1. Dems must 'reset' their concept of party discipline so on essential votes there isn't always five or six (or however many are needed to defeat the f'ing thing) who vote with the R's. Seems to me that the five or six are always a slightly different crew from the same bunch, so the heat is distributed. In fact, it seems to me that who'll be "it" at any particular essential vote is decided at meetings.
Party discipline is so lax that I expect defeats, with five or six of the usual suspects hiding out in the small print - this is the norm, not an exception.
On essential gov't business this can only happen *once* in a term of gov't in Canada, after which the country is forced into an election.
non-confidence motion, definition: In Canada, a non-confidence motion is a motion in the House of Commons, which, if passed, means that the government has lost the confidence of the House. The government must then either resign or ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
Votes on the Speech from the Throne and tax and spending bills are automatically considered to be votes of non-confidence.
There's no way that a ruling majority party in Canada could allow the slippage that the Dem powers that be allow on essential matters. Because that'd force an election and believe me, a majority which forces itself into an election due to non-confidence in itself would lose big time.
2. The progressive and moderately left caucus must insist that their voices not only be heard, but be recognized and given equal play. If this doesn't happen, and if it isn't seen to happen, the Dems will lose their base and another party will be invented to represent them.
= new reply since forum marked as read