Time For a New Party

[Canadian Blue]

Well, I'm just about completely disgruntled with the current political system. Despite the fact that I strongly liked the CPC for the first two years they were in power, it seems they have abandoned all principles in favor of political expedients. I sure as hell didn't vote for a massive deficit back in October, nor did I vote for the status quo on the Human Rights Commissions.

This has given me pause to think, is it perhaps time for another party on the right in the mould of the old Reform Party of Canada. Now I'll be the first to recognize that their were a few morons who hurt the party, but speaking in general terms the party did alot of good. Whether it was on fighting the national deficit, supporting decentralization, or opposing nonsensical government programs.

What would a new party look like, here is what I'd like for starters:

1. Decentralization, recognizing that alot of the roles the federal government is currently doing can be performed better by the provinces/municipalities.

2. Having a limited government, as per #1.

3. A foreign policy based on peace, commerce, and cordial relations. Jean Chretien was correct in not going to Iraq, if it's not in our national interest we shouldn't waste lives on such endeavours.

4. Have 5 Senators per province, however Senators will be chosen by the provincial governments instead of the PMO.

5. Taking more power out of the PMO, I'd even suggest that the spot for Prime Minister should be chosen by a secret ballot amongst Parliamentarians. That way our politics will become more local and we'll simply vote for the candidate who best represents the riding's interest as compared to voting for the Party.

6. Tighten immigration, in order for a person to become Canadian they must first learn english or french, learn Canadian laws and customs, and be employed. If they commit a crime or become unemployed [for more than three months] they should be deported.

7. Federal taxation to be gradually shifted over to consumption instead of income. Essentially making that taxation voluntary.

Needless to say I know that most of these will be hard to come by, especially number 5. But this is what I'd like to see in Canada, I only wish we had a political party that would take on these issues.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[charter.rights]

Hey! Good Idea! I even have a name for it....

The Reform Party.....

Edited March 9, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted entirely re-copied Opening Post

[punked]

Please oh please start this movement, start this party and run someone in every riding.

[Progressive Tory]

Please oh please start this movement, start this party and run someone in every riding.

I like all of these, though option 6 is a little harsh. They need time to learn our language and customs.

I've been saying for a long time that once an election is over, campaigning must be as well. Since the office of Prime Minister is not an elected position but a designated one, it makes sense that they should be designated by Parliamentarians. In a majority it would naturally fall to the party with the most seats, as decided by voters; but in a minority hopefully the person most deserving would get the job.

I also believe that the PM should have the right, and perhaps even be encouraged, to choose his cabinet across Party lines, without the minister having to 'cross the floor'. Obama has brought several Republicans into his administration simply because they are the best for the job.

After an election all 308 MPs should be working together without partisanship deciding what's best for us. We could then have set election dates every four years, making it mandatory that no politician 'campaigns' until three months prior to the election. The rest of the time they have to work for us, since we're the ones paying their salaries, not the party executives. This might reduce the amount of immature bickering, where witty put downs pass for legitimate debate.

I also very much like the idea of an elected senate.

[Smallc]

After an election all 308 MPs should be working together without partisanship deciding what's best for us.

Well, in all fairness, our system isn't designed that way. The Opposition is supposed to oppose. The can agree on some issues to get them through, but our system isn't really meant to harbour consensus.

[Molly]

Yes... in a perfect world....

I must admit, though, I'd like to see party discipline systems gutted. We'd be a better nation for it.

I also appreciate that senators, by being beholden to no one, serve us in ways that an elected senate cannot. They aren't subject to the whim du jour, and can take a more sweeping view of the national future. There's some merit in having that. Electing senators removes that angle of their relevance.

[Progressive Tory]

Well, in all fairness, our system isn't designed that way. The Opposition is supposed to oppose. The can agree on some issues to get them through, but our system isn't really meant to harbour consensus.

All Opposition will still be able to oppose and all bills voted on. That wouldn't change. It's just the never ending campaigning. Oppose the issue but stop attacking each other.

Nobody in Parliament is really stupid, or they wouldn't be there. All bring something to the table and all are supposed to be representing their constituents. Stick to what you were elected to do. You got the job already, now prove you can do it.

Any pamphlets or newsletters that you send out must stick to the point and not show partisanship because your constitutents come from all parties, not just yours. Any infraction would result in immediate dismissal.

The Tories have learned nothing about campaigning on taxpayer money outside of an election.

Just saying oops, I forgot and I'll pay you back is not good enough. Gail Shea won her seat by just 76 votes, which means that the people she represents includes Liberals, NDP and Green, so she is also attacking almost half of the people she's supposed to working for. This is unacceptable and she should be fired.

[Progressive Tory]

I also appreciate that senators, by being beholden to no one, serve us in ways that an elected senate cannot. They aren't subject to the whim du jour, and can take a more sweeping view of the national future. There's some merit in having that. Electing senators removes that angle of their relevance.

Senators are still appointed and represent parties. Senators shouldn't run with any party affiliation, only on their own merit. They are supposed to the 'sober second thought' of the House of Commons, not cheerleaders.

[neutralguy]

I think what we've seen latley (last 6 months or so) is political opportunism at its finest. (from all sides) So, when I look at it, for me, its a system problem, as opposed to a party thing. We have a better system than the Americans, considering that we can have more political parties, to truly represent all kinds of ideas and principles. But, even with that, there can be improvements. The idea of proportional representation and getting use to the idea of coalitions might be the direction to take.

We also have to look at educating the electorate.(from an early age) I think some people see proportional representation as a problem because nothing would ever get done (due to more coalition govts) but the bigger problem in my eyes is if we get random representation because the electorate isn't informed.

Edited March 9, 2009 by neutralguy

[Progressive Tory]

The idea of proportional representation and getting use to the idea of coalitions might be the direction to take.

We also have to look at educating the electorate.(from an early age) I think some people see proportional representation as a problem because nothing would ever gone done (due to more coalition govts) but the bigger problem in my eyes is if we get random representation because the electorate isn't informed.

You're absolutely right. Parliament is not working, and while I prefer our system to most others, we need to find ways to make it less partisan and more functional. Many countries have been run by coalition governments for decades, and they seem to work just fine.

I liked the idea suggesting that Prime Ministers be appointed by Parliamentarians and not the Governor General. This way the PM must make an effort to work with all MPs, not against those outside of his Party. We pay his salary and the MP we elected to represent us, deserves more respect.

[Canadian Blue]

The idea of Parliament isn't consensus, however allowing MP's more independence will allow them to take more principled stands, the exact opposite of consensus. I want a debating chamber, not an echo chamber.

[Progressive Tory]

The idea of Parliament isn't consensus, however allowing MP's more independence will allow them to take more principled stands, the exact opposite of consensus. I want a debating chamber, not an echo chamber.

I want a debating chamber as well, but with legitimate debate over issues; not personal bickering. It should be the Prime Minister's job to make Parliament work, and the Speaker of the House shouldn't always have to act as referee.

[g_bambino]

I liked the idea suggesting that Prime Ministers be appointed by Parliamentarians and not the Governor General. This way the PM must make an effort to work with all MPs, not against those outside of his Party.

Er, that's essentially what we have already. The Governor General will, by convention, only appoint as prime minister the person who commands the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons. That way, the PM must make an effort to work with at least most MPs, which would be no different should he be chosen by secret ballot. Further, if the Governor General were denied the ability to appoint the Prime Minister, then neither could the former dismiss the latter. What, then, and for example, would happen if a PM who had lured most other MPs to his cause refused to step down when his alotted time was up?

[Canadian Blue]

It's not really what we have since backbench MP's really have no power or say over the issues. I'm fairly certain that if the Conservative caucus were to vote on the budget a large proportion would have voted against the deficit, needless to say they couldn't due to their obligations to the party.

Our system is a farce because we don't really elect MP's in general, when people go to vote they'll always choose either the party or the leader. I've only known maybe a dozen candidates who I would vote for based soley on their qualifications with no regard to their party, which might I add would include Joe Anglin of the Green Party of Alberta.

[Smallc]

Our system is a farce

That's one opinion. On the other hand, the farce seems to have worked out quite well so far for our country. How come people who claim to be conservative always want to change our system?

[Canadian Blue]

That's one opinion. On the other hand, the farce seems to have worked out quite well so far for our country. How come people who claim to be conservative always want to change our system?

I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. But I suppose I am being too harsh, I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician.

[Smallc]

a whore has far better morals than a typical politician.

Because generalizations are always rational.....

Just because something doesn't agree with your personal morals....well....it doesn't automatically become bad.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, most politicians. The problem is that most politicians I like either don't get elected or don't last long when they do get elected. More or less because a politicians job involves bribery, extortion, creating conflict in order to achieve power, living outside of your means, taking credit for the work of others, and selling off the liberty of individuals to get votes. We teach our children not to act like politicians.

I'm currently reading "Look Homeward America" and in it the author details the lives of two Senators. While each one was respectable in one fashion or another, they both sold off their principles for expedients often. It's no surprise that working in the government is the first step to becoming an anti-statist.

But, I do believe that politics would be greatly improved if it was done at a far more local level.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Riverwind]

The idea of Parliament isn't consensus, however allowing MP's more independence will allow them to take more principled stands, the exact opposite of consensus. I want a debating chamber, not an echo chamber.

Not a chance. US reps have a lot more freedom to vote according to principle but that the 'principle' is primarily determined by the lobby groups and/or noisy constituants. Party loyalty has its downsides but it is naive to think that any practical alternative will be better. In fact, I would say the strong fiscal position of the country today is a direct result of our system which requires MPs to support their leader. Without it we would be mired in red ink like the Americans. Edited March 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

But, I do believe that politics would be greatly improved if it was done at a far more local level.

Surely you jest. Have you taken a lot at the porkbarelling and disfunction that goes on in the US system because congressmen tend to think more locally than MPs? They even invented a word for the abuse: 'earmarks'.

[Molly]

The notion that backbench MPs are powerless ignores the fact that they have the kind of access, credibility and influence with the folks with the final word, that lobbyists WISH they could get. They have the highly enhanced power of persuasion- the opportunity to convince their fellows. The achievement of concensus isn't just party leaders duking it out--- It's backbenchers letting their own party know what they will or will not go along with, and what they demand in return. It doesn't all show in the HOC.

Politics is sooooooo much more than just a show of hands.....

Folks voting 'party first and only', or 'party leader only' are abdicating responsibility. We (they) get precisely the representation they voted for and deserve. If they vote for a crook or a political whore, then that's what they get. If they've got one, then it's because that's who they voted for.

I can think of three that I voted for in spite of their party affiliation- one Liberal, one Reform, and one NDP. I'd still be pleased to be represented by any one of them. The few times I've voted for 'party' without regard to the candidate have all provided stinkingly poor representation. We point the finger at politicians for being slimeballs, but we're the ones who choose them for the job.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Molly

[Canadian Blue]

Not a chance. US reps have a lot more freedom to vote according to principle but that the 'principle' is primarily determined by the lobby groups and/or noisy constituants. Party loyalty has its downsides but it is naive to think that any practical alternative will be better. In fact, I would say the strong fiscal position of the country today is a direct result of our system which requires MPs to support their leader. Without it we would be mired in red ink like the Americans.

Yes, their is no doubt in my mind that if all MP's are mere drones we'd all be better off.

Surely you jest. Have you taken a lot at the porkbarelling and disfunction that goes on in the US system because congressmen tend to think more locally than MPs? They even invented a word for the abuse: 'earmarks'.

Actually you've proven my point, Congressman tend to steal from other American's to bribe voters in their own constitutencies, much like when that Liberal MP stated the carbon tax was good policy because it would take money from one part of the country and be put to work in his riding.

If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd realize that I've supported limited government, what I mean by local is that if people want an initiative to be done at the local level, everything should be local. They shouldn't be crying to the bureaucracy in Ottawa looking for money from elsewhere.

[Michael Hardner]

Most of the people who suggest change to the system seem to hate the idea of compromise, which - yes - involves surrendering some of one's own ideas and principles for the greater good. I don't think extortion is as important to being a politician as being pragmatic, and pragmatism and compromise are definitely things that are in short supply.

smallc is correct. The current system has worked out extremely well for Canada - where we have gone right down the middle with adequate social programs as well as an excellent business environment, if you compare us with other nations.

The one area that I think we need to change is how government communicates - internally and with the electorate. Communications has changed immeasurably in the last 100 years while parliament has barely changed at all. Slow moving legislation bogs down government while the ministries aren't able to respond to our changing environment.

As I have proposed here before, I think parliament should be cut free from the operations of government and left to a 'talking chamber', where we discuss the larger issues before us. These, at least, are issues in which most people have an opinion.

The nuts and bolts of how EI works, what the Public Works department is working on... these things should be handled the way businesses are - with the electorate as the stakeholders.

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes... in a perfect world....

I must admit, though, I'd like to see party discipline systems gutted. We'd be a better nation for it.

I also appreciate that senators, by being beholden to no one, serve us in ways that an elected senate cannot. They aren't subject to the whim du jour, and can take a more sweeping view of the national future. There's some merit in having that. Electing senators removes that angle of their relevance.

I'm in absolute agreement there, I don't want elected senators who are beholden to the latest popluar majority opinion. I'm at odds with my party's position on this which is to abolish the senate altogether. I am happy to have the senate there to oppose some of Harper's crazy notions.

[punked]

Where is this new right wing party get on starting that.