Saturday, October 15, 2005

NDP proposes ethics package

Most recommendations from the NDP deserve a really good look.

The seven-point NDP package proposes:

-MPs should not be permitted to change parties without resigning and running in a byelection.

-Election dates should be fixed and held every four years.

-Reforming the electoral process by combining proportional representation with the current first past-the-post system.

-There should be spending limits and transparency conditions on leadership contests within political parties.

-Tougher laws to end unregulated lobbying and political cronyism.

-A fair process for government appointments to end unfair and unethical patronage practices.

-Better access-to-information legislation to make government more transparent.


Some of these are right out of the CTF playbook. Good stuff.

22 comments:

Chad Moats said...

Everything on there are great reforms except for fixed terms. Fixed terms do not fit into the parliamentary system. It removes a lot of the flexibility in the Westminster system and doesn't allow for confidence motions. In the Westminster system the cabinet(executive) is responsible to the Parliament(legislature), and the people by extension. and most have the confidence of the body, In a fixed term, the executive would only be responsible every 4 years to the electorate. It would also increase politics over governance, since an election date is set, campaigning tends to start up a year prior(IE USA), well are current system only allows for 4-6 weeks of political campaigns. Thus allowing for the ability to more effectively govern.
On the subject of PR, I prefer the IRV method but would settle for a variation of the Hare method, used in Germany and NZ.

Scott Hennig said...

You could make fixed term elections work with in our parliamentary system. If you set an election date for four years after the last election, and if a non-confidence motion was sucessful, an election would be called immediately, with the new election date re-set for four years after that new election.

The four year fixed date would be used only if there was not a non-confidence motion passed.

The elongated campaign period point is a good one though.

Anonymous said...

The Party in power campaigns from the day they are elected. Look at the stupid utility rebate. Is that not campaigning. Raise the rates and then give some back. Good for job creation If you call paper pushing a job.
Since when was car insurance a utility? I don't own one.
Why didn't the rebate go to businesses. They pay the highest rates. Open for business. Come on into Saskatchewan if you have a good business idea we will create a new crown to compete with you.

Anonymous said...

Some good ideas, but I sure would never trust the NDP / Lie-beral's to ever implement such changes. What about an elected Senate? Broadbent conveniently makes no mention.

Anonymous said...

we should get rid of the senate all together. what is its purpose anyway? a second look? ya right.
and we all know how the Tories have done in office, they've removed all of these things. *shudder*

Anonymous said...

Hey Shudderer, you should know that there is a big difference between the old PC's and the current Conservatives: remember that whole Reform/ Canadian Aliance thing.

The Reform/ CA has always stood for Senate and democratic reform and transparency and responsible use of tax dollars: same cannot be said for the Libs, PCs, or NDPers.

David MacLean said...

So the preference for you is to allow governments to stick their fingers in the air and call an election whenever they want?

We like the accountability of fixed election dates. To argue that current governments don't campaign year round is being willfully blind.

Chad Moats said...

Dave, you have to read the whole posts. I stated that after an election, in the Westminster system, the government has to keep the confidence of the people in the form of their elected representative. If they can not parliament/legislature will be dissolved an an election called. No waving of fingers or what ever poor analogy you stated but the support of the people's elected representatives.
As for your comment on politics superseding governance in non-election times, I would have to say that it is called democratic governance. If the majority of the populous is clamoring for a certain issue and the government/cabinet does not address it then they could face a lack of confidence within their own party and the legislature/parliament in general. Leading to their down fall. Well in the USA an election campaign starts a full year ahead of any elections, not policy for governance but pure electioneering. There is a difference and if you don't see it or understand it, Dave. I have some books you can read. I'll even drop off the list with public library locations for you, reserved under your name, to pick them up at your Victoria St. location. Just let me know.

Anonymous said...

Chad, when Dave referred to governments "sticking their fingers in the air" he meant to check which way the wind is blowing. You keep reading books if you want; I think that your knowledge about the real world is lacking, however.

Chad Moats said...

But isn't that democracy ?
Rule of the people. We elect governments to do what we want and when they do it is said they are bowing to whims of interests and when they don't it's called an elected dictatorship. It's all about perspective. It has been said that some of the best governments are very disliked because no one gets their way but all get a portion of what they request. It's called pragmatism.
Also, Trust me my life is very very real.

Anonymous said...

Chad, democracy is allowing politians to manipulate the public by calling an election at the most optimal time for the politician? You call that true democracy? And I beleive that your life is very real, and I'm sure you score well on your exams, and are an interesting conversationalist at U, and are very "progressive" etc... but I still don't think that you understand the real world, that you don't understand human nature.

Chad Moats said...

Oh please explain human nature to me, can you.

Anonymous said...

Chad, you may never understand. And you can't afford me to teach you. But I will give you some very good free advice: get some education outside of the University!

Chad Moats said...

That sound like the answer of someone who doesn't know the answer. Would living in the UK or the USA give a real world education ? Would being a father ? How about fulltime work for 13 years would that help ?
Let me know, because I have done all though things/ So put your stereotypes away and answer the question, if you can Anon.
What is human nature ?

PA Grizzly said...

Guys, kicking around a political science student is like shooting fish in a barrel (simile).

He's weak. Leave him alone with his thoughts.

gunslinger said...

he is a small child trapped in a grown-up body. I don't mean to make it personal (actually he did by giving out all this info).

He is an under educated ideologue with barely a grasp on his own ideology and a chip on his shoulder to boot.

Most of us are conservatives here, Chad. And we have been thinking about conservatism for a long time.

You are like a young puppy, playing in leaves for the first time.

Chad, if I may ask, what do you do for a living? I'm an engineer in northern alberta.

Chad Moats said...

So none of you cab enlighten me as to what is human nature ?
Hmmm... interesting indeed.

Anonymous said...

Chad, the issue was fixed election dates: I say human nature requires them, because without checks and balances, corruption ensues. You are apparently more trusting, to be charitable. To be blunt, I think that you are simply naive.

Gordon said...

"Most of us are conservatives here, Chad. And we have been thinking about conservatism for a long time. "

Keep thinking because that's all your going to do, living in northern Red Neck Alberta hardly qualifies as life experience. BTW folks , taking shots at folks for being educated does not do much for you.

I am going to love this next Fed election, Paul Martin will just point at BUSH and Ralf Kline and folks will flock to him, the NDP will do the same. You see , you just have to shake the bushes a little to find a few red necks to make an example of. People in Ont and Quebec and the east will never support conservatism , basically their scary as hell. BTW talking about being educated , how do you feel about Stevie Harper
losing all power in the house to the NDP. LOL

Anonymous said...

Gord, you would cut someone down because they come from N Alberta? I think that's sick!

Also, your grammer sucks: you type "their scary as hell": it should be "they're scary as hell". Now what make conservatives Scary Gordon? Maybe you scare too easily? Maybe you;re not as bright as you think you are? Maybe conservatives are actually a little smarter, harder working, and more compassionate with their own time and moneythan you. I also think that I could easily drink you under the table, " drunkgord" or whatever your real name is, even though I have not drank for over a year. I am just confident, though I know nothing else about you. And I do not judge people by where they come from, I think that wrong.
please think!

tommy douglas said...

BOO!

Anonymous said...

I personally find stupid people, the Libranos and the ghost of Tommy Douglas to be scary. I could elaborate with real facts.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box