• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Fall of Stephane Dion

stegner said:
Getting rid of the party system is difficult if not impossible considering responsible government.

Party system as it is

Parties are an inevitability, either formalized like our system or informal (like in Afghanistan) like seeks out like.  The trick is to limit the power held by the apparachik and destroy the ideal of a "political career".
 
Howabout primaries to select the national party leaders like in the U.S?  Is that a start?
 
stegner said:
How about primaries to select the national party leaders like in the U.S?  Is that a start?

doesn't primaries require more money that the actual system, i.e. people with money and cies get to have more "say" ?
 
Sure money helps to advertise but it alone does not decide elections.  If you place restrictions like there are for general elections moneyed influence should not matter really. 
 
stegner said:
Sure money helps to advertise but it alone does not decide elections.  If you place restrictions like there are for general elections moneyed influence should not matter really.   

Then I guess the "commandite scandal" happens just because members of the Liberal Party of Canada justed wanted to play  :D !
 
(sorry, couldn't remember 'commandite' in English  ::)

stegner said:
Sure money helps to advertise but it alone does not decide elections.  If you place restrictions like there are for general elections moneyed influence should not matter really.   

Then I guess the "sponsorship scandal" happens just because members of the Liberal Party of Canada justed wanted to play  :D !
 
stegner said:
Howabout primaries to select the national party leaders like in the U.S?  Is that a start?

Might be, but as you said with limits in place.
 
If we had primaries as in the US model, then wouldn't we have to adopt an adversarial form of government where the executive is not from within the legislative branch?  


 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
If we had primaries as in the US model, then wouldn't we have to adopt an adversarial form of government where the executive is not from within the legislative branch? 

Why?  If the only thing decided at the convention is the selection of the leader then it will allow more of the members of the party to actually vote for their leader of choice.  Currently each riding only gets to send a small delegation to vote for the leader so only a small minority of card carrying members select the leader.  That's how you get mistakes like Dion's election. Never would have happened if the Liberals had done the kind of traveling road show that the US hopefuls are going through now.
 
If we can skirt the discussion about bunnies and trees for a second (keep this up and you'll be conducting an on-line seminar on tying bowline knots.....or worse).

Stegner, as Reccesoldier and Bomb Chucker said, the MPs still have free will.  They do toe the party line but that is an act of volition.  They do it because they believe it is the right thing to do, or they fear their fates too much or their deserts are not small.  In a distorted "democracy" they sell their votes for their future reward as a minister or a critic and the increased perqs.

In the case of Dion's Liberals there is precious little in the way of deserts that he can offer as a reward.  His coat-tails are as long as the average mess-jacket's.

In fact, far from having coat-tails he is an anchor.  Montreal and Toronto Liberals have a better than even chance of getting elected regardless of who the leader is.  Folks like Bob Rae, Ignatieff, Findlay and Coderre will likely keep their seats even if the Liberals get knocked back to 20 to 50 seats.

As to primaries ...... just more bloody complications and machinations.  Keep in mind the Yanks use the Primary system to vote for their King-pro-tem or Governor-General.  They are filling an entirely different billet. 

Aside from wanting the Senate gingered up to become a house of provinces with single term senators I don't think there is much wrong with our system.  Nothing that regularly changing the government won't cure.

Und Herre Gott Bombchucker, mussen wir wieder Deutsch gelernen?  >:D




 
Reccesoldier said:
Why?  If the only thing decided at the convention is the selection of the leader then it will allow more of the members of the party to actually vote for their leader of choice.  Currently each riding only gets to send a small delegation to vote for the leader so only a small minority of card carrying members select the leader.  That's how you get mistakes like Dion's election. Never would have happened if the Liberals had done the kind of traveling road show that the US hopefuls are going through now.
Ah.  Seen.  Thanks.  I was thinking of a radical shift from party elected leaders who then lead their parties in a general election, vice a national election following the primaries in which Canadians en masse vote for PM, vice voting as we do now (for the local representative, who just may happen or not also to be the leader of a federal party).

Cheers!
 
As to primaries ...... just more bloody complications and machinations.  Keep in mind the Yanks use the Primary system to vote for their King-pro-tem or Governor-General.  They are filling an entirely different billet. 

But the PM is basically the King pro-tem as long as s/he can command the confidence of the H of C.  S/he has the essentially the entirety of the prerogative powers at his/her diposal.  In fact, many American Presidents have been jealous of the power that Canadian PM's have.  For example, whereas, the American President has to deal with the Senate for foreign policy the Canadian PM can Picard-like proclaim "make it so."  Moreover,  I like the idea of each province having its own primary for selecting national leader and we can group the folks way up north all together. 

 
Stegner, this discussion could probably be better continued on this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html

It is full of comments on Kings and PMs and GGs and Presidents, not to mention Senators, MPs and Congressmen. 

History is a tale of eternal triangles - three individuals or parties or governments vying for position.  2 out of 3 wins the debate and always leaves 1 out 3 perturbed and looking for friends to reverse the decision.

There is no perfectable system.  There is only the situation we find in the here and now.  And we can be sure it will be different tomorrow and that that solution will be similar to solutions of the past.

Stephane, like Jack and Stephen and Gilles are all just playing with the cards available to them.  Personally I think Stephane has a pretty poor hand.
 
Back
Top