Canadian Democracy - Takes another hit under Harper

[captain morgan]

Thank you –
In a Minority – deals are made.
What I see is Harper doing not only what Chretien did - Mulroney - Trudeau - But better - making MP's more useless by the day - Parliament is a sideshow - Committees are a joke - the tightest grasp on access to information -
Playing US style divisive politics -
So tell me where did all those high fallutin principles Harper professed he had in regards to Parliament go to?

I don't disagree with you, I really don't.

The unfortunate reality is that until the system is changed to address this kind of abuse, all we're doing is waxing philosophical on 'what ought to be'.

We'll be debating this imbalance again in the not so distant future when Parliament decides to vote on raises for themselves (or fatter pension programs). Harper (or whoever is leading gvt) will table a motion, no one will oppose it (maybe 1 or 2 folks that need the headlines for a leadership run) and away we go.

It ain't right, I don't like it and I wish it weren't so - but all those 'wants' on my part won't change a thing and we both know that it matters not which party is in power or who is leading them, it will the same BS over and over and over.

By te way Goober - I owe you a huge debt of gratitude... Despite our being on opposite sides of the fence, you are decent enough and have the cognitive ability to not have to perpetually rely on posting silly jpegs and avi's.

Thanks!

 

[Goober]

I don't disagree with you, I really don't.

The unfortunate reality is that until the system is changed to address this kind of abuse, all we're doing is waxing philosophical on 'what ought to be'.

We'll be debating this imbalance again in the not so distant future when Parliament decides to vote on raises for themselves (or fatter pension programs). Harper (or whoever is leading gvt) will table a motion, no one will oppose it (maybe 1 or 2 folks that need the headlines for a leadership run) and away we go.

It ain't right, I don't like it and I wish it weren't so - but all those 'wants' on my part won't change a thing and we both know that it matters not which party is in power or who is leading them, it will the same BS over and over and over.

By te way Goober - I owe you a huge debt of gratitude... Despite our being on opposite sides of the fence, you are decent enough and have the cognitive ability to not have to perpetually rely on posting silly jpegs and avi's.

Thanks!

Not a problem Cap - we agree or diagree - such is life - But your turn to, no my turn to buy the beer.

I do thnk that this will cause Harper problems down the road. Right back to a minority

 

[Niflmir]

This is where the US system becomes more attractive. By having terms overlap by 2 years they have the option to remove a single party's control of govt every 2 years. This also makes the pols more responsible to the voter as they are always concerned about maintaining power. Of course removing all parties takes care of a lot of these issues too.

But in that case I wonder if it really makes sense to have 2 different branches of government. Of course in the US, their constitution also separates powers in a fashion.

I do have to say though, that ideally, bills would simply be called: "A bill to amend the X act," or "The X act" when newly written, and would only touch 1 legislative document. The idea that it doesn't probably comes about because in order to do some things, multiple acts need to be modified. Then given the power to modify multiple acts... any government naturally abuses said power beyond what was intended.

The answer instead should be to have less laws.

 

[lone wolf]

I suppose that you'll have to take that up with your liberal puppet masters that lied to you on that one.



Nope... It'll take a lot more than a toothless mongrel nipping at my heels to change my mind.

Now here's where you read like an idiot. Because I don't agree with Harper and his spoiled brat politics, I'm liberal? That's called being able to think my own thoughts and operate my own mind. Sorry about your luck in the draw. Therapy may help. There might even be a Twelve-step program....

 

[Goober]

But in that case I wonder if it really makes sense to have 2 different branches of government. Of course in the US, their constitution also separates powers in a fashion.

I do have to say though, that ideally, bills would simply be called: "A bill to amend the X act," or "The X act" when newly written, and would only touch 1 legislative document. The idea that it doesn't probably comes about because in order to do some things, multiple acts need to be modified. Then given the power to modify multiple acts... any government naturally abuses said power beyond what was intended.

The answer instead should be to have less laws.

The US system has become completely dysfunctional

 

[captain morgan]

That's called being able to think my own thoughts and operate my own mind.

Yeah, sure... Just 'cause your handlers tell you that, don't make it so.

Sorry about your luck in the draw.

No apology necessary, my luck has been spectacular.

Therapy may help. There might even be a Twelve-step program....

12 steps?... Sounds like that means I get a parking stall close to the pub doors.

Sweet!

The US system has become completely dysfunctional

Check out the system in California. They've played around with a 'direct democracy' system for a while and it has been an unmitigated disaster. If you think that Harper's Cons are doing a number on multi-part legislation, California takes first prize hands down.

 

[Niflmir]

Check out the system in California. They've played around with a 'direct democracy' system for a while and it has been an unmitigated disaster. If you think that Harper's Cons are doing a number on multi-part legislation, California takes first prize hands down.

Yet Switzerland is widely hailed as the gold standard of democracy. Cherry picking a good example is just as worthless as cherry picking a bad one.

I'm all for electoral reform. Keep in mind that this omnibus bill is being passed despite the fact that the Conservative party received only about 40% of the vote, which amounts to about 17% of the country's actual population. Our system is a bizarre mix of party politics and constituencies. You only get to vote for a representative in a constituency but the parties make up the government.

We should be able to vote on the government directly, at the very least.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yet Switzerland is widely hailed as the gold standard of democracy. Cherry picking a good example is just as worthless as cherry picking a bad one.

I wanted to point this out, but it's getting pretty tiring correcting all of his fallacies today.

 

[gerryh]

I'm curious as to what people think more debate would have accomplished? Please keep in mind that the conservatives have a majority government and all opposing party's can vote against a government bill and that bill will still get passed.

 

[lone wolf]

So why guarantee a perfect image of sneaky by rolling everything into the same ball of shyte for its anointment? All that does, in my opinion, is solidify an image of an agenda

 

[Niflmir]

I'm curious as to what people think more debate would have accomplished? Please keep in mind that the conservatives have a majority government and all opposing party's can vote against a government bill and that bill will still get passed.

Kind of a moot question when you answer it on your own.

As an emigrant, one of the ways I stay informed is by perusing the bills before government. When choosing which bill to read further, I usually base my decision on the title and any news I may have heard recently.

Omnibus bills and bad labeling directly interfere with me staying informed. When the bills would pass regardless because of a majority, all the more reason to make the information more easily presented.

 

[captain morgan]

All that does, in my opinion, is solidify an image of an agenda

... Or saves a helluva lot of time... The Cons do have a majority after all.

 

[Niflmir]

... Or saves a helluva lot of time... The Cons do have a majority after all.

Yeah, that's another issue I was wondering about. If they separated the bills, would the opposition basically have the ability to filibuster some of the Conservative's plans by dragging the debates out? My civic knowledge is insufficient to answer that question.

 

[lone wolf]

More time for bickering and bullying

 

[captain morgan]

Yeah, that's another issue I was wondering about. If they separated the bills, would the opposition basically have the ability to filibuster some of the Conservative's plans by dragging the debates out? My civic knowledge is insufficient to answer that question.

The potential certainly does exist.

 

[Niflmir]

Wikipedia has the dirt: Filibuster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One wonders why the NDP were only able to filibuster for 20 minutes each and this referenced Conservative was able to filibuster for 6 hours by himself!

 

[PoliticalNick]

I'm curious as to what people think more debate would have accomplished? Please keep in mind that the conservatives have a majority government and all opposing party's can vote against a government bill and that bill will still get passed.

That is the exact reason I keep ranting on about removing the party system from government completely. It is an abhorrent image of what democracy is really supposed to be. The simple fact that our representatives are 'whipped' into voting as the leadership of any given party tell them to and not upon the wishes of the constituents removes all sense of a true democratic process which represents the will of the voters from the system. When you couple the party system with the fact that 40% of the vote can give you a majority govt it becomes absolute nonsense to call it anything other than a plutocracy. In short what we have now is a complete and epic failure and the sooner we, the individual citizens, force a significant change by whatever means are necessary the better!!!

 

[Niflmir]

That is the exact reason I keep ranting on about removing the party system from government completely. It is an abhorrent image of what democracy is really supposed to be. The simple fact that our representatives are 'whipped' into voting as the leadership of any given party tell them to and not upon the wishes of the constituents removes all sense of a true democratic process which represents the will of the voters from the system. When you couple the party system with the fact that 40% of the vote can give you a majority govt it becomes absolute nonsense to call it anything other than a plutocracy. In short what we have now is a complete and epic failure and the sooner we, the individual citizens, force a significant change by whatever means are necessary the better!!!

I'd be happy either way, as long as it was consistent.

Am I voting for a representative or a party? If a representative, then why are there parties, whips, the government party and the opposition; why does my representative lose his/her seat if they change party? If a party, then why are 54% of the seats held by a party getting 40% of the vote?

 

[CDNBear]

And Harper's talking points are getting so pathetic that he'll call you Hitler if you disagree with him.

Like how you call him Hitler when you disagree with him.

Gotchya.

Who knew you and Hitl... err, Harper had so much in common.

They did it so it's okay for me.... How juvenile.

No, it's not OK. But some people pretending like it's a monument affront to democracy suddenly. Is disingenuous at best.

Easy!

Oh so if you're only doing 20 over the legal speed limit, you aren't really breaking the law.

Your lack of objectivity, ideological blindness, and silly divisive partisanship, is funny to read.

There is nothing new about government's cutting off debate and forcing a vote or whipping the vote for a Bill it considers important.

Ummm...

Also, Harper is using the omnibus Bill tactic to an extent that has never been seen in Canadian politics. Using it also to wrap very different issues, each important in their own right and demanding of separate examination, and applying Time Allocation to them. Thus, effectively "ramming through, many more than ten pieces of legislation in a shortened time and without adequate debate or consideration.

So what's different?

R.I.P. Democracy.

You're decades late.

It went into the ground, where all our criticism of this government should go - because they're simply doing what previous governments did.

You criticism isn't what I find funny. It's the moral relativism, and selective outrage. While you pretend to be an objective observer.

I wanted to point this out, but it's getting pretty tiring correcting all of his fallacies today.

I can understand, what with formulating all your own.

 

[WLDB]

I'm curious as to what people think more debate would have accomplished? Please keep in mind that the conservatives have a majority government and all opposing party's can vote against a government bill and that bill will still get passed.

Stop having whipped votes on votes that aren't confidence votes would make a big difference.

But, I guess none of the parties would want that to happen unfortunately. They like having their control.