Solon’s laws for Athens, the Magna Carta, the Emancipation Proclamation, all key milestones in the history of democracy which pale into insignificance when compared to Conservative MP Michael Chong’s Great Reform Act of 2013.
Or so says the hype emanating from that alternate reality dimension known as the “Ottawa Bubble”.
[…]
But even if the pro-Reform Act enthusiasts are correct, even if this bill would empower MPs and reduce the leader’s clout, I’d still ask that most important of all questions: “So what?”
Because it shifts power into the hands of the Media Party – that’s what. Instead of just weakening party unity through their efforts, the Reform Act provides media the tools to exploit it.
Update:
Today's #ReformAct preview: MT @dgardner "If Anders isn't tossed from caucus, I hope newspapers run a profile of him…" #MediapartyAct
— Katewerk (@katewerk) December 7, 2013
LAS: “[The] Canadian Right is dead. It committed suicide or more accurately self-lobotomy when it decided principles were ‘petty’… and would rather reduce the world to HUR DUR MEDIA PARTY* BAD MY PARTY GOOD. They’re like Hodor: all they can do is say ‘Hodor’ over and over.”
Uncoded: “I don’t like Harper.”
No-one will ever govern Canada as a right wing party. They can govern as a centrist party with right-wing sympathies which I prefer to a centrist party with left-wing sympathies. Success in politics has everything to do with coalition and compromise.
People who can stand each others BO work together. If they can collectively present a front appealing to a large number of voters they will govern. Only fools, old Reformers, and right-wing conservatives think they can present a principled right-wing platform and the voters will swoon over them. Now Chong wants to dissolve the Conservative governing coalition because his panties get in a knot.
Scar, you are assuming that Chong’s bill is aimed only at empowering the eunuchs of the CPC caucus. Bear in mind that, if passed, the bill would not come into effect until after the next election and would apply to all parties. Given the current cluster intercourse in Ottawa, there’s a good chance that the first PMO to have its wings clipped would be staffed by Liberals. A good time to restore democracy at the federal level, and the bill, if you read it carefully, has squat to do with left-right or the future of Stephen Harper.
Lee, that’s the biggest problem with the bill, IMO: the ridiculously low 15% figure. It could result in leadership reviews (and wall-to-wall Media Party coverage thereof, whenever the Conservatives happen to be in power) every six months, all on the say-so of a small minority of disgruntled, single-issue factions within a party.
Another problem, of course, is that millions of people are voting for their choice of PM when they cast a ballot for their local candidate. Allowing 25 MPs in Ottawa to change the result is, as I noted above, not very democratic.
As stated in one of my previous posts, I agree that the 15% figure is far too low. It can, and almost certainly will be, amended either in committee or on the floor or there won’t be enough cross-party support to carry the bill forward.
Anyone who bases his/her vote on the charisma of the leader isn’t clear on the concept. That nonsense started with Trudeau. If the name of the game is simply to elect a lider maximo, why bother with electing the cheer leaders?
People used to be smarter than that. One of the highlights of Canadian politics was when a Liberal government was returned to office but the party leader, Mackenzie King lost his seat and had to run in a by-election. And, I almost forgot, didn’t the same thing happen at the provincial level in BC a few months ago? Heh, heh.
Well, sure, if they’re voting based on the leader’s “charisma”.
I voted for my local PC candidate because I strongly preferred Stephen Harper as PM over the other candidates, and when I cast my vote for Stephen Harper, it wasn’t because of his charisma.
It’s a personal choice, obviously, but I don’t buy into the “vote for the best local candidate” idea. I understand why people think that it’s a good idea, and that it’s great for democracy, etc., but I don’t vote that way. If my local Liberal or NDP candidate was the greatest, smartest, most wonderful guy/gal on earth, I would still never, ever vote for him/her, for one single reason: I absolutely, positively don’t want Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair to be PM, and will do everything in my power — i.e. casting my single ballot — to prevent that from happening.
Choosing the leader of the country is far, far more important to me than who my local candidate is; I’m just being honest here.
This idea of there being some kind of “media party” influence or benefit from Chong’s bill is utter nonsense.
Without Chong’s bill, people that vote for a party or leader without considering their local MP are voting for an executive branch without an effective legisliative branch. Many soldiers died to ensure legislative control over the executive. A dictatorship is executive control over the legislative branch. Parliament was created to ensure legislative control over the executive. When party leaders control candidate nominations we get too much–not complete but too much-executive control over the legislative branch. Chong’s bill addresses that.
Quite frankly, without his bill I am concerned that on present trends one day we will wake up and find it impossible to assure our own freedom.