Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Thats all well and good, but some of that is just governing. Specifically the part about making a policy, seeing where its contentious and then tweaking it. Frankly speaking, I would prefer that to having it rammed down our throat despite any backlash.
Some of the comments are straight from the Wildrose playbook here as well. Bribing teachers? I don't know if you recall, over the past year parents paid hugely increased school fees as a result of the shortage of funding. So while you see that as a bribe to teachers I see that as restoring funding that shouldn't have been cut in the first place. I'm not a teacher, and other than what I think is proper funding for an education system that I care about I haven't seen any personal benefit either.
|
Sorry, I should have specified which bribe I was referring to. I was concerned about the PC's topping up the teachers portion of their pension. The leadership pledge to return $130 million to the school boards doesn't bother me in the sense that some are calling it a bribe. It was a campaign promise made in the open so if members didn't like it they didn't have to vote for her. The part where she lied about how it would be funded is what bothered me.
As for the policy changes, I agree with you that they should air them and adjust as necessary but they seem to go about it backwards. They make the policy and then stand up and tell everyone that it is good and then pass it into law while ignoring all criticism. When the criticism doesn't let up they change the law but only a little. Rinse and repeat until people shut up. It is a very arrogant approach and reflects the PC attitude towards governing. Some of their MLA's were visibly upset that people would question the bills.
I sat through a 20 minute speech from a sitting MLA discussing about how all the criticism of the Land Stewardship Bill was unfounded and based on malicious rumours. This was about three weeks before the government decided to rewrite portions of the bill to address the very issues that they claimed were untrue.
I think it is fine for politicians to change their mind (especially as new information comes out or things change) but before they do they need to put a lot of thought into the decision and they should be reasonably sure that they won't change it again before any new information comes out.
One of the issues that Doug Griffiths brought up at the leadership debate was the policy process that the PC's follow. With a new idea they debate it during caucus (in private) and come to a decision. Then they present it in the legislature for all party debate. The problem is that the PC's have to be unanimous when they leave caucus and are not allowed to change their opinion even though the policy is being debated openly on the floor. So even if the opposition points out something that is wrong or brings in new information they have to continue to support the party position or fear that they will be removed from the party, kicked off committees or denied cabinet posts in the future. This process is an acknowledgement that the legislature is there only to give the opposition a chance to sound off and that things that come to the floor are already decided and are going to pass.