10.17.2007

enough already! call an election!

The Liberal Party is like a bunch of spoiled brats, in reverse. If things don't go their way, they don't stomp out of the room, they stay in it. Hey Liberals, I got an idea: do what's best for Canada for a change, instead of what's best for yourselves.

The NDP knows this Conservative government is not worth propping up; so does the Bloc. It's time for the Liberals to stop staring at themselves in the mirror and get to work.

If non-Canadian readers are wondering what I'm referring to, last night was the Throne Speech. The Governor General, the Queen's representative in Canada, read the Speech from the Throne, which outlines the Government's agenda and goals. In Britain, Canada and other other parliamentary countries that retain a link to a monarchy, the Throne Speech is read by the Head of State, who is neutral, but it is the Government's (think: administration) agenda.

Canada's current Governor General is Michaëlle Jean, who I love.

Canada's current Government, on the other hand, has got to go. Many progressive Canadians seem to criticize the Harper government without mentioning that they're a minority - they need the consent of the other parties to stay in power. In this case, the only thing standing between Canadians and a federal election are the Liberals.

The Liberals will announce today whether or not they will support the Throne Speech. Some political analysts think that "the Liberal front bench - Dion and his shadow cabinet — will vote against the throne speech and that the backbenchers will either abstain or not show up, which would allow the throne speech to pass." I hope we don't see such craven politicking. Canada deserves better than that.

There were several objectionable items in last night's Throne Speech. What Canada doesn't need:
- the war in Afghanistan extended until 2011,
- tax cuts,
- trashing Kyoto goals and letting environmental priorities slide for another 15 years,
- conservative so-called "tough on crime" legislation, and
- the Liberals supporting all this.

Enough already: it's election time.

23 comments:

James said...

The Liberal Party is like a bunch of spoiled brats

You're sounding more and more Canadian by the day. :)

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

The Liberal Party is like a bunch of spoiled brats

A bunch of spoiled Yankees. ;-)

David Wozney said...

Re: “Canada's current Governor General is Michaëlle Jean, ...

The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation.

It is a fiction that a corporation is a person.

“A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found in evidence provided to Parliament's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002.

“A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to Joanne Klineberg in a presentation to the Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar in 2004.

Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?

M. Yass said...

From what I've seen, Dion needs to go too. He needs to be replaced by Ignatieff, the one who should have been the head of the Liberals from the beginning.

James said...

“A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to Joanne Klineberg in a presentation to the Canadian Aviation Safety Seminar in 2004.

Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?


Of course, by this definition of "fiction", businesses, companies, and governments are fictions too.

M@ said...

A "corporation sole" is how the position is defined. It is not the same thing as a "corporation" in the sense you're using it, David.

Here is a little light reading for you to straighten it out.

I'm not sure what your point is (if, indeed, you have one) but you're certainly using some strange sources to support your very weak argument from authority. What earthly relevance does an air safety seminar have to the Canadian parliamentary system?

L-girl said...

You're sounding more and more Canadian by the day. :)

Thank you!! :)

A bunch of spoiled Yankees. ;-)

Hee hee. :)

L-girl said...

He needs to be replaced by Ignatieff, the one who should have been the head of the Liberals from the beginning.

M Yass, knowing your political views, I have trouble swallowing this. Are you sure you know what Ignatieff stands for? He supported the invasion of Iraq - and argued and defended it vociferously.

He recently wrote a retraction, but that was only based on (1) the outcome - he still supports the the invasion in theory and (2) his diminishing fan base.

Dion was not my first choice, but Ignatieff would have been my last choice.

L-girl said...

Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?

I was going to attempt a response to David Wozney, but James and M@ saved me the trouble.

David Wozney, what on earth are you talking about? If you have something concrete to say, come say it. If not, get over it.

M@ said...

Dion was not my first choice, but Ignatieff would have been my last choice.

I agree. The number one problem for the Liberals these days is the in-fighting (not that that's anything new -- I remember Chretien undermining Turner for example). I don't know where Ignatieff thinks his sniping at Dion is going to get him.

David Wozney, what on earth are you talking about?

I have run into David elsewhere. Typically his strategy is:

1. Willfully misinterpret some language in the constitution, a bill, the BNA, whatever.

2. Cite that misinterpretation of proof of... something or other.

3. Ignore arguments to the contrary; if necessary, blithely re-state the points already made as though they meant anything.

4. Disappear.

Last I saw him we were discussing gay marriage at myblahg.com. He's a troll, but at least he's a polite troll.

David Wozney said...

Is your faith such that you believe a corporation is real? Who would be a defender of faith like that?

M@ said...

See?

L-girl said...

See?

:-)

I'm not going to delete (yet), but let's all not feed trolls. Thanks.

M. Yass said...

M Yass, knowing your political views, I have trouble swallowing this. Are you sure you know what Ignatieff stands for? He supported the invasion of Iraq - and argued and defended it vociferously.

No, I was not aware of that. Now that I am, no, I wouldn't support him as party leader. While I normally am not big on so-called litmus tests, Vietraq is simply indefensible by anyone under any circumstances. I just understood him to be a much more effective leader than Dion.

I stand corrected. I guess it's obvious that I don't know nearly as much about Canadian politics as I think I do. ;)

M. Yass said...

Look on the bright side, Canadians. At least you guys have more choices than the Evil Party or the Stupid Party.

L-girl said...

I guess it's obvious that I don't know nearly as much about Canadian politics as I think I do. ;)

Hey, live and learn, that's one of the reasons we read blogs in the first place, right?

My familiarity w/ Ignatieff pre-dates any awareness I had of Canadian politics. I didn't even know he was Canadian til I moved here.

He spent the last 15 years or so at Harvard, teaching in the Kennedy School of Government. He wrote regularly on US foreign policy; his pieces often appeared in the NY Times Magazine.

He would make supposedly "liberal" (yeah, right) cases for wars, invasions, and later, for torture. Basically the threat of terrorism and the "failed state" justified everything.

loneprimate said...

M@ said...

See?


LOL, nicely played, Matt. Tell me you didn't have your hand up this guy's back, working the levers, or something. :D

loneprimate said...

Ignatieff... I didn't even know he was Canadian til I moved here.

I didn't know he was even after I knew his was, if you see what I mean.

I think there's a difference between being technically Canadian and practically Canadian. One has to do with citizenship; the other with mindset, values, outlook. I will never, ever, EVER vote for the Grits if they put him in charge... I have a hard time doing it even knowing they've opened the door to this guy. I don't think he even belongs in the Tories.

L-girl said...

I didn't know he was even after I knew his was, if you see what I mean.

I totally do.

It's unlikely I'll ever vote Liberal anyway, but if he were party leader I would lose whatever respect I might have for them.

OTOH, if he will get behind the War Resisters "let them stay" campaign - which he might - I will soften my stance considerably. I'd still never vote for him, but if he wants to rehabilitate himself while he helps these brave people stay legally in Canada, I'll help. We shall see.

M@ said...

Tell me you didn't have your hand up this guy's back, working the levers, or something.

:) Frankly, LP, I hope I'd be a more interesting troll than that if I were to go that route. Really, if you're going to stick to dictionary definitions and obscure references, what's the point?

I will never, ever, EVER vote for the Grits if they put him in charge... I have a hard time doing it even knowing they've opened the door to this guy.

Agreed. As an academic, he is at least interesting -- I've read a couple of his books and they raise issues worth discussing. I can deal, however, with reading academics and agreeing or disagreeing with their statements. It gets a lot more urgent and personal if the guy is the head of a political party, though.

If you told me ten years ago that I'd be longing for the Chretien years, I would have been surprised. Now, no.

loneprimate said...

If you told me ten years ago that I'd be longing for the Chretien years, I would have been surprised. Now, no.

I know what you mean. Before I had the vote, I couldn't stand Trudeau. Spent most of my late childhood disliking the man and was overjoyed when he lost (I STILL like Joe Clark; sue me) and then when he quit in '84...

Boy, I'll tell you, nothing but NOTHING rehabilitated that man like being followed by Brian Mulroney. If most of us didn't get it by '88 (and trust me, I sure did), we certainly did by 1993. Interesting thing, though... Chretien and Martin's years running the show have done nothing similar to rehabilitate Mulroney's reputation. Millions of us still wake up from happy dreams where we've eaten his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti... :D

M@ said...

(I STILL like Joe Clark; sue me)

Yeah, me too. He never really had a chance, but I wish he had.

Interesting thing, though... Chretien and Martin's years running the show have done nothing similar to rehabilitate Mulroney's reputation.

You know, that never really occurred to me. There's also the fact, though, that the PCs were not only not an effective opposition during the 90s; they weren't an opposition at all. But really, that goes back to Mulroney as well.

Yes, it's quite impressive how low he's sunk in Canadian minds, and how long he's stayed there. The great thing to me is that I'm sure that Mulroney is deeply, personally angered by that.

L-girl said...

The great thing to me is that I'm sure that Mulroney is deeply, personally angered by that.

:-)