CanPol: Throne Speech

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wezil

Refused my ballot at the last provincial vote (only main options of crap on it) but voted pro-mmp.

That's actually a decent choice. New Zealand has had MMP for about a dozen years now. It's the best thing we ever did. Voting rates are up and a much wider variety of topics get discussed in parliament. It's still essentially managerial politics these days, but not as bad as Britain or Canada have it.

When will people wake up to the fact that systems designed to favour two parties just don't work in modern, diverse societies. The craziness and regionalism of Canadian politics has already demonstrated that it's broken.

[Wezil]

Elizabeth May is the one I'm currently entertained by. As an atheist I find the fact she has a Masters in Theology (imaginary beings) to be amusing in the extreme.

Add to this her obvious lack of political skill (running in McKays riding at a time the Green leader just might win a seat...somewhere else!) and I suspect she should be good for a few yuks in the future.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wezil
Elizabeth May is the one I'm currently entertained by. As an athest I find the fact she has a Masters in Theology (imaginary beings) to be amusing in the extreme.

Add to this her obvious lack of political skill (running in McKays riding at a time the Green leader just might win a seat...somewhere else!) and I suspect she should be good for a few yuks in the future.

Pretty terrible all round.

New Zealand has the best Green MP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandor_Tanczos

What is it with candidates in English speaking countries these days? The French actually managed to put up two decent candidates in their last election. I'm not a Sarkozy fan, but he's no cretin, and I'd probably sleep with Segolene Royal if given the chance (she's pretty decent looking for an older bird).

The only interesting Canadian candidates I can think of are Belinda Stronach, who's a hockey slut, and that funny kleptomaniac from the NDP.

[Ben Kenobi]

Triple E is dead, dead, dead. Even the big Reform push for "grassroots up" decision making has been completely disregarded by this PM. We haven't seen such a "top down" PM as this in quite some time.

Hence the reason I haven't voted for the new party.

Pretty much everything Reform stood for was pushed aside to bring the Progressive Conservatives into the fold.

Yes, which is why it sounds so funny to hear that they are they party of godbotherers, when there is really no difference between them and the liberals, at least under Mr. Harper.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, which is why it sounds so funny to hear that they are they party of godbotherers, when there is really no difference between them and the liberals, at least under Mr. Harper.

Integrity is my big issue and I'm still waiting to see it.

[Dracon II]

Apparently you do, and perhaps some better schools would be in order.

Well, what d'you know... we actually do have a throne speech. I wonder why it's never televised and why no Australian knows or cares about it? Surely not because its completely lame, right?

[Dracon II]

...we should instead elect them via popular vote, but through a different mechanism then the house of commons. This way we get senators that are not beholden to the Prime Minister, and are directly responsible to the entire province that selects them, rather then a riding. It's an innovation who's time has come.

The provinces could each be multimember constituencies whose senators are elected via proportional representation. That's how we do it here. In general it works out well, because then the Senate becomes a genuine House of Review (except at the moment, as the Government has a majority in it). The only major problem is when the opposition claims a majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

[OzzyKP]

Pretend monarchies are silly.

So who is that lady who gave the speech? Is she supposed to be the representative from the Queen? Does the Queen have any role in writing the speech (I assume not)? I assume it is written by Harper (and staff) and functions much like our State of the Union address. If it is just listing off Harper's objectives, why does it need to be voted on? What does the vote do? Does anyone in Canada take his whole Arctic sovereignty thing seriously? Did anyone else notice that he (she?) never once mentioned the United States? Or am I just being too American-centric to have noticed that?

[Dracon II]

Did anyone else notice that he (she?) never once mentioned the United States?

She's the Canadian G-G... I don't think she's required to talk about the USA.

[Dracon II]

It must be a ****ing nuisance having to repeat everything in French.

[Dracon II]

I'm watching Harper's response to the speech at the moment. Interesting to watch him respond to a speech that essentially his government wrote. Also... he has an awful French accent. Is the PM required to be bilingual, or do they just write the French phonetically so he can read it?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dracon II


Well, what d'you know... we actually do have a throne speech. I wonder why it's never televised and why no Australian knows or cares about it? Surely not because its completely lame, right?

I'd say it's no big deal because Australian parties are more willing to enter into coalitions and there are few if any real minority governments.

The throne speech usually matters very little, however during a minority government it is an event due to it being a confidence issue. The government could fall if the opposition parties wanted it to, so what is a low-key event for a majority government becomes an excercise in brinksmanship for a minority and their opposition.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dracon II
I'm watching Harper's response to the speech at the moment. Interesting to watch him respond to a speech that essentially his government wrote. Also... he has an awful French accent. Is the PM required to be bilingual, or do they just write the French phonetically so he can read it?

It's Quebecois. I'm not surprised it sounds odd to you.

I'm told his French is quite good, by the standards in Montreal.

Your chances of becoming PM without being able to speak in French are very slim.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Pretend monarchies are silly.

Some think your electoral college is silly, so there you go.

It isn't pretend though. It is constitutional with minimal role for the monarch. There may be a difference.

So who is that lady who gave the speech? Is she supposed to be the representative from the Queen?

Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General. Yes, she is the Queen's representative.

Does the Queen have any role in writing the speech (I assume not)?

Not normally.

I assume it is written by Harper (and staff) and functions much like our State of the Union address. If it is just listing off Harper's objectives, why does it need to be voted on?

It is written by the government by convention.

It is different from the State of the Union. It is the statement of objectives for the coming session of Parliament for the government. It needs to be voted on because Parliament has to agree to the government's programme or we need a new government.

What does the vote do?

It can topple the government and send us to the polls during a minority.

A bad PM with a nominal majority could also find himself out of a job.

Does anyone in Canada take his whole Arctic sovereignty thing seriously?

Yes?

What part of American sovereignty do you not take seriously?

Did anyone else notice that he (she?) never once mentioned the United States? Or am I just being too American-centric to have noticed that?

Yes, you are.

[Dracon II]

Harper addresses Australian Parliament and admits to feeling "Senate envy"

I'd say it's no big deal because Australian parties are more willing to enter into coalitions and there are few if any real minority governments

The Government is more often than not a minority in the Upper House (minor parties and independents generally hold the balance of power) at least since the 80's. But you're right that we have a stable system in the House of Representatives. The Liberals (who are the Conservatives in Australia... confused, eh?) and Nationals are in permanent coalition in Government and Opposition, but the Liberals in recent years have been able to Govern in their own right anyway. But for all intensive purposes they behave together as a single party.

It seems that minority Government has been a problem for you guys for some time.... wasn't that the reason Paul Martin's Government failed? I might be wrong but you seem to have a more four cornered party-system over there... with the Libs and Cons as major players but the BQ and NDP getting more seats in the lower house than any Australian minor party ever would. I just checked Wikipedia and it seems that Harper is almost 30 seats shy of a majority. Who does he Govern with? Surely not the Libs or NDP. Must be BQ... though I don't know much about them.