Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Summer reading

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, August 7, 2009 1:07pm - 7 Comments

Three important book reviews that arrived on newsstands awhile back, but that I’ve only now just noticed online now.

First, our own Andrew Potter on Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis.

Second, John Baglow, of Dawg’s Blog, on Garth Turner’s Sheeple.

Third, our own Andrew Coyne on The Birthright Lottery.

Also, in that issue, but not yet online, is an interesting review by Marian Botsford Fraser of Sylvia Bashevkin’s Women, Power, Politics.

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

Bookmark and Share
  • Blammo

    What about Stephen Harper's hockey book? Oh, yeah.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    "In essay after essay, Stephen Harper is taken to task for a multitude of sins against honest politics and Walter Bagehot — with little care taken to distinguish between the two."

    Andrew P, if you are out there, why the Bagehot reference. Did you just throw it in there or is there deeper meaning?

    Enjoyed the review. As you write, it is nice to see both sides of this debate and not another defence of the 'socialists and separatists' gambit to usurp power. The only quibble I had was that you are too generous toward Iggy and his motives behind his indecision.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      Re: Bagehot, I think he was just using it as shorthand for "Westminster convention," Bagehot having been the first to describe its principles coherently. Ironically, though, The English Constitution doesn't mention minority parliaments and coalitions — presumably because there were only two parties in Bagehot's day.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

        "describe its principles coherently"

        Thanks, Jack M. Did not know that about Bagehot.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    Andrew C I am gobsmacked that you kinda agree with Shachar's argument.

    I disagree with your first sentence because blood is how we decide who belongs to the First Nations and who doesn't.

    The only way I would support a tax on citizenship is if there were some reason that bad countries had to stay bad. Our ancestors made the choice to improve their lot in life, and their children's lot in life, and people who live in bad countries have not made that choice yet. There is nothing stopping bad countries from creating their own wealth and peaceful communities like we have here. I don't see why we should be penalized for making good choices nor do I see why we should reward bad behaviour because we will just get more of it.

    And what is this nonsense about 'rough parity', 'wealth should be earned', 'justice' and 'redistributed' when it comes to wealth/inheritance. People are free to dole out their wealth/property as they see fit and government should not be meddling in private affairs to promote dubious policies.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

    Is anyone else as concerned as I am, with no disrespect to those involved, at the degree of crossover in the news/opinion market of Canada's major media outlets?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

      Well, at least it's consistent.

Previous

Next

From Macleans