Apparently the answer is "to prorogue".
Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with Governor-General Michaëlle Jean at Rideau Hall to request for parliament to be prorogued until January 26th. The Governor-General granted the Prime Minister's request.
I don't understand the logic behind this process. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister and is designated the head of state. The Queen has never rejected a Prime Minister's suggestion for Governor-General, therefore the Prime Minister selects this individual. Until the recent events, my perspective of the Governor-General was primarily a ceremonious role. Her job was to dissolve government and call elections, which seemed appropriate as someone has to, right?
Today her position became much more important. I did not know she has the power to halt a democracy at work at the request of the Prime Minister. I don't understand the need for this power and I don't understand why it is designated to an appointed official. Even in the worst crises, a democracy should be allowed to function and no one individual should be able to delay or stop the government from working.
I liked the Conservative's budget. I liked that it cut public funding from parties, I liked that it did not include stimulus package that would only further hurt our economy and I liked that it froze the wages of public servants.
I did't agree with freezing a group's right to strike, however I don't really believe Harper can remove this right. If a nurse's union decides to strike, is he going to put them in prison? No. The government would be forced to negotiate with the union because nurse's are not easily replaced and they are needed.
I disagree with Harper that a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois is dangerous for Canada. If Quebec ever left Canada, Canada would still exist and would have the confidence of the people who still support its government. A coalition with the Bloc Quebecois on the part of the opposition does threaten the ability of the federal government to represent the nation as a whole. In which case, I'd prefer my federal government to not be in bed with a political party that seeks to undermine the good of Canada in its current form for its own benefit.
Of course, I'm never going to see a government that behaves the way I want it to, but it should be allowed to function without the intervention of any one particular individual. If the Liberals want to ruin their political party by forming a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc, the Governor-General should not be able to stop them. She was wrong to accept Mr. Harper's request today.
On another note, it is absolutely appalling to watch the leader of our country go begging to a representative of the queen because he made a boo-boo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The logic is that those laws can still be used if someone wants to use them. They are only thought of as "ceremonial" because no one has used them for a long time.
"They accused Harper of doing nothing to address the current economic crisis and slammed what they saw as ideologically driven measures such as the proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity."
Wow, he supports pay inequality and government backed force against unions.
How do you know he supports pay inequity from that quote?
"The logic is that those laws can still be used if someone wants to use them. "
You begin to describe the logic behind the Governor General having these powers, and then you don't.
Because he doesn't support legal recourse for abuses.
The logic behind those laws is tradition. We still have the Queen as head of state, because we didn't revolt like the 13 colonies. To keep that tradition, to keep that history alive, we keep the political structures of the past in place long after the power structure that created them has all but died.
"Because he doesn't support legal recourse for abuses."
What is the abuse?
"The logic behind those laws is tradition."
Tradition does not equal logic, ie Christmas, why do we put trees in our house?
"we keep the political structures of the past in place long after the power structure that created them has all but died"
Obviously this power structure is still very much alive. You still haven't provided to me the logic. You've given me a bit of history, but no logical reason the Governor General should have this power.
"What is the abuse?"
Less pay for equal work.
"Tradition does not equal logic, ie Christmas, why do we put trees in our house?"
Tradition is good, so we must follow it is the logic. It is known as a "propositional statement".
"Obviously this power structure is still very much alive. You still haven't provided to me the logic. You've given me a bit of history, but no logical reason the Governor General should have this power."
Oh! You meant should! I thought you meant the historical causal relationship that allows the GG to still be used politically.
Should? I think the royalist argument is that a central authority allows all the diverse voices of the populace to be converted into one action, one voice: That of the Monarch.
"Less pay for equal work."
I make less than other males and females in my position, I don't feel abused, should I? I kinda thought I agreed with my employer to work for my wage...
"Tradition is good, so we must follow it is the logic. It is known as a "propositional statement". "
You should read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and then tell me tradition is good.
"a central authority allows all the diverse voices of the populace to be converted into one action, one voice: That of the Monarch."
That makes no sense. This system places the voice of the monarch above the majority of MPs in our government which represent the majority of the people. A central authority doesn't allow all of the voices of the populace to be converted into one action, it allows the voices of the central authority to be converted into one action. It would be impossible to convert the voices of an entire society into one representational action.
"I make less than other males and females in my position, I don't feel abused, should I? I kinda thought I agreed with my employer to work for my wage..."
Why do you make less? The WHY is what we are talking about, not indiscriminate examples.
"You should read "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and then tell me tradition is good."
I didn't say tradition was good. I was just explaining the logic to you.
"That makes no sense. This system places the voice of the monarch above the majority of MPs in our government which represent the majority of the people. A central authority doesn't allow all of the voices of the populace to be converted into one action, it allows the voices of the central authority to be converted into one action. It would be impossible to convert the voices of an entire society into one representational action."
I made sense as a philosophical justification to generartions of monarchs and aristocrats, and since the Governor General is a vestiage of that political-economic system, it is a perfectly logical explanation for WHY Martin could do what he did.
Now, you might disagree that is a good justification or even a logical one, but that makes sense, because you are essentially a democrat. But to men and women who were the decendents of the men who first instituted private property using force, it was a very good justification. It allowed them to justify their existence at the head of the private property system using reason itself as the justificatory principle: Without a monarch there would be political chaos. All the different factions of the populace would compete for control of the state, hence causing non-propertied people to gain power and possibly plunge the kingdom into anarchy.
"The WHY is what we are talking about, not indiscriminate examples."
Well the woman makes less because she accepted that pay when she took the job.
"I didn't say tradition was good. I was just explaining the logic to you."
You're right, you didn't say "tradition was good" you said "tradition is good".
I am going to skip back to the original post to start and comment on the power of the GG rather than the reasons behind it. I was shocked and confused by an article written by Andrew Steele in the Globe last week that outlined the 10 most likely paths this adventure may have followed (pre-prorogation). The one that stood out the most to me was the option for Harper to sack Jean. As Josh states, the Queen has never denied a PM of his choice for GG. I would assume she wouldn't second-guess his dismissal of one, either. This, in short, means that the GG has NO power. If she were to refuse Harper, the GG would have been acting in faith that her image and position are well enough respected by the people of Canada that Harper would not dare turf her. Clearly, she did not feel Harper was scared of doing whatever he had to do to get what he wants and thought "what the hell, I'll go against the will of this elected body and stop the wheels for another 2 months." The decision, I feel, was due to her lack of power, rather than an abundance thereof.
On the liberals... Whoops... At least Ignatieff is handsome.
On the Conservatives... Their strategists have done the and Harper well so far. May not last much longer, though. I haven't looked at the final results of the Quebec elections yet. The exit polls were showing that they aren't as slow and backwards as Harper and his Calgary Croonies think they are. He gaffed seriously and blocked an inroad he was starting to build into the last piece of the country he needed to be considered the only truly national party.
What I have said may not make sense, but respond to some or all of it and direct me where you want me to go, I guess? What a mess...
I read the same article. I think Harper would've looked foolish going to the queen to sack the GG, no? Wouldn't he have a serious PR problem? Bringing the queen directly into our government's mess wouldn't be the greatest idea...so I understand where you're coming from in that the GG has no power, but they would essentially be playing chicken with each other which might explain the 2 hour meeting before the decision...
Dion finally did right by the liberals in resigning today. I don't know much about Ignatieff, I hear Rae on the radio much more often and he seems like he would do a good job. Sounds like Ignatieff is going to get the post though.
I think this was a major gaff by Harper, but if quebec is all he lost, well, that puts him back 2 years, but still in power. He's given himself a time-out and I'm sure they're building a plan to remain in power past the vote in January.
Yes. This is a mess.
"You're right, you didn't say "tradition was good" you said "tradition is good"."
In the context of me explaining the logic to you, yes, I said that. Let me repeat, '"Tradition is good, so we must follow it is the logic. It is known as a "propositional statement."' You can reinterpret the quote as meaning that "the Canadian political system assumes that tradition is good, so we must follow its logic".
"Well the woman makes less because she accepted that pay when she took the job."
They offer less because she is a woman. It's group against group and the woman loses.
"the Canadian political system assumes that tradition is good, so we must follow its logic".
We must follow the logic of a system based on tradition? Again, you should read The Lottery.
"They offer less because she is a woman. It's group against group and the woman loses."
She has the freedom to decline the offer.
"We must follow the logic of a system based on tradition? Again, you should read The Lottery."
To understand the system, yes, of course.
"She has the freedom to decline the offer."
NOT IF ALL OR A MAJORITY OF THE JOBS OFFER SIMILAR WAGES BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.
"To understand the system, yes, of course."
Using the verb "to understand" indicates there is some learning occuring. The quote "We must follow the logic of a system based on tradition" contradicts this as it simply says follow tradition, as this is logical. Why is it logical? Because its tradition. Why is it tradition? Who knows, stone the bastard anyway.
"Using the verb "to understand" indicates there is some learning occuring. "
Yes, all political ideologies operate on a unique set of propositions, ie logic.
"The quote "We must follow the logic of a system based on tradition" contradicts this as it simply says follow tradition, as this is logical. "
No, it means that in order to understand the Canadian political system, you must understand and follow the logic it is based on. The Canadian system is partially based on the logic that tradition is a good thing. Therefore, the reason why Harper could have done what he did is our political system's logic: that tradition is a good thing.
"Why is it logical? Because its tradition. Why is it tradition? Who knows, stone the bastard anyway."
I didn't say it was logical. I said that each system has its own logic. That doesn't mean it is logical in a universal sense. It could be quite illogical in a universal sense.
Post a Comment