The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have to score himself some points and cripple his enemies. It backfired.
Funny you should mention the Bloc. For one thing, they've been a party in government for many years now. They don't seem to be going away, and they also seem to be working for their constituents, which is frankly their job. I disagree with them on several core points of their policy (to say the least), but this $2-per-vote system is at least fair in that -- it gives money even to the parties I don't like, proportional to their support in the country.
And frankly right now I have more respect for the Bloc and for Duceppe than I have for the Conservative party and Harper. So much more, in fact, and so angry am I that Harper is such a megalomaniacal dog turd, that I am going to be giving money to every major political party come next election, INCLUDING the Bloc and EXCLUDING the Conservatives. Apparently they don't want my money, they certainly don't want my vote, and they won't be getting either.
The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have to score himself some points and cripple his enemies. It backfired.
Yup; IMHO, it was a reform that was being made for entirely the wrong reasons, and transparently so. Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
I could see donating to the Liberals and Greens and NDP, but do you have to give to the Bloc too? I mean, the Conservatives are right-wing jerks, but they're not ethnic nationalists and they're really just a little farther to the right than the Liberals used to be, and not dedicated to blowing up the country...
Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision. However, right now were there only two names on my ballot, one Bloc and the other Conservative, I would vote Bloc in an instant and feel I made the right choice.
The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named Stephen Harper, and he happens to be PM.
I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings.
They just have gotten somewhere. The new coalition will be completely dependent on their support. If it goes through, it completely undermines the idea that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote, because it shows that they CAN affect government substantially.
I think it's a very, VERY bad idea to think that separatism is no longer a threat. Isn't that what people said in 1982? Weren't the Liberals confident that they'd win the 1995 Referendum, just before they came within 0.6 percent of losing it?
Please point to me where I said in that last post that separatism is no longer a threat, and that the Bloc do not affect government, or that a Bloc vote is a wasted vote.
I said that separatism is currently unpopular, and that I would vote for a Bloc candidate over a Conservative if those were my only choices.
Please point to me where I said in that last post that separatism is no longer a threat
Isn't that implicit in what you said? Surely you wouldn't vote for the Bloc if you expect separatism to flare up shortly thereafter.
The part about the Bloc not affecting gov't and thus being a wasted vote is not something you said, but rather the common refrain that the other parties have been using to dissuade Quebeckers from voting Bloc. The BQ can never form a government, so what's the point? And with this coalition, that argument will be severely undermined.
Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision.
Note the last sentence.
So no, I wouldn't vote for the Bloc if I expected separatism to flare up shortly thereafter. As I've said before, separatism is not popular right now. That could change, at which point my opinions on the party would change.
'No longer a threat' implies to me that I think separatism is completely dead, which I don't. Nor did I say that. Nor am I likely to.
Except that the Parti Québécois has been banging the drums of separation practically since the provincial election began, and even more so in the last few days.
It's a little alarming, given how much yet another debate/referendum/debacle would cost...
The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named
It's a sad statement on both Canadian and Québec politics (far worse than other countries I have spent time in) that so much of the 'debate' on policy takes the form of demonizing those we disagree with and impugning their motives rather than just debating the merits of their policy proposals.
The disappointment of that is quite poignant right now where the whole affair in Ottawa has come down to some politicians not only don't like one proposal that some others have made but actually refuse to a) debate it and b) accept it being retracted.
It's a great way to avoid discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed changes to collective bargaining law (also retracted), pension and rrsp changes and the accelerated infrastructure spending....
Be nice if one day in the future our members of parliament start speaking (of course they would need to listen to the public too)....
The barring corporate donations and low caps on personal donations is a great idea. I'd vote for that. I'd support that. But Harper wasn't suggesting we replace the system. He was suggesting that we eliminate the system we have
Umm, that's already been done...Chrétien banned corporate donations and Harper cut the maximum personal donation to $1000 per year (which while more than a lot of us could afford to give, ensures that those who would pay 10 or 100 k can't). So really taking out one of the multiple subsidies (whether in favour of it or not) is really a modification to a system that's been in place for about 5 years, rather than eliminating it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Funny you should mention the Bloc. For one thing, they've been a party in government for many years now. They don't seem to be going away, and they also seem to be working for their constituents, which is frankly their job. I disagree with them on several core points of their policy (to say the least), but this $2-per-vote system is at least fair in that -- it gives money even to the parties I don't like, proportional to their support in the country.
And frankly right now I have more respect for the Bloc and for Duceppe than I have for the Conservative party and Harper. So much more, in fact, and so angry am I that Harper is such a megalomaniacal dog turd, that I am going to be giving money to every major political party come next election, INCLUDING the Bloc and EXCLUDING the Conservatives. Apparently they don't want my money, they certainly don't want my vote, and they won't be getting either.
no subject
Yup; IMHO, it was a reform that was being made for entirely the wrong reasons, and transparently so. Harper should maybe have remembered that he was elected to govern, not destroy his enemies, crush them beneath his heel, and burn their castles to the ground.
I could see donating to the Liberals and Greens and NDP, but do you have to give to the Bloc too? I mean, the Conservatives are right-wing jerks, but they're not ethnic nationalists and they're really just a little farther to the right than the Liberals used to be, and not dedicated to blowing up the country...
no subject
And to hear the lamentation of their women (or other consorts, I suppose, since this is Canada after all).
no subject
no subject
no subject
The person most dedicated to blowing up the country right now is named Stephen Harper, and he happens to be PM.
no subject
no subject
They just have gotten somewhere. The new coalition will be completely dependent on their support. If it goes through, it completely undermines the idea that a vote for the Bloc is a wasted vote, because it shows that they CAN affect government substantially.
I think it's a very, VERY bad idea to think that separatism is no longer a threat. Isn't that what people said in 1982? Weren't the Liberals confident that they'd win the 1995 Referendum, just before they came within 0.6 percent of losing it?
no subject
I said that separatism is currently unpopular, and that I would vote for a Bloc candidate over a Conservative if those were my only choices.
no subject
Isn't that implicit in what you said? Surely you wouldn't vote for the Bloc if you expect separatism to flare up shortly thereafter.
The part about the Bloc not affecting gov't and thus being a wasted vote is not something you said, but rather the common refrain that the other parties have been using to dissuade Quebeckers from voting Bloc. The BQ can never form a government, so what's the point? And with this coalition, that argument will be severely undermined.
no subject
Separatism is low-priority and unpopular in Quebec just at the moment. I see no indication that the Bloc are going anywhere, despite their separatist leanings. If that flares up again I might reconsider my decision.
Note the last sentence.
So no, I wouldn't vote for the Bloc if I expected separatism to flare up shortly thereafter. As I've said before, separatism is not popular right now. That could change, at which point my opinions on the party would change.
'No longer a threat' implies to me that I think separatism is completely dead, which I don't. Nor did I say that. Nor am I likely to.
no subject
It's a little alarming, given how much yet another debate/referendum/debacle would cost...
no subject
no subject
It's a sad statement on both Canadian and Québec politics (far worse than other countries I have spent time in) that so much of the 'debate' on policy takes the form of demonizing those we disagree with and impugning their motives rather than just debating the merits of their policy proposals.
The disappointment of that is quite poignant right now where the whole affair in Ottawa has come down to some politicians not only don't like one proposal that some others have made but actually refuse to a) debate it and b) accept it being retracted.
It's a great way to avoid discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed changes to collective bargaining law (also retracted), pension and rrsp changes and the accelerated infrastructure spending....
Be nice if one day in the future our members of parliament start speaking (of course they would need to listen to the public too)....
no subject
Umm, that's already been done...Chrétien banned corporate donations and Harper cut the maximum personal donation to $1000 per year (which while more than a lot of us could afford to give, ensures that those who would pay 10 or 100 k can't). So really taking out one of the multiple subsidies (whether in favour of it or not) is really a modification to a system that's been in place for about 5 years, rather than eliminating it.