Ignatieff's far rightwing views?
No I don't believe for a minute the guy is really right wing, matter of fact I don't think he's ever held fast to any belief. Any resemblance to a show of belief or statement made to express same by Squidward is either coincidence or done for show to keep on side with his audience.
But I digress.
Iggy wants to "show" he's a centrist.
Oh goody....
Please explain then as leader of the liberal party what rightwing policies you agree with and a plan to impliment them.
Here's the to do list for Iggy:
- Eliminate the gun registry.
- Bring in a triple E senate.
- Return the definition of marriage to its traditional meaning of one man one woman.
- Get the federal government out of provincial jurisdiction, start with health care.
- Speaking of Prov-Fed jurisdiction, end the shell game of transfer payments.
- Rescind Canada's signature from the Kyoto Accord.
- Pledge to equip Canada's Navy with nuclear subs so they can operate year round in the Arctic.
- Make the CBC a private corporation.
- Ban the Bloc from sitting in the HoC.
- Lastly, reveal the names of the Quebec ridings that got the Adscam money, have the perps arrested and then have them stand trial.
This is just a start. However, because it requires Squidward to actually come out with a plan I doubt this will even come up on the radar of something "big". I do expect that if he wants the LPC to shift to the right this should remind us all what that path entails.
And frankly I don't think he has the onions to even suggest some of this stuff.
Labels: May's little green monster, Quebec politics, senate reform, the free lunch crowd at it again
Mulroney and Schreiber
I know I should be concerned over this but for some reason my gut is telling me there are a lot of major news outlets with pre-written templates ready to go .....some of them may have been sitting around for a few years.
And all of it based on the statement of a guy facing criminal charges in Germany.
Imagine the rage the media and the opposition liberals will go into if Harper rags the puck long enough for Schreiber's extradition to go through and then hands the matter over to the RCMP?
I think I'm going to enjoy watching this.
Here's why.
The only way there can be an election is if the liberals believe they can put Harper on the defensive. If they believe this business over Airbus has any traction you bet the liberals will find their testicles in time for the next nonconfidence measure.
Think of the timing.
Harper has said he's going to get an independent third party to advice the government on how best to proceed, but no timeline.
Today Harper is reintroducing his senate reform bill with the understanding that when the NDP introduces its referendum bill it gets the governments support, a bill that is guaranteed to be held up in the senate if not returned to the commons altogether (read liberal obstruction to change).
Harper then has his opportunity to put the question of confidence to the house on an issue the liberals will feel safe opposing if they believe the M-S issue has legs.
Going forward in speculation, I presume that the day before the nonconfidence motion, Harper will make a decision on the issue that will take it out of play. It could be an inquiry, handing the matter over to the RCMP to investigate, or saying this is Schreibers feeble attempt to stay in Canada to avoid prosecution and that no action by the government is neccessary as this has nothing to do with the current adminstration.
I'm betting on the last possible outcome as it would leave the liberals holding the deciding votes on whether there will be an election or not, and having made statements to the effect they would be bring the government down it would do irrepairable damage if they sat on their hands again.
The beauty of it is that unlike Adscam this issue has nothing to do with the current government, so the liberals chosing this issue (and certain media outlets) to run a campaign on will be responded to with "last time we checked Mr Mulroney was not on the ballot" read witch hunt.
The media and the liberals have made careers out of attacking Mr Mulroney, its time they gave it a rest....but I know they won't being creatures of habit and all that.
Labels: Conservative majority, senate reform, useful idiots
Layton, abolishing the senate, and liberals walking the electoral plank
I see at least two advantages to this proposal to Layton getting this debate going in Parliament.
-1- He knows, as much as some might assume otherwise, that to eliminate the senate does require a consitutional change. Going to a referendum first rather than say to set up a constitutional roadshow, keeps the process from getting off the rails by being co-opted by every special interest group with an axe to grind. It keeps the scope of the change on reforming or doing away with the senate and once the people have spoken it will be very hard for any government to ignore that, or hide behind a group of experts that apply the golden rule. Those supplying the gold write the rules.
-2- This keeps the issue out of the mushy middle. The conservative party wants to reform that chamber, now the NDP is for doing away with it. That leaves the liberals with no position until they join the debate (an option they have seemed to be very adept at lately), but worse because the only position left, keep it the same appointed, unelected, unequal, not reflective of regional interests, is the only ground unclaimed in this debate. The side of this point that is dangerous for the liberals is that if they don't want to be seen defending a patronage system for party hacks, they have to join a parade that has already started with Layton out front, or the other parade that was started many years ago by reformers. The difficulty is that to go with Layton's position casts Jack as the liberal choice, and to go the other way to reforming the senate validates Layton's contention of a Conservative-liberal coalition, albeit without the tacit approval of the liberal leader. Again, the liberals not leading the debate, but instead playing Johnny come lately.
-3- Having this issue come out like this also gives credence to another couple of points. Coyne wrote right after Harper last spoke before the senate committee that this is part of the dynamic change that once it starts you cannot stop it. It also fits nicely into one of the conservative attack ads on senate reform that asks the question "who supports 45 year terms for unelected senators?"
Due to the above points I'm for this question being added to the ballot next election, but by all means have the debate on the framing of the question. This is sure to out the statists as laking any claim to being so-called "progressives".
Lastly, lets make it two choices, reform or abolish. Retaining a flawed system of prime ministerial patronage won't do.
And make it a confidence measure.
Addendum:
Jack might also have another objective in mind. If this gets through Parliament and then is sent on to the Senate, the senator will be faced with the prospect of fish or cut bait. They might just see the only way out as a nonconfidence motion before the debate can take place...you know force an election ASAP by not sitting on their hands. You can do it, all you have to do is rebel against a sitting leader......call it "walking the electoral plank".
Update:
Seems
its working already after one day.
Labels: senate reform
On Senate reform
This is an important issue for me, so when Hugh
Segal goes about making statements like
this it shows the discussion has moved to where Harper wanted it to go. Its now a dynamic
situation of two choices, neither of which is stay the same.
Change or be eliminated.
I also concur that the best course of action to bring about the change is to threaten a referendum.
Why?
Most of the members of that august chamber know that if it came to a choice for the average Canadian the choice would be abolish the red chamber. Further the liberal members know that as far as the current
administration in Ontario (where the bulk of liberal support is now) is also on the side of doing away with the Senate, so don't count on
McShifty to campaign on letting them keep their jobs...unless that was another promise he won't keep.
Point now is that the membership of the Senate now realize that the longer Harper remains PM the greater the possibility that he will finally have his way on Senate reform. Which brings me to my observation. If the liberal senators believe their jobs are under threat the longer Harper is PM they'll want to do whatever
they can to keep Parliament from sitting. Hence as appointees that don't have the threat of losing their seat hanging over their heads, but also burdened with a party leader that has no chance of winning an election, I'm prognosticating that these liberal senators will be doing whatever they can to force an election....even so far as to rebel against S Dion and hold up pieces of legislation.
I wonder if there are any journalists thinking the same?
Labels: senate reform
