Coming with the salt after the potatoes are eaten lol................Part one (7)

Hi - This was sent to me by a friend. It is written by Preston Manning. No matter what your political bias - an interesting perspective.

In stormy economic seas

You are a Canadian voter trying to decide whom to support in the federal election. In recent days, you have seen the headlines of chaos in the financial markets. You've read about lenders tightening credit and businesses delaying plans and purchases. You've felt the cost of living, especially energy costs, rising. And you've heard the rumours of worse to come: mortgage defaults, lost homes, companies closing their doors, layoffs, runaway inflation.

So, you look at our political leaders and are left with the question: Who would be the best person at the helm of the ship of state as Canada heads into stormy economic seas?

As a former leader of the Opposition, I have met all five of the federal party leaders. I've known Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and Stéphane Dion the longest, having sat with all three in Parliament. Jack Layton and Elizabeth May I know only peripherally, but have followed their utterances and activities carefully since they assumed the leadership of their parties. Here is my personal assessment of their capacities for strong economic leadership.

Gilles Duceppe: Hopeless. He has a single-minded dedication to Quebec seceding from Canada - something that would be economically disastrous, especially now - and gets full marks for dedication to his cause. But real-world economics has never been, and never will be, Mr. Duceppe's or the Bloc's strong suit.

Elizabeth May: Strong and well meaning on the environment - the raison d'être of her party. But weak, terribly weak, on the economy. In some future election, how to marry a genuine commitment to environmental conservation with the prerequisites for a strong economy may well be the No. 1 issue. But, unfortunately for Ms. May, and perhaps for Canada, not this time.

Jack Layton: When I listen to Mr. Layton, and hear him prescribing corporate tax hikes on the very day stock markets were crashing to record lows, I think of two other NDP leaders: Bob Rae and Dave Barrett. One was pleasantly sincere and the other was bombastically entertaining. But both were economic disasters for their provinces - Ontario and B.C. - following outmoded anti-business, anti-investment and anti-American policies that cost their provinces capital investment, jobs and growth for years, even after disillusioned electorates had removed them from office. Mr. Layton is cut from the same cloth.

Stéphane Dion: What can one say about Mr. Dion? Whereas Mr. Harper grew up in an accountant's household, Mr. Dion grew up in an academic's household. Whereas Mr. Harper studied economics at university (writing his master's thesis on monetary policy), Mr. Dion's degrees are in political science and sociology - adequate preparation for salon politics but not for economic crises. Whereas Mr. Harper spent his initial four years in the House as an opposition finance critic, attending finance committee meetings and addressing the major fiscal and trade issues of the time, Mr. Dion's first years in Parliament were spent on constitutional issues. Whereas his concern about the environment may be sincere, the mismatched handling of environment and tax policy in his Green Shift plan underscores that economics and finance are his weaknesses, not strengths.

Stephen Harper: Of course, I am prejudiced when it comes to evaluating Mr. Harper. I hired him as the first policy chief of the Reform party while he was still a graduate student in economics at the University of Calgary. Soon after, he became the principal architect of the deficit- and debt-reduction campaign that eventually forced the Chrétien government to balance the federal budget. Elected to Parliament in 1993, Mr. Harper was a primary source of analysis of the economics of secession in the runup to the sovereignty referendum, as well as providing insightful analysis of NAFTA. No major economic issue in the Western world over the past 20 years has escaped his attention. And since becoming Prime Minister, he has proven his ability to more than hold his own in economic discussions with other world leaders.

Whether you agree with the particular positions of his party or his government, when it comes to having a background, a foundation and a grasp of economic issues in all their bewildering complexity, surely it must be acknowledged that Mr. Harper surpasses any other federal party leader.

If you have a heart problem, you go to a cardiologist. If you have an abscessed tooth, you go to a dentist.

If the biggest challenges facing your country are economic, who should you put in charge?

Important thing - I hope you VOTED.

I did vote. I didn't vote for Mr. Harper. I was sure he would win the election so, by not voting for him I helped ensure a minority. That was my goal.

This election was in fact a waste of time and money. We have essentially what we had before. Harper says parliment wasn't functioning so he called an election. Strategic mistake. If his policies are so important and necessary, he could have presented his most radical bills and let the opposition defeat him on a confidence vote. This would have given him more strength in the polls by appearing as a stronger leader. If enough swing voters agreed with the defeated policy, it would have proved him right and he would have won a majority.
He still would have won a minority if they didn't, because of the lack of competition.

Ms. May is playing an important role that nobody seems to want, by bringing the enviroment to issue.

Mr. Layton has been playing that role for years, but nobody listened to him. He is a strong leader, and good for the NDP they need all the help they can get. If he aspires to be PM, he could do it by changing parties, but I wouldn't recommend it, it could backfiire.

Mr. Dions problem isn't his english, it's his lack of concrete ideals. A liberal has to be firm in his convictions. Dion waffles all over the place, which is why he is seen to have no leadership skill.

As for the BQ, I think it is treasonous to have a party bent on separation. If the BQ has no intention of representing all provinces equally, they should not be allowed as a federal party and go back to provincial politics.

With so many parties at the table we may not see another majority government in my lifetime.

So I have a solution.

All political parties shall be hereby disbanded. All members of parliment shall be required to utter the oath of alliegence (just as the military must) and sit as an independant member. Parliment will then immediatly hold a leadership convention to determine who of the sitting members will hold the title of Prime Minister.

Conversly, The election of Prime Minister should be a separate election under a party system with majority or minority notwithstanding. Let the people decide as a country, who leads it.

A third option is proportional representation where popular vote decides how many members a party gets.

Either way it is very clear that we need electoral reform. People want to hear why we should vote for you, not why we shoudn't vote for the other guy. We can hopefully figure out the negative aspects of a candidate through body language, historical performance, and policy.

I'm hoping this sends the message to him, "parliament isn't running the way you want it to, so you hold an election and waste a bunch of money, winding up in pretty much the same place you were before. Waa-Waa-Boo-Hoo. Suck it up princess. Grow a pair and do the job you were elected to do."

Next time there's an election, here's what I propose. Have a box where voters can select "none of the above" if that is the winning vote, chuck out all the old candidates and bring us someone who can deliver on their promises.

Exactly

I wonder, if there was a box for "none of the above" what percentage of the voters would use it?

I thing the last 2 elections I would have used the none of the above choice.