All eyes on Ignatieff
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
We'll never know which Ignatieff we saw from 2006 to 2011: he was, I think, captured by the Toronto based Liberal machine - the same one which I believe has captured Justin Trudeau - and forced into their mould. The Michael Ignatieff we see in the first post in this thread was most assuredly not the man who was defeated by Stephen Harper in 2011.
My suspicion was and remains that Mr. Ignatieff is a liberal who did not fit well in the Liberal Party of Canada mould; he might, actually, have been slightly more comfortable as a Conservative; he belonged in a party with e.g. John Manley and Scott Brison, not with the mob with which he was forced to campaign.
My suspicion was and remains that Mr. Ignatieff is a liberal who did not fit well in the Liberal Party of Canada mould; he might, actually, have been slightly more comfortable as a Conservative; he belonged in a party with e.g. John Manley and Scott Brison, not with the mob with which he was forced to campaign.
- Reaction score
- 7,777
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:
And yet the entire panoply of the House is designed to remind of the violent origins of debate. Armed parties are kept two sword lengths apart by a Sergeant at Arms armed with a massive club known as the Mace. The original debates were of all natures, including blood debates, and the disputes were brought to the highest Judge in the land, the Sovereign, for resolution.
These debates were not peaceful then.
Nor were they much less so in the eras of North, Walpole and the Pitts. Gladstone and Disraeli detested each other, and so did their parties. Lloyd George had no attachment to the fair fight.
Where is this historical era of civilized debate amongst milksop clerics? Even the Clerics were vigorous to a fault in defence of their causes: Cranmore, Laud and Wolsely.
Parliament works because people of strong passions agree to accept the outcome of a debate, rational or otherwise, rather than spill blood.
They agree to let the Referee decide, no matter how poor, how blind, how incompetent the Ref may be.
Or, in the words of the Gladstone-Disraeli era: "Play Up! Play Up! And play the game!"
- Reaction score
- 9,944
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
Good post Kirkhill. I call this the "Noble Savage" argument - there is always a tendency to look at the current situation as one of complete hopelessness (e.g. "Parliament is broke") and to yearn for some (mythical) time way back when things were so much more altruistic and pure....
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Yes, if I understand correctly it was always a bit of a bloodbath in the Houses of Parliment in the UK. The days of Pitt etc were not halcyion IIRC.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Infanteer said:
All very good, that was then this is now. Our times call for mature , responsible meeting of the challenges that are many and not being addressed.
As per Iggy's speech thoughtful informed debate and compromise is absent.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Infanteer said:
Agreed but I am very concerned that "As per Iggy's speech thoughtful informed debate and compromise is increasingly absent." on both sides of the border politically at both the provincial and federal level.
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
I, personally, am less worried about Canada. Remember, please, that Michael Ignatieff was speaking to Americans in America and so he was, mainly, addressing the partisan gridlock that, currently, characterizes the US Congress ~ the Americans have a well crafted system but it was designed to be easy to not do things, it was, intentionally, designed to be different from the one in London which had, and still has, a much more subtle set of checks and balances. Our, Westminster system, is revolutionary (government's can be, quite summarily, turfed from power) and responsible - the government/executive (cabinet) is responsible to parliament, parliament, in its turn, answers to the people. The US Constitution provides a stable, predictable and, above all, representative government. Our system - even during the Gladstone-Disraeli "clash of the titans" (as a TV series described it) - was able to do its business in a generally efficient manner because the system worked, the government governed, for the common weal, despite the mighty struggles of two powerful antagonists. The US system is less robust, it is more easily shifted into 'stall,' and that is what I think Ignatieff fears.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Seen
- Reaction score
- 2,726
- Points
- 940
How much of that declining "thoughtful informed debate and compromise" is due to the rising focus on sound-bites -- readily broadcast but not necessarily conducive to reception by a 'thoughtful, informed' audience? No one, outside of staffers looking for gaffes or dirt on opponents....and Politics students :boring: ....reads Hansard; it's way too much effort for society's 8-second attention span.
When you add slavish adherence todogma party platform, which "separates us from the other" -- no matter what -- at the risk of being labelled "waffling" at election time, and there's little room for compromise.
However, I suspect that we're in no danger of Fascism any time soon, regardless of what hand-wringing university profs may tell you. It makes a great headline, but it's not very realistic.
When you add slavish adherence to
However, I suspect that we're in no danger of Fascism any time soon, regardless of what hand-wringing university profs may tell you. It makes a great headline, but it's not very realistic.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Hey..... I was going to say that.
Well I was thinking it.
Well I was thinking it.
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
Fascism was and remains and interesting and attractive idea: a people 'united' are stronger than just people, on their own, just as a fascine is stronger, as a bundle, than is any of the sticks in it.
And, sadly, it's not far from this
to this
to this
.
I don't think we're going to see a neo-fascist party in America or in Canada ...
But there is one in Greece:
and it has real power, and I, personally, will not be surprised to see neo-fascists figure prominently
in parliaments in Italy, Portgual and Spain and, of course, Le Pen's Front National is alive and well in the French legislature:
And, sadly, it's not far from this
I don't think we're going to see a neo-fascist party in America or in Canada ...
But there is one in Greece:
in parliaments in Italy, Portgual and Spain and, of course, Le Pen's Front National is alive and well in the French legislature:
- Reaction score
- 3,328
- Points
- 1,260
<logo tangent>E.R. Campbell said:But there is one in Greece:and it has real power, and I, personally, will not be surprised to see neo-fascists figure prominently
in parliaments in Italy, Portgual and Spain and, of course, Le Pen's Front National is alive and well in the French legislature:
Interesting how Italy's main neo-facist party uses graphics interestingly close to France's....
</logo tangent>
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
E.R. Campbell said:
As distasteful as Fascism can be, it goes to show that there is "something" missing in people's lives ere it would not grow and in some cases thrive. What is causing the need to begin with. I suggest that, that, is what needs to be identified and dealt with. Just like the fire triangle. Knock out one of the three causes and the rest become a non issue.
- Reaction score
- 2,726
- Points
- 940
.....cool uniforms. :nod:
You just know that the guy on the left in the Greek Fascist pic has a Frontiersman costume like one of these at home.
....possibly the gown
I now return you to serious discussion
You just know that the guy on the left in the Greek Fascist pic has a Frontiersman costume like one of these at home.
....possibly the gown
I now return you to serious discussion
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
And Prof Ignatieff is back in the news, beating the same old drum: democracy is in danger because Stephen Harper is in office rather than me ...
He has one good idea: more free votes, which means a clear statement on confidence issues which might even lead to shorter, better crafted throne speeches. Much legislation is harmless ~ which means it's unnecessary ~ and it really doesn't matter if it passes or not. In fact, given nice, fat omnibus budget implementation bills, very few other bills matter and members should be able to vote more freely on them.
But: he remains historically ignorant. He says that "the prime minister’s capacity to dictate House business, put together omnibus bills and ram them through, while imposing party discipline, has concentrated executive power at the expense of the legislature," and that's true, and he acknowledges that it is true of all parliamentary democracies but he fails to note that it is one of the defining characteristics of Westminster style parliamentary democracies and has been since Walpole (who was the de facto PM - although that title did not, yet, exist - circa 1720-1740).
If Canadians want Italian style parliamentary government or Israeli style cabinet making then they should heed Ignatieff's warning and march to the beat of his drum, because that's what he and like minded folks, like journalist Andrew Coyne, are offering.
He has one good idea: more free votes, which means a clear statement on confidence issues which might even lead to shorter, better crafted throne speeches. Much legislation is harmless ~ which means it's unnecessary ~ and it really doesn't matter if it passes or not. In fact, given nice, fat omnibus budget implementation bills, very few other bills matter and members should be able to vote more freely on them.
But: he remains historically ignorant. He says that "the prime minister’s capacity to dictate House business, put together omnibus bills and ram them through, while imposing party discipline, has concentrated executive power at the expense of the legislature," and that's true, and he acknowledges that it is true of all parliamentary democracies but he fails to note that it is one of the defining characteristics of Westminster style parliamentary democracies and has been since Walpole (who was the de facto PM - although that title did not, yet, exist - circa 1720-1740).
If Canadians want Italian style parliamentary government or Israeli style cabinet making then they should heed Ignatieff's warning and march to the beat of his drum, because that's what he and like minded folks, like journalist Andrew Coyne, are offering.
Similar threads
