Trump's short term success

Astounding. Universal Medical Care (UMC) is not necessarily a right or left wing social program. The creation of Ontario UMC or OHIP was enthusiastically created by Conservatives. You know why? It made Ontario economically competitive. Here is a basic economic reality. A healthy population is a happy population. A happy population is a productive population. Duh.
... Thousands of people(of every political background) back then were losing their homes or facing a lifetime of crushing debt, if they or a family member encountered a health crisis by accidental injury or unexpected chronic illness. However, it was not designed to cover normal childbirth nor abortion. It was not meant to cover plastic surgery. It was not meant to cover the pseudo-therapies like those foisted on gullible people by chiropractor quacks.
... Further to this point, a the year of 2008 of all the G-8 industrial nations, the ONLY one that did not have UMC or an affordable health insurance plan was the United States. The nation with the highest health (costs both in direct or GDP calculation) was the United States. UMC or an affordable national health plans work as a social program both for public and private commercial interests. The ONLY political group globally who fanatically opposes UMC are the Yankee Republicans. You wanna know why? They aren't Conservatives, they are morons.
... Here's a current surprise whether you fixate on being considered right or left wing. One of the two remaining social issues funded through government in Canada is a Guaranteed Annual Income, [GAI]. GAI program is a social program designed provide a better more consistent social support than the present day balkan Welfare, Workfare or Disability Support programs. The biggest Canadian advocate for a GAI is not Liberal nor NDP. In fact those two alleged liberal parties, aren't very good at structuring social programs in a way to maximize social support delivery and minimizing the fiscal impact on taxation. The biggest voice is former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal.
... Trust me. Segal is in every sense a Conservative. But he is a Conservative who understands that not all social programs or public ownership commitments are bad. Global economic success depends on effective social programs designed to support weaknesses in the socio-economic matrix. In other words, an effectively run social support system is not the province of right or left wing ideologies. It is however the possession of those politicians able to envision the benefits of a social program to benefit the national interest.
... Idolizing the US Republicans as representative of a sound Conservative thought, is plain stupid. They are not true Conservatives but human troglodytes harping back to the times of the laissez faire, the economic environment of Imperial France of the Sun King; and then apply Darwinian Theory (a botanical matrix) to economics. There are many claiming to be Conservatives without ever making an effort to exactly understand what a true Conservative political ideology is. They are not Conservatives they are ignorant. The politicians of the United States Republican Party lack any intellectual dynamic with regard to comprehending the nature of the global economic matrix.
... So when it comes to Trump's support of UMC isn't surprising. UMC properly structured is taxation well spent. UMC is always good for business. John Robarts and William Davis both Conservative Premiers of Ontario introduced OHIP not because of political ideology but because it was in the best economic interest of Ontario.
... Trump unfortunately lacks political skill. And there are, in various emerging political dilemmas, that political parties whether claiming right or left wing allegiances that adopt a political promise that makes sound business sense. Paul Martin made for the best Minister of Finance in Canadian history. Compare that with the loathsome sluggish thought processes of Joe Oliver. One a liberal, balanced the budget and created a business environment benefiting the national interest. The latter supported economic theory that tied the Canadian economy to the health of one single resource (big oil) to the exclusion of eastern based industrial and manufacturing and its resulting collapse catapults Canada into another unbalanced budget and imminent catastrophic economic recession. Oliver used to be a banker. He should know better. Harper chose him to replace a more effective Flaherty.
... Trump clumsily insulted Mexicans. Yet he identified (rather badly) a huge immigration problem in the USA. Mexico is doing what Cuba did. And in Canada's case doing what Alberta has done to BC and Ontario for about six decades. The Mexicans are doing exactly what my hometown did when they created a municipal environment so toxic to their own poor citizens that they moved to Thunder Bay, which did exactly the same thing in turn by moving those problems onto Toronto. A lot of governments national, provincial and municipal move problems like paying forward to larger economies. They use government policy to move their social problems to other jurisdictions.
... Trump just tapped into that political reality. Got condemned by the Thought Police of every political stripe. There are serious problems in the United States. Trump is a Conservative, just not imprisoned by it. He articulates a problem like a businessman. He fails in defining it politically. Trump would make a better President than the other politicians of the Republican party. UMC is not just the property of left wing ideologues. Immigration problems belong to all. Civic irresponsibility emerges from political hacks claiming both political ideas. At the moment, that is why Trump is leading in the polls.

Senate Reform or Deform a choice

It should be pointed out, that in his very first election he swore upside, down and sideways his aim to have a triple E Senate. Every single prospective Senator he appointed swore that he/she would support that reform.

... Well... foisted. He's just regurgitating a promise he made a decade ago.

... One reason that he didn't pursue reform was that all his consulting legal guys and the Supine Court of Canada said he needed a Constitutional Change. That good people is a pile of hooey. Why you say?

... Because it is left to the Prime MInister to recommend the names of those to the Crown for Senatorial appointment. There is nothing in the Constitutional procedure that dictates exactly how the Prime Minister selects those candidates.

... There is absolutely nothing preventing the Prime Minister requesting that the provincial government of that Senate seat vacancy furnish a name or names selected by sufferage of a part attached to the ballot of the next provincial election, by simply including the names nominated by each official political party in that province.

... The reason that most Prime Ministers would be reluctant to appoint a provincial nominee that wasn't a member of their own political ideology or party association. The advantage of appointing party hacks to the Senate is that they tend to tow the line. It is the real reason that Harper was reluctant to employ that simple method. He is after all a reputed control freak of the first order.

... Its just that selecting any provincial candidate(s) without political prejudice, or campaign contributors require a Prime Minister of exceptional ethical discipline. He/she would be often furnishing candidates he/she didn't like. Much like many former Prime Minister going back decades, Harper did not have the strength of character to do that simple and constitutionally correct method of picking new Senators.

... It should be pointed out that if in the event of a minority government and Harper would willingly flip back to the old mode if any of his legislation was threatened in the upper house. I rather suspect that if there was any NDP or Liberal minority, those Prime Ministers would gleefully stuff their party hacks into the Senate to overcome any Conservative Senatorial majority.

... And don't kid yourself, when push comes to shove it doesn't matter whether the Prime Minister is Harper, Mulcair, or Trudeau, all will be confronted by the ultimate paradox. Before the reform Bill or Act can be signed, or receive provincial constitutional ratification, that legislation must be approved by the Senate by vote. Its not the Supreme Court or the provinces that will be the major block, its the Senate itself.

... Certainly they will not vote in favour of their extinction. It is a cushy job chocked full of perks with little work, with even smaller effort. They will not give it up easily nor willingly as a group. Some will vote for reform, but that would be still a minority because most of those residing on those seats got their because they are not innovators nor people of ethical stripe, but because they are almost all political party hacks.

... Repairing the Senate people also must understand exactly what the original intent of the Senate was. The fact that it is supposed to be the house of sober second thought is beyond laughable. Its presence was instituted to protect the regions from the concentrated political power of Central Canada. It makes sense. It still does. It protects provincial rights. Canada has a very large physical land mass. The intent of the Senate structure was sound. It still can work effectively. If it did its job, regional alienation for independence would be counteracted. Had the Senators, and the House of Commons been up to the job, this problem would never have been needed for visitation. Oh curses, here we are.

... The NDP and others who lack appreciation of the original purpose of the Senate creation, fail to understand that had the Senate worked the way it is supposed to, it would facilitate a better political process than the one we have now. The major flaw of the Senate structure is that all the power resides in the Prime Minister. He's the one who selects or nominates those names to the Crown.

... This appointment structure led to two major difficulties. One all the Senators owe their loyalty to a single politician not to the regions that they are supposed to represent. The second problem is that in cases where the Prime Minister wants to expedite legislation through the sober thinkers instead of persuasion, the PM stuffs the Senate with useless and often corrupt party loyalists. As a result the Senate becomes a bloated monster.

... Without question, there are way too many Senators with a career incumbency beyond reality. They are Senators until they reach 75. They might resign to work in a real job. Resignations happen but most Senators remain in their plush jobs until death or 75 which ever comes first. Ideally all Senators should be on term limits, and replaced at the end of those terms at the pleasure of the province they represent, not the will of the federal Prime Minister.

... Then the maximum Senate Reform is abolition. That can and will be defeated by the Supreme Court on entrenched Constitutional clauses. However, simply reducing the number of Senators, removing the power of the Prime Minister in favor of the provincial governments with regard to appointing those Senators and that those nominees placed on a list subject to provincial suffrage.

... To make the process of selecting Senator even more effective, thirty Senator vacancies would be three from each province and another thirty from federal names selected from nominee lists provided by recognized official parties, and parsed by the percentage of the national popular vote from the previous but immediate federal election. The appointment terms would be eight years. Any vacancy caused by death or departure would remain vacant until the next federal election. But that will never happen as long as the power to appoint Senators remains solely in the hands of the Prime Minister.

... So this is the conundrum facing all the country, the greatest block to reforming the Canadian Senate is the Senate itself. Time has proved one thing, like the other party leaders occupying the PMO, Harper hasn't proved up to the job.

Waiting for the Bus

Well. So much for Mulcair. To the Canadian electorate, the term "Coalition" is right up there with "kissing rattlesnakes."
... Being thrown under a bus is one thing. Jumping selfie under that bus presents another dynamic.
... Mulcair mentioned this idea, probably in passing. Throwing out the old trial balloon. Any politician, shouldn't muse. I read Machievelli. Trial balloons didn't appear in, "The Prince." Understanding Nicky Mack though, he would probably freak. Always look decisive even if one is not. Never muse on ideas beyond the capacity of your electorate to understand those musing. The idea rebounds from the good bouncing right into the bad.

... Trudeau won't bite on this one.

... The problem is this. Canadian are politically stupid. Go from there.

... In other legislatures and parliaments forming coalitions is a totally sound legitimate formation of government. Not in Canada. You can't expect people who only pay attention to politics six weeks out of the usual election cycle of 208 weeks to be exactly knowledgeable about the operations of a democratic government. For 202 weeks, the vast majority of Canadians don't want to hear about politics or any other global topic other than hockey.

... Harper put a scare into the voters last election when he simply mentioned the word "Coalition." He's a lousy leader, but he understands fear. Canadians are easily scared when it comes to anything outside of the home and workplace. Okay, include their cars. Any perception of threat to that world and the Canadian voter will turn their vote. They are so easily scared.

... And now Mulcair walks into the trap. Immediately after the election, in the waning lines of bull shit, then a minority government might seek partners whether public or secret. Canadian's back away, run away, from any political leader that even mentions Coalition. That statement was a serious mistake. The Conservatives are going to run that idea into the ground based less on merit than instilling fear.