Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dave_ON

Members
  • Content Count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave_ON

  1. Nope, because in the case of a deadlock, as we saw with Martin's narrow confidence vote, the speaker casts the tie breaking vote.
  2. Actually if I'm not very much mistaken ALL 308 MP's are eligible for the position of speaker. It is a normal course of action that those mentioned withdraw their names from the running for obvious reasons. source : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/01/pol-speaker-election.html
  3. Two things. First this is a thread that is about Canadian Politics, something that Fox news has no bearing on. Secondly if we have no freedom, why are you allowed to write whatever you feel like writing on these and any number of other forums? Bonus questions, please define for us what you feel "democracy" is precisely.
  4. Agreed but what can truly be done? Media, must appeal to the vast majority of Canadians, ie. the lowest common denominator of political knowledge. Most Canadians, don't understand, nor care to understand how our government works. In order to rope most Canadians in you have to aim at their level of knowledge. Hence, the PM and Cabinet, and the Leader of the official opposition get the lion's share of media attention. The rest of the parliament is largely regarded as voting drones, a means to an end. The current state of affairs, is merely a result of what Trudeau started nigh on four de
  5. MP's have a similar gig, let's be honest here. Cabinet ministers have it even better AND if you're lucky enough to be elected speaker of the house you have it even cushier. Government work is cushy no matter where you sit that's hardly an argument against having a specific house. We need to fix the senate not abolish it. We need a regional non-partisan check on the pop-rep house. If we moved the appointments of the senate to the premieres of the respective regions, it would go a long way indeed toward resolving the inherent problems.
  6. Indeed but this is a result of a convention that predates party politics in parliamentary systems. Once upon a time the PM was just the minister that commanded the confidence of the majority of parliament. There were no party leaders to become the defacto PM. All the same, the fact remains that as it stands now, even if a vote were held, we'd be in the same position regardless, with the possible exception of minority parliaments.
  7. I don't think we should have a senate that is based on population truly, that is the function of the commons. Regional representation was truly intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority, ie. Ontario/Quebec. Ontario and Quebec getting hosed, really? So it's ok for Ontario/Quebec to hose the TROC but not the other way round? I don't think that's the intent of the senate, it's designed to balance the population representation with regional considerations. What check is currently in place to prevent the clear majority of pop rep which resides in Ontario/Quebec from imposing their will
  8. I don't disagree in essence I suppose, but I do feel it is a somewhat backward means of achieving that. I suppose my central point is that, a vote of no confidence doesn't apply simply to the PM, but the government as a whole. Further, the issue is Parliament never gets to choose the PM, this is chosen on their behalf by convention, which they can then accept or deny at the throne speech or any other subsequent confidence motion. But if their objection is with the PM specifically and not the government as a whole what recourse do they truly have at present? A vote of no confidence topples
  9. I don't think that's realistic, if they are elected they must campaign, campaigns cost money. Where precisely will that money come from? A party, do you honestly think a senator is not going to tow the party line of someone who's paying their election bills? We'd be turning the senate into a second commons, and it would be just a partisan.
  10. I agree with 2/3 E's namely Equal and Effective. I think Regional representation is essential in a federation, to balance the power of Ontario/Quebec and to a lesser degree BC. Honestly these goals could be achieved without the need to politicize the role. If the senators were appointed by each province, or at least if we maintain the 4 divisions philosophy provinces in each region, this would solve the patronage appointment issue, while still maintaining the non partisan/political nature of the senate. Senators would truly be beholden and accountable to their region, rather than the PM who
  11. I think you miss my point. It's not about whether Harper gets elected or not, its about whether people would care or not if his own election law or senate term law was ignored. I posit most people wouldn't even notice much less care about it. Given the rather low level of political knowledge the general public have, how many are even aware of a second house? A shocking majority aren't aware of our head of state. I'm just not confident it's as big a deal to most Canadians as many people here are making it out to be.
  12. I would tend to agree, the arts are low hanging fruit for politicians. I doubt Mr. Harper would go down that road again however, although it's not like he really has anything to lose in Quebec at present. I'd suggest cutting the size of cabinet, his personal security force and several other direct government expenses. These should get the axe far before any public services do.
  13. Well I suppose in a sense, in as much as if the HoC doesn't expressly state there is no confidence he remains PM. I don't believe this is precisely what TTM was referring to however, as the absence of objection isn't the same as the presence of a direct mandate from parliament. Either way, would this differ in essence from our present situation? If a party leader commands a majority, how would he not become the PM? The only thing this could truly potentially affect is a minority situation.
  14. Honestly I'm not convinced that senate reform is a truly resonating factor for most Canadians. In the west perhaps, but certainly not in Ontario or the Atlantic. My guess is most people wouldn't even notice if a PM ignored a senate "election". Much like people won't care if Mr. Harper chooses to ignore his own "fixed election" law.
  15. But if the steps are void of any constitutional weight what is the point? This is little more than pandering on Mr. Harper's part. He's simply trying to make it look like he's keeping his promise to what remains of the reform base. It's a sham and does absolutely nothing, it's about as effective as the warnings on cigarette packages. How many smokers have quit as a result of that? I agree steps need to be taken for senate reform, but real steps, not window dressing. Let's draft a constitutional change, and go from there, THAT would be doing something.
  16. Why the indignation? At any rate I'm done with this discussion, if you want to take it personally, be my guest. Suffice it to say calling someone a "leftist" or a "right wingnut" are both equally inappropriate and doesn't end an argument. You can't simply dismiss someone simply because you perceive them to be a certain way. Address the issue, keep the insults down and stick to the facts plain and simple. You can disagree with someone and still show them common courtesy. Labels are dismissive and comes across as flippant. For the record it's not about sensorship my friend, it's about com
  17. Lefties is a term that you use for those who do not agree with you, regardless of where on the political spectrum they actually happen to fall. I've noted you've called several people, who are not the least bit "leftist" thus, simply for disagreeing with you. You can't categorize people as leftist, because of one specific position they hold on one specific issue. People are not that simple to categorize. One can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the two are not mutually exclusive and terming someone a "leftist" is overly simplistic. I actually don't like the term right wing e
  18. Pompous is a stretch, I've only ever been polite even in the face of purely infantile comments. Be that as it may, perhaps we can be adult and stick to the topic of the thread at hand?
  19. How sad if that is your rebuttal sir. You realize this only serves to further illustrate my point? You have only vapid sloganeering and nothing of merit to say whatsoever. You're not even particularly clever, nor are you the least bit entertaining. You are merely wasting everyone's time. Give us something of substance or at the very least have the wherewithal to keep from waxing childish at every turn. I suppose that's asking a lot from someone who has "FTW" in their name.
  20. I'm afraid an act of parliament is utterly incapable of unilaterally altering the constitution. The senate must also pass such a motion and in terms of the monarchy it is likely we would need the 7/10 50% pop rule. to make a fundamental alteration to the constitution. Why must the executive, as it exists in Canada be elected? How does it benefit us to politicize the head of state? Why do we need a vice president, what purpose would that serve? Are you simply attempting to copy and paste the US executive into the parliamentary system? History has proven on many occasions that such botch
  21. I think this sums up the situation rather well. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but once you see what's involved in the process, and what it means, I'm fairly certain any constitutional amendments would suffer the very same fate as Meech and Charlottetown.
  22. Give me an actual, well thought out plan on how we will replace it and I'll listen.
  23. In all sincerity please try and show some maturity and keep your comments civil. If you want people to consider your POV, you should likely avoid name calling, (ie. Leftists, which is an utterly inaccurate generalization), as well as flippant and dismissive responses unless you want to be largely ignored by the patrons of this board. I'm not certain what type of board you're used to posting to, but many of us come here to engage in adult discourse, not to fling aspersions and conduct EPEEN contests.
  24. Hmmm interesting how you never let the facts get in the way of your "opinion" Here's a link, perhaps you should educate yourself a bit further before posting your thoughts. You're entitled to your opinion, but at least have the wherewithal to backup your claims with some facts. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/Canada.aspx From the Official Monarchy website, it took me about 2 minutes to find. And I quote Hmmm now distinctive, now to me and most people distinctive means different not "same". Is this like "discrimination" for you whereby you choose the definit
  25. I'm confused how is the Queen of Canada a foreign Monarch?
×
×
  • Create New...