Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 8
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( electoral reform as apparently dead , at least according to mandate letters released today . )

Trudeau abandons promise to change voting system in time for 2019 election


The Canadian Press
Published on February 1, 2017


OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is abandoning his long-held promise to change the way Canadians vote in federal elections.


In a mandate letter for newly appointed Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould, Trudeau makes it clear that electoral reform — once top of mind for the Liberal government — is no longer on the agenda.

"Changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate," the prime minister writes in the letter, released Wednesday.

A variety of consultations across the country have shown that Canadians are not clamouring for a change in the way they choose their federal government, the letter continues. It also rules out the possibility of a national referendum.

"A clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged," Trudeau writes. "Furthermore, without a clear preference or a clear question, a referendum would not be in Canada's interest."

Trudeau repeatedly promised — both as a campaigning Liberal leader and as prime minister in a speech from the throne — to get rid of the current first-past-the-post voting system in time for the 2019 federal election.

The Liberals have since given themselves some wiggle room, saying they would not go ahead without the widespread support of Canadians.

Canadians made their views known through the House of Commons special committee on electoral reform, town halls held by MPs from all parties, the travels of former minister Maryam Monsef and a much-maligned online survey called MyDemocracy.ca.

The mandate letter shows that Trudeau and do not believe those consultations have produced their desired — albeit undefined — level of support for electoral reform, let alone any clarity on a preferred replacement.

The about-face is sure to provoke a passionate response from their political rivals.

The New Democrats, who have long called for a system of proportional representation, went into a meeting with Gould on Tuesday hoping to hear the new minister repeat Trudeau's original, unequivocal promise: that the 2015 vote would be Canada's last under first-past-the-post.

"That is why that ministry exists," MP Nathan Cullen, the NDP's democratic reform critic, said Tuesday. "That's why she sits in cabinet, in large part — it's to fulfill that promise."

The Conservatives, who had pushed for a referendum, are likely to be pleased with the status quo, but will no doubt excoriate the government for breaking such a prominent campaign commitment.

There are also some big new items in the mandate letter.

Trudeau wants Gould, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to come up with ways to defend the Canadian political system against cyberthreats and hackers — a possible consequence of the "voter fraud" and hacked email controversies emanating from the raucous U.S. election.

"This should include asking the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to analyze risks to Canada's political and electoral activities from hackers, and to release this assessment publicly," he writes.

Trudeau also wants the three ministers to ask the CSE to "offer advice" to Elections Canada and political parties — including opposition parties — on "best practices" regarding cybersecurity.

The letter also asks Gould to take the lead on developing legislation to bring stricter rules — and greater transparency — to political fundraising, a response to months of negative headlines about so-called cash-for-access Liberal fundraisers.

The promised legislation would require cabinet ministers, party leaders and leadership candidates to publicly advertise their fundraisers in advance, and release a report after the fact with details of the event.

The proposed new law, if passed, would also require events to take place in publicly available spaces, a move designed to address concerns about well-heeled donors bending the ears of cabinet ministers in private homes.

"Other measures may follow after discussion with the other political parties," Trudeau writes.

The letter also repeats earlier commitments, such as repealing some elements of the previous Conservative government's Fair Elections Act and exploring the idea of an independent commissioner to organize leaders' debates during federal elections.

It also includes reviewing campaign spending limits and working with Treasury Board President Scott Brison and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to increase the openness of government, including reviewing the Access to Information Act

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/n.....ction.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4155
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a major step back, and a victory for the resistance!

Really, the problems in implementing this system were immense, and probably something that couldn't be done in four years. Perhaps the failure was more due to 'reality' challenging the Liberals than the opposition parties? It seems that way to me.

The most politically palatable way of implementing this plan would involve adding perhaps a third of the present membership as seats under the control of an agency who would distribute them as per the vote split. Otherwise you have elected members being replaced by appointees of another party.

If it is so important that every MP have 50%+1 support, why not just have run-off elections between the top two contenders? That way, the supporters of other parties can make up their own minds about who they prefer.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This is a major step back, and a victory for the resistance!

Really, the problems in implementing this system were immense, and probably something that couldn't be done in four years. Perhaps the failure was more due to 'reality' challenging the Liberals than the opposition parties? It seems that way to me.

The most politically palatable way of implementing this plan would involve adding perhaps a third of the present membership as seats under the control of an agency who would distribute them as per the vote split. Otherwise you have elected members being replaced by appointees of another party.

If it is so important that every MP have 50%+1 support, why not just have run-off elections between the top two contenders? That way, the supporters of other parties can make up their own minds about who they prefer.



the decision wasn't really a surprise , trudeau's comments a few months back about how people just wanted to kick harper out and now that the liberals were in there wasn't seen as much of a need for a new system , pretty much were a huge indication change wasn't going to be happening

there also wasn't really time to bring in a new system as elections Canada had already said it could take a couple years to figure out , there also going to be busy with 5 by elections this year which made the task even more impossible

any change wouldn't of benefited the conservatives who would of spent 1 or 2 elections just trying to adapt and get used to the new system before being able to mount a serious challenge to the liberals , overall it means they can refocus to other issues people actually care about , the fact only 400,000 people even filled out there survey indicates this wasn't something on many peoples top 5 issues list
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Voting reform promises were little more than cheap props: Hébert


Justin Trudeau could have gracefully recast his plan to Canadians. Instead, the Liberals took us all for a ride.


The assumption by Liberal government strategists that most Canadians will not be inclined to punish Justin Trudeau's Liberals for breaking the promise to change the electoral system when it never ranked high in the electorate’s list of priorities is probably correct, writes Chantal Hébert.



By Chantal HébertNational Affairs Columnist

Wed., Feb. 1, 2017


As recently as his town hall tour Trudeau was insisting that he was still interested in changing the voting system.

In early December, the prime minister similarly told the Star editorial board that he remained committed to having a new system in place by 2019.

“I make promises because I believe in them... Canadians don’t expect us to throw up our hands when things get difficult,” he proclaimed.

But things, as it turned out, never had a chance to get difficult.

For it is fair to ask whether Trudeau was ever serious about keeping his word to Canadians. From day one, his government’s actions on the file never matched his words.

With a clock ticking on the logistical feasibility of replacing the first-past-the-post system in time for 2019, it took months for a special parliamentary committee to be set up.

Once it was in place, the government never advanced a position or tried, in any way, to craft the consensus that it now says it has failed to find.

For months on end, the opposition parties and Canadians alike were left to try to divine Trudeau’s thinking.

At times, it was as if the Liberals were going out of their way to ensure that no pattern could be discerned in the tea leaves they purported to be guided by.

They rejected both the notion of putting various options to a consultative referendum or of asking Canadians for their preference in the massive online consultation they engaged in at the end of last year.

In politics, a consensus is not like a rare mushroom only to be found by an extraordinarily lucky hunter. In any event, in this case, the government seemed more concerned with burying any hint of a consensus than unearthing one.

It is true that the exercise did not elicit much appetite for a ranked ballot, Trudeau’s preferred alternative to the first-past-the-post system. But then it is not as if the government even tried to make a case for it.

The opposition parties feel that they were taken for a yearlong ride, and it is hard to disagree with them.

As the sole elected MP of her party, Green leader Elizabeth May did double and triple duty last fall to participate in the process. Electoral reform is a longstanding priority of her party. On Wednesday she said she had never felt so betrayed by a government.

For his part, the NDP’s Nathan Cullen called the prime minister a liar.

Expect parliamentary cooperation, going forward, to be hard to come by.

There are those who will argue that Trudeau is wise to walk away from his electoral reform promise as he needs to clear the decks to focus on the Canada/U.S. front.

But then one could make that same pronouncement about many other Liberal commitments including some that are more likely to act as irritants in dealing with the new White House. The plan to legalize marijuana comes to mind.

The election of Donald Trump has brought about a major reallocation of government resources on Parliament Hill. But it would be easier to find virtue in the government’s timing if it had shown one ounce of political will to fulfill its promise in the full year that preceded the American election.

Or if Trudeau had not continued to maintain he still meant to go through with changing the voting system months after Trump’s victory.

The prime minister could have come to Canadians this week to say he had underestimated the time required to reform the system and that he needed to push back the deadline for achieving his goal beyond 2019. But Wednesday’s announcement was about pulling the plug on the plan, not about recasting it.

Canadian voters are a forgiving lot. The assumption by Liberal government strategists that most will not be inclined to punish Trudeau for breaking a promise that never ranked high in the electorate’s list of priorities is probably right.

After all a plurality of Canadians did not hold it against Jean Chrétien that he broke the more central promise to replace the GST.

There are parallels. Both commitments were shiny Liberal platform objects that turned out to be little more than cheap props. Plus ça change!


Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/01/voting-reform-promises-were-little-more-than-cheap-props-hbert.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4155
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that it is wise for the Liberals to drop this project, but I don't think that Chantal is right about the broken promise thing. I don't think there was any discernable demand for this 'promise'. Nobody will harbour any resentment over this 'broken promise' and the Liberals won't pay a big price for dropping a project that has always lost support as people got to know more about it.

This doesn't mean they have shelved the idea. Perhaps they will treat it as a practice run, and prepare for next time.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Trudeau breaks promise on electoral reform


Joanna Smith, THE CANADIAN PRESS

First posted: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 01:11 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 04:19 PM EST


OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is abandoning his long-held promise to change the way Canadians vote in federal elections — an about-face his opposition rivals angrily characterized Wednesday as a cynical betrayal of trust.

In a mandate letter for newly appointed Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould, Trudeau makes it clear that electoral reform — once top of mind for the Liberal government — is no longer on the agenda.

“Changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate,” the prime minister writes in the letter, released Wednesday.

A variety of consultations across the country have shown that Canadians are not clamouring for a change in the way they choose their federal government, the letter continues. It also rules out the possibility of a national referendum.

“A clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged,” Trudeau writes. “Furthermore, without a clear preference or a clear question, a referendum would not be in Canada’s interest.”

Gould repeated the message in a news conference outside the House of Commons.

“If we were to change the electoral system, something as foundational as how we decide to govern ourselves, that we need to do it with the support of Canadians,” she said.

Trudeau repeatedly promised — both as a campaigning Liberal leader and as prime minister in a speech from the throne — to get rid of the current first-past-the-post voting system in time for the 2019 federal election.

New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen, the party’s democratic reform critic, savaged Trudeau as a “liar” during a news conference in the foyer of the House of Commons.

“This is one of the most cynical displays of self-serving politics this government has yet to engage in,” Cullen said, accusing the Liberals of “seeking any excuse, however weak, however absent, to justify that lie to Canadians.”

Trudeau, he added, “promised to conduct himself with honour and integrity.... It puts into question any promise, any commitment Mr. Trudeau makes or has made in the past.”

Green party Leader Elizabeth May said she felt betrayed, noting that many members of her party had urged people to vote strategically — in favour of the Liberals — based on their promise to bring in electoral reform.

“I feel more deeply shocked and betrayed by my government today than on any day of my adult life,” she said.

Canadians made their views known through the House of Commons special committee on electoral reform, town halls held by MPs from all parties, the travels of former minister Maryam Monsef and a much-maligned online survey called MyDemocracy.ca.

According to the mandate letter, Trudeau did not believe those consultations have produced their desired — albeit undefined — level of support for electoral reform, let alone any clarity on a preferred replacement.

The New Democrats, long supporters of a system of proportional representation, went into a meeting with Gould on Tuesday hoping to hear the new minister repeat Trudeau’s original, unequivocal promise: that the 2015 vote would be Canada’s last under first-past-the-post.

There are also some big new items in the mandate letter.

Trudeau wants Gould, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to come up with ways to defend the Canadian political system against cyberthreats and hackers — a possible consequence of the “voter fraud” and hacked email controversies emanating from the raucous U.S. election.

“This should include asking the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to analyze risks to Canada’s political and electoral activities from hackers, and to release this assessment publicly,” he writes.

He also wants the three ministers to ask the CSE to “offer advice” to Elections Canada and political parties — including opposition parties — on “best practices” regarding cybersecurity.

The letter also asks Gould to take the lead on developing legislation to bring stricter rules — and greater transparency — to political fundraising, a response to months of negative headlines about so-called cash-for-access Liberal fundraisers.

The promised legislation would require cabinet ministers, party leaders and leadership candidates to publicly advertise their fundraisers in advance, and release a report after the fact with details of the event.

The proposed new law, if passed, would also require events to take place in publicly available spaces, a move designed to address concerns about well-heeled donors bending the ears of cabinet ministers in private homes.

“Other measures may follow after discussion with the other political parties,” Trudeau writes.

The letter also repeats earlier commitments, such as repealing some elements of the previous Conservative government’s Fair Elections Act and exploring the idea of an independent commissioner to organize leaders’ debates during federal elections.

It also includes reviewing campaign spending limits and working with Treasury Board President Scott Brison and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to increase the openness of government, including reviewing the Access to Information Act.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017.....ral-reform
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I agree that it is wise for the Liberals to drop this project, but I don't think that Chantal is right about the broken promise thing. I don't think there was any discernable demand for this 'promise'. Nobody will harbour any resentment over this 'broken promise' and the Liberals won't pay a big price for dropping a project that has always lost support as people got to know more about it.

This doesn't mean they have shelved the idea. Perhaps they will treat it as a practice run, and prepare for next time.


i agree there wasn't much public interest in this promise and it had always seemed like a weird one to have made in the first place , to come out during an election and say its going to be the last one under this system but then not ever say publically what the new one was going to be ?

overall I don't think the general public cares much about electoral reform , the fact only 400,000 people replied to the survey speaks loudly , I'm sure if they had a national survey about there new marijuana law it would get a higher response rate than electoral reform did , which is kind of sad really that more people care about pot than how there elections are run
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who felt for a moment that the Liberals who are currently enjoying a majority government with >40% of the popular vote were going to implement a system that would have almost certainly assured them a minority government in 2020 has far too much faith in Government.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say goodbye to electoral reform — a promise that was born sickly: Robyn Urback

Think of this as the peaceful passing of something that was never intended to survive

By Robyn Urback, CBC News Posted: Feb 01, 2017 5:24 PM ET| Last Updated: Feb 02, 2017 8:40 AM ET

Did the Liberals care what type of electoral reform they got? No, they said, just as long as it was healthy.


Robyn Urback
Columnist

Robyn Urback is an opinion columnist with CBC News and a producer with the CBC's Opinion section. She previously worked as a columnist and editorial board member at the National Post. Follow her on Twitter at:


Today, we say goodbye to one of the Liberals' most important 2015 campaign promises: electoral reform.


Born sickly, the pledge to see to a new voting system in time for the next federal election was nevertheless welcomed by many Canadians who had grown tired of seeing majority governments won with 39 per cent of the vote. The Liberals' announcement that "2015 would be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system," brought with it hope for a better future and a more representative government for Canadians.

FedElxn Ont 20110502
To many, it seemed obvious the Liberals' promise of electoral reform never had a chance. (The Canadian Press)


Did the Liberals care what type of electoral reform they got? No, they said, just as long as it was healthy.


Yet it was obvious the Liberals did in fact have a preference: for a ranked balloting system, which would, most likely, be the voting system resulting in more members of their party populating the House of Commons. But they didn't say that out loud, of course. Whatever Canadians wanted would be fine by them.

Signs of trouble


But there were early signs that the promise was unwell. Under the guardianship of Maryam Monsef — a new minister who, it is clear now, didn't have the experience necessary to manage such a complicated and problematic file — the Liberals hosted a series of town hall meetings to discuss the fate of electoral reform. But, as it turned out, many Canadians just weren't interested in spending their summer listening to policy wonks drone on about the meaning of "democracy." Best wishes, though.


Electoral reform did take its first tentative steps late last year when a special committee issued its report on the file, which recommended a referendum pitting first-past-the-post against a proportional representation system. That wasn't exactly what the Liberals were hoping for, though, so Monsef — either by her own volition, or on a directive from the Prime Minister's Office — took a swipe at the committee, accusing its members of not following the guidelines she set out for its report (in fact, they followed the guidelines exactly).


It was at that moment it became clear to many that electoral reform wouldn't survive. For others, though, it was obvious from the get-go that the Liberals' campaign promise was never actually supposed to grow up.


The Liberals, after all, had given themselves less than four years to completely upend the way Canadians elect their governments. The promise was too vague at the outset, too. The Liberals said they would replace first-past-the-post with something, but never said what that something would be, or how they would determine what that something should be.

The Liberals also promised to move ahead only when they had achieved "broad consensus" from Canadians, but never defined what would constitute "broad consensus." At the same time, it was clear there would never be unanimity among parties in the House: the Greens and NDP wanted proportional voting, the Liberals wanted ranked ballots and the Tories were happy with the status quo.

R.I.P.


Those preferences explain the marked differences in the reactions to electoral reform's death Wednesday afternoon. The Conservatives didn't quite dance on its grave, but there were evidently a few toes wiggling under the benches in the House of Commons. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was livid — a sentiment shared by members of the NDP — and poor Justin Trudeau, clearly still confused and distraught, blamed electoral reform's death on it "not being good for Canadians," and it being "divisive" and on not wanting an "augmentation of extremist voices in this House."


He'll come around, as we all should. Indeed, we shouldn't think of this as a loss, per se, but rather as the peaceful passing of something that was never intended to survive. May electoral reform live on forever in our memories.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion.....-1.3962324
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4155
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
Bugs wrote:
I agree that it is wise for the Liberals to drop this project, but I don't think that Chantal is right about the broken promise thing. I don't think there was any discernable demand for this 'promise'. Nobody will harbour any resentment over this 'broken promise' and the Liberals won't pay a big price for dropping a project that has always lost support as people got to know more about it.

This doesn't mean they have shelved the idea. Perhaps they will treat it as a practice run, and prepare for next time.


i agree there wasn't much public interest in this promise and it had always seemed like a weird one to have made in the first place , to come out during an election and say its going to be the last one under this system but then not ever say publically what the new one was going to be ?

overall I don't think the general public cares much about electoral reform , the fact only 400,000 people replied to the survey speaks loudly , I'm sure if they had a national survey about there new marijuana law it would get a higher response rate than electoral reform did , which is kind of sad really that more people care about pot than how there elections are run


It's kind of amusing to watch the pundits wringing their hands over this 'broken promise'. To me, it's a threat that has been withdrawn. I don't know anybody who had electoral reform on their short list of things they wanted government to do for them.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
RCO wrote:
Bugs wrote:
I agree that it is wise for the Liberals to drop this project, but I don't think that Chantal is right about the broken promise thing. I don't think there was any discernable demand for this 'promise'. Nobody will harbour any resentment over this 'broken promise' and the Liberals won't pay a big price for dropping a project that has always lost support as people got to know more about it.

This doesn't mean they have shelved the idea. Perhaps they will treat it as a practice run, and prepare for next time.


i agree there wasn't much public interest in this promise and it had always seemed like a weird one to have made in the first place , to come out during an election and say its going to be the last one under this system but then not ever say publically what the new one was going to be ?

overall I don't think the general public cares much about electoral reform , the fact only 400,000 people replied to the survey speaks loudly , I'm sure if they had a national survey about there new marijuana law it would get a higher response rate than electoral reform did , which is kind of sad really that more people care about pot than how there elections are run


It's kind of amusing to watch the pundits wringing their hands over this 'broken promise'. To me, it's a threat that has been withdrawn. I don't know anybody who had electoral reform on their short list of things they wanted government to do for them.


imagine if you knocked on 10 random doors or talked to 10 random people at tim hortons , no one would say electoral reform was there top political issue , it might not even be a top 5 issue for a lot of people


the survey results indicate that maybe 1 person on an average street of 20 or so homes actually filled out the online survey , I think if you figured out the reply rate it be very low
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand why the left is so manic today?
Was there ever really an expectation that reform would happen?

The Liberals ran on a generic "Let's Reform The Electoral Process!!!!"

They didn't say how or to what or the cost but simply that 2015 will be the last FPTP election.

They appointed MP who doesn't have a background in constitutional law and experience that doesn't seem to make any sense for the portfolio to run the portfolio to change the system that has selected every government over the last 150 years and would be the biggest change to our electoral system in Canadian history.

Who in turn created a committee with parties who all had different routes forward and opinions and bring zero consensus to the table to determine the path forward.

What could go wrong?

Then after burning a year and change the committee released a recommendation that is utter non-sense and still insists on a Referendum.

You scold the committee that walked in with no consensus and no point of agreement for reaching a consensus and point of agreement and opt not to move forward with the recommendation.

In Response;
You create a website where I plug in my thoughts on Democracy and at the end I am told that I am John Cena or a Unicorn or a Box of Crackers or some sort of condescending non sense, which burns even more time to get what sort of result?

That there are a lot of Unicorns?
That there are lots of John Cena's in Ontario?

That Canadians are confused by the results of a survey that was completely ridiculous and allows you to interpret the results any which way you please that a fraction of the population bother to do?

After all of this

You sack the Minister responsible, then call it a day on Electoral Reform.

At what point during this entire process did anyone for a moment feel the Government was taking reform even somewhat seriously?

You would think someone who have approached the Supreme Court for an opinion much like the last Government did on Senate Reform to clear or address any hurtles that may arise legally?

Maybe address the concerns about having to grow the Commons or re-assigns seats within the Commons to make that work and if it was possible with the framework of the Seats promised with the Constitution or the subsequent amendments?

Getting some sort of baseline from Elections Canada on timelines, cost, and potential solutions of the common systems being discussed?

Lets say the Committee had agreed unanimously that they wanted PR;
None of the basic above steps had been taken to allow for any change to be implemented and certainly not before the next election.

The Left got Panted.

Plain and Simple.

The Liberals needed the votes from the GPC and the NDP to win a majority and they provided a 12% swing to the LPC largely based on a promise that the Liberals would create a system that made them relevant.

Now here we are with the Liberals enjoying a safe majority and polling strongly enough to secure a majority in the next election with >40%

In what world would "Canada's Natural Governing Party" allow for a system where they would almost certainly need to have the NDP and GPC at the table with them to pass legislation?

I am thrilled that we are not moving forward with a half baked reform that would have been generated from this utterly ridiculously process thus far.

Although I sort of need to raise a glass to the Liberals and their Brain Trust.
They played the left in a manner that is one of the most impressive cases of Political Gamesmanship I have seen in a while.

I fully expect them to make the same promise in 2020.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

its true that the liberals played the "left " for fools on this issue but the conservatives didn't do that badly either when you think about it

considering the fact they only had 99 mp's in a parliament supposedly dominated with mp's who were elected under the promise to change the system

they have somehow managed to get this entire plan shelved , that by itself is something

they raised a lot of fuss and demanded a referendum even though a specific alternative had not been brought forward yet so there wasn't even a possible question for a referendum
they actively were involved with the all party committee and allowed it to look into other alternatives and never seemed to anger the ndp or greens along the way

I don't know but it could of turned out a lot worse , a lot worse than what we saw yesterday
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4155
Reputation: 238.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to confess, I thought they were serious, and still do. I just think they were showing their callow, wet-behind-the-ears ambition in a most unbecoming way, and they had no idea of the practical difficulties that stood in the way.

Whatever is wrong with the way people are represented in this country, it isn't going to be solved by so-called electoral reforms. It should be achieved by applying a strict rep-by-pop rule in setting up ridings.

But I never thought that that was the real reason. I thought they wanted to water down the faint hold the electorate has over its politicians now, and to stay in power forever.

Cosmo is right. They either would have to 'un-seat' some members and replace them with representatives from other parties -- OR they would have to add a lot more seats -- around 115 -- and give those seats (and their majority) away to the opposition parties as the arithmetic demands.

Honestly, can you see the Liberals doing that? Can you see any party doing it?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6288
Reputation: 229.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( liberals are now claiming fears of a divisive national referendum and the emergence of alt right parties were there reason for killing this plan , seriously alt right parties ? do these exist in Canada , we have the Christian heritage party but they have never won a seat or ever been a factor )


Liberal fears of proportional representation and a referendum killed Trudeau's reform promise

Senior party source explains government’s decision to scrap important campaign pledge

By Aaron Wherry, CBC News Posted: Feb 03, 2017 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Feb 03, 2017 8:11 AM ET

This week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau abandoned his campaign promise to replace the first-past-the-post voting system. A senior Liberal source shared some of the decision-making details with CBC News.

Fear of both proportional representation, including the possible emergence of fringe or even alt-right parties, and a potentially divisive national referendum led Justin Trudeau's government to abandon his promise of electoral reform, according to a senior Liberal source.

In the lead-up to the 2015 election, Trudeau pledged that a Liberal government would ensure a new electoral system was in place for the next federal vote.

The Liberals regularly repeated that promise through their first 15 months in office, but on Wednesday the government announced electoral reform was no longer a priority.

'Wrong system'

In question period, Trudeau acknowledged his long-standing personal support for a preferential ballot — which allows voters to rank candidates — but the prime minister "was open to having his mind changed," says a senior Liberal, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"But the more he thought about proportional representation, the more he thought it was exactly the wrong system for a big, regionally and culturally diverse country."


In the House, Trudeau said reform might produce "an augmentation of extremist voices in the House," a potential result that is sometimes associated with proportional representation.

The Liberal cabinet is said to have been overwhelmingly opposed to proportional representation, which aims to allot seats in the legislature in proportion to the national popular vote. Ministers, the source says, believed Canada was better served with broader "big tent" parties and that proportional representation could open the door to smaller regional or fringe parties in the House of Commons, including the alt-right, a loosely defined political movement that includes white nationalists and white supremacists.

'Deep division'

Cabinet also decided, while meeting in Calgary last month, that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum.

The Liberals had not previously ruled out the possibility, but during an appearance in July before the special committee on electoral reform, Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef said referendums "can and have often led to deep divisions within Canadian and other societies, divisions which have not been easily healed."

In question period on Thursday, Trudeau similarly referred to a potential referendum as "divisive."

The senior Liberal notes that in establishing a vote threshold for the implementation of reform, the government could have also set a precedent for future referendums.

An electoral-reform referendum that needed only a simple majority to be accepted could, for instance, be cited to justify a similar threshold in any future referendum on Quebec sovereignty, something that would undermine the Liberal position that separation shouldn't be so simple.

Quebec Referendum Anniversary 20151028
The Liberals were concerned that by establishing a vote threshold for the implementation of electoral reform, the government could have also set a precedent for future referendums — including on Quebec sovereignty. (Canadian Press/Paul Chiasson)

All previous national votes on specific issues — prohibition in 1898, conscription in 1942 and the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 — have divided along provincial lines.

Beyond the government's lament that no "consensus" on the issue of electoral reform had been achieved, the prime minister's comments in the House suggested a concern about the risk of moving forward.

"It would be irresponsible for us to do something that harms Canada's stability," Trudeau said Wednesday.

"The fact of the matter is that I am not going to do something that is wrong for Canadians just to tick off a box on an electoral platform," he later added. "That is not the kind of prime minister I will be."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.3963533
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 8

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Electoral Reform - One Year Later

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB