Conservatives For PR?

[Icebound]

You can argue semantics if you want, but most dictionaries define infrastructure as being organizational as well as physical.

If you don't like to call those organizations infrastructure, then just choose a word you like.

...

How about bureaucracies?

Bureaucracy is the internal workings to get the result done....

If I want to build a road or a power plant or a communications system for a few million people.... I may need a bureaucracy to get there.

If I want clean food, air, and water.... or reliable statistical and scientific information..... then same thing: I may need a bureaucracy to get there.

Now.... you can argue about the EFFICIENCY of a particular bureaucracy and that's fair. But the bureaucratic process is not the final product, service, etc.

[Argus]

The reason experienced legal scholars are appointed to the SC,and one of the reasons we have it, is to ensure that laws that are written don't offend the constitution and charter.

The problem comes when those people decide their personal ideological beliefs and values ought to influence their findings of law.

[On Guard for Thee]

The problem comes when those people decide their personal ideological beliefs and values ought to influence their findings of law.

And you think that is more of a problem than simply allowing our law to be influenced solely by the personal ideological beliefs of this or that government? Especially Harper's attempts since they are quite transparent in that they try to pander to his base. Thanks but I'll stick to having the SC as a safety net.

[Argus]

And you think that is more of a problem than simply allowing our law to be influenced solely by the personal ideological beliefs of this or that government?

If you believe in democracy, then yes. We can, after all, get rid of a government which passes laws we don't like, and hope a new government will change them. We can't get rid of a Supreme Court which changes laws in ways we don't like. Nor can any new government.

You are content with the Supreme Court so long as its findings are in general agreement with your own political ideological beliefs. What you don't have the forward thinking mind to consider is that might not always be the case, and then what have you got?

The US Supreme Court screwed up their entire political system with their finding that corporations are people and that they and third parties have the right to pour as much money into elections as they want. And nobody can do a thing about it. You better hope ours doesn't do something equally dumb.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

If you believe in democracy, then yes. We can, after all, get rid of a government which passes laws we don't like, and hope a new government will change them. We can't get rid of a Supreme Court which changes laws in ways we don't like. Nor can any new government.

You are content with the Supreme Court so long as its findings are in general agreement with your own political ideological beliefs. What you don't have the forward thinking mind to consider is that might not always be the case, and then what have you got?

The US Supreme Court screwed up their entire political system with their finding that corporations are people and that they and third parties have the right to pour as much money into elections as they want. And nobody can do a thing about it. You better hope ours doesn't do something equally dumb.

Perhaps my forward thinking mind is why I tend to agree with what the SC finds, especially in light of some of what Harper has rammed through to curtail my rights, apparently to protect me from some imaginary threat, simply to appeal to his base. I speak of C51 of course and I expect it won't be long until the courts will have to parse out the unconstitutional parts of it.

[cybercoma]

Good thing it's not a sole arbiter then, eh?

The problem comes when those people decide their personal ideological beliefs and values ought to influence their findings of law.

[ReeferMadness]

Evidently you don't know anything about how the Supreme Court functions. That's sad, but I don't judge you badly for your ignorance.

So, I'm going to assume that's another way of saying that you have no expertise, no relevant background and no evidence to support your criticisms of the court. And I won't bother to respond to your whining about how the court does whatever it wants. As if August 31, there is only one Liberal appointee remaining on the bench. Even Justice McLachlin is a Conservative appointee.

So, if Harper's own appointees fail to do his bidding, I guess you'll have to just break out the tinfoil hats. Clearly, Canada's legal establishment is just one vast left wing conspiracy, plotting to undermine the forces of good.

There are plenty of other right wingers out there who will listen to you pontificate all day about "judicial activism" and "overreach" and all sorts of other equally nonsensical gibberish. Go and talk to them about it.

[ReeferMadness]

The problem comes when those people decide their personal ideological beliefs and values ought to influence their findings of law.

And you would prefer the law only reflect Stephen Harper's personal ideological beliefs and values.

Edited August 24, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

The sad thing is that while Argus rages at the court like Grandpa Simpson, Harper and an unelected cadre of hangers on in the PMO, actually do impose their personal ideological beliefs and values on the country.

[Argus]

Perhaps my forward thinking mind is why I tend to agree with what the SC finds, especially in light of some of what Harper has rammed through to curtail my rights, apparently to protect me from some imaginary threat,

We've already been over this. I and others have repeatedly asked what rights you've lost and your response thus far has been "Uh, uh, duh, Harper is bad!"

Pathetic.

[On Guard for Thee]

We've already been over this. I and others have repeatedly asked what rights you've lost and your response thus far has been "Uh, uh, duh, Harper is bad!"

Pathetic.

And I and any others, have pointed out the problems with the bill. It's why such a large % of Canadians came to not like the bill when they actually got around to studying it. Sorry if you haven't bee able to keep up.

[SpankyMcFarland]

And proportional rep rewards parties in an unfair fashion. What's your point?

Sorry. How does it do that? PR more closely matches the number of MPs with total votes cast which is fairer. That would be my point.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I'm assuming the candidate GG's would spring from the same partisan places presidents do leading me to think this would still result in much the same thing where political parties tend towards becoming more powerful and where elected Hoses merely represent what the party in power wants to the people instead of them. I fail to see why an elected GG wouldn't be just as influenced and probably more to not rule against the party that supported them and their campaign.

We need a system of governance that's deliberately instituted to keep it as many steps as possible ahead of the money and influence that makes party politics so frigging powerful and apparently unavoidably corrupt. I think citizen's assemblies of qualified people selected in the same manner juries would be a better way to go.

Let parties be more like social clubs that attract citizens and live in the hope that some of them are randomly selected to govern on occasion.

Even a person from the same party elected to the post of GG would carry more authority than an appointee.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Sigh. The overblown fearmongering and anger towards Harper is just a sad spectacle of the outraged intolerance of the Left towards anyone who isn't one of them. A more narrow minded and vindictive group its hard to find outside the Kremlin. Harper hasn't made any attacks on the constitution, and isn't a dictator. There was a great column in the Globe today which quite accurately describes the ridiculous nature of your sort towards Harper and his government.

Autocratic, Stephen Harper? Well, yes, like just about every other successful prime minister from John A. Macdonald to Mackenzie King to Jean Chrétien. The centralization of decision making in the Prime Minister’s Office is a phenomenon much bigger than Mr. Harper and it would take wholesale parliamentary, if not constitutional, reform to reverse the trend.

As for your desperate hopes of relief...

What’s fairly clear is that a Mulcair PMO would not be expected to operate in a meaningfully different manner. The NDP Leader is as much a control freak and ruthless enforcer of caucus discipline. How else do you think he has kept his neophyte MPs in Quebec from embarrassing him too much?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-hysteria-a-sign-of-closed-liberal-minds/article26055892/

The concentration of power in the PMO has been getting worse for a long time in every country that uses the British system. It is now reaching ridiculous levels, as we have seen in the Duffy trial, with Senators asking staffers what they are allowed to say and do. Technology has made instant control over all party members possible. Those who are rightly concerned with this disturbing phenomenon need to talk to like-minded souls in other countries to pool the best ideas. The British seem far more vocal than we are about this crisis and their MPs are much more jealous of their freedoms. Canadian MPs, by contrast, have become a waste of money between elections, a bunch of mindless bobbleheads reciting their scripts.

So Chrétien was bad but Harper is worse. At least Chrétien had active rivals and critics in the party. Compare that with the cowed sycophants in Dear Leader's team. This is NOT how the Reform Party was supposed to govern.

[Argus]

Sorry. How does it do that? PR more closely matches the number of MPs with total votes cast which is fairer. That would be my point.

It rewards tiny, one issue parties which have almost no support across the country by giving them the ability to make deals in back rooms where only a few votes can swing major issues. They trade their view votes in exchange for consideration of their issue. This happens all the time in Prop rep countries.

[Argus]

The concentration of power in the PMO has been getting worse for a long time in every country that uses the British system.

Okay, but how does exchanging one control freak for another?

So Chrétien was bad but Harper is worse. At least Chrétien had active rivals and critics in the party. Compare that with the cowed sycophants in Dear Leader's team. This is NOT how the Reform Party was supposed to govern.

Canadians didn't want the Reform Party. Those were the guys who spoke their mind and wanted a collegian atmosphere in the House. Canadians spurned them in favour of the hard edged, tightly controlled Conservatives.

[SpankyMcFarland]

It rewards tiny, one issue parties which have almost no support across the country by giving them the ability to make deals in back rooms where only a few votes can swing major issues. They trade their view votes in exchange for consideration of their issue. This happens all the time in Prop rep countries.

It rewards parties in proportion to the votes cast. I cannot think of anything fairer or more democratic than that. If you are a Conservative in much of Atlantic Canada, you will be wasting your time voting in this election. And the pols know this. They don't bother visiting the safe seats. Some votes matter more than others under FPTP.

The current govt has nowhere near a majority of the popular vote. Most voters did not want it. What sort of silly result is that?

Edited August 28, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Anybody who watched May's performance in the debate could not call her a one issue politician.

[ToadBrother]

The concentration of power in the PMO has been getting worse for a long time in every country that uses the British system. It is now reaching ridiculous levels, as we have seen in the Duffy trial, with Senators asking staffers what they are allowed to say and do. Technology has made instant control over all party members possible. Those who are rightly concerned with this disturbing phenomenon need to talk to like-minded souls in other countries to pool the best ideas. The British seem far more vocal than we are about this crisis and their MPs are much more jealous of their freedoms. Canadian MPs, by contrast, have become a waste of money between elections, a bunch of mindless bobbleheads reciting their scripts.

So Chrétien was bad but Harper is worse. At least Chrétien had active rivals and critics in the party. Compare that with the cowed sycophants in Dear Leader's team. This is NOT how the Reform Party was supposed to govern.

Sheila Copps claimed in a recent Hill Times editorial that in all her years as a Minister, Chretien only intervened twice, and that for the most part she was allowed to run her department, issue her own press releases and the like with little interference.

And quite frankly, even in the UK, the Prime Minister's staff do not wield the power that the PMO currently does. Cabinet ministers still enjoy an enormous amount of independence (along with the rope with which they on occasionally hang themselves). Heck, the UK Tories have the 1922 Committee, which is an influential body of harder conservative Tory backbenchers who frequently force the party leadership to bend. While there isn't quite the same structures in Labour, Gordon Brown during his time was forced to abandon or modify a few policies after very public agitation by his backbenchers.

While I agree that parliaments around the world have seen a "presidentiliazation" in the executive, the fact is that few parliaments see both backbenchers and even cabinet ministers so constrained as our Parliament currently is.

I can't even figure out why Harper even has a cabinet. He has a few senior ministers like Kenney which he trusts absolutely, but other than that, it appears that he has arranged his PMO into policy sections which pretty much ape the cabinet, and apparently tell cabinet what to say and what to do. The rumors I've heard is that on the foreign policy front it got so bad that Baird was essentially sidelined as the Prime Minister took on the role of minister of foreign affairs. When you have that little amount of faith in even a long-time Tory stalwart like John Baird, then the creep towards a presidential PM has gone too far.

My biggest concern is that while I hear Mulcair and Trudeau rightfully attacking Harper for his staffers' behavior, I see virtually no attack for the very fact that the PMO has been made into this quasi-governing structure that holds more effective power than Ministers of the Crown.

[Icebound]

It rewards tiny, one issue parties which have almost no support across the country by giving them the ability to make deals in back rooms where only a few votes can swing major issues. They trade their view votes in exchange for consideration of their issue. This happens all the time in Prop rep countries.

Tiny one-issue parties with little support will not end up in Parliament until they meet a minimum threshold, often 5% (or whatever the country sets)... so their ability to "make deals" is zero.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Tiny one-issue parties with little support will not end up in Parliament until they meet a minimum threshold, often 5% (or whatever the country sets)... so their ability to "make deals" is zero.

That depends on the PR system. Some, like STV, don't have that rule so small parties do get in. But that's what the people vote for. They get should what they want in my view. Otherwise we should just appoint the leader of the party with the biggest vote as PM and not bother with parliament at all.

Coalitions are a way of ensuring that government represents most voters, something that hasn't happened in this country since Brian Mulroney for crying out loud. Coalitions restrain the despotic tendencies of party leaders when they get power, they encourage compromise and they are clearly part of the British parliamentary tradition because one just happened in Britain.

Edited August 29, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

While I agree that parliaments around the world have seen a "presidentiliazation" in the executive, the fact is that few parliaments see both backbenchers and even cabinet ministers so constrained as our Parliament currently is.

This is why it is entirely accurate to describe Canada as a dictatorship.

I fail to see why people shouldn't regard the dictatorship over our representatives as being any less than a dictatorship over everyone they represent.

[eyeball]

It rewards tiny, one issue parties which have almost no support across the country by giving them the ability to make deals in back rooms where only a few votes can swing major issues. They trade their view votes in exchange for consideration of their issue. This happens all the time in Prop rep countries.

Only in stupid countries that likely allowed the process' that designed and implemented their PR systems to be captured by corrupt bastards intent on driving PR off a cliff unless they could make it serve them.

Edited August 29, 2015 by eyeball