Harper appears to have several reasonable, well thought out policies.
No examples of gerrymandering? You are not trying hard enough. The Liberals played plenty of games with the electoral boundaries on the Montreal south shore.
Jacques Saada (Brossard) is even suing the publisher of the St-Lambert Journal for comments about his role in the scheme.
It didn't help Liberal Yolande Thibeault, though, in St-Lambert. All those Groupaction contributions in 1997 helped sink her campaign and we now have Maka Kotto of the Bloc Quebecois as our MP.
Andrew,
The election of people to fill Senate seats is meant to strengthen the Senate over time and create pressure for reform. Senators who were elected will have a lot more stature when it comes to opposing government bills.
I think the non-confidence reform is tied to Harper's free vote reforms. The idea is to prevent a government forcing legislation through by tying it to a non-confidence motion and insure that almost all votes are free.
"Senators who were elected will have a lot more stature when it comes to opposing government bills."
This is, in my opinion, precisely why Alberta's 'elected' senators should not be appointed to the senate. Creating a system in which senators have differing 'stature' but identical votes will make a dysfunctional system even more so.
There are, as I see it, three options. Reform the senate so that all senators are elected; abolish the senate completely; or appoint all senators (as now) in a way in which they're all equally irrelevant. These three options, however, are mutually exclusive.
By appointing senators elected in the provinces, eventually you create the circumstances whereby a constitutional amendment simply affirms the reality of the day.
The ban on non-confidence motions doesn't mean government legislation gets a free ride, just that if it fails to pass, there's not an automatic election. It also means you can't bully your own caucus into voting a certain way by artificially making a piece of legislation a confidence vote.
Damian, what happens if a minority government introduces a bill that implements one of its campaign promises? Harper's new policy would mean that if that bill fails to pass, they are ripe for a non-confidence motion. And yet, the ability to pass such a bill depends on other parties. Unless I have misunderstood...?
I think Bob Rae should make a comeback
Andrew, when Harper has talked about non-confidence motions in the past he has always left room for the introduction of an explicit non-confidence motion on its own. I think this is just intended to prevent goverments from forcing their MPs to support a bill by making it a confidence matter.
All of this is procedural stuff. Typical for an Alberta politician. there's nothing wrong with procedural reform (non-confidence motions, riding boundaries, etc), but you don't win federal elections that way.
Once Harper has reformed the way gvt works, what does he intend to do with the reformed gvt? I see two things on this list: cut taxes and devolve power to the provinces.
Put another way: Vote for Harper and he'll fix the federal government in order to eliminate it.
You tell me -- can you win an eletion on that?
Andrew, if Harper were to introduce legislation to implement a campaign promise, and it were to be defeated, there would be no consequences in the sense you're asking about. He hasn't broken a promise - he tried to get the bill passed. But since it's not a confidence motion, the defeat of a bill doesn't immediately trigger an election.
This is a key reform to allow more free votes. Paul Martin talks about democratic reform, but Harper would make a tangible start here.
I'm a bit disappointed in Ikram's comment above. Just because Tories want a smaller federal government that respects provincial jurisdictions, doesn't mean we want to eliminate government. There is a middle ground between big government and no government.
True. For example, the ground we are occupying right now is a middle ground. There is absolutely no reason to have provincial governments in the first place. They can be abolished quite merrily by splitting their powers between the federal and municipal governments.
Elijah... Bob Rae as next Liberal leader? Crazier things could happen.
Damian -- Sure its an exaggeration to say the Tories would eliminate the federal gvt. It's also an exaggeration to say they will fix the federal government.
(And when Harper says 'fix', he's probably not talking about what people do to puppies -- I think).
But you run on vision. Liberals promised child care in in the 1993 election. They didn't do much about it for 12 years, but it was always part of their vision.
What's in the Harper vision besides procedural reform, tax cutting and devolution? Can you win elections on such a narrow base? After 12 years of PM Harper, what will the federal government have done?
Question from a non-Ontarian: one of the oft-mentioned disadvantages of fixed election dates is an inevitably longer period of electioneering. Do you think that applies to Ontario?
I agree with Andrew's comments on gerrymandering. When you look at the blatant and obvious role US politicians play in setting electoral district boundaries, I think we have an excellent, professional system.
I can't speak to the Montreal example given above, but I can say that in the last series of boundary adjustments, my Ontario riding (Whitby-Oshawa) was adjusted such that a chunk of Ajax (which voted more Liberal) was carved off and replaced with another from North Oshawa (a more Conservative area). The Liberal incumbent still won, but I didn't see political interference in a decision that made it harder for her.
Idealistic Pragmatist: I guess we don't know yet, since the first fixed election in Ontario hasn't come yet. On the other hand, I think there are still restrictions on the timing of official campaigning. As for unofficial campaigning, that starts early, even without fixed dates... just turn on your nightly news to see examples these days.
In trying to know Stephen Harper I read what I can (both past and present info) and listen carefully when he speaks; yet the one phrase that sticks in my mind is that he was (is?) Alliance. Does one change ideologies and passions because they change the banner under which they run?
Stephen Harper and Preston Manning authored the Alliance Party policies, among which was to scrap the Canada Health Act, make draconian changes to the immigration policies, and make radical changes to all social programs while effecting huge Federal funding cuts to these programs.
While Harper has nothing but praise for "free enterprise" Alberta he shows contempt for the rest of Canada "...who seem happy to settle for being a second tier socialistic country." Harper neglects to say that Alberta is in a huge oil boom and rolling in money while the rest of the country has seen far too many jobs go south or overseas due to the Free Trade Pact.The dismanteling of unions has seen wages rolled back at least twenty years while the cost of living continues to rise.This has resulted in over 700,000 children living below the poverty line, working people being homeless and working families have to rely on food banks to get from week to week.
Then there is the Harper who is so enamoured with the USA; supporting Bush in the Iraq war,he thinks that we should sign on for the unproven and test failed missle "defence" program, and thinks their social programs are great; this despite that homelessness continues to rise and millions of Americans cannot afford even the most basic of heath insurance.
I think that most would agree that when one is elected to represent the people then they are bound by oath to represent ALL of the people of to the best of their ability; there is no room for discrimmintion in any form.
I for one have trust issues with Stephen Harper. Where once he would just blurt out his ideoligies he seems now just more carefull in choosing his words and topics? Should a politician who had (has?) held such radical ideologies for this country, as well as contempt for those who do not support his thinking, be the one to hold the top position of power?
3e6181 5f4e3640eb
Commenting by HaloScan
