bluegreen

Flaherty kept ministry of plenty. And since Orwell is the muse of the day, it appears that some provinces are still a little more equal....

Well, isn't that what the spoils of office are about? Politics as usual. This was what the destruction of the Progressive Conservatives was about. Taking power. None of that boring process of being idealistic, or doing what is right. Raise lots of money, massage a platform until it is pablum. Package, and push it. Do whatever it takes short of having to present any real ideas to the electorate. Ideas might be controversial, which might spoil things. Win first, then, we can all have funky titles, and 'our' people can be looked after.

By implication, you would rather support someone who will get elected, than someone who will do that which you consider most important.

I guess my point was that there are a lot of nasty places. Whether they are marginally better, or worse, Afghanistan is not unique, nor especially deserving of our attention. In your' prior post, you said, and I'm afraid that I probably agree, that the best, or at least most probable outcome in Afghanistan is to establish a strongman. Basically, I don't see much difference between Taliban, and Strongman, except I guess we can claim a victorious war if it's OUR strongman, and said strongman might pay lip service to our most strongly presented requirements. At least so long as we continue to feed him whatever it is he lives on. ($$, Power, etc) Pity the troops bleeding for a lie. In response to your' ideal of making this one place better off, because we have to start somewhere. I don't know. Canadian soldiers have to go where they're ordered to. If we tell them they must risk their lives and die to fulfil this task, then they will do it, but we are collectively responsible for their lives, and this ill considered venture has no happy endings for anybody concerned. Some of the nasty places I listed might be more amenable to ungentle persuasion, but before giving orders to go there, there needs to be a clear, and rigorous moral basis to act. Furthermore, there should be some reasonable expectation of success, and a criteria to evaluate same. These are some of the reasons I prefer a well defined defensive security agreement for Canada (NATO, pre Kosovo), and whatever else we want to do can be taken case by case. I hope though, that we have learned that going to war is a dangerous, and bloody serious undertaking and I think that the unintended consequences of Afghanistan will haunt us for quite awhile to come.

Hmmm, you seem to be conflating my stated arguments with green party policy. An old political trick. I don't need the handout, neither does any Political Party. That is what you are obviously too dense to understand. It is the Canadian Citizen who would benefit from publicly funded parties, not the Parties themselves. I don't think you can read, or think, or you would have understood what I was talking about. Certainly every single response you have made has completely missed the point. Obviously you have little knowledge or interest in the topic of this thread. Since your preference is to discuss ideas with a mirror, I'll leave you to your own, no doubt self stimulating company.

Hmmm. The Green Party of Canada constitution prohibits unsustainable finances. Which is to say, it is the only Party that is constitutionally bound to run a balanced budget. Does that mean the GPC can expect your' support ;-)

You are starting to irritate me with your' insistence that I am supporting a Partisan position. I am not. You are pretending that the grassroots are all, when they aren't. Sure they are important, and they make up the most important part of politics. That has no bearing on my arguments though. Money is the other resource that complements the grassroots. Money is generated through grassroots organisations. Yes, Yes, I know. Yes, it even works, sort of. There used to be a total free for all, and the world didn't end. Do you have enough imagination to envisage something different from what you are used to? or will you retreat to your mantra about political welfare? Welfare is an undeserved handout motivated by guilt. The sources and uses of cash in politics are of public interest. I am not talking about the equity, or which party gets what. I do not care if you are talking about Canada, or timbuktu, aside from the fact that I am a Canadian, and I want to see Canada, the country where my children live, well served by our Parliamentary democracy. It would be nice if you could come up with a cohesive response to my points about politics being a marketplace for ideas. As far as your fallacies about the GPC go, please continue to hold them. We started by seperating the real environmentalists from the NDP, and leaving the whack-job's to stew. Then we picked up a chunk of the Progressives from the old PC's. Next we got plenty of 'operators' from the Liberals. Every time you old line parties have a leadership race, or a drawing of knives, we get stronger at the grassroots level that you love so much. We are the only party that is growing, and has not stopped growing our grassroots for 6 years. Your' crowd are next, as we emphasise our fiscal and environmental conservatism and we'll show you what the grassroots can do!

And how exactly do you propose to manage diversification? Without being part of a much larger manufacturing, and trading currency union, the West would be priced right out of most export markets. Import substitution would be a lost cause, due to inflated local costs. ( think 'comparative' and 'absolute' advantage). Your' Oil wealth is a two edged sword, and it's impact, at the margin, on exchange rates has sidswiped a much bigger integrated economy, (Ontario) than the West could hope to have anytime soon. I'm not tooting Ontarios horn, when I point out that there are hundreds of towns, and more than 100,000 manufacturing and service businesses that have been clobbered by the high exchange rates essentially made in the west. Ontario's economy is on a totally different scale, and the skills, education, infrastructure, etc. have been abuilding for generations. I suspect you are pretty young, if your' memory cannot go back to the time when 'The West' was not a have region. Still, I concede that it must Irk to pay for other peoples services. I know, as a Torontonian, that the contempt with which the R.O.C. treats us really irks when you consider that even as our Province receives back $370mm, our one troubled city continues to contribute about $20 billion in net transfers to the rest of Ontario, and Canada. We are not worthy enough to receive the same EI benefits as an Albertan, or Saskatchewan(ian?). It's not the money that irk's, its the shallow minded anti-toronto bigotry. Don't forget that the wheel turns over time, and our economic diversity does tend to control the risks of a catastrophic failure. Alberta is made considerably safer by the International weight and standing that a united Canada has, while your' sister western provinces probably have a much keener sense of the benefits of membership in a broad confederation.

Here's a stab: South Sudan, for anybody Black, Christian, or Arab for that matter. Darfur, for anybody black, whether Christian, Muslim, or Other. Northern Burma. Somalia. Eritrean/Ethiopian border. Parts of Sri Lanka. (Tamil Tiger bits) South Western Bangladesh. Of course, some of these places are merely just as bad a place as Afghanistan to be civilians in, some however are far worse. Is my point granted? or do I need to quote chapter and verse? Also, many, or most of these places would make admirable safe havens. Does that mean that we hoist a neo-victorian banner, and 'civilise' the world at bayonet point?

Hmmm, spending limits are important, as are donation limits. Most people aren't aware though, that there are loopholes big enough to drive a bus through. Look at the way the CPC gamed the system in 2006. They made in-and-out transfers that allowed them to attribute national television advertising spending to a series of relatively underfunded EDA's, thus exceeding their national spending limit while at the same time transferring taxpayer funded election expenses rebate (65% of eligible 'local' expenses), to the local EDA's willing to participate in the scheme. There isn't a whole lot of debate about the other totally absurd, and not yet fully exploited loophole in spending limits. Namely, that 'legitimate' fundraising expenses are exempt from election expenses. Legitimate in the first instance is at the discretion of the financial agent. In general the guideline for legitimate is that the expense must be incurred for the purpose of raising funds. I have seen the extreme instance used municipally, by a hybrid Tory, Liberal campaign team. 40,000 - 11" x17" glossy, two sided, folded process colour flyers were produced, printed, and distributed by paid delivery service. These professional conversion pieces highlighted all the endorsements, policy prescriptions, ribbon cutting photo's etc. And the print run was repeated 1/2 way through the campaign for a total of 80,000 copies printed and distributed. At the bottom of the piece, there was a 1 inch by 2 inch section inviting people to come to the candidates campaign office, and meet the candidate for a coffee night. Admission cost $5. This made the piece a 'legitimate' fundraising expense. I dropped by at the 'event' and 40 people or so showed up. The coffee bill was of course claimed as a fundraising expense as well. I would estimate that the full cost of this 'fundspending' event was about $16,000, and the funds raised were about $200. In Toronto, one municipal candidate once held ahuge campaign launch party, where a hall was rented, free everything, and a big name musical band hired. This event cost far more than the legal spending limit for an entire campaign, but it was a fundraising event you see. This illustrates why both donations, and spending should be regulated in some respect. It also illustrates why I have here, and elsewhere supported publicly funded campaigns. It is really hard to think of equitable sets of rules that keep very interested people from unduly influencing the electoral process, unless you really simplify things. For those who quote examples where money couldn't defeat the little idea that could, well, you're dreaming in technicolour. On balance, resources win campaigns. If you can widely publicise a lie, or misdirection, and your opponent cannot publicise his/her rebuttal, game over.

Her's a quote from the article, reported to be abstracted from the statement of claim: "The court document states that party leader Elizabeth May knew Shavluk did not hold anti-Semitic views, but falsely and maliciously published a press release in which she said his beliefs did not coincide with those of the party." So, he's suing because the Green Party falsely and maliciously failed to share his beliefs?!?! I guess that he succeeded in grabbing the headline though, and despite the lost cause nature of his suit, his life is probably pretty unpleasant right now.

WOW! real meaty stuff. Thinking about all this tragi/comedy of fuzzy intentions, morphing 'defensive' alliances, arse kissing, I think that we really do need to examine the Why's of it all. Perhaps NATO is a dead letter? Collective defense seems pretty obvious for a really big country like Canada, with so much treasure up for grabs, and such a small population to defend it with. What if NATO went back to being a guarantor of the security of the North Atlantic democracies, and please stick to a narrow definition of security? Why should our collective security extend to beating the sh*t out of Tribesmen in Afghanistan at America's behest? I don't buy the terrorist argument. Talibani never gave a damn about the rest of the world, until their applecart was kicked over. We went there to deny safe haven, which has been done, but now it's all about girls schools, terrorists, and rebuilding. It must really suck to see it up close, and anybody with a heart would want to help, but there are MUCH worse places in the world. Perhaps we've already invested so much blood and treasure, that it makes sense to finish the job? I do not believe that our version of the job can ever be finished though. The dynamic is all wrong. Afgan is a country but not a nation, and never has been. Even if we drained the whole country of weapons, they would just make new ones, and have at one another. And don't lets start on about the roles of Pakistan, India, Iran, Russia, China, and any future tea-kettle kickers. We are in SO DEEP over our heads, and don't even have an inkling of an Intelligence apparatus to inform us of what's actually happening.

Based upon the daily body count in Moscow, you are both literally, and figuratively correct ;-)

Sure it has, how much you wanna bet that plenty of good ides have lacked acceptance due to lack of publicity?

Here's a link where you can download an OAS report on political finances. http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false I guess I've made my point enough. Money is vital to politics. Getting money is more important than what you have to say when it comes to getting elected. That is not very good news for the populace. The electoral finance act had a very good outcome for everybody in Canada, because it moderated the influence of parochial, but well heeled interests. I wish that political funding was predicated exclusively on how well a party performs in the 'ideas' market, because it would then remove extraneous skills from their pernicious influence on the electoral process. A good objective criteria for successful ideas is 'how many votes did you win?' That, in a nutshell, is my opinion. If I've convinced you, good. If not, it's a free country. Just beware what you wish for. If public funding is removed, then your children will have to live with the results. Maybe the future would be great, but maybe the established parties will dominate, then stagnate, and our country will work less well than it could, or should.

Ideas don't always cost nothing. Access to some data does cost. Have you ever tried to organise a policy convention without any money? It can be done via wiki's etc. but that really narrows down participation, to the point where policy formulation is captured by wiki nuts. Publish, and disseminate a information? Costs big $$. The fact is that facilitating the interaction of thousands of people cannot be done for free. It certainly can be done without corporate, or public money. That doesn't mean that it cannot be done better with that money. Then, of course, there is election campaigns. Now that costs money, and frankly, that's where the bulk of the cash gets spent. The point that I am making is that political success is more and more dependent upon raising money. You are talking as if good ideas naturally hatch $$, but that isn't true. If you disbelieve me, go have a look at the financial statements for the Federal parties, and compare fundraising expenses to everything else they do. I just don't agree that raising funds should be the most important thing that a party does. Public funding tied to electoral support is a pretty good way of dealing with corruption in politics, and given the importance of party politics in our lives, labelling this spending welfare is inaccurate. Irrespective, public funding is the law, and what it replaced was a real dog. Like much of our world, it aint perfect but it works. I support it, unless something better comes along, but I wouldn't be unhappy with less private, and more public funding. It wouldn't cost much money, and it would probably lead to better governance. Surely you must agree that good governance is cheap at any price?

That's silly, the party I support is better at fundraising than the others, with the possible exception of the Cons. We have plenty of skilled 'operators' as well as policy types. Eliminate public funding, and we'll do very nicely, comparatively speaking. I've been volunteering for a lot of years, although I have been paid small honariums on occasion. I sure as hell don't do it for the money. It's not a partisan point I'm making, it's a matter of good public policy. Welfare is a loaded word, as you well know when you abuse the term. We need roads, we need airports, we need courts, we need parliament, and oh yeah, we need parties to present choices about how to make it all hang together. Why the hell should parties electoral success depend upon their fundraising skills, as opposed to their ideas?

You missed the point I was making. Retooling the military is a seperate issue from 'should we be fighting this war?' I was questioning whether we should be there in 2012, not what we need to have if we are going to be there. I agree that it was shameful to commit the Canadian Forces to a war they were not equipped to fight. The arms, equipment, and training of the forces should reflect Canada's strategic 'defense' requirements, anything less is a waste of our money, and as you pointed out, lives. The second misunderstanding in your response was w.r.t. the ass kissing I referred to in prior post. The ass kissing is at the political level, not operationally. I am happy to assume that the forces are following their orders with competence, and diligence. Not being a soldier, I cannot judge whether they are, or not. It's a no brainer that allied forces should lend all and any assistance required, requested, or needed in the field. Once we're there, we must do our best after all. The true question that needs debating is why the hell are we actually there? Canada isn't Santa Clause, and when the world comes the the door saying trick or treat, we should be careful before we shell out however many thousands of troops, and billions of dollars. Our political leadership laid a great bigger smacker of a kiss on the butt of our allies to the south when they said Ready? Aye ready! When in fact we were woefully unready. There are an awful lot of places where we could be doing good, but that isn't enough reason to fight a war. We have to have sound, and objective reasons to act.

As someone who has made over 100,000 fundraising phone calls, managed phone banks, direct mail etc. I can categorically say that this is nonsense. People don't cough up their cash, or offer their time unless they are asked properly. It takes skill, and a lot of effort.

I disagree. The money is a pittance, and the way political parties operate, formulate policy, etc. is of great public importance. If fundraising skill eclipses policy formulation in determining electoral success, then our society will suffer on balance. I have met a lot of policy wonks who are terrified of picking up a phone and asking a complete stranger for money. The same wonks developed effective policy in a range of areas. Should they be demoted in party ranks because they are only good at formulating policy? That's pretty twisted. That's why I said don't put on ideological blinkers. Look on the spending as a cost benefit exercise. A public benefit vs. a tiny cost. Of course, if you were a Conservative Reform Alliance Party loyalist, then the fact that the entire party is bereft of policy, and dedicated to the proposition that fundraising is all,... but that's a topic for another thread perhaps?

I should have checked the link first. It is a very succint description of what I was describing. I wasn't aware of several of the other sovereign wealth funds, although I don't believe that the Russian fund is anything other than a giant slush fund. Good link.

I can explain it, the KIO had roughly $90 billion overseas, including gold. They happily handed it over the the US Treasury to help defray the costs of the first Gulf War. Fair enough in my opinion. The ultimate in rainy days. W.R.T. the currency trap, I distrust shortcuts like 'Dutch Disease'. I prefer to lay it out, because simple labels invite simple solutions. This is a complex problem, that no-one has adequately solved (Except Kuwait). It is similar to what totally screwed NewFoundlands economy for a generation, and has already started to seriously screw up some of the smaller members of the European monetary union. The only 'easy' solution, is to break up the country into optimal currency blocks. Yeah right, what an easy solution!

The reason that Chretien implemented this reform was to hand Paul Martin a poisoned chalice, the same reason that he worked with Jean Augustine to bring Ignatieff into Etobicoke Lakeshore from abroad. I have spoken to senior Liberals who concurr that it was a very beneficial piece of legislation, but they hate it because it skewered the Liberals. 'Good law, wrong reason' to paraphrase. The reason it is publicly funded, and tied into the election spending limits is to remove undue influence of political contributors on a) policy formulation, and policy implementation. It is really hard to say NO to people upon whom your' next election victory depends. I am no fan of government spending, but this pittance strikes at the roots of political influence peddling, and corruption. It is the singlemost important piece of legislation in the last decade. Don't fall victim of idealogical posturing. This so called welfare is IMPORTANT.

Back on topic, What if Obama asks us to stay? Simple answer is Afghans need to settle their civil war. There is little hope that an occupying force can bring lasting peace, or NATO objectives. There are a lot of tribes and factions that love a good scrap, and if the local warlord, Taliban, or whatever label you want to apply is willing to pay $50 a week, then to paraphrase 'hey, my Kalishnikov is at your service, at least until the harvest needs to come in.' As long as foreigners are there, then there will be people shooting at them. At this moment, the Afghan gvt. has under $800mm in Revenues. They claim to need 200,000 military and security forces to effectively police their own nation, and Operating costs alone for a force this size will run into the billions, let alone equipping these forces. It is not conceivable that Afghanistan will have the resources to fund these kind of forces for many decades to come. The war there simply cannot practically be prosecuted to achieve the stated objectives of NATO, if prosecuted by NATO. I find it distasteful, and cynical that the arguments for waging a war in somebody else's country should be that it's a good excuse to retool our army, or that we need to kiss another countries ass. Either we have sound reasons to be there, and a reasonable probability of achieving our objectives, or we should get out.

Hear hear. Until 20 minutes ago I was clueless about the intricacies of Wheat Boards, whether CWB or Ontario Variant. On the topic of diversification though, Alberta is liable to suffer from the same disease as Ontario and Quebec, and it is likely to become more pronounced with the passage of time. The conundrum is that resource extraction employs relatively few people, and adds very little value given the foreign exchange earnings it generates. It will be very hard to compete with imports, whether of goods, OR services, so long as the dollar is driven up by resource exports. If you want to see an absolutely brilliant model of how a State was able to ameliorate the damage that massive resource exports can cause, look at Kuwaits KIO in the 1980's. Because the state controlled a large proportion of Oil revenues, they were able to divert a really large proportion of gross revenues to offshore investments. By so doing, they were stashing it away overseas for a rainy day, thus reducing their own exchange rates, which allowed a lot more room for normal value added economic activity. I guess a King, or Sultan can do it, but elected Parliaments just cannot keep their hands off the loot.