Federal Government & Politics II

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Free votes by MPs on abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia for one.

Carbon tax and environmental protections gone.

No more child care, dental care and who knows about prescriptions. But income splitting will be pushed for families.

Union-busting.

Balanced budget legislation + tax relief + debt repayment = huge cuts somewhere

Eliminating safeguards against foreign ownership = China and India $$$

Which of these are things he has actually promised to do? For the most part you are describing Canada circa 2019, which might not be seen as particularly radical by most voters.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Which of these are things he has actually promised to do? For the most part you are describing Canada circa 2019, which might not be seen as particularly radical by most voters.

Ummm it's all in here?
"On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp...3517f7a575.pdf

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Ummm it's all in here?
"On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp...3517f7a575.pdf

Public servants elected by the public would actually be able to vote for what their constituents tell them they want?! Madness!

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Public servants elected by the public would actually be able to vote for what their constituents tell them they want?! Madness!

Free votes are a great concept except when it comes to human rights. But I suspect if you are a hetero-white-privleged-male you wouldn't understand that.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Which of these are things he has actually promised to do? For the most part you are describing Canada circa 2019, which might not be seen as particularly radical by most voters.

I guess that depends if you view the Harper years as a positive. I view PP as Harper 2.0, expect with a leader that is just annoying and argumentative.

I don't think the Harper years were bad per say. They were a period of slow growth, little to no movement on progressive and environmental agenda. Mediocre period for Canada.

Will the conservatives have a vote on abortion? Likely not. The Harper government understood no good will come from opening that pandoras box.

My hope, would be for a Turner type government, fiscally responsible, focus on an innovation agenda and social responsible government. However that is not the Conservatives and the Liberals can't go there as long as they have a minority and need the support of the NDP.

It looks like the US will have a progressive government for the next four year. That is good for them and us. I suspect a PP will find it difficult to work with the Americans on much of anything. If I am wrong and Trump wins, then it does not matter, a Liberal or Conservative government will have a hard time working with any Trump administration.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Public servants elected by the public would actually be able to vote for what their constituents tell them they want?! Madness!

A public servant by definition is not associate with a political party and role is to run government in compliance with the direction of cabinet and parliament.

I think what your looking for is parliamentarians to act like parliamentarians and represent their constituents.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Free votes are a great concept except when it comes to human rights. But I suspect if you are a hetero-white-privleged-male you wouldn't understand that.

Define human rights?

I think, depending on your point of view, that what some people consider a "human right", other people would find problematic.

- Is access to unrestricted abortion a human right?
- Is free access to assisted suicide without apparent reason or cause a human right?
- Is the right to own weapons and bear arms a human right?
- Is the right to defend your property and your family a human right?

What is your opinion???

Are people with different opinions subhuman?????

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Define human rights?

I think, depending on your point of view, that what some people consider a "human right", other people would find problematic.

- Is access to unrestricted abortion a human right?
- Is free access to assisted suicide without apparent reason or cause a human right?
- Is the right to own weapons and bear arms a human right?
- Is the right to defend your property and your family a human right?

What is your opinion???

Are people with different opinions subhuman?????

We saw how open and understand the liberals were when the froze bank accounts of people who didn’t agree with them.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by Hecate

We saw how open and understand the liberals were when the froze bank accounts of people who didn’t agree with them.

I've often wondered how Harper would have responded as PM to the convoy occupation of Ottawa and the borders and bank account question.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Define human rights?

I think, depending on your point of view, that what some people consider a "human right", other people would find problematic.

- Is access to unrestricted abortion a human right?
- Is free access to assisted suicide without apparent reason or cause a human right?
- Is the right to own weapons and bear arms a human right?
- Is the right to defend your property and your family a human right?

What is your opinion???

Are people with different opinions subhuman?????

I was extracting what was in the Conservative Party policy document and the examples that they provided. That is their policy document.

[ssiguy]

For many of us, it's not any form of love affair with PP nor many of his policies but rather we will accept anything to get rid of Trudeau. The ABC {anyone but Conservative} vote has turned into the ABT {anyone but Trudeau} vote. The man has single handedly managed to run this country into the ground.

Massive tent cities, 2 million a month lining up at our Foodbanks, a collapsing healthcare system, increasing income & wealth inequality, Canada suffering from a net-loss in productivity investment, obscene immigration levels, a doubling of our housing costs, record debt with absolutely no intention of balancing the books, a civil service that has growth by a numbing 40%, record high taxation levels, no decrease in GHG emissions, a falling standard of living, 9 years of per-capita GDP stagnation, a laughing stock on the international stage, an increase in violent crimes since taking office, a stifling of free speech and freedom of the press, and a younger generation who have simply given up the idea of ever owning a home.

By nearly every metric, the man has left havoc in his wake. It's not so much if PP will be a lot better but rather that he couldn't possibly be worse.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

By nearly every metric, the man has left havoc in his wake. It's not so much if PP will be a lot better but rather that he couldn't possibly be worse.

Have you lent a thought to the NDP or Greens? Both are perfectly viable alternatives to the Libs and Cons. So Singh owns a BMW and a couple of Rolexes. So fucking what! That doesn't make him a "champagne socialist", a "limousine liberal", or any less committed to the values he espouses. Would he look better living as a comparative ascetic, like Uruguay's José Mujica? Probably. It would shore up his leftist bona fides. But he doesn't.
As for the Greens, they have been in tumult since the attempted leadership change, which has unfortunately left the party looking rather amateurish, but Elizabeth May is easily the most well-informed and naturally articulate of any of the party leaders. She or Singh would make a phenomenal PM, and they are both congenial human beings, unlike the nasal, petty, disagreeable person who leads the PCs.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

I've often wondered how Harper would have responded as PM to the convoy occupation of Ottawa and the borders and bank account question.

There wouldn't have been an occupation because he wouldn't have had lockdowns well after a vaccine was available. This maybe would have killed a few more vaccine skeptics a couple months earlier than getting it later when finally everyone in Canada chilled out as we all got it and especially if vacinated it was a bad cold.

What is interesting is what PP will do when (I don't think it's if) groups opposed to his cuts and other parts of his agenda use the same tactics. I imagine near 100% opposite views of almost everyone involved.

Originally Posted by Gresto

Have you lent a thought to the NDP or Greens? Both are perfectly viable alternatives to the Libs and Cons. So Singh owns a BMW and a couple of Rolexes. So fucking what! That doesn't make him a "champagne socialist", a "limousine liberal", or any less committed to the values he espouses. Would he look better living as a comparative ascetic, like Uruguay's José Mujica? Probably. It would shore up his leftist bona fides. But he doesn't.
As for the Greens, they have been in tumult since the attempted leadership change, which has unfortunately left the party looking rather amateurish, but Elizabeth May is easily the most well-informed and naturally articulate of any of the party leaders. She or Singh would make a phenomenal PM, and they are both congenial human beings, unlike the nasal, petty, disagreeable person who leads the PCs.

Yeah for the 12 people who think the problem with Trudeau is he didn't spend enough and wasn't woke enough.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Have you lent a thought to the NDP or Greens? Both are perfectly viable alternatives to the Libs and Cons. So Singh owns a BMW and a couple of Rolexes. So fucking what! That doesn't make him a "champagne socialist", a "limousine liberal", or any less committed to the values he espouses. Would he look better living as a comparative ascetic, like Uruguay's José Mujica? Probably. It would shore up his leftist bona fides. But he doesn't.
As for the Greens, they have been in tumult since the attempted leadership change, which has unfortunately left the party looking rather amateurish, but Elizabeth May is easily the most well-informed and naturally articulate of any of the party leaders. She or Singh would make a phenomenal PM, and they are both congenial human beings, unlike the nasal, petty, disagreeable person who leads the PCs.

I voted Green once but not particularly because I approved of all their policies but rather more of a protest vote as I didn't like any of the alternatives. They have some policies I like but I think some are rather naive bordering on childish. Added to this is that the Greens seem to have gotten old & tired before their time especially with May still at the helm. At one time I liked her but she is well past her best before date.

Singh, I do not like nearly as much as I don't like the federal NDP. The man couldn't run a newsstand and has no fundamental understanding of finance or economic policy. He probably think pulling out your teeth and sticking them under your pillow is sound financial planning. Added to this is that he has backed and forced in many of Trudeau's policies due to Trudeau having a minority gov't and willing to do anything to stay in power being the power slut he is. In other words, Singh can take as much responsibility for the disastrous situation Canada finds itself in as Trudeau can.

Trudeau and Singh are one in the same with their incompetence of running the country into the ground, forcing foreign capitol out of the country, not being at all critical of our obscene immigration rates, and backing Trudeau even with all his corruption scandals. If he wants to take credit for some of Trudeau's policies, he also has to share the blame of the plethora of Trudeau's failings. Singh can't have it both ways. He choose to be Trudeau's slut and now he is going to go down with that said pimp.

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

There wouldn't have been an occupation because he wouldn't have had lockdowns well after a vaccine was available. This maybe would have killed a few more vaccine skeptics a couple months earlier than getting it later when finally everyone in Canada chilled out as we all got it and especially if vaccinated it was a bad cold.

I would not have expected a dramatically different outcome. The "lockdowns" were imposed by the provinces. About half of them conservative. The "leaders" of the convoy were mostly from Alberta and Ontario. Two provinces with conservative governments at the time.

The federal scope of regulation only applied to inter-provincial and international transportation. For truckers on the international side, the US authorities also required them to be vaccinated as well. A federal Liberal or Conservative government we would have had similar restrictions.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What is interesting is what PP will do when (I don't think it's if) groups opposed to his cuts and other parts of his agenda use the same tactics. I imagine near 100% opposite views of almost everyone involved.

Yeah for the 12 people who think the problem with Trudeau is he didn't spend enough and wasn't woke enough.

Many years ago (well 1983), in BC, Social Credit (the right wing part of the day), implemented massive cuts to the public service head count and social programs. The labour movement, together with the environmental and socially inclined all organised into the "Operation Solidarity" movement. They filled stadiums and shutdown traffic with marches in the streets. There was a province wide strike. Students walked out from high school and post-secondary in solidarity.

But everyone went home at the end of it. They made their point, they tried to influence the outcome, but accepted that we live in a democracy.

The convoy folks simply did not go home and were unwilling to accept we live in a democracy and expected to get their way. The response from measured. The conservatives government in Ontario did what they had to do to regain order in the street.

I would expect a response similar to Operation Solidarity. It will be short lived. People will make their point, accept we live in a democracy and go home. There will be no need for special measures.

What I would be more concerned about is a repeat of Oka. I don't think PP has the temperament to handle difficult land-claims related issues. Especially as he adopts his pro-natural resource stance with complete disregard to the environmental progress that has been made over the last 10 years.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Ummm it's all in here?
"On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply-held personal convictions among individual party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp...3517f7a575.pdf

Harper had free votes on such issues (so did Martin, Chrétien and Mulroney). Whipping votes on issues people see as moral is a Trudeau thing. There is not going to be an anti-abortion majority on the Commons even if the Tories win so it won't make Canada "unrecognizable."

I think the only place you might see a change is assisted dying for mental illness, which again would be a return to 2019ish and would not be seen as a radical change for most Canadians.