Megan Leslie = The New Sheila Copps?

 A few moments later, Megan Leslie rose and wondered if the Natural Resources Minister might devise a sustainable plan for the country’s natural resources. Mr. Oliver was obviously quite eager for the opportunity to grouse.

“Mr. Speaker, in a torturous scrum yesterday, the NDP environment critic twisted herself into a pretzel of contradiction and bizarre ideas,” he growled. He ventured that, so far as her position on Keystone is concerned, Ms. Leslie was afflicted with either “total confusion” or “rank cynicism.”

The NDP critic, 33 years her counterpart’s junior, came back quick. “Mr. Speaker,” she ventured with a smile, “if being a grumpy old man makes one an expert on world...”

And, more generally, has the NDP got the new rat pack?  They're busy getting under the gov's skin.  Meanwhile the LPoC orates elaborately, our leader winning politeness awards from the Lamestream Media. 

I haven't decided yet about the Party Presidency.  But surely part of the appeal behind Ms. Copps is the idea that she might teach the party how to hunt & eat meat again.  And while the Party Prez shouldn't be a Celeb, I don't know why their having easy access to MSM outlets should be a disqualification.  People bitch about Brian Topp, but on the whole his guaranteed spot in the G&M has been a plus for the party.

Macleans Hands Bob Rae The...

...Redshirt, whilst pretending to honor him.  Just shows how the MSM will attempt to hobble any leadership bid by the former Ontario Premier.  This award is the equivalent of being voted most polite barbarian; the signal sent is that you're not long for politics.  I pray that Mr. Rae can recover. 

And, hopefully, if Sheila gets in as party prez, she can teach him to orate a bit less and lash out a bit more.

The Bob And Sheila Show

Steve and Jeff  are upset with Shelia Copps remarks yesterday re democracy in the LPoC and the possible permanent leadership aspirations of currently interim leader Bob Rae.  They get hives at the very thought of Rae as permanent head, I suppose; I get hives, on the other hand, at how the rules were specifically designed to exclude him from running for the post, which basically amounts to the party exploiting their best Pol and then casting him aside when convenient.  The notion that it isn't a rule which prevents Bob Rae from competing, but a promise he made, strikes me as mere semantics.  He was told to promise, or he wouldn't get the job.  Whether Sheila is suggesting that she will unwrite a rule, or release Bob from his promise, is not a matter of substance.

Not that I would easily support Bob.  He's just too damned old; the LPoC has to find someone that can commit past 2015 should they not form government next election.  And I suspect some of the animus against Rae, and perhaps Ms. Copps, stems from an inchoate longing for generational change rather than anything in particular that was said yesterday.  But Teenage Jesus hasn't shown up as yet, and in a year or so the party will have to choose from among what has been offered.  If its Bob vs. crap, why should the LPoC force itself to default to crap?

And as for Sheila's celebrity status "sucking all the air from the room" and so forth, if not for her speech the story of the day yesterday would have Mike Crawley and Ron Hartling fighting over who lost Ontario. How would that have been better?

Who Should Train The Rat Pack Of Tommorow?

Sheila, obviously.  I have always been a huge fan.  And I think the party could use an injection of the kind of spine she and her fellow rat-packers provided back in the day.  Bob Rae is a fine orator and a good leader (interim or otherwise), but running an effective opposition means finding ways of getting under the government's skin.  And I'm not seeing that yet (although the walk-out was a good stunt). 

And yes I realize the party Prez doesn't have much to do with the day to day performances in the HOC. 

Sheila Come Home

She’s the only one who can take out the NDP in Hamilton.

But apparently she's uninterested.

Your Morning Giggle

OTTAWA—With the paucity of Liberal candidates and looming economic troubles, there are some Liberal insiders dreaming of a Paul Martin return to power.

Didn't someone hand this guy his gold watch already?

Totally unsourced. Authored by Sheila Copps. Hmm. I sense somebody struggling with a slow news cycle.

Sheila Has A Point: If Charest Wins Minority, Harper Loses

From the TO Sun, an abbreviated Sheila Copps:

A wrinkle may just have been thrown into Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spring election scenario.

A perfect storm -- which would sweep the Conservatives into majority territory -- is predicated on a resounding Liberal victory in the Quebec election.

[...]

Storm clouds gathering in Quebec this week test the certainty of that scenario.

Nipping at the heels of the Grits and the Parti Quebecois is a resurgent effort by Quebec's most conservative party, the Action Democratique (ADQ).

[...]

Early on, the provincial Liberals (and the federal Tories) were not concerned about the rise in ADQ support.

They were convinced any movement would take votes from their real adversary, the Parti Quebecois.

Now, Dumont is pulling from the Liberal voting pool, setting the stage for a potential minority.

The Folks at Political Staples are wondering why a Charest minority would count as a loss for Harper. Greg Staples says:

The thing I am confused about is why this is a problem for the CPC. A Quebec minority government, with the ADQ holding the balance of power, poses no risk of a referendum. Further it moves the Quebec government further to the centre/centre-right where the CPC is trying plant their flag. Finally the CPC is aligned with both the Liberals and ADQ and both parties workers can help the Conservatives in a federal election and any rise in ADQ fortunes would come from the same Quebec City area where the Conservatives are able to make gains.

From the point of view of the governance of the province of Quebec (and its effect on the ROC) a Charest minority would certainly be an acceptable result. But remember Harper and Charest arranged this election to give the CPoC a leg up on a Spring Federal vote. A Charest minority means a morning after headline something like:

HARPER ABANDONS CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES AND SPENDS LIKE DRUNKEN SAILER: QUEBEC ALLY CHAREST STILL LOSES MAJORITY!!!!

Note that the phrase "loses majority" contains the word "lose".

Secondly, how do we know it will wind up to be a Charest majority? If all three major parties poll around 30% on election, the PQ might quite possibly grab the most seats and therefore head the resultant government.

As a final note, the folks at Political Staples note this line from Sheila's piece:

Harper's best-case scenario involves a popular federal budget, healing wounds in Ontario and Quebec, and providing the reason for a Charest win and a Harper bounce into election fever.

...and interpret it to mean that Harper will help finance "McAsswipe's" re-election bid here in Ontario. Does this mean Ontario will get a few billion funneled our way? Oh at long last, to get our turn at the trough!

Sheila Copps On Kyoto Implementation

Her opinion echoes my own:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vaunted political antennae must have been turned off last week when his party got trapped in the Liberal private member's bill on Kyoto.

[...]

What we witnessed last week was a government that's given up trying. Instead of embracing the Kyoto timelines and focusing on achieving them, the government seems committed to fight Kyoto tooth and nail.

As I've repeated on several occasions, C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act) is all about making a good faith effort.

And it fails as a handy early election trigger for the Tories because 1) its path through the Senate can be as long and winding, or as swift, as the Lib majority deigns appropriate, and 2) it gives the government 60 days to produce a plan: it would look awful were they to throw up their hands, planless, before the 60 days is up. So if the idea (as rumor has it) is to drop the writ within the next couple of weeks this cannot be justified with reference to C-288.

Hence those immortal words of abject surrender from Stephen Harper: "I will obey this law."

Nevertheless, the bill is not entirely toothless, because it is or shall become the law of the land. The Libs (and, more generally, all three opposition parties) can hold it over the head of Harper et al in order to put some teeth into the Clean Air Act, or cudgel him with it if the Clean Air Act turns out to be nothing but piffle.