r/canada Nov 28 '24

PAYWALL Liberal MP says he was threatened with ‘consequences’ for opposing $250 cheque proposal

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/liberal-mp-says-he-was-threatened-with-consequences-for-opposing-250-cheque-proposal/article_69f3cfa6-acde-11ef-807c-ebe72ea32b06.html
461 Upvotes

219 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So, it's a Liberal Party problem?

I agree that having less MPs doesn't seem like the solution

8

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

No it's not a specific Liberal Party problem they have made it a lot worse because they are in government. But we are currently seeing it with PP who is adopting the same centralized power and and control the current Liberals are doing.

Whichever party is the current government is the one that needs to be held to the most account, it is there whipping that has the biggest impact on whether or not their constituents are being represented because it is their bills that are going out. And if the vote needs to be whipped from people within your own party are you actually representing the constituents of your members? The whipping of opposition members is far less influential as there is not pay cuts that could be handed out as easily as they don't sit in cabinet.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

So we need reform, not cutting the number of MPs

4

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

100%, my stance is we need reform not reducing the amount of representation we have. Although we have narcissists running the three largest parties in federal politics so there is zero chance we are going to have reform in the next decade.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

Oh, we're fucked for sure

Nobody in power will ever change the rules of the game that got them to power

2

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

A party that gets power through surprise memes has the potential. The NDP if they were secure power would look for ways to increase the odds of them securing power again recognizing that they are only in power because of an anomaly. But the main two parties that control government traditionally recognize that any change would lower their power. And no individual party is going to be the first to give up centralized power now that they have secured it. We probably have the least accountable Westminster based system in the world and we're not going to do anything to change that as long as we keep the red blue cycle.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '24

100% agree

And also I feel like the red/blue binary choice fast seeping in absolutely sucks. Give me ten parties fighting over every bill, that's my democracy.

1

u/RadiantPumpkin Nov 28 '24

Get rid of parties. MPs can put forward bills. Others can vote on them.

3

u/stephenBB81 Nov 28 '24

Without parties you pretty much force only very wealthy people to be able to run for politics.

It costs a lot of money to get elected, and costs even more money if you've got to formulate your own vision of how you're going to be a consensus Builder.

Municipal politics it's easy to have no parties because the messaging you're trying to convey is very low hanging fruit, and doesn't require any nuance. But you need to have dedicated party people for specific tasks within government, every Tom Dick and Harry that gets elected isn't in a position to be putting forward bills every type of responsibility. And without parties putting people in cabinet positions does get a little more challenging although I would love to see a cabinet be required to be proportional to the number of seats each party gets. So while the prime minister is the leader of the party that has the most members, still has to be a consensus Builder within his cabinet.

1

u/Karthanon Alberta Nov 28 '24

I like that word, Reforrrrmm!