Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

And it also displays ignorance of Federal/Provincial jurisdiction and responsibilities.

But hey, if Pallister can plagiarize ALEC to introduce anti-protest legislation, I guess O'Toole and copy Trump.

Also displays both ignorance of the volatility of the pandemic and their gamble that their supporters and the public in general are too uninformed to see the holes in his position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not quite if this belongs here, but.....                                 

Probably safer to just never bring it up again.

For me being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Keeping deficits low/nil when not in a crisis. Using science and research to fund social programming. Using deficit spending to kee

25 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Also displays both ignorance of the volatility of the pandemic and their gamble that their supporters and the public in general are too uninformed to see the holes in his position.

They coordinated so well. Ford was complaining about the Gov't trying to meddle in the Provinces business and jurisdiction. And, right on cue...

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

Yeah when I read his speech. I was cautiously impressed. I thought maybe they're going to round a corner and not be total dipshits. Toole even said they need to change and keep up or they're going to keep losing. lol. Even your leader thinks you're going to lose if you don't change. But sure, keep doing the same things....that's a type of change....right?

Because things never change for the better!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to be fiscally Conservative and socially left. I have voted for all the major parties at different times for different reasons. I had great hopes that O Toole could  move the party to a more sensible and electable platform. Silly me.

This isn't good for Canada's future. A sitting government with a unethical PM that says all the right things but acts in the complete opposite. And spends like a drunken sailor just into port.  A PC opposition party that won't look at science and facts ,determined to remain in the 1970s . And a NDP party led by a someone I doubt we are open minded enough to elect and who has got way to cosy with the current Gov.  

It's going to be a tough choice

Edited by the watcher
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the watcher said:

I tend to be fiscally Conservative and socially left.

Just out of curiosity, how is this political stance even possible? It's like saying I care about people (socially liberal) but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level (fiscally conservative).

I agree with you on Canada's political landscape at present. It's in a precarious position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Just out of curiosity, how is this political stance even possible? It's like saying I care about people (socially liberal) but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level (fiscally conservative).

I agree with you on Canada's political landscape at present. It's in a precarious position.

For me being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Keeping deficits low/nil when not in a crisis. Using science and research to fund social programming. Using deficit spending to keep the economy moving. Finding a balance between taxation and growth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JCon said:

For me being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Keeping deficits low/nil when not in a crisis. Using science and research to fund social programming. Using deficit spending to keep the economy moving. Finding a balance between taxation and growth. 

Bingo. I consider myself fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.....likely somewhere just left of Centre, on the political spectrum......and JCon explained perfectly how I generally feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Just out of curiosity, how is this political stance even possible? It's like saying I care about people (socially liberal) but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level (fiscally conservative).

I agree with you on Canada's political landscape at present. It's in a precarious position.

 

Think  Jean Chretien and Paul Martin . They worked hard and succeeded reducing a debt built by Pierre T. Caring for people doesn't necessarily equate with throwing money at whatever makes you popular. 

2 hours ago, JCon said:

For me being fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Keeping deficits low/nil when not in a crisis. Using science and research to fund social programming. Using deficit spending to keep the economy moving. Finding a balance between taxation and growth. 

That's it !

Interestingly there is a conversation on CJOB about being a " political orphan." Which is a good way to describe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the Provincial NPD in the final years in power. They threw money at "good" causes but for the wrong reasons and it wasn't evidence based. There was a lot of good ideas and a lot of stuff just thrown at the wall but it all lacked the proper policy base. Despite knowing better, they got desperate to make positive changes in all sorts of areas and failed miserably. And, everything they tried, seem to blow up. It was also a time when their best MLAs were gone. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, the watcher said:

I always thought Gary Doer was a good example of fiscally responsible and socially left.  There was a good reason Harper sent him off to be the US  ambassador . I think he scared the hell out of him. If the Federal Libs  had got a hold  of  him  he would have been tough to defeat.

100% why he was sent to that post, IMO..... Doer would have been a nightmare for Cons if he was a federal leader...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Just out of curiosity, how is this political stance even possible? It's like saying I care about people (socially liberal) but not enough to see them cared for on a systemic level (fiscally conservative).

I agree with you on Canada's political landscape at present. It's in a precarious position.

Lots of examples of this have been posted already and I agree with them.

Here is one other way, if one looked at a Minimum Guaranteed Income from the idea that the overall cost is less than 1000 other social programs than would be eliminated it would be easy for fiscally conservatives to get behind. Liberals and the Left never could because they wouldn't be able to stay in power as too many of the special interest and friends would become redundant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GCJenks said:

Lots of examples of this have been posted already and I agree with them.

Here is one other way, if one looked at a Minimum Guaranteed Income from the idea that the overall cost is less than 1000 other social programs than would be eliminated it would be easy for fiscally conservatives to get behind. Liberals and the Left never could because they wouldn't be able to stay in power as too many of the special interest and friends would become redundant. 

you mean like this ?

Mincome, the "Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment", was a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) social experiment conducted in Manitoba in the 1970s. The project was funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. It was launched with a news release on February 22, 1974, under the New Democratic Party of Manitoba government of Edward Schreyer, and was closed down in 1979 under the Progressive Conservative of Manitoba government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GCJenks said:

Lots of examples of this have been posted already and I agree with them.

Here is one other way, if one looked at a Minimum Guaranteed Income from the idea that the overall cost is less than 1000 other social programs than would be eliminated it would be easy for fiscally conservatives to get behind. Liberals and the Left never could because they wouldn't be able to stay in power as too many of the special interest and friends would become redundant. 

Fiscal conservatives hate UBI. Hate it. They've killed pilot projects all over on it. All the left parties are in favour of it. I've never heard someone on the right push it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JCon said:

Fiscal conservatives hate UBI. Hate it. They've killed pilot projects all over on it. All the left parties are in favour of it. I've never heard someone on the right push it.  

Sorry, shouldn't say, "fiscal conservatives". The are no fiscal conservatives remaining on the right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JCon said:

Fiscal conservatives hate UBI. Hate it. They've killed pilot projects all over on it. All the left parties are in favour of it. I've never heard someone on the right push it.  

Here's an interesting story. I know a former high ranking cabinet member in Filmons government. About as co servative as you get. We were sitting around having coffee after dinner and I asked  " what's your opinion UBI ? "  His answer was  " It all depends on what it replaces " 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, the watcher said:

Here's an interesting story. I know a former high ranking cabinet member in Filmons government. About as co servative as you get. We were sitting around having coffee after dinner and I asked  " what's your opinion UBI ? "  His answer was  " It all depends on what it replaces " 

Makes sense. You would have to cut the redundant programs. Personal tax exemption levels would have to be looked at... probably the easiest way to start implementing it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory on UBI is it is an absolute must.  Robotics ( or whatever term you choose ) is ending jobs worldwide. The answer to that has always been " but it opens high tech jobs ".  Those jobs will dwindle as well as our technology  begins to both repair and develop itself. And thats here. It is one of the main reasons that the very, very rich are increasing their wealth. At a unprecedented rate. It no longer trickles down and the tap is getting shut off. Alot of our current social unrest both left and right can be attributed to this. Fair and equitable taxation for Corps, rich and Joe shmoe and UBI can solve or perhaps halt some of the ugliness we are seeing.  Or we continue on as we are and tailspin to oblivion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the Guaranteed Annual Income is the PCs screaming "free money being handed out by the government". Any administration choosing to implement it (and it works very well in Scandinavian and some other European countries) would have to do it immediately upon coming to power and be prepared to put up with insults and verbal abuse for 3-4 years so as to accumulate some hard numbers about cost savings. It would also have to be a joint federal/provincial program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark F said:

you mean like this ?

Mincome, the "Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment", was a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI) social experiment conducted in Manitoba in the 1970s. The project was funded jointly by the Manitoba provincial government and the Canadian federal government under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. It was launched with a news release on February 22, 1974, under the New Democratic Party of Manitoba government of Edward Schreyer, and was closed down in 1979 under the Progressive Conservative of Manitoba government of Sterling Lyon and the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Joe Clark. 

 

6 hours ago, the watcher said:

Here's an interesting story. I know a former high ranking cabinet member in Filmons government. About as co servative as you get. We were sitting around having coffee after dinner and I asked  " what's your opinion UBI ? "  His answer was  " It all depends on what it replaces " 

 

6 hours ago, JCon said:

Fiscal conservatives hate UBI. Hate it. They've killed pilot projects all over on it. All the left parties are in favour of it. I've never heard someone on the right push it.  

I said IF sold properly, the whole idea of what it replaces is exactly the key. Small government conservatives would be in their glory if they truly understood how many programs and union jobs could be eliminated. Current Liberals will never push it too hard as too many of their friends would lose. 
 

Much like the idea of defunding the police. It would be great to get some of that money to the proper social agencies and remove that work from law enforcement scope but I don’t see it happening. Would require a massive initial spend to save money years down the road but they all know that lowering the spending after the initial boost isn’t likely going to go over well and in the end they just spend more everywhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Today on Facebook, the PCs and/or O'Toole posted about the importance of Canadians keeping their guns. I was stunned that such a brain-dead posting would be made so soon after the killings in the US. The lack of sensitivity and common sense says a lot about the 2021 Conservatives.

The fundies are in total control of that party. The are no conservative parties left worth voting for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

They will continue to win their irrelevant prairie landslides. 

Which will continue to stoke the flames of grievance in Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan. These people live in the fantasy that a Alliance/PC will solve all their problems and ensure a prosperous oil industry, high grain prices and lots of guns. They ignore that even when Harper was in power, none of these fantasies came to pass. The world economies are changing and so is Canada's but these same people fear change and are willing to cripple their own best interests to stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Which will continue to stoke the flames of grievance in Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan. These people live in the fantasy that a Alliance/PC will solve all their problems and ensure a prosperous oil industry, high grain prices and lots of guns. They ignore that even when Harper was in power, none of these fantasies came to pass. The world economies are changing and so is Canada's but these same people fear change and are willing to cripple their own best interests to stop it.

Oil is clearly trending down and will stay there. But anyone who complains about grain prices is just not paying attention.  There are good prices available if you watch the markets and forward contract. And, you can get specialty contracts for crops like high quality oats and malting barley.  And all that has nothing to do with ANY government. 

9 hours ago, the watcher said:

 

Think  Jean Chretien and Paul Martin . They worked hard and succeeded reducing a debt built by Pierre T. Caring for people doesn't necessarily equate with throwing money at whatever makes you popular. 

That was a reasonably good government that also won ridings out here in the rural  West.  But I am never sure if they can be classified as Liberals - Liberals don't normally slash billions in transfer payments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...