Well, time to add a few more issues for the greatest platform ever. I missed a few of them while I wrote the last bit and now it is time to put those ones back in.
National Unity- This one is such a no-brainer that I am still shocked as to why nobody ever thought of it. I would go to each province and ask them what exactly their problem is. Instead of constantly throwing money at the problem, why don't we just attempt to solve the problem in the first place. I would hold town halls in every province and territory to find out what their major issues were and try to solve them. The only way to solve a problem is to find out what it is and address it and that is what I plan on doing.
Child Care- Bring back the Liberal National Child Care Program. It is the best program out there as it actually provides child care. The Con's policy is just a hand out that can be spent on anything. If you don't need child care, then you just get a free $100 a month. The National Child Care Program that the Liberals put out was designed for the families out there that need child care, and not a simple cash handout that the Cons wanted. Canadians want the Liberal Child Care program and I will make sure that they get it.
Same Sex Marriage- Although it is a protected right I am going to make sure that it stays as a protected right. I don't want anyone to ever remove the rights of people because of religious beliefs and I will make sure it is protected by the constitution and not allow anyone to use the notwithstanding clause or any other means to remove those rights. The anti-gay movement has the right to be against it, but they do not have the right to infringe on the fundamental human rights of others because of their homophobia.
Crime- My stance on crime is a mixture between Liberal and Conservative thinking. I want to put extra money into hiring law enforcement officers across the country so they will be able to help prevent crime. I also want to help try to rehabilitate criminals during their first or second offence. There are people who just make one bad decision and we need to make sure that they are not lumped in with the dangerous offenders who have no chance of being rehabilitated. I will have psychological assessments done for those offenders to find out if they are in deed able to be rehabilitated. For the most dangerous offenders and the one's that cannot be rehabilitated, then tougher sentences need to be in place to make sure that they do not harm any other people.
Marijuana Laws- I would legalize it. Not because I am a pothead, but because of the fiscal benefits that would come from taxing the hell out of it. It would also reduce the workload from police as they would no longer have to spend their time dealing with a couple of harmless pot smoking people and would be able to deal with real crime. As I said earlier, I would tax the hell out of marijuana as well to obtain the large sums of money we need to help run the nation. The more weed we sell, the more social programs we can fund. Can't see anything wrong with that. Now I know some of you are thinking that smoking pot is a gateway drug, but it is not. The only thing it is a gateway to is a gateway to munchies. I know a lot of people who smoke pot and they are doing just fine in society. Yes some of them have experimented with stronger, more dangerous drugs, but it wasn't from smoking pot, it was because of their addictive personalities. If they drank, then they would become alcoholics, if they gambled, they would be penniless. It is not the drug that causes the problems, it is their psyche that creates the problem. The money that we collect would also allow for funding added counseling for gambling and substance abuse to help anyone who truly has a problem.
6 comments:
I follow your blog and what you say makes sense. I am a "granny" never even smoked cigs. but I can see the value of taking the crime out of marijuana if found in small amounts. Especially, as Science has now found that it certainly helps patients who are suffering with chemo treatments. It bothers me that the U.S. has such a fear of this i.e. pot. It reminds me, and remember the age I am coming from, that back in the 50's the fear that in the U.s. the commies were under everyone's bed so to speak. The terrible trials at that time. It seems to me that the U.S. tries to invoke fear to their citizens...even now and even then. Thank you for giving me this time.
Candidates are good, but what about how to campaign? Martin's Liberals ran a shambolic campaign and were trounced by the highly disciplined (and muzzled) New Tories of Harper. Harper will try to run as disciplined a campaign in the next election – this is a lesson his US advisors have drummed into him and his leadership.
What does this mean for the Liberal leadership campaign? Will the right person be chosen to run an effective campaign against Harper's phalanxes? The answer may lie in Liberals and Elephants – why they could be a necessary and powerful combination in the next session of Parliament and next election.
Good news about the Liberals working with Joe Trippi – he sparked a revolution down south in politicking, and the world will never be the same again.
But the Liberals should invite George Lakoff to teach them how to frame the debates during the election, and the next session of Parliament; something the Liberals are failing at.
Bonnie Powell in UCBerkeleyNews 27 October 2003, interviewed Lakoff.
"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive. ..."
Lakoff is famous for the title and concept behind his book Don't Think of an Elephant. He challenges people not to think of an elephant for sixty seconds, and when they fail, he says this is a demonstration of the power of "framing". If you can frame the issue as an elephant, then every time the other side refutes it by referring to an elephant (This is not an elephant, it is ...), they in fact reinforce the issue in people's minds as being about an elephant. The Republicans under Bush have managed to nearly bankrupt the US government by reducing its funding through framing the issue as "tax cuts" , because most people dislike tax cuts. The Democrats have not managed to change the framing to one of wealth transfer to the wealthy, which it is, and so appear to be against cutting taxes...
As Lakoff said in the interview: "Conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing.... It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it. That's what we're about. It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?' Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame. If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves. ... Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual — in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people."
Lakoff said that conservatives in the US appear to be much better at framing "Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language."
What is the relevance of Lakoff's Elephants to Canada and the Liberals?
Just think of two instances: Harper's use of the framing "open federalism" (to disguise his plans to massively and permanently dismantle the federal system of government Canada now has) and of "fiscal imbalance" (to disguise his plans to remove funding from the federal government so that federal initiatives like health care and day care cannot in future take place).
See how effective Harper's framing is?
And what is the Liberal Party answer to that framing? Can't think of it offhand? I rest my case – Harper is wining the framing war.
Willie, thanks for your input. This is what my blog is all about. The free and open discussion of world events, and my personal ideas. Mary Jane can be used for medicinal purposes for both glaucoma and chemo patients and giving them open access to them will help ease the pain over their remaining years. I still chuckle over the duck and cover approach that was used in case of a Soviet nuclear attack.
Curiosity, the spin wagon that was so successful in the US isn't as successful in Canada as it was there. The reason why I say this is that the Cons only got a minority government instead of a majority government that they thought they were going to get. Canadians are smarter then Americans on average and aren't as easily fooled into voting for the wrong people. I do agree with you that the Liberals do need to have a stronger voice while campaigning and maybe add in a talking point or two. The next federal election needs to be run a lot better and we need to make sure that it is done right.
Kegger, here’s hoping that they do it this time. The Liberals need a strong leader and a stronger election platform. We need to show everyone we are a strong contrast to the Cons, unlike the NDP who are quite content with bending over and taking it from the Cons even thought their ideals are quite different from each other.
Bloggers and Liberal leadership hopefuls – symbiotic relationship?
I agree our electorate is more sophisticated than that down south.
Your platform/policy ideas are a welcome change to the "beauty" contest approach of the MSM and some bloggers.
The Liberal Party needs a set of policies which carry with them a "Wow!" factor for the voters. This probably means narrowing the major planks in the platform down to a handful of powerful, interesting, meaningful and effective policies, and paying a lot of attention to how they are presented. and contrasted with the New Tories.
I believe bloggers can help in the leadership process by insisting / being part of / being vehicles for leadership contenders spelling out their personal views of what the Big 5 or Big 7 planks should be.
No Liberal member should be asked to support a candidate if that candidate does not have a clearly expressed set of policies he or she wants the party to adopt going into the next sessions of Parliament and the next election.
It is incumbent of leadership candidates to spell out policies – and not just mouth motherhood platitudes.
Then these policies should be debated by the candidates – in print via blogs; with blogger questions answered; at public meetings, with the agenda of each of four or five meetings revolving around a debate by candidates of the Big 5 or Big 7.
This way the party can generate excitement, interest, involvement, and – most importantly – afford voters a chance to judge the men and women on more than just looks, history, and other factors.
I couldn't have said it better myself. If we had an open electoral process for the LPC Leadership and had open discussions on ideas and platforms, then we would be able to make politics more inclusive to the general population and create a larger buzz for the LPC. We need to try something new to get the hype back into the LPC and that would be one of the best ways of doing it. It is people like you that make me love blogging so much as you come up with ideas to benefit others, not derogatory and detrimental comments.
I won't stand up for only daycare being funded. Daycare lobbyist have put me down as a stay at home mom long enough. They say my children aren't prepared or nutritioned enough for life also staying at home with me they are at higher risk of sexual and mental abuse.. I WON"T PUT UP WITH IT AND NO ONE SHOULD...
I see no problem in having daycare but I do have a problem when you take out of my kids mouth to provide it.. its favortism
Post a Comment