Conservative Party can run on proportional representation reform

[Queenmandy85]

52 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not having European style centrally planned boondoggles will not result in extinction

The trans-Canada railroad would never have been built without the massive support of the Conservative Government. If we are to survive the next few centuries, we need large scale involvement of governments. 

[myata]

48 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

not having European style centrally planned boondoggles will not result in extinction

while inability to change and adapt very well might. Grab what you can and do what you like may have worked with few hundred thousand and maybe millions but it's not going to fly with billions consuming and destroying anything useful in sight on the planet. Only obvious logic: the resources are finite, while our appetites for consumption, not. Nobody has guaranteed an eternal autopilot.

Besides, we have a few of our own "boondoggles", only unlike those with no Eurotunnels to show maybe an outrageously priced commission and decades belated apology instead.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The trans-Canada railroad would never have been built without the massive support of the Conservative Government. If we are to survive the next few centuries, we need large scale involvement of governments. 

If you want to not survive

large scale involvement from the government is the way to go

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

while inability to change and adapt very well might. Grab what you can and do what you like may have worked with few hundred thousand and maybe millions but it's not going to fly with billions consuming and destroying anything useful in sight on the planet. Only obvious logic: the resources are finite, while our appetites for consumption, not. Nobody has guaranteed an eternal autopilot.

some changes are bad

making bad changes

is not going to help

and neither is the Malthusian thinking of fake environmentalists

who think the only way to survive is becoming communists and supporting centrally planned boondoggles

more government is not the answer

Edited June 22, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

32 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

some changes are bad

And not being able to change, too. Between two wrongs, hard to find a good answer.

 

33 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

more government is not the answer

There's no logical connection between accurate representation and more government. Just own echoes. If anything, it's our governments that grow as huge and lazy as they possibly can with no independent checks oversight or transparency.

35 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

more government is not the answer

And in more general sense, two wrongs won't make right, again. Individual anarchism and government dictate lead to dead end, each to its own. Jerks and idiots will be produced as long as the species exist. We'll have to find another way, not one of the default ones, can we though?

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If you want to not survive

large scale involvement from the government is the way to go

Remember what happened when Brown defeated the Tories? The construction of the trans Canada railway ground to a halt because Brown stopped government assistance. 

If we are going to build nuclear reactors and a new rail system, it is going to require a lot of government assistance. Would we have the highway system if it was all privately owned? The railroad is going to replace the highway. These are public utilities

Edited June 22, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

43 minutes ago, myata said:

no independent checks oversight or transparency.

We have to elect a government we can trust. Much of our daily transaction depend on trust. My fist career was in lending. I worked for two major banks and a finance company as a consumer loans and motgage officer. Consumer lending operates on the honour system. You drop into the branch, I gave you other peoples' money and you promised to pay it back. If you did not pay it back, there wasn't anything the bank could do. 99% of borrowers pay the money back on time in full. We elect a government to run the country and we trust them to do a good job. Most of the time, they do. Governments in the west tend to govern well. Once in a while we get a Glenn Clark or Donald Trump, but they are rare anomalies.

[eyeball]

On 6/20/2022 at 10:57 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

We must not underestimate the importance of having a majority government. When governments need to respond to a major crisis, the confidence of the House is vital to ensure decisive action. Climate change, the war in Europe and the on going pandemic are examples.

If this need is so vital shouldn't it be written into our Constitution?

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We have to elect a government we can trust. Much of our daily transaction depend on trust. 

We need a far far more robust system of accountability so we have the ability to audit, validate and verify the transactions of our governments and senior-most officials.  What you're advising/advocating for is a lot more like faith.

Hoping that swearing on a stack of Bibles will keep our governance on the straight and narrow is as outdated as it is naive.

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If this need is so vital shouldn't it be written into our Constitution?

No. The less that is written in the constitution, the better. It is moot anyway. To write something into the Constitution requires it to be opened up and after the Meech experience, no government is going to do that. For all intents and purposes, the Constitution is unamendable...thank God.

[eyeball]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

No. The less that is written in the constitution, the better. It is moot anyway. To write something into the Constitution requires it to be opened up and after the Meech experience, no government is going to do that. For all intents and purposes, the Constitution is unamendable...thank God.

Exactly why I say we simply make a few changes to the Lobbying Act instead of all the other nonsense that's on tap.

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We need a far far more robust system of accountability so we have the ability to audit, validate and verify the transactions of our governments and senior-most officials.  What you're advising/advocating for is a lot more like faith.

Hoping that swearing on a stack of Bibles will keep our governance on the straight and narrow is as outdated as it is naive.

So maybe we need something like an auditor and budget officer. Sort of like the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Officer. That is a great idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So maybe we need something like an auditor and budget officer. Sort of like the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Officer. That is a great idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

Sort of except far far more robust.

And completely open to the public.

 

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Exactly why I say we simply make a few changes to the Lobbying Act instead of all the other nonsense that's on tap.

The best lobby group is voters who take the time to write letters to their MP. Nothing gets a politician's attention like a well written letter from a constituent.

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Sort of except far far more robust.

And completely open to the public.

 

I don't know how you can get more robust than the Auditor General and his / her reports are open to the public. Everytime a new report is issued, it generates headlines.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't know how you can get more robust than the Auditor General and his / her reports are open to the public. Everytime a new report is issued, it generates headlines.

You're saying the Auditor General attends/recordes meetings between lobbyists, politicians and other senior government officials and makes those records available to the public? They don't. That's why these meetings need to be open to the public.

I said far far more robust accountability, not just more of the same.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by eyeball

[eyeball]

55 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Much of our daily transaction depend on trust.

Trust is simply not enough, there's just too much riding on too many things to leave them up to trust alone.

[Queenmandy85]

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're saying the Auditor General attends/recordes meetings between lobbyists, politicians and other senior government officials and makes those records available to the public? They don't. That's why these meetings need to be open to the public.

I said far far more robust accountability, not just more of the same.

 

If people want to meet in secret, there is no way of preventing that. The only way is to elect people you know and trust. That is why it is important to get to know the candidates running for office. You accomplish that by taking part in the nomination process and election campaign.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So maybe we need something like an auditor and budget officer. Sort of like the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Officer.

The idea of bureaucracy overseeing and controlling itself is too very long outdated. That does not happen. A correct answer is total transparency; accountability and regular, ongoing renewal. That cannot happen with a narrow group firmly attached to the power via tweaks and gimmicks of a system created hundreds years back for that very purpose.

[Queenmandy85]

We do end up with occasional politicians we can't trust. Stephen Harper came to Saskatchewan and sttod there and lied to our face. He was the kind of politician we need to avoid. Not only did he bold faced lie twice (equalization and Income Trusts), he slandered the MP from Regina, and forced me to work for and opposition party for years to get his tory lying ass out of office.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If people want to meet in secret, there is no way of preventing that.

I think there's a lot we can do to prevent much of the secrecy. Simply acknowledging and admitting so much exists is the first most important step.

Edited June 22, 2022 by eyeball

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

The idea of bureaucracy overseeing and controlling itself is too very long outdated. That does not happen. A correct answer is total transparency; accountability and regular, ongoing renewal. That cannot happen with a narrow group firmly attached to the power via tweaks and gimmicks of a system created hundreds years back for that very purpose.

So who oversees the bureaucracy? Then you have to oversee the overseers. You are saying what you don't want. What mechanism do you propose to provide that transparency and accountability? 

To me, the system has worked well. We have a good healthcare system, transportation, and law enforcement. For 150 years, we have had Peace, Order and Good Government and kept the Americans at bay.

[Queenmandy85]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think there's a lot we can do to prevent much of the secrecy. Simply acknowledging and admitting so much exists is the first most important step.

You would have to have a police detail accompanying the MP 24/7.

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You would have to have a police detail accompanying the MP 24/7.

No you'd probably only need a smartphone and contact tracing software. Lobbyists would need them too.

Ideally a political party will step forward that voluntarily did this but it could simply be made a job requirement. No need for force at all.

[myata]

53 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So who oversees the bureaucracy? Then you have to oversee the overseers.

That's right, there's only one option: you, the citizens.

 

53 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What mechanism do you propose to provide that transparency and accountability? 

It's in the topic. Proportional representation provides an accurate view of the society. Parties in the coalition, as well as the rest of the assembly can do much more effective job of checking and accountability than entrenched group for whom keeping the status quo is of highest importance and priority.

 

53 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

To me, the system has worked well. .. for 150 years, we have had Peace, Order and Good Government and

You understand that you have no impartial, independent standards or measures to confirm that? It's like me saying I've done a good job of being myself.

53 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We have a good healthcare system

And again, "good" compared to what? To Argentina or to Norway? Let's see, compensation of our MP is some 50% higher than Norway's. So why should we compare our health and other public services to Argentina, rather than Norway? Have you heard of the passport problem due to pandemics for the next unknown number of years no one is available please call another time? Do they have it in Norway too? Or maybe in Argentine?

Edited June 22, 2022 by myata