4 ms·

> The entire country is basically waiting for the current gov to go away so the next one can actually attempt to fix it. It is wild that the deal between the L

by voisin 3y ago

> The entire country is basically waiting for the current gov to go away so the next one can actually attempt to fix it. It is wild that the deal between the Liberals and the NDP is constitutional. All it did is disenfranchise Canadians for 3 years. Trudeau should be forced to have his government subject to non-confidence votes - sink or swim on his decisions, and if there isn’t confidence (which seems totally obvious!) then go to an election. Edit: I would love to hear from those who downvoted this. What’s your take? It seems indefensible to me.

bawolff 3y ago
sigh people really don't understand how parlimentry democracy works. Of course supply & confidence agreements are constitutional. Its not even a coalition government, which would also be constitutional. sheesh Edit in response to your edit [i did not downvote you] - for starters this is a really common feature of most parlimentary democracy. It helps mitigate some of the downsides of first past the post & vote splitting (NDP+liberals have > 50% of the popular vote. They are fairly simlar politically, agreeing on many things. Why shouldn't they get to do the things they agree on, since a majority of the country voted for them when combined, presumably a majority like the parts of their platform that are the same) The second thing, is that politics involves compromises, generally it is expected some wheeling and dealing might occur. e.g. MPs from alberta might vote for something that benefits fishermen in Nova Scotia in exchange for NS MPs voting for something that benefits alberta. I dont see anything wrong with that, this is just a more formal version. Last of all, the agreement is non-binding. NDP is allowed to pull out any time it wants with no penalty other than the liberals being mad at them. So it is not like it prevents a non-confidence motion if the NDP is unhappy (for that matter, individual MPs do not have to vote with their party on anything, the only penalty is they might get kicked out of their party. If the MPs don't like treadau they can kick him out anytime they want regardless of what party leadership thinks.

by voisin 3y ago

bawolff 3y ago

sigh people really don't understand how parlimentry democracy works. Of course supply & confidence agreements are constitutional. Its not even a coalition government, which would also be constitutional. sheesh Edit in response to your edit [i did not downvote you] - for starters this is a really common feature of most parlimentary democracy. It helps mitigate some of the downsides of first past the post & vote splitting (NDP+liberals have > 50% of the popular vote. They are fairly simlar politically, agreeing on many things. Why shouldn't they get to do the things they agree on, since a majority of the country voted for them when combined, presumably a majority like the parts of their platform that are the same) The second thing, is that politics involves compromises, generally it is expected some wheeling and dealing might occur. e.g. MPs from alberta might vote for something that benefits fishermen in Nova Scotia in exchange for NS MPs voting for something that benefits alberta. I dont see anything wrong with that, this is just a more formal version. Last of all, the agreement is non-binding. NDP is allowed to pull out any time it wants with no penalty other than the liberals being mad at them. So it is not like it prevents a non-confidence motion if the NDP is unhappy (for that matter, individual MPs do not have to vote with their party on anything, the only penalty is they might get kicked out of their party. If the MPs don't like treadau they can kick him out anytime they want regardless of what party leadership thinks.