Election 2011 - The Aftermath for the Leaders

[Bird_Gunner45]

Fortunately, it seems Harper has a good understanding that if he doesn't reflect social values of Canadians, he won't get to stay in office, because I suspect that reopening long settled debates would be an effective way of getting people out in droves to vote against him.  Hopefully the more fringe members of his party have made the same deduction.

my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.

 

[GAP]

my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.

It matters not if it is not directly affecting you.....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What if it is affecting me? What if the judge had said that abortion was illegal, and murder, and my wife and i wanted an abortion? Is it now just that the personal opinion of a conservative judge has affected my life?  And if so, what say do I have over this change? Can I un-elect the judge? nope.  That's the point... by having laws, or lack there of, dictated by the legal world instead of being implemented by a legally elected government we're essentially placing the power over our lives in the hands of those without any real accountability to the majority.

The outcome of the laws is not the important point... it's the implementation of social policy by those not accountable that is.  Dont confuse the fact that recent judicial decisions have benefited the left to be indicative of a permanent state of being... one conservative judge with the right case could really throw the left's udaloop out of whack.

 

[dapaterson]

my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.

I prefer to live in a country where Parliament is constrained by a constitution protecting me from Parliament.

 

[Redeye]

What if it is affecting me? What if the judge had said that abortion was illegal, and murder, and my wife and i wanted an abortion? Is it now just that the personal opinion of a conservative judge has affected my life?  And if so, what say do I have over this change? Can I un-elect the judge? nope.  That's the point... by having laws, or lack there of, dictated by the legal world instead of being implemented by a legally elected government we're essentially placing the power over our lives in the hands of those without any real accountability to the majority.

The outcome of the laws is not the important point... it's the implementation of social policy by those not accountable that is.  Dont confuse the fact that recent judicial decisions have benefited the left to be indicative of a permanent state of being... one conservative judge with the right case could really throw the left's udaloop out of whack.

If a judge made a decision to prohibit something, then that's a different story.  In both cases referred to, the courts simply held that the applicable laws were not constitutional.  They cannot make laws, only the legislature can, but they can determine that laws aren't enforceable if they don't meet consitutional standards.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You are correct... it is the absence of laws that in real terms makes both things legal, or at least the grey area of "not unlegal".  My point is what if the judge or supreme court read both cases the other way?  The government always selects justices who are more likely to back their particular views.  The judges and lawyers determine the validity of laws, which is their role.  However, it is still up to the government to close the holes.  I wish that the government would either A) Pass laws making such things legal, or B) make constitutional amendments (and go through the long process of getting an amendment made).

Note- This view is free of a viewpoint on either subject.  Personally, I am pro-both.  I just want my elected representatives to,  as they say, s*it or get off the pot, and do their jobs, and not leave controversial subjects to unelected judges.

 

[observor 69]

Politics is, as the one commentator noted, a bloodsport and Ignatieff's academic credentials/critical thinking abilities were moot - he couldn't master the arena and find an effective way to employ them (if there even is a way) and was fed to the lions.

Or he couldn't overcome the handicap of his "academic credentials/critical thinking abilities" to become a true "politician  >."

 

[ModlrMike]

Or he couldn't overcome the handicap of his "academic credentials/critical thinking abilities" to become a true "politician  >."

Perhaps he relied too much on them. It's not a political sin to be a thinker, but that has to be buttressed by being a doer as well. Conversely, a doer can surround himself with thinkers and still get the job done. I think that people want their PMs to be good doers more than thinkers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps he relied too much on them. It's not a political sin to be a thinker, but that has to be buttressed by being a doer as well. Conversely, a doer can surround himself with thinkers and still get the job done. I think that people want their PMs to be good doers more than thinkers.

I think you're right Mike.

Over my career I have tackled lots of tasks, par for the course for anybody in the applied sciences.  One thing I discovered about myself was that I made a lousy serviceman.  It wasn't the quality of my diagnoses, or even my mechanical skills that were at issue.  It was that I could never state with certainty and confidence that my solution would fix the problem.  I always see things in terms of probabilities. 

Customers and voters don't want to be told "this will probably solve the problem but there is a 5% chance it could blow your plant/country up".

I eventually learned to work with some really confident, focused servicemen that would tell the customer "the problem is fixed".  (And when the plant blew up we sent in another serviceman  ;D)

 

[a_majoor]

A very valid point has been raised; how much authority does Parliament really have? Unelected judges can undo laws or "read in" things that the legislature never put into law. Bureaucrats can implement regulations which effectively have the force of law, and in the United States we see the use of "executive orders" which attempt to bypass the Congress and the Supreme Court (and given Canada is actually more centralized than the United States there is really no reason similar things can't be done through the PMO/PCO).

Prime Minister Harper effectively won his majority through tight management and control, which allowed him to shepard his government through several minorities while being able to pass legislation and lay the groundwork for the realignment we see today; one would hardly see him renouncing a "winning" leadership style, so the concentration of power in the executive will continue.

An unintended consequence (or perhaps an intended one) will be the diminishing powers of the bureaucracy; this government will gradually starve them out in the name of financial responsibility.

The issue of the Judiciary is much harder to deal with; Judges are appointed and serve for extended periods of time, so their influence outlasts the government which installed them. I have seen few trial balloons from the government or the CPC on this issue, so have no idea what they might have in mind. Public hearings to find out where nominated individuals stand would be useful, and perhaps shorter judicial terms (perhaps a decade) to allow new blood to enter the system would be doable.

On one other issue I believe the Prime Minister could make a lasting impact on Canadian politics; formally recognizing the right to own property. This might be done as a Parliamentary resolution and instruction that any proposed legislation must be written with legal property ownership in mind. This would resolve the largest hole in the 1982 Constitution Act.

It would also (in political terms) drive the NDP's socialist caucus wild (about 40% of the NDP caucus, if various different sources are right), unhinging the opposition. It would also nullify the various anti government enablers in the media, academia and the bureaucracy, since they wold be unable to craft a coherent "narrative" to bludgeon the government ("The evil Harper conservatives want you to be able to OWN PROPERTY!!!"). While coherence hasn't been much of a factor in the past, the continuing inability of the opposition and their enablers to make any coherent anti-government narratives will keep them on "ignore" for most of the population, and really put a crimp on Jack Layton or Elizabeth May to expand their appeal (which will also limit the ability of any successors to gain traction as well).

 

[Infanteer]

Thucydides,

1.  On the judiciary - they only enforce and interpret the Constitution that Parliament put into effect.  If we, through Parliament, don't like those interpretations then we should change the constitution.

2.  On reform of the PMO - yes, it has hard to ask someone to reform a system that created that person's success.  One can hope though....

3.  On judicial appointment and term length - definately worth exploring.

4.  On property - couldn't agree more. 

 

[a_majoor]

The LPC leadership is simply not interested or capable of renewal. (Other blogs point out the reason to skew the rules for the interim leader is to prevent Bob Rae from taking the position. Freezing out what little talent you have is hardly a prescription for success):

http://stevejanke.com/archives/316004.php

Liberal leadership terrified of renewal
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 09:55 PM
Comments: 5

The Liberal Party cratered on May 2, reduced to 34 seats from 77, losing their leader and their status.  Their funding is in danger too.  So the call goes out for a period to "rebuild".

But as a first step, the Liberal leadership, led by Alfred Apps, is gaming the rules in order to ensure that the interim leader that must be appointed shortly does not do much of anything:

    In other words, anyone can run for the interim party leadership, but the winner:

      1. Can't do anything important
      2. Can't suggest doing anything important
      3. Can't talk about doing anything important later on
      4. Can't run for the important job
      5. Doesn't have to speak French, but has to regularly apologize for the fact, and has to be trailed around by someone who does.

    This would not seem to be not a good start for a party that wants to begin the process of  being taken seriously again.

I look at this situation, and what I see is Alfred Apps and the other "backroom" Liberal power brokers ensuring that enough time is given for the various factions within the Liberal Party to reassemble themselves.  Right now, the Bob Rae "merger" faction seems ascendant since that faction is the only one that is offering a concrete plan to renew the party, radical as it is.

The Liberal Party leadership would be dissolved in a merger with the now-powerful NDP.  Apps needs to buy time.

Given enough time, each of these other factions can repair their respective power bases.  Once these factions have built up their armies of committed MPs, senators, and party officials, then Apps will feel comfortable in letting the Liberal Party start the process of renewing itself.

Yeah, you see the problem.  The longer the Liberals wait, the less likely it will be that any truly original idea will survive in an environment in which various groups of Liberals have already made decisions on what will fix things for the party.

Right now the Liberals are in a state of flux.  There is weakness, yes, and a danger that the party will disintegrate, of course.  But in the chaos there is a willingness to discuss any idea, past preconceptions having be laid low by the disaster of May 2.

Alfred Apps and his coterie of power brokers are dead set against "new".  Given that they are as much responsible for what has happened as anyone can be, and certainly no less responsible than Michael Ignatieff, they know that if the party faithful are given free rein to discuss possible futures of the party, and if an interim leader is allowed to broker those discussions, there is every reason to believe that Apps and the others will find themselves subjected to a great deal of uncomfortable scrutiny.

No, Alfred Apps and the others want things to calm down first.  Freeze out Bob Rae and the mergeristas. Distract Liberals clamouring for change by using a focus on fundraising changes as a proxy for actual meaningful changes.  Hobble the interim leader with rules about his or her linguistic skills.  Anything to buy time so that the Liberal Party can fall into familiar old patterns.  Then Apps and his people can control the so-called renewal that follows, making certain that any plan that would put their positions at risk never sees the light of day.

In four years, it'll be the same old Liberal Party.  They can't win like that.  All they can hope is for the NDP to collapse.  If that doesn't happen, then the Liberals will lose seats again in four years.

But at least Apps' job would be safe.

 

[Rifleman62]

.....really put a crimp on Jack Layton or Elizabeth May to expand their appeal.....

Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.

She did whatever she could to get onto the gravy train.  I wonder what the voters of her riding were thinking to not elect a cabinet minister. Well it is the Left coast, BC.

We may hear May's trademark hysterical announcements from time to time when there are no cat deaths in Ottawa to report.

The only thing that is going to expand is her, the consequences of eating in the Parliamentary Restaurant.

Layton is going to have a problem at the next NDP convention fighting off the ambitious Doubting Thomas.

 

[GAP]

NDP being offered the cream of Canada’s unions
BILL CURRY OTTAWA— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail  Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Article Link

Canada’s unions are offering their best and brightest for the large number of jobs the NDP must fill as soon as possible.

The huge growth of the NDP caucus means close to 300 positions are now open. Given that many of the MPs will be rookies themselves, hiring quality staff becomes even more important.

On average, an MP will have about two full-time staff on Parliament Hill and another two in the riding office. But the NDP is also in line for a larger central staffing budget for research and communications in the OLO – Opposition Leader’s Office.

Unlike other parties that allow MPs to hire and fire staff largely at will, NDP staffers are unionized, meaning jobs must first be offered internally and decisions can be challenged.

On its face, that suggests added hurdles for a party that is under the gun to get ready for the new session. But given the sheer volume of openings, New Democrats insist the union rules aren’t likely to cause delay.

Jack Layton will make his first major speech as Opposition Leader on Wednesday when he addresses a meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress in Vancouver.

The NDP staff operate under Local 232 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. Dave Coles, the CEP president, said he and other union leaders agreed Monday in Vancouver at the CLC conference to identify strong staff members to offer the NDP.
More on link

 

[Journeyman]

But given the sheer volume of openings opportunity to get their snouts into the cash trough, New Democrats insist the union rules aren’t likely to cause delay.

There was a slight typo there 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.

She did whatever she could to get onto the gravy train.  I wonder what the voters of her riding were thinking to not elect a cabinet minister. Well it is the Left coast, BC.

We may hear May's trademark hysterical announcements from time to time when there are no cat deaths in Ottawa to report.

The only thing that is going to expand is her, the consequences of eating in the Parliamentary Restaurant.

Agree.  The Green Party won a seat, but lost a lot of popular support nation wide because their glorious leader decided that her time would be better spent ensuring that SHE had a job, and not looking out for the best interests of the party. 

 

[a_majoor]

Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.

Layton is going to have a problem at the next NDP convention fighting off the ambitious Doubting Thomas.

While both these things are true; in the long run they are not only bad for their parties, but also the CPC and by extension, all of us. Reform put a lot of heavy pressure on the Liberal government of the day to finally take action against the deficit (the first Liberal Majority government in 1993 did not believe the deficit and debt were problems at all), and had they been more capable, they would have forced the government to consider changes to many other bills, and perhaps also to not use Enron like accounting practices to solve the deficit (putting billions off the books by shifting it to the provinces, for example, and raiding EI for another) .

A weak and incoherent opposition (which like it or not is what we have gotten for at least the next year, possibly longer) will not be able to challenge the government in any meaningful way, allowing complacency to set in. Classically educated readers will know it is a short step from there to Hubris; just before the Olympian gods destroy them.

 

[a_majoor]

Drum roll please:

http://www.kathrynmarshall.ca/uncategorized/a-look-at-possible-liberal-leadership-contenders/

A look at possible Liberal leadership contenders

May 11, 2011

Who the next Liberal leader is will say a lot about where the party is headed and whether or not they have learned from past mistakes.

While the Party’s national board has made it clear they will take their time in selecting a new leader, hopefuls for the top spot won’t wait long to begin organizing.

The pool of potential leadership candidates was largely drained with the devastating election results for the Liberals. Young rising stars of the party like Mark Holland and Navdeep Bains were defeated. Other MP’s with leadership promise like Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay also went down with the Liberal ship on May 2nd.

Who is left to carry the torch? Here’s a look at possible Liberal leadership contenders.

Bob Rae: He’s been running for the job since 2006. Rae has the experience, political skills and the name recognition, and he’s the exact opposite of what the Liberal Party needs right now. Rae represents the old guard of the Liberal Party—and the NDP for that matter. He won’t find anywhere near the same level of support and enthusiasm he enjoyed in 2006 and will likely face strong backlash from Party members who view his leadership as stunting the renewal of the Party.

Dominc Leblanc: Leblanc tried to run for leader in 2008, but like everyone else backed down in favour of Ignatieff.  Leblanc has two major things in his favour politically: he is Francophone but not from Quebec, and he represents a rural New Brunswick riding, making him one of the few Liberal MP’s to represent a rural riding. Leblanc is also no stranger to the big city life; his father was Governor General Romeo Leblanc.

Justin Trudeau: It’s impossible to prospect Liberal leadership contenders without mentioning Trudeau. He’s often written off as just a lucky guy with a famous last name and good hair, but he’s earned his political stripes these past few years, which has gained him some needed political credibility. He fought hard to win his riding from the Bloc in 2008 and while many predicted that he would lose his seat this past election, he managed to squeak by in a hard fought race. As one of the few Liberal MP’s in Quebec, Trudeau’s geographical position gives him an edge. However, Trudeau has done things recently to cause people to question his political judgement, such as his unwise objection over the Conservative’s use of the term ‘barbaric’ to describe honour killings in the Citizenship Guide. Trudeau may face push back from some Party members who view him as amateur and too naive for the top job.

Dennis Coderre: Coderre has been a Liberal activist since his teen years. He’s a Montreal MP, and a strong organizer, which is exactly what the Liberals need on the ground in Quebec right now. He’s also 47, which is young enough to be called young in politics, but not young enough to be called inexperienced.

If I was a Liberal activist, I’d be looking for a leader completely different from the past few leaders. I’d be looking for someone who can focus on building the party and who understands the importance of organizing on the ground, locally and mobilizing a grassroots base. I would also be looking for someone younger than Harper, who can grow into the role as the party develops and evolves. Dennis Coderre seems to best fit this profile, but only time will tell what direction the Liberals will take—and who will carry the torch.

 

[observor 69]

And in QC today: #NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau speaks! TVA has the exclusive 1st French interview: http://bit.ly/mc6Ksj #cdnpoli

 

[Rifleman62]

To prove your point re the opposition Thucydides, I believe Jack campaigned on this course of action. 

Clement hauls fuel industry onto carpet

CP - May 12, 2011

TORONTO - Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement wants gasoline refiners, distributors and retailers to show up in Ottawa and answer questions about volatile gas prices.

Clement told a news conference held outside the home of a Toronto MP that the government knows high gas prices are pinching the wallets of Canadians.

That's why the federal government is setting up a committee to look into the "complex" issue and get answers from oil executives about why gas is so expensive.

Clement did not say when meetings between the government and fuel producers would take place.