I get tired of tuning in to CFRA here in Ottawa and hearing about one more financial burden the people of Ontario are going to have to bear thanks to Dalton McGuinty...and I'm tired of hearing nothing but crickets chirping from the PC Party. Is it "Where's Waldo" time? Is that Hudak's political game plan? Because it sucks.
Apparently Hudak isn't able to get much coverage out here in Ottawa... nobody knows why... they claim that he gets more coverage in Toronto yet nobody has seen much of him in the Toronto based newspapers either. Is this the media? Or is someone in the PC Office not bothering to get the press releases out? Perhaps they're being swallowed up by some black hole we don't know about.
If it's not the HST, it's eco- fees, e-health scandals, home insurance rates are doubling according to some, hydro rates are set to increase 50% in the next 5 years, Liberal Ministers are having their offices raided by the police, the province wants to change report cards, we will most likely see the sex ed legislation again when we aren't looking, it will just be wrapped it in a different coloured bow. You'd think Hudak could wipe the floor with McGuinty's face using only his pinkie finger but instead we get.... (insert cricket chirping sound clip).
It's also been suggested that Randy Hillier (the only one we don't get silence from) be the Ed McMahon for Hudak. Apparently Tim needs a warm up guy to get the crowds in a dither... what about LEADERSHIP? When does that come in? Too late to find a replacement, and unfortunately us Conservatives here in Ontario got a show pony instead of a race horse for a leader.
The PC Party doesn't have much money... funny, I didn't know it cost anything to send out press releases... must be that invisible black hole we have between Toronto and Ottawa.... How about get a soap box? You can stand on the street corner and yell for free!!! Trust me, there's plenty of interesting people that walk around the streets of Ottawa yelling something.
Bottom line is: despite everything, the Liberals haven't taken much of a beating with regards to their popularity in Ontario, so I guess they're still kicking our asses.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
What's Best for Me or for My Country?
It's the question politicians must continually ask themselves each and every day.
On many occasions doing what is best for Canada is doing what is best for the politician vote-wise. Many times, it is not. Realistically, one cannot only do what one feels is best for one's own country without thought to what would happen to one's seat in Parliament, that would be foolish. After all, not every decision made greatly affects our country. Still, I have to question the motive behind the decisions political parties and politicians make in Parliament regarding important issues facing our country.
Paul Martin Jr. while Prime Minister of Canada: "We need more immigrants- plain and simple." After all, during the Trudeau era, Liberals adopted a more sympathetic attitude towards Canada's immigration policy and subsequently began building a base of support from immigrants and their children. At one point immigration to Canada was best for the country, but it can be argued that its not necessarily the case today. Good for Canada or good for the Liberal party?
Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: former Liberal Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault called on MP's to support the repeal legislation yet Liberal MP Anita Neville and the rest of the Liberal party voted for another 3 year delay and further amendments to the legislation before approval. In the meantime, on-reserve First Nations have been waiting 30 years... so what's another 3 years? Good for Aboriginal Canadians or good for the Liberal Party? Paul Martin Jr. certainly went out of his way to dare I say, buy votes from Aboriginal Canadians with his so-called Kelowna Accord?
The current debate that is still raging over the long-form census has evolved into a discussion regarding the Conservative Government's decision to make it voluntary. Many feel that this move is to please Conservative party supporters, vote-getter's in other words, but does nothing to benefit the country. Same is said for the government's decision to build more jails for unreported crime.
The fact that elections happen frequently, especially in a minority government, do not allow for decisions affecting the country to be made for the long-term. Sometimes what is best for Canada in the short-term is not always what is best in the long-run. But by then, the repercussions will fall on another politicans' shoulders and the ones who made the decision, won't necessarily have to cleanup the mess left behind. Such is the state of the political system in our country.
I think the test of a true statesman/woman is the ability to take a decision that is best for the country and be able to sell it to the voter to make it equally beneficial for the politician. In other words, create a win-win situation. Our current PM Stephen Harper has yet to fully master this challenge, as do many other politicians.
Although I selected 2 examples involving the Liberal party, this dilemma goes all the way back to Macdonald. His National Policy in which he won the election of 1878 certainly sounded good to many supporters, but in reality- it didn't do much to help Canada. Good for Macdonald or good for Canada? The jury is still out.
Some days it feels as if politicians today really are more concerned about votes for themselves, than doing what is best for Canada... or am I wrong?
On many occasions doing what is best for Canada is doing what is best for the politician vote-wise. Many times, it is not. Realistically, one cannot only do what one feels is best for one's own country without thought to what would happen to one's seat in Parliament, that would be foolish. After all, not every decision made greatly affects our country. Still, I have to question the motive behind the decisions political parties and politicians make in Parliament regarding important issues facing our country.
Paul Martin Jr. while Prime Minister of Canada: "We need more immigrants- plain and simple." After all, during the Trudeau era, Liberals adopted a more sympathetic attitude towards Canada's immigration policy and subsequently began building a base of support from immigrants and their children. At one point immigration to Canada was best for the country, but it can be argued that its not necessarily the case today. Good for Canada or good for the Liberal party?
Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: former Liberal Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault called on MP's to support the repeal legislation yet Liberal MP Anita Neville and the rest of the Liberal party voted for another 3 year delay and further amendments to the legislation before approval. In the meantime, on-reserve First Nations have been waiting 30 years... so what's another 3 years? Good for Aboriginal Canadians or good for the Liberal Party? Paul Martin Jr. certainly went out of his way to dare I say, buy votes from Aboriginal Canadians with his so-called Kelowna Accord?
The current debate that is still raging over the long-form census has evolved into a discussion regarding the Conservative Government's decision to make it voluntary. Many feel that this move is to please Conservative party supporters, vote-getter's in other words, but does nothing to benefit the country. Same is said for the government's decision to build more jails for unreported crime.
The fact that elections happen frequently, especially in a minority government, do not allow for decisions affecting the country to be made for the long-term. Sometimes what is best for Canada in the short-term is not always what is best in the long-run. But by then, the repercussions will fall on another politicans' shoulders and the ones who made the decision, won't necessarily have to cleanup the mess left behind. Such is the state of the political system in our country.
I think the test of a true statesman/woman is the ability to take a decision that is best for the country and be able to sell it to the voter to make it equally beneficial for the politician. In other words, create a win-win situation. Our current PM Stephen Harper has yet to fully master this challenge, as do many other politicians.
Although I selected 2 examples involving the Liberal party, this dilemma goes all the way back to Macdonald. His National Policy in which he won the election of 1878 certainly sounded good to many supporters, but in reality- it didn't do much to help Canada. Good for Macdonald or good for Canada? The jury is still out.
Some days it feels as if politicians today really are more concerned about votes for themselves, than doing what is best for Canada... or am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)