Canadian Politics

That is very different from how Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue parliament at Harper's request and deny the Liberals and the NDP, who had not demonstrated repeated contempt of Parliament, the opportunity to form a coalition government. I brought up the sarcastic example to highlight that (although I appreciate being educated on there being a historical precedent for my sarcastic example; it's a precedent I wish Jean had followed).

edited 16th Apr '14 11:02:49 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I brought it up because it was probably the reason why Michelle Jean prorogued parliament instead of letting the coalition form government. I would've also have liked to have seen the coalition form government and it definitely shouldn't have been tarred as something unconstitutional. Though the next time this situation pops up the person in charge will have two different precedents to draw on so that'll be interesting.

edited 16th Apr '14 11:16:56 PM by latenight

I am not sure why you are calling it Chancellor, Sledge. What you are describing is more akin to a President. A Chancellor is a prime minister.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

A chancellor is actually the head of a university. I just like the term. I've seen no head of state/government not in Germany with that term. Might as well give it over to Canada, and change their government since it needs changes anyway.

edited 17th Apr '14 12:46:16 AM by Sledgesaul

, Or a Minister in charge of Finance and the Economy.

Keep Rolling On

Proroguing parliament would be limited only to the speaker, then.

I don't care how weird Prince Charles is (and he isn't a young man anyway, won't be that long before he dies/abdicates); he isn't worth opening the constitution for. If we are going to touch Pandora's Box it had better be for the right reasons.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

With the way that Harper treats reporters, obstructs the opposition, ignores science and logic, blatantly stole an election, has the Governor General in his back pocket, and marginalized all dissidents in his party, I'd say there needs to be a constitutional change - or maybe several - in order to make sure his successors don't continue his policies ala Obama to Bush.

Harper's actions were all politically motivated and the opposition parties don't share those motivations. As long as either Trudeau or Mulclair turf him next election all the bad stuff should go with this government. The only thing that might become long term is the centralization of bureaucratic power around the PMO and the potential for that has always existed.

The Speaker is almost always a puppet, the obstruction of science is unique to the Tory platform, internal dissent is always cracked down upon by (functional) Canadian parties, and the election issue along with Harper's treatment of the media is unique to this government's way of doing things. I don't think there's a risk for continuity, especially if Harper loses badly next year.

edited 17th Apr '14 2:11:00 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Maybe you should consider having a Swiss-style executive setup. As in, not one PM who can run everything as he likes, but a collective.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

You mean like giving the Premiers more authority to override the Feds?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

The premier in Quebec blocked evidence based arguments, uses public data and government funds for partisan purposes, and demonizes the opposition in the same vein as Harper.

edited 17th Apr '14 2:24:28 PM by Sledgesaul

A bit of explanation: The Swiss executive is formed by the Federal Council, which is a comittee of 7 councillors which are elected by a joint session of our parliament for a fixed term. One of them serves as a president, but the task rotates among the councillors on a yearly basis and has no power over the other councillors. Each specializes on one particular department (e.g defense or justice) and they act as a collective.

A bit more explanatory description from Wikipedia.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

So it takes away power from party leaders, I doubt that will get very far.

Party discipline in Canada is among the strongest and strictest in the democratic world; certainly its the strongest of the states that use the Westminster system. The leaders make the decisions and the backbenchers fall in line for a headcount.

And changing the very structure of the Canadian government means addressing issues no one in power wants to (the Charter, province-federal relations, First Nations issues, Quebec's status, resource and wealth distribution, etc) touch cause the last group that tried to got their careers ruined and a divided country for their efforts.

Marois and Harper are both politicians (and fanatics to their respective causes) so of course they are going to do the same thing.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Party discipline in Canada is among the strongest and strictest in the democratic world; certainly its the strongest of the states that use the Westminster system. The leaders make the decisions and the backbenchers fall in line for a headcount.

Mind you, that is only going to be a problem if you need to have a grand coalition.

The thing about rearranging the government - yeah, I know that being a problem alright.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I heard Mulcair is omitting the references to socialism in the NDP platform.

Not good. That's New Labour territory. That's a dive to the right wing of the spectrum.

-_- Tommy boy, you don't want to depress left-wing voter turnout. Bad move...

Well, if the NDP gets swept away in Liberal wave brought about by the Second Coming of Trudeau, he'll have only himself to blame.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

It wasn't just Mulcair. The entire NDP voted to remove socialism from the party platform. Jack Layton himself supported the drive away from the socialist preamble.

The part that's really striking is that they removed a banner that condemned President Obama's use of drone strikes on civilians. That says, to me, the NDP wants to be lapdogs to the Democrats like how the Tories are lapdogs to the GOP.

edited 20th Apr '14 9:01:08 PM by Sledgesaul

The NDP hasn't been remotely socialist in decades; they are mainstream center-left to the core.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Refresh my memory. Conservatives are right-wing, but to the left of the GOP. Liberals are of a centrist mold, but similar to the Tories in foreign affairs. NDP is center left, particularly on education, healthcare, foreign affairs, and the economy.

Does that cover it?

There is a foreign policy consensus in Canada that also includes the NDP. In most things that matter we are generally in lock step with the US because of how intregated our defense planning has been since the end of WW 2.

The Tories include two major factions (the pre-merger parties); the Progressive Conservatives (think conservative Democrats or RIN Os) and the Reform party which calls the shots and dominates the leadership (pretty much the conservative GOP but sneakier cause most of that crap is political suicide up here). They have a handful of loud right wingers but the leadership generally shuts them down.

The Liberals are centre-left socially and centrist on the economy (you won't get any huge economic reforms out of them but they can be trusted not to screw things up or rock the boat). However they might be moving a bit to the left to order to grab the youth vote/get their traditional holdings back from the NDP.

The NDP are to the left of any American party, but they aren't the socialists they used to be. They are probably slightly to the right of the European mainstream left.

edited 21st Apr '14 12:42:42 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Touché.

What do you think should happen to the Senate - reformed or abolished?

edited 21st Apr '14 3:40:41 PM by Sledgesaul

I actually like the idea of an unelected chamber of sober second thought; I just think the members need to be more accountable for expenses/attendance. Many Senators do good work on subjects that no MP would touch for fear of being made electoral poison and it would be a shame to lose them.

Ideally I would have Senators be appointed by public committees instead of the PM though.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Why not remove the senate and have the house do that in the form of unelected committee members?

edited 21st Apr '14 4:54:06 PM by Sledgesaul

How is the Speaker selected in the Canadian House? Isn't s/he meant to be impartial?

(Our Speaker of the House is fiercely independent, much to the chagrin of both sides of the House)