Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Daily Digest March 29, 2011

ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/

My apology for so limited a Digest - elections draw upon all our times for regular activities.
Consider Vern's "Wishful Thinking" thats BELOW (30)


Harper sticks to fear-of-coalition strategy in effort to win majority government
As the 2011 federal election heats up, observers and political opponents say Prime Minister Stephen Harper is using fear to drive voters into giving him what frightened many of them away from his party in the past two elections—a majority government

Majority government or bust, Harper warns Conservative supporters
Stephen Harper has ramped up his election pitch for a majority government, warning in a Winnipeg speech
there is no way he can hold power if he wins a minority of seats. MORE...

Coalition government 'perfectly legitimate,' say constitutional and Parliamentary experts

Harper sticks to fear-of-coalition strategy in effort to win majority government

>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<
MARDI 29 MARS 2011

From: Vern Bretin

Hi Joe:  Have been listening and reading our media rants and note they all evade issues of importance to Canada by yakking about irrelevant matters like critiquing party leaders and parroting polling results.  It could be interesting to read and hear reporters searching out the issues of Canadian importance each candidate and his/her leader wish to introduce in parliament should they win their seat.

Have attached 'Wishful Thinking' for comment by your informed readership--for what its worth.  Regards, Vern

Wishful Thinking                                                              03/11

Wouldn't it be great to have a listing of potential issues of importance to Canada, and have wannabee candidates, regardless of party affiliation, check off for 10 points each, the issues they would vote for to succeed---should they win the election for their riding.

The issues offered would be a compilation of grass root offerings, perhaps reaching into thousands, the candidate could agree to support, or not, if and when they came up for debate & a vote in parliament.  Reneging on their undertaking should result in some type of penalty.

Voters in receipt of the candidates listing of choices would make their determination on who to vote for.

The cross-country tabulation of the most to least issues having been chosen by the successful candidates would establish the agenda for parliamentary attention. 

This mode of choosing candidates would ignore party affiliation and their ideological leanings.  It would also serve to focus the attention of parliament on the issues which count with voters.  Parties could critique the masses on their choice of matters important to them between elections & hope that their recommended agenda items reach levels for attention on the next election.

Lo & behold, we'd likely not be sending our military on ill-advised missions or committing to spend billions on untendered and unwanted military killing devices like fighter aircraft.  Nor is it likely that government could enter into sovereignty losing agreements without parliament's prior approval—like the border security & regulatory melding agreements led by the likes of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.  Would the masses have invited an open U.S. military presence in Canada to quell any unrest shown by Canadians?  Don't think so.

How far distant could this method be from democratic, socialistic, communistic, capitalistic, corporatistic, monetarist, or dictatorship by the masses?

This system might stick in the craw of party back room strategists, but their influence, if deemed acceptable, could be felt in upcoming elections.  In the mean time, the population would be witnessing parliamentary attention to matters deemed important to the public without the animosity so prevalent in party bickering..

Any positive or negative thoughts to offer?