Well, with the exception of the NDP, that is.
On Monday, MPs were trying to negotiate a deal on the Afghan detainee fiasco. To measure whether there was any progress, we sent it to a nuclear physics laboratory. The results came back, and measured progress at (1.6 +/- 9.7) x 10^-14 metres. Statistically insignificant.
All kidding aside, there was a bit of progress, but far from an agreement. So the NDP pulls the old "we're gonna quit negotiating if we can't get it done by tomorrow" trick.
Well, it seemed like it worked, because on Tuesday, the government announced a deal with the Liberals about releasing documents. The Bloc signed on too, and it looked like a shining moment for democracy in Canada. Right?
Wrong. In swoops Jack Layton and the NDP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They refused to sign on to the deal, then whined about it. Why? Because it didn't meet all of their demands, just half.
Jack, look up compromise in the dictionary. Your party champions working with others in Parliament. Your party prides itself in making things work for Canadians. Therefore, we naturally have all the other parties working together to make this work, while the NDP stands there like a little girl, crying, crossing her arms, and stomping her feet. Nice.
When people ask me what my favourite joke is, I always reply, "Jack Layton." This would be why.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Don't like Ignatieff's coalition position?
Wait five minutes.
Recall: in November 2008, during the initial (and very much failed) coalition attempt, initiated by Dion, Ignatieff signed onto the coalition deal with the NDP.
Recall: in December 2008, when he took over from Dion, he went from yes to maybe - "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
Recall: in September 2009, he went from maybe to no - "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." - Let me just rephrase that for you: "In January Canadians clearly showed they did not support a coalition therefore we do not support one today or tomorrow."
Recall: in May 2010, it appeared his position hadn't changed (shock and awe!). In party talking points sent out to MPs and members - "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions."
Recall: last week, in an interview with CTV, he now says - "can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition." - Michael, you've taught at Harvard, for crying out loud. You don't actually expect us to believe you've conveniently developed a case of political Alzheimer's, do you?
So there you have it. Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be a man who is either:
Oh, and Michael, you still haven't really told us what you think about a coalition.
Recall: in November 2008, during the initial (and very much failed) coalition attempt, initiated by Dion, Ignatieff signed onto the coalition deal with the NDP.
Recall: in December 2008, when he took over from Dion, he went from yes to maybe - "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
Recall: in September 2009, he went from maybe to no - "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." - Let me just rephrase that for you: "In January Canadians clearly showed they did not support a coalition therefore we do not support one today or tomorrow."
Recall: in May 2010, it appeared his position hadn't changed (shock and awe!). In party talking points sent out to MPs and members - "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions."
Recall: last week, in an interview with CTV, he now says - "can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition." - Michael, you've taught at Harvard, for crying out loud. You don't actually expect us to believe you've conveniently developed a case of political Alzheimer's, do you?
So there you have it. Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be a man who is either:
Dishonest;- Indecisive;
- A weather vane, or;
- Completely insane (look right).
Oh, and Michael, you still haven't really told us what you think about a coalition.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Another year, another PM
Naoto Kan was inaugurated as Emperor Akihito of Japan's 14th Prime Minister yesterday. 14 Prime Ministers?! The Emperor must've been on the throne for AGES!
Not so - Emperor Akihito ascended to Japan's throne in 1989, a mere 21 years ago. Evidently, the post "Prime Minister of Japan" does not have any job security at all. In fact, it is pretty much a graveyard. Recent years have been riddled with sudden resignations...often just a year or less into their tenure. This is very different from any other Prime Ministerial nation...heck, in Canada, we have to go back to 1920 to count out 14 Prime Ministers.
The Japanese public is peculiar. Why do I mention them? Well, it's often due to them that these sudden resignations arise. They are HIGHLY intolerant of their politicians. In fact, some of the world's lowest approval ratings come from Japan. Taro Aso served from 2005-07, and bottomed out at 7% approval. Noboru Takeshita's (1987-89) ratings REALLY DID TAK-E-S**T-A when he rocketed down to 4% approval. And the funny thing is, all of these Prime Ministers head into the post with 80% approval ratings. It's kinda like a typical contemporary American marriage. They rush headlong into it head over heels in love (or drunk)...then find out after a few months that they are hopelessly irreconcilable. And then either the Japanese public (via an election) or the Prime Minister (via resignation) will not be long in saying, "I want a divorce."
Not so - Emperor Akihito ascended to Japan's throne in 1989, a mere 21 years ago. Evidently, the post "Prime Minister of Japan" does not have any job security at all. In fact, it is pretty much a graveyard. Recent years have been riddled with sudden resignations...often just a year or less into their tenure. This is very different from any other Prime Ministerial nation...heck, in Canada, we have to go back to 1920 to count out 14 Prime Ministers.
The Japanese public is peculiar. Why do I mention them? Well, it's often due to them that these sudden resignations arise. They are HIGHLY intolerant of their politicians. In fact, some of the world's lowest approval ratings come from Japan. Taro Aso served from 2005-07, and bottomed out at 7% approval. Noboru Takeshita's (1987-89) ratings REALLY DID TAK-E-S**T-A when he rocketed down to 4% approval. And the funny thing is, all of these Prime Ministers head into the post with 80% approval ratings. It's kinda like a typical contemporary American marriage. They rush headlong into it head over heels in love (or drunk)...then find out after a few months that they are hopelessly irreconcilable. And then either the Japanese public (via an election) or the Prime Minister (via resignation) will not be long in saying, "I want a divorce."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The HST isn't a tax increase! Honest!
Okay Mr. Campbell, we get it. The provincial government needs to be economical in these difficult times. The problem is, you're taking it to the step where you're being economical with the truth (read: lying).
The HST isn't a tax increase because we will pay 12% on items which formerly had a 5% tax. It isn't because businesses will pay less tax. GREAT! DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE CONSUMER GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW MUCH TAX BUSINESSES PAY?! IF I HAVE TO PAY MORE, IT'S A FREAKING TAX INCREASE!
You weren't lying to us about the HST because OBVIOUSLY you never promised that you wouldn't implement it if re-elected. That's definitely not why British Columbians elected you to a third term in office.
The province really, really, honestly was only going to have a deficit of $495 million in 2009. And all of a sudden after the election it's officially $2.8 billion. Either it was coincidental dyslexia or an accidentally on purpose LIE.
Seriously, this whole thing puts me in a bit of a pickle. The HST is actually good economic policy. It makes businesses more competitive in the province, and as a consumer tax will get the more affluent who have more to spend, not to mention that simplifying the sales tax collection will save the province oodles of money. The problem for me is not the HST; it's how it was implemented: that is to say, through lying, secrecy, backroom deals, and general disregard for the public.
A secondary problem arises from this - which party can I support in the next provincial election? The NDP will run the province into the poorhouse (as demonstrated the last time they governed), the Liberals can't be trusted with power anymore, and the Greens are my favourite joke (well no not really...that distinction still goes to Jack Layton). Basically, unless the BC Conservatives pull a meteoric rise out of the ashes within the next two and a half years, I will be completely alienated by the provincial political scene. That said, I will probably end up holding my nose and voting Liberal again just to keep the NDP out. Not that there's much hope for that happening now that the Liberals have dug themselves into a 15% hole with the entire HST fiasco.
Well may we say, "God save the Queen," because NOTHING will save this province. Not at this rate, anyways.
The HST isn't a tax increase because we will pay 12% on items which formerly had a 5% tax. It isn't because businesses will pay less tax. GREAT! DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE CONSUMER GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW MUCH TAX BUSINESSES PAY?! IF I HAVE TO PAY MORE, IT'S A FREAKING TAX INCREASE!
You weren't lying to us about the HST because OBVIOUSLY you never promised that you wouldn't implement it if re-elected. That's definitely not why British Columbians elected you to a third term in office.
The province really, really, honestly was only going to have a deficit of $495 million in 2009. And all of a sudden after the election it's officially $2.8 billion. Either it was coincidental dyslexia or an accidentally on purpose LIE.
Seriously, this whole thing puts me in a bit of a pickle. The HST is actually good economic policy. It makes businesses more competitive in the province, and as a consumer tax will get the more affluent who have more to spend, not to mention that simplifying the sales tax collection will save the province oodles of money. The problem for me is not the HST; it's how it was implemented: that is to say, through lying, secrecy, backroom deals, and general disregard for the public.
A secondary problem arises from this - which party can I support in the next provincial election? The NDP will run the province into the poorhouse (as demonstrated the last time they governed), the Liberals can't be trusted with power anymore, and the Greens are my favourite joke (well no not really...that distinction still goes to Jack Layton). Basically, unless the BC Conservatives pull a meteoric rise out of the ashes within the next two and a half years, I will be completely alienated by the provincial political scene. That said, I will probably end up holding my nose and voting Liberal again just to keep the NDP out. Not that there's much hope for that happening now that the Liberals have dug themselves into a 15% hole with the entire HST fiasco.
Well may we say, "God save the Queen," because NOTHING will save this province. Not at this rate, anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)