Agreed. If they keep the promise, then good. Shows how important it is to keep on top of this government.
Trudeaumetre - Bravo!
Wed, 2015-12-02 20:08
#202
Wed, 2015-12-02 20:52
#203
Or maybe they had to make sure the original locations were still available and appropriate to the needs of veterans.
They have four years to implement all their campaign commitments.
Wed, 2015-12-02 21:33
#204
They have four years to implement all their campaign commitments.
So they can wait till the eve of the next election to amend Bill C-51? Or convene the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women?
Fascinating and cynical theory.
Why not say 8 years, because they'd like to get re-elected in 2019?
How pathetic is this.
Thu, 2015-12-03 08:24
#205
They have four years to implement all their campaign commitments.
So they can wait till the eve of the next election to amend Bill C-51? Or convene the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women?
Fascinating and cynical theory.
Why not say 8 years, because they'd like to get re-elected in 2019?
How pathetic is this.
I think some promises will take longer than others and some might take much of the mandate. I am sure that this wouid be expected of all the parties. I did not get the impression that Pondering was endorsing a slow response just that these are early days and they do have time and in some cases they will need it.
Of course if delays are longer than can be justified then opposition parties should make an issue but this is early to claim that.
It hink that it is important to be measured in the evaluation of the actions of the government in early days in order to be able to have credibility when it is time to criticize. Otherwise the result is that critics will be seen as oppositional rather than constructive. A person who is measured will when there is something substantively wrong will have a stronger basis.
I think there will be lots to criticize. We have some issues already -
1) the handling of the gender balance in cabinet with lower weight ministers being handed to women -- there is good reason to demand better.
2) The childcare issue in light of the personal decisions of the PM suggest both a lack of recognition that this is a need for the whole population of parents of young children and the lack of respect for the value of childcare due to the lower wages provided.
Going forward we have some concerns about the handling of the TPP, what the budget allocations appearing less than sufficient to carry forward promises. These should become apparent soon.
There will, no doubt, be lots to criticize. I see no reason to jump too soon.
Thu, 2015-12-03 21:59
#206
I think there will be lots to criticize. We have some issues already -
1) the handling of the gender balance in cabinet with lower weight ministers being handed to women -- there is good reason to demand better.
This was announced November 29th. I didn't bother posting about it because of how it would have been interpreted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/29/liberals-patronage-gender_n_8677...
OTTAWA-- The federal Liberals say they plan to extend a promise of gender parity in cabinet to ensure the same outcome in the hundreds of appointments the government makes to boards, agencies and Crown corporations.
Just how the process will work is unclear: The Liberals vowed in the election to overhaul an appointment process that now is conducted behind closed doors and was sometimes mired in accusations of political patronage for government donors or failed candidates.....
"Appointments will be open, transparent and merit-based and we will ensure gender parity and that more indigenous peoples and minority groups are reflected in positions of leadership,'' said Olivier Duchesneau, deputy director of communications to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
"This will apply government-wide to everything from the cabinet to the Supreme Court to boards of Crown corporations.''
Some of the ministries the women got could be considered less important but it isn't just lip service. They are real positions for which the women are specifically qualified for based on their experience. Women also got important roles like Heath and Justice.
This is real measurable progress for women. Over the next four years many women will be appointed and every time it happens women will be delighted. Someone on his team suggested "Because it's 2015" but Trudeau snapped it up and it went viral.
Quibbling about the importance of the cabinet positions the women were assigned versus the men, when women took both Justice and Health, will not be well received.
The childcare issue in light of the personal decisions of the PM suggest both a lack of recognition that this is a need for the whole population of parents of young children and the lack of respect for the value of childcare due to the lower wages provided.
People didn't support the NDP even though the NDP made the need for daycare a central plank. In the end it lacked credibility because the provinces would have had to chip in. Maybe there were other reasons too but the bottomline is Trudeau won the election without a daycare commitment.
Few will agree with "Trudeau's kids have nannies paid for through taxes so we should have a national daycare program".
People paying for household help and childcare don't want to pay higher wages.
Trudeau probably will have a daycare proposal for 2019. He will have a great record to run on which will give his new commitments credibility.
Going forward we have some concerns about the handling of the TPP, what the budget allocations appearing less than sufficient to carry forward promises. These should become apparent soon.
That's the big one. The NDP has to build a proper airtight case against it. Then they have to boil it down to plain language spanning no more than 2 or 3 pages max. Then they have to boil that down to 1 paragraph. They have have to come up with single sentences or phrases, concise soundbites.
Some people never go beyond the soundbite but for anyone who considers themselves a sceptic who has to be convinced, or supporters who need an argument to convince others, the support is there.
Trudeau and his team are very clever, very politically savvy. Another article I skipped posting.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketin...
Still, while – as with most advertising – few will admit that campaign ads have any effect on them, the marketing strategy has a real sway on citizens’ impressions of the candidates and their platforms.
In the case of the winning campaign, the ad agency behind much of that strategy was Toronto-based Bensimon Byrne.
While not unprecedented, it’s very unusual for a commercial ad agency to do political work, as opposed to those who specialize exclusively in political communications.....
Bensimon Byrne has done political work for more than 10 years, handling Liberal Party political campaigns in Ontario for Dalton McGuinty and the latest run for Kathleen Wynne, and federal elections for Paul Martin before being approached by the team behind Justin Trudeau in March. (The agency did not work with either Stéphane Dion’s or Michael Ignatieff’s campaigns.)
“Personally, I would have loved to be involved earlier than we were. By the time I got involved, he was in third place,” David Rosenberg, partner and chief creative officer at Bensimon Byrne, said during an hour-long conversation in his office reflecting on the campaign – from which he is still recovering lost sleep. “It was a steep hill to climb.”
The article goes on to describe each ad and how it came about.
Comedian Rick Mercer parodied the ad on his show; NDP candidate Noah Richler made his own version. Mr. Rosenberg considers it a compliment.
“People noticed it and began talking about it,” he said. The ad has since attracted roughly three million views online.
The Richler ad helped Trudeau by bringing more attention to the original. Most memorable aspects of the ad, Richler has a high class English accent, he acted dismissively towards Trudeau throwing a bunch of paper in his face. It was definitely funny but it was also disrespectful and brought more attention to Trudeau's ad. What people probably remembered from Trudeau's ad is that sometimes like does feel like walking up a down escalator and Trudeau wants to help by taxing the 1% giving the middle class more money and Trudeau is a nice guy.
So back to the TPP. If it looks like the NDP is using TPP to go after Trudeau people will be more sceptical. The message cannot be TPP is bad and Trudeau is going to sign it so he is bad and you should have voted for us.
Trudeau already said he will allow open debate so get ready to debate. Get all the ducks in a row. All the provinces agreed to CETA so they may well all support TPP too. If the US signs this will be an epic battle. Even if they don't the larger issue is all trade deals favoring corporations rather than the people of the countries involved.
Convince people that the NDP is on the right side of trade deals and the Liberals are on the wrong side. Trade deals highlight the fundamental differences between the Liberals and NDP without talking about philosophy or socialism.
Fri, 2015-12-04 07:34
#207
I think there will be lots to criticize. We have some issues already -
1) the handling of the gender balance in cabinet with lower weight ministers being handed to women -- there is good reason to demand better.
This was announced November 29th. I didn't bother posting about it because of how it would have been interpreted.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/29/liberals-patronage-gender_n_8677...
OTTAWA-- The federal Liberals say they plan to extend a promise of gender parity in cabinet to ensure the same outcome in the hundreds of appointments the government makes to boards, agencies and Crown corporations.
Just how the process will work is unclear: The Liberals vowed in the election to overhaul an appointment process that now is conducted behind closed doors and was sometimes mired in accusations of political patronage for government donors or failed candidates.....
"Appointments will be open, transparent and merit-based and we will ensure gender parity and that more indigenous peoples and minority groups are reflected in positions of leadership,'' said Olivier Duchesneau, deputy director of communications to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
"This will apply government-wide to everything from the cabinet to the Supreme Court to boards of Crown corporations.''
Some of the ministries the women got could be considered less important but it isn't just lip service. They are real positions for which the women are specifically qualified for based on their experience. Women also got important roles like Heath and Justice.
This is real measurable progress for women. Over the next four years many women will be appointed and every time it happens women will be delighted. Someone on his team suggested "Because it's 2015" but Trudeau snapped it up and it went viral.
Quibbling about the importance of the cabinet positions the women were assigned versus the men, when women took both Justice and Health, will not be well received.
The childcare issue in light of the personal decisions of the PM suggest both a lack of recognition that this is a need for the whole population of parents of young children and the lack of respect for the value of childcare due to the lower wages provided.People didn't support the NDP even though the NDP made the need for daycare a central plank. In the end it lacked credibility because the provinces would have had to chip in. Maybe there were other reasons too but the bottomline is Trudeau won the election without a daycare commitment.
Few will agree with "Trudeau's kids have nannies paid for through taxes so we should have a national daycare program".
People paying for household help and childcare don't want to pay higher wages.
Trudeau probably will have a daycare proposal for 2019. He will have a great record to run on which will give his new commitments credibility.
Going forward we have some concerns about the handling of the TPP, what the budget allocations appearing less than sufficient to carry forward promises. These should become apparent soon.That's the big one. The NDP has to build a proper airtight case against it. Then they have to boil it down to plain language spanning no more than 2 or 3 pages max. Then they have to boil that down to 1 paragraph. They have have to come up with single sentences or phrases, concise soundbites.
Some people never go beyond the soundbite but for anyone who considers themselves a sceptic who has to be convinced, or supporters who need an argument to convince others, the support is there.
Trudeau and his team are very clever, very politically savvy. Another article I skipped posting.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketin...
Still, while – as with most advertising – few will admit that campaign ads have any effect on them, the marketing strategy has a real sway on citizens’ impressions of the candidates and their platforms.
In the case of the winning campaign, the ad agency behind much of that strategy was Toronto-based Bensimon Byrne.
While not unprecedented, it’s very unusual for a commercial ad agency to do political work, as opposed to those who specialize exclusively in political communications.....
Bensimon Byrne has done political work for more than 10 years, handling Liberal Party political campaigns in Ontario for Dalton McGuinty and the latest run for Kathleen Wynne, and federal elections for Paul Martin before being approached by the team behind Justin Trudeau in March. (The agency did not work with either Stéphane Dion’s or Michael Ignatieff’s campaigns.)
“Personally, I would have loved to be involved earlier than we were. By the time I got involved, he was in third place,” David Rosenberg, partner and chief creative officer at Bensimon Byrne, said during an hour-long conversation in his office reflecting on the campaign – from which he is still recovering lost sleep. “It was a steep hill to climb.”
The article goes on to describe each ad and how it came about.
Comedian Rick Mercer parodied the ad on his show; NDP candidate Noah Richler made his own version. Mr. Rosenberg considers it a compliment.
“People noticed it and began talking about it,” he said. The ad has since attracted roughly three million views online.
The Richler ad helped Trudeau by bringing more attention to the original. Most memorable aspects of the ad, Richler has a high class English accent, he acted dismissively towards Trudeau throwing a bunch of paper in his face. It was definitely funny but it was also disrespectful and brought more attention to Trudeau's ad. What people probably remembered from Trudeau's ad is that sometimes like does feel like walking up a down escalator and Trudeau wants to help by taxing the 1% giving the middle class more money and Trudeau is a nice guy.
So back to the TPP. If it looks like the NDP is using TPP to go after Trudeau people will be more sceptical. The message cannot be TPP is bad and Trudeau is going to sign it so he is bad and you should have voted for us.
Trudeau already said he will allow open debate so get ready to debate. Get all the ducks in a row. All the provinces agreed to CETA so they may well all support TPP too. If the US signs this will be an epic battle. Even if they don't the larger issue is all trade deals favoring corporations rather than the people of the countries involved.
Convince people that the NDP is on the right side of trade deals and the Liberals are on the wrong side. Trade deals highlight the fundamental differences between the Liberals and NDP without talking about philosophy or socialism.
Pondering: back at it again taking a criticism of the government and with pretzel logic making it about an opposition party.
Did not even read to the end of your post due to the stench of this twisted partisan defense.
Fri, 2015-12-04 20:14
#208
Pondering: back at it again taking a criticism of the government and with pretzel logic making it about an opposition party.
Did not even read to the end of your post due to the stench of this twisted partisan defense.
We are off topic anyway because this is the Trudeaumetre thread. I presented logic.
I agreed with you on TPP.
Childcare was not part of Trudeau's platform.
Trudeau kept his promise on gender parity in Cabinet. Not one woman could be criticized for not having the right background or expertise for her portfolio.
Now he is aiming for gender parity in all crown corporation boardrooms and the Senate and more.
Trudeau is completely immune to any criticism that he is not doing enough to elevate women in government.
It's never a good idea to fight a losing battle.
Fri, 2015-12-04 20:15
#209
Another Trudeau fail! 
What Worries the World's Most Famous Climate Scientist?
James Hansen is fretting about the Paris talks, and for good reason.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/12/02/Climate-Scientist-Worries/
Fri, 2015-12-04 20:58
#210
I already covered this -- yes the Liebrals included childcare in their platform. We argued about it here many times-- it was funding for parents means-tested.Pondering: back at it again taking a criticism of the government and with pretzel logic making it about an opposition party.
Did not even read to the end of your post due to the stench of this twisted partisan defense.
We are off topic anyway because this is the Trudeaumetre thread. I presented logic.
I agreed with you on TPP.
Childcare was not part of Trudeau's platform.
Trudeau kept his promise on gender parity in Cabinet. Not one woman could be criticized for not having the right background or expertise for her portfolio.
Now he is aiming for gender parity in all crown corporation boardrooms and the Senate and more.
Trudeau is completely immune to any criticism that he is not doing enough to elevate women in government.
It's never a good idea to fight a losing battle.
The program was not mentionned at all.
Fri, 2015-12-04 22:23
#211
Justin and Sophie should, by Justin's own words, be "means tested" before taxpayers pay for their childcare...not a word about childcare in the speech but they signed on for funded childcare first day elected.
Sat, 2015-12-05 00:07
#212
Childcare was not part of Trudeau's platform.
Au contraire ma sœur. From the Lib platform under social infrastructure:
With historic new investments in social infrastructure, we will achieve both.We will improve quality of life for millions of Canadians by prioritizing investment in affordable housing, seniors’ facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational infrastructure.
It was also refered to in their policy resolutions [https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/3-national-strategy-universal-...
BE IT RESOLVED that a Liberal Government institute a Universal ECEC [early childhood education and care] Program with national standards and monitoring mechanisms, by restoring the bilateral agreements of the previous Liberal Government with the provinces and the territories;
Sat, 2015-12-05 00:40
#213
Yes, I misinterpreted him to mean daycare, the truth is even more ridiculous. Is Mulcair seriously suggesting that Trudeau might not follow through on the very detailed child tax benefit that allows parents to calculate their benefits because it wasn't specified in the Throne Speech? The Throne speech is not a list of all the legislation to be passed or a recitation of the platform.
If it's not in the budget then that would be reason to complain. That it isn't in the Speech from the Throne is a lame complaint.
Sat, 2015-12-05 00:54
#214
Yikes.
No, neither myself nor Mulcair were referring to the child tax benefit. Child care. As in, you know, actual child care.
The Liberal platform said they'd begin work on this in the first 100 days. So, it makes sense that Mulcair, in the role of opposition, would point out that it wasn't mentioned in the Throne Speech.
From the Liberal platform:
We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.
Sat, 2015-12-05 01:04
#215
Justin and Sophie should, by Justin's own words, be "means tested" before taxpayers pay for their childcare...not a word about childcare in the speech but they signed on for funded childcare first day elected.
I don't think he suggested that employment benefits should be means tested. As PM he is assigned household staff who perform whatever duties are required to ease the lives of the PM and family. This is because of the special responsibilities held by Prime Minister of the country that require him to be available 24/7 and to regularly travel around the country and around the world sometimes with little notice.
For that reason he and his family have their personal responsibilities tended to by government paid staff.
Sat, 2015-12-05 02:39
#216
It seems Mulcair is wrong no matter which angle you take.
From the Speech to the Throne
The government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need it by giving less to those who do not. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.
Sat, 2015-12-05 09:48
#217
As PM he is assigned household staff who perform whatever duties are required to ease the lives of the PM and family. This is because of the special responsibilities held by Prime Minister of the country that require him to be available 24/7 and to regularly travel around the country and around the world sometimes with little notice.
For that reason he and his family have their personal responsibilities tended to by government paid staff.
This is the most complete, yet succint, explanation of why it's ridiculous he should be expected to pay his own childcare, that I have read yet.
If there was a high five emoticon you'd be getting it :D
Sat, 2015-12-05 12:23
#218
they can still do it and pay for their own childcare expenses point blank his being "wealthy" and all. or he is a privileged hyprocrite lying liar.
other people with children have immediate things happen too and still have to pay for it.
Sat, 2015-12-05 13:06
#219
Arthur Cramer
That it isn't in the Speech from the Throne is a lame complaint.
Not at all Pondering. It is an indication of commttment and priority. If he meant it, it should be in the Throne Speech.
Sat, 2015-12-05 14:32
#220
Can anyone tell me if electoral reform and the all party committee was mentioned in the throne speech?
I was reading online that if nothing happens by May 2017 that means he broke his promise on electoral reform. The promise was 18 months.
Sat, 2015-12-05 14:39
#221
Arthur Cramer
Well, I suppose this a promise kept but more LPC/Justin Trudeau outright LIES anyway, http://spon.ca/trudeaus-promised-middle-class-tax-cut-excludes-most-canadians/2015/11/12/
Quoting in part from this article:
"To summarize, the major gains from the "middle class" tax cut will go to individuals with incomes between $89,200 and $200,000, roughly the top 10 per cent, minus the top 1 per cent who will pay higher taxes to pay for the tax cut for those below them on the income ladder.
As is well known, the incomes of the top 1 per cent have grown much faster than those of ordinary Canadians in recent years, with their share of all income rising to 10.3 per cent from 8.1 per cent from 1990 to 2012. Meanwhile, the income share of the bottom 50 per cent of Canadians fell to 16.7 per cent from 19.3 per cent over the same period.
While the top 1 per cent did extremely well, especially those with ultrahigh incomes, the data show that the income share of the top 10 per cent minus the top 1 per cent has also risen significantly since 1990, to 24.8 per cent from 22.7 per cent.
The real losers over the past 15 years and more have been the middle- and lower-income earners who will not benefit much if at all from the new "middle class" tax cut.
While the higher tax rate on the top 1 per cent promised by the new government as well as the new system of child benefits will certainly promote greater income equality, the same cannot be said of this measure."
Boy were people ever duped here, and did the NDP ever blow it. Its always with the Libs, look after their wealthy buddies and hope no one notices. Trudeau is a real scumbag!
As to daycare, childcare, whatever. Some Libs on this board said that they hope the Libs run on it in 2019. Typical. The problem is people need it now. So, there is a promise I confidently predict Trudeau will do noting about. He could care less. As I said, he's a scumbag. And obviously, to anyone saying they hope the Libs run on this in 2019, it suggests getting elected is far more important than doing the right thing! And in turn, it proves my assertion. for the Libs it is ENTIRELY about power!
Sat, 2015-12-05 15:52
#222
It seems Mulcair is wrong no matter which angle you take.
From the Speech to the Throne
The government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need it by giving less to those who do not. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.
Pondering -- you need to stop barging ahead with stupid arguments becuase you have not read carefuylly what was said-- this creates lots of anger and vitriol here. Would be a good new years' resolution. Just slow down a little.
The platform said:
"We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families."
It was quoted just above your reply.
A Child benefit IS NOT childcare. And childcare was promised -- (see quote) and it was not in throne speech.
So slow the F#@% down a little and you will get fewer pissed off replies.
Surely you understand the difference between a childcare service that is delivered and a cash benefit that is paid -- DON'T YOU?
Here is the text of the speech: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-throne-speech-2015-full-...
Hint: just search "child" and you see benefit but nothing about childcare.
Sat, 2015-12-05 15:59
#223
Can anyone tell me if electoral reform and the all party committee was mentioned in the throne speech?
From the Throne Speech:
To make sure that every vote counts, the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
Not sure which all party committee you're referring to, though?
Sat, 2015-12-05 16:10
#224
alan smithee
The fact that legal weed was part of the Throne Speech pleasantly surprised me. I figured it would be one,if not the first promise to be buried under whatever agenda the Liberals may have. I'd rather words be turned into action. You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one. Please keep a promise for once.
Sat, 2015-12-05 16:38
#225
That it isn't in the Speech from the Throne is a lame complaint.
Not at all Pondering. It is an indication of commttment and priority. If he meant it, it should be in the Throne Speech.
As I posted last night, it IS in the throne speech which you can read for yourself. We all made the mistake of believing Mulcair which I should know better not to do because Mulcair is an old-fashioned politician.
The government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need it by giving less to those who do not. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.
That is what Trudeau promised in his platform and it is what he is delivering.
However, if you take his Throne Speech
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/read-and-watch-the-full-speech-from-the-...
and put it beside his platform (in PDF so it is easier to compare...
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf
I'm sure you will find lots and lots of stuff promised in his platform that is not in the Throne Speech.
After all, the platform is 88 pages long and the Throne Speech is only 6 pages long so he must have left out tons of stuff.
The Conservatives pointed out he left out ISIL but there is so much more that Trudeau left out. 88-6=82 pages missing from the Speech to the Throne!
Mulcair is lying, or mistaken if you prefer, because Trudeau did reiterate his promise on the child tax credit. Either that or Mulcair is referring to daycare which Trudeau never promised.
I am not trying to defend the Liberals, Mulcair's pettiness is GREAT for the Liberals. This is the opposite of "damning with faint praise".
If Mulcair is reduced to complaining about what is and isn't in the Speech from the Throne as opposed to the platform it indicates there is nothing serious to criticize Trudeau for.
That reinforces the message that there is little difference between the NDP and the Liberals. It makes Mulcair look desperate, which he is because he is afraid he is going to lose the leadership review. It also makes him look petty when Trudeau is offering to work together in a non-partisan fashion now that the election is over.
It strategically positions the Liberals as wanting to work collaborativey, like inviting the opposition leaders to COP21.
Sat, 2015-12-05 17:02
#226
Either that or Mulcair is referring to daycare which Trudeau never promised.
Not true. Try reading the Liberal platform.
Sat, 2015-12-05 17:10
#227
Arthur Cramer
That it isn't in the Speech from the Throne is a lame complaint.
Not at all Pondering. It is an indication of commttment and priority. If he meant it, it should be in the Throne Speech.
As I posted last night, it IS in the throne speech which you can read for yourself. We all made the mistake of believing Mulcair which I should know better not to do because Mulcair is an old-fashioned politician.
The government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need it by giving less to those who do not. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.
That is what Trudeau promised in his platform and it is what he is delivering.
However, if you take his Throne Speech
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/read-and-watch-the-full-speech-from-the-...
and put it beside his platform (in PDF so it is easier to compare...
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf
I'm sure you will find lots and lots of stuff promised in his platform that is not in the Throne Speech.
After all, the platform is 88 pages long and the Throne Speech is only 6 pages long so he must have left out tons of stuff.
The Conservatives pointed out he left out ISIL but there is so much more that Trudeau left out. 88-6=82 pages missing from the Speech to the Throne!
Mulcair is lying, or mistaken if you prefer, because Trudeau did reiterate his promise on the child tax credit. Either that or Mulcair is referring to daycare which Trudeau never promised.
I am not trying to defend the Liberals, Mulcair's pettiness is GREAT for the Liberals. This is the opposite of "damning with faint praise".
If Mulcair is reduced to complaining about what is and isn't in the Speech from the Throne as opposed to the platform it indicates there is nothing serious to criticize Trudeau for.
That reinforces the message that there is little difference between the NDP and the Liberals. It makes Mulcair look desperate, which he is because he is afraid he is going to lose the leadership review. It also makes him look petty when Trudeau is offering to work together in a non-partisan fashion now that the election is over.
It strategically positions the Liberals as wanting to work collaborativey, like inviting the opposition leaders to COP21.
Pondering, your post above is AMAZING. You take EVERY post and use it to attack Mulcair. Every single time. Guess what, he isn't the Prime Minister. We were talking about what Trudeau included, IN, the Throne Speech, and Childcare wasn't. I agree with everyone else posting here, you need to start actually reading what others write. You haven't done that so far.
Sat, 2015-12-05 17:19
#228
Arthur Cramer
"Meet the new partisans, same as the old partisans" (this sounds oddly familliar; given, that this is happening on this board now that junior is PM), http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/meet-the-new-partisans-same-as-the-ol...
Sat, 2015-12-05 19:00
#229
It seems Mulcair is wrong no matter which angle you take.
From the Speech to the Throne
The government has also committed to provide more direct help to those who need it by giving less to those who do not. The new Canada child benefit will do just that.
Pondering -- you need to stop barging ahead with stupid arguments becuase you have not read carefuylly what was said-- this creates lots of anger and vitriol here. Would be a good new years' resolution. Just slow down a little.
The platform said:
"We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families."
It was quoted just above your reply.
A Child benefit IS NOT childcare. And childcare was promised -- (see quote) and it was not in throne speech.
So slow the F#@% down a little and you will get fewer pissed off replies.
Surely you understand the difference between a childcare service that is delivered and a cash benefit that is paid -- DON'T YOU?
Here is the text of the speech: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-throne-speech-2015-full-...
Hint: just search "child" and you see benefit but nothing about childcare.
The platform is 88 pages long. The Throne Speech is 6 pages long. Do the math.
If you want to compare, don't forget to consult the Cabinet Ministers mandate letters which were published contrary to tradition to fulfil the promise of greater transparency.
It is ridiculously petty and ineffective to complain about the throne speech.
If, as you claim, he was referring to this:
"We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families."
It doesn't help Mulcair's case. I think the public will allow Trudeau a few months to set up a meeting for discussions with the provinces. There is also a meeting coming on climate change 90 days after the COP21 and meetings were promised on the inquiry for missing indigenous women.
I am pleasantly surprised that is in the Liberals platform. It reinforces my opinion that the Liberals will have some sort of a daycare plan for 2019 or maybe even before then. I thought it would be in this platform because a while back a Liberal said that they had some innovative ideas. I guess that is what they want to discuss with the provinces.
Mulcair talked about working with the provinces on daycare but I don't recall his mentioning indigenous communities in terms of his daycare plans.
As I have before there is no doubt in my mind that the NDP membership as a whole is far more progressive than the Liberal membership as a whole.
I am not "defending the Liberals". There are deep differences between the NDP and the Liberals that the NDP is failing to express or highlight. There are big issues the Liberals will definitely fail on.
Canada needs a progressive party that will fight trade deals and pipelines like the Council of Canadians. That will never happen under Mulcair.
NDPers want to say nice things about Mulcair because you don't want him leading but you don't want to be mean or unappreciative of his good points or ungrateful for his work. You are looking for stuff to praise him on or defend him over.
It's harmless to Trudeau because few people are paying attention to politics but it is still another example of empty criticism for the sake of it. It is that attitude that dooms Mulcair and the NDP. Contrast the negativity against Trudeau's sunny ways and desire to work together across party lines and elevate politics.
The NDP, under Mulcair or any other leader, needs to pick its battles carefully. Predicting that he will not keep his platform commitments is a loser's game because for the most part they are easy to keep and the ones that aren't are not central issues.
Every time Trudeau proves the NDP wrong by keeping a campaign commitment or even just working towards one his credibility rises and the NDP's credibility drops.
Grumbling about the Liberal party and knee-jerk dissing of Trudeau is not going to win any elections. It is even playing into his hands.
In another comment somewhere someone took exception to my reference to Trudeau "rising above" attacks against him. I put that in quotes on purpose because he isn't actually "rising above" the attacks. It's a political strategy or technique but that doesn't make it any the less effective.
Sat, 2015-12-05 19:06
#230
Pondering, your post above is AMAZING. You take EVERY post and use it to attack Mulcair. Every single time. Guess what, he isn't the Prime Minister. We were talking about what Trudeau included, IN, the Throne Speech, and Childcare wasn't. I agree with everyone else posting here, you need to start actually reading what others write. You haven't done that so far.
It's not my fault that Mulcair is making such poor decisions.
Criticizing a 6 page speech because it doesn't cover everything in an 88 page platform is lame.
Sat, 2015-12-05 19:51
#231
Such utter garbage Pondering.
1) The Liberals did specifically promise childcare.
2) They did not mention it in the throne speech.
3) It was a major promise that meant a hell of a lot to many people choosing between the NDP and the Liberals.
4) It was much more important than many items that made it into the speech which was short but a long list of items.
5) It was massively significant to New Democrats and the leader would have been hauled over the coals, and rightly so, if he had not raised it.
Raising the fact that it was not important enough to go in the Throne speech is not petty it is perfectly reasonable. I would criticize Mulcair if he did NOT do that.
You blather on as if nobody else is saying anything.
To say that a committment as HUGE as childcare would be left out as not important enough for a mention and the questionning of that as being petty exposes you as being NOT a progressive. Not even close.
You are clearly a partisan Liberal. On this issue you flushed any claim to any progressive cred down the toilet. Saying it is petty to raise childcare on a site like this is unbelievable. I would bet many people here would pratically be offered a time out for saying that -- since this is one of the things a progressive site does not normally have to debate -- we just accept that it is important as a condition of being here.
Also the Liberals decided on the thin Throne Speech. They decided to leave ANY MENTION of childcare out. It is not as if there was no room or no time to mention it.
You know a Liberal booster is one thing but your relationship with Trudeau is more like a priest to Jesus. It is tiresome. This is not a religious site of saint Justin. It is political site where you can expect criticism's of your dear leader, lord and saviour. Crapping on people for raising valid criticisms is just garbage. Now Mulcair actually was quite positive of many aspects of the throne speech but that is not good enough because he did not get down on his knees to pray to the God Pierre, his son Justin and the holy Liberal party.
Sat, 2015-12-05 20:01
#232
Arthur Cramer
Pondering, your post above is AMAZING. You take EVERY post and use it to attack Mulcair. Every single time. Guess what, he isn't the Prime Minister. We were talking about what Trudeau included, IN, the Throne Speech, and Childcare wasn't. I agree with everyone else posting here, you need to start actually reading what others write. You haven't done that so far.It's not my fault that Mulcair is making such poor decisions.
Criticizing a 6 page speech because it doesn't cover everything in an 88 page platform is lame.
Pondering, my post wasn't about Mulcair. You made it into one. Your posts have two themes and two themes only. Yeah Trudeau. Boo Mulcair. They are about NOTHING else. YOU are the person being referred to in the Mclean's article. That article has you dead to rights. They NAILED IT!
Sat, 2015-12-05 20:02
#233
Arthur Cramer
Amen Sean. Speak it brother!
Sun, 2015-12-06 01:21
#234
3) It was a major promise that meant a hell of a lot to many people choosing between the NDP and the Liberals.
If that were true they would have chosen the NDP because they were promising a daycare plan and Trudeau wasn't. During the election the child tax credit was prominent the childcare meeting was not. I didn't even know about it so I really don't think it was a deciding factor for many people. I'm guessing those meetings will eventually cumulate in a daycare plan for 2019. If he delivers one before then I will be shocked not disappointed.
I think the Liberals stuck it in there as a defence against accusations of not having a daycare plan but they didn't need to use it because daycare was remarkably ignored.
4) It was much more important than many items that made it into the speech which was short but a long list of items.
5) It was massively significant to New Democrats and the leader would have been hauled over the coals, and rightly so, if he had not raised it.
And yet it was never or rarely mentioned during the election period not even when Trudeau criticizing the NDP daycare plan.
To say that a committment as HUGE as childcare would be left out as not important enough for a mention and the questionning of that as being petty exposes you as being NOT a progressive. Not even close.
Childcare isn't petty criticizing the throne speech is petty. The HoC MPs stand around the door to listen to the speech to the THRONE given to sentators. It is an archaic formality that should be abolished but it's the formal way in which the CROWN passes control to the House of Commons which then decides if they support the government or not.
You guys are trying to turn it into an issue of partisanship because you are wrong.
AC accused Trudeau of being cowardly when I said he wouldn't make a decision on TPP before the US signed and if the US signs we probably will too but only after the cover of a debate. If the US signs the argument will be that we can't afford not to. Same goes for CETA.
I didn't defend Trudeau on that.
Trudeau and the Liberals are wrong wrong wrong on trade deals.
I have not praised or defended Trudeau on climate change.
On pipelines I defend his criteria. If he breaks his word on the oil companies having to get social licence I will critique him on that.
These are the issues (and income inequality) on which Trudeau Liberals have substantive critical short-comings.
Mulcair's criticisms on trade deals and climate changes are not strong enough and never will be because he is a centrist unwilling to risk losing an election.
In 2005 Layton did have a point that they could do more good by winning elections than by propping up the Liberals and moving to the centre would do that. That strategy is dead. Now the NDP has to woo progressives young people who answered Trudeau's call to vote. It's not good enough to be a little bit better, to promise a daycare plan, or a federal minimum wage, or lower bank fees.
You should be very afraid. I voted for Trudeau for this four year mandate but I hoped it would push the NDP to be more progressive, to renew itself the way the Liberal party had to in 2011. Trudeau has succeeded beyond all expectations including my own.
While progressives here are calling Trudeau a hypocrite for accepting childcare help at government expense and paying market rates Canadians are basking in the praise he and his family are receiving on the world stage. I'm not claiming he deserves that praise, only that he is receiving it.
Sun, 2015-12-06 08:33
#235
Oops!
Canada's youth call out Justin Trudeau before the world's cameras at Paris climate talks
Canadian Youth Delegation demand more than selfies at Paris climate summit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cop21-paris-canada-youth-delegation-1.33...
Sun, 2015-12-06 11:34
#236
Oops!
Canada's youth call out Justin Trudeau before the world's cameras at Paris climate talks
Canadian Youth Delegation demand more than selfies at Paris climate summit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cop21-paris-canada-youth-delegation-1.33...
Excellent. Public pressure is what's needed to push this government into making concrete decisions about targets for climate change.
There is appreciation for the funding it provided early to help developing countries reduce emissions, but also wariness of its decision to keep (for now) to relatively unambitious national targets set by the previous government.
Sun, 2015-12-06 15:31
#237
Wow Pondering. Just wow. Your post is illogical almost down the line.
You say the Liberals brought in the promise on childcare "as a defence against accusations of not having a daycare plan" Could you be more cynical? Not because it is a real promise to keep and deliver but just to bullshit those who might vote NDP. Not that they should be expected to include this in the key direction statement of their mandate -- becuase this was only meant to bullshit voters into thinking the Liberals had a plan on it. Again just wow. What is curious here is I actually agree with you. The difference is that this would be why I absolutely hate distrust and could never support the Liberal party. But you say this in their defence. Again. Just wow.
Then this gem: "criticizing the throne speech is petty." Again another round of just wow.
Criticizing the throne speech is the job of the opposition parties.
I get that Pondering has trouble with this idea: it seems clear over the last couple years of her posts that Pondering is horribly inflicted with that Liberal arrogance that party is so famous for. And this arrogance presumes that the NDP should be loyal and uncritical of the Father Pierre, The Son Justin and the Holy Liberal Party. To say an opposition party criticizing -- in general -- is petty is classic Liberal arrogance.
Then she goes on -- I kid you not -- to attack opposition parties for criticizing becuase they are being partisan. Can we have another just wow? The statement is political from a political party being reviewed by another political party whose role it is to oppose. Yes I guess it is partisan. But no kidding -- that's the point. It should be. That is what our political party system si designed to do and should do.
Then we get this "Mulcair's criticisms ... are not strong enough and never will be because he is a centrist unwilling to risk losing an election." Speaking of partisanship: this is condemnig a person's future statements before they are being made. Imagine if an NDP supporter said that about Trudeau?
Then of course we have Liberal entitlement and arrogance going the extra distance on the voters: less than two months in the Liberal zealot goes on to say: "In 2005 Layton did have a point that they could do more good by winning elections than by propping up the Liberals and moving to the centre would do that. That strategy is dead." You heard it from the Liberal clergy that the NDP strategy of trying to win a government is dead -- in one single election. Why becuase the "Age of Entitlement" is back. The Liberal zealot thinks the NDP not only will not succeed but that the very strategy for wanting to win elecitons is dead. No wonder she expects loyalty from the NDP, whose only purpose is to propose policies while expressing fealty at the fet of the Liberal masters.
Then the zealot claims we must be afraid -- becuase Trudeau exceeded her expectations. Really, it is the Liebrals who should be afraid of the kind of promotion they are getting from zealots. This might hasten the end of the new "Age of Entitlement" and a new dark age when the Liberals are banished form power in order to relearn some humility.
Mon, 2015-12-07 03:58
#238
Oops!
Canada's youth call out Justin Trudeau before the world's cameras at Paris climate talks
Canadian Youth Delegation demand more than selfies at Paris climate summit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cop21-paris-canada-youth-delegation-1.33...
Excellent. Public pressure is what's needed to push this government into making concrete decisions about targets for climate change.
There is appreciation for the funding it provided early to help developing countries reduce emissions, but also wariness of its decision to keep (for now) to relatively unambitious national targets set by the previous government.
I don't see why you say "oops" NR, this is a good thing.
Too bad they don't have the support of the NDP. Environmentalists would be thrilled to have it and would go all out to support the NDP.
Mon, 2015-12-07 05:41
#239
Wow Pondering. Just wow. Your post is illogical almost down the line. Could you be more cynical?
If you call that cynical you are sweetly naive. The Liberals only decided on running a deficit after Mulcair declared himself dedicated to a balanced budget for four years running. We have discussed here how insignificant a 10 billion dollar deficit is. It is practically just a rounding error. The NDP is no different. Mulcair's decisions concerning marijuana were political calculations as was the promise to have 4 years of balanced budgets. His decisions to promote Energy East as an alternative to Keystone was politically motivated and his backtracking on it was due to its lack of popularity in Quebec.
I never noticed that entry on childcare in the Liberal platform, it was never brought up in the campaign. I expect he does and always did intend to follow through on discussions with the provinces and indigenous nations. It was certainly not a highlight of the platform so there was no reason to be shocked that it wasn't in the throne speech. The Liberals knew that the NDP's daycare plan could become an issue for them and they could use it as protection.
What is curious here is I actually agree with you. The difference is that this would be why I absolutely hate distrust and could never support the Liberal party. But you say this in their defence. Again. Just wow.
I didn't say it in their defence. I said it to point out there is no reason to have expected it to be in the throne speech. You seem to think that this criticism (and the not quite gender parity) could actually negatively impact Trudeau.
I remember a cartoon a while back when Trudeau was first riding high. Harper and Mulcair were throwing mud at Trudeau and he was grinning wearing a white suit flicking the mud off which was then hitting Harper and Mulcair and staying on them.
It's like rock paper scissors. The tool you need to conquer each is different.
To the Conservatives ISIL is top priority but you acknowledge they were whining even though Trudeau insisted during the campaign that we would continue contributing to the battle.
Raising the issue of childcare not being in the throne speech has no substance. He hasn't broken any campaign commitments.
Criticizing the throne speech is the job of the opposition parties.
No it isn't. The opposition isn't supposed to find fault just for the sake of it and the throne speech is a formality, a farcical one at that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/throne-speech-neil-macdonald-1.3352025
Then, Friday, with 2016 almost upon us, an ancient, rather bizarre aristos-versus-proles ritual took place, something our new prime minister, who declares himself the agent of "real change," might want to think about.
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod marched down the hall and banged on the door of the Commons, and required its members to attend immediately in the Other Place, where the representative of the sovereign had some important things to say.
And they did, shuffling quickly down the hall to snag a good spot.
Some of them actually got to the gold bar of the Red Chamber, beyond which no Commoner is to pass, where they, all of them sent to Ottawa by voters, had to stand, not sit, and listen.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the bar, seated in cushioned luxury, the people who amount to the hired help listened to the most important member of the hired help, the Governor General, read the speech on behalf of a hereditary monarch who lives in a foreign country.
Not all the elected members actually made it into the room. Some had to hang around outside, trying to look dignified in the vestibule.
To say an opposition party criticizing -- in general -- is petty is classic Liberal arrogance.
Nonsense. Some criticisms are valid, others are petty. The petty ones can backfire.
Then she goes on -- I kid you not -- to attack opposition parties for criticizing becuase they are being partisan.
No I didn't. That is ridiculous. However, if their criticism is read as just being partisanship in the form of sour grapes that does backfire. I have also again been accused of just being a Trudeau cheerleader or only criticizing the NDP out of partisanship.
You completely ignore the points I have made.
Then we get this "Mulcair's criticisms ... are not strong enough and never will be because he is a centrist unwilling to risk losing an election." Speaking of partisanship: this is condemnig a person's future statements before they are being made. Imagine if an NDP supporter said that about Trudeau?
If you said "Trudeau will never openly say we have to shut down the oil sands". I would agree. When posters say Trudeau favors Bay street economic policy I agree.
Then of course we have Liberal entitlement and arrogance going the extra distance on the voters: less than two months in the Liberal zealot goes on to say: "In 2005 Layton did have a point that they could do more good by winning elections than by propping up the Liberals and moving to the centre would do that. That strategy is dead." You heard it from the Liberal clergy that the NDP strategy of trying to win a government is dead -- in one single election.
The strategy of moving to the centre is dead.
What is it, 3 times now, that the Liberals win by moving left of the NDP on a couple of key issues?
Mulcair is not going to win an election because he is a centrist and too tightly associated with the centrist face of the NDP.
No wonder she expects loyalty from the NDP, whose only purpose is to propose policies while expressing fealty at the fet of the Liberal masters.
Not even close. I have said for years the NDP has to get in front of the two most important progressive issues of the day. Climate change and income inequality. Claiming to be The Progressive Party because it adheres to some old leftist principles won't cut it.
Instead the NDP is dedicated to throwing spitballs at the Liberals rather than supporting the youth that are out there demonstrating against the inadequate measures being taken at COP21. I'm sure the NDP will also say the Liberals aren't doing enough but they won't say "no" to pipelines. Anything else is piddling, toy arrows with no chance of penetrating Liberal armour.
Then the zealot claims we must be afraid -- becuase Trudeau exceeded her expectations. Really, it is the Liebrals who should be afraid of the kind of promotion they are getting from zealots. This might hasten the end of the new "Age of Entitlement" and a new dark age when the Liberals are banished form power in order to relearn some humility.
Well we shall see which one of us is right.
I failed to predict how low Trudeau's numbers would drop before he recovered to win the election. I still predicted, based on my impression of him and of Canadians, that he would go from 3rd to 1st during the election. You may think I just got lucky and you may be right but I don't agree. I think my understanding of the electorate and what they would and wouldn't respond to was fairly accurate if not perfect and I took into account the massive numbers of voters that only tune in at the last minute. I predicted that as soon as he started putting out policy all the attacks would be neutered. He had maintained his likeability so all he had to do was give people an excuse to vote for him.
These are things you know too for the most part but don't give the same weight to as I do, or consider the ramifications. Partisans follow political news and answer polls. It cannot be assumed that all the voters who tune in at the last minute are going to be evenly distributed.
I read somewhere that economic theory is lacking because it assumed people would act in their best self-interest.
Trudeau and team ran a brilliant campaign from the moment he became leader. I think the only major mistake was C 51.
To beat Trudeau the NDP is going to have to really step up its game tactically.Centrism isn't going to cut it. They can't be just a little more leftist than the Liberals. They have to renounce left right centre as Syriza did and focus on the most important issues facing modern progressives today.
Mon, 2015-12-07 06:39
#240
Who does Treau think he is kidding with his elitist claptrap.
Christy Clark says Trudeau legitimizing unaccountable Senate, B.C. under-representation
B.C. gets 6 senators out of 105-seat chamber; Ontario & Quebec get 24 each
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clark-trudeau-senate-reform-1.3353128
Mon, 2015-12-07 08:40
#241
Who does Treau think he is kidding with his elitist claptrap.
People like Pondering -- obviously just look at the swill above your post.
Mon, 2015-12-07 10:15
#242
Duh!
'Not possible' to have non-partisan Senate leadership, Carignan says
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/not-possible-to-have-non-partisan-senate-...
Mon, 2015-12-07 10:44
#243
To beat Trudeau the NDP is going to have to really step up its game tactically.
The next election is a long way off. The important thing now for the NDP is to be a reliable progressive opposition and keep the government to account on its promises. And this is an important thing for the public to do as well, with initiatives such as the Trudeaumetre, social media like Babble, and lobby groups like Fair Vote Canada, the Suzuki Foundation, CeaseFire.ca, etc.
Mon, 2015-12-07 10:58
#244
who does Treau think he is kidding with his elitist claptrap.People like Pondering -- obviously just look at the swill above your post.
i don't think pondering believes it. she is trying too hard to try and twist everything to convince others of Justin and Sophie's goldeness as opposed to the reality of 2 privileged brats trying to show themselves off as Kate and Will.
Mon, 2015-12-07 11:23
#245
Who does Treau think he is kidding with his elitist claptrap.
Christy Clark says Trudeau legitimizing unaccountable Senate, B.C. under-representation
B.C. gets 6 senators out of 105-seat chamber; Ontario & Quebec get 24 each
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clark-trudeau-senate-reform-1.3353128
The Senate should just be gone, and turned into a daycare centre as the NDP planned. Then, rather than the out of date prescription for representation that's in the Constitution for the Senate (with BC getting only six members, which is Christy Clark's complaint), a new more up to date recipe for representation could be adopted with the addition of more MPs for the open-list mixed member proportional representation plan of the NDP. This would be real change, rather than the faux-change bullshit that Trudeau is peddling. Oh well, hopefully next time in 2019 people will wake up and be ready for actual change.
Mon, 2015-12-07 13:07
#246
Who does Treau think he is kidding with his elitist claptrap.
Christy Clark says Trudeau legitimizing unaccountable Senate, B.C. under-representation
B.C. gets 6 senators out of 105-seat chamber; Ontario & Quebec get 24 each
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clark-trudeau-senate-reform-1.3353128
The Senate should just be gone, and turned into a daycare centre as the NDP planned. Then, rather than the out of date prescription for representation that's in the Constitution for the Senate (with BC getting only six members, which is Christy Clark's complaint), a new more up to date recipe for representation could be adopted with the addition of more MPs for the open-list mixed member proportional representation plan of the NDP. This would be real change, rather than the faux-change bullshit that Trudeau is peddling. Oh well, hopefully next time in 2019 people will wake up and be ready for actual change.
Call it the Senate or something else, I think we need a body of citizens paid to spend their days examining what the government is doing and reporting their findings to the public. This body should be broadly representaitve geographically and demographically. I see no reaosn why we cannot turn the Senate into that. It does not need power to stop legislation but it needs power to examine, analyse and inform the public.
Mon, 2015-12-07 13:16
#247
Isn't informing the public the job of the press?
Mon, 2015-12-07 14:54
#248
Isn't informing the public the job of the press?
No, not in the way I am thinking.
The press is the conduit but they are not the product.
The people I am thinking of should have access to information and the ability to study ana analyse it much more closely than even an investigative reporter -- nevermind a reporter trying to meet a deadline. I am talking about a much more indepth review and debate than you would ever expect from the media.
This is not to say the media is not important but this is a value add that the media cannot provide.
As well there are elements of secrecy these people should have access to background that at least to now is not available or if it is the time to review it does not exist. Reporters do not have staff and offices that can consider important legislation over a period of months. they will report the findings of those who spend that time but they themselves do not do that.
These people I speak of are citizens charged with being citizens by specialization -- to relly seek out and examine something before it is a news story or framed as a potential news story. Their interest should be serving the public not putting together tomorrow's news headlines and copy, They should be able to report back to the House alternative policy options relying on such experts as needed, host public and behind the scenes inquiry, and provide the information to the public -- and by that this means making it where the journalists can get access to do their jobs.
I mean a lot more than what a journalist would be able to do with powers and resources the media do not have or cannot spend in that way. This is not a replacement of the fourth estate. This is a group from the third estate (common people) who are empowered by time, access and resources to truly examine the second estate (where second estate is given to meaning the power of the state in government as opposed to the nobility). The fourth estate (independent media) will report on their findings. In a modern structure ordinary people do not have the time to do full examinations of policy in a way that might have been possible in theory some 3-4 hundred years ago. On a rotating basis charging some of us to spend that time is a different tole than either the government structure itself or the media. I see this as the potential role of the Senate and therefore I stree the importance of diverse representation of the population and mostly short terms and no partisan activity such that they do not become (as they presently are) part of the government and political estate.
Mon, 2015-12-07 15:22
#249
i agree Sean completely. they're our employees and they need to keep us informed truthfully.
eta and be on our side!!!!
Mon, 2015-12-07 15:53
#250
i agree Sean completely. they're our employees and they need to keep us informed truthfully.
eta and be on our side!!!!
And an assebly that is truly representative can help remind them what we mean by "we."
Many people in power, I think, have a very distorted idea of what the population is. A truly representative sample given some money and time to look at the proporsals of government and engage with them would be a helpful reminder of why they are there.
To this end, I think we keep the name of the Senate (since it is enshirned in the constitution and hard to budge). We get rid of the elitist and privileged tradition and removed the partisanship and nomination process from power. All that can be done without going after the constitution. We make sure that in its representation some are very well represented including lower income people who live with policies made by people who do not understand their realities, also creators and of course Indigenous people. Then we really back it up with powers to see information and examine it.
Then the old Senate would be gone to the degree the NDP needed. But what is there is somethign actually useful.
Mon, 2015-12-07 20:12
#251
yup. it's how see it Sean. participants truely representative of each province and it's regions.