• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
PPCLI Guy said:
I think perhaps it is time for me to leave this so-called discussion to the foam-at-the mouthers of both political stripes.

I guess I forgot to check "Must agree with PPCLI Guy" to gain access here. If you're going to continue to look down on people having a (relatively) calm discussion, you probably should just not post in this area, as it clearly offends your delicate sensibilities.
 
Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 13:09:32
Yes, I received mandate letters from the Bde Comd on appointment a couple of times
.
Quote from PPCLI Guy: Do you really think the Bde Comd wrote the mandate letter you received (BTW, I have never heard of a Brigade level mandate letter before...), or do you think he passed on his intent to a Staff Officer who prepared it for his or her review?


In case you did not read my original post, repeat
Understand that a leader may formulate an intent and someone drafts the executables.

IMHO.


Never heard of a Bde level mandate letter? What is it now called when the Div Comd passes his intent to the Bde Comd and the Bde Comd to the CO's?

I made what I thought was a polite a comment on the current PM and you feel that you must damn the comment and the writer and others who do not follow your beliefs.

P.S. Happy New Year.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 13:09:32.


I made what I thought was a polite a comment on the current PM and you feel that you must damn the comment and the writer and others who do not follow your beliefs.

P.S. Happy New Year.

I am not sure how I damned you, other than disagreeing with your point.  If offence was taken, I apologise - none was intended, or even offered.

As to Brigade mandate letters, I can see where you are going with this one.  I have seen a large number of directives from commanders at various levels.  They have been called "Command Philosophy", Left and Right of Arc", Commander's Visualization" etc - I suppose that they are, in some ways, "mandates", although I prefer to think of then as Commander's Intent.
 
Even an ardent Liberal, Warren Kinsella, is against the Trudeau plan for electoral reform. If his Liberal base thinks its out to lunch, how can anyone support this?

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/12/ten-reasons-why-its-wrong-to-change-our-electoral-system-in-the-way-the-change-is-being-proposed/

Ten reasons why it’s wrong to change our electoral system in the way the change is being proposed
December 30th, 2015, 11:03 am

I was on a CTV panel when the Speech from the Throne was read out.  This part wasn’t a surprise, but I was surprised the Liberals were doubling down on it:

“The Government will . . . take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.”

There are ten reasons I can think of, off the top of my head no less, why they are wrong to ram this through, as they seem intent on doing. Here they are.

1. The government has no specific mandate for any specific change. They need to go and get one. Four sentences on page eight of a glossy campaign document that was likely read by only a few hundred Canadians isn’t sufficient.

2. A change – whether to ranked ballots, or proportional representation, mandatory voting, online voting, or whatever – like this is very big. Any government who wishes to make a change to the way our democracy actually functions needs to be acting (and seen to be acting) in a way that is quintessentially democratic. Refusing to listen to critics isn’t being democratic.

3. The likely changes seem to be weighted in favour of the incumbent Liberal government. That’s wrong. It renders the whole thing illegitimate from the start, and possibly illegal.

4. It’s being rushed. A wholesale and undefined revision of voting laws by 2017? Is any group of people clamouring for that much change, that fast? Is it possible to revise approximately 150 years of voting rules in about 15 months? Maybe – but if you have a solution to a problem, you need to persuade the people (who are the bosses, after all) that they have a problem that is worth solving.

5. Several provinces, including Ontario during an election in which I was involved, have sought a mandate to change election rules. Every one of them went down to defeat. The federal government needs to pay heed to that – but they’re not.

6. It’ll be challenged in court, and possibly hung up for years. In particular, it’ll be noted under section three of the Charter – the document, note well, that was birthed by the current Prime Minister’s father – no government is permitted to override “the right to vote.” What does that mean? Well, our highest court in Figueroa [1 SCR 912, 2003 SCC 37] decreed: “In a democracy, sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives.” The Supremes are likely to be sympathetic to an argument that a ill-defined, rammed-through gutting of election laws doesn’t give the people “a genuine opportunity to take part.”

7. It is politically unwise. When Stephen Harper tried to rush through changes to election financing laws, ones that he too had made passing reference to in a just-held election campaign, Liberals were rightly incensed – and they very nearly defeated Harper for trying to rig the rules in his own favour. The changes being suggested by Trudeau’s government are far more fundamental – they go to the very heart of our democracy itself. That’s more important than financing of political parties.

8. Proportional representation, in countries which practice it, leads to instability. Majorities become rare, and continual election cycles become the norm. Simultaneously, fringe groups – neo-Nazis and the like – start to win seats, and acquire legitimacy as a result.

9. Ranked ballots – which the Liberals likely favour, because it favours them – is also problematic. Does a ranked system truly reflect a voter’s voting preferences? (Probably not.) Doesn’t it result in more voting errors? (It does.) Does lower turnout happen? (Usually.) Doesn’t it produce lots of run-offs, which paradoxically leads back to the very system that the government is seeking to change in the first place? (Um, yes. Yes it does.)

10. It’s our democracy, not a particular political party’s. It isn’t a perfect electoral system, but it has been at the centre of collective efforts to produce a near-perfect nation. Mess with it at your own risk, Mr. Trudeau.
- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/12/ten-reasons-why-its-wrong-to-change-our-electoral-system-in-the-way-the-change-is-being-proposed/#sthash.jHXAolvH.dpuf
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Mandate letters from e.g. the PM to ministers, or from CEOs to regional VPs or from Boards of Directors to COOs/managers, are pretty much standard practice and, in my (limited) experience pretty generic ~ mostly "motherhood" with a few good management platitudes thrown in for effect.

In business what counts are the conversations with e.g. the VP Sales regarding the head office's expectation for your region or, perhaps, from one particular member of the executive committee to the new general manager expressing the Board's wishes on one or two specific issues. In th case of ministers the politics will be found in very few, very unofficial notes from the PMO to ministers' (political) chiefs of staff.

These are the first ministerial mandate letters I have ever seen, but they "ring true," to me ... which is worth  :2c:

Transparency is never a bad thing ... but you remember what the road to hell is paved with, don't you?  :nod:

One would think that previous Mandate Letters didn't vary much from the current series of publicly-released letters...  :nod:

There is nothing nefarious with the letters -- sometimes they are just letters formalizing what a Minister's responsibilities to Government are...really.

What will be interesting to see is how the current Government's theme of "openness and transparency" will carry through to discussions/discourse on electoral reform.  :nod:

Regards
G2G
 
Seamus O'Regan is a drunk.  No big deal but he was especially uncharitable with Rob Ford.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-mp-seamus-oregan-checks-wellness-program-seeking-212609074.html
 
"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

(from Federalist No. 10)
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Seamus O'Regan is a drunk.  No big deal but he was especially uncharitable with Rob Ford.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-mp-seamus-oregan-checks-wellness-program-seeking-212609074.html

Guess he was seeing himself and projecting self-loathing.
 
So they're willing to spend however much in legal fees against the US government itself?

Yahoo News

TransCanada sues U.S. over Keystone XL rejection, seeks damages
[Reuters]
By Nia Williams and Roberta Rampton

CALGARY/WASHINGTON, Alberta (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp sued the U.S government on Wednesday to reverse President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, calling his decision unconstitutional.

TransCanada also sought $15 billion in a separate action under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), saying the pipeline permit denial was "arbitrary and unjustified." The company's lawsuit in federal court in Houston does not seek legal damages but wants the permit denial invalidated and seeks a ruling that no future president can block construction.

Obama rejected the cross-border crude oil pipeline last November, seven years after it was first proposed, saying it would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to the U.S. economy.

(...SNIPPED)
 
S.M.A. said:
So they're willing to spend however much in legal fees against the US government itself?

Yahoo News

Millions in legal fees could translate into billions in compensation so...
 
Aye, I admit it, I accidentally read the Toronto Red Star. Gotta stop it, not good at all for my blood pressure. 

Anyhow, I think Canadian journalism has sunk to a new low...or has it?

It seems Mt Salutin would like Canada to revert to Year 0; no kultur, no history, no politics that aren't of the extreme left. Apparently, the last PM was way to 'militaristic' (pssst, looking from across the Atlantic, I think Tony Bliar was more right wing than SH) and Canada also has a post-imperial hangover with the monarchy.

So, is this article drivel written by a smarmy liberal gobshite, or an erudite expression of contemporary Canadian thought?  I await an answer with trepidation....



Canada, the country that nationalism side-swiped: Salutin
As the last federal election showed, the real strength of Canadian nationalism might be its relative weakness.

I write as a Canadian nationalist. Along with others, I’ve done what I could to build a national sense here: culturally, politically, economically. We excavated and created heroes and celebrated resistance to imperial forces, British or American. I won’t say we failed but success was limited. That truncated level of success may be an asset now. The weakness of our nationalism could even be its strength. I say this in light of the last election, and the global refugee crisis.

In terms of typical nationalist reactions to the Mideast refugee crisis, it’s as though we’re running in the opposite direction from the rest of the west. Not xenophobic and restrictive, like the UK, U.S., Hungary et al. Yet our contrary, tolerant, welcoming reaction is seen here as nationalist.
The Anglo-Irish scholar, Benedict Anderson, who died last month aged 78, wrote a book on nationalism with a title that can rearrange your sense of reality: Imagined Communities. Unlike religious identities, which are ancient, he said, national identities are recent and modern. But they imagine they’re ancient and discover roots of all sorts to prove it. Then people live and willingly die based on their passionate identification with those imaginary communities.

Anderson felt this could be for good or ill. He knew it had ugly potential on the racism spectrum. But he wrote at a time (1983) when nationalism was also used to mobilize people against domination — as, say, nationalism in Vietnam built resistance to colonialism. Since this nationalism thing couldn’t be “patented,” it was “available for pirating” in numerous versions.

That included Canada which pirated a pretty modest form. Margaret Atwood, for instance, proved Canada existed by proving it had its own literature which was proved by a common (and highly minimalist) theme: Survival. Pierre Berton tried to show we not only had a history to be proud of, but it was also “colourful” versus dull — just like other nations.

These efforts had effects and still do (Oh look, Justin Bieber won a People’s Choice award). They won some victories outside the cultural realm but tended to fall short economically and politically, in battles like Canada-U.S. free trade.

Here’s where it starts to get paradoxical. Stephen Harper, during his reign, tried to become the voice of Canadian nationalism in the traditional, exclusivist sense. He promoted militarism, including symbols like the Highway of Heroes, and shopworn imperial imagery like the Royal Family. He promoted undercurrents of xenophobia, nativism and racism in his policies toward immigrants and especially refugees, who were despicably treated. These became overcurrents during the election, with his attacks on Muslim headgear, the “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line and revocable citizenship.

What’s fascinating is that Justin Trudeau didn’t oppose him by declaring he was anti-nationalist, as you’d have to in, say, Serbia or Hungary. He fought back as a Canadian nationalist, defining it in terms of tolerance or even, the glory of diversity — a sharp rebuttal to most contemporary nationalism. It also had weird echoes. Justin’s dad, Pierre, rejected Quebec nationalism as parochial but embraced Canadian nationalism as a way to fight it. When he ran against Tory leader Joe Clark in 1979, Trudeau père scorned Clark’s notion that Canada was just a “community of communities,” for being wishy-washy and contentless.

Yet that’s essentially what his son endorsed. Now picture Harper: beaten not only by the son of his most reviled Canadian predecessor; but by the son’s embrace of the vision of Harper’s most loathed Conservative antecedent, Joe Clark. It’s beyond Shakespearean. Who says we don’t have a colourful history?
If we’d been more successful in creating a robust, conventional Canadian nationalism, who knows — the country mightn’t have as handily beaten back the nasty nativism cultivated by Harper. It could have provided unintended grist for his mill. So the real strength of Canadian nationalism might turn out to be its relative weakness. We’re the land that nationalism side-swiped. Lucky us.

In his book, Benedict Anderson quoted Walter Benjamin’s passage on the angel of history — based on a Paul Klee print. The angel stands looking backward sadly as history’s failures and disasters pile up at his feet. So, as history’s wind blows him into the future, he can’t see, behind him, the progress that may be about to arrive. You could call it, back to the future, in a literal sense.
 
Here is a link to that article. Canuck_Jock: please see this which is the advice of a lawyer to help us to help the site owner stay on the right side of the Copyright Act.
 
Red Star said:
Here’s where it starts to get paradoxical. Stephen Harper, during his reign, tried to become the voice of Canadian nationalism in the traditional, exclusivist sense. He promoted militarism, including symbols like the Highway of Heroes, and shopworn imperial imagery like the Royal Family. He promoted undercurrents of xenophobia, nativism and racism in his policies toward immigrants and especially refugees, who were despicably treated. These became overcurrents during the election, with his attacks on Muslim headgear, the “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line and revocable citizenship.

That's the Lefty narrative - not to be confused with the truth.  Canadian participation in The Afghan War was start by the Liberals and ended by the Conservatives.  The Highway of Heroes was named by the Liberal government of Ontario following popular demand.  I am not sure how imagery of the Queen, our head of state is any more Conservative than Liberal, at least by anything they actually say.  Racism toward immigrants?  The Conservatives let in a lot more non-European immigrants than the Liberals ever did albeit for economic reasons rather than some imagined touchy-feely charitable reason.  Also the Muslim headgear restriction was almost universally supported by Canadians.
 
Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-press-liberal-government-to-justify-saudi-arms-deal/article28125150/recommendi/

Mr. Clement acknowledges that the Conservatives are asking for information they refused to release while in office under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But he says the new leadership of the Conservative Party feels differently.

“This is a [Liberal] government that has promised more transparency. I think that is consistent with the times in which we live,” Mr. Clement said.

“So don’t take the signal from the last government. If you want to be true to your principles and values, which the Conservative Party under new leadership shares, let’s move forward.”
 
Kilo_302 said:
Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?

Agreed.  I can't imagine what polling data they might have found that suggested this is a good idea.  bizarre.

Sure, they are in Opposition, but why not just let the LPC twist in the wind on it?  "Too soon" would be my take on this strategy.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top