Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

[cybercoma]

And just think, if Trudeau falls into the same trappings, we'll be in exactly the same place once the CPC gets its s*** together and wins another election.

[TimG]

What do you call undoing all of Harper's work right now?

They won. They get to drive the bus for better or for worse. The issue is not that they reverse Harper government policies. The issue is they think they can create structural deficits by increasing entitlement spending. There is no scenario where a 'consensus' approach would have resulted in less spending because keeping a lid on spending requires that some people be told that they are not going to get the goodies they are demanding.

Eventually the party will end and some future government is going to be forced to gut program spending to pay the debt service costs. It will be a lot of pain just because Trudeau wants to be the fun parent that never says no.

Edited March 23, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The issue is not that they reverse Harper government policies.

Then you're not discussing anything I'm talking about,

[Cl Le]

Conservatives balanced the budget leaving a surplus for the Liberals and they fixed it real good , better than anyone predicted . . 29.4 billion dollar deficit while in a majority position. The Liberals have proved one thing , even the NDP would be more fiscally responsible than this group of village idiots . Deficits up , unemployment up , accountability down , only a loser would vote for such change !

[cybercoma]

What legislation has the Liberals passed since taking office that affected the unemployment rate?

[TimG]

Then you're not discussing anything I'm talking about,

You talking about about the alleged nirvana that would be reached if we had a PR system. I simply pointed out that I disagree your premise that 'consensus' based legislation is desirable because that would simply doom the country to an Greek style financial meltdown once the government runs out of other people's money which it can use to purchase a consensus.

[cybercoma]

Any other ludicrous fantasies not based in anything I've said you'd like to share?

[Cl Le]

At what point will Liberal supporters admit this government and their wreck less policies and promises have been a failure ? I have never seen a government change direction more than this one . What happened to 3 consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits ? What happened to a balanced budget year 4 ? They now say balancing the budget is a stretch goal . if I was a Liberal I would feel betrayed and that my intelligence was being mocked . If you sell something to the masses have the conviction to stick with it for at least for a year , embarrassing for both sides really.

[Smallc]

At what point will Liberal supporters admit this government and their wreck less policies and promises have been a failure ?

I'd personally give them a chance to be a failure, first. At the moment, they haven't even been implemented.

[Argus]

I'd personally give them a chance to be a failure, first. At the moment, they haven't even been implemented.

Some of them are almost designed to be failures. Reversing immigration priorities to emphasize family class instead of skilled immigrants for example, while increasing refugees and elderly immigrants. That guarantees we'll have more people here who will need lots of government help while contributing nothing to the tax base. Reversing the OAS decision means an extra $11 billion per year in costs on a future government. Drastically increasing the debt means a heavy burden on future generations. This is all certainty, not chance.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

You really missed my point then and aren't thinking critically about Liberal legislation at the moment. What do you call undoing all of Harper's work right now? That is a veto. They all get a veto now and are only choosing to use it because the Conservatives refused to work with anyone on reaching a consensus. They just force fed legislation, cut short debate, refused to answer questions from parliament, and stonewalled any attempts at thoughtful research. If the Harper government actually worked on building consensus with groups, particularly the Liberals, they wouldn't be undoing all of this legislation because they would have agreed to its terms. So no, Tim. Consensus is not a code word for "everyone gets a veto." How you even draw that conclusions is beyond me, especially considering the Liberals are exercising their veto power right now and I'm arguing that consensus building could avoid this.

Consensus is a dirty word for many attracted to right wing politics. I was in the US last week and listening to a CNN radio interview with an author that predicted a Trump like figure taking over the GOP roughly 10 years ago. The author is a psychology researcher who has done work on the traits that tend to land people in the right or left camps. Whereas lefties are more likely to see benefit in inclusiveness and debate when drafting legislation, those on the right are more inclined to prefer an authoritarian style process. For them consensus is weak and akin to watering down an ideology they see as superior. Ten years ago the author warned that telling various groups, like the Christian right, that your ideas are right and America would be vastly improved if we simply force them on everyone through the law, would lead to a wave of fascist leaders taking over the US right. That is obviously over simplified summary of the book, but it appears to be right on the money. I'll have to track down the author and book title, it seems like a worthwhile read.

[TimG]

Whereas lefties are more likely to see benefit in inclusiveness and debate when drafting legislation

This is obviously another nonsense study by a lefty looking to inflate the egos of the authors and their fellow lefties.

The fact is lefties have no interest in accommodating views that go against their ideology. Their idea of 'consensus' only applies to people with beliefs that to not directly oppose lefty precepts. For example: what evidence that lefties have ever sought 'consensus' on issues like abortion, gay marriage or mandatory racial quotas?

In fact, it is lefties who are seeking to create a totalitarian state where all kinds of speech are outlawed because it offends a designated victim group. The right is much more willing to stand up for free speech rights.

Edited March 24, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Yep, the only way to fix what Harper broke is to round all the lefties and get rid of them. How much longer do you guys plan on not implementing this solution? Did you figure on just saddling future generations with this ideological deficit forever?

[dre]

In fact, it is lefties who are seeking to create a totalitarian state

[Guest]

This is obviously another nonsense study by a lefty looking to inflate the egos of the authors and their fellow lefties.

The fact is lefties have no interest in accommodating views that go against their ideology. Their idea of 'consensus' only applies to people with beliefs that to not directly oppose lefty precepts. For example: what evidence that lefties have ever sought 'consensus' on issues like abortion, gay marriage or mandatory racial quotas?

In fact, it is lefties who are seeking to create a totalitarian state where all kinds of speech are outlawed because it offends a designated victim group. The right is much more willing to stand up for free speech rights.

Why the anger? Do you see preference for an authoritarian style as a negative?

Interesting that you referred to abortion and equal marriage as issues when describing an uncompromising lefty ideology. We may have a difference of opinion on these and many topics yet currently, in Canada, we have the freedom to live according to our own set of ethics.

Those in love with a member of the same gender can get married, yet everyone else is free not to. I consider that level of choice a good thing, yet those trying to remove that choice are almost exclusively found on the right. The author stated that his studies have shown that it tends to be those on the right who prefer to limit choice in this manner. Basically, my beliefs state X is wrong so nobody should be permitted to do X, even if they believe differently.

[TimG]

Why the anger? Do you see preference for an authoritarian style as a negative?

I am tired of lefties claiming inclusiveness when they really are extremely exclusionary and intolerant.

Interesting that you referred to abortion and equal marriage as issues when describing an uncompromising lefty ideology.

You are missing the point. Lefties show the most intolerance for people who deviate from the approved view on these issues. This makes these issues excellent examples of how the idea that lefties value compromise and consensus is nonsense. Compromise and consensus only apply to people who basically accept the tenets of the lefty ideology. The opinions of people who reject the left ideology are not welcome. Edited March 24, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

I am tired of lefties claiming inclusiveness when they really are extremely exclusionary and intolerant.

You are missing the point. Lefties show the most intolerance for people who deviate from the approved view on these issues. This makes these issues excellent examples of how the idea that lefties value compromise and consensus is nonsense. Compromise and consensus only apply to people who basically accept the tenets of the lefty ideology. The opinions of people who reject the left ideology are not welcome.

I think you're missing the point. People who debate and compromise will still disagree, that's normal and healthy. Listening to differing opinions, making compromises where it makes sense and working together leads to better and more durable legislation. We just had one government that refused to debate, discuss or compromise have much of it's legislation knocked down by courts and now erased by the next government. Though some may prefer the authoritarian style, it just doesn't work. Our leadership and the system should be better than that. Thankfully, it can be with PR.

As for topics like equal marriage, it's okay for us to profoundly disagree. What's important is that, where possible, our law allows you to follow your views, me to follow mine. Problems arise when we start unnecessarily taking away choice. Like no businesses can be open on Sunday or every business has to be open on Sunday or no employee can make health care decisions that conflict with a company owner's beliefs, or only my kind of people can get married.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[rotary]

I am tired of lefties claiming inclusiveness when they really are extremely exclusionary and intolerant.

You are missing the point. Lefties show the most intolerance for people who deviate from the approved view on these issues. This makes these issues excellent examples of how the idea that lefties value compromise and consensus is nonsense. Compromise and consensus only apply to people who basically accept the tenets of the lefty ideology. The opinions of people who reject the left ideology are not welcome.

So would you prefer then that the government can tell people who they can and cannot marry, at the same time suggesting "lefties" want totalitarianism, and am I not simply seeing yet another inconsistency from a "rightie"?

[TimG]

We just had one government that refused to debate, discuss or compromise...

Did Trudeau debate or compromise when he decided to run a 30 billion deficit? Nope he just did it. Did Trudeau consult when he expanded family class and refugee immigration? He just did it. Did Trudeau compromise when he gutted the first nations accountability act? No he just did it.

There is no material difference between Trudeau and Harper on this front. The only difference is Trudeau is doing stuff that you agree with so you think he is 'compromising'. The entire 'Harper did not look for consensus and Trudeau does' meme is a myth created by people who don't like Harper.

Edited March 24, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

I am tired of lefties claiming inclusiveness when they really are extremely exclusionary and intolerant.

You are missing the point. Lefties show the most intolerance for people who deviate from the approved view on these issues. This makes these issues excellent examples of how the idea that lefties value compromise and consensus is nonsense. Compromise and consensus only apply to people who basically accept the tenets of the lefty ideology. The opinions of people who reject the left ideology are not welcome.

You examples are completely wrong. The left for the most part shows indifference on these issues. Take gay marriage... opponents scream from the rooftops that its an attack on family values, and insult to god and all kinds of other crap. Most of the proponents just don't think its any of their business if gay people want to get married. Same goes for abortion. A lot of the opponents call it murder, while proponents of free choice just think its between women and their doctors.

So yeah... your examples are clearly bunk. Having said that though neither the left or right has anything to hold over each other in terms of intolerant views or authoritarianism. Its equally prevalent on both sides simply because both sides are made up of humans. Authoritarianism just appeals to each side in different areas.

[dre]

Did Trudeau debate or compromise when he decided to run a 30 billion deficit? Nope he just did it. Did Trudeau consult when he expanded family class and refugee immigration? He just did it. Did Trudeau compromise when he gutted the first nations accountability act? No he just did it.

There is no material difference between Trudeau and Harper on this front. The only difference is Trudeau is doing stuff that you agree with so you think he is 'compromising'. The entire 'Harper did not look for consensus and Trudeau does' meme is a myth created by people who don't like Harper.

This is all a bit premature, and you will have to wait a few years before that comparison can be made.

[Guest]

Did Trudeau debate or compromise when he decided to run a 30 billion deficit? Nope he just did it. Did Trudeau consult when he expanded family class and refugee immigration? He just did it. Did Trudeau compromise when he gutted the first nations accountability act? No he just did it.

There is no material difference between Trudeau and Harper on this front. The only difference is Trudeau is doing stuff that you agree with so you think he is 'compromising'. The entire 'Harper did not look for consensus and Trudeau does' meme is a myth created by people who don't like Harper.

Thanks for adding to the point that FPTP creates this type of problematic situation. Majorities, false or not, successively step in to erase and rewrite legislation. It doesn't work well, especially when left and right options are so far apart. The system was probably less problematic back when the major PC and Liberal options were mainly centrist.

We will have to see if Trudeau and the PMO micromanages all aspects of the government including the prevention of any meaningful committee work to see if your partisan diatribe rings true, but that has nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[Cl Le]

Trudeau and the Liberals campaigned on three consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits then returning us to balanced budget year 4 . What they are promising now is nothing close to that . This was an outright Liberal lie to gain power. They now claim it's a stretch goal to return Canada to a balanced budget . This government has lost what little credibility they had and Canadian tax payers are eagerly waiting to show the liars what they think in 2019 .

[TimG]

Thanks for adding to the point that FPTP creates this type of problematic situation.

And the alternative where nothing gets done unless every interest group gets a payoff is infinitely worse. I am arguing that governing by consensus is dumb and that leaders often need to take stands that piss people off because there is no way to please everyone. If a leader is not making people angry he or she is not doing his job (i.e. making people angry is a necessary but not sufficient attribute of good leadership). IOW, The only issue I have is with people saying that Trudeau is somehow better than Harper because he seeks 'consensus'. That is a nonsense view. Edited March 24, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

And the alternative where nothing gets done unless every interest group gets a payoff is infinitely worse. I am arguing that governing by consensus is dumb and that leaders often need to take stands that piss people off because there is no way to please everyone. If a leader is not making people angry he or she is not doing his job (i.e. making people angry is a necessary but not sufficient attribute of good leadership). IOW, The only issue I have is with people saying that Trudeau is somehow better than Harper because he seeks 'consensus'. That is a nonsense view.

My point about those on the right statistically tending to prefer authoritarianism was made to address the fact that you personally are unlikely to see consensus as a positive. Your posts support my assumption.

Governments produced proportionally often make decisions that piss people off as well. However, the fact that more parties are involved in crafting legislation makes it more durable. There are numerous other advantages that can be discussed elsewhere but this thread is dedicated to undoing the work of the previous government.

As for your assertions about Trudeau and compromise, we will have to wait and see if he forces MPs to attend pre-committee meetings to be assigned their positions and talking points. I doubt that will be the case but it could happen.