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

Cut and thrust

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 6, 2011 11:46am - 7 Comments

Elizabeth Renzetti argues for incivility.

Perhaps our politicians can work on being less sensitive, not more. The House of Commons is meant to be a deliberative assembly, not a place of all-too-sober second thought. Disraeli, who preferred the swordplay of a heated argument, once recalled the mediocrity of some Victorian Parliaments: “You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest.” However rude and partisan, a fiery debate is preferable to the cold stone of loyalty. Let’s keep it burning.

See previously: On civility

Tags: civility, decorum, Elizabeth Renzetti, house of commons, Parliament

More by Aaron Wherry

Anonymous

Someone should point out to her that the fiery debate is already dead. What passes in the House isn’t debate, because neither side is listening to the other. All we have are three “cold stones of loyalty” that occasionally smash into each other.

Phil King

Exactly. There’s nothing “deliberative” going on in the house these days. You could cut the whole thing out and have MPs vote from their ridings online and you’d never know the difference.

Except of course there’d be less embarassing displays of stupidity on CPAC. LOL
Phil King

Exactly. There’s nothing “deliberative” going on in the house these days. You could cut the whole thing out and have MPs vote from their ridings online and you’d never know the difference.

Except of course there’d be less embarassing displays of stupidity on CPAC. LOL

Anonymous

Someone should point out to her that the fiery debate is already dead. What passes in the House isn’t debate, because neither side is listening to the other. All we have are three “cold stones of loyalty” that occasionally smash into each other.
Anonymous

Cut and thrust: Elizabeth Renzetti argues for incivility. Perhaps our politicians can work on being less sensitive, not…

Great, for some reason Aaron chooses to frame this idea in the worst possible way.

Surely the real call is for some actual debate, some actual delibertaion that might be accompanied by a smattering of incivility during passionate discussions.

Instead this reads as a simplistic call to stop demanding civility and sensitivity, with the dubious hope that by allowing MPs to be rude to each other, somehow wonderful debate will magically spring forth.

This type of wishful thinking isn’t helping at all, it just lets MPs off the hook, and blames this problem on political correctness.
http://idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Omen

This is almost too much. Wherry’s spent the last several years arguing that we need more decorum in the HoC. Then the moment the CPC has a majority, he’s arguing in favour of LESS decorum. Why am I not in the least bit surprised?