Trudeau and Singh's teams quietly planning electoral reform legislation

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Be nice if the gov't was TRANSPARENT enough to tell us - oh but you don't care about transparency when you think it's benefitting justin.

Have you ever seen me suggest that we only subject Conservative politicians to public oversight?

[Queenmandy85]

Transparency is a recipe for getting nothing done.

You are examining an issue. You have some ideas about how to solve the problem but, like everybody else in the world, you don't know everything and you can't forsee all of the ramifications of your proposal, so you discuss it with others. Now, if you are doing this in public, and you say something that can be mis-interpreted or has unintended consequences, your opponents will use it against you. We all need to have the freedom to bounce untested ideas off others in private. If that privacy is not there, no one will be willing to say anything.

That is the beauty of this forum. It allows the private exchange of ideas without public consequences because nobody reads what we say and nobody cares. 

Edited January 29 by Queenmandy85

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I've never heard of a party freely handing an advantage to another party.

These changes are being done by the Liberals.  I never said they were doing it for another party.  I said they were doing to benefit themselves.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are examining an issue. You have some ideas about how to solve the problem but, like everybody else in the world, you don't know everything and you can't forsee all of the ramifications of your proposal, so you discuss it with others. Now, if you are doing this in public, and you say something that can be mis-interpreted or has unintended consequences, your opponents will use it against you. We all need to have the freedom to bounce untested ideas off others in private. If that privacy is not there, no one will be willing to say anything.

The level at which this private bouncing of ideas should be limited to the privacy of the political club/party.

The moment at which these ideas start becoming implementable however is where the principal of transparency, for the public benefit of dispelling mistrust, should come into play.

28 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Transparency is a recipe for getting nothing done.

Opacity is a recipe for public mistrust which is like a cancer that's necrotizing our democracy.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I've been asking the very same thing about our governance for decades now. 

Liar. Your first statement here was "So what? no big deal, what's wrong with that?!!?!"

You don't care about transparency unless it somehow makes the CPC look bad.  Hypocrite.

Just now, eyeball said:

Opacity is a recipe for public mistrust which is like a cancer that's necrotizing our democracy.

Yet you were just fine with it here, when they were actually discussing our democracy.

[Queenmandy85]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're an 1diot plain and simple. There is no social credit and the fact you have to lie to explain your position tells us all we need to know about your politics - you're a liberal. so it's pretty obvious you don't care about canada at all.

Go home kid, it's time for the adults to run the country for a while.  Pathetic.

The CPC has had many names. It used to be Social Credit under Bible Bill Abrehart, Earnest Manning and the Bennetts, then Manning Jr. changed it to Reform, then CRAP / Alliance and the CPC. My party, the Conservative Party is dead federally and in most provinces. There is still a few Tories in the CPC, but there are also a lot of reformers. It was the Socreds that voted against the Conservative government budget in Dec. 1978 because it was going to get rid of the deficit left by Trudeau's Liberals. That led to the re-election of Pierre Trudeau and the National Energy Policy. Thank you Social credit aka CPC.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Heard where?

I can't recall where I heard it.  The fact is the only reason the Liberals and NDP are changing the voting system is to try to benefit themselves.  There is no other reason.

[Moonlight Graham]

Older and rural people tend to vote more conservative.  Younger working urban people tend to vote Liberal or MDP.  Retired people don't need a 3 day voting window or access to any polling station.

Wish I wasn't cynical about this but the Liberals haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.  They've shown they care a lot more about their own power than the national interest or democracy.

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Have you ever seen me suggest that we only subject Conservative politicians to public oversight?

Yes - just now on this thread.  Oversight very important except when it's the ndp libs talking about changes to our democracy

[Queenmandy85]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The level at which this private bouncing of ideas should be limited to the privacy of the political club/party.

The moment at which these ideas start becoming implementable however is where the principal of transparency, for the public benefit of dispelling mistrust, should come into play.

Opacity is a recipe for public mistrust which is like a cancer that's necrotizing our democracy.

"Everything you say will be taken down and used as evidence." Ergo, nobody will say or do anything. The average voter does not have access to the depth of resources an MP has. That is why we have MP's. They have the time and resources to research that you or I don't. If the government is considering a technical change in something, why would you need to know if you do not have the tools to make that decision. That is why you have an MP. 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The CPC has had many names.

No, it has not. It's had one. CPC.  And again you feel the need to lie to try to make your point.  But then - i already called you a liberal so i'm just repeating myself. 

Consider giving honestly a try sometime.  A man is worth nothing if his word is worth nothing and right now your word is worth nothing.

And this from a guy who freaks out if someone uses the wrong pronoun.

Edited January 29 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You don't care about transparency 

Good luck convincing anyone of that around this forum or it's predecessors who's heard me talk about transparency for the last couple decades.

Your little schtick asserting that criticism = support is just the tactic of a lame-assed troll who can't come up with a counter-argument.

Look at how many conservatives around here that you label/identify/cancel as Liberals should they disagree with some point you're desperate to make. You're as obvious as you're lame.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Cite please.

Only citizens can vote in federal elections and it takes 4 - 5 years for an immigrant to become a citizen. How on Earth will recent arrivals help anyone in the next election? 

You are correct.  I thought I read somewhere they were going to change that, but I must have misunderstood.

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Heard where?

I can't remember.  But I think I made a mistake.  I don't think they can change the system to allow non-Canadians to vote.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Cite please.

Only citizens can vote in federal elections and it takes 4 - 5 years for an immigrant to become a citizen. How on Earth will recent arrivals help anyone in the next election? 

You are correct.  I thought I read it somewhere, but I made a mistake.

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes - just now on this thread.  Oversight very important except when it's the ndp libs talking about changes to our democracy

Please, no one who's known me around this forum or it's predecessors believes that for a moment. This is just your usual schtick where criticism=support. Look at how many conservatives you've labeled/identified/cancelled as Liberals around here when they disagree even the slightest bit with the uber-partisan points you try to make.

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

"Everything you say will be taken down and used as evidence."

Unfortunately I recall when you said Canada isn't a democracy. This makes it difficult to put much weight to your opinions, as a political insider no less, about how our government should work given it puts so much effort into billing itself as a democracy.

[Queenmandy85]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Unfortunately I recall when you said Canada isn't a democracy. This makes it difficult to put much weight to your opinions, as a political insider no less, about how our government should work given it puts so much effort into billing itself as a democracy.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy, like Norway and the UK.

[suds]

Changing electoral legislation by a sitting government that applies to the next election is in my view undemocratic in principle. It's time to be skeptical regardless of who's doing it. If it's anything more than a few minor changes to make voting easier then make it an election issue with precise details.

 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We are a Constitutional Monarchy, like Norway and the UK.

What does that have to do with voting? Or is voting just part of a facade going on in their jurisdictions like ours?

I note another noteworthy constitutional monarchy you've noted when discussing the perils of democracy, Australia. They have compulsory voting along with prop-rep too.

 

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Please, no one who's known me around this forum or it's predecessors believes that for a moment.

Everyone on this forum who knows you thinks you're a liar and comments on it from time to time. I don't know that i'd rely on your reputation.

And you literally JUST did it.  Liberals are negotiating with NDP behind closed doors about how our democracy will work and we have no idea what the details are and you're like 'meh - no biggie'.  It's in black and white above. 

And it's not the first time at all you've been inconsistant with this. If justin's involved it's either no big deal or it's the cpc's fault for not doing more to stop him.

 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, suds said:

If it's anything more than a few minor changes to make voting easier then make it an election issue with precise details.

Aside from giving us precise details, which every government in the known universe keeps to themselves, what is it about the changes being discussed that are so threatening...in precise detail?

If it's really just the secretiveness that's at issue then great, let's all of us exploit our mutual mistrust to force the highest possible degree of public oversight on our governments. That would be cameras, microphones and notepads wielded by process guardians who volunteer to observe, record and report the public's business to the public.

None of this would prevent the freedom of our representatives to say anything they want.  We'd simply have a record of it so we could match up their words with their actions following the discussions.

I can't think of anything that would restore public trust faster or more thoroughly.

If Poilievre made something like outlawing in-camera lobbying a part of his platform I'd not only vote for him I'd send him a campaign cheque and knock door to door on his behalf come election time.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, it has not. It's had one. CPC.  And again you feel the need to lie to try to make your point.  But then - i already called you a liberal so i'm just repeating myself. 

And this from a guy who freaks out if someone uses the wrong pronoun.

Let's connect the dots. Earnest Manning was a Socred. his kid, Preson Manning, was a Socred. I hope Mr. Poilievre will continue to prove me wrong. Who knows, even you may prove me wrong.👍 But after having lived under WAC. Bennett and his corruption for 20 years, you can understand why I am wary of anything tainted by the name "Manning." Like the wonderful Senator Hugh Segal, I am a Poor Happy Soldier Of Clark in the Great Tory Crusade.

I still feel for Mr. Poilievre. As I said earlier, he is about to experience that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for..."          If you could choose any job in Parliament, Leader of the His Majesty's Loyal Opposition is  the best job there is. Prime Minister is second worst. Leader of the Greens is the worst.

 

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everyone on this forum who knows you thinks you're a liar and comments on it from time to time.

Cite please. Thousands of them I suppose given you just appealed to the authority of a forum with 1000's of members.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Cite please. Thousands of them I suppose given you just appealed to the authority of a forum with 1000's of members.

Sure - go look them up.  You tend to cry a little everytime it gets pointed out.  I mean i was here for like 5 minutes when you first changed a quote i made then went back and deleted it and claimed it never happened. So I knew you were a liar early on. But often when it comes up others chime in and point it out as well. It's not hard to see why.

In any case  - you absolutely did say here that it was no big deal that gov'ts were discussing changes to our democracy behind closed doors when its' the ndp and libs - so there you go. Opacity is fine when its people you like.

[Queenmandy85]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everyone on this forum who knows you thinks you're a liar

Please be careful with  personal attacks. You throw that term around a lot. It may come back to bite you and we don't want to see that. That kind of language doesn't belong in civil discourse. Rather, counter what you disagree with in a respectful manner. It doesn't matter if you are right since almost nobody reads or cares what you or I post, but be respectful.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You are correct.  I thought I read it somewhere, but I made a mistake.

Today, on this forum, we had the pleasure of exchanges with Blackbird, who posted something he believed to be accurate, but on reflection, he realised he made a mistake. and posted his retraction and apology and he did it with grace. More of us, particularly me, can learn from his example.