Jack Layton for Prime Minister of Canada

Conservatives are reading that heading and saying “dear god not this rubbish again”

If the liberals and NDP do form a coalition, they had better be very careful who they select as PM. Dion has already said he is stepping down; if he doesn’t feel he’s fit to lead the party- how can we expect him to lead the country? The other 3 liberal contenders were not candidates for PM. To give them the job would seem to circumvent democracy- not that we really have a democracy here in Canada.

No, the only choice would be Layton. He’s the only one who actually ran in the election and maintains that he’s up to the job. To bad the liberals would never let it happen, they would never give up the power- even when its ill designed. That’s what Paul Martin’s government was all about.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Jack Layton for Prime Minister of Canada”

  1. Democratic America, Goverment and Election » Jack Layton for Prime Minister of Canada Says:

    […] Read the rest of this superb post right here […]

  2. Jules Cosby Says:

    What this episode of Canadian politics has shown is that people often do not realize (and something that the Conservatives played on magnificently) is that we live in a Parliamentary democracy, something that is quite different in form than the American system. Maybe saying “Not that we really have a democracy here in Canada” is somewhat legitimate, but it ignores the fact that we still live under a specific form of democracy. But just because it doesn’t match up to some ideal form doesn’t mean that it isn’t democracy.

    Also, don’t forget that it was the Reformers (later the Conservatives), villifed to the nth degree here in Central Canada, who wanted to alter the essence of Canadian politics to a more populist system, with more plebiscites and an elected Upper House. So I suppose the questions to ask would be does popular suffrage make something more democratic? Would enshrining the role of the Prime Minister in the constitution make Canada more democratic?

    Democracy means questioning, plain and simple. What’s great about this Christmas coalition episode in Ottawa is that it is leading to ever-more salient questions about the nature of our system of government.

    • remistevens Says:

      Well, we have a half-assed democracy at best- and im being very generous. Wikipedia defn’ of democracy (and i know you love Wiki) states:

      “there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties”

      In theory we’re all getting our equal share of liberties, we’re not really talking about that. But, do we all have equal access to power? Definitely not, we are denied an equal access to power because we are severely limited by our geography. Compare 2 conservative brothers with the same political stance. One is urban, one is rural. The rural one voted conservative and now benefits from being represented by his chosen party in parliament. The urban conservative had his vote discarded, he has no representation- no access to power. Sure there are still CP MP’s, but the urban conservative had nothing to do with their election and relies on the votes of others to carry the party to power.

      Then there are Green voters, surely no one could claim that this million voters has an equal access to power.

      Or what about the fact that i only get 1/3 of a vote now that i live amongst immigrants?

      The big problem is the lack of a real definition for “democracy”, that’s why the word gets thrown around is so many inappropriate ways. . . .Take our system to extremes for a moment; imagine an island with 100 people on it and 3 members of the parliament. 3 people are in one riding, 3 people are in the second riding and 94 people are in the third riding. Is this a democracy? Well i guess so- but its certainly not a government that represents the people. . . .Now thats what needs to be at the heart of the definition of “democracy”; a government that represents the people’s will.

      Any government needs to be constantly questioned, that’s how we improve the system. In that regard, every person under any government has some access to power, but not necessarily an equal access. Even under a tyrant, people can show their disapproval of the government- granting them some risky amount of access to power. However the tyrant can ignore the demands of millions should he choose to, in the same way that Harper is free to ignore the demands of a million greens. I fail to see the difference between a tyrant having a fake election where he burns all the votes and a system that effectively burns our votes for us.

      Technology has made it possible to have equal access to power for everyone, any government that actively denies this access is not endorsing democracy and certainly has no legitimate claim to their “democratic” authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: