• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

So what’s the metric for fair representation, if not population? Area? Provincial equality? Share of GDP? Other?

Aren't you bumping up against the equity/equality debate? Opportunity vs outcome?

In my view the issue is how disputes are resolved. People, individuals, corporations (municipal, provincial or private) are constantly in tension with each other. Competition is. People will always try to make the best of their circumstances and sometimes that is going to mean two people reaching for the same reward.

Who is Solomon and how do you select her?

My inclination is to leave as many decisions to the local government as possible. And basically that means that Provinces, Cities, Towns, First Nations, landowners, unions etc will constantly challenge the status quo and the status quo will constantly change.

And I'm back to the McGarrigles and the need to learn to step lively. Solid ground is hard to find.

 
The representation may be fair but I'm not sure the results are. I dont know if I have a solution. Im just pointing out I dont see a solution constitutionally right now.
Oh, I’m not sure the representation is fair, currently, but I think that a more fair system would be something closer to a Party-List Proportional Representation (PLPR) system, than the current FPTP/Westminster system. The main challenge being the loss of direct regional ‘representation’ as exists today.
 
There is actually a hybrid system that uses a combo of the current plurality system (FPTP), for individual ridings, and proportional rep. (party list) where you just vote for a national party (doesn't have to be the same as who you voted for in your riding). Pretty simple. The main thing that is stopping this from being used is that NO national party that has a chance of forming a gov't (Lib, Cons) would vote for the change. That's because it would be impossible to get a majority gov't for 35% of the popular vote. The results of the PR vote are used to give extra seats to balance things out according to percentage of vote. Usually means smaller parties would likely be the ones getting more seats. Also would mean that there would be more coalition governments (which, as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't be a bad thing).
The Libs had promised to change the electoral system in their first term, but they shut down the committee (when they realized that it would be harder for them to win a majority government in the future).
I'm sure the Cons would've done the same thing if they had been in power, as this system would benefit the smaller parties more than the major ones.
 
At this point in time there doesnt appear to be any reasonable chance at ammending the constitution, either in Canada or the US, in any way so we are likely stuck with the system we have. Written or unwritten. The difficulty in resolving how 80% of the population in 20% of the country making the rules for 20% of the population in 80% of the country remains but is exacerbated by how much the lives have diverged and how quickly
That - the divergence - is, I think, the key to it ... whatever it is.

There is, here, and in America, quite clearly, and in Australia too, I'm told by a reliable source, and in Britain, also, I think, a massive and fairly recent divergence between big-city-urban and small-town/rural with the suburbs drifting between the two.

The suburbs are variable and morale - as the British Tories showed in the last UK general election.
 
Back, a few centuries go, when Simon de Montfort was wandering about, we - our political ancestors - decided that we should be represented in the fledgling parliament by people that came from our communities. The French name for our House of Commons, la Chambre des communes, is a more accurate representation of what was intended than is the "commons" which too many people mistakenly think refers to the Lords and the commoners. Anyway, while de Montfort didn't think about equality of representation or even fairness, he did put in place, in 1265 - a long, long time ago - a system which, in my opinion, has served us well and which we would not want to throw out without a lot of thought.

La Chambre des communes brings together representatives of each "community," each remote and rural district, each village and town, each suburb and each district in big towns and cities.

One factor which de Montfort did not consider was federalism wherein each community is represented at two levels: provincially and nationally. Now, the electors of New Brunswick get to send ten representatives to Ottawa to do the nation's business but they send nearly 50 to Fredricton to look after more local affairs.

Maybe, if we look at §§91 and 92 of the Constitution we should ask ourselves if we don't, perhaps, have too many people worrying about a lot of less than really critical issues in Ottawa. I mean everything to do with money - Gresham and all that - and foreign and defence policies are important but do w really need 338 legislators to look after that plus the postal service, beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island and weights and measures? Are those things really as important as managing hospitals and public education and licences for shops, saloons and taverns?

I have always maintained that a federal state requires a bicameral legislature: one chamber to represent the people, in their communities, on a roughly equal basis, and the other to represent the provinces as the constituent partners in confederation. But what if I'm wrong? What if we need only one federal legislative body? Maybe an elected and effective Senate that is regionally, and very roughly, equal. That (roughly) equal, effective and elected Senate might need only, say, 201 senators - say 155 elected during provincial general elections and 46 elected, by proportional representation, during federal general elections. BC, ON and QC would each get 31 "provincial" senators, the prairies would get 31 and Atlantic Canada would get 31, also. How the 201 senators - whose political balance would shit with every single provincial and national election - caucused, and, therefore, how they determined who "governed" Canada would be something that would hark back to the 16t and17th centuries when we understood that what really, really mattered in governing was the treasury - almost everything, including defence and foreign and most social policies depends on that.

My 2𝇍 ... for argument's sake.
 
Back, a few centuries go, when Simon de Montfort was wandering about, we - our political ancestors - decided that we should be represented in the fledgling parliament by people that came from our communities. The French name for our House of Commons, la Chambre des communes, is a more accurate representation of what was intended than is the "commons" which too many people mistakenly think refers to the Lords and the commoners. Anyway, while de Montfort didn't think about equality of representation or even fairness, he did put in place, in 1265 - a long, long time ago - a system which, in my opinion, has served us well and which we would not want to throw out without a lot of thought.

La Chambre des communes brings together representatives of each "community," each remote and rural district, each village and town, each suburb and each district in big towns and cities.

One factor which de Montfort did not consider was federalism wherein each community is represented at two levels: provincially and nationally. Now, the electors of New Brunswick get to send ten representatives to Ottawa to do the nation's business but they send nearly 50 to Fredricton to look after more local affairs.

Maybe, if we look at §§91 and 92 of the Constitution we should ask ourselves if we don't, perhaps, have too many people worrying about a lot of less than really critical issues in Ottawa. I mean everything to do with money - Gresham and all that - and foreign and defence policies are important but do w really need 338 legislators to look after that plus the postal service, beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island and weights and measures? Are those things really as important as managing hospitals and public education and licences for shops, saloons and taverns?

I have always maintained that a federal state requires a bicameral legislature: one chamber to represent the people, in their communities, on a roughly equal basis, and the other to represent the provinces as the constituent partners in confederation. But what if I'm wrong? What if we need only one federal legislative body? Maybe an elected and effective Senate that is regionally, and very roughly, equal. That (roughly) equal, effective and elected Senate might need only, say, 201 senators - say 155 elected during provincial general elections and 46 elected, by proportional representation, during federal general elections. BC, ON and QC would each get 31 "provincial" senators, the prairies would get 31 and Atlantic Canada would get 31, also. How the 201 senators - whose political balance would shit with every single provincial and national election - caucused, and, therefore, how they determined who "governed" Canada would be something that would hark back to the 16t and17th centuries when we understood that what really, really mattered in governing was the treasury - almost everything, including defence and foreign and most social policies depends on that.

My 2𝇍 ... for argument's sake.

Work expands to fit the time available. Maybe the issue isn't too many representatives but too much time...too many man hours.

If so the solution is to make the position of MP a part time job.
 
Mr. Campbell, I agree. I think there is value to the bicameral system. The Senate is a bit discordant at the moment, but set-up properly, ie. Elected, but with a flavour of equality across the provinces and territories, would go a longer way to a balanced systems with both the representation of the people with first-order accountability to respective MPs, and the federate voice of regional input and accountability.
 
I'm almost entirely certain there's a topic here about electoral reform and I haven't seen any CPC leadership candidates even mention it, so maybe we can get back on topic?
 
Oh, I’m not sure the representation is fair, currently, but I think that a more fair system would be something closer to a Party-List Proportional Representation (PLPR) system, than the current FPTP/Westminster system. The main challenge being the loss of direct regional ‘representation’ as exists today.
No party lists. The parties are autocracies with power concentrated in the leader, and a party list system just gives more power to the leader who controls the list.

But, there are ways to give better representation and keep representatives local: Multimember ridings and single transferable vote.
 
Oh, I’m not sure the representation is fair, currently, but I think that a more fair system would be something closer to a Party-List Proportional Representation (PLPR) system, than the current FPTP/Westminster system. The main challenge being the loss of direct regional ‘representation’ as exists today.
Yeah I'm really not a fan of that. As @McG said, party lists would just concentrate power EVEN FURTHER into the PMO and unelected party officials' hands.

Mr. Campbell, I agree. I think there is value to the bicameral system. The Senate is a bit discordant at the moment, but set-up properly, ie. Elected, but with a flavour of equality across the provinces and territories, would go a longer way to a balanced systems with both the representation of the people with first-order accountability to respective MPs, and the federate voice of regional input and accountability.
How would you implement that exactly? The House already corresponds to that description of ''Elected, but with a flavour of equality across provinces and territories''. If both chambers are functionally the same, then there's no point having a bicameral.

I strongly believe that the best possible improvement would be provincial nomination of Senators, as Alberta has been attempting to push for.

However, I remain undecided on whether it would be better for provincial governments to name Senators for life (or until voluntary or mandatory retirement), for a term (5, 15, 25 years, w/e it may be), or at pleasure (blank slate when a new provincial government is elected). And one thing I am wary of is the risk that this new construct may incite federal and provincial parties to merge vertically, akin to the Democrats and Republicans down south, in an attempt to better coordinate their agendas.

Lastly, I'm not oblivious to the fact that this plan would increase the power of Provincial Premiers, which might seem contradictory to my first paragraph above. That said, that is not nearly as worrying a prospect to me, as the idea of giving more power to the federal PMO.
 
Yeah I'm really not a fan of that. As @McG said, party lists would just concentrate power EVEN FURTHER into the PMO and unelected party officials' hands.


How would you implement that exactly? The House already corresponds to that description of ''Elected, but with a flavour of equality across provinces and territories''. If both chambers are functionally the same, then there's no point having a bicameral.

I strongly believe that the best possible improvement would be provincial nomination of Senators, as Alberta has been attempting to push for.

However, I remain undecided on whether it would be better for provincial governments to name Senators for life (or until voluntary or mandatory retirement), for a term (5, 15, 25 years, w/e it may be), or at pleasure (blank slate when a new provincial government is elected). And one thing I am wary of is the risk that this new construct may incite federal and provincial parties to merge vertically, akin to the Democrats and Republicans down south, in an attempt to better coordinate their agendas.

Lastly, I'm not oblivious to the fact that this plan would increase the power of Provincial Premiers, which might seem contradictory to my first paragraph above. That said, that is not nearly as worrying a prospect to me, as the idea of giving more power to the federal PMO.
More power to provincial premier might act as a check to the PMO.
 
No party lists. The parties are autocracies with power concentrated in the leader, and a party list system just gives more power to the leader who controls the list.

But, there are ways to give better representation and keep representatives local: Multimember ridings and single transferable vote.
Certainly considerations for a discussion, and something that I believe the CPC should be engaging on during its own leadership campaign.
 
I listen to David Herle podcast quite a bit. For a liberal he's an okay guy (must of been a lonely life as a Liberal Strategist in Saskatchewan) and his latest guest was Mike McDonald. They had an interesting exchange about local riding organizations. Back in the day the Riding President used to be a very important person, even if your riding was podunk Yukon. You had access to the senior folks in the party who had access to the PMO and your concerns from the riding were at least given a nod of acknowledgement. Now you're lucky to get a call before the email from the PMO on who they selected as the candidate for that riding. :cautious:

From the website
We’ve got a helluva pod today. We’re going to take a deep dive into B.C. politics with my good friend, and now 2-time Herle Burly guest, Mike McDonald! Mike is a brilliant human being. He’s the former campaign manager and Chief of Staff to Premier Christy Clark. Currently, he’s Partner and Chief Strategy Officer at Kirk & Co., one of the leading communications and public engagement firms in Canada, and a senior research associate at Pollara Strategic Insights. And he has a goddamn blog! You can read about what’s on Mike’s political mind, at Rosedeer.blog

Today, we’re going to talk about the NDP in B.C., post Horgan. BC Liberals post the Liberal brand-name. And what the province thinks of Trudeau, Poilievre and Singh.

 
I listen to David Herle podcast quite a bit ....
LOVED the daily updates on the Ontario election! This is worth subscribing to, even if one isn't a fan of Team Red (they bring in feisty Team Blue and occasionally Team Orange folks to chat as well, including a senior advisor on PP's campaign, who gives as good as she gets).
 
Interesting recent video from the PP campaign
Talking straight to/directly at people in their circumstances about what concerns/worries them/pisses them off? Some very subtle dog whistles (maybe)? Something else? All in the eye/ear of the beholder?
 
Last edited:
Interesting recent video from the PP campaign
Talking straight to/directly at people in their circumstances about what concerns/worries them/pisses them off? Some very subtle dog whistles (maye)? Something else? All in the eye/ear of the beholder?
Must be my tinninitus. I'm not hearing any dog whistles.
 
I am expecting PP to win and the federal election is a few years off still, hopefully. So I will await the platform before making any real decisions. By that time it could be AnyoneButTrudeau
 
Back
Top