ReeferMadness Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 In September 2006, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."[23] Maybe that has something to do with the astonishing frequency with which the US Government has lied to its own citizens and the rest of the world. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Parliament has been a rubber stamp since Trudeau's day, you know, the guy who described MPs as nobodies? It's odd so few cared about that when there were left of centre governments in power. I see nothing in Trudeau or Mulcair's behaviour which seems likely to change that, however. That is patently false, even with Trudeau's famous distaste for his own backbenchers. The committee system, even under Chretien, was far more effective than what it has become now that the "kids in short pants" are even known to have sent missives from the PMO to committee chairs and Tory members. There has been a degradation of the influence of caucus, cabinet and committee over the last decade which, while perhaps explainable as part of a long process of the creation of a "presidential Premiership" in Canada, still doesn't make it right. It is wrong to concentrate so much power in one office. Even the Tory caucus has realized that, which is why Chong's reform bill made it through. But the bill itself won't do any good if the power of the leaders' offices cannot be constrained. Quote
Smallc Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 The bill is useless. It's completely optional. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 The bill is useless. It's completely optional. Not really. It's still caucus that decides. Mind you, caucuses have long held the power to throw out leaders. It's happened in BC several times in the last thirty years. Quote
Argus Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Maybe that has something to do with the astonishing frequency with which the US Government has lied to its own citizens and the rest of the world. More like how many really, really dumb people there are out there. 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 September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 They also have long traditions of far right and far left parties. Such parties have never had much of an impact in North America. No, because their chances of winning a high percentage of the vote in enough ridings to be of the slightest importance was so minute, at least here in Canada, that even those who might be willing to support such parties wouldn't bother to do so. Int he US there's only been two parties, and nobody outside them generally has much of a chance. But if we change the system so that now all you need is 3% of the vote across the country, however it's distributed, then I can easily see the rise of a far right party, especially given the likelihood of a big increase in immigration under either the Liberals or NDP, combined with a likely economic downturn due in part to increased taxes and bureaucracy. 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 September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) That is patently false, even with Trudeau's famous distaste for his own backbenchers. The committee system, even under Chretien, was far more effective than what it has become now that the "kids in short pants" are even known to have sent missives from the PMO to committee chairs and Tory members. Both Chretien and Martin completely controlled their committees in every respect. The deterioration of parliament and its committees is hardly a Tory invention. Edited September 1, 2015 by Argus 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
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 No, because their chances of winning a high percentage of the vote in enough ridings to be of the slightest importance was so minute, at least here in Canada, that even those who might be willing to support such parties wouldn't bother to do so. Int he US there's only been two parties, and nobody outside them generally has much of a chance. But if we change the system so that now all you need is 3% of the vote across the country, however it's distributed, then I can easily see the rise of a far right party, especially given the likelihood of a big increase in immigration under either the Liberals or NDP, combined with a likely economic downturn due in part to increased taxes and bureaucracy. It strikes me that you can easily see disaster where it harms the Tories. To my mind anything that weakens the big three is good even with the infinitesimal possibility of a few Canadian Nazi seats. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Both Chretien and Martin completely controlled their committees in every respect. The deterioration of parliament and its committees is hardly a Tory invention.Under Chretien and largely due to pressure from his own caucus most votes save for confidence votes became free votes.And even if Chretien were the worst tyrant in Canadian history, how is that a defense of both the increased centralization and size of the Harper PMO? But as I say, even if the Tories are the current object of my scorn, I have little faith in the other parties in this regard. Edited September 1, 2015 by ToadBrother Quote
Charles Anthony Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Guys, Does it not seem like this discussion has drifted away from the spirit of the Opening Post? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
kraychik Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Both Chretien and Martin completely controlled their committees in every respect. The deterioration of parliament and its committees is hardly a Tory invention. It's a function of our parliamentary system. The PM is hugely powerful in a majority government, no matter what his (or her) party. Quote
Smallc Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Guys, Does it not seem like this discussion has drifted away from the spirit of the Opening Post? It's drifted somewhere interesting. Conversation is organic. Sometimes drift can be good. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 It's a function of our parliamentary system. The PM is hugely powerful in a majority government, no matter what his (or her) party. True enough, but even under Chretien and Martin, cabinet ministers still wielded a considerable amount of influence with far less interference from the PM. Sheila Copps has an interesting article in a recent Hill Times where she states that Chretien only twice directly intervened in her running of her ministry, and that the majority of the time she produced her own press releases and was left to run her department. That is what cabinet government is about, and while it may be true that certain cabinet ministers may have to be selected based on attributes other than merit, and may need more management than others, at the same time the PM is supposed to pick ministers he can trust to run their portfolios. The idea that the PMO is some sort of star chamber out of which dictates are sent to cabinet ministers, where they become little more than puppets, is not the intent of our system of government. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 I won't vote NDP because they have no chance of beating the Harper candidate in my constituency. All anti-Harper voters should think this way and avoid splitting the vote. Quote
PIK Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 True enough, but even under Chretien and Martin, cabinet ministers still wielded a considerable amount of influence with far less interference from the PM. Sheila Copps has an interesting article in a recent Hill Times where she states that Chretien only twice directly intervened in her running of her ministry, and that the majority of the time she produced her own press releases and was left to run her department. That is what cabinet government is about, and while it may be true that certain cabinet ministers may have to be selected based on attributes other than merit, and may need more management than others, at the same time the PM is supposed to pick ministers he can trust to run their portfolios. The idea that the PMO is some sort of star chamber out of which dictates are sent to cabinet ministers, where they become little more than puppets, is not the intent of our system of government. Also chretien allowed his people to say and promise anything they wanted, knowing damn what was being said would never happen. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 I won't vote NDP because they have no chance of beating the Harper candidate in my constituency. All anti-Harper voters should think this way and avoid splitting the vote. That is not right or fair. People should be able to vote the way they want, not be told to vote a certain way. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
ToadBrother Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Also chretien allowed his people to say and promise anything they wanted, knowing damn what was being said would never happen. Wow, because no one ever did that before, or since. Never the less, Chretien did indeed usher in a lot more free votes in the House. Quote
PIK Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Harpers people do not. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
The_Squid Posted September 1, 2015 Report Posted September 1, 2015 Oh please. Half of you lefties consider Harper practically a Nazi. The reason extremist parties are non-existent in Canada is because they have no hope of getting elected in our current system. So even those who might be inclined to support them for one reason or another won't bother. Do I think something calling itself the Nazi party will rise? Nope. Doesn't mean some other far right wing party won't be started up with some pretty harsh positions on a variety of issues. We've seen it happen in almost every European country. Extremist leftist parties, too. I guarantee you that there will be a break within the NDP if Mulcair stays middle of the road, for the left wing of the party know they'll be able to get a certain percentage of the votes, and get represented in parliament. So proportional representation is bad because Hitler!! That's funny... Can you show us the rise of extremist political parties in countries because they have gone to a PR system? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you won't back up your claims at all. Quote
WIP Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 True dat. On many fronts, the federal NDP are now to the right of the federal Libs. It you too NDPers from the 70's and showed them what their party has become, they'd be horrified. Idealism has morphed into crowding the centre. Yes, that's the problem with putting too much stock in the electoral process! The closer they get to the brass ring, the more baggage (platform, principles etc.) they're willing to jetison to try to win. The Liberals have long dreamed of removing the NDP, and the NDP tries to move to the center and push out the Liberals every time they have a chance to form the Official Opposition, let alone winning the most seats and forming the government. That's one of the reasons why I favour proportional parliamentary government. Minor parties that do not see a path towards winning a majority, will hold fast to their core issues instead of trading them away to win seats in parliament. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
PIK Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 And the leftwing NDP'ers are upset. This could back fire big time on mulcair. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
ReeferMadness Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 And the leftwing NDP'ers are upset. This could back fire big time on mulcair. Doubt it. NDP has a core of true believers, much like the Conservatives. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Scotty Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 I k ow the recent NDP governments in Nova Scotia and Manitoba have been disastrous. And who can forget the Bob Rae experiment in Ontariowe. One of the things people need to price into an NDP government is the big pay and benefit increases the federal civil service unions will get. The labour unions, especially the rich public service unions play a major role within the NDP and have a quarter of the delegates to every convention. They will expect a big reward from any NDP government, and that will mean major bucks. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 Doubt it. NDP has a core of true believers, much like the Conservatives. That includes the public service unions, who will demand a big pay raise and benefits increase under an NDP government to keep believing. The last time an NDP leader tried to move the party rightward the unions were very unhappy. They'll bite their tongues to get Harper out, but afterwards they're going to be a lot more demanding. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2015 Report Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) One of the things people need to price into an NDP government is the big pay and benefit increases the federal civil service unions will get. The labour unions, especially the rich public service unions play a major role within the NDP and have a quarter of the delegates to every convention. They will expect a big reward from any NDP government, and that will mean major bucks. Why do you hate the working class so much? Who do you think spends money to "stimulate the economy?" It certainly isn't businesses who receive corporate welfare and sit on "stockpiles of dead money," in Mark Carney's words. Edited September 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
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.