• November 2, 2011 11:21 AM | Read 27 comments27
• By Kady O’Malley

Note: The following meanderings originally appeared on twitter, but have been tweaked, extended and edited for readability.

Enthusiastic party press releases to the contrary, the next NDP-backed private members’ bill headed for the floor of the House does not, in fact, “ban” floor crossing outright, but would trigger an automatic byelection when an MP “becomes a member of a registered party” that did not endorse his or her candidacy in the election.

First of all, it’s worth noting that as drafted, C-306 could conceivably be seen as a violation the privilege of an individual MP to sit and vote with whatever caucus he or she chooses, although an easy workaround would be for MPs to sit as Independents, but vote and caucus with their newly chosen party, which could even put them on committees if it wanted to do so.

In fact, depending on the interpretation of the bill, the anti-floor-crossing provision may be even easier to dodge: Join the caucus, but not the party. In the section dealing with “change of political affiliation,” the bill cites the Canada Elections Act in the reference to “registered party,” which, as I can tell, would mean that the MP in question would have to become a card-carrying member of the party itself, not simply a member of the parliamentary caucus, as the latter are not registered under the Act.

Those technical quibbles aside, however, as noted above, the question of how the bill wound up on the private members’ priority list is every bit as intriguing.

Before we get down to shameless speculation as to what may have motivated the move, a bit of background: the very first iteration of a bill to trigger byelections when an MP switches parties was introduced back in 1997 by Reform MP Mike Scott.

Since then, it has been introduced, amid varying degrees of fanfare, by various and sundry NDP MPs — in most cases, by veteran New Democrat Peter Stoffer, but occasionally under the name of one of his caucus colleague — on at least five different occasions.

But despite having had multiple opportunities to do so, on only one occasion has it been brought forward for second reading: in 2005, when Stoffer added it to the precedence list just weeks after Belinda Stronach abandoned the Conservative caucus to join then-Prime Minister Paul Martin’s cabinet on the eve of a critical confidence vote. (Not surprisingly, it was eventually defeated.)

A brief reminder on the rules that govern private members’ business: MPs fortunate enough to win a spot near the top of the priority list are free to bring forward any bill or motion on the Order Paper, including those introduced by another member — a caucus colleague, or even someone from a different party.

At no point since 2005 has either Stoffer, or a New Democrat colleague with a higher slot on the priority list, chosen to do so with one of the many anti-floor crossing bills that have been up for grabs.

Flash forward, then, to September, when the now Official Opposition apparently found itself sufficiently seized with the issue for newly elected Quebec MP Mathieu Ravignat to introduce, under his own name, a bill identical to one that had already been tabled by Stoffer in June — one which, by virtue of Ravignat’s enviable slot on the precedent list, will proceed to second reading later today.

It’s almost as if the NDP is suddenly concerned by the prospect of MPs leaving the party under which they were elected.

Imagine this scenario: a post-leadership split within the party results in a good chunk of its Quebec caucus — to pick one at random –  setting up shop under a new name and leader, much like the MPs who would become founding members of the Bloc Quebecois did in 1990.

Under the current rules, depending on its size, that new caucus might even be able to challenge the NDP for the title of Official Opposition. Even if it did not, the emergence of a new caucus could significantly alter the procedural landscape: at minimum, the NDP would likely have to give up a few QP slots to the newly minted Third Party, and committee seats would likely be reallocated as well.

Under the rules proposed by the NDP, however, if the anti-floor-crossing provision does, in fact, kick in when an MP chooses to sit with a caucus under the banner of which he or she was not originally elected, those seats would automatically be declared vacant, resulting in Quebec-wide byelections — and depending on the timeline, another party — even, perhaps, the currently dormant Bloc Quebecois — could challenge many of those byelections, and quite possibly win back at least a few of those lost to the NDP during the last election.

That would seem to be a pretty powerful way to discourage a rookie NDP MP from signing on as a founding member of a new caucus.In any case, it might be well worth tuning into the Chamber for private members’ hour later today, if only to see if any MPs raise the above possibility during debate.

We are now  seeing “parties of independent candidates”. For example, in Ontario, in the October 2011 election, Onarians were introduced to the Canadians Choice Party – a party of Independent Candidates.  In Quebec,  the CAQ is  a  party (at least according to the following article) formed largely  from Independent Candidates.

See the following article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1085378–a-powerful-new-party-rises-in-quebec

In June, he dumped the Parti Québécois, for which he acted as the immigration critic and is sitting as an independent for the riding of Deux Montagnes, northwest of Montreal. But over the summer, he said, he found himself more and more captivated by the new Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec.

“I find it interesting, and I think many Quebecers are on the same page,” Charette said. “For the first time in 40 years we are proposing to bring people together on a base different from the national question. It’s refreshing.”

Come the next legislative session early in 2012, he and a handful of other independents and members of the rightist party Action démocratique du Québec, could become members of the CAQ.

On Monday, the new party will officially join the restless Quebec political landscape, but unlike most start-ups, this one stands a good chance at winning power.

Polls say if an election were held today, François Legault’s new party would win. Support for his coalition at 39 per cent, the Liberals at 22 per cent, the PQ at 17 per cent and the ADQ at 11 per cent.

Led by a former ardent sovereignist within the PQ, the coalition believes strongly that Quebec has big problems with its economy, debt, health and education systems that must be tackled before the old federalism-sovereignty debate.

Legault’s remarkable polling numbers — coming before his party is even formally launched — comes from a general appetite for his ideas, to put off any referendum and focus on the economy, for instance, but also from the current upheaval in provincial politics.

The Liberals are dogged by corruption allegations and a premier who appears out of touch. The PQ faces internal squabbling, backstabbing and resignations, fuelled by an inability of leader Pauline Marois to capitalize on the Liberals’ problems.

“People have the impression that nothing is going on in Quebec and they want to see change,” said Legault’s spokesperson, Jean-François Del Torchio. “What Mr. Legault is proposing is positive change.”

Legault was not doing interviews before the Monday launch, but he is sufficiently a threat to Premier Jean Charest and Marois that both are both questioning his motives and leadership.

Recalling that Legault has called himself a “leftist sovereignist,” Charest said earlier this week that “the people know what they’re getting with a Liberal government, not with a party led by a former péquiste minister who has put aside sovereignty.”

The sovereignty issue has been a touchy one. Legault says he’s been a sovereignist his whole life, and used to be the PQ’s most vocal pusher of independence.

But since leaving the party and founding the coalition he has managed to attract prominent federalists, including his coalition founding partner Charles Sirois. Del Torchio, for instance, worked with three federal Liberal leaders, including most recently, Michael Ignatieff.

“What he’s saying,” Del Torchio explained, “is that he’s not going to promote sovereignty. Nobody wants to hear about it anymore. Quebecers want to see the real challenges tackled.”

Legault, 54, is married with two teenaged children. His wife, Isabelle Brais, runs a high-end clothing store in Montreal’s trendy Plateau neighbourhood. He grew up in a household of modest income, his father a postmaster, his mother a homemaker.

But he became a successful businessman, co-founding Air Transat, before turning to politics. Within the PQ government in the 1990s, he headed several ministries, including education and health. As a critic, he dealt with finance.

For Charette, the party might be ideal; he left the PQ precisely because Marois wasn’t promising hold off on a referendum. Sovereignty, for him, remains an ideal but is the “dream of a young man.” He’d prefer to work on pressing issues until such time as the debate is viable again.

For Marc Picard, another independent legislator and former member of the ADQ, the coalition fits his style for ideological reasons. It has a centre-right orientation. “The coalition wants to tell the truth to the citizens,” Picard says, “and it has the courage to . . . deal with things that have never been dealt with, like the debt.”

Legault’s team is preparing an “action plan” to present Monday. He’s proposing to cut thousands of government jobs, do away with school boards and mid-level heath agencies, raise teachers’ and doctors’ salaries, use resource royalties to pay down the debt, and finally make Quebec a “have” province.

Whether from genuine support of his ideas or traditional party malaise, polls indicate Legault would win the premier’s seat.

The figure of 39 per cent support for the coalition, reported in the CROP poll of 1,000 Quebecers in late October, would translate into a landslide 102 of the province’s 125 seats, according to the website threehundredeight.com.

And if the coalition and the ADQ merge — a real possibility — the party would get a whopping 48 per cent of the vote, something a CROP executive called “surreal.”

These numbers spell catastrophe for Marois.

Despite record support at the party’s congress last April, she has had to deal with a kind of ongoing mutiny. Last spring, five prominent members quit the caucus. In late October several caucus members, fearing Bloc Québécois -style obliteration, were said to urge her to pass the torch. There have been resignations in local riding associations. One Laval association sent a letter to her last week asking her to go.

But following Monday’s party launch, Charest and Marois will have their work cut out for them. So, too, will Legault.

The honeymoon period will come to an end. Legault, however, has committed to give 10 years more of public service.

It could be a long romance.

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Apr. 13, 2011 2:00AM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 13, 2011 4:50AM EDT

Gordon Gibson

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/democratic-reform-should-be-the-central-issue-of-this-election/article1982405/

We are now well into one of our occasionally scheduled games of “futures markets in stolen property,” otherwise known as an election. (Thank you, H.L. Mencken.) The promises are flying.

Stripped of all the fine words, the parties all come to us with a remarkable proposition: “We will confiscate a goodly portion of your hard-earned money and remove it to Ottawa. There we will launder and shrink it and then return some of it to you. We will also issue a series of orders called laws and regulations that will tell you what to do with your lives. You may now say thank you.”

More related to this story

• The torture of Question Period
• An election is war by other means
• We don’t have fixed election dates, and can’t

Strangely, we mostly buy into this pitchman’s plan. This is partly because much of what government does is necessary, even good. But alas, much of what government does is also stupid or wasteful or improperly gives the advantage to one region or group over others to buy votes. This doesn’t sound attractive, but the politicians are so cunning in their packaging, the issues are so complex, the media so lazy and the voters so resigned or so busy with other things that the shiny tinsel looks good enough to draw support for one party or another.

This is notwithstanding the fact that three of the parties – the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Greens – have no conceivable chance of implementing their promises (and so can promise anything at all). By contrast, the Conservatives or Liberals might be able to implement their promises – they just have no believable way of paying for them, short of higher taxes or higher debt – both things, as we know, they’d never, ever do.

Agreed, this is a cynical view of a political system wherein are entrapped many good people who genuinely want to make the world a better place. And it could be a lot worse – one need only look south of the border to see a great nation now struggling with a truly sick democracy. So we must get past the cynicism, look at what we have and ask, “How can we make it better?”

That should be a central issue of this election – democratic reform. The available options are well known and researched. At the top of the list is more power to the ordinary MP. After all, this is the only person you get to vote for and thus the only person you can call to account.

The list goes on to more freedom and resources for parliamentary committees (where the iron discipline of the party whip is less in evidence) and a sharp restriction in the matters deemed to be issues of “confidence” (and thus capable of forcing an election) by governments.

There are institutional matters such as electoral reform and campaign finance. And there are things such as a truly muscular freedom-of-information law, so that the knowledge and options available to the government would also be available to the public. Without good information, there can’t be good accountability. Without such knowledge, the shiny tinsel carries the debate.

The trouble is, the reforms that would make our political system work better involve a transfer of power. Some would move power from the Prime Minister’s Office to Parliament. Some would move power from governments to voters. Unlikely. An iron rule of politics says no one ever voluntarily gives up power, and the PMO has been centralizing more over the past 40 years. But some great people have voluntarily done so in the past and, more rarely, some great citizens’ movements have forced change. We can hope.

The bottom line is this: The gatekeeper to reform is the prime minister of the day. That’s the person who can make change – or stop it. If you believe that reforming a dysfunctional system is more important than any of the other issues in play, then the thing to do is look at Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff and ask: Which one is the more credible reformer? Which one will make plain-language commitments, no fingers crossed, no cross my heart and hope to die, to institute this or that reform?

Maybe neither. But one thing is certain – if we don’t ask, nay, demand, things will go on as before and perhaps get worse.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0209/politics.html

A total of 564 candidates will be contesting the General Election – nearly a hundred more than in the last general election in 2007.

The number of those running as independents or for smaller parties is 233 – this compares to 108 in 2007.

Fianna Fáil has 75 candidates, down from a total of 106 in 2007. Fine Gael has 104 candidates, up from 91 in 2007.

The Labour Party is fielding 68 candidates, up from 50 in 2007.

The Green Party is fielding 43 candidates. Sinn Féin is running 41 candidates, the same number of candidates as 2007.

There is a very high number of other parties and independent candidates this year.

New Vision, a new political group of independents, is fielding 19 candidates.

Nominations may have closed but candidates can withdraw their names up to midday tomorrow.

The total number of people on the Electoral Register 2011/2012 is 3,161,854.

This compares to 3,066,517 on the register in 2007 – a rise of almost 100,000 (95,337) voters since the last election.

These recent figures do not include additions to the Supplementary Register.

Historic low number of FF candidates

Since its foundation in 1926, Fianna Fáil has always fielded enough candidates to give a majority in the Dáil if they were all elected.

The last time Fine Gael had more General Election candidates than Fianna Fáil was in 1969, when they had 125 compared to 122.

Before that, you have to go back to 1927 to find an election where Cumann na nGaedheal (forerunner of Fianna Fáil) had more candidates – 97 to 87 in June 1927, and 89 to 88 in September 1927.

It is also the highest recorded level of Independent and minor party candidates – the next highest was in 1992, when there were 186 recorded under ‘Other’ in the official results, made up of 103 Independents, 5 Christian Centrist, 19 Green, 41 Sinn Féin, and 18 Worker’s Party.

Focus turns to jobs

After last night’s televised debate between Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore and Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin, the parties today focused on a range of issues including tourism, jobs, and literacy.

As Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny spent the evening in Carrick-on-Shannon at what was billed as a ‘town hall meeting’, Mr Gilmore and Mr Martin were going head-to-head on TV3 in the first televised leaders’ debate of the campaign.

They disagreed on a range of issues including tax, the bank guarantee, renegotiation of the IMF/EU deal, and political reform.

Attacking the Labour Party’s plan aimed at getting the public finances back in order, Mr Martin said it represented a policy of higher taxes and increased borrowing.

In response, Mr Gilmore said Fianna Fáil’s plan for recovery would cripple the economy.

Both participants later declared themselves satisfied with their individual performances and with the one-to-one format of the programme.

Mr Martin said Mr Kenny should engage in future debates.

Mr Kenny had travelled to Carrick-on Shannon in Co Leitrim for a public meeting that was attended by around 300 people.

On his arrival, he told reporters that while he believed televised debates were important – they were not the single issue.

He said he was looking forward to participating in three televised debates during the rest of the election campaign.

What follows are links to everything you need. But, you need to get started now – by that I mean that you must:

- get somebody to be your official agent

- find out who can be your auditor

I really encourage you to do this – but a much greater degree of organization is required for you than for party candidates.

To get the flavor of this you might be interested in:

http://independentcandidates.ca/blog/independents-tax-free-democracy/

http://independentcandidates.ca/blog/how-would-an-independent-represent-a-riding/

http://independentcandidates.ca/blog/chretien-on-the-party-mp/

http://vodpod.com/watch/3643512-torontotv-federal-election-2008-john-richard-20081006?u=votejohnrichardson&c=votejohnrichardson

http://www.prlog.org/10310467-independent-candidates-unite-to-return-the-democratic-process-to-ordinary-citizens-wwwdemocratca.html

Links To the Relevant elections Canada pages and the required forms:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can&document=index〈=e

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=can/formsreg〈=e

http://www.elections.ca/pol/can/ec20010_e.pdf

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=can/vid〈=e

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&dir=can&document=index〈=e

Political parties

http://www.economist.com/node/17306082?story_id=17306082&CFID=157717965&CFTOKEN=30283600

Oct 21st 2010 | from PRINT EDITION

“WE WORSHIP an awesome God in the blue states,” declared Barack Obama in the speech that made him a star, “and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states.” Six years after his address to his party’s national convention in 2004, the idea of Mr Obama as a post-partisan figure, an effortless uniter of Democrats and Republicans, looks droll.

But his failure to transcend party politics does not mean it was not canny to try. In America, Europe and elsewhere, the era of tight affiliation to political parties is over. Successful politicians surmount party allegiances, rather than entrench them. In America, the “50-50” nation is more like a 30-30-30 nation; last month, a Pew survey found that “independents” at 37% outnumbered either Democrats or Republicans. Such inbetweeners tend to find partisanship on the airwaves and in Congress repellent, strengthening their convictions further.

As old allegiances fade, third parties are doing better. In Germany, a recent poll puts the Greens, formerly a fringe party, ahead of the once impregnable Social Democrats. In Britain’s 1951 general election, 97% of all voters chose Labour or the Conservatives. In last May’s election, just 65% did. Party membership is declining too—by 40% in 13 European democracies between the late 1970s and late 1990s, according to one study. In Britain the three big parties combined have under 500,000 members; in the 1950s, with a smaller population, their total was over 4m. And the members that remain are less active.

Explanations abound. In many industrial democracies, working-class voters chose left-wing parties out of self-interest. Other voters, fearing the power of organised labour, voted the other way. But when most people count themselves as middle-class, such tribal ties wane. In countries where the ideological gap between parties has narrowed, their brands may no longer be useful labels for busy or ignorant voters. Accustomed to choice as consumers, voters increasingly pick policies rather than signing up to comprehensive world views. Single-issue groups have thrived. Britain’s National Trust, a heritage organisation, raised its membership from 250,000 in 1971 to 3.7m now.

Political scientists disagree over the causes of the parties’ decline. But a more pressing question is its effects. The decline of partisanship could signal a less tribal, more educated electorate. But research on 36 countries by Professor Paul Whiteley of the University of Essex shows a strong correlation between political partisanship and good public administration. A rise of ten percentage points in partisanship goes along with an increase of one notch in the World Bank’s good-governance table (which assesses countries on a five-point index). A strong party base may help politicians to push through unpopular but necessary reforms. A weak one means that followers flee when the going gets tough.

Consumer choice may mean dodging responsibility. California’s referendums allow voters to engage with politics issue by issue. The state’s dysfunctional finances and politics are a poor advertisement for that. Less partisanship can also mean more political volatility as big old parties find it harder to win outright. The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and majoritarian voting should produce strong single-party rule. But the most recent elections in the five main countries that use it (Australia, Britain, Canada, India and New Zealand) have produced hung parliaments. Four have coalition governments.

The parties’ efforts to reverse this have had little success. As Conservative leader a decade ago (he is now foreign secretary), William Hague proclaimed a target of a million-strong membership. It is now less than 200,000. A better solution may be to give members real power within the party. Maurice Duverger, a French academic, distinguished in 1951 between “cadre” parties, where power is held at the very top, and “mass” parties, where the grassroots decide policy and elect bigwigs. Most political parties in the West offer influence to outsiders who donate money, not to their members who donate time.

The decline of partisanship is prompting some innovations. Some Americans favour the idea of “top two” primary elections in which any registered voter can take part, and choose two candidates, regardless of party, to contest an election. The victors could be two Democrats or two Republicans. The system is already in effect in Washington state and was recently approved in California. It could help cross-party and moderate candidates. But it faces a stiff legal challenge.

Other efforts seek to turn independent politicians—often seen as cranks and amateurs—into effective candidates. In Britain, outfits such as Independent Network and the Jury Team offer training and support to independents. Brian Ahearne, director of the Independent Network, says that Britain’s most recent general election saw the biggest number of independents standing for election since 1885, when records began, and almost twice as many as stood in 2005. They received over 144,000 votes, against a mere 10,000 in 1987.

Politicians like to have it both ways. “Vote for my Daddy,” quavers Ben Lange’s toddler daughter, in a spot for his candidacy in an Iowan congressional race. Grouped with his family on a sunny mid-western hillside, Mr Lange gives a wide berth to party politics. “This isn’t about Republican/Democrat,” is his cutesy patter. But another campaign video on his website is bombastic and combative, showing grainy footage of political foes, with a sinister musical soundtrack. The old system may be broken. But it is not dead yet.

from PRINT EDITION | International