Jump to content

Things to look forward to as a result of the election


Recommended Posts

We don't do that now with our riding creation. We have an independent commission in each province. That isn't going to change.

Let's take a province such as PEI which has 4 seats (it shouldn't have as many as 4 but that's another issue). Even make the entire province into a single multi-riding district, a green party voter in such a riding is unlikely to get any representation. Given that they have ~5% public support, unless these multi-riding districts consist of 20 ridings, the green party is unlikely to get fair representation.

And what about the even smaller parties? Perhaps the libertarian, communist or christian heritage parties should get a seat if they get ~0.3% of the popular support (they don't get that much support now, but a lot of the reason is because of strategic voting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. He promised to look at all avenue of electoral reform so hopefully this leads to something.

2. He also promised to move towards open data which is great for people like us that wish for government to be more transparent. Something we would never get out of Harper.

3. Banning partisan ads was another of their promises. So hopefully that comes to fruition.

4. They have promised to change the standings orders so that omnibus bills are not possible anymore. So hopefully that happens.

5.They promised to bring back door-to-door delivery. Hoping they don't, such a waste.

6. They promise to bring more services online which is always a good thing. I hate dealing with people on the phone or waiting in lineups.

7. They are bringing back the long-form census which I always found fun to fill out.

8. They will making StatsCan fully independent, which is a great step to take.

9. they will get rid of family income splitting. I really hope they follow through with this one,

10. The list goes on. I'll be keeping tabs the whole way as well. 4 years of opportunity to make some big changes and reverse the Harperism. Hopefully Trudeau is up to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing OAS with CPP.

Perhaps when you stop confusing the two we can have a discussion about this but if you can't be bothered to get your facts straight then, meh, whatever.

This is my last reply to you. You are too snotty and unpleasant a person for me to want to have anything further to do with you.

The Liberal plan includes a promise to restore the eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement back to 65, a new seniors price index to make sure those benefits keep up with rising costs, a 10 per cent boost to the guaranteed supplement for single low-income seniors and a pledge not to cut pension income splitting for seniors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-retirement-security-cpp-1.3226897

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things to not look forward to.

1. Carbon taxes which will hurt the economy.

2. Legalized marijuana.

3. Our leader being completely overmatched by almost every other G7 leader.

4. Higher income taxes which will hurt the economy.

5. Huge deficits and debt increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The change I'll be looking for the most will relate to the style and form of governance we get. Hopefully a lot less partisan, confrontational, acrimonious and more accessible, open and transparent.

Less militarism and a move away from the provocative interfering sort of engagement we've had under Harper. The end of omnibus bills; hopefully politicians will be spending more time explaining and debating their bills instead of just delivering them from on high and spending the rest of their time talking about why the other guy's are with the enemy.

Legal pot and hookers...these will stay under the skin of social conservatives for a long time and they'll promise to bring back prohibition if elected which will keep them unelectable for at least another 15 years. A master stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. Trudeau has just pledged to kill all babies in Canada within the next 2 years, calling them "CO2 and methane producing machines, bad for climate change".

9, His new "bombs for bongs" program in the military. "ISIS can't fight us if they're giddy and snacking while high on my personal high-grade crop of weed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good the CRA to be able to investigate fraud.

It IS good for the CRA to investigate fraud.

But if we are going to investigate fraud by charities.... then let us investigate the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church.... let us investigate the JEWISH charitable organizations. Let's audit the Fraser Institute, to see if they have carried out any political activities. Etc. etc.

Let's investigate fraud broadly and fairly, not target specific organizations that have been specifically critical of the Administration.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS good for the CRA to investigate fraud.

But if we are going to investigate fraud by charities.... then let us investigate the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church.... let us investigate the JEWISH charitable organizations. Let's audit the Fraser Institute, to see if they have carried out any political activities. Etc. etc.

Let's investigate fraud broadly and fairly, not target specific organizations that have been specifically critical of the Administration.

...

Why focus on religious charities? They are usually the least activist. It would be more the types of charities who's main purpose is promotion of some social issue, in other words those who have a direct vested interest in the type of government for their own operations or financial existence.

An even better idea would be to scrap the deductions entirely.

Edited by hitops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal pot and hookers...these will stay under the skin of social conservatives for a long time and they'll promise to bring back prohibition if elected which will keep them unelectable for at least another 15 years. A master stroke.

Actually, for Conservatives, this probably is a good outcome. The Liberals will implement physician-assisted suicide, marijuana legalization, probably rewrite the prostitution laws and bring in some sort of carbon pricing, all things the Tories simply could not do due to internal opposition. Sure, they'll kick up a stink, which is their job as the Official Opposition, but those files will be closed by the next election.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my last reply to you. You are too snotty and unpleasant a person for me to want to have anything further to do with you.

The Liberal plan includes a promise to restore the eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement back to 65, a new seniors price index to make sure those benefits keep up with rising costs, a 10 per cent boost to the guaranteed supplement for single low-income seniors and a pledge not to cut pension income splitting for seniors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-retirement-security-cpp-1.3226897

You have conflated CPP reform with OAS changes.

CPP is not OAS/GIS and OAS/GIS is not CPP.

I do not take anyone seriously who cannot differentiate between the two so by all means ignore me.

But continue to not understand the differences and I will point it out so other people on here know that you conflate them so they will know that you have plenty of opinions but few facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why focus on religious charities? They are usually the least activist. It would be more the types of charities who's main purpose is promotion of some social issue, in other words those who have a direct vested interest in the type of government for their own operations or financial existence.

An even better idea would be to scrap the deductions entirely.

That's the whole point. Why "focus" on ANY group? Investigate fraud where it occurs, regardless of affiliation or ideology or whatever.

And scrapping the deduction will not get much of an argument from me. There would be issues of what work the Government might have to take over, which the charities are doing now.... but in some ways the Government may actually be able to do it more efficiently by funding charities directly. It would eliminate the huge fundraising costs that many charities are incurring.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS good for the CRA to investigate fraud.

But if we are going to investigate fraud by charities.... then let us investigate the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church.... let us investigate the JEWISH charitable organizations. Let's audit the Fraser Institute, to see if they have carried out any political activities. Etc. etc.

Let's investigate fraud broadly and fairly, not target specific organizations that have been specifically critical of the Administration.

...

Wow. You want CRA to target those you hate, like Jews, Catholics and conservative research groups? The targeting of 'charity' groups which get involved in politics beyond 10% of their funding, which is contrary to the rules which govern their charitable status, is not politically motivated, despite what the paranoid freaks of the far left have suggested. There's never been any evidence a charity was cut off improperly. I know of no Jewish or Catholic charity which is heavily involved in politics, but if you do feel free to report them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. You want CRA to target those you hate, like Jews, Catholics and conservative research groups? The targeting of 'charity' groups which get involved in politics beyond 10% of their funding, which is contrary to the rules which govern their charitable status, is not politically motivated, despite what the paranoid freaks of the far left have suggested. There's never been any evidence a charity was cut off improperly. I know of no Jewish or Catholic charity which is heavily involved in politics, but if you do feel free to report them.

I want the CRA to investigate everybody fairly.

AND.... I want you to apologize for suggesting that there are "groups I hate". I said no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will keep on open mind as i have seen good Liberal government however the trend in north america seems to be less fiscal responsibility and more spending.

1. Leave alone or increase federal transfer payments. CPC went up from $42B to $68B

2. Build pipelines, as Lisa LaFlamme said last night, Harper wasnt getting it done, too much time spent on studies i guess.

3. Business friendly with low corporate income tax, yes it means the Liberals are in bed with big business but si be it.

4. Balance budget as promised, they feel confident running deficits so should have confidence meeting their goal i three years.

5. Bring in the refugees he promised. I want to see a leader stick to his promises.

6. Govern for all of Canada. Sask needs to export it resources therefore a government that enables it so that we do not become a have not province again.

I expect to see an authoritarian government, that is the nature of a majority gov so democracy is as usual.

Be interesting to see him get in Putins face as he was quoted as saying in numerous papers a week ago.

I dont think the Liberals are handed a poorly running country by any means, and if their goal is to strangle oil then the price of oil is going to be irrelevant in their future budget plans therefore will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Interesting times ahead forsure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you just selected Jews and Catholics for no reason, eh, and lumped them in with the Fraser Institute? Suuuure.

I think he picked those groups because they are unlikely to be audited because why would anyone want to audit religious groups? Religious groups never commit fraud do they? (This is sarcasm and yet some people give religious groups a pass because they are religious).

As for the Fraser Institute - they walk a fine line between policy and politics so it is a worthwhile question to ask how they manage to walk that line.

If they were ever to be reviewed I think it would be under a NDP government and it would be for political reasons.

Kind of like how various environmental groups have been targeted under the CPC, wink wink, nudge nudge.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the whole point. Why "focus" on ANY group? Investigate fraud where it occurs, regardless of affiliation or ideology or whatever.

And scrapping the deduction will not get much of an argument from me. There would be issues of what work the Government might have to take over, which the charities are doing now.... but in some ways the Government may actually be able to do it more efficiently by funding charities directly. It would eliminate the huge fundraising costs that many charities are incurring.

No......I would just scrap them.......without the government taking it over.

Government funding charity directly is called the welfare state. We already have one and don't need more. Now if you are saying cut welfare and instead fund charities who provide types of welfare, well now that might be a good plan. Without question the charities will make those dollars go further. If for no other reason than that they have drastically lower labor costs.

The reason you would focus on some groups is because some charities exist explicitly as activists towards a given cause. For example you could be the 'save the ducks' charity, where government policy can either utterly fulfill or totally decimate your goals. The incentives line up for such a group to want to influence politics as much as possible. Religious charities would be the least logical to investigate.

Edited by hitops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. Thank you for correcting me.

I don't really see how STV is the best system. The size and distribution of STV can be changed based on the whims of politicians. This can cause parties like the green party to still not get proportional representation, is open to gerrymandering, etc.

That could theoretically happen under any systme. STV with its multimember ridings will produce a fairly proportional result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things to not look forward to.

1. Carbon taxes which will hurt the economy.

2. Legalized marijuana.

3. Our leader being completely overmatched by almost every other G7 leader.

4. Higher income taxes which will hurt the economy.

5. Huge deficits and debt increases.

1. Meh

2. Is nothing to be worried about.

3. Nothing changed here... Stevie was all whimper no bite

4. Lets see the proof that income taxes will rise from where they are.

5. Running deficits while in a recession has been proven to work well for economies. The last thing we should be doing is "Balancing budgets." People have this weird thing with balancing budgets like we are ever going to pay off our international debts. Get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you just selected Jews and Catholics for no reason, eh, and lumped them in with the Fraser Institute? Suuuure.

I picked what I picked because the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives WAS audited, but apparently the Fraser institute was not. Muslim organizations WERE audited, but Catholic and Jewish were not.

If it will make you happy, I will throw in the Universities, the Salvation Army and United Way, the LGBT organizations, CARE, UNICEF, and anything else you can think of.

I will throw in everything from the Accessible Community Counseling and Employment Services, of Toronto...

to the Zuru Ling Society of Vancouver.

And the 1,226,858 charities in between.

And I am still awaiting that apology. From my posts, you may have some idea of what I agree and disagree with, ....

... but you have no idea of what I do or do not "hate", it is presumptuous of you to imply that you do, and it is libelous of you to make an inaccurate assertion of that type in a public forum....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and let us not forget his promise to have more females in cabinet. Since women have never run in the same numbers as men there are always a lot more men than women in caucus. Twenty Seven percent of elected Liberals are women, but Justin has promised that half his cabinet will be female.

That means he only needs 12 out of 50 . I'm sure he can find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...