Friday, April 17, 2009

Yesterday's Man, Yesterday's Politics

Expect the Harper cheerleaders and advisers to start coming out with all sorts of theories and advice for the Conservative party as time moves forward.

Tom Flanagan no doubt wrote this article before he saw the latest poll, but he sees the writing on the wall and is trying to defuse and deflect the realities awaiting his beloved party. Nice try Tom, but your strategy is old, tired and not what Canadians are expecting from politicians at the moment.

Flanagan is all about lying. Not spin, that's too polite. Lying is far more accurate as Kory Teneycke unwittingly told us recently. Teneycke was speaking about the GST cut and Tom is now suggesting that the dreaded coalition will have to be resurrected, actually his term is 'reactivated', in order for Ignatieff to fell the government.

He's not seriously suggesting that Ignatieff re-form the coalition. No, he's merely suggesting that the Conservatives tell Canadians that lie, because you know, Harper was so good at scaring the bejeesus out of everyone by completely distorting the truth. So hell, why not try it again?

Here's the problem. Ignatieff has rejected the strategy completely. Flanagan might indeed say that the agreement was signed, but that was an agreement under a former leader. As leader, he has said that he saw how Canadians reacted to the premise, so he would not take that route. Period. His path appears to be unity and if the coalition was going to cause further division in the country, regardless of why, it was not going to be pursued.

Flanagan and other flacks like Poilievre are all about distortion and juvenile attacks. I think Canadians have grown past that, not in small part by watching what has been going on in the States. Further to the US example though, there is no disputing that Ignatieff has kept to the high road. That as evidenced in the recent poll, imo is working and I'd hate to see the Lib's stray from that.

Do the Liberals require that the NDP and Bloc vote the government down with them? Of course, just as it's always been, but Flanagan's speculation is ridiculous as to how these parties might react. Strong numbers for the Bloc suggest that they wouldn't be fearful of an election and if Jack and his gang actually voted to keep the Conservatives in power, well, they can kiss what little credibility they have left goodbye.

Flanagan, Poilievre and their ilk can shriek about 'socialists and separatists', but I think Canadians will only see the tired, old politics of the past and look to someone speaking about the issues.

Stupid is so yesterday isn't it? Then again, the Conservatives never have been able to keep up with the times.

14 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

Do the Liberals require that the NDP and Bloc vote the government down with them? Of course, just as it's always been, but Flanagan's speculation is ridiculous as to how these parties might react. So in a way, Iggy putting the Conservatives "on probation" was in a way quite ridiculous, no?


Now why would the BQ want an election if they are to loose seats?

KNB said...

No, I don't think so. In fact I'm not sure I'm seeing the link you're trying to draw.

Probation was about getting the budget through and not causing an election when no one wanted one. It was about keeping the government accountable. If the government does not live up to their agreement, probation was one more option that the Liberals had at their disposal to take the government down. That doesn't negate simply voting no confidence on another issue.

As for the Bloc, how do you see them losing seats based on recent polls? This is the latest Ekos seat projection.

Besides, like Jack, Gilles can't go around the province condemning the Conservatives then vote to keep them in power with much credibility.

Anonymous said...

Flanagan is not a Harper flack.

KNB said...

Really? What would you call a former adviser who continues to promote his old boss and party while offering advice, gratis?

Cherniak_WTF said...

KNB, Iggy made a big show about putting Harper on probation. He was going to make the government "accountable" - sure it was quite laughable at the time, it still is. Iggy is impotent and he has no magic little blue pill.

You talk about credibility, but in this case, we only have to look at the Liberals under Dion voting with Harper every time.

Or, if you want a more recent example, Iggy voting for the budget then starting to criticise it.

The BQ or NDP can abstain if they want when it comes to confidence votes.

The BQ are roughly at the same level. Liberals are quite confident that they have momentum. Rumours are for a Fall election.
There is no incentive for the BQ to want an election.

It's all posturing.

RuralSandi said...

Not only was Flanigan a former advisor to Harper - he was Harper's mentor.

Perhaps the BLOC would be ready if they thought the Liberals could get even higher support in Quebec.
And, maybe if they thought they could lose votes to the NDP.

Actually, if Layton and Duceppe, after all the puffed up rhetoric about not ever trusting Harper, would look like absolute fools if they voted with Harper.

KNB said...

How is he impotent? Putting the government on probation didn't equate to being given omnipotent power to fell the government, nor did he or the Lib's claim that. It was a way of not giving the Conservatives license to announce without action.

Ignatieff and the party criticised the budget before he voted to allow the country to move forward by voting for it.

Yes the BQ and the NDP can abstain, but using your anti-Iggy argument, wouldn't that have the same impact as voting for the government?

Like it or not, the BQ and the NDP have been all over the Lib's for their strategy. To employ it in this case would be beyond ridiculous.

Phillip Huggan said...

I recognize what wealthy Conservatives are doing from my own developmental psychology.

They are going through their "mine" phase. You know when a toddler puts his hand on everything in the house and looks to mom and dad and says "mine"?

Liberal daycare $$: mine.
Carbon pollution revenue: mine.
Genomics R+D budget: mine.
Kelowna Accord $$: mine.
Millenium Development Goals $$: mine.
Dion's retrofit green bonds: mine.
Bloc affordable housing: mine.
Federal surpluses: mine.

I went through the same phase when I was 2.

RuralSandi said...

Oh, here we go. The G&M "suck" up time. They've removed the comments on Flanigan's article. Geez - we really want some taxpayer funds so we'll suck up to Harper.

So much for honest journalism

Phillip Huggan said...

...one year Afganistan-style sex agreement with babe. Mine.

Cherniak_WTF said...

How is he impotent? Putting the government on probation didn't equate to being given omnipotent power to fell the government, nor did he or the Lib's claim that. It was a way of not giving the Conservatives license to announce without action.Iggy idle blabberings were rather funny :
"We are putting this government on probation," Ignatieff said. "For their failure to plan and act as a government, we hold them responsible."

The amendment, which Ignatieff presented as a motion on Wednesday afternoon during budget debate in the House of Commons, will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and costs, to be delivered in March, June and December of this year.

Each report would be an opportunity for the opposition to express confidence in the government, he said.

"We've put down a very clear marker. This government has to get the money out the door," the Liberal leader said.

"If this government fails to meet these targets, it will not survive for long."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/28/ignatieff-decision.html

Sounds like threats from Iggy, and at the time was perceived that way by many Liberal bloggers.

In the interim, he's criticised the Conservatives, given in on their slush fund, and basically let them have carte-blanche.

Of course the Conservative have failed even the basics with their stimulus plan, but the Liberals have done nothing - because they can't.

Anonymous said...

Apparently the LPoC is having problems getting the membership to commit to going to the convention in Vancouver.

Some have said that the problem is with the timing of the B.C. provincial election, while others are openly musing that it has everything to do with the lack of democracy in the installation of Iggy as leader and the subsequent lack of leadership.

This is a serious problem.

KNB said...

In the interim, he's criticised the Conservatives, given in on their slush fund, and basically let them have carte-blanche.Yep, I thought that was a dumb move. I imagine the Lib's are tracking it though and will/can refer to it.

As the mandate to report was laid out, have the Conservatives failed to comply? They are to report on May 27th.

What do you mean they (the Lib's)can do nothing? Following that report they could if warranted. Will they? I don't know.

KNB said...

Ohh, anonymous, I'm shaking at the seriousness! LOL

I've seen nothing to suggest that the LPC is having trouble. It's been known for sometime that the numbers wouldn't be as great as they would have been had there been a leadership race.

You said: while others are openly musing that it has everything to do with the lack of democracy in the installation of Iggy as leader and the subsequent lack of leadership.Really? Who and where are these amusing musings taking place?