Conflict of interest

[myata]

People who thought about designing democracies centuries back clearly understood the problem: for ruling castes sitting on the public wealth there's no market checks of quality, performance, and efficiency; that without strong and ongoing public oversight, there would be no feedback from the society and the elites would inevitably self-isolate, run away in their towers to entirely different reality.

That line of thought somehow appears to have completely escaped political thinking in this country, that went not in the direction, now we have own sovereign country let's design and create a functional and contemporary democracy for it, but here we have this colonial system that works reasonably well (two hundred years ago, in a tiny population-wise far remote from mainstream corner of the world) and so why fixing anything let's stick the elections and tweak springs and nuts.

And the outcome is quite obvious these days: runaway bureaucracy. Budgets, compensations have no relation to the services delivered to citizens. Cost of services, annual increase % on % with no relation to salaries, cost doubled salaries, barely moved. Tuition went up X times, so minister's entitlement needs to be doubled. The trend is very clear, but who's interested to follow where it leads?

[Queenmandy85]

Myata, forgive me, but I am finding it difficult to decipher your posts. Reading comprehension is not my strong suit. If you could explain exactly what change you are looking for.

You refer to elites. We will always have elites in a free country. You also seem to want mp’s to work for free. How will you attract eminent people who are knowledgeable and honest without fair compensation?

[myata]

22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You also seem to want mp’s to work for free. How will you attract eminent people who are knowledgeable and honest without fair compensation?

Wow, wow! I see, between $185K (plus allowances) and "free" there must be no significant difference in this fair country. Is there though, for most not so eminent people?

And then, where is that idea that only eminent people needed to be attracted to "represent" population coming from? Is it really that obvious? And by the way, how "eminent" one needs to be to write a "law" like a) election dates are fixed b) unless PM decides to visit GG? Would high school eminence suffice for such a feat, complete with (see above) annual compensation (plus allowances, pension and benefits)? None of this is obvious, and all of this needs (i.e. needed, about 160 years back) to be discussed and understood and agreed upon, and not only between eminent people. If it's still a democracy that is. Maybe that's where the main confusion lies.

[Queenmandy85]

To become an mp, you first need to be nominated. That process alone is going to set you back a few grand. Then, if you are good enough to win the nomination there is the election. If you are elected, you will need a second home in Ottawa. The subsidies don’t cover all that. Then while all this has been going on, you have had no income for a year or 18 months. As an mp, you tour your riding meeting various groups from seniors to students in the university. You are expected to pay for everyone’s coffee and you would be staggered to know how many groups you visit that have a 50-50 contest, so you drop $50 or $100 at each one and if you happen to win, you are expected to donate the lot to the organization. The expenses add up. Everyone has their hand out because they are your boss and you make that obscene salary. Never mind that that salary is much less than you made at the job you had before you ran just as you were about to enter your prime earning years. Then there is the loss of family time because you work 16 hours a day 6days a week and are away much of the time. To top it off, everyone is your boss and they think they could do a better job than you and they all think you are a crook. When their government cheque goes missing, you get it fixed for them but they still call you a thief.

years ago, I worked for a major bank and it was scary how many former cabinet ministers carried around incredible debt loads.

Show these people some appreciation because they are not serving you for money or your gratitude.

[myata]

Nope, sorry won't get much sympathy here. If the system was set up the way that only "eminent" can benefit from it, it's none of my doing and moreover, I don't need it like that. And if some ministers blew their half million (close to, and soon) annual salaries, again that's their problems I've nothing to do with.

In my view, we need a fair and reasonable compensation not for 50/50 lotteries and ribbon-cutting but for real, quality and necessary work for the citizens and a system accessible for all citizens. And if that's too much for the eminent highnesses that would be fine too, let them work for their own benefit (as long as it's away from the public pocket), pay taxes and it's perfectly fine if they decide to stay away from public duties.

Please, can we have a more plausible story than $200K annually typewriter with lifetime pension complaining of the hardships of life.

Edited August 15, 2021 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

Quick question: how would you change the system without amending the Constitution?
You are clearly very passionate about changing the system so it is even more important to act on it.  Just don’t expect to see instant success. It has evolved over 800 years and we don’t want to wind up with a disfunctional system like the US.

[myata]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Quick question: how would you change the system without amending the Constitution?

Right, and shouldn't the question go, logically, to those who created the conundrum? Look I have these awkward bracelets stuck on, and what would YOU do about it?

What 800 years, where? In this reality here 800 years ago were mostly forests from sea to shining sea and no Constitution for a long, long time. Is that what the history in the isolated tower says, interesting.

[myata]

Interesting that you mentioned (in another topic) Afghanistan. Afghanistan is clearly, a fake, shell, appearance-only democracy that collapsed like a card house when facing the reality on its own. Now could there be any parallels? When one keeps repeating "great representative democracy" when everyone with a grain of objective thinking knows very well that MPs in this country are just employees of the party bosses and have no ability to make independent choices and decisions, what effect does that create? Sure it may reinforce the message for a while for those willing to listen. But it also creates vacuum inside and in the core of the idea, when no one knows anymore what it means and stands for. And then at some point it would have to, unavoidably and inevitably, face the reality.

So don't and stop repeating things that are patently... confusing (yes, there's a shorter word) it wouldn't help anything in the long run, even with the best intentions.

[Queenmandy85]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:43 AM, myata said:

Right, and shouldn't the question go, logically, to those who created the conundrum? Look I have these awkward bracelets stuck on, and what would YOU do about it?

What 800 years, where? In this reality here 800 years ago were mostly forests from sea to shining sea and no Constitution for a long, long time. Is that what the history in the isolated tower says, interesting.

Parliament is about 800 years old. It is something you should have been taught in your history classes. (You might consider a law suit against your history profs.) The British Parliament set the template for most democratic governments in the world. Also, the nations with the highest ratings for quality of life are constitutional Monarchies like Canada's.

Your belief that MPs are employees of the parties they associate with is in error. They hold the fate of their party leaders in their hands. The leader can be brought down by a vote of no confidence by caucus in spite what the party leaders would like to believe. 

What are these terrible crimes you think the party leaders have committed? SNC did not get a deferred prosecution and the Grits were defeated after the sponsorship affair.

You mentioned electoral reform but don't forget, it was the NDP that killed that. 

 

[myata]

1. So you'd like to take other people's institutions, and history and claim them for your own, with minimal if any effort of adding to them (or even understanding them, as there's much historical context to British parliamentarism, such as Magna Carta and Cromwell)? How convincing.

2. It is not an error but a practical conclusion based on factual reality. A functional democracy needs working mechanisms, continuously and daily, not theoretical and remote possibilities somewhere on paper. When did this happen last time? How often did it happen. An error would be to listen to a fairy tale and come to the garden to meet fairies.

3. In a democracy we need the function of effective independent oversight and full immediate inquiry on all matters possibly related to transgression and/or abuse of power. Again you want to replace working, functional mechanisms with anecdotes on paper, minimizing corrupting effects of the events and normalizing them encouraging to continue and exacerbate. Were full inquiries held and able to investigate the matter? Did any sanctions happen timely? Were they sufficient to prevent future abuses?

4. Sure, confuse job done and promise fulfilled for explanations and excuses why nothing has happened. Like what are we paid our of someone's pocket (as a matter of fact, "automatic annual increase", without even asking if they agree)?

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, myata said:

So you'd like to take other people's institutions, and history and claim them for your own,

We have a blended heritage in this country. We celebrate Chinese New Year with parades and lion dances. We embrace being part of the Great Circle of our Cree and Sinixt heritage. We invest in our French language and traditions. In fact, we enjoy celebrating all of our many traditions from around the world, but you chose to single out our English traditions as the one that is somehow bad. Why do you hate my heritage above all others?

Like most nations with a high quality of life, we are a Constitutional Monarchy, like Norway, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, or Australia. 

The monarchy in Canada costs you nothing except for security during a Royal tour.

[myata]

Acknowledging heritage and claims of direct continuity are hardly same. Canadian system is not the same as British parliamentarism for obvious and already stated reasons and so claims that it's 800 years old are preposterous.

Also, as already stated, the problem is not decorations of a functioning democracy but lacking the essence of it, that is governments accountable to the people via a range of functional, continuously and at all times, mechanisms and institutions.

And just because there are so many nice examples, how many of them have foreign monarch as the head of a sovereign state?

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, myata said:

And just because there are so many nice examples, how many of them have foreign monarch as the head of a sovereign state?

She is just as Canadian as I am. In fact as Queen, she is Canada incarnate. She is the symbol of Canada. The late Senator John McCain was born in Panama and Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, yet they are not foreigners in the US. We all know Canadians who live in the UK or the United States. Are they foreigners? Was George II considered a Foreigner by the English?

Again, I ask, why are you singling out our English heritage among all other cultural parts that make up our country, for your bigotry.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Queenmandy85

[myata]

I'm not singling out anything, but it's just an obvious conclusion that in the absence of working mechanisms and institutions of democracy, every day, persistently, visibly and understandable to each and for each citizen one has to resort to illusions and mental tricks like sure she has that foreign passport but must be Canadian, New Zealandian, Polynesian etc in spirit etc little short of Almighty herself. On that level of discussion of democracy in this century, I don't see how it can be productive it would be more like preaching or meditation is a matter of personal choice and belief on which I'll have no comment. However we'll have to agree, in the absence of arguments to the contrary, that effective mechanisms of 1) independent oversight and 2) government accountability to the citizens, between the elections, are very much absent.

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

effective mechanisms of 1) independent oversight and 2) government accountability to the citizens, between the elections, are very much absent.

Our politicians feel accountable every day between elections. That's why they are continuously polling. Everything they do is aimed at re-election. 

What example do you have of the government doing something that was not aimed at public support.

[Queenmandy85]

If you think you can do better, runoff office.

[myata]

16 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Our politicians feel accountable every day between elections. That's why they are continuously polling. Everything they do is aimed at re-election. 

What example do you have of the government doing something that was not aimed at public support.

"Feeling" is a personal feeling, not a mechanism of oversight and accountability there's difference! Reality is not the same as pretty picture, pictures readily drawn (and discarded), reality not so much ("Senate reform"). Polling has not prevented a newly elected party from breaking one of its key promises. Media and GG have no powers of investigation (even if they wanted to, in earnest). RCMP patiently waits for an invitation or busy doing something else. "Independent" Parliament follows the direction of the chief executive. Sponsorship inquiry had to wait till end of term of the sitting PM; independent investigations of SNC and WE affairs never happened.

Examples, as apologies are numerous, right in the news feed.

[myata]

Mental tricks can be easily confounded by the reality though, with known historical precedents. King George of Great Britain had German roots from his father Prince Albert and so at the time of WW1 the Saxe-Coburg family was renamed to Windsor. Now answer a simple question, in case, that can in no way be precluded, of a serious conflict between sovereign nations of UK and Canada, where would the loyalty of the omnicivic monarch land? So much for creative mental concepts.

[Queenmandy85]

When you hire some one or elect them, you do your due diligence beforehand. Once they are in position, you have to trust them to do the job. You don't hire or elect someone you immediately think is dishonest. Would you work for an employer that doesn't trust you?

8 minutes ago, myata said:

Now answer a simple question, in case, that can in no way be precluded, of a serious conflict between sovereign nations of UK and Canada, where would the loyalty of the omnicivic monarch land? So much for creative mental concepts.

The Queen of the United Kingdom would respond according to the wishes and best interests of Her British subjects and the Queen of Canada would respond according to the wishes and best interests of Her Canadian subjects. Having had 16 years of pre-job training and almost 70 years of on the job experience, I think she can handle it. She would be perfectly placed to find resolution. ?

We can go on and on but the reality is, we have a Head of State who functions in the same way as the Heads of State of Germany, Israel, Italy Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. These are all free countries with a Head of State who is above politics. Why does it matter where they live?

[myata]

That understanding of "democracy" is approximately 300 years old. It comes down to blindly trust authority until it lets you down then quickly figure out something because there's no working mechanisms to keep it in check. Ever encountered phrase "power corrupts, and ...."?

Sounds like prime scenario for split consciousness. Psychologist may offer more valuable insights.

Did you suddenly forget that your head of state (or their direct representative) can theoretically dismiss governments, call or not call the elections and so on, whatever's in the old book, being a citizen of a foreign nation with first loyalty to it? This is a minefield with the only excuse that it happens rarely but all excuses are temporary in nature, and now nobody would even think of touching it with a stick.

 

[Queenmandy85]

You have definite trust issues. 

I did not forget the Queen's constitutional authority. Nothing I said contradicts that. Governing is the art of balancing what is in the best interests of the governed and governing according to the wishes of the governed.

The best way to hold your MP accountable is to get to know her and maintain contact. But you need to avoid being a pain in the neck at the same time. You are a politician. It goes with being human. Politics is the art of getting support. If you can't get people to support your idea, your idea is wrong. If you yell at people or badger them, they won't hear you. I speak from personal experience.

Representative government is an American concept. The Canadian MP functions on behalf of all citizens. She has the time and resources to do the research on issues few voters have access to. If you have a question about an issue, write her a letter. 

If you want instant action, you have found yourself on the wrong planet. Remember for every idea you know is right, there are 50 other opposing ideas that others know are right. I remind myself of that every morning...and forget by lunch time.

41 minutes ago, myata said:

Ever encountered phrase "power corrupts, and ...."?

Nobody in Canada has too much power. The Queen has enormous authority but not power. The PM has no authority but has some power. 

 

43 minutes ago, myata said:

forget that your head of state

You mean our Head of State, don't you?

[myata]

I see, all down to word play. Say a word, change a word questions answered, problems go away. Fine, that idea is very clear no further questions we'll have enjoy it while it lasts as nothing new is, obviously, possible and nothing lasts forever.

[myata]

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Representative government is an American concept.

This by the way, is an astounding admission. You're saying that independent representative legislative branch of power does not exist in this country (dropping du jour references to Canadians while an employee of the executive)? That the laws are made by, and under the dictation of the executive? And that's why checks and oversight is not just weak but literally non-existent, like the infamous fixed date elections?

Based on the reality around I'll have to accept that view. The only question that remains is whether this can still be called a democracy? At least in the full, 21st century meaning of the word.

[Queenmandy85]

57 minutes ago, myata said:

The only question that remains is whether this can still be called a democracy? At least in the full, 21st century meaning of the word.

Once more, I will spell it slowly. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy. We have Responsible Government, not Representative government. If you want to live in a representative system, move to the US. But remember, the US is not a democracy. It is a Republic, as I have been brutally informed.

 

Did you not take history?

 

 

[myata]

37 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Once more, I will spell it slowly. Canada is <> not a democracy. We have Responsible Government, not Representative government.

Good that we're clear on this common misconception.