Have we entered a new era in Canadian Politics?

[CAMP]

I believe we have entered a new era in Canadian politics. With the major parties consisting of Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block, and Greens ( Given some are more major than others) I can't see either of the two biggest parties (Liberals, Conservatives) ever obtaining a majority ever again. With even more new political parties entering the scene, ( Central Party of Canada as well as a host of others) they will inevitably eat up some votes. It took the Greens 20 years to get where they are now and they may have eclipsed. (We'll see next election)

On the off chance if we do wind up with a majority government it would most likely not be through popular vote.

We'd most likely have a majority with less than 30% of the popular vote (Terrible)

We sadly need electoral reform and a getting back to the basics ( MP's responsible to their constituents ). This would at least have politicians more accountable to Canadians rather than their party bosses.

[Bonam]

I believe we have entered a new era in Canadian politics. With the major parties consisting of Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block, and Greens ( Given some are more major than others) I can't see either of the two biggest parties (Liberals, Conservatives) ever obtaining a majority ever again. With even more new political parties entering the scene, ( Central Party of Canada as well as a host of others) they will inevitably eat up some votes. It took the Greens 20 years to get where they are now and they may have eclipsed. (We'll see next election)

On the off chance if we do wind up with a majority government it would most likely not be through popular vote.

We'd most likely have a majority with less than 30% of the popular vote (Terrible)

We sadly need electoral reform and a getting back to the basics ( MP's responsible to their constituents ). This would at least have politicians more accountable to Canadians rather than their party bosses.

I agree with many of your points, however, what is wrong with a minority government? A majority gives one party a free hand to do pretty much whatever they want, while with a minority they are kept in check. A conservative minority government is pretty much the optimum we can have out of our current possibilities in Canada, in my opinion.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Bonam

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will predict a majority government two elections from now. I will go further out on a limb, it will be a Liberal government.

[CAMP]

I agree with many of your points, however, what is wrong with a minority government? A majority gives one party a free hand to do pretty much whatever they want, while with a minority they are kept in check. A conservative minority government is pretty much the optimum we can have out of our current possibilities in Canada, in my opinion.

The biggest problem I see with a minority government is the lack of real government coehesiveness to actually do what's right instead of attempting to save themselves from loss of power or causing another election.

If minority governments would actually work together instead of constantly trying to undermine each other then yes I'd be ok with them.

I'd much rather see all MP's being accountable to their constituents through out a mandate, this would eliminate partisan politics and really give the flavour of how Canadians want it. I'd also like to see referendums on major decisions like going off to war, or a large financial crisis like bailing out GM. The government has referendum legislation in place and never use it. Ever wonder why? I do, and I want that changed. I don't want to let any government loose with my wallet for four years ever again. If the people of Canada would have had a say in those two matters alone I wonder where we'd be now. Soldiers at home perhaps? GM bought out and called something else? Maybe we'd have more money to spend on health care or make Canada better in other ways instead of reaking havock on some far off land. Don't get me wrong I support our troops only because I have to go with what my government says and they are the poor buggers caught in the middle.

We need to have our thumbs on our government more now than ever to get it under control of the people instead of the people under control of the government.

[Bonam]

The biggest problem I see with a minority government is the lack of real government coehesiveness to actually do what's right instead of attempting to save themselves from loss of power or causing another election.

If minority governments would actually work together instead of constantly trying to undermine each other then yes I'd be ok with them.

If something is sufficiently important and urgent, multiple parties can get behind it. If something is only mildly distasteful to opposition parties, they can support the government on it rather than triggering an election. The current minority has managed to get several things done. With the exception of urgent matters, I'd rather the government do as little as possible rather than as much a possible - I am in favor of small government, and the more the parties keep each other in check, the slower the government can expand.

I'd much rather see all MP's being accountable to their constituents through out a mandate, this would eliminate partisan politics and really give the flavour of how Canadians want it.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

I'd also like to see referendums on major decisions like going off to war, or a large financial crisis like bailing out GM. The government has referendum legislation in place and never use it. Ever wonder why? I do, and I want that changed. I don't want to let any government loose with my wallet for four years ever again. If the people of Canada would have had a say in those two matters alone I wonder where we'd be now. Soldiers at home perhaps?

Well, I happen to support our mission in Afghanistan and the reasons for it. Matters of war cannot be decided by referendum, military decisions must often be made quickly, and military intelligence that forms the basis for a reason for war can often not be shared with the public without compromising the ability of a military operation to succeed. That is why there is an executive branch that needs to be able to make military decisions quickly and decisively without waiting for referendums.

GM bought out and called something else? Maybe we'd have more money to spend on health care or make Canada better in other ways instead of reaking havock on some far off land. Don't get me wrong I support our troops only because I have to go with what my government says and they are the poor buggers caught in the middle.

The GM bailout was a mistake yes. As for saving money from our military to fund more social programs, I couldn't disagree more. Canada needs to pull its weight in our alliances, and we need to ensure our interests both at home and abroad. If anything, we should continue to increase military funding to make it a respectable fighting force instead of the poorly equipped and undermanned force it is now. It would also provide a huge stimulus to our economy and our industry, as well as helping to stop the brain drain we experience to the US.

[xul]

however, what is wrong with a minority government? A majority gives one party a free hand to do pretty much whatever they want, while with a minority they are kept in check.

I think a minority government needs to prepare being overturned and having an election all the time, so it can hardly have a long-term plan on how to run the country, or it may have a plan but just lack the motive to execute it.

For example, let's assume that there is a 30 years old timeworn reactor which needs a governmental decision of plunging $1 billion to build a new one to run another 30 years safely, or spending $100 million on maintenance to keep it alive in an additional year. If the government is a minority government, choosing the second option may be a "wise" decision----just for the PM doesn't know if he could present at the opening ceremony cutting the ribbon after he sacrificed so many votes for increasing tax or doing something to raise money to build the new reactor.

Edited July 2, 2009 by xul

[Bonam]

I think a minority government needs to prepare being overturned and having a election all the time, so it can hardly have a long-term plan on how to run the country, or it may have a plan but just lack the motive to execute it.

For example, let's assume that there is a 30 years old timeworn reactor which needs a governmental decision of plunging $1 billion to build a new one to run another 30 years safely, or spending $100 million on maintenance to keep it alive in an additional year. If the government is a minority government, choosing the second option may be a "wise" decision----just for the PM doesn't know if he could present at the opening ceremony cutting the ribbon after he sacrificed so many votes for increasing tax or doing something to raise money to build the new reactor.

A new nuclear reactor usually takes decades to build anyway, from the initial planning stages, so the PM wouldn't be there later even if he had a majority government and even if he won multiple terms. I do see your point of course, but I don't think it really matters if it's minority or majority. Any government in a democracy pretty much only plans on the timescale that terms last, i.e. 4 or 5 years max, and long term planning is done only superficially so they can claim "we have a plan". There's no way to avoid this in a democracy with term limits.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Bonam

[CAMP]

If something is sufficiently important and urgent, multiple parties can get behind it. If something is only mildly distasteful to opposition parties, they can support the government on it rather than triggering an election. The current minority has managed to get several things done. With the exception of urgent matters, I'd rather the government do as little as possible rather than as much a possible - I am in favor of small government, and the more the parties keep each other in check, the slower the government can expand.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

Well, I happen to support our mission in Afghanistan and the reasons for it. Matters of war cannot be decided by referendum, military decisions must often be made quickly, and military intelligence that forms the basis for a reason for war can often not be shared with the public without compromising the ability of a military operation to succeed. That is why there is an executive branch that needs to be able to make military decisions quickly and decisively without waiting for referendums.

The GM bailout was a mistake yes. As for saving money from our military to fund more social programs, I couldn't disagree more. Canada needs to pull its weight in our alliances, and we need to ensure our interests both at home and abroad. If anything, we should continue to increase military funding to make it a respectable fighting force instead of the poorly equipped and undermanned force it is now. It would also provide a huge stimulus to our economy and our industry, as well as helping to stop the brain drain we experience to the US.

I respect your thoughts on Afghanistan. What I want though is to find out if the majority of Canadians feel about it, and have our government act accordingly, this is true democracy. Wouldn't you have loved to have a referendum on a GM bail out? I know I would have. Timing was not of the essence with that situation. You could have a point about war issues and the expedience of a decision good point.

Referendums could be done quickly if electronic voting and polling was set up as a regular occurrence in Canada. This is one of the main agendas of the Central Party of Canada and the Party I support.

I totally agree with what you're saying about our military. My point was when you go off to war it costs a lot of money. Just wait for the final tally as to what it's going to cost Canada over the long haul. We could use that money to improve our military as well as many other things.

Edited July 2, 2009 by CAMP

[segnosaur]

I agree with many of your points, however, what is wrong with a minority government? A majority gives one party a free hand to do pretty much whatever they want, while with a minority they are kept in check. A conservative minority government is pretty much the optimum we can have out of our current possibilities in Canada, in my opinion.

While the idea of keeping a government 'in check' has some advantages, there ARE some disadvantages to minority governments as well...

- As others have already pointed out, successive minority governments may have trouble engaging in long term planning.

- Small parties may end up with more influence than they would normally get, as a condition of supporting a minority government (i.e. a party with only a few seats may be able to get the government to enact policies even if they were wildly unpopular.)

- The government in power may attempt to 'preempt' the other parties by putting forward legislation that its constituents would not favour, but which were supported by other parties in order to gain support with voters (example: its quite possible that many of the spending initiatives enacted by the current conservative government would not have been enacted if the Conservatives were not dealing with other parties that also were proposing spending increases. Thus, any voter who initially supported the conservatives because they thought they would exercise fiscal restraint becomes disenfranchised). In other words, it eliminates, at least in part, the idea of voters having a 'clear choice'

Now, whether you think the advantages of minority governments outweight the disadvantages is a personal opinion for which there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

[segnosaur]

Referendums could be done quickly if electronic voting and polling was set up as a regular occurrence in Canada. This is one of the main agendas of the Central Party of Canada and the Party I support.

Countries have to be veeeery careful when dealing with referendums. Depending on how referendums are proposed/enacted, you can have situations where the government finds itself having to deal with possibly contradictory referrendum results.

For example, if one referendum demanded a tax cut, and another referendum demanded increased government services, the government of the day would be stuck trying to enact referendum results that were at cross purposes to each other.

This doesn't mean that referendums are bad ideas; just that the way they're used has to be thought out very carefully.

[CAMP]

While the idea of keeping a government 'in check' has some advantages, there ARE some disadvantages to minority governments as well...

- As others have already pointed out, successive minority governments may have trouble engaging in long term planning.

- Small parties may end up with more influence than they would normally get, as a condition of supporting a minority government (i.e. a party with only a few seats may be able to get the government to enact policies even if they were wildly unpopular.)

- The government in power may attempt to 'preempt' the other parties by putting forward legislation that its constituents would not favour, but which were supported by other parties in order to gain support with voters (example: its quite possible that many of the spending initiatives enacted by the current conservative government would not have been enacted if the Conservatives were not dealing with other parties that also were proposing spending increases. Thus, any voter who initially supported the conservatives because they thought they would exercise fiscal restraint becomes disenfranchised). In other words, it eliminates, at least in part, the idea of voters having a 'clear choice'

Now, whether you think the advantages of minority governments outweight the disadvantages is a personal opinion for which there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer.

Very well explained. Thank you. This feeds right into where I believe that referendums should be held for large issues such as the GM bail out or going off to war.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Pie in the sky! It must be some utopian world you live in if you think for one lousy second the kind of changes you are talking about will ever come to pass under the sun in this nation.

Our dumb system of government, flawed as it is, is still astute enough to see power being taken from partisan coffers under any such plan. What you folks need to understand is that the partisan system requires internal reforms prior to there being any form of hope for democratic reforms which is what you seek

I will offer a suggestion, a means of attaining that which you seek. It is a simple plan, one which may be used for every partisan faction. The plan need not be specific to any level of government, it will work as long as there is a partisan system of representation.

It goes like this;

1) Join the party in power

2) Join the local constituency association

3) Offer to assist in local operations

4) Undertake a local political survey of your own neighborhood

5) Acquire phone numbers and email addresses of constituents in the process

6) Use local meeting to propose a system of localized direct democracy in order to have the elected candidate actually represent the

views of constituents

7) Use local meeting to propose recall legislation

8) Use local meeting to propose fixed election dates

9) Use local meeting to propose term limits for elected representatives

That is the extent of the things you can do at the local level. However you do have the ability to elect delegates to regional or higher meetings. The same process can be undertaken at a higher level. The reality is that once the process has begun at the lowest levels, then it could and would become contagious within the partisan system because it offers democratic control without power. It is a system that can be used to provide the support needed for true legislative efforts at reforms.

[punked]

Pie in the sky! It must be some utopian world you live in if you think for one lousy second the kind of changes you are talking about will ever come to pass under the sun in this nation.

Our dumb system of government, flawed as it is, is still astute enough to see power being taken from partisan coffers under any such plan. What you folks need to understand is that the partisan system requires internal reforms prior to there being any form of hope for democratic reforms which is what you seek

I will offer a suggestion, a means of attaining that which you seek. It is a simple plan, one which may be used for every partisan faction. The plan need not be specific to any level of government, it will work as long as there is a partisan system of representation.

It goes like this;

1) Join the party in power

2) Join the local constituency association

3) Offer to assist in local operations

4) Undertake a local political survey of your own neighborhood

5) Acquire phone numbers and email addresses of constituents in the process

6) Use local meeting to propose a system of localized direct democracy in order to have the elected candidate actually represent the

views of constituents

7) Use local meeting to propose recall legislation

8) Use local meeting to propose fixed election dates

9) Use local meeting to propose term limits for elected representatives

That is the extent of the things you can do at the local level. However you do have the ability to elect delegates to regional or higher meetings. The same process can be undertaken at a higher level. The reality is that once the process has begun at the lowest levels, then it could and would become contagious within the partisan system because it offers democratic control without power. It is a system that can be used to provide the support needed for true legislative efforts at reforms.

That wont help becuase when MP's get nominated they sign a paper saying they vote however the leader wants them too. Then if they don't they get kicked out. Done and done.

[CAMP]

Pie in the sky! It must be some utopian world you live in if you think for one lousy second the kind of changes you are talking about will ever come to pass under the sun in this nation.

Our dumb system of government, flawed as it is, is still astute enough to see power being taken from partisan coffers under any such plan. What you folks need to understand is that the partisan system requires internal reforms prior to there being any form of hope for democratic reforms which is what you seek

I will offer a suggestion, a means of attaining that which you seek. It is a simple plan, one which may be used for every partisan faction. The plan need not be specific to any level of government, it will work as long as there is a partisan system of representation.

It goes like this;

1) Join the party in power

2) Join the local constituency association

3) Offer to assist in local operations

4) Undertake a local political survey of your own neighborhood

5) Acquire phone numbers and email addresses of constituents in the process

6) Use local meeting to propose a system of localized direct democracy in order to have the elected candidate actually represent the

views of constituents

7) Use local meeting to propose recall legislation

8) Use local meeting to propose fixed election dates

9) Use local meeting to propose term limits for elected representatives

That is the extent of the things you can do at the local level. However you do have the ability to elect delegates to regional or higher meetings. The same process can be undertaken at a higher level. The reality is that once the process has begun at the lowest levels, then it could and would become contagious within the partisan system because it offers democratic control without power. It is a system that can be used to provide the support needed for true legislative efforts at reforms.

Wow now there is a pie in the sky plan.

Parties we now have are run from the top down (leader and party whips) Do you really think these guys are going to reliquish power to their underlings... not likely.

The Reform party started out with your ideals and look what happend to them... swallowed up by a power play!

The Central party which I am a member is the only party that will have MP's responsible to their constituents.

Our party will also have policies in place to guard against what happend to the reform party.

It took 20 years for the Greens to get where they are and similar time frame for the Reform.

We'll get there don't you worry Jerry!

I'll eat that pie in the sky with ice cream ...mmmmmmm

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

1) Join the party in power

2) Join the local constituency association

3) Offer to assist in local operations

4) Undertake a local political survey of your own neighborhood

5) Acquire phone numbers and email addresses of constituents in the process

6) Use local meeting to propose a system of localized direct democracy in order to have the elected candidate actually represent the

views of constituents

7) Use local meeting to propose recall legislation

8) Use local meeting to propose fixed election dates

9) Use local meeting to propose term limits for elected representatives

Good for you! I hope you're out there trying to do this with some political party!

Some parties may not even require that you be a member to solicitor your ideas. My first exposure to politics was an invitation by the Cdn. Alliance to come to the riding's public annual meeting and offer, from the floor, resolutions for change. I attended with a silly one about "taxing lottery winnings to help pay down the debt or help fund social programs".

But I won't discount any of your ideas. If only we could count on this level of participation and activism in our regular citizenry! I've done it (member of party, director of a riding board) and it takes work to get out the door on a weeknight after work, but it's always a joy once you get in with the other people and work toward change.

However, as others say elsewhere, no matter how this is encouraged in any other party, the currently registered political parties just can't afford to let that kind of democracy stand! Why, it'd quickly devolve from a political party, centrally-controlled and managed, into ... into ... "democracy"!

So, a political entity/association/party that has as its founding principles all of the points 6-9, and much, much more, is the way to go. Only then would such wisdom at the local level be appreciated and listened to, as even these sensible ideas would inevitably have varying flavours and shades from region to region, age group to age group, etc.

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

[M.Dancer]

On the off chance if we do wind up with a majority government it would most likely not be through popular vote.

I can't remember the last time an election was won on popular vote...I was drinking when Brian Mulroney won....in 1980

To see how little the Landscpae has changed, http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Canadian:f...ection:1965.htm

And that was when the minor parties actually won sizable amounts of seats.

[punked]

I can't remember the last time an election was won on popular vote...I was drinking when Brian Mulroney won....in 1980

It is easy when you only have three real parties, it much harder when their is 5. That is problem now. You can even do it with four depending, or if the conservative vote is split. But 5 real parties with one conservative one. That is almost impossible. Everything has go right for a majority to happen.

[M.Dancer]

It is easy when you only have three real parties, it much harder when their is 5. That is problem now. You can even do it with four depending, or if the conservative vote is split. But 5 real parties with one conservative one. That is almost impossible. Everything has go right for a majority to happen.

In 62 there were 4 parties that won seats

[punked]

In 62 there were 4 parties that won seats

That was a minority

[M.Dancer]

That was a minority

That's my point. In the OP it said it's a new era.

This isn't a new era in politics, it's a rerun.

[August1991]

It is easy when you only have three real parties, it much harder when their is 5. That is problem now. You can even do it with four depending, or if the conservative vote is split. But 5 real parties with one conservative one. That is almost impossible. Everything has go right for a majority to happen.

The problem is not five parties as such.

The problem is the Bloc which is like the Communist Party in Italian politics during the Cold War. In the case of Italy, this meant for unstable governments and frequent elections/new coalitions all because no one wanted the Communists inside the government.

Similarly, in Canada, the Bloc has a large chunk of seats but no one can formally accept it as a coalition partner.

-----

So far, Harper has been very adept at staying in power because he needs only one of three parties to support him. Ultimately, he can count on the Bloc's support since he understands very well their interests.

I think a tacit unofficial unannounced coalition between Harper and the Bloc as very likely in the future (if it doesn't exist now). This government may last as long as the last one - which excepting King's coalition governments in the 1920s was the longest minority government in Canadian history.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem is not five parties as such.

The problem is the Bloc which is like the Communist Party in Italian politics during the Cold War. In the case of Italy, this meant for unstable governments and frequent elections/new coalitions all because no one wanted the Communists inside the government.

Similarly, in Canada, the Bloc has a large chunk of seats but no one can formally accept it as a coalition partner.

-----

So far, Harper has been very adept at staying in power because he needs only one of three parties to support him. Ultimately, he can count on the Bloc's support since he understands very well their interests.

I think a tacit unofficial unannounced coalition between Harper and the Bloc as very likely in the future (if it doesn't exist now). This government may last as long as the last one - which excepting King's coalition governments in the 1920s was the longest minority government in Canadian history.

I think you missed the train dude. The Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals already made a deal. Wait for it to be revisited with a bone in its teeth. Harper is done like dinner, he just hasn't been able to understand the writing on the wall.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

The problem is not five parties as such.

Nor do I think the problem is with "minority parliaments". They just don't know how to work, and the solution always seems to be "just have a general election" to solve the problem, ie. just shuffle the deck of cards to see where the jokers land differently.

Here are some ideas for making minority parliaments work. Remember that these are only going to be seen as reasonable options if the threat of an election is removed -- which I thought it was when we had the fixed election date rule brought in. Pity.

Anyway, here goes:

• Fewer omnibus bills that can slow Parliament's business to a crawl. A few years ago, before the Liberals were brought down, one evening I saw 37 votes took place, so we know our M.P.s are capable of working their way through things.
  

• Fewer or no confidence measures. If something is voted down, send it back to committee. Every few years the American budget is denied with the threat that "government will shut down". It never does, and no election occurs either. The budget simply goes back to the drawing board for more work.
  

• Scrap the nonsensical "official Party" rule requiring 12 members to qualify, and simply divide the taxpayer funded research monies provided to Parliamentarians by 308, each M.P. receiving the same share. The majority Parties would barely notice this, yet it would greatly aid the Independents and smaller parties get something done in the House. This is something they were voted in to do, so this measure would also reward all those Canadians who voted for them.
  

• Lastly, actual coalition-building without floor-crossing to the government side. There are outstanding, respected M.P.s sitting in opposition who could perform important government tasks. Imagine the NDP's Pat Martin, the Bloc Quebecois' Nicole Demers, others from the Liberals such as Irwin Cotler, or the Independent.
  

The responsibilities taken up by opposition members don't necessarily have to be cabinet portfolios, but they can nevertheless be important roles. In other countries where minority (what they usually call "coalition") governments exist, important cabinet positions are often given to the opposition as a means to keep the government afloat.

And this last idea, semi-coalitions, contracted for 6 months at a time or some other fixed period, would guarantee some stability and power sharing. Again, why should the government, elected often with under 40 % of the vote, have so much power?

So, the list of reforms is endless.

"Democratic Reform" includes "parliamentary and government reform; it doesn't just mean referendums, electoral reform, senate reform, campaign reform, but those are juicy topics, too.

And the existing parties will never suggest these things themselves. They'll have to be demanded by Canadians, or possibly by a new political party that has as its founding principles these types of measures.

Democracy Party of Canada

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good for you! I hope you're out there trying to do this with some political party!

Some parties may not even require that you be a member to solicitor your ideas. My first exposure to politics was an invitation by the Cdn. Alliance to come to the riding's public annual meeting and offer, from the floor, resolutions for change. I attended with a silly one about "taxing lottery winnings to help pay down the debt or help fund social programs".

But I won't discount any of your ideas. If only we could count on this level of participation and activism in our regular citizenry! I've done it (member of party, director of a riding board) and it takes work to get out the door on a weeknight after work, but it's always a joy once you get in with the other people and work toward change.

However, as others say elsewhere, no matter how this is encouraged in any other party, the currently registered political parties just can't afford to let that kind of democracy stand! Why, it'd quickly devolve from a political party, centrally-controlled and managed, into ... into ... "democracy"!

So, a political entity/association/party that has as its founding principles all of the points 6-9, and much, much more, is the way to go. Only then would such wisdom at the local level be appreciated and listened to, as even these sensible ideas would inevitably have varying flavours and shades from region to region, age group to age group, etc.

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

Who is the contact guy for "Yellowhead" in Alberta?

[punked]

From the Democracy web site

"This principle proclaims an elected representative’s first responsibility should be to the people of his or her riding. An MP's foremost consideration should be what is best for the country and community. "

I remember another party who thought this and had no party discipline. They were called the Progressives and after winning 60 seats they fell apart and almost all of them became Liberals.