Charles Anthony Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Is it really just a question of gaining political power? In elections.Which ones: federal, provincial, municipal, parent-teacher associations, etc. etc. What about the development of regional separatist parties from elections? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
jdobbin Posted April 4, 2007 Author Report Posted April 4, 2007 Is it really just a question of gaining political power? In elections.Which ones: federal, provincial, municipal, parent-teacher associations, etc. etc. What about the development of regional separatist parties from elections? If you want to change society, you have to stand up, get yourself counted and recognized, gain office at any level, be prepared to do what you set out to do and accept that defeat comes as often as victory. I don't what your last question has to do with smaller government or no government as you seem to advocate. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 I don't what your last question has to do with smaller government or no government as you seem to advocate.Are you trying to hijack your own thread again instead of defending your point? I do not see how an election can help measure the effectiveness of government. We seem to have them all of the time. You say: Perhaps making government more effective should be the goal rather than creating a loose association of regions. and set up a scary scary Harper spin. Can you explain how elections measure government effectiveness? It is not like voter turn out is rising much, is it? I am comfortable sitting back and letting Canada become a loose federation of regions because I associate big government with ineffective government. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
PolyNewbie Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Language of the NAU Quote Support the troops. Bring them home. Let the bankers fight their own wars. www.infowars.com Watch 911 Mysteries at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871 "By the time the people wake up to see the bars around them, the door will have already slammed shut." Texx Mars
jdobbin Posted April 4, 2007 Author Report Posted April 4, 2007 Are you trying to hijack your own thread again instead of defending your point? I do not see how an election can help measure the effectiveness of government. We seem to have them all of the time. You say: Perhaps making government more effective should be the goal rather than creating a loose association of regions. and set up a scary scary Harper spin. Can you explain how elections measure government effectiveness? It is not like voter turn out is rising much, is it? I am comfortable sitting back and letting Canada become a loose federation of regions because I associate big government with ineffective government. I don't think government big government is any less effective than smaller governments. Do you have any information to the contrary? Or is it anecdotal? As far as elections go, it is a way to turf ineffective governments, interject new blood and new ideas. Given that municipal government's have the lowest turnouts, perhaps they are the least effective. I don't know. They often have the poorest turnover and Mayors are pretty much elected for life. To you that sort of small government is effective? I don't know how creating a very weak federal government helps Canada as a whole. One wonders why Harper wants to be prime minister if his intention is to remove any reason for Canada to exist as a nation. At the moment, a minority keeps him from stating boldly what he wants to do. Hard to say if he even believes what he said in the past because he isn't acting the part he campaigned on. I have nothing against small and responsive government. To you that seems to mean local government (if that is what you mean at all. Sometimes I think you want no government). To me it means a government not bloated down with bureaucracy, red tape and drift. Unlike Harper and what he has said in the past, I think it is possible for the federal government to do its job better rather than devolve everything to the provinces. He went even further with his thoughts on this. http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/ar...les10260403.asp Stephen Harper: Instead of giving up more authority to the provinces in areas like culture and internationalrelations, the federal government could maybe, in concert with the provinces, and Quebec in particular, establish anglophone and francophone community institutions in jurisdictions of telecommunications and broadcasting, like the (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) or CBC, or the Francophonie, the Commonwealth or UNESCO." Quote
Michael Bluth Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 Unlike Harper and what he has said in the past, I think it is possible for the federal government to do its job better rather than devolve everything to the provinces. Devolve everything? Did Harper really say that? Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Recommended Posts
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.