Canadian Election

[tedly]

Eos and Badger

re heatlth care.

I really like the look of that Romano report, particularly the nation wide practices board, which may never get established due to turf wars. I see that as an epidemiological kind of oversight that can pull the statistics from across the country and look at treatments that are working. I think that might slow down what I see as a major cost driver in our system, the fee-for-service payment of doctors.

In Saskatchewan we have two care systems, one for cars one for people. If your car gets sick you get it assessed ( adjustor) and then take it to the mechanic. This has brought costs under control.
If you get sick you go to the mechanic, he tells you what he's going to do, and sends all the bills to the central payer.
With more and more doctors we are going to the doctor more and more often, and they are maintaining their level of income. Supply and demand does not apply to industries whose marketing pitch is 'Your money or your life'.

 

[iain]

Hee hee hee. The Senate in Canada is appointed by the governing party. Over the years (going back 20 or 30) the Liberals and old PC (progressive conservatives) would flip-flop in winning elections. The ruling party would stuff the senate with party hacks and cronies. Sometimes a famous Canadian figure would be given a seat as well. This would cause partisan hold-up of bills passed by Parliment. The senate could effectively nap for months holding up legislation.

Canada should either abolish the senate or make the senators elected and accountable. Senators even get a bonus (pay) if they show up for work!

Charlie (maybe make the Ottawa Senators the de facto Senate) Monoxide

Just got back from a few days away and catching up. Thanks for the info.

The really scary thing is that an all-appointed second chamber seems to be Tony "progressive" Blair's preference for the UK.

 

[Segnosaur]

I've come to believe that referendums are bad. The (US) public is simply too uninformed and subject to manipulation to have direct legislative power. WA state is paying a steep price these days. The one referendum I'd like to see is to put an end to referendums.

Two points here...

- In the U.S. I think they hold many referendums on just about anything. (I could be wrong about that, so correct me if I'm wrong). In Canada, the idea is not to hold referendums on every possible policy, but only on matters of serious public concern, such as capital punishment. Since the number of issues is likely to be small, the public could have a chance to be better informed.

- The whole "public is too dumb" argument is too scary for me... yes, Canadians as a whole are stupid (hey we voted the liberals in multiple times), but I don't like the whole "be quiet, we know what's best for you" attitude that would result.

 

[Segnosaur]

I still habor resentment towards the conservative-reform for getting rid of slow-and-steady Manning for all-flash-and-no-substance Day.

Putting Day in charge was a collosal mistake I admit. I don't mind Harper that much, and it looks like he's not going to self-explode like Day.

The original reform party did a good job of presenting themselves as a party of thinkers, who were willing to do it right even if that meant it took time to get there.

I've never heard anyone say that they thought the reform party looked like a "party of thinkers". I figured the media did a pretty good job portraying them as a party of rednecks and bumpkins. (Not criticizing their policies, just the party image.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Badger, have you considered the alternative? The conservative/alliance people are fascists-I know because I've spoken to some in person.

Just out of curiousity, are you saying you spoke to conservative politicians, or just conservative supporters? If its just the supporters, you do realize that any party is going to have its collection of weirdos.

I think you're tossing around the word 'fascist' far to casually here. Fascism implys loss of democracy; however, it was the former Reform party who was trying to increase democracy, through more free votes in the house of commons, pushing for elected senate, referrendums, etc.

Say goodbye to health care if they are running things, they will privatized everything.

Well, lets see...

- It was the federal liberals who did the most cutting to health care. The percentage that the federal government pays to support health care is approximately 15% right now, and this has dropped constiderably since the Liberals got into power. (So the liberals payed almost nothing into health care yet wanted to dictate terms)

- What makes you think that they will totally scap health care? They're policy is that they will work with the provinces to ensure funding. They have not indicated that they want to go to an all-private health care system. Why are you suggesting they do?

- Are you against all private health care? What about abortion clinics, which are usually privately run. Would you like to see those brought under the control of the government? How does a 3 month waiting list for abortions sound?

Oh, and gay people will have the ceiling crashed down on them.

I might disagree with the conservatives over gay marrige, but what makes you think the ceiling will 'crash down on them'? Have you seen any policies that they have to indicate that they will make it illegal?

And if you want to see how the other parties treat gay people, look into the case of the Little Sister's book store (a gay and lesbian book store in B.C.). The federal liberals have been all too keen to let them get persecuted.

By the way, I rather liked it when they forced a free vote in the commons over the gay marrige thing, not because I felt gay marrige should be stopped, but because it showed the hipocracy of the liberals who had voted the opposite way in an earlier vote.

Not to mention that poor people are scum to them. You can be drunk hypocrite and get more support than a kid who had to grow up with an ill parent-that kid being poor and not college educated is a heathen to them-lazy-that's why they don't have a college education. The Tories around here say that anybody on social services is a 'parasite' and 'lazy'.

Do you think all people on social assistance are just unlucky?

Sorry, but while there may be people who are truely in need, there are people who could work but who decided to stay on welfare. It does happen.

When the tories were in power in Ontario they cut back on welfare. Yet people on welfare were still able to survive.

We have the lowest minimum wage in the country in Alberta because the 'poor' are 'lazy'.

First you talk about the poor people on social assistance being classified as paracites then you talk about low minimum wage. Guess what? The people who actually earn minimum wage are not necessarly on social assistance. Get your griping straight.

And maybe you do have a low minimum wage, but consider the fact that you have a lower const of living than in many other parts of the country (and no sales-tax as well).

And keep in mind that increasing minimum wage can also have a negative effect on employment.

Yeah, I hate the tories for many reasons...add to it that Fundies get favoritism too.

Care to explain what you're referring to? (Not denying it, just wondering what the exact issue is.)

I just don't know what to do. I look at the "scandals" and "corruption" the liberals are being slammed on and compare them to what the conservatives have done to Alberta. It still does not compare. The liberals still come out smelling like roses compared to the crap pulled around here.

I'm not familiar with everything that happens in Alberta... Have there been actual scandals (i.e. possibly illegal activities or irregularities like Ad-scam, Shawinigate, HRDC, etc.), or are they simply implementing policies that you disagee with?

 

[iain]

Actually, another difference is that in Canada, the head of the party (who can become the prime minister if they have enough seats in parliment) is elected by a vote of party members, instead of just being chosen by MPs (as takes place in Britian).

In theory, the PM is chosen by MPs in the UK. In reality, the leader of the largest party is pretty much always PM (certainly in the last few decades) and all the major parties now have all members electing the party leader (though some weight it so it isn't quite one-member-one-vote).

 

[Segnosaur]

In theory, the PM is chosen by MPs in the UK. In reality, the leader of the largest party is pretty much always PM (certainly in the last few decades) and all the major parties now have all members electing the party leader (though some weight it so it isn't quite one-member-one-vote).

When did they change the system? (And was I right about my initial understanding of how they used to choose the leader?)

And how exactly do they 'weight' the votes?

 

[iain]

When did they change the system? (And was I right about my initial understanding of how they used to choose the leader?)

And how exactly do they 'weight' the votes?

It's all horribly complicated. For a start, there is the constitutional position vs reality. The constitutional position is that after the MPs are elected, or if there is a vote of no confidence in the government, the monarch invites the person of his or her choice to form a new government. By convention, the person the monarch invites is the leader of the largest party (though twas not always thus - Queen Victoria, for example, had Disraeli form minority governments because she liked him more than Gladstone).

Anyway, the key thing here is that the PM is chosen and appointed by the Queen, not elected by MPs; and for the last century or so the leader of the largest party has always been the Prime Minister.

How each party chooses its leader is a matter for that party.

The Conservatives always used to have a leader emerge from the musings of the grandees - the great and the good of the Tory party. In 1975 the Tories decided to have leaders elected by MPs - Thatcher was the first elected leader. Now the Tories have moved to a system where MPs vote for candidates and then the top two get voted for by all members (although their current leader was elected unopposed, so no election at all).

Labour use some sort of electoral college. MPs get one third of the votes, Trades Unions affiliated to the Labour party get one third and members get one third. The Trades Union vote is a bone of contention as it is based on their membership, but many don't bother to consult their members at all. Of course, they'll probably change the system again when Tony Blair goes.

The Liberal Democrats, and (as far as I know) most other small parties, just use a straight one-member-one-vote system.

Bet you wished you hadn't asked now

 

[Segnosaur]

Hey, share the results. When was that from? First in educational spending? What kind of educational spending? The only help I could get was for a program that was only 6 months. Anybody on Social Services does not get to go to secondary school of any sort unless they give up all benefits. I didn't have parents who put any money away for my education, so I went $20,000 in debt for two years. The tuition alone for my program was $6,000.00 per year, and that was 10 years ago, it's way more expensive now. Tack on another $1,000.00 for books back then.

When I went to university (late 80s to early 90s in Ontario) I had similar costs. I paid for most of it myself with part time jobs and loans. Yes, I did get some debt, but for me, I considered it an investment in my future. And even though tuition seemed expensive, it was still only 20-25% of the cost that it took to educate me. (So, education is still highly subsidized.)

Perhaps if more students were exposed to the true cost of education, they'd be a bit smarter in selecting what they eventually wanted to do with their life.

As far as Health care goes, things here are getting privatized. Eye exams aren't even covered. I pay for additional private health care coverage on top of my Alberta Health Care Bill. Altogether, that's a few hundred dollars a month for one family.

Here in Ontario, which has a new Liberal government:
- Eye exams were just delisted
- A new health insurance premium was instituted
So, we're paying much more, and getting less service. And this government is against "private" health care!

You know, you complain about having to pay for additional insurance, but would you rather be in a situation where you were forced to pay more through taxes (like Ontario), but still weren't guaranteed of decent coverage?

So, if you like that only the wealthy can get anything, sure things are dandy in Alberta. For me though, it's hell.

Are regular doctor's appointments still covered? Are operations and/or trips to the hospital?

 

[Segnosaur]

It's all horribly complicated. For a start, there is the constitutional position vs reality. The constitutional position is that after the MPs are elected, or if there is a vote of no confidence in the government, the monarch invites the person of his or her choice to form a new government. By convention, the person the monarch invites is the leader of the largest party (though twas not always thus - Queen Victoria, for example, had Disraeli form minority governments because she liked him more than Gladstone).

We have a similar system here, with the governor general (the Queen's representative here in Canada) inviting the leader of the largest party to form the government.

The only time I can think of where that didn't happen was about 15 years ago in Ontario. (Our provincial governments usually use the same riding/voting sytems as the federal government.) The conservative party had the most seats but had a minority. They were asked to form a government, but the first thing that happened was the 2 opposing parties (liberals and NDP) introduced a non-confidence vote (which the conservative governement lost). After that, the leader of the liberals (the next largest party in the provincial parliment at the time) was asked to form the govenment.

How each party chooses its leader is a matter for that party.

The Conservatives always used to have a leader emerge from the musings of the grandees... In 1975 the Tories decided to have leaders elected by MPs... Now the Tories have moved to a system where MPs vote for candidates and then the top two get voted for by all members.

Labour use some sort of electoral college....

Bet you wished you hadn't asked now

Not at all, I found it interesting. Thanks for the information.

 

[varwoche]

In the U.S. I think they hold many referendums on just about anything. (I could be wrong about that, so correct me if I'm wrong).

There's no such thing as national referendums -- it's a state thing, some have and some don't. In WA state it takes a petition with x signatures, and it's not easy to get x, but there's a few of them on the ballot each go-around. Tax/fee reduction is a recurring theme.

 

[Segnosaur]

There's no such thing as national referendums -- it's a state thing, some have and some don't. In WA state it takes a petition with x signatures, and it's not easy to get x, but there's a few of them on the ballot each go-around. Tax/fee reduction is a recurring theme.

So, that is very different than the policy being put forward by our conservative party (i.e. national referrndums on serous issues of morality, such as capital punishment).

The more I think about it, thye more I'm confused by your opposition to referrendums. Yes, people may not understand the issues, but the people voting in the referrendum are pretty much the same people who vote for the leaders. Is there any reason to believe they'd be any worse at understanding the issues when deciding on a referrendum as opposed to when deciding on a leader?

 

[Bearguin]

I've never heard anyone say that they thought the reform party looked like a "party of thinkers". I figured the media did a pretty good job portraying them as a party of rednecks and bumpkins. (Not criticizing their policies, just the party image.)

"Party of thinkers"? That's a pretty good laugh. I still can't fathom Manning's logic about Stornaway. It seemed pretty much anytime he opened his mouth, he gave the media fodder.

I'm stuck. I had high hopes for Martin when he became PM but he seems to be part and parcel of the scandals going on right now. I do not believe he did not know about some of the mis-spending while he was finance minister, but we will never know the truth about it.

On the other hand, our local MP (former Alliance, now conservative) has been ineffective in his role and seems more concerned with maintaining his local, church based, power base then actually doing something.

No other party comes close to my political views.

I think I will swallow my distaste for the local Cons. candidate and hope his party can perform better, or at least with LESS scandal and arrogance, then the Liberals did.

I mean, Chretin made Mulrooney look honest. Which is pretty friggin unbeleivable.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm stuck. I had high hopes for Martin when he became PM but he seems to be part and parcel of the scandals going on right now. I do not believe he did not know about some of the mis-spending while he was finance minister, but we will never know the truth about it.

I might almost accept that he didn't know about the diversion of some funds in ad-scam. After all, not all the money was "stolen". (Still, that means he's incompetent as opposed to crooked.)

But there is no way he could have known about the problems with the HRDC.

On the other hand, our local MP (former Alliance, now conservative) has been ineffective in his role and seems more concerned with maintaining his local, church based, power base then actually doing something.

Ah the joys of Canadian democracy... vote for an incompetent MP in one party, or vote for a competent MP in an incompetent party.

I think I will swallow my distaste for the local Cons. candidate and hope his party can perform better, or at least with LESS scandal and arrogance, then the Liberals did.

I mean, Chretin made Mulrooney look honest. Which is pretty friggin unbeleivable.

You know, I've been racking my brains, and I've been trying to remember just what scandals the Mulrooney government had.

There was Airbus, but it turns out there was nothing there (and in fact, the Liberals ended up costing the taxpayers something like $2 million because of their mudslinging). They did have some conflicts of interests in the cabinet (most notably Sinc Stevens). But apart from that I can't remember what else they could be blamed for. Yes, they implemented some unpopular policies and failed to control the deficit, but that's not really a 'scandal', just bad administration.

And yes, the conflict of interest problems hurt the conservatives, but at least they actually got rid of ministers that had the problems, unlike the liberals who usually let their inept ministers hang around.

Can anyone help by pointing out a source for conservative scandals? I did a google search, and so far all sources simply mention cabinet ministers and conflict of interest.

Now compare the Mulrooney record with the Liberal scandal record:
- Somalia inquiry cancelled
- APEC pepper spraying
- Eggleton's resignation over untendered contract to a girlfriend
- Gun registry overspending
- HRDC
- The PM's new jets
- Shawinigate
- Ad-scam

 

[Bearguin]

You know, I've been racking my brains, and I've been trying to remember just what scandals the Mulrooney government had.

I remember the Airbus (which I'm not sure there was nothing to, just nothing provable) and the rest is muddy. Perhaps my impression is wrong, or my memory is going. I would like to see the results of a search and my do one tonight. I'm sure we could ask the Liberal Candidate.

Now compare the Mulrooney record with the Liberal scandal record:
- Somalia inquiry cancelled
- APEC pepper spraying
- Eggleton's resignation over untendered contract to a girlfriend
- Gun registry overspending
- HRDC
- The PM's new jets
- Shawinigate
- Ad-scam

Cancelling the SeaKing replacements. Not scrapping the GST as promised. Implementing the Gun registry (regardless of the overspending, it's a crock).

And Pissing off the Americans. I don't mean not fighting in Iraq as that is an understandable position, but MP's bad mounthing both Bush and Americans in general with no recourse but trying to silence Klein when he supported the Americans.

The more I think about it the more I think I will for the the incompetant individual in the party that has not screwed us over the last 11 years.

 

[Segnosaur]

Cancelling the SeaKing replacements. Not scrapping the GST as promised. Implementing the Gun registry (regardless of the overspending, it's a crock).
[/B]

To be honest, I wouldn't really consider the sea king replacements and the implementation of the gun registry 'scandals' (if there were no cost overrun). Yes, they were very bad policy decisions and they should be punished for them at the ballot box, but they weren't necessarily illegal.

If you want to count lies as scandals, there's a lot more than just the GST. You also have free trade (liberal promised to scrap it) and the promise that they will implement an independant ethics counsellor.

 

[tedly]

Bearguin
"The more I think about it the more I think I will for the the incompetant individual in the party that has not screwed us over the last 11 years."

The trouble with this is that sometimes you really do need your MP to go to bat for you, government or opposition. (If you wander through government offices and you find somebody up in the wee hours they're chasing down a ministerial or parliamentary inquiry. A Freedom of Information request gets 9-5 work.) So when you need help all you've got is that incompetent that you elected.

I usually fall for the class will tell argument. I really, really wanted to vote for PET the first time (Trudeaumania and my first vote), but the Grits ran a hockey player in my riding who was a few dozen IQ points short of a Ken Dryden.

The Hockey dolt won, so don't go by my political smarts.

 

[Bearguin]

I'm going to get the opportunity to talk to a supporter of the Liberal Candidate that both works with him and is active in his campaign. This is also an individual who was a Conservative member so I know he has strong opinions.

My main thrust of questions is going to be "How can you, as a never before elected MP, actually make a difference within the Liberal party given their history of lies, scandal and generally ignoring the West."

I have lots more in the way of pet peeves with the Liberals, but that is the question for my local candidate. I'll let you know if I actually ask the question and what the response is.

 

[Bearguin]

And where do you find out what the voting/participation level of an MP has been? I need to find out if what I hear about the conservative candidate is true.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Is the Conservative Party really saying that their promised $1.2 Billion proposed budget increase for the military will include a purchase an Aircraft Carrier or two? If so, have they done a thorough feasability study to examine that?


The cost of a Nimitz Class AC