Canada federal election October 21, 2019 part 2

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Ward

UBI is the ndps only platform.
Trudeau had mj. His job is done.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

 

I do do not know how Trudeau is going to survive this scandal

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=K4Vx6kmfutc

I do not know if Trudeau is going to survive this scandal.

People have to have dieas and movements and principles and policies that survive the corruption of individuals.

Some would say that this is part of the problem of parties. I am no Liberal but why should whatever principles and ideology the party has (if any-I cannot refrain from the dig) go down due to the leadership? Why should Canada have to turn to perhaps Scheer becuase Trudeau himself is a problem? Why should we have to keep Trudeau if we (for whatever reason - sorry a dig again) wanted to keep the ideaology and positions of the Liberal party? Just put away the glee for a moment everyone (I will try my best) and consider if this were the NDP (no, it is not immune from scandal or mistake). Why do we need to orgainize ideas into parties such that due to one leader the idea has to be rejected?

I know this is questioning a political assumption here but could we design a system where we support ideas seperate from representatives? Yes I know the representatives are advocates of the ideas but surely they do not have to be joined so tightly?

I ask this just to shake things up a little.

Despite the US system being a bad 18th century design, perhaps they have evolved some benefits. The role of primary is a system to check an individual by the people that broadly support the shared ideals. The role of candidate nominations are supposed to be the same thing. But do they work?

Could we not improve that so that the people who have the shared idea have more of a say in the continued representation of their shared ideals? In the UK and Australia the leader can be deposed by the caucus. This is one improvement. What if we could do that for our representatives?

I know one of the big arguments against First Past the Post is this desire of people to vote for people rather than programs. What if this is misplaced and we saddle programs with the scandals of people and we ignore the value of ideas in the process. Why not elect programs and ideas from parties and let the people who agree and elect those programs have the right to review the people and change them? Hire and fire them. This makes proportional representation far simpler. You privide the seats to the party and you have the party elect the representatives and when a person should be fired for cause you allow those people to replace that person. Every 4 years you elect the ideas.

Ward

What you suggesting is the end of politic

Ok..I'm in.

Sean in Ottawa

Ward wrote:
What you suggesting is the end of politic Ok..I'm in.

Perhaps I mean to seperate the choice of idea from the choice of representative perhaps a step on the way?

cco

How would this work in practice? I'm picturing a ballot hundreds of pages long (the NDP's 2015 platform was 81 pages), with Yes/No checkboxes next to each item. The problem, other than the impatience of the average voter, is that if a majority of people check Yes to contradictory ideas from each party, someone still has to interpret and allocate money for those purposes. California (to pick one example) has had a budget crisis for decades because voters there vote Yes to programs and No to paying for them. Do we leave it up to courts to sort out which ballot measures take precedence?

Ward

Agree the idea is the thing.
Marijuana law changes imo was "the idea" for Trudeau..thank you and congrats.
Next. U B I.lefts and rights have plenty of good things to say about it...

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
How would this work in practice? I'm picturing a ballot hundreds of pages long (the NDP's 2015 platform was 81 pages), with Yes/No checkboxes next to each item. The problem, other than the impatience of the average voter, is that if a majority of people check Yes to contradictory ideas from each party, someone still has to interpret and allocate money for those purposes. California (to pick one example) has had a budget crisis for decades because voters there vote Yes to programs and No to paying for them. Do we leave it up to courts to sort out which ballot measures take precedence?

Again this is a position of thought rather than a resolution of the problem created by it but I will give it a go.

In pracitce, I suggest keeping the party including its resolutions and platform. General elections be between parties and platforms. Voters will consider the trust they have in the party managing their people. The party members vote on representatives and leaders and maintain the ability to change them when they create scandal or do not do a good job as outlined by the platform.

This is a greater democracy than what we have now -- leaders who preside over conventions of policy and then ignore them.

For members it also put more responsibility for the success of the party to make the resolutions really practical as the success of the party will be on those resolutions. Now resolutions mean nothing only the platform done behind closed doors does.

Think of the primaries in the US -- registered members decide on representatives. Add that the memebers also decide on general policy directions.

A huge benefit is that most voters vote for individuals as leaders of the party and do not consider the policies or bother to learn about local candidates. In this system voters would select party and platform and the party members would choose leaders and candidates in pimaries. This largley seperates issues of charisma and leadership from the policies.

NorthReport

Well the Liberals are going to deliver the election goodie budget soon but it will have probably little or zero bearing on the election results This election will be fought over the character of the prime minister and because the Liberals have blocked Wilson-Raybould from returning to the Justice Committee the SNC scandal is now certain to be part of the election campaign

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-in-quebec-trudeaus-handling-of-snc-lavalin-crisis-met-with-muted/

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Meet Jody Wilson-Raybould

The woman who stood up to Justin Trudeau and showed us he was ‘just another grubby politician’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jody-wilson-raybould-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-a8820321.html

NorthReport

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business. Who knew. What a sham!

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/15/media-industry-anxious-for-news-in-budget-on-federal-plan-to-support-journalism-3/#.XI1L6aQTGaN

NorthReport

Whoever is masterminding the Liberals response to the SNC scandal is confusing the anchor with the life jacket

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-sorry-liberals-the-jobs-excuse-for-the-snc-lavalin-debacle-wont-fly

pietro_bcc

NorthReport wrote:

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business. Who knew. What a sham!

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/15/media-industry-anxious-for-news-in-budget-on-federal-plan-to-support-journalism-3/#.XI1L6aQTGaN

I am against government funding any news media (apart from CBC), but where exactly in that article did it say that only mainstream media would receive the bailout money?

brookmere

NorthReport wrote:

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business.

Of the mainsream media, only the Toronto Star is pro-Liberal. Postmedia (which includes the Sun rags) and the G&M are consistently pro-Conservative. Most recently, Postmedia endosed the Conservative candidate in the Burnaby South by-election.

NorthReport

You forgot the Liberal CBC

but more importantly there is no one single media that will get this money that will support the NDP

 

NorthReport

Singh says ‘obstruction of justice’ if Wilson-Raybould not allowed to testify

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/singh-says-it-would-be-obstruction-to-not-allow-wilson-raybould-to-testify-again-1.4338841

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

 

Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/jacinda-ardern-is-showing-the-world-what-real-leadership-is-sympathy-love-and-integrity

Pages