SpankyMcFarland

Well, I suspect most people would subscribe to that 'nonsense argument'. The PM may represent all of us in theory and most of us in times of crisis, e.g. the fires in Alberta, but, in general, he or she is a partisan figure. Do I think the last government represented me on marijuana or safe Injection sites? Of course not and I am sure Conervatives feel the same way about the current lot.

My 'pet party' won power so my argument is not motivated by such concerns.Israel uses a party list system and is often quoted as an argument against PR but it is an outlier. The situation there is unique from many points of view. One of the things they could do is raise the threshold of national vote needed to get seats. Theirs is lower than many other countries with a party list system. How extreme and unstable have Latvia, Finland and Sweden been? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Germany has also got a higher threshold for representation and its system has worked well by any standard. Bottom line - our system has worked well enough but it could be improved.

PR does not necessarily do that. Again, look at the Irish example. The two centrist parties have been in power for nearly a hundred years. If anything, PR could be blamed for a centralizing tendency, forcing coalitions between parties with very different platforms. Coalitions are probably the biggest problem with PR. Anyway, elections are a marketplace for ideas. Parties should be rewarded for giving people what they want, 'extremist' or otherwise. The main thing for me is that 40% or less of the electorate should not be calling the shots. The popular vote should matter. FPTP only works well in a simple two party contest. Beyond that, it gives rise to weird results that greatly favour regional parties over small national ones. Look at the recent UK general election and compare UKIP against the SNP - ridiculous. I cannot see FPTP surviving in Britain if the races continue to be this complex. Look at our 1993 result that gave way too many seats to a separatist party confined to one province. Anther nice thing about multi-seat STV is that it allows you to choose between candidates from the same party, so you are not forced to take some nutter the party wants. Furthermore, in multi-seat constituencies, it's actually worthwhile to vote even when one party is dominant because they will rarely win all the seats. In my constituency, there was no question at all that the Liberals would win. The Conservatives and NDP had grave difficulty finding somebody to run in what was a foregone conclusion. This is not good for democracy.

PR generally means that a government is backed by a majority of voters in the country, something that hasn't happened in Canada in a long time. Shoddy deals can be made with Independents but generally you get a centrist government based on compromise. Ireland has been a good example of this. A right wing party and a left wing party formed a coalition that has managed to navigate the country out of its worst financial crisis ever. This may inhibit radical change which is a mixed blessing anyway.

All Cabinet Ministers should release their tax returns. We need to know if there are any potential conflicts of interest. These people have volunteered for a key job in the country and should be willing to surrender some privacy for it. After a few years, we'd barely notice it - no big deal. I think their health records should be released as well but that's a fight for another day.

A very basic criterion in a fair system would be that the percentage of seats gained would closely resemble the percentage of votes cast. Our 1993 federal election was a particularly egregious example of FPTP's shortcomings in this regard. A second desirable would be having multiple seats in a riding so that smaller parties would not be automatically excluded. Under the current system in many ridings the result is a foregone conclusion. STV with multi-seat constituencies would produce something close to this without a list system and would also allow choice within parties so that unsuitable candidates could not be foisted on the public. However, in any process to change the system, all parties should be represented, none should have a majority and any proposal should be put to a referendum. I deeply dislike FPTP but it should be up to ordinary Canadians to decide if they want to change it.

Iran is a regional challenge, KSA a global one. Iranian-financed schools are not the big issue in places like South Africa or Europe. It's a grim dictatorship but a relatively stable one. Pakistan is of more concern to me. From my limited experience, Iranians are less interested in the alleged crimes of the West whereas, say, many Pakistanis see CIA plots in everything. Iran's leaders would appear to be more extreme than their younger citizens whereas the opposite seems true in Pakistan, unfortunately.

My entirely uninformed guess is that the cost of building ships in Canada will continue to spiral out of control. The govt cannot limit spending in the same way it could with a foreign supplier. Politics enters the equation and that's that.

The cost of building ships in Canada will continue to spiral out of control. The govt cannot limit spending in the same way it could with a foreign supplier. Politics enters the equation and that's that.

I presume she won't run too but there must be some doubt in Clement's mind. He didn't need to be so emphatic in his reply about her solemn vow etc. That was not a casual statement of fact: “I think Rona Ambrose has been very clear, and she made a solemn vow prior to running for the interim leadership that she would not run for the leadership,” Clement told reporters Monday in Ottawa. “I take Rona at her word. I think that she wants to maintain her integrity and credibility and she also wants to preserve the unity of the Conservative caucus, so to me, this is a non-issue.”

So why did Clement make such a big deal of emphasizing the solemn promise angle? You know that pols deny something until they change their minds? On one of these threads I was saying how she couldn't run and now it's a discussion again.

Because there seems to be a suspicion that Ambrose may run.

One company that is working in that directionhttp://momentummachines.com http://kwhs.wharton.upenn.edu/2015/08/robots-advance-automation-in-burger-flipping-and-beyond/ I am looking forward to driverless cars given the risks I see my fellow humans taking every day.

Filled out mine yesterday, no problem. In a world of mass surveillance, public and private, this is the least of my worries.

The immediate danger of more intelligent machines is to our jobs, most of which will disappear soon. This is not like previous advances - machines are taking jobs at every intellectual level. Only a few humans will be needed for work in the future. You better get some hobbies out there.

Brighter machines may pose more immediate problems: http://takimag.com/article/useless_mouths_john_derbyshire/print#axzz47jN2NXK8 http://takimag.com/article/workers_of_the_world_goodbye_jim_goad/print#axzz47jN2NXK8

Running a hospital or a health authority is a nightmare these days with constant media pressure.

Perfectly legal - I should have included that one as well. The problem with many issues in law and accountancy is that the lads in the know mostly line up for one team, so one does not often encounter a dialogue between experts evenly divided on, say, tax issues.

I always assumed he was gay. Shows how much I know.

That pales beside den Tandt being called a Liberal. Ivison is half reasonable on occasion and has a sense of humour too.

Political leadership is a bit like the decathlon - there's a minimum level you have to reach in each discipline. Looking the part matters. Kellie Leitch does not look or sound like a leader. She's an excellent surgeon by all accounts and a good organizer but a party leader she will never be.

It is often legal - completely, utterly or entirely legal as its cheerleaders are inclined to say - because the people doing it are intimately familiar with the rules and may have had a hand in drafting them.

Yes, I would restrict that ability. There is an appearance of preferential treatment here. If collective agreements or whatever have to be changed, so be it. We can't let this cosy arrangement discredit the taxation system.Take the specific example I quoted. You see absolutely no reason to be concerned about that?

My knowledge of this is next to zero - I am reading it on the CBC site so I have no idea how many younger CRA tax people are being recruited by the firms which is alarming in its own way. However, for ordinary Canadians like me, the little I know already looks deeply wrong. Wealthy people are clearly getting special treatment. And we haven't touched the legislative angle yet. Laws are made for these people like bespoke suits. The basic Canadian 'strength of ties' model for determining tax residency is a good one - you reside where you really live, unlike the UK and Ireland where you can make it all up. However, public trust has taken a big dent over the KPMG revelations. We need to know the laws aren't being bent into pretzels by the mega-rich and their minions. BTW one interesting side effect of medical tourism is the importation of highly resistant bacteria from foreign hospitals.

There should be at least a ten year cooling off period between CRA and a private tax job. Gold plate their pensions, give them Senate seats, whatever, but don't let them work for the opposition.