Canadian Politics Thread

[crazy canuck]

Maybe you have a much lower bar for dysfunctional than I do.  This sort of thing, to me, seems to simply be part of the process.

It is the process that I find to be dysfunctional and so it isnt very pursuasive to me to say that people are just following the process.

Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.

All we have now is a system where power is concentrated in the executive with an eager few seeking to take the position of PM.

[Josephus]

BTW, slightly off topic, but related to.

The New Yorker magazine has an eight page profile on Iggy, by Adam Gopnik. I'll link it, but you need a subscription to view the whole article.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik

[Jacob]

I am not familiar enough with the systems in other jurisdictions to declare them functional.  All I can say is that I am less then pleased with the quality of government we now enjoy here in Canada.

It is the process that I find to be dysfunctional and so it isnt very pursuasive to me to say that people are just following the process.

Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.

All we have now is a system where power is concentrated in the executive with an eager few seeking to take the position of PM.

There's that quote by Churchill about democracy....

In any case, far be it from me to suggest that the system could not be improved.  It can.  From my point of view some sort of proportional representation is the way to go, but I think that cause got killed dead recently for the foreseeable future.

But suggesting the system could be improved and providing concrete suggestions is one thing, complaining that the system is rotten and... just leaving it at that, is another.

I'm not saying it's what you're doing, but I'm not very impressed by complaints of "our system sucks and politicians suck and it just sucks".  To me that's the sound of washing hands and abnegating any responsibility.

If the system is dysfunctional, let's talk about how to make it functional.

If the results are unsatisfying, let's talk about how to make them satisfying, but let's keep in mind there's a big difference between results individuals find satisfying and results that are satisfying for the polity as a whole.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not saying it's what you're doing, but I'm not very impressed by complaints of "our system sucks and politicians suck and it just sucks".  To me that's the sound of washing hands and abnegating any responsibility.

What I can do is be very critical of a politician which falls clearly within that defintion in the hopes that I can pursuade others not to vote for him.  That my friend is democracy.

You will note that my criticism has been squarely directed at Iggy for forcing an election for no purpose other then to attempt to seize power.   There is no issue which has prompted this.  The only issue he had was EI but he backed away on that.

In the circumstances the best way to fix the system is to make sure politicians are punished for this kind of silliness.  Hence the reason for me starting this thread.

[Jacob]

What I can do it be very critical of a politician which falls clearly within that defintion in the hopes that I can pursuade others not to vote for him.  That my friend is democracy.

Absoloutely, and more power to you

You will note that my criticism has been squarely directed at Iggy for forcing an election for no purpose other then to attempt to seize power.   There is no issue which has prompted this.  The only issue he had was EI but he backed away on that.

In the circumstances the best way to fix the system is to make sure politicians are punished for this kind of silliness.  Hence the reason for me starting this thread.

I'm all for that.

You think Iggy's being a douche, that he's being a douche because the systems is less tuned for good governance than you'd like and that you advocate punishing him for his douchery in part as an effort to encourage the system and its participants to be less douchy.  Fair enough, and no complaints from my corner.

My concern was the possible interpretation of your words where the ending was "... but our system is dysfunctional and we can't do anything so I'll just sit here and piss and moan."  But that's not what you meant, so it's all good.  In that case take my words to be aimed more at Buddha's world-weary cynical "they're all a bunch of evil crooks" schtick

For my part, I don't think this particular move is that douchy (though I haven't followed things that closely, so I reserve the right to change my mind ) and thus I don't think it's an indication of a part of the system that needs tuning in this instance.

How it turns out depends, more or less, on to what degree Canadians agree with me or you and the system will adjust itself accordingly.  To me, that's an indication that the system, broadly viewed, is working though I definitely agree that it can do with the continual fine-tuning that results from this sort of process.

[crazy canuck]

BTW, slightly off topic, but related to.

The New Yorker magazine has an eight page profile on Iggy, by Adam Gopnik. I'll link it, but you need a subscription to view the whole article.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_gopnik

I stopped reading here.  If the reporter thinks Iggy is on the brink of "power" then I am not sure the rest of the article is worth my time.

What has led a man who has been called the perfect non-Jewish Jewish intellectual to the brink of power in a model liberal country?

[Valmy]

What has led a man who has been called the perfect non-Jewish Jewish intellectual to the brink of power in a model liberal country?

Maybe he meant on the brink of having the power to enjoy the leadership of Stephen Harper?

[crazy canuck]

Maybe he meant on the brink of having the power to enjoy the leadership of Stephen Harper?

Something Dion was accused of and probably the reason Iggy thinks he has to rattle the election chains.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, I will be an equal opportunity complainer today.

Mr. Kenney however appeared to rule out a deal with the NDP, saying there's little to be gained from the Conservatives negotiating with a left-wing party.

"They never deal with real peoples' money. It's all an abstraction for them and at the end of the day, it's not in the NDP's interest to have an election. They're down in the polls; so are the Liberals."

Its this kind of BS reactionary comment by Conservative types that upsets me and makes my wonder why I voted for them

Wouldnt a more reasonable thing be to say "Although we have major policy differences between us, we are always open to constuctive suggestions from the opposition."

This playground name calling BS isnt good for anyone.  They're worse then Languish for goodness sakes.

[crazy canuck]

Adam Radwanski of the Globe has piece which describes my problem with Iggy.   He quotes from Iggy's speach yesterday and then a news report today saying that he was cancelling his trip to China and then concludes:

I'm no expert. But I'm pretty sure that if you're trying to get past criticism that you lack convictions and are prone to adopting positions of convenience, this might not be the best way.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/china-is-so-yesterday/article1273448/

[saskganesh]

today's Jeffrey Simpson's column charged that he's not serious about the election threat because he's going to China instead of getting ready for the campaign...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/if-we-must-go-to-the-polls-please-no-more-minority-governments/article1272528/

so he gets hit either way you want to write the punchline.

and I guess we can assume the Globe will endorse Harper yet again.

[Neil]

Minority governments (all parliamentary governments for that matter) should be more like debating societies where the merits of policy are considered.

In that case, the best solution would be to pass a law preventing any political party from having more than 30 MPs.  That way, no single party could dominate discourse, there would be more flexibility within Parliament and there would be more than two potential Prime Ministers at any one time.

[Neil]

Its this kind of BS reactionary comment by Conservative types that upsets me and makes my wonder why I voted for them

Wouldnt a more reasonable thing be to say "Although we have major policy differences between us, we are always open to constuctive suggestions from the opposition."

This playground name calling BS isnt good for anyone.  They're worse then Languish for goodness sakes.

Yeah, that's pretty weak.  Granted, I don't actually think there's anything to be gained by negotiating with the NDP, but there's no need to spit in their faces, other than to play to the base.

[Oexmelin]

The strength of a minority government is that the minority parties can push to have their ideas implemented.  In that regard I have to say the NDP are the most effective.  The Liberals have taken a different tact.  They simple cry out "we can do better" and hope people will vote them in without actually presenting any idea as to how they might do things differently.

Indeed, but in this case, I would say that it is more a factor of:

a) both the Libs and the Cons dream about having a majority government. In the mean time, they are both biding their time. In a system where - or in the event that - parties expect to *have* to form coalition, all parties know they are going to make concessions, and they write that balancing act in their own politics. I think that is partly why you see the NDP as more effective: their dreams of being a majority gov. is too far-fetched for them to turn their back at concession-making.

b) both the Libs and the Cons having little to distinguish themselves right now. The Cons seem to me now as more ideological but forced to turn it down a notch. My biggest problem with them is how they lack the guts to do this openly (*here is what we want, here is what we are going to do, and here is how we are going to leave stuff out until we get a majority govnt), and seem to maneuver the pleasing of their base in the small print of the bills.

c) we are in an age where politics seem to boil down to accounting, and the current context reinforces this trend. In this regard, Libs and Cons more or less feel they have to spout the same thing about balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. This has been the new Apple Pie, which everyone say they love, and everyone will accuse their neighbour to dislike, so that, in effect, it means nothing. Because of that, the quality of the choice is lessened, and make elections more and more about political games rather than a healthy mix of political game and ideology.

[crazy canuck]

Good points Oex.

Btw Josephus, the world has truly gone crazy.  I heard Libby Davies interviewed on the radio yesterday in relation to the move by Iggy to try to make the NDP the arbitors of whether we go to the polls and I agreed with everything she had to say.