Parliament is no longer supreme

[Argus]

What do you think would happen if one of the backbenchers had a disagreement with one of the ministers, say the finance minister and went to him and told him they disagreed with a certain item, you think the FM would accept the advise? no, he'd tell him that the way we are doing it, so save your breathe.

In fact, caucus members usually do voice their concerns to government policy during caucus meetings, and do send internal memos and emails talking about policies they do and do not want to support. It's just that when a decision is made they have to tow the party line.

[Argus]

In fact there are very few credible candidates outside of the established parties and they have little chance of getting elected because they do not have the same resources. This is also true in the US where every legislator has a high degree of independence compared to ours. Our problem is the way we have bastardized the parliamentary system into one that has given the power of life and death over every MP to a party leader. Such a system almost demands that a person vote for a particular party rather than a candidate.

Exactly true. In order to change this you'd need to make changes to the law in order to put limits on how political parties can govern themselves so that individual MPs would have independence to represent the will/interest of their own constituencies. All money raised at the national level would have to be distributed evenly according to population. All jobs within the government (ie cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries) would have to be voted on by the caucus, rather than being appointed by the PM. And the federal party leader would not be able to refuse the nomination of any individual candidates selected by their riding association without support from a vote of the existing caucus.

I would be in favour of such rules, by the way.

[eyeball]

It's sad that people don't take democracy more seriously.

What's really sad is how such a simple concept is given to be so complex, or that it's really no more than the form in which it's put to practice.

[Machjo]

Governments are run like corporations now. I meant, the government is the corporation.

He does have a point though. Unlike the popular meaning of the word, when used in a political or economic contxt, "corporatism" is a term carrying a precise meaning. It is an economic philosophy in its own right.

Though I don't necessarily subscribe to corporatism as an ideology, some of my ideas do conform to corporatist, especially social-corporatist, ideas. In that sense one could say I do hold at least some corporatist ideas, but certainly not to be confused with the vaguely defined popular definition of the word.

[Machjo]

In fact, some governments that are generally recognized as following a generally corporatist philosophy such as Sweden are doing quite well actually, as are Japan and South Korea, albeit different kinds of corporatism.

[eyeball]

In fact, some governments that are generally recognized as following a generally corporatist philosophy such as Sweden are doing quite well actually, as are Japan and South Korea, albeit different kinds of corporatism.

I think corporatism is often mistaken for the far more common phenomenon human beings are used to whereby governments mainly serve the interests of corporations. As China illustrates even communists do this. Income gaps probably expand even faster there than they do here.

[August1991]

August, you're making a circular argument and backing it up with your opinion. There's nothing to debate with you here.

What in heaven's name do you mean, cybercoma?

True, I have an opinion but my argument is not circular and in this case, my preference is contrary to my conclusion.

[cybercoma]

Not even cabinet ministers are safe any longer. Harper has absolute control over parliament right now. At least in the United States the legislative branch acts as a check and balance to the executive branch. Not in Canada.

Harper’s chief of staff takes lead on Trans-Pacific talks, irking cabinet members

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has parachuted in chief of staff Nigel Wright, a former Bay Street deal-maker, to help steer efforts aimed at winning U.S. approval for Canada to join talks on a trans-Pacific free-trade zone.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-chief-of-staff-takes-lead-on-trans-pacific-talks-irking-cabinet-members/article4296863/

If he keeps this kind of arrogance up, he's going to lose the support of his own party.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not even cabinet ministers are safe any longer. Harper has absolute control over parliament right now. At least in the United States the legislative branch acts as a check and balance to the executive branch. Not in Canada.

Ummm...yea...that was the whole idea back in 1776. You guys didn't like it. Enjoy!

[bleeding heart]

Ummm...yea...that was the whole idea back in 1776. You guys didn't like it. Enjoy!

I didn't like it?

In my defense, I was a mere spright of -191 years old.

[WWWTT]

I think that we already have a thread on this question.

With that said, Coyne is barking up the wrong tree. Wilks (like Vegas in Trois-Rivieres) was elected solely because of his party affiliation, and leader. When Canadian voters start to choose individual candidates (eg. André Arthur) then we can speak of the supremacy of Parliament. Until then, MPs are like a McDonald`s franchise: people choose an individual restaurant because of the name, not because of the specific service. And the McDonald`s organization has every right to impose discipline on its individual franchise holders.

This is a false statement.

If any resident/citizen of Canada has any issues that need to be addressed,they need to go to their MPs office and make a request.

Not the PMs office,not the party headquarters and not parliament hill.

There are many issues that an MP can help with that has no left right or centre.

If anyone here thinks that their MP was solely elected to represent their spectrum beliefs then you have a very weak understanding of government and should do some more research.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Ummm...yea...that was the whole idea back in 1776. You guys didn't like it. Enjoy!

Thanks for contributing that.

Feel free to add something or reply to a comment even when you don't see the words "United States" or "America"

WWWTT

[Bryan]

...most Canadian voters don't bother to research their individual candidates at the riding level. They vote for the party or the leader. Most MPs know that their chance at re-election will depend entirely/largely on the success of the leader/national campaign.

It's deeper than that. It's not just the success of the national party/leader that affects the local candidates' chances. That candidate also has to manage contradictory expectations from their constituents. Some will want the elected official to act local and/or act with conscience, but a large number will expect that MP to stick to furthering the party agenda. In Wilks' case, while it's quite likely that he did get a call from the PM, it's even more likely that that he got a LOT of calls from constituents who made it very clear that they did not invest their votes, volunteer time, and money into his campaign so that he could start freelancing.