Keeping the Harperites on track – good for the Grits

The Grits have come up with a pretty clever idea… setting up a website in the name of holding a government to account on specific promises is not new – but it is indeed novel here in the land of the ice and snow.

onprobation.ca is exactly what the name implies – keeping the neocons in line and to account. This is especially useful since these same purveyors of all things Victorian have campaigned on the sacred notions of transparency and accountability (too bad the budget watchdog -an independent and non-partisan office – is not towing the company line…. though the government of the day is going to suffocate this useful initiative through underfunding).

I especially like the timeline on the site. It points out the dates of release of key economic indicators and other dates that are of importance when assessing the Harperites’ (non) progress in mitigating the worst effects of the current financial shitstorm.

(3453)

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Comments to “Keeping the Harperites on track – good for the Grits”

  1. trashee says:

    By the authority vested in me by, uh, me, I hereby appoint Mr. Squid-dude as Emperor Supremo for 24 hours beginning at midnight tonite!
    Tax away!

  2. Oh, and if I were emperor for a day, my very very very first act would be to tax Churches like any other business.

  3. Let’s see… I’m pro-choice, for legalization of all drugs, legalization and licencing of prostitution, see police as necessary, and think the climate is changing but that there are more immediate, pressing issues… a changed climate doesn’t matter if our water and air are so polluted that they poison us anyway, nor does it matter if we’re going to run out of realistic energy and kill ourselves off scrounging for what’s left.

    I believe in rehabilitation, but also in punishment. I believe in obligatory military service – that’s the price you pay for living in a mostly free country. My version of military is something more like what they have in Japan or Switzerland though… a 99.9% defensive and civil assistance force, that is capable of projecting power if needed in dire circumstances.

    I skipped over gay marriage because my views on marriage are unusual considering that I am married: I think the state should get the ever-loving-fuck out of the marriage business. Let any constellation of adults participate in whatever mumbo-jumbo ritual they want and call themselves married. Such a declaration should have no legal or other status in the eyes of the state.

    Now, for the purposes of support, title to property, benefits, death, etc. any constellation of adults should be able to register a contract with the state that sets out the terms of the relationship. That contract can be treated largely like any contract. This would replace the state end of what is now marriage, but wouldn’t be called marriage… civil union maybe?

    So… a man and a woman? cool. 2 men or 2 women? cool. 2 men AND 2 women? cool. 3 men, 5 women and 2 hermaphrodite midgets? whatever floats their boat. If they want to be married, fine. Let them go to the local shaman and have at it.

    Being married but not being in a civil union would afford you no rights in law of what is now called “marriage”. Getting married would, in effect, be like being baptized, or being declared the winner of a one-legged butt-kicking contest.

    I think we should dump the Queen of England. She’s a nice lady and a decent queen, but we should have a real home-grown canadian queen, or replace the whole monarchy thing with a president. Given the general figurehead nature of the job, I’d be happy to promote the GG to Queen of Canada and appoint the position more or less as we do now. I think our senate should be elected, and I think our whole electoral system should be overhauled.

  4. trashee says:

    Gee. We all agree. ‘cept I’m a Grit.
    And I may be a wee bit more socially liberal than either of you.
    Let’s see.
    I am pro-choice. For gay marriage. For the legalization of pot and prostitution.
    I am anti-war and anti military except in the most extreme circumstances (see Hitler).
    I see the police as a neccesary evil.
    And I do think that the climate is indeed changing for the worse.
    Trying to think of others – help?

  5. Ken says:

    For me, the ideal party would be FISCALLY conservative, but relatively liberal SOCIALLY.
    You and me both.

  6. We don’t really have neocons in Canada. The worst Conservative would at best be called a centrist in the USA, but more likely a “potentially salvageable socialist bastard.”

    There are a few US-style neocons in Canada, but really, they’re all yap and don’t amount to much.

    I dropped my Conservative support in the last election for a number of issues. Unfortunately, the Libs have not indicated that they are in any way more trustworthy, I wouldn’t be caught voting NDP if this were a 1-party state, I think the Greens have questionable sanity and they also have given no indication that they are trustworthy.

    As much as I think they don’t belong in parliament at all, and that a number of their members should be in jail for violations of section 59 of the Criminal Code of Canada, at least the Bloc Quebecois have been relatively honest with Canada about what their objectives are and how they’re going to achieve them. I think it says something pretty negative about Canadian politics when the most trustworthy politicians are the ones that want to destroy the country.

    Our provincial Liberals have decided that they need more of my money. Lucky me. They’ll be giving $1000 of my taxes to someone else just for shits and giggles. I really enjoy that sort of thing. Makes me proud to live here. πŸ™

    I cast my vote in the last election for the Libertarian candidate, simply because I knew he didn’t stand a chance in my riding. I hate having to do that, but I’d have felt all dirty voting for anyone else.

    For me, the ideal party would be FISCALLY conservative, but relatively liberal SOCIALLY. I say “relatively” because I think you can do more damage than good by rushing social change even if, by not rushing it, you prolong some people getting the shaft. We don’t have a party in Canada that fits those criteria, however. The Conservative party was kind of heading that way, but they’ve come unglued.

  7. Ken says:

    Ah, I kinda like that term too. You’re right that the current Conservatives are nothing like the originals… Calling them Regressive is acceptable πŸ˜‰

    Speaking of elections… I wish I knew who I’d support in the next one. I didn’t support the Conservatives then, and with all due respect to the left-side, I won’t ever support NDP, and I’m truly hesitant about supporting the Liberals.

    Maybe the Libertarian party πŸ˜‰

  8. trashee says:

    You do bring up a valid point Ken. I’ll have to look into whether this is funded from party coffers or from elsewhere. Nonetheless, the cost of maintaining a site is negligible – tho’ the set-up can be fairly costly depending on whether the design was done in-house or not.
    I deliberaely use neocon to describe the Harperites since the bedrock of their support is rooted in the neo-conservative philosophy espoused by the old Reform Party. It is an American term but IMHO I think it does validly apply to those ol’ red-meat eatin’ Reformers from Red Deer, et al.
    Though Lawrence Martin came up with a new word for them in his G&M column yesterday – Regressive Conservatives – I kinda like it.

  9. Ken says:

    Glad you posted the right site πŸ˜‰ The .com version is, well, uh something else…

    It’s a good idea, sure – but what’s the cost of running it? You mentioned you hate the idea of wasting taxpayers’ money earlier… This site, while a good idea, IMHO is somewhat of a waste. The money would be better spent by adding it to their fundraising in preparation for an election sometime in the next 18 months, don’t ya think?

    And there’s that word again… “neocon”. That is such a U.S term, I’m still surprised everytime I hear it applied to Canadian politicians.

Leave a Reply

*