice given was to vote your conscience, but the Conservative candidate was very well known and had strong ties to the community. As I said above, if the Liberals had done a little bit better, he would have been elected.
posted by ODiV at 11:00 AM on September 29, 2015

It's nice to have the experts back up what my read is on my local riding. The party I'd consider voting for--the one with the worst local candidate--is in the best position of the opposition parties to win, but the local PC MP is likely to be going back to Ottawa. Well, I mean it's not nice-nice, but it does mean I've got a pretty good handle what's going on around here. Even when I'm right, I can't win.
posted by sardonyx at 11:09 AM on September 29, 2015

Thanks for that votetogether.ca link. Unremitting horror was all I found there:

"Based on past results, we have decided to focus on defeating Conservatives in other ridings where the results are likely to be closer and Conservatives have a better chance of winning because of voting splitting between the opposition parties."

Our riding was part of a three(?)-way split to allow the Harper Conservatives to create another Conservative-friendly riding in Calgary, safest of the western cities. According to the "revised" counts for the new riding, the CPC candidate got slightly less than 70% of the vote. They could run a cardboard cutout of Rob Ford, Dean del Mastro or Rob Anders here and they would win by a landslide. Instead they chose to skimp on cardboard and run Michelle Rempel, who's like a tiny cute clone of Harper himself.
posted by sneebler at 4:40 PM on September 29, 2015