Getting there but not quite. Brilliant NDP ideas like medicare and pensions have taken hold but we need to spend far more on health education and the environment if we are to really join the club of the world's enlightened Social-Democratic states. We need massive child care free or very cheap everywhere. We need to admit people in emergency clinics within minutes of arrival. We need Europen Japanese style super trains betweem Windsor and Quebec City with a spir line to Ottawa. We need to end homelessness.
The next federal election: Does it matter who wins?
- Thread starter moviefan
- Start date
No, it's there. Poli Sci 101. All those areas could use improvement, but we have to deal with 13 other provincial/territorial governments and their areas of responsibilities when doing anything. We are one big country that has geographic problems that the other top countries don't. some of the provnces or ridings are bigger than the countries you mentioned.
But you agree we should do my entire laundry list right now of course. Easy to finance if we get out of Afganistan, stop using prison construction to stimulate the economy, increase taxes on the wealthy a bit. All quite doable. Much of it has a very high ROI built into the spending.
But I'm realistic enough to know it can't be done right now. The politicians don't stay in the workplace long enough and spend too much time and energy huffing and puffing. It's not going to happen soon, let alone right now. As far as A'stan is concerned we're there, said we're going to be there until a given date and that's that. So that money is tied up. Right now our global identity has been badly bruised by Conservative brain cramps and it would nice to be trusted by our allies to the same level as the recent past.
A'stan sounds exctly like "Vietnamization" to us older folks. We were going to train up the corrupt drug running Vietnamese army so they could successfully fight Ho Chi Min. They lasted what one year and the last Americans were clinging to helicopters as the North Viet tanks entered HCM City.
It is the same in A'stan as you call it. We will put many years and billions of dollars into the national army who will fold like a cheap suit within one year of the American departure. People don't seem to realize this is a civil war with the majority Pashtun ethnicity backing the Taliban and the minority Uzbecs and Tajiks backing the government.
Much like Vietnam, there are two choices, the puritanical radical Taliban or the drug running totally corrupt government.
In Vietnam the two choices were the Reds or the drug Gangsters. WTF are we even doing there?
My promise isn't so much to the A'stan government as it is to the Nato allies. A'stan is a snake pit that will never be a success story and mean much except that it's steps away from Pakistan, a nuclear powered snake pit.
We're lucky to have such an accomplished person attempting to make a contribution to our public life. How many of you people reading this drivel have half as much as Ignatieff? Yeah he was born with a bit of a silver spoon in his mouth, but he still did go to Harvard and was a success, then embarked on a TV career in a London, a city with no shortage of talented people from all over the world.
What's Harper done to earn anyone's respect? He's never done anything other than earn a crappy degree in economics at a 30th rate university, then essentially worked in government for most of his career. Wow, I'm impressed.
Actually, I think very few Canadians enter public life to get rich but merely want to serve. My hat (Coors Light baseball cap) off to them.
It varies.
Some, particularly at the federal level, earn more than they have ever earned before, plus they have a generous pension plan.
In terms of our top politicians, though, I would say that's true. Often, the people who aspire to be prime minister are people who have earned more money in their private lives, such as Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.
You're right about BM thje PM, and PM the PM, but JC was enticed into federal politics quite young, and didn't make his private sector money until after his PM stint made him a commodity.
Results of Canadian election if we had Proportional Represention.
Con= 116
Lib=86
NDP=54
BQ=31
Green=21
Canada could have a fantastic government with a Cabinet composed by proportion of Libs NDP and Green cabinet ministers with a Tory opposition and a radically reduced BQ contingent.
Exactly what people voted for.
Con= 116
Lib=86
NDP=54
BQ=31
Green=21
Canada could have a fantastic government with a Cabinet composed by proportion of Libs NDP and Green cabinet ministers with a Tory opposition and a radically reduced BQ contingent.
Exactly what people voted for.
Proportional representation is divisive. It encourages parties to splinter off and take up opposing views. The current system, for all its flaws, rewards parties for seeking to build a consensus, reaching out to as many different groups as possible, and attempting to bring them all together under the same tent. Long before the election that results in long, drawn out caucus level negotiations to try and reach a cohesive consensus on platform that suits many diverse groups.
That's an important function of our system that is often overlooked by those who advocate for PR.
That's an important function of our system that is often overlooked by those who advocate for PR.
None of that arguments offsets the aguement that we actually have the wrong people in government. Harper could not win under PR without putting tons of water in his wine. Taxes would be fairer, the environment better, military adventures fewer, etc.
In comparison to having the incorrect people in power, your arguments seem small.
I don't know that's true. Both the Conservative and Liberal parties would splinter under PR. Harper might be able to form a governing coalition by including the right wing factions of the former Liberal party in a coalition. It seems to me that, with a split L party, the center right still has plurality.
From your numbers above if half the L party goes right, and half of it goes left, the right ends up with a majority.
The Liberal Party coming unglued could only be a good thing for Canada as they have always followed the Keith Davey dictum, "campaign from the left but govern from the left"
We would be left with two new coalitions, A (Tories + right wing liberals) B (Left wing liberals + NDP + Green) in new formations. The second one would soon ome to power with a mandate to shift Canada in a seriously progressive direction.
We would be left with two new coalitions, A (Tories + right wing liberals) B (Left wing liberals + NDP + Green) in new formations. The second one would soon ome to power with a mandate to shift Canada in a seriously progressive direction.
first off, i cant stand harper....also ,Footsniffer, yes, Iggy may be a wonderfully intellegent academic..but more importantly, he is a terrible politican, and harper is a slick intellegent politican...politics is a blood sport..i really dont believe people get into it as a sense of duty, or the betterment of society..i firmly believe most politicians have type A personalities, and are in it for a sense of accomplishment, a source of power, and a way to stroke their massive egos, most social change occurs out of the realm of politics..politicians just get in the way..
Unfortunately that seems to run counter to the prevailing wisdom on the government side of the House. Which explains their persistent failure to attract significantly more votes than the rump they started with. Nor will it ever be accepted by those with other visions equally extreme: regionalists, separatists, ideological purists, one-issue folks and the like. Whether you blame the splinters or those who failed to attract/accept them, the result's the same.
Imagining those 'independent thinkers' or malcontents are going to be happy in a mainstream party or welcomed there is wishful thinking. Until laws compel such, and at the same time regulate party affairs to ensure fair and equal treatment (the route our American cousins are on, and keep having to tinker with)
Given that we already have a splintered landscape, which pretty much everyone agrees is going to continue, how could PR make it worse?
At least we could say the pieces of the Pizza are the correct size, now work it out. Critics alway bring up Isreal or Italy but the vast majority of democacies on Earth use PR and it works very well. One thing is for sure, a lot more women get to parliament so a lot more is spent on health and education and a lot less on war which has to be good.
At the moment the center-right coalition would have the majority of votes under either voting system, so we'd still have Harper in government. I think probably people are going to start voting for change soon, if for no other reason than the C's have been too long in power, and it's good to change things up.
So I would suspect under either voting system that within the next 10 years or so we'll see a change in government.
Short story, though, is that PR would not guarantee left leaning governments the way you think--the reality is that a majority of Canadians voted to the right in the last election, either by supporting the C's, or by supporting right-of-center liberals. Also note that a significant portion of the Bloc MP's are actually on the right as well--the Bloc was formed by Conservative MP's crossing the floor and joining the Bloc.
Last edited:
