Jump to content

Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, turningrite said:

And yet it's a system used in many very successful democracies

How many months did Germany go before Chancellor Merkle was able to form a government? PR leads to minority government where small splinter parties hold the larger parties hostage. The Italian PR system gave rise to the expression, "revolving door government." 

Call me Conservative, but I prefer our traditional British model of government. PR smacks of creeping republicanism and the reason the NDP loves it is it benefits them more than the real political parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How many months did Germany go before Chancellor Merkle was able to form a government? PR leads to minority government where small splinter parties hold the larger parties hostage. The Italian PR system gave rise to the expression, "revolving door government." 

Call me Conservative, but I prefer our traditional British model of government. PR smacks of creeping republicanism and the reason the NDP loves it is it benefits them more than the real political parties.

PR has nothing to do with republicanism. For instance, forms of it exist under constitutional monarchy, as in Australia and Sweden. Both of these countries are thriving, stable democracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

He is a climate change denier.

I think you misstate and/or misunderstand his position. According to a recent report in the NP, (link below) a spokesman for Bernier's party made it clear that while Bernier believes in the existence of climate change the party will adopt no policy on the matter, in part because the leader has no expertise on the subject and, further, because he and the party believe actual solutions lie elsewhere, including in the private sector. In fact, centralized climate policy planning doesn't have a very good track record. Aside from setting broad targets during the pre-Trump era, and certainly without centrally imposed carbon taxes, the Americans have substantially left it to individual states to tailor emissions policies and it's my understanding that the American record is better overall than Canada's has been. And private sector actors aren't laggards either. Alberta's oil sands producers, for instance, have significantly reduced carbon emissions per barrel of production over the past couple decades and are on track for further improvement going forward. (See 2nd link, below.)

You seem to be operating on the basis of a rather specious and chauvinistic "progressive" assumption that anyone who doesn't fully buy into climate change response orthodoxy is a denier. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons and realize that government cannot alone and by fiat resolve climate issues.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/maxime-bernier-believes-in-climate-change-but-defends-argument-that-co2-is-just-food-for-plants 

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/9/oilsands-ghg-intensity-dropping-track-continued-improvement-ihs-markit/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2018 at 11:04 AM, turningrite said:

PR has nothing to do with republicanism. For instance, forms of it exist under constitutional monarchy, as in Australia and Sweden. Both of these countries are thriving, stable democracies.

Get rid of all political parties. Elected reps vote on who will be pm. They are supposed to represent us. So together they work for the betterment of the country. Worthless ideas are shot down period. Budgets are agreed to or voted down etc. No you will vote the way your leader tells you to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2018 at 4:06 PM, Hates politicians said:

Get rid of all political parties. Elected reps vote on who will be pm. They are supposed to represent us. So together they work for the betterment of the country. Worthless ideas are shot down period. Budgets are agreed to or voted down etc. No you will vote the way your leader tells you to vote.

I take that one large step further - make partisan politics completely illegal and lobbying a criminal act - i.e. one that is enforced and prosecuted mercilessly.  

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I take that one large step further - make partisan politics completely illegal and lobbying a criminal act - i.e. one that is enforced and prosecuted mercilessly.  

So make freedom of expression illegal ?  Emailing your MP to say your business needs a subsidy becomes a crime ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hates politicians said:

No subsidy's. If you can't make a go of it without a subsidy do something else.

The point remains that you have to be able to communicate with your representatives when you feel something is affecting you or your business. Suppose foreign steel is being dumped here and nothing is being done? Can you not complain to your MP and the minister? Suppose you think your business and the economy itself would be much improved if a bridge was placed over a river, or a road fixed, or a port upgraded. Should you not be able to communicate that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So make freedom of expression illegal ?  Emailing your MP to say your business needs a subsidy becomes a crime ?  

As a principal, yes one should be able to say anything pertinent to your MP  or MLA - except of course tying requests to "donations".  Of course without a party, not a difficult thing to track.  As a hired gun, no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So make freedom of expression illegal ?  Emailing your MP to say your business needs a subsidy becomes a crime ?  

No, its communicating secretly with your MP that should be a crime.

More specifically It's the public's freedom and means to listen in that needs to be codified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cannuck said:

As a principal, yes one should be able to say anything pertinent to your MP  or MLA - except of course tying requests to "donations".  Of course without a party, not a difficult thing to track.  As a hired gun, no way.

Just ban corporate and union donations.  That seems to be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just ban corporate and union donations.  That seems to be easy.

It still comes back in the partisan system.  Not only ban corporate and union bux, but ban parties altogether.  Representatives should have an obligation to represent ALL constituents, not just those who can afford political influence.  Partisanship is divisive - by its very definition.  The election of the most "lightweight" leader and cabinet in the history of Canada, maybe even the world is ample evidence.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

1. It still comes back in the partisan system.  Not only ban corporate and union bux, but ban parties altogether. 

2. Representatives should have an obligation to represent ALL constituents, not just those who can afford political influence. 

3. The election of the most "lightweight" leader and cabinet in the history of Canada, maybe even the world is ample evidence.

1. Legally you are looking at something a lot more difficult as a party is an association.

2. Limiting donations achieves the desired effect of reducing influence.  Don't try to boil the ocean.

3. That's a matter of opinion.  I'm not a fan of the PM either, but I would say we need to work on fomenting an enriched public to deal with issues.  The system is overcomplicated and prone to corruption and there is no voter who can understand all the issues in the political domain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

The election of the most "lightweight" leader and cabinet in the history of Canada, maybe even the world is ample evidence.

True, but Singh won't be around very long. :D

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Representatives should have an obligation to represent ALL constituents

Each MP represents all Canadians, not just those in her riding. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hmmmm.... hard to enforce but easier than your MP body cam plan....

MP's will eventually suggest that themselves, cameras are simply more efficient and cheaper than having human observers looking over your shoulder.

Fishermen btw are required to pay for the cost of their own oversight, including enforcement. Our oversight is more like a service for our protection as much as it protects Canadians interests

.  Think about that for awhile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Each MP represents all Canadians, not just those in her riding. 

Power lies within cabinet, not the back benches.  Those MPs might be seen to represent Canadians,  but in the partisan system, they represent only the party when their ONLY real power is expressed - voting on bills.  Partisan cabinets can be bought like any other cheap whore.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cannuck said:

Power lies within cabinet, not the back benches.  Those MPs might be seen to represent Canadians,  but in the partisan system, they represent only the party when their ONLY real power is expressed - voting on bills.  Partisan cabinets can be bought like any other cheap whore.

Those backbenchers hold the power of confidence, without which, the cabinet cannot govern. If the MP's are not up to scratch, it is the fault of the voters. It is a thankless job. How many jobs require you to exhaust your savings in the application process, cost more money to serve than it pays and your boss, the voters, all presume you are a liar and a thief, that you are the lowest form of life, all without even knowing anything about you. You work 70 - 100 hours a week, spend a horrendous amount of time away from your family, and every voter has their hand out. These are very special people who serve in spite of the abuse they are subjected to by the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Those backbenchers hold the power of confidence, without which, the cabinet cannot govern. If the MP's are not up to scratch, it is the fault of the voters. It is a thankless job. How many jobs require you to exhaust your savings in the application process, cost more money to serve than it pays and your boss, the voters, all presume you are a liar and a thief, that you are the lowest form of life, all without even knowing anything about you. You work 70 - 100 hours a week, spend a horrendous amount of time away from your family, and every voter has their hand out. These are very special people who serve in spite of the abuse they are subjected to by the voters.

Was that meant to be ironic and sarcastic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...