General Canadian Politics eh.

[Ted Williams' head]

It's already worked out great for the Greens. They increased the number of seats they control... And significantly increased their control of power & exposure to the general public (if it stays a minority after the recount and absentee count).

I mean how it works out for BC. Of course it's great for the Greens, that was never in question lol

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

I mean how it works out for BC. Of course it's great for the Greens, that was never in question lol

So its a good example of how voting outside the big 2 can make changes in the status quo.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

And if people keep thinking like this... It will never change

It's time to realize this red vs blue game is to keep us focused on that and not who is the best for the position

People will be people I guess

Fuck man, I'm not advocating for a 2 party system. All I'm saying is the candidates for other parties are a fucking joke. If a great candidate comes along outside of the big 2, I'm all for voting for that person. But I'm not going to vote for someone simply because they're not a Liberal or Conservative.

I'm fairly libertarian in my views and I would never vote for the Libertarian party because Tim Moen is a joke, he's a party time politician and he has no idea what he's doing. I'm willing to vote 3rd party, but I want a strong candidate to vote for.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

So its a good example of how voting outside the big 2 can make changes in the status quo.

Change isn't always a great thing. Like I mentioned above, time will tell how that works out for BC.

 

[Gay For Longo]

Fuck man, I'm not advocating for a 2 party system. All I'm saying is the candidates for other parties are a fucking joke. If a great candidate comes along outside of the big 2, I'm all for voting for that person. But I'm not going to vote for someone simply because they're not a Liberal or Conservative.

I'm fairly libertarian in my views and I would never vote for the Libertarian party because Tim Moen is a joke, he's a party time politician and he has no idea what he's doing. I'm willing to vote 3rd party, but I want a strong candidate to vote for.

As long as you're voting for yourself and what you believe in, instead of following the crowd or voting for a party... because, then I think you're doing what's right and a lot better than the majority unfortunately

I would also vote conservative or liberal if the right candidate came along

Edit: you could tell JT was a slimey cunt before the election
So many people fooled

 

[Ted Williams' head]

As long as you're voting for yourself and what you believe in, instead of following the crowd or voting for a party... because, then I think you're doing what's right and a lot better than the majority unfortunately

I would also vote conservative or liberal if the right candidate came along

I believe in maximum freedom and smaller government/less government spending and I will vote for the candidate who I believe is most likely to push towards this. Parties like the NDP are opposed to the 2nd part so I shan't be voting for them.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

I believe in maximum freedom and smaller government/less government spending and I will vote for the candidate who I believe is most likely to push towards this.

Unfortunately in Canadian politics, that doesn't really exist on a large enough scale.

It seems those willing to give maximum freedoms also have bloated govts / spending.

Those with smaller govts want to control the decisions you make in your personal life.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Those with smaller govts want to control the decisions you make in your personal life.

That's exact opposite of the concept of libertarianis. Big government means more male work projects. More make work projects = more dictating of personal lives. The Liberal patry is famous for it. In Ontario you're no longer allowed flavored tobacco because think of the children!

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Andrew Weaver keeping all options open in new role of B.C. political kingmaker
Andrew Weaver sets his agenda as negotiations begin with the B.C. Liberals and NDP

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver appears to be relishing his role as potential political kingmaker if his first post-election press conference is any indication.

Weaver appeared energized and smiling in the B.C. Legislature rose garden, flanked by fellow Green Party MLAs Adam Olsen and Sonia Furstenau.

Together, the three hold the balance of power after last week's election delivered a minority government with the B.C. Liberals winning 43 seats and the NDP 41 seats — a result that could change May 24 pending a recount in two ridings.

evertheless, Weaver is forging ahead, planning how to leverage his new power and keeping his options open.

"I know you're expecting big news," he said. "We're here to say we are in negotiations with both the B.C Liberals and NDP."

Any assumption the Greens would align more easily with the NDP was quickly shot down.

"It would irresponsible for us to preclude negotiations with any political party simply because they have not said something in past. We're in discussions with both," said Weaver.


"Our position has always been that the B.C. Greens can collaborate and negotiate with anyone. We understand what compromise means. And we are here to ensure that good public policy is first and foremost in our discussions."

The Green's negotiating team will be made up of Weaver, Furstenau, Green Party platform chair Liz Lilly and Norman Spector, former chief-of-staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

'Big three' issues
The "big three" issues the team will be seeking cooperation on are achieving official party status for the Greens, banning big money from political campaigns, and proportional representation.

Official party status is top of Weaver's list and the obvious deal breaker.

Official party status automatically kicks in when a party elects four MLAs and ensures guaranteed funding and speaking time in the legislature. But the rule can be changed with a vote.

"We have to have party status because none of these parties are going to want to negotiate with three independents," said Weaver. "[It's] critical as a means and way that will to allow us to do our jobs."

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Training of UN troops in tough conditions prominent part of Liberals' peacekeeping plan

A major component of the Liberal government's plan to return Canada to peacekeeping involves using Canadian soldiers to train and mentor other, less experienced United Nations forces, say defence and government sources.

The strategy, which would possibly be employed in some of the most dangerous parts of Africa, is a departure from traditional peacekeeping, which is popular in the public imagination.

And in the opinion of some defence experts, it bears some resemblance to the kind of capacity-building counter-insurgency mission the Canadian Forces carried out in Afghanistan for the better part of a decade.

"Capacity in training is a strength for Canada," said one official, who was unable to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file.

It is likely one of the reasons the Liberal government believes it must prepare the public for the risks of "modern peacekeeping."

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is slated to give a major foreign policy address in a few weeks' time, which will open the door to the delivery of the long-awaited defence policy review on June 7.

But it will also prepare the public for peacekeeping missions that could cost lives.

One of the scenarios envisions Canadian troops helping train African Union peacekeepers in a relatively safe place, such as the West African nation of Burkina Faso, and then transporting the combined force into the country where they would operate.

Canadian soldiers would also accompany their apprentices into field in order to support them, reinforce lessons and ensure they don't get into trouble. UN missions in that part of the world have been marred with allegations of rape and child sexual abuse.

Echoes of Afghanistan
The concept sounds similar to the operational mentoring and liaison teams that Canadian troops used to help build up the Afghan National Police in Kandahar.

The idea of being seen as a leader in training peacekeepers and the development of uniform standards is politically attractive to the Liberals, who are eager to push the "Canada is back" narrative on the world stage.

Sources say the plan has also been given "enthusiastic" buy-in among senior UN officials who are themselves eager to improve the quality of peacekeeping soldiers, many of whom are ill-equipped and from developing countries.

"The complexities of today's operations require a collective effort to enhance the training of uniformed personnel for United Nations peace operations," said a report prepared in September 2015 by former secretary general Ban Ki-moon, who also requested that contributing countries be certified in peacekeeping practices and that the UN support "the establishment of bilateral and regional training partnerships."

The decision on where to deploy roughly 600 troops and 150 police officers in support of UN operations has been in a holding pattern for months.

Originally announced last summer, it was supposed to be made by the end of 2016. But it remains in limbo, with one senior government official recently suggesting it could remain there until the fall.

Eyes on Africa
Mali is most often mentioned as a possible destination and has been the focus of repeated research trips by senior federal officials, including Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

The list has also included, at various points over the last year, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

While justifying the absence of a decision in March, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said deploying troops is a not a move to be taken lightly, but also noted Canada has had "a difficult history in Africa as peacekeepers."

He was referring to the disastrous missions to both Somalia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s.

The Canadian who led the Rwanda mission during that country's genocide said he applauds the government's determination to "wean" the public off the notion of classic peacekeeping, which is rooted in ceasefire observation missions.

But retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire says Canada risks being on the wrong side of history if it hesitates or fails to make a significant contribution to peace and stability during a complex and ambiguous time in the world.

"It's not going to blow over. It's going to continue to be complex," Dallaire said. "And we have a lot of capabilities that we're simply holding back."

Canadians are among the best prepared for UN missions, he added, particularly with the introduction of new guidelines to deal with the use of child soldiers.

Roméo Dallaire says Canadians are among the best prepared for taking on UN missions. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Regardless of the location, it is likely the troops will be deployed in mostly violent, unstable nations.

In the case of Mali, local insurgents are competing, sometimes at cross purposes, with international jihadist groups.

The U.S. Intelligence Community's "Worldwide Threat Assessment," released last week, noted that al-Qaeda is attempting "to promote unity among Mali-based jihadists" in the region, "increase military action, and speed up recruitment of fighters."

While there is a need to underline the peril, it must also be put in context, said Richard Gowan, research director for New York University's Center on International Cooperation.

"Mali is certainly is one of the most dangerous missions, and scores of peacekeepers have been killed in ambushes," Gowan told CBC News. "It should be said that the majority of those who have died were relatively poorly armed, poorly protected African troops."

Dutch and German forces have operated there under the UN flag and occasionally have been targets. But Gowan notes that "their fatality rates are much, much lower."

"So if Canadian troops do go into Mali, they will face very great risk, but we are not likely to see casualty figures on the level of Afghanistan some years ago," he said.

Meanwhile, Central African Republic was rocked by a series of attacks over the past week that have forced more than 15,000 people to flee their homes.

And in the Democratic Republic of Congo, President Joseph Kabila's resolve to stay in power beyond his constitutional time limit has led to rising tension and the threat of popular violence in that country.

 

[1031]

All I'm saying is the candidates for other parties are a fucking joke.

That's your prerogative. Do you vote based on who the party leaders are?
I'd like to see what the NPD can do. Even if they go crazy with government spending, it could actually make us demand extremely limited central government in the future.
I think the feds (in Canada)should really only exist to coordinate and provide structure for how provincial and territorial governments operate. And for national defense

 

[1031]

It seems those willing to give maximum freedoms also have bloated govts / spending.

Those with smaller govts want to control the decisions you make in your personal life.

Say what?

 

[1031]

Training of UN troops in tough conditions prominent part of Liberals' peacekeeping plan

My understanding of that article is the Liberals want Canadian soldiers to be a more expeditious mercenary force.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Say what?

It often seems...

The govts who push a small govt also want to rule over your personal life / personal freedoms (eg abortions, drugs, gay marriage)

and

The govts who push personal freedoms also often run bloated govts or high spending budgets.

 

[1031]

It often seems...

The govts who push a small govt also want to rule over your personal life / personal freedoms (eg abortions, drugs, gay marriage)

and

The govts who push personal freedoms also often run bloated govts or high spending budgets.

I understand what you've written but I was always under the impression that in order to control the lives of people through governance, the government needs to expand. I admit this is just my assumption but I have never remembered the Tories for working towards a smaller Federal government.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Liberals provide details of plan for national carbon tax
Federal government outlines how its carbon price plan will work

The federal government has released details of how it plans to put a "price on pollution" that would ensure a carbon price of at least 11 cents a litre on gasoline in all provinces by 2022 but will include flexibility for provinces working towards their own plans.

The plan is intended to ensure all provinces put a price on carbon starting next year, and details how the federal government would impose that price in provinces that don't do it themselves.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill, said "every penny" collected by the federal government would be returned to the provinces and territories. She said putting a price on pollution is critical to tackling climate change and stirring innovation in clean energy.

"Our plan is fair, it is credible," she said. "Making sure there is a price on pollution across the country is fair for all Canadians."

Asked if the plan would withstand a legal challenge from a province, as Saskatchewan has threatened, McKenna said the federal government is acting within its authority.

"It is well within the government's right to take action to protect the environment," she said.

But Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall responded swiftly, calling today's announcement "more like a ransom note." He said the province would be taking the federal government to court.

Wall reacts to federal carbon plan


View: https://twitter.com/SLangeneggerCBC/status/865255863501570049


The 26-page document released today outlines in detail how a federal carbon tax would be implemented, including how the levy would be applied to fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel and natural gas, starting in 2018.

Ottawa has set a starting price of $10 a tonne on carbon dioxide emissions in 2018, increasing to $50 a tonne by 2022.

So, for example, a tax of $10 a tonne on gasoline would require an extra 2.33 cents per litre added at the pumps. That rises to 11.63 cents per litre by 2022. Some provinces already have a carbon tax on gasoline that meets the federal requirement.

The levy on emissions from industrial facilities will not start before Jan. 2, 2019, and will only apply to facilities that emit more than 50 kilotonnes or more of greenhouse gases per year.

*Follow link for full story

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

British Columbia election results unclear after 2 days of recount | Top News | Reuters

Results of a tight election in western Canada's British Columbia remained unclear late on Tuesday following two days of vote recounting, with a razor close race on Vancouver Island poised to determine control of the provincial government.

A preliminary tally of votes in the May 9 election showed that the ruling Liberal Party won 43 out of 87 seats. The left-leaning opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) won 41 seats and the Green Party had claimed three.

The Liberals and NDP have spent the past two weeks courting the tiny Green Party, which would hold the balance of power in the province if the preliminary results are confirmed.

The Greens could push the pro-business Liberals out of power by forming a majority government with the NDP. Both the NDP and Greens oppose large oil and gas projects such as Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The outcome is likely to be determined by the recount in a close race in the Courtenay-Comox region on Vancouver Island, where the initial tally put the NDP ahead of the Liberals by just nine votes.

A partial count posted on Tuesday evening showed the NDP was in the lead with 10,481 votes, compared to 10,380 for the Liberals. The provincial elections office said on Twitter that it would post its next update on Wednesday morning.

The final results included nearly 180,000 absentee ballots cast across the province that were not counted in the initial tally.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Pretty wild the results of a provincial election come down to one riding and possible just a handful of votes.

Polls closed to night with Courtenay/Comox as the last riding to be counted. Partially counted with 800 absentee votes to be added to the total tomorrow. As of this evening, NDP was in the lead with over 100 hundred votes, up from election night with a lead of 9 votes.

NDP and Greens forcing a minority govt would be big for BC!

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Vote recount leaves B.C. Liberals one seat short of a majority

Good work by the NDP and the Green to take majority power away from the Liberals.

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

B.C. Green Party agrees to support NDP in the legislature

The B.C. Green Party has agreed to support the NDP in the legislature, setting up the possibility of 16 years of Liberal rule coming to a dramatic end.

NDP Leader John Horgan and Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver made the joint announcement Monday afternoon at the B.C. Legislature, saying they had reached a four-year agreement.

"In the end, we had to make a difficult decision," Weaver told reporters, describing the negotiating sessions his party held with the NDP and B.C. Liberals since election night ended without a definitive result three weeks ago.

"A decision we felt was in the best interest of B.C. today. And that decision was for the B.C. Greens to work with the B.C. NDP to provide a stable minority government over the four-year term of this next session."


View: https://twitter.com/cbcnewsbc/status/869314510925910016


Details of agreement to come

The deal gives the NDP the support of 44 MLAs — their 41 members plus the three Green MLAs — the minimum number required to have a majority of support in the 87-seat legislature. The Liberals have 43 seats.

The Greens and NDP said the agreement was a "Confidence and Supply Agreement," meaning a guarantee of support for any budgets or confidence motions. But additional details on what the NDP has agreed to in exchange for the Greens' support won't be released until the NDP caucus approves the deal on Tuesday.

"We're going to put the agreement before our caucus and have it ratified, and make it available to the public at that time," Horgan said.

There were many issues the two parties agreed upon during the campaign, including working to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and banning corporate and union donations.

But it's unclear what will happen with those issues they disagreed on, including whether electoral reform needs approval in a referendum or just the legislature, or whether the $8.8-billion Site C hydroelectric dam project should be scrapped or merely sent for review.

"We specifically did not ask for there to be a coalition," Weaver said. "We wanted to maintain a minority situation to show British Columbians that [it] can work."

Horgan said after 12 years as an opposition member, he's "excited by the prospect of working with opposition members to make B.C. better."

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

The commies have taken control of BC... We are all doomed.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Nothing says power hungry quite like compromising yourself to make sure you get your place at the trough.

Are the BC electorate as disgusted as they should be?

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Nothing says power hungry quite like compromising yourself to make sure you get your place at the trough.

Are the BC electorate as disgusted as they should be?

Both the Libs and the NDP were willing and eager to cooperate with the Greens to gain power... Who do you think would be less sticking to their values?

 

[Freeloading Rusty]

Popular vote numbers reveal wider margin of victory for Andrew Scheer
But numbers also show more than 23,000 Conservative voters dropped off by final ballot
Andrew Scheer defeated Maxime Bernier by 62,593 to 55,544 votes, according to figures provided by a spokesperson of the Conservative Party.

The numbers also reveal that more than 23,000 members included neither candidate on their preferential ballot.

 

[BeardOfKnowledge]

Who do you think would be less sticking to their values?

Apparently none of them.