Thursday, January 29, 2009

And You will Defeat them How Exactly Mr. Ignatieff?

Here's the thing. There's some guys out there that are touting the old "accountability" adage. The thought goes something like this:

What this amendment does is to give Stephen Harper an option: be accountable. Be open. Be responsive to Canadians. If you don’t take that option, pal, we will defeat you. That’s not a threat. It’s a promise.

It is fair to say that the budget has not passed. It is fair to say the budget will not pass – it will not pass if the Conservative Party does not do what Liberals, and Canadians, require of them.

Accountability isn’t just a word, you know. It is a cornerstone of our democracy. And the fact is, the Conservatives have not been accountable. They have not been straight with Canadians. The effect of this of amendment is to force them to be accountable. It forces them to be straight with Canadians. It keeps that sword hanging over their heads.

This amendment has ample constitutional, legal and political precedent, and those things are important. But what is most important is what Canadians want out of their government: a government that listens to them. A government that respects them. A government that remembers who is the boss.

Canadians, you see, are the boss. Not Stephen Harper. Today, with this measure, we are reminding him of that. And if he doesn’t change his ways, we will defeat him.


Now, I am no mathematician, but to defeat the Conservatives, doesn't one need around 144 votes in the House of Commons? I'm no Constitutional expert either, so maybe I'm wrong. The last time I took stock, the Liberal Party of Canada only has 77 seats in that House. Doesn't that mean in order to defeat the government you need 67 more votes?

I ask you: Do you really think Jack and Gilles are going to be excited about helping out Mr. Ignatieff's party at present to defeat the government when they both already have the massive seat totals in the House, the likes of which they may not see again? My guess is no.

Here's the truth. Michael Ignatieff could have been Prime Minister next week. He chose not to. I know two things for sure. Dion would have been PM next week and Bob Rae would have too.

There are people going hungry because they have to decide whether it's more important to pay their rent or buy groceries or keep their hydro on. Do you think they give a shit about tax credits? There are thousands of unemployed workers that will be losing their homes, their cars, their families because of the ridiculous EI system we have. So you think 5 extra weeks of EI if they qualify is going to help them save it all?

You could have asked for more Mr. Ignatieff in your amendments. You should have asked for more.





Photobucket

27 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

Do you really think Jack and Gilles are going to be excited about helping out Mr. Ignatieff's party at present
No. Duceppe has stated as much.


You'd had "thunk" that the Liberals supporters were afflicted by the same lack of logic as the Connies...

Old School Liberal said...

Here's the truth. Michael Ignatieff could have been Prime Minister next week. He chose not to. I know two things for sure. Dion would have been PM next week and Bob Rae would have too.

Ahhh. I see.

So there was no doubt whatsoever that the GG was going to install the three-headed beast instead of an election. Right. For certain. Absolutely. No doubt.

And there was no doubt whatsoever that grabbing power without an election and creating a unprecedented and divisive political crisis in the country was the right thing to do for Canadians in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis and that this is what Canadians want. Right. For certain. Absolutely. No doubt. The thing that is important is that a Liberal would have grabbed power as quickly as possible without the bother of an election. How democratic for someone who rails against how Iggy got appointed.

Delusion coupled with power grab tendencies and no sense of the political realities and a complete disconnect with the realities, opinions and desires of ordinary Canadians.

And some people still wonder why Dion and some of his supporters were such a disaster.

James Curran said...

The only delusional one on this stream is you Old School....as usual. In fact constitutional scholar after constitutional scholar have piped in on the GG's position and her rights under the constitution. The Party failed Dion. Dion didn't fail the party. Maybe Rodriguez and Coderre could give some more anonymous quotes in Quebec in Dion's riding and they can get rid of him completely. Maybe the guys in the OLO can figure how to reach out to some of the other disaffected Libs and appoint one - yes one- of them to one of their fabulous commmittees.

At least I blog under my own name and fear noone in this party. Unlike some blogging pseudonyms I know.

Yes. You're pure genius alright.

Pearce Richards said...

So you're saying the roles will now shift, with the NDP and BQ propping up the government? All in the name of avoiding an election where they may lose seats? This is despite their constant and vigorous push to get the Harper Tories out of power? That's some fine logic there, Lou.

LeDaro said...

James, there was Kim Campbell as our Prime Minister. Very short time but she was.

I could not leave a comment under LiberalsOnline for some reason.

James Curran said...

Gilles already has a history of voting with the Cons. It's whatever Gilles wants to do. There is zero incentive for either party to support the Liberal Party of Canada in a non-confidence vote. Afterall, we just stiffed them on a written calition agreement.

That's the genius of it Pearce.

James Curran said...

I'm not sure what you mean LeDaro. Kim Campbell?

LeDaro said...

James, Kim Campbell was Prime Minister for a very short time after Mulroney. She ran against Chretien in 1993 and PC was reduced to 2 seats, Elsey Wayne and Charest.

Pearce Richards said...

You're right James, they have supported the Tories in the past. However, the major "burn" Gilles laid on Ignatieff was that he wasn't willing to bring down the government. If Ignatieff shows he has the minerals, perhaps he will change his tune?

It's a big if, to be certain.

penlan said...

There is no such word as accountability in Harper's vocabulary. He hasn't been accountable since his govt. was elected/re-elected.

Iggy "holding" Harper accountable is a joke. The man (SH) is a master at "hiding" absolutely EVERYTHING. He will find a way to "cook" the reports.

Iggy & all Lib MP's that went along with this stupid amendment do not deserve to be re-elected in the next election. And they probably won't be. Iggy will wear the recession/depression along with Harper.

I've heard that many of the Lib MP's do not like the budget & told same to Iggy when he called them. If it's true. So Michael does not even listen to his own caucus - just his inner circle?

The whole thing makes me ill.

penlan said...

LeDaro,

I don't get the connection you are trying to make about Kim Campbell. In relevance to this post. Could you, please, explain?

LeDaro said...

James here is wikipedia article on Kim Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell

LeDaro said...

Penlan, there is another discussion going on under Liberalsonline. James thought all the Prime Ministers were white-males.

I just pointed out the Kim Campbell was indeed female Prime Minister.

I could not leave the comment on Liberalsonline.

James Curran said...

Yes. True. But she wasn't Liberal, which is what I thought Crystal was referring to in the first place. True, she was a PM and I was one of the ones that wanted to see her portrait up in the House of Commons.

Pearce Richards said...

Perhaps a better caveat could be, "The only Prime Ministers to win an election have all been white males."

But at least we have a Head of State who is an immigrant woman from Haiti with an umlaut in her name. Take THAT Obama (can't take credit for this, I read it somewhere)

Cherniak_WTF said...

Gilles already has a history of voting with the Cons. It's whatever Gilles wants to do. There is zero incentive for either party to support the Liberal Party of Canada in a non-confidence vote. Afterall, we just stiffed them on a written calition agreement.
It's funny how the Liberal brain turds just don't seen to get that. Duceppe is already attacking the Liberals in Quebec after laying off for awhile.
The Conservatives are not a credible force here after bad mouthing Quebec (as shown by the last poll numbers). The Coalition had wide support in Quebec and now Iggy seems to have decided that he wants to play politics instead of doing what is right for the population.

LeDaro said...

Pearce Richards, GG is not a powerhouse. It is more of a small decoration in that house.

penlan said...

LeDaro

Thankyou for the clarification. I must have missed that what with all the anger etc. going around. And I am one of those angry ones. :-0

Old School Liberal said...

Bob Rae is a team player.

And Bob Rae gets it: http://tinyurl.com/BobRaeisaLiberal.

In difficult times, you do what is best for the country. Not just best for your quick grab on power.

James Curran said...

As usual, you missed the point.

The Mound of Sound said...

Do what's best for the country? You mean as in support that pathetic budget? The problem with your logic Old School, is that we just have to look south to see what recover/stimulus looks like, to watch it translated into action, BY A GUY WHO'S BEEN IN POWER FOR EIGHT DAYS!

Now you can put as much lipstick on that pig of a budget as you want but that's not going to make that utterly visionless mishmash of bad ideas any better for this country or the Canadian people.

I just happened to turn on an American newscast last night and saw Obama outline a stimulus package that was visionary, focused and designed to boost American productivity and competitiveness in the decades ahead. He wasn't talking about plunging his nation into deficit to give people money for renos on their cottages either.

So, I'm sorry Old School but the bar has been set and its right there for all of us to see. And when we look at it there's no avoiding the fact that the leaders of the Conservatives and Liberals have utterly failed this country.

Old School Liberal said...

Look, let's admit a few things.

There is absolutely nothing, no step, no decision, no approval or amendment or rejection of the budget, no appointment, no statement, nothing that would make either of you agree with Iggy. It is clear you hate him to your cores.

Not sure why I waste my finger strength on these self-proclaimed "Liberals" who JUST DON'T GET IT, who just don't understand the political and economic realities of today, who just don't even care what ordinary Canadians across the country are actually saying and actually wanting from their government right now.

Canadians want what is happening in the US: Canadians want our MPs to be less partisan, to stop playing political games, not grabbing power for its own sake, not create a political crisis because the budget is not perfect.

There is a reason why some political groups like the NDP don't get into government in Ontario and federally. They may speak for a certain number of people, but they just don't have an ability to hear, let alone understand, what the majority of Canadians care about or want. Most Canadians are not driven by an extreme ideology and they don't vote that way.

It is the same thinking that has sunk the Liberals in the last many years. We have thought that all we needed to do was say "left" and "right" and "Canadian values" and "neoconservative" and "hidden agenda".

Your everyday Canadian does not care about that. And even less so now. What we want is a pragmatic, responsible, practical Parliament.

Sorry, and I say this to the rightwing nuts too, but your time is over, folks.

Time to go back to the old school Liberalism. When we cared about all Canadians and not just our islands of support and being ideologically pure. When we cared for and got things done for Canadians.

James Curran said...

Go play in some other school sandbox Old School. Tell these Liberals that they just don;t understand you....then again, it's not personal with any of them, is it?

http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-would-other-liberal-leaders-have.html

http://nativecanadian.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-view.html

http://the-mound-of-sound.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-matter-how-you-cut-it-ignatieff.html

http://womanatmile0.amfresh.ca/?p=3515

http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com/2009/01/if-everyone-in-ottawa-knows-something.html

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2009/01/question-for-liberals-from-concerned.html

http://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/ignatieff-fails-his-own-litmus-test/

http://thewindingroadahead.blogspot.com/2009/01/at-least-well-have-nice-shiny-labs.html

http://truenorthstrongandliberal.blogspot.com/2009/01/budget-to-cut-funding-for-stem-cell.html

Old School Liberal said...

I have not read every one of those blogs, but some of them are clearly like you - you and they so dislike Iggy that it doesn't matter what he does, you'll oppose it, like a Kinsella with Martin, and they so hate Harper that any kind of power grab - as long as it is technically legal - is OK even if it causes unprecedented political and constitutional crises and division. Terribly unfortunate in these times when some countries are moving beyond partisanship to act for the good of their country instead of their party.

Others on that list, I know are either disappointed to angry with the decision of Michael and Bob and Scott and Ken and all of the others in caucus on the budget. That is fine. You look at Red Tory for example and you see a range of reasonable praise to questioning to disagreement. There is no knee-jerk automatic anti-Ignatieff position from most of those, and most of them acknowledge the difficult economic, financial and political reality Canada and the Liberal Party are in.

But, as I noted, some of you do not.

James Curran said...

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.com/2009/01/ignatieff-and-stupidity-of-it-all.html

Yep. That sure is Old School alright. Disagree with the leader and ya hate the whole party. Very Martinite of you.

Bye.

Liz said...

I don't think Old School has a very good understanding of Canadian politics, Old School instead keeps on talking about change in the U.S.

Most Canadians wanted real action taken with this budget, instead, between Harper and Iggy, we have seen a lot of delay of real action, followed by the exact thing that Stephane Dion was always attacked for - Iggy saying the budget was horrible, and then voting for it anyway. Yet somehow this time it's the responsible thing to do?!?

This budget is awful, and already 2 caucus members are openly breaking ranks to vote against it. It does not help Canadians, it is not what Canadians want.

Old School says that politicians should be working together for change - that is EXACTLY what the coalition was. Iggy didn't want to hear about it. Instead, Iggy has made no effort to "work with" the Conservative caucus, he has done a lot of posturing and is ensuring that this lousy budget will pass, and Harper's government will survive.

When Old School is saying that the caucus decided as a whole to back this budget, it's not true. As our own MPs have been reporting in the press, Iggy has made it clear that the caucus now has zero say in what decisions he makes - the leader and the entire party are all one in the same, and the only voice that speaks for the party is Iggy. In the National Post today one of our MPs was quoted as saying that Iggy is an even worse control freak than Harper.

How sad we were saddled with this leader without even having a say on it.

penlan said...

Liz wrote:

"Old School says that politicians should be working together for change - that is EXACTLY what the coalition was."

She is right & the coalition represented more of the voters/population than the Cons got for votes. It was split votes among 3 other party's.

What also really bothers me is that Iggy set up 3 priorities, prior to the budget, that he said would have to be in place for it to pass. And he repeated it quite a few times. Well they weren't addressed properly, they are a sham, & yet he accepts the budget anyway. This is completely hypocritical.

It is self & Party & the desire for power before the needs of the people. It disgusts me.