I disagree - Harpers bills passed recently have been as they say supersized - debate limited - I see and agree with Andrew Coynes points on this.
Canadian Democracy - Takes another hit under Harper
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
I disagree - Harpers bills passed recently have been as they say supersized - debate limited - I see and agree with Andrew Coynes points on this.
Remember Kyoto being jammed through Parliament by Chretin with the express threat that any of his MPs that didn't support it would be strongly disciplined?
Tell me there is a difference here
Tell me there is a difference here
When the allegation is that Harper is somehow doing something new and different, then yeah, it's applicable.
Now, if you're embarrassed and wish that this unsavory memory of Chretin and Kyoto would just go away, well.......
And that's why Kyoto was tossed on the trash heap where it belongs.
Kyoto 1 Bill - Not 10 or 15 wrapped up and supersized as Harper has been doing. No comparison there.
So, the prohibition on debating the Kyoto Bill doesn't even factor in?.. Just for Harper then, eh?
I did not state that
Kyoto was one bill.
How many bills were wrapped up in the crime bill.
How many regulatory changes are wrapped up in this Budget? And what else has been thrown in. Appears they left the kitchen sink behind. Perhaps someone in the PMO should note that.
How can you compare shoving 1 bill down peoples throats to 12 bills being shoved down people throats.
You know this all comes down to the biggest problem with our political system which is PARTY politics! The framework of the constitution envisioned a parliament formed entirely of INDEPENDENT members, not large groups who are forced to vote 1 way or another by a select few who, under our present system, are given complete control of all legislation. We need to get back to the original idea of governance through parliament where each MP is beholden only to the citizens within their constituency. Not 4 or 5 people who control a party, not any business or corporation, just the individual citizens who vote them into office.
I don't think that would be a very good idea. I imagine if the elections in the house and the elections in the senate took place at the exact same time, the senate would just exactly mirror the house, defeating the purpose of having a second chamber.
The best thing for the senate is probably to shorten term limits, set mandatory attendance rates, and remove party affiliations.
The basic idea of an unelected senate, like unelected judges, is to remove them as much as possible from politics. They are both supposed to be counter-democratic, with the goal being avoiding the tyranny of the majority.
I liked Harper's move to shorten the term limits. It is a start, at least.
You don't think people can agree without having an official party???
The biggest difference in a completely independent system is that those same people that agree on 1 issue are free to disagree on another issue without worry about censure or repercussion from some maniacal egomaniac that has assumed control of the conservatives...I mean party.
There are other benefits to the independent system. The money saved by not running national campaigns would be huge. It would allow for all corporate money to be removed from the electoral system and make any attempt at corporate lobby prohibitively expensive thereby moving the influence on govt back to the voter.
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.
It sure didn't seem to be a problem when Harper had a minority gvt and any hopes of passing legislation required riders from the Dippers or Libs.
... So, why is this so unpalatable now? It didn't show up on the radar anytime over the many years that it was being done?
Partisanship perhaps?... To be honest Goobs, I expect that kind of skewed analysis from the usual suspects at CC, but you're a pretty objective guy.
...the same place Free Trade and GST should have gone....
I didn't support Chretien either. Whassa matter, Morgan? Is a non-gang mentality too much for you to comprehend?
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.
Kyoto was debated and thoroughly so. There is nothing new about government's cutting off debate and forcing a vote or whipping the vote for a Bill it considers important.
However, I am pleased that the question has been brought up since it is the abuses of that power and the stifling of democracy that is entailed that is at issue.
Time Allocation and closure are used by majority government's for the purposes of getting controversial (or strongly argued Bills) through.It is suggested here that previous governments were also guilty of this abuse - in the usual "they did it too" non-argument.
The facts are that the last majority government under Chretien used Time Allocation to limit debate 10 times in its four year mandate. This Harper government is close to that in less than three months.
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.
R.I.P. Democracy.
However, I am pleased that the question has been brought up since it is the abuses of that power and the stifling of democracy that is entailed that is at issue.
Time Allocation and closure are used by majority government's for the purposes of getting controversial (or strongly argued Bills) through.It is suggested here that previous governments were also guilty of this abuse - in the usual "they did it too" non-argument.
The facts are that the last majority government under Chretien used Time Allocation to limit debate 10 times in its four year mandate. This Harper government is close to that in less than three months.
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.
R.I.P. Democracy.
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?
It went into the ground, where all our criticism of this government should go - because they're simply doing what previous governments did. Goob, we should just take cap's advice, forgedaboudit and just find a nice comfy couch.
