[Canadian Election Results] Harper vs Iggy vs the 'stache

[Neil]

I must admit Neil is an enigma to me. I can't quite figure him out.

I'm not really all that mysterious.  I just like what I like, and I like it forever.

[Zoupa]

So BB, what are the big agenda items we're going to see in the next four years? What's policy differences should we expect to see with a Conservative majority? What policy differences *may* we see?

Are we really going to get a seriously reformed Senate? Personally, I'm okay with the Senate that we have now, but I'd still definitely respect a civic minded reform by the Conservatives since they stand to benefit from the Senate status quo now that they have a majority.

I think we're going to see the various efforts that were tried by Harper, but he could not pass.  Abolish the gun registry.  Pas various anti-crime bills.   Abolish subsidies to political parties.  And yes Senate Reform.

What Harper has long been pushing was that since the Constitution couldn't be changed, he wanted to push for amendments that could happen without a constitutional amendment.  So no changes to the distribution of seats, but senators to sit for fixed terms, not for life.  Senators to be elected, not appointed.

My take:

Abolish the gun registry: who cares. Having a gun registry wouldn't bring the homicides down.

Anti-crime bills: some small adjustments would be needed. I fear the conservatives' approach will be wasteful at best and counterproductive at worst. Prevention is where the money is needed, community centres, revitalizing neighbourhoods and reserves. Not tougher sentences or building more prisons. That plays well in Alberta though. I was dumbfounded when I heard Harper's victory speech when he mentioned "finally we'll have safer streets and communities". What the fuck. As if that's a mjor problem in Canada.

Abolish subsidies to political parties: totally against. Cronyism at its best from the party that will naturally be favored the most from it.

Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.

What pisses me off the most is the corporate tax cuts, the cuts to funding for the arts and culture, those goddamn planes and the general attitude towards the media and other political parties.

We're in for 4 years of shit and deficits.

[Zoupa]

I thought that good government just meant mostly lack of graft?  At least in the US, that's mostly what it meant historically in practice, if not in theory.

Obviously lack of corruption is a pre-requisite for good government. As far as I'm concerned, good government also means attending to the weal of the people. So, if the national finances are ruined or the various conditions of life of the citizenry is significantly degraded then the government fails at being good.

The definition of social conservative the BB provided earlier in the thread is perfectly consistent with good government as far as I'm concerned. The social conservative agenda we sometimes see from the US, where it seems creating opportunities for private profit and inserting religious morality goes before the welfare of the population, is not.

The Citizenry needs access to good health care, access to good education and a properly regulated business environment that allows for private profit but protects the interests of consumers, the environment and the nation as a whole.

If the prospect of a treatable but fairly serious illness or accident means financial ruin or life-long damage for large swathes of the population, we do not have good government. If it does not, if everyone will get taken care of and has a chance to get back on their legs again; that's good government. I don't care if that happens through a pure socialist state run system, some limited choices within a semi-private system or a full blown free market approach. What matters is that the population has access to the medical care they need. That is a sign of good government.

Same thing for education; if everyone has a real opportunity to get a good education, independent of their background, then that is a sign of good government. I don't care if it's a mandatory public school system, a fully private and charity based one or some mix between the two. What matters is that the population has access to the education they need. Steps towards that are signs of good government, steps away from it are not.

As for regulation, in whatever field, when it is not draconian, when it spurs innovation and good infrastructure, when it allows for enterprise to flourish while still protecting individuals, the national interest (under which I include the environment) and does not allow capital to run roughshod over the interests of workers and consumers, then we have good government.

Good government is pragmatic, not ideological. That's what I want from my government, whether it's from the left or the right.

You can't do everything for everyone, and there are costs that have to be covered and different ways to get things done. That's fine. As long as the government doesn't make things worse, or better yet, takes steps towards reaching those goals (even if there are disagreement over the best steps to take), then we've got good government. Obviously, the more it succeeds, the better it is.

Bolded part. Just watch them.

[Jacob]

Bolded part. Just watch them.

Well see soon enough.

[Barrister]

Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.

You clearly have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what actually has been happening in terms of senate reform.

[Barrister]

Anti-crime bills: some small adjustments would be needed. I fear the conservatives' approach will be wasteful at best and counterproductive at worst. Prevention is where the money is needed, community centres, revitalizing neighbourhoods and reserves. Not tougher sentences or building more prisons. That plays well in Alberta though. I was dumbfounded when I heard Harper's victory speech when he mentioned "finally we'll have safer streets and communities". What the fuck. As if that's a mjor problem in Canada.

If you're living in a nice high income area I guess you wouldn't see crime as a problem.  But it is a substantial problem for a large number of Canadians.

What you're suggesting is not "small adjustments", but rather an almost complete rejection of the Conservatives strategy.

I will suggest that you're not terribly informed on the crime front.  While "prevention" is of course an exceedingly good idea, in practice it is very hard to implement.  Nobody knows who is going to become a criminal.  "Revitalizing neighborhoods" sounds an awful lot like a slogan - what does that actually mean as a public policy?  Community centres - sounds great, but there's almost no connection between community centres and crime.  Building a community centre will not reduce the crime rate in any measurable way.

Prisons are badly crowded right now.  Even if you didn't make one change to sentencing rules, we need new prisons.  And guess what - modern, well funded prisons help reduce recidivism.

Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it).  If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment.  More supported and transitional housing.  More women's shelters.  More mental health facilities.  But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.

[jimmy olsen]

Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it).  If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment.  More supported and transitional housing.  More women's shelters.  More mental health facilities.  But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.

Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!?

[Barrister]

Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it).  If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment.  More supported and transitional housing.  More women's shelters.  More mental health facilities.  But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.

Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!?

When have I ever spoken out against transitional housing or drug and alcohol treatment centres?

[crazy canuck]

Zoupa is really pissed off.  Already a sign that things are going right.

[jimmy olsen]

Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it).  If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment.  More supported and transitional housing.  More women's shelters.  More mental health facilities.  But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.

Who are you and what have you done with Barrister Boy!?

When have I ever spoken out against transitional housing or drug and alcohol treatment centres?

Not so much that you've spoken against them, but your Machiavellian obsession with putting the accused in jail. 

[Zoupa]

Senate reform: yeah right. The cons have a dismal track record there.

You clearly have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what actually has been happening in terms of senate reform.

Most of what I heard is bitching and moaning about cronyism appointments when the cons where in the opposition just to have them do the exact same shit when they came into power.

[Zoupa]

If you're living in a nice high income area I guess you wouldn't see crime as a problem.  But it is a substantial problem for a large number of Canadians.

I live in Cote des Neiges, Montreal. Ask around, it's one of the most crowded and shit poor neighbourhood in the country. I'd like to see a national poll on crime perception throughout the country. I bet you it's wildly different than police stats that show crime is down across the board.

What you're suggesting is not "small adjustments", but rather an almost complete rejection of the Conservatives strategy.

I will suggest that you're not terribly informed on the crime front.  While "prevention" is of course an exceedingly good idea, in practice it is very hard to implement.  Nobody knows who is going to become a criminal.  "Revitalizing neighborhoods" sounds an awful lot like a slogan - what does that actually mean as a public policy?  Community centres - sounds great, but there's almost no connection between community centres and crime.  Building a community centre will not reduce the crime rate in any measurable way.

All I can give you is my personnal experience: basically kids between 10-16 stealing shit or getting high/drunk and causing ruckus. And I can tell you they're out causing shit in our store or in the streets because there isn't any adult at home. Dad is either in jail, dead, a crackhead or simply ran away. Mom is out working her second job. I'm thinking if they're playing soccer or taking a swim, maybe they're not cutting each other or stealing my Tylenol PM.

Prisons are badly crowded right now.  Even if you didn't make one change to sentencing rules, we need new prisons.  And guess what - modern, well funded prisons help reduce recidivism.

Not that higher sentences are the only answer (though they are part of it).  If you want to get serious about crime I would want to see more money for drug and alcohol treatment.  More supported and transitional housing.  More women's shelters.  More mental health facilities.  But the problem is these ideas don't make for good sound bites for either side.

Shit dude. That sounds suspiciously NDP. Orange always was your colour 

[Zoupa]

Zoupa is really pissed off.  Already a sign that things are going right.

Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the discussion. 

I'm not pissed off, yet. I'm sure it won't take long though. I'm thinking once the budget passes.

[Barrister]

Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post.  A serious response will need to wait till morning.

Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...

[Jacob]

Zoups, I appreciate the seriou answer to my post.  A serious response will need to wait till morning.

Her Majesty, She is a harsh taskmistress...

Never mind your wife. You probably have to go to work tomorrow too.