Harper's Election Promises....

[Concerned]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

[tml12]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

I don't think Harper was very specific about electoral reform other than saying it "may" be of interest to the party.

Which means I doubt anything will come of it now. If he brings it up, the Bloc and Liberals will likely vote against it and with Harper having support now from every province I think he'll bench that idea.

[Harare]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

There are many elements to democracy reform.

Senate reform

Set election dates.

Funding rules

are some that I can see Harper implementing. I never saw PR as part of their platform so why would you think they would adopt it ?

[geoffrey]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

There are many elements to democracy reform.

Senate reform

Set election dates.

Funding rules

are some that I can see Harper implementing. I never saw PR as part of their platform so why would you think they would adopt it ?

Couple things...

NDP and Liberals already can form a coalition government. They can't because the Liberal party is in such disarray they can't even get themselves together (plus they have a $34 million dollar bill to pay, plus whatever they owe us from all they stole). The NDP are too good for a corrupt criminal organization, however much I disagree with them. PR wouldn't change this, you'd just add the right-left-up-down-wing greens to the mix which would confuse everyone. No taxes, but we should pay for everything. Excellent plan Jim.

First past the post makes the most sense in a country like ours. PR just simply cannot work. We've discussed it here many times and I think a sound majority of us PR'ed it right outta town.

[Concerned]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

There are many elements to democracy reform.

Senate reform

Set election dates.

Funding rules

are some that I can see Harper implementing. I never saw PR as part of their platform so why would you think they would adopt it ?

Couple things...

NDP and Liberals already can form a coalition government. They can't because the Liberal party is in such disarray they can't even get themselves together (plus they have a $34 million dollar bill to pay, plus whatever they owe us from all they stole). The NDP are too good for a corrupt criminal organization, however much I disagree with them. PR wouldn't change this, you'd just add the right-left-up-down-wing greens to the mix which would confuse everyone. No taxes, but we should pay for everything. Excellent plan Jim.

First past the post makes the most sense in a country like ours. PR just simply cannot work. We've discussed it here many times and I think a sound majority of us PR'ed it right outta town.

What point would it be to form a coalition government if it didn't form a majority government ? A Liberal NDP coalition would still have meant a minority government.

[geoffrey]

What point would it be to form a coalition government if it didn't form a majority government ? A Liberal NDP coalition would still have meant a minority government.

Ya good point... I don't know what the hell I was thinking.

[Hicksey]

What point would it be to form a coalition government if it didn't form a majority government ? A Liberal NDP coalition would still have meant a minority government.

Ya good point... I don't know what the hell I was thinking.

This country and Ottawa itself have become way to partisan for coalition governments to work. The NDP and Liberals all but came out and announced they were going to try the idea in the last parliament and it took only a few months for Layton to turn his back and help take Martin down. The parties are just too different.

[normanchateau]

What point would it be to form a coalition government if it didn't form a majority government ? A Liberal NDP coalition would still have meant a minority government.

Ya good point... I don't know what the hell I was thinking.

Besides, the NDP and Liberals can outvote them on any issue they don't agree with so the Conservatives are relatively harmless, lame-ducks. When the next election comes around, Harper supporters will attempt to remind Canadians that Harper's government was middle of the road. Fortunately, most Canadians aren't fools (64% voted against Harper on January 23rd and that was with Martin leading the Liberals), and are perfectly aware that Harper is more-or-less powerless and can be outvoted anytime by the Liberals and NDP.

One way for Harper to get around the Liberals and NDP would be to make deals with the BQ but on what topic? Certainly not missile defense. Certainly not increased military spending. Certainly not crime prevention. Certainly not daycare. Certainly not opposition to same sex marriage. So what's left? He could shovel truckloads of money into Quebec but this won't be a big vote getter as Martin and Mulroney ultimately discovered. Or he could pander to the hearts and minds of Quebec separatists except that 58% of Quebecers voted for federalist parties this week and won't be impressed.

Bottom line: The Liberals would be fools to form a coalition government with the NDP at this point. Their best strategy is to fund raise and focus on their leadership campaign while Harper engages in a futile campaign to convince Canadians that he's really middle of the road by accomplishing nothing of substance in Ottawa.

[scribblet]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

Which election promise? I don't think he promised anything about PR - he has talked about set election dates and more free votes, and of course Senate reform.

[geoffrey]

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government....

Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...."

So what will Harper do with that election promise?

Which election promise? I don't think he promised anything about PR - he has talked about set election dates and more free votes, and of course Senate reform.

There was no talk of PR. Just the set election dates, free votes, and elected Senators (yay about time).

[uOttawaMan]

This whole thing leaves me wondering.. if you have elected Senators.. what's to stop them from now stopping more bills and stuff from passing. Because now they are elected just like the MP's...

[fellowtraveller]

NDP and Liberals already can form a coalition government.

No they cannot, unless they somehow violate 150 or so years of tradition and practice. The GG invites the party with the most seats to form a govt. She will only turn to other options if theat party refuses to form a govt, which has not happened. And the only option ever considered is to call another election. So, the NDP and Liberals cannot and will not 'form a government'.

Next.

(64% voted against Harper on January 23rd and that was with Martin leading the Liberals),

More baloney. Where do you come up with this stuff.? There was no place on any ballot that said "Not Harper". The reality is that more people voted FOR Harper and his polices than voted FOR any other party and their policies. Please try and grasp this simple fact.

I think Harper should and will adopt this tactic early: right in your face momma.

Canadians do not want another election, period. If Harper wants to get stuff passed, he has two routes available with his weak majority. He can just lay it out there in the House and dare the others to bring him down. Or he can try to manipulate the rules of confidence(as did the Liberals successfully) and claim a controversial bill as being a 'free vote'. I like the former approach, it will work for a while and allow him to accomplish something in the next couple of years. He'll save the 'free vote' for stuff he really doesn't care much about, but has to address sometime, somehow - like same sex marriage.

[uOttawaMan]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?

[Hicksey]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?

In its current incarnation the Senate is useless--the place where irrelevant politicians go to die.

But I do agree the role of the Senate would have to be very carefully described in the constitution if we are to make that change. "Advice and consent" is pretty vague.

[fellowtraveller]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?"

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true.

The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change.

[uOttawaMan]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?"

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true.

The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change.

That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

[geoffrey]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?"

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true.

The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change.

That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

More discussion would be nice in some matters, and a waste in others.

Either way, it needs to be elected or abolished. It serves no good as it is now.

[tml12]

I'm still wondering if anyone else shares my concern that electing a Senate would take some power away from MP's, as if you elect people to the Senate, they would now feel like they need to do something, or might even be pressured into stopping bills from passing to justify their own importance, or to try and look good so they can get re-elected?"

You are assuming that MPs and the House of Commons have 'power', which is not really true.

The extremely sad reality of our 'system' is that MPs do what they are told by their parties, period. In a majority govt - which is normal - the Prime Ministers Office is nearly wholly responsible for the legislative agenda. Nothing happens in the House or Senate unless apporved and presented by the PMO. The House rubber stamps whatever the PMO tells it to. The Senate does the same. There are no checks and balances. This is what must change.

That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

Completely agreed...it only serves a point in reaffirming patronage.

More discussion would be nice in some matters, and a waste in others.

Either way, it needs to be elected or abolished. It serves no good as it is now.

[fellowtraveller]

That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

What we have now in the Senate is a chamber of discussion, not a chamber of decision.

A second chamber of decsion IS a check and balance agisnt the tyranny of the PMO.

I do not agree that the House should be the sole place where legislation is debated and decided.

"how do you think electing a senate would change this balance" There is no balance in our current system. I seek to establish a balance.

[tml12]

That's my point.. how do you think electing a senate would change this balance. I just have the feeling you would end up having Senate leaders and so forth, and then the Senate would become a whole new chamber of discussion , much like the US Senate.

What we have now in the Senate is a chamber of discussion, not a chamber of decision.

A second chamber of decsion IS a check and balance agisnt the tyranny of the PMO.

I do not agree that the House should be the sole place where legislation is debated and decided.

"how do you think electing a senate would change this balance" There is no balance in our current system. I seek to establish a balance.

The Senate is a place where laws go for a cup of coffee.

Really I did appreciate the fact that Martin and Trudeau appointed non-Liberals to the Senate to try and make it more fair but the whole concept of the Senate is bogus.