Political games

[Smallc]

It is hard to blame anybody for expressing contempt for Parliament, given what happens and does not happen there.

I'm curious, what exactly do people want to happen there? Parliament does what it's supposed to do - hold the government to account and legislate.

[eyeball]

I'm curious, what exactly do people want to happen there? Parliament does what it's supposed to do - hold the government to account and legislate.

Yes that's people want to see happening. What's missing is any evidence that it is.

[Smallc]

Yes that's people want to see happening. What's missing is any evidence that it is.

Aside from prorogation, that's what always happen. I think people are simply unhappy whiners when it comes to politics.

[fellowtraveller]

Parliament does what it's supposed to do - hold the government to account and legislate.

Have any examples at all of that happening, holding the govt to account? The Opposition gets to ask some questions, and the government and the country ignore the answers that are rarely provided.

In a normal majority government, the kind we have had for 95% of our history, the Opposition has no purpose in the House, the Senate has no purpose at any time, the committees have no teeth or clout, and the PMO simply passess what it pleases.

When this setup was designed in the 1860s, they missed some important bits, like checks and balances. We can't even get representation by population, just ask the provinces that are shortchanged electorally.

I believe the media has far more influence on govt than any MP or Senator.

[eyeball]

I think people are simply unhappy whiners when it comes to politics.

Characterizing discontent or doubt about the veracity of the manner in which we're being governed as whining completely misses the point that there's more to it than just politics.

Edited March 2, 2010 by eyeball

[Smallc]

Have any examples at all of that happening, holding the govt to account? The Opposition gets to ask some questions, and the government and the country ignore the answers that are rarely provided.

The opposition asking questions is them holding the government to account. What exactly do you expect them to do?

In a normal majority government, the kind we have had for 95% of our history, the Opposition has no purpose in the House, the Senate has no purpose at any time, the committees have no teeth or clout, and the PMO simply passess what it pleases.

In a majority, the parliament does the same thing as is does in a minority. The only difference is that they rarely have the option of defeating the government. The Senate always serves a purpose, and without the Senate, we'd have a lot more bills that conflict with each other legally and constitutionally. Similarly, committees are always important. They are a way of bringing to light any problems that may exist with legislation.

When this setup was designed in the 1860s, they missed some important bits, like checks and balances. We can't even get representation by population, just ask the provinces that are shortchanged electorally.

We could very well have true rep by pop (we almost do, it isn't really that far off, and the problems that exist will be mostly fixed next year when the electoral boundaries are redrawn. As for checks and balances, well, that's a matter of opinion. Our system uses different checks and balances than a congressional one, but parliaments have still proven to be the most successful forms of government.

I believe the media has far more influence on govt than any MP or Senator.

And?

[eyeball]

The opposition asking questions is them holding the government to account. What exactly do you expect them to do?

I expect the government to answer the questions and actually provide that account.

[Smallc]

I expect the government to answer the questions and actually provide that account.

The holding of account is the asking of the question. The answer doesn't really matter. What matters is that voting public now knows that there is a question, and if they agree the question is a legitimate one, they will make sure that the government is held to account (either at election time or before). That is how our system works.

[myata]

I'm curious, what exactly do people want to happen there? Parliament does what it's supposed to do - hold the government to account and legislate.

Maybe more like "shows (what it's supposed ...)"? In one parliamentary year, we saw parliamentary investigation obstructed, pseudo independent watchdogs dismissed (directly or through recycling), direct refusal to comply with parliamentary request and summary dismissal of Parliament. Earlier on, it took years to get to the core of the sponsorship scandal. Before it could assume the role of "holding to account" with any meaning and credibility, maybe it (the Parliament) could be given at least the power to control its own schedule?

[Smallc]

And Parliament will probably debate that very thing when it comes back...huh, they'll continue to do their job, what do you know?

[ToadBrother]

Maybe more like "shows (what it's supposed ...)"? In one parliamentary year, we saw parliamentary investigation obstructed, pseudo independent watchdogs dismissed (directly or through recycling), direct refusal to comply with parliamentary request and summary dismissal of Parliament. Earlier on, it took years to get to the core of the sponsorship scandal. Before it could assume the role of "holding to account" with any meaning and credibility, maybe it (the Parliament) could be given at least the power to control its own schedule?

Sounds like par for the course for most democratic governments. You'll find no better elsewhere, I'm afraid.

[fellowtraveller]

The opposition asking questions is them holding the government to account.

??? What an odd idea! There is no obligation for the govt to answer or to act, which is what accountability means.

What matters is that voting public now knows that there is a question, and if they agree the question is a legitimate one, they will make sure that the government is held to account (either at election time or before).

Really, what universe do you inhabit? The public has no interest at all in watching some obscure TV chaqnnel that features jerkoffs yelling, wasting their time and our money. None.

We could very well have true rep by pop (we almost do, it isn't really that far off, and the problems that exist will be mostly fixed next year when the electoral boundaries are redrawnwrong, .

We do not have rep by pop, large inequities exist, and they will not be fixed except by constituional change which is patently impossible.

Our system uses different checks and balances than a congressional one

No, there are actually no checks and balances other than the apppointed Senate filled with unelected party hacks. The House has no power since all parties are throuoghly whipped. The PMO runs the show and always has, and always will in this system. It has been our great good fortune not to have had a complete maniac in charge. It has been luck, not planning or good governance.

The Brits at least have a system of strong parliametary committees and a far less whipped tradition for backbenchers, and the custom of removing their own PM from within if necessary.

The Yanks have three abranches with power plus serious power within committtees.

We have none of that, zero.

And?

And it is pretty goddam sorry state of affairs when the media has more power and influence than elected people.

[Smallc]

I give up. I've had this argument far too many times.

[fellowtraveller]

I give up. I've had this argument far too many times.

Why would the argument occur if the system works as well as you say it does?

[Smallc]

Because some people are never satisfied. Our government through history has been one of the most responsible the world over. There really isn't an argument. We've been governed well, and it has caused people to become complacent and well...whiny.

[eyeball]

Because some people are never satisfied. Our government through history has been one of the most responsible the world over. There really isn't an argument. We've been governed well, and it has caused people to become complacent and well...whiny.

Are you a Parliamentary intern or something? You appear to have drunk deeply of the kool-aid. I'd like to see what another 30 years does to your faith.

Our government sucks. The rest of the world is neither here nor there.

[ToadBrother]

Are you a Parliamentary intern or something? You appear to have drunk deeply of the kool-aid. I'd like to see what another 30 years does to your faith.

Our government sucks. The rest of the world is neither here nor there.

I would posit that you feel our government sucks because it doesn't always give you the results you want.

It has some problems, even some serious ones, but all in all it delivers stability, both political and economic, so it's hard to feel that it's as broken as some of you guys keep insisting it is.

[Smallc]

Our government doesn't suck when compared to the rest of the world. The corruption that exists elsewhere doesn't here, and the government can still get things done quickly. We'll also eventually be returned to fiscal balance, something that I don't see happening in many other places.

[ToadBrother]

Our government doesn't suck when compared to the rest of the world. The corruption that exists elsewhere doesn't here, and the government can still get things done quickly. We'll also eventually be returned to fiscal balance, something that I don't see happening in many other places.

No kidding. People bitch about how clumsy our minority governments are, and yet don't bother to look at the horse trading and dirty dealings that countries like Italy and Israel have to put up with.

[Smallc]

And I'm not sure about Israel, but Italy will soon owe 100% of GDP in debt.

[eyeball]

I would posit that you feel our government sucks because it doesn't always give you the results you want.

It has some problems, even some serious ones, but all in all it delivers stability, both political and economic, so it's hard to feel that it's as broken as some of you guys keep insisting it is.

I would posit you haven't been screwed over by the lying bastards. Our stability comes from us not the government. I agree there are worse governments out there. If our's was even a little more heavy handed I'd probably feel radicalized enough to do more than just whine about it from time to time.

If our government and its subscribers think the country can continue functioning just fine despite increasing numbers of people who give less of a shit about it with each election cycle, then by all means carry on believing it.

I've been holding out for Quebec separation but now I'm starting to lean towards Alberta pulling the plug first. Either or's fine my me.

[fellowtraveller]

Our government doesn't suck when compared to the rest of the world. The corruption that exists elsewhere doesn't here, and the government can still get things done quickly. We'll also eventually be returned to fiscal balance, something that I don't see happening in many other places.

How quickly you forget Adscam or the business shenanigans of Chretien or the odd business of Mr Schreiber..

I understand why that is necessary, you world view can't survive too much of that.

The problem is not corruption though, it is lack of effective representation - and if you blow that off you are hinting at fascism.

[fellowtraveller]

I've been holding out for Quebec separation but now I'm starting to lean towards Alberta pulling the plug first. Either or's fine my me.

Too late, it is effectively already done. Canada no longer really operates as an East west place, each region fights like a wolverine for a bigger share at the trough and trades north-south.

We have Balkanized ourselves, and federal provincial relationships and especially province to province relationships will get increasingly bitter.

Who will speak for Canada?

[Smallc]

How quickly you forget Adscam or the business shenanigans of Chretien or the odd business of Mr Schreiber..

I understand why that is necessary, you world view can't survive too much of that.

That is nothing in comparison to places like ven the one south of the border where money controls almost every decision.

and if you blow that off you are hinting at fascism.

Oh give me a break .

[Smallc]

Too late, it is effectively already done. Canada no longer really operates as an East west place, each region fights like a wolverine for a bigger share at the trough and trades north-south.

I'm still not sure why you see things this way. Canada operates as it always has. Regional interests have been a part of this federation since day one...the same as any other federation.

We have Balkanized ourselves, and federal provincial relationships and especially province to province relationships will get increasingly bitter.

That's not true at all. The Council of the Federation has shown that the provinces can speak on almost every issue with one voice. Provincial federal fighting is probably at an all time low right at the moment.