Comments on: UPDATE: About those Darwin Day deniers in the House …

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:49:51 +0000

See now, were I an MP with the green light from my leader and whip I would routinely deny unanimous consent to this frivolous time-wasting irrelevant crap motions for the simple reason that they are frivolous time-wasting irrlevant crap motions. But, that’s just me.

By: Shenping

Shenping — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:22:30 +0000

Denier:
1. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
2. Archaic. A small, trifling sum.

I’m thinking of way too many bad puns, only some of which involve Canadian coinage. But now I’m visualizing ol’ Stockwell in swimwear. May you rot in hell forever . . . At least it’s not an image of Harper.

By: Shenping

Shenping — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:15:16 +0000

If nobody thought like politicians, nobody would be crazy enough to run for office & we’d live in an anarchy. As opposed to the current dementocracy, I suppose.

By: MT

MT — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:59:46 +0000

alright maybe I’ll stick around a little longer

By: Wascally Wabbit

Wascally Wabbit — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:29:13 +0000

denier?
Isn’t that a measure of the fineness of nylons?
Is ITQ releasing leaks about what Stock Day wears under his wet suit?

By: R Keller

R Keller — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:12:45 +0000

No,kc, I don’t care who does it, I’m against pointless grandstanding – which the Conservatives do more than their share, I agree.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:46:13 +0000

Agreed! Except [ isn't there always one or two ] i doubt many Quebecers would agree with us. Still we do have a duty to bash the bloq. [ no snarkiness intended ]

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:38:56 +0000

kc – lol! Way to deflect my rant. Can’t we just put petty partisanship aside for a moment and focus on Bloq-bashing?

By: Ti-Guy

Ti-Guy — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:35:54 +0000

When it comes to tricks, this one is more upmarket than the ones one usually sees. At least this one is in the service of science and not wingnut delusion.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:28:57 +0000

Hmm…if i were just to delete the word bloq, and insert conservative, what would that do? Render yr statement inoperative? Not entirely me thinks!

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:21:49 +0000

Interesting!

It reminds me of the old hidden ball trick, which we took advantage of with gleeful abandon one Little League season (only against our hated rivals, however) . . . until after about the fourth time the ump told us to cool it. Those were very satisfying outs, however.

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:14:58 +0000

Cheap tricks are one of the last weapons left in the Bloc’s arsenal. Pandering to their credulous base is one of the few things Bloquistes can do successfully. It’s the only reason they still exist as a party.

By: Kady O'Malley

Kady O'Malley — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:11:55 +0000

Both.

By: Mike T.

Mike T. — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:05:05 +0000

vital as in lively or vital as in necessary?

By: The Professor

The Professor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:56:45 +0000

There is a new law in Ontario making puppy abuse a criminal offense. Forget about the Cadman and In and Out affairs — Puppygate — I can’t wait !

By: Kady O'Malley

Kady O'Malley — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:50:40 +0000

See, that’s a really good example of where I draw the line between procedural tricks, which are, IMO, a vital element of the parliamentary system, and actually trying to destroy the system itself by rendering it entirely dysfunctional. There is nothing inherently hostile to Parliament in a policy of denying motions for consent without prior agreement of the House — in fact, I’d suggest it actually protects the House, since it makes it far less likely that the Standing Orders could be amended on the whim of a single member or party. Holding a committee hostage to avoid losing a vote, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

By: oompus boompus

oompus boompus — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:48:03 +0000

Say what you like about the people in parliament, they are extremely good at what they do.

Starting a pretend-war over an idiotic and pointless issue such as faith vs. science and then letting it degenerate into a squabble over the fine points of parliamentary procedure may look foolish – but it’s actually a pretty good way to distract and entertain the sheep while the real business of fleecing them is conducted.

Better things to do, indeed.

By: matthew

matthew — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:21:31 +0000

Cutest attack ads ever!

By: R Keller

R Keller — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:42:23 +0000

For whatever the reason, I’m glad the motion was killed. I understand that the theory of evolution is a fully accepted scientific theory, but the motion sounded like a cheap attempt for the Bloc to pick a bun fight with social conservatives. The House of Commons has better things to do

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:30:39 +0000

LOL,

Excellent point. Perhaps the opposition should try to “sneak by” a motion proclaiming that puppies ARE in fact, adorable. When the government refuses consent, the opposition can bombard the government with questions and ads! Just what DOES Prime Minister Harper have against puppies anyway?

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:24:11 +0000

“opposition parties are free to do exactly the same thing that the Reformers did”

This may sound trite, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. I’m a firm believer in the rules of order, and more importantly respecting the intent of the rules of order. That’s why it really bothers me when people use the letter of the rules in order to avoid the intent. Anyways, at least they were actually following the rules, and not just, say, walking out of committees they were chairing.

By: Just visiting

Just visiting — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:12:57 +0000

Maybe after reading Kady’s blog today, other reporters taken in by that tactic won’t be easily taken in next time.

- JV

By: Olivier

Olivier — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:08:07 +0000

The blanket policy makes sense, but in this case, it bited them in the netehr regions. The opposition got out of that a newsbite stating that conservatives are against Darwinism.

Tough luck.

By: Ti-Guy

Ti-Guy — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:04:38 +0000

It’s interesting to note that many people come around to viewing what our politicians do as sensible because it makes sense…for politicians.

This is why we are doomed.

By: Two Yen

Two Yen — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:59:14 +0000

Kady,
Thanks for your explanation. This is a good example of why your blog is worth reading.

By: The Professor

The Professor — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:55:45 +0000

The Mace (a medieval weapon) is directly opposite Mssrs. Harper and Ignateiff — signifying what — a standoff in their vigil for a window of opportunity?

By: Kady O'Malley

Kady O'Malley — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:45:18 +0000

Yes, but in this particular instance – the Darwin motion, that is – it was raised in the midst of the post-vote exodus, as the House was returning to regular business, so most MPs probably *weren’t* listening to what was happening on the floor. Remember that a motion can be reintroduced at any point — sometimes the same motion will be put forward a half dozen times over a short period of time before it is finally given consent – so if it is rejected the first time, the sensible thing to do is talk to the other house leaders/whips to get all party agreement.

By: Just visiting

Just visiting — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:43:28 +0000

I think a blanket policy on this makes sense for any government.

I assume that the opposition knows this policy, and if they seriously want unanimous consent, they can seek it in advance through the House Leaders.

If they don’t do this, and want to play “gotcha”, they are free to raise matters without notice and then try to jump all over the government for denying unanimous consent.

However, if the government lets media know of the policy, then any “gotcha” problem for the government disappears.

By: Mike T.

Mike T. — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:42:14 +0000

So they can be forced to disagree with anything the opposition can put on the record, no matter how reasonable? That could be fun, especially when mentioned without context. In, say, campaign material.

By: Kady O'Malley

Kady O'Malley — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:40:22 +0000

Well, it’s sensible if you happen to be the government. Anyway, opposition parties are free to do exactly the same thing that the Reformers did, and watch for a window of opportunity, although in a minority situation, it’s unlikely that any government would be so complacent as to not make sure it had at least one MP in the House at all times. It’s not abusing the rules; it is using them to your advantage, and I say this as a zealous defender of the parliamentary system.

By: The Jurist

The Jurist — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:34:34 +0000

If anything I’d think the story explains why a blanket policy doesn’t make the least bit of sense.

Yes, they’d want to be careful about granting motions which might include a scheduling trick. But surely the logical answer to that should be to actually listen to what’s included in a proposed motion, not to reject all of them out of hand.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:28:01 +0000

“That may sound needlessly cautious, but it’s actually quite sensible:…”

Actually it sounds fairly terrible to me. According to your account, the Cons previous incarnation took advantage of the rules, abusing them to achieve their goals, and now they’re intent on preventing anyone else from doing it to them. Seems like typical behaviour to me. Based on what I read about committee meetings, it sounds like the new Cons are just like the old Cons in this respect.

By: Just visiting

Just visiting — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:06:17 +0000

Thanks, a useful explanation.

Truly a case where it makes sense to say: Move along, nothing to see here.

- JV