IntenseDebate - John

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Harper majority · 3 replies · +2 points

I'm not sure which "you people" you think I'm part of but I'm pretty sure you have no idea (unless it's "you people who disagree with Dennis_F about the word supporters in a blog post").

And I'm certainly not furious about this, I was just trying to gently suggest that you look like you are desperately searching Wherry's posts for things to get upset over.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Harper majority · 5 replies · +2 points

I think you're reaching. I didn't read anything at all into the headline of the post. The speech was nationally televised as were all of the leaders speeches, but it is undoubtedly a speech that, in part, is addressed specifically to the people in the room, his supporters.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Over to you · 0 replies · +3 points

Can you come and vote for me in my riding, its raining and I have to walk a whole five minutes to get to the polling station.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - A war on two fronts · 0 replies · +2 points

Except my understanding is that the Liberals still intend to buy new fighter jets, just with a new competitive bidding process (so maybe it will end up cheaper). So the fact that they keep harping :) on about 30 billion dollars on fighter jets is a bit misleading. Unless they are in fact not intending to replace them in which case I withdraw my criticism.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Loose change · 0 replies · 0 points

I hope it doesn't resonate with the general public since its pretty much the same appalling drivel that the Conservatives and the NDP have been pushing throughout the election.

The <insert opposition party name here> will <insert out of context thing the electorate won't like> whereas the <insert ad buying party name here> LOVES FAMILIES!!

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - 'What he’s trying to... · 6 replies · +8 points

It must be nice to know the opinions of Canadians and the people but your house must be pretty crowded.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Making your vote count · 0 replies · +1 points

It's not an easy issue, I agree, and my ideas need more thought. Still, I think we can do a lot better than the current system, and right now (IMHO) the major parties have way too much money.

If nothing else, somehow we need to disconnect, or shelter the MPs from the party apparatus, and reduce the power of the PM (over the MPs). A good start would be to have the caucus appoint the cabinet. But I better get back to work ...

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Making your vote count · 2 replies · +1 points

Except that we already have laws about private funding of parties, so we can make those harsher and cut off the public funding as well.

And here's an interim idea that I think might be popular, start reducing the public subsidy based on the amount of private funding that the parties get.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Making your vote count · 4 replies · +2 points

So my cunning plan (well, fantasy really) is to starve them of funds so they can't efficiently run a vast centralized evil empire organization.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Making your vote count · 6 replies · +1 points

Except that if I don't want money to go to the party I'm voting for then it is a disincentive to vote. That may sound perverse, but that is in fact how I feel (I'll still be voting though).

However, I do agree with the idea of funding small parties, at least if we can't go with my first choice, which would be to entirely decentralize the large parties in an effort to give MPs more power and encourage them not to behave like party employees.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with John_Edgar

People I'm following

John_Edgar