CanPol: Race to the Finish

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The legislation could contain the amendment reversing Martin's amendment.

'Martin was full of pooh. Therefore we reverse his legislation of such and such a date amending the Constitution of Canada. We know best and we say we can use the NWS clause. So there!

We further consider the SCoC to be full of pooh in the matter of red vs blue and therefore declare that the CHA shall remain in force for the next five years NWS the CoRF.'

Et voila, amendment and NWS in the same bill. Why not? It is within the power of Parliament by the Constitution.

Okay. I thought that you were saying that they could do it without mentioning the Constitution at all.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
to me the biggest thing going on the Canada right now is that the liberals are very corrupt, probably from being in power too long

so I would probably do anything I could to put someone else in power... or vote my positions...

JM
(depending...)
(right now I would vote for almost anyone to take the current US admin out of power)

Imagine the same Republicans in power in the House, the Senate, and the presidency for 12 years.

Power like that breeds contempt and corruption.

Now some might understand the swing towards an opposition that is seen as viable that is happening in Canada.

Still, no guarantee the Liberals won't get back in for another couple of years.

14 days to go, and a very critical French language debate to be held tomorrow.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Okay. I thought that you were saying that they could do it without mentioning the Constitution at all.

The best defence against an unreasonable use of the NWS clause we have is exactly what we have right now.

Any party that tried to use it to prevent same sex marriage would...

A. Not have the votes in Parliament to pass it, and/or...

B. would get nuked in the next election just for having tried it.

Trust our Parliamentary traditions. Trust the people who elect our Parliaments. We don't need no high mucky muck piece of paper to get the right outcome. The British don't.

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, what you have to understand is that Canada uses the Conservatives to take a breather from Liberal hegemony every decade or so.

This balance was greatly disturbed by Mulroney, who managed to hold on to majority governments for a very Liberalesque 9 years from 1984 to 1993. The hatred that accrued for the Conservatives during this period very nearly destroyed the Conservatives, and with them any hope for their capability to restore the body politic to harmony after every Liberal dynasty. The Conservatives broke into two, with the right wing of the party gaining more political influence than the centrist portion. The right wing then gobbled up the centrist portion. All seemed to be lost. Then, as time went on, the new Conservatives gradually began to gravitate toward what the old Conservatives had been: a slightly more rightist, less successful version of the Liberals. Balance will be restored at some point in the near future (either this election or the next one) when the reborn Conservatives will rise from the ashes of the party of Mulroney like a phoenix and take their rightful place at the head of Canada's government.

For 15 minutes. Until Canada realises that we like the Liberals more than the Conservatives again.

And the cycle will begin anew. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. In nomine patri et filio et spiritu sancto. Amen.

[Jon Miller]

so Canada's system is basically two party.. despite having large number of Bloc and NDP?

I had hoped because of the support the other parties got that Canada might not be stuck in the two party mold (although recently it seems like Britain to be stuck in a one party mode)

JM
(and a few other parties)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Trust our Parliamentary traditions. Trust the people who elect our Parliaments. We don't need no high mucky muck piece of paper to get the right outcome. The British don't.

The British have enacted a number of laws in living memory which weaken the foundation of due process and civil liberties. They have gone much further in this than even the Americans have over the last 5 years. This is due, in part, to their lack of a written Constitution and the protections it offers from the actions of a hysterical government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
so Canada's system is basically two party.. despite having large number of Bloc and NDP?

I had hoped because of the support the other parties got that Canada might not be stuck in the two party mold (although recently it seems like Britain to be stuck in a one party mode)

JM
(and a few other parties)

Only two parties ever get elected to head governments.

The difference is that we often have minority governments (such as the one we have now and the one we will almost certainly have following the coming election) in which the minor parties (i.e. the NDP) wield inordinate influence.

Canada elects Liberal governments 80% of the time. And 80% of the time under a Liberal government is spent under a Liberal majority government. It's the other 20% of the 80% which is interesting.

[Jon Miller]

yeah, the constitution limits the power of our majorities by quite a bit

there is no such limit in the British system

JM
(although I can't wait until the democrats provide some serious opposition..)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
so Canada's system is basically two party.. despite having large number of Bloc and NDP?

I had hoped because of the support the other parties got that Canada might not be stuck in the two party mold (although recently it seems like Britain to be stuck in a one party mode)

JM
(and a few other parties)

The other parties move the agenda in ways that don't require time in government.

We have national healthcare due to the influence of the NDP on the national stage some years ago. They propped up Pearson's minority, and the Canada Health Act came into being. That same minority gave the world peacekeepers. Pretty successful Parliament, if you ask me.

The NDP and the Bloc are both moving politics today, even if neither is likely to populate the front benches of a government. The NDP is making social programs at a higher priority. The Bloc is driving provincial rights.

Even the Conservatives out of government have an impact. The Liberals have to pay attention to core Conservative issues, like fiscal responsibility, to keep the Conservatives at bay.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The British have enacted a number of laws in living memory which weaken the foundation of due process and civil liberties. They have gone much further in this than even the Americans have over the last 5 years. This is due, in part, to their lack of a written Constitution and the protections it offers from the actions of a hysterical government.

We have similar security legislation.

Canadians held without hearing at length, by secret decision of courts. In Canada.

Trudeau's scrap of paper has proved no shield against such abuse by the state, except to give Canadians a smug sense of security that is not warranted.

[KrazyHorse]

Also to be noted is that Canada enjoys the wonderful benefits of being ruled by a Quebecer 95% of the time.



It's been 47 years since a non-Quebecer has led a party to a majority government.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We have similat security legislation.

It's not as far-reaching as the British legislation, nor is it used as extensively as either the British or the American legislation.

There can be some debate over whether the American or Canadian legislation goes further nominally.

[notyoueither]

Use is simply a matter of preference.

Fact is, you could be held, idefinitely, with no appeal, no appearance, and that be ordered in a secret court, for God knows what reason.

Do you feel safe now?

Is Trudeau's scrap of paper a great guard?

[KrazyHorse]

Use is a matter of preference, I agree.

But the British laws go much further nominally than do either Canadian or American laws. And are free to go much further because they don't have a scrap of paper blocking them.

[notyoueither]

They have hundreds of years of precedent, and tremendous public opinion.

We have those same years (theirs being ours) similar opinion, and a scrap of paper that doesn't seem to make much difference when push comes to shove.