Since I can’t see what your location is, I can only assume that I’m coming from a different place than you are. I wasn’t unhappy when Harper won another minority government because I think the Conservatives are the best party for the west (since the Liberals have had the balls to trot out the NEP II on their last platform). Keeping the economic engine of the west going will be the best thing for all of Canada, too, so by that logic, I believe the Conservatives are the best party for all of Canada during these questionable economic times. I am not, however, thrilled by all of the politicians trying to make political hay at about the worst possible time (and I do blame all of them for the games that are going on right now). I might express appreciation for a something well-played, but I wish they would all stop playing and just get on with what they were elected for, governing.
The comments that set me off were the following:
Seeing a man who just suspended Parliament to prevent his government from be defeated praised for his political games-playing skills was more than I could take.
However, I must also acknowledge the following:
So I will concede that she’s not entirely happy with the situation.
Harper is not a regional leader, except for the fact that he comes from a region not typically given the opportunity to be the Prime Minister. His actions so far in his time in office have, IMO, consistently been more about the Big Picture than defending the West, starting with his cabinet, with its disproportionate Quebec and Ontario representation, much to the chagrin of more than a few western pundits and voters, who actually expected Harper to give all the power to Albertans. Then of course, there was the recognition of Quebec as a nation. That’s just two off the top of my head.
Let’s also not forget that Harper grew up in the Toronto area and didn’t move to Alberta until he began university in Edmonton. With a perspective that includes both Eastern Canada priorities and Western Canada priorities, I think calling Harper a regional leader is, at best, an overstatement and at worst, flat-out wrong.
If I am wrong then I will obviously eat crow, as a PM he has not really impressed me , but also he has not distressed me either so I’m fine with that , but his handling of this situation ,particularly the cause of it is what makes me think regional.
Declan
The cause of it is that the coalition parties decided to form a coalition and oust the Conservatives, regardless of what was contained in the fiscal update, long before that update was issued. Given that, they would have found something to protest – if not the party subsidies and a lack of a stimulus package, then something else. You can’t get economists to agree whether a stimulus package would even work, so that, to me, was simply a judgment call, and not a “regional” move. So I really don’t see where you’re getting this regionalist impression.
Just to update: Dion has announced he will step down.
It looks like the Libs will be crowning one politically relatively inexperienced academic (Ignatieff) in another politically relatively inexperienced academic’s place, given that the optics of putting Rae in as Liberal leader during a recession are too horrible for even the out-of-touch to ignore.
In terms of the political pseudocrisis, this will allow the Libs to back away from voting out the Tories at the end of January 2009 if Harper and Flaherty present anything vaguely reasonable. If the budget etc is felt to be beyond the pale, then IMHO the Liberals with a new leader should certainly go for another election after voting down the budget rather than setting themselves up as the new government in coalition with the NDP and the BQ.
Damn, I wrote a response and lost it.
Ignatieff isn’t very experienced, it’s true, but Dion was named minister in 1996 and has been active in politics ever since. He’s more ineffectual than inexperienced, imo.
I distrust Ignatieff because of the fact that he was a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, and though he denies it advocating torture, his writings about lesser evils sound a lot like the US use of “coercitive interrogations” in Gitmo.
He’s spent most of his life outside Canada, I don’t trust his newfound love.
I don’t like or trust Ignatieff, who comes across to me as a big windbag, and has never exhibited a lot of moral courage or interest in ordinary Canadians.
However, if the Liberals have a better option, I don’t see it. Ignatieff has, to his credit, managed the impressive feat of being perhaps the only high-profile federal politician who HASN’T looked like a complete tool in the last ten days. We’ve got a complete set:
- Stephen Harper, vindictive asshole
- Stephane Dion, blockheaded fool
- Jack Layton, uberweasel
- Gilles Duceppe, separatist
- Bob Rae, blustering jackass
- Jim Flaherty, mean old jerkwad
- Elizabeth May, back-stabbing careerist
Someone, Ignatieff (and Michaelle Jean, but she doesn’t count) has managed to weather this storm without taking a serious kick to the nuts of his reputation. Quite frankly, at this point, that alone means he’s exhibited more intelligence than most of the clowns in this circus.
You forgot to mention Jim Karygiannis, who can’t keep the hatchet buried for more than a day. Having met him once, I think of him as a human prostate gland; capable of generating a lot of unctuous fluid, but equally capable of spreading cancer to the body politic… Every party has to have at least one, I guess.
More and more I think of the cartoon in the Toronto Star on our last election day, which was this:
FEDERAL ELECTION BALLOT
[ ] Harper
[ ] Dion
[ ] Layton
[ ] May
[X] Obama
The absolute pisser is that Harper brought all this on voluntarily. There was no need for it.
While I don’t disagree with most of what you’ve said, I have a feeling that Mr Ignatieff has only managed to not look bad during this recent craziness by virtue of not having enough power to really get himself in trouble. But I suppose the same could be said about Bob Rae and he’s not looking so good right now. Maybe I’ll go back to pondering on this for a bit…
Ignatieff has come out of this looking okay because he staunchly refused to take a position on the coalition – that decision reflects that he is savvy, but not courageous, and he can’t really keep up the two-way act as a party leader. Fun times…
You’d need a spreadsheet to keep track of them all. It’s a shame Garth Turner lost his seat in the last election. He would have had something immensely stupid and inappropriate, but also highly entertaining, to say.
A good point, and reinforces my belief Ignatieff’s a man of great ambition and little moral courage. During the previous Liberal leadership big he was the race’s leading master of saying many words and committing to nothing of substance.
One of the things you notice about the CEOs of big corporations is how such an amazing percentage of them - not all, but a huge, huge number - are tall white guys with “Executive hair” who’re in good shape. Competence is not necessarily important, as evidenced by Rick Wagoner and others. I can’t help but think Ignatieff because a popular candidate because (a) he LOOKS the part - a tall white guy with executive hair, and (b) he usually manages not to say anything stupid. He’s a smart man, and there’s something to be said for that, but I’m a bit puzzled as to why he wants to be Liberal leader aside from the fact that it means he might run the country someday. And I’m REALLY puzzled as to why the Liberals want him as leader, aside from his not carrying Bob Rae’s baggage.
As an aside… one wonders how much screaming there’d be if the Conservatives nominated as leader a guy who’d spent most of his adult life living in, say, the United States.
That’s the part that’s sticking in my craw - how can he govern Canada when he doesn’t even know Canada? He wasn’t here! He’s been holed up in Ivory Tower Land since 1978. As smart as he is (and I don’t doubt he is a brilliant man), I would love to see him acting as a resource for government, but not leading any government. You can’t teach someone what it’s like to live in a country day-to-day, year after year, living with the policies, paying the taxes, reading the newspapers and discussing things with friends and family. He’s lacking all of that.
I don’t know. I’ve been living in “Ivory Tower Land” in the States for a few years now. It hasn’t diminished my patriotism, involvement in Canadian politics or knowledge of Canada.
I don’t know whether I like him or not, but I’m not sure I like that criticism.
Once again, and I think people really need to remember this, the Coalition was in place before Harper did anything (not that I think Harper is blameless in this mess). I don’t think the Coalition leaders had gone to the trouble of creating the Coalition without intending to use it, but someone can correct me on that - does a minority government’s opposition usually have coalition plans in place like this?
Being away for a few years is not comparable to Ignatieff’s almost 30 years away.
Helen’s Eidolon, it may not be fair to you personally, but then you’re not (that I know of) about to become the leader of the Opposition and potentially Prime Minister any time soon.
Ignatieff may well be patriotic and knowledgeable, but you’ll have a hard time convincing me that a man who has spent such a significant part of his adult life outside of Canada (1978 - 2000 in the UK, 2000- 2005 in USA, returned to Canada 2005 to enter Canadian politics, and he was born in 1947 , all according to the Wikipedia entry) really appreciates what currently sticks in Canadians’ craws across the country and what our real issues are. Before 1978, OK, he’d’ve been young to run but I couldn’t have faulted him on the Canadian experience issue. If he’d waited a year or two after moving back to Canada before starting his political run, to experience life as a regular Canadian citizen again, I would’ve been more comfortable with him taking on this leadership role. I’m with **featherlou ** on this one.
RickJay, I so agree with you about the appearance part. As to why the Liberals want Iggy (aside from not being saddled with Rae’s baggage, as you mentioned) - I think the Libs have a strong respect for academics / intellectuals as potential leaders, and they imprinted on Pierre Trudeau. You’d’ve thought they would’ve remembered their recent wake-up call with Dion, but then the pool for choices post-Dion was limited.
featherlou - yes, the minority government’s opposition usually looks at all its options, including under what conditions it would overthrow the government, so this is not particularly new. Usually the minority government party quickly looks for ways to get enough of the opposition parties on-side so they can govern, so the threat doesn’t get waved around quite so fast (bribing minority parties with part of their wish list as part of the legislative package usually works). Plus there is usually a sort of sportsmanship thing going on - you shouldn’t bring the government down until they’ve had a chance to govern a little, lest the government and Canadian people cry foul (as has happened lately).
Otherwise known as seeking the confidence of the House.
Well that’s not exactly true - the NDP was working behind the scenes to secure a coalition, but why wouldn’t they? That’s the only way they could get power in this situation. The Liberals agreed to it temporarily when they saw they were about to get run over by a tank.