I'm really pissed (political)

[rgraham666]

First some background.

In Canada, we don't have fixed election dates. Except that out federal government must call an election every five years.

Under other circumstances the government may fall if it loses a vote in Parliament.

Personally, I liked this system. A minority government (One where the governing party does not hold most of the seats in Parliament) had to be very careful crafting and selling its policies. Even a majority one had to be somewhat careful.

That's going to change.

And it pisses me right off. Now a government doesn't have to give a damn. They can do anything they want knowing they'll have plenty of time to bury mistakes.

Grrrr.

 

[Pure]

hi rg,

i don't understand the legislation quite that way

you say
A minority government (One where the governing party does not hold most of the seats in Parliament) had to be very careful crafting and selling its policies. .... that's going to change

Yet the article you cite says,

STAR: // The big exception [in the new proposal]— and it's an important one in the current climate — is with minority governments, which can still be defeated to force an earlier election. The four-year term would begin again after the earlier election. [...]

The [proposed] fixed-election bill still allows for an earlier election if the government loses a confidence vote in the Commons and none of the opposition parties are ruling out the chances of that happening in this minority Parliament long before October 2009//

So minority govs remain in the same position.

Now, consider the other case: Majority govs have to call an election after 4 years, according to the plan. At present a majority government can stay in for 5 years.
So I think that's an improvement.

Further, at present, a majority government can call an election whenever it pleases, so they manipulate things--if popular measures are passed in year three, but unpopular ones are planned for year 4, then the party calls for an election in the third year. If there are difficulties in year 4, they may wait it out, till year 5 to call the election. They may pick a time of weak voter turnout [february, august], which generally favors the party in power.

This present, chosen-date procedure is an advantage for the governing party, and, in its favor, it promotes stability/longevity. But the fixed date system brings the governing party to the judgement bar at a prescribed time. If you like changeover, I think a fixed date system is to be preferred.

 

[minsue]

I've never understood the advantage to the people of having a government that can call for an election when it feels it is most likely to be re-elected as opposed to having elections on set schedules. Explain please?

 

[rgraham666]

Pure, my understanding is that the ruling party is the one that calls for no-confidence votes. Do you think that the ruling party will do so when they're likely to lose?

Min, it's not only that the governing party can call an election when it wishes to do so. It's now an election can't be called if the government loses a vote on a piece of legislation. So if the government crafts legislation so bad it can't win a vote, there's no consequences for it.

To me, it's a matter of feedback. Democracy works best when there is a lot of feedback. Democracy is the only system that has feedback mechanisms attached to all of society. It's the only one that can respond to all of the people's concerns.

The less feedback there is, the less democratic the society is.

In many ways, I regard this change as a response to the too common belief that politics by its very nature corrupt and evil. I don't share that belief.

I do believe that by limiting politics in the manner described in this bill we are limiting democracy as well. A change I cannot and will not support.

 

[minsue]

I still don't fully understand, but I think I'm getting closer. (don't worry, Mats has tried unsuccessfully to explain that one to me, too. )

 

[rgraham666]

If I might use a metaphor?

Try imagining driving a car. But you're limited to making turns every five minutes. And you can only travel at 30 mph.

You're likely to be in an accident pretty quickly. The road bends, you rear-end some one who stops, the list is endless. Only by reacting to your surroundings can you successfully pilot a car.

Same with a society. A society must be able to react to its environment. The more rules you put on it, the less successfully it can react to changes.

So, in my opinion, the changes proposed are imposing rules that limit our ability to react.

Not that I'm surprised. Our Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear throughout his career that he puts up with this democratic bullshit only because he must.

 

[Xelebes]

The main argument against unset election dates is gerrymandering. The Prime Minister can set an election when the polls are in his favour, not when they are against him. This is what Chretien is mainly accused of doing for his two re-elections. Only when they lose a non-confidence vote is this ever a reality.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think the car analogy is a good one, but we're talking about a society and its government... not just a society.

Government needs a certain degree of regularity to avoid becoming more manipulable. The more regular, the less control those even in power have over it.

It's one of the greater problems I have with what's going on here in the US... we are abandoning a great deal of the objective regularity in favor of very subjective chance and manipulation. I, for one, would be in favor of a country cementing their elections with a scheduled regularity, giving all equal access and warning about when those times are up for candidates.

It beats, in my opinion, a system that allows anyone in power the ability to manipulate more about when they get to re-issue it.

 

[Liar]

The main argument against unset election dates is gerrymandering. The Prime Minister can set an election when the polls are in his favour, not when they are against him. This is what Chretien is mainly accused of doing for his two re-elections. Only when they lose a non-confidence vote is this ever a reality.

Couldn't this be easily fixed, by requring that the electrion date is called at least six months ahead of time? That should be enough for the public opinion to swing either way, making it a fairer deal for everyone.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Addendum to post:

But, really, like I know shit about Canada.

 

[Xelebes]

Couldn't this be easily fixed, by requring that the electrion date is called at least six months ahead of time? That should be enough for the public opinion to swing either way, making it a fairer deal for everyone.

Possible, but that would already be the case now. There are usual hints and rumours of an election months before it happens. The problem is how do you distinguish the dropping of the writ and the proposed notice of an election. Currently, the dropping of the writ to the election day is set at 30-some days or so.

 

[rgraham666]

If a manipulator wants to manipulate something they will. Fact of life and impossible to stop.

But it's up to the voter to decide if it is manipulation and how they're going to vote in response to it.

But what our Prime Minister is proposing goes beyond manipulation. It's changing the fundamentals of how things are done. And not in a good way.

I've calmed down now. But I've sent a letter to my MP making it quite clear if he supports this measure, and he does, that he and his party lose my vote and other support forever.

 

[CharleyH]

It's changing the fundamentals of how things are done. And not in a good way.

What does one expect from the "New" Conservatives, (subliminal cough - americans) - former Alliance (see Stockwell Day) former Reform party (see hillbilly - aka 'Deliverance', 1972)?

 

[Xelebes]

How does this work in a negative way? All I see is that it is not going to change much.

 

[rgraham666]

What does one expect from the "New" Conservatives, (subliminal cough - americans) - former Alliance (see Stockwell Day) former Reform party (see hillbilly - aka 'Deliverance', 1972)?

I didn't, Charley. doesn't stop me from being pissed though, especially since the NDP will probably support it.

As I said, Xelebes, the govenrment no longer has to be careful with legislation. They can fuck up with fewer consequences.

 

[Xelebes]

How is that any different from now. If a majority government is in power like under Chretien they got away with a lot of shit because they were able to manipulate the election dates.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. Mulroney did the same.

It's not the manipulation that bugs me. That's a fact of political life. I don't regard it as necessarily evil.

Removing and important feedback mechanism from the government is important. Not having to pay attention to the votes in Parliament brings us closer to an Imperial government. That isn't a good thing in my mind.

 

[Straight-8]

Pure, my understanding is that the ruling party is the one that calls for no-confidence votes. Do you think that the ruling party will do so when they're likely to lose?

Min, it's not only that the governing party can call an election when it wishes to do so. It's now an election can't be called if the government loses a vote on a piece of legislation. So if the government crafts legislation so bad it can't win a vote, there's no consequences for it.

Both of these statements are incorrect.

A finance vote is, by its nature, a vote of confidence. If a minority government loses a finance vote it will have to declare an election (by constitutional convention). Not all votes are confidence votes. The Liberals used that out in the last parliament.

I agree with Min. There is no rational reason for the government to be able to call a snap election whenever it thinks it can win. The present system allows the governing party to try and distance itself from scandals (ie the last liberal government - unsuccessfully) and manipulate the system according to the direction of the political winds. A set date system will eliminate this (often pathetic) manouvering.

So rant away, but please understand the system before you rail against it.

 

[CharleyH]

How is that any different from now. If a majority government is in power like under Chretien they got away with a lot of shit because they were able to manipulate the election dates.

Well, friend, having worked for governments I can say with certainty that the Chretien government is not the only one, under any system, that gets away with a whole hell of a lot more than ignorant people think. Getting caught is a matter of stupidity and becomes a powerhouse of fodder for the opposition, which is why there was and is and always will be a need for people like - the PR agent.

What I like about the Canadian government is that if there is a minority - we can be rid of them next year, because obviously no one really wanted them in the first place. Take last election for example ... if not for the west's hatred toward the east, would Harper's gov't really have gotten elected?

 

[Straight-8]

Take last election for example ... if not for the west's hatred toward the east, would Harper's gov't really have gotten elected?

What about Quebec's hatred for the liberal crap they had to deal with and the discontent of most of the country about the power imbalence of the federal government?

But, before you ask, I acknowledge I am from the west - and damn proud of it!

 

[CharleyH]

What about Quebec's hatred for the liberal crap they had to deal with and the discontent of most of the country about the power imbalence of the federal government?

But, before you ask, I acknowledge I am from the west - and damn proud of it!

LOL - I neglected Quebec because they are on their OWN in hatred toward us all and us all for them! lol We are a divided country - what can I say. Red and Blue states? That pales in comparison to Canada. Although, as an Ontarian (RED), I have to admit the balance usually spins my way, except for this last election, and I and many others here - can't WAIT for a non-confidence vote - lol.

The west is gorgeous BTW, lived in Van for a bit.

 

[Xelebes]

Well, friend, having worked for governments I can say with certainty that the Chretien government is not the only one, under any system, that gets away with a whole hell of a lot more than ignorant people think. Getting caught is a matter of stupidity and becomes a powerhouse of fodder for the opposition, which is why there was and is and always will be a need for people like - the PR agent.

What I like about the Canadian government is that if there is a minority - we can be rid of them next year, because obviously no one really wanted them in the first place. Take last election for example ... if not for the west's hatred toward the east, would Harper's gov't really have gotten elected?

Well, I only use Chretien because that is the one I can recall the most. I was too young to remember anything that Mulroney did, so I am certain Brian Mulroney, Trudeau and all of them did something. Sorry if I sound like this sounds like something against Chretien only.

But with this new change, we are still going to have minority governments defeated for early elections and majority governments fall if the majority breaks down. That much is not going to change under this new rule.

 

[Straight-8]

LOL - I neglected Quebec because they are on their OWN in hatred toward us all and us all for them!

I couldn't disagree more. I love Quebec and the french language (not to mention the Quebequois women!). I think belonging to a country that has both is one of the main things that makes Canada great (and different). I also don't think that the current federation is the only one that makes sense. In fact, I think that it is unbalanced and needs a major overhaul. At least Quebec has put forward one interesting option - Sovereignty Association. I don't accept it as presented but it is worth considering options in terms of association.

But that Harper is such a crazy non-democratic guy! Next he'll be proposing an unelected old boys club, composed of his friends and appointed by him (- for life no less!), that have the legal final say on all legislation!! Oh wait, that's the Senate the way the liberals (and others) have operated it for the last 140 years!! And Harper wants to reform that most sacred and 'democratic' institution by requiring elections and 8 years terms. No wonder the original poster thought he was anti-democratic!

 

[Pure]

hi rg,

I do hear your point about responsiveness to the electorate. IN THEORY, in a parliamentary system, the government can fall [at any time] due to failure [to get a majority of votes] on any important issue. So a Bush type entrenchment is less likely.

IN FACT, though, where a majority is 'comfortable', the parliamentary system lets the ruling party ride roughshod over both law and public opinion. For the latter, I consider the Free Trade (with US) agreement to have been against public opinion. Similarly, though I agree with the outcome, the gov (parliament) of Canada went against the public, regarding the death penalty.

It might also be mentioned that the ruling party, for some non-financial bills gets to decide if 'confidence' is at stake. That is a great advantage, to say 'this vote won't matter.'

Parliament may vote a law 'notwithstanding' the Charter of Rights.

I'm thinking back, having been here several decades, WHEN did a clear majority gov. ever fall early ? All I can think of is some British cases, like some great scandal (Christine Keeler). It has to be so gross that the governing party loses some of its own legislators' votes. That is not easily arrived at-- some of the ruling party legislators have to be so alarmed about public backlash over the issue, that they vote against** their own party.

[**Or fail to vote FOR]

So, if IN FACT, a clear majority is there for whatever 3-5 year period it wants, I say, fix the term, to prevent finagling. OTOH, 'finagling' can be viewed in a positive way, along the lines Joe W suggests: it makes for stability, i.e., gives an advantage to the party in power.

The US system has this problem is spades: incumbent legislators or the pres enjoy a tremendous advantage. It makes for stability, but sometimes, as now, one wishes for a little less.

 

[Straight-8]

Rather than quote all of Pure I'll just say this is in response to his post. I know I'm on RG's ignore list so I won't bother trying to communicate with him.

You have identified the main problem with a notion of democracy in a parliamentary system. The executive branch of government is ALWAYS identical with the legislative branch. The US system only occasionally has the stars aligned so that happens. The 'checks and balences' system of the US ought to be more responsive to the electors than our system. And overall I think it is (with some notable exceptions); whether that is invariably a good thing I won't comment on.

Generally the higher up the 'food chain' the less responsive Canada's institutions are to democratic pressures. Your municipal council is more likely to listen than the legislature which is more likely than parliament which is more likely than the senate.

Anything that can be done to modernize our institutions and make them more responsible to the people ought to be welcome. Setting a fixed time for elections will help to do that in some small measure when there is a majority government; and it won't really change much at all when there is a minority. So I support this move.

But really, I only come here for the sex !