Conservatives For PR?

[Icebound]

O

Yup, we sure do need change here, in maybe the best country in the world, the whole damn system needs changing. It's almost as if the system of government that we have now was developed over centuries .........

The problem is that it has not DEVELOPED over centuries... it has remained STAGNANT over the centuries while society changed around it....

...

[Argus]

That's how politics did work...but it doesn't have to...old man. With little chance for majority governments the game changes and politicians work together on more issues.

Suuuure. That's why Greece is going back to the polls after only a few months. That's why Turkey, after 45 days of desperate maneuvering since the last election to try cobble together some kind of coalition, is going to have to go back to the polls too. Then again, that's just a function of their constitution. Heck, Belgium spent over 500 days a few years back before being able to piece together a coalition government. No THANK you.

[Argus]

O

The problem is that it has not DEVELOPED over centuries... it has remained STAGNANT over the centuries while society changed around it....

...

Seems to work pretty well at providing strong government.

[Argus]

What an odd comment. Do you really think poochy's premise which hinges on the idea that Canada is better than other places hence we should not improve, deserves a more detailed response?

More like we've seen the weak governments in those other places and don't want to be them.

The point of the story in the OP is that there is a growing faction of conservatives fed up with the corruption and bad government of Stephen Harper.

I don't like the Harper government much, but it's certainly not deserving of the descriptions you use. It's been quite able in most things, and certainly not corrupt.

And whatever deficiencies it has can be fairly easily resolved with new leadership.

They want something better and are calling for PR to help their small-c conservative values

Not so much, actually.

[eyeball]

Yep. The Conservatives are being held to account for their choices right now. As were the Liberals before them. With PR blame for bad decisions would never rest with a single party - blame will be distributed which means voters would not be able to hold those politicians to account.

Lets put it this way: every economist agrees that the GST is good policy but there is no way that policy would have passed a minority parliament. It took a majority willing to make the tough decisions. The fact that GST still exists shows it was the right decision.

Maybe we should grow another branch of government, something like a supreme court except made up of a panel of the smartest scientists in the land.

[Icebound]

Seems to work pretty well at providing strong government.

Strong government does not translate as good government, necessarily.

[ReeferMadness]

I find it funny that:

1) your support for FPTP hinges on actually wanting to distort the vote

2) that as a Christian you think belief in a living Elvis is somehow ridiculous. Hey pot...you know the rest.

Most don't care to admit it but there are a lot of people who don't really believe in democracy. And wrt point 2, lmao.

[Argus]

Strong government does not translate as good government, necessarily.

Maybe not but weak government does translate into bad government.

[Icebound]

Maybe not but weak government does translate into bad government.

SMALL government does....

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/big-government-is-surest-way-for-nations-to-get-rich

What do Rich Countries have in common? BIG GOVERNMENT!

[Argus]

SMALL government does....

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/big-government-is-surest-way-for-nations-to-get-rich

Actually, lots of poor countries have big government too. Greece has big government. India has big government. Argentina has big government. Most often, when speaking about the economic woes of France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc., one of them is fat, bloated bureaucracy consuming too much of the nation's wealth and hindering private enterprise and business.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[PrimeNumber]

Actually, lots of poor countries have big government too. Greece has big government. India has big government. Argentina has big government. Most often, when speaking about the economic woes of France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc., one of them is fat, bloated bureaucracy consuming too much of the nation's wealth and hindering private enterprise and business.

That maybe true but it is only ever true at certain particular moments at particular points in time. You won't find a single wealthy government that isn't big . It's funny how much some Canadians want a small government but want all the perks that come with the big one at the same time. Of course governments can get to big but they can be to small too. There is a Goldilocks zone when it comes to this stuff.

The Left champions more control, the Right champions less. In the end they are both wrong, they need each other to strike a balance. It's the Ebb and flow of government. Right now we have had far to much Right and need a little bit of left, then the right can come back in and trim and the left can come back and beef it up. It's just to bad we don't have a party that knows how to keep both sides happy enough to achieve a near perfect balance.

[Icebound]

There are only two relevant issues in this election...

...repair of Canada's democratic institutions

...restoration of the Harper-eviscerated infrastructure

All other pre-election promises are useless for all parties....we all know they lie or fail.... and I really don't care what they ...SAY... pre-election, as long as they ...DO... the right things when in power

[Smallc]

So we're not allowed to care about anything else, or disagree with you, then?

[Argus]

That maybe true but it is only ever true at certain particular moments at particular points in time. You won't find a single wealthy government that isn't big .

Define 'big'.

It's funny how much some Canadians want a small government but want all the perks that come with the big one at the same time. Of course governments can get to big but they can be to small too. There is a Goldilocks zone when it comes to this stuff.

I wouldn't disagree with that. My own perspective is that government should do for the community what "needs" to be done for the community, and which is unlikely to be done properly by private industry. That is its primary purpose. By that I'm speaking about are infrastructure, health and welfare, education, policing and law, military, border controls, pensions. Beyond that we need to examine what we "want" them to do (as opposed to need). I think many of those advocates of smaller government fear the level of intrusion into private lives and business of 'big government', which, by its definition, will be clumsy and expensive, and will always seek to expand both its control and power.

[Argus]

There are only two relevant issues in this election...

...repair of Canada's democratic institutions

...restoration of the Harper-eviscerated infrastructure

Got a few examples of this "Harper-eviscerated infrastructure?

[PrimeNumber]

Define 'big'.

That gets hard because everyone will define a big or small government differently, it's very subjective. I'd say it has a lot to do with the scope of what government controls in not only the personal lives of its citizens, for example a self surveillance network, but also control of the economy. If a government has very limited control of the economy, that economy will suffer, regulations are what saved us from the last global recession. If small government had their way, the housing bubble would have burst, the dollar would have went down the drain and many industries in Canada would have either left or closed down long ago.

I wouldn't disagree with that. My own perspective is that government should do for the community what "needs" to be done for the community, and which is unlikely to be done properly by private industry. That is its primary purpose. By that I'm speaking about are infrastructure, health and welfare, education, policing and law, military, border controls, pensions. Beyond that we need to examine what we "want" them to do (as opposed to need). I think many of those advocates of smaller government fear the level of intrusion into private lives and business of 'big government', which, by its definition, will be clumsy and expensive, and will always seek to expand both its control and power.

I agree but all parties do this to an extent. Harper has been championing intrusion into the private lives of Canadians since he got into office.

Edited August 22, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Argus]

That gets hard because everyone will define a big or small government differently, it's very subjective. I'd say it has a lot to do with the scope of what government controls in not only the personal lives of its citizens, for example a self surveillance network, but also control of the economy. If a government has very limited control of the economy, that economy will suffer, regulations are what saved us from the last global recession. If small government had their way, the housing bubble would have burst, the dollar would have went down the drain and many industries in Canada would have either left or closed down long ago.

If The US had had small government it would not have stuck its ore into things by encouraging home ownership. Government does not need to encourage home ownership any more than it encourages car ownership. Now don't get me wrong. I steadfastly believe in the need for a government regulatory framework to keep business from doing things which are demonstrably against the best the interests of the community. The US regulators failed at this, but it wasn't because of small government but because they were corrupted. I similarly support a reasonable framework of laws to reign in the amoral nature of capitalism here in Canada. But such laws, if you're not careful, can easily get out of hand, strangling business.

I agree but all parties do this to an extent. Harper has been championing intrusion into the private lives of Canadians since he got into office.

I don't feel like my private life has been intruded on. I doubt the sense of the NDP's interest in the likes of industry boards and such, though, or its thoughts that a mere two or three years of investigation and hearings is grossly inadequate in determining whether a pipeline should be built.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Yes the policy of wolf in sheep's clothing is becoming obvious to the intelligent voters so the trick of former REFORM party members pretending to be progressive conservatives is not working anymore.

They have demonstrated their contempt for the vanguard of democracy and human rights in Canada (The Supreme Court of Canada) for which in a recent survey Canadians overwhelming responded that they trust the Supreme Court of Canada.

http://angusreid.org/supreme-court/

Wolves in sheep's clothing OUT. TORIES OUT.

Edited August 24, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

Yes the policy of wolf in sheep's clothing is becoming obvious to the intelligent voters so the trick of former REFORM party members pretending to be progressive conservatives is not working anymore. These extreme right wingers wearing center right clothing but bringing undemocratic secretive corrupt scandalist right wing policies past 9 years can no longer hide behind the sheep's clothing.

Oh please.

You're going back to that old shtick? It's been ten years now and we've seen no extremism from the Tories, no attacks on sacred lefty cows like immigration, homosexuals, abortion or the CBC. Yet you still act like you're hiding under your bed, trembling in terror at what they might do next.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Oh please.

You're going back to that old shtick? It's been ten years now and we've seen no extremism from the Tories, no attacks on sacred lefty cows like immigration, homosexuals, abortion or the CBC. Yet you still act like you're hiding under your bed, trembling in terror at what they might do next.

And you are on the same old biased shtick.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1325937/harper-vs-the-supreme-court-of-canada/

The manner in which they pushed unpopular bills through parliament (laws already struck down by Supreme Court), political manipulations, and calling their own loyal witnesses, the scandals one after another, early forceful end to debates in parliament and many other perceived undemocratic actions taken by the ruling conservative party are all indicative of their unsuitability to be elected as ruling party again.

Edited August 22, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

And you are on the same old biased shtick.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1325937/harper-vs-the-supreme-court-of-canada/

The manner in which they pushed unpopular bills through parliament (laws already struck down by Supreme Court), manipulations, and calling of their own corrupt witnesses, the scandals one after another, early forceful end to debates in parliament and many other corrupt undemocratic actions taken by this conservative government are all indicative of a corrupt undemocratic government.

Nothing they've done is any different than what past governments have done. The only difference is that all the squishy lefties are running around squealing like it's the end of the world because they fear and despise conservatives. If a leftist government gets into power and does EXACTLY the same stuff you will happily sleepwalk through it and yawn dismissively if anyone else raises objections.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nothing they've done is any different than what past governments have done. The only difference is that all the squishy lefties are running around squealing like it's the end of the world because they fear and despise conservatives. If a leftist government gets into power and does EXACTLY the same stuff you will happily sleepwalk through it and yawn dismissively if anyone else raises objections.

The problem being pointed out is it's not that other governments haven't used heavy handed, anti democratic tactics at times, it's that Harper and co have doe it more times than any previous government. Harper broke the record back in June by using time allocation to shut down debate, and of course it was on yet another of his over stuffed omnibus bills. And of course there is his record on prorogation, and then his big claim to fame, contempt of parliament.

And can you tell us all what "squishy" means.

[Argus]

The problem being pointed out is it's not that other governments haven't used heavy handed, anti democratic tactics at times, it's that Harper and co have doe it more times than any previous government.

Really? You have a study on hand? How many times have they used 'heavy handed tactic's as opposed to say, Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau?

Harper broke the record back in June by using time allocation to shut down debate,

I don't regard time allocation as particularly heavy handed. How many days do you want to give the opposition to make speeches no one is listening to and which the media isn't covering anyway, on why they don't like a particular bill?

and of course it was on yet another of his over stuffed omnibus bills.

I'm admittedly not much of a fan of omnibus bills, but there's a certain logic and efficiency to them. I mean, the opposition is going to vote against everything anyway. What real difference does it make it they vote against five separate bills as opposed to one bill which contains all the separate measures?

And of course there is his record on prorogation,

Parliament is prorogued every year. Biggish deal.

and then his big claim to fame, contempt of parliament.

That parliament was worthy of contempt.

And can you tell us all what "squishy" means.

That would be the opposite of not squishy.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[Icebound]

Got a few examples of this "Harper-eviscerated infrastructure?

NRC

STATSCAN

Fisheries & Oceans

Environment Canada

National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy

Hazardous Materials Information Review Committee

CFIA

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

... to name just a few of those most important to ME. Others may have other examples of importance to THEM.......

... and YES: CBC

ALSO...

...his cynical assumption that Senators are simply partisan money-raisers, as opposed to being serious and useful cogs in the law-making process... has helped turn that Chamber into the circus it now is....

[ReeferMadness]

There are only two relevant issues in this election...

...repair of Canada's democratic institutions

...restoration of the Harper-eviscerated infrastructure

I wonder if our democratic institutions, at least as they exist are beyond repair. Or maybe not worth repairing, in many cases.

Harper's habit of pro-roguing to avoid accountability has made the GG a tool of the government. Once that happens it's very easy for future governments to do the same. Maybe it's high time to dump the monarchy in favor of an elected head of stated.

The mess that is the senate is something that Harper promised to clean up. After a token effort, he went ahead and make it a bigger mess. It's time to make it work properly by having an independent elected senate.

Bodies that are supposed to be accountable to parliament (Elections Canada, Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Office, etc) become politicized when the government picks fights with them. They need to be repositioned so they are really arms length.

Harper picking a public fight with Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin left Canada looking that much more like a banana republic and Harper that much more like the leader of a Junta.

Harper's habit of running government Ministries like they are an arm of the Conservative Party (muzzling scientists, micromanaging information releases, branding government announcements with the party logo, interfering with environmental assessments) has politicized the public service.

Harper's focus on wedge politics, dog whistle politics and the tiny group of swing voters has permanently undermined FPTP. FPTP has been past its due date for a long time but now it is a serious liability.

In short, we have a lot of work to do.