- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Lumber said:I'm neither loud nor persistent, but I like the idea of a strong, deep and centralized government.
You must be in the minority of a minority I guess. [
![Big grin :D :D](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png)
Lumber said:I'm neither loud nor persistent, but I like the idea of a strong, deep and centralized government.
Brad Sallows said:...
I often wonder that so many of them (prominent CPC members) can be so ham-fisted and thick-tongued in the public sphere; I can only conclude that they are so deeply inside small bubbles that they really do not understand that some of what they express is deeply offensive even to people who want to support the CPC.
Bingo!
I suspect that most people want to focus on family, friends, communities, and - perhaps - province. The people who want a federal government with broad and deep powers and responsibilities are not even a large minority; they are merely loud and persistent.
Actually what I want, and perhaps I'm not a "typical" or "mainstream" Conservative, and I am certainly no kind of social-conservative, at all, in fact I self describe as a[size=12pt] social-libertarian ~ which means that I find even a Liberal government too intrusive ~ but what I want is[/size] "a federal government with narrow but deep powers and responsibilities."
:nod:Scott said:... the few that are always yelling or just being plain nasty have the effect of completely ruining it for me.
cavalryman said:So did Trudeau Sr. I'm not sure it's worked out all that well for Canada ever since. Besides, strong, deep and centralized governments aren't historically known to govern with a light touch. Au contraire.
Lumber said:I would add the word compartmentalized; I really believe in our constitutional separation of powers. However, I believe there is some room for improvement and expansion to better determine what should be a provincial prerogative and what should be federal. It should be more clear-cut, and each level of government should have absolute control over their area. The courts can settle the overlaps as they do, but I like the idea of a Federal government who just get's shit done.
E.R. Campbell said:Actually what I want, and perhaps I'm not a "typical" or "mainstream" Conservative, and I am certainly no kind of social-conservative, at all, in fact I self describe as a social-libertarian ~ which means that I find even a Liberal government too intrusive ~ but what I want is "a federal government with narrow but deep powers and responsibilities."
Underway said:Are you are saying is that the GoC should retrench and only worry about the things it's really responsible for in the Constitution?
Like the postal service, the census, the military, criminal law, navigation and shipping, fishing, currency, banking, weights and measures, bankruptcy, copyrights, patents, First Nations, naturalization, foreign affairs and international trade (actually I think that's the whole list).
Or are you thinking more specifically?
E.R. Campbell said:It's important to understand that many, many, indeed almost all of the federal encroachments into areas of constitutionally mandated provincial responsibility were made with either the full agreement of the provinces or, in some cases, at the request of the provinces.
I, too, would like to see clearly defined areas of responsibility with taxing powers and rates adjusted accordingly.
(And I appreciate that I am not answering the question ... :nod: )
London is not alone in this. Another reason maintenance has been offset in the past in some places has been to keep the municipal tax rate down.Thucydides said:... Cities like London now routinely defer maintenance of roads and sewers while waiting for federal or provincial funds to magically arrive into the city coffers, generally ignoring their own mandates, or going the other way (again London) making grandiose plans ... which are otherwise totally unaffordable ...
Chris Pook said:The government has no rights except those that are granted it by the electorate
Cdn Blackshirt said:Has anyone found any blogs or sites that summarize the policies of each of the candidates?
![]()
jollyjacktar said:I was watching a YouTube video earlier today which has O'Leary in the lead as best suited to take out the hair, amongst potential voters (not party members) polled by Nanos and another outlet. The talking heads were surprised by the results. I'm in the O'Leary camp for sure.
jollyjacktar said:Maybe so, but I would like to see what happened if he got the leadership. I want the PM to be competent not the Prom King. We already have a pretty boy at the helm, and his steering skills suck.
Cdn Blackshirt said:That's not really the choice though
In reality the choice is if you want:
1. To nominate someone who you deem to be competent who has no hope of winning and guarantees Trudeau a 2nd term so you have a great Leader of the Opposition?
2. A potentially less competent candidate that is likable enough to become PM, and then you hope they have bench strength behind them to steer the ship?
![]()
Maybe I'm just not seeing this as sufficiently black & white (or further right & centrist), but which names would you put beside those two options? :dunno:Cdn Blackshirt said:1. ... be competent who has no hope of winning ...
2. ....less competent candidate that is likable enough.....