Canada's Political system (in a nutshell)
This one's for BigBuddhaPuppy over at De-Center. In my post on the latest election in Canada, he asked for some general information on Canada's political system.
So, here goes:
Canada uses a parliamentary system, based on the Westminster system from the UK. There are 308 constituencies (or ridings) represented in the House of Commons. The party with a majority of these "seats" forms the government. In the case where there is no clear majority, the party with the most seats forms the "minority government" which usually survives by dealing with one of the other parties (or any independent Members of Parliament - these are members not affiliated with a party). Governments can be brought down, as was the case this past November, by a vote of no confidence. The ruling Liberal party lost a non-confidence vote (they had been backed by the socialist-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) but had screwed up so badly that they deserved to get turfed).
The ridings are supposed to be representative based on population, but this is not the case. The voter size of each riding can fluctuate between 130,000 to 27,000. Which is hardly "representative".
Political Parties:
Liberals - basically in the centre of the political spectrum.
Conservatives - basically to the right
NDP - to the left - no where near the centre
Bloc Quebecois - separatists (that's right - they run federally and want to separate Quebec from the country. Go figure.)
Green - environmentalists - so God-knows where they would fit
There are other fringe parties (the Green is considered fringe as well).
Viewpoints:
The Liberals present themselves as representative of all Canadians, but hardly are. The primary power base is in central Ontario. They very rarely win any seats west of Ontario. They have been entrenched in power far too long and have grown both arrogant and corrupt. Though, to hear some of the slack-jawed yokels, you wouldn't think so.
The Conservatives are newly formed from the demise of the old Progress Conservatives and the Reform party. For the most part, this party believes in fiscal conservatism. Hard to say how they would handle themselves if they won. They do want to re-open the gay marriage debate, ostensibly to give the members of parliament a chance on a free vote, which was denied them by the Liberals (i.e. the Liberals forced all their members to toe the party line). The Liberals try to claim that the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda"...whatever that is. This is how the Liberals win...vague innuendo to frighten the morons.
The NDP: pie-in-the-sky socialists. Pro-unionists with no real plan. They like to promise to throw money around, but kind of keep quiet when asked from where the money would come...can you say "TAXATION OVERLOAD"?
The Bloc Quebecois - as odd as it sounds, I have more respect for their leader than any of the others. He basically is quite up-front about his goals. This party is strictly regional.
My hope:
Now, barring a Conservative majority, I would like to see a minority Conservative government with the Bloc working with them. Odd as that sounds, it would be representative of most of the country. Unlike an Ontario-based Liberal government.
So, here goes:
Canada uses a parliamentary system, based on the Westminster system from the UK. There are 308 constituencies (or ridings) represented in the House of Commons. The party with a majority of these "seats" forms the government. In the case where there is no clear majority, the party with the most seats forms the "minority government" which usually survives by dealing with one of the other parties (or any independent Members of Parliament - these are members not affiliated with a party). Governments can be brought down, as was the case this past November, by a vote of no confidence. The ruling Liberal party lost a non-confidence vote (they had been backed by the socialist-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) but had screwed up so badly that they deserved to get turfed).
The ridings are supposed to be representative based on population, but this is not the case. The voter size of each riding can fluctuate between 130,000 to 27,000. Which is hardly "representative".
Political Parties:
Liberals - basically in the centre of the political spectrum.
Conservatives - basically to the right
NDP - to the left - no where near the centre
Bloc Quebecois - separatists (that's right - they run federally and want to separate Quebec from the country. Go figure.)
Green - environmentalists - so God-knows where they would fit
There are other fringe parties (the Green is considered fringe as well).
Viewpoints:
The Liberals present themselves as representative of all Canadians, but hardly are. The primary power base is in central Ontario. They very rarely win any seats west of Ontario. They have been entrenched in power far too long and have grown both arrogant and corrupt. Though, to hear some of the slack-jawed yokels, you wouldn't think so.
The Conservatives are newly formed from the demise of the old Progress Conservatives and the Reform party. For the most part, this party believes in fiscal conservatism. Hard to say how they would handle themselves if they won. They do want to re-open the gay marriage debate, ostensibly to give the members of parliament a chance on a free vote, which was denied them by the Liberals (i.e. the Liberals forced all their members to toe the party line). The Liberals try to claim that the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda"...whatever that is. This is how the Liberals win...vague innuendo to frighten the morons.
The NDP: pie-in-the-sky socialists. Pro-unionists with no real plan. They like to promise to throw money around, but kind of keep quiet when asked from where the money would come...can you say "TAXATION OVERLOAD"?
The Bloc Quebecois - as odd as it sounds, I have more respect for their leader than any of the others. He basically is quite up-front about his goals. This party is strictly regional.
My hope:
Now, barring a Conservative majority, I would like to see a minority Conservative government with the Bloc working with them. Odd as that sounds, it would be representative of most of the country. Unlike an Ontario-based Liberal government.
Comments
Case in point: the Liberals new plan to combat crime is to ban all handguns. Especially the "illegal ones" being smuggled in from the States. Now, I ain't no genius, but do you think that would stop the criminals from owning handguns? I don't think so. A woman who is a sport shooter wrote an email to the Liberal incumbent in her riding questioning this handgun ban, and the president of the riding wrote her back and told her to "get her gun-loving ass back to the US where it belongs". Nice, huh? This is just an example of the arrogance of the Liberals.
This is my first visit to your blog, and I agree with a lot of your views! (it was your "personal philosophy of life" statement that got me here, BTW).
I'm a third-generation Canadian, and to me that's always meant 50% french; 50% anglo (built on the backs of the squashed aborinals, of course!). I don't have a drop of French blood in me, so far as I know, but what's that got to do with being Canadian, eh?
I've been questioning each of the candidates in my riding by asking them why they didn't consider it a "conflict of interest" to be pretending to represent me at a NATIONAL level, when it was clear their first obligation was to their political party. I suggested that, whoever gets elected should immediately put their political affiliation into a "blind trust" for their term, act like Chuck Cadman did last spring and sit as an independent, (therefore looking out for CANADA's interests first, not my region, or my riding), and then leave a committee made up of the defeated candidates back here in the constituency to take care of everyone's political day-to-day concerns. (So far, they have all politically-deferred the question to some innocuous response).
I also suggested that their primary 'internal' concern should be to re-connect with our french neighbours again (I spent 8 great years in Quebec, and loved every minute of it), and work at re-gaining our title of "World Peacemaker" that we had back in the 60's. Methinks if we can show that we can do it ourselves, then the 'teach by example' system can kick ass a whole lot harder than just preaching words can. I also think there's a whole lotta folks like you and I bubbling under the surface (with new 'global' tools for instant and intra-communication like the internet, global radio, etc.) ready to do that primeval scream "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore" in global unison. We just need to find the right threshold to bring it to the surface in a practical, but undeniable way.
Then, I think I could challenge your personal philosophy!! I acknowledge I'm a bit of a "Mary Poppins" when it comes to World peace (mostly because I doubt everyone agrees that it even means the same thing!), but for my own amusement, mostly, I'm working on a theory of making it more possible. I'm actually starting to think there's a tad of potential (acknowledging that maybe I'm just getting too personally invested in it!) Much too much to outline here, but it's based on a couple critical fundamentals.
1) There is complete individual difference between any two people, nations, entities, and those differences have to only be tolerated (not necessarily accepted).
2)No human, nation, entity has the right to impose in a non-consensual way on another, with the intent to diminish the other, or infringe upon the other's power to be equal or different.
3) Every human being, nation, entity has the RIGHT to be assumed GUILTY of not asking for help when needed, and not offering help whenever asked (speaking clearly of NEEDS here, not 'wants' or 'desires'...the food, water, shelter stuff).
The APPROACH to doing it is a bit unique, I think, in that I would suggest we work simultaneously from "both ends to the middle". In other words, assume we've ALREADY got what we're looking for, then work backwards to today.....starting now. Sounds paradoxical, I know, and it's tough to summarize in a sentence or two. Basically, though, I'm saying "recognize what here's and what's going to stay (i.e. be realistic) and AT THE SAME TIME lay on the layer of idealism in a workable way.
Anyway, just wanted to share some thoughts, for what they're worth!