Jump to content

      










Photo

2019 Federal Election


  • Please log in to reply
2595 replies to this topic

#2581 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 7,283 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 07:41 AM

^ Which reflects exactly the issues with our current political system. At the end of the day we vote for MLAs or MPs who have no real power and instead vote and do what their party whips tell them to. The leaders themselves are chosen via back room deals by power brokers and the elite. There is zero opportunity for any 'outsider' to ever take on a leadership position. Yet we are very quick to discount Putin or any other leader who is chosen via back room deals by power brokers and the elite and whose own political party members have no real voice or vote!


Edited by spanky123, 04 June 2017 - 07:56 AM.


#2582 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 07:53 AM

From the article:

"TORONTO — One of the candidates for the NDP leadership race is quitting, blaming party insiders who he says don’t want to see him win.

Pat Stogran posted a video Saturday on YouTube, saying the inside workings of the NDP are “fundamentally flawed.”

“The fight to take on politics incorporated while also trying to take on the insiders of a political party that has no desire to see me win has proven insurmountable,” he said in the five-minute video.

He also said the party has put “major obstacles” in place for candidates trying to grow the party’s base from the grassroots.

Stogran is a former military officer who served in Afghanistan and said serving for the greater good was his “calling in life.”

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#2583 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Member
  • 45,521 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 08:31 AM

^ Which reflects exactly the issues with our current political system. At the end of the day we vote for MLAs or MPs who have no real power and instead vote and do what their party whips tell them to. The leaders themselves are chosen via back room deals by power brokers and the elite. There is zero opportunity for any 'outsider' to ever take on a leadership position. Yet we are very quick to discount Putin or any other leader who is chosen via back room deals by power brokers and the elite and whose own political party members have no real voice or vote!

I directly voted for Christy Clark. And Maxime Bernier for leader.

I don't think that was back room.

And O'Leary was an outsider.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 04 June 2017 - 08:32 AM.


#2584 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 36,304 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 09:47 AM

Doesn't the NDP have a "democratic" selection process?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#2585 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Member
  • 45,521 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 04:13 PM

Doesn't the NDP have a "democratic" selection process?

 

Under rules set out in the party's constitution, every member is entitled to cast a secret ballot for the selection of the Leader. The new leader will be chosen some time between October 1 and October 29, 2017, with rounds of voting through a preferential, ranked choice ballot taking place once a week until a candidate hits the 50 per cent plus one mark to be declared leader (with eligible voters choosing to vote with an internet ballot being allowed to change their vote at any time before the closure of the polls, including between each round of balloting). Candidates are required to pay an entry fee of $30,000 and may spend no more than $1.5 million. 25% of all donations to candidates will be paid to the party. To be nominated, candidates require at least 500 signatures from party members, at least half of which must be from female-identified members and at least 100 from "other equity-seeking groups" including indigenous people, LGBT people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities. At least 50 signatures will be required from each of five regions: "Atlantic", "Quebec", "Ontario", "the Prairies" and "B.C. and the North".

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...#Election_rules

 

Those are some kind of rules.   Here's a party bending over backwards to be politically correct*.    

 

Deadline for new party memberships is August 17th.

 

On August 2nd there will have a debate in Victoria.

 

*Which seems to be at odds with most Canadians' views.

 

A majority of Canadians believe that political correctness infringes too much on their freedom of expression, a new poll suggests.

The numbers released Monday from the Angus Reid Institute show that 76 per cent of respondents think political correctness — loosely defined as the avoidance of certain words or actions that might offend marginalized groups — has gone "too far."

Eighty-two per cent of Canadians over the age of 55 said they shared that view, compared to 78 per cent of those between 35-54. Sixty-seven per cent of those 18-34 feel the same.

 

http://www.huffingto...n_11761738.html


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 04 June 2017 - 04:20 PM.


#2586 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 658 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 09:16 AM

^^ That looks like a classic example of a poll where you could get totally different results by asking the question in a different way.


  • Coreyburger likes this

#2587 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 11,676 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:44 PM

Do you feel there is a strong backlash towards political correctness in politics?

My latest post is up. This time on the Bricks of Government Street.  http://www.sidewalki...ent-street.html

 


#2588 57WestHills

57WestHills
  • Member
  • 998 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:46 PM

On the internet yes.

In reality, not so much.
  • nerka likes this

#2589 Wayne

Wayne
  • Member
  • 236 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:52 AM

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...peech-1.4147672

"Canada will step up to play a leadership role on the world stage". Our Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is delusional.

#2590 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 7,189 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 08:04 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...peech-1.4147672

"Canada will step up to play a leadership role on the world stage". Our Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is delusional.

You betcha, we are going to send our ship and both airplanes out into the world.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#2591 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 658 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 09:57 PM

Thank you Conservative Party of Canada for sharing your member list with the National Firearms Association. Now I am on the mailing list of the gun nuts. 

 

Sleazy. Grrrrrrr!



#2592 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 4,792 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 07 June 2017 - 07:40 AM

Thank you Conservative Party of Canada for sharing your member list with the National Firearms Association. Now I am on the mailing list of the gun nuts. 

 

Sleazy. Grrrrrrr!

My understanding is that the NFA got the list somehow, it wasn't given to them. And the CPC is demanding they return it and don't use it again.



#2593 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 658 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 08:49 AM

My understanding is that the NFA got the list somehow, it wasn't given to them. And the CPC is demanding they return it and don't use it again.

I understand that it was given to them by one of the leadership campaign teams. So the sleazy comment referred to that team, whoever they are, not the party as a whole.



#2594 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 4,792 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 07 June 2017 - 08:58 AM

I'm busy unsubscribing from every email now, except from the official party email, and Scheer.



#2595 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,065 posts

Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:52 PM

while trudeau is ireland pushing our recent investment & intellectual property protection treaty with the eu.....
 

Lower tariffs on high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were linked to higher supply and likely consumption of added sweeteners in Canada, including HFCS, found new research published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

The structuring of tariffs in NAFTA, which separated food and beverage syrups containing cane and beet sugars from HFCS, changed during NAFTA. Tariffs were removed from food and drink syrups made from HFCS between 1994 and 1998, but remained on those containing cane and beet sugars.

"Here we take advantage of an exceptional natural experiment in which tariffs on HFCS were withdrawn, within an existing system of free trade in goods," writes Pepita Barlow, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, with coauthors.

The study, covering 1985-2000, found that lower tariffs on HFCS were associated with an increase of about 41.6 kcal in caloric sweeteners supplied and likely consumed per person per day in Canada. This increase in the supply of HFCS correlates with a large rise in obesity rates, from 5.6% in 1985 to 14.8% in 1998, as well as increases in diabetes. Even seemingly small increases in caloric intake can contribute to weight gain, with small daily increases adding up over time.

The study provides evidence on the impact that a US free trade agreement, such as NAFTA, may have on diet and health.

"Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that US trade relations may have been an underlying population-level factor contributing to Canada's comparatively high rates of obesity, diabetes and noncommunicable diseases, through increased population-level exposure to added sugars," the authors write.

*snip*

In a related commentary, Dr. Ronald Labonté, School of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, with coauthor Ashley Schram, writes, "the uncertainty surrounding future trade negotiations, together with the economic impacts and societal value of trade and investment agreements being increasingly questioned in the mainstream media, provides public health with a new opportunity to influence the conversation. Public health should take advantage of the newly shifted terrain to make the case that any trade or investment policy that prizes economic growth over reducing health inequities and enhancing ecological sustainability is bad policy."

https://www.eurekale...j-coh062717.php


Canadian imports of beverage syrups including high-fructose corn syrup doubled in the period after NAFTA, rising from 7,132 metric tons in 1993 to 16,062 metric tons in 2000, Barlow and colleagues said.

"These findings were robust to additional sensitivity analyses, and are consistent with previous studies which find that countries enacting trade deals with the U.S. experience changes in their food environments," the researchers wrote.

"The population-wide consequences for public health are potentially enormous," they warned. "This rise in high-fructose corn syrup consumption was correlated with a large rise in obesity rates, from 5.6% in 1985 to 14.8% in 1998. Rates of obesity among Canadians now rank among the highest of advanced industrialized nations that, unlike Canada, do not have trade agreements with the United States.

"The period after NAFTA also corresponded with rises in the prevalence of diabetes from 3.3% to 5.6%, from 1998/99 to 2008/09," Barlow and colleagues said. "Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. trade relations may have been an underlying population-level factor contributing to Canada's comparatively high rates of obesity, diabetes, and non-communicable diseases, through increased population-level exposure to added sugars.

http://www.medpageto...Nutrition/66403

http://www.cmaj.ca/c...9/26/E881.short

Edited by amor de cosmos, 04 July 2017 - 03:00 PM.


#2596 amor de cosmos

amor de cosmos

    BUILD

  • Member
  • 4,065 posts

Posted 14 July 2017 - 09:07 AM

In a stunning reversal of policy, on June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned decades of precedent making it easier for the biopharmaceutical industry to gain patents on medicines without any real proof of a claim that a putative invention has any meaningful utility. This reversal in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. is particularly disconcerting because Canada had just won an investor-state arbitration award in the long awaited Eli Lilly v. Canada case upholding its more stringent promise/utility doctrine that had been used successfully to overturn two dozen secondary patents, particularly those claiming new uses of known medicines, where patent claimants failed to present evidence in support of the prediction of therapeutic benefit promised in their patent applications.

Canada had been under intense pressure from the US, which had placed Canada on its Special 301 Watch List for five years threatening that the promise/utility doctrine unreasonably harmed Big Pharma in the US and from the pharmaceutical industry itself which claimed that the doctrine violated global patentability criteria. President Trump’s hardball campaign promise to rewrite or leave the North American Free Trade Agreement because of its failure to adequately protect US intellectual property interests may also have played a role. Likewise, President Trump’s more recent assertions that US payers are unreasonably subsidizing biomedical research and development because other countries, like Canada, are paying lower prices for innovator medicines than insurers and other payers in the US may also have increased pressure on the Court.

In addition, advocates have long been concerned about the deterrent effect of investor-state-dispute settlement cases like the one Eli Lilly filed against Canada claiming CAN$ 500 million in damages. Although Canada ultimately won the case on the merits, the private arbitrators’ decision left Canada and other countries vulnerable to investor challenges against IP decisions and policies that thwart foreign drug companies’ expectations of unbridled profits. The pressure of such claims by Novartis and Gilead have led to recent policy reversals in Colombia and Ukraine. Colombia stepped down from its threat to issue a lawful compulsory licenses on Novartis’s overpriced cancer medicine, Glivec, and Ukraine deregistered a generic version of Gilead’s highly effective hepatitis C antiviral under the threat of multimillion dollar ISDS claims.

Under this barrage of pressure and additional more subtle pressure from five pro-Pharma interveners, the Canada Supreme Court retreated to the US-style safe harbor of requiring only a “scintilla” of evidence that a medicine might eventually prove to be useful – essentially a wink-wink rule that will allow drug companies wide discretion to game the patent system to build a thicket of patents around a base compound both to deter follow-on innovation by competitors and to extend the effective term of patent exclusivity well beyond the initial 20 year term. Indeed, the basic patent bargain will be undermined. Rather than granting patents only on inventions with a provable claim of utility at the time of filing, Big Pharma’s patent lawyers will be able to guess on future uses, even if those guesses do no pan out. The predictable result will be higher drug prices for Canadian consumers and payers and less incremental innovation by Canadian companies.

http://infojustice.org/archives/38424
https://www.techdirt...t-victory.shtml
https://www.theglobe...rticle35532093/

Edited by amor de cosmos, 14 July 2017 - 09:12 AM.


 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users