nfornaomi asks: Re: The political issue in Canada
I've never understood why opposition parties are able to give a vote of non-confidence and thus force another election. The PEOPLE voted for the Conservatives (yes, a minority gov't, but still!) so it doesn't seem very democratic for the opposition to have the power to band together and overthrow the government. Another election is obviously something we don't want.. shouldn't our leaders be listening to us Canadians?
Can you shed some light on this possibly convoluted Ask?
» We say: This is actually a parliamentary law that is a bit different from American law, for example. It’s been around for hundreds of years, and many countries use it, including Britain. Simply put, if you put all the minorities together and they create a majority, they can overpower a plurality. It’s not really an “overthrow” of the government so much as a check on it. Akin to overriding a presidential veto in the U.S., except stronger. Voters, if they still want Harper, can keep him there by voting for him. And the other thing to keep in mind — based on some of the emotional responses we’ve heard on this issue over the past few days, not everyone agrees with the sentiment. Consider it this way: If Canada had a two-party system, Harper may not even be Prime Minsiter.
I enjoy your blog. I just wanted to let you know that I think that the Baird quote you posted to highlight my country’s election was irresponsible because it only illustrates the Conservative opinion on the issue. Of course the committee that recommended the Harper government be found in contempt of Parliament was “opposition stacked”. Would a committee that was “Conservative stacked” recommend their own party be found in contempt of Parliament? No. Clearly, that is what the actual acts of contempt prove to us.
Oh and a little note about Government House leader Baird:
written in the Globe and Mail about Baird last August,
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has again called on John Baird to plug a hole in his cabinet, moving him Friday morning into the tricky post of Government House Leader where his job will be to push through the government’s agenda in a testy minority Parliament.
The choice of Mr. Baird is notable as he is considered a partisan attack dog. He often fills in for Mr. Harper when the Prime Minister is away from the Commons and his pointed answers tend to get under the opposition’s skin.
He is not the most likely choice for a post that requires an ability to compromise in negotiation with the opposition parties. However, by putting such a divisive politician into the job, the Prime Minister may be signalling he wants to push full-steam ahead on his agenda this sitting.
I know I can count on your glorious blog to post this ask and tell both sides of the story.
We’re putting this message in as a blockquote because we feel that people should read/reblog it, and we do want to offer some balance here. But we want to emphasize a couple of things: We admit to reblogging coeus because we know she’s libertarian-leaning and Canadian and therefore offers a certain perspective on the whole issue. Here’s the thing … I personally don’t think that we should play traffic cop in terms of other perspectives that we reblog and try to balance out everything we post. By the nature of reblogging multiple opinions over time, we can offer a broader perspective. If you disagree with the post, we’d rather see you guys debate about it. We offer opinions of our own here and don’t hide them.
Ultimately, if we reblog something without (or with a short) comment, we don’t necessarily endorse it as our own opinion. (Reblogs are not necessarily intended as endorsement. We can put that on the site if you want.) Rather, we thought it was interesting and worth a reblog. The opinion is theirs. Why undercut it?
(EDIT: PoliticalCanuck wrote a pretty good response to this. We think it’s worth your time.)
What do you think?