Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Except for all those times we have minority governments. Still applies. Only once has their been a grand coalition. There has always otherwise been large opposing parties and/or coalitions. The Westminster system is fundamentally about opposing interests keeping each other in check. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Still applies. Only once has their been a grand coalition. There has always otherwise been large opposing parties and/or coalitions. The Westminster system is fundamentally about opposing interests keeping each other in check.It doesn't matter whether there's a grand coalition or not. See: the rest of my post. Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 It doesn't matter whether there's a grand coalition or not. See: the rest of my post. I did. It doesn't change the reality that the Westminster form of government is oppositional government. That's why most of the chambers are designed the way they are. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 That goes against the very foundation of Westminster Parliament. Our government is based on the Westminster System. Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Our government is based on the Westminster System. And? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 And? You seemed to suggest otherwise. Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 You seemed to suggest otherwise. I'm saying that the system of government that we use, the Westminster system, is oppositional, not consensus based. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 I'm saying that the system of government that we use, the Westminster system, is oppositional, not consensus based. It is structured so it can be, and usually is. Nothing says it cant be consesual such as when a minority governmet wants to pass a bill. Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 It is structured so it can be, and usually is. Nothing says it cant be consesual such as when a minority governmet wants to pass a bill. Bill by bill coalitions are not consensus government. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Bill by bill coalitions are not consensus government. Coalition, consensus, amounts to about the same thing. Bills get passed, and they typically are better for more of the population, as I think Jacee was aluding to the this constat ramming through of omnibus bills after the gov. imposes closure. Quote
Smallc Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Coalition, consensus, amounts to about the same thing. No, no it doesn't. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 No, no it doesn't. Pretty much. Quote
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 What about the concept of our representatives working together to create laws that are in the best interests of all Canadians? LOL National parties become somewhat less relevant under PR, and local representation more important. No, they become MORE relevant, and political posturing and positioning and elbowing becomes 'the game' which is more important than anything else. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Coalition, consensus, amounts to about the same thing. Bills get passed, and they typically are better for more of the population, as I think Jacee was aluding to the this constat ramming through of omnibus bills after the gov. imposes closure. What winds up happening is that all sorts of unpopular things get added to major bills in order to secure the vote of this or that tiny party, and those tiny parties representing fringe elements get far and away more power in FPTP systems than they ever deserve to have. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Do you even realize how funny this is? God FORBID a government that works cooperatively for the benefit of all Canadians! The HORROR! . It would be nice, but it's completely unrealistic. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-TSS- Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 I know it's a question of political culture and what you are used to but I still can't get my head around that some people actually defend the FPTP-system whereby the outcome of the election can be grossly unfair or even capricious compared to the actual votes cast only because of totally arbitrary divisions into constituencies, or ridings as I have noticed you call them in Canada. In 2005 in Britain Labour received 55% of the seats while gaining 35% of the votes and therefore had an absolute majority to do as they pleased. Quote
TimG Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) I still can't get my head around that some people actually defend the FPTP-system whereby the outcome of the election can be grossly unfair or even capricious compared to the actual votes castThat is because you are obsessed with your personal definition of "fairness". Many people simply do not accept your definition and feel that electing an effective government that is forced to represent the interests of the broad middle is a more "fair" system. Edited February 22, 2015 by TimG Quote
eyeball Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 What winds up happening is that all sorts of unpopular things get added to major bills in order to secure the vote of this or that tiny party, and those tiny parties representing fringe elements get far and away more power in FPTP systems than they ever deserve to have. You mean like an omnibus bill that gets crammed full of all sorts of unrelated shit? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 You mean like an omnibus bill that gets crammed full of all sorts of unrelated shit? Yes, I do, except the unrelated shit is something some little two or three man 'party' has demanded in order to get their votes for the rest. The religious parties in Israel are notorious for this. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) I'd rather live with the demands of the two or three man party that I can see than the demands of a lobbyist that's invisible. The political parties in Canada are notorious for catering to these. But why do I need to remind you of that? Edited February 23, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 I'd rather live with the demands of the two or three man party that I can see than the demands of a lobbyist that's invisible. The political parties in Canada are notorious for catering to these. But why do I need to remind you of that? What makes you think small parties won't attract even more lobbyists? They're easier to bribe, after all. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 I'd rather live with the demands of the two or three man party that I can see than the demands of a lobbyist that's invisible. Frame that. Quote
eyeball Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) What makes you think small parties won't attract even more lobbyists? They're easier to bribe, after all. Oh oh oh I know the answer to this one! Because no one ever does a f^*king thing about bribery? Edited February 23, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Oh oh oh I know the answer to this one! Because no one ever does a f^*king thing about bribery? Was I dreaming this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snc-lavalin-bribery-case-threatens-billions-in-federal-contracts-1.2964018 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
eyeball Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 A small drop in vast ocean that only took 14 years to get around to. A drop that's now too big too fail. Yes I think you're still dreaming. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.