...between the Tories and Liberals, to extend the Afghanistan mission. What else can you call it? A deal that, frankly, excludes a good portion of the Liberal Party's MPs as well as the nation's citizenry, from a meaningful role in the decision.
And what astounds me, after so many years of his "Liberal Hawk" instincts proving so utterly disastrous, after humping a University degree in basket-weaving courses into a career as a TV talking head (in some little island country across the ocean that was relevant a century ago)... after being installed as LPoC leader because the party was too broke to oppose him...what astounds me is that after all this, Iggy still thinks he's smarter than the people and the party that elevated him.
Frankly, I think if Iggy wants to support an extension of Canada's Afghanistan mission to 2014, he should have to get up in the HOC, hold hands with Prime Minister Harper, and explain the whys and wherefores behind this Lib./Tory coalition. Lets face it, he's been a crap leader of the opposition. If Dion couldn't explain himself in English, then with Iggy the problem is that when he explains himself it just makes you think he's an enormous dick. Nobody owes him any deference. And he owes the country a better performance.
So, lets have a debate in the HOC. And remember the debate around the Long Gun Registry; the LPoC brain trust eventually came around. This argument isn't lost. Iggy has shown that he will bend the right way when pressure is applied. It's just that he's a stubborn as an ass, and can only be convinced if you apply the political equivalent of a 2 by 4 to the side of his head.
Excellent blog.
ReplyDeleteFancy the content I have seen so far and I am your regular reader of your blog.
I am very much interested in adding http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/ in my blog http://the-american-history.blogspot.com/.
I am pleased to see my blog in your blog list.
I would like to know whether you are interested in adding my blog in your blog list.
Hope to see a positive reply.
Thanks for visiting my blog as well !
Waiting for your reply friend !!!!!
Time and again, the LPC is demonstrating that it is little more than PC Lite. Both parties will continue to go nowhere in the polls because only 30 percent of Canadians will ever trust the Conservative Party (at least in its present manifestation) and the LPC has not demonstrated that it is an alternative to the present Government. So we will continue to see a de facto coalition government between the two largest parties.
ReplyDeleteThis argument isn't lost.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is. Why do you think that there will be a debate this time? The Prime Minister has already stated that there doesn't need to be one because this isn't an extension of the combat mission. Maybe its a crap reason, maybe not, but that doesn't matter does it, because there is not a thing the Liberals are going to or even want to do about it. This is a done deal.
Maybe Ignatieff will show up in caucus to answer question about it, but I doubt it. He is too busy on the Open Mike circuit doing his own thing to bother showing up to do his job now in the HOC to the point that he has the poorest record of any MP in Parliament. And this is the "leader" of a major policial party and the supposed Official Opposition.
And that's not all, as the news people like to say.
ReplyDeleteI wager Harper will allow this pot to boil for a bit, and then suggest we need a debate, after all - secure in the knowledge that all the Tories are one way (for the war) and all the Dippers are the other way (against the war).
The debate will be used simply to exploit divisions in the Liberal caucus. And Ignatieff and Rae will only be able to watch with dismay.
Librocons. Up to their usual tricks.
ReplyDeleteWarren has it pegged exactly.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to that, maybe the Prime Minister will just let Duceppe and Layton take it out of Ignatieff’s hands and table a motion of some sort in the House during one of their Opposition Days. Imagine how much fun that will be.
So far, far away from the hopeful days of the Liberal Express Tour.
I'll spare you a spirited chorus fo 'liberal/Tory, same old story. It seems redundant and unneccesary at this point.
ReplyDeleteI would point out that the rot in neoliberal politics and economics extends across the ocean as well, where Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have become the fig leaf and spokes-model that allows the British Conservatives to ram through the most disgusting assaults on the social contract since the era of Thatcher, and the helplessness in the face of their outright ownership by Wall street of the American Democrats and Obama.
Neo-Liberalism as a economic/political concept has entered its decline and it's instructive that in BC and Saskatchewan, the provinces where the NDP is the legitimate alternate governing option, the 'conservative' and 'liberal' tendancies have merged into default right wing parties.
At some point "There is no alternative" and "You're being unreasonable if you don't start the debate by accepting the ongoing dismantling of the social safety net and ongoing perpetual war." and "Of course we can't even consider rolling back any of the huge tax giveaways to the rich and big business of the last several decades" arguments are going to slam up against Canadian's stubborn resistance to such mendacious bullshit and then things will get interesting.
Dawg,
ReplyDeleteThat one's getting old.
That one's getting old.
ReplyDeleteSo am I.
Cliff said:
ReplyDelete"...the Liberal Democrats have become the fig leaf and spokes-model that allows the British Conservatives to ram through the most disgusting assaults on the social contract since the era of Thatcher"
Cliff should know that "we've always been at war with Eastasia"
The future belongs to Harper.
One must always remember that it was the Liberal party who brought our nation into peace keeping roles around the world. The fact reformatorts are morphing the present combat force into a peackeeping role only amplifies good Liberal policies over the years. Iggy will spin it that way. watch and see how he wins this debate.
ReplyDeleteWarren K is acting like the spoiled child once again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIgnatieff is easily understandable; he wants this out of the way, wouldn't be against this in the first place, and is probably subject to heavy lobbying by the Canadian military.
ReplyDeleteThe real mystery is why Bob Rae has been so gung-ho on this. Isn't he the former social democrat? Isn't he supposed to be Iggy's big left-side challenger? Why is HE all over this?
"The future belongs to Harper."
ReplyDeleteNo fool, the future belongs to Canadians.;)
Both Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, unlike WC, are experts in the area of international conflict and human rights. Both of these men have been to Afghanistan, and have seen firsthand the issues facing that nation.
ReplyDeleteMichael Ignatieff supports a non-combat mission in Afghanistan because he believes that this is the right course of action. I would think that Canadians would be thrilled that, instead of simply opposing everything that the government proposes, the LPC has a leader who is willing stand up for what he believes in!
You may not agree with the decision to support this mission. That’s fine. No party can satisfy all of its members all of the time, especially in a party that spans such a large political spectrum like the LPC does. Personally, I don’t agree with many issues that MI and Caucus have defined as party policy. I fight like hell within the party to change those issues I care about; I may even blog about them. But I do so respecting the fact that we selected our MPs and our Leader to do what they think is right, not simply to blindly follow the polls.
As to a HoC debate on the issue, I do think we have to be concerned about setting precedents in Opposition that will follow us to government. The Cabinet sends our troops all over the world all the time without HoC debate. Earthquake in Haiti? Mobilize DART. Pirates near Africa? Send a Frigate. Police in Haiti need training? Send some RCMP and Soldiers down there. Do we really want to set a precedent that anytime we want to deploy troops in non-combat roles that we need a HoC debate?