[bobbtmann]

That's a naive interpretation.  Access to Information (be it the formal ATIP process or the informal accessibility of government information to the public) is a relatively new phenomenon in this country at best.  There is no evidence to suggest that more or less accessibility influences the outcome of our electoral process.  ATIP (formal) was virtually insignificant in the late 1980s, and that didn't stop Mulroney's Conservatives from going from majority to 2 seats (loss of official party status) in a single election in 1993.  And that's just a recent example.  Restricting access is not what I'd term a good thing; however, it is not a system-breaker.

Are you arguing that a government does not need to be honest with the citizens of a country merely because it probably won't break the system? The old "Harper Government" lied time an time again about where money was being spent, how much was being spent. They also blocked many access to information requests, even proroguing parliament to stop the release of the Afghan detainee documents.

And for those bemoaning the "costly and unnecessary" election, both times he prorogued parliament it resulted in the termination of a lot of pieces of legislature. Which meant that all the time and money spent on committees and research all went down the drain, merely to avoid having an election.

@MP-Ryan: before you drag up the old Liberals-did-it-first arguments, remember that when Jean Chretien prorogued parliament they had finished all the work for that session.

 Also, you bring up the Liberals-did-it-first argument for the contempt of parliament. I've never heard of it so it would be nice if you'd explain the circumstances around it. Not all things are created equal.

[MP-Ryan]

There are what 34-35 million people in this country? Assuming 100% voter turnout (which lets get serious, is a pipe dream), the 2$ per vote subsidy can only ever reach a MAXIMUM of 70 million. This last election cost the public 300 million. The vote based subsidy isn't the only public funding of political campaigns, and we'd have to eliminate ALL public funding if we were to have set election dates because of the longer and consequently eventually terminally expensive campaigns that would result. Because even with the elimination of that 70 million, double the campaign length and that 70 million has been spent twice over + change + the original 230000000.

You're confusing cost of election with money spent by political parties on campaigns.  Election cost is a fixed beast, and a necessary expenditure.  Those costs will not be increased by fixed election dates.

The cost that will potentially increase is the cost to candidates to run their campaigns (longer campaign, higher cost).  That cost right now is partially passed along to taxpayers through political party subsidies (in their various forms; the vote-based is only part of it).  However, none of those subsidies take into account the length of the campaign.  The cost to the taxpayer isn't affected by campaign length.

As for completely eliminating public funding, I disagree completely on this one. I think we have a certain responsibility, collectively, as a people to help fund additional democratic discourse. Mix in the fact that if we eliminate any and all public funding, then the parties that will be the most effective will be the parties that cater to the interests of the rich. How often to the ultra rich work in the interests of the entire country? Even if champion of the poor party A has an excellent fund raising structure, champion of the rich party B can have an EQUALLY good fund raising structure and make truckloads more money. This will create a serious economic bias in favor of the upper class into politics. That's why I think supplemental public funding of political parties is essential to a level playing field that opinions can be heard on.

As with my thoughts on the rational for eliminating the vote-based subsidy, this is your opinion.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject (since we both have reasonable opinions on the subject).

Are you arguing that a government does not need to be honest with the citizens of a country merely because it probably won't break the system? The old "Harper Government" lied time an time again about where money was being spent, how much was being spent. They also blocked many access to information requests, even proroguing parliament to stop the release of the Afghan detainee documents.

Not unprecedented.  Doesn't make it right, but this is not the first Canadian government to be less-than-forthcoming with information.  Nowhere am I saying that any of this behaviour is justified; I'm merely pointing out that there is a lot of screaming going on about things that have been a feature of our political system since time immemorial.

And for those bemoaning the "costly and unnecessary" election, both times he prorogued parliament it resulted in the termination of a lot of pieces of legislature. Which meant that all the time and money spent on committees and research all went down the drain, merely to avoid having an election.

I'm not bemoaning the election as particularly costly or unnecessary, but I will point out that legislation dies on the order paper all the time.  That's just a bad feature of our political system.

@MP-Ryan: before you drag up the old Liberals-did-it-first arguments, remember that when Jean Chretien prorogued parliament they had finished all the work for that session.

There was that nasty business of the sponsorship scandal report due out in 2002 that was delayed because Chretien specifically asked for prorogation to avoid it.  But let's not stop there - prorogation of Parliament to avoid potential scandals is a grand old tradition going back to the time of Sir John A. MacDonald himself.  Justified?  Of course not.  But Harper has grand company in the tradition, and to be outraged about his manipulation of our system and make excuses for all the previous bunch is hypocrisy of the highest order.  I merely accept that so long as mechanisms of potential abuse exist in our system, politicians can be expected to utilize them.  Don't like it?  Cease the whining about Harper and push for systemic reform.

Also, you bring up the Liberals-did-it-first argument for the contempt of parliament. I've never heard of it so it would be nice if you'd explain the circumstances around it. Not all things are created equal.

No, I said the contempt of Parliament ruling only occurred because the Conservatives played the games that all political parties play, but in a minority situation.  Let's be clear:  the contempt of Parliament ruling is not just a result of the Bev Oda affair, but also the issue of refusal to disclose financing information on the crime legislation that was coming forward.  The Oda mess never came to a formal contempt ruling against her, but the government was found to be in contempt over their failure to disclose the financial costs of the crime bills.

However, failure to disclose the cost of legislation is another handy tradition that majority governments have gotten away with for ages (honestly, pick a majority session of Parliament and you'll find at least one instance - and yes, the Chretien Liberals did it too).  The truly historic item at issue is this is the first time a minority tried to get away with the same thing and got caught in the process.  Put in perspective - that this is the same political gamesmanship that has gone on in this country for years - and the contempt ruling is a tired issue.

Wow, I sound really cynical.

Point is, I hear all kinds of arguments that the CPC is evil because of __________________ [fill in the blank].  However, nothing they've done is new.  It doesn't make it excusable, acceptable, or justified, but it makes it really difficult for me to be outraged because these things are a feature of our political system.

So, rather than engage in exercises of hyperbole proposing that thew Conservatives are the source of all evil in Canadian politics and have engaged in all kinds of unprecedented unethical action, I choose to acknowledge our history and exercise a little perspective.  Our system permits [relatively minor] abuses.  Always has.  Instead of whining about the latest manifestation of them, I'd rather point out that they are really quite common and advocate for reform of our political process.

I only really disagree with you on the contextual significance of the points you raise, not their content.

[bobbtmann]

Point is, I hear all kinds of arguments that the CPC is evil because of __________________ [fill in the blank].  However, nothing they've done is new.  It doesn't make it excusable, acceptable, or justified, but it makes it really difficult for me to be outraged because these things are a feature of our political system.

I've never said that the Conservatives are the first corrupt politicians. From my experience, however, that's no reason to give them a majority. The old Liberal government fell because conservatives across the country claimed that they were corrupt, and offered no accountability.

So they elect the CPC bring transparency and accountability to government. The CPC proves to waste even more money that the Liberals and make the government even more opaque and dishonest. So ... conservatives across the country give them a majority.

It's a double standard. Maybe conservatives feel they can't vote for any party that doesn't have the word "conservative" in their name. I know if the either the NDP or the Liberals got into power and proved to be corrupt, I'd switch my vote. Even if previous incarnations of that party had been labelled corrupt in the past. There is a turnover of politicians.

In this last election the Liberals were judged based on what their predecessor's did, even though the people responsible for past problems were gone. I even heard people bring up the NEP! Seriously, Trudeau's been dead (of old age) for a few years now and people still bring it up. Harper has been corrupt right up to the point of the election, and got away scott free.

[MP-Ryan]

*snip*

Obviously you're entitled to your opinions.  There's very little that I can actually respond to in your post.

Clearly, the corruption narrative didn't resonate with voters (how else to take Ignatieff's local defeat, nevermind the Liberal decimation).  Politics isn't the most rational discourse in this country.  I hear your frustration, but it just isn't echoed by the mechanics of the way our political system elects MPs.

You're young yet.  Political turnover happens regularly, even though it doesn't feel like it.  Before you know it, someone else will be drawing the ire of political observers.

[bobbtmann]

I'd rather you not bring my age into this discussion.

As for my opinions, don't believe for a minute that I am against changing my views on a topic. For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?

I certainly agree with you that political discourse isn't rational or well thought out.

[MP-Ryan]

For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?

My purpose here hasn't been to attempt to sway you (or anyone else) to vote one way or another.  You are correct that I have been providing examples or perspective on the history of certain political behaviours in Canada.  That was my point right from the beginning of this quasi-tangent:  I was never saying the CPC was the best party to vote for; I was merely pointing out that the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding their behaviour is not being given the appropriate historical context.  There is a lot of hysterical nonsense on the Canadian left about Harper being the demise of democracy, and historical fact simply does not bear out that assertion.  That's all.

I get the feeling that you and Drogoth seem to think I'm a rabid CPC supporter.  That, I assure you, is not even remotely the case.  I'm just exercising a little perspective.  I think I actually mentioned that my personal feelings don't support parties in general.

[Drogoth]

For instance, I would vote conservative if if you provided a convincing argument as to why the conservatives should be in power. But in this discussion you'll notice that all your rebuttals have consisted of providing examples of why the CPC isn't the first party to do corrupt things. But it was the last party to do those things, and there is a very, very big list of dishonest or dictatorial things they've done. So why reward that behaviour?

My purpose here hasn't been to attempt to sway you (or anyone else) to vote one way or another.  You are correct that I have been providing examples or perspective on the history of certain political behaviours in Canada.  That was my point right from the beginning of this quasi-tangent:  I was never saying the CPC was the best party to vote for; I was merely pointing out that the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding their behaviour is not being given the appropriate historical context.  There is a lot of hysterical nonsense on the Canadian left about Harper being the demise of democracy, and historical fact simply does not bear out that assertion.  That's all.

I get the feeling that you and Drogoth seem to think I'm a rabid CPC supporter.  That, I assure you, is not even remotely the case.  I'm just exercising a little perspective.  I think I actually mentioned that my personal feelings don't support parties in general.

No not at all, I dont think your a rabid CPC supporter, I just, disagree with you on certain things, but I like that you didn't get angry about it, and I feel like we had a good discussion. <--- The reason I favor minority parliaments even if my own party were to be the majority. Civil discussion. That is of course, provided our politicians can discuss things civilly and reasonably.

As for my particular position, I'm a Grit, through and through... and I live in Alberta. Its hard to find people who AREN'T conservative around here

--Edit

On the topic of age. Bleh. I missed eligible voting age by three months and I'm pretty raged about it

[SypheDMar]

Let's vote for the Axem party!

This whole election sounds exactly like the US's.

[bobbtmann]

@MP-Ryan: I never thought you where a rabid conservative either. I haven't actually met too many who are a rabid conservative. Just people who voted conservative without being able to articulate why. I wasn't sure if you were one of them or not

@Drogoth: I take it you're not from the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, then?

[Mustang19]

@MP-Ryan: I never thought you where a rabid conservative either. I haven't actually met too many who are a rabid conservative. Just people who voted conservative without being able to articulate why. I wasn't sure if you were one of them or not, and I

Hey, I am a rabid conservative and I am able to articulate why!

In all honesty though I think the conservatives in the US and probably Canada have gotten too far into the libertarian thing to the point where they've become liberals, and I'd be happy to vote for a center party as long as they didn't impose their stupid carbon taxes.

[bobbtmann]

I don't think libertarians and liberals are all that compatible. A strong government that  protect  every citizen's rights and protect them from exploitation and oppression. Even women, immigrants, and members of the LGBT community. A weak or non-existent government couldn't do that...

[Mustang19]

You know you're a liberal when you make arguments based on rights as an end rather than a means. Like property rights.

Libertarians are closest to what the world "liberal" originally meant. Read Wikipedia or something if you don't believe me. The association of "liberal" with "social progressive" only really holds in the United States. In the rest of the world it retains it's original meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[bobbtmann]

Please elaborate on "rights as an end instead of a means". I'm unfamiliar with that phrase.

[Mustang19]

When you say "people shouldn't steal because that would destroy the incentive to work" you're speaking of the property right as a means to another end. When you say "don't steal his property because property is a right" you're treating property rights as an end in themselves. A similar example could be made about something like yelling theater in a crowded fire.

[bobbtmann]

Not at all. Rights aren't something that we make just because we want to make them. Living in a community requires all of us to follow certain rules, so that society can run smoothly. These rules are both what we can do and what we can't do. If I have a right to freedom of speech, then my responsibility is to not interfere with another's freedom of speech. I don't think there are really natural rights, per say. I think that whatever a group of people value can be considered a right, provided everyone reciprocates.

 For instance there are Health Care and The Right To Bear Arms. Both of these could be considered rights in a society, if the society feels that these issues are important. It's all a matter of fairness, and we primates put a lot of importance on fairness. It is in fact an important adaptation to community living.

We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.



p.s. You'll notice that I understand that you meant "shouting fire in a theatre". You probably knew that I meant liberal in the more common meaning

[Mustang19]

We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.

I don't know if you speak for all liberals. In any case there are liberals, of both the classical and progressive type, who are quite adamant about upholding particular rights in all situations.

Take for instance the distinction between the animal rights movement and the animal welfare movement. The latter just wants to keep animals from harm, the former believes it's morally wrong to kill animals. Disregarding the whole you-kill-more-rats-harvesting-a-wheat-field-than-cows-from-making-a-hamburger shtick this shows how rights can go from means to ends or nearly so.

edit: But whatever, I'm just trying not to lose whatever debate we're in. I'm not trying to turn you into a warped troll.

[Drogoth]

@Drogoth: I take it you're not from the Edmonton-Strathcona riding, then?

Nope. Riding just west of Calgary, where the conservative candidate (Blake Richards) won with a handy 75% of the vote.

Allthough funny that you should  bring up Edmonton-Strathcona as I think one of the reasons Linda Duncan was able to win there is the conservatives ran a campaign like half dead monkeys here. None of them showed up to their forums, there were a total of THREE campaign events held by any and all parties by any kind of high profile person - province wide. And all of them were around Edmonton. I think if the Liberals or the NDP attack the Conservatives pure casualness when it comes to Alberta we might not have a chance at winning - but we can begin to chip away at support, and if anything force to cons to go far right to show the more right wing in Alberta that they should still support them, and that will hurt Harper in the east. Obviously, we can't attack the conservatives policies in Alberta for now, because no matter how right we might be, 99 times of 100 it won't gain traction. People here still shout NEP for gods sake! But if the opposition parties emphasize how much the Cons take Alberta for granted (phrase like the cons only really care about Ontario) and that generates some serious backlash and the cons will have to address it - to the detriment of their holding in the east. We've got 4 years...

Let's chip away at the boulder

[Drogoth]

We don't respect respect rights because they're rights, we respect rights because they allow large communities of people to live together without as much friction.

p.s. You'll notice that I understand that you meant "shouting fire in a theatre". You probably knew that I meant liberal in the more common meaning

+1

Rights and a functioning society are co-dependent. One cannot exist without another, therefore rights are simultaneously inalienable and a means to an end.

As for classical liberals its an interesting debate but we were I think, referring to the Liberal Party of Canada, which sits center or center left. 

When you get in classical liberal you have to get into both the economic and social spheres of debate and the odd thing is, these days the economic classical liberals (our cons) tend to be socially classically conservative and vice versa. I tend to be a stronger proponent of modern liberalism tempered with realism - center to center-left economic policy, and progressive social change. Classical liberalism generated quite a few problems anyways, when the value of god given rights was taken to far, freedom for example. Yes everyone is free, and this should be protected to our maximum capability, but you are not free to for example, steal from your neighbor. If we place such a high value on ALL rights, then what gives when contradictory facets of each right collide?