Jump to content

Liberal rumours.


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

And yet, because of their response, 60000 Canadians are alive today that would not have been if the politicians of all parties and levels of government had not joined in common cause to mitigate the effects of Covid 19. Premier Ford and Minister Freeland -BFF's. And we have an effective NAFTA for the same reason. The politicians from all parties and experts worked to save the NAFTA treaty. It was a group effort.

Speculation.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

This is fair criticism, but then it's also dumb to fall on your sword for symbolic gestures while accomplishing little/nothing.  We've seen the results of green politics gone awry in Ontario and too much of today's climate action is worthless posturing and marketing.  From the carbon offset scams to overpriced and non-viable energy infrastructure being rushed to market, we can actually do more harm than good implementing bad schemes than nothing at all. 

You're not from Ontario, but the Liberal Green energy initiative here was an unmitigated disaster, and did nothing but move money around in the form of subsidies (lining certain people's pockets), whilst making energy far more expensive than ever.  You'd probably not be surprised to know Gerald Butts was one of the architects of his catastrophe, but aside from phasing out coal (a good thing), he and his pals made the word "green energy" a bogeyman in Ontario for years to come.

I agree it's dumb to broadcast virtue without action. It breeds disbelief and contempt and feeds the cynical mistrust that's rotting our society from within and preventing action even further.  It's a wonderful strategy (did I say cynical?).   

I'm not surprised in the least people's pockets wound up being lined - you're talking about the same architect close to the centre of the SNC Lavalin affair.  It's what governments do.

Where Canada could be a global leader that shines above all the rest is to take action that interferes in the process that ends up with people's pockets being lined and worse inaction on climate and all sorts of things. I'd suggest an end in-camera lobbying to start with.  I guarantee you before long governments around the world will be saying WTF and the people they govern would be saying we want to be more like Canada.    

Quote

On that you'd probably have 95% of the forum agree with you.  

I only wish.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I couldn't disagree more.

1. For starters you can have an Earth without Canada but not the other way around.

2. Canada's contribution to climate change is huge.  A modern country as wealthy as Canada should not be setting the example for how to dither, equivocate and make excuses for inaction.

3. The Earth needs a leader like never before.  Trudeau is not it.

 

I disagree with all your points.

Canada has to fix it's own house before anything else. It is about time we take care of ourselves.

The earth will not even notice the minuscule amount Canada contributes to climate change.

Canada needs a leader.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I agree it's dumb to broadcast virtue without action. It breeds disbelief and contempt and feeds the cynical mistrust that's rotting our society from within and preventing action even further.  It's a wonderful strategy (did I say cynical?).   

It's not even inaction a lot of the time - it's dumb action.  Inaction would be preferable to some of the stuff we've seen over the last decade, because doing nothing is better than doing something stupid/wasteful or getting mired into corruption.  

I've been saying since probably 2010 that it's not even that the money is gone that upsets me.  It's that the money went towards worthless endeavors that make future and more effective attempts political poison.  Take the tens of billions we spent on subsidizing farmers to hook up non-economical solar panels to the grid at guaranteed rates factors above market, and throw them instead on materials/battery research, or ITER or whatever - something with actual promise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

well considering pierre got destroyed last night in a by election in the areas he needs to win  in a election i aint scared of one lol...

To be honest this has been a liberal riding for the last 3 elections, and the running Candidate was not Pierre, but a conservative hopeful. not going to lie it would have been nice to win this seat, but as we have seen before in federal national elections anything can happen.

Right now, the man the left said would never win an federal election is polling above 36 % of the vote...whats Justins numbers again you don't have to be scared, but concerned would be a better term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Right now, the man the left said would never win an federal election is polling above 36 % of the vote...whats Justins numbers again you don't have to be scared, but concerned would be a better term. 

In the 338 polls, the Socreds are at 128 seats to the Grits 152. If the NDP were to flatline, the Liberals would be close to a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm no longer a fan of the "strong leader" type. I prefer an intelligent group leading. The best governments are those where the advice of knowledgable people is heeded and implemented, and ego takes a back seat. 

Like the McGuinty and Wynne liberals in Ontario???

They listened, they implemented and now, unmitigated failure befalls "green" Ontario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I believe you misunderstand.  Canada's contribution to climate change is to provide an example of how to dither and not take action. against it.

That was my point.

Canada has talked a lot and failed even more with climate change action. Never met objectives, failed at all promises and are worse than before this all began.

Having said that, we are a still only a drop in the proverbial bucket of climate change causes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In the 338 polls, the Socreds are at 128 seats to the Grits 152. If the NDP were to flatline, the Liberals would be close to a majority.

A lot can happen in the word "IF", I think there are to many disenchanted centrists liberals out there right now, that are not voting Liberal or NDP. Both of these parties have or are going to lose voters as they are tired of the perspective leaders.

Where those votes go I'm not sure, but polling numbers kind of reflect that they are supporting the unsupportable meaning PP.

But if i was a betting man i put my money on PP conservatives, not much money becasue PP is not really my ideal leader. then again i would vote for micky mouse right now if it meant Justin would be gone. 

But every month that goes by he seems to be hitting the right buttons, That and the liberals can not do anything right at this time, it is one mistake after another, even the media is portraying them as a problematic party full of incompetent people.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

But if i was a betting man i put my money on PP conservatives, not much money becasue PP is not really my ideal leader. then again i would vote for micky mouse right now if it meant Justin would be gone. 

I have a habit of betting on the losing side. I did get 10-1 odds on Cassius Clay to beat Sonny Liston. The next time I won a bet was that Joe Biden would take the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2021, but this bet was made after the Nov. 2020 election results were in. It was not a bet on who won, just who would take the oath on Inauguration Day. The guy I made the bet with welshed on it.

I'm in a bind when it comes to voting in the next election. With the demise of the Conservative party at the Federal level, I have to make a choice between Socialist Credit or the Grits. After growing up under the Socialist Credit crime family of the Bennetts and Gaglardis in BC, I will never vote for them. We had a chance to get a Conservative party back last September with Jean Charest, but the party of Lincoln won out. That leaves slim pickings for a Conservative in the next election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

That was my point.

Canada has talked a lot and failed even more with climate change action. Never met objectives, failed at all promises and are worse than before this all began.

 

The lack of any action on the one hand, the expense of lousy action on the other and the lining of as many pocket's in between all share a common core ingredient.

In-camera lobbying.

Quote

Having said that, we are a still only a drop in the proverbial bucket of climate change causes.

So are our efforts to make our governance more transparent and accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

The lack of any action on the one hand, the expense of lousy action on the other and the lining of as many pocket's in between all share a common core ingredient.

In-camera lobbying.

So are our efforts to make our governance more transparent and accountable.

Canada's climate change actions are a farce. No matter who the leader is.

In camera or fully public makes no difference in lobbying. Most is done over lunch or dinner anyway.

Realistically, full transparency is not achievable. Governments, as well as companies and even within your family, secrets are kept for any number of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Canada's climate change actions are a farce. No matter who the leader is.

And that's makes Canada such a Shining Beacon for inaction.

Quote

 

In camera or fully public makes no difference in lobbying. Most is done over lunch or dinner anyway.

Realistically, full transparency is not achievable. Governments, as well as companies and even within your family, secrets are kept for any number of reasons.

 

Realistically nothing is ever 100% and unrealistic expectations should not be an an excuse for doing nothing.  Even 50% better would be a vast improvement.

In any case I think there's much that is achievable. The way to conduct the meetings between lobbyists and the officials/politicians is to borrow a page from something like Robert's Rules of Order whereby meetings are recorded as minutes and any business moving forward is described in the minutes.  Simply put if observers at meetings see things happening that don't match what was discussed they'd be able to point at the record and call on officials to account for and explain why. I think with a few tweaks to the Lobbying Act and the inclusion of at least the principle that lobbying of public officials about matters affecting the public's domain and interest should be open to the public we could do a lot to create more actionable and effective policies. 

It wouldn't be perfect but I can't be convinced it wouldn't be measurably better than what we have.

Political parties could use openness to compete against one another. The measures to ensure transparency could be ramped all the up to the point where the highest ranking politicians voluntarily wear cameras.  If politicians want to campaign on the premise that operating secretly behind closed doors is the best way to get things done they're perfectly free to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And that's makes Canada such a Shining Beacon for inaction.

Realistically nothing is ever 100% and unrealistic expectations should not be an an excuse for doing nothing.  Even 50% better would be a vast improvement.

In any case I think there's much that is achievable. The way to conduct the meetings between lobbyists and the officials/politicians is to borrow a page from something like Robert's Rules of Order whereby meetings are recorded as minutes and any business moving forward is described in the minutes.  Simply put if observers at meetings see things happening that don't match what was discussed they'd be able to point at the record and call on officials to account for and explain why. I think with a few tweaks to the Lobbying Act and the inclusion of at least the principle that lobbying of public officials about matters affecting the public's domain and interest should be open to the public we could do a lot to create more actionable and effective policies. 

It wouldn't be perfect but I can't be convinced it wouldn't be measurably better than what we have.

Political parties could use openness to compete against one another. The measures to ensure transparency could be ramped all the up to the point where the highest ranking politicians voluntarily wear cameras.  If politicians want to campaign on the premise that operating secretly behind closed doors is the best way to get things done they're perfectly free to.

Are you in business? Or at a level where you have to do deals with other companies, customers, clients or government?

Thing is, realistically, keeping meetings secret is what keeps businesses in business. If all was as open as you think it should be, there would be no competitiveness. By letting your competitors know what kind of deal you are proposing or making would only ruin not just you but them too. There would never be competition.

There is no such thing a "public domain" in business or in government (any government anywhere).

Same goes for political parties, they all need an edge and being totally transparent would not benefit anyone.

The realism is that while you think you should know everything, you should and are not entitled to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you in business? Or at a level where you have to do deals with other companies, customers, clients or government?

Yes, as a commercial fishermen I need to comply with regulations intended to protect the public's domain or interest in what is quite legally the property of Canada, it's fish stocks. I'm subject to an auditing, validation and verification process where I'm required to maintain an accuracy average above 90%.

I have to tell the government when I leave the dock and when I return.  I'm tracked by satellite and on occasion airplane.  Upon my return a technician swaps out the 'black-box' that contains the digital GPS record plus the imagery that cameras positioned around the working deck capture.

If I fall below the required accounting threshold, I have to take a human observer onboard for whom I also need to provide sleeping quarters and meals etc. The cost of my oversight comes off the top.  It's quite possible to lose money if you have a poor catch as well as sloppy accountability practices.

 

Quote

Thing is, realistically, keeping meetings secret is what keeps businesses in business. If all was as open as you think it should be, there would be no competitiveness.

If it was as closed as you think it should be and you happened to be a billionaire you could end up controlling 40% of the coastwide fish quota, like Jimmy Pattison for example.    

 

Quote

By letting your competitors know what kind of deal you are proposing or making would only ruin not just you but them too. There would never be competition.

I'm one guy with a small boat. Jimmy Pattison has 50 big boats and owns several fish plants. How am I supposed to compete against the kind of influence he can bring to bear in secret?  How can the public be assured his influence doesn't trump fisheries science resulting in an over-allocation that harms their resource?

By meeting in secret and playing your cards right you can probably have your competition snuffed.

Quote

There is no such thing a "public domain" in business or in government (any government anywhere).

So call it the public's interest or stake but whatever it's called it exists.  A quick search of the term public interest provided this.  

Public interest law is a broad umbrella that describes legal work that shares a common feature: furthering interests shared by the public (or a significant group therein) or addressing public concerns.

Quote

Same goes for political parties, they all need an edge and being totally transparent would not benefit anyone.

What a political party does it is it's own business and is the domain or interest of its members. How they facilitate their own transparency in-house is also their business.  When its in our house we're the one's in need of an edge. I say it should be in the form of a public presence.  It's harder to stab people in the back when you're sitting across a table from them.

Quote

The realism is that while you think you should know everything, you should and are not entitled to.

So are you a lobbyist or a politician or work at a level where you benefit when these get together in secret?  I can see how secrecy would be an entitlement worth defending.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no hope. It was this way since the times of Adam and no change is possible so let's try it again and what if it'll work somehow. Never worked, in evolution. The crab exception only strengthens the rule. Welcome to the third world.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes, as a commercial fishermen I need to comply with regulations intended to protect the public's domain or interest in what is quite legally the property of Canada, it's fish stocks. I'm subject to an auditing, validation and verification process where I'm required to maintain an accuracy average above 90%.

I have to tell the government when I leave the dock and when I return.  I'm tracked by satellite and on occasion airplane.  Upon my return a technician swaps out the 'black-box' that contains the digital GPS record plus the imagery that cameras positioned around the working deck capture.

If I fall below the required accounting threshold, I have to take a human observer onboard for whom I also need to provide sleeping quarters and meals etc. The cost of my oversight comes off the top.  It's quite possible to lose money if you have a poor catch as well as sloppy accountability practices.

 

If it was as closed as you think it should be and you happened to be a billionaire you could end up controlling 40% of the coastwide fish quota, like Jimmy Pattison for example.    

 

I'm one guy with a small boat. Jimmy Pattison has 50 big boats and owns several fish plants. How am I supposed to compete against the kind of influence he can bring to bear in secret?  How can the public be assured his influence doesn't trump fisheries science resulting in an over-allocation that harms their resource?

By meeting in secret and playing your cards right you can probably have your competition snuffed.

So call it the public's interest or stake but whatever it's called it exists.  A quick search of the term public interest provided this.  

Public interest law is a broad umbrella that describes legal work that shares a common feature: furthering interests shared by the public (or a significant group therein) or addressing public concerns.

What a political party does it is it's own business and is the domain or interest of its members. How they facilitate their own transparency in-house is also their business.  When its in our house we're the one's in need of an edge. I say it should be in the form of a public presence.  It's harder to stab people in the back when you're sitting across a table from them.

So are you a lobbyist or a politician or work at a level where you benefit when these get together in secret?  I can see how secrecy would be an entitlement worth defending.

A government also has rules and regulations it has to abide by. Government gets audited all the time. Departments withing get audited all the time. Government contracts get audited as well.

So, you are comparing selling your fish at an open  published market value the same as lobbying for a million or billion dollar closed bid contract??  Do you ever sell your fish to a specific buyer for a particular reason? Perhaps like they would buy from you exclusively or for a certain tonnage? Or do you sit at the dock and wait for buyers to buy your catch at your price? Do you ever change your price based on market pricing? Who drives the market price? Buyers? Mongers? Restaurants? Lobbyist set those prices?

Quota? nothing to do with lobbying. All to do with who has the biggest fleet and can pay the cost.

You said public domain not public interest. Public interest is a different thing entirely and it is debatable and for the general public, not specific.

So, "What a political party does it is it's own business and is the domain or interest of its members" and when it gets into power, that is lost? Or do they take that with them while in power?

Gotta ask yourself, if you are want openness in all things, why are there closed bid??

I am not a lobbyist but I do know how business is done, in and out of government. deals are made everyday on ,around and, under the table. Keeping and not showing your hand is how it is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

I believe you misunderstand.  Canada's contribution to climate change is to provide an example of how to dither and not take action. against it.

Well, even if I accepted such hubris as reasonable, even if Canada had such towering respect that other countries would be influenced by our magnificent example of self-sacrifice - neither of which is remotely true - I don't feel the need to spend money to impress foreigners with our nobility.

There are far better examples of zealous pursuit of CO2 reductions than Canada will ever manage, and they're not impressing anyone either. Hundreds of coal plants are still going up, mostly being built by the nations which will be most heavily impacted by a warming climate. So color me somewhat indifferent to their plight. 

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Right now, the man the left said would never win an federal election is polling above 36 % of the vote...whats Justins numbers again you don't have to be scared, but concerned would be a better term. 

Given how people have tired of Trudeau and his continuing betrayal of almost everything he originally campaigned for the Tories ought to be higher than that. The distance and dislike between Left and Right has grown considerably since Harper's first election. I don't see them getting in unless they're in majority territory. Under any other circumstances the NDP, and possibly even BQ will team up to ensure Trudeau stays in power.

And to do that he's got to come up with policies that strike a chord with Canadians. Fleshed-out policies that address pressing concerns. No niggling little tax breaks tailored towards specific voting blocks.  The Liberals are going to hit the Tories with a big, negative, scary-scary campaign again, just as they did the last two elections. And Poilievre is a lot more vulnerable thanks to his stupid embracing of cryptocurrency and support for the trucker convoy.

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.


  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,763
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    RevolutionPartyofCanada
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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