Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Post Election Topics / Tactics

Recommended Posts

Airband, I saw that speech on election night. But after that he left the room and we were told a few days later by an aide or someone that he'd quit, but it wasn't confirmed by the PMs office so there was confusion. He just disappeared.

Anyway, thanks for pointing that out - I'm probably too hard on Mr. Harper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably too hard on Mr. Harper.

As were many other Canadians, Don. Just as with good parenting, good governing should not be a popularity contest, but rather it should be about providing good governance. Children don't always understand or accept a parent's decision and citizens don't always understand or accept government decisions. We can't choose our parents but we can choose our governments. Mr. Harper was far from perfect and made mistakes, as do we all, but on balance his was a steady hand on the helm of government. But the majority of us decided that we didn't like him or his governance anymore and that, as is often the wish of rebellious teenagers, we'd like to have a new parent. I believe Mr. Harper was gracious in defeat and that his only remaining job is to assist in the transition and handing over of the reins of government to Mr. Trudeau. He has "faced" us for the last 10+ years, to "face" us post-election for the opportunity of some citizens to send him off with one last round of boo's may give some people a sense of satisfaction but is hardly, in my opinion, a respectful way to treat anyone who has stepped forward in the service of his country.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Harper may very well have continued leading Canada for many more years, if only he'd stuck to his promises to be more open and accountable than his predecessors and to welcome new ideas and collaboration. His record is painfully opposite to all of those things and that, more than anything else, is what led to his downfall. Unfortunately for him, his true character won the day - as it usually does with us human beings. Walking the talk is never easy if it's just not you. I voted for him twice because I supported his approach to fiscal responsibility, but I just couldn't a third time. His own people violated the public trust with our finances on multiple occasions and instead of being a good captain who takes responsibility for all that happens on his watch, he deflected, denied and blamed the publicity on the media. He looked desperate and mean, and whether you agree with the basic notion or not, his true character showed through when he played the niqab card. It was - or at least should be - beneath the stature of a national leader to engage in such divisive rhetoric. Those are the kind of battles that are best fought quietly behind the scenes through gestures of empowerment, not through attacks on a very small group of people. It also didn't help that the poster child for the opposite side of the debate was forthright, well spoken and firm in her convictions.

And before anyone attacks this notion as foolishness, most of us have worked under a boss or two who liked to say one thing but do the opposite. How often were such employers successful, forward thinking and innovative? In my experience, it just doesn't happen. We needed a leader. What we got was an authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As were many other Canadians, Don. Just as with good parenting, good governing should not be a popularity contest, but rather it should be about providing good governance. Children don't always understand or accept a parent's decision and citizens don't always understand or accept government decisions. We can't choose our parents but we can choose our governments. Mr. Harper was far from perfect and made mistakes, as do we all, but on balance his was a steady hand on the helm of government. But the majority of us decided that we didn't like him or his governance anymore and that, as is often the wish of rebellious teenagers, we'd like to have a new parent. I believe Mr. Harper was gracious in defeat and that his only remaining job is to assist in the transition and handing over of the reins of government to Mr. Trudeau. He has "faced" us for the last 10+ years, to "face" us post-election for the opportunity of some citizens to send him off with one last round of boo's may give some people a sense of satisfaction but is hardly, in my opinion, a respectful way to treat anyone who has stepped forward in the service of his country.

But in the case of a Prime minister, the Children get to choose their parents. and it is a popularity contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau has indicated his intention to introduce election reforms.

Arming a man with a vote through which he is granted the ability to place his hand in another’s pocket is just wrong in my view and a very poor concept overall that is building and fostering a large parasitic drag on the modern democratic & economic processes. I think it’s a sad testament to democracy to note that the electorate has become distant to and disengaged from the entire process as is often demonstrated by low voter turnout on election day.

We are all aware politicians employ the tried and true technique of buying their way into office with the promise of new programs and spending initiatives. That the promised social expenditures will be paid for with cash clawed from taxpayers that were never in favour of the program to start with, but unfortunately not one of the 25% that cast a vote in favour of the free stuff, probably because it’s well understood that they’ll be the ones paying for, but receiving zilch in the way of a benefit, strangely seems to matter little to anyone?

In the name of change and Trudeau’s initiative, I would add the following ideas for said reform to the mix.

The ability to pass debt off to future generations that hasn’t been accrued as a result of funding projects critical to long term ‘physical’ infrastructure requirements, or because a genuine emergency exists, should be outlawed.

Would democracy not be better off if politicians were forced by law to stick to prescribed areas of governance and barred from making expensive promises that haven’t been publically approved through a referendum, or some other process? Taking a new approach could go a long way towards reducing the acrimony and divisiveness that plagues politics anymore and stalls the forward motion of the Country.

Would it not serve the future interests of Canada if election reforms were to consider amending voting Rights in a manner that would necessitate the potential voter’s having some skin in the game before he’s given a ‘Right’ to enjoin in the vote. IOW’s, a potential voter must be contributing his fair share at the municipal, provincial, or federal level before becoming eligible to cast a vote in a respective election?

Lastly; an incarcerated felon should not have the Right to vote...period!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOW’s, a potential voter must be contributing his fair share at the municipal, provincial, or federal level before becoming eligible to cast a vote in a respective election?

What would constitute a 'fair share' contribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the definition of the term ‘fair’ has yet to be determined, but if we were to use the tax systems already in place as the model, those that pay municipal property taxes would be entitled to the Right to vote in municipal elections and although I remain completely opposed to income taxes in general, preferring consumption taxes instead, for the purpose of this exercise the payors of provincial & federal income taxes too will be granted votes in the respective elections.

Here’s how screwy the system is as currently envisioned and operating. Anyone can decide to quit working, or never start in the first place, but can still expect to eat, sheet, consume, sire children, enjoy medical benefits, have cash in their pockets, a social life and many other things regardless. Society is full of groups that believe they’re entitled to everything good without ever having to lift a finger to earn what they take from the product of others. By not standing up and DEMANDING these people accept responsibility for their behaviour & personal choices as well as getting them to understand there’s a national need for everyone to pitch in and ‘do the best they can while they can’ as a productive member of society we are participating in the slow and steady destruction of the modern western world.

Hand ups, not outs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WorkFare was strongly opposed when it was proposed years ago. It never came to be.

Personally I think the Welfare recipients should all be hired by the government to work on infrastructure projects like roads and sidewalks Etc.

Get them working and pay them a fair wage for the work being performed. Two birds with one stone. Productive worker and not sponges and infrastructure work gets done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Canada importing 'farm labour' from the third world, who are paid at a rate lower than minimum wage standards, while there are Canadians sitting around and being supported to consume and little else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Canada importing 'farm labour' from the third world, who are paid at a rate lower than minimum wage standards, while there are Canadians sitting around and being supported to consume and little else?

Because cheaper groceries are more important than paying workers a decent wage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because cheaper groceries are more important than paying workers a decent wage.

Because 'Canadian' workers would not demean themselves to stoop to that type of work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WorkFare was strongly opposed when it was proposed years ago. It never came to be.

Personally I think the Welfare recipients should all be hired by the government to work on infrastructure projects like roads and sidewalks Etc.

Get them working and pay them a fair wage for the work being performed. Two birds with one stone. Productive worker and not sponges and infrastructure work gets done.

Personally, I don't want uninspired workers who don't want to be there being forced to take infrastructure jobs that use my tax money. Will someone who doesn't want to work in the first place do a good job? How long will that road, bridge or sidewalk built with my hard-earned money last?

They will just displace existing workers in these positions which are notoriously seasonal, high-unemployment jobs anyway... so it doesn't solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because 'Canadian' workers would not demean themselves to stoop to that type of work.

If the farmers had to pay minimum wage, the price of local produce would rise significantly. Ask your local store manager how that would be received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Deicer

Amazing...the information provided only makes my question even more relevant.

After reading the fact sheets I called several Ministry sources looking for information on the health care services provided to the migrant labour force. It turns out that the Canadian taxpayer is paying the nut for the foreigners and welfare queens they stand behind in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where to put this now, so screw it, it goes here:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/04/opinion/you-have-no-idea-how-badass-trudeaus-defence-minister-really

That's an article about our new Defence Minister.... Sounds pretty damned fine to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of boatload.....the leading advocates of special status for Cubans are ee-considering their position after the revelation that many acquire that status and entitlement to benefits and return to Cuba to enjoy those benefits!!

The entrepreneurial spirit beats in the hearts of the lowly; not just in the .01%. However, another name might just be fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangerous religious divisions / distinctions are already surfacing. Last night on the CBC it was reported that a Canadian Sikh organization was letting everyone know how pleased it was that Sikhs had acquired four Cabinet seats while the Indians were only given two.

I think the new Minister of Defence has all the qualifications and experience necessary to the position and I hope he does well, but I admit to being a little concerned by people that are willing to take on portfolios such as Defense, where pretty much every skirmish the Country can be expected to get involved in will be religiously inspired, but insist it’s absolutely necessary to their very being that they display religious badges of honour on their person while representing the State that claims to be entirely separate from the church.

Consider the old, but sensible policy that was once applied to police officers; ‘thou shalt not display symbols of religious, or political affiliation upon your person’. Imagine for example the situation that’s created and the potential impact on the outcome when an obviously Sikh police officer attempts to resolve disputes between members of the Sikh & Muslim communities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read this guys Bio? I am not sure it will be an issue.

As for religious badges. To what are you referring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now from a few...the whining (on CBC and CTV)

It would appear that many women are happy that the Cabinet is split 50-50 along the gender line....but quite a few are upset that the five "Minister of State" positions, which are "not as important as other Cabinet positions", ((less pay...smaller offices, fewer perks)) ,all went to the JUNIOR WOMEN who make up part of the Cabinet.

And so it goes...............on and on :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now from a few...the whining (on CBC and CTV)

It would appear that many women are happy that the Cabinet is split 50-50 along the gender line....but quite a few are upset that the five "Minister of State" positions, which are "not as important as other Cabinet positions", ((less pay...smaller offices, fewer perks)) ,all went to the JUNIOR WOMEN who make up part of the Cabinet.

And so it goes...............on and on :blush:

Pay difference is going to be eliminated by legislation, always was going to be, but it can only be done by Commons, not by cabinet fiat. The jobs will be weighty no matter what. Democratic reform, for example, will be the study and recommendation and possible legislation to change first past the post. A pillar of the Liberal party platform. No easy task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay difference is going to be eliminated by legislation, always was going to be, but it can only be done by Commons, not by cabinet fiat. The jobs will be weighty no matter what. Democratic reform, for example, will be the study and recommendation and possible legislation to change first past the post. A pillar of the Liberal party platform. No easy task.

I see you are correct. The Toronto Star just put this out in their digital edition..

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/06/five-canadian-female-ministers-of-state-to-be-full-ministers-get-raise.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Harper accepts Liberal invitation to fly home on luxury jet

Monday, Nov. 09, 2015 - Globe & Mail
Stephanie Levitz

He pulled up for the first meeting of the opposition Conservative caucus in a basic minivan, but Stephen Harper flew home in style.

The Canadian Press has learned that thanks to an offer by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Harper returned to Calgary last week aboard a government-owned VIP Challenger jet.

Harper routinely flew in the Challengers while prime minister, as security risks meant he couldn’t fly commercial, but that perk was among those he lost in the transfer of power from the Conservative government to the Liberals last week.

And though Harper is still a sitting MP, he’s also lost access to the luxury car, driver and accompanying major security detail that goes along with being prime minister — hence the arrival at the House of Commons last week in a minivan.

But while he should have had to take a commercial flight home later that night, the Liberals offered him the use of the custom-equipped jet — and he accepted.

Previous Liberal governments’ use of the luxury planes was among the things Harper used to needle them about when he was opposition leader.

But once he became prime minister, he would use the planes to fly his own family across Canada and to the U.S. for hockey or baseball games or purely partisan events, flights for which the taxpayer was reimbursed, though whether that was done fairly was often in dispute.

The estimated cost for an hour of flight time on the Challenger ranges from around $3,000 to closer to $11,000 depending on whether fixed costs such as a pilot’s salary are factored in.

At one point, the Conservatives were going to decommission four of its six C-144 Challengers but later scaled the plan back to the deactivation of just two planes.

The reason? Executive jets were getting more VIP and military use than thought and the air force couldn’t manage with just two planes in the fleet.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably safe to assume it costs a lot more to keep a business jet in government hands than it does in civilian service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this