My comments on the debate.
My comments on the debate.
First it is a detrimental to fixing the democratic deficit to continue the current thinking of the four major parties that these debates serve any practical purpose. The four particpants, (all male, all white) were not held to answer the question as asked, and the fact that one of the people on the panel who is the leader of regional rump party is on stage, but the leader of a party like the Green Party who has a party with 308 candidates running is not, makes the performance a mockery.
We have the two leaders of parties, either of who might be the next Prime Minister throwing promises of changes to the constitution, with no fore thought to what these ideas my trigger in the way of other things. Harper wants to add property rights to the constitution, something that was excluded by the provinces, led by Peter Lougheed. As an example if you put property rights in the constitution, Alberta might just have to rethink the way they allow the pol and gas compmanies to trample all over the farmers and their land. With impunity.
Harper never did reply to Martin's challenge of changing the constitution, about whether Harper would be in favour of removing the 'not with standing clause, for the federal government. Why is that? If Harper is not going to use it when he brings the same sex marriage tokenism motion before the house to appease the narrowminded of his party, why revisit the same-sex marriage issue? Unless you are going to change the law or go against the decision of the Supreme Court?
The fact is that if Harper is elected and brings in his taxation changes and spending he will have to cut somewhere to pay for them. If he follows in the footsteps of his hero's in the Republican Party in the USA, then we are headed for deficit financing, and the gutting of our social programs. Just like they have done in the USA under both Bushes and Reagan.
If not, then Harper should tell us exactly what he has in mind.
If Harper is prepared to allow the Provinces to deal on international issues, is that the same as the firewalls he proposed to build around Alberta. After all if a province is allowed to negotiate international pacts and deals on their own, why have a federal government?
If Harper wants to step on lobbiests, why not ban them from working in his campaign war rooms?
What Martin's move towards removing the Not Withstanding Clause from harper's repetoir when it comes to reducing judicial activism, means now Harper has to explain to Canada, if he doesn't agree with this, then what would he use the clause for?
What Rights in the consititution is Harper prepared to use the clause on? What rights does he believe are negotiable?
Harper has a problem. He wants to cut taxes, raise taxes, cut spending, increase spending, make tougher federal crimes which means more money for prisons, and wants more money for police, but will balance the budget. How?
How can he do this, when the deficits of the USA occur during the reign of a Republican government.
First it is a detrimental to fixing the democratic deficit to continue the current thinking of the four major parties that these debates serve any practical purpose. The four particpants, (all male, all white) were not held to answer the question as asked, and the fact that one of the people on the panel who is the leader of regional rump party is on stage, but the leader of a party like the Green Party who has a party with 308 candidates running is not, makes the performance a mockery.
We have the two leaders of parties, either of who might be the next Prime Minister throwing promises of changes to the constitution, with no fore thought to what these ideas my trigger in the way of other things. Harper wants to add property rights to the constitution, something that was excluded by the provinces, led by Peter Lougheed. As an example if you put property rights in the constitution, Alberta might just have to rethink the way they allow the pol and gas compmanies to trample all over the farmers and their land. With impunity.
Harper never did reply to Martin's challenge of changing the constitution, about whether Harper would be in favour of removing the 'not with standing clause, for the federal government. Why is that? If Harper is not going to use it when he brings the same sex marriage tokenism motion before the house to appease the narrowminded of his party, why revisit the same-sex marriage issue? Unless you are going to change the law or go against the decision of the Supreme Court?
The fact is that if Harper is elected and brings in his taxation changes and spending he will have to cut somewhere to pay for them. If he follows in the footsteps of his hero's in the Republican Party in the USA, then we are headed for deficit financing, and the gutting of our social programs. Just like they have done in the USA under both Bushes and Reagan.
If not, then Harper should tell us exactly what he has in mind.
If Harper is prepared to allow the Provinces to deal on international issues, is that the same as the firewalls he proposed to build around Alberta. After all if a province is allowed to negotiate international pacts and deals on their own, why have a federal government?
If Harper wants to step on lobbiests, why not ban them from working in his campaign war rooms?
What Martin's move towards removing the Not Withstanding Clause from harper's repetoir when it comes to reducing judicial activism, means now Harper has to explain to Canada, if he doesn't agree with this, then what would he use the clause for?
What Rights in the consititution is Harper prepared to use the clause on? What rights does he believe are negotiable?
Harper has a problem. He wants to cut taxes, raise taxes, cut spending, increase spending, make tougher federal crimes which means more money for prisons, and wants more money for police, but will balance the budget. How?
How can he do this, when the deficits of the USA occur during the reign of a Republican government.
Norm Greenfield
Calgary, Alberta
www.provocostatusquo.com
Media and Government Relations
Myth Confectioner
Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications
New and Old Media
Database, Permission and Direct Marketing
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-government/E-Democracy Business Development
Calgary, Alberta
www.provocostatusquo.com
Media and Government Relations
Myth Confectioner
Corporate, Marketing, and Political Communications
New and Old Media
Database, Permission and Direct Marketing
Registered Federal Government Lobbyist
Registered B.C. and N.B Government Lobbyist
E-government/E-Democracy Business Development
posted by Advocatus Diaboli @ 5:31 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home