Justin Trudeau & Red China

[Icebound]

I'm waiting for Justin to now share with us his admiration for Mussolini for getting the trains to run on time.

Perhaps....

But does that mean that Harper and Mulcair must admire Mussolini for getting rid of the Senate?

...

Edited November 12, 2013 by Icebound

[Guest Derek L]

You won't have to go far to get people to agree that mandatory minimum sentencing should be repealed.

Judges don't like it. It generally targets minorities. It does not translate into any sort of deterrent to crime.

And worst of all.... it is way too expensive for the taxpayer in relation to the perceived benefit.

But that's another thread.

...

....

But what does the voting public think? That is key.

[Guest Derek L]

Perhaps....

But does that mean that Harper and Mulcair must admire Mussolini for getting rid of the Senate?

...

Have Harper or Mulcair expressed admiration towards Mussolini?

[Keepitsimple]

CBC continuing to defend Trudeau. Can you even imagine in your wildest dream that the CBC would defend ANYTHING a Conservative might say? Doesn't really matter though - the thin veneer comes off all by itself.

Justin Trudeau applauds China - but then, so does Stephen Harper

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-applauds-china-but-then-so-does-stephen-harper-1.2422068

[Icebound]

But what does the voting public think? That is key.

The voting public will basically sell their grandmother if it saves them five dollars. Worse, the DONATING public will donate to the tyranny, if they think it will somehow save THEM a nickel in the immediate future.

In Nov 18th Macleans... Kenneth Whyte has an excellent article on Senator Gerstein's speech at the convention. The parts that the media didn't cover... the parts that had nothing to do with paying Duffy's bills.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/06/bay-street-no-longer-matters-in-ottawa/

If we are wondering why Harper introduces bizarre policy, that article answers the question... it is because policy now is NOT directed to soothe corporations, nor is it directed for the good of society, nor is it even directed to satisfy the party's voter's supposed wishes.

It is strictly directed to satisfy those that donate to the party.

It is the polls of DONORS that matter, not the polls of the "voters" which the media publishes. Donations will easily translate into voters. It allows us the media space to convince voters that "selling your grandmother will save you a nickel, and we are the ones who can do it".

...

...

[Guest Derek L]

The voting public will basically sell their grandmother if it saves them five dollars. Worse, the DONATING public will donate to the tyranny, if they think it will somehow save THEM a nickel in the immediate future.

In Nov 18th Macleans... Kenneth Whyte has an excellent article on Senator Gerstein's speech at the convention. The parts that the media didn't cover... the parts that had nothing to do with paying Duffy's bills.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/06/bay-street-no-longer-matters-in-ottawa/

If we are wondering why Harper introduces bizarre policy, that article answers the question... it is because policy now is NOT directed to soothe corporations, nor is it directed for the good of society, nor is it even directed to satisfy the party's voter's supposed wishes.

It is strictly directed to satisfy those that donate to the party.

It is the polls of DONORS that matter, not the polls of the "voters" which the media publishes. Donations will easily translate into voters. It allows us the media space to convince voters that "selling your grandmother will save you a nickel, and we are the ones who can do it".

...

...

So let me get this straight, the article (I read it) is complaining that Corporations have less clout in our electoral process, coupled with the tax payer voter subsidy being phased out, so now political parties raise capital through the limited donations of their party members, the same party members that decide the parties policy…….This is a bad thing how?

And for full disclosure, my wife and I were at the convention and donate annually the max contribution aloud to the party and our riding association (on top of donated time)…….and you’re bloody well right our party members craft policy for our party, policies that we deem important.

Do you really expect CPC members to push the inclusive polices favoured by say a NDP or Green Party member? As for the donation limits, I too favour that approach (as mentioned in the link) a 7 or 8 figure a year CEO has as much say as I and in turn, I’ve as much say as a lower/middle income party member.

Ultimately all that maters is if enough Canadians share our ideas on election day and of course:

“Message creates momentum creates money.”

[Shady]

I know this is a bit off topic, but does anybody remember when Justin called Peter Kent a piece of shit in the house of commons?

[Shady]

"with the exception of CO²" Ya Simple, what's the problem there, hey?

but once again, we have another example of a Harper Conservative supporter attempting to ride on the coattails of the Ontario provincial government decision to shift away from coal..... while, of course, holding to a position that denigrates that same provincial government over energy costs and the presumed influence that shifts toward alternative/sustainable energy has on those costs. Nice personal touch with the "Harper has asthma" nugget... did you know... he's also an economist!

as for China's coal plant expansions, that's been beaten to death in several MLW threads... where China is retiring old inefficient plants and replacing them with more efficient newer technology plants... or building new efficient plants that also include provisions toward carbon capture... where China continues world-leading research/trials toward sequestration. You know, capture/sequestration... the thing Harper Conservatives (and Alberta Conservatives)... show no real/significant interest in pursuing independently or in joint venture with industry.

Or right, China's building new plants the likes of which you don't allow Canada to build. Why is that again?

[The_Squid]

I know this is a bit off topic, but does anybody remember when Justin called Peter Kent a piece of shit in the house of commons?

Remember when Harper wanted senate reform? Or called for Alberta firewalls? What's your point, or. Is it just more trolling?

[Boges]

Isn't Harper waiting on a Supreme Court decision on the Senate before he can reform it?

[cybercoma]

Isn't Harper waiting on a Supreme Court decision on the Senate before he can reform it?

he got his decision. Provinces must approve it.

[Boges]

he got his decision. Provinces must approve it.

That makes reform much more difficult does it not?

[cybercoma]

Depends on the reform.

[Icebound]

So let me get this straight, the article (I read it) is complaining that Corporations have less clout in our electoral process, coupled with the tax payer voter subsidy being phased out, so now political parties raise capital through the limited donations of their party members, the same party members that decide the parties policy…….This is a bad thing how?

And for full disclosure, my wife and I were at the convention and donate annually the max contribution aloud to the party and our riding association (on top of donated time)…….and you’re bloody well right our party members craft policy for our party, policies that we deem important.

That is part of the point.... parties DO NOT craft policy "that you deem important". They craft policy that will trigger a cash inflow. The two may or may not coincide, because cash inflows often come as a result of some wedge issue that may be pretty bad policy for society as a whole. Hard core fundamentalist Catholics, for example, will open their wallets when you hint at reopening the abortion debate.

The "bad thing" about getting rid of the voter subsidy is that now, financial stability of political parties is dependant on wedge issues. Let's face it... middle of the road peasants do not donate much voluntarily. The bulk comes from the far extremes at both ends.

The CPC is first at getting this right, but the others will have to catch up and now we will have bad policy from all of them, catering to those extremes. Legalize marijuana. Bring back the death penalty. Strengthen collective bargaining legislation. Weaken collective bargaining legislation. Abolish the Senate. Tax the rich corporations. Stronger military. Reduce military spending. Ignore environment. Shut down all nuclear plants. etc, etc., etc. Each of these can be terrible policy, but bring them up as a single issue, and certain wallets open... "YAH, that it! THAT's what we want!"...even though it is only 6% of the population making that shout.

The voter subsidy might not have been a perfect tool, but it financed political parties more or less according to the OVERALL wishes of the COMPLETE Canadian electorate. Today, they are financed by the squeakiest wheels, and that is very definitely "a bad thing".

[Smallc]

he got his decision. Provinces must approve it.

Well the Quebec Court of Appeal has already said Ottawa can't do what it's proposing, so it's a good bet given the attitude of the justices from the Supreme Court of Canada so far that they'll agree with Quebec's top court.

[Guest Derek L]

That is part of the point.... parties DO NOT craft policy "that you deem important". They craft policy that will trigger a cash inflow. The two may or may not coincide, because cash inflows often come as a result of some wedge issue that may be pretty bad policy for society as a whole. Hard core fundamentalist Catholics, for example, will open their wallets when you hint at reopening the abortion debate.

Parties (plural) do not, but I’m content with my own selected party (CPC) and our practices associated with selecting policy. I fail to see why you don’t understand that.

The "bad thing" about getting rid of the voter subsidy is that now, financial stability of political parties is dependant on wedge issues. Let's face it... middle of the road peasants do not donate much voluntarily. The bulk comes from the far extremes at both ends.

No, it's dependent on the donations of the party members…….As to the “middle of the road peasants”, most of our parties donations were in the ~$50-100 range (funny enough CPC gun owners sent many a cheque for $68.19 in reference to Bills C-68(LGR) and C-19(getting ride of it).

The CPC is first at getting this right, but the others will have to catch up and now we will have bad policy from all of them, catering to those extremes. Legalize marijuana. Bring back the death penalty. Strengthen collective bargaining legislation. Weaken collective bargaining legislation. Abolish the Senate. Tax the rich corporations. Stronger military. Reduce military spending. Ignore environment. Shut down all nuclear plants. etc, etc., etc. Each of these can be terrible policy, but bring them up as a single issue, and certain wallets open... "YAH, that it! THAT's what we want!"...even though it is only 6% of the population making that shout.

But all wallets can only open to the same degree, so I don’t see your point……..

The voter subsidy might not have been a perfect tool, but it financed political parties more or less according to the OVERALL wishes of the COMPLETE Canadian electorate. Today, they are financed by the squeakiest wheels, and that is very definitely "a bad thing".

Why should tax dollars be used to fund political parties, versus the given party's rank and file?

[Hudson Jones]

Why should tax dollars be used to fund political parties, versus the given party's rank and file?

we have examples of corporations funding political parties and we're seeing how great that has worked out.

[Guest Derek L]

we have examples of corporations funding political parties and we're seeing how great that has worked out.

Where? Not in Canada, that's illegal.

[Hudson Jones]

Where? Not in Canada, that's illegal.

I was talking about the U.S. as an example.

That said, here in Canada, there are ways around it. For example, each employee of a corporation donating the maximum allowed amount. This is already happening. When you rely heavily on political contributions from individuals corruption is encouraged.

When there is not enough oversight and control of election funds and the smaller parties who are not representing big corporations and wealthy special interest groups are pushed out, then the people will no longer be properly represented. As it was shown when Joe Volpe received $108,000 from 20 people during the Liberal leadership race. Many of them were children who gave the maximum allowable donation of $5400.

[Guest Derek L]

I was talking about the U.S. as an example.

But of course, we're talking about Canada.

That said, here in Canada, there are ways around it. For example, each employee of a corporation donating the maximum allowed amount. This is already happening. When you rely heavily on political contributions from individuals corruption is encouraged.

And when has your example taken place? With that said, if numerous coworkers do donate to the same political party, how is that corrupt? Is that any different then likeminded coworkers in a union environment donating to the same party?

When there is not enough oversight and control of election funds and the smaller parties who are not representing big corporations and wealthy special interest groups are pushed out, then the people will no longer be properly represented. As it was shown when Joe Volpe received $108,000 from 20 people during the Liberal leadership race. Many of them were children who gave the maximum allowable donation of $5400.

Well I disregard your assertion on corporate electoral finance within Canadian parties, your point on the “small parties” not receiving donations is correct, but with equal limits of personal donations for all parties, when does it become obvious to you that if these small parties held real interest by the public, the public would donate money to them.

[Shady]

I was talking about the U.S. as an example.

The most powerful and prosperous country in the history of the world. Ok.

[Icebound]

Well I disregard your assertion on corporate electoral finance within Canadian parties, your point on the “small parties” not receiving donations is correct, but with equal limits of personal donations for all parties, when does it become obvious to you that if these small parties held real interest by the public, the public would donate money to them.

Please let me contain my laughter.

It you were to actually apportion the public money "according to interest by the public", you would find that the Green Party should be getting nearly twice as much public money as they currently are.

Conservatives get about $9.00 of public taxplayer money for each of their votes, but the Green Party gets less than $5 for each of theirs..

That is becuase the current peculiar rules with respect to political finance have the taxpayer heavily subsidizing contributions and expenses.... but NOT VOTES... in other words, the taxpayer subsidy is NOT apportioned according to "public interest"; it is mostly apportioned according to the ability to raise money and spend.

[Spiderfish]

That said, here in Canada, there are ways around it. For example, each employee of a corporation donating the maximum allowed amount. This is already happening. When you rely heavily on political contributions from individuals corruption is encouraged.

Yeah, those powerful evil corporations...and unions. The things they try.

[Guest Derek L]

Please let me contain my laughter.

It you were to actually apportion the public money "according to interest by the public", you would find that the Green Party should be getting nearly twice as much public money as they currently are.

Conservatives get about $9.00 of public taxplayer money for each of their votes, but the Green Party gets less than $5 for each of theirs..

That is becuase the current peculiar rules with respect to political finance have the taxpayer heavily subsidizing contributions and expenses.... but NOT VOTES... in other words, the taxpayer subsidy is NOT apportioned according to "public interest"; it is mostly apportioned according to the ability to raise money and spend.

The per vote subsidy is being (rightfully) phased out……..If the Green Party wants more capital, their members should open up their pocket books or revise their policies so as to attract more people.

[Hudson Jones]

But of course, we're talking about Canada.

But of course I was giving an example of how getting rid of the federal funding and relying on private funding can pollute a system.

And when has your example taken place? With that said, if numerous coworkers do donate to the same political party, how is that corrupt? Is that any different then likeminded coworkers in a union environment donating to the same party?

Fundraisers and individual donations corrupt elections. This is what I'm trying to get at. We already see it in Canada and it's at an extreme in the U.S.

I don't think there is any way of controlling this. For democracy to truly flourish, I believe the best way to level the playing field is to decrease the limit on party campaign spending.

Corporation elections financing happens all the time. It has happened more than it has been reported. One example that I remember was during the Quebec provincial elections. But it's also being done in federal elections as well. This is not okay:

An analysis by The Canadian Press of federal data indicates that donations from certain firms, now under scrutiny, helped transform one Tory association in a no-hope Montreal riding into an improbable financial juggernaut in early 2009.

In Laurier-Sainte-Marie, a left-leaning fortress home to some of the most progressive politics in the country, the Tory riding association pulled in $288,823.37 in donations that year – despite the party placing fifth there in the previous election, behind the Green party.

Here is more:

Lino Zambito, a construction boss who recently pleaded guilty to trying to fix the 2009 municipal election in Boisbriand, told Radio-Canada last month that engineering firms are “the ones closest to power.” He said they ask construction companies for a “helping hand” in order to secure certain contracts.

In 2010, the engineering firm Axor and several affiliated companies pleaded guilty to 40 counts of breaking Quebec's election laws.

The province's elections watchdog discovered the firm had circumvented laws preventing corporate donations by funnelling money through employees.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Hudson Jones