Poll: Bush still blamed for economy

[Machjo]

Don’t compare Harper with Bush or Obama, our system is totally different. While you have a valid point when you say that Bush and Obama don’t have unbridled power, the same cannot be said of Harper.

In USA, president can only propose legislation; it is up to Congress to pass it. There is no guarantee that president’s own party will support the legislation proposed by him.

In our system, the PM has considerable amount of powers, much more than a US president. He sets the policy, the agenda, and it pretty much is enacted into law. Even in the minority situation, most of what Harper proposed was enacted into law.

So if things go wrong here, it would be totally appropriate to blame Harper (or if things go right, he gets the credit).

So are you saying that Harper would have the power to prevent an MP from floor-walking, or that he could pass a law without support from beyond his party when in a minority situation? The only reason he has the power he has is precisely because his MPs choose not to floor-walk and because other parties support his policies.

 

[JLM]

To be fair to both Bush Jr. and Obama, granted neither of them has absolute power, and in the end they themselve are only partially to blame, with each member of the Senate and the House of Representatives carrying some of the burden of blame too.

Also, I agree that at least in the sort term, let's say over the first year, there may be a transition phase where it's not possible to stop the deficit overnight. After a year though, you would have thought that some other plan of action could have been implemented. Again, I realize it's not all Obama's fault, but the government's as a whole.

It would be like trying to blame Harper for everything when he's but one Member of Parliament.

I would guess too it isn't unheard of for a disgruntled outgoing president to sign a bunch of binding long term contracts during his last week or so in office. Especially if he could look forward to a favour or two in his private life..................:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Bar Sinister]

So are you saying that Harper would have the power to prevent an MP from floor-walking, or that he could pass a law without support from beyond his party when in a minority situation? The only reason he has the power he has is precisely because his MPs choose not to floor-walk and because other parties support his policies.

The power of the PM depends on the situation. In a minority government where every vote is critical the PM has less power. However, in a majority government where the loss of a few members won't make much difference the PM can do pretty much what he wants within the limits of the constitution. This is due to the fact that the PM has tremendous powers of appointment within his party. The PM appoints all members of cabinet as well as members of the Supreme Court and Senate, and senior public servants. In theory these appointments are supposed to be approved by either the Governor General or members of the House of Commons, but in actuality these appointments are always approved.

Given these powers of appointment it is easy for the PM to keep his party members in line as any chance of political advancement has to come through him. Anyone who rocks the boat is doomed to an existence as a backbencher and may even be booted out of caucus, an event that ends most political careers. With his party members in line the PM can then control legislation and by carefully selecting members of cabinet surround himself with yes men (or women) who will agree with anything her says.

The sad fact is that in order to advance in politics in Canada the PM must be obeyed absolutely. As a result there are few maverick politicians in Canada or at least few who last long in cabinet or anywhere else. Remember that the most important thing to most politicians is getting elected in the first place; and the second most important thing is getting reelected. After that it is access to power. And power comes from the PM.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So are you saying that Harper would have the power to prevent an MP from floor-walking, or that he could pass a law without support from beyond his party when in a minority situation? The only reason he has the power he has is precisely because his MPs choose not to floor-walk and because other parties support his policies.

Of course Harper cannot stop an MP from floor walking. But how many times does an MP walk the floor? Party loyalty is very strong in Canada; it is very loose in USA. In Canada, an MP will invariably vote for his party, in USA, it is not a given. In USA, he doesn’t have to cross the floor, he can vote against his party without doing that.

But in Canada, it is very rare indeed that an MP will cross the floor. The last time where an MP crossing the floor made a difference was when Belinda Stranoch crossed over to Liberal. That helped Liberals survive the no confidence motion, and eventually they went on to pass the law legalizing gay marriage. Her crossing the floor had a major impact on politics.

That was the only instance in a long time where an MP crossing the floor had a major impact. Otherwise, an MP crossing the floor is very rare, and it having a major impact is rarer still.

As to other parties supporting his policies, again the situation is different here than in USA. In USA, if the president is defeated in House or senate, no big deal. In Canada, it will trigger an election. So in Canada, the opposition parties have to think very hard as to whether they want to bring down the government say, six months or a year after an election. They don’t have any such concern in USA. As a result most of the things a PM wants get passed even in the minority Parliament.

The two systems are nowhere near comparable. By any measure, our PM has much more power than US president.

 

[JLM]

Of course Harper cannot stop an MP from floor walking. But how many times does an MP walk the floor? Party loyalty is very strong in Canada; it is very loose in USA. In Canada, an MP will invariably vote for his party, in USA, it is not a given. In USA, he doesn’t have to cross the floor, he can vote against his party without doing that.

But in Canada, it is very rare indeed that an MP will cross the floor. The last time where an MP crossing the floor made a difference was when Belinda Stranoch crossed over to Liberal. That helped Liberals survive the no confidence motion, and eventually they went on to pass the law legalizing gay marriage. Her crossing the floor had a major impact on politics.

That was the only instance in a long time where an MP crossing the floor had a major impact. Otherwise, an MP crossing the floor is very rare, and it having a major impact is rarer still.

As to other parties supporting his policies, again the situation is different here than in USA. In USA, if the president is defeated in House or senate, no big deal. In Canada, it will trigger an election. So in Canada, the opposition parties have to think very hard as to whether they want to bring down the government say, six months or a year after an election. They don’t have any such concern in USA. As a result most of the things a PM wants get passed even in the minority Parliament.

The two systems are nowhere near comparable. By any measure, our PM has much more power than US president.

Don't forget Ms. Stronich and David Emerson. The latter was a disgusting case and people stood for it, with the exception of a few but not enough to get him peroged.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Don't forget Ms. Stronich and David Emerson. The latter was a disgusting case and people stood for it, with the exception of a few but not enough to get him peroged.

Oh, I remember Emerson all right, but his crossing the floor did not have any effect on the Parliament, like crossing by Stranoch did. Indeed, crossing by Stranoch was a rare event, floor crossing by an MP usually does not change anything.

 

[Machjo]

How would the American economy be different if someone else besides Bush had been president?

He might not have been so quick to take on responsibilities the US couldn't afford. Iraq, for example. There was no evidence of Iraq being a threat to the US, nor that it even had links to Al Qaeda, nor that it was even on good terms with Al-Qaeda. In fact, I remember reading one article saying that Bin Laden had his eyes set on Saddam's regime since he saw it as a treasonous state to Islam. Let's not forget that Iraq was a secular state after all.

THe US could have saved billions if not trillions by not going into Iraq.

 

[Machjo]

And by focusing its forces on Afghanisan, they might have actually cought Bin Laden!

 

[Machjo]

The power of the PM depends on the situation. In a minority government where every vote is critical the PM has less power. However, in a majority government where the loss of a few members won't make much difference the PM can do pretty much what he wants within the limits of the constitution. This is due to the fact that the PM has tremendous powers of appointment within his party. The PM appoints all members of cabinet as well as members of the Supreme Court and Senate, and senior public servants. In theory these appointments are supposed to be approved by either the Governor General or members of the House of Commons, but in actuality these appointments are always approved.

Given these powers of appointment it is easy for the PM to keep his party members in line as any chance of political advancement has to come through him. Anyone who rocks the boat is doomed to an existence as a backbencher and may even be booted out of caucus, an event that ends most political careers. With his party members in line the PM can then control legislation and by carefully selecting members of cabinet surround himself with yes men (or women) who will agree with anything her says.

The sad fact is that in order to advance in politics in Canada the PM must be obeyed absolutely. As a result there are few maverick politicians in Canada or at least few who last long in cabinet or anywhere else. Remember that the most important thing to most politicians is getting elected in the first place; and the second most important thing is getting reelected. After that it is access to power. And power comes from the PM.

In the end, that power comes form the mindless masses. We insist on voting party instead of candidate. As a result, the MP who knows this knows that if he wants to retain his seat, he must suck up to the PM. However, that is not legal power but de-facto power given by the mindless masses. If people voted for the best candidate instead of for his party, then candidates would be less scared to voice their ideas, knowing that being booted from Caucus would not necessarily end his career as an MP at least. This would weaken the position of the PM substantially. Officially though, the PM's power is mostly limited to his one vote as MP in Parliament.

 

[Machjo]

Of course Harper cannot stop an MP from floor walking. But how many times does an MP walk the floor? Party loyalty is very strong in Canada; it is very loose in USA. In Canada, an MP will invariably vote for his party, in USA, it is not a given. In USA, he doesn’t have to cross the floor, he can vote against his party without doing that.

But in Canada, it is very rare indeed that an MP will cross the floor. The last time where an MP crossing the floor made a difference was when Belinda Stranoch crossed over to Liberal. That helped Liberals survive the no confidence motion, and eventually they went on to pass the law legalizing gay marriage. Her crossing the floor had a major impact on politics.

That was the only instance in a long time where an MP crossing the floor had a major impact. Otherwise, an MP crossing the floor is very rare, and it having a major impact is rarer still.

As to other parties supporting his policies, again the situation is different here than in USA. In USA, if the president is defeated in House or senate, no big deal. In Canada, it will trigger an election. So in Canada, the opposition parties have to think very hard as to whether they want to bring down the government say, six months or a year after an election. They don’t have any such concern in USA. As a result most of the things a PM wants get passed even in the minority Parliament.

The two systems are nowhere near comparable. By any measure, our PM has much more power than US president.

So why not learn from the US, adopt the best points of their system, and integrate it into our system?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And by focusing its forces on Afghanisan, they might have actually cought Bin Laden!

Quite so, I think one of the reasons Taliban is so strong today is that Bush neglected Afghanistan in his insane invasion of Iraq. The real threat in the war on terror was not Iraq, but Afghanistan. With the vital resources diverted away form Afghanistan and towards Iraq, Taliban became strong once again.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So why not learn from the US, adopt the best points of their system, and integrate it into our system?

I don’t think the Parliamentary system will work without party loyalty, Machjo. In a presidential system, there is no such thing as a no confidence motion. The only way to remove the President from the office is impeachment in the House and conviction in the senate. That is a nuclear option, and not a single president has been removed from office that way.

So party loyalty is not important in Presidential system. In a Parliamentary system however, if the government is defeated, that triggers an election. So MPs must remain loyal to their party, other wise we will have a chaos.

Thus, if MPs are not loyal to the party and an election is triggered say six months after the first election, do you think people will like it? Besides, that will be a Hell of a way to govern, when we don’t know when the government will fall, when PM has to govern with the threat in mind that any time; he may lose a vote and have to face another election.

In US style system, the government does not fall, so party loyalty is not all that important. In a Parliamentary system, it is exactly the opposite.

 

[Walter]

Reagan was outdone only by Bush Jr. when it came to debt spending!

And both are being outdone by the Bamster fourfold.

 

[Machjo]

I don’t think the Parliamentary system will work without party loyalty, Machjo. In a presidential system, there is no such thing as a no confidence motion. The only way to remove the President from the office is impeachment in the House and conviction in the senate. That is a nuclear option, and not a single president has been removed from office that way.

So party loyalty is not important in Presidential system. In a Parliamentary system however, if the government is defeated, that triggers an election. So MPs must remain loyal to their party, other wise we will have a chaos.

Thus, if MPs are not loyal to the party and an election is triggered say six months after the first election, do you think people will like it? Besides, that will be a Hell of a way to govern, when we don’t know when the government will fall, when PM has to govern with the threat in mind that any time; he may lose a vote and have to face another election.

In US style system, the government does not fall, so party loyalty is not all that important. In a Parliamentary system, it is exactly the opposite.

Then why not scrap the no-confidence vote from our parliamentary system?

 

[Machjo]

And both are being outdone by the Bamster fourfold.

Not yet. So far, much of Obama's spending is on damage control in Afghanistan, and last year, in Iraq. I still hold him to blame to a certain extent without a doubt, but it was quite a mess he'd inherited.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then why not scrap the no-confidence vote from our parliamentary system?

All right, then what is the mechanism for removing a rogue PM from the office, one who is clearly guilty of serious offenses?

In USA they have impeachment, if you want to get rid of no confidence motion, there is no mechanism to get rid of a PM, there must be some mechanism available.

And if you want to substitute impeachment for no confidence motion, then you have practically replaced our system by an American style system.

If our system is changed so that there is no party loyalty, there is no no confidence motion available, only impeachment remains available, then what the difference between our system and US systems (except the superficial ones, like we call our leader PM, while they call theirs president)?

 

[Johnnny]

im not on that obama bandwagon, but isnt he been doing a ****ty job lately?

 

[Machjo]

All right, then what is the mechanism for removing a rogue PM from the office, one who is clearly guilty of serious offenses?

In USA they have impeachment, if you want to get rid of no confidence motion, there is no mechanism to get rid of a PM, there must be some mechanism available.

And if you want to substitute impeachment for no confidence motion, then you have practically replaced our system by an American style system.

If our system is changed so that there is no party loyalty, there is no no confidence motion available, only impeachment remains available, then what the difference between our system and US systems (except the superficial ones, like we call our leader PM, while they call theirs president)?

Our PM is still not above the law, confidence vote or not, impeachment or not. And he still needs a majority in the House to get any new bill through. Add to that that, even if he stays within the law, and manages to sit around in a grid-locked parliament, he still has to answer to his constituents come the following election.

 

[Machjo]

And since MPs would be less pressured to tow the party line, party leaders would have to work harder to keep their cronies in line.

 

[Machjo]

im not on that obama bandwagon, but isnt he been doing a ****ty job lately?

Even before Obama was elected,I could already see that he'd be a mediocre President. The only reason for Obama-Mania was because Bush had done such a terrible job that even mediocrity looked like the dawn of a new day.