Should Parliament elect a Cabinet?

[Machjo]

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics?

One solution I could see would be:

Parliament elect 9 or 10 members of a 'Parliamentary Assembly' once a year, and that Assembly would choose the PM and Cabinet Ministers from among themselves.

Your thoughts on this?

[Smallc]

The cabinet doesn't have the power to keep anything secret from Parliament.

[williat]

Is this not just overcomplicating the issue?

[Machjo]

The cabinet doesn't have the power to keep anything secret from Parliament.

Well, I've read that for reaons of national security it can keep some things secret, though I might be wrong.

If Cabinet doesn't have the power to keep anything secret from Parliament, then this is simply a non-issue and Cabinet ought to stop playing political games.

If it does have that power though, and if we argue that it ought to maintain that power for valid reasons such as national security, then most certainly some kind of checks and balances must be introduced to ensure that Parliament can trust the people who are withholding information from it.

But now I guess the real question is whether Cabinet has the authority to withhold information from Parliament.

[Smallc]

But now I guess the real question is whether Cabinet has the authority to withhold information from Parliament.

I think we've just seen that it quite clearly does not.

[ToadBrother]

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics?

One solution I could see would be:

Parliament elect 9 or 10 members of a 'Parliamentary Assembly' once a year, and that Assembly would choose the PM and Cabinet Ministers from among themselves.

Your thoughts on this?

I'm not exactly seeing the point of this. In a majority situation, it's simply going to be a meaningless gesture, and in a minority situation, it could lead to standoffs.

The fact is that Ministers of the Crown, despite nowadays almost always coming from the House of Commons, constitutionally are appointed by the Governor General. What you're doing is intruding Parliament into an area that, constitutionally, is off limits. And for what? I fail to see how it would do very much of anything.

[Alta4ever]

What is it with all the hair brained ideas and complete lunacy around here lately. I endured 13 years garbage government by the liberals, and never, never once did I ever think that someone other then the governing party should get to pick its cabinet. The lunacy is getting to be way to much.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Argus]

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics?

One solution I could see would be:

Parliament elect 9 or 10 members of a 'Parliamentary Assembly' once a year, and that Assembly would choose the PM and Cabinet Ministers from among themselves.

Your thoughts on this?

Great, but would only work if there were no political parties.

[Machjo]

Great, but would only work if there were no political parties.

You're probably right. We'd need to declare that the party's over before we could establish even remotely as democratic as this.

[Argus]

You're probably right. We'd need to declare that the party's over before we could establish even remotely as democratic as this.

I personally have no problem with that. It would return attention to the individual candidates, where it belongs. But we'd have to be careful to ensure that none of the candidates are affiliated with any kind of political party behind the scenes.

[Machjo]

I personally have no problem with that. It would return attention to the individual candidates, where it belongs. But we'd have to be careful to ensure that none of the candidates are affiliated with any kind of political party behind the scenes.

Even if some were affiliated behind the scenes, it would still increase the likelihood of more independent candidates getting voted in... precisely because any partisanship would be behind the scenes. And even party members are likely to find themselves representing a wider range of parties. So behind-the-scenes partisanship would likely be of limited success. Overall, a Cabinet elected once a year by Parliament with let's say a blank ballot on which each candidate must write X number of names, and with the the X number of names appearing most frequently forming the Parliamentary Assembly which in turn would likely form the Cabinet, would certainly remove power from parties to a considerable degree and promote much, much more collaboration across the House.

Right now we have a House divided not only in Parliament but in general society too.

[Remiel]

If I may: as much I like(d?) the idea of not having political parties myself, the consensus among academics who study them is that they are a necessary component of any democracy (considered on the whole; obviously some democracies have been without parties for temporary periods).

[Moonlight Graham]

If Cabinet doesn't have the power to keep anything secret from Parliament, then this is simply a non-issue and Cabinet ought to stop playing political games.

Maybe you're talking about Cabinet meetings? I mean, voters have absolutely no idea what goes on during those meetings, unless something is leaked. Cabinet members must remain silent about the meetings and tow the party line, and the meeting minutes are kept secret from the public for 30 years (according to wiki). Maybe that's what you're talking about? Dunno. But i wouldn't exactly call that a "power".

[Michael Hardner]

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics?

One solution I could see would be:

...

Your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that in sentence 1 you ask a question and in sentence 2 you propose a *solution* when no problem has been described.

Almost all of the complaints I read about government and democracy relate to how the party machine works. That machine has evolved over decades to make decisions so as to win the next election. The key components of the machine include: the marketing team, the media (especially television), money and the groups that influence government. Most of the solutions that I read don't propose to do anything about these groups, but instead focus on some other component of the system such as voting percentages, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

If I may: as much I like(d?) the idea of not having political parties myself, the consensus among academics who study them is that they are a necessary component of any democracy (considered on the whole; obviously some democracies have been without parties for temporary periods).

I can't imagine the PM having to spend more time building alliances so as to get his bills passed through the HofC. Parties are just an efficient way to bundle groups of people who have similar visions for Canada.

[ToadBrother]

I personally have no problem with that. It would return attention to the individual candidates, where it belongs. But we'd have to be careful to ensure that none of the candidates are affiliated with any kind of political party behind the scenes.

That was tried for about a hundred years or so after the Glorious Revolution. Parties evolved anyways. The most I would see happening is a return to the olden Tories and Whigs, not so much political parties as conglomerations, sometimes ideological, sometimes tactical, but still a gathering of like-minded individuals.

George Washington didn't want political parties either, and warned against them, but admitted they were inevitable. Even in one party states there are always factions, and what is a political party if not, at its core, a faction?

[Machjo]

I can't imagine the PM having to spend more time building alliances so as to get his bills passed through the HofC. Parties are just an efficient way to bundle groups of people who have similar visions for Canada.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that it would be more difficult for a bill to be passed? At least then we'd be sure that each bill that is passed would have been thoroughly examined before finally becoming law.

[Smallc]

Is it necessarily a bad thing that it would be more difficult for a bill to be passed? At least then we'd be sure that each bill that is passed would have been thoroughly examined before finally becoming law.

That's the job of the Senate...and later, the courts.

[Bryan]

It's already too difficult for the sitting government to get things done without opposition interference. Having them be members of Cabinet, or even have say in its composition sounds like the worst thing that could happen.

If anything, I'd like to se the opposite. Not only should the Prime Minister have full authority over the selection of the cabinet, he should not be limited to the available pool of elected MPs or sitting Sentators. He should be able to hire the best person to do the specific job, even if they didn't win their seat, even if they've never run for office at all.

[Smallc]

If anything, I'd like to se the opposite. Not only should the Prime Minister have full authority over the selection of the cabinet, he should not be limited to the available pool of elected MPs or sitting Sentators. He should be able to hire the best person to do the specific job, even if they didn't win their seat, even if they've never run for office at all.

That goes against the very principle of responsible government. The ministry must be accountable to parliament.

[eyeball]

Two things stand out in my mind that we could do, ban whipped voting and release the minutes of cabinet meetings much much sooner than 30 years, I'd say 4 years at a minimum.

[Machjo]

That was tried for about a hundred years or so after the Glorious Revolution. Parties evolved anyways. The most I would see happening is a return to the olden Tories and Whigs, not so much political parties as conglomerations, sometimes ideological, sometimes tactical, but still a gathering of like-minded individuals.

George Washington didn't want political parties either, and warned against them, but admitted they were inevitable. Even in one party states there are always factions, and what is a political party if not, at its core, a faction?

I guess this would be a step forward. Don't ban parties, but just remove all official recognition of them in the law. Essentially, they would not exist in the law and so have no official legal backing, even though they may exist in reality. They'd still exist and serve a function, but would be much weaker than they are today owing to no legal recognition of them. This of course would include removing party names from ballots.

[Machjo]

Two things stand out in my mind that we could do, ban whipped voting and release the minutes of cabinet meetings much much sooner than 30 years, I'd say 4 years at a minimum.

If political parties were no longer legally recognized, then all we could have in Parliament would be Caucuses of the House. Separate party caucuses would have to be done on their own time and their own dime, and of course it would be their business but would have no legal standing.

[eyeball]

If political parties were no longer legally recognized, then all we could have in Parliament would be Caucuses of the House. Separate party caucuses would have to be done on their own time and their own dime, and of course it would be their business but would have no legal standing.

That works for me too. I'm game for just about anything that smacks of change.

I sometimes hear a little bit of what leaks out from local First Nation meetings on improving their governance systems including restoring some of the old traditional ways of checking and balancing the power of the chiefs against the will of the people. Apparently assassinations were not unheard of and from what I've been given to understand young people are likeliest to inquire into this lost but not forgotten tradition.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics?

One solution I could see would be:

Parliament elect 9 or 10 members of a 'Parliamentary Assembly' once a year, and that Assembly would choose the PM and Cabinet Ministers from among themselves.

Your thoughts on this?

NO! I want to elect the government and cabinet. That is what I do now because I only theoretically vote for my individual MP. In fact, I vote for theperson in my riding who represents the party i believe has the best platform so,in effect, I vote for a government and cabinet. I don't need any proxy (MP) to do that for me.

Parties are necessary for this system to work. Without parties we don't know what we are voting for because no individual MP can deliver on any broad range of policies.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs