I don't agree with everything (I see no reason why political parties shouldn't raise their own funds - though the timing bringing it forward was flawed) that James Travers expresses in this column but I agree with quite a bit of it.
...What, beyond pummelling vulnerable opponents, was Harper thinking when he used Thursday's fiscal update to advance Conservative hegemony with a homicidal assault on public funding for political parties. What, in this era of quasi-presidential federal politics, infected Liberals with the viral notion that Dion, judged too weak for high office last month, can now provide the legitimacy, let alone the political skills, the coalition requires to be credible or survive?Ministership, (is that a word?), should seek a mandate as soon as possible,
...Coalition partners went hunting for that sanction yesterday by promising the economic stimulus missing from the fiscal update. A good start, that's no substitute for a leader able to hold together a loose association of rivals or win the country's consent to be governed.
It is my opinion that this coalition needs the country's consent. If they fail to get then it becomes doubly important for the new Liberal leader, who inherits the Prime
Comments (7)
All very interesting if you buy the notion that it was some action of Harper’s that spurred the Opposition, rather than a long set plan to seize power at the first plausible opportunity. Could have been this, could have been that. They would have found an excuse sooner or later.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | December 2, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted on December 2, 2008 10:18
By Layton’s own words that is true. But if Harper had played it better he could have lasted until the new year and it would be a lot harder to avoid an election.
Posted by Political Staples
|
December 2, 2008 10:40 AM
Posted on December 2, 2008 10:40
Layton may have set the charge, but Harper lit the fuse.
Posted by Greg | December 2, 2008 10:54 AM
Posted on December 2, 2008 10:54
Patchy hearsay is emerging that Harper learned about the plan for a coup a while ago and jammed the party funding thing in the economic update as an election hook next time around.
As Occam says, could be, couldn’t be. Who the hell knows anymore?
Posted by mark peters | December 2, 2008 11:14 AM
Posted on December 2, 2008 11:14
Speculation isn’t truth. Besides, if the issue is funding the opposition could easily have asked for it to be removed before they would support the bill. That would have been the rational thing to do. It’s a bit rich to be blaming Harper when it was the opposition that voted down the update especially when the only thing to go on is blind speculation. Deal with the facts. The opposition voted down the update in spite of all the concessions the Conservatives were willing to make. Hold them accountable and stop treating them like babies.
Posted by potato | December 2, 2008 12:06 PM
Posted on December 2, 2008 12:06
The facts are these. The opposition has no trust in Harper anymore and his party is outnumbered in the House.
Posted by Greg | December 2, 2008 12:59 PM
Posted on December 2, 2008 12:59
“anymore”?
When did the opposition trust Harper? The NDP certainly played the “No” role to the hilt in the last parliament, and Dion repeatedly walked to the edge of the cliff and back. The Liberals did not support the Conservatives because of “trust”; the Liberals supported the Conservatives because of self-preservation instincts.
Posted by lrC | December 3, 2008 2:07 PM
Posted on December 3, 2008 14:07