There isn't really much allowed now, just enough to make realizable difference apparent and no more. Canada has three national parties now that I can't tell apart any more.
Role of government
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
There isn't really much allowed now, just enough to make realizable difference apparent and no more. Canada has three national parties now that I can't tell apart any more.
Not all of the taxpayers and not all of the time, liberalman, else we would still be suffering under a liberal government. :smile:
What are their names and serial numbers? Cooperate and you will be rewarded. A small island in the tropics perhaps.:lol:
Does suffering under a conservative government lessen the pain?
We have a sniveling little man with a Napoleon complex avoiding his job by shutting down parliament every time he can't get his way. The same corporations support both parties. What you get is ice cream, with or without anti freeze in it. Not sure which one is witch. 8O
Well Cliffy, if I have to suffer under a government I would pick the current one, for sure.
In the first place, Stephen Harper is not a little man. Secondly, he does not snivel - you must be thinking of Iggy who does it to a T. Thirdly, you are right about the same corporations and their support, however without those corporations and the jobs they create, we would be in even worse financial condition. There is something to be said for continuity, and were I a company looking to relocate to Canada, the stability of the government and their support for my business would be of paramount interest.
You kind of lost me on the ice cream thing. :?:
It was a metaphor. Here is another: Liberal = Navel Oranges, Conservative = Valencia Oranges. They are both oranges (or ice cream). 6/ half a dozen of the other. If we lived in harmony with our environment, we wouldn't need half the money it takes to support our decadent life style. We wouldn't need big corporations.
I'll give you 25% Walter- Gov't.s main role is to enact and enforce legislation, it's secondary role is that of a watch dog, to ensure the safety of children and marginalized people. The roles you mention require a liaison only.
Perhaps I can offer a bit of an assist on the ice cream thing, prairie style:
"Same sh*t, different pile." :lol:
I'm not agreeing with all that, just putting a different "spin" on it. In fact, I'd like to see less party influence and more individual representation/voting, but it would likely render Parliament dysfunctional, given the current setup.
Not sure what the answer is, but it might lie in some changes to the Senate.
Very true, Cliffy, but let's face it, that just isn't going to happen. Some people are simply city folks. Heck I have two sisters who think I am 'brave' for living where I do, made me chuckle that did.
It is much less expensive living in a rural area. When town is an hour or more away in the winter it tends to focus ones purchasing habits. Most of my friends and I like to stock up, and we all know how to make do. With no corner store less than twenty minutes away, we are not tempted to run out for a pint of ice cream or a bag of chips, as one might be enticed to do in the city.
I always find this sort of proposal interesting, simply because it ignores so much of what citizens take for granted. Which one of the following services would you like to see government give up?
Schools, hospitals, police, fire departments, day care, water, sewage and sanitation, libraries, sports arenas, parks, health care, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, museums, art galleries, scientific and medical research. I could easily create a list ten times as long, but I think you get the picture. If you truly do not think that government should participate in any of them then it means you will have to pay for each service yourself. BTW - why did you leave off transportation and the armed forces? Surely they could be contracted out as well.
Okay, name one successful country that just takes care of those three things for an example?
Did you come up with this inane comment while collecting your government pension or while your feet were up at your desk?:roll:
Talk some sense- nobody has suggested that anything not be taken care of, what is being suggested is that Gov't. not be directly involved in running anything. That doesn't preclude them from being run. If Gov't. wants to keep a thumb on the pulse that is one thing, but the should keep their frickin nose out of it.
The way I read Walter's proposal was that government should set up the operating rules and guidelines, but not necessarily be the direct provider of all the services. There is some merit to that line of thinking. For example, have you ever sold anything to any government? The procedures are long and arduous, and the examples I've been involved show an extreme lack of efficieny in the purchasing...in many cases, the government pays more for a product than would the average consumer buying it "off the shelf." One of the reasons for this is the amount of "cost" involved in selling to such a giant, cumbersome organization...the paperwork, meeting standards that don't always make sense, and dealing with many different departments and individuals to get through the buying/selling process...it all translates into extra cost. And the government (us) pays the tab.
That, combined with a philosophy of not having "best price and performance" at the top of the government's priority list, should indicate that we - the taxpayers - are not necessarily getting the best 'bang for the buck' in many government-run situations.
The problem with contracting out services to private companies is that the rules are not necessarily set up for a clear understanding or an easy-to-manage operation. By the time the bureaucrats get finished with creating hundreds of pages of contractural obligations, "cover your butt" conditions, and "how to" instructions, nobody pays much attention to it anymore...too much work to interpret it all, and certainly too much to follow up on. If a government could confine itself to some simple "performance standards" that are meaningful and measurable, and then have a simple mechanism for following up, contracting of services would stand a chance of working better. For the taxpayers and their money.
Just a couple of thoughts there, but it's a big subject...
Countryboy- I can give you one example of the sort of thing you are talkiing about. In my years employed by the Province, we had what was known as a "local order"- when I first started it was for minor purchases of less than $10, but over the years itt increased to several hundred dollars. Eventually they were phased out (supervisors were able to make minor purchases paying directly from their trust accounts) because the cost of processing the local orders alone was costing the Gov't $35 for each one. Seems kind of funny don't it-they will go to the ends of the earth to make sure nobody steals 50 cents, but yet Old Glenny Clark misplaced a mere $100 million, it was soon forgotten.
Jeez, with all the efficiencies of technology, $35 (and it's likely higher now) seems like a steep price for processing a simple order. It would be interesting to see how they arrive at those figures. I'm sure there were reasons, but I'd bet they weren't necessarily good ones.
At an early point in my working life, I used to sell traffic paint (to mark highways) to the Manitoba government...all the paperwork had to be done with multiple copies and the sheer amount of red tape was overwhelming. Stupid, really - we used to joke that the amount of paper was more than the amount of paint involved. Of course, the cost of all that paperwork was built into the price of the paint. And the taxpayers footed the bill.
Re: Clark...I think if it had been a private company, a missing $100 million might have raised a few eyebrows!
Really? So Walt isn't suggesting privatization?:lol:
Walt like many lazy and overpaid government employees is a hypocrite.
Okay, so who decides on the treatment of patient x in health care....the doctor or an MPP?
As far as I can tell the government regulates the delivery of health care but doesn't actually deliver it.
Same with many government agencies, they may set the guidelines but it's the front line workers who deliver it.
Currently, with the use of electronic ordering, receiving, and accounting, with direct deposit for payment, the estimate is that a single order costs something over $50 to produce.
And this is for efficient private industry. I'd hat to think of what the estimated gov't cost is.
Not in all cases. JLM was referring to a "local" order, which likely involved loading in all the department-wide costs, which would make it inconsistent. It all depends on how an organization chooses to structure the order costs. Many large companies have contingency procedures for smaller orders whereby they are handled separately from the mainstream...think "petty cash", for example.
Anything can be handled a number of different ways...just depends on the organization's needs and those of their customers. There might be a touch too much of "banking thinking" in some of the procedures...the famous "service fees", but nobody ever accused a bank of being too efficient. Their thinking would generally fall into the "straight-line, unimaginative" category. Sorta' like a government!