Just because we've become used to a regular version of our democracy, do we take that to be what should be done, or do we stick to age-old rules? What is democracy? What is democracy in Canada? What do you think is going to happen? Should happen?
I think that if I were Dion, I would leave politics completely and go back to a job at a university. That last interview just put a seal on the end of any political capital he might have had left. However, I'm not sure that Ignatieff will fare any better because of the way in which he is coming to the leadership position. I really don't know if there is anything the Liberals could do right now to make things better.
Nope, not yet. He convinced the Governor General to suspend Parliment. Go check out John Stewart from Monday night- he did a whole piece on what's going on!I'm not sure ifyou can get this, but here is the Canadian link to the show: Comedy Network
I think that Ignatieff will be a good change for the Liberals. I heard he is a more conservative-type Liberal (compared to left-leaning Dion and Bob Rae). Ignatieff also was not so strong on promoting the Coalition and may be more open to working together with the Conservative government. Harper sounded positive about working with him (in an interview this week with Peter Mansbridge). I'm hopeful that the Conservatives and Liberals will work things out to get an acceptable fiscal plan together in January. It's probably good that we wait and find out more about what the USA are doing with their bail-out plans, first, anyway.
I thought you'd like him better since he's more "right" than Dion! :) Does that mean you guys are going to become Liberals...? :)
Do you think he should be elected by the people of Canada before he can take power- as Harper was saying of Dion? The case would seem even stronger now. But what does that say, or not say, about our "democracy?" There certainly are people who feel that the colition would be non-democratic. What would a truly democratic system look like? Should we be chosing our PM like the States chose their President? Under Harper we've seen just how far the extra-constitutional powers of the PM can reach, even in a minority government. Do we need to re-evaluate the role of the Governor General now that she's been taken out of her ceremonial role? (I bet she didn't think she'd have to make those decisions back when she was sworn in!) What do you think will happen in January?
Our parliamentary system includes the possibility of the minority groups getting together and forming leadership, instead of the elected party. If that happens and Ignatief is made PM I would not complain about the process. I would not have complained about the process for Dion either. I don't think we need to drastically change our democratic system.
I would still rather have the Conservatives and Liberals work together, however, because I think they would have a more balanced approach than a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. I am not thinking bigger bailouts are immediately the best move. I think that the priority is for the big Auto-manufacturers to rework their union deals and change internally rather than simply get bailed out by the government. IT seems like the NDP and left-leaning Liberals just want to solve all problems by pouring in government money asap. That's why I don't feel so hot about the coalition.
Ok, question. Why is it that people assume that if the NDP were to have power- even in a coilition government, they would immediately spend wacks and wacks of money and send us into deficit?
Why do people think the NDP would immediately bring us into huge deficit? Example: It was reported that the first thing the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition want to do is immediately spend 30 Billion extra dollars in bail-out/economic stimulus.
More generally: They never talk about cutting back on social programs, they only talk about increasing social programs (and inventing new ones like universal national childcare).
The only way they could make the budget balance, as far as I can imagine, is if they raised taxes a lot more.
yes the colition has talked about a stimulus package- as has the government so that, in my head, is a non-issue. I was questioning why, in general, people assume the NDP won't be fiscally responsible. They have formed long lasting governments in three provinces without going into deficit. In fact, here they got us out of deficit after the Conservatives ran one. Yes, their focus is on social programs over the military, but I have never heard any of them saying spending at any cost. I'm just wondering where that idea has come from.
I think that most people realize that any party could balance a budget just as any party could go into deficit. Socialists can balance budgets just as capitalists can balance budgets (just as both can go into deficit).
The Provincial NDP in Manitoba have a good track record about managing the money that they get. They do not seem to be adding more programs, but they are doing a good job balancing the funding for the social programs that already exist.
The national NDP, however, has no track record for being in power, and so the things they are known for are their promises for more and more social programs (spending). That's what sticks in people's minds: Create a new universal childcare program across the nation, for example. The question remains: Where does that money come from? Especially in these tough economic times.
The example of the current "stimulus package" proposals is a good example of how the current national Conservatives are very cautious about going into deficit and very cautious about putting out a stimulus package. The current national NDP, on the other hand, immediately call for 30 Billion to be handed out (immediate big deficit).
I don't doubt that the current government will go into some deficit, temporarily. But they seem cautious about it. The current national NDP seem less cautious about going into deficit.
All I'm trying to explain is why people think the national NDP would run a bigger deficit, while people don't have the same thoughts about the Manitoba NDP or the national Conservatives.
The Conservatives (Reformed) had no experience in power before they were elected to power, but they did not run on promises to add more social programs.
The provincial Manitoba NDP don't seem to run on promises of adding more social programs either (and they have experience balancing budgets now). They more or less seem like a status quo, pragmatic party. Keep the programs we have and keep the economy of Manitoba going in the direction its going.
The national NDP, however, primarily have their promises of increasing social programs (spending) as what they are known for. And their attitude toward running bigger deficits is also somewhat revealed in the diverse ways they and the Conservatives are responding to the present economic crisis.
That's how I see the difference between these 3 political parties.
PS: This is why I have not had a problem voting for Gary Doer's NDP, but I'm not very attracted to the national NDP.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks! I guess I'm just remembering all the changes the Prov. NDP made here when they first came in and not seeing it as very different in terms of scope as the Fed. NDP.
Manitoba NDP history is hard to find! You'd think they'd want to toot their own horn more often!
The best site I could find was the Wikipedia article on Gary Doer. click here for article It has the history of his government nicely organized into various issues- finance, social, education etc. Obviously the biggest things that have impacted us have been tax cuts for the lowest income bracket, the tuition freeze and the increase to the minimum wage. I find it particularly interesting that many of the changes the fed NDP want to make in terms of election reform, the Provincial party has made here (ie/ MLA's are not allowed to switch parties. They have to sit as independents until the next election.) The NDP have also been big supporters of the Kelowna accord, increased day care, and interestingly, stronger punishments for certain crimes. I would consider their biggest accomplishment was the ending of hallway medicine- big problem in the 1990s, while producing consecutive balanced budgets.
Doer is the head of our 3rd NDP government (Schreyer and Pawley were earlier.) I know nothing about them at the moment (Sad! I really don't know much about our own province's history!) so I can't give you a good overview of the party's history beyond the current government.
I like Gary Doer. Isn't it interesting that the Conservative party was trying to get him. I think he's a very conservative-type NDP.
Tougher laws on certain crimes. Lower taxes (for the most poor at least). No big addition of new social programs (just keep the ones we have healthy and improving their efficiency). Balanced budget. No tax increase (that I know of)
If Gary Doer was national NDP leader and they ran on this type of agenda I very well might vote for them.
(too bad for the pro-homosexual marriage agenda; Doers's position forced Christians who were justice-of-the peace to quite because they would be forced to perform gay marriage; I guess no one's perfect)
I thought that it was reasonable that public officials should have to dispence public functions. I was very happy that clergy still gets to decide who they want to marry, gay or straight.
Do we need a question for this topic?
On the other notes- I didn't read the part about the Conservatives wanting Doer! That's funny! Fed or Prov Cons? One article described Doer as a centrist NDP so there are likely even more "conservative" factions of the party. I'm just going to point out that.. those are the ideas that the Fed NDP are running on! They didn't want to raise taxes. They were only going to cancel proposed tax cuts. Yes, they were going to do a day care thing, but that was started by the Libs and the Cons changed it to the $100 a month thing. I found the greatest editiorial today about how the Cons aid package that came out this week was almost exactly like the one the NDP was touting earlier in the month except with less strings attached, and it was written by an angry Cons. It was great! Oh silly Cdn politics!
Josh found it! (Have a mentioned that I love him?!)
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/
It's the Dec 19th post "Spend, Spend, Spend"
I also thoroughly enjoyed Dec 9th "Democracy Liberal Style"
I totally don't agree with him politically (except in those two posts and maybe others that I haven't read yet) but he is definitely going to become part of what I read everyday!
I think the gay marriage topic deserves its own question.
In particular: What do you mean by saying that you are "for" gay marriage?
And why do you think that it is "reasonable that public officials should have to dispence public functions" (like gay marriage) even if these functions are contrary to their consciences and contrary to the will of God.
I think that the Gary Doer being on the "centrist-wing" of the NDP refers to "centrist" in relation to Canadian politics in general. I don't think there are many NDPers who are much more conservative than Gary Doer. There are, however, many NDPers who are much more left/liberal than him, however. Like (I'm assuming) the woman who is quoted to say that he is a small "l" liberal and: "There is not a socialist bone in his body." (Wikipedia, Gary Doer link)
Feel free to sign in or just comment as "anonymous." However, if you do comment as anonymous, please sign it with some name, number or symbol so that it is easier for everyone to keep the conversation players strait. Thanks!
"It's always safer for one's sanity when you only say what you would be willing to hear from someone with whom you disagree."
Purpose
The idea behind this site is that it will serve for a forum for a continuing discussion that has been occuring on several different websites. I've asked many roving questions and some friends have valiently been answering them over the past few months. This site will hopefully organize the conversation and allow others to participate. I recognize that some topics may not make a whole lot of sense, as there has been a significant amount of conversation up until now. Feel free to ask questions to clarify the ideas and history of the authors.
I reserve the right to moderate the discussion and delete any comments that are offensive. I will attempt to be in contact with the author prior to any action.
The goal is to inform and learn, not to attempt to change people's ideas.
I am a history lover, especially that of the average person at any point in time. While it is often easy to dismiss people that do not think as one does as "crazy," it is my hope and purpose to instead understand differing viewpoints than I hold, and therefore to have a greater grasp on events as they unfold. While it is not possible to interview people from the past, it is very possible to do so for the many different cultural groups that exist in our world today. Real people are much more interesting than a history textbook (as much as I love a good read!)
My viewpoint is not the purpose of this site, although undoubtibly I will have to explain where I come from as well. In fact, in the emails between friends, it has come to that point, so it will most likely be an early post. The hope, in that case, is that others who share my experience will aid me in explaining it!
20 comments:
I think that if I were Dion, I would leave politics completely and go back to a job at a university. That last interview just put a seal on the end of any political capital he might have had left.
However, I'm not sure that Ignatieff will fare any better because of the way in which he is coming to the leadership position. I really don't know if there is anything the Liberals could do right now to make things better.
Sounds like a mess. Any new news? Did Harper get booted?
Nope, not yet. He convinced the Governor General to suspend Parliment. Go check out John Stewart from Monday night- he did a whole piece on what's going on!I'm not sure ifyou can get this, but here is the Canadian link to the show: Comedy Network
I think that Ignatieff will be a good change for the Liberals. I heard he is a more conservative-type Liberal (compared to left-leaning Dion and Bob Rae).
Ignatieff also was not so strong on promoting the Coalition and may be more open to working together with the Conservative government.
Harper sounded positive about working with him (in an interview this week with Peter Mansbridge).
I'm hopeful that the Conservatives and Liberals will work things out to get an acceptable fiscal plan together in January. It's probably good that we wait and find out more about what the USA are doing with their bail-out plans, first, anyway.
I thought you'd like him better since he's more "right" than Dion! :)
Does that mean you guys are going to become Liberals...? :)
Do you think he should be elected by the people of Canada before he can take power- as Harper was saying of Dion? The case would seem even stronger now. But what does that say, or not say, about our "democracy?" There certainly are people who feel that the colition would be non-democratic. What would a truly democratic system look like? Should we be chosing our PM like the States chose their President? Under Harper we've seen just how far the extra-constitutional powers of the PM can reach, even in a minority government. Do we need to re-evaluate the role of the Governor General now that she's been taken out of her ceremonial role? (I bet she didn't think she'd have to make those decisions back when she was sworn in!)
What do you think will happen in January?
Our parliamentary system includes the possibility of the minority groups getting together and forming leadership, instead of the elected party. If that happens and Ignatief is made PM I would not complain about the process. I would not have complained about the process for Dion either. I don't think we need to drastically change our democratic system.
I would still rather have the Conservatives and Liberals work together, however, because I think they would have a more balanced approach than a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. I am not thinking bigger bailouts are immediately the best move. I think that the priority is for the big Auto-manufacturers to rework their union deals and change internally rather than simply get bailed out by the government. IT seems like the NDP and left-leaning Liberals just want to solve all problems by pouring in government money asap. That's why I don't feel so hot about the coalition.
Ok, question.
Why is it that people assume that if the NDP were to have power- even in a coilition government, they would immediately spend wacks and wacks of money and send us into deficit?
Why do people think the NDP would immediately bring us into huge deficit?
Example: It was reported that the first thing the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition want to do is immediately spend 30 Billion extra dollars in bail-out/economic stimulus.
More generally: They never talk about cutting back on social programs, they only talk about increasing social programs (and inventing new ones like universal national childcare).
The only way they could make the budget balance, as far as I can imagine, is if they raised taxes a lot more.
yes the colition has talked about a stimulus package- as has the government so that, in my head, is a non-issue. I was questioning why, in general, people assume the NDP won't be fiscally responsible. They have formed long lasting governments in three provinces without going into deficit. In fact, here they got us out of deficit after the Conservatives ran one. Yes, their focus is on social programs over the military, but I have never heard any of them saying spending at any cost. I'm just wondering where that idea has come from.
I think that most people realize that any party could balance a budget just as any party could go into deficit. Socialists can balance budgets just as capitalists can balance budgets (just as both can go into deficit).
The Provincial NDP in Manitoba have a good track record about managing the money that they get. They do not seem to be adding more programs, but they are doing a good job balancing the funding for the social programs that already exist.
The national NDP, however, has no track record for being in power, and so the things they are known for are their promises for more and more social programs (spending). That's what sticks in people's minds: Create a new universal childcare program across the nation, for example. The question remains: Where does that money come from? Especially in these tough economic times.
The example of the current "stimulus package" proposals is a good example of how the current national Conservatives are very cautious about going into deficit and very cautious about putting out a stimulus package. The current national NDP, on the other hand, immediately call for 30 Billion to be handed out (immediate big deficit).
I don't doubt that the current government will go into some deficit, temporarily. But they seem cautious about it. The current national NDP seem less cautious about going into deficit.
What track record did the Conservative (basically Reform) party have before it was elected?
All I'm trying to explain is why people think the national NDP would run a bigger deficit, while people don't have the same thoughts about the Manitoba NDP or the national Conservatives.
The Conservatives (Reformed) had no experience in power before they were elected to power, but they did not run on promises to add more social programs.
The provincial Manitoba NDP don't seem to run on promises of adding more social programs either (and they have experience balancing budgets now). They more or less seem like a status quo, pragmatic party. Keep the programs we have and keep the economy of Manitoba going in the direction its going.
The national NDP, however, primarily have their promises of increasing social programs (spending) as what they are known for.
And their attitude toward running bigger deficits is also somewhat revealed in the diverse ways they and the Conservatives are responding to the present economic crisis.
That's how I see the difference between these 3 political parties.
PS: This is why I have not had a problem voting for Gary Doer's NDP, but I'm not very attracted to the national NDP.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
I guess I'm just remembering all the changes the Prov. NDP made here when they first came in and not seeing it as very different in terms of scope as the Fed. NDP.
I'm curious, what changes did the Manitoba NDP bring since coming to power? I hardly remember the pre-NDP days.
Manitoba NDP history is hard to find! You'd think they'd want to toot their own horn more often!
The best site I could find was the Wikipedia article on Gary Doer. click here for article It has the history of his government nicely organized into various issues- finance, social, education etc. Obviously the biggest things that have impacted us have been tax cuts for the lowest income bracket, the tuition freeze and the increase to the minimum wage. I find it particularly interesting that many of the changes the fed NDP want to make in terms of election reform, the Provincial party has made here (ie/ MLA's are not allowed to switch parties. They have to sit as independents until the next election.) The NDP have also been big supporters of the Kelowna accord, increased day care, and interestingly, stronger punishments for certain crimes. I would consider their biggest accomplishment was the ending of hallway medicine- big problem in the 1990s, while producing consecutive balanced budgets.
Doer is the head of our 3rd NDP government (Schreyer and Pawley were earlier.) I know nothing about them at the moment (Sad! I really don't know much about our own province's history!) so I can't give you a good overview of the party's history beyond the current government.
I like Gary Doer. Isn't it interesting that the Conservative party was trying to get him.
I think he's a very conservative-type NDP.
Tougher laws on certain crimes.
Lower taxes (for the most poor at least).
No big addition of new social programs (just keep the ones we have healthy and improving their efficiency).
Balanced budget.
No tax increase (that I know of)
If Gary Doer was national NDP leader and they ran on this type of agenda I very well might vote for them.
(too bad for the pro-homosexual marriage agenda; Doers's position forced Christians who were justice-of-the peace to quite because they would be forced to perform gay marriage; I guess no one's perfect)
I'm... ah... for gay marriage.
please still be my friends!
:)
I thought that it was reasonable that public officials should have to dispence public functions. I was very happy that clergy still gets to decide who they want to marry, gay or straight.
Do we need a question for this topic?
On the other notes-
I didn't read the part about the Conservatives wanting Doer! That's funny! Fed or Prov Cons?
One article described Doer as a centrist NDP so there are likely even more "conservative" factions of the party.
I'm just going to point out that.. those are the ideas that the Fed NDP are running on! They didn't want to raise taxes. They were only going to cancel proposed tax cuts. Yes, they were going to do a day care thing, but that was started by the Libs and the Cons changed it to the $100 a month thing. I found the greatest editiorial today about how the Cons aid package that came out this week was almost exactly like the one the NDP was touting earlier in the month except with less strings attached, and it was written by an angry Cons. It was great! Oh silly Cdn politics!
Josh found it! (Have a mentioned that I love him?!)
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/
It's the Dec 19th post "Spend, Spend, Spend"
I also thoroughly enjoyed Dec 9th "Democracy Liberal Style"
I totally don't agree with him politically (except in those two posts and maybe others that I haven't read yet) but he is definitely going to become part of what I read everyday!
I think the gay marriage topic deserves its own question.
In particular: What do you mean by saying that you are "for" gay marriage?
And why do you think that it is "reasonable that public officials should have to dispence public functions" (like gay marriage) even if these functions are contrary to their consciences and contrary to the will of God.
I think that the Gary Doer being on the "centrist-wing" of the NDP refers to "centrist" in relation to Canadian politics in general.
I don't think there are many NDPers who are much more conservative than Gary Doer.
There are, however, many NDPers who are much more left/liberal than him, however. Like (I'm assuming) the woman who is quoted to say that he is a small "l" liberal and: "There is not a socialist bone in his body." (Wikipedia, Gary Doer link)
Post a Comment