I guess that depends on what your criteria are for ‘worse’.
The Bush family? George H.W.: One-term president, failed to kill the villain Saddam Hussein. George W.: Two-term president, successfully killed Saddam Hussein and utterly defeated all terrorists in the world.
Actually around here, he’s better known as le p’tit crisse. Him being born on Christmas day after all.
10/10 for wry, subtle and bang on target.
I did say it was arguable.
Apparently, JT is going to introduce a motion to strip party whips of their power to decide which MPs are allowed to make members’ statements in the House of Commons. His basic proposal is that, instead of the whip submitting a list of MPs who are approved to make statements, every MP will be allowed to speak on a rotating basis (alphabetically).
Frankly, I think this is pretty brilliant (and I didn’t vote for either the Libs or the Cons in the last election). Harper had been saying how they wanted a more open and transparent government, but he keeps the muzzle on his crazier backbenchers. Allowing every MP to get a chance to make members’ statements can only work to the Liberals advantage. They get to show that they’re in favor of empowering MPs to represent their constituents’ view in Parliament. And if it leads to a couple crazy Conservative backbenchers making remarks that are embarrassing for their party, then I’m sure Trudeau wouldn’t mind. As much as Harper says that he’s holding his party reins and won’t be introducing legislation about hot button topics like abortion, I think there are a lot of people who don’t take him at his word about that.
So crazy Liberal backbenchers would never make embarrassing remarks for their party?
Get real.
Of course they would. But it’s irrelevant, since the motion will never pass, and the entire point of introducing it is to force the Tories to vote against it so the Libs can say that Harper’s afraid of his own backbenchers and look he forced those backbenchers to vote in favour of their own muzzle.
That’s exactly what I was thinking - it sounds like a great idea on paper, but I don’t think it will go well in the long run.
If I had to sum up what Stephen Harper stands for in a word, I’d say “management”.
It’s both his strength and his weakness - his strength, in that Canadians seem to want a strong hand at the helm, and he appears fully willing to surpress any of his more ideological party members intent on upsetting the apple-cart; his weakness, in that he’s widely seen as having no particular scruples other than expediency and as dictatorial.
In general, Canadians appear to tolerate rather than like him. At best, he’s like the hard-assed boss everyone dislikes and fears, but on whom one can rely to keep the business churning along.
Trudeau has the charisma to inspire liking, but few have any confidence in his ability to manage. So it comes down to charisma versus management - given that neither are overburdened with a consistent and coherent ideological motivation.
It seems the attack ads weren’t such a good idea; Trudeau attack ads backfire, from the Globe and Mail.
I don’t find that too surprising; I’d be curious to know how many people thought less of the Conservatives because of these ads.
71% said it didn’t change their view.
16% said it improved their view of Trudeau.
9% said it had a negative impact.
So, overall a 7% improvement for the Liberals.
But if you look at the poll itself, it says:
Right at the bottom of page 1.
Bolding is mine. I’m not convinced that the ipolitics post accurately tells the complete story.
ETA: That’s some fancy reporting there when your poll consists mainly of Ontario Liberals.
This. I don’t really think the motion has any chance of passing, and if it did it would cause embarrassing moments for all parties (although IMHO probably a little more for the Conservatives than the others).
But rather than the usual case of Conservatives saying they’re for openness and transparency and then not doing anything about it, now they’ll have to actively vote against it (and force their own backbenchers to vote against their own self interest, for the good of the party). The Liberals will use that as ammunition against them. I just thought it was a pretty shrewd maneuver by Trudeau, who is relatively inexperienced politically. Who knows if it was actually his idea or not, but he’s the one proposing it.
Standing in the beer line at the Junos.
It is a madhouse.
Cool! My Junos were last night; a couple of friends won for best jazz and best classical recording.
Almost at the bar now c
Have one for me!
Super cool!
Sitting near the stage that Carly Jepson was just on; place is hopping; Kory Sheets did crowd warm-up for Bublé. Now in the popcorn line - which is longer than the beer line?!?