Thursday, December 3, 2015
right now, i'm more concerned about passing legislation. this is the kind of thing i expected to see in the last week of his mandate, not the first week. so, i'm just glad the process is moving - that they're serious about making sure nothing gets stuck in the senate. that sounds insane, and it would be insane, and nobody would react in any way short of disbelief, but a lot fuzzy thinking could have interpreted it as a way to make the opposition look bad.
again: my primary concern is that it seems like they're focused on governing rather than politicizing the issue further, and that is a positive sign.
as for the proposal?
it seems symbolic, or at least does from those four points. i would have thought it would be formalized through the civil service. we'll see how that works.
basically? whatever.
i need to be clear that this was not a significant election issue, to me. not even top twenty issues. might make top 50, barely. the only way it worked into my thinking at all was in the context of being equally strongly opposed to an elected senate and an abolished one (but i would have considered voting ndp anyways, because i knew they couldn't do it). i would have actually preferred to vote for the status quo on the senate, if the option were available. the liberal ideas were preferable to me, simply for the reason that they were the closest to the status quo.
but, it otherwise had absolutely no effect on how i voted.
my primary concern is that their position on the senate does not become an albatross on the government - that it does not slow down legislation, or otherwise interfere with their ability to implement the substantive parts of their platform. this is a step in that direction, and that is good.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-advisory-board-non-partisan-leblanc-monsef-1.3348531
Johhnyb
Non-partisan is non-partisan. I would think that a partisan senate could slow down bill passage if it's partisan in favour of the opposition and could not do due diligence if it's partisan for the gov't. We'll always have Progressive and Conservative thinkers in the Senate and that's great. Now we will have senators appointed on merit not partisanship. You have to admit this Trudeau approach is the best yet and is doable now. Of course only time will tell.
jessica murray
i don't share your perspective on rejecting partisanship. when i hear terms like "bipartisan", what comes to mind is the idea of a corporate oligarchy controlling both sides of the debate. it's basically equivalent to doing away with the democratic process altogether, and placing power in the hands of the elite. this is not something that has helped obama, or made him appear in a more positive light to voters. rather, it's fueled a lot of apathy in government. americans thought they were electing a progressive democrat and instead got a moderate republican. it's emboldened the right, and collapsed the base. it's really a disaster, and trudeau should really be learning from this in trying to avoid rather than trying to emulate it. it plays right into the left's narrative that conservatives and liberals are basically the same thing.
i think the best way for left leaning policy makers to get their initiatives across is to start from a position to the left of where they really are, and let the debate pull them into where they actually are. ceding ground to the right merely shifts the entire discussion to the right. and, the liberals have hopefully learned that you can't do that in canada and hold power, because we don't have a two-party spectrum.
but, even if you could convince me that bipartisanship is a good idea, it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. even if you can drop the actual parties (and that's not within the realm of possibility), you're still left with convictions. or, at least, i hope we're still left with convictions. otherwise, we collapse into oligarchy.
we're consequently not really being given a choice between partisanship and non-partisanship. we're being given a choice between democracy and oligarchy.
i would prefer to see a liberal dominated senate that rubber stamps legislation than see that legislation slowed down and cut-up by a conservative body that pretends that it is somehow "non-partisan". and, if that body ends up rubber-stamping legislation, then it is not "non-partisan", either.
that's fine. like, i say - whatever. i don't care. i just don't want to see bills that i support sent back.
i'll acknowledge that the idea of putting limits on patronage appointments is a positive idea. i can't remember who it was, but harper actually appointed somebody that didn't know how to read. that is utterly ridiculous. it is a good idea to ensure that there are higher standards...
but, partisanship itself? that's not a bad idea, at all.
--
yokelman
The PM and MP's should not be allowed to appoint senators, the senate members should be voted in by the people and have an 8 year term limit.
jessica murray
yeah, then we can get absolute gridlock like in the united states. in the process, we can completely ignore our constitutional history, which explicitly attempted to prevent this.
great idea.
in fact, here's a better idea: why don't we just elect senators to their senate?
again: my primary concern is that it seems like they're focused on governing rather than politicizing the issue further, and that is a positive sign.
as for the proposal?
it seems symbolic, or at least does from those four points. i would have thought it would be formalized through the civil service. we'll see how that works.
basically? whatever.
i need to be clear that this was not a significant election issue, to me. not even top twenty issues. might make top 50, barely. the only way it worked into my thinking at all was in the context of being equally strongly opposed to an elected senate and an abolished one (but i would have considered voting ndp anyways, because i knew they couldn't do it). i would have actually preferred to vote for the status quo on the senate, if the option were available. the liberal ideas were preferable to me, simply for the reason that they were the closest to the status quo.
but, it otherwise had absolutely no effect on how i voted.
my primary concern is that their position on the senate does not become an albatross on the government - that it does not slow down legislation, or otherwise interfere with their ability to implement the substantive parts of their platform. this is a step in that direction, and that is good.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-advisory-board-non-partisan-leblanc-monsef-1.3348531
Johhnyb
Non-partisan is non-partisan. I would think that a partisan senate could slow down bill passage if it's partisan in favour of the opposition and could not do due diligence if it's partisan for the gov't. We'll always have Progressive and Conservative thinkers in the Senate and that's great. Now we will have senators appointed on merit not partisanship. You have to admit this Trudeau approach is the best yet and is doable now. Of course only time will tell.
jessica murray
i don't share your perspective on rejecting partisanship. when i hear terms like "bipartisan", what comes to mind is the idea of a corporate oligarchy controlling both sides of the debate. it's basically equivalent to doing away with the democratic process altogether, and placing power in the hands of the elite. this is not something that has helped obama, or made him appear in a more positive light to voters. rather, it's fueled a lot of apathy in government. americans thought they were electing a progressive democrat and instead got a moderate republican. it's emboldened the right, and collapsed the base. it's really a disaster, and trudeau should really be learning from this in trying to avoid rather than trying to emulate it. it plays right into the left's narrative that conservatives and liberals are basically the same thing.
i think the best way for left leaning policy makers to get their initiatives across is to start from a position to the left of where they really are, and let the debate pull them into where they actually are. ceding ground to the right merely shifts the entire discussion to the right. and, the liberals have hopefully learned that you can't do that in canada and hold power, because we don't have a two-party spectrum.
but, even if you could convince me that bipartisanship is a good idea, it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. even if you can drop the actual parties (and that's not within the realm of possibility), you're still left with convictions. or, at least, i hope we're still left with convictions. otherwise, we collapse into oligarchy.
we're consequently not really being given a choice between partisanship and non-partisanship. we're being given a choice between democracy and oligarchy.
i would prefer to see a liberal dominated senate that rubber stamps legislation than see that legislation slowed down and cut-up by a conservative body that pretends that it is somehow "non-partisan". and, if that body ends up rubber-stamping legislation, then it is not "non-partisan", either.
that's fine. like, i say - whatever. i don't care. i just don't want to see bills that i support sent back.
i'll acknowledge that the idea of putting limits on patronage appointments is a positive idea. i can't remember who it was, but harper actually appointed somebody that didn't know how to read. that is utterly ridiculous. it is a good idea to ensure that there are higher standards...
but, partisanship itself? that's not a bad idea, at all.
--
yokelman
The PM and MP's should not be allowed to appoint senators, the senate members should be voted in by the people and have an 8 year term limit.
jessica murray
yeah, then we can get absolute gridlock like in the united states. in the process, we can completely ignore our constitutional history, which explicitly attempted to prevent this.
great idea.
in fact, here's a better idea: why don't we just elect senators to their senate?
at
16:07
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the government, almost entirely under mcguinty, did a very good job in transitioning the source of electricity, and for this they should be applauded.
but, they are approaching it with the wrong economic perspective. and, the more they deregulate, the worse this gets.
consider chiarelli's statement. "we needed to attract investment.". that's absurd. they could have created a revenue stream if they put the money down.
the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. they don't have the same economic competency level.
the red tories actually had this right, but they're long gone. and, so, i really hope that the ndp comes out with a comprehensive plan to retake state control of the entire energy sector, from generation to transmission.
that is the only way that prices will ever come down.
yeah. the old ontario conservatives used to believe that electricity generation ought to be a publicly owned resource. and, this is actually a classical liberal position, as well. the current crops of ontario liberals and conservatives are both taking a very radical hayekian or rothbardian (dare i suggest randian) position on this that is simply not consistent with their ideological underpinnings.
the only hope on this file is the ndp. and, i really hope they take a strong initiative on a bold position. it's actually a guaranteed election win for them, if they can pull together the right vision.
i may even go so far as to suggest it's the only issue on the horizon in ontario that has any chance of leading to a change of government. and, i'd follow that up with the suggestion that it's important enough that it should happen.
we have excess capacity, and that is a good thing. if we want to seriously reduce emissions, we're going to need it. but, we shouldn't be punishing anybody for it or pushing for conservation schemes. we should be taking control of it and providing incentives to transition towards it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarians-paid-37-billion-above-market-price-for-electricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/
--
Guest9
"Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says."
That is a completely misleading statement by the G&M and the Author of this article. The AG report does not say that at all. It does not say that the $37 bn and $133 bn excess payments are due to haphazard planning and political meddling. The AG report only says that those are its estimates of the Global Adjustments paid in the electrical system. Clearly, the Author has very little knowledge of how the electrical system works in Ontario and how to interpret the AG report. Global Adjustments are an important and necessary part of the electricity system and market in Ontario and they are not a waste of money for taxpayers or ratepayers. They do not come about because of mismanagement and politics. Now if the Author and the G&M want to debate whether Ontario's electric system should have a Global Adjustments system then that is a completely different topic and something that we can be debated. This is a completely misleading article and very poor interpretation of the AG report.
deathtokoalas
the global adjustment was actually initially meant as a rebate, but the suppliers figured out that was bad pr and spun the situation around. the "market price" is an essentially meaningless number, because it's kept artificially low to prevent those rebates from coming off as bad pr.
we can't get ahead on this unless we take control out of the hand of private producers and put it back in the hands of the people.
it creates this situation where people think if you "took the government out of the way" they'd be paying three cents per kwh, or whatever it's at. which is ridiculous. everybody would shut down. if you "took the government out of the way", the per hour price would simply rise to what you're already paying - and perhaps a little more, as the oeb does have some regulatory power.
but, they are approaching it with the wrong economic perspective. and, the more they deregulate, the worse this gets.
consider chiarelli's statement. "we needed to attract investment.". that's absurd. they could have created a revenue stream if they put the money down.
the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. they don't have the same economic competency level.
the red tories actually had this right, but they're long gone. and, so, i really hope that the ndp comes out with a comprehensive plan to retake state control of the entire energy sector, from generation to transmission.
that is the only way that prices will ever come down.
yeah. the old ontario conservatives used to believe that electricity generation ought to be a publicly owned resource. and, this is actually a classical liberal position, as well. the current crops of ontario liberals and conservatives are both taking a very radical hayekian or rothbardian (dare i suggest randian) position on this that is simply not consistent with their ideological underpinnings.
the only hope on this file is the ndp. and, i really hope they take a strong initiative on a bold position. it's actually a guaranteed election win for them, if they can pull together the right vision.
i may even go so far as to suggest it's the only issue on the horizon in ontario that has any chance of leading to a change of government. and, i'd follow that up with the suggestion that it's important enough that it should happen.
we have excess capacity, and that is a good thing. if we want to seriously reduce emissions, we're going to need it. but, we shouldn't be punishing anybody for it or pushing for conservation schemes. we should be taking control of it and providing incentives to transition towards it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarians-paid-37-billion-above-market-price-for-electricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/
--
Guest9
"Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says."
That is a completely misleading statement by the G&M and the Author of this article. The AG report does not say that at all. It does not say that the $37 bn and $133 bn excess payments are due to haphazard planning and political meddling. The AG report only says that those are its estimates of the Global Adjustments paid in the electrical system. Clearly, the Author has very little knowledge of how the electrical system works in Ontario and how to interpret the AG report. Global Adjustments are an important and necessary part of the electricity system and market in Ontario and they are not a waste of money for taxpayers or ratepayers. They do not come about because of mismanagement and politics. Now if the Author and the G&M want to debate whether Ontario's electric system should have a Global Adjustments system then that is a completely different topic and something that we can be debated. This is a completely misleading article and very poor interpretation of the AG report.
deathtokoalas
the global adjustment was actually initially meant as a rebate, but the suppliers figured out that was bad pr and spun the situation around. the "market price" is an essentially meaningless number, because it's kept artificially low to prevent those rebates from coming off as bad pr.
we can't get ahead on this unless we take control out of the hand of private producers and put it back in the hands of the people.
it creates this situation where people think if you "took the government out of the way" they'd be paying three cents per kwh, or whatever it's at. which is ridiculous. everybody would shut down. if you "took the government out of the way", the per hour price would simply rise to what you're already paying - and perhaps a little more, as the oeb does have some regulatory power.
at
15:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
absolutely nobody cares about the senate.
the one and only important thing here is that he's able to get enough bums in enough seats that his agenda doesn't get blocked.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/senate-reform-is-no-reform-at-all-and-could-have-unintended-consequence/article27587177/
the one and only important thing here is that he's able to get enough bums in enough seats that his agenda doesn't get blocked.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/senate-reform-is-no-reform-at-all-and-could-have-unintended-consequence/article27587177/
at
14:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
02-12-2015: turning the corner?
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
at
04:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)