- Stephen Maher points out the type of government that we've come to count on under the ultra-controlling Harper political model:
This presidentialization of the Canadian system is worrying, not because of some fetishistic attachment to the trappings of Parliament, but because it allows for greater centralization than is found in other democracies.- And Harper's total control over his ministers - with people who theoretically hold authority over a department prevented from saying a word that isn't pre-approved by the PMO - figures to have plenty to do with Saskboy's observation that lies simply don't matter when it comes to the Cons.
In the United States, Obama can't act without Congress. In Britain, prime ministers can never impose iron discipline on their huge, leaky caucuses.
A better comparison to the current Canadian situation might be Russia, where Vladimir Putin is able to act without concern for the formal role of institutions, although in Canada there are a series of extra-governmental actors — the premiers, the courts and the media — that would prevent any government from going too far.
And we have watchdogs — the auditor general, the parliamentary budget officer and the like — but according a count by Queen's University Professor Ned Franks, Harper has fired or forced out 10 watchdogs, which tends to cow the others.
- Liisa Schofield and John Clarke point out how the McGuinty Liberals have not only embraced the Harris PCs' cuts to Ontario's social spending, but also made matters worse with a decade of erosion of the province's already-low social assistance levels.
- Finally, William Watson presents a typical faith-in-corporatism-based attack on any discussion of reasonable tax levels. So let's throw the question back at Watson: does he actually have any evidence (other than free-market dogma dressed up as "common sense") to counter the argument that the optimal level of taxation on high-income individuals is the one which maximizes revenue?
[Edit: fixed wording.]
No comments:
Post a Comment