Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

You mean NHS??  😬

 

It would be political suicide and probably end the Conservatives as a political force, possibly forever.

 

Right, NHS. Too much whiskey! 😜

 

I hope you're right, and the perspective that the Conservatives will privatise as much of the NHS as possible is just a bugaboo.

 

There are a number of folks in the UK on other boards who worry otherwise, however. 😥

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Old Man said:


Boris was caught discussing the sale of the NHS to American healthcare providers prior to the election. 

 

Boris was caught discussing a future trade deal with the US where he did not rule out including access to NHS contracts, potentially preferential access for US big pharma, meaning we in the UK would pay as much for those medicines as you do in the US.  Obviously inflating drug costs would put additional pressure on the whole service and cause other things (like hospitals, doctors and nurses) get pared back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

\Darn double posting...

 

Addendum: Perhaps our Canadian correspondents could comment on Alberta and its discontents?

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Western discontent with the federal government (whom many see as catering to "Central Canada") goes back generations, at least as far as the National Energy Plan under Pierre Trudeau, Justin's father. Albertans viewed that as unfairly redistributing the benefits of their oil production; and consider Justin Trudeau's recent attempt to legislatively impose a carbon tax on their oil to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and failure to construct more pipelines to export Alberta crude, as more of the same. In general the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia have felt ignored and marginalized in Canadian national affairs for a very long time. Talk of a whole or partial Western separation from the rest of Canada rumbles up periodically. Current Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been inflaming those passions as partial fuel for his recent election victory; but most observers I've read suspect he's just using that as leverage to gain more concessions for Alberta from the federal government (a time-honored tradition here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 3:10 PM, death tribble said:

Is this petulance ? US governor issues 428 pardons in final few days in office

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50786368

 

On 12/13/2019 at 3:40 PM, Old Man said:

No, it’s corruption. 

 

I was going to say spite, but corruption works, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not contesting the corruption part. I'm just saying that it sounds like the kind of thing a petty, spiteful politician on his way out would do, just because he could. I fully expect to see something like this when 45's reign comes to an end, with his own name and the names of several of his cronies prominently featured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Western discontent with the federal government (whom many see as catering to "Central Canada") goes back generations, at least as far as the National Energy Plan under Pierre Trudeau, Justin's father. Albertans viewed that as unfairly redistributing the benefits of their oil production; and consider Justin Trudeau's recent attempt to legislatively impose a carbon tax on their oil to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and failure to construct more pipelines to export Alberta crude, as more of the same. In general the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia have felt ignored and marginalized in Canadian national affairs for a very long time. Talk of a whole or partial Western separation from the rest of Canada rumbles up periodically. Current Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been inflaming those passions as partial fuel for his recent election victory; but most observers I've read suspect he's just using that as leverage to gain more concessions for Alberta from the federal government (a time-honored tradition here).

 

The practical reality is that Canadian elections are won or lost in central Canada.  It holds 199 of 308 seats in Parliament.  The Liberals lost their majority because they lost most of their seats in Quebec, but held on to the huge population in southern Ontario.  The electoral map (there's one at https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/) shows the sharp division between the regions.  114 of the 157 seats held by the Liberals are in Ontario or Quebec.  They hold 15 of 104 seats west of Ontario (17 of 107 if we include northern Canada in there).

 

Much of Quebec went to the Bloc Quebecois, a party which runs candidates only in that province, has separatist history, and focuses exclusively on what is best for that single province.  Quebec has threatened separation since about the time of that National Energy Program, and they have received a lot of Federal spending and concessions in those decades.  I don't think they or the West (whichever portion one chooses) would win from separation.  Will the UK benefit from Brexit?  People don't always make rational decisions from a purely objective/economic perspective.

 

Quebec opposes expansion of pipelines, but ignores the recurring disasters when rail cars carrying oil and gas products derail.  They came very close to running out of heating fuel during a recent rail strike.  Objective, rational decisionmaking, or playing to human emotion to "protect the environment"?

 

On the topic of inflaming emotion to win political points, consider the current treatment of the oil industry in Canada.

 

We can't cater to one economic sector like the oil industry, of course.  Just like the government has never provided special deals for aerospace (Bombardier), agriculture, auto manufacturers, forestry, fishing or firms like SNC Lavalin (oh, but they are in Quebec).  Oh, wait...

 

We prize diversity and inclusivity, but our Federal government does not speak out, much less take action, against one province banning its employees from wearing any and all  religious symbols, as well as imposing more limited restrictions on anyone receiving public services.  Oh, but that's Quebec - we wouldn't want to tell them about freedom of religion or anything. 

 

There is a distinct double standard.

 

We need to eliminate oil-based fuels due to climate change.  We need to switch over to zero emission vehicles.  How do we replace hydrocarbons in rail transport, heavy trucks, marine transport or air carriers?  That technology is decades away.  But we will refuse pipelines and instead import oil from the middle east - where it is produced with considerably less concern for environmental impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 4:41 PM, Old Man said:

California is a breakeven state with respect to federal tax dollars.  Secession would be economically devastating, however, even if it were permitted, since trade barriers would go up where none existed previously.  Conversely, the Scots now have an economic choice between the EU and Boris' Brexited Britain.  I'm not an economist but that seems like a no brainer in the long run.

Business Inisider has California as receiving 12.7B less in federal aid than it pays in taxes, but given the size of California's economy, it isn't that big a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BNakagawa said:

Business Inisider has California as receiving 12.7B less in federal aid than it pays in taxes, but given the size of California's economy, it isn't that big a deal.

That lines up with what I'd heard in prior years about 91 cents on the Federal Tax dollar, but I didn't care enough to cite a source. Won't happen regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I've seen/heard a few news articles about how some Dem activists are unhappy there won't be any people of color on the next debate stage.

 

I'm a little surprised myself, but it does put the lie to a longtime Republican accusation: That the Democratic party is the party of identity politics. So far, black voters pretty strongly favor Joe Biden instead of the candidates who "look like them," Booker and Harris. And Hispanics didn't propel Julian Castro into the top tier, either. Mayor Pete's being gay seems largely irrelevant in his pitch to voters.

 

Republicans seem to be the only ones focused on ethnic/religious identity and cultural grievances. The news reports I've seen about the recent Bevins/Beshear dust-up, and the race in Louisiana, say the Dem candidates talked policy and the GOP candidates talked They're Not Like Us anger and loyalty to Trump.

 

I invite any Republicans who still think policy and governance matter to jump over to the Democratic Party. Whatever you advocate, I suspect you have a better chance among Dems than you would in the Party of Trump.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I've seen/heard a few news articles about how some Dem activists are unhappy there won't be any people of color on the next debate stage.

 

I'm a little surprised myself, but it does put the lie to a longtime Republican accusation: That the Democratic party is the party of identity politics. So far, black voters pretty strongly favor Joe Biden instead of the candidates who "look like them," Booker and Harris. And Hispanics didn't propel Julian Castro into the top tier, either. Mayor Pete's being gay seems largely irrelevant in his pitch to voters.

 

Republicans seem to be the only ones focused on ethnic/religious identity and cultural grievances. The news reports I've seen about the recent Bevins/Beshear dust-up, and the race in Louisiana, say the Dem candidates talked policy and the GOP candidates talked They're Not Like Us anger and loyalty to Trump.

 

I invite any Republicans who still think policy and governance matter to jump over to the Democratic Party. Whatever you advocate, I suspect you have a better chance among Dems than you would in the Party of Trump.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had been a registered Republican* for a number of years, mostly out of inertia, but I've changed my registration to Independent after the 2016 election.

 

 

 

 

 

*I wore a small, silver rhinoceros pin on my lapel when I last attended a presidential caucus (in 2012). A few people got it, but they were mostly moderates like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

I had been a registered Republican* for a number of years, mostly out of inertia, but I've changed my registration to Independent after the 2016 election.

 

My story is much the same. I changed over to Libertarian primarily because I thought Gary Johnson had most of it right in terms of policy.

 

I never had the RINO pin, but I have used it as my avatar here and on the Book of Face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I'm a little surprised myself, but it does put the lie to a longtime Republican accusation: That the Democratic party is the party of identity politics. So far, black voters pretty strongly favor Joe Biden instead of the candidates who "look like them," Booker and Harris. And Hispanics didn't propel Julian Castro into the top tier, either. Mayor Pete's being gay seems largely irrelevant in his pitch to voters.

 

Technically, this just proves which candidates are better at identity politics. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Incidentally, I've seen/heard a few news articles about how some Dem activists are unhappy there won't be any people of color on the next debate stage.

 

I'm a little surprised myself, but it does put the lie to a longtime Republican accusation: That the Democratic party is the party of identity politics. So far, black voters pretty strongly favor Joe Biden instead of the candidates who "look like them," Booker and Harris. And Hispanics didn't propel Julian Castro into the top tier, either. Mayor Pete's being gay seems largely irrelevant in his pitch to voters.

 

Republicans seem to be the only ones focused on ethnic/religious identity and cultural grievances. The news reports I've seen about the recent Bevins/Beshear dust-up, and the race in Louisiana, say the Dem candidates talked policy and the GOP candidates talked They're Not Like Us anger and loyalty to Trump.

 

I invite any Republicans who still think policy and governance matter to jump over to the Democratic Party. Whatever you advocate, I suspect you have a better chance among Dems than you would in the Party of Trump.

 

Dean Shomshak

Trumpism is fairly unambiguously white identity politics.  Or "white grievance politics", if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...