Canadian Political Polls

[nicky10013]

I don't necessarily see the problem with an elected senate, per se, though I don't think the current one is malfunctioning all that badly. Certainly the US gets along pretty well with one.

But you do hit one point on the head, and that's that any major reform, and heck even minor reforms, have to be carefully considered. The Westminster System may in parts be clunky, but even the clunky bits evolved for a reason, and while I admire some of the facets of other systems, that I don't see them as being radical improvements. No system should remain static, but those who demand enormous reforms sometimes look to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In some cases, the reforms needed aren't even in the right place. Myata, for instance, has advocated going to a PR system with party lists, despite the fact that he/she seems to feel that political parties are problematic, and doesn't seem to realize that party list PR systems in fact only further entrench party control.

Let's ponder the elected Senate. Creating a Triple-E Senate that emulated in greater degree the US system does indeed have potential downsides. Australia discovered that in 1975 with the Australian Constitutional Crisis. Because Westminster Parliaments have a very different kind of division of powers than the US, attempts to map the US upper house to a Westminster Upper House does raise the possibility of instability. I have been in the past an advocate of Triple-E senates, but now that we've entered a phase of minority governments, I'm wondering if such a Senate might be a disaster.

I don't see a problem with an elected body named a senate in a unicameral type of legislature. However, in the modern era I'm certainly no fan of "checks and balances." They were implemented in a time of absolute monarchies (Ironically, the UK excluded) where unrestrained executive power was a legitimate fear. In the US, after 239 years of elections were power was successfully transfered, and over 140 years in Canada, I think we can say that the need to place checks and balances on the executive for fear of the destruction of democracy is now officially absurd.

Even if the Westminster style of governance was more compatible with an elected upper house, the system of an effective check on the HoC would grind legislation to a halt. The US is groaning under the weight of their legislative process. Furthermore, it leads to further bureaucratisation.

Our government today is just as representative and far more efficient. Unlike the US system, it can also evolve much more efficiently. In the modern world where people expect government to move just as fast as they do, making that process is slower will cost more money and upset more people.

The phrase "be careful what you wish for" certainly applies here.

[ToadBrother]

Even if the Westminster style of governance was more compatible with an elected upper house, the system of an effective check on the HoC would grind legislation to a halt. The US is groaning under the weight of their legislative process. Furthermore, it leads to further bureaucratisation.

It's best to review how the British House of Lords was steadily over the 19th and early 20th centuries robbed of most of its powers. It was precisely because what the House of Commons viewed as necessary reforms were too easily rendered difficult or even impossible by the Aristocracy's tinkering that it enforced and expanded its monopoly over government. The Canadian Senate was formulated in the middle of that process, so in some ways represents Westminster at a slightly earlier stage of evolution, but the principle was the same.

[Remiel]

In large part it seems they are these kinds of malcontents because they haven't accepted one of the key notions of democracy, that if you're side or view loses, you're supposed to lose gracefully.

I am not sure whether that is really a key notion of democracy, though it may be in part be because of the ambiguous nature of " gracefully " in this context. What exactly counts as " gracefully " ?

However, if it is a key notion of democracy, then it must be accompanied by a second notion, that if you're side or view wins, you're supposed to win gracefully. That principle is violated (in our society) just as often, if not even more, than the first.

[waldo]

did anyone see the lastd Poll data out today??

CPC 29% libs 28% WOW!! ekoes.

as the complete EKOS numbers/poll was never posted:

* Conservatives: 29.7%

* Liberals: 28.5%

* NDP: 17.4%

* Green: 11.1%

* Bloc: 10.4%

* Other: 2.9%

from today's Ipsos-Reid poll: Tories, Liberals in near dead heat:

* Conservatives: 34%

* Liberals: 31%

* NDP: 15%

* Green: 9%

* Bloc: 9%

* Other: 2%

[nicky10013]

It's best to review how the British House of Lords was steadily over the 19th and early 20th centuries robbed of most of its powers. It was precisely because what the House of Commons viewed as necessary reforms were too easily rendered difficult or even impossible by the Aristocracy's tinkering that it enforced and expanded its monopoly over government. The Canadian Senate was formulated in the middle of that process, so in some ways represents Westminster at a slightly earlier stage of evolution, but the principle was the same.

Which speaks to the other problem. The British Constitution, or, to say, the lack of constitution allowed for that to happen. It allowed for the gradual evolution of the political system. The US constitution in terms of the political make up of their republic is a dead document. It can be changed, but on the whole, ammendments to the constitution led to widespread division and sowed the seeds for the civil war. The definition of our federalism aside, our government can evolve with the time to provide timely governance. The US has increasing difficulties with that problem.

[Smallc]

We do have some of that difficulty though, being that part of our constitution is written.

[nicky10013]

We do have some of that difficulty though, being that part of our constitution is written.

Which really only defines the limits of our federalism. Federalism isn't the problem in the US, it's the structure of their governing institutions.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The definition of our federalism aside, our government can evolve with the time to provide timely governance. The US has increasing difficulties with that problem.

Ahem...see "Meech Lake" and Charlottetown accords...just sayin'.

[Smallc]

Which really only defines the limits of our federalism. Federalism isn't the problem in the US, it's the structure of their governing institutions.

I think I agree with that mostly.

[nicky10013]

Ahem...see "Meech Lake" and Charlottetown accords...just sayin'.

Meech and Charlottetown weren't matters of changing government, but redifining the scope of our federalism to give Quebec a special status within confederation. They failed and failed miserably and rightly so. It had nothig to do with the way the government functions.

[ToadBrother]

Which really only defines the limits of our federalism. Federalism isn't the problem in the US, it's the structure of their governing institutions.

Their institutions were specifically designed to assure that no branch of government could gain meaningful supremacy over the other. Beyond that, the states were supposed to have their own set of inviolate rights, to, again, prevent intrusions by the Federal government (to some extent that has been reduced by the victory of the Union in the Civil War).

I think there are some laudable parts of the US system. The Executive in the US does not have the wide-ranging prerogatives found in our system. The President may be the most powerful man in the world (that's debatable, but for the sake of argument), but oddly enough he does not have the powers that a Prime Minister in most Westminster governments does, because the Prime Minister, particularly in a majority government situation, has a monopoly on advising the Executive. There is, for instance, no proven constitutional way for Parliament to push past a Prime Minister to get a bill passed that the Cabinet has instructed the Executive to refuse assent to (theoretically, the Speaker of the House holds the function as Parliament's voice to the Executive, but so far as I know, this has never in fact been tested, at least in modern times). In the US, if the President vetoes a bill, a 2/3s majority overrides that, so the President's ability to block legislation is limited, protecting the elected representatives ultimately right to decide legislation.

[nicky10013]

Their institutions were specifically designed to assure that no branch of government could gain meaningful supremacy over the other. Beyond that, the states were supposed to have their own set of inviolate rights, to, again, prevent intrusions by the Federal government (to some extent that has been reduced by the victory of the Union in the Civil War).

I think there are some laudable parts of the US system. The Executive in the US does not have the wide-ranging prerogatives found in our system. The President may be the most powerful man in the world (that's debatable, but for the sake of argument), but oddly enough he does not have the powers that a Prime Minister in most Westminster governments does, because the Prime Minister, particularly in a majority government situation, has a monopoly on advising the Executive. There is, for instance, no proven constitutional way for Parliament to push past a Prime Minister to get a bill passed that the Cabinet has instructed the Executive to refuse assent to (theoretically, the Speaker of the House holds the function as Parliament's voice to the Executive, but so far as I know, this has never in fact been tested, at least in modern times). In the US, if the President vetoes a bill, a 2/3s majority overrides that, so the President's ability to block legislation is limited, protecting the elected representatives ultimately right to decide legislation.

Who says the PM shouldn't have the perogative? We have elections, don't we?

[Dave_ON]

Who says the PM shouldn't have the perogative? We have elections, don't we?

The problem being that the entire nation does not directly vote for the PM ergo the PM doesn't technically speak for all Canadians, only his constituancy. Our current system was not designed with the assumption that the PM would have the current amount of power he does have. No checks exist on this power in its current incarnation, which is problematic IMNHO.

[nicky10013]

The problem being that the entire nation does not directly vote for the PM ergo the PM doesn't technically speak for all Canadians, only his constituancy. Our current system was not designed with the assumption that the PM would have the current amount of power he does have. No checks exist on this power in its current incarnation, which is problematic IMNHO.

Like I said, checks and balances are obsolete.

[Smallc]

Like I said, checks and balances are obsolete.

There are some checks anyway. The Governor General couldn't sign something (or do something on advice) that was in obvious contravention to the constitution. Also, anything too bad is going to end up in the courts, and they're able to stop most of it before it gets too far. Our system has developed form a balanced approach. There are some checks, but even with them, things can be done quickly, and rather easily.

[August1991]

OTTAWA — The popularity gap between the ruling Conservatives and the Opposition Liberals has narrowed to a near dead heat, suggests a new Ipsos-Reid poll that illustrates why neither party is itching for an election.

The poll says Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives would garner 34 per cent of decided voters if a vote were held now, and Michael Ignatieff's Liberals would get 31 per cent, a difference that falls within the survey's margin of error.

Link

Ignatieff has to pull the plug this fall. If he doesn't, he will have lost. Or in Shakespeare's words "... if taken at the flood... ".

[nicky10013]

Link

Ignatieff has to pull the plug this fall. If he doesn't, he will have lost. Or in Shakespeare's words "... if taken at the flood... ".

I think fall as well. What I don't get about Ipsos Reid is how they're saying "neither party wants an election because neither can get a majority." Maybe so for Harper, but why would he think a majority is a realistic goal for the Liberals? A minority would do. Win a minority, Harper is gone and then watch the CPC tear itself apart over a new leader. Furthermore, any new leader would never be able to muzzle the crazier reformers from out west thereby hurting them even more.

[ToadBrother]

I think fall as well. What I don't get about Ipsos Reid is how they're saying "neither party wants an election because neither can get a majority." Maybe so for Harper, but why would he think a majority is a realistic goal for the Liberals? A minority would do. Win a minority, Harper is gone and then watch the CPC tear itself apart over a new leader. Furthermore, any new leader would never be able to muzzle the crazier reformers from out west thereby hurting them even more.

There will be no election this Fall. You're living in a fantasy land.

[nicky10013]

There will be no election this Fall. You're living in a fantasy land.

Maybe not, but everything I've been hearing has pointed to yes.

[capricorn]

There will be no election this Fall.

Especially when Kevin Page reports good news about the government being on track to balance the books earlier than forecast.

The sharp rebound from recession could put the federal government on the road to balancing its books a year ahead of schedule, budget watchdog Kevin Page said Monday in a reversal from previous statements.

The parliamentary budget officer has often quarrelled with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty over the government's projections for the deficit, maintaining the shortfall could not be overcome without major spending cuts or tax hikes.

But recently both TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada have noted that Ottawa's fiscal position has improved dramatically.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100809/page-federal-deficit-100809/20100809/?hub=TorontoNewHome

The Liberals were hoping for bad economic news in order to hammer the government but that tack won't have legs.

One could argue that the upturn in the economy is not entirely Harper's doing. But if the jobs prospects stay positive and the other indicators are healthy, and the Conservatives stay scandal free, the public won't care who or what caused the improvements. What they will care about is that the Conservatives steered the country through the recession toward better times. In addition, Canadians will not look kindly on the Liberals musing about the need for more stimulus spending or expensive social programs a la universal day care. It will be interesting to see how all this impacts on Ignatieff's talking points as he continues on his tour.

So I agree with you ToadB, as matters stand it will be some time before we see an election.

[nicky10013]

Especially when Kevin Page reports good news about the government being on track to balance the books earlier than forecast.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100809/page-federal-deficit-100809/20100809/?hub=TorontoNewHome

The Liberals were hoping for bad economic news in order to hammer the government but that tack won't have legs.

One could argue that the upturn in the economy is not entirely Harper's doing. But if the jobs prospects stay positive and the other indicators are healthy, and the Conservatives stay scandal free, the public won't care who or what caused the improvements. What they will care about is that the Conservatives steered the country through the recession toward better times. In addition, Canadians will not look kindly on the Liberals musing about the need for more stimulus spending or expensive social programs a la universal day care. It will be interesting to see how all this impacts on Ignatieff's talking points as he continues on his tour.

So I agree with you ToadB, as matters stand it will be some time before we see an election.

The government is still losing plenty of support despite the improving economy. Furthermore, considering the economy just lost 135,000 jobs I wouldn't be citing the economy as a reason for wh there won't be an election just yet.

[capricorn]

The government is still losing plenty of support despite the improving economy.

The question is whether that loss of support will translate into the loss of the next election. We're not there yet and Ignatieff has said he/Canadians doesn't want an election.

Furthermore, considering the economy just lost 135,000 jobs I wouldn't be citing the economy as a reason for wh there won't be an election just yet.

Yes there was a loss of jobs in that reporting period and it remains to be seen what will happen on the jobs market. What I'm saying is an upturn in the economy which could wipe out the deficit earlier than forecast is not good news for the Liberals. The opposition has gone all out to blame the Conservatives for building the deficit. Now we have a credible source in PBO Page saying that there is evidence we will be out of deficit at an earlier date and the economic indicators are encouraging. I don't see this as good news for the Liberals, do you?

[Smallc]

The government is still losing plenty of support despite the improving economy. Furthermore, considering the economy just lost 135,000 jobs I wouldn't be citing the economy as a reason for wh there won't be an election just yet.

We technically only lost 9000 jobs, and the people that are working are actually working more hours....we're just a hair shy of pre recession levels.

[nicky10013]

The question is whether that loss of support will translate into the loss of the next election. We're not there yet and Ignatieff has said he/Canadians doesn't want an election.

If Ignatieff can campaign as well as his tour has been going, I think the answer is yes/dependent on platform.

Yes there was a loss of jobs in that reporting period and it remains to be seen what will happen on the jobs market. What I'm saying is an upturn in the economy which could wipe out the deficit earlier than forecast is not good news for the Liberals. The opposition has gone all out to blame the Conservatives for building the deficit. Now we have a credible source in PBO Page saying that there is evidence we will be out of deficit at an earlier date and the economic indicators are encouraging. I don't see this as good news for the Liberals, do you?

Though the deficit is important, if people are still losing jobs, that's what people will most likely focus on.

[eyeball]

How can you have a non-binding referendum? Isn't that just a colossal waste of money?

Not if people could vote over the Internet. I think a non-binding vote would be an excersize in seeking Canadians opinions. Again, with the Internet this would be cheap to say the least.

As for binding referenda I think there should be at least a couple of times during a government's term in which the burning issues of the day are put to public vote. Votes could be collected in either paper form or by logging on at several different institution, banks, post offices, libraries, municipal and government agent offices etc, and of course our own keyboards.

We can afford a few billion dollars on modernizing our democracy and setting up the infrastructure and software. I see little reason why we shouldn't see returns on our investment in terms of both money and time.