Richard Westgate

Richard Westgate

82p

80 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Liberals unveil electo... · 7 replies · +11 points

30 billion, plus unspecified billions for jet planes; 9 billion plus unspecified billions for new jails. The Liberal platform will be less expensive than the Conservative status quo. What do you mean, "We can't afford them?" We cannot afford Harper. And not only for economic reasons. PM_SHrug, let's shrug him off!

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Liberals unveil electo... · 1 reply · +12 points

What unmitigated rubbish! You must be an American at heart if you think this is "Socialism." I cannot see the banks making multi-billions of dollars in profit throughout the recession going exactly bankrupt because of maintaining tax at levels of just a few months ago. Get real!

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - If I were running the ... · 0 replies · +2 points

I agree with whoever said that funding of political parties should be formulated outside of partisan political parties. In my opinion, especially having read the Rex Murphy link above, ALL political party funding should be direct-per-vote subsidy. If I can direct the funding to the party I vote for, that seems to me to be democratic. That way my vote counts for something, even if my candidate does not win the seat. That's an encouragement to me to vote rather than get turned off the whole process and not vote at all. At the same time, I would abolish ALL political donations of any kind by anyone. I would also set up or enforce "truth in advertising" rules, so that pure lying propaganda would be illegal. I would also have rules about how government advertising would work - so that partisan political advertising could not be disguised as government "information." The result of all this, might, MIGHT, cause the parties to be more likely to focus on policies, and because they would have so much less money to throw around, make them more cautious on the attack ads and personality ads, as they couldn't afford them.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Canada: still on Polit... · 0 replies · +2 points

"Wonks of Little Consequence," sounds positively Alexander Pope. I immediately thought, "Damn with faint praise, Assent with civil leer." Beautiful political insults. Well done!

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Don't call it a coalition · 1 reply · +5 points

Ignatieff is not a "slimy bastard" we've only got one of those in Canadian Politics and he's called PM_SHrug. He is in contempt and contemptuous. The REASON Ignatieff can no longer talk about coalitions or other kinds of arrangements is because the media will hound him until he rules it out. And he has done that. For him to bring the subject up again is suicide. Canadian politics has been poisoned by SHrug so that all of the normal options available to all political parties within a Parliamentary democracy have been re-defined and anathematized. Canadian's appalling ignorance of how their own democracy works is responsible for this. Coyne is being completely disingenuous on this issue. He knows perfectly well that SHrug has poisoned the entire topic to the point where no sensible discussion can take place - particularly within an election campaign.

Having said that, it is true that with the minority government of the last few years and the minority government to come - there will have to be arrangements between the two or three parties who together can form a majority, in order to accomplish anything. If SHrug has another minority and Iggy has a few more seats, the Liberals and Conservatives could form such an arrangement. Except of course, it would be like getting into bed with a Viper - you'd never know when the snake was going to bite you for political advantage in the NEXT election.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Harper's hypocrisy pro... · 0 replies · +6 points

Andrew! I'm appalled by this insistence of absolutely ruling out a THE only sensible first option to an inconclusive election! Yes, the party with most seats is invited to form a government. But if it is a very small minority situation, and a workable arrangement cannot be made to gain the confidence of the House, THEN the GG can invite other parties to attempt to form a government that does have the confidence of the House. That attempt may also fail, and then we have a second immediate election. That's how the system works! It is ridiculous to insist, as SHrug does, that this is NOT an option in any circumstances. But when has he ever cared about proper Parliamentary rules or conventions? We lose our democracy through the death of a thousand cuts.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Iggy's coalition problem · 0 replies · +1 points

I thought the Red door Blue door response was perfectly clear and understandable. Ignatieff is not campaigning for a coalition government, but for a Liberal one. To provide any encouragement to coalition thinking is to invite failure. I thought it was quite sensible. Forming a coalition in a Westminster Parliamentary democracy comes when the party with the most seats, a slim minority, immediately fails to gain the confidence of the House - that's when other parties can attempt to form a coalition, to see if a government can be formed and avoid another immediate election. Now, tell me, why should anyone absolutely rule that out in advance? A coalition is a response to an inconclusive election, not a strategy for winning.

This is just one of the ways that PM SHrug has corrupted the public understanding of how our system works. The C.R.A.Party has re-written the rules of Parliament to the extent that we are gradually losing some of the fundamental checks and balances on our system. We will devolve into a country of mob-rule if we're not careful. We pay a price for our freedom. Don't let us lose it by shrugging off fundamental principles as "just a vote in parliament". Harper, the only PM in all Canadian history to be found in contempt of these fundamental principles of our Parliamentary system, is a true disgrace. This is his legacy, please Canada, let it be his last.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Price tag for fighter ... · 0 replies · +1 points

This discussion is utterly pointless. I've read some interesting comments, including yours. However, don't you think the government could bring this whole thing to an end if they simply came clean on the information we need to make a sound judgement and be comfortable with the purchase? How hard is it to tell the Canadian public exactly how the planes are costed, what their lifespan is, how the financing works out over however long, what the military requirements are and what portion of those requirements the plane can handle. Otherwise we're all blowing smoke.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Price tag for fighter ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Sicky: I'm not sure that Ignatieff does think there is another plane. Maybe, like me (see comment above) he just wants to know some basic stuff like, what will they cost exactly (truthfully with paperwork), what missions do the military see them performing, and can the plane perform them.

Not rocket science really. No, wait, rockets are simpler.

11 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Price tag for fighter ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Now this is a more interesting topic. Do we know that these planes can operate out of the arctic, land and take off from "every small island" there? Roger suggests that they can't. Isn't this the kind of detailed question and answer that we really need to judge whether this is a good deal or not? In other words, what exactly do the military want them to do, and what percentage of what they want, can these planes perform? A really good detailed analysis and break down with upfront costs, pros and cons, would probably satisfy the critics maybe even without going out to tender.

Good heavens! Do I mean openness and transparency?