Queenmandy85

How many of the prominent leaders in the CCF-NDP are ordained Christians. Woodsworth, Douglas, Knowles, Calvert, Prebble, Father Bob Ogle, Colin Clay, and Ben Smiley, just off the top of my head. Charlie Angus is an active member of the Roman Catholic Church. Jagmeet Singh is a devoted Sikh. So, you can't say the CCF-NDP is a party that rejects all moral and religious principles.

You have been misinformed. The statement of yours that I have quoted is wrong. It contradicts every reputible climatologist and physicist in the world. Of the last three Prime Ministers from Quebec, only Jean Chretien was of predominantly French heritage. Brian Mulroney was of Irish descent and Prime Minister Trudeau is mostly of Scottish ancestry. I don't recall the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau ever expressing any love for Communist dictatorships, other than to follow the Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's policies of maintaining close relations with Cuba and making huge trade deals with Red China to sell our wheat. The Nixon administration asked the Canadian government to open relations with the PRC as an opening for President Nixon to open relations with the Mao government.

In retrospect, I would have governed like Trump. I was under the mistaken idea that the PM is boss and cabinet ministers and bureaucrats would do what I told them to do. On the positive side, my ideas were so good that the voters would have embraced them enmass and I would go down in history as the greatest PM in history. I would give me about twenty minutes in office before I was turfed. But Spanky, I've never heard it expressed more eloquently.

Just to be clear, the government did try to get electoral reform but it was blocked by the NDP.

Again, government is a reflection of the population. 20% of people will steal regardless of the consequences. 60% of people will steal if they think they can get away with it and the consequences won't affect them. 20% of people will never steal. If anything, MP's are more honest than the voters. Having been involved in politics for so long, I've come to believe voters are the least honest, and greediest group in the country. When I was seeking the Progressive Conservative nomination, the question I was asked repeatedly was what (money / goodies) are you going to give us? First they said they were opposed to capital punishment but then they nominated and elected a guy who would have brought back hanging. They want better healthcare but want taxes cut.

This is the root of my frustration. His platform so far is "Liberals bad." So what does the CPC propose that is better? Don't wait for the next election. Help the government fix things now.

I agree that the Liberal platform on climate change is weak...as was the policies of governments going back to Prime Minister Mulroney. Mr. Poilievre has been very quiet on solutions. He is very good at telling us what makes us upset but I have yet to hear him say what he plans to do about it. I want to have an alternative to the current government. I am a member of the CPC. But so far, I haven't seen anything from the CPC that makes me want to vote for them.

It was the same in Prime Minister Harper's government. He ruled his caucus with and iron hand. If a member of caucus spoke their mind, they were punished. It has been that way since confederation. That is why you want to be a government MP from PEI. You have a 1 in 4 chance of being in cabinet. I really dislike Prime Minister Trudeau's immigration policy. Canada has too many people. Decisions made that benifit the governing party are decisions that are popular with voters. We want governments to do what voters want. That is democracy. Sometimes, governments need to make unpoppular decisions such as lockdowns in a medical pandemic emergency. The government had to urgently convince people to stay in their homes in order to slow the spread of Covid. To do that, they had to get compensation money to as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and worry about the possibility that some would get money they were not entitled to later. It was a question of saving lives. Soon, governments will have to make seriously unpopular decisions to mitigate climate change, again, to try and save lives. What decisions have the government made that did not benifit the country, but benefitted the grits?

Anyway, to make a long story short, I reiterate, my advice to Mr. Poilievre is to stat promoting a positive achievable vision. Give the voters something to vote for rather than someone to vote against.

Why do we need to wait until an election to hear what the opposition proposes to remedy problems?

How do you come to that conclusion? Parliament seems to be a pretty accurate reflection of the electorate. Roughly 60% of the electorate is on the centre / centre-left and 40% is centre / centre -right. 63% of MP's are centre/centre-left, and 35% of MP's are centre / centre right. That is as close to a reflection of the electorate as you are going to get in any system.

I didn't quite understand that except you seem to think money is the incentive to go into politics. If that is what you are saying, you are incorrect. MP's generally run for office to make things better. The incentive for the top jobs, especially Prime Minister is the same, but also power. No amount of money can match power. Henry Kissenger said "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac of all. As for first past the post, the only real alternative is run off elections. If none of the candidates in a riding receive a majority of the votes, a run off election between the top two candidates is held a few weeks later. This would mean having possibly 300 additional elections. Elections are expensive as it is. It is an important investment but a run off would add another ...70%? It is not corruption. It is organization. It is something like the concept of a union or a marketing department in a business. It pools resourses and organizes messaging. It is not a new idea. We've had political parties since the Restoration. It is normal. We need to prevent parties from having power over MP's, rather than the MP's controlling the parties. In Canada, that is the problem, but it is up to the back benches to correct that. They do have the power. They just have to use it.

Minister Morneau was in the WE scandal up to his neck. There were other questions of ethics as well. I said the primary rule about winning elections applies to political parties, not politicians. The party is the vehicle for winning, but the candidate must hold to a higher standard. Parties and politicians must also adhere to the rules of sportsmanship. How you play the game is most important. Ministerial responsibility is vital in a parliamentary system. Pleasing voters with goodies, or promises of goodies is what a party does because pleasing voters is what democracy is for. However, if any politician has a choice between re-election and following her conscience, then honour and tradition demand they choose conscience. So far, that is not a decision Prime Minister Trudeau has exercised well. Disclaimer: If I were Prime Minister after having struggled to get there over decades, I am pretty certain which way I would choose. When I think back to all those years when my destiny was certain to be Prime Minister of Canada and how I would have governed...I looked a lot like President Trump, only with a different hairstyle.

It is interesting that Minister Morneau did not resign over his disagreements with the Prime Minister, but rather he waited until he was forced to resign over the WE scandal. Normally, when a Minister is in disagreement with cabinet policy, they do the honourable thing and resign as a matter of principal. (principle? I can never get that straight)

What is the purpose of a political party? A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period. Full stop. This is a rule that the PPC and the NDP fail to grasp and the CPC's actions for the last few years indicates we have a fragile grasp on it as well. Mr. Morneau is no doubt, a crackerjack book keeper, but he was a poor fit for politics. They don't call the Liberals the NGP, or Natural Governing Party for nothing. Any leader who feels he knows everything about everything likely is not as smart as he thinks he is. President Reagan's greatest strenght was his ability to recognize his own limitations and to surround himself with people who knew a lot more than he did and most of all, to listen to their advice. If the Prime Minister surrounds himself with knowledgeable people when dealing with issues where he is not an expert, then good for him.

As a side tangent, how long will that hypothetical population drop last? It needs to be a slow permanent decline. On the main topic, August is right when he advises Mr. Poilievre to "Appeal to higher angels, Canada is a good country." John Diefenbaker crushed the grits with his positive vision of "roads to resources" and "follow John." It was a policy that gave voters something to vote for rather than against. It gave to Tories the largest majority in history up to that time. When the CPC says they have a solution to an issue, then keep it a secret, gives voters the sense that we do not have a solution.

Norway has very high taxes and very high prices for energy. Relative to most first world nations, Canadians tax burden is quite low.

You are misinformed. Exxon Mobile knows. They accurately predicted the impact of human caused climate change in the1970's and then spent the next few decades hiding their study while attacking all the other studies that confirmed their own research. (Geoffrey Supran from the University of Miami) If you don't like carbon taxes, perhaps you would prefer rationing.

Clearly, you've never been to Norway. ?

Mr. Poilievre is very good at the slick rant about what people are upset about. I already know what bothers me. I don't need someone to tell me what I already know. I would like to see him tell us what his solutions are. He focuses on the little irritants like line ups for things, but he is dead quiet on the big issues of climate change solutions and healthcare. Where does he plan to get the money to pay for these solutions.

Damn! The polls now show a CPC minority. Mr. Poilievre owes me but I am now 75 years old and my long wait for a Senate seat is over, unfulfilled. ?

See Rule #203.

Because until recently, they have been good customers. Remember rule of acquisition #57- "Good customers are as rare as latinum—treasure them." But also treat China with rule # 203 - "New customers are like razor-toothed gree worms. They can be succulent, but sometimes they bite back."

Perhaps that is a reflection of the strength of Hinduism. As for scammers, yes, I am aware. I am also aware of the volume of computer probes by the Chinese Army. I used to log dozens of incident reports a day of probes from China, and I was just doing the overflow that our computer crime investigator didn't have time for. He logged most of them. India surpasses China in most areas of scientific endeavour. A trading bond with India could be very beneficial.

It is only heathen to you. Who cares what their beliefs are. Humans have been religious for at least 100,000 years, possibly 3 times that. Just in the last 75 thousand years, there probably have been thousands of religions that have come and gone. Most teach the same lesson. Be nice to people. So forget the little differences other beliefs have and focus on the things we have in common. Have you ever call tech support?