'How very unlike itself Canada is behaving' - Macleans.ca
 

‘How very unlike itself Canada is behaving’


 

The Economist scolds.


 

‘How very unlike itself Canada is behaving’

  1. Oh, dear. Is The Economist disappointed with us colonials again?

    I haven’t read the link yet. 100 dollar bet that some version of “boring” is worked into the piece.

  2. Well, what do you know? I was wrong. The condescension didn’t go further than the opening sentence. How every unlike itself The Economist is behaving.

  3. I see what you did there.

  4. Rather pitiful that they didn’t even get the story right. How could a story filed from Ottawa ignore the fact that Iggy could become PM without an election? Ovboiusly this story was hacked by someone.

  5. Kyle Bailey: “How could a story filed from Ottawa ignore the fact that Iggy could become PM without an election?”

    Just to be clear: we had an election. If Iggy becomes PM, it will be as a result of the election. He will have been “elected” PM as much as Harper was (which is to say, not at all in either case). The Conservatives are currently the Government in name only. They have passed no legislation. They have passed no budget. We are still — thanks to prorogation — in a preliminary post-election period in which it has not been determined who the Government is. For now, Harper is PM pro tempore, until the confidence of the House can be established. Thus if Iggy became PM it would be the result of the election.

    I know this gets boring to read for the 10 000th time, but given the titanic ignorance of the Canadian public about what democracy means in this country — as opposed to in, say, the United States — we can’t spell it out too often. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. Most of all, tell your kids.

  6. Jack Mitchell – The need for a basic education in (Canadian) civics has become more than self-evident. Perhaps publications like Macleans could help? I knew we would eventually pay a price for watching nothing but U.S. television programs and movies.

  7. “Jack Mitchell – The need for a basic education in (Canadian) civics has become more than self-evident. Perhaps publications like Macleans could help? I knew we would eventually pay a price for watching nothing but U.S. television programs and movies.”

    Yes, because a parliamentary system is based on really really clear written down laws, never subject to interpretation, and entirely blind to public perception or changing democratic norms. Oh wait, it isn’t. Funny how in Canada the “strict constructionists” are on the left.

    “Rather pitiful that they didn’t even get the story right. How could a story filed from Ottawa ignore the fact that Iggy could become PM without an election? Ovboiusly this story was hacked by someone.”

    They also suggest Harper doesn’t want an early election. Evidently they never looked at the polls, or the Liberal fundraising situation.

  8. hoser: “Yes, because a parliamentary system is based on really really clear written down laws, never subject to interpretation, and entirely blind to public perception or changing democratic norms. Oh wait, it isn’t. Funny how in Canada the “strict constructionists” are on the left.”

    I’m not on the left. And it’s all a question of degree. There is a lot of flexibility. But the principle of representative democracy is simply not a matter of objective debate. You may object to it in principle, but it’s what we currently have.

    I’m really not going to accept that ignorance is OK if it’s ignorance for the sake of a Noble Idea.

  9. Oh come one Jack, let’s just let our constitution “evolve” to the point that we are ruled directly by the latest poll results…ermm, as long as they favour the Conservatives that is.

  10. I’ve got it! Let’s appoint the entire Economist editorial staff to the Senate!

  11. The Liberal party selects party leaders by polling only: Hey, executive Liberal, what’s your vote on Iggy?

    Yeah, Iggy’s chances look good.

    Polling done through hand raising.

    All in favour?

    See, the polls do work.

  12. It’s been quite fascinating to watch your degeneration into a Conbot, Francien. It’s like Star Trek VIII.

  13. “Yes, because a parliamentary system is based on really really clear written down laws,”

    Absolutely, unless you are one of those who would prefer that our country be run by mob rule?

  14. One question: When did Yoda start writing for The Economist?

  15. Francine, do you honestly think any other political leaders in Canada are picked differently?

    Political parties can pick leaders however they want. If people don’t like the internal machinations of a particular party (which are usually set out in their constitutions) they are not required to vote for them in the general election. Liberal members may not be happy with how Ignatieff was picked–they can take it up with the party, leave the party, or show their disgust during the general election.

  16. Sunny12 is exactly right. I can tell you actually that many LPC members were NOT happy with how Ignatieff was chosen. Nevertheless the more pragmatic among us recognize that the party was dealing with extraordinary circumstances and are willing to give him a chance to make believers of us now that he is leader.

    Personally I have been impressed so far. Yesterday when Harper was announcing his decision to give up on Senate reform, Ignatieff was meeting with Dwight Duncan to get a real sense of what can be done to save Ontario’s auto industry. That’s what I want to see my leader doing.

  17. “Personally I have been impressed so far. Yesterday when Harper was announcing his decision to give up on Senate reform, Ignatieff was meeting with Dwight Duncan to get a real sense of what can be done to save Ontario’s auto industry. That’s what I want to see my leader doing.”

    Gee, Proulx. You’re an easy one to please.

  18. PolJunkie – Ouch! ;)