What American's Ought to Know About Canada, But Don't

[Ben Kenobi]

I provided a clear-cut example of how parties will reform their selection process when spurred on by voters. You then deride my example through the oldest trick in Canadian politics.

Just look at the other independent elected to the caucus. No need to reach back that far.

Cadman told the Conservative nomination process to **** off, and ran anyways, and still won.

I'm working right now for another candidate who got shafted by that same process who wants to run provincially.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Eh, parties are free to associate.

Freedom of association gives the Liberals the right to turf people out of their party, if they so desire.

Sure, it's plenty easier to win with the party, so we shall see how much of Carolyn Parrish's support is due to the party or to her.

I tell you, an MP who supports the party, rather than the party supporting the MP becomes an invaluable asset to the party, and much harder to turf. That's why these people tend to rise in the party and become leaders.

Yes Ben, the LIBERALS should be able to turf. The question is if the martian menace leader of the Liberals should be able to decide that on his own.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
btw, your example was American, so it invited American arguments, if you failed to notice.

What was the American argument?

The only argument I saw was that we can't learn anything from the US. Tying together two wholly unrelated issues simply because they've arisen in the same country is an interesting yet not compelling argument...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes Ben, the LIBERALS should be able to turf. The question is if the martian menace leader of the Liberals should be able to decide that on his own.

If the Liberals voted to give that power to their leader then that's their prerogative...

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes Ben, the LIBERALS should be able to turf. The question is if the martian menace leader of the Liberals should be able to decide that on his own.

Who's fault is that? The fault of the Canadian government, or the fault of the spineless backbenchers.

Hell, if all the spineless backbenchers walk out on the Liberal party, then what power will Martin have? What if the LINOs join the Conservatives?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Just look at the other independent elected to the caucus. No need to reach back that far.

Cadman told the Conservative nomination process to **** off, and ran anyways, and still won.

I'm working right now for another candidate who got shafted by that same process who wants to run provincially.

Yes, but in my example the system as a whole changed from then on...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What was the American argument?

The only argument I saw was that we can't learn anything from the US. Tying together two wholly unrelated issues simply because they've arisen in the same country is an interesting yet not compelling argument...

I think that the right to bear arms is a lot more current than the inner working of the Bull Moose party.

WTH made you bring that up?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If the Liberals voted to give that power to their leader then that's their prerogative...

Not just theirs. It involves the government of Canada, therefore it is my business, and yours.

[Ben Kenobi]

True, but the problems in that nomination were more specific to ONE riding association, and not to the Conservative party as a whole.

So there is no monolithic system to reform.

With the Liberal party, on the other hand, they have the handpicked 'martin dream team' for BC.

If the Liberals want to reform their party, then the backbenchers need to grab Martin by the balls, and threaten to take his government down, unless he agrees to a reform of the party.

[notyoueither]

Bull****.

The problem IS the ability of all leaders to veto nominations. It isn't anything to do with the ability of parties to pick their candidates.

If you think that Mulroney, or the next Tory PM, would not use that power I would like to call you Ned.

Get it straight. Power of the party and MPs over power of leaders and Prime Ministers.

Why is this such a struggle?

Would you guys be happier with Castro?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes, you sure as hell should. You should be able to have a say so that they don't go off the rails when they are a government and land this country up as a dictatorship, which if no one has been paying attention, this country is only a single 'fire in Parliament' away from at any given time.

No **** you have a stake in how the Conservatives, and Liberals, chose their leaders. They very often become Prime Ministers, and that is all of our business.

Really? So the people outside of Quebec should have a say about how the BQ operates and who it elects as their leader? Or are you going to create two sets of rules for political parties?

[notyoueither]

No. But they should have a say on the process and what can and cannot prevent a person from standing as a candidate for member of Parliament in this country.

Yes, I feel that national standards are in order, and I think that the power of the leaders should be broken by establishing those standards.

Call me a revolutionary.

[Tingkai]

So what you want are leaders with no power; something like a manager who can't fire anyone unless they have approval from other employees.

[notyoueither]

No.I want leaders who need to win consensus, not who command obedience.

If a leader can't persuade, what kind of a leader are they and how good are their ideas?

[notyoueither]

Even if stripped of all power in the Commons, something that is unlikely to happen, the PM would still be head of the government and have power over the civil service as well as holding the power to appoint judges and senators.

That would be a little bit more than a manager, don't you think?