![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqYesterday was a day full of Facebook Status updates that read something like this: "Thank god there's a majority - now the government can actually get some work done" or "Now we have a stable government not being constantly threatened by the opposition."
As if the work of parliament wasn't debating legislation and trying to come to a consensus. As if stability is desirable when it means 60% of Canadians are ignored.
The whole point of a parliamentary system of government is to have the whole house participate in government. Proposed legislation is presented there precisely so that all of Canada's representatives can debate the merits of it. For five years that's the sort of government we had. Oh, they dragged their heels and they pouted about it, but in the end they tempered their more odious policies to the point where the portion of parliament that represented 60% of Canadians didn't turf the part representing 40% out on their ass.
And even with that level of participation, they still managed to use brinkmanship to pass a lot of really awful stuff: Eroding of rights for women and minorities, relaxing of corporate regulations and taxes, ignoring the very real climate issues we're facing. Now we have a majority Conservative government that looks at Parliament as a useless obstacle that they can now avoid.
Too many people look at our elections as being like the hockey playoffs. You cheer for your team and when the game is over you go back to some other activity. Instead of a trophy the winner gets to boss us around for four years. Really, elections should be more then just an elaborate game of Asshole.
I expect more out of my government. I want them doing due diligence on their proposals. Every piece of legislation should be debated and debated hard - the goal being to make the best law possible for the most Canadians. They should be busting their asses to make sure that what they do is for the good of Canada. Frankly having laws proposed by the Frasier Institute that are hashed out in the Conservative party caucus and then trotted out to Parliament for a rubber stamping after a perfunctory debate that is ignored isn't good enough. It shouldn't be good enough for you either, regardless of what your party affiliation is.
Why would you think that not doing that is desirable? Why would you value the so-called stability of de facto autocracy over them having to constantly negotiate? Fine, you want your party to win, but do the voices of the rest of Canada simply not matter to you?
One could argue that you (the voter) have the option of simply talking to your MP directly. In theory that's true, but I've seen it in practice here in Calgary. A friend of mine is active in LGBT and Woman's issues. She also has the misfortune of having Jason Kenney as an MP. She's sent many many letters and phone calls to her constituency office since he was elected in 1997. To my knowledge, none have ever been returned. It's obvious that she and Mr. Kenney are ideological opposites, but shouldn't you at least acknowledge that a constituent has an issue and you looked at it? Given the CPC penchant for simply ignoring Calgary during elections (only two candidates attended all-party debates during the last election cycle) I think it's clear that they want us to simply shut up between elections. Do you think they'll treat the opposition any differently?
Here's a prediction to illustrate what I mean. The first time the Harper government was threatened with an election was when they tried to abolish the per-vote subsidy. They backed off when it was clear the opposition was willing to die on that hill. Now that they have a majority, I predict they'll try to abolish it again. They took away the message "the opposition just gets in the way", not "hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea and we should do better".
Minority governments are good because it forces the government to do what it should be doing anyway (coming to a consensus), at least some of the time. Coalitions are better because there's at least a chance that a majority of Canadians (as opposed to a plurality of ridings) are represented and threatening to break the coalition at least gives them an option below threatening an election.
The constant threat of an election is a good thing - it keeps them aware of who their real boss is. If I have to vote in a federal election every six months from now until doomsday, so be it. I'll be there every election day, pencil in hand, and happy to have that opportunity. It's better to participate more then not at all.
--- Begin Late Edit ---
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
conejita_diabla pointed this out to me:
I've more-or-less convinced myself that Alternate Voting is the way to go.
--- End Late Edit ---
As if the work of parliament wasn't debating legislation and trying to come to a consensus. As if stability is desirable when it means 60% of Canadians are ignored.
The whole point of a parliamentary system of government is to have the whole house participate in government. Proposed legislation is presented there precisely so that all of Canada's representatives can debate the merits of it. For five years that's the sort of government we had. Oh, they dragged their heels and they pouted about it, but in the end they tempered their more odious policies to the point where the portion of parliament that represented 60% of Canadians didn't turf the part representing 40% out on their ass.
And even with that level of participation, they still managed to use brinkmanship to pass a lot of really awful stuff: Eroding of rights for women and minorities, relaxing of corporate regulations and taxes, ignoring the very real climate issues we're facing. Now we have a majority Conservative government that looks at Parliament as a useless obstacle that they can now avoid.
Too many people look at our elections as being like the hockey playoffs. You cheer for your team and when the game is over you go back to some other activity. Instead of a trophy the winner gets to boss us around for four years. Really, elections should be more then just an elaborate game of Asshole.
I expect more out of my government. I want them doing due diligence on their proposals. Every piece of legislation should be debated and debated hard - the goal being to make the best law possible for the most Canadians. They should be busting their asses to make sure that what they do is for the good of Canada. Frankly having laws proposed by the Frasier Institute that are hashed out in the Conservative party caucus and then trotted out to Parliament for a rubber stamping after a perfunctory debate that is ignored isn't good enough. It shouldn't be good enough for you either, regardless of what your party affiliation is.
Why would you think that not doing that is desirable? Why would you value the so-called stability of de facto autocracy over them having to constantly negotiate? Fine, you want your party to win, but do the voices of the rest of Canada simply not matter to you?
One could argue that you (the voter) have the option of simply talking to your MP directly. In theory that's true, but I've seen it in practice here in Calgary. A friend of mine is active in LGBT and Woman's issues. She also has the misfortune of having Jason Kenney as an MP. She's sent many many letters and phone calls to her constituency office since he was elected in 1997. To my knowledge, none have ever been returned. It's obvious that she and Mr. Kenney are ideological opposites, but shouldn't you at least acknowledge that a constituent has an issue and you looked at it? Given the CPC penchant for simply ignoring Calgary during elections (only two candidates attended all-party debates during the last election cycle) I think it's clear that they want us to simply shut up between elections. Do you think they'll treat the opposition any differently?
Here's a prediction to illustrate what I mean. The first time the Harper government was threatened with an election was when they tried to abolish the per-vote subsidy. They backed off when it was clear the opposition was willing to die on that hill. Now that they have a majority, I predict they'll try to abolish it again. They took away the message "the opposition just gets in the way", not "hey, maybe this wasn't such a good idea and we should do better".
Minority governments are good because it forces the government to do what it should be doing anyway (coming to a consensus), at least some of the time. Coalitions are better because there's at least a chance that a majority of Canadians (as opposed to a plurality of ridings) are represented and threatening to break the coalition at least gives them an option below threatening an election.
The constant threat of an election is a good thing - it keeps them aware of who their real boss is. If I have to vote in a federal election every six months from now until doomsday, so be it. I'll be there every election day, pencil in hand, and happy to have that opportunity. It's better to participate more then not at all.
--- Begin Late Edit ---
conejita_diabla pointed this out to me:I've more-or-less convinced myself that Alternate Voting is the way to go.
--- End Late Edit ---
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 05:59 pm (UTC)On a personal side note, I'm glad to see the BC crushed number-wise but I wish Quebec would GTFO because their whining is unbearable (coupled with them coming home to eat sunday dinner and do laundry it seems); that Ottawa will have the balls to severe them completely and get on with having a united nation.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-05 01:55 am (UTC)