|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Videodrome
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm going to beg to differ.
I think @PinkLucy is quite right in saying Huh. "....the point of politics was to do something to help your city/province/country succeed and prosper."
Winning an election MAY be necessary to achieve that; though that isn't necessarily the case.
As an example, one might argue that the NDP provided impetus for the CPP expansion, the new Pharmacare initiative and the recent minimum wage hike; even though they never obtained government, nor directly implemented said measures.
Equally might note the influence of the Greens in BC w/only 4 seats.
Suffice to say, in each case the party did win some ridings; and surely would have preferred to win many more.
But it is, in fact, possible to seek public office w/an aspiration of positive change in your society, while not attempting to win at any cost.
kEiThZ
Superstar
And yet your ability to impact the policy discourse is directly proportional to your ability to win. You cite the Greens in BC. How much impact have the Greens had nationally? How do you account for two very different levels of influence?
Northern Light
Superstar
I can suggest to you w/some degree of certainty that internal polling for several political parties would say something different about the most recent spending choices.
Pharmacare is the best polling program in ages. It polls well w/supporters of EVERY party. Even those who live in the inner burbs.
***
That said, I completely that there is a large segment of the population which didn't feel that until recently in regards to Liberal spending; and I think they continue to make some mistakes in this regard.
The constituency for some of the corporate welfare is very small; as is spending on electric car charging stations, among other things.
The Liberals are also hurt by delays in delivering past promises (see Scarborough Subway); which irrespective of its merits appears completely empty as a promise when there's no shovel in the ground more than 4 years later.
Politicians of all stripes get caught in this sort of thing mind you; and any party long-in-the-tooth is prone to the cumulative damage that occurs over time.
I'm not sure how much this budget, especially w/a large deficit can help them......if they offer up new spending in the range of 12B (economic growth + 8B deficit) they certainly have room to do some popular things. But in waiting to the 11th hour to do them, they risk even greater cynicism, given a limited opportunity to deliver pre-writ.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Greens support has been strongest in BC and in the current circumstance, their 4 seats are key to supporting an NDP minority government.
Their national numbers in popular vote are below 1/2 what you see in BC; and in electoral support 1 or 2 seats out of 338 is much less than 4/87.
That said, I would note Elizabeth May does have outsized influence for single MP.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Exactly my point. "Outsized influence for an MP." Which is slightly above zero. Is there a single piece of legislation that May has pushed forward herself through Parliament?
It's all great to talk about high principles about public service and improving our communities. But nobody cares about what you have to say unless you can deliver seats. That's just how politics works.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes.
Bill C-442 – Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act
She's also got two amendments passed to Bill C-46, the Pipelines Safety Act.
From Wikipedia:
"The first amendment enabled "aboriginal governing bodies to be reimbursed for actions they take in relation to a spill."[30] Prior to the amendment, the bill outlined that those at fault in a spill would only be liable for "costs and expenses reasonably incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any other person."[30]
The second amendment was related to the concept of polluter pays. The original line in the bill said that the National Energy Board "may" recover funds to compensate those affected by a spill, the Green Party amendment changed the "may" to "shall."[30]"
Also from Wikipedia:
In 2012, May was voted by her colleagues in the House of Commons as Parliamentarian of the Year, in 2013 she was voted Hardest Working MP, and in 2014 she was voted Best Orator.[31][32][33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May#cite_note-34
I would imagine that getting your colleagues support in that way means you are well liked, and probably able to get an audience for your views in many cases.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Jeez, where’s my tambourine?
Seriously, find me one government that ever had that as their top priority or motivation. Certainly not McGuinty/Wynne, where pandering to your pals seems more the norm.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/liberal-insider-gets-wind-power-contract-1.510278
kEiThZ
Superstar
Great. A Lyme Disease Prevention Act. That's a Wikipedia entry that kids will be citing for generations. Let's see a single MP stickhandle something even slightly more controversial through Parliament.
I stand by my point. If you want to make a difference, you have to win. And politics is first and foremost about attaining and retaining power. We may wish otherwise, but our public does not reward altruism in politics.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Gas plants are an even better example. Somebody want to tell me what high minded principle was involved in cancelling the gas plants? It was pure political calculus.
I don't blame any single party for this. Every party does this. They push policies that will turn their base out or win them certain ridings, or tie up another party in ideological knots. And they do it to win. Very rarely do we see legislation passed that is purely in the public interest with very little consideration of the political impact.
I just find it the childish innocence surprising here. People seem to have an issue distinguishing between their personal desire for the political stage and the realities involved for how the sausage is made.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I can understand people not liking Doug Ford.
I can't understand why someone would vote Liberal when we have two left wing parties with nearly identical policies, but one has a 15 year track record of incompetence and corruption.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think people are realizing that Trudeau's promises "small" deficits have not actually accomplished anything - just added future debt for our children to pay off. That is why the most recent Trudeau budget was mocked. Liberals even announced that infrastructure construction would not be done to the timelines originally thought, but the deficits still pile up.
And now the Provincial Liberals have adopted the exact same strategy by abandoning hopes of achieving balance and promising more debt.
typezed
Active Member
In my life I see people who live in big houses, who have multiple vehicles in the driveway, who are regularly flying off on vacation, who cheer the unsustainable rise in real estate and equity prices, really upset about that Kathleen Wynne. They don't appear to be living hard lives. If anything they'd be boastful about the great lives they do lead. I'd grant you that the Liberals have been in power too long and haven't been the best managers. But that doesn't seem to be the real issue. Seems to have more to do with giving the least in society a raise, or updating the sex ed curriculum after decades, or windmills, or something like that.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Because the perception, rightfully or not that a vote for the NDP weakens the votes against the PCs in our FPTP system. You can be guaranteed that the Liberals will play to that perception, campaigning that if you want to stop DoFo you must vote Liberal, even if that means holding your nose.