Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Russell McOrmond's avatar

(Autistic question to seek to learn: not a challenge, and not partisan)

I'm confused why we were supposed to accept Mark Carney as leader of the Liberal party and even Prime Minister when he didn't have a seat, but we aren't supposed to recognize Pierre Poilievre as leader of the Conservative Party and thus the leader of the opposition?

It appears you are pointing out a bug in Bosc and Gagnon that needs to be fixed -- I would prefer it be fixed to clarity that the Prime Minister must *first* have a seat (House of Commons or Senate), but at least it should be consistent in saying that if the PM doesn't need a seat then neither does any other official position.

I agree with everything you have said in the past about how leaders should be decided by caucus from fellow caucus members, and not imposed externally by the corporate fan club. I personally didn't recognize Mark Carney as the Canadian PM until this week. But I had to recognize that I was in a minority in feeling that way, and also that I need to be consistent in how I think about all these corporate fan clubs manipulating parliament. This is the most critical form of foreign interference in Canada's Democratic Institutions, but unfortunately isn't generally recognized as such.

BTW: The direction of that populist movement wasn't going to be impacted by the outcome of the election. Populist movements don't operate in a healthy political context.

https://metaviews.substack.com/p/167-the-kids-are-not-alright

Expand full comment
Avrum Rosner's avatar

Thanks for this, David. And I'm happy to say I'm starting to get used to your usual useful usage of multiple-usage terms.

Expand full comment

No posts