I am not sure if this is actual opinion or wishful thinking but I see signs that this statement by Andrew Coyne is already incorrect.
...But this government is too new, either to have established itself as the natural majority or to have outworn its welcome with the public. Likewise, the newly invigorated Liberals are something of a blank slate. Deprived of the sense of inevitability that sustained them in power for so many years, they are in search of an identity: If no longer a party of power, what are they? Neither party, therefore, presents such an inviting target that the other can simply campaign against it and leave it at that. It won't be enough for either party to say what the other did in the past. Each will have to tell the public what it would do in the future.
The Liberal party where still in the afterglow of Stephane Dion's leadership victory when Dion launched the tired far-right, neo-conservative, blah, frickity blah attack against the Conservatives. It was embarrasing really and the best we can hope is that it was done to rally the Liberal base before they get on to business. But Dion sounded so much like Paul Martin it made me wonder if he going to follow the same siren call that crushed the Martin led liberals.
Instant-Update: Richard Gwyn develops the same theme.
...The coming election, probably in the spring, has the potential to be one of the most interesting in a long time. This is because it may just be that political rarity – an election about ideas.
Start from the fact that both of the principal opponents, Stephen Harper and Stéphane Dion, are unusually intelligent, as bright a pair of political opponents as exist today in any industrial democracy.
No less unusual, both of them care deeply about specific ideas – the environment in the instance of Dion; smaller government in the case of Harper. It's possible to imagine each of them actually preferring under certain circumstances that they'd rather be right, as they see it, than become prime minister – a quality of conviction possessed by no modern Canadian leader except Pierre Trudeau.
Colour me less than convinced.
Comments (7)
Dion is committed to the environment? What, other than talk, has he ever done to demonstrate this so-called commitment?
Oh yeah, he named his dog Kyoto.
Posted by Jon | January 3, 2007 10:47 AM
Posted on January 3, 2007 10:47
Dion’s totally bogus policy on Kyoto shows that he is not in fact serious or seriously committed to the environment - unless you believe that he really wants to ram measures through that would cut Canada’s energy use by about a third in two years. I presume Harper is trying to keep Dion on the “we will meet Kyoto” ground until the election - at which point either the details will come out or Dion will have to make an embarassing climb-down with people watching.
Posted by MarkCh | January 3, 2007 11:06 AM
Posted on January 3, 2007 11:06
Dion will be a strong leader on the environment. A minister is limited in what they can do fi they do not have the support of the PM. Dion as PM will be very different that Dion as minister. Similarly, Harper over the years has talked much about amending the Charter to include property rights, bringing the west “in”, killing gay marriage and banning abortion. So far, he has accomplished none of it. Unfortunataly he has spent the past year as an election campaign rather than actually governing. Too bad he is squandering his opprtunity to bring about the change he campaigned on.
Posted by Anonymous | January 3, 2007 11:45 AM
Posted on January 3, 2007 11:45
Colour me less than convinced
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, I see. ;)
Posted by Greg | January 3, 2007 12:22 PM
Posted on January 3, 2007 12:22
Harper over the years has talked much about amending the Charter to include property rights, bringing the west “in”, killing gay marriage and banning abortion Harper has not campaigned (as leader of CPC) on property rights or banning abortions. By west “in” I assume you mean senate reform, which he has tried to start.
Posted by Greg Staples | January 3, 2007 12:34 PM
Posted on January 3, 2007 12:34
I agree with MarkCh: Dion has said that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets only if he takes office as PM in 2007. Why would he say such a ridiculous thing (besides the obvious reason of pandering to greenish Liberal leadership convention delegates)? Because he knows he won’t be PM in 2007! When the election does come in 2008 or 2009, he won’t be bound by this silly promise, and Kyoto (the treaty, not the dog) will have been long forgotten.
If Dion is as smart as they say he is, now that he has won the leadership, he has to ditch the Kyoto albatros asap. The eco-freaks can’t get him elected as PM. He needs Bay Street support for that. He has to build up his economic street-cred before the money and talent he needs begins to shift in his direction. And promising to meet impossible and arbitrary emission targets that will meltdown the Canadian economy is not the way to win friends and influence people on Bay Street.
Prediction: Liberals will join Conservative-NDP deal on Clean Air Act, which will include something on “climate change”, making it a tri-partisan approach. Dion loses eco-freak support to the Greens, but gains cred with Bay Street, the oilpatch and the Buzz Hargrove CAW crowd, while **ssing off the Bloc (because 13 Lib and 10 Con MPs from Quebec will vote for it, making it a federalist Clean Air Act).
No election on the environment. If there is one, Dion is euchred. This is why I agree with MarkCh that Harper is goading Dion to keep yapping on Kyoto. I don’t think Dion is that dumb, but you never know, it’s worth a try.
Posted by A Canuck in Brussels | January 3, 2007 7:29 PM
Posted on January 3, 2007 19:29
Point of order: he did bring it up during the debates. Not that I think it cost him any votes or anything.
Posted by James Bow | January 4, 2007 9:35 PM
Posted on January 4, 2007 21:35