Can you explain how muzzling objective independent watchdogs such as the scientific community increase accountability?
Is Harper Destroying Democracy?
- Thread starter Probyn
- Start date
The TPP is much worse than anyone thought.
WikiLeaks and tppinfo.org have leaked text and the US Government has their early "wish list" online https://ustr.gov/tpp/outlines-of-TPP
Japan looks to be a huge winner. They can freely import their vehicles tariff free because they easily exceed the 45% from a TPP nation requirement. But Japan can continue to have tariffs on Beef, Pork, Rice and other agriculture products.
The American Financial Sector looks to be a huge winner. Obstacles to merging banks are mostly removed.
The American Telecom, Cable and Internet companies look to be huge winners. Obstacles to foreign ownership are mostly removed.
Harper had a lot of BS to say earlier today about how our auto sector and agricultural sector were being protected. Japan no longer has to assemble vehicles in Canada under the TPP. It's not only Dairy that is being sold out. Egg producers, Chicken producers, Table Vegetable producers have all been sold out. If you have to pay 23,000 for a GM and 23,000 for a Toyota of the same size and the Toyota doesn't have every little thing an additional cost option - which one are you going to buy? If Canadian grown greenhouse Tomatoes are 3.29 and Mexican grown Tomatoes are 1.29 - which one are you going to buy?
The 4.3 Billion that Harper is giving to Dairy to protect them from loss is going to go to Saputo and Lucerne because they won't be making evaporated milk, powdered milk, etc. You won't be seeing all that much imported fluid milk, but a fairly large part of the Evaporated Milk, Powdered Milk, Butter, Cheese and Ice Cream on your store shelves is going to be imported. Harper says that the government won't be buying quota from the farmers, instead they will get a "welfare" cheque for the reduced takeup of their milk. Apparently 2.2 Billion over 15 years is allocated for that purpose. Many don't understand that fluid milk is only a portion of a farmer's income flow. Many farms simply won't be economic as farms anymore.
WikiLeaks and tppinfo.org have leaked text and the US Government has their early "wish list" online https://ustr.gov/tpp/outlines-of-TPP
Japan looks to be a huge winner. They can freely import their vehicles tariff free because they easily exceed the 45% from a TPP nation requirement. But Japan can continue to have tariffs on Beef, Pork, Rice and other agriculture products.
The American Financial Sector looks to be a huge winner. Obstacles to merging banks are mostly removed.
The American Telecom, Cable and Internet companies look to be huge winners. Obstacles to foreign ownership are mostly removed.
Harper had a lot of BS to say earlier today about how our auto sector and agricultural sector were being protected. Japan no longer has to assemble vehicles in Canada under the TPP. It's not only Dairy that is being sold out. Egg producers, Chicken producers, Table Vegetable producers have all been sold out. If you have to pay 23,000 for a GM and 23,000 for a Toyota of the same size and the Toyota doesn't have every little thing an additional cost option - which one are you going to buy? If Canadian grown greenhouse Tomatoes are 3.29 and Mexican grown Tomatoes are 1.29 - which one are you going to buy?
The 4.3 Billion that Harper is giving to Dairy to protect them from loss is going to go to Saputo and Lucerne because they won't be making evaporated milk, powdered milk, etc. You won't be seeing all that much imported fluid milk, but a fairly large part of the Evaporated Milk, Powdered Milk, Butter, Cheese and Ice Cream on your store shelves is going to be imported. Harper says that the government won't be buying quota from the farmers, instead they will get a "welfare" cheque for the reduced takeup of their milk. Apparently 2.2 Billion over 15 years is allocated for that purpose. Many don't understand that fluid milk is only a portion of a farmer's income flow. Many farms simply won't be economic as farms anymore.
One or two rouge scientists with extreme agendas does not make a "community". As part of that "scientific community", more than happy at finally there being some balance. Most people go along in their NIMBY lives consuming and using but have not a clue where things come from. Vote for whoever you want but don't be surprised when you vote for a party that doesn't understand economics, and they win, when you cannot find a job, afford goods and finally wake up to the fact that all the rhetoric in the world won't bring the industry back. Enjoy that future as it looks closer than you may think. So pleased I can retire by 40 but then all those I employ will have to find jobs and that won't be easy if there is no incentives to actually create something.
My new MLA as of the last AB election, as far as I can tell, never set foot in the riding. The same thing happened with dipper candidates during the last federal election so the accusation in empty as it goes both ways
What the hell are you talking about? The head of Nuclear Safety says Chalk River risks a malfunction and needs an upgrade and instead of listening to her advice she gets fired and the thing she warns about happens. It infuriates me when politicians (or their adherents) accuse scientists of having agendas. Sure there are bad seeds in every walk of life but you do not get into science for the money or the glory. They are trained to be objective, but if their conclusions do not support the government agenda they are silenced.
Harper wants the medical community to support his "legalizing marijuana will destroy your children" agenda (and to be clear I have never partaken so don't accuse me of personal interest). They refused so instead Health Canada is pushing the propaganda.
As someone in the scientific community, I want balance too. I don't think ANY special interest getting 100% of the power is healthy but I would take whatever damage the NDP inflict on us if they could keep the ONE promise of proportional representation reform, because Harper does NOT represent the majority of Canadians.
I know a lot more than one or two scientists and abhorrence at what has been happening to them and attacks on the international standing of Canadian science is pretty uniform. I think the one or two rogue (note the spelling) scientists you mention are the ones who support what Harper has done. Most don't. And that goes for many other parts of the public service as well.
I have a couple of family members who used to work at Chalk River. I have walked around the place several times, been on top of the two big reactors, stuck my hand in the pool one, etc.
The government line was an absolute pack of lies, it would be close to saying smoking is good for you. The Tories were completely wrong. They had to muzzle the resident engineers and scientists. Even the diagrams and explanations the goverment used in press conferences were wrong and misleading.
The whole Chalk River affair was the single worst example, and the most clear example, of Harper deceit and vindictiveness.
wow, more Kool-Aid drinkers wearing tinfoil than I thought here. Good luck with things as if you get your wish, it will be a very tough time having this hobby for you as I doubt welfare will pay you enough. Have fun!
Could you perhaps substantiate your objection? I'm not calling you a kool-aid drinking brainwashed sheep, though you're certainly offering evidence to that effect. Rather why don't you point out in what way these observations are mistaken. Or are Conservatives chronically incapable of citing facts, relying only on fear-mongering tactics to bully people into being afraid of exploring the alternatives?
p.s. I used to be adamantly Progressive Conservative when I was younger, but I despised the Reform Party's platform. Just because they stole the name doesn't change anything. I would never have dreamed I'd consider a vote NDP in the future but they've driven me to it. The Progressive part was not optional for me.
morementum, please address the valid points raised here. Facts and evidence have been presented. Counter-them if indeed there are errors or contradictory evidence. Ad hominem attacks fail. Fear/slippery slope arguments that we will all be on welfare fail – evidence are the social democratic nation-states like Denmark, Sweden, etc. that are successful.
I too used to be Conservative, but, dammit, Harper has gone too far. The reasons are too numerous to list (it would take a couple of pages).
Grow some balls, do some research, use your brain and consider voting differently.
I too used to be Conservative, but, dammit, Harper has gone too far. The reasons are too numerous to list (it would take a couple of pages).
Grow some balls, do some research, use your brain and consider voting differently.
none of this shit matters... its all about the money. tax equity is not even a topic apparently in this election. i have a thriving business and i pay half of what the lowest slave wager pays in taxes. financial success is tightly tied to the sense of entitlement... its been studied extensively.
unfortunately, there aren't enough wealthy people to vote a party into a government. so, on with the red herring social issues. and the fear mongering. nobody wants to trash the economy and every government can hire the exact same economists but this doesn't prevent everyone from claiming otherwise. etc...
its a statistical fact that the conservative parties base are old white guys who live in the countryside.
if you vote for a party like the conservatives then you are either stupid or wealthy.
vote for gross domestic happiness!
unfortunately, there aren't enough wealthy people to vote a party into a government. so, on with the red herring social issues. and the fear mongering. nobody wants to trash the economy and every government can hire the exact same economists but this doesn't prevent everyone from claiming otherwise. etc...
its a statistical fact that the conservative parties base are old white guys who live in the countryside.
if you vote for a party like the conservatives then you are either stupid or wealthy.
vote for gross domestic happiness!
I would just like to point out that I am an old white guy who lives in the countryside. I am also appalled that my country is governed by Stephen Harper, and desperately worried that he might get re-elected.
This thread started out with "Is Harper trying to destroy democracy" or something to that and it has devolved down to squabling over the benefits/defecits of the newly announced trade deal.
What a fucking JOKE....WTF has a Trade deal got to do with democracy in Canada?For all of the fluff and nothing the media had pushed the agenda that Harper has had a "hidden" agenda since he first formed a "minority" government and that "agenda" did not happen...nor did it happen with the next "minority" government....and it did not happen when Harper got a MAJORITY government.All Canadians can vote though there are some procedural rules and such and I have no problems with that.
With regards to the electoral process and the "first past the post" system I say leave it as it is.The Liberals sure liked it enough when it served their purpose....but Trudeau does not like it now as he is the underdog and he wants more leverage.
An election is called and the vote happens.The party with the MOST seats gets to form Government.If it is a minority then considerations are made with regards to policies when working with the other parties and that is what Canadians expect/want.The one thing you dont do is to have the Party's that finished in 2nd/3rd place gang up and turn 2nd/3rd place into 1st place and subvert with electoral choice of Canadians....maybe Canadians did not give 1st place a majority but they sure as hell did not give a free pass to the losers to hijack govenment via a backroom power sharing deal.
Canada has never had a coalition government and I sure as fuck hope it never does.Harper got his first minority government after the Sponsorship Scandal but he did not try to leverage it into a coalition to oust the Liberal party.
The party with the most seats afer an election forms Government.....a side deal by the losers is a total insult to democracy as most people did not vote for the "losers"
FTH
What a fucking JOKE....WTF has a Trade deal got to do with democracy in Canada?For all of the fluff and nothing the media had pushed the agenda that Harper has had a "hidden" agenda since he first formed a "minority" government and that "agenda" did not happen...nor did it happen with the next "minority" government....and it did not happen when Harper got a MAJORITY government.All Canadians can vote though there are some procedural rules and such and I have no problems with that.
With regards to the electoral process and the "first past the post" system I say leave it as it is.The Liberals sure liked it enough when it served their purpose....but Trudeau does not like it now as he is the underdog and he wants more leverage.
An election is called and the vote happens.The party with the MOST seats gets to form Government.If it is a minority then considerations are made with regards to policies when working with the other parties and that is what Canadians expect/want.The one thing you dont do is to have the Party's that finished in 2nd/3rd place gang up and turn 2nd/3rd place into 1st place and subvert with electoral choice of Canadians....maybe Canadians did not give 1st place a majority but they sure as hell did not give a free pass to the losers to hijack govenment via a backroom power sharing deal.
Canada has never had a coalition government and I sure as fuck hope it never does.Harper got his first minority government after the Sponsorship Scandal but he did not try to leverage it into a coalition to oust the Liberal party.
The party with the most seats afer an election forms Government.....a side deal by the losers is a total insult to democracy as most people did not vote for the "losers"
FTH
(a) Canada has had a coalition government. It's called the Conservative party, where what remained of the PCs and the Reform Party ganged up. (b) there's been a lot more discussed here than TPP but it looks like Conservative supporters like to cover their ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" rather than address the concerns head on, much as Harper himself... Just keep repeating the same story, facts be damned.
ETA: most people did not vote for the winners either. Current polls put the Conservatives in the lead on seats yet they have less of the popular vote than the Liberals. This is a consequence of gerrymandering, gaming the system.
Yes I agree the Liberals wouldn't go with proportional representation if first past the post worked in their favour and I am disappointed with them for that. No matter how you cut it the "winners" do not represent the majority of Canadians. This has to be fixed because it's our country too.
ETA: most people did not vote for the winners either. Current polls put the Conservatives in the lead on seats yet they have less of the popular vote than the Liberals. This is a consequence of gerrymandering, gaming the system.
Yes I agree the Liberals wouldn't go with proportional representation if first past the post worked in their favour and I am disappointed with them for that. No matter how you cut it the "winners" do not represent the majority of Canadians. This has to be fixed because it's our country too.
All political parties are, by nature, a coalition. That's why political parties have policy conventions to vote on what policy the party will run with.
Proportional Representation won't change that. Take a look at the "Party List" in France, Germany, Israel, etc. The Party List is assembled by vote at the Party's convention and it has people that represent the various interests in that party. Even the order of the Party List is voted on. The most recent Greek election demonstrates how important the order of the Party List is. The party that elected the most seats got a "Bonus" of 50 seats. That gave Syriza who had elected 95 people 145 seats, second place New Democracy had elected 75 people, but Syriza was able to form a government with 6 of the 10 seats that 7th place ANEL had won.
So, there are 50 people, that by virtue of their place on the Syriza Party List, are sitting in the Greek Parliament despite the fact that their party didn't directly elect them.
There are 6 people, that by virtue of their place on the ANEL Party List, are in Cabinet or Cabinet Secretary positions in the Greek Government despite the fact that their party didn't have enough direct votes to form a government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Greek_legislative_election
So, I fail to see how Proportional Representation is more Democratic than our current First Past the Post system.
If the people align with the party on policy (via party whip) then the individual people don't matter and you are voting for a party not a person. As it stands 100% of the power is coming from a party that only 39% of the voters supported. Gerrymandering has awarded them disproportionate seats. Yes there will be people who got seats that first past the post would've denied them, obviously. That's the point. But since it's the party that acts as a unit, and individuals members apparently align to the wishes of the party rather than their constituents anyway, it is preferable at least that the votes cast ideologically align with the average ideology of the electorate as a whole. It's an improvement over the current system.
Does it solve everything? Probably not. But under this system the most egregious changes that came to be under the Conservative "majority" would not have sailed through without scrutiny or debate. It would force more cooperation amongst the disparate ideologies, leading to a more moderate middle ground. Honestly I think even Conservatives should want that lest there be a day the "crazy left" takes the wheel and does to them what the Conservatives have done to their opponents.
Another benefit of proportional representation is that they would make little gains in courting a 1% fringe group because 1% is all you get, rather than tipping it past the first past the post threshold to gain 100% of the power. So they would all benefit more from courting the majority (middle ground) electorate again and that would also serve democracy.
The less ideal alternative is a coalition on the left to even things out against the current coalition that formed on the right... A two party system effectively. But unfortunately the parties on the left (or at least the Liberals) let their pride get in the way of what would best serve their supporters. The majority of this country is not right wing (or at least as right wing as the Conservatives). The only reason they are in power is because this minority ideology consolidated their effort under one party while the left did not. This is the reason Harper hypocritically derides the very notion of a leftist coalition, because he knows how well it works.
Does it solve everything? Probably not. But under this system the most egregious changes that came to be under the Conservative "majority" would not have sailed through without scrutiny or debate. It would force more cooperation amongst the disparate ideologies, leading to a more moderate middle ground. Honestly I think even Conservatives should want that lest there be a day the "crazy left" takes the wheel and does to them what the Conservatives have done to their opponents.
Another benefit of proportional representation is that they would make little gains in courting a 1% fringe group because 1% is all you get, rather than tipping it past the first past the post threshold to gain 100% of the power. So they would all benefit more from courting the majority (middle ground) electorate again and that would also serve democracy.
The less ideal alternative is a coalition on the left to even things out against the current coalition that formed on the right... A two party system effectively. But unfortunately the parties on the left (or at least the Liberals) let their pride get in the way of what would best serve their supporters. The majority of this country is not right wing (or at least as right wing as the Conservatives). The only reason they are in power is because this minority ideology consolidated their effort under one party while the left did not. This is the reason Harper hypocritically derides the very notion of a leftist coalition, because he knows how well it works.
There are many variants of Proportional Representation (a lot more countries in the world have proportional representation than First-Past-the-Post, so Canada is behind the times with its antiquated system), so the Greek system is only one example. Frequently when there is a list system in place, people have two votes: one for a representative and the other for the party they prefer. They may not get the representative they voted for, but there is a chance they may still get representation through the party they voted for. That is democratic and ultimately it allows a lot greater portion of the population to feel that they are represented in Parliament than under the current system.sdw said:
I don't know how a party that gets explicit support from 25% of eligible voters and 100% of the power can be considered as democratic as proportional representation where a wider range of interests and voices are represented. The current system is broken, and although proportional representation may not be perfect, it seems a hell of a lot better than the current situation. And coalitions can and do work frequently. There seems to be a myth that coalitions lead to unstable governments and that is only true in a minority of cases in systems that are inherently unstable anyway.
To address the last part first, MOST people did not vote for the government current in power, and so for them to take a 100% of the power on about 25% explicit support is also a total insult to democracy.
And a secretive trade deal negotiated by corporate lobbyists that our elected representatives were unable to see the contents of and discuss whether it was in the best interests of Canadians, and will override laws debated and voted on by elected representatives of Canadians, and can result in huge fines for Canada in secret courts outside of the Canadian legal system, has EVERYTHING to do with democracy, or the lack of it in this instance. We are moving back into a system of feudalism when our elected representatives don't have any say over the laws of the country and instead multinational corporations get to dictate what the laws are. What has happened is NOT democracy and is the kind of action that will ultimately lead to revolution. Corporations are a legal structure that should be serving the people who work within them and society, not society servants of the corporations.
Oh yeah, by the way, I am socialist in leaning with strong support for the kind of capitalism espoused by Adam Smith (read him one day and the warnings he gives if corporations get too much power). If anyone wants to accuse me of being communist, I can assure you that I am not. I have lived under communism and I know a little bit about what it really is. Socialism and communism is very different. We are living under socialism here in Canada, and even the US has socialism. The question is one of degree.
