It certainly sounds very similar to Reform. As an old Reform supporter who is not a fan of the Conservative move away from democratic principles and of being fiscally conservative, Justin is definitely giving me something to think about. Is it enough to get me to vote Liberal now? Not really but it sounds like he may be on the right track...at least a better track than Harper.
Trudeau's Emancipation Proclamation
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
It certainly sounds very similar to Reform. As an old Reform supporter who is not a fan of the Conservative move away from democratic principles and of being fiscally conservative, Justin is definitely giving me something to think about. Is it enough to get me to vote Liberal now? Not really but it sounds like he may be on the right track...at least a better track than Harper.
What do you like about Justin
We know that using the term Barbaric for Honor Killings just does not sit well with Justin. Perhaps you could help Justin with an appropriate term for this Barbarism.
We know that he does not care for Human Rights violations in other countries - Witness his idolization of Fidel.
He does not really have a platform - that is not a problem.
So what track is it that attracts you???
A 'Fight".... Really Goobs; you are far too generous in using that particular word.
I for one really don't consider arm-flailing, slapping and screaming 'a fight' per se..... But I would pay money to watch.
Caveat: If 'the fight' ends up with both Justin's crying, hugging and vowing to never squabble with their bff ever again, then I want my money back.
The Liberals, along will Conservatives, are famous for making promises before suffering post-election- win amnesia. Justin is no different, he just has better hair than his Dad and Harper. It's very easy to make promises when you are standing in third place, keeping those promises would be tough.
While it's nice to say that you would let your MP's vote their conscience and not be restrained by Party Whips, there must be discipline within a party to avoid complete chaos and anarchy. Sorry Cliffy, but that's how it works, otherwise you end up with a bunch of idiots that care only about their own agenda and do not adhere to a party platform. While I agree they should be free to speak their mind, they should not be able to hold their party, or the government hostage, which is what would happen once such a measure were to be put in place.
But no worries, even in the off chance that Justin were to become Prime Minister he would do what all his predecessors before him did. He would sell out.
While it's nice to say that you would let your MP's vote their conscience and not be restrained by Party Whips, there must be discipline within a party to avoid complete chaos and anarchy. Sorry Cliffy, but that's how it works, otherwise you end up with a bunch of idiots that care only about their own agenda and do not adhere to a party platform. While I agree they should be free to speak their mind, they should not be able to hold their party, or the government hostage, which is what would happen once such a measure were to be put in place.
But no worries, even in the off chance that Justin were to become Prime Minister he would do what all his predecessors before him did. He would sell out.
Hard to say. One of the reasons Trudeau was light on policy was by design. He wanted to give individual MPs more freedom. One issue though: how does he square that with a more pro-rep electoral system (I thought he was a proponent of pro-rep if I'm not mistaken, though I could be wrong on that). I don't like pro-rep, but I do like what Trudeau is proposing here. One could say he is a slightly more left-leaning version of the old Reform Party at least when it comes to MP autonomy.
Strangely enough though, if we did go pro-rep, then I would expect MPs to tow the party line since that's what we wold have voted for. However, in a first-past-the-post system as we have now, definitely, Trudeau is on the right track on this point.
Nah... he's been reading my posts
You have to look at the bigger picture. Yes, Justin's said some stupid things, but I'd say giving MPs more freedom is a significant issue. The exact wording in a citizenship manual, not so. So if harper is right on less significant issues, but trudeau on major ones, which would you go with?
for instance, Trudeau doing a strip tease on stage for a charity does show a lack of personal judgement, but how does that translate to the House fo Commons. Artificial lakes in Toronto costing millions is more imopactful publicly.
There are only three hard truths in life; the inevitability of death, of taxes, and of that little gem of politics.
I don't believe there would be chaos except in the very short term as they adjust to the increased freedom.
Now if such a bill passed, it would be difficult even for a majority party to reverse it for obvious reasons. I think Trudeau is smart in focusing on the structure rather than right-left ideology. Just as some leftists were probably impressed with manning for his defense of democracy, some on the right might like trudeau for this too. In short, it transcends left-right politics.
My question though, will the NDP MPs support something like this?
You don't? Power is a heady drug, once used it will be used again and again. I wouldn't count on a sense of fair play to prevent it.
I would prefer minority governments to the dictatorships of majority governments. I would also prefer to do away with parties altogether and opt for all independents. But it would take a century or two of concerted effort to rid our politics of the corruption present now. Ideally. I would prefer to do away with the present system, make their mandate for the next few years redesigning democracy to represent the interests of people instead of the interests of our present corporate masters: in other words, I would like to see a democracy instead if a corporate dictatorship. But, I know, I'm dreaming. Too many sheeple prefer being told what to think.
The power can only come through cooperation. So sooner or later, they'll have to learn to play together in the sand box. And if they don't, fine, then we'll have disfunctional parliaments until the voters smarten up. I'm willing to put up with deadlocked governments for a while if it imposes a learning process on us.
Yes, because they're the same thing, right?
Elected official, speaking for constituents, in government.
She was neither elected when she made her statements, speaking for her constituents, or speaking to government about it.
It's so much easier to vote for the party rather than the candidate. For instance: 'Oh, my favourite colour is green, and I like that pretty yellow sunflower design on the Green party logo, so I think I'll vote for them. My second choice is conservative because I like the colour blue; then it's NDP 'cause their orange isn't quite as harsh as teh Liberals' bright red.'
If you get rid of parties, people might have to start to think for themselves. The only company taht would support such a transformation would be Tylenol.
Not going to happen. The NDP will not support anything Justin does, because it will be as if they were showing support for his policy. Do you really think the NDP wants to lose the significant gains they have made on the Federal stage? I doubt it very much.
Secondly, this cooperation you are talking about from this new freedom will cripple policy makers and halt any real government business worth doing. It sounds nice, but just like minority governments there really are only to things at play. The Minority leader doing everything they can survive and the opposition pushing through their agenda while preparing to topple the serving government.
Trudeau's proposal only divides the unity further and before you know it, the Anti Abortionists, the Christian, Muslim, Environmental, Gay, Gay Haters will all have a single voice to undermine the leadership of their party while working to ensure they are re-elected, because it will be all about them.
Pie in the sky..
Anarchy that will never happen in either of our lifetimes.
Then because they'd have deadlock on any controversial issue, they'd therefore be forced to focus on things most MPs could agree on, and that would tend to make them focus more on bread-and-butter issues after a while.
As for the NDP, it's a pretty centralized party, so there I do agree they're not likely to vote for it. However, some Dippers did vote in favour of scrapping the long gun registry, so never say never.
And this could be appealing to Dipper backbenchers too.
On the upside the Conservative run Canadian ship of state continues on with it's moderate forward course.
The majority Harper Government has almost 2 1/2 more years to continue with it's unfettered leadership of the nation.
The Senate is now firmly held in Conservative hands.
As vacancies permit Conservative appointed Judges on the Canadian Supreme Court will continue to nudge the Court away from it's stale old progressive leanings and towards a more centrist Conservative state of being.
Legal bills supporting a more modern Conservative judiciary will continue to pass.
Old school senior public servants like Deputy Ministers and ADM's will continue to be exchanged out for more forward thinking, Conservate minded senior officials.
Canadian foreign policy will continue to move away from it's old rather strange Socialist affiliations and continue towards a new strong, leadership position with other world leading Nations.
Prior to the next Federal election new electoral ridings will be created which more accurately represent Canadian demographics, these ridings are anticipated to heavily favor the Centrist, Conservative voting electorate.
Harper remains a relatively young and apparently healthy Prime Minister who appears capable of leading the nation for at least one and possibly two more terms.
So there is that to look forward to.
Are you suggesting that a dysfunctional and unproductive gvt is better than one that has some kind of plan or policy?
Individual, non-party affiliated gvt would simply pit all regions (constituencies) against each other.
Tories target Trudeau's motion backing unhappy backbenchers - Politics - CBC News
One problem with Trudeau's motion:
'Instead of the current practice of having party whips supply the Speaker with a list of MPs approved to make statements on any given day, the motion would require the Speaker to recognize MPs in alphabetical order, by party.
'Independent MPs would be considered as a group, in alphabetical order.'
Why not just alphabetical order regardless of political party? What happens if someone changes party, or decides to sit as an independent, or joins a party? Then they'd have to shift the roster all over again. Too much work for nothing. Just a staight alphabetical order for the house would be fine, no?
that said, I still like the direction that bill is heading.
Maybe it's a mindset. A dysfunctional government would make the problems more obvious. Are you suggesting that if such a bill were passed, that we'd continue to have a disfunctional government 20 years from now? Maybe for one or two mandates, no more, before either the MPs realise they'll have to learn to work together or the voters will start paying more attention to a candidate's ability to work as part of a team rather than just ideology. It would be necessary growing pains for a better democracy.
Also, even if regions did decide to vote for MPs who just support their region, it wouldn't take long for them to realise that thei MPs would be next to powerless in Parliament. Those that vote for MPs willing to serve the nation would find those MPs more able to build informal alliances on various subjects, and whilte the alliances may shift over the course of a mandate, it would allow for some good bills to pass.
Now maybe I believe this because that's how I vote. Someone who votes for candidates based on their NIMBy policies or who votes for more aggressive MPs would boviously disagree because subconsciously he's aware that more freedom for MPs would make their MP powerless. Is that the issue with you?
One problem with Trudeau's motion:
'Instead of the current practice of having party whips supply the Speaker with a list of MPs approved to make statements on any given day, the motion would require the Speaker to recognize MPs in alphabetical order, by party.
'Independent MPs would be considered as a group, in alphabetical order.'
Why not just alphabetical order regardless of political party? What happens if someone changes party, or decides to sit as an independent, or joins a party? Then they'd have to shift the roster all over again. Too much work for nothing. Just a staight alphabetical order for the house would be fine, no?
that said, I still like the direction that bill is heading.
Maybe it's a mindset. A dysfunctional government would make the problems more obvious. Are you suggesting that if such a bill were passed, that we'd continue to have a disfunctional government 20 years from now? Maybe for one or two mandates, no more, before either the MPs realise they'll have to learn to work together or the voters will start paying more attention to a candidate's ability to work as part of a team rather than just ideology. It would be necessary growing pains for a better democracy.
Also, even if regions did decide to vote for MPs who just support their region, it wouldn't take long for them to realise that thei MPs would be next to powerless in Parliament. Those that vote for MPs willing to serve the nation would find those MPs more able to build informal alliances on various subjects, and whilte the alliances may shift over the course of a mandate, it would allow for some good bills to pass.
Now maybe I believe this because that's how I vote. Someone who votes for candidates based on their NIMBy policies or who votes for more aggressive MPs would boviously disagree because subconsciously he's aware that more freedom for MPs would make their MP powerless. Is that the issue with you?
I have high hopes that Mr. Trudeau can dilodge this awful and shameful government that we have at present. Glad to see that he can step back from the dum predictable attack ads from the reform.. I mean the conservatives and return with a intelligent response.