Down The Rabbit Hole
Stephen Harper started this, and by gawd the opposition seems hell bent on finishing it.
When the now-infamous attempt by the Prime Minister to smuggle in the death of public subsidies to political parties was met with hysteria from the opposition, it quickly became clear that the chessmaster had, for once, miscalculated. And that was that. The opposition had their excuse: thank you sir, we'll be taking over government now...
That's essentially the pretext. The notion that the opposition's newfound unity has anything remotely to do with a common vision, or deep concern for the looming economic crisis is absurd, given that the Tories have backed off on all the contentious issues, and committed to the very stimulus that the opposition is demanding - at a budget to be delivered on January 27.
Why is that unacceptable? Apparently because that's far too long to wait. To coordinate a massive fiscal stimulus the country has ever seen. In concert with other major countries, including the eminently acceptable timetable of the recently-beatified Barack Obama. That the opposition would now deliver at approximately the same time anyway.
Oh, but the bullying. We just can't trust that Harper anymore. As if last Wednesday you would have found a single soul amongst the opposition benches that would have sung his praises and called him trustworthy.
So why don't we just call this what it is: it's payback. It's venting. It's a mental masturbation session for all those partisans who can't stand Stephen Harper and are simply ecstatic that they've finally found a way to take him out, once and for all. It's not a coup d'etat, to be sure. But I can't think of a more disturbing way to spin away the results of an election. It's as if they're saying: we don't care what the voters said. Our distaste for Stephen Harper trumps their will.
But Harper only got a minority, you say. The public didn't give him a mandate to bulldoze. No, they didn't. Which is why he's already been cut down to size by being forced to backpedal. But the public did give him a mandate nonetheless: and soundly rejected the other alternatives. Given that the notion of a coalition between the Liberals and NDP (nevermind all three opposition parties) was explicitly and repeatedly rejected by both Stephane Dion and Jack Layton just six weeks ago, how can they possibly argue the public has somehow subconsciously consented to such a pact?
And look - there's Elizabeth May angling for a Senate seat. I suppose if being appointed is the only way you can get into Parliament, she'll have to take it. Just another in the long line of her attempts to circumvent the system because she doesn't like the way it works. Because that's democracy: if you don't like the rules of the game, just ignore the rules!
The opposition speaks as if putting the boots to Stephen Harper is the overwhelming issue of importance facing the nation, when in fact it is only the overarching obsession of their own political fantasies. They could not beat the man in an election, so they are trying to take him out by striking a deal of no substance, against their own promises, using the guise of economic crisis to seize power. As the Globe and Mail put so accurately today, Stephen Harper may deserve a dressing down for his conduct last week. Indeed, the opposition could have even demanded his resignation, allowing the government to select a new PM. But surely it does not mean Canada deserves a frankenparty coalition led by the weakest and most soundly rejected leader the Liberal Party has ever had, inked with a socialist party committed to making a bad economic situation worse, held hostage by a party whose sole raison d'etre is the breakup of the country.
No, Mr.Harper had it right today in the House when he dared Mr.Dion to take his proposal of a coalition to the voters. Neither he, nor Jack Layton, nor Gilles Duceppe, nor any of their snivelling cheerleaders in the media or blogosphere would have the nads to do any such thing, because they know it would be roundly rejected by the public. So instead they're preparing to use constitutional niceties to impose a government that not a single voter in this country consented to. Because, trust them, it's for the good of the country.
When the now-infamous attempt by the Prime Minister to smuggle in the death of public subsidies to political parties was met with hysteria from the opposition, it quickly became clear that the chessmaster had, for once, miscalculated. And that was that. The opposition had their excuse: thank you sir, we'll be taking over government now...
That's essentially the pretext. The notion that the opposition's newfound unity has anything remotely to do with a common vision, or deep concern for the looming economic crisis is absurd, given that the Tories have backed off on all the contentious issues, and committed to the very stimulus that the opposition is demanding - at a budget to be delivered on January 27.
Why is that unacceptable? Apparently because that's far too long to wait. To coordinate a massive fiscal stimulus the country has ever seen. In concert with other major countries, including the eminently acceptable timetable of the recently-beatified Barack Obama. That the opposition would now deliver at approximately the same time anyway.
Oh, but the bullying. We just can't trust that Harper anymore. As if last Wednesday you would have found a single soul amongst the opposition benches that would have sung his praises and called him trustworthy.
So why don't we just call this what it is: it's payback. It's venting. It's a mental masturbation session for all those partisans who can't stand Stephen Harper and are simply ecstatic that they've finally found a way to take him out, once and for all. It's not a coup d'etat, to be sure. But I can't think of a more disturbing way to spin away the results of an election. It's as if they're saying: we don't care what the voters said. Our distaste for Stephen Harper trumps their will.
But Harper only got a minority, you say. The public didn't give him a mandate to bulldoze. No, they didn't. Which is why he's already been cut down to size by being forced to backpedal. But the public did give him a mandate nonetheless: and soundly rejected the other alternatives. Given that the notion of a coalition between the Liberals and NDP (nevermind all three opposition parties) was explicitly and repeatedly rejected by both Stephane Dion and Jack Layton just six weeks ago, how can they possibly argue the public has somehow subconsciously consented to such a pact?
And look - there's Elizabeth May angling for a Senate seat. I suppose if being appointed is the only way you can get into Parliament, she'll have to take it. Just another in the long line of her attempts to circumvent the system because she doesn't like the way it works. Because that's democracy: if you don't like the rules of the game, just ignore the rules!
The opposition speaks as if putting the boots to Stephen Harper is the overwhelming issue of importance facing the nation, when in fact it is only the overarching obsession of their own political fantasies. They could not beat the man in an election, so they are trying to take him out by striking a deal of no substance, against their own promises, using the guise of economic crisis to seize power. As the Globe and Mail put so accurately today, Stephen Harper may deserve a dressing down for his conduct last week. Indeed, the opposition could have even demanded his resignation, allowing the government to select a new PM. But surely it does not mean Canada deserves a frankenparty coalition led by the weakest and most soundly rejected leader the Liberal Party has ever had, inked with a socialist party committed to making a bad economic situation worse, held hostage by a party whose sole raison d'etre is the breakup of the country.
No, Mr.Harper had it right today in the House when he dared Mr.Dion to take his proposal of a coalition to the voters. Neither he, nor Jack Layton, nor Gilles Duceppe, nor any of their snivelling cheerleaders in the media or blogosphere would have the nads to do any such thing, because they know it would be roundly rejected by the public. So instead they're preparing to use constitutional niceties to impose a government that not a single voter in this country consented to. Because, trust them, it's for the good of the country.
13 Comments:
Excellent, Excellent post - the hatred of Stephen Harper by the left in this country is viseral. They see GWB finally gone in the States and see Harper as the last bastion to the new world order of peace, love and unicorns.
I am sick of the blame Harper is getting for this and the cries of He Must Go from the MSM in this god forsaken country. It is like they have all been emboldened by this and are determined to drive the final nail in their quest to destroy Stephen Harper.
God help us all if they succeed.
Now on this one, I can agree with you fully.
You nailed it, Aaron.
It's all about hatred. Well done.
You know me, I don't necessarily agree it's all about payback or power. There might be some of that involved but that's contemporary politics.
However, I have come to the conclusion that if Harper has truly learned his lesson, etc. then he needs to prove it. Backing off from vicious ideological and partisan proposals only tells us that he was scared of losing power.
If he's serious about this he needs to make the outreach to the opposition parties and include them in the process of dealing with the current situation. While I dislike Obama comparisons, it's fitting at the moment. Obama has done this very thing without a mandate requiring him to. So therefore, Harper should essentially be looking at doing something similar. After all, his mandate is to do that.
It is a media/opposition, dissection of a very moral and true CANADIAN. To all of the non-believers, "Come west, young man".
Stephen Harper, did, as a young Eastern Canadian, and saw his country as a WHOLE country. He also saw what HIS federal government did to the west and lived it. He has the whole image,IMHO.
Sadly,watch that disappear if this happens.
1) On CTV this morning, Roger Smith confirmed that this is "all about getting rid of Stephen Harper".
2) Someone in the comments on "Blue Like You" says that in a radio interview, Bob Rae confirmed that they will not do anything until the Americans have announced what they are going to do. sorry its too late to post the link .
Kyle, what precisely is wrong with the leader of a political party being "ideological"? That's another word for saying that he's doing what he believes to be right.
Alex,
I wrote "vicious" at the beginning to make a point. He went after women's equity and the right to strike and used the economic crisis as an excuse. It's cowardice and wrong. There's ideology and then there is what Harper tried to pull.
ALW,
There are two distinct issues here: politics and constitutional procedure.
I agree with most of what you've written recently on the politics of this. It sucks. The Opposition are defeating the government not on substance, but upon now-recanted partisan cheapshots. (The public-financing measure being portrayed as a necessary exercise in fiscal prudence was no more principled than the Opposition using the pretext of 'economic stimulus' to bring down the government, though.)
The constitutional situation must be viewed as distinct, however. The cabinet must be always prepared prove that they enjoy the confidence of the House. It's been that way since 1728. It is the central feature of responsible government.
Or is that not true?
Is it inaccurate to say that the central feature of responsible government is that the Executive must always enjoy the confidence of the Legislature?
I hate to be contrarian here, but removing politics from the constitutional elements of the current situation seems to yield much greater clarity than we Conservatives might like.
Best,
M
Kyle, how exactly did he go after women's equity? The right to strike, sure, and I largely agree that it was a stupid move, but equity?
Responding to Alex's question. See e.g. this CBC story:
The mini-budget originally proposed a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity, and eliminated subsidies for political parties.
The equity lawsuit limitations are described in more detail in an opinion piece from yesterday's Montreal Gazette: The sweater comes off: Harper curbs pay equity.
As someone getting screwed by the pay equity deal, it was signed and approved by the union.
Basically it moved the issue from the Human Rights Commissions and over to bargaining table which has been done in other jurisdictions in Canada.
Its a weak point.
On the issue of the right to strike of the public service, I think if it went to the union's membership it would actually pass.
Stephen Harper would not be prime minister today if he had allowed democracy to run its course. While all the other G8 governments are busy addressing the economic crisis, our elected government is locked out in the cold by a prime minister too cowardly to face the music. Robert Mugabe would be proud.
Post a Comment
<< Home