Have the federal Tories been corrupted by power?

[Kerplunk]

They aren't bad people....they are just idiots.

Too much power seems to make everyone go loopy, and being at the forefront in politics really puts the spotlight on them. Doesn't help that the standard for political communication seems to be "this is why their policy will destroy the country" rather than "here is why another policy is better".

Come to think of it, content in many political articles and posts kind of reminds me of WoW forums when a new patch came out that affected a specific class...wonder if people are going to rage quit from Canada.

[FiftyBelow]

I personally feel that the image of the selfish and money hungry politician is overrated. Sure, there are tons of politicians out there who are in it for the wrong reasons. However, there are also many who went in with the desire to honestly serve their communities.

It's been said that politics is like a game. I hate that simile... but it's true. Politics is unfortunately a game with implications on people's lives. Often people with good intentions and great ideas enter government only to face a system that isn't as conducive to the exchange of ideas and cooperation that our textbooks romantically portray. They find out that in order to influence policy outcomes, they have to adapt to the game. In other words, politicians need to act pragmatically in order to have an impact. This is definitely true if you are a backbencher inside one of the major parties. Idealists politicians unwilling to play the game may remain completely faithful to romanticized ideals but have little to show for in the way of policy outcomes.

I always think of Elizabeth May. I have a buddy who worked for her as a policy analyst this year. He's generally conservative leaning but as a masters student studying public policy, doing policy work for any MP is beneficial. Anyways, from his own accounts, Elizabeth May is probably one of the most hardworking and honest politicians that this country has. She puts in far more hours than is necessary and does her best to cooperate with both sides of the aisle. I think I even remember reading in an article that she voted in every single vote in the recent 400+ page omnibus bill (my friend's remarks immediately came to mind).

She could easily join a party and have a more substantial impact on policy, but in doing so, she would have to sacrifice much of her autonomy. My friend remarked how she isn't a member of any major committees (if not any? don't remember?). However, she still attends many as an observer. Basically she's bound by the rules of the game but has not put herself in the most advantageous position to achieve outcomes.

In choosing to adapt, good intentioned politicians can either go the route of Ellizabeth or sacrifice in name of pragmatism and join one the tightly operated parties. Choosing the latter is often viewed negatively in the eyes of the electorate. The idealist politician that people thought they were voting for may suddenly appear to be "selling out." In reality, a lot of the times, it's about the desire to make an impact.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Jacks

No, when a credible alternative comes around you vote the old guard out. Unfortunately the NDP are not an option. The Libs might be an option if they got back to sound economic policies, not carbon taxes and long gun registries. Problem is that the Libs haven't changed much since they were turfed.

This is what I get as well. The PC weren't exactly likable in the last election, but were put in because it was viewed as a case of the least of the evils (now you could argue if it was because the Liberals were demonized or shot their own foot. Either way, they were viewed as a bad option by a lot of the population, worsened by the first past the post system).

Originally Posted by Slava

No worse than what we've seen Ignatieff and Dion go through. Its just par for the course unfortunately. Even in the US we saw Bush get flamed by his opponents for years and now that he is out and a few years have passed peoples views on him have softened. I'm not suggesting he would be elected gleefully as president, but its the old adage that time heals all wounds.

I find people tend to polarize their opinions of any event until emotions wear off and more critical thinking takes over. It seems to happen with almost everything: Movies, sports, politics...people go into extremes soon after and only start to soften after being removed for a while. My belief is that's because people aren't geared to think through logic by default, but to act with emotion, so their opinions spin to fit their emotion and create what is almost a caricature of reality to make it happen. I think when all is said and done, the view on Harper will soften too as oppose to the "death of democracy" view that seems to be hanging around at the moment.

[ranchlandsselling]

I haven't read the whole thread. The problem though, I believe, is politicians are generally arrogant and mostly for themselves. So with one in power at least you get some decisions. Trying to reach a happy consensus will never work as working together will never work as they'll just fight to be heard and to make the other look silly, arguing against something they believe just for the sake of arguing or not having the other group look right.

Most of these people are career politicions. They're doing it for a job. Not for some greater good. As such they have purely selfish motivations.

It won't work.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Doesn't help that the standard for political communication seems to be "this is why their policy will destroy the country" rather than "here is why another policy is better".

Kinda like question period, people complain that the (any) government never gives a proper answer to the question. Then you hear the question and know why ...

The question that should be asked:
"Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the XYZ Group has determined that income for seniors is not keeping up with inflation ... will the minister tell Canadians what plans the govenment has to address this problem?"

The question that gets asked:
"Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the XYZ Group has determined that income for seniors is not keeping up with inflation ... will the minister tell Canadians why this government hates seniors and wishes to keep them in poverty? Our party has respect for the people who built this country and refuses to see them stomped on by this government in the name of their big business friends!!! [thunderous applause]"

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Kinda like question period, people complain that the (any) government never gives a proper answer to the question. Then you hear the question and know why ...

The question that should be asked:
"Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the XYZ Group has determined that income for seniors is not keeping up with inflation ... will the minister tell Canadians what plans the govenment has to address this problem?"

The question that gets asked:
"Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the XYZ Group has determined that income for seniors is not keeping up with inflation ... will the minister tell Canadians why this government hates seniors and wishes to keep them in poverty? Our party has respect for the people who built this country and refuses to see them stomped on by this government in the name of their big business friends!!! [thunderous applause]"

Well I hate to tell you, but QP is basically a staged fight. The questions and answers are somewhat irrelevant. The opposition is largely asking stuff that they have to ask on behalf of constituents and the government largely answers with canned replies that are basically known in advance. After they're done they go for a beer together.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

In a word, yes. But I just wanted to make sure that my opinion as known before posting this article. It really is an interesting read and not nearly as partisan as you might expect. My favorite passage is this:



Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Po...#ixzz1yXFMbhSF

Truthfully I just tried to make a headline that Rerun would be proud of, but it is an interesting piece regardless of what you think of the CPC policies.

That was an excellent article with some very valid and illuminating points that I'm in complete agreement with. Thank you Slava for bringing to our attention. I really enjoyed reading it.

P.S. I believe that most, if not all in fact, political parties have good intentions and want to do what they believe is the right thing.... but then politics gets in the way and they end up doing stupid things for the wrong reasons. The secret I guess, to be a successful political party, is to minimize the number of stupid things. Every party (including their individual members) is going to make mistakes, but usually the party that wins is the one that makes the fewest mistakes ... or the least costly mistakes... kind of like playing a hockey game.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I always laugh when I hear Liberals complain that "The Tories came in on the white horse of accountability and promised that things will be better." "now they are just as bad as us so you should kick them out and vote us back in". Most politicians are scumbags, you need to pick the one who's policy you most agree with and hope for the best.

If Canadians had done that, Stephen Harper would've never been PM.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I hate to tell you, but QP is basically a staged fight. The questions and answers are somewhat irrelevant. The opposition is largely asking stuff that they have to ask on behalf of constituents and the government largely answers with canned replies that are basically known in advance. After they're done they go for a beer together.

In my opinion, QP in its current format is the dumbest part of our parliamentary system.

Every question asked, by all parties, is usually so biased and asked in a way as to portray the offending party in the worst possible light (whether valid or not... or even close to the truth), and the perfect answer to be given to all questions (unless they are questions posed by their own party member) is to totally avoid answering the question and talk about any and everything but the questions... just stupid.

And the way they carry on shouting at each other.... children usually behave better.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

If Canadians had done that, Stephen Harper would've never been PM.

Eh? So why DID we eventually get a CPC government? It wasn't because of Harper's amazing personality, and I'm fairly sure they didn't activate the mind control agent they put into the fluoride...

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Eh? So why DID we eventually get a CPC government?

It started when the Libs began giving each other envelopes of cash. Even after that almost 37% of the population voted for them. Then the scandal kept growing and Paul Martin started running around throwing fistfuls of money at everything that moved and promised to ban everything that didn't move. At that point about 6% of the Lib voters finally had enough and gave the other guy a chance.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Jacks
I always laugh when I hear Liberals complain that "The Tories came in on the white horse of accountability and promised that things will be better." "now they are just as bad as us so you should kick them out and vote us back in". Most politicians are scumbags, you need to pick the one who's policy you most agree with and hope for the best.

Originally Posted by SebC

If Canadians had done that, Stephen Harper would've never been PM.

In fact, I think thats exactly what Canadians did. I doubt that everyone that voted CPC agreed 100% with their election platform, but I suggest that the majority of Canadians (and by majority, I mean enough Canadians to elect the CPC as a majority government) liked the CPC platform more than those of the other parties.

IMO, in most cases this was not an anti-Liberal vote/election (as far as the CPC vote is concerned) where people were willing to vote for the CPC just to get rid of the Liberals. I would suggest that the majority of people who voted CPC were pro CPC as opposed to anti-Liberal. The same however, may not be said, IMO, for the NDP vote, or at least the NDP vote in Quebec.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Jacks

It started when the Libs began giving each other envelopes of cash. Even after that almost 37% of the population voted for them. Then the scandal kept growing and Paul Martin started running around throwing fistfuls of money at everything that moved and promised to ban everything that didn't move. At that point about 6% of the Lib voters finally had enough and gave the other guy a chance.

That may be the reason why we ended up with a CPC minority government in 2006 but not the reason in 2011. I think by 2011 people no longer believed the Harper boogey man stories and just decided to give the Conservative party an honest chance/opportunity at governing Canada. And they did this by deciding that Harper deserved his majority government that he'd been trying for, for so long.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Eh? So why DID we eventually get a CPC government?

Backlash against the Liberals and first-past-the-post distorting the will of the electorate.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

Backlash against the Liberals and first-past-the-post distorting the will of the electorate.

Other parties, primarily the Liberal and BQ, have in the past benefited from this "distortion of the will of the electorate" because of the first past the post system.

I guess what goes around comes around.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Other parties, primarily the Liberal and BQ, have in the past benefited from this "distortion of the will of the electorate" because of the first past the post system.

I guess what goes around comes around.

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that giving a majority government to a plurality of voters that does not include the median voter is a significantly larger distortion than giving a majority government to a plurality of voters that does include the median voter.

I advocate for electoral reform at both the federal and provincial levels, despite the fact that at the provincial level this would benefit the Wildrose, who I do not like. Will you do the same?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that giving a majority government to a plurality of voters that does not include the median voter is a significantly larger distortion than giving a majority government to a plurality of voters that does include the median voter.

I advocate for electoral reform at both the federal and provincial levels, despite the fact that at the provincial level this would benefit the Wildrose, who I do not like. Will you do the same?

No... I am in favor of the current first past the post system. IMO all other systems tend to lend themselves to unwieldy coalition goverments where all legislation is a compromise just to get it passed and everybody usually ends up unhappy with the end result... also I think it impeads the passing of legisation in an effective and expeditious manner.... in other words, it takes forever to get done.

I feel that Europe doesn't have the will or the ability to get itself out of the current mess that its in primarily because so many governments there are some form of coalition government. Sometimes its tough enough to get consensus in your own party, let alone have to do it in 2 or 3 others too. (ie... see Greece)

[Devils'Advocate]

Ah yes. The "ineffectual government" argument. I think an ineffectual government is better than one that is passing legislation even though it isn't supported by half the country. And I say that from both sides... both when the Liberals where in power and now.

With first past the post in a multi-party system, it is not just possible, but PROBABLE that you will have legislation passing that the majority of the nation would reject if asked directly.

[Flash Walken]

And that's exactly why Rerun doesn't want to change things.

He's very comfortable with the Status quo, the default position of most 'conservatives'.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by devils'advocate

ah yes. The "ineffectual government" argument. I think an ineffectual government is better than one that is passing legislation even though it isn't supported by half the country. And i say that from both sides... Both when the liberals where in power and now.

With first past the post in a multi-party system, it is not just possible, but probable that you will have some legislation passing that the majority of the nation would reject if asked directly.

fyp