Alberta_Rose

Well ..... somebody else might have been wondering.

She apparently went some way towards redeeming herslf in last night's debate, according to the news this morning.

Jingsamichty

I do find it rather alarming that the standard that potential VP Mrs Palin is being held to is basically "that she didn't f*** it up".

I think they hold stronger standards than that if you're running for chair of a school board of governers, never mind the second-most powerful person in the USA.

iaink

Thats debatable. Constitutionally the VP has bugger all to do and very little influence. John Garner (FDRs VP, 1933-41) memorably described his elevated office as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss"

However, should the president become incapacitated, then its a short steep elevation to power.....

neill

To me, the 'hot button' issues in QC are the state of the transport infrastructure, and the size of the government.

But i guess i'm just showing my political colours.

Novocastrian

Not very clearly. Do you want more or less transport infrastructure and more or less government?

If it's more or the first and less of the second, should you perhaps think this through a bit?

Alberta_Rose

From what I've read and seen, somebody needs to explain to Ms Palin exactly what the duties of a VP are, as she doesn't seem too sure!

nooka

The influence of the VP varies depending on the individual. They should be an assistant to the president with a mutual agreement as to that role. They should not be involved in the Legislature except when there is a need for a deciding vote in the Senate. Certainly Cheney has been very influential, many say far too much so, and to very bad effect. Palin appeared to be asking for more power than he had which is worrying. Also one in three VPs get to become President...

Dave+Jules

Either that or they go to Ontario to commit their crime

Dave+Jules

More infrastructure and less government please

dbd33

Kaboom! A miracle happens.

Infrastructure, such as the interstate system or the hospitals in Canada, gets built because governments build it. The free market is consumed by the need for a profit this year and so cannot help with projects with a hundred year life cycle.

More infrastructure or less government is a choice, like ice cream or thinness, you can't have them both.

Dave+Jules

Hmmm I wonder how roads get built?

Silly me I thought it was a tendering process and private companies bid for the work. I didnt realise you needed more government workers to help with the RFP and selection process. All they need to do is appoint their own Project Manager, design review team (more private sector roles with tightly designed governance).

Then appoint REAL project governance control not the wishy washy stuff I see now (in most provinces not just QC).

Unless government is running at full capacity I see no reason why spending money needs to generate more government. I know some government departments are running at near capacity and some go over the edge. But perhaps if they reviewed the working practices they may squeeze more work out of people during the summer months

Novocastrian

For whatever reason, you're choosing to miss the point. "Less government" is not synonymous with "fewer government employees", although of course, if so specified it could legitimately used in that sense.

More generally, "less government" implies "less government spending". In which case who actually wields the shovel is irrelevant. It's who pays for it to be wielded which matters.

Dave+Jules

There was me thinking small government was about getting the best bang for your buck and keeping government out of social engineering and sticking with creating the right environment for the society to thrive ..... (infrastructure such as power, roads, public buildings, education, healthcare, law and order to name a few)

hmmmm it doesnt get more ambiguous than that. One person's thrive is another person's interference and social engineering.

dbd33

If you're saying above that government should provide infrastructure such as power, roads, public buildings, education, healthcare, law and order then I agree with you.

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "social engineering". What you call "social engineering", I call "protecting children", and would include it under "law and order".

Novocastrian

You sound like a retarded version of Sarah Palin in dire need of a teleprompter. "Bang for your buck", "social engineering"; Define your terms man.