So, what exactly is going on in the great white north??!!
-
mr tibbs
- Forum Goatee
- Posts: 3895
- Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:03 pm
- Location: The land of morons, I mean mormons.:(
So, what exactly is going on in the great white north??!!
I hear claims of a no confidence vote, the PM (or whatever) basically shutting down the senate, and then the Queen of England is involved somehow??!! What the hell do you guys have going on up there? Help an uneducated american understand. Is this basically a political cue or what?
[url=http://www.usbr.gov//][img]http://www.usbr.gov/images/banner-3.jpg[/img][/url]
-
fuzzysnuggleduck
- Soy Milquetoast
- Posts: 4423
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:08 pm
- Location: The best place on earth
- Contact:
You mean political coup? Not yet.
Basically the opposition parties have loosly said they will form a coalition if our current minority government decides to push through a economic plan that none of them like.
The PM has asked the governor general (represents the queen) to suspend parliament (not the senate) until January so that the current (conservative) government has time to prepare a better economic plan that won't get blasted down right away.
See, we have a minority government meaning the party in power has less than 50% of the seats. So if everyone else gangs up they can defeat a motion in the house, which if that happens, means we're going into an election because it's basically saying "this government does not have confidence anymore". Whether or not the opposition parties (temporarily?) "merge" into a coalition for such an election is unclear. All I know is that we have a minority government trying to act like a majority and that's not sustainable. Less than 40% of us voted for the party in power and they act like that's a strong mandate.
Basically the opposition parties have loosly said they will form a coalition if our current minority government decides to push through a economic plan that none of them like.
The PM has asked the governor general (represents the queen) to suspend parliament (not the senate) until January so that the current (conservative) government has time to prepare a better economic plan that won't get blasted down right away.
See, we have a minority government meaning the party in power has less than 50% of the seats. So if everyone else gangs up they can defeat a motion in the house, which if that happens, means we're going into an election because it's basically saying "this government does not have confidence anymore". Whether or not the opposition parties (temporarily?) "merge" into a coalition for such an election is unclear. All I know is that we have a minority government trying to act like a majority and that's not sustainable. Less than 40% of us voted for the party in power and they act like that's a strong mandate.
SOLD: '91 PG 4Runner
-
fuzzysnuggleduck
- Soy Milquetoast
- Posts: 4423
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:08 pm
- Location: The best place on earth
- Contact:
Formally, yes. The Queen is on all our money and she has her representative in our government (Governor General) who has to sign off all bills passed by the house before it becomes law. While I believe our GG can technically NOT sign a bill and prevent it from becoming law, I don't think that's EVER happened.mr tibbs wrote:Interesting, so you guys still have ties to England?
We're part of the commonwealth, so yes, we still have decently strong ties with England.
SOLD: '91 PG 4Runner
The conservatives were elected to a minority government, and they should have acted like it. Instead, their second minority election victory only made them more brash and irresponsible. Hell, Harper (the conservative leader) even admitted that they brought this upon themselves.
Basically they pushed out a budget that removes a key source of income from other parties. For every vote casted, $2 goes to the party you voted for. This is the only time that I get to directly CHOOSE where my tax money goes. I live in ultra-Conservative Calgary, where they have never scored a non-Conservative seat since god-knows-when (probably back in the 50's, if even). I do not vote Conservative, so this $2 towards my chosen party is probably the only effective outcome of my to vote. If they took that away, it would make my vote completely worthless, beyond its symbolic meaning.
Removing that grant was also a HUGE spit in the face to all the other parties, who depend very much on that money... while the Conservatives get most of their campaign finance from business donations, and don't really need it (it only accounts for 30% of their party budget). They would have been the only party to come out of this budget without going bankrupt, since it accounts for up to 80-90% of other parties campaign budgets. There's honestly no way any of the other parties could have agreed with this -- it essentially forced them to form the coalition. And all this to save only $25 million, which for a budget cut is a drop in the bucket. On top of that, the budget also lacked any fiscal stimulus for the economic crash, suspended the rights of federal civil servants to strike, and suspended the rights of women go to court for pay equity issues (i.e. if men in the same position get paid more). What a stupid idea.
So the two "left" parties are combining in a coalition, which would be willing to govern if a non-confidence vote was passed in parliament. Any big vote, like a budget vote, is also a vote of confidence. If the vote fails, the party is deemed ineligible to lead, and parliament is dissolved. This non-confidence vote requires a majority vote against the ruling party, so to do that, the coalition had to enlist the support of the bloc Quebecois (a very powerful sovereignist Quebec party).
So then Harper asked the governor general (appointed as a representative of the Queen, in our commonwealth) to "prorogue" parliament, aka shut it down. The GG's powers are theoretically supposed to be symbolic, and it is rare for them to make any political decisions. But by agreeing to do this, she has effectively stopped our democratic process from taking its natural course. Idealistically, it was not something she should have done, but despite this, I am very glad it happened. I want the Conservatives to have another chance at appeasing the other parties, as I think that would result in the most stable political system when we need it the most. I want to see that they have learned their lesson, and can agree to play nice with everyone else, without trying to bankrupt others in order to get ahead. If not, the coalition is inevitable, and I would support it.
Unfortunately, the conservatives have not done much to win over my confidence. Instead of worrying about creating a new, solid budget that everyone can agree to, or learning to work together, the mudslinging has commenced. Harper was using scare tactics, by suggesting that the "Separatist" Bloc Quebecois will control the power. However, the coalition is between the Liberals (centre-left) and NDP (socialists), and only supported by the Bloc because they have agreed to vote (along with the coalition) no-confidence on the Conservative's budget. The Bloc is not a part of the coalition and would do no direct governing... they would not even be in the cabinet. So on one hand this tactic has conservative voters accusing the coalition of "shaking hands with the devil", and on the other hand it has the Quebecois outraged. I think this will end up as a win-win for the Bloc, as the conservatives will now lose many seats out there to them.
Harper seems to have successfully turned the masses against the idea of a coalition by spreading propaganda and equating it with a coup. I suppose shutting down the Parliament for 7 weeks to avoid a legitimate and constitutional defeat is considered more democratic in this day and age.
A coalition government would have been 100% legitimate and constitutional. Instead, Harper has called it "undemocratic", and stated that they couldn't take power from him without an election. We have a parliamentary democracy in Canada - you elect your member of parliament, NOT your prime minister. The head of the party with the most number of seats then forms the government. The coalition has more seats than the Conservatives, so it would be a more representative government. In terms of popular vote, the Cons received around 38% of the vote, so again the coalition would be more representative of the electorate with 44%. Forming an opposition coalition to defeat a minority government IS part of Canada's democratic process.
In many European countries for example, there are many parties (sometimes hundreds). They have proportional representation, so even minority parties can get seats (assuming they have reached a minimum vote target, in order to keep crazy outlier parties out). The number of seats in the house is divided up evenly between the parties, based on the percentage of the vote that they won. So, since there are so many parties, it forces the formation of coalition governments. This way, they can still act as a majority government, but they are forced to work with other groups in order to come to a consensus. This form of government is nice, because it gives everyone a greater say in what goes on in politics. As a side effect, it is typically more bureaucratic, and gets less done, due to having more checks and balances. To me, this is a good thing, as it keeps radicals on either end of the spectrum from implementing any serious changes.
So, despite that you voted for a person in party X, and they formed coalition XYZ, you would still have your party as a part of the ruling government. This is better for you than if your opposing party was ruling.
In Canada, we do not have proportional representation like many other European countries. We, like you, have "ridings" that need to be won, and the winner of that riding will take a seat. The "advantage" of this in Canadian politics is that parties like the Bloc Quebecois can exist. Since they only run in Quebec, they only get 10% of the nationwide popular vote, but they get 16% of the seats, since they win in most of Quebec. So theoretically, this gives the "minority" Quebecers a bigger say in politics (though it gives any other minority the shaft). Because switching to proportional representation would remove this advantage from them, I do not think they would allow it to happen.
So, in Candian politics, coalitions almost never occur unless in DIRE circumstances, since they are less effective in our system of "representation by population" rather than "proportional representation". However in this case, it was necessary for these parties to form the coalition to avoid being bankrupted by the Conservative budget.
Now, unlike US politics, we are not bipartisan (yet). Previously we had two conservative parties... the "progressive conservatives" and the "reform" party. Only recently did they join to form a single entity, which was enough to win them minority victories in the last two elections. So one possible outcome of this would be the Liberals and NDP coming together to form a single party in opposition of the conservatives at the next election, which would bring us one step closer to the American bipartisan system. Personally I don't want to see this happen, because I think the larger parties become immensely corrupt. And once they come corrupt, your only option is to vote for them or your enemy. Most people will continue voting for the corrupt party, which does not encourage them to change their ways.
But I digress... The coalition has also been a disappointment. We have the Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who did not appeal to most Canadians with his erudite, European demeanor. He scored a record low liberal vote in the last election, and said he would be stepping down as leader of the Liberals... yet now he stood as the leader of the coalition. He made a major gaffe when presenting a coalition speech, by only recording it out of focus on his Blackberry, then sending it to the press an hour late. Another alternative is Michael Ignatieff, who became deputy minister and lead Liberal leadership candidate after Dion spoke of backing down. He currently stands to take the leadership reins away from Dion. However, I do not think he is the charismatic leader this coalition will need to succeed; what they would really need is another Trudeau or Obama. Also, Ignatieff believes the coalition should only be done as a matter of dire need, whereas Dion and the NDP leader Jack Layton wanted to vote no-confidence even before hearing the new budget, once parliament resumes in late January.
So since Dion's gaffe, Bob Rae had run against Ignatieff in support of the coalition, where Ignatieff wanted to see the budget before deciding. Fortunately Ignatieff has won, so it looks like the conservatives still have a chance to make things work.
And if it comes down to ANOTHER election, I will be frustrated beyond belief. That will only mean more and more inaction and mudslinging in such a dire time. We need a government in power.
Lots more great info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canad ... al_dispute
Basically they pushed out a budget that removes a key source of income from other parties. For every vote casted, $2 goes to the party you voted for. This is the only time that I get to directly CHOOSE where my tax money goes. I live in ultra-Conservative Calgary, where they have never scored a non-Conservative seat since god-knows-when (probably back in the 50's, if even). I do not vote Conservative, so this $2 towards my chosen party is probably the only effective outcome of my to vote. If they took that away, it would make my vote completely worthless, beyond its symbolic meaning.
Removing that grant was also a HUGE spit in the face to all the other parties, who depend very much on that money... while the Conservatives get most of their campaign finance from business donations, and don't really need it (it only accounts for 30% of their party budget). They would have been the only party to come out of this budget without going bankrupt, since it accounts for up to 80-90% of other parties campaign budgets. There's honestly no way any of the other parties could have agreed with this -- it essentially forced them to form the coalition. And all this to save only $25 million, which for a budget cut is a drop in the bucket. On top of that, the budget also lacked any fiscal stimulus for the economic crash, suspended the rights of federal civil servants to strike, and suspended the rights of women go to court for pay equity issues (i.e. if men in the same position get paid more). What a stupid idea.
So the two "left" parties are combining in a coalition, which would be willing to govern if a non-confidence vote was passed in parliament. Any big vote, like a budget vote, is also a vote of confidence. If the vote fails, the party is deemed ineligible to lead, and parliament is dissolved. This non-confidence vote requires a majority vote against the ruling party, so to do that, the coalition had to enlist the support of the bloc Quebecois (a very powerful sovereignist Quebec party).
So then Harper asked the governor general (appointed as a representative of the Queen, in our commonwealth) to "prorogue" parliament, aka shut it down. The GG's powers are theoretically supposed to be symbolic, and it is rare for them to make any political decisions. But by agreeing to do this, she has effectively stopped our democratic process from taking its natural course. Idealistically, it was not something she should have done, but despite this, I am very glad it happened. I want the Conservatives to have another chance at appeasing the other parties, as I think that would result in the most stable political system when we need it the most. I want to see that they have learned their lesson, and can agree to play nice with everyone else, without trying to bankrupt others in order to get ahead. If not, the coalition is inevitable, and I would support it.
Unfortunately, the conservatives have not done much to win over my confidence. Instead of worrying about creating a new, solid budget that everyone can agree to, or learning to work together, the mudslinging has commenced. Harper was using scare tactics, by suggesting that the "Separatist" Bloc Quebecois will control the power. However, the coalition is between the Liberals (centre-left) and NDP (socialists), and only supported by the Bloc because they have agreed to vote (along with the coalition) no-confidence on the Conservative's budget. The Bloc is not a part of the coalition and would do no direct governing... they would not even be in the cabinet. So on one hand this tactic has conservative voters accusing the coalition of "shaking hands with the devil", and on the other hand it has the Quebecois outraged. I think this will end up as a win-win for the Bloc, as the conservatives will now lose many seats out there to them.
Harper seems to have successfully turned the masses against the idea of a coalition by spreading propaganda and equating it with a coup. I suppose shutting down the Parliament for 7 weeks to avoid a legitimate and constitutional defeat is considered more democratic in this day and age.
A coalition government would have been 100% legitimate and constitutional. Instead, Harper has called it "undemocratic", and stated that they couldn't take power from him without an election. We have a parliamentary democracy in Canada - you elect your member of parliament, NOT your prime minister. The head of the party with the most number of seats then forms the government. The coalition has more seats than the Conservatives, so it would be a more representative government. In terms of popular vote, the Cons received around 38% of the vote, so again the coalition would be more representative of the electorate with 44%. Forming an opposition coalition to defeat a minority government IS part of Canada's democratic process.
In many European countries for example, there are many parties (sometimes hundreds). They have proportional representation, so even minority parties can get seats (assuming they have reached a minimum vote target, in order to keep crazy outlier parties out). The number of seats in the house is divided up evenly between the parties, based on the percentage of the vote that they won. So, since there are so many parties, it forces the formation of coalition governments. This way, they can still act as a majority government, but they are forced to work with other groups in order to come to a consensus. This form of government is nice, because it gives everyone a greater say in what goes on in politics. As a side effect, it is typically more bureaucratic, and gets less done, due to having more checks and balances. To me, this is a good thing, as it keeps radicals on either end of the spectrum from implementing any serious changes.
So, despite that you voted for a person in party X, and they formed coalition XYZ, you would still have your party as a part of the ruling government. This is better for you than if your opposing party was ruling.
In Canada, we do not have proportional representation like many other European countries. We, like you, have "ridings" that need to be won, and the winner of that riding will take a seat. The "advantage" of this in Canadian politics is that parties like the Bloc Quebecois can exist. Since they only run in Quebec, they only get 10% of the nationwide popular vote, but they get 16% of the seats, since they win in most of Quebec. So theoretically, this gives the "minority" Quebecers a bigger say in politics (though it gives any other minority the shaft). Because switching to proportional representation would remove this advantage from them, I do not think they would allow it to happen.
So, in Candian politics, coalitions almost never occur unless in DIRE circumstances, since they are less effective in our system of "representation by population" rather than "proportional representation". However in this case, it was necessary for these parties to form the coalition to avoid being bankrupted by the Conservative budget.
Now, unlike US politics, we are not bipartisan (yet). Previously we had two conservative parties... the "progressive conservatives" and the "reform" party. Only recently did they join to form a single entity, which was enough to win them minority victories in the last two elections. So one possible outcome of this would be the Liberals and NDP coming together to form a single party in opposition of the conservatives at the next election, which would bring us one step closer to the American bipartisan system. Personally I don't want to see this happen, because I think the larger parties become immensely corrupt. And once they come corrupt, your only option is to vote for them or your enemy. Most people will continue voting for the corrupt party, which does not encourage them to change their ways.
But I digress... The coalition has also been a disappointment. We have the Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who did not appeal to most Canadians with his erudite, European demeanor. He scored a record low liberal vote in the last election, and said he would be stepping down as leader of the Liberals... yet now he stood as the leader of the coalition. He made a major gaffe when presenting a coalition speech, by only recording it out of focus on his Blackberry, then sending it to the press an hour late. Another alternative is Michael Ignatieff, who became deputy minister and lead Liberal leadership candidate after Dion spoke of backing down. He currently stands to take the leadership reins away from Dion. However, I do not think he is the charismatic leader this coalition will need to succeed; what they would really need is another Trudeau or Obama. Also, Ignatieff believes the coalition should only be done as a matter of dire need, whereas Dion and the NDP leader Jack Layton wanted to vote no-confidence even before hearing the new budget, once parliament resumes in late January.
So since Dion's gaffe, Bob Rae had run against Ignatieff in support of the coalition, where Ignatieff wanted to see the budget before deciding. Fortunately Ignatieff has won, so it looks like the conservatives still have a chance to make things work.
And if it comes down to ANOTHER election, I will be frustrated beyond belief. That will only mean more and more inaction and mudslinging in such a dire time. We need a government in power.
Lots more great info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Canad ... al_dispute
I love the twisted logic that they use: that the Conservatives only got 37.6% of the popular vote, meaning that 62.4% DIDN'T vote for Harper.
Well, with that same logic, you can say:
The Liberals got 26.2% of the popular vote, meaning 73.8% DIDN'T vote for Dion.
The NDP got 18.2% of the popular vote, meaning 81.8% DIDN'T vote for Layton.
The Bloc got 10.0% of the popular vote, meaning 90.0% DIDN'T vote for Duceppe
The Greens got 0.0% of the popular vote, meaning 100.0% DIDN'T vote for May
Plus 1 problem I have with the coalition is the Bloc Quebecois should have nothing to do with federal politics they are a party based solely on Quebec for Quebec and their biggest platform is to seperate Quebec from canada.
Why should Canada have to hold another election costing tax payers 300 million dollars when we just had one in oct?
What if there is another election and nothing changes do we have to listen to more bullshit over again?
I hate politics
Well, with that same logic, you can say:
The Liberals got 26.2% of the popular vote, meaning 73.8% DIDN'T vote for Dion.
The NDP got 18.2% of the popular vote, meaning 81.8% DIDN'T vote for Layton.
The Bloc got 10.0% of the popular vote, meaning 90.0% DIDN'T vote for Duceppe
The Greens got 0.0% of the popular vote, meaning 100.0% DIDN'T vote for May
Plus 1 problem I have with the coalition is the Bloc Quebecois should have nothing to do with federal politics they are a party based solely on Quebec for Quebec and their biggest platform is to seperate Quebec from canada.
Why should Canada have to hold another election costing tax payers 300 million dollars when we just had one in oct?
What if there is another election and nothing changes do we have to listen to more bullshit over again?
I hate politics
-
fuzzysnuggleduck
- Soy Milquetoast
- Posts: 4423
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:08 pm
- Location: The best place on earth
- Contact:
I voted green, your numbers are off.gridracer wrote:The Greens got 0.0% of the popular vote, meaning 100.0% DIDN'T vote for May
Anyone can start a party and run. You can't deny that right, even if the goal of the party is to dissolve the nation.gridracer wrote:Plus 1 problem I have with the coalition is the Bloc Quebecois should have nothing to do with federal politics they are a party based solely on Quebec for Quebec and their biggest platform is to seperate Quebec from canada.
I don't want another election, but if the governing party cannot satisfy ANY of the other other parties, they cannot effectively govern and something needs to be done. A minority government cannot govern the same way a majority can.gridracer wrote:Why should Canada have to hold another election costing tax payers 300 million dollars when we just had one in oct?
Yes, and that would suck and would be a huge indication that our system is broken.gridracer wrote:What if there is another election and nothing changes do we have to listen to more bullshit over again?
I hate politics
SOLD: '91 PG 4Runner
It's a factual point however. Harper was voted for by 37.6% of Canadians. 100% - 37.6% = 62.4% of Canadians who didn't vote for Harper. He has a minority in the house, despite having a larger share of the seats than his share of the popular vote. As such he should not be presenting an unrealistic budget like this, when he SHOULD have realized that the other parties could never agree to it.gridracer wrote:I love the twisted logic that they use: that the Conservatives only got 37.6% of the popular vote, meaning that 62.4% DIDN'T vote for Harper.
By contrast the lib/ndp coalition theoretically has 44.4% of the popular vote covered. However, this assumes that the voters supported a coalition. Since coalitions are so rare in our politics, compared to Europe, many more people are turned off by the idea. I have heard many Liberal voters say "I didn't vote fer no NDP!". So I think in reality the coalition would have less than 44% of Canadians backing them... probably even less than the conservative support. Because of that, I honestly don't think the coalition would last that long.
The Bloc isn't a part of the coalition though, they only agreed to vote no-confidence on the conservative budget... other than that they have nothing to do with the coalition. It has only been fear-mongering scare tactics which implied a much bigger relationship actually exists.gridracer wrote:Plus 1 problem I have with the coalition is the Bloc Quebecois should have nothing to do with federal politics they are a party based solely on Quebec for Quebec and their biggest platform is to seperate Quebec from canada.
IMO the Bloc has every bit of right to be a federal political party. Hell, they have 10% of the popular vote... that's 3 million Canadians who think they should exist. So they want to separate from Canada, that much is true. But I do not believe they harbor ill will towards us either. A separate Quebec would benefit very much from Canada being a strong neighbor.
What would you propose as an alternative? Banishing any separatist parties? You would silence the voices of 10% of Canadians in that case. That would be extremely undemocratic.
Personally I would like to see proportional representation in Canada. It would give the Bloc a more realistic balance of power, while opening doors for other minority parties to gain access to our poltiical system.
Agreed. The last thing I want is another election. I am fully in support of the Conservatives running as a minority government. I would much rather they do that than have some hobbled together coalition trying to govern, while the conservatives will undoubtedly attempt to sabotage them at every turn. It would not be a stable government.gridracer wrote:Why should Canada have to hold another election costing tax payers 300 million dollars when we just had one in oct?
What if there is another election and nothing changes do we have to listen to more bullshit over again?
I hate politics
If an election happens, I think it will echo the last two elections once more. The conservatives might gain some more seats simply because Canadians are tired of all the bullshit, and just want ANY party to be able to act, instead of sit here fighting. I am not sure that is enough to swing the vote though, and we will probably end up with more of the same.
I think the best that could happen would be if the conservatives proposed a budget that pleases the other parties, and makes the coalition and an election no longer necessary. Fortunately enoguh Ignatieff has practically won the liberal leadership, so at the very least they will only use the coalition as a last resort.
I really really hope Flaherty can come up with a decent budget this time. I am seriously sick and tired of politics after frequent elections here, and that huge US campaign we just had to sit through. We're already getting bombarded with all this bullshit about the economy, so the last thing we need is more political bitching to add fuel to the flames.
within the last few years, ive finally grasped how exactly our government, and specifically our election system works here in the US (which I can say with confidence puts me well above 90% of U.S. citizens.. who seem to have absolutely no idea how it works.)
and then you guys a little insight on how your canadian system works.. and I have the compulsion to try and figure it out. ugh.
I like that $2 tax contribution based on your vote. It would give people like me who live in a devoted state some reason to vote.. as currently, only people who live in a handfull of "swing states" actually seem to decide the election.
and then you guys a little insight on how your canadian system works.. and I have the compulsion to try and figure it out. ugh.
I like that $2 tax contribution based on your vote. It would give people like me who live in a devoted state some reason to vote.. as currently, only people who live in a handfull of "swing states" actually seem to decide the election.
I'm afraid of widths.