Canada federal election October 21, 2019 part 2

481 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Ward

UBI is the ndps only platform.
Trudeau had mj. His job is done.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

 

I do do not know how Trudeau is going to survive this scandal

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=K4Vx6kmfutc

I do not know if Trudeau is going to survive this scandal.

People have to have dieas and movements and principles and policies that survive the corruption of individuals.

Some would say that this is part of the problem of parties. I am no Liberal but why should whatever principles and ideology the party has (if any-I cannot refrain from the dig) go down due to the leadership? Why should Canada have to turn to perhaps Scheer becuase Trudeau himself is a problem? Why should we have to keep Trudeau if we (for whatever reason - sorry a dig again) wanted to keep the ideaology and positions of the Liberal party? Just put away the glee for a moment everyone (I will try my best) and consider if this were the NDP (no, it is not immune from scandal or mistake). Why do we need to orgainize ideas into parties such that due to one leader the idea has to be rejected?

I know this is questioning a political assumption here but could we design a system where we support ideas seperate from representatives? Yes I know the representatives are advocates of the ideas but surely they do not have to be joined so tightly?

I ask this just to shake things up a little.

Despite the US system being a bad 18th century design, perhaps they have evolved some benefits. The role of primary is a system to check an individual by the people that broadly support the shared ideals. The role of candidate nominations are supposed to be the same thing. But do they work?

Could we not improve that so that the people who have the shared idea have more of a say in the continued representation of their shared ideals? In the UK and Australia the leader can be deposed by the caucus. This is one improvement. What if we could do that for our representatives?

I know one of the big arguments against First Past the Post is this desire of people to vote for people rather than programs. What if this is misplaced and we saddle programs with the scandals of people and we ignore the value of ideas in the process. Why not elect programs and ideas from parties and let the people who agree and elect those programs have the right to review the people and change them? Hire and fire them. This makes proportional representation far simpler. You privide the seats to the party and you have the party elect the representatives and when a person should be fired for cause you allow those people to replace that person. Every 4 years you elect the ideas.

Ward

What you suggesting is the end of politic

Ok..I'm in.

Sean in Ottawa

Ward wrote:
What you suggesting is the end of politic Ok..I'm in.

Perhaps I mean to seperate the choice of idea from the choice of representative perhaps a step on the way?

cco

How would this work in practice? I'm picturing a ballot hundreds of pages long (the NDP's 2015 platform was 81 pages), with Yes/No checkboxes next to each item. The problem, other than the impatience of the average voter, is that if a majority of people check Yes to contradictory ideas from each party, someone still has to interpret and allocate money for those purposes. California (to pick one example) has had a budget crisis for decades because voters there vote Yes to programs and No to paying for them. Do we leave it up to courts to sort out which ballot measures take precedence?

Ward

Agree the idea is the thing.
Marijuana law changes imo was "the idea" for Trudeau..thank you and congrats.
Next. U B I.lefts and rights have plenty of good things to say about it...

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
How would this work in practice? I'm picturing a ballot hundreds of pages long (the NDP's 2015 platform was 81 pages), with Yes/No checkboxes next to each item. The problem, other than the impatience of the average voter, is that if a majority of people check Yes to contradictory ideas from each party, someone still has to interpret and allocate money for those purposes. California (to pick one example) has had a budget crisis for decades because voters there vote Yes to programs and No to paying for them. Do we leave it up to courts to sort out which ballot measures take precedence?

Again this is a position of thought rather than a resolution of the problem created by it but I will give it a go.

In pracitce, I suggest keeping the party including its resolutions and platform. General elections be between parties and platforms. Voters will consider the trust they have in the party managing their people. The party members vote on representatives and leaders and maintain the ability to change them when they create scandal or do not do a good job as outlined by the platform.

This is a greater democracy than what we have now -- leaders who preside over conventions of policy and then ignore them.

For members it also put more responsibility for the success of the party to make the resolutions really practical as the success of the party will be on those resolutions. Now resolutions mean nothing only the platform done behind closed doors does.

Think of the primaries in the US -- registered members decide on representatives. Add that the memebers also decide on general policy directions.

A huge benefit is that most voters vote for individuals as leaders of the party and do not consider the policies or bother to learn about local candidates. In this system voters would select party and platform and the party members would choose leaders and candidates in pimaries. This largley seperates issues of charisma and leadership from the policies.

NorthReport

Well the Liberals are going to deliver the election goodie budget soon but it will have probably little or zero bearing on the election results This election will be fought over the character of the prime minister and because the Liberals have blocked Wilson-Raybould from returning to the Justice Committee the SNC scandal is now certain to be part of the election campaign

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-in-quebec-trudeaus-handling-of-snc-lavalin-crisis-met-with-muted/

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Meet Jody Wilson-Raybould

The woman who stood up to Justin Trudeau and showed us he was ‘just another grubby politician’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jody-wilson-raybould-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-a8820321.html

NorthReport

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business. Who knew. What a sham!

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/15/media-industry-anxious-for-news-in-budget-on-federal-plan-to-support-journalism-3/#.XI1L6aQTGaN

NorthReport

Whoever is masterminding the Liberals response to the SNC scandal is confusing the anchor with the life jacket

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-sorry-liberals-the-jobs-excuse-for-the-snc-lavalin-debacle-wont-fly

pietro_bcc

NorthReport wrote:

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business. Who knew. What a sham!

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/15/media-industry-anxious-for-news-in-budget-on-federal-plan-to-support-journalism-3/#.XI1L6aQTGaN

I am against government funding any news media (apart from CBC), but where exactly in that article did it say that only mainstream media would receive the bailout money?

brookmere

NorthReport wrote:

So Trudeau, instead of funding progressive news sites like The Tyee, is going to fund the mainstream media that of course support the Liberals and big business.

Of the mainsream media, only the Toronto Star is pro-Liberal. Postmedia (which includes the Sun rags) and the G&M are consistently pro-Conservative. Most recently, Postmedia endosed the Conservative candidate in the Burnaby South by-election.

NorthReport

You forgot the Liberal CBC

but more importantly there is no one single media that will get this money that will support the NDP

 

NorthReport

Singh says ‘obstruction of justice’ if Wilson-Raybould not allowed to testify

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/singh-says-it-would-be-obstruction-to-not-allow-wilson-raybould-to-testify-again-1.4338841

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

 

Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/jacinda-ardern-is-showing-the-world-what-real-leadership-is-sympathy-love-and-integrity

NorthReport

Is this how Wilson-Raybould gets back into the cabinet?

Justin Trudeau says Michael Wernick will retire as top civil servant—and there was no devilish impulse to push him out

 

https://www.straight.com/news/1215741/justin-trudeau-announces-michael-wernick-his-way-out-clerk-privy-council

NorthReport

Election budget here we come, but the reality is to pay for it Canadians will be retiring at perhaps age 72 as opposed to age 65 seeing as we are living a lot longer these days, eh!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-budget-2019-liberal-1.5061044

NorthReport
NorthReport
WWWTT

NorthReport wrote:

New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern shows us what’s missing in most leaders

 

https://www.thestar.com/life/opinion/2019/03/18/new-zealand-pm-jacinda-ardern-shows-us-whats-missing-in-most-leaders.html

paywall and in the wrong thread. Sounds like a classic idiotic article by the star. I’d like to rip into it. But I’ll pass for now thanks

NorthReport

Liberals table a pre-election budget designed to ease Canadians' anxieties

Seniors, skilled workers and millennials targeted for new investments in 2019 spending plan

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-budget-2019-1.5061476

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Liberals table a pre-election budget designed to ease Canadians' anxieties

Seniors, skilled workers and millennials targeted for new investments in 2019 spending plan

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-budget-2019-1.5061476

The change for the GIS is to allow people to keep more money if they keep working. So essentially if you do not have enough pension you can keep working past 65. In some ways similar to the Conservative plan by the back door.

I am not sure what alternatives other than putting massive investment into CPP. Problem is more and more rely on just CPP since pensions are fewer and fewer between. The people to retire over the next 25 years are much poorer in retirement than those of the previous 25 years it seems. This measure recognizes it somewhat.

NorthReport

We need to unionize a lot more workers which will help reverse these cuts to all the group benefits that workers used to receive.

NorthReport

Full text of federal budget 2019 and Finance Minister Bill Morneau's speech to parliament

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has released its last budget before the fall federal election

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/federal-budget-2019-full-text

NorthReport

THe NDP's alternative budget should be entitled 'Investing in Working People'

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Election budget here we come, but the reality is to pay for it Canadians will be retiring at perhaps age 72 as opposed to age 65 seeing as we are living a lot longer these days, eh!

Luckily the Liberal government reversed the Harper Conservative government's move to having retirement go to 67. I wonder if the Conservatives will try that again in their 2019 election platform?

NorthReport

Liberals budget document entitled ‘investing in the Middle Class’ is the biggest con job ever perpetuated on Canadians 

 

 

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

We need to unionize a lot more workers which will help reverse these cuts to all the group benefits that workers used to receive.

I have actually come to a different answer. I am not convinced that unionization of workers is an objective that either is achievable or would make a difference. Due to the modern portability ofwork through globalization, the vast majority of work can move anywhere. Unionizing workers only puts people collectively together in the same no-win situations. Unions have had to give goroud in the private sector where they still exist becuase they lack the ability to make the difference.

As well, I questioned if we should rely only on establishing our collectives based on our status as exploited labour. Labour of humans are now in competition with labour from automation as well as off-shore labour.

I think we have to build on the egalitarian, democratic, union movement defining people other than through their employment.  I made this argument in another thread. Ultimately for people to stand up to the systems we have and demand a fare share, we will not be able to do it using the power to withdraw labour alone. We need to come together with other powers, including political, legal and consumer power. We need people who are ill, unemployed, retired, young, old to be unionized. We need a far more encompassing idea of what a collective is today in order to address the competition from globalization, capital and automation. Those who have a good unionized job alone are no longer powerful enough to withstand the current forces.

We need to re-invent the union. This new union movement should embrace other colelctives than work and together they may be able to support workers unions and workers unions will support them.

If you look at the present labour unions and their organizations-- like the CLC, you can see they already know this. The CLC has a retiree association, although it does not yet have the strength it should have. People can band together in a number of ways and still be under the umbrella of what the labour movement has built.

As a proportion of all people, labour is a smaller percentage -- in part becuase there is less labour due to globalization and automation and it is rationed unevenly. But also demographically we have more people who are retired, unemployed and unable to work. In part this is due to advances in health care. We cannot organinze enough people in a globalized world, with high numbers of retired and non-working people to stare down capitalism if we only organize those with a unionized job or a job that can be unionized -- and where the union will not have globalization as a gun to their head.

Labour unions are important areas of organization and activism. They cannot remain the only ones. Labour unions can show everyone else the way. Labour can organize non-labour unions and provide a universe for them to work in. They will build allies in doing so.

NorthReport

Justin Trudeau CRISIS: Canadian PM hit by ANOTHER resignation as scandal continues

THE crisis engulfing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deepened yesterday when another top official resigned, claiming he could no longer receive “trust and respect” from opposition leaders.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1102551/Justin-Trudeau-Canada-news-Prime-Minister-Michael-Wernick-resignation-SNC-Lavalin

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

We need to unionize a lot more workers which will help reverse these cuts to all the group benefits that workers used to receive.

Unfortunately the days of union negotiating Defined Benefit Pensions seem to be long gone. Most unions have to fight to keep them if they still have them. Even at that our bankruptcy laws make it very easy to steal the pension funds. Sean is right  that the answer to the problem has to be universal programs that lift all seniors up above the poverty l;evel.

NorthReport
WWWTT

@kropotkin and Sean in Ottawa 

Disagree! I agree with North Report on this one. 

Unions help distribute wealth to the working class. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

@kropotkin and Sean in Ottawa 

Disagree! I agree with North Report on this one. 

Unions help distribute wealth to the working class. 

Unions are a good thing but they are not the answer for all the seniors that are currently living in poverty and for all the 50 some year olds with no pensions and no pension plans and not enough years till retirement to acquire a good pension under a DBP.  Also people with disabilities need pensions as do minimum wage earners. Neither of those groups will get a pension that is adequate from any current union DBP plan. What I desire for my union brothers and sisters I wish for all.

WWWTT

Yes that’s true kropotkin. But moving forward, or if in the past, everyone belonged to some union or another that was straight up and planned out properly, Canadians would be facing retirement with more ease. 

Governments and Canadians as well put way too much faith in the stock markets and not enough in housing and other basics. This misplaced faith is very misleading. 

As far as the handicapped, perhaps if the work force was in proper order, government would be in a better position to provide an adequate comfortable lifestyle. 

Unfortunately I have no ideas for the immediate crisis 

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Yes that’s true kropotkin. But moving forward, or if in the past, everyone belonged to some union or another that was straight up and planned out properly, Canadians would be facing retirement with more ease. 

Governments and Canadians as well put way too much faith in the stock markets and not enough in housing and other basics. This misplaced faith is very misleading. 

As far as the handicapped, perhaps if the work force was in proper order, government would be in a better position to provide an adequate comfortable lifestyle. 

Unfortunately I have no ideas for the immediate crisis 

Unionization was based on the idea that the workforce was essential and local. Unions could at least partly balance the capitalists.

The problem now is that the new economy provides mobile labour in a globalized system and automation. This means that the leverage of unions is almost gone.

The exception is in public services which tend to be delivered without global labour pressure. Even so, unions in the public sector are now in retreat and they risk new rounds of automation.

This is why people have to organize where they are. Workers are now far too replaceable.

WWWTT -- I completely are on the same page as you in the historical value of unions and I am on the same page with you with respect to future value. Where we differ is that we no longer can make headway with unions being limited to labour since labour is portable now. We need large swaths of the population to be organized like labour unions-- but who remain organized if the employer leaves, and when they retire.

I think the labour movement has been the answer and can be the answer as they are the best positioned to organize non-workers.

As well, a union that is not site specific labour union can actually stand up and support individuals who are in a labour environment in a non-unionized shop.

I agree as you say that things would be better if everyone was in a labour union. Fact is this is unlikely to happen if unions focus on employment status.

NorthReport

Pages