IntenseDebate - Standing By

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Putting things in pers... · 8 replies · +15 points

Contest: So if it had been a Liberal MP that hit the button, what do you think Pierre Poilievre's talking points would have been?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Ignatieff's shrinking ... · 1 reply · +16 points

What I'd like to know from Igantieff is which of the Harper policies and laws does he intend to repeal.

For example, Ignatieff constantly slams Harper's U.S-style law-and-order and prison-building initiative, as he should, but he then declines to defeat these laws when they come up for votes in the House, ostensibly to avoid an election.

Fair enough, I accept that tactical response. However, I'd like to know if Iggy plans to undo these laws if he forms a government, and what other stupid policies and laws he will reverse.

I presume he'll have to answer these questions during the next election, but I don't understand why media are not asking him this question now.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - All is war · 27 replies · +2 points

Dennis_F keeps asking: "Why is it OK for Iggy to publicly undermine this country's efforts at securing a seat on the security council?"

I can answer that one for you: It's okay because Harper will just use the seat to strengthen his advocacy of international policies and approaches that most Canadians disagree with and are embarrassed by.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - All is war · 8 replies · +14 points

I think anyone who is proud of Canada' history and traditional role in world affairs has to think that Ignatieff may be correct on this. Now is not the best time for Canada to be on the Security Council, and the reason is not complicated: Harper will use this as a platform to pursue neoconservative policies internationally that most Canadians disagree with.

As with the census, it may just be better for Canada to not proceed as planned right now, but to move later to secure our place at the table, when we have a PM and a government that is more in line with the thinking and views of most Canadians on key international matters.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - If all else fails, cal... · 1 reply · +8 points

So once the Queen refused to save his sorry ass, what was Harper's next move?

Call in the troops to keep Parliament from meeting?

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - 'History will judge' · 2 replies · +6 points

Huh? I saw this note as a courtesy, and an effort to ensure accuracy in terms of what she meant.

Not sure how any reasonable person could see it as "smug".

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - 'History will judge' · 2 replies · +4 points

Agreed. It's as though the whole prorogation crisis was all about her, and she decided to turn it into a veritable "teachable moment."

I say this is bunk. She's a very nice person, but was a constitutional disaster. The extent of that disaster isn't even apparent yet.

Next time we have an authoritarian minority PM decide to dismiss Parliament for political gain, then we will have to deal with the appalling precedent she set. I don't think she understands the extent of her error even yet.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - What to think about wh... · 0 replies · +5 points

Yes, one could try to reframe the discussion, and to raise the issues of trust and civic duty. I think Canadians would be happy to participate in any such discussion, and if you look at the polls on the census, it is clear they overwhelmingly support the idea that responding to the census is, in fact, a matter of civic duty.

However, this is NOT how the government proceeded. They did NOT raise these matters for open debate, they tried to sneak in changes to undermine the census without any debate. I presume the reason they did this is because they had done polling, and knew that this particular bit of public sector vandalism would not go down well with anyone. Which is why they tried to wreck the census as quietly as possible.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - What to think about wh... · 9 replies · +8 points

Mr. H raises a really important point: what should be done when the democratically elected people in control of government principally seek its diminishment, if not its demise?

I think the census issue has done more than any other to show the "wrecking crew" orientation of the Harper government. We now have a situation where the government has basically done its best to undermine confidence in the census as an important public service. Given the campaign of the government to undercut the idea that responding to the census is a civic duty, there will no doubt be many, many refusals when/if the census rolls out in the spring, likely enough refusals to make the data unreliable. So whether or not the mandatory census gets reinstated (and there is no indication this will happen), Harper has already achieved his basic goal, which presumably was/is to undermine evidence-based public policy formulation.

And that's where matters stand. I see no solution to dealing with a democratically elected wrecking crew such as the Harper government, other than a change in government.

Such, I guess, is the miracle of democracy.

14 years ago @ Macleans.ca - An asterisk · 0 replies · +6 points

I think the Lib talking point calling this move a form of "vandalism" is dead on. It defies logic and reason. If you doubt that, I draw your attention to Clement's pathetic speech this morning in favour of this policy idiocy.

The only bit of stupidity he didn't repeat, interestingly, was the silly claim that since the forms are now at the printer, and since Canada apparently lacks the printing capacity to print up new forms for use next May (!) that it is now too late to change anything.

I assume this gem was left out of his speech either because some reporter is now actually fact-checking this highly-implausible claim, or it has something to do with problems with the Francophone injunction hearing at the federal court.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Standing By

People I'm following

Standing By