Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

[dimsum]

Agree. That there are people who honestly believed that 2015 promise, means there are people who believe words they want to hear over actions most probably not to be taken in their interests.

If only there was a way to require that parties follow on with their platforms. Like “if you ignore x number of platform promises then we immediately go to a vote of non-confidence”.

I see the current party platforms and think to myself “that’s fine, but there is no reason they need to actually follow through with any of them once they’re elected”.

 

[brihard]

If only there was a way to require that parties follow on with their platforms. Like “if you ignore x number of platform promises then we immediately go to a vote of non-confidence”.

I see the current party platforms and think to myself “that’s fine, but there is no reason they need to actually follow through with any of them once they’re elected”.

The entire system is predicated on the memory of the electorate. Any type of compulsory mechanism to force adherence to platforms would be tough to square with parliamentary supremacy. Plus the system needs to be able to adapt to changing events and circumstances.

 

[Good2Golf]

If only there was a way to require that parties follow on with their platforms. Like “if you ignore x number of platform promises then we immediately go to a vote of non-confidence”.

I see the current party platforms and think to myself “that’s fine, but there is no reason they need to actually follow through with any of them once they’re elected”.

Even Wales backtracked on its “charge politicians who break their promise” legislation.

 

[RangerRay]

The winning party is probably less than inclined to enact reforms that gave them the win.

And neither is the current one either.

 

[Good2Golf]

And neither is the current one either.

Although at this point, they might do notably better with proportional representation l…

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Trudeau has lots of time. Constitutionally, there is a five-year limit. Thus, the next election must be before 20 Sep 2026.

Except Bill C-65 proposed by LPC and supported by NDP one time changes to the Act to move the election date from 20 Oct to 27 Oct 2025, thereby allowing 80 MPs to qualify for a full pension.

 

[dapaterson]

Except Bill C-65 proposed by LPC and supported by NDP one time changes to the Act to move the election date from 20 Oct to 27 Oct 2025, thereby allowing 80 MPs to qualify for a full pension.

Not a "full" pension - that is tied to years of service. This permits them to be members of the plan.

A CAF member qualifies for a pension in two years; MPs require a minimum of six years to vest.

A CAF member contributes a maximum of 12.25% of earnings for their pension; MPs contribute 23.34%.

A CAF member with 25 years of paid service can retire and draw their pension regardless of their age without penalty; MPs can draw only at age 55 and are subject to a penalty of 1% for every year below age 65.

Frequently asked questions: Members of Parliament Pension Plan - Canada.ca

Report on the Administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

www.canada.ca

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not a "full" pension - that is tied to years of service. This permits them to be members of the plan.

A CAF member qualifies for a pension in two years; MPs require a minimum of six years to vest.

A CAF member contributes a maximum of 12.25% of earnings for their pension; MPs contribute 23.34%.

A CAF member with 25 years of paid service can retire and draw their pension regardless of their age without penalty; MPs can draw only at age 55 and are subject to a penalty of 1% for every year below age 65.

Frequently asked questions: Members of Parliament Pension Plan - Canada.ca

Report on the Administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

www.canada.ca

So, for MPs that aren’t re-elected, the biggest change an extra week would do is getting a transfer value vs return of contribution?

 

[dapaterson]

So, for MPs that aren’t re-elected, the biggest change an extra week would do is getting a transfer value vs return of contribution?

I suspect that like the CAF a deferred annuity would give access to post retirement medical and dental benefits, so a TV might now be the optimal choice.

There are also pre 2016 benefits which can give rise to a partial benefit on leaving Parliament when vesting conditions are met. This one week extension would only benefit individuals first elected in the 2019 general election and who are therefore fully under the new rules. Anyone elected first in the 2015 general election and still a MP is already vested.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If only there was a way to require that parties follow on with their platforms. Like “if you ignore x number of platform promises then we immediately go to a vote of non-confidence”.

I see the current party platforms and think to myself “that’s fine, but there is no reason they need to actually follow through with any of them once they’re elected”.

Yeah, but ....

1) I think that would lead to VERY broad platform promises that would be easy to wordsmith into success "progress on x", "move forward on y", etc.
2) What about a measure that's, say, 85-90% successful - binary "no" because it's not 100%, binary "yes" because it's pretty much there, or grading on the curve?
3) Imagine what a party with people who's only job is to write words that don't mean what they say, but mean what the political bosses mean them to say, could do re: making it look like "we're getting things done, baby!"

Even Wales backtracked on its “charge politicians who break their promise” legislation.