political party rigidity

Only in Canada you say? Perhaps you have wondered, like me, why--- given the substantial number of Canadians who have consistently told pollsters that they want lower immigration levels---there isn't a single MP in any party who will take up their cause. Not one. At least four MPs from two different parties in the UK have done so, and in Australia, Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has loudly spoken out for lower population numbers and a cut in migration levels. But there is not a whisper about reducing immigration numbers from the trained seals on either side of the aisle in Canada's House of Commons. Why not?

Party scrutiny of politicians screens out 'surprises'

At least part of the answer, I think, came up during a panel discussion on CBC news ("The National") last night February 25th. Panellists were asked how various nominees for the three major parties are "vetted" so that there are no embarrassing "surprises" that emerge during the election campaign. They told host Peter Mansbridge that nowadays, candidates' lives are intensely scrutinized. There is a search for every possible skeleton in every possible closet. Everything they have done or said in the past is investigated. Even ex-wives or ex-husbands are approached for information, if they can be.

Since being "anti-immigration" in Canada is regarded as a sin equal to pedophilia or murder, you can imagine that anyone who is on record of making any negative comment about immigration or any class of immigrants is subject to instant excommunication from the party. There is not a chance that such an individual could ever survive as a nominee if such "racist" feelings were to come to light. Not a chance. And if it is somewhere on the Internet, it is there forever and it will be found. The party brass will hunt you down and ferret you out.

That is true of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. What about the Greens, you ask? No worries there. Obviously you can't run for the Green Party unless you are certified open-borders moron and Islamopanderer.

Pity you need to be Swiss to have Swiss-style direct democracy

My answer? We need Swiss-style direct democracy. An end to the monopoly of political parties. That should be the first reform.

But then, to bring that about, you would need to work within one of the major parties, who have a vested interest in maintaining the party system. Good luck with that. You wouldn't even get your foot in the door. Start a new party? Forget it. It has been tried. It is a ticket to oblivion. You need at least 35% of the popular vote and a bucket money just to win one seat, and without a seat, you have no profile at all.

The only option is to become a Swiss citizen. But the recent referendum has shown us that the Swiss, wisely, will not have us.