Will Harper be Corrupted by Canada's Flawed System of Government?

[I miss Reagan]

Assuming the media doesn't decide at the last minute again that they don't want Harper as PM, will he actually accomplish meaningful democratic reform? The senate, PMO, election dates etc. etc. or will he be seduced by the concentration of power in the PMO and be corrupted by the system like Mulroney? The system already seems to be encouraging him to promise quite a bit of spending. Any opinions thoughts?

[newbie]

Assuming the media doesn't decide at the last minute again that they don't want Harper as PM, will he actually accomplish meaningful democratic reform? The senate, PMO, election dates etc. etc. or will he be seduced by the concentration of power in the PMO and be corrupted by the system like Mulroney? The system already seems to be encouraging him to promise quite a bit of spending. Any opinions thoughts?

Assuming Harper gets a minority, how is he going to handle confidence votes and a Liberal senate?

[I miss Reagan]

Assuming the media doesn't decide at the last minute again that they don't want Harper as PM, will he actually accomplish meaningful democratic reform? The senate, PMO, election dates etc. etc. or will he be seduced by the concentration of power in the PMO and be corrupted by the system like Mulroney? The system already seems to be encouraging him to promise quite a bit of spending. Any opinions thoughts?

Assuming Harper gets a minority, how is he going to handle confidence votes and a Liberal senate?

Good question. How does that work with the senate?

[Riverwind]

Assuming Harper gets a minority, how is he going to handle confidence votes and a Liberal senate?

As long as Harper sticks to his promises in this election it will be politically difficult for the Libs or the senate to block these bills. I also suspect the Liberals will want time to regroup (at least 2 years) so they will not withhold support from the gov't unreasonably although expect to hear a lot of rhetoric up until it is time to stand up in the commons.

[mar]

You can't corrupt someone who is already corrupt.

I mean, c'mon you guys. I know he's your hero and all but this is a guy who has made a living out of bogus organizations, unsavoury political deals to take over the old PC party and - gasp! - living off the public purse. (remember the good old days when Preston Manning said he wouldn't live in the official opposition residence? Gee that lasted for what, 1/2 an hour?).

He's a politician and the leader of a party. By definition he's corrupt.

[Wilber]

Assuming the media doesn't decide at the last minute again that they don't want Harper as PM, will he actually accomplish meaningful democratic reform? The senate, PMO, election dates etc. etc. or will he be seduced by the concentration of power in the PMO and be corrupted by the system like Mulroney? The system already seems to be encouraging him to promise quite a bit of spending. Any opinions thoughts?

I hope so. As far as I am concerned the biggest reason for the regionalism and alienation (real or perceived) is our form of government. Once elected, Canada's system of iron party discipline turns our representative into the leaders representative and the leader appoints everyone of importance in our government.

I have often thought that I was better of with an opposition member in Parliament because at least I would have someone who was trying to hold government accountable. Back bench government MP's of all parties have proved to be completely useless in this function, which in supposed to be their reason for being in a parliamentary system.

[Guest eureka]

The question about the Senate is a very good one that has been overlooked everywhere that I am aware of.

There is a distinct possibility of a Constitutional crisis that will reveal Harper's real views about the future of Canada. I think that the Senate. Liberals and Conservatives, will indeed work to block certain Harper policies if he is foolish enough not to continue his evolution into a human being.

The Senate has to if Canada is to continue as a nation and not just a sort of country.

[Wilber]

The question about the Senate is a very good one that has been overlooked everywhere that I am aware of.

There is a distinct possibility of a Constitutional crisis that will reveal Harper's real views about the future of Canada. I think that the Senate. Liberals and Conservatives, will indeed work to block certain Harper policies if he is foolish enough not to continue his evolution into a human being.

The Senate has to if Canada is to continue as a nation and not just a sort of country.

I'm glad we won't have to rely on you for parliamentary reform.

[Brian]

The question about the Senate is a very good one that has been overlooked everywhere that I am aware of.

There is a distinct possibility of a Constitutional crisis that will reveal Harper's real views about the future of Canada. I think that the Senate. Liberals and Conservatives, will indeed work to block certain Harper policies if he is foolish enough not to continue his evolution into a human being.

The Senate has to if Canada is to continue as a nation and not just a sort of country.

I'm glad we won't have to rely on you for parliamentary reform.

[Brian]

I believe that power corrupts and have no doubt that if Harper and the current version of the Conservative Party gain a majority he and his party will become corrupt just like the current Liberal Government.

The Conservative Blue Book, released today, is full of smoke and mirrors coupled with some creative accounting.

The Senate is a colonial anochronism and ought to be abolished in my opinion. In any event meaningful Senate reform is highly improbable as there are too many vested interests at play not to mention the threshhold for Constitutional change (amending formula). Electing some some fire breathing conservative from Alberta and then having that person appointed by the Government is hardly meaningful.

Secondly Harper's affinity to all things American as well as the links with the Christian fundamentalists in the USA are most disconcerting to me.

[kimmy]

If Harper leads a minority government, I think that we will see things a lot like we saw in the past 18 months.

Harper will not form an official coalition. He will attempt to govern issue by issue. For items relating to governmental accountability and reform, he will probably be able to get the support of the NDP and the BQ. For other issues, he might have a harder time finding allies among the opposition. For some issues he might find himself in the position of having to give concessions to an opposition party to get his legislation passed.

Some people will say it is healthy cooperation and compromise, others will use words like blackmail, vote-buying, prostitution, etc. The same sort of stuff we saw during the past parliament.

One thing Harper would have going for him is that the opposition might not have a lot of enthusiasm for an election any time soon either.

The BQ will probably be in a situation where the only way to go is down.

The Liberals need to regroup, get their internal problems sorted out, choose a new leader, and rebuild their bank account. Who knows how long it'll be before they're ready for another election.

And the NDP will probably be in a pretty good situation, by their standards. A minority parliament with more NDP members could see Jack Layton holding a balance of power which he could use to advance some of his pet causes. I could see Layton and Harper cooperating on some sort of electoral reform issues, even if they have little common ground in other areas of policy.

And, like in the past parliament, I don't think the opposition will want to go back to the polls until the timing looks favorable. They know the public doesn't want an election soon, so they won't go until there's an issue they think is worth fighting another election over. Right now it's hard to guess how long it'll be before one presents itself.

If Harper leads a minority government.

-k

[Guest eureka]

Very perceptive post, Kimmy! I would add that if a minority Conservative government is brought down quickly, I think they would get a majority in a following election.

That would be quite worisome and interpreted as a mandate to unleash their full ambitions.

I am sure that the opposition will tread very carefully. Except for the Bloc who might just think a Conservative government suits their purpose.

[Hydraboss]

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it also rocks absolutely too."

Steve-o will have to be a little more accountable than most. Minority or majority, he does not have the complete trust of even HIS party. Remember, CPC MP's will most likely vote their concience more often than not, or the people that elected them will turn on them instantly, and harshly. Stevie will have to be VERY CAREFUL not to do anything TOO dramatic or his caucus will turn on him like fat kids on a smartie.

[scribblet]

If Harper leads a minority government, I think that we will see things a lot like we saw in the past 18 months.

And, like in the past parliament, I don't think the opposition will want to go back to the polls until the timing looks favorable. They know the public doesn't want an election soon, so they won't go until there's an issue they think is worth fighting another election over. Right now it's hard to guess how long it'll be before one presents itself.

If Harper leads a minority government.

-k

An equal and elected Senate would solve the problem of a 'liberal Senate' and would offset the problems regarding Prop. rep.

[speaker]

It absolutely rocks. absolutely, it is so much fun that it should be illegal. so I guess it is actually. Which unfortunately doesn't stop one whole wad of corruptable goofs from trying to bring it back, PMO: P*** me off. I have to agree that by the time any party can become government it has to have sold itself so often that its members are looking for the means to buy. The Liberals/Conservatives being more into the commercial buy/sell world from the outset are more likely to fall.

[Wilber]

I think the Senate should be retained but it needs to be a creation of the people of Canada not its Prime Minister. We need a responsible and accountable arm of government that owes no allegiance to the Prime Minister as a counterbalance to the massive amount of power now concentrated in the PMO. The only one I can see that could be made to fit that description is the Senate.

To all those who are obsessed by Steven Harper and what they fear he might do to the country. I'm not a shrink but would I be wrong to think that down deep, you really do believe the Prime Minister of Canada has far more power than should be invested in a single person in a democratic country?

[mar]

I think the Senate should be retained but it needs to be a creation of the people of Canada not its Prime Minister. We need a responsible and accountable arm of government that owes no allegiance to the Prime Minister as a counterbalance to the massive amount of power now concentrated in the PMO. The only one I can see that could be made to fit that description is the Senate.

To all those who are obsessed by Steven Harper and what they fear he might do to the country. I'm not a shrink but would I be wrong to think that down deep, you really do believe the Prime Minister of Canada has far more power than should be invested in a single person in a democratic country?

And how would that be accomplished? What government would ever cede any power to a body beyond their control? And how would that body be selected? If they're elected, how would we possibly eliminate politcal parties from the process? If we don't and went to a U.S. like system and the U.S. model of 2 senators per province and territory and gave them a real power - e.g. legislation MUST be passed by vote in the house and senate - we would suddenly create the 26 most powerful people in Canada. Double the number and its the identical problem; go to somewhere near 100 and all we have done is create an immensely expensive dual body of "super MP's" that basically has the effect of introducing a form of proportional representation. If we want propertional representation, much simpler and cheaper simply to reform parliament on that basis.

I really think the Senate is not a valid body in our parliamentary system and we should simply abolish it. Britain - who used the House of Lords in a similar fashion - has been moving in that direction for a very long time.

[mowich]

The chances of Stephen Harper being corrupted once he is in power are zero, zip, nil, nada. Mr. Harper given a Conservative majority will move quickly to clean up the government. The CPC policies are quite straight forward concerning their dedication to bringing total accountability to the Federal government. An elected Senate will finally provide the western provinces a voice in the Senate and hopefully reduce the talk of western separatism. The only scary thing about this election is the very faint possibility of a liberal minority and subsequent return to the status quo.

[Leafless]

The Senate acts as a safety valve the same way the NWS clause is supposed to do but both have failed either controlled by patronage or by the PM himself to control and manipulate whatever way he wants to steer or drive the country.

Our Charter should be rewritten and the only system that works in a capitilistic democratic country is unfortunately majority rule all other systems are subject to corruption.

If Martin or anyone else wants to play the equality game let them provide government jobs and housing for the population of Canada.

[Wilber]

And how would that be accomplished? What government would ever cede any power to a body beyond their control? And how would that body be selected? If they're elected, how would we possibly eliminate politcal parties from the process? If we don't and went to a U.S. like system and the U.S. model of 2 senators per province and territory and gave them a real power - e.g. legislation MUST be passed by vote in the house and senate - we would suddenly create the 26 most powerful people in Canada. Double the number and its the identical problem; go to somewhere near 100 and all we have done is create an immensely expensive dual body of "super MP's" that basically has the effect of introducing a form of proportional representation. If we want propertional representation, much simpler and cheaper simply to reform parliament on that basis.

I really think the Senate is not a valid body in our parliamentary system and we should simply abolish it. Britain - who used the House of Lords in a similar fashion - has been moving in that direction for a very long time.

I don't know. Unfortunately the people in power have a vested interest in a system that favours those in power as much as ours does. I just don't see our present system working in the long term for a country as divers and rapidly changing as Canada. The Brits might get rid of the Lords but in Britain party discipline is not as strict in the Commons as in Canada and that has a dampening effect on the government. Blair has lost votes in the Commons even though he has a substantial majority. The last time was just a month ago.

The idea that my representative should be "given" a "free" vote by a party leader is outrageous. Who the hell does he represent anyway? Because members belong to parties it stands to reason that they are going to agree on most things but if a leader cannot convince a member to vote on a bill's merits, he doesn't deserve the vote.

[Canuck E Stan]

Once Harper is in,I think the corruption aspect will consist of all the things the Liberals have done that we haven't heard about.

That list may be longer than the scandels list that we know about.

The Liberals may fear this more than their lose in the election.

[Brian]

The Senate acts as a safety valve the same way the NWS clause is supposed to do but both have failed either controlled by patronage or by the PM himself to control and manipulate whatever way he wants to steer or drive the country.

Our Charter should be rewritten and the only system that works in a capitilistic democratic country is unfortunately majority rule all other systems are subject to corruption.

If Martin or anyone else wants to play the equality game let them provide government jobs and housing for the population of Canada.

You say:

"Our Charter should be rewritten and the only system that works in a capitilistic democratic country is unfortunately majority rule all other systems are subject to corruption."

Please clarify what changes you think should be made to the Charter. Bear in mind that any changes to the Charter are subject to the amending formula.

[Leafless]

Brian

The parts of the Charter that are the most troublesome are rights pertaining to schools, provincial powers and linguistic rights which means the whole Charter would probably have to be scrapped and have provinces responsible for their own human rights code.

The role of the Senate I think should be re-adjusted to be responsible for minor issues only and major issues subject to referendum only at every federal election.

Corruption and discrimination is presently built into our present system and Mr. Harper if elected will inherit the mess and will have to carry on accordingly to Liberal tradition.

Major changes are needed to prevent in my view a fragmentation of Canada due to weak leadership and the government to do this would certaintly be self defeating and probably contribute to it's demise.