MP Laurin Liu on Parliamemtary Reform
What an embarrassingly vacuous and rhetoric-ridden article from an MP who, I know for a fact, is capable of much better. Too bad she didn't mention the caucus dictatorship which ensured that an op-ed - and indeed every word she pronounces - should look like this.
And even so, the comments were vicious.
Almost as much as Unionist comment which has unneedly nasty to her.
The Op-ed was fine.
.
I won't grace that lie with an answer, jan, because you usually tell the truth. Go do your own research.
I agree Brachina. I have yet to see Unionist post anything positive about the NDP. No matter what or in what Province it is just nasty.
I've flagged this comment because it's total BS about a fellow babbler.
I like her two suggestions at the end of the article.
But I agree with Unionist - I think most of the article sounds like scripted talking points. And this is the problem with the NDP and has been for a good number of years now - everyone is over-scripted and over-handled. When Jack was leader, I thought he was way overhandled - he was so charismatic and witty and could do the off-the-cuff thing well, and yet, there were many times where he sounded overprepped and overscripted and it just seemed so unnatural. If the machine can do that to a political veteran like Jack, I can just imagine what it's like for the rookies in the caucus. I'll bet they have to raise their hands when they have to pee.
I think that's why so many people consider it such a breath of fresh air when some of the unruly members of caucus go "off message" by saying something crude or offensive in outrage. Yes, the machine eventually shuts them down (like Pat Martin's Twitter account). But I think one lesson that can be learned from some of the buffoonish behaviour of people like Rob Ford is that people like genuine, flawed human beings who talk like themselves and act like themselves and don't sound like a press release all the time.
Laurin was so totally scripted, she wasn't even allowed to breathe a word about fair voting and proportional representation - as if that's irrelevant to making parliament work better.
And while she and Charmaine Borg showed welcome support to the [url=http://www.munaca.com/node/324]striking McGill workers[/url] last year, she wasn't allowed to say a single word in support of the biggest strike movement in the history of the country. Not in this article - but during the months that the strike was waged, until victory.
Laurin Liu is the youngest woman ever to be elected to parliament. A second year undergrad at McGill, she beat out incumbent Luc Desnoyers, the retired leader of the CAW in Québec, by a massive margin, in a "safe" Bloc seat. She rode her bike to visit her new constituents, having neither car nor driver's licence. This is an amazing woman who can do anything - like many others in her caucus. All they need is a little freedom to show their stuff.
Yea, let's attack the NDP so we can keep the Cons in power forever. IF an MP and/or the Party is being very careful with their words - good on them!
Yea, let's attack the NDP so we can keep the Cons in power forever. IF an MP and/or the Party is being very careful with their words - good on them!
Jesus. We seem to have a party of sheep with these blind NDP patriots.
Its not blind, no ones claiming the NDPs perfect, I just think Unionist could have been politer about his point.
And Boom Boom Jan didn't say anything bad, she just pointed out that Unionist can be excessively critical on the NDP, more then is fair or realistic.
Laurin was so totally scripted, she wasn't even allowed to breathe a word about fair voting and proportional representation - as if that's irrelevant to making parliament work better.
Umm, I saw 28 highly satisfactory words:
To ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians, we need electoral reform that injects proportional representation at the same time as retaining directly-elected constituency MPs.
But I'm puzzled why she was asked to write the piece. The caucus critics on Democratic and Parliamentary Reform are Craig Scott and his Deputy Critic Alexandrine Latendresse. Laurin Liu is Deputy Critic for Science and Technology. Was someone trying to get attention for "the youngest woman ever to be elected to parliament?" Not a bad plan, if a touch cute, but the Globe never mentioned this. For that matter, Alexandrine Latendresse is not uncute herself, a political veteran when elected two days after her 27th birthday. She had run in the same riding against Quebec City Conservative strongwoman Josee Verner in 2008 at age 24, getting a remarkable 10.45%, compared to the 7.7%, 9.33%, 11.8%, 12.22%, 12.7% and 13.08% gotten by more experienced candidates against lesser opponents in the Quebec City region.
Hey! Where was that? Where was I? Jeez...
I apologize to Laurin Liu. And her handlers. So much for speed reading.
Thanks Wilf. Keeping me honest as usual.
Umm, I saw 28 highly satisfactory words:
To ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians, we need electoral reform that injects proportional representation at the same time as retaining directly-elected constituency MPs.
That's sounds to me like the definition of the open-list mixed member proportional electoral system (open-list MMP).
It would be great if the NDP specifically supported Open-list MMP.
Justin Trudeau's recent criticism of proportional representation [and support for preferential voting] was based on the flawed assumption that pr requires that some politicians represent parties instead of voters and communities. The advent of open-lists eliminates this criticism. Someone should explain to Justin the concept of open-list MMP whereby all politicians are still elected directly by the voters within specific constituencies.
Umm, I saw 28 highly satisfactory words:That's sounds to me like the definition of the open-list mixed member proportional electoral system (open-list MMP). It would be great if the NDP specifically supported Open-list MMP. Justin Trudeau's recent criticism of proportional representation [and support for preferential voting] was based on the flawed assumption that pr requires that some politicians represent parties instead of voters and communities. The advent of open-lists eliminates this criticism. Someone should explain to Justin the concept of open-list MMP whereby all politicians are still elected directly by the voters within specific constituencies.To ensure that Parliament reflects the political preferences of Canadians, we need electoral reform that injects proportional representation at the same time as retaining directly-elected constituency MPs.
Justin understands, he just doesn't want to talk about it.
He can get away with this in Quebec because the main model they have seen is Charest's bill in 2005: closed-list MMP in small districts, mostly five-seaters, with a single ballot (a vote for your local MNA counts as a vote for your party.)
THe NDP caucus has a problem. They like the Law Commission model ("flexible" or semi-open list, where the voter can vote for the list or for one person on it). But they don't want to get into the weeds of debating details that are easy to attack or to cause confusion. Yet without reference to the open list concept, opponents can lump all proportional represenation models together with closed-list criticisms. A dilemma.
The Quebec counterpart of Fair Vote Canada debated this problem for years, and finally decided two years ago to endorse one model. However, since they have a strongly feminist orientation, their MMP model has closed regional lists with equity rules for the lists.
If closed lists were the only option of PR available, Justin Trudeau would have a valid reason in opposing PR as most Canadians do not like the idea of closed lists.
The only way closed list can be implemented in Canada is without referendums and even then it would be an unpopular change for the majority of Canadians.
Since Canadians in general have very little knowledge of electoral systems, it may be impossible to establish any form of electoral reform through a process that includes a referendum. Because of the low level of general knowledge in Canada of electoral systems, it will always be easy for the pro-FPTP side to fool voters with half-truths, red herrings, illogical arguments, and outright lies.
So the impediment to implementing electoral reform in Canada does not lie in finding a much better system than FPTP but in finding a suitable political process in which electoral reform can be accomplished.
From our experience in Canada in trying to rid ourselves of the archaic two-party centred FPTP, we have learned that the process of electoral reform should exclude referendums but still include the viewpoints of all Canadians and all political parties. The primary objective of electoral reformers should be establishing a process of implementing electoral reform that takes into consideration the viewpoints of all Canadians, all political parties, and respects the rights of all minority groups. This requires a process of collaboration without a referendum where the democratic rights of minority groups are trampled.
An all-party committee that takes into consideration the viewpoints of all Canadians is probably the most suitable political body to establish electoral reform in Canada.
If the NDP can lead the process of electoral reform after the next election, the primary consideration should be to establish an inclusive, fair, equitable, and expeditious process of electoral reform. If the process of implementing electoral reform is done right, selecting a suitable electoral system should follow automatically.
Please, stick to the issues and leave off on the personal jabs.
It amazes me how quickly the daggers come out from some posters here. Laurin Liu identified the issues, and gave solutions, along with some historical examples. For a six-hundred and twenty-one word article, she skillfully covered a lot of ground. It was a well written article.
I like Laurin Liu. I didn't care for her article. You like her article. Not sure what you think of her, or if you know much about her. Can we not express our opinions without flamboyant hyperbole about being amazed how quickly the daggers came out? Or is her article above criticism?
I made a mistake in reading it, which Wilf corrected. I apologize for that, and I usually read more carefully. But I still don't like the control exercised over caucus members by the party inner circle. The student movement is one example which I used. Not sure what if anything you think about that. Provincial jurisdiction? Too hot to handle? Not important? Just coincidence that she and the others had nothing to say throughout the months of that entire historic movement?
I don't think it would have served any purpose for her to meander and lose focus by discussing issues outside of the main topic of fixing Parliament. So, her identifying issues of Parliament such as the need for better diversity and greater representation, transparency, engagement of the population, power of committees, electoral reform, and greater restrictions on the PMO's office, kept the focus clear. She also included a couple of historical examples. I felt it was a good job for a short article.
If the NDP can lead the process of electoral reform after the next election, the primary consideration should be to establish an inclusive, fair, equitable, and expeditious process of electoral reform. If the process of implementing electoral reform is done right, selecting a suitable electoral system should follow automatically.
Agred. Discussed further here: How to get to the fair voting system: consultation.
Laurin Liu is the youngest woman ever to be elected to parliament. A second year undergrad at McGill, she beat out incumbent Luc Desnoyers, the retired leader of the CAW in Québec, by a massive margin, in a "safe" Bloc seat. She rode her bike to visit her new constituents, having neither car nor driver's licence. This is an amazing woman who can do anything - like many others in her caucus.
By contrast, the youngest woman in Germany's Parliament was 24 when she was elected as a Green Party MP:
Agnieszka Brugger, Student. Born Agnieszka Malczak in Poland February 8 1985, she emigrated with her family to Germany in 1989 and grew up in Dortmund.Graduated from high school in June 2004 at Mallinckrodt, Dortmund; since October 2004, Master's student in political science, public law and philosophy at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen in Baden-Württemberg; since April 2006, fellow of the Heinrich Boell Foundation.
From October 2005 to September 2007 Member of the General Student Committee at the University of Tübingen; October 2005-September 2006 Deputy Chairman of the General Student Committee at the University of Tübingen; October 2006 - September 2007 Member of the Senate of the University of Tübingen; from November 2005 - May 2008 Tübingen County Board member of The Greens: from June 2007 to December 2009 Chair of the Green Youth of Baden-Württemberg; since November 2009 Member of the Green Party Council in Baden-Württemberg.
Since 27 September 2009 Member of the German Bundestag. She was elected as Agnieszka Malczak, but married on 3 December 2011 and was subsequently known as Brugger. On the Bundestag website she calls herself Agnes Brugger.
[img] http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/mdbjpg/b/brugger_agnieszka.jpg [/img]
