|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 3, 2011 11:02:41 GMT -5
I think it's a fascinating result, when you look at the history.
The Tories basically flipped the tables on the Liberals, who have been reduced to a rump of a party.
I think you may see a sharper partisan distinction in Canadian politics now that you have a starker right/left dynamic between the Tories and the NDP. Perhaps the Liberals were seen as too centrist, so they got outflanked on both sides of the spectrum.
The NDP success in Quebec actually makes a lot of sense. If you remove the separatist factor, Quebecers are clearly a left-leaning group, more social democrats than perhaps Canadians at large. The old Tory alliance of the Mulroney era was based on nationalist issues, but in terms of socio-economics, Quebec is really very liberal and the NDP capitalized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2011 11:15:00 GMT -5
Kyoto Accord and UN short comings should be enough of a basis to have ended Harper. IMO, he wasn't attacked hard enough on these topics. Kyoto only makes sense. Of course when you come from Alberta and the oil sands (more polluting than any other form of oil exploration) are your bread and butter, you shouldn't expect them to put much stock in the environment. I'm no enviro nut, but we need to better. Not hybrid better - because they're worse for the environment than a Hummer when you factor in battery disposal. Kyoto and UN resonate with the majority of voters on the same level as astrology. Try standing on Yonge and Bloor and ask them if them if they care about either issue. IF they say yes, IF, then ask them for a hundred bucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on May 3, 2011 12:09:57 GMT -5
Most boring campain but most fascinating results. 2 Parties with historical defeats and one with an hostorical win.
Obviously Quebec voted for "something else" but nobody foresaw the Bloc simply vanishing from the map. But really, after 20 years, they simply had nothing new to say nor any actual results to show for. Interestingly enough Layton is now a "closet separatist" for actually stating the obvious that the Federal constitution is still not a done deal and will have to be looked at at somepoint. Obviously the time isn't now, but 4 years of Harper's cold shoulder on that and watch it become a hot topic again. Trudeau and Chretien arrogance towards that almost blew the country apart. Interesting though how Jack says he's "open" to constitutonal talks yet promotes a plateform that steps on Provincial jurisdictions. A the end of the day Quebec once sent a highly motivated Federal party (Mulroney) that couldn't resolve the issue and they sent for years a stricly provincial one that couldn't either. Good luck Jack.
Will the Libs finally get the message that they have to renew theselves?
With a Conservative Senate and Government, we now enter an era of Conservative dictatorship. That too will be interesting to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 3, 2011 12:18:12 GMT -5
The election continues to surprise. ============================================================ NDP candidate Ruth Ellen Brosseau wins Quebec riding despite trip to Las Vegas and weak FrenchBy Michael Bolen | Canada Politics – Tue, 3 May, 2011 12:22 AM EDTShe took a vacation to Las Vegas during the campaign, hasn't confirmed she's even visited her riding and has questionable command of French, but the NDP's Ruth Ellen Brosseau won the Quebec riding of Berthier - Maskinongé. CBC reported Brosseau was elected with 40 per cent of the vote. Her victory is part of a landslide victory for the NDP in Quebec, where the Bloc Québécois were reduced to four seats and leader Gilles Duceppe was defeated in his riding. Brosseau works in Ottawa as an assistant manager at a pub and lives in Gatineau, Que. Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail has described her as a "classic parachute candidate." During the campaign, Brosseau continued to work at the pub in Ottawa and took a vacation to Las Vegas. According to the Globe, her boss wasn't even aware she was running for office. An NDP spokesman, Marc-André Viau, admitted to the Globe, that Brosseau is "not ready to do a press conference," explaining her French still needs work. Viau promised if she were to be elected his party would "make sure that she's ready." Now that Brosseau has bested her nearest rival, Guy André of the Bloc Québécois, by more than 10 per cent of the vote, the NDP will be watched closely to see if it fulfills that promise. And not only with Brosseau, but also with the many other NDP candidates who few considered contenders just five weeks ago. ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-candidate-ruth-ellen-brosseau-wins-quebec-riding-042238054.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2011 12:27:57 GMT -5
That's a problem Dis. The NDP vote is a protest vote that can evaporate just as fast at it appeared. What does Jack do to keep it? His actions presents a very significant and possibly dangerous issue for Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 3, 2011 12:54:17 GMT -5
I don't see anything undemocratic about telling all the parties that if they want to run in a FEDERAL election they have to have federal candidates running across the country. If the Green Party can do it, so can the Bloc. If every province/territory had the same number of seats, it wouldn't make a difference. I'm not asking for that though. Instead, be a true National party instead of a Nationalistic one. Trudeau definitely seems to be slowly building up to political future. He sure is methodical though - showing far more patience than his father ever had lol. Say what you will about his father, but PET accomplished some of the most important pieces of legislation in this country's history. He did some of with a minority government as well. Pity he had no sense of fiscal responsibility lol. But you can't ... because you are indirectly taking away a person's right to run as an independent. There isn't 308 independant's across the country running, much less an independent party. And if you say, fine you can run as an independent, but if you are in a party then that party has to have 308 members running in each and every district ... well, then you'll have two and three independents running in every district in Quebec and voting as a "Bloc" in the House of Commons anyway .... Canada's human rights codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically says: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.You are taking away this right, guaranteed under our constitution ... by qualifying it and saying they can't be an MP unless they are a member of a federal party. You are saying people like Helena Geurgis who get kick out of a Federal Party are no longer able to be a sitting MP (not in a party, or you must change your political views and cross the floor), and furthermore she wouldnt be able to run in an election. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 3, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -5
The election continues to surprise. another NDPer was in France for the campaign. Simply a protest vote. the tide or the crush or the wave or whatever it is was never going to be enough to push the NDP into power. the people of the region still haven't learned that a seat at the table gets you more than a seat washing dishes. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 3, 2011 13:42:42 GMT -5
Kyoto Accord should be enough of a basis to have ended Harper. IMO, he wasn't attacked hard enough on these topics. Kyoto only makes sense. Of course when you come from Alberta and the oil sands (more polluting than any other form of oil exploration) are your bread and butter, you shouldn't expect them to put much stock in the environment. actually, Kyoto only makes sense if you are after wealth distribution. I don't like a cap-and-trade because it does little for the environment. yup . . . just haven't discovered the "better" yet. but it ain't taxes being passed to others. taxes being used for R&D? better the UN? more and more irrelevant. I mean, when Saudi Arabia and Libya are on the UN's human rights council attacking Canada and the US for violations something is very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 3, 2011 13:44:20 GMT -5
You are saying people like Helena Geurgis who get kick out of a Federal Party are no longer able to be a sitting MP (not in a party, or you must change your political views and cross the floor), and furthermore she wouldnt be able to run in an election. then there's the idea that people who leave their party mid-stream should not get to cross the floor but should sit as an independent for the rest of their term. ah, fun. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 3, 2011 13:52:07 GMT -5
I don't see anything undemocratic about telling all the parties that if they want to run in a FEDERAL election they have to have federal candidates running across the country. If the Green Party can do it, so can the Bloc. If every province/territory had the same number of seats, it wouldn't make a difference. I'm not asking for that though. Instead, be a true National party instead of a Nationalistic one. Trudeau definitely seems to be slowly building up to political future. He sure is methodical though - showing far more patience than his father ever had lol. Say what you will about his father, but PET accomplished some of the most important pieces of legislation in this country's history. He did some of with a minority government as well. Pity he had no sense of fiscal responsibility lol. But you can't ... because you are indirectly taking away a person's right to run as an independent. There isn't 308 independant's across the country running, much less an independent party. And if you say, fine you can run as an independent, but if you are in a party then that party has to have 308 members running in each and every district ... well, then you'll have two and three independents running in every district in Quebec and voting as a "Bloc" in the House of Commons anyway .... Canada's human rights codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically says: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.You are taking away this right, guaranteed under our constitution ... by qualifying it and saying they can't be an MP unless they are a member of a federal party. You are saying people like Helena Geurgis who get kick out of a Federal Party are no longer able to be a sitting MP (not in a party, or you must change your political views and cross the floor), and furthermore she wouldnt be able to run in an election. I said 'party'. Independents aren't affiliated with any party. An amendment can be made regarding the parties without infringing on the individuals rights. Pool together independents with enough similar interests and you have a party. It's been my experience, too, that independents are few and far between at the national level. They're somewhat common here at a provincial level - often when a party member is kicked from his party, but still popular enough in his riding to win. If there's a better way to ensure a provincial party doesn't get to be in a national position of power again (like when the Bloc were official opposition), I'm up for discussing it. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 3, 2011 13:53:03 GMT -5
You are saying people like Helena Geurgis who get kick out of a Federal Party are no longer able to be a sitting MP (not in a party, or you must change your political views and cross the floor), and furthermore she wouldnt be able to run in an election. then there's the idea that people who leave their party mid-stream should not get to cross the floor but should sit as an independent for the rest of their term. ah, fun. I'm all for a Belinda Stronach amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 3, 2011 13:54:14 GMT -5
The election continues to surprise. another NDPer was in France for the campaign. Simply a protest vote. the tide or the crush or the wave or whatever it is was never going to be enough to push the NDP into power. the people of the region still haven't learned that a seat at the table gets you more than a seat washing dishes. It gets better, Franko. ========================================================== NDP's gang of rookies includes 4 McGill students, 19-year-old, Vegas visitor
By Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press – 50 minutes agoMONTREAL — The sudden, startling rise of the NDP was best summed up in Tuesday's headline on the website of McGill University's daily newspaper: Four McGill Students Elected to Parliament. Another university student, a 19-year-old from Sherbrooke, Que., was not only voting in his first election but also became the youngest person ever elected to Canada's Parliament. The motley crew of victorious underdogs includes two newly elected MPs, running in largely French-speaking ridings, who have been accused of barely speaking the language. One, who works far away at a pub in Ottawa, spent a week vacationing in Las Vegas during the campaign. Many admitted to having low expectations when the writ was dropped. Yet they were among dozens of unlikely Quebec NDP candidates who won Monday as the party's caucus in the province skyrocketed to 58 from one. Many will bring impressive backgrounds into Parliament. Among the newcomers are a former diplomat, a prominent Cree leader and an ex-Liberal MP once considered a shoo-in for a cabinet post. Pierre-Luc Dusseault, a 19-year-old student of applied politics at the Universite de Sherbrooke, now becomes the youngest member of Parliament in Canadian history, according to the House of Commons website. He surpasses Claude-Andre Lachance, a Trudeau Liberal who was elected at age 20 in 1974. Dusseault, who will earn the basic MP's salary of $157,731, used his Facebook page to thank voters for expressing confidence in him. "We worked very hard to win," he said. "I'm obviously very proud of my own win." On Monday night, he told a local radio station the victory was the result of the "fruit of the NDP's efforts throughout the campaign." "People wanted change, including in Sherbrooke, and that's what happened tonight," Dusseault said The McGill Daily reported Tuesday that four McGill University students also won for the NDP on Monday night. Tyrone Benskin, another surprise NDP winner, said he was asked all night Monday about the impact of so many fresh faces in the House of Commons. "Yes, there are newcomers, there are always newcomers to any party," said Benskin, a veteran actor, director and musician. "All these people are very good at what they did in their private lives and they're bringing that experience." In Toronto on Tuesday, NDP Leader Jack Layton was peppered with media questions about his inexperienced team. "Yes, we have some young people," he replied. "But you know young people got involved in this election in an unprecedented way. I think it was very exciting. "And the fact that some of these young people have now been chosen . . . I think we should see that as something to celebrate — not something to criticize." Benskin himself was singled out during the campaign by outgoing Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe for not being at ease in French. The 52-year-old will be joined in Ottawa by Ruth Ellen Brosseau, perhaps the most improbable newly elected member of the NDP. Brosseau, an assistant manager at a university pub in Ottawa, won a central Quebec riding that is 98 per cent francophone even though the party has acknowledged she has difficulties in French, spent a week in Vegas during the campaign and never spoke to the media. The NDP said Brosseau, who returned from Vegas last week, wasn't in the riding on election day and wouldn't immediately be available for interviews. Brosseau won with a very healthy 6,000 majority. Benskin said the NDP's young MPs, like Brosseau, will receive whatever guidance they need. "As a newly elected member of Parliament she'll get the support and she'll get the mentorship to perform her duties," he said as he sipped a bottle of beer at the party's boisterous rally in Montreal after the election. "It's something that we're aware of and something that we have a plan to address." The NDP Quebec caucus will also feature Romeo Saganash, former deputy grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees; Francoise Boivin, an ex-Liberal MP; and Helene Laverdiere, who was posted for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Washington, Senegal and Chile. Laverdiere earned some of the loudest cheers at the NDP rally when TV screens flashed that she had knocked off Duceppe in Montreal's Laurier-Sainte-Marie. She seemed stunned to have pulled off the upset, but admitted she had an inkling it could happen. "A month ago it was a dream," she said. "(Then), a few weeks ago seeing how people were listening to what we had to say, we started to think, 'Well, maybe the dream will come true.' " Other new faces, like MP-elect Alexandre Boulerice of Rosemont-La-Petite-Patrie, still can't believe what happened. "Am I surprised? Of course," said the elated father of four shortly after beating Bloc incumbent Bernard Bigras. "This is not a wave, this is a tsunami — a political earthquake." Boulerice, a communications adviser for the Quebec division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, lost to Bigras by more than 17,000 votes in the 2008 election. This campaign started off much the same way as 2008 for him, as people told him on the street he was a nice guy who would never win. That was until Easter weekend, when families talked politics, he said. In the last two weeks of the campaign, he was flooded with emails from supporters asking how they could help, where they could get a sign for their balcony and how they could get themselves an NDP button. The buttons disappeared so fast that Boulerice didn't even have one to wear for election night. "Because every time we had a button on, people were asking, "Can I have it?' " Boulerice said. "So (there's) a back order on buttons." But he insists the NDP's new team from Quebec will be ready to hit the Hill. "But maybe not tomorrow (Tuesday), maybe Wednesday," he said, shouting over the ear-splitting rumble of music and cheers. "For the moment, we celebrate." www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iB7jKmRLJaQZAWp5Ibj9p0tYEMHw?docId=6740960 (link) |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 3, 2011 14:44:40 GMT -5
It gets even better.....
SALTINE CRACKERS READY FOR FIRST TERM
TORONTO -- It appears anyone or anything could've beaten the Liberals in the GTA. A box of Christie Premium Plus Crackers has trounced the Liberal incumbent and will sit as part of the NDP official opposition.
Said the crackers, "All my experience has been under the cheese administration, with some time spent in the soup administration.....but I'll think I'll do just fine in Ottawa, as I've heard most everyone there is out to lunch."
=============================================
I don't think I've ever seen this kind of election before. I've heard of protest votes....but this one smacks of knee-jerk silliness. Glad it didn't go all the way, with Layton winning a minority gov't.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 3, 2011 16:16:27 GMT -5
I think it's a fascinating result, when you look at the history. The Tories basically flipped the tables on the Liberals, who have been reduced to a rump of a party. I think the NDP actually flipped with the Liberals, BH. Pulling up the rear with 30-odd seats is a familiar place for the NDP. It would be nice not to go back to the polls for a few years. But, yeah, I think the new dynamic will be interesting to watch even though the Tories have a majority. I was talking to a friend of mine in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu over the phone earlier today. Now, I can't recite everything said, but he told me that unless you live in Quebec, it's really hard to understand why things played out the way they did. First, Quebecers do not trust Stephen Harper. Someone currently living in QC can possibly explain more on that. They can't trust the Liberals. The Charest government has been less that stellar. And the Bloc has done nothing for the province as well. So, according to my friend, a lot of Quebecers simply opted for a protest vote. Something else that came up on my Facebook discussion. It was pointed out to me that several of Layton's party members are known to be supportive of the separatist movement. If this is so, it reminds me of Mulroney surrounding himself with future separatists like Lucien Bouchard. And that came back to bite the PC and the country in the butt. I don't have a link that shows this, but as soon as I find one I'll share it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 3, 2011 19:22:00 GMT -5
Can you imagine this Dipper in a role of authority? How about him stepping into the UN to represent Canada? Although I think the UN does offer baby food and diapers.....   Like I said before, the NDP would demolish the country in a hurry. Meanwhile the separatist who voted them in would be dancing in the streets. It ain't going to happen. Harper is going to get them some toys to go off and play in the corner while adults are running the country. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 3, 2011 20:51:33 GMT -5
nor employed
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 3, 2011 22:28:11 GMT -5
I don't see how I could explain not trusting Harper.... I'd find it hard to justify trusting someone who: - cut off a parliamentary session that he knew would lead to his government getting overturned,
- clearly wanted to form a coalition in 2004 (I think) yet this year said that he never had any intention of ever forming a coalition
- leads a government that has lied to parliament, his ministers have lied to parliament and faked documents
- wants to abolish the gun registry (which might need to be fixed, but gun control is a good thing other than for whackjobs IMO)
- wants to abolish equal financing for political parties... (that's blatantly partisan since it helps the parties most backed by big business, namely the PCC, and hurts small parties like the Greens)
- has destroyed the integrity of Stats Can's work over the past few decades (even though Harper himself needed those stats for his Masters degree.... but it fits well with the anti-government crowd to be against the government knowing who they're governing)
- wants to allow income tax splitting, which will mostly benefit "traditional" families with one big wage earner.
To me the Conservatives should appeal to Alberta since they'll let them go ahead and pollute their heads off with the oil sands, but everything else they've done, or plan to do, makes me puke. So, hard to explain that I don't like them, and most of my view are typical of Quebec, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 3, 2011 23:34:29 GMT -5
- wants to abolish the gun registry (which might need to be fixed, but gun control is a good thing other than for whackjobs IMO)
- wants to abolish equal financing for political parties... (that's blatantly partisan since it helps the parties most backed by big business, namely the PCC, and hurts small parties like the Greens)
- wants to allow income tax splitting, which will mostly benefit "traditional" families with one big wage earner.
while I agree with much of what you say, - the gun registry does nothing except play into the "guns are bad be very afraid" crowd. the numbers are inflated because every time an inquiry is made for any reason the registry is checked [get stopped for speeding, you are checked to see if you own a gun]. a waste
- big business [and big unions] can only give $1,000 to political parties -- Chretien made sure of that -- all parties will need to raise their own money. and while it does help the Conservatives [and the NDP, who raised a ton of money this election], if people believe in what the Greens preach they should be donating, not expecting tax dollars to feed them
- income tax splitting will definitely benefit a one income family more than a two income family; I see nothing wrong with that. It'll help me with our paltry incomes too I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2011 0:15:29 GMT -5
I don't see how I could explain not trusting Harper.... I'd find it hard to justify trusting someone who: - cut off a parliamentary session that he knew would lead to his government getting overturned,
- clearly wanted to form a coalition in 2004 (I think) yet this year said that he never had any intention of ever forming a coalition
- leads a government that has lied to parliament, his ministers have lied to parliament and faked documents
- wants to abolish the gun registry (which might need to be fixed, but gun control is a good thing other than for whackjobs IMO)
- wants to abolish equal financing for political parties... (that's blatantly partisan since it helps the parties most backed by big business, namely the PCC, and hurts small parties like the Greens)
- has destroyed the integrity of Stats Can's work over the past few decades (even though Harper himself needed those stats for his Masters degree.... but it fits well with the anti-government crowd to be against the government knowing who they're governing)
- wants to allow income tax splitting, which will mostly benefit "traditional" families with one big wage earner.
To me the Conservatives should appeal to Alberta since they'll let them go ahead and pollute their heads off with the oil sands, but everything else they've done, or plan to do, makes me puke. So, hard to explain that I don't like them, and most of my view are typical of Quebec, IMO. Since they "pollute" so much, then the right thing to do is refuse any money that is generated from that activity. www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocID=141879~~~~~ Income splitting doesn't benefit me either, in fact, a complete economic mess benefited me more. But alas....the greater good. ~~~~~~ Every Canadian can contribute money to a party of their choice. So I'm sure this will spur people to give generously....or not. ~~~~~~ Some may have loved a coalition since their party would gain power but over 60% of Canada was thrilled he prorogued government until cooler heads prevailed. And just for the record, Harper never plotted to bring down the government to seize power. He OFFERED an option, not a signed contract. The distinction is immense. This is a signed contract for power grab. winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081201/conservative_budget_081202/20081202?hub=WinnipegHomeThis is a offer for consideration. www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20110327/duceppe-coalition-harper-110327/~~~~~~ Last but not least.......Guns don't kill. Crazy people kill. Anywho....it's over. The people have spoken. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 4, 2011 7:05:55 GMT -5
That's no "offer".
Reminding the GG that "the opposition parties together constitute a majority in the House"; telling the GG that the opposition parites have been in "close consultation" (as evidenced by that letter, signed by all 3)....reminding the GG to consult them and to "consider all of your options"...
He was obviously willing to make a deal with the separatists....as was Layton. As would've Dion or anyone in that position.
They all lie....it wasn't Harper's first (ask NL) and it won't be his last.
Voting is like guessing whose lies will hurt the country the least.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 4, 2011 7:25:14 GMT -5
If there's a better way to ensure a provincial party doesn't get to be in a national position of power again (like when the Bloc were official opposition), I'm up for discussing it. Two words: Senate Reform. Our current senate is a joke, a mishmash of out dated traditions and poorly executed ideas. As a legislative organ it is more or less the appendix of the government. However bicarmel legislatures can work, if organized properly. There's a number of changes that should be made to bring relevance back to the senate (for example, forcing the senators to be elected in some manner rather than selected for life by the sitting government) and those are all huge changes, but there's one amongst them that would not only help fix the senate, but also bring balance back to the entire federal government. Two senators (or three, or five - the number is really irrelvant) from every province and territory. Quebec and Ontario get two and so do PEI and Newfoundland. So does Nunavut. A relevant senate with an equal number of senators from every province becomes a new and powerful instrument. It prevents the large population of Quebec from overshadowing the will of the rest of the country. It does not eliminate their distinct voice, but it makes their voice equal to all others. Parliament still proposes and passes laws, but if a regional power is too difficult to handle in the House because of the number of members they have they can still be defeated in the senate. Of course senate reform is a pipe dream. It will require constitutional changes up the ying-yang and I (understandably) can't see the bigger provinces jumping on board with a plan to reduce their voice in the nation's capital. But it's fun to dream, no? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 4, 2011 9:29:59 GMT -5
An interesting idea TNG.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 4, 2011 11:00:37 GMT -5
TNG: leading the charge for Harper! ;D
I would expect Senate reform of some sort is now on his agenda. He has the two things he needed: a Conservative Senate [as much as it galls, stacking it is what needed to be done] and a Conservative majority. Without these he couldn't do anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on May 4, 2011 11:01:26 GMT -5
Senate reform just turns Canada into a lite version of the US system, which I can tell you, is seriously dysfunctional.
There's nothing wrong with a traditional parliamentary system, where the population and preferences of the voters are expressed in the number of seats. Sometimes you have periods where too may parties split the votes and you end up with a string of minority governments like Canada has had, but that's not really a problem with the system per se. Ideally, you would have a situtation like in Britain where you have a centre-left party and a centre-right party battling it out between each other. Quebec will always be in a unique position and will shift loyalties between the major parties, or go with something like the BQ for a period of time.
By granting each province an equal number of Senate seats, you end up over-representing less populated areas and thwarting the will of the majority. PEI should have the same voting power as Ontario for any given issue? Really? And what does that mean for laws passed by Parliament? Do they also need to be ratified in the Senate? So you could have a situatiion where Ontario, Quebec, and BC (what is that, 70% of the country) all vote in favor of an issue, but the rest of the provinces say no. That's unacceptable, IMO, and all you need to do is look at the US Senate as exhibit A.
From where I sit, there's really not much wrong with Canadian politics. You have pretty much universal consensus on the key national issues (health care, pensions, general tax rates, GST) but the federal govt is way more limited than compared to the US. Provincial govts in Canada wield way more power than in the US. In Canada, I bet your tax dollars a split roughly even between provincial and federal taxes. In the US, I pay about 5x more per year in federal taxes than I do in state taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 4, 2011 11:08:03 GMT -5
Senate reform just turns Canada into a lite version of the US system, which I can tell you, is seriously dysfunctional. what we have here is no less dysfunctional: life-time appointments. I'd like to see terms limited, and at least suggestions from the provinces rather than the patronage it is now. I'd be interested to discover the actual difference. Federal income tax is higher than provincial, but there are a number of taxes hidden in costs that no one it seems can figure out. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 4, 2011 11:48:32 GMT -5
Me too, actually. So long as we can blend it in with our traditional parliamentary system, I think it would put a new face on Canadian Politics. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 4, 2011 11:56:16 GMT -5
TNG: leading the charge for Harper! ;D I would expect Senate reform of some sort is now on his agenda. He has the two things he needed: a Conservative Senate [as much as it galls, stacking it is what needed to be done] and a Conservative majority. Without these he couldn't do anything. There is a flaw with the American bicarmel system. By chance does the president of the USA have veto powers over the Senate and the House of Representatives? I seem to recall Bush overturning a decision by these offices. If so, that sort of undermines their bicarmel system. Note to the American members of our community. Jump in here at any time. I'm not asking a loaded question by any means. I just don't have time right now to research it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2011 12:02:01 GMT -5
I agree with BH. I don't want to see another level of government. Abolish the senate, give the west and Ontario the proper amount of seats and call it a day. 322 elected people is enough for me and enough of a talent pool. I should say sufficient talent pool. Alright, adequate talent pool. Okay, fine, it's a pool of warm bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 4, 2011 12:15:18 GMT -5
He was obviously willing to make a deal with the separatists....as was Layton. As would've Dion or anyone in that position. Willing to make a deal? He made a ton of "deals" by compromising as leader when he was in power. He made NO formal "deal" nor write up and sigh a contract to topple the government. Three guys getting together and saying "hello, we're here and we ca do it too" versus "we going to shove them out the door and take over. Here's the contract we agreed too". There is no legal equivalence here. None. Nor is there a political equivalence unless one wants it to be. Anywho...this is old news. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 4, 2011 16:50:21 GMT -5
I agree with BH. I don't want to see another level of government. Abolish the senate, give the west and Ontario the proper amount of seats and call it a day. 322 elected people is enough for me and enough of a talent pool. I should say sufficient talent pool. Alright, adequate talent pool. Okay, fine, it's a pool of warm bodies. 322 seats? I have a better idea. Make it 213 seats. Instead of pretending Quebec and the East and to some extent the North mean something, that they are valued partners in this country ... why not let Quebec become a nation, cut the east off to form their own regional economic union seperate from Canada ... Then Ontario and the west can moan how under-represented they are until the cows come home ... |
|
