tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post1544351124408273813..comments2023-10-22T09:18:16.885-04:00Comments on Far and Wide: Reform Act: Much Ado About NothingSteve Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-10904682508793147002014-01-17T16:45:10.834-05:002014-01-17T16:45:10.834-05:00I want to make sure that the way Michael Ignatieff...I want to make sure that the way Michael Ignatieff got shoved down our throats can never happen again. But this reform doesn't address taht.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-90629625321308162072013-12-06T18:10:44.461-05:002013-12-06T18:10:44.461-05:00If your ideal is to allow for variety in political...If your ideal is to allow for variety in political expression, then Partys should be allowed to make whatever rules they can collectively agree to. That includes top-down, leader-centric partys, or ideologies that run counter to your accepted norm of devolved control. For example, can you imagine squezzing a Marxist-Lenninist party into a grassroots straightjacket. It would change them beyond recognition. Parliament should forget about tinkering with party constitutions, and stick to formalising the unwritten conventions that helped parliament work. If you ask me, this is a belated recognition that it was not such a great idea for the Harper government to ignore those parliamentary conventions, but the `cure` has little to do with the disease.Bluegreenbloggerhttp://greencanada.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-77994934194906383402013-12-04T19:29:54.251-05:002013-12-04T19:29:54.251-05:00hi Steve...here's the problem:
This idea of a...hi Steve...here's the problem:<br /><br /><i>This idea of allowing MP's the power to turf a Prime Minister completely, utterly, contradicts the spirit outlined in the previous paragraph. The grassroots should have ultimate say on who represents them, but that same grassroots that ELECTED a leader is now rendered meaningless, replaced with a small cadre of MP's who can override their choice.</i><br /><br />Under our system constituents elect an MP not a leader. The MP's represent the riding and are more accountable than the so-called grassroots or Party activists. To get away from that concept is to take us into the realm of a presidential system, which is of course the root of our present problem. It took the British Conservative Party one day to remove Thatcher, the most popular PM of her generation. If she could be removed we can remove anyone...Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15309809679331128837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-78883746854329872642013-12-04T19:22:01.131-05:002013-12-04T19:22:01.131-05:00While not perfect, I am glad he brought it up even...While not perfect, I am glad he brought it up even if defeated. Something needs to be done about the centralization of the PMO. A compromise might be if enough MPs want a leader removed it goes to an automatic vote for the party grassroots where the leader can run again. I think the real issue here is if a PM or leader adopts policies that are not unpopular nationwide but widely unpopular in certain parts of the country (think gun registry or more recent EI changes) its a way to force the PM or leader to into account regional concerns.<br /><br />An easier rule that would be in line what Britain already has is everything except money bills and straight up non-confidence motions would be a free vote for all backbenchers. This would allow MPs to represent their constituents but also allow greater diversity of views in the party. If a person is routinely voting against the party and being mischief the leader can distance themselves from them or caucus vote to remove them, but occasionally taking a view different than the party is perfectly legitimate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-79752898018186006612013-12-04T13:40:55.454-05:002013-12-04T13:40:55.454-05:00I'm in agreement with you - there is less meat...I'm in agreement with you - there is less meat here than noise. Not to sound the conspiracy bells, but that this would be laid for after the 2015 election, that it permits elected MPs with an opportunity to end-run the membership with its leader, and I'd even add the element of allowing no to little options for leaders in having a say in who carries the banner -- this doesn't stand the smell test.<br />None of these pro-active points outweigh the damage that could befall a party, especially non-ideological parties where members join together with a variety of common and uncommon ideas. I'd also like to put to the point that funny how Chong is such a great defender of our democratic institutions -- but i don't recall him sounding off against the multiple proroguations, the mega-omni bills that usurp both democratic debate and the virtual promises made to Canadians about accountability. Chong seems to be almost serving another portion of Harper's agenda here, changing the channel with something that at best will work against the Conservatives' rivals, who are poised to make serious gains in the next election. The issues he is trying to address have all been exasperated, and some completely constructed by, the current Chong supported regime.rockfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02835472375196889875noreply@blogger.com