Canadians really don't understand the political system, it turns out
A new survey for the Dominion Institute taken in the aftermath of this month's political crisis suggests a woeful ignorance when it comes to our system of government.
For example, results of the Ipsos Reid survey show 75 per cent of Canadians asked believe the prime minister, or the Governor General, is head of state. Bzzzz — wrong
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081214.wdohcanada1214/BNStory/politics/home
So it seems that what a lot of us supposed in the discussion about the coalition is true - Canadians don't generally well understand how they're governed and so perhaps have some false expectations.
Comments
No they didn't say that- they said the meeting was productive. That's a bit like say I really like summer. Meaningless.
What they did do is come out of the meeting demanding 'honest' numbers from the government. In parliamentary terms that is the equivalent of saying liar, liar pants on fire.
Bookish I am convinced that enough libs will have diplomatic flu so the budget goes through whether Iggy officiall endorses it or not.
Unless you hear the Libs say die you damn tory scum the budget will pass
Today was the first step in operation kill the coalition and help the tories
My take on democratic government in Canada. Comments appreciated.
Is there a crisis inOttawa?
Yes, the government haslost the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons. Instead ofresigning, it is holding on to power.
But don’t the peopleelect the government?
The people elect parliament,parliament decides who forms the government.
Don’t people vote forthe leader they prefer?
Some do, for sure, butvotes are counted in 308 ridings for parliament. The eventual prime minister isonly on the ballot in his or her riding. Candidates are listed with their partyaffiliation. It is safe to say people vote for the party of their choice. Whois the leader may help them choose. Also some people choose their favoriteindividual candidate from among those on the ballot.
How does parliamentchoose who forms the government?
The party that wins themost seats is asked to form a government by the Governor General. When no onewins a majority of seats, a minority government takes office. With four partiesin the House of Commons, we are likely to see even more minority parliaments. Amajority government only needs the support of its own members of parliament.A minority government needs continual support from members of other parties.
How can the Liberal leaderbecome prime minister?
Two parties (Liberals andNDP) that together won 44 per cent of the vote in the last election did sign anagreement to form a coalition government. A third party (Bloc Québeçois) hasagreed not to defeat the coalition in the House of Commons. Together the threeparties won 62 per cent of the vote. The Liberals have more seats than the NDP,so the Liberal leader will lead the coalition government.
Could a leader rejectedin the last election become prime minister?
Canadians do not elect aprime minister in the way Americans elect a president. Canadians vote forcandidates put forward by parties. Parties choose their leaders. The Liberalleader who negotiated the coalition was re-elected in his riding, not rejected,in the last election. Then he resigned as leader, and was replaced by someoneselected by his party.
Is the coalitionproposal a coup d’etat as Stephen Harper says?
No, of course not. A coupd’état ocurrs when an unelected group, say the military, takes power. It isnormal democratic practice for the Governor General to invite a party leader toform a government. They remain prime minister only so long as they are able tomaintain the confidence of the House. Harper was afraid to face parliament sohe asked the Governor General for permission to suspend it.
Why did the Governor Generalagree that parliamentary business be suspended?
The Governor General is notelected, and is obliged to take advice from the prime minister. She made himwait while reflecting on her course of action, but she is obliged to follow hisadvice so long as he remains prime minister.
How can Stephen Harperbe replaced as prime minister?
Should he be defeated inthe House of Commons he would have to resign as prime minister. In aparliamentary democracy when the prime minister resigns, the Governor Generalcan ask the leader of the opposition to form a government. All the members wereelected, and all are eligible to be part of a government.
What happens if in 2009 theHouse of Commons votes non-confidence in the Harper government?
If the House votesnon-confidence, either on the Speech from the Throne or more likely the budget,a money bill, the prime minister must tender his resignation to the GovernorGeneral. The outgoing prime minister may request an election.
Must the non-elected GovernorGeneral do what the prime minister wants?
The Governor General maygrant dissolution (parliament is dissolved) and set an election on the datesuggested by the outgoing prime minister. If the defeat in the House was at theearliest occasion, the request to dissolve would be likely be denied, if theleader of the opposition could show the Governor General he or she could form agovernment with a reasonable expectation that it would maintain the confidenceof the House.
Why would the GovernorGeneral turn to the leader of the opposition?
The late constitutionalexpert Eugene Forsey claimed that a prime minister had no right to brow beatthe public by threatening elections just to hold onto power. A prime ministermust maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Once it is lost, shortlyafter an election, it is in the parliamentary tradition for the House to ask,through the Governor General, if someone else can maintain the confidence ofthe House.
Does the GovernorGeneral have the power to name a new prime minister?
No, the House of Commonsdecides who is to become prime minister. If a majority of members show theirwillingness to support a new prime minister, the Governor General accedes tothe request of the House. Her, or his, only role is to decide if the request isgenuine.
Can the Governor General goagainst the wishes of House of Commons?
TheGovernor General can decide the proposed coalition is not stable enough tolast, and rule in favour of an election instead. In other words the GovernorGeneral can decide to heed the advice of the outgoing prime minister if he orshe requests an election.
So what power has the GovernorGeneral over parliament?
Noindependent power, in reality. The Governor General must accede to the wishesof parliament at all times. A strict constitutional interpretation suggeststhat the Governor General must follow the advice of the prime minister evenfollowing a parliamentary defeat, except when the defeat occurs at the earliestopportunity. In that case the Governor General can freely turn to the leader ofthe opposition to try and form a government.
How likely is it in 2009 that the Governor General willcall upon the Leader of the Opposition to form a government?
Canada will very likelyhave a coalition government if the Harper government is defeated on a motion ofconfidence in January. The longer the opposition props up the government, themore likely the Governor General will grant an election request when thegovernment is eventually defeated.
So what has this got todo with democracy?
Elections are about voters,not parties or governments. The population is sovereign in choosing itsparliament. The constitution says we have to have elections to parliament.Parliamentary democracy says the majority rules. Without a parliamentarymajority a prime minister must resign. That is how democracy works in Canada.
Suppose no party cancommand a majority?
This is the democraticoutcome of the election. In Canada today this means the parties have to fashioncoalitions, or to work together issue by issue. In either case our parties haveto learn to work together. In a two party parliament, the opposition yells atthe government and the government yells back. In this new situation the partiesneed to behave more seriously and with more civility. That is what StephenHarper forgot.
To the extent that the coalition has an agenda, it is that much further ahead than Harper, who hardly had a platform during the election and hasn't added anything meaningful to it, aside from attacking democracy, labour, and women.
Good Q&A Duncan, with a caveat.
I think just about any kind of Q&A is only useful for the say 25% of the population that pays fairly close attention to politics. Things went over the heads of even those folks recently, but they have a working basis to be able to catch up. This Q&A speaks to them, but I'd say only them.
No idea what kind of messaging would take to get through to the rest- who I think would include the bulk of the universe of supporters. My gut hunch: that it would take so much work, and over a long term, which is the sort of thin no one on the left does... and if we did, there are bigger priorities.
But that bay be an excessively wet blanket.
My take on democratic government in Canada. Comments appreciated.
- People didn't reject the idea of Stephane Dion becoming Prime Minister because they don't understand how Parliamentary systems work. They rejected the idea of Stephane Dion becoming Prime Minister because they reject Stephane Dion. No one wants him to be Prime Minister. Even his own party.
- People don't think the Caoltion is anti-democratic because Stephen Harper calls it a "coup d'etat". They think it's anti-democratic because it's not an outcome they want and the Liberal party explicitly promised it would never happen.
- People aren't confused by the Governor General's powers. They just believe, rightly, that she (or he) should be able to install a new government that has no popular support even if the rules technically allow her to do it.
From Bob Rae's cheerleading to the contempt for popular opinion, this is feeling a lot like the debate around Meech Lake all over again.
I think KenS is right. Most Canadians won't respond to arguments about the Parliamentary tradition. We need to start talking about jobs and economic security again. Layton's trying to get back on track.
So (1) I don't doubt that you're a card-carrying New Democrat (2) I think attacking Harper for being a racist who doesn't respect Parliamentary traditions is not too accurate and, more importantly, not going to get the NDP far (3) A majority of Canadians do not believe the Liberals have a mandate to govern in coalition with the Bloc and that is a problem (4) Regardless of how you feel, many NDP voters disagree with you including, notably, the Leader of the BCNDP and the Leader of the Manitoba NDP who are scrambling to distance themselves from the proposal (5) There's a difference between losing support on a principle and losing support because your naked desire for Cabinet seats is rendering you unelectable. If you can point me to a single thing the Coalition will do that Harper's not currently scrambling to do please point it out. My enthusiasm for this thing waned inexorably the second I saw the anemic "accord"
My point at (2) was to indicate that interpreting polls involves more than looking at raw data and screaming that the sky is falling. Part of poll interpretation is considering the various factors. Here, one of the factors is that Harper has deliberately fanned the flames of bigotry and that he has deliberately lied about parliamentary tradition. I wasn't proposing an ad campaign to say so. There is no polling trend here to assess. We have one off polls from several companies taken around the same time and asking the same questions. A month after Stephane Dion became Liberal leader, we had polls showing he'd sweep the country.
I respectfully suggest that sound political analysis has to run a little deeper than running around with your hair on fire.
I agree the issue is the economic emergency. Harper played games with the economic update. He attacked the NDP on the right to strike and employment equity and the Liberals on party financing. He was not serious on either front, secure in the belief the Bloc had no option but to support the Conservatives to avoid an election. Surprise, a coalition developed.
The Q&A is just to help with political education, now that the Conservative propaganda machine is blowing full out against the coalition with the full support of every main stream media outlet.
Vive rabble.ca.
My take on democratic government in Canada. Comments appreciated.
Is there a crisis inOttawa?
Yes, the government haslost the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons. Instead ofresigning, it is holding on to power.
No, technically the government hasn't lost the confidence of the House until it has lost a confidence vote. The crisis in Ottawa is that Harper has misused a procedural prerogative in order to avoid losing a confidence vote.
Two parties (Liberals andNDP) that together won 44 per cent of the vote in the last election did sign anagreement to form a coalition government. A third party (Bloc Québeçois) hasagreed not to defeat the coalition in the House of Commons. Together the threeparties won 62 per cent of the vote. The Liberals have more seats than the NDP,so the Liberal leader will lead the coalition government.
The popular vote percentages are irrelevant for this purpose. The only thing that counts is the number of seats for each party in the House.
The Governor General is notelected, and is obliged to take advice from the prime minister. She made himwait while reflecting on her course of action, but she is obliged to follow hisadvice so long as he remains prime minister.
The fact that the GG is not elected has nothing to do with it. It's all based on constitutional convention. Stephen Harper wasn't "elected" either, as everyone is at pains to point out.
As for making him wait, she didn't make him wait very long if at all. She didn't even wait to hear from the opposition leaders before making her decision.
Was she "obliged" to say yes to prorogation? There is respectable legal opinion that says she had the option to refuse a prorogation unless Harper could show he had the confidence of the House. A categorical answer to this question is therefore inappropriate.
Should he be defeated inthe House of Commons he would have to resign as prime minister. In aparliamentary democracy when the prime minister resigns, the Governor Generalcan ask the leader of the opposition to form a government. All the members wereelected, and all are eligible to be part of a government.
Not quite accurate. It’s not a matter of a personal defeat for the PM, but of a defeat of the government on a confidence matter. Also, Prime Ministers can resign without triggering a change of government; Chretien resigned and Paul Martin became PM without a change of government or an election.
Also, the GG does not have to turn to the leader of the opposition to form a government, although in practice that is what happens; it is possible to imagine a scenario in which neither the PM nor the Leader of the Opposition could command the confidence of the House, but a coalition of minor parties could. Indeed, your statement above in another answer was more accurate: "It is normal democratic practice for the Governor General to invite a party leader to form a government."
The late constitutionalexpert Eugene Forsey claimed that a prime minister had no right to brow beatthe public by threatening elections just to hold onto power. A prime ministermust maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Once it is lost, shortlyafter an election, it is in the parliamentary tradition for the House to ask,through the Governor General, if someone else can maintain the confidence ofthe House.
The first sentence seems to be non-responsive to the question and should be omitted.
More important, however, the House doesn’t ask “through the Governor-General”. She doesn’t take direction from the House. Rather, the GG asks the Party leaders whether an alternative government can be formed. There is no mechanism for the House to ask anything of the GG.
No, the House of Commonsdecides who is to become prime minister. If a majority of members show theirwillingness to support a new prime minister, the Governor General accedes tothe request of the House. Her, or his, only role is to decide if the request isgenuine.
The House of Commons only decides indirectly who is to be PM. It's not like electing a Speaker.
And again, it's not a matter of "acceding to the request of the House". There is no "request" from the House.
Noindependent power, in reality. The Governor General must accede to the wishesof parliament at all times. A strict constitutional interpretation suggeststhat the Governor General must follow the advice of the prime minister evenfollowing a parliamentary defeat, except when the defeat occurs at the earliestopportunity. In that case the Governor General can freely turn to the leader ofthe opposition to try and form a government.
Again, the fallacy of the GG acceding to the wishes of Parliament. Her only obligation, such as it is, is to accede to the wishes of the PM. "Parliament" does not get a say.
Canada will very likelyhave a coalition government if the Harper government is defeated on a motion ofconfidence in January. The longer the opposition props up the government, themore likely the Governor General will grant an election request when thegovernment is eventually defeated.
I don't think anybody can say with any confidence what the GG will "very likely" do if the government is defeated.
This is the democraticoutcome of the election. In Canada today this means the parties have to fashioncoalitions, or to work together issue by issue. In either case our parties haveto learn to work together. In a two party parliament, the opposition yells atthe government and the government yells back. In this new situation the partiesneed to behave more seriously and with more civility. That is what StephenHarper forgot.
So why are the Harpers afraid to show up for work? They have 22 percent of registered voter support under them. That should count for something, shouldnt it? Steve "Im a bigger lap poodle for Crazy George than Paul was" Harpers should be strutting around parliament like the cocks of the North instead of hiding out at the Eagle's nest tavern at Mont Tremblanc and quenching themselves with apres perogie beverages
"off topic- but how does one semi-retire from being a philosopher?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic again, but you would have to read a daily paper in southern Ontario on a regular basis to appreciate the impact of this fellow on the readership. A "tell it like it is" piece on the PM like I've only seen in babble threads. Imagine the effect of his piece on the ignorance quotient along the valley of the Grand!
Somehow, he slipped through the process by which this newspaper - subsidiary of Torstar - selects members of its community editorial board.I'm sure they have attached this bit of bio to the end of his op-ed piece just by way of apologizing for his scurrilous jottings. "A philosopher" after all.
They made the mistake a couple of time before, once with this scribbler and earlier, with a sociology prof. Usually, now, only writers of homilies need to bother applying for a spot on the community editorial board.
The increasing distance of babblers from readers of the "dead tree" journals is further reflected in the continuing concern for correctness when commenting on the level of political understanding "out there." And that is why the conservatives infiltrating politically correct space, have a field day.
If you can't, like Joe Bageant, say the rednecks in your community are vulnerable to conservative nastiness because they are "dumb as a bag of hair," your hands are rather tied. And all he's saying, of course, is that it's a learned condition.
David Hume would concur - nasty materialist that he was).
Hey George
I wasn’t criticizing- I was curious. It seemed like an odd term to me since there is no retirement date on thinking and philosophising.
Anyway, that paper is about as bad as the other southwestern daily of note owned by Sun Media. I only read the sports sections of both with any interest now as they are just regurgitations of their parent papers with a little bit of local news and accidents to sell them as ‘local’.
"Anyway, that paper is about as bad as the other southwestern daily of note owned by Sun Media. I only read the sports sections of both with any interest now as they are just regurgitations of their parent papers with a little bit of local news and accidents to sell them as ‘local’. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And the dumbing down progresses. But, certainly for the "dead tree" journal reader, at no greater pace than the "idiot box" watcher. Wonder what ever happened to THAT term?
And, of course, the Globe and Mail is in an information category by itself. Indispensable. As long as you never expect to find the acronym NDP mentioned in its pages.
(Edit. No, the Record is nowhere near as bad as the Sun or Post products. Although it did go through a Black period when M'lady Barbara wrote vicious little pieces for the op-ed. Torstar takeover was good,but it has become very hungry for ads lately as its subscription base and ads diminish - like everywhere else.)
I think it's pretty meaningless to set 1990 as a base year if we're not clear what the target is relative to the base year. For example, the Liberals could say that they are willing to reduce GHG emissions to triple the levels of the base year by 2099.
As always, the devil is in the details, but if we take a look at what other governments, including foreign governments and provinces within Canada are doing, a target for reductions of between 50-80% by 2050 seems likely. Now, there are a number of problems with that, not the least of which is that they could very easily say all the reductions will happen a couple decades from now when they no longer have to take responsibility for them. And, based on the reading I've done, 80% by 2050 is almost certainly too small a reduction too late into the century. But it is a very important step considering that the last Liberal government failed to implement even the minimal reductions required under Kyoto and our current Conservative government is run by someone who thinks that AGW is a socialist conspiracy. An initial target like the one I've mentioned could be used as a starting point to help push for more meaningful action, and we could use it to hold the government accountable.
On that point, you are entirely correct.
Not surprising. Most Quebecers seem to think that having the Queen as the symbolic head of state holds them back as a "nation". A presidential republic could be just as dissipatedly undemocratic.
It's not the office that make policy as much as the people in it, as Governor-General Michaelle Jean has just shown.
I'm not sure that being able to correctly label our sysem of governance "constitutional monarchy" indicates much understanding of it, just as knowing that World War I ended in 1918 doesn't mean you know much about World War I. The Dominion Institute is a cranky organization that wants our schools to return to rote learning of dates and "important people".
The only question asked which is mildly revealing is that most Canadians assume they're voting directly for Prime Minister. Then again, in most meaningful ways, they are doing exactly that. Canadians clearly understand that they don't vote directly for the PM (otherwise they'd be paralyzed with confusion when they went into the voting booth and didn't see Harper's name on the ballot) but they obviously interpreted the question to mean that they vote for the party whose Leader they like when they cast their ballot.
So, is this accidental?
How has this come to be?
I'm not sure that being able to correctly label our sysem of governance "constitutional monarchy" indicates much understanding of it, just as knowing that World War I ended in 1918 doesn't mean you know much about World War I. The Dominion Institute is a cranky organization that wants our schools to return to rote learning of dates and "important people".
The only question asked which is mildly revealing is that most Canadians assume they're voting directly for Prime Minister. Then again, in most meaningful ways, they are doing exactly that. Canadians clearly understand that they don't vote directly for the PM (otherwise they'd be paralyzed with confusion when they went into the voting booth and didn't see Harper's name on the ballot) but they obviously interpreted the question to mean that they vote for the party whose Leader they like when they cast their ballot.
Spot on criticism of the Dominion Institute. For a survey about a system of government based on "convention" and "precedent" -- their questions are suprisingly literalist. (But I suppose that goes with the "important dates" slant).
In fact, the unwritten convention is that we are voting directly for the PM when we vote for a local candidate. The understanding is that the party of the person you vote for will allow its leader to command the government (if they form it). Like you say, Canadians implicitly get this.
And except for the concept of the crown in law, and the relationship of the crown to the First Nations, Canada is pretty much a republic now. Except for the monarchists, who are another group of cranks.
The CEO of the Dominion Institute, Rudyard Griffiths, also uses his position to advocate for two tier medicare, imperalist wars, and even the elimination of the public subsidy for political parties (this was before the current crisis). The Institute even had some kind things to say about Conrad Black during his trial.
I treat everything they do with scepticism.
Voters can use any logic they want when they make their selection. But the fact remains that the vote they cast goes to their candidate and not to the leader of the party.
It's no wonder so many Canadians were up in arms about the coalition. It was the PM himself throwing confustion about Canada's own parliamentary system. This should be self-evident that Harper should not be the leader of any party if he can't represent the Canadian political system properly.
Here's another right-wing connection.
Marc Chalifoux, president of the Dominion Institute and quoted in the article, appears to have been a spokesman for the Ignatieff campaign during the 2006 leadership race.
He's mention on this Liberal blog:
Marc Chalifoux, Media Relations for Michael Ignatieff, at (613) 863-8005 marc.chalifoux@mobile.michaelignatieff.ca
And mentioned in this old press release (on the carbon tax):
Unveiling his policy, Ignatieff said federal taxes on transportation fuels should be restructured to be heavier on those like gasoline and diesel that emit more carbon and lighter on cleaner natural gas and propane.
The restructured fuel taxes would be revenue-neutral -- ending up with the same tax bite.
'We're using tax policy to incentivize good behavior,' said Marc Chalifoux, a spokesman for Ignatieff, who is a former Harvard professor.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same guy.
Blah, blah, blah.
It matters little who made up the survey. The fact is they are right. It has been abundantly clear during this bickerfest that most Canadians know exactly zilch about our government system and how it works. It has even been evident on babble that people who think they are very smart don't get it either.
That Harper deliberately played on peoples ignorance and worse impulses is the clearest indication he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Well, let it be recorded that I agree with Bookish Agrarian! I would only add that I think Harper would prefer an American system and convincing people that we already have one is half the battle.
What was also interesting was that the ignorance of Quebecers - who strongly support the coalition - score lowest on how the system works.
I'm not sure that being able to correctly label our sysem of governance "constitutional monarchy" indicates much understanding of it,
No. But not being able to correctly label our system of government a "constitutional monarchy" is absolute and unassailable proof of having NO understanding of it.
I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop.
While Coalition advocates argued Parliamentary procedure, Harper focussed on the fact that Dion would be Prime Minister and the Bloc would have an unspecified veto - and that scared people.
It's technically true that the House of Commons has every right to choose any one they like as their Prime Minister. However a majority of Canadians feel - quite fairly - that this is not what they voted for. People who voted NDP thought they were voting for Jack as Prime Minister (he wasn't running to be Minister of Industry in a Dion Cabinet). People who voted Liberal were told explicitly there would be no coalition with the NDP. No one campaigned on forming a government with the Bloc.
Moreover, as many Parliamentary scholars have noted, the Queen chooses her Prime Minister immediately after the election of members to the House. If there's any doubt about that person's ability to form a government with confidence of the House it's tested in the Throne Speech. This happened after last months election and Harper's Throne Speech passed a confidence vote. So it's not a given that the Queen, through the Governor General, would hand power to the Coalition. The current Prime Minister, who had the House's confidence, would advise against it and that advice carries some weight under Parliamentary tradition.
So, with all this being so, when Harper says the Coalition has no mandate to govern people feel this is accurate - and whining that the traditions of Parliamentary democracy dictate differently doesn't endear you to ordinary Canadians.
I voted NDP and I voted knowing that Jack would not be pm. Just so you know. I am sure very few ndp people expected jack to be pm. So horsepoop on that part of your idea. Canadians if they get a coalition have sfa choice in the matter. You think canadians are happy with Harper?
Most of us abhorr him even the opinion writers in the conservative newspapers.
Canadians voted individually, collectively they voted for a left of center coalition. Whether they realized it or not beforehand is not important. It is out of their hands now so all these polls are just attempts to hijack the discussions that are taking place. The polls are an antidemocratic factor.
There is incredible pressure to misrepresent polls and to release the 1 out of 20 that is inaccurate just to repay the piper payer and get their business again.
I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop.
While Coalition advocates argued Parliamentary procedure, Harper focussed on the fact that Dion would be Prime Minister and the Bloc would have an unspecified veto - and that scared people.
It's technically true that the House of Commons has every right to choose any one they like as their Prime Minister. However a majority of Canadians feel - quite fairly - that this is not what they voted for. People who voted NDP thought they were voting for Jack as Prime Minister (he wasn't running to be Minister of Industry in a Dion Cabinet). People who voted Liberal were told explicitly there would be no coalition with the NDP. No one campaigned on forming a government with the Bloc.
Moreover, as many Parliamentary scholars have noted, the Queen chooses her Prime Minister immediately after the election of members to the House. If there's any doubt about that person's ability to form a government with confidence of the House it's tested in the Throne Speech. This happened after last months election and Harper's Throne Speech passed a confidence vote. So it's not a given that the Queen, through the Governor General, would hand power to the Coalition. The current Prime Minister, who had the House's confidence, would advise against it and that advice carries some weight under Parliamentary tradition.
So, with all this being so, when Harper says the Coalition has no mandate to govern people feel this is accurate - and whining that the traditions of Parliamentary democracy dictate differently doesn't endear you to ordinary Canadians.
A few points:
- I'm baffled that people could be nominal supporters of the New DEMOCRATIC Party and have such utter disdain for where people are actually at. The fact that the Coalition is being roundly rejected should, at least, cause us to pause. Instead, like some cartoon villain, coalition-boosters sneer that Canadian opinion isn't important. "We've got their votes! It's none of their business what we do with them! Ha ha ha!"
- A lot of New Democrat voters, particularly in Western Canada, loathe the Liberals as much or more than the Tories. Layton's pretending they don't exist and he's losing support.
- Are you seriously claiming that all of these pollsters are part of some vast conspiracy to misrepresent public opinion? If so, can we trust the corporate newspapers and corporate media that have reported these events as they unfolded? Can you trust the computer screen you're reading this on? Or was it too bought from a CORPORATION?
A few points back.
- First, I'm not a "nominal" supporter of the New Democratic Party, thanks.
- Second, public opinion on a matter should give us pause - as should the fact that much of that public opinion has been based on lies, ethnic-baiting and demagoguery by a Prime Minister who knowingly and delibeately has misrepresented the facts of our parliamentary system.
- Third, there are any number of entirely coherent reasons why some people - perhaps even some progressives - might oppose this coalition. The bullshit about it being undemocratic is simply not one of those valid reasons, and those who argue it merely prove their own ignorance - or their own dishonesty.
- Fourth, as one of those New Democrats who despises the Liberals as much or more than the Conservatives, I don't believe your bullshit that Jack Layton is ignoring me.
- The pollsters, overall, present a reasonably accurate view of public opinion. Polls conducted soon after Pierre Trudeau declared martial law in 1970 similarly showed that his fascist tactics were popular. Your point?
Malcolm, how you, and other dyed-in-the-wool partisans feel doesn't concern me much. I am, however, concerned by the fact that public-opinion pollsters have the NDP losing as much as a third of their popular support over the last couple weeks. I suppose you could argue that this is only because English Canadians are racist francophobes but I think it's a little too pat (not to mention that it conveniently ignores the fact that ALL the federalist parties attack the "separatists" when it suits them).
So (1) I don't doubt that you're a card-carrying New Democrat (2) I think attacking Harper for being a racist who doesn't respect Parliamentary traditions is not too accurate and, more importantly, not going to get the NDP far (3) A majority of Canadians do not believe the Liberals have a mandate to govern in coalition with the Bloc and that is a problem (4) Regardless of how you feel, many NDP voters disagree with you including, notably, the Leader of the BCNDP and the Leader of the Manitoba NDP who are scrambling to distance themselves from the proposal (5) There's a difference between losing support on a principle and losing support because your naked desire for Cabinet seats is rendering you unelectable. If you can point me to a single thing the Coalition will do that Harper's not currently scrambling to do please point it out. My enthusiasm for this thing waned inexorably the second I saw the anemic "accord"
Please first of all its not Harper that put the separatist words in Canadians mouths it was the Bloc as that is what they represent to most Canadians someone who does not wish to belong. And as much as I think its grand they are now into Unity it sure would have been wonderful if they were out here in western Canada making us aware of their intentions of being one with Canada. Is that what they are saying now? Because in all honesty here in Western Canada its the first I have heard of it and when you are a party running for Federal office it would have been grand if they would have let us in on it. And the NDP I'm really disappointed in as Layton had some right on ideas for Canadians and what they needed. I don't believe bailing out the auto industry without ridding itself of the unions is one of Layton's better ideas. As unions got to go and employees may have to decide how important that union is to them as very real possibility companies go under as American thinks twice about bailout and unions unnecessary baggage taking them down.
Mybabble, just to answer a couple of your questions:
1. The Bloc favours independence of Québec. That means having a country separate from you. Let the rest of the good people in your part of "Western Canada" know, please, because I know how confusing politics can get.
2. I'm told some cotton planters in the U.S. once commissioned a study saying that if the slaves were freed, the cotton industry would no longer be globally competitive.
As a worker, I'd rather have unions and no auto industry, rather than an auto industry with no unions. I understand you consider unions as "unnecessary baggage". I never did like to travel light, however.
Thanks for your concern about Canada and the economy. Wish everyone Happy Holidays out there for me! And remember 1919!
"I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop."
There is nothing snobbish about pointing out that people know diddly squat about our governance system. Hell I am a best ambivalent about a coalition (although I am convincable probably) and I can still see that Harper's entire line of attack was based on lies and misrepresentation.
Some issues I am glad you and others were not advising us on (in no particular order)
1. the end of slavery
2. women getting the vote
3. universal health care
4. old age pensions
5. our own Canadian flag
6. criminal justice reform
7. gay and lesbian rights
8. the end to capital punishment
9. pay equity
10. right to organize a union (another topic with a high degree of misunderstanding)
and so on.
Absolutely, Harper has lied point blank about our political system in order to try to whip up public opposition to the coalition. My main reason for supporting the coalition is because I think Canadians need an education on what representative democracy actually means. A PM that can't count to 155 shouldn't have the job, the fact he defended his position by spreading falsehoods about our democratic system just makes his removal that much more important.
I think equating Cabinet Seats for the NDP with women's suffrage and the end of slavery is wrong, in a lot of ways.
Again, if someone can point to something in the "Accord" that Harper's not already doing or going to do I'll whine less. I just don't see any grand issues at stake. In fact, as far as the Accord goes, I don't see anything in there at all.
Yes that was what I was doing. It couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the stupidity of living or dying by snap polls to determine action. Where is that roll eyes emoticon when I need it.
It really doesn't matter if there is anything in the Accord. Any Government (read PM + Cabinet) who can garner the support of 155 members of the House is the legitimate Government of Canada.
Its a reality of our political agenda that the only way that you lose power is by losing the confidence of the house of commons. "Not having an agenda as a country heads into a recession" is a bad thing, but it doesn't in and of itself prevent anyone from forming a government.
Elmer J.Thiessen, writing an op-ed this morning for the Waterloo Region Record, calls Harper "unethical", hypocritical and "immoral" (Thiessen is a "semi-retired philosopher, theologian, writer and lecturer.")
"We desperately need a principled government that supports an ethical form of capitalism."
And the electorate?
"What we are equally desperately in need of is a voting citizenry that has an open and critical mind, and a working conscience."
off topic- but how does one semi-retire from being a philosopher?
You ignore Hume and Hegel, Heidegger and all of the other H philosophers.
That's hardly semi-retired! After Husserl, Habermas and Hobbes, all that's left is Plato, Kant and Joe the Plummer.
This is not really a suprise when you consider the number of people who thought that the coalition was a done deal and that the three opposition parties only had to show that they could govern to have the GG take them up on the offer.
Many Canadians just do not know what the GG does, and how the system really works.
It has been fun listening to my friends and co-workers try to convince each other on what should, could will happen
I am concerned that members of our governing party were running around spreading false information about our constitution in order to rile people up in support of themselves. They were leading people to believe following the constitution was not democratic.
I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop.
Presumably any rational person would like a disagreement to end in one of two ways: either they convince the other person to switch sides, or they see some evidence that changes their own mind. The first one requires that you understand why the other side has a different opinion. And if one of the main reasons is that they are uninformed about the topic about which you disagree, then that is entirely relevant. I mean, you can call that attitude snobbish if you want, but I really don't see how we're ever going to get anywhere unless we start with the assumption that we can actually have a rational discussion with a reasonable standard of evidence. If people are basing their opinions on information that is demonstrably wrong, especially when it appears to be the result of a PR effort, we should be pointing that out. If people are going to be deliberately irrational then there's not much point in responding at all.
A cap-and-trade system with a hard cap based on absolute targets with a baseline year of 1990. There is approximately zero chance that Harper will ever agree to this, unless he's essentially forced to by the Obama administration. And even then I suspect he'll find some way to fudge it.
Also, and I'm getting pretty tired of pointing this out, Harper still has not backed down on the issue of pay equity for women and I consider that to be a pretty huge deal.
Blah, blah, blah.
It matters little who made up the survey. The fact is they are right. It has been abundantly clear during this bickerfest that most Canadians know exactly zilch about our government system and how it works. It has even been evident on babble that people who think they are very smart don't get it either.
That Harper deliberately played on peoples ignorance and worse impulses is the clearest indication he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Well, blah, blah, blah to you too.
I have a higher opinion of Canadians than you, and in fact, before you call them idiots, at least have the decency to get the facts right. They certainly understand the power of the GG to refuse an election:
One question that did elicit close to unanimous agreement was about the governor-general's power to refuse to call an election at the request of a prime minister who no longer enjoys majority support in the House of Commons.
A full 90 per cent responded — correctly — that the governor-general does have the power, which Ms. Jean may yet be called on to wield if the opposition coalition does defeat the government with a vote in the Commons.
Not bad for a bunch of idiots.
I think the most enjoyable portion of this thread is that people are equating babble rhetoric with official NDP positions!
I am as concerned with the "milions" of Canadians who thought that the GG had to go to the coalition and did not realize that the options were very simple
1. allow prorogue of parliament
2. if she did not allow prorogue then 2 courses of action
a. an election
b. offer the coalition the chance to govern
There was no guarentee that the GG would skip 2a and go to 2b directly.
But if you listened to supporters of the coation then the only choice was 2b -- false
Of course there is no guarantee but if you listened to constitutional experts, its pretty clear what course of action would be the respected and responsible one. Other than the most partisan and shrill Conservative supporters I haven't see a lot of support for another election in this climate. Even newspapers and pundits which endorsed Harper during the election have championed the legality of the coalition.
I thought you said in another thread that everyone you know is against the coalition...
Also, and I'm getting pretty tired of pointing this out, Harper still has not backed down on the issue of pay equity for women and I consider that to be a pretty huge deal.
I agree that ending pay equity appeals is pretty glaring and I'd be upset if the NDP voted in support of any legislation that allowed it.
-=+=- I wasn't refering to your post in particular but the entire thread. That's what the quote function is for.
As well I never once said that Canadians are idiots. That's what the honesty button is for by the way.
I maintain that it has been very clear during this whole episode of the Bickersons that Canadians know little about their system and that Harper played on that ignorance AND the worse impulses on some Canadians to cling to power. I hardly think that is controversial.
(Edited -hey that was weird. I quoted -=+=- comment and it was there while I was writing, but when I clicked post comment it disappeared. Weird)
I thought you said in another thread that everyone you know is against the coalition...
i did and it is still the same. as you will recall the conversations prior to the agreement to prorogue included numerous options.
in my office the talk was that we don't want an election, don't like the coalition, hate dion (even libs hated him) therefore the option liked was prorogation of Parliament.
Mind you this seems to be null and void since the talk today is that the libs like what Flaherty is saying.