Blog
January 21st 2010 | 2
Prorogation may prove beneficial for Canadian politics
By now, most Canadians with an inkling of political awareness know about Stephen Harper’s recent prorogation of Parliament.
You have seen or heard the righteous indignation oozing from the likes of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, or NDP leader Jack Layton.
You have read about how Canada is becoming a laughingstock internationally, a dysfunctional bastardization of the Westminster Parliamentary system somehow unable to have relinquished the archaic shackles of uninhibitated executive power as pretty much every other former British colony has managed to do.
Hell, you may have even read the bevy of articles our fair paper has printed on the subject. And you may have just been approached by someone recently, urging you to add your voice to the growing dissent around the country at only the latest in Stephen Harper’s long list of transgressions.
Just as intriguing as the uproar around prorogation of Parliament has been the amount of attention paid to how upset Canadians actually are about the whole ordeal. In a country rife with people usually reserved to feigned interest in the goings on in Ottawa (as long as taxpayer’s money is not being grossly mispent), needless to say, people have noticed. And spoken up about their disaproval.
If Facebook groups are any sort of measurement, which is yet to be determined, with over 200,000 members, the ‘against prorogation’ group grows mightier by the day.
Rallies are planned for this Saturday across the country, with our particular Winnipeg version beginning at 1 pm at the U of W, then 2 pm at the Leg. In short, Canadians seem to actually be taking a semi-active interest in what goes on (or these days, isn’t going on) in the hallowed halls of Parliament. No matter what your view on prorogation itself, rightly or wrongly the least we can say about it is that it has Canadians talking politics. Not about government mispending. Not about how American politics are more interesting. None of the usual inane banter applies.
What we have here is a genuine national discussion going on about one of our core political institutions, and how many Canadians are fed up with the abuse of power that prime ministers can legitimately wage against it.
For this reason alone, prorogation might have been a good idea, if not for the Harper Conservatives, then for Canadians in general.
Discussion
-
“No matter what your view on prorogation itself, rightly or wrongly the least we can say about it is that it has Canadians talking politics. Not about government mispending. Not about how American politics are more interesting. None of the usual inane banter applies.”
If anger against government mispending is “inane banter”, then I guess I should join the chorus. Andrew Tod should get it through his thick leftist skull that not all Canadians who are angry about government spending are right-wing tea party protestors; they are people who are actually concerned where their taxpayer dollars are going.
The Conservatives may have increased Canada’s national debt through massive stimulus spending, but the Liberals threatened to bring down the government if the Conservatives did not commit to stimulus spending. That is fact, not opinion.
I’m no fan of prorogation, but I think Harper has been a better prime minister than that dithering idiot named Paul Martin and that artistocratic pig from Shawinigan named Jean Chretien.
– Anon in Winnipeg | January 25th 2010 at 1:26pm | Link
-
Thanks very much Anon, I will try to respond as best I can, but please take into consideration my decreased mental capacity, given my “leftist” political orientation.
You raise a very valid point. Government mispending is a very real problem when it occurs. What I was alluding to was the all-too-frequently heard “politicians mispend our money” refrain, or some variation of it. Of course I would never call talking about the Sponsorship Scandal, or something similar, as innane banter.
Unfortunately also for your response, I never implied that people concerned about it are right-wing tea party protestors. In fact, as you can glean from a quick re-read of what I posted, I didn’t get into political ideology at all.
What I was trying to convey was that it is a good thing that Canadians are talking about our political system, something I fear is too often overlooked or ignored when Canadians talk about politics. For this, you need not place yourself on a political spectrum. I think that most people interested in politics care how their political system functions. Do you need an ideological position to care that our Parliament is beholden to of its executive? That one Member of Parliament can effectively shut it down on a whim?
As for you last paragraph, it is nonsensical given the context of the blog post. When exactly did I compare Harper to either of his prime ministerial predecessors?
Hopefully I have been able to comprehend your superior political argumentative ability, which I consider you to have given your non-leftist viewpoint.
– Andrew Tod in Winnipeg | January 25th 2010 at 6:55pm | Link
