Canadian Politics for a change

[ForeverAutumn]

Yes, I see that Angus Reid has polled a significant lead for the Conservatives. For me it is a tad disapointing though not surprising.

In the first place, pretty much everyone who voted Conservative in October would do so now, I guess. The enormity of Harper's non-reponse to the economic crisis hasn't sunk in with them.

Others potential votes reasonably ask, "Why can't they all get alone?". They aren't realizing that it was Harper's uncompromising attitude that provoked the oppositions parties' response much more than their self-serving instincts.

Other than that, most voters don't just understand what a coalition is about since they have been virtually not existent in federal politics. People fear and resent what they don't understand.

On the issue of fearing the not understood, recall there was the referendum on proportional representation in the next to last election. It was rejected by a fair majority though, as I recall, only 30% seats would have been elected by that method. Again, the ignorance of the typical Canadian voter was the mostly cause of the result. True, relatively informed opponents of the concept arguee that it would cause "instability". This instability come about because it would be less likely that a single parting could get an absolute majoriy of seats-- a result that would make coalition governments a frequent necessity. (Well, do you believe that a party the gets, say, 45% of the popular vote should get 60% of the seats in Parliament and do whatever they like total disregard for the rest of MPs? I don't.)

I wouldn't assume that Conservatives would continue to vote Conservative. Personally, I've never liked Harper and would be more than happy to see him replaced as head of the party.

I think that there are a lot of Liberals who didn't agree with the Coalition and felt uncomfortable getting into bed with the NDP and the BQ. I know that my husband feels this way.

I suspect that if there is no change come January and we did end up back at the polls, there would be a lot of voters switching sides. But there is a lot that could change between now and then, so I prefer not to speculate.

Then again, nothing could change and we could still be drifting along in the same boat come the new year.

Personally, I'm not convinced that dumping billions of dollars to bail out companies that have been in trouble for years is the right thing to do. I've been reading some articles that seem to indicate that it would take several years for a bailout to have any real effect on our economy and in that time it is likely to stabilize on it's own. I prefer not to panic.

On a purely selfish note, the Bank of Canada is expected to drop rates another 50bps on Tuesday. That'll knock a couple more years off our mortgage.

[kexodusc]

Personally, I'm not convinced that dumping billions of dollars to bail out companies that have been in trouble for years is the right thing to do. I've been reading some articles that seem to indicate that it would take several years for a bailout to have any real effect on our economy and in that time it is likely to stabilize on our own. I prefer not to panic. But it's easy for me to say in my white collar job, I know.

Interesting...it is a pretty general consensus that spending on infrastructure projects and improving domestic trade efficiencies are usually the 2 best resources available to governments to stimulate economies, and you start feeling the effects almost immediately. Liberal and conservative governments have relied on these measures. How long it takes to work isn't really the determining issue, if it works at all you're better off doing something than nothing. Some good later is better than no good later. If it happens sooner, all the better...

You're very right however, throwing good money after bad isn't the answer. Bailing out companies that are in trouble from their own doing is probably not a good idea unless there's some evidence that any bailout will have positive expectations. And that's the 64 billion dollar question. But then this is where economics and finance give way to politics. I don't know any MP's in towns primarily dependent on the auto industry who will vote against a bailout package, even if it would serve the long-term greater good, whatever that is.

When it comes to the car companies, I think a lot of people are ignorant of the disastrously catastrophic possibilities even a temporary disruption in the operation of GM or Ford and all its subsidiaries and franchises could have on the domestic economy should one of the big 2 fail. They've screwed up a lot for sure, but they've also been dealt some pretty big blows they had no control over the years, and all that deferred pain is being felt now. This isn't an example widgets we're talking about. This is integral part of the workings of modern civilization...and that's not over-exaggerating the magnitude.

I don't know what's being proposed, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if a multi-billion dollar bailout is easier to swallow than the pain that would be felt from doing nothing at all, even if that's the more just and fair option.

It's kinda like telling a heroin addict to just go cold turkey...might work...but it's gonna be f'n messy for awhile...some sort of controlled rehab might be an easier option?

I'm on the fence on this one...

[Gerall]

At the end of the day it matters not to me who does what when. For many elections now, I have not voted for who I want to govern, I vote for who I hate the least. Been quite some time since a government has provided platform policies that a sweeping majority of the citizens actually do want.
The major problem I have with our democracy, is that is really isn't one. Its an Oligarchy at best. Sure we vote in the members we believe will represent us in parliament but thats where the democracy ends. When push comes to shove, they support their party regardless of their constituents wishes. And party platform policies are largely developed in back rooms by a bunch of political cronies who have never been elected to do anything for anyone at any time. Until elected members are allowed and encouraged to participate in a free vote, for what the constituents who elected them actually want, this trend will continue.
The political apathy is validated by the poor turnouts at the polls. People don't see enough of a significant different between the platforms to elect any of them with a majority.

[Feanor]

At the end of the day it matters not to me who does what when. For many elections now, I have not voted for who I want to govern, I vote for who I hate the least. Been quite some time since a government has provided platform policies that a sweeping majority of the citizens actually do want. ...

I'm with you there, Gerall. In general we have to vote of the lessor evil -- or sometime against the greater evil. In the last three elections I found myself voting not for the lessor evil even, but for the evil that is more likely to beat the worst evil.

...
The major problem I have with our democracy, is that is really isn't one. Its an Oligarchy at best. Sure we vote in the members we believe will represent us in parliament but thats where the democracy ends. When push comes to shove, they support their party regardless of their constituents wishes. And party platform policies are largely developed in back rooms by a bunch of political cronies who have never been elected to do anything for anyone at any time. Until elected members are allowed and encouraged to participate in a free vote, for what the constituents who elected them actually want, this trend will continue.
The political apathy is validated by the poor turnouts at the polls. People don't see enough of a significant different between the platforms to elect any of them with a majority.

I pretty much agree here too. In Canada and the US too, taking personal brides occurs but isn't the norm. On the other hand, you can't get elected without spending a lot of money and that means obtaining political contributions; as a polititican, your going to give ear to your financial backers. (He who pays the piper calls the tune.)

And few politicans can make it as independants So most have to join political parities if they hope to be elected. In that case they have to tow the party line. In Canada as an aspiring politican, on the upside, you have more than just two parties to choose from; on the downside, party discipline is stricter than in the US.

In both countries the lobbiest industry is enormous. Politicans listen to these people and forget about the little guy. Here again, lobbiests are paid by the big and well-funded interests.

[Gerall]

I am in the group that is adamantly opposed to the current funding methodologies for political parties. Political parties should NOT be funded by the general tax base. Political parties should NOT be funded by union dues that come from members of all persuasions. Donations from small to big business should be capped to a certain level . Big business have, for decades, been able to buy their way into political favor, and with the current funding process, parties can buy a lot of support through expensive media campaigns. The majority of political party funds MUST come from the individual voters, for it is ithe voter that elects the members.
I realize this will hurt fringe parties, but if a fringe party can not garner enough financial and voter support to be viable, then maybe they should not be viable.

[kexodusc]

I am in the group that is adamantly opposed to the current funding methodologies for political parties.

Political parties should NOT be funded by the general tax base. Political parties should NOT be funded by union dues that come from members of all persuasions. Donations from small to big business should be capped to a certain level . [/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with unions funding parties, anymore than businesses. Union members should never be forced to contribute, but if they have a problem with their dues going to, say the NDP, that's an internal union problem that their internal governance process should solve. A lot of my clients are unions, and I have observed some difference of opinion politically, but they are all generally anti-conservative, sometimes I wonder if they even know why.

Big business have, for decades, been able to buy their way into political favor, and with the current funding process, parties can buy a lot of support through expensive media campaigns. The majority of political party funds MUST come from the individual voters, for it is ithe voter that elects the members.
I realize this will hurt fringe parties, but if a fringe party can not garner enough financial and voter support to be viable, then maybe they should not be viable.

Good points.

I think I prefer a happy medium. I don't like the current system much, but I don't think taxpayers should be completely off the hook either. The financial barriers to entry for a political party are enormous and wealth should NOT ever be one of the main factors leading to election fortunes.

I guess in the grand scheme of things, $2 per vote isn't much. Maybe on the ballots they should have a question "do you want $2 of Canadian tax dollars going to support your preferred party?". For evey "yes" from an eligible voter on the ballot, the party gets $2....that gives even more say back to voters on the issue.

Let them decide then...

[ForeverAutumn]

It's been a busy morning. The Bank of Canada cut it's key interest rate by 75bps. Economists were predicting a 50bp cut.

And Bob Rae dropped out of the Liberal race leaving Ignatieff as the new leader of the Liberal Party.

Now if only Harper would let someone replace him, we could have ourselves an election!

[Feanor]

It's been a busy morning. The Bank of Canada cut it's key interest rate by 75bps. Economists were predicting a 50bp cut.

And Bob Rae dropped out of the Liberal race leaving Ignatieff as the new leader of the Liberal Party.

Now if only Harper would let someone replace him, we could have ourselves an election!

I hadn't heard about Rae dropping out. It was pretty clear, though, that Dion had to go before an election.

Michael Ignatieff will come across as an intellectual elitist to some people; fortunately it's possible for such an "elitist" to be elected in Canada. Put a Sarah Palin in a race in this country and she'd been seen for the hoser she is.

The chances of Harper quitting are a bit less than the chances of a fart in a tornado.