Icebound

Trudeau's closing remarks are generating some comment... It is telling that 10 years of Harper has turned Canada so cynical that our only goals now are to "have a job", and "stay safe". The Canada of the 1960's, 70's, 80's was a Canada of optimism and vision.... Bill of rights, aboriginal vote, new flag, CPP, patriation of constitution, universal health care, etc. I think Trudeau was trying to re-kindle some of that optimism, and it may well have been more effective than you cynics can imagine, especially among the young. Harper may have said "I love Canada" at some point, but I have never heard him do so. But he HAS, famously, denigrated Canada: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term," in 1997. He went on, in that speech, to complain about a lot of Canadian Institutions, including the way the House of Commons works.... features which, by the way, he made no effort to improve... but features which he used quite blatantly to solidify his hold on power.... http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/03/23/StephenHarpersEyes/ Trudeau's "love of Canada" is a sharp contrast to Harper's, and he was probably trying to highlight that. If Canada were Harper's child, he would send it to bed with a handshake. Trudeau would hug it, tuck it in, and talk about the wonderful things they would do together tomorrow. Again, you cynics may not understand, but a great portion of the population does. ...

Let's analyze what the net results of the "economy" really are...The "economy", as it currently operates, results in the net transfer of wealth from approximately 80-percent of the population to the remaining 20-percent. Maybe it is not such a bad idea to have it slow down.

Business stops in the House of Commons, but the Government keeps operating until it is turned over after the election.

The debates will be interesting.... well, if anybody shows up for them.... Trudeau was very comfortable in Calgary today, both for his speech and questions. I think that he will have the most to gain in the long campaign. Harper's constant "be afraid" message will grow tiresome quickly.... it may have already. And Mulcair did not look too comfortable yesterday, it remains to be seen if he can really muster enough Liberal support.... The seventy-odd days give Justin a much longer time to display his stuff. His "stuff" may not be as weak as Harper thinks. http://ctv.news/C5U87FR (question video starts automatically after speech video is done) The next few weeks will be interesting.

That depends on what the new dictator's policies would be. Had Harper made half an effort to implement some sort of meaningful environmental controls during the early part of his mandate, the Keystone XL pipeline would be laying pipe right now. But if "new conservative" means the same policies, our trading partners will continue to drag their feet on stuff like that. ...

Actually, I think small-l liberals are a lot more likely to be in the closet, because they tend to be pragmatic and know that some so-called "conservative" policies are useful.... but are also interested in social consciousness and know that's going to cost money and... and..decisions, decisions....priorities, priorities... All the conservatives that I meet are very outspoken... There is only one path and they "know that they are right" ... so I am not at all convinced that there would be any more Conservatives in the closet than Liberals. If there ARE conservatives in the closet, then they are obviously not very proud of their record, so maybe they should re-think their philosophy ? ? ? ...

In his Calgary speech today, Trudeau has hit at least one issue that will resonate with Canadians. http://ctv.news/C5U87FR At about 4:40 into the clip, he talks about MP's in Ottawa.... "...[ Harper's MPs ] .... thought that they were going be YOUR voice in Ottawa, but found out that they were to be nothing more than Mr. HARPER's voice in your community... and that's a shame." About his own candidate... " I want him to be your voice in Ottawa, not my voice in Calgary". ... He is looking awfully comfortable during the speech and the post-speech questions.... It IS going to get interesting.

Should this candidate continue his Presidential run, or should he open a cooking school? See the clip of Ted Cruz cooking bacon http://time.com/3982223/ted-cruz-bacon-gun/

We can select any number of these kind of issues, and there maybe differences between the parties.... Yes, they might spend money in somewhat different ways... yes priorities will be different.... but ultimately each will encounter situations, and respond with their most reasoned approach. Harper will not shut down the borders, and Mulcair will not throw them wide open. Nobody is going to close down the oil sands, and Trudeau will not disband the military. There are only two issues of import in this election, sports-fans.... 1. Democracy 2. Evisceration of Canadian institutions. Necessity of Democracy is a given. Stability is a facade. Here are some "stable" governments: North Korea, China, Saddam Hussein, Iran, Assad, Stalin, Putin. To have a country grow, you need an exchange of ideas, and you need new ideas. Stability is stagnation. Our of our great failings is the inability to recognize that all great achievements are the result of cooperation... whether it is going to the moon, or building a city, or just building a car. You don't have great achievements if your philosophy is everyone for himself. You need cooperation from government and business, from capital and labour. When we eviscerate our Canadian institutions, whether research, or statistics, or the mail system, or yes, the Communications infrastructures, we are destroying what makes this country great to live in, These institutions are what foster the necessary cooperation to make the country grow, rather than stagnate and turn it into another ho-hum rat race ... (make a buck, spend a buck (if you have it). Pick whatever issues you like.... But without a strengthening of Democracy and a strengthening of Public institutions.... yes, including the Senate.... this country will crawl instead of soar. ...

Perhaps.Or more likely that you get studies that say what the contracting government wants to hear... A way for me to be sure that I get the next contract. The Senate is already a "think tank" that has the resources and time to investigate issues in as great a detail as any contractor. It is not at all clear that you would get "better", elsewhere. ..

[quote name="-1=e^ipi" post="1073838" timestamp= Prior to the USA civil war, the slavery abolitionists tried to isolate and punish the non-compliant states in order to get rid of slavery. Were the abolitionists unjust extortionists that deserved to go to jail. Big difference intimidating you to observe basic human rights.... Versus intimidating you to comply with a political idea...

"Democratic equality" happens in the Commons, not the Senate.Since the Senate does not pass legislation on its own, the so-called excessive representation for PEI does not mean much... Except to help ensure that the more numerous BC legislators in the House of Commons do not do something that is outright detrimental to the less-populous PEI. There would be nothing particularly problematic about appointing friends, providing they were intelligent and interested in serving their Country. The problems start when they serve their appointer instead. The two chambers need to be more independent, that's all.

Mussolini's principles did indeed include proportional representation, but the more important thing was to separate the authoritarian government from the people to an extent such that decisions were pretty much made in secret. Government by surprise, so to speak.No.... things like national symbolism, obsession with national security and crime, and supremacy of military are all way higher priority.

We keep going around and around this Senate circle, and in the course of making the trip, we keep forgetting two key things: 1. The first order of business of any fascist government, (such as Mussolini, for example), was to abolish the senate. Governments who do not want any oversight want to abolish Senates. (Which makes me confused about Mulcair and the NDP. Abolishing the senate is so contrary to what I would expect their general principles to be..) 2. The Senate is not "widely reviled". Only some of the people in it are widely reviled. Harper and his cronies are also "widely reviled" by a large portion of the population, but we are not talking about abolishing the House of Commons, are we? Right now, the best solution is Trudeau's idea to disassociate the Senate from the political partisanship. Abolishing it is a non-starter, starving it and/or sanctions against un-cooperative provinces is extortion, not "thinking outside the box", Extortion deserves jail time. Oh yeah.... as to the senate "not doing anything".... here is their report on bitcoin and digital currencies, completed last month in spite of their "troubles":.... over 70 witnesses from CSIS to Banks, to Businessnes to Bitcoin, itself. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwil9cvB1_fGAhXSBZIKHS2WDUE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parl.gc.ca%2FContent%2FSEN%2FCommittee%2F412%2Fbanc%2Frep%2Frep12jun15-e.pdf&ei=Bj20VaXaONKLyAStrLaIBA&usg=AFQjCNEi0tmNu6l_Oth-8Nju7TbjlcBzAg&bvm=bv.98717601,d.aWw

Everybody has a political leaning of some description, ....but the idea is to prevent dependence on a political party, or required allegiance to any particular party, or any activities on behalf of a political party.

... then our politicians need to be reminded why they are there. Social media is not a referendum.... and even if it was .... a referendum of the citizens does not necessarily reflect the best position for the country. Which is why we elect law-makers to act on our behalf.... to research issues, study facts, determine the best path... in SPITE of the stupidity of their constituents. Unfortunately, you are right. Instead of doing the above, they simply react to their fund-raiser's wishes. ...

You forget the KEY POINT.... there is no party affiliation for the Senators in my Scenario. So you are voting between Joe Blow Renowned Hospital Administrator, and Jack Dow Super Farmers advocate, and Bill Smith One-time Mayor of big city. . based on their accomplishments, their standing in the community... not their politics, they don't have explicit politics ...

Okay, I will spell it out. Harper gets plurality of seats, Mulcair (or JT) gets 2nd highest number, Remaining party (JT or Mulcair) gets 3rd highest number. Minority government. Number of seats: JT + NDP together more than Harper... Harper + JT together more than NDP, Harper + NDP more than JT. Harper has plurality, will be asked to govern. Harper will try to govern, introduce speech from the throne. If he were to get support from EITHER JT or NDP, he would be able to go ahead.... BUT HE WON'T. He will be defeated by combined JT and NDP. Rather than hold another immediate election, GG will go to next highest (JT or Mulcair) and ask HIM to form government. IF, for example, that is JT, Mulcair won't like it, but will hold his nose and support JT for some period, like two years. In meantime, Harper will step down, new leader, ready for next election 2 years down the line (or whatever). If, for example, it is MULCAIR who has more seats than JT, then HE will be asked form government, and JT will have to hold HIS nose and support for the period, 2 years or whatever. It will works similarly if Harper does NOT get the plurality. JT (or Mulcair...whoever has the plurality ) will get support the other (who may be holding his nose), and Harper will be out. For Harper to make a government, he will have to get a majority... Okay, that's speculation, but that's what makes it fun. ...

"Citizens" never take a long-term view. Citizens are short-term, me-first, knee-jerk animals. Okay, maybe not "never", but "rarely". That is why we elect or appoint knowledgeable people with time on their hands to do the necessary research for us. Right now, they need a little slap to the side of their head to remind them why they are there. Once that is accomplished, we will be good to go. ... ...

Well, on the "elected" issue, maybe a good idea would be to have them elected by a free vote of the relevant province's legislature. If we keep the idea that Senate is "oversight", HOC is "legislative", I don't see a problem in "electing" who I want to be in the oversight role. I will never agree that abolition is the "best" option. The government of the day is a classic example of why we need an oversight chamber. The Senate reports are here http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/annual-reports-e.htm ... where they outline what bills they passed, what bills they amended, what bills they INTRODUCED, etc. It is certainly probable that they should do more.... that they should be less partisan about it.... but I have no doubt that there is useful research being done there ... by at least some members.... and I have no appetite for abolition.... A cleanup of current laggards, and a separation from political partisanship, and it is good to go.

But to put a short answer to your question: NO, NEVER.

Harper will quit anyway... He will quit for sure immediately if he is defeated; Even if majority, he will quit in two years in favor of a new leader before the next election. There is no way Harper will go another full term. CPC won't prop up JT, and LPC will not prop up Harper. However, party finances will dictate that, if a minority, somebody is going to have to prop up somebody for probably two years at least. My betting is that, in a minority with CPC plurality, Harper will try to govern. The other two will defeat him ASAP. GG will then go to next highest party to ask if they will govern. Whoever that may be NDP or LPC, the other one will hold their nose and support for the usual recovery period about two years. And then.... another election. New leader of CPC, some experience with a more left-of-Harper government, the electorate will decide......

Last night's CBC At Issue panel touched on the abolition issue, and on some of the "good" they've done for this country. I think abolition is a non-starter, nor should it be. (Were it not for their stance on the Senate, I could be convinced to vote NDP this time around) I think serious reform is required. The reason the senate worked better in years past, is that many of the senators actually DID have a lesser tie to their original party, once in the upper chamber and actually DID do some original thinking... or at least, more of it than now. So that would be the first reform... they must sever ties with political parties. The second reform is nomination and election. CANADA should not be appointing the senators, the PROVINCES should appoint their own. I would prefer that each province have a committee to create a nomination list of candidates, and then elections held when senate seats to be filled for that province... maybe some kind of rule that requires at least twice as many nominations as seats available at time of election, etc. However, to simplify at start up, they could even be just APPOINTED by the provincial government of the day, with a view to further reform (elections) in the future.

Social media does not control resources; governments and management do..... . the "efforts to get police resources for encounters with the mentally ill has been overtaken by .... the lack of political will to divert funds from "easy" solutions: jails, guns, armour.... and into the research, training, and facilities which those situations actually require... ...

Funny you should mention.... pool parties.... Well, Here is a little background on swimming pool and race relations that you may find interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/troubled-waters-in-mckinney-texas/395150/ So no, maybe you don't blame the cops, but the politicians and city planners instead.... "....for example, in 1957, a young man backed by the NAACP sued to force the integration of a brand-new swimming pool. When the judge made it clear the city would lose, citizens voted 1,758-89 to have the city sell all of its recreational facilities rather than integrate them. The pool was sold to a local Lions’ Club, which was able to operate it as a whites-only private facility." This particular example is from 1957, but the article goes on to show context of how such ideas are being applied today.... So, yes, Pools are a particular sore point. "Although many whites abandoned desegregated public pools, most did not stop swimming. Instead, they built private pools, both club and residential, and swam in them …. Suburbanites organized private club pools rather than fund public pools because club pools enabled them to control the class and racial composition of swimmers, whereas public pools did not...."