question for people who live in canada

[Said1]

Isn't Harper in a somewhat tenuous position though? I mean it wasn't exactly a convincing win, if memory serves me correctly. And I think the NDP did pretty well in Toronto, but then I think they took ridings from the Liberals. Again from memory the Conservatives have no ridings in Toronto proper, they do in the GTA.p

You're right, Harper isn't exactly the golden boy he's been portraying himself as and, the NDP does have some hold in the east that went beyond what they took from the Liberals, although I think they're strongest in on the west coast they love Jack Layton. They're also big in my riding, Ottawa Centre, which is also the richest. Ed Broadbent was MP, but stepped down because his wife is dying. I think he was pegged for NDP leadership, had he not stepped down, I think he might have gotten it too. Probably one of the only NDPers I have a great amount of resepct for.


I'm not sure what the Conservatives actual standing is in Ontario as far as ridings go, they're a minority government if that helps draw a better picture.

For an outsider Canadian politics can be very complex - but very interesting, a long way from the dull Tweedledee and Tweedledum duopoly politics of my country.

It's not that complex, very similar to the British parilamentary model except our constitution is written, judiciary reveiw and a few other things.

 

[Annie]

Isn't Harper in a somewhat tenuous position though? I mean it wasn't exactly a convincing win, if memory serves me correctly. And I think the NDP did pretty well in Toronto, but then I think they took ridings from the Liberals. Again from memory the Conservatives have no ridings in Toronto proper, they do in the GTA.

For an outsider Canadian politics can be very complex - but very interesting, a long way from the dull Tweedledee and Tweedledum duopoly politics of my country.

Heh. No wonder Said can make mincemeat of me! I've not a clue.

 

[Said1]

Heh. No wonder Said can make mincemeat of me! I've not a clue.

Right now, I'm SOOOO disgusted with Harper on the UNESCO thing with Quebec and the national childcare program. Like blood boiling mad. He's also limiting the press's access to MP's coming out of the House of Commons, where the press has always questioned them. I suppose I could watch it on the internet, not having cable, but that's bullshit, total crapola. It also takes away the MP's voice to the public. Ewwww that makes me so MAD!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

Heh. No wonder Said can make mincemeat of me! I've not a clue.

That's the beauty of a discussion forum Kathianne. Partisan politics aside, it's great to get the views of ordinary people about their system. And given that if anyone (a) chooses to discuss political issues in a forum like this and (b) can sustain their position - without being a meathead I mean - then they have much to offer. It's one thing reading a book and going to lectures but it's another thing entirely to get the views of people who live in a system.

 

[Said1]

That's the beauty of a discussion forum Kathianne. Partisan politics aside, it's great to get the views of ordinary people about their system. And given that if anyone (a) chooses to discuss political issues in a forum like this and (b) can sustain their position - without being a meathead I mean - then they have much to offer. It's one thing reading a book and going to lectures but it's another thing entirely to get the views of people who live in a system.

Australian parliament is set up similarily to Britain's, isn't it? Moreso than our's, but also a federation, not a unitary state?

What type of voting system do you have?

 

[Diuretic]

Right now, I'm SOOOO disgusted with Harper on the UNESCO thing with Quebec and the national childcare program. Like blood boiling mad. He's also limiting the press's access to MP's coming out of the House of Commons, where the press has always questioned them. I suppose I could watch it on the internet, not having cable, but that's bullshit, total crapola. It also takes away the MP's voice to the public. Ewwww that makes me so MAD!!!!

Harper is using the conservative playbook. During the election he was advised by at least one, perhaps two, conservative spinmeisters from Australia, I believe. I have no doubt Harper will emulate our PM Howard who in turn got his dirty tricks from the British Tories.

My money is on one term for Harper. At the time he was elected I remeber thinking it was Canada booting out its natural party of government (federally) to give them time to re-think their behaviour and to eat a bit of humble pie. Harper promised he had reformed, he wasn't the big bad free-marketeer from Alberta. I wondered how long he'd be able to keep himself under control. Not long it seems.

 

[Diuretic]

Australian parliament is set up similarily to Britain's, isn't it? Moreso than our's, but also a federation, not a unitary state?

What type of voting system do you have?

Ours is a federation is based on Westminster principles but also takes a leaf out of the US book. Our lower house, what you call the Commons, is elected, single member electorates (ridings). Voting is preferential and - compulsory. Our upper house is a Senate as well but it was actually developed to represent the states rather than individual electorates. Senators are elected on a proprtional representation system, it is also compulsory to vote for Senate candidates.

Our political parties are somewhat different to yours in that there are no direct comparisons but roughly (and this is confusing with the terminology).

The Liberal Party is akin to the Conservatives. John Howard and Stephen Harper would be policy twins.

The Australian Labor Party is much like the Grits but its left wing would see eye to eye with Jack Layton and the NDP on many issues.

The National Party is in coalition with the Liberal Party and represents rural interests and is quite conservative.

The Greens are like the Greens in Canada, well to the left of centre.

 

[Said1]

Harper is using the conservative playbook. During the election he was advised by at least one, perhaps two, conservative spinmeisters from Australia, I believe. I have no doubt Harper will emulate our PM Howard who in turn got his dirty tricks from the British Tories.

What's funny is that Haper's conservative leadership was wanning within his own party, prior to the shit hitting the fan which eventually ousted the Liberals.

My money is on one term for Harper. At the time he was elected I remeber thinking it was Canada booting out its natural party of government (federally) to give them time to re-think their behaviour and to eat a bit of humble pie. Harper promised he had reformed, he wasn't the big bad free-marketeer from Alberta. I wondered how long he'd be able to keep himself under control. Not long it seems.

I have no idea who is going to get the Liberal party's leadership, I was really hoping to see Newfoundland's ex-premier Brian Tobin, but it was only a supposed rumour - remember the Turbot thing with Spain? He's not afraid to take a stand.

Harper passed his budget, so he's safe for now, I don't see him winning in 4 yrs either - I'm sure the Liberals will be back in power if they pick their leader properly and I'm sure they will.

I honestly love watching the Bloc during the debates, they aren't going to win so anything goes. I always walk away wishing Duceppe was with an acceptable party so I could vote for him.

 

[Said1]

Ours is a federation is based on Westminster principles but also takes a leaf out of the US book. Our lower house, what you call the Commons, is elected, single member electorates (ridings). Voting is preferential and - compulsory. Our upper house is a Senate as well but it was actually developed to represent the states rather than individual electorates. Senators are elected on a proprtional representation system, it is also compulsory to vote for Senate candidates.

Our political parties are somewhat different to yours in that there are no direct comparisons but roughly (and this is confusing with the terminology).

The Liberal Party is akin to the Conservatives. John Howard and Stephen Harper would be policy twins.

The Australian Labor Party is much like the Grits but its left wing would see eye to eye with Jack Layton and the NDP on many issues.

The National Party is in coalition with the Liberal Party and represents rural interests and is quite conservative.

The Greens are like the Greens in Canada, well to the left of centre.

You mean you have a real senate? Senate reform is always an election issue here, albeit small. I know a senator, nice guy, really down to earth. Every so often, I chant "Triple E Senate" when I see has a good glow on at the tavern down the street. He's good at giving the finger.

 

[Diuretic]

I honestly love watching the Bloc during the debates, they aren't going to win so anything goes. I always walk away wishing Duceppe was with an acceptable party so I could vote for him.

I think here the media would call Duceppe "colourful". I got a kick out of looking at the buses. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, carefully reproducing the campaign phrases in English and French. The BQ? Non! Only in French :teeth:

 

[Diuretic]

You mean you have a real senate? Senate reform is always an election issue here, albeit small. I know a senator, nice guy, really down to earth. Every so often, I chant "Triple E Senate" when I see has a good glow on at the tavern down the street. He's good at giving the finger.

We used to have a real Senate. In the parliament prior to this one the Senate wasn't controlled by the government (the Liberal-National coalition) and a couple of Senators from minor parties held the balance of power (in my previous post I omitted the Australian Democrats from my list, Freudian slip that one, they're screwed now, but they sit somewhere between Labor and the Greens) and the government had to negotiate in good faith to get legislation through. Now the government has control of the Senate is now just rubber-stamping legislation on the orders of the PM.

 

[Said1]

I think here the media would call Duceppe "colourful". I got a kick out of looking at the buses. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, carefully reproducing the campaign phrases in English and French. The BQ? Non! Only in French :teeth:

Bloody frogs. Non anglais in Quebec, but the rest of Canada must accomodate.

 

[Said1]

We used to have a real Senate. In the parliament prior to this one the Senate wasn't controlled by the government (the Liberal-National coalition) and a couple of Senators from minor parties held the balance of power (in my previous post I omitted the Australian Democrats from my list, Freudian slip that one, they're screwed now, but they sit somewhere between Labor and the Greens) and the government had to negotiate in good faith to get legislation through. Now the government has control of the Senate is now just rubber-stamping legislation on the orders of the PM.

Can they block things for 90 days or whatever - just to be "difficult"? I see no point in that, other than those it benefits, since their oppositon can be over ridden in the end anyway. Just allows more time to gain support for whatever it is being passed. It's really just an old geezers club anyway.

 

[Diuretic]

Our Senate can block indefinitely. It really is, constitutionally speaking at least, a house of review. The orignal intention was, when our nation federated in 1901, that the lower house would be a legislative chamber and would provide the PM and most of the cabinet (the Senate is not precluded from providing Cabinet ministers). The lower house would emulate the Commons in Westminster. The Senate was intended to represent States's rights which is why each State (and now the two Territories) sends Senators to the federal parliament. Over the years since 1901 the party system has seen the Senate's true role diminished somewhat and it now in thrall to the party in government. A Senator votes against his or her party at their peril - they can be denied pre-selection for the Senate ticket if they jack up the boss.

 

[Said1]

Our Senate can block indefinitely. It really is, constitutionally speaking at least, a house of review. The orignal intention was, when our nation federated in 1901, that the lower house would be a legislative chamber and would provide the PM and most of the cabinet (the Senate is not precluded from providing Cabinet ministers). The lower house would emulate the Commons in Westminster. The Senate was intended to represent States's rights which is why each State (and now the two Territories) sends Senators to the federal parliament. Over the years since 1901 the party system has seen the Senate's true role diminished somewhat and it now in thrall to the party in government. A Senator votes against his or her party at their peril - they can be denied pre-selection for the Senate ticket if they jack up the boss.

Out of curiostiy, are there many free votes?

 

[Diuretic]

Out of curiostiy, are there many free votes?

No. Party discipline is enforced strictly, very strictly in the major parties. There are so-called "conscience votes" on certain legislation but they are very few and far-between. In both major parties mavericks have been disciplined but some have been successful enough to gain re-election as Independents where they have served their electorate well enough to get a large following.