Ways to fix Question Period in the House of Commons

I have been watching the Canadian house of commons question period on tv and it makes me sick. Politicians are asked questions and they go off on a rant that has nothing to do with the question asked to run out the clock. The speaker of the house should be able to press for an answer as a judge can in a court room. Also I do not see why the members of the party in power get to ask questions of themselves. All it turns into is a chance for them to pad themselves on the back.

Of course politicians of the party in power can ask questions. It isn't a large communistic party you know, they have individual members that can ask questions and hope to get more popular or just get their job done in that way. And the answers they are giving are usually long because they are usually dealing with complicated issues. That's just how the world of politics work.

If politicians would be understood by everybody even the biggest idiots in society that would mean they aren't doing their job in the house right. They are supposed to look at complex issues and you can rarely give easy answers on complex issues. If people want to understand what they are saying they should watch the news or a talk show where they have the ability to use less expensive words and smaller sentences.

And I love your hypocrisy by the way🙂

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course politicians of the party in power can ask questions. It isn't a large communistic party you know, they have individual members that can ask questions and hope to get more popular or just get their job done in that way. And the answers they are giving are usually long because they are usually dealing with complicated issues. That's just how the world of politics work.

If politicians would be understood by everybody even the biggest idiots in society that would mean they aren't doing their job in the house right. They are supposed to look at complex issues and you can rarely give easy answers on complex issues. If people want to understand what they are saying they should watch the news or a talk show where they have the ability to use less expensive words and smaller sentences.

And I love your hypocrisy by the way🙂

You really have no idea what the term "Communism" means.

And no, they don't answer the questions, a member will ask a yes or no question and the opposing side will just blather on for a few minutes to run out the clock and never answer, thats why the speaker should be able to force them to answer as a judge can.

And the government asking itself questions does nothing but serve as PR for the governing party.

Originally posted by Starhawk
You really have no idea what the term "Communism" means.

And no, they don't answer the questions, a member will ask a yes or no question and the opposing side will just blather on for a few minutes to run out the clock and never answer, thats why the speaker should be able to force them to answer as a judge can.

And the government asking itself questions does nothing but serve as PR for the governing party.

Yes or no questions and answers rarely exists in politics, there is always some explaining to do. As to make sure that people can properly understand the situation.

And members of the government can still question other members of the government if they think something is wrong or should be done differently. Forbidding internal criticism will just end up hurting Canada.

It's not criticism, they pad each other on the back.

And in the House, they ask a question, the other side responds, they are allowed two more supplementary questions and get 2 more responses. Now I was watching last night and the member for the PC party asked the liberal a very straight forward yes or no question and then the liberal party member blathered on and the PC member asked again 2 more times and got the exact same answer which didn't address his question at all.

Originally posted by Starhawk
It's not criticism, they pad each other on the back.

And in the House, they ask a question, the other side responds, they are allowed two more supplementary questions and get 2 more responses. Now I was watching last night and the member for the PC party asked the liberal a very straight forward yes or no question and then the liberal party member blathered on and the PC member asked again 2 more times and got the exact same answer which didn't address his question at all.

Do you remember the questions? The discussion or the context of the question?

I have seen plenty of straight forward questions in the Dutch government meetings, and I have rarely seen somebody answer it in a second because it rarely could be done. Admittedly there were times when the answer could have been a simple yes or no, but that happens so rarely...

Logic and Fact for the "win" again...

Okay I will be making a thread about it, it deals with the liberals slush fund. he asked if the minister was going to resign or if he ever offered to resign over the scandal. The minster responded by talking about how much he cares about culture and never addressed a simple question.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Okay I will be making a thread about it, it deals with the liberals slush fund. he asked if the minister was going to resign or if he ever offered to resign over the scandal. The minster responded by talking about how much he cares about culture and never addressed a simple question.

Logically, the minister has a lot of issues to deal with. He has to look at a lot of other things and to simply say yes or no would just serve to create a disturbance. If instead he gives reasoning for a possible decision and what are in his eyes more important things he can simply get back to the subject at a later date, where he is more informed and knows what to do better.

Except for the fact that the person asking the question even told him they understand all of that be could he simply answer the question and still the same answer. I think it would improve the quality of these question periods if the speaker could force an answer.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Except for the fact that the person asking the question even told him they understand all of that be could he simply answer the question and still the same answer. I think it would improve the quality of these question periods if the speaker could force an answer.

I don't, I think it would over simplify politics something that is happening to much already. And it would in the end only serve populist politicians who want to get votes above all else.

No, it would stop the BS that goes on and force them to be accountable.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No, it would stop the BS that goes on and force them to be accountable.

The bullshit is often necessary. A simple question can easily be explained in a dozen ways and the answer often in three dozen more. Complicated issues usually require complicated questions and complicated answers. Over simplification serves nobody but populists.

Asking whether or not a person is going to resign or has ever offered to resign does not require a complicated answer.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Asking whether or not a person is going to resign or has ever offered to resign does not require a complicated answer.

Of course it does, assume the person is going to resign and says he is then everybody will know. Result a slight form of chaos, assume the person offered his resignation but it was denied, result heavy criticism on the boss of this person and possible responsibility for that one as well.

If the person did not plan to resign then that could be used against him, and if the person was told to quit but refused to do so that would certainly cause a scandal. No matter what the answer it would work badly for him at this moment in time. Instead he or she should just ignore the question and continue with pressing matters until the investigation is done.

I don't care if it looks bad for them, they should tell the truth and be accountable to the public.

I heard the best way to fix a period is to get surgery so you don't get them anymore.

Originally posted by Starhawk
I don't care if it looks bad for them, they should tell the truth and be accountable to the public.

No they shouldn't, they should serve their country and protect it's best interest at all times. Sometimes they need to hide a few things in situations like this. The truth will come out soon enough anyway, there is no reason to put the country into a larger crisis then they have now just because he answers a in my eyes completely irrelevant question.

Gee for a freedom loving person you seem to like the idea that the government can do what they want and not have to answer to you a bit too much for my tastes.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Gee for a freedom loving person you seem to like the idea that the government can do what they want and not have to answer to you a bit too much for my tastes.

I love freedom and that's why I love his right to ignore the question and continue with more important things. The question is irrelevant at this moment in time and would serve no purpose but to create more trouble. For him to answer it would be nice, but entirely stupid. I like my representatives smart as well...

Maybe that's just me though...