IntenseDebate - MatthewFletcher

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How to go about this · 0 replies · +1 points

Point 2.A deals with the power of the Executive as well, just by a different route. If the GG were elected, then the Executive power that only theoretically lies with that office could actually be exercised by it, greatly diminishing the PM, but this is probably too big a change for Canada, I'm not even sure that I support it.

From what I understand Brit backbenchers are much more likely to dissent for a few reasons:
1. Longer standing sense of tradition and the way things once were
2. There are way more of them - so many of them know they are never going to get to Cabinet or the plum patronage posts, so dissenting against their party doesn't hurt them as much; in some ways it helps because it raises their profile
3? I don't know if the British party leaders have the same control over candidate nominations that Canadian party leaders do? If they don't that's another reason.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How to go about this · 3 replies · +1 points

1. We could take away the power of appointing/approving candidates from the parties and their leaders - in each riding run real candidate primaries like in the U.S (gasp!, I know).
2. Break up the power of the Executive over its regular party members. The way the Westminster system is supposed to work, is that the Cabinet, led by the PM, is the defacto executive with it role of providing advice to the Crown. Everyone else, including members who happen to be of the same "party" as the members of the Cabinet, should be free to vote as they like. The problem is that over the years, back bench MPs of the governing party have become beholden to PM and essentially voting machines, and hence the opposition MPs have also become beholden to their party leader, because no one wants to give up their advantage.
2.A - Alternative to limiting the PMs power is to elect the GG.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How to go about this · 4 replies · +1 points

I'm totally in agreement with your stance on parties, but getting rid of them is not possible - they will always form whether explicitly acknowledged or not. The ancient Greeks (who used the rep. by lotter system you advance above), were also extremely concerned about the formation of parties. They went so far as to constantly rotate the seats in the Boule so that the same people did not sit next to each other all the time in an attempt to prevent like-minded voting blocs from forming.

The Westminster system did not specifically envision parties, nor specifically envision not having parties, they developed organaically, like most things in our system. Court/country; conservatives/whigs; Conservatives/Liberals; Coservatives/(New)Labour, not necessarily in a straight intellectual lineage of course.

Having 308 individual MPs is a great thought but ultimately not possible, as is obvious from history, parties will form. What we do have more control over however is to break up some of the power of parties and break-up the power of the de facto Exectuvie branch (the PM).

(continued)

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Hey look: jihadist, ji... · 0 replies · +2 points

So the U.S stops supporting Israel and everything is fine... Until the terrorists move the goal posts, because that's how terrorism works.

Anyone who writes about a compelling case "why Canada sucks" can go ahead and leave the country.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Confict-of-interest ab... · 0 replies · +1 points

Looks like we've got a 21st century Person's Case on our hands. Years from now, we'll be erecting a representation of the Conservative Party on the lawn of Parliament.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - It takes effort to mis... · 1 reply · +3 points

In theory perhaps. But try pointing to a wealthy AND anarchic country. Anarchy breads poverty because wealth creation requires rules, authority, a social contract of some kind (even an authoritarian one, ie. China). There are poor tyranies and there are poor anarchies. But there are no wealthy anarchies because in an anarchy there is no incentive or means to create and maintain wealth.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Hey look: jihadist, ji... · 0 replies · +1 points

Haven't read the article yet, but given the promo here, if it doesn't upset me, I'm going to be really upset.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Manitoba can’t get a... · 2 replies · -1 points

I've never been to Manitoba in the summer (insert joke about the weather here), but I find it hard to believe the best beach in Canada is anywhere on the prairies.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: ‘Canadi... · 1 reply · +2 points

Wow, this is a serious contender for most rambling mixed-metaphor filled comment this year; and the year's only nine days old.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - How many government MP... · 2 replies · +5 points

If attending the Olympics is so important for MPs (all MPs even, not necessarily just Cabinet members or Conservatives) why aren't they all taking a break for the Paralympic Games from March 12-21?

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with MatthewFletcher

People I'm following

MatthewFletcher