gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : The Harper majority

Tue, 3 May 2011 15:33:05 +0000

I'm not sure which "you people" you think I'm part of but I'm pretty sure you have no idea (unless it's "you people who disagree with Dennis_F about the word supporters in a blog post"). And I'm certainly not furious about this, I was just trying to gently suggest that you look like you are desperately searching Wherry's posts for things to get upset over.

Macleans.ca : The Harper majority

Tue, 3 May 2011 15:16:35 +0000

I think you're reaching. I didn't read anything at all into the headline of the post. The speech was nationally televised as were all of the leaders speeches, but it is undoubtedly a speech that, in part, is addressed specifically to the people in the room, his supporters.

Macleans.ca : Over to you

Mon, 2 May 2011 15:58:29 +0000

Can you come and vote for me in my riding, its raining and I have to walk a whole five minutes to get to the polling station.

Macleans.ca : A war on two fronts

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:16:09 +0000

Except my understanding is that the Liberals still intend to buy new fighter jets, just with a new competitive bidding process (so maybe it will end up cheaper). So the fact that they keep harping :) on about 30 billion dollars on fighter jets is a bit misleading. Unless they are in fact not intending to replace them in which case I withdraw my criticism.

Macleans.ca : Loose change

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:27:26 +0000

I hope it doesn't resonate with the general public since its pretty much the same appalling drivel that the Conservatives and the NDP have been pushing throughout the election. The <insert opposition party name here> will <insert out of context thing the electorate won't like> whereas the <insert ad buying party name here> LOVES FAMILIES!!

Macleans.ca : 'What he’s trying to do is elevate expediency into a constitutional principle'

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:55:23 +0000

It must be nice to know the opinions of Canadians and the people but your house must be pretty crowded.

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:17:00 +0000

It's not an easy issue, I agree, and my ideas need more thought. Still, I think we can do a lot better than the current system, and right now (IMHO) the major parties have way too much money. If nothing else, somehow we need to disconnect, or shelter the MPs from the party apparatus, and reduce the power of the PM (over the MPs). A good start would be to have the caucus appoint the cabinet. But I better get back to work ...

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:56:26 +0000

Except that we already have laws about private funding of parties, so we can make those harsher and cut off the public funding as well. And here's an interim idea that I think might be popular, start reducing the public subsidy based on the amount of private funding that the parties get.

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:40:26 +0000

So my cunning plan (well, fantasy really) is to starve them of funds so they can't efficiently run a vast centralized ~~evil empire~~ organization.

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:25:57 +0000

Except that if I don't want money to go to the party I'm voting for then it is a disincentive to vote. That may sound perverse, but that is in fact how I feel (I'll still be voting though). However, I do agree with the idea of funding small parties, at least if we can't go with my first choice, which would be to entirely decentralize the large parties in an effort to give MPs more power and encourage them not to behave like party employees.

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:05:59 +0000

We've been here before :). I'd rather they did neither (per-vote subsidy or tax deduction).

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:03:07 +0000

If anything, it will encourage an even lower common denominator approach to advertising, where the parties will be screaming lies - I'm sorry, deeply held interpretations of events - and bald images to try and penetrate the mist of those determined not to pay attention. I thought that's what they were doing now ...

Macleans.ca : Making your vote count

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:56:51 +0000

So if I hold my nose and vote for what I think is the least worst party they give some of my money to them as well. While there are reasonable arguments for subsidizing political parties (although I disagree with these arguments) forcing me to donate money is not one of them. I also found this amusing. It will serve as a $2 contribution to the political party of their choice, a donation that can then be used by that party to develop stronger policies and run a better campaign the next time. I guess he hasn't seen or heard any of the ads in this election. Political parties are a big part of the problem and giving them more money is not helping.

Macleans.ca : 'There's so much cuckoo around this'

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:13:54 +0000

Definitely not an expert, but looking at Wikipedia there was actually a precedence in a federal election in 1925. The resulting government was controversial and short-lived though.

Macleans.ca : 'There's so much cuckoo around this'

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:00:58 +0000

The convention is that the leader of the political party winning the most seats attempts to gain the confidence of the house and (if he / she succeeds) becomes prime minister. If the attempt to gain the confidence of the house fails then we either have another election, or some other party leader (presumably the leader of the opposition) attempts to gain the confidence of the house and if he / she succeeds then he/she becomes prime minister. Harper apparently refuses to accept this latter point. However, I suspect you know all this ...

Macleans.ca : 'There's so much cuckoo around this'

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:23:36 +0000

From the debate: Harper: <incorrect (or at least very incomplete) description about who forms government> Ignatieff: If you get more seats you get to try and meet the house of commons Harper: ... If you don't get the most seats you don't get to form the government, that's how our system works Ignatieff: I just said that, I ??? accept that principle. The ??? was because Harper was talking at the same time and I couldn't hear the word. But (in my opinion) this is where Ignatieff should have said. "No that isn't how our system works" but didn't. As I said, very disappointing.

Macleans.ca : 'There's so much cuckoo around this'

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:13:21 +0000

I was very disappointed that the other leaders didn't make this clear. Ignatieff particularly seemed to be almost agreeing with Harper's appalling characterization of our constitution. I'd quite like to see a transcript of the debate to see exactly what they said (and to check that my memory is correct).

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Take your pick

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:05:21 +0000

Well I'm non-partisan and watching them confirmed my dislike of them all. In a sense that's not fair, but they've so clearly been coached not to say anything that might lose them votes that they, Harper and Ignatieff in particular, said nothing at all. Honestly I find it hard to believe that anyone could reasonably make a decision who to vote for by watching the debate*. *And of course they shouldn't they should read the party platforms. Footnote1 - I didn't watch the whole thing as I had a prior engagement Footnote2 - my 15 year old son was very unimpressed with any of them

Macleans.ca : Trainwreck

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:42:40 +0000

Every time I see one of these things I can feel brain cells dying.

Macleans.ca : The February draft

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:57:52 +0000

Did he leak the second draft? If so, absolutely. Frankly I think the appropriate thing for any politician of any party would be to refuse to discuss any of the drafts. Fat chance of that happening though. I really don't see this as heroic whistle-blowing, I see it as a partisan attempt to influence the election. I will also happily concede that we should know about any inappropriate spending on the part of the Conservatives, but in my opinion the means don't justify the ends here.