Bizud

You can't have a referendum on equal rights, that just isn't on. If something's a human rights issue it's not subject to the democratic will. I realize then we have to get into what is and isn't a human rights issue, but if we have a referendum then that opens the possibility for referenda on any number of inalienable human rights, and that's unacceptable. I don't like this expression, but that's the tyranny of the majority. Also, referendums are really no more final than a vote in parliament.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex050628.html

I'm not surprised. They're conservative judges, and this ruling is anything but conservative. Just ask any conservative you know how they feel about this, they'll be appalled. This isn't conservative or even capitalist, this is just kowtowing to power.

I heard on the radio that it's likely they'll only get 66.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4122814.stm What the FUCK.

http://www.wilfreddaylawoffice.com/MMPFEDERALMODEL.pdf

And the thing about a private system is that it will siphon staff and resources away from the public system and make the problem worse, not better, for those who can't afford the private system.

We've seen how private healthcare works (or rather doesn't work). We've seen how medical bills are responsible for half of all bankruptcies in the US. No thanks. The biggest problem with our system is that it's underfunded, thanks to a decade of reckless cuts in the name of deficit slashing (I'm in favour of paying down debt as well, but you don't cut taxes and then say that services have to be cut as well because there's no money - quality health care is an essential service, low taxes are a luxury). The second biggest problem is understaffing, so here's what you do: student loans that don't have to be repaid as long as you stay and work in Canada. Combine free tuition with an anti-brain drain incentive. "But where will all this money come from?" Canada has been constantly cutting taxes for the past fifteen years, we don't need to keep doing it. Just stop. No more tax cuts, taxes in Canada are already among the lowest in the first world, we don't need lower taxes.

It's telling people to look for anything or anyone "suspicious" and report them. It's very "1984"-like. It's designed to make people afraid and distrustful of one another, that much is certain. A scared population is easy to manipulate.

With very few exceptions, that means they shouldn't be passed, doesn't it? It's not just about being able to vote freely, it's about seats matching votes. A party can get many votes but few seats, because their votes aren't concentrated enough to win any ridings. In simplest terms, one could imagine a hypothetical scenario where party A gets 40% of the vote in every riding, and parties B and C get 30% each in every riding. What does that mean? It means party A would win every seat with only 40% of the votes. Scenarios aren't usually that exaggerated, but parties routinely win a majority of the seats with a minority of the vote. Even within an individual riding, a candidate doesn't need a majority to win, they only need to beat everyone else. If a left-leaning Liberal candidate, an NDP candidate, and a Green candidate split the vote on the left, a Conservative candidate can be elected, winner-take-all, with 30% of the vote, or even less in a particularly close race. The riding is overwhelmingly leftist, but has just elected a right-wing candidate. And the same thing happens on the right, look at the troubles the PCs and Alliance had. Is it fair? Of course not. Parties should not be US-style, broad umbrella groupings of different political persuasions. It's absurd that some Conservatives are closer on the political spectrum to some Liberals than to some other Conservatives. Parties should present a clear, concise platform to the voters so that the voters can really choose who they want. Voters in this country come in more than just three varieties. And you know what? I'd like to stop giving my vote to a party that, in my opinion, doesn't lean nearly far enough to the left. Other countries with powerful social democratic parties have other electorally successful parties further to the left, why shouldn't we? Not just the left, either, I know a couple of Libertarians that would love someone to vote for (most of them now either vote Conservative or don't vote).

Power and conscience are almost oxymorons. States only ever act morally when their citizens compel them to, and generally the more powerful the state, the more self-interested.

If they're "good" in the democratic sense, meaning most people want them, then they won't have trouble being passed, because people will vote for parties that will pass them, won't they? That's how it works elsewhere. Our toddler democracy has to grow up sometime.

As I have learned ( id need to confirm this) but taped coversations can be done only if their is a warrent. The RCMP or Police have to at least get a warrent in order to do this. Well in Ontario that is, im not sure what it is province to province but their must be a warrent to tape someones private conversations as I remember. And just out of curiosity why do you think it should be legal for them to tape private conversations without a warrent? Not the police, a private citizen. It should be legal for me to tape a meeting between myself and someone else, so that I can prove what went on at that meeting. It should absolutely be illegal for the RCMP to do it, or use it as evidence, without a warrant.

Tell me the system used in Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, the newly established Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament, etc., doesn't work at a fast enough pace. Better yet, tell it to the British, who invented the system we use, and have abandonned it when creating new elected bodies - it's probably only a matter of time before the British House of Commons switches electoral systems too, now that some of them are electing regional representatives with MMP, and they're all electing their Members of the European Parliament with pure party-list PR. First-past-the-post is antiquated. It's not about bills having to wait, it's that bills shouldn't be passed unless the MPs passing them were elected by a majority.

Yeah, but it's still done. After the 1988 elections, Mulroney's Conservatives, safe in their majority despite having won fewer votes than the anti-treaty parties (Liberals and NDP) combined, passed the Free Trade Agreement even though most Canadians were opposed to it. Or, look at some of the unpopular decisions the NDP made in the 90's, like the fast ferry project. That never would have passed if the legislature had been elected by a form of proportional representation - of course you can't predict how people would vote if they knew their vote wasn't wasted, but there probably never would even have been an NDP government after that election. Five years is a long time. Governments make unpopular decisions quite often in Canada in Britain, but they do far less often in countries with proportional representation electoral systems like the Netherlands (I just read a book a few months ago, I forget what it's called but I could try to find it, and anyway one of the points the author makes is that it's been pretty clearly established that voters in countries with PR systems are more satisfied with their governments, which just makes sense - they get the parliament they vote for, and we don't).

Just like it does in other countries...oh wait. Rooooooolleyes. More than likely it wouldn't take longer to pass legislation, it would just mean the government could no longer pass unpopular legislation.

The point is that he did the same thing you criticized Belinda Stronach for. He ran for leadership of the Liberals with zero political experience, and then was awarded the position of Finance Minister, because he was capable. Is there a problem with this? No. Party leaders are chosen democratically, the members vote for who they want to vote for. There's nothing audacious or wrong with someone with no political experience running for a party leadership. Is Belinda a good enough politician to do a good job with this portfolio? We'll see, won't we. I think criticisms of Brian Mulroney's governments should focus on his policies, not his lack of experience, don't you? I completely agree, I have no problem calling him the worst Prime Minister of the 20th century, but that has nothing to do with not having been an MP beforehand. Assumptions, assumptions. It's possible she wouldn't have been able to make a credible bid for the leadership, but who knows? Paul Martin did the same thing, out of nowhere, in large part on his father's good name and his success in the business world, and so have plenty of other politicians in the past. Belinda's only getting the shit pile because she's an attractive successful woman. Comparisons her to the world's biggest airhead just don't hold up.

I have no idea. I should say I'm not 100% clear on the legalities of it. I know in some jurisdictions it's completely legal to tape private conversations (as it should be), and in others it's illegal to record someone without their knowledge. I don't think it's illegal in Canada to tape someone, but a tape made without someone's knowledge can't be used as evidence against them...or something like that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election...ewal_tapes.html Okay, for those who don't know, the gist of the situation is that a Conservative MP, Gurmant Grewal, claims that the Liberals offered him and his wife Nina (also a Conservative MP) better jobs (Senate seat, ambassadorship, etc) if he'd cross the floor to the Liberals or abstain from last month's confidence vote. The Liberals, especially health minister Ujjal Dosanjh, say Grewal came to them repeatedly asking for an offer to be made. So, yeah, does anyone else, y'know...not care? For better or worse in the current system an MP can vote as he or she likes (I personally think an MP who crosses the floor should resign and seek reelection in the byelection), and there's nothing wrong with the Liberals doling out the perks of government to whoever they think they can influence. It's pretty crass to be so open about it, but that's the Liberals for you. I don't see why this is such a big deal, though.

One wishes Toolbox NJ or whatever his name is was still around. Wonder how he'd respond.

And neither had Brian Mulroney, or even, some would say, Pierre Trudeau. So what? Because her dad happens to be rich, anything that comes her way can only possibly be attributed to that, is that it? I mean people might as well say Paul Martin shouldn't have tried to become leader of the Liberals after Turner left (Like Stronach, he lost), having never had any political experience. Oh, right, and then he was made minister of finance. Was he only taken seriously because of who his father was? We'll see how good a cabinet minister Stronach turns out to be, but (other than being a Liberal, LOLOLOLOL) she doesn't strike me as a complete airhead. The Paris Hilton comment is out of line. People would not be saying this if she wasn't an attractive woman, there's plenty of examples to establish that.

If the Conservatives had chosen someone other than Harper (really, anyone other than "Another dumb evangelical Western hick") it might have been easier to convince people that the "merger" wasn't just the Alliance eating the PCs.

Cabinet positions aren't, and shouldn't be, about seniority. There are plenty of young cabinet ministers, why no complaint about Scott Brison? He's a former leadership candidate of a major party and a very capable MP, it's not unreasonable that he should have a cabinet position. The fewer old white guys the better. How about Brian Mulroney coming out of nowhere to run for the PC leadership, and win? Someone with no political experience at all became Prime Minister, was he just a vacuous media darling? Like him or not, it would be absurd to say so. If Belinda Stronach wasn't a young attractive rich woman no one would care.

What "tried to become Prime Minister," you mean ran for leadership of a major party without any political experience? So, so did Brian Mulroney, so what. It's not uncommon for people to be elected party leader without experience.