Why Do We Accept and Then Tolerate Such Awful Politicians
- Thread starter yolosohobby
- Start date
because it seems that when you are done w your political career there is a river of money to be made. Frank McKenna?- uber rich connected to Bushies etc... Chretien? - running up and down french speaking african countries making big bucks . Friends of Mel Lastman? they must be paying him and his offspring a princely sum for the line east on sheppard. and on and on it goes ....
Paul Martin was rich before he started, Ford had family money as well.
Though Ford was just in it for the free drugs.
For the OP, what's the better solution?
To quote Winnie, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
To quote Winnie, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
These suggestions address the symptoms not the root causes of the problem.
I am not an expert, but I see one of the root causes is the lack of accountability for their work.
I don't know how you could address it, but simply saying "vote them out in the next election" is just not enough.
From an outsider's perspective, it seem like politician's main goal is to get elected, do as much PR as possible while
in office, and then get re-elected.
The real reason is canadians' submissive and apathetic nature and culture. We've got one the greatest tall poppy syndromes here probably of anywhere. In Turkey last week, people went into one of the main public squares of Istanbul to stop the government in power basically doing whatever the fuck they want. They were teargassed and assaulted by riot troupes yet they returned to fight for their rights. That would Never happen in submissive, apathetic, diffident, pay your taxes and shut the fuck up, Canada.
There are politicians who are trustworthy, we just don't put them in power often.
Bob Rae would be one, you might disagree with his policies but you have to admit he ran cleanly and with class.
It is possible.
But everyone on this board will excuse behaviour from someone the back then criticize someone else for the same issue.
For example, McGuinty has been criticized here for cancelling a generator to appease voters, then hiding the costs.
Ford has done a similar thing, though at a small scale.
He went and personally intervened in a city order to take down a fence for safety reasons to appease a voter, despite it being against city policy and then went and tried to bury the information.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/20/rob_ford_top_bureaucrat_intervene_in_local_fence_dispute.html
Different scale, but same issue.
We should just hold all politicians to all the rules, break one and you lose the confidence of the people.
Bob Rae would be one, you might disagree with his policies but you have to admit he ran cleanly and with class.
It is possible.
But everyone on this board will excuse behaviour from someone the back then criticize someone else for the same issue.
For example, McGuinty has been criticized here for cancelling a generator to appease voters, then hiding the costs.
Ford has done a similar thing, though at a small scale.
He went and personally intervened in a city order to take down a fence for safety reasons to appease a voter, despite it being against city policy and then went and tried to bury the information.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/06/20/rob_ford_top_bureaucrat_intervene_in_local_fence_dispute.html
Different scale, but same issue.
We should just hold all politicians to all the rules, break one and you lose the confidence of the people.
Last edited:
More frequent election schedules just means more campaigning and less governing, while term limits make for inexperienced pols with more chutzpah than gall than brains or knowledge. I'd look to improving the chances and opportunities to grill, hold to account, and possibly turf the guys in power. Obviously under a strong party system that plays to the bloodsport aspects of politics, so we should also look to weakening the parties which do nothing for the people and serve only the squalid interests of power brokers. If the proposals they were seeking to advance had real merit, they should gain their support party or no, and be all the better for skeptical questioning and devil's advocacy opposition.
It's been fascinating recently to hear several influential Americans speak proudly of the strength and solidity of the same military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower expicitly warned us was one of the gravest dangers our democracy faced. So I'd posh the ant-lobbying proposals made above even further, and ban ex-military, defence and other government contractors and senior swivel servants from politics and politicians from taking positions in those fields. Pick one and stick to it. Not that I could ever imagine the language of a law that could ever make that enforceable.
But that gets to the only reform that matters and the onlty reform we need: We voters have to stop putting these clowns, crooks and connivers into office, and make the guys earn our votes by more than wearing the right colour label or being the latest to mouth the fairytale promise of giving us more for less no one has ever kept yet. When we put as m,uch effort into picking a pol as into picking a pricey restaurant, and follow their doings as attentively as Game of Thrones, then maybe we won't need this sort of convo.
It's been fascinating recently to hear several influential Americans speak proudly of the strength and solidity of the same military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower expicitly warned us was one of the gravest dangers our democracy faced. So I'd posh the ant-lobbying proposals made above even further, and ban ex-military, defence and other government contractors and senior swivel servants from politics and politicians from taking positions in those fields. Pick one and stick to it. Not that I could ever imagine the language of a law that could ever make that enforceable.
But that gets to the only reform that matters and the onlty reform we need: We voters have to stop putting these clowns, crooks and connivers into office, and make the guys earn our votes by more than wearing the right colour label or being the latest to mouth the fairytale promise of giving us more for less no one has ever kept yet. When we put as m,uch effort into picking a pol as into picking a pricey restaurant, and follow their doings as attentively as Game of Thrones, then maybe we won't need this sort of convo.
Of course what happens in Quebec isn't relevant on TERB, but I've been through mre than a couple of full and frank mass exchanges of views there—and they are still Canadians. Mass protest has happened right here in Toronto. We marched and voted in huge numbers against the MegaCity and Premier No-TaxHikes-Without-A-Referendum amalgamated us anyway. And after more than a decade, it's beginning to work, sorta. Think he would have stopped any water cannons and just given in? And let's not bring up the huge (and hugely ineffective) over-policing of the G20 that couldn't stop the violent anarchists but successfully embittered thousand of ordinary citizens. Is it really smart, useful or even foolish but commendable to stand against overwhelming forces just earning their pay? Oh BTW, did I miss you at the Anti Prorogation rallies?
There's two reasons we don't do politics by fire-bombs and teargas. We actually believe in the laws that democracy cannot function without, and it works way better that way.
I am not sure yet but i think a major component has to be the cronyism. the problem is that the government is so big and has so much money that they are literally the biggest customer in town. They consume more legal services, for example. I think this drives up the price lawyers are able to charge the rest of us mere mortals. And it also explains why there is such a revolving door btwn the law firms and the various layers and government entities . it is in their combined interest to make shit complicated because it becomes self perpetuating and reinforcing . Do we the people benefit from complexity? no. Indirectly, the complexity creates jobs for "consultants" who are really experienced in one specific and over complex area, so if you aren't a lawyer... you can be a consultant.
Maybe there should be a 10 year moratorium on any politicians ability to benefit from any dealings with the government in which they serviced when they are no longer in government. Those sorts of ideas. we have to look at the reasons for things being the way they are.
That's a big chunk of it. McG's scandalous destruction of the evidence is so obviously a useful tool for every pol, that it's highly unlikely that any of them will want to do more than get the maximum embarrassment out of it—and that'll be to his successor—certainly not any real consequences.
"If there were real consequences, why they'd fall on us when we won and did something sly to stay in … or cash in. Wash your mouth out!"
"If there were real consequences, why they'd fall on us when we won and did something sly to stay in … or cash in. Wash your mouth out!"
