"ALL politicians are out for themselves IMO... Do not start out that way... but they end up that way... Got to lose them before they are turned.."
Yes. Unfortunately "It's the only game in town" unless you're advocating anarchy. Some understand that by maintaining minority government, we minimize the chance that any party will go hog-wild on its hidden agendas. They'll all be watching each other like hawks.
---
From your other post: "Western separation is just as simplistic as Quebec separation..."
Well said! Most who advocate separation have NO idea how different the situation was 100 years ago, and how much their province has gained from federation. A few years ago, in St. John's, I argued this with a Newfoundlander. His belief was that Newfoundland never needed Canada, and now that it's making good oil money, it should separate.
For a half-century other Canadians supported Newfoundland in many ways: schools, industry, infrastructure. It was Canadian taxpayers who kick-started exploitation of offshore oil.
Alberta farmers made a good living from federal intervention in grain shipping. Ditto Saskatchewan. Ontario manufacturers and Ontario rose to dominance, in part because of long-term federal intervention on their behalf.
The Péquistes still want to separate -- and 30% of Quebec always will. Mais ce n'est pas le même Québec que j'ai connu il ya cinquant ans. Since the Quiet Revolution much has changed in Quebec. Yes Canadians have accommodated, but Quebec itself has shed its past.
---
I don't see any great problems arising from possible changes. Somebody is always unhappy, somebody always wants to separate, and NO party has everything right. Canada has major strengths. Life will go on, as long as we don't get captured by political extremism, or our predatory friends and neighbours and their beliefs.
Jim |
