Canadian Politics Thread

[Joe King]

37 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

They just need to revamp and modernize their platform and not rely on 70% of their revenue from our tax dollars. I'm fine with a much much smaller subsidy. Even after that 1.5 billion dollars in free money/year they still report a loss, lay off 800 employees, and still give management massive bonuses. Do you not understand how poorly a business has to be run to still report a loss when 70% of your revenue is a free hand out, its extremely hard to do. Their actually costs would have to be more than double their actual revenue. In the age of internet CBC is a relic only kept around for its historical significance.  

With a business run as poorly as this how do they justify those bonuses. It really bothers me that they use tax payer money to stuff their bank accounts. That money could be used for things like defense,health care,help the homeless etc. 

[Optimist Prime]

2 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I just feel like if there was a considerable amount people with similar usage of their network, there financials wouldn't be where they currently are.

I lean towards thinking that with all the things CBC/RDS does...taking away the profit motive....they cover a lot of space that doesn't turn a profit, that doesn't mean there is no one in the target audience listening or watching, just that if a private network put those items in a time slot, they would lose money and therefore cancel them. There is incredible value to keeping unprofitable programming available. For instance, lower income folks might view a program that can't sell commercial time due to the target audience: does that make the program worthless to Canada? Or just worthless to profiteers?

 

CBC rocks. 

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I enjoy that GEM is free with commercials, or cheap for a full membership. I buy the membership, but those who can't do so don't get locked out, that is awesome and only with a publicly owned CBC is that possible. 

 

it could be better, but its pretty good for free. There are some really good examples to follow, BBC, PBS, SBS Australia, etc. 

 

Skippy doesn't want to improve it tho, he wants to eliminate a lefty outlet. He could put forward a mandate for more balanced political coverage or show content, but nope, nuke that mofo. We'll be the only G20 country with no pubic broadcaster if he gets his way.

 

[Bure_Pavel]

28 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I lean towards thinking that with all the things CBC/RDS does...taking away the profit motive....they cover a lot of space that doesn't turn a profit, that doesn't mean there is no one in the target audience listening or watching, just that if a private network put those items in a time slot, they would lose money and therefore cancel them. There is incredible value to keeping unprofitable programming available. For instance, lower income folks might view a program that can't sell commercial time due to the target audience: does that make the program worthless to Canada? Or just worthless to profiteers?

 

CBC rocks. 

That was the case before, but now if the internet is accessible from those areas is super easy to access feeds. Mixed data has 93.8-96.5% of Canadians with an internet connection and growing.  

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

That was the case before, but now if the internet is accessible from those areas is super easy to access feeds. Mixed data has 93.8-96.5% of Canadians with an internet connection and growing.  

Canada does not have stellar internet service in all parts of the country.   CBC's mandate is to reach all parts of the country. (via radio if nothing else)

[Sapper]

1 hour ago, Bure_Pavel said:

They just need to revamp and modernize their platform and not rely on 70% of their revenue from our tax dollars. I'm fine with a much much smaller subsidy. Even after that 1.5 billion dollars in free money/year they still report a loss, lay off 800 employees, and still give management massive bonuses. Do you not understand how poorly a business has to be run to still report a loss when 70% of your revenue is a free hand out, its extremely hard to do. Their actually costs would have to be more than double their actual revenue. In the age of internet CBC is a relic only kept around for its historical significance. 

In many rural areas and the north , Quebec locations .... The CBC is the only source of news that gives LOCAL news.  The internet allows someone from timbuck two to access Vancouver or Toronto news at their convenience but not local news. 

 

Additionally the CFL depends on the CBC for it's survival. If the CBC died the league would have to just accept what TSN offers or fold as tv revenue is their number 1 source of income.

The CBC is the only other news that has covered it and would again if they where allowed to bid on that contract 

 

I think we have universal agreement that the CBC needs to be reviewed the top down and run like a public sector service ( meaning zero bonuses for executives) and there probably is a fair amount of consolidation that could help streamline them and provide greater cost savings 

 

But I do feel that the CBC has modern relevance to the country and is worth continuing.

[Bure_Pavel]

9 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Canada does not have stellar internet service in all parts of the country.   CBC's mandate is to reach all parts of the country. (via radio if nothing else)

Internet network across the country has been improving consistently, why not use that CBC money to get make sure most have reliable internet. will be 100x more beneficial to those people than CBC radio. 

Edited July 17 by Bure_Pavel

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Internet network across the country has been improving consistently, why not used that CBC money to get make sure most have reliable internet. will be 100x more beneficial to those people than CBC radio. 

Improved but not stellar.  My opinion is unchanged.

[Joe King]

52 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Internet network across the country has been improving consistently, why not use that CBC money to get make sure most have reliable internet. will be 100x more beneficial to those people than CBC radio. 

I don't get why internet needs to reach every inch of this massive country. Is anything else equal across this massive land. Like medical care, road systems etc. 

Even distribution of these things are unaffordable. 

[Joe King]

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

Canada does not have stellar internet service in all parts of the country.   CBC's mandate is to reach all parts of the country. (via radio if nothing else)

Maybe they could have used some or all of the 15 million dollars bonus money.

Nope the upper management needed that 3 mil each more.

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Joe King said:

Maybe they could have used some or all of the 15 million dollars bonus money.

Nope the upper management needed that 3 mil each more.

That money would have covered all the required improvements I'm sure.

 

(Not that I'm fond of CEO bonuses.  I just think your statement is mostly a chirp against the CBC that doesn't say much about internet service in Canada.)

[Joe King]

Just now, Satchmo said:

That money would have covered all the required improvements I'm sure.

 

(Not that I'm fond of CEO bonuses.  I just think your statement is mostly a chirp against the CBC that doesn't say much about internet service in Canada.)

My point was about priorities. They say they want to supply better service but take 15 mil for themselves. Just looks bad. They take the money and run, I know I don't feel good about giving them more money.

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Internet network across the country has been improving consistently, why not use that CBC money to get make sure most have reliable internet. will be 100x more beneficial to those people than CBC radio. 

Do you trust the criminal organizations providing Internet in Canada to use that money as intended?

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

They just need to revamp and modernize their platform and not rely on 70% of their revenue from our tax dollars. I'm fine with a much much smaller subsidy. Even after that 1.5 billion dollars in free money/year they still report a loss, lay off 800 employees, and still give management massive bonuses. Do you not understand how poorly a business has to be run to still report a loss when 70% of your revenue is a free hand out, its extremely hard to do. Their actually costs would have to be more than double their actual revenue. In the age of internet CBC is a relic only kept around for its historical significance.  

 

1 hour ago, Joe King said:

With a business run as poorly as this how do they justify those bonuses. It really bothers me that they use tax payer money to stuff their bank accounts. That money could be used for things like defense,health care,help the homeless etc. 

 

The problem with this is that thanks to the current state of capitalism we're in, CEO's have set themselves up to garner an ever increasing percentage of income compared to workers. CBC unfortunately for them (and us taxpayers footing the bill) have to compete in that marketplace for competent CEO's, including their pay and bonuses.

 

So we either get idiots running it (that will likely still get albeit smaller bonuses), or we pay silly bonuses. The game is rigged, and we're not winning. Voting for the Cons will only hasten it IMO.

 

North America en masse needs a major shift in it's labour practices, activism, movements etc. Don't get me started on purchasing habits.

 

[Joe King]

Just now, aGENT said:

 

 

 

 

So we either get idiots running it (that will likely still get albeit smaller bonuses), or we pay silly bonuses. The game is rigged, and we're not winning. Voting for the Cons will only hasten it IMO.

 

Losing that much money even with a huge subsidy does sound like idiots running it.

On top of that they think that they did such a wonderful job that they should get Millions in bonus money.

 

 

[Bure_Pavel]

9 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Do you trust the criminal organizations providing Internet in Canada to use that money as intended?

If you make an agreement to build a certain number of cell towers in remote areas, its easy to count if they squelch on the deal. Im not suggesting the current model of "here have some free money its fine we can just print more". 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Joe King said:

 

 

You're not going to get a quote of me suggesting CEO's should be getting the silly bonuses they're getting literally everywhere. These are the same people that tanked the entire economy in 2008, got bailouts on the backs of taxpayers, and STILL got bonuses for doing so. I'm simply pointing out to you that this is not a CBC problem, it's an economic, growing wage gap, game is rigged etc problem that is in NO way exclusive to CBC.

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

If you make an agreement to build a certain number of cell towers in remote areas, its easy to count if they squelch on the deal. Im not suggesting the current model of "here have some free money its fine we can just print more". 

They'll also just pass on that cost to consumers even with a subsidy.  There's no way you seriously think Rogers and Bell can be trusted when they have shown no history of being capable of conducting themselves appropriately.

[Bure_Pavel]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

They'll also just pass on that cost to consumers even with a subsidy.  There's no way you seriously think Rogers and Bell can be trusted when they have shown no history of being capable of conducting themselves appropriately.

It would be more expensive in those remote areas, its just the way it is but with a cell tower there at least they would have the option. Have you gone a few days without internet it sucks pretty bad. 

[King Heffy]

55 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

It would be more expensive in those remote areas, its just the way it is but with a cell tower there at least they would have the option. Have you gone a few days without internet it sucks pretty bad. 

They wouldn't just be jacking it up for those living there. You're really underestimating the greed of the scumbags running out telecom companies.

[nuckin_futz]

Canada - Trudeau holds meeting with Mark Carney to join government

• Carney getting closer to joining the CAD government

The background to this is here:

• Canadian finance minister could walk the plank. Mark Carney could be tapped

Canadian media, Globe and Mail (gated) are reporting that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged Mark Carney to join his Liberal government.

 

Four unnamed sources were quoted, so it appears to be getting closer.

[Bob Long]

49 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Canada - Trudeau holds meeting with Mark Carney to join government

• Carney getting closer to joining the CAD government

The background to this is here:

• Canadian finance minister could walk the plank. Mark Carney could be tapped

Canadian media, Globe and Mail (gated) are reporting that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has urged Mark Carney to join his Liberal government.

 

Four unnamed sources were quoted, so it appears to be getting closer.

 

[Warhippy]

Whenever people claim that 2+ decades in office is a good thing.  Remember it comes with a clear history of voting.

 

So when y'all vote.  Remember to ask this individual why they'd be a good PM and why they have this voting record but still point the finger in blame at other people 

 

 

Edited July 18 by Warhippy

[Warhippy]

I think people on the right need to understand the true state of todays partisan climate.

 

I don't see anyone in the centre or on the left committing to this behaviour.  I don't mean to say they don't but I don't see it or hear of it if they do on any sort of level in comparison to todays right.

 

"tone down the rhetoric" and all that today's right say after the Trump-cident but they refuse to accept they are part of the problem

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mp-wants-protective-zones-around-offices-1.7267493

 

Former public safety minister Marco Mendicino is calling for the creation of "protective zones" around political constituency offices to shield members of Parliament and their staff from a rising tide of threatening behaviour.

Mendicino, a Toronto Liberal MP, said under the plan, anyone who intimidated or otherwise harassed people within the buffer zone of perhaps 50 to 100 metres would be subject to harsher criminal penalties including jail time.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Mendicino suggested spelling out such zones in regulations that will flow from the recently passed foreign interference bill, which contains new measures to protect essential infrastructure.

The former minister's comments come as the attempted assassination of former U.S. president Donald Trump prompts renewed concern and discussion about the safety of Canadian politicians.

[BabyCakes]

43 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Whenever people claim that 2+ decades in office is a good thing.  Remember it comes with a clear history of voting.

 

So when y'all vote.  Remember to ask this individual why they'd be a good PM and why they have this voting record but still point the finger in blame at other people 

 

 

Interesting though

 

PP career politician = bad

Trudeau non career politician = good

 

but in the States

 

Biden career politician = good

Trump non career politician = bad

 

The upside down world