Worthy issues for the next election?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I'd rather see an elected Governor-General, who will have the mandate from the people to decide how to handle election calls and non-confidence votes.
I agree with this 100%. It's fundamental to our economic future.
I'll vote for whichever party eliminates the GG's office (sorry NDP and Greens are exempt on principle)... That function is the political equivalent to an appendix.
I'd rather see an elected Governor-General, who will have the mandate from the people to decide how to handle election calls and non-confidence votes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather see the GG done away with along with all other connections to that incestuous bunch in England.
I like fixed election dates simply because it will cut down on the game playing in Parliament and the government can get on with running the country. If people don't like how it goes in four years they can elect another bunch of crooks to take our taxes. 300 million every time we have a useless election is a waste of money that has better uses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather see the GG done away with along with all other connections to that incestuous bunch in England.
I like fixed election dates simply because it will cut down on the game playing in Parliament and the government can get on with running the country. If people don't like how it goes in four years they can elect another bunch of crooks to take our taxes. 300 million every time we have a useless election is a waste of money that has better uses.
Playboy???
I doubt it...
High Times???
Perhaps.
(I wonder how many know what I'm talking about?)
Just you probably.:lol: I get it
These guys do.
[SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE]
The Problem
[SIZE=-2]As the directors and executives of Canada’s big banks became progressively more embarrassed by the failure of their gigantic gambles in petroleum exploration and Third World lending (inter alia) in the seventies and eighties, their financial situation became critical and they managed to engineer a government bail-out that was passed by a sleeping Parliament in the dead of the night.
The effect of that bail-out was to beef up the banks’ loans portfolio (and revenues) with government bonds that paid attractive rates of interest. This entailed a commitment on the part of government to do virtually all of its borrowing from the commercial banks and none of it from the government-owned central bank.
The big government deficits and national debt are intimately linked to that bail-out, which transferred the banks’ failure into a burden on taxpayers-to pay the princely compensation packages to venal and incompetent managements and to bank shareholders.
The debt and deficits have thenceforth been an excuse to avoid public investments in infrastructure and the support of social programs.
This line of reasoning has been used to excuse “privatizations” which amount to giving away public assets to friends of the government (the financiers who get them elected to office).
The result of this unregulated, behind-closed-doors conduct: social, environmental, and market Meltdown.[/SIZE]
http://comer.org/Nutshell/combine.htm
[SIZE=+1]The Best Kept Secret of the 20th Century![/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Money-Creation As the Foundation for a Just Society[/SIZE]
Follow the links at the left from top to bottom.
One of the major problems facing Canadian policy makers and activists today is a misunderstanding of or refusal to consider the uses of The Bank of Canada (BoC). This problem is exacerbated by a media blackout on information about the Bank's uses- which will be discussed in the tutorial.
This problem exists in all G-8 countries!
Our tutorial details the nature of the problem in Canada, and how it may be resolved.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]NEXT: The Bank of Canada (1)
[/SIZE]http://comer.org/boc/BoCtut.htm
[SIZE=+1]Money-Creation As the Foundation for a Just Society[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Bank of Canada Tutorial[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Welcome to our Bank of Canada Tutorial!Follow the links at the left from top to bottom.
One of the major problems facing Canadian policy makers and activists today is a misunderstanding of or refusal to consider the uses of The Bank of Canada (BoC). This problem is exacerbated by a media blackout on information about the Bank's uses- which will be discussed in the tutorial.
This problem exists in all G-8 countries!
Our tutorial details the nature of the problem in Canada, and how it may be resolved.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]NEXT: The Bank of Canada (1)
[/SIZE]http://comer.org/boc/BoCtut.htm
# 2 the Canadian government can borrow only from the bank of Canada and any deals struck with private banks are over, we keep the assets and maybe they'll get out of prison someday.
If we're not going to have a national chat with ourselves about banking soon we might as well not bother about the rest.
Well, at least I now know where you get your silly ideas from.
BTW, there was nothing on that site about boats.
..... And if the Canadian central bank doesn't have the money?... Lemme guess - print more.
That's another reason I support an elected GG. It would make the role more Canadian and accountable to the electorate. Without a GG, who would discipline Parliament? No country in the world has a Parliamentarian as their Head of State.
As for fixed election dates (for Parliament) I have two problems with them:
1. Possible bad timing. If the country is in a situation where we need an active government at the time of a scheduled dissolution there could be serious consequences.
2. With the election date known, campaigning would begin far too early. Look at the US, their election campaigns last over a year!
The problem with eliminating the GG, the Senate - or even fixed election dates, is that it's a kin to putting a band-aid on a gushing wound. One incremental fix by itself will only make the problem WORSE.
Eliminating the GG and/or Senate puts more power into the PMO - which already is the most powerful office in North America (even the President of the US can be impeached, vetoed and held in check - not our PM though!)
A house based on Rep by Pop (stict Rep by Pop) needs to be balanced by a house that is Rep. by Province.
A further balance is needed to ensure that the 2 houses play nice (i.e. the GG)
I would have no problem with a HoC that is rep by pop (with all the inequities that creates) so long as a Senate exists that is equal among the Provinces. (I could care less if it's elected, appointed, what ever - let it be the Provinces house - each province can decide).
A GG (or some such office) would be needed to dissolve Parliment if not working, or veto bills (etc...) - but it should be an elected position - not appointed by the PM. Currently the PM appoints EVERYONE - Senators, the PM, the Judicary - not much in terms of controlling the power of that office, is there.
Eliminating the GG and/or Senate puts more power into the PMO - which already is the most powerful office in North America (even the President of the US can be impeached, vetoed and held in check - not our PM though!)
A house based on Rep by Pop (stict Rep by Pop) needs to be balanced by a house that is Rep. by Province.
A further balance is needed to ensure that the 2 houses play nice (i.e. the GG)
I would have no problem with a HoC that is rep by pop (with all the inequities that creates) so long as a Senate exists that is equal among the Provinces. (I could care less if it's elected, appointed, what ever - let it be the Provinces house - each province can decide).
A GG (or some such office) would be needed to dissolve Parliment if not working, or veto bills (etc...) - but it should be an elected position - not appointed by the PM. Currently the PM appoints EVERYONE - Senators, the PM, the Judicary - not much in terms of controlling the power of that office, is there.
Election issues, well, I hate the idea of another election again, that really won't decide anything, thus will be another waste of more taxpayer dollars at time where that is the last damned thing we need. I hope that if Iggy provokes this one with his grandstanding, people punish him for it.
I really don't know what the election would be about, except personality. Harper is doing pretty much exactly what the Liberals would be doing for the economy if they were at the helm. Afghanistan might heat up a bit (as our casualties rise again ) but so far there hasn't been much noise about extending our mission thus its hard to say there is an issue. The environment doesn't seem to have the sense of urgency in the media coverage that it did a year or two ago, in large part because the gov't is being dragged along (there seems to be a lack of a focusing issue there). Even in this thread the discussion is more about changes people would like to see in our process that actual issues.
As far as the GG and the Senate go, while I believe that there should be changes, these are things that would have to be constitutional changes. Its been almost 20 years since Mulroney gave up on fixxing Trudeau's screw ups, so the real question is are Canadians ready for new rounds of constitutional wrangling? Honestly I doubt that anything would get solved because of the deeper divisions than we faced 20 years ago. I think the "divide and conquer" strategy employed sucessfully by Chretien to keep power and to push his agenda has strengthened a lot of the divides/animosity between the regions, and that there wouldn't be any agreements, because the different regions all have "pet" issues they want addressed. I actually do feel pretty pessimistic about the future of this federation for that reason: how long can we stay in the holding pattern we are in currently, with those vast ideological differences, before the cracks deepen and tear the country apart?
I really don't know what the election would be about, except personality. Harper is doing pretty much exactly what the Liberals would be doing for the economy if they were at the helm. Afghanistan might heat up a bit (as our casualties rise again
) but so far there hasn't been much noise about extending our mission thus its hard to say there is an issue. The environment doesn't seem to have the sense of urgency in the media coverage that it did a year or two ago, in large part because the gov't is being dragged along (there seems to be a lack of a focusing issue there). Even in this thread the discussion is more about changes people would like to see in our process that actual issues.As far as the GG and the Senate go, while I believe that there should be changes, these are things that would have to be constitutional changes. Its been almost 20 years since Mulroney gave up on fixxing Trudeau's screw ups, so the real question is are Canadians ready for new rounds of constitutional wrangling? Honestly I doubt that anything would get solved because of the deeper divisions than we faced 20 years ago. I think the "divide and conquer" strategy employed sucessfully by Chretien to keep power and to push his agenda has strengthened a lot of the divides/animosity between the regions, and that there wouldn't be any agreements, because the different regions all have "pet" issues they want addressed. I actually do feel pretty pessimistic about the future of this federation for that reason: how long can we stay in the holding pattern we are in currently, with those vast ideological differences, before the cracks deepen and tear the country apart?
Agreed with your entire post except this part.
One person, one vote. I don't see why I should have any less say in how my government is run than others just because I have more people living in close proximity than they do.