Follow @DrMerle

Political nastiness in Canada – Ontario as an example: Ford’s cutting government & open for Business

Open for Business – or cutting $ for those who are not making ends meet? The nastiness toward the population who these MPs and MPPs have been elected to serve and whose taxes pay their salaries must be checked.  We the citizens cannot let the political nastiness they inflict have us voicing the words they use – when discussing the ‘other’ political parties  and on Social Media making everyone who has another view  the ‘other’ with put down quotes.

Changing the direction of society OR as our talking heads like to state – “the country” is really about changing everyday living and our lives. The power in the hands of a few – in Ontario the 75 members of the PC Party to shape our lives without a care says more about us citizens then the 75, names we cannot remember most of the time.  These 75 think they own Ontario and do not act like care takers of a province that they will leave in 4 years.

We in Ontario must hold them accountable daily by making our voices heard in their offices, by email or letters. Advocacy works.

When liked minded people get together with people who have different views – it is the ability to give and take that will bring the group to an understandings of an issue and outcomes rather than leaving it up to 75 politicians who in their dreams think the majority voted for them.  You may not get everything that you want on most issues but like most families who usually has to compromise when major issues are discussed, we have to do the same negotiations. Until we see each other as part the Canadian family – we will see those who do not see eye to eye with us as the other.

The issue now can have at least 3 key messages to discuss with each MPP/MP usually on a Friday when you can request a meeting as you are part of the Riding they serve. At the meeting have a letter signed by the group, take 2 other members of your group with you.  MPPs and MPs need to know that they cannot hold us, citizens, hostage because we do not have a high priced Lobbyist to lobby the government for us.  Imagine if these small groups multiplied and communicated with each other not as PCs, Liberals, or NDPs but as Canadians who wanted the best for Canada and Canadians. Large groups with their size lobby the government who will pander to them. But then they are only looking out for their group and do not speak for the all of us who wish to have input into government.  Working together to make change is important or we are allowing 75 mostly power-hungry politicians who owe their power to large contributors to make policies that affect our lives. Social Media is a place to let off steam and amounts to nothing. Change occurs only when agency is taken back by the citizens. Politicians come and go – we the citizen pay the horrific price when society fails.

How do we stop this current horrible Nastiness? This is one idea of how healing the political debate and taking back control of policies can occur – I am sure there are more ideas out there.

 

Merle Jacobs

From Rangoon to London then to Canada, now home. Professor at York U in Toronto. Equity Studies.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

Read More

Trust and its determinants -OECD Statistics Working Papers

This is a good read.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/trust-and-its-determinants_869ef2ec-en

This paper describes the results of an international initiative on trust (Trustlab) run in six OECD countries between November 2016 and November 2017 (France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Slovenia and the United States). Trustlab combines cutting-edge techniques drawn from behavioural science and experimental economics with an extensive survey on the policy and contextual determinants of trust in others and trust in institutions, administered to representative samples of participants. The main results are as follows: 1) Self-reported measures of trust in institutions are validated experimentally, 2) Self-reported measures of trust in others capture a belief about trustworthiness (as well as altruistic preferences), whereas experimental measures rather capture willingness to cooperate and one’s own trustworthiness. Therefore, both measures are loosely related, and should be considered complementary rather than substitutes; 3) Perceptions of institutional performance strongly correlate with both trust in government and trust in others; 4) Perceived government integrity is the strongest determinant of trust in government; 5) In addition to indicators associated with social capital, such as neighbourhood connectedness and attitudes towards immigration, perceived satisfaction with public services, social preferences and expectations matter for trust in others; 6) There is a large scope for policy action, as an increase in all significant determinants of trust in government by one standard deviation may be conducive to an increase in trust by 30 to 60%.

Murtin, F., et al. (2018), “Trust and its determinants: Evidence from the Trustlab experiment”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/869ef2ec-en.

Merle Jacobs

From Rangoon to London then to Canada, now home. Professor at York U in Toronto. Equity Studies.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

Read More

EU monitoring mission arrives in Myanmar to investigate whether GSP should be withdrawn

Today the EU monitoring mission arrives in Myanmar to investigate whether GSP should be withdrawn. WRITER by: LARRY JAGAN

 

This would be catastrophic: Causing unemployment of anything upwards of 500,000; mass exodus of young women across the border looking for work and all the dangers trafficking entails. A loss of 2 billion in dollars in exports worsening trade deficit and putting further pressure on the Myanmar currency.

In today’s Bangkok Post for good measure, with more detailed analysis.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/news/1566338/hanging-by-a-thread

“The EU only restored Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) status for this sector in Myanmar in 2013, 16 years after suspending it to punish the previous military regime. The textile and footwear industry has grown by leaps and bounds in the past five years as a result.

“If the EU removes GSP, more than half the workforce employed in the garment sector are at risk of losing their jobs,” Khine Khine Nwe, secretary-general of the Myanmar Garment Manufacturers Association, told Asia Focus. More than 90% of them are young, unskilled women, with no alternative employment prospects.

“Chinese factories employ around 300,000 people,” she said. These Chinese investors were attracted to Myanmar because of the country’s easy access to the European market under GSP. If that is withdrawn, they will certainly pull out and relocate elsewhere, probably to Thailand or Vietnam, she predicted.

This would be tragic, she said, because these women sustain their families — on average five people: a spouse and at least three children. More than a million people would suffer directly as a result, she estimated.

“A slowdown in Myanmar’s emerging garment industry would also dramatically affect the textile supply chain — such as thread and buttons — and the supporting industries — embroidery, printing, production of polyester bags and cartons — that are important for the textile and garment industry,” Myint Soe, chairman of the garment manufacturers’ association, told Asia Focus.

Kristian Schmidt, the EU ambassador to Myanmar, elaborated on the plans for the visit of the monitoring mission this week.

“The mission will assess the country’s progress in respecting the core conditions on which the trade privileges are granted, including respect for human rights, and be informed by the reality on the ground,” he told Asia Focus.”

Merle Jacobs

From Rangoon to London then to Canada, now home. Professor at York U in Toronto. Equity Studies.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

Read More