Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

Quebec's 18 months of PQ minority rule was an excellent example of a horrible minority government that resorted to electoral mind games trying to trap opposition parties and never ever reaching consensus with an opposition party that was in agreement at 90% of certain bills.

Die with dignity bill. Almost unanimous consensus but the PQ never tabled it to a vote because they didn't want consensus.

Charter of Values bill. The CAQ agreed to 90% and wanted minor ammendments. The PQ never opened the debate on the floor and used it as campaign issue.

It goes on and on.

Thank God we now have Liberal majority in Quebec to get things done

 

[Azih]

Nah, the Martin-Layton budget federally was the best this country has had for decades and if it wasn't for McGuinty's endless horror show scandal that refuses to die (which happened during a Liberal majority let me remind you) it would be working fine fine fine in Ontario. The Wynne-Horwath Ontario budget was great.

The Libs and the Cons both use majorities as some sort of free ticket to do whatever the hell they want (including corruption!) since there's no one to stop them (and to have the gall to claim such a powerful mandate when less than half of the voters voted for you is insane). All you really need a minority to work is a willingness to work with someone in another party. It happens sometimes with Libs and Dippers and is the best governance the country has had from a budget/policy perspective.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Not all minority governments are good or bad. The one in Ontario is decent. Yeah the government is scandal plagued, but that happened even more often when it was a majority, now that's it a minority you actually get to hear about it.

Governments should have to prove they deserve majority government, it's not something that should be handed out like free hugs. PLQ look good in front of PQ but still one of the most corrupt parties in Canada. Ontario Liberals lol. BC Liberals are a joke. Alberta PCs arrogant, Manitoba NDP illegal tax hike, Nova Scotia joke budget, New Brunswick 1930s abortion laws and corporate handouts, Dunderdale worst premier in the country consistently.

Most majority government are tyrannies. Power corrupts.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, my thing is that unless the NDP actually implode and become a non-factor, we're just going to get the massive vote splitting that we saw the last few times, especially in the softer Ontario ridings.

Without the PQ and with the NDP perhaps not really a great representative of the province, maybe the Liberals can convince them that a Trudeau is going to be best for them. I just don't know what the play is in Ontario other than "we're not the other guy, also don't waste your vote on the NDP".

 

[Azih]

I just don't know what the play is in Ontario other than "we're not the other guy, also don't waste your vote on the NDP".

That's kinda been their election strategy for decades straight. Also they trot out some of their left leaning and eco minded backbenchers out for the campaign to draft election time promises and then stuff them back in the back when it comes time to create actual policy. Meet Kyoto targets? Elmination of Child Poverty? Libs did not give a fuck about either when they were in 12 years of full unopposed power.

 

[Simon Belmont]

That's kinda been their election strategy for decades straight. Also they trot out some of their left leaning and eco minded backbenchers out for the campaign to draft election time promises and then stuff them back in the back when it comes time to create actual policy. Meet Kyoto targets? Elmination of Child Poverty? Libs did not give a fuck about either when they were in 12 years of full unopposed power.

I'd take the status quo over the Harper government policy of actively lighting environmental and poverty issues on fire and throwing them into the Atlantic.

Also 2008 was the be the first 'Kyoto' year, by which time, if you'll recall, the Libs had been out of power for two years.

Also Child and Welfare services are generally left up to the provinces. I'm not saying the Libs couldn't have done a better job on the poverty front, but it's a lot more complicated than waving a magic wand and saying "Poverty is over!"

 

[Azih]

I'd take the status quo over the Harper government policy of actively lighting environmental and poverty issues on fire and throwing them into the Atlantic.

Also 2008 was the be the first 'Kyoto' year, by which time, if you'll recall, the Libs had been out of power for two years.

Also Child and Welfare services are generally left up to the provinces. I'm not saying the Libs couldn't have done a better job on the poverty front, but it's a lot more complicated than waving a magic wand and saying "Poverty is over!"

The Cretien-Martin governments had no plans at all on either of these two core policy promises. They dumped social responsibilities on provinces and spent the resulting surpluses on tax cuts and debt repayment. And greenhouse emissions were shooting through the roof and were going way above 1990 levels with no sign at all that Cretien-Martin would do anything about it.Were they better than Conservatives? Sure (but honestly the Harper cons have descended to cartoonish villany at this point. Eviscerating first Statisitics Canada and then Elections Canada is just so transparently evil that it's not even funny). Did their actions in government resemble their environmental and social promises? Not at all. They need to be in a minority to be kept honest.

 

[gutter_trash]

Chretien-Martin were busy cleaning up after the big hole Mulroney left us. The recession of the late 80s early 90s was IMO more painful than the 2008 crash.

You had interest rates in the teens in the late 80s, it was a horrible moment in our economic history. People were losing their homes

Chretien-Martin had no choice to get fiscally responsible and cut in places that hurt people, it was a necessity to do that paved the way to our continuous stability

 

[Simon Belmont]

It's not as black and white as that. The provinces handle employment insurance, and welfare and have their own environmental agencies. They have to be involved. The Libs half assed it for sure, but the Cons tore up the programs!

 

[Azih]

Chretien-Martin were busy cleaning up after the big hole Mulroney left us. The recession of the late 80s early 90s was IMO more painful than the 2008 crash.

You had interest rates in the teens in the late 80s, it was a horrible moment in our economic history. People were losing their homes

Chretien-Martin had no choice to get fiscally responsible and cut in places that hurt people, it was a necessity to do that paved the way to our continuous stability

I'll accept that for one term equivalent (four years) to clean up the previous mess. What the hell were they doing for the remaining 8?

Chreiten obviously didn't give a damn about policy and just called elections whenever the conservatives parties were particularly divided to take advantage of the split on the right (once winning majority with freaking 38% of the vote). He let Paul Martin do whatever the hell he wanted and none of that had anything to with investing in infrastructure or social programs or environmental protection. The only budget Martin brought that actually did anything for people was his last one that Jack Layton co-wrote.

Which all leads back to my point that a Lib-Ndp collaboration is way better for everyone that a Lib majority... as long as the Lib guy actually cares about governing and isn't just angling to call a snap election to win another phony majority (Honestly Martin could have lasted for another half year easy if he'd just given in to Layton's simple ass demand to publicly support a fully publicly funded Universal Health Care system. But nooo.. Martin couldn't even do that... moron).

Pearson-Douglas style government please.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Chretien-Martin were busy cleaning up after the big hole Mulroney left us. The recession of the late 80s early 90s was IMO more painful than the 2008 crash.

You had interest rates in the teens in the late 80s, it was a horrible moment in our economic history. People were losing their homes

Chretien-Martin had no choice to get fiscally responsible and cut in places that hurt people, it was a necessity to do that paved the way to our continuous stability

That's a myopic rewrite of history.

The same thing that occurred in Canada occurred in the US and the UK; In the 80s, neo-liberal conservative candidates trounced progressive challengers. They proceeded to reshape the country by instilling neo-liberal principles like rationalization, efficiency mania, NPM, civil service cuts, anti-unionism, and a concern (rhetorically, at least) with the deficit. In the early 90s, those candidates or their successors are defeated by more progressive parties, but the winners are not progressive--instead they intentionally emphasize their moderation. Chretien/Martin, Clinton and the DLC, Tony Blair and New Labour / The Third Way. In fact, they spent more time attacking their party's progressive past than anything else, and adopted many of the ideological characteristics of the neo-liberals before them. There's nothing unique to Canada here, and there's nothing necessary about it at all.

The same thing happened to a lesser extent in a few other countries, including Australia (Hawke and Keating bringing in the neoliberal revolution, Rudd following it) although the party order was different there, with the power transition going "Centrist" -> "Right" rather than the reverse.

Chretien and Martin weren't forced into austere budgets by the mess Mulroney left, they chose austere budgets and an emphasis on deficit reduction because the Liberal party and Canadian political culture were jerked to the right. They were jerked to the right because the whole paradigm surrounding politics in the Anglosphere changed in the 80s. And we see it now in the US in the retroactive way Jimmy Carter is called a terrible president, and even here in the way that Liberals run from the Trudeau legacy in almost every substantive way, endorsing it only on an emotional level.

Progressives shouldn't let Chretien and Martin off the hook. Martin's best moments were in the dying days of his government, when he actually grew a progressive conscience and tried to use government to make the country a better place.

 

[SRG01]

That's a myopic rewrite of history.

The same thing that occurred in Canada occurred in the US and the UK; In the 80s, neo-liberal conservative candidates trounced progressive challengers. They proceeded to reshape the country by instilling neo-liberal principles like rationalization, efficiency mania, NPM, civil service cuts, anti-unionism, and a concern (rhetorically, at least) with the deficit. In the early 90s, those candidates or their successors are defeated by more progressive parties, but the winners are not progressive--instead they intentionally emphasize their moderation. Chretien/Martin, Clinton and the DLC, Tony Blair and New Labour / The Third Way. In fact, they spent more time attacking their party's progressive past than anything else, and adopted many of the ideological characteristics of the neo-liberals before them. There's nothing unique to Canada here, and there's nothing necessary about it at all.

The same thing happened to a lesser extent in a few other countries, including Australia (Hawke and Keating bringing in the neoliberal revolution, Rudd following it) although the party order was different there, with the power transition going "Centrist" -> "Right" rather than the reverse.

Chretien and Martin weren't forced into austere budgets by the mess Mulroney left, they chose austere budgets and an emphasis on deficit reduction because the Liberal party and Canadian political culture were jerked to the right. They were jerked to the right because the whole paradigm surrounding politics in the Anglosphere changed in the 80s. And we see it now in the US in the retroactive way Jimmy Carter is called a terrible president, and even here in the way that Liberals run from the Trudeau legacy in almost every substantive way, endorsing it only on an emotional level.

Progressives shouldn't let Chretien and Martin off the hook. Martin's best moments were in the dying days of his government, when he actually grew a progressive conscience and tried to use government to make the country a better place.

Yes, that is pretty accurate. It should never be forgotten that the austerity/debt-obsessed movement started with governments of the 80s and still exists to this day.

To be fair to history though, debt obligations were a very real concern back then, as it became harder and harder for governments to keep up.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Yes, that is pretty accurate. It should never be forgotten that the austerity/debt-obsessed movement started with governments of the 80s and still exists to this day.

To be fair to history though, debt obligations were a very real concern back then, as it became harder and harder for governments to keep up.

Just look at Interest rates from about 78 to 93. There were people paying 18% on a mortgage.

 

[gutter_trash]

Just look at Interest rates from about 78 to 93. There were people paying 18% on a mortgage.

insane wasn't it?
now we got low interest rates but super expensive house prices

 

[Simon Belmont]

If anybody is interested in the "Freeman on the Land" movement and how the legal system is handling those a-holes, the wife just sent me this blog entry from a law firm in town. Good read! Seems like the courts are getting fed up with these guys. Throw the book at 'em!

http://www.siskinds.com/Publications/All/Freeman-on-the-land-A-growing-concern-in-Canada.aspx

 

[gabbo]

If anybody is interested in the "Freeman on the Land" movement and how the legal system is handling those a-holes, the wife just sent me this blog entry from a law firm in town. Good read! Seems like the courts are getting fed up with these guys. Throw the book at 'em!

http://www.siskinds.com/Publications/All/Freeman-on-the-land-A-growing-concern-in-Canada.aspx

It saddens me to hear this bullshit is growing as a.. a movement, I guess.
Glad the courts are handling them thusly.

 

[Simon Belmont]

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/04/beer-store-campaign-bewilders-ontarians.html

Lol.

 

[Azih]

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/04/beer-store-campaign-bewilders-ontarians.html

Lol.

Yeah honestly it's the ultimate backfire. Nobody was really talking about this before and now people are but coming down on the opposite side.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Yeah honestly it's the ultimate backfire. Nobody was really talking about this before and now people are but coming down on the opposite side.

It's nice to see some movement on it. Fuck the gas plant, this is the real issue for Ontario. Can we buy booze like adults or do we need the nanny state to tell us when and where it's OK?

 

[Azih]

It's nice to see some movement on it. Fuck the gas plant, this is the real issue for Ontario. Can we buy booze like adults or do we need the nanny state to tell us when and where it's OK?

I'd say a billion dollars down the tubes is a bigger issue than the Beer Store. I like having an LCBO around though (Beer Store is dumb legally mandated corporate monopoly unlike the goverment run LCBO)

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'd say a billion dollars down the tubes is a bigger issue than the Beer Store. I like having an LCBO around though (Beer Store is dumb legally mandated corporate monopoly unlike the goverment run LCBO)

It'll end up like any other inquiry pretty much ever: Some people who are no longer in the Government made some mistakes, maybe one or two of them will pay for it in some minor way and by the end we'll have ended up spending way more money than we lost in the first place.

At least with the beer store issue I won't have to drive across town to get beer, which does have a real effect on my life.

Edit: Also my bigger problem with the Gas Plant Scandal is that the opposition parties were using cancelling the Gas Plant as an election issue. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[firehawk12]

So Wright is not being charged, which makes me wonder if the Senate scandal is effectively over.

 

[Azih]

It'll end up like any other inquiry pretty much ever: Some people who are no longer in the Government made some mistakes,

...

Giving some dude with no connection to the government other than being the boyfriend of a staffer ADMIN PASSWORDS sos the guy can go in and willy nilly delete emails off government computers goes somewhat beyond 'made some mistakes' and goes into being frankly criminal. I might have agreed with you before that information came out.

 

[Simon Belmont]

...

Giving some dude with no connection to the government other than being the boyfriend of a staffer ADMIN PASSWORDS sos the guy can go in and willy nilly delete emails off government computers goes somewhat beyond 'made some mistakes' and goes into being frankly criminal. I might have agreed with you before that information came out.

It'll end up like any other inquiry pretty much ever: Some people who are no longer in the Government made some mistakes, maybe one or two of them will pay for it in some minor way and by the end we'll have ended up spending way more money than we lost in the first place.

.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

The premier and the finance minister are no longer in government?

PC/NDP could have cancelled the gas plants for $60 million. The $1 billion is the price of avoiding litigation, or 'hush money' as I prefer to call it. Or the price of Sousa's precious tush. Also the involvement of the government in criminal activity and coverup is not something that's minor.

 

[Simon Belmont]

The premier and the finance minister are no longer in government?

David Livingston was the premier and the finance minister? I've been living under a rock.

 

[Azih]

Are you honestly suggesting that we just wash our hands of (alleged) deliberate actions by the McGuinty government to destroy evidence? Actions which caused the ethics commissioner to put his objections in writing to cover his own ass?

 

[Simon Belmont]

Are you honestly suggesting that we just wash our hands of (alleged) deliberate actions by the McGuinty government to destroy evidence?

Not at all. I'm saying the exercise will, like every inquiry ever done in Canadian politics, be ultimately unsatisfying and provide little else but an opportunity for opposition parties to grandstand and make promises that they, should they get elected, won't keep. See: Sponsorship

 

[Azih]

Not at all. I'm saying the exercise will, like every inquiry ever done in Canadian politics, be ultimately unsatisfying and provide little else but an opportunity for opposition parties to grandstand and make promises that they, should they get elected, won't keep. See: Sponsorship

For a minor scandal I'd agree with you, but this David Livingston business is far far beyond that and we can't ignore it or sweep it under the rug in favour of the damn Beer Store.

 

[Simon Belmont]

For a minor scandal I'd agree with you, but this David Livingston business is far far beyond that and we can't ignore it or sweep it under the rug in favour of the damn Beer Store.

Well, you'll be sorely disappointed by the end of this, then. I'm not saying that's what we should do, I'm saying that's what's going to happen.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

like every inquiry ever done in Canadian politics,

Ontario needs its own Commission Charbonneau. Just the other day Wynne's brother-in-law was appointed CEO of eHealth after the last guy made a run for it by quitting 6 months early and got a golden handshake $400k severance. Puke

 

[Simon Belmont]

Ontario needs its own Commission Charbonneau. Just the other day Wynne's brother-in-law was appointed CEO of eHealth after the last guy made a run for it by quitting 6 months early and got a golden handshake $400k severance. Puke

I've pretty much given up on the idea that Governments can be run openly and honestly. It was a nice ideal for my twenties, but it's hard not to notice a pattern.

Those with weak stomachs should not watch sausages be made and all that.

 

[Azih]

I've pretty much given up on the idea that Governments can be run openly and honestly. It was a nice ideal for my twenties, but it's hard not to notice a pattern.

Those with weak stomachs should not watch sausages be made and all that.

Not giving parties full majority power even though they win less than a majority of the vote would be a hellofa good start.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Not giving parties full majority power even though they win less than a majority of the vote would be a hellofa good start.

You're worried about nepotism in politics but you want to create a class of MPs that aren't directly elected? No thanks.

 

[Azih]

You're worried about nepotism in politics but you want to create a class of MPs that aren't directly elected? No thanks.

All the countries less corrupt than Canada use PR systems so try again. I have no idea why you are defending the status quo.

Edit: Singapore is the only exception. Corruption flows far more from absolute power rather than indirectly elected representatives.

 

[Simon Belmont]

All the countries less corrupt than Canada use PR systems so try again. I have no idea why you are defending the status quo.

I find it more palatable than the alternative? Not that hard to imagine really. Just because you voted for somebody doesn't mean you are entitled to that person or parties representation.

Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with MPs that represent nobody.

 

[Azih]

I find it more palatable than the alternative? Not that hard to imagine really. Just because you voted for somebody doesn't mean you are entitled to that person or parties representation.

Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with MPs that represent nobody.

Voters aren't entitled to representation? Are you honestly rebuking the fundamental logic of representative democracy?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I've pretty much given up on the idea that Governments can be run openly and honestly. It was a nice ideal for my twenties, but it's hard not to notice a pattern.

Those with weak stomachs should not watch sausages be made and all that.

There are degrees of government corruption though. Some more corrupt than others e.g. Canada vs Russia.

Not gonna get into the whole MPP/FPTP debate thing, but definitely having a multiparty system is more accountable than an effective two party system. Hudak was 15 points ahead (yikes) and people got chickened off and voted McGuinty (barf) to stop him. That creates a culture of unaccountability. You shouldn't have to pick between dumb and dumber.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Voters aren't entitled to representation? Are you honestly rebuking the fundamental logic of representative democracy?

Read it again, come back when you're being intellectually honest. I'm not going to waste my time responding if you're going to read everything in the least charitable way.

There are degrees of government corruption though. Some more corrupt than others e.g. Canada vs Russia.

Not gonna get into the whole MPP/FPTP debate thing, but definitely having a multiparty system is more accountable than an effective two party system. Hudak was 15 points ahead (yikes) and people got chickened off and voted McGuinty (puke) to stop him. That creates a culture of unaccountability. You shouldn't have to pick between dumb and dumber.

Then where are all the smart people ready to Govern? I've been waiting a long time, haven't seen them yet.

 

[Azih]

Read it again, come back when you're being intellectually honest. I'm not going to waste my time responding if you're going to read everything in the least charitable way.

Then why don't you clarify your point. I'm having an incredibly hard time interpreting in any other way than me not deserving having my views represented in the halls of power because I dare to have a different opinion than a plurality of voters who live in the same arbitrarily defined geography of a riding. In fact that I am 'entitled' if I think I do? What kind of a democracy is that?

 

[Simon Belmont]

Then why don't you clarify your point. I'm having an incredibly hard time interpreting in any other way than me not deserving having my views represented in the halls of power because I dare to have a different opinion than a plurality of voters who live in the same arbitrarily defined geography of a riding. In fact that I am 'entitled' if I think I do? What kind of a democracy is that?

You understand there have to be winners in elections, right? And that means there are going to be losers too.

 

[Azih]

You understand there have to be winners in elections, right? And that means there are going to be losers too.

That's fine for people and parties that are COMPETING in the election. I'm not competing, why the hell is the system turning VOTERS into winners and losers? Plenty of candidates and parties win and lose in pr elections too while getting representation for a whole lot more voters.

 

[Simon Belmont]

That's fine for people and parties that are COMPETING in the election. I'm not competing, why the hell is the system turning VOTERS into winners and losers? Plenty of candidates and parties win and lose in pr elections too while getting representation for a whole lot of more voters.

Well I'm sorry the Christian Heritage party or whatever niche you fall into doesn't have any representation. I'm also sorry that you feel like the act of voting entitles you to the representative of your choosing. Elections are about the community expressing their will, not the individual.

If you ask me the problems with this country stem from a group of assholes in Ottawa. You're not going to convince me that putting more assholes there will make things any better. It sucks that you hate FTTP, but you won't sell me on PR and I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Then where are all the smart people ready to Govern? I've been waiting a long time, haven't seen them yet.

Increasing accountability and transparency through legislation/laws and more open data. And there are other stuff like financial accountability office, auditor general reports etc. We need more things like those. Also, a dedicated fund for public inquiries, so we don't have those "but finding out that I'm a criminal is too expensive!" excuses.

Also, voters do have a duty to vote out corrupt governments, which is pretty difficult with the current electoral system we have. But that's another debate with its caveats.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Increasing accountability and transparency through legislation/laws and more open data. And there are other stuff like financial accountability office, auditor general reports etc. We need more things like those. Also, a dedicated fund for public inquiries, so we don't have those "but finding out that I'm a criminal is too expensive!" excuses.

Also, voters do have a duty to vote out corrupt governments, which is pretty difficult with the current electoral system we have. But that's another debate with its caveats.

I can get behind measures like this, but I've seen too many accountability acts that are anything but. Most governments don't supply the noose to hang themselves with.

Still, would be nice

 

[maharg]

Elections are about the community expressing their will, not the individual.

This is not a given. Our system is structured this way, but it's not inherent to the concept of elections that they are an abstraction of communities voting on the people who vote on the people who vote on things. As evidenced by the many places in the world where this is not the case and yet we still call them elections.

And there isn't really any reason to believe that this abstraction is somehow better than any other abstraction. You liking it is not sufficient argument that it is better.

Anyways, there are ways to keep relatively local representation and have a result that more accurately represents the will of the electorate. Multimember ridings, for example.

 

[Simon Belmont]

This is not a given. Our system is structured this way, but it's not inherent to the concept of elections that they are an abstraction of communities voting on the people who vote on the people who vote on things. As evidenced by the many places in the world where this is not the case and yet we still call them elections.

And there isn't really any reason to believe that this abstraction is somehow better than any other abstraction. You liking it is not sufficient argument that it is better.

Anyways, there are ways to keep relatively local representation and have a result that more accurately represents the will of the electorate. Multimember ridings, for example.

First bolded part has one too many layers of voting, just saying

For the second bolded part, I wasn't making that argument, I just was saying that I'm not really interested in the discussion. I'm not some ego maniac who thinks just because it suits me it should be the way of things. I just haven't seen an alternative that gets me excited. These all seem like lateral moves where you're trading one set of problems for another.

 

[maharg]

First bolded part has one too many layers of voting, just saying

Nope. I carefully considered whether to leave it in and decided it's accurate. In our system, the decision on how to vote rests almost always with the party leader(ship) who maintains the confidence of the people you vote for. There's the side-issue of membership votes on leadership to consider there too, but they're not in the line of people you as a citizen (as opposed to a member of the party) vote for.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Nope. I carefully considered whether to leave it in and decided it's accurate. In our system, the decision on how to vote rests almost always with the party leader(ship) who maintains the confidence of the people you vote for. There's the side-issue of membership votes on leadership to consider there too, but they're not in the line of people you as a citizen (as opposed to a member of the party) vote for.

Still not technically true. You can be whipped to vote the party line but a member can still ignore that. He can lose his or her party status but not the seat. MP's are technically independent of the parties, if not often so in practice.

 

[maharg]

There's a lot of technicallys that haven't really been true since the dawn of the Westminster Parliament, they mean roughly nothing to how things really are. That our 'representatives' represent their ridings on any but an extremely abstract, all-or-nothing, level is fact. The technical notion that they represent our needs and expectations of parliaments is just that, a technicality long overridden.