Steve's becoming a leftist

[bob vernon]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/g7-leaders- ... hjf2g.html

By agreeing to end, or even limit, the use of carbon based fuels by the end of the century, has Stephen Harper completely turned his back on the oil industry? Or is it a promise that he knows he won't have to keep?

But there's another possibility. Maybe Steve has made a deal with God that allows him to stay on as PM for another 85 years. At least he won't be accused of fixing the next election, he can just say that it's God's will that he'll stay in power indefinitely.

[GordonH]

lmao
So if you are 15 years old or younger this may mean something to you (its rare to live over 100 years old). Anyone 16 or older good luck seeing the 2100.

[Symbonite]

Maybe Steve has made a deal with God that allows him to stay on as PM for another 85 years.

I know it may be off topic but this is why our voting system is so flawed....we vote the party but no the leader of Canada.

I know in sense by voting the party we are voting the leader but there might be some that would vote conservatives but not Harper.

[Glacier]

Talk is cheap. No one wants to look like the odd man out when it comes to helping the environment. Therefore, everyone is going to sign up knowing full well that this is all talk and no action.

Let's not kid ourselves. It's an election year, and Steve knows it.

[Smurf]

Every person in that room knows positively they will never have to be held accountable for their words. Pretty easy to say things under those circumstances. Makes it a real joke doesn't it.

[Symbonite]

So then what it means is that do not blame Harper but blame everyone

Because it doesnt matter who it is...liberals ndp green or Conservatives....they will all to the same things.

[steven lloyd]

Because it doesnt matter who it is...liberals ndp green or Conservatives....they will all to the same things.

Sadly then, it really does look like the only solution is for the electorate to start voting politicians and their parties out of power instead of into power. A new government every four years if that’s what it takes until someone finally comes along with some integrity and ethics. If nothing changes then nothing changes. We are to blame for the perpetuation of the status quo.

[rustled]

The puppets change with some elections, but how often do the puppet masters?

One of the interesting things about having been elected to serve, very briefly, was discovering how thoroughly tied one's hands really are by the bureaucracy that'll be there no matter who's elected, and how reliant those elected are on what they're told by those who are in the continuing positions (elected colleagues, employees, consultants, etc.)

My experience was at the municipal/regional level, but I wonder if it's much different at the federal?

I still think we'd be better of focussing on the best candidate for our ridings, preferably electing those with some experience battling BS and red tape, and with the proven ability to represent broader interests than their own. Voting against "no matter what" doesn't necessarily get us the best people for that job.

[Glacier]

The parliamentary system is a flawed in that regard. In the USA you often get the biggest supporters and biggest detractors on bills from the same party. There's no such thing as toeing the party line. Under the parliamentary system, you toe the party line or else. This means that in Canada, a vote for the local candidate, no matter how great a guy he is, is a vote for the party and the leader.

[Catri]

The parliamentary system is a flawed in that regard. In the USA you often get the biggest supporters and biggest detractors on bills from the same party. There's no such thing as toeing the party line. Under the parliamentary system, you toe the party line or else. This means that in Canada, a vote for the local candidate, no matter how great a guy he is, is a vote for the party and the leader.

Both American political parties have Whips in both the house and the senate to ensure that their members do indeed toe the party line. The Americans probably have more free votes on unimportant matters, but on the big stuff they are just as bound to the party platform as our politicians are.

[Glacier]

While members of Congress often vote along party lines, the influence of the whip is weaker than in the UK system. One reason is that a considerable amount of money is raised by individual candidates, and members of Congress are almost never ejected from a party. In addition, because preselection of candidates for office is generally done through a primary election open to a wide number of voters, it is difficult for the national party to deselect a member of Congress who defies his party in a way that pleases his or her constituency.

[Catri]

Yes, there is less discipline associated with not voting with your party in the American system, but you said

There's no such thing as toeing the party line.

which is not accurate and they usually do stick to party lines when it comes to important votes.