I recognize that Parliament always retains the ultimate sanction of voting no confidence in the government — or at least, on those days that the government will allow it to do so, or deigns to bring forward legislation, or recognizes confidence votes when they occur (see Paul Martin, above). But this is a very blunt instrument. It shouldn’t have to take a vote of non-confidence to get the government to obey basic norms of accountability.Sadly, Mr. Harper has left the opposition with one option only and that is a vote of confidence. It is the stick with which he and his cronies whack the opposition, even as they move to circumvent the will of Parliament. The only way this will stop is for the opposition to unite to call Mr. Harper's bluff and defeat him. I hope when the time comes, Mr. Coyne does not fall for the "another useless election" meme, we all know is coming from the Conservative attack machine. Defending the constitution from the likes of Stephen Harper is a good hill on which to die. Recommend this Post
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Quote Of The Day
Andrew Coyne:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's an interesting passage in Coyne's column, isn't it? I puzzled over that for a while. He really doesn't want an election, doesn't want that no-confidence vote, maybe partly on the principle he gets to by passage's end (all governments should behave better than this), but it's a long and winding road he takes to get there.
ReplyDeleteI think he shares my frustration that it should come down to a confidence vote every week, in order for the PM to act according to the spirit of the constitution, rather than merely the letter.
ReplyDelete