IntenseDebate - LaxAtlDfwYow

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Caption challenge: bin... · 0 replies · +4 points

Jack: "...and just as I did this, the red light came on..."

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - A price must be paid�... · 3 replies · +109 points

"If we return the Conservatives with a majority, if we let all that has gone on these past five years pass, then not only the Tories, but every party will draw the appropriate conclusions"

Precisely.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Is Harper prepared to ... · 4 replies · +61 points

I think the concern is justified. SH is clearly an able and extremely bright guy, but there is an almost pathological side to him that strikes me as dangerous (in a constitutional & political sense, of course).

By all means pose Andrew's question, but why should we expect to get an answer based SH's practice these past few years? Indeed, if we did get an answer, why would one accept it at face value?

We recently had a couple of constitutional types suggesting the GG should never deny a prorogation request. Do we really think this or any GG, faced with SH threatening holy constitutional war, would push him aside for an opposition alliance? I can't. To avoid turmoil, even a strong GG is apt to defer to a PM willing to create constitutional chaos if denied.

As I wrote elsewhere, it appears to me our constitution and polite precedents are unprepared for a truly rogue PM.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - What say the Governor ... · 0 replies · +2 points

That's all fair, but the point is a rogue PM could simply shutter Parliament for a year and create fiscal and constitutional chaos. If these guys' arguments are accepted the only recourse would be the GG's reserve power to dismiss him/her. Parliament (and conceivably the Cabinet) gets shut out of what becomes a 2-man game between the PM and the GG.

That's a rather extreme diminution of Parliament as the pre-eminent constitutional body in the nation. No?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - What say the Governor ... · 8 replies · +7 points

"...we can only conclude that the governor general’s reserve power ought not to apply to prorogation."

If that advice is accepted by current and future GGs then any PM can with impunity suspend Parliament for extended periods subject only to the constitutional requirement to sit once per year.

That is patently insane, dangerous and, therefore, wrong.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - John Baird's turn to e... · 0 replies · +43 points

Flaherty's spin of last night at least mustered a single example of a backoffice spending cut. Baird - to my ear knowing that he had no ability to answer the question - actually tried to deliberately confuse prospective/speculative platform savings with planned budgetary savings. He tried twice before realising that Paul wasn't going to accept the tripe he was serving.

Fercrissakes, he wasn't even smart enough to immediately ice the puck and promise to get back to him. That's not a demonstration of how dim Baird is, it's confirmation that he is almost always allowed to play these stupid games by the media and so is surprised when a journalist actually pounds on him.

Folks, that tape is precisely why SH is standing 12 metres from the fenced press and taking 5 questions. That tape is why SH is sitting on sofas interviewing his own (unidentified) campaign volunteers. That tape is why Baird will only scream Coalition and not address issues.

Again, well done Paul.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Flaherty explains that... · 1 reply · +23 points

The Lib cuts in the 90s included (and perhaps were primarily from) transfers to individuals and other levels of government. Flaherty is looking for his cuts in the relatively small fraction of fed spending outside these transfers. I can't put my hand on that fraction, but apart from defence, it is relatively puny making Flaherty's goal perhaps even more challenging that that of the 90s.

The reality is that it will be impossible to find $11 billion without moderate to severe degradation to programs. Now, some of that may well be overdue and deserved. But it's just not credible to suggest - as Jimbo did - that the savings are all coming from backoffice stuff like IT.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Flaherty explains that... · 0 replies · +67 points

Kudos to Inkless for hunting Flaherty down.

Jim's a decent salesman but even the best struggle when offering vapourware. I'd summarize his argument as: it's just a matter of scale, we've already found a few hundred million so, while it will be somewhat more difficult to find an order of magnitude greater savings, there is no reason to think we won't. Trust me.

Probably as good a defense as he can muster, but not very credible.

Back in the day, I'd have termed it "hoping to find a horseshoe in his ass."

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Who will save us now (... · 1 reply · +2 points

Back to Andrew's question... TeamRoC may well need a one leader for the referendum and another for the post-loss negotiations. (The latter may be a given, I cannot imagine many PM's staying in office after losing a referendum.)

Either way, winning a referendum and winning the negotiation that would follow a loss seem two entirely different leadership skill sets. The former calls for a charismatic but tough politician honestly and visibly willing to defend a Canada he/she loves; the latter for a take no prisoners, near despot ready to destroy QC economically if necessary to protect the RoC.

You are certainly right about the economic turmoil we're in for, however.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Who will save us now (... · 4 replies · +1 points

I think that is desperately wishful thinking. The PQ/BQ can and will easily make QC's debt RoC's fault. Hell they do it every day even now.

Referendums in QC are emotional vehicles not rational economic discussions. The debt issue will not preclude a referendum nor even be a significant issue until post-referendum negotiations.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with LaxAtlDfwYow

People I'm following

LaxAtlDfwYow