Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Agent_Koopa on December 04, 2008, 04:55:13 pm
-
And it made Wikipedia's news section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute)
For those of you who don't live in Canada, here's a very basic summary of the situation so far, as I understand it. Canada's economy is threatening to go into a full-scale recession, to nobody's surprise. The current Conservative government has been accused of doing little to stimulate the economy and lessen its impact, after emphatically denying the possibility in the first place. The most recent fiscal update by the Finance Minister contained measures to suspend the right of civil servants to strike and to cut off public subsidies for political parties, among others. (Political parties receive about two dollars for every vote they win. The Conservative party receives the smallest percentage of their income from subsidies at present). It was criticized by the opposition parties for not containing enough in the way of the promised economic stimulus, as well as a bunch of other controversial stuff. In response, the Liberal Party (centre-left) and New Democratic Party (left) promised to form a coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec pro-separation party). This three-party alliance would have more seats collectively than Harper's minority government. If all three opposition parties voted against the fiscal update, the government would be defeated.
Today, Stephen Harper asked the Governor-General (royal representative in Canada, largely ceremonial) to prorogue Parliament, suspending the current session and delaying the confidence vote, in a controversial decision. His request was granted, and Parliament was suspended until Jan. 26. The Conservatives are now running attack ads and making public addresses accusing the Liberal-NDP coalition of allying with separatists, and underhandedly seizing control of government without having won an election. The coalition is running ads and making public addresses accusing Harper of caring more about his position as Prime Minister than about the economy, and of abusing his power to benefit the confidence vote and subvert democracy.
What are your views, Canadians of HLP? Can we trust the NDP-Liberal coalition to govern better than Harper's Conservatives? And what of the role of the shadowy Bloc? Also, what do Americans think of the intricacies of parliamentary democracy?
Tell me if I'm getting something wrong or have omitted any crucial details. I'm just going off what Wikipedia and the newspapers are saying.
-
As an American, I think this parliamentary stuff is really interesting. Proportional representation is a cool concept.
There was a big study a while back about what caused governments to collapse, and parliamentary democracies were found to be more stable than presidential republics, and moderately more stable than federal presidential republics.
-
While I do think the Liberal-NDP + BQ threatening to topple Harper was a little kneejerk, even after the Conservatives conceded on the points they were going haywire about. The Conservatives didn't do themselves any favors by using the word "Separatist" and "Treason" like the FLQ is invading Ottawa.
Maybe it'll be good for the two sides to cool down a bit, however it does play to Harper's advantage. So I can only hope the threat of bringing down the Conservatives will make them a bit more careful in how they'll proceed. (Of course I can only hope for a million dollars to be delivered by supermodels too...)
-
I think the US would really benefit from implementing a parliamentary system here. It solves a whole number of problems currently wrong with our system (the lack of third parties being the most basic).
The thing I've always admired about parliamentary governments is their responsiveness; while us Americans have to wait two or four years for an election to get rid of a poor government, parliaments can change much more quickly.
-
A couple thoughts...
The Conservatives should not be playing partisan politics in a minority Parliament with an economic recession looming. This is a time to work together and build bridges, not play political games.
Of course, that statement about games goes doubly for the opposition parties. The fact that they would even consider trying to form a coalition (which is unstable as hell in any era, nevermind during an economic mess) and only extend it for a short term of 18 months while being backed by the Bloc is appalling. First off, while I actually think the Bloc does a great job of their mandate, as a Canadian I hate the idea of a party which is dedicated to advancing the issues of only a small part of this country holding clout in Parliament. Then, we're going to throw the Liberals, led by their most inept leader EVER into an unstable coalition with the NDP who, let's face it, will do anything at this point to gain some Cabinet clout. Dion can't even rally his own party - how is he going to hold a coalition comprised of three different political ideologies together? For those that have forgotten, the Bloc is very left-wing, as are the NDP. While the Liberals always campaign on center-left politics, they always govern on center-right politics. This is a serious unity problem for the coalition.
The only actually functioning coalition we've ever had was in the 1920s, and it had four things the proposed one now does not: a charismatic leader who had already served as Prime Minister; a very small difference in the number of seats between the Opposition and the Government; a booming economy; a much more unified Canada.
To top it off, the coalition is planning on throwing $30 billion willy-nilly as an economic stimulus package. But instead of distributing that money througholut the economy, it will go into unsustainable businesses - our automotive sector, which has never been competitive, and the forest industry, which should be looking to asian markets instead of relying on US exports. So that's $30 billion you might as well throw into the Pacific for all the damned good it will do.
Finally, this Parliament is 7 weeks old. Canadians did not trust ANY party enough to give them a majority to rule the country, despite the economic recession where a majority would actually be better for stability. Dion was resoundingly rejected by everyone. So instead of a single unstable minority government, we're going to show the financial sector how idiotic this country is and put a coalition with entirely untested economic ideals into government which will likely fail in less than two years. That sends a GREAT message to the markets.
This entire situation pisses me right off, and I would like nothing better than to line up Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe, and kick them all in the teeth while shouting at them to grow up and work together. I vehemently reject the idea of any formal coalition, and I've written to the Governor General and encouraged other people to write as well to say that should the government fail on a confidence motion, the responsible course of action for Canadians is to call another election and allow Canada to vote in a new parliament which is capable of getting the job done. While I am normally a Conservative supporter (federally), I would rather see a Liberal majority than this idiotic coalition nonsense - political instability and hashed-together policy is NOT what this country needs right now.
While the idea of spending your way out of a recession is occasionally one with merit, it must be done carefully and with great consideration to WHERE the money is sent. I know what will happen if this coalition gains power: more money to failing businesses in Quebec and Ontario - which won't actually help them anyway, because their practices and products are not competitive - while the rest of the country digs in and cuts their spending back. That is NOT the way to improve the economic foundations of the Canadian business and consumer world.
-
Interesting. I wish I could make an adequate reply, but I'm tragically uninformed.
I'm not entirely sure why you want Canadians to go back to another election. We've just had two, neither of which, as you've pointed out, have elected a majority. What will having another one solve? Elections cost money and freeze the law-making process. What makes you so confident that we will elect a majority this time? You say the most preferable course of action would be for everyone to work together. The Conservatives would put forward legislation acceptable to everyone, and everyone would vote yes on it, and everyone would be happy. Yeah, that would be nice. But you also say that the coalition will follow "hashed-together" policies. Why is this? Is it because of the mixture of NDP and Liberal staff making up the cabinet? Wouldn't the Conservative minority government, in trying to make its policies acceptable to the House of Commons, do much the same thing? Why do you think the coalition with its varying ideologies will have a harder time than the minority government we've just seen?
You also say that the proposed stimulus package (they say it'll be under $30-billion but we can't be sure yet) shouldn't go to the forestry and auto manufacturing industries. Shouldn't the money go to the portions of the economy that need the most help? Forestry and auto manufacturers provide for many Canadians, right? We're trying to prop them up in a difficult time, not "improve our economic foundations". Well, at least that's the way I see it, that we're trying to shelter as much as possible from oncoming bad times, instead of trying to reshape our resource-based economy.
I do find it interesting that Dion is going to be leading the coalition until spring. These are the most critical months, I'd say, while the coalition is still trying to gather momentum and hold together. Nobody likes Stephane Dion. But in my estimation Stephen Harper has made quite a risky gamble in proroguing Parliament. It looks bad and the coalition is sure to exploit this as much as possible. I don't think the Conservative accusations of forming a "separatist coalition" are going to be quite effective. The Bloc has no cabinet ministers in the first place, and is not officially part of the coalition. It'll simply put its votes behind whatever the coalition says, or so it seems to me.
Pardon my ignorance. I'd like to use this as a learning experience.
-
I'm sorry, but to have any chance of succeeding the coalition will have to appeal to the west. which it doesn't because it is comprised of liberals, separatists and wingnuts. sure they have quebec and they probably have ontario split 50/50 but BC, Alberta and that other one will most likely tip the scales in the favor of the conservatives.
-
You mean if Harper calls another election. Yeah, I guess if he can drum up sufficient mistrust of the coalition he might be able to score a majority. By the same token, though, his proroguement of Parliament is an excellent opportunity for the coalition to attack. That and the fact that we'd have a third election in an extremely short timespan might just lose him the election.
-
imho this is all ridiculous anyway. it'll sort itself out one way or another... i guess
-
I think the US would really benefit from implementing a parliamentary system here. It solves a whole number of problems currently wrong with our system (the lack of third parties being the most basic).
The thing I've always admired about parliamentary governments is their responsiveness; while us Americans have to wait two or four years for an election to get rid of a poor government, parliaments can change much more quickly.
And have the potential for **** like this to go down at the drop of a hat? Lord no. From the outside looking in, the parliamentary system has always seemed massively irritating and far too complex for its own good. Maybe it's just my general disdain for politics talking, but I infinitely prefer selecting members of government at regular intervals and letting them get on with their business in the interim. The whole idea of a government being able to be dissolved just because one group's panties get in a twist seems like a fine recipe for large messes and general mayhem, as seems to be going on up north from Koopa's report.
-
Interesting. I wish I could make an adequate reply, but I'm tragically uninformed.
I'm not entirely sure why you want Canadians to go back to another election. We've just had two, neither of which, as you've pointed out, have elected a majority. What will having another one solve? Elections cost money and freeze the law-making process. What makes you so confident that we will elect a majority this time? You say the most preferable course of action would be for everyone to work together. The Conservatives would put forward legislation acceptable to everyone, and everyone would vote yes on it, and everyone would be happy. Yeah, that would be nice. But you also say that the coalition will follow "hashed-together" policies. Why is this? Is it because of the mixture of NDP and Liberal staff making up the cabinet? Wouldn't the Conservative minority government, in trying to make its policies acceptable to the House of Commons, do much the same thing? Why do you think the coalition with its varying ideologies will have a harder time than the minority government we've just seen?
You also say that the proposed stimulus package (they say it'll be under $30-billion but we can't be sure yet) shouldn't go to the forestry and auto manufacturing industries. Shouldn't the money go to the portions of the economy that need the most help? Forestry and auto manufacturers provide for many Canadians, right? We're trying to prop them up in a difficult time, not "improve our economic foundations". Well, at least that's the way I see it, that we're trying to shelter as much as possible from oncoming bad times, instead of trying to reshape our resource-based economy.
I do find it interesting that Dion is going to be leading the coalition until spring. These are the most critical months, I'd say, while the coalition is still trying to gather momentum and hold together. Nobody likes Stephane Dion. But in my estimation Stephen Harper has made quite a risky gamble in proroguing Parliament. It looks bad and the coalition is sure to exploit this as much as possible. I don't think the Conservative accusations of forming a "separatist coalition" are going to be quite effective. The Bloc has no cabinet ministers in the first place, and is not officially part of the coalition. It'll simply put its votes behind whatever the coalition says, or so it seems to me.
Pardon my ignorance. I'd like to use this as a learning experience.
Somehow I just managed to lose a very well-thought-out two page reply to your post. I'm lazy and thus this will be shorter.
-A coalition is forced to appease all its members. This means legislation will be watered-down as they cannot ruffle the feathers of any particular political ideology. As the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals have trouble getting along at the best of times, anything they do pass is going to be unimaginative and based more on what they can compromise on than what's actually good for Canada.
-Our automotive sector is a failed business which only survives because our dollar is traditionally lower than the currency of the market we export to (the US). Putting money into a failed business to prop it up is stupid - it won't change, and you only throw more money at it in the future. Let it die. Then it may be forced to change and make a product which can compete on its merits.
-The forestry sector is behind the times. It is having trouble because we export raw timber to a single market, instead of refining timber processing and exporting around the world. Why do we export raw timber to the United States when we could export processed timber to Asia and Europe for triple the price? Again, putting money into it just encourages non-competitive business practices. It's idiotic.
-We should be reshaping our economy to stand viably on its own, rather than hunkering down behind traditional, flawed, and protectionist business practices. Protecting businesses that can't compete stagnates the economy and makes things worse.
-Proroguing parliament was a risky move but I think it will allow cooler heads to prevail. Canadians do not like the idea of instability in parliament, and the overwhelming response has been that the parties should be working together, not playing political power games. Hopefully, this break will act as a serious wake-up to all the federal parties.
-Dion is incapable of leading a coalition. The man is weak and uninspiring, and a leader like that will not be able to hold a functioning coalition together.
-Don't underestimate the argument against the separatists. It's a relevant one - what the Bloc agrees to is inherently bad for the whole country and usually best for Quebec's socialist provincial policies (which helps them, but puts an enormous economic drain on the rest of the confederation). The West and the Maritimes know that very well.
-The coalition was an enormous risk for the Liberals and NDP and it WILL hurt them in the next election. The reason the Conservatives did so well in this last election is not because they gained many votes, but because Liberal supporters stayed home in droves. Dion can't even inspire his own party. This move has effectively alienated the entire Western half of this country - the Liberals and NDP will both lose Western seats because of this, which will only deepen the divide between East and West and further polarize Parliament. That's bad for Canadian unity - the West has long resented Quebec's special economic status with Ottawa, and if the polarization of the last 20 years continues you will begin to see a very real Western separation/rights movement in this country. To date, calls for Western separation have been muted or considered only by fringe groups, but it could gain mainstream following if voters believe that Ottawa has lost touch with them entirely. The Conservatives are in many ways seen as the only outlet for the Western half of this country to vent its frustration, a fact which neither the Liberals nor the NDP have tuned in to. The Liberals, once upon a time, were considered the natural party of most of Canada. The shift to the Conservatives has occurred in the West primarily because the Liberals have come to be seen as the party of Ontario and Quebec's interests.
Don't kid yourself - we are living in a political era where the breakup of this country in one way or another is a very real possibility, especially with the economic supremacy of the Western provinces. That reality is a very scary proposition for anyone who believes (as I do) in a strong, healthy, and unified Canada. The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are playing with fire, and I don't think even they quite realize the stakes in the Ottawa political game.
-
Well put.
Damn Quebecers are always complaining about something or other.
I think... i hope this will pass on through without doing any damage.
-
what I find scary is that harper tried to send out legislation that would cripple opposition parties...with a minority government.
...imagine what would happen if he called election, and enough stupoid people split their votes NDP/liberal, amd then he scored a majority.
...fascisim, that is wahot would happen
then, if lucky, barrak would *have* to invade Canada...
-
you come across as pro-coalition.
-
The last week has been a period of stupid in the parliament. Its totally screwed up...and you know who screwed up first this time? Harper. Totally ****ed up. I think Canada in general was hoping that with the election over we could at least have a little peace and have the government work together to setup some sort of economic plan. Not surprisingly, the Conservatives didn't have a plan through the election and still don't appear to have a plan right now either. Oh...except to cut the pittance of money (est 30 million) that is the public funding of the other major political parties. Now is not a good time to try and damage democracy in Canada or try and pull the rug out from under the other political parties. No thats not really what we wanted...we wanted them to work together on the economy.
So in my mind, while I dislike the idea of the Bloc being involved with the Coalition (note: they were never part of it...they were agreeing to support it for 18 months), its clear that three of the parties are willing to work on something while the Conservatives are busy being smug and trying to ruin their opponents. Heck they were even saying that maybe we could keep running a budget surplus (which I am in favour of under normal circumstances) but right now they are just being total morons.
So again while I have mixed emotions its clear the Conservatives are more busy with trying to play around while everyone else seems to be more interested with dealing with the current crisis rather than pretending that it doesn't exist. So its pretty screwed up...Proroguing parliament seems like a bad decision and running from the crisis rather than doing something about it...BUT I am thankful that at least we don't have to do a Christmas election...because that would suck.
Personally I'm hoping for a strong new Liberal leader to step up before Parliament starts again and then we can get this show back on the road. I really want to see Harper replaced as well by his party and for a so called "Red" Conservative to move into the job as leader of that party. Harper is too much of a micro manager, too secretive, and far too paranoid to be able to deal with the current political climate. I realize that PM was his dream job and he legitimately believes he's doing the right thing...but I think he's gone a little whack in the head recently. Its time for him to go...and same with Dion (I like the guy...but he's not cut out for leader - Environment Minister, Deputy PM...anything else...yes).
OH...and....to blast through the rhetoric:
1) It is NOT a separatist coalition. The BQ agreed to support the coalition...but was not part of the coalition. None of their members would be ministers.
2) It is NOT undemocratic for the opposition to create a coalition especially in the face of a non-confidence vote. Harper himself tried to do that a few years ago. Furthermore...this is totally normal in a parliamentary democracy. If a few Canadians don't understand that its not our problem. Go learn about Canada's democracy and the British Parliamentary system.
3) Its NOT unusual for opposition parties to have coalition discussions after electing a minority government. The idea that this was some secret backroom deal that was totally out of the ordinary and was trying to "steal" the election is make believe.
Time for our politicians to grow up and stop behaving like children.
I know he's young and the son of a former PM...but seriously Justin Trudeau for future PM. For sure. Seems more mature than men twice his age.
-
The last week has been a period of stupid in the parliament. Its totally screwed up...and you know who screwed up first this time? Harper. Totally ****ed up. I think Canada in general was hoping that with the election over we could at least have a little peace and have the government work together to setup some sort of economic plan. Not surprisingly, the Conservatives didn't have a plan through the election and still don't appear to have a plan right now either. Oh...except to cut the pittance of money (est 30 million) that is the public funding of the other major political parties. Now is not a good time to try and damage democracy in Canada or try and pull the rug out from under the other political parties. No thats not really what we wanted...we wanted them to work together on the economy.
I actually agree with cutting public funding of political parties - they should be based on donations from individuals, not donations from tax dollars. But a minority government in the middle of an economic crisis was entirely the wrong moment for that little gem.
So in my mind, while I dislike the idea of the Bloc being involved with the Coalition (note: they were never part of it...they were agreeing to support it for 18 months), its clear that three of the parties are willing to work on something while the Conservatives are busy being smug and trying to ruin their opponents. Heck they were even saying that maybe we could keep running a budget surplus (which I am in favour of under normal circumstances) but right now they are just being total morons.
Working on something isn't necessarily a good thing if the something they're working on is a complete waste of public funds. I'm just saying. While the Conservatives pissed me off royally for creating this mess, I'm not about to start agreeing with money thrown willy-nilly at deeper problems. And yes, while the Bloc isn't a formal part of the coalition and agreed only to support it on confidence motions for 18 months, that by necessity is going to result in federal policy that is favourable the Bloc - the Throne Speech and the budget are both confidence items where the NDP/Liberals would have to make concessions to the Bloc. And knowing the Bloc, that means more money for social programs in Quebec. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - Quebec has some of the greatest social programs in the world. My problem is that the rest of this country pays for them yet doesn't benefit from them.
So again while I have mixed emotions its clear the Conservatives are more busy with trying to play around while everyone else seems to be more interested with dealing with the current crisis rather than pretending that it doesn't exist. So its pretty screwed up...Proroguing parliament seems like a bad decision and running from the crisis rather than doing something about it...BUT I am thankful that at least we don't have to do a Christmas election...because that would suck.
I'll grant you the playing around, but I don't think the others are more interested in actual solutions. I think they're using this as a bid for power and any policy changes they envision are based more on their ideological backgrounds and support base than what is actually good for the economy. The auto/manufacturing sector in particular is an obvious bid for votes rather than economic stability. And furthermore, if those three really professed to support economic stability they wouldn't be unreasonably propagating the political instability the Conservatives created. This could end here and now if they said they would oppose the policies but not bring down the government - but they've gone too far to do that now.
Personally I'm hoping for a strong new Liberal leader to step up before Parliament starts again and then we can get this show back on the road. I really want to see Harper replaced as well by his party and for a so called "Red" Conservative to move into the job as leader of that party. Harper is too much of a micro manager, too secretive, and far too paranoid to be able to deal with the current political climate. I realize that PM was his dream job and he legitimately believes he's doing the right thing...but I think he's gone a little whack in the head recently. Its time for him to go...and same with Dion (I like the guy...but he's not cut out for leader - Environment Minister, Deputy PM...anything else...yes).
Who... Ignatieff? Rae? Both of them are no better than Dion. The Liberal Party hasn't had a leader in years; even Chretien (who could actually win an election) was useless. The Liberals aren't going to be able to field a credible candidate anytime soon. And Dion... Dion is an analyst. He may be bright, but he has no business in the public spotlight as he lacks any sort of leadership quality altogether.
But I agree that Harper should step out of it - he created this mess, and it's time he admitted that he has burnt some serious bridges with the other parties. While MacKay has been close to Harper, he's a level-headed individual that could probably see the government through this mess.
OH...and....to blast through the rhetoric:
1) It is NOT a separatist coalition. The BQ agreed to support the coalition...but was not part of the coalition. None of their members would be ministers.
2) It is NOT undemocratic for the opposition to create a coalition especially in the face of a non-confidence vote. Harper himself tried to do that a few years ago. Furthermore...this is totally normal in a parliamentary democracy. If a few Canadians don't understand that its not our problem. Go learn about Canada's democracy and the British Parliamentary system.
3) Its NOT unusual for opposition parties to have coalition discussions after electing a minority government. The idea that this was some secret backroom deal that was totally out of the ordinary and was trying to "steal" the election is make believe.
While I agree with rhetoric-blasting, you're downplaying a few things here.
1) Whether ministers or not, the Bloc would have some serious clout on every confidence measure the coalition seeks to pass. That is dangerous - it leads to further special treatment of Quebec and fosters serious resentment in other parts of the country. That poses a major problem for national unity.
2) Agreed. That said, a coalition government in the current economic/political situation would not be good for the stability of the economy. We need a long-term government which can plan for the future; not a short-term coalition which governs merely to keep itself politically alive. Just because something has precedent does not make it a good plan.
3) Agreed. But for the Liberals to go from an election stance of no coalition to a favourable stance for a coalition a mere seven weeks later at a time where it is politically advantageous for them to do so reeks of underhandedness. That's doesn't make the rhetoric right, but it doesn't make the opposition ciome out smelling of roses either.
Time for our politicians to grow up and stop behaving like children.
Couldn't agree more.
-
Cutting public funding for political parties is a outrageous idea...absolutely intolerable actually. Private donations means the party that courts the rick business people gets to spend the most money and in turn serves their interests more and more until it spirals out of control like it does in the US. That is a terrible idea...not one good would come from that. The current system is more than adequate as private donations are allowed, but limited, and public funding is spent per dollar which means that parties that get votes (regardless of who they are) are going to be more or less on an even playing field.
If everyone voted for Green tomorrow then they would get the money to go on. I realize its hard for a small party to get going in order to attempt popular support but disallowing public money per vote would only serve to squash them even more.
-
I always thought the biggest problem with the US system is that campagins are funded privately, by large organizations that want political clout. A system where all political parties get an equal amount of money from the government would make sense.
-
Cutting public funding for political parties is a outrageous idea...absolutely intolerable actually. Private donations means the party that courts the rick business people gets to spend the most money and in turn serves their interests more and more until it spirals out of control like it does in the US. That is a terrible idea...not one good would come from that. The current system is more than adequate as private donations are allowed, but limited, and public funding is spent per dollar which means that parties that get votes (regardless of who they are) are going to be more or less on an even playing field.
If everyone voted for Green tomorrow then they would get the money to go on. I realize its hard for a small party to get going in order to attempt popular support but disallowing public money per vote would only serve to squash them even more.
We already have a capped donation system. If people feel that strongly about their political party, then they can put the money up to support them. Otherwise, leave the parties to fundraise and candidates to fund themselves. I don't buy this small-party nonsense either - again, let the die-hards fund them, or let the candidates raise their own funds. Restrict corporate donations, of course, but allow private citizens to make tax-deductible contributions to a limited level. And if small parties can't inspire people enough to help pave the financial way and the candidates can't support themselves, then I guess they work to get the donations they need. God knows it would also end the wasteful spending come election time on how many hundred signs they can put in one small greenspace.
I have a serious problem with my tax dollars funding ANY political party. None of them have earned that privilege as far as I'm concerned.
Corporate donations cause a serious conflict of interest, but frankly individual donations inspired by a political movement are a much greater source of revenue for political platforms anyway. Look at Obama's fund raising - his money came from individuals, not corporations.
Sorry IceFire, but I totally disagree with you on this one.
-
i'll have to agree with MP-Ryan here, sorry icefire
-
Well I think doing what the Conservatives were planning on would only cripple the two major opposition parties and leave them in a very nice position to dominate politics. Not a good scenario at all. Certainly not in the current state of affairs but not really ever was that a good idea...no matter which party was doing it to who. For the sake of having credible parties around to balance and counter balance.
Its a system. A damn good one too. It works extremely well even when it appears to not be working but when you start to tinker with the fundamentals and try and cripple opposition parties...thats when we start to loose our country.
We'll have to disagree there.
-
Well I think doing what the Conservatives were planning on would only cripple the two major opposition parties and leave them in a very nice position to dominate politics. Not a good scenario at all. Certainly not in the current state of affairs but not really ever was that a good idea...no matter which party was doing it to who. For the sake of having credible parties around to balance and counter balance.
Its a system. A damn good one too. It works extremely well even when it appears to not be working but when you start to tinker with the fundamentals and try and cripple opposition parties...thats when we start to loose our country.
We'll have to disagree there.
I'm not saying that right now was the appropriate time for such a major change - just that that change is eventually something I'd like to see enacted. I find the political opportunism (now on both sides) just as distasteful as you.
-
Can't speak much as to the actual current crisis in Canadian politics but in terms of the structure of party funding I'll chime in and say that as a supporter of (but not much of a believer in) democracy, funding must be kept seperated from independent contributors. If it's not it effectively amounts to priority voting; individuals or groups with undue influence due to the increased value of their vote/contribution. I really can't understand how you don't see that MP-Ryan. I dont mean to insult, but primarily using taxes to fund parties cannot be seen as the individual paying for parties that they don't like but instead it's paying for the system that allows parties to exist. Thats what democracy is. Everyone has some level of representation regardless of their ability to contribute financially.
Frankly, I see the current global lack of political will to actively tackle climate change (or any other global social/economic/environmental problem) as indicative of the fact that the entities the governing parties really care about are the large financial contributors who would be directly hurt by any such major initiatives. Call it a conspiracy theory or whatever you wish but thats something I would regard as fairly obvious.
Ireland, while sharing a British-type parliamentary system, has mainly privately funded parties which, while certainly as with my above argument, is a bad thing, doesn't really effect things to greatly as we're a small-fries country, but there are plently of political movements that don't get any money at all.
Just out of interest, we have, as stated, a British-type parliamentary democracy but it has a much stronger proportional representation basis, certainly than the British system but I can't comment on Canada's. That is everyone fills in a ballot with three votes of weighted importance for their prefered order of candidates. These are then transfered to the candidate of next importance as the prefered candidates reach the elected quota.
How does Canada's operate?
-
you pick a candidate and carefully fold the ballot by following useless instructions. and then do it again a month later apparently :rolleyes:
-
To clarify:
Canada has 308 electoral districts colloquially referred to as "ridings". When election time rolls around, candidates from different parties run in each riding. If a candidate from a certain party wins in a given riding, he or she becomes that riding's Member of Parliament. Voting is done via secret ballot; a pencil is used to mark an X beside the name of a candidate, and then dropped inside a ballot box. When the ballots are counted, representatives from each party, referred to as scrutineers, are present during the tallying process to make sure no fishy business goes on. The party with the most elected candidates becomes the new party in power, with the party that has the second largest amount of elected candidates becoming the official opposition.
-
that too :p
-
Can't speak much as to the actual current crisis in Canadian politics but in terms of the structure of party funding I'll chime in and say that as a supporter of (but not much of a believer in) democracy, funding must be kept seperated from independent contributors. If it's not it effectively amounts to priority voting; individuals or groups with undue influence due to the increased value of their vote/contribution. I really can't understand how you don't see that MP-Ryan. I dont mean to insult, but primarily using taxes to fund parties cannot be seen as the individual paying for parties that they don't like but instead it's paying for the system that allows parties to exist. Thats what democracy is. Everyone has some level of representation regardless of their ability to contribute financially.
Everyone still maintains the right to vote - they just aren't required to pay for political parties. Keep in mind the funding we're talking about is not the funding of the government itself, but the discretionary funding of individual political parties - the money they use to create ad campaigns, operate their own party during elections, run sponsor events, etc. If parties actually had to pay their own way out of donations of party members and private citizens then they would have to be much more careful about how that funding is spent. One side effect would be the promotion of THEIR political message, as opposed to running smear ad campaigns in the media. Right now, parties earn money based on the number of votes they get. This creates an unfair advantage as well.
The way I see it, there are two options:
1) Fund themselves.
2) Everyone gets precisely the same amount of funding through tax dollars regardless of the number of votes and that value is capped - no private funding can be used.
Since the parties would scream even more if the actual amount of money they could use in their variety of media events, sponsorship dinners, and political party favours was capped to an absolute figure, the only viable fair alternative is to take the public out of it entirely and let all political funding be private.
My problem is with a system that allows private donations but simultaneously funds each party based on how popular it is. When you look at it superficially it looks fair, but if you actually examine the system itself you'll find that minority and dissenting opinion is still entirely absent because the funding system only supports those political ideas which are popular with the majority. It just APPEARS to be fair - which is an injustice unto itself. That's why I believe our current system needs a serious revision. I'd be just as pleased to see that revision be capped funding equivalent for all parties, but we all know that will never happen because it removes the unfair advantages afforded to the large mainstream parties... namely, the Conservatives and the Liberals.
How does Canada's operate?
Badly.
Our system is designed as a Parliamentary system with two houses, but in practice things are somewhat different. Ridings for the House of Commons are distributed by absolute population (we do not have a proportional representation system in any way, shape, or form), and MPs in each riding are elected in a first-past-the-post system (e.g. the candidate with enough votes to take the riding relative to the votes distributed among the other candidates wins). The House of Commons is comprised of the MPs elected nationally. The political entity holding the most MPs governs - this is usually a single party, but in a few rare circumstances we have seen coalition governments. The Commons, therefore, is entirely based around representation by population.
The second house is the Senate. When Canada was created as a Confederation, the Senate was designed to be a regional representation system, based on an absolute number of senators with each region represented equally - this was designed to appease the smaller provinces and prevent the larger, more populous ones from dominating the federal government. Unfortunately, that little experiment didn't last long. The Senate currently functions as a body of appointed individuals, usually politically aligned with the Conservatives and Liberals, who review legislation passed by the Commons and provide an advisory capacity on policy. In practice, that typically translates into a brief, poorly-attended vote where legislation from the Commons passes without a great deal of debate and certainly none of the traditional idea of representatives from each region reviewing if it is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
In short, the second part of our system which is supposed to act as a balance to the demands of the population (most of Canada's population is located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec) doesn't. Thus, the problems with national unity and some serious resentment towards the federal system at both the Western and Eastern ends of the country.
We could benefit enormously from either a reform of the Senate to its traditional role, or the elimination of the Senate entirely and a transition to proportional representation in the Commons.
-
Thanks for the explainations.
As for the other, I still can't see how you reach your conclusion MP. Except maybe for possible different interpretations of your actual voting system.
I would say that, from what I've read here, your funding system (private contributions aside for the moment) works exactly like your voting system. Everyone has one vote for one candidate with no redistribution of excess votes because there is only one candidate per region/riding. Right? But wait, no, because, still, if individual votes are counted then funding IS completely proportional even if those votes are effectively meaningless when the recipient candidate is defeated.
Your main complaint seems to be that parties with popular ideals/policies, will get the most votes and therefore the most funding. But again, all I can say to that is, that's democracy. It's supposed to encourage populous rule. In a 100 voter system if everyone but me decides to vote for the Conservatives then they get 99% of the funding but my Legalise-Marriage-to-Cousins party still gets the other 1% (Or it might need to be a minimum of 2% according to wikipedia). The only way I can actually see to improve it is to remove private funding altogether.
Look at the most pronounced example of what you're proposing; the U.S.A. Are you going to tell me that the Democrats and Conservatives, who (allegedly apart from the recent Obama campaign) receive nearly all their funding privately, focus exclusively on political message ads? That they don't devote a hugh budget for smear and attack advertisements of all kinds? I think that's an aspect thats unavoidable nomatter where funding originates.
The only negative downside I can see is that the current funding system could lead to a negative funding feedback loop. For instance, wikipedia stated that the Conservatives achieved less votes than anticipated so the funding they received surplus and they were asked to repay the difference. That obviously requires private funding (or reserves, which essentially amounts to the same thing I think) or else the difference would have to come out of the next campaign, and because advertising is so vital, this could conceivably lead to another below par performance and a repeat of the process, again and again until funds and votes are gone.
But that's pretty theoretical.
I think, to sum it up, for me private funding essentially enables groups or most typically, corporations to have political sway, which is not how it's supposed to be. One person, one vote. Or preferably, one vote with three weighted selections.
And yes, single winner voting systems are in my opinion, grossly undemocratic. But possibly the only practical systems for larger countries, I don't know enough on the subject to even fathom a guess.
-
The second house is the Senate. When Canada was created as a Confederation, the Senate was designed to be a regional representation system, based on an absolute number of senators with each region represented equally - this was designed to appease the smaller provinces and prevent the larger, more populous ones from dominating the federal government. Unfortunately, that little experiment didn't last long. The Senate currently functions as a body of appointed individuals, usually politically aligned with the Conservatives and Liberals, who review legislation passed by the Commons and provide an advisory capacity on policy. In practice, that typically translates into a brief, poorly-attended vote where legislation from the Commons passes without a great deal of debate and certainly none of the traditional idea of representatives from each region reviewing if it is in the best interests of the country as a whole.
In short, the second part of our system which is supposed to act as a balance to the demands of the population (most of Canada's population is located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec) doesn't. Thus, the problems with national unity and some serious resentment towards the federal system at both the Western and Eastern ends of the country.
Well, think of it this way. If the Senate received more of an active role, Canadians would have even less of an understanding of how government works! This way, you don't even need to know what the Senate does!
-
this could just be a western perspective but i too believe that the senate no longer serves a valid purpose. the members aren't voted on and anyone could be a senator and hold a reltively powerfull position, not to mention being set for life. and all this for being friends with the PM or something similar. it's kind of silly.
-
Your main complaint seems to be that parties with popular ideals/policies, will get the most votes and therefore the most funding. But again, all I can say to that is, that's democracy. It's supposed to encourage populous rule. In a 100 voter system if everyone but me decides to vote for the Conservatives then they get 99% of the funding but my Legalise-Marriage-to-Cousins party still gets the other 1% (Or it might need to be a minimum of 2% according to wikipedia). The only way I can actually see to improve it is to remove private funding altogether.
Why should the ability to fund your political party and wage an election campaign be tied to how popular your party is?
I think you miss the point. The current system is actually LESS fair than entirely privatized funding. If funding were entirely private, parties would receive an amount of funding proportionate to their popularity within the voter base willing and able to donate to their political cause. Corporate donations aren't a consideration in the Canadian system because they are essentially nil due to legislative restrictions. The big business conspiracy theories can be safely ignored.
Instead, parties still receive private donations on that level, but they ALSO receive more funding through taxes based on the number of votes they received in the last election. Here's where the inequality arrives. They receive money based on how popular they are with the voter base in general, and then can receive additional donations (which are always skewed to particular parties due to the socioeconomic class status of their support base) from private citizens. Thus, large popular parties are funded heavily, while small parties with specific agendas are not. It skews the funding base heavily in favour of the two main parties (Liberals and Conservatives). And since election results are heavily correlated to the amount of funding of a political movement, this gives those parties an edge in winning the seats - which spirals into a feedback loop where they again start with more resources for the next election, thus making it more likely to win again.
As I said, there are two fair ways to distribute political funding:
-Every party gets exactly the same amount to budget with, and no additional funds are permitted.
-Parties are entirely privately funded, thus forcing them to raise donations from their support base based on policy and preventing sheer popularity (especially regional popularity) from giving them a huge financial edge in election campaigns.
Democracy is supposed to encourage rule based on the majority, but it shouldn't handicap smaller parties from delivering their message. That is essentially what our current system of funding is doing. It surprises me that you fail to see that despite criticizing private funding as being based entirely on the interests of a particular privileged group. Our current public funding system is based entirely on the interests of a particular privileged group - the mainstream two parties which rake in the majority of the votes cast.
this could just be a western perspective but i too believe that the senate no longer serves a valid purpose. the members aren't voted on and anyone could be a senator and hold a reltively powerfull position, not to mention being set for life. and all this for being friends with the PM or something similar. it's kind of silly.
Hold up. The Western notion of an elected senate is a foolish one too. The Senate was created as a regional balance to the demands of populated areas in order to ensure legislation was in the best interests of the nation as a whole. It was supposed to be above the petty partisan politics of the Commons. Electing Senators, fixed number or not, doesn't alleviate the problem because Senators will then be accountable to the short-sighted whims of particular regions rather than encouraged to think "big picture." This is why the upper house in most parliamentary democracies is traditionally NOT elected. Senators should be appointed - for fixed long terms rather than lifetime appointments perhaps, but appointed nonetheless. I would actually favour appointment by Premiers in order to represent regional interests, with 2-4 Senators per province/territory for a total of 26, 39, or 52. Three might be the best because then you get an odd number and can't have a split vote.
An elected Senate merely duplicates the Commons, and lord knows there's enough dysfunction there. Eliminating the Senate doesn't solve the problem either, because it exists for a reason (even if its mandate has been severely corrupted over the years).
-
..... I will never click "Spell Check" again... third post I lost because of that -.-
Well, in short:
Private funding is less fair than funding by votes, because both are dependant on popularity, while only the former is depended on wealth. Depended on wealth != fair
Funding by votes has also the effect that people can vote in order to fund, so the people who voted on the "loser" of an election didnt waste their votes.
[edit]
On a side note, dont let me derail you too much from the topic, i want to read more about Canadian politcs, it's interesting. :)