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.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Right Honourable Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Who would have thought? It's a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and the LibDems get 4 cabinet ministers, as well as the Deputy Premiership for leader Nick Clegg. And so the drama in Britain ends.
The election on May 6th ended in a lose-lose-lose situation. The Conservatives (306) couldn't win their majority (326), Labour (258) didn't hang on with most seats, and the Liberal Democrats (57) polled a disappointing 24%, which while marginally up on 2005, actually got them less seats than in 2005.
To add to the confusion, normal ideological partners still didn't add up to the required 326 seats for a parliamentary majority. The Conservatives and the Northern Ireland Unionists (8) only added to 314, and the obvious Labour-LibDem coalition totaled only 315.
So the speculation began. Would it be a Conservative minority? Mathematically difficult. A Lib-Lab minority? Clegg said he'd never work with PM Brown. A Lib-Con majority? Political differences abound...
Then Gordon Brown blew his chances of staying on with an angry phone exchange. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives both say that coalition talks have been encouraging. Then Brown, in a last ditch attempt to help Labour, announces that he will step down as leader. And to no avail, as his own MPs were all over the news denouncing a Lib-Lab pact.
All this time, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had been making progress in coalition talks, and as it was increasingly evident that this would be the new government, Gordon Brown tendered his resignation to the Queen today, and Conservative leader David Cameron was invited to be the next British Prime Minister.
Good luck, Mr. Cameron, and rule well.
The election on May 6th ended in a lose-lose-lose situation. The Conservatives (306) couldn't win their majority (326), Labour (258) didn't hang on with most seats, and the Liberal Democrats (57) polled a disappointing 24%, which while marginally up on 2005, actually got them less seats than in 2005.
To add to the confusion, normal ideological partners still didn't add up to the required 326 seats for a parliamentary majority. The Conservatives and the Northern Ireland Unionists (8) only added to 314, and the obvious Labour-LibDem coalition totaled only 315.
So the speculation began. Would it be a Conservative minority? Mathematically difficult. A Lib-Lab minority? Clegg said he'd never work with PM Brown. A Lib-Con majority? Political differences abound...
Then Gordon Brown blew his chances of staying on with an angry phone exchange. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives both say that coalition talks have been encouraging. Then Brown, in a last ditch attempt to help Labour, announces that he will step down as leader. And to no avail, as his own MPs were all over the news denouncing a Lib-Lab pact.
All this time, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had been making progress in coalition talks, and as it was increasingly evident that this would be the new government, Gordon Brown tendered his resignation to the Queen today, and Conservative leader David Cameron was invited to be the next British Prime Minister.
Good luck, Mr. Cameron, and rule well.
Monday, April 26, 2010
A historic landslide!
2010 marks 20 years since the fall of communism in Hungary, and one group was that was definitely celebrating was the opposition Fidesz-KDNP Christian conservative alliance. In the 6 free elections since the fall of communism, Fidesz-KDNP notched the greatest electoral victory by any political group, taking advantage of a disastrous 4 years for the governing Socialists (MSZP). With nearly 53% of the votes and 263 of the 386 seats in parliament, they clear the threshold for a two-thirds majority (258 seats), becoming the first non-coalition government to do so, and this is the threshold required to institute (some would say much-needed) constitutional reforms. Now, Hungary has a very complex electoral system (they have single-member seats, list seats, and so-called "compensation" seats, and you need at least 5% of the vote to be eligible for list and compensation seats). However, there is one image that can greatly display the nature of the Fidesz-KDNP victory: the single-member seats.
Orange is Fidesz-KDNP (173 + 87 list + 3 compensation = 263)
Red is the governing MSZP (2 + 46 list + 21 compensation = 59)
White is an independent
Black is the city of Budapest (see inset map)
Parties that did not win single-member seats:
Far-right party Jobbik (18 list + 29 compensation = 47)
Green party LMP (5 list + 11 compensation = 16)
A nigh on clean sweep! Here's to hoping this new government can live up to expectations and make daily life easier for the average Hungarian. And, as it is a Christian conservative alliance, I'm hoping they can uphold some traditional values too (and throttle Jobbik in the process, since they are quite possibly racist).
Orange is Fidesz-KDNP (173 + 87 list + 3 compensation = 263) Red is the governing MSZP (2 + 46 list + 21 compensation = 59)
White is an independent
Black is the city of Budapest (see inset map)
Parties that did not win single-member seats:
Far-right party Jobbik (18 list + 29 compensation = 47)
Green party LMP (5 list + 11 compensation = 16)
A nigh on clean sweep! Here's to hoping this new government can live up to expectations and make daily life easier for the average Hungarian. And, as it is a Christian conservative alliance, I'm hoping they can uphold some traditional values too (and throttle Jobbik in the process, since they are quite possibly racist).
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
What a week it was!
We're just over 2 weeks away from the United Kingdom general election. This time, the Brits did something they never did before - hold a leaders debate. Up until February, it was nearly certain that the unpopular Labour government would be ousted by the Conservatives, and quite possibly in a landslide. Then, the polls narrowed, but the picture was still the same - the Conservatives would win.
But then the debate happened and turned the entire campaign on its head. Immediately after the debate last week, it was evident that third party Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had scored a decisive victory. So we thought, it probably might let him hold on to the votes he had last time, and maybe snag a bit more. What followed in the week to come was beyond even the wildest imagination. The Lib-Dems didn't just rise in the polls; they soared. While Labour and Conservative faltered, the Lib-Dems surge propelled them first into second ahead of Labour, then at times into first place. When the dust settled, there was no clear election winner anymore. The only thing that was certain: Labour is now embarassingly in third place. But only in vote share. Thanks to the quirks in first past the post (FPTP), Labour would still be ahead of the Lib-Dems in terms of seats, and could even "win" the election, as conventional wisdom tells us.
This brings another dimension into the campaign: electoral reform. With such blatant unfairness in the current political system, should the current situation unfold on election night, it would be pretty darn hard for anybody to defend FPTP, and the Lib-Dems have had electoral reform on their plank for ages. Doubtless, a strengthened Lib-Dem caucus, or perhaps even a shock Lib-Dem government, would push for change to a more equitable electoral system.
There are still 2 more leaders debates to follow in the coming weeks until election day on May 6, and as this week has shown us, anything can happen. What started off as a formality with a foregone conclusion has turned into a three-way race, and may well end up as the most exciting British election of the 21st century. On the 7th of May, what sort of Parliament might we be waking up to?
But then the debate happened and turned the entire campaign on its head. Immediately after the debate last week, it was evident that third party Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had scored a decisive victory. So we thought, it probably might let him hold on to the votes he had last time, and maybe snag a bit more. What followed in the week to come was beyond even the wildest imagination. The Lib-Dems didn't just rise in the polls; they soared. While Labour and Conservative faltered, the Lib-Dems surge propelled them first into second ahead of Labour, then at times into first place. When the dust settled, there was no clear election winner anymore. The only thing that was certain: Labour is now embarassingly in third place. But only in vote share. Thanks to the quirks in first past the post (FPTP), Labour would still be ahead of the Lib-Dems in terms of seats, and could even "win" the election, as conventional wisdom tells us.
This brings another dimension into the campaign: electoral reform. With such blatant unfairness in the current political system, should the current situation unfold on election night, it would be pretty darn hard for anybody to defend FPTP, and the Lib-Dems have had electoral reform on their plank for ages. Doubtless, a strengthened Lib-Dem caucus, or perhaps even a shock Lib-Dem government, would push for change to a more equitable electoral system.
There are still 2 more leaders debates to follow in the coming weeks until election day on May 6, and as this week has shown us, anything can happen. What started off as a formality with a foregone conclusion has turned into a three-way race, and may well end up as the most exciting British election of the 21st century. On the 7th of May, what sort of Parliament might we be waking up to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)