Tuesday, September 15, 2009

"At Issue" Panel on potential Canadian federal election.










Coyne predicts that this is mere bluffing on everyone's part, but Hebert and Gregg touch on something rather important: The CPC has continued to paint itself into a corner with its increasingly hostile (and overtly disingenuous) rhetoric regarding working with "socialists and separatists". and as such, have committed Canadian governance under the Harper regime to a cycle that can only be broken my the Conservatives winning a majority or the Liberals overthrowing them.

Because the Conservatives have created a situation where they essentially cannot work with 3 out of the remaining 4 major federal parties without paying a heavy political price, it's going to become increasingly problematic for them to blame (with any degree of success) the frequent calls to the polls on anyone besides their own stubborn unwillingness to work within the confines of the minority government that Canadian voters keep handing them.

It's also going to become increasingly more difficult for PublicHarper to claim on one hand that he, like the majority of Canadians, don't want an election when PrivateHarper keeps getting caught salivating over the prospect of leading a majority government.

Harper's CPC needs to cross its fingers that this gambit of theirs works out, because if it doesn't, it's only going to be a matter of time before the opposition starts successfully drawing attention to the connection between the dysfunction of parliament, the expensive election calls, and Harper's greed for more political leash than Canadians have been prepared to let him have.


3 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, this is why you should learn your limitations, because it really just shows how out-of-touch you are with anything even resembling reality.

You would attempt to have your readers believe that the current political climate has been born simply out of the last three years of Conservative governance.

But in order to do that you'd have to ignore the previous 16 years (at least) of Canadian political history. You'd have to overlook the way that the Conservative party (and two of its predecessors, the Reform party and Canadian Alliance) were demonized by their partisan opponents as "dangerous" or some other twaddle.

You'd have to ignore the extent of the fear mongering against the Conservative party. After all, I don't recall seeing the Conservative party running attack ads that suggested their political opponents would summarily declare martial law if elected.

You'd have to overlook how the Liberal party and NDP molded Canada's political environment into such a form that they literally could not afford to be seen cooperating with the "scary, dangerous" Conservative party lest too many Canadians figure out that their fears had been played upon, and they'd been had.

Audrey II said...

The last 16 years of political history have about as much contradictory weight as the "but mom, Johnny did X" exercise in relativism that is so popular with primary school children.

Most tend to intellectually mature beyond that approach with the realization that the two are not mutually exclusive nor contradictory concepts, and as such, adopt more logically sound methods of argumentation and debate in their adolescence and adulthood.

...Most. There are (as illustrated above) exceptions.

Patrick Ross said...

This isn't about relativism, but I'm not surprised you missed that.

This is about precisely who made the political climate in Canada so toxic.

For example, Audrey, this is a pretty simple question:

Who ran attack ads suggesting Stephen Harper was set to declare martial law in our cities if elected? Who actually did that?

Who concocted a "hidden agenda" epithet so they could smear their political opponents in lieu of evidence of a regressive agenda? Who did that?

Post a Comment