NDP, Bloc in coalition talks before fiscal update: tape, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 04:52 PM by cognoscente
This is corporate collusion on a large magnitude, except that instead of playing with profits, the government is playing with the sovereign interest of the people. Coalition forming should be illegal unless the voters, responsible for granting the members of Parliament their seats, are given a referendum regarding its validity. The general interest of the people changes as soon as parties merge.

This constitutionally protected option encourages incessant infighting and assures the interminable struggle for creating power changing opportunities. Contrary to Alexander Hamilton's commentary on government, whereby greater single party rule, for the period of a planned interval, gives "reason an advantage over passion", the government of Canada is susceptible to the belligerence of frequent shifts in confidence of the masses, and therefore the passions of the elected officials subvert the principle of reason attested by the people's initial votes. Government is then less accountable during it's time in power that they do not bother to pursue anything fundamentally worthwhile to the greater good of society. This situation creates a massive moral hazard, where the present government tends to act in their own self interest, passing laws, which serve little or no purpose for society, but rather focus on retaining existing power. When not in power, they use anything at their disposal to attack the integrity of parties that are in a position of power.

For example, we have yet to see a resolution on the carbon tax proposals, which are pushed at voters all across the country. People that voted for this plan, recognizing its obvious benefits to society, have yet to see anything worthwhile materialize, because the parties would rather argue against the proposal's "style of implementation" rather than the inherent benefits any of those plans would produce. In B.C., NDP leaders mock the carbon tax initiative, not on its principle, but on some arbitrary and ridiculous notion that somehow the NDP would do it better than the Libearls. How can you prove something like that? Sorry, but your word alone is not enough. This is pure political sniping, and an attempt to reduce the existing party's power, rather than solve the problem.

Coalition forming just shows us the unruly and inefficient nature of our political system. Although these same measures discourage true corruption, we are met with massive inefficiency. Governments in power can not truly abuse their power, as is evidenced by the Conservative's recent attempt and failure at bankrupting the other parties through the elimination of the federal funds law concerning the $1.95 granted per party per vote. However, with this benefit, we have been imposed a fairly hefty cost.

By avoiding the unification of powerful single entities on a consistent basis (the two party system in the U.S.), we are gifted with relatively little progress and a global reputation of useless inactivity, when compared to most democratic nations. Our peacekeeping reputation has hit the nadir of global opinion, we suffer from being able to meet Kyoto Protocol standards, and our real estate sector is subject to the volatility of the U.S. financial market. Although we tend to avoid war at all costs, as a society we truly are royally screwed.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:01 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck



Did he say he supported Harper? He's exposing the apparent inefficacy of such a system, which I believe is entirely valid. Nowhere in his post did he indicate he was supporting a particular party.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Rook1545
reply to post by intrepid



Explain to me how it is western ignorance. Seriously, if it is not in my best interests, why should I support it?

This is backdoor politics. Like others, I was against it in 2004, and I am against it now. Although it will be funny trying to watch this gongshow operate.


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:05 PM by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to
post by JohnnyCanuck



Did he say he supported Harper? He's exposing the apparent inefficacy of such a system, which I believe is entirely valid. Nowhere in his post did he indicate he was supporting a particular party.


After a while you recognise the rhetoric. It's all legal, and it's about time. Get over it.


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:06 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by Rook1545



Intrepid, I also disagree with this whole notion of forming coalitions for purposing of usurping power. It diminishes the significance of an individual's votes. When parties merge the initial interests of voters are taken for granted. If I had voted for the Liberals, I didn't intend for the formation of some half-assed, compromised party between the Liberals and the NDP. I didn't grant my vote just so the MPs could run around like little kids in Parliament doing whatever they please. Their positions of power are only as valid as they were when I granted them that vote. It's collusion on a grand scale, and it's subject to the internal passions of Parliament, and not the rationalizations of the people, which granted them their power. Government must be an extension of the people.

What I do realize, however, is that without this we would have something along the lines of the U.S., with only two or three major parties. Still, I think that system is better than a government, such as ours, that because of it's relative unaccountability to its people, is only interested in retaining power, rather than actually serving the country.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]



reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:13 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck



Truly pathetic. Even if you can't do anything about it, just recognizing this system's apparent faults is necessary. This is a discussion board. We aren't professional consultants. Let's discuss the validity of this subject, based on principle, regardless of the occasion. In this case, rhetoric is important. Providing a pessimistic, we can't do anything about it attitude is truly indicative of intellectual apathy

[edit on 1-12-2008 by cognoscente]


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:20 PM by Rook1545
reply to post by intrepid



Hey I am all for the country, and making it better. But not at the expense of others. Back in the late 90s when oil prices sucked and our economy was down, we took our lumps, but never asked for anything. Most Western anger is not directed at the Maritimes, it is directed at Quebec, and lately Ontario as well. The Maritimers work, and will work hard. They ask for enough to survive, I can respect that. But constantly demanding handouts is crap. They have the power to decide completely who runs the country, but their money comes off of the backs of those who have no say. That is where my anger at this whole thing comes from.


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 05:55 PM by Nimrod
reply to post by intrepid



Please Intrepid,
stop posting that expert sign of yours when dealing this matter, please. You hate almost every places you lived in this country and tell people to shut up or move away.

This Crisis is serious. There is a political shift, it is not about a liberal communist separatist plot but about Extrem Right politics, A Prime minister who wants to destroy any opposition, a Prime Minister who spy, tape telephone line, and the people fear what he could do if he has the chance.

NIXONISM and Bush minding, that's what at stake.

When we saw Harper's speaches with almost the exact sentences of the Autralian Prime minister about going to Iraq......Who is Plotting !

Maybe this coalition could work, Bloc MP's are not stupid, they play the game fair in the House, they even have been the official opposition, and the did well, without abusing their place.

I say it again, I am not the happiest guy seeing Duceppe working with Dion.

Psychadelic time needs psychotronic solution. I Guess.


reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:12 PM by vox2442
Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to
post by JohnnyCanuck



My problem with all of this is that the PCs have been in power a total of 6 days. How is this not sour grapes?
.


Was is sour grapes that got Clark ousted in '79?

No. It was complete non-confidence in the government.

A no confidence vote - and an election call - at this time would be completely irresponsible because during an election, there is effectively NO GOVERNMENT. No new laws can be tabled.

Canada simply cannot afford to go through that again, not at this time. September-October hurt things more than enough. Forming a coalition government is perfectly legal, not at all without precedent, and frankly the only option.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 184 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 101 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 6 hours ago, 69 replies