Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Column
Tuesday December 9, 2008
Between a rock and hard place: Stephane and separatism
By BILL TIELEMAN
"A government can be no better than the public opinion which sustains it."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President, 1933-1945
Public opinion has spoken: The proposed federal Liberal-New Democrat coalition government is dead.
At this time of serious economic crisis, Canadians wanted co-operation, not confrontation - and all parties failed to deliver.
Now four different polls show the same result - Canadians do not want a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc Quebecois support or to be governed by outgoing Liberal leader Stephane Dion.
And if pushed to an election, they would give Prime Minister Stephen Harper a strong majority.
Harper's mean-spirited attempt to devastate the opposition by ending public financing for political parties was exactly the wrong thing to do when Canada needed a united Parliament.
But the opposition made a fatal error when it decided that forcing Harper to back down completely was not enough and lunged for the brass ring.
There were two insurmountable obstacles to taking power - proposing a discredited Dion as temporary prime minister and expecting Canadians to accept the support of separatist leader Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois to form a Liberal-NDP coalition government.
What was NDP leader Jack Layton thinking in going along with this doomed effort?
Just weeks ago, Layton said to Dion's face in the leaders' debate that: "You can't do your job as leader of the opposition. I don't know what you're doing running for prime minister."
How could Layton now propose Dion as prime minister?
And how could Layton give up on two key NDP policies - withdrawing Canadian troops from Afghanistan immediately and cancelling $50 billion in corporate tax cuts the Conservatives and Liberals were implementing?
That Liberal MPs could impose Dion as Canada's next prime minister after pushing him out as leader was bad enough.
But to imagine Canadians would then accept a new Liberal prime minister chosen only by party convention delegates next May to govern without a mandate until mid-2010 - the length of the 30-month deal with the NDP - was madness.
None of it was unconstitutional. But it was simply wrong.
For all his many faults, Stephen Harper had just won an increased number of House of Commons seats and more votes than any other party.
Harper had no right to govern like he had a massive majority or to introduce measures never mentioned during the election.
But he did have the right to try making Parliament work - and after backing down without even going to a vote, a chastised Harper should have been allowed to return with a different approach that could win opposition support.
Now all parties have an opportunity to get it right on Jan. 26 when Harper delivers a budget.
The public will show no mercy if they don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Bill, in the comments following your last article on this subject I've been accused of sophistry. Now what would you like me so say about your contention that Layton actually 'wanted' Dion as Prime Minister?...C'mon, please, pay some heed to the truth and forget the poll results generated by a five alarm ‘whipped’ Tory minority.
Layton never supported Dion as a permanent PM and you know it. He was the lame duck leader of the party with the most MPs in the coalition - and nothing more.
If you honestly think things will be better for the country with the COUNT (isn't that what you called him) leading the Liberals and Pee Wee leading the Conmen I really do fear for the future of unbiased political commentary in this country.
Would you have been in favour of the coalition's moves if they'd done what Bob Rae did to Joe Clark?
How much froth do you thing the real ‘sophists’ would have whipped into the body politic if the negotiations had gone on in secret the way Stephen Harper likes to do things?
Because it is Stephen Harper who has sliced and diced this country into useless pieces of quivering hatred that do little more than snarl at each other. It was not the coalition – which tried to bring together the diverse parties who ‘disagree’ with the way Stephen Harper does things – that did that.
And, sadly, people who ought to know better have helped him.
Say what you like about Dion, but please don't deny he's open, ethical and honest - qualities you won't find in the Harper cabinet or its baying dogs across the countryside.
Put out the for sale sign.
Actually, Mr. West, let me make it more pointed, that your uber left wing, inflexible doctrinaire bromide doesn't make you a "sophist' any more than it makes your comments worthy of anything.
Sophistry and bullshit. You should put that on your business card.
Alex,
Can I put you down in the Harper camp or the Ignatieff one? Really doesn't make much difference to me - they're the ones in the real estate business my friend.
At least some people actually stand for something besides division and discord.
And they manage to do it without being redacted at the Tyee too.
As I said, I fear for the country when nominally sensible people stoop to such depths. Fortunately these occasional eruptions of rage are pretty easy to ignore - I do appreciate the Mr. West though, it indicates you still know your place!
When did you decide you no longer believed in unions having the right to strike Bill?
Or do you still believe in it but its just that its not worth defending?
Gee Alex, that's pretty intellectual. Why didn't you raise the level of debate and just say "f*** you" like most Conservative bloggers?
Having a good time with all your new right-wing friends Bill?
The Tyee has become no less doctrinaire than any of your bilge. There is no room at such "democratic organs" for opinions anywhere right of left. Other than Paulsen or Rafe, I wouldn't waste my time.
The Mr. West is because I would never lower myself to even thinking I could have even a cordial conversation with you.
Thankfully there is the internet, which houses the kind o crap you try to pass off as pertinent and topical.
Well you certainly haven't tried, have you?
And on the other point I made, you might help by explaining how you feel about this kind of thing (from the Globe)...
The Globe and Mail reports today that, "A group of influential foreign-affairs experts wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to develop a close friendship with president-elect Barack Obama and forge deeper ties between Canada and the United States."
"The group is chaired by Derek Burney, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States who was part of Mr. Harper's transition team, and Fen Osler Hampson, director of the school of international affairs at Carleton University. It began last spring to request papers from people such as Robin Sears, who have a deep interest in Canada-U.S. relations. Those 16 papers and the resulting blueprint were presented at a conference in Ottawa yesterday. The document will be vetted to reflect yesterday's discussions and presented to Mr. Harper before Mr. Obama's January inauguration."
I'd tend to call that kind of thing by another name though. But I'd try to be polite about it...Alex!
My goodness - such distemper.
First, Garth West says: "Layton never supported Dion as a permanent PM and you know it."
Garth - I said in the column "temporary" PM!! I not only know it, I said it clearly!
The poll results weren't generated by the Tories - they don't have that kind of power - people rejected the coalition idea immediately for the reasons I've stated.
I do not support Michael Ignatieff in any way and have never, ever even come close to saying a good word about him!
I don't support a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals period - and in that I'm joined by many New Democrats and no doubt many Liberals.
Anonymous 11:10 makes a simply absurd statement about me - I've been a strong defender of unions' right to strike my whole life - that's one reason why I spent 6 years working for the BC Federation of Labour and why I work with lots of unions and labour organizations today! And read my comments on this blog about how the federal Liberals sabotaged anti-scab legislation that was almost passed - until the Liberal leadership vetoed it.
Anonymous 11;14 - I always have a good time with my right-wing friends and they aren't new friends, they're old friends.
Alex Tsakumis is a straight-shooting right-winger with a social conscience who has no hesitation to call it how he sees it - and I like that.
I have lots of right-wing friends who I strongly disagree with - but so long as they are principled and forthright with me I can get along just fine - and the arguments are informative, tough and intellectually stimulating - something I can't always say about comments posted here.
But as always, this is a free speech blog - take your shots at me as you will - as Gore Vidal said of his fight with Norman Mailer: " He pummelled me with his tiny fists."
The Opposition has a right to oppose the government, up to and including defeating it. It has a duty to be as ready as it can be to form an alternative government if that defeat happens early on in the life of a parliament.
Public relations and opinion polls, however expensive, are not the same thing as the public responsibilities and duties of parliamentarians. Coffee shop/beer parlour/taxi cab/beauty salon/barber shop banter may be fun politics, but it is not statecraft.
Populism is a nice little vote getting angle on occasion, but vox populi/vox dei is always a dangerous and misleading attitude.
In every walk of life we expect people to know their limitations. That applies to populists as much as anyone else.
Bill, with respect, this is what you wrote, right above here - in a separate para with no qualifiers:
"How could Layton now propose Dion as prime minister?"
Remember now?
You were making, as you have from the beginning of this mess, as case based of being deceptive, manipulative and - as someone else pointed - both anti-union; anti-equity and anti-woman.
Maybe you feel you should get the benefit of the doubt but when you're so anxious to run the flag up for a government that is diametrically opposed to the interests you give the impression of supporting, I don't think it is at all unfair to call you on such things.
Again, attack me for what I write, not what you think I've written.
Bill:
Stop wasting your time. It doesn't matter what you try to say, it won't make a difference to Mr. West or others. In some cases they don't want to get it. In his case, he's just incapable.
How else do you explain the tandem of idiots who couldn't read your obvious position on how a Dion Prime Ministership was going to be supported by Rae, or the fact that I can recall at least three columns you've written in the last year wherein you unequivocally state your support for the right to strike (something I support strongly, as well)
You see, the difficulty with the doctrinaire left, is the exact same problem with the far right: They are so distant from any reasonable middle ground on anything that all that's left is their own cold, filthy bathwater. So, drink they do...
And as if we should just dump on the United States! They are our largest trading partner and in no small part, that business keeps union workers and others fed--well.
Of course Harper should forge a strong relationship with Obama. It's of vital importance to this country.
The bumper crop of whackos and nutbars from the left today is because you have betrayed them Bill, you have betrayed them..shame...not!
You took a principled position that buffers confederation from the brinkmanship of marrying, in any way, Quebec sovereigntists,( whose sole purpose is not just to separate, but destroy this country), to the levers of Canadian govt.
And, you didn't reach for dumpster dogma of a Garth West, but instead, wrapped yourself in our flag.
Of course that will piss off the far left polar of the political continuum. They feel power is deserved.
You know that it's earned. Every time.
If you're all in favour of unions having the right to strike then why weren't you interested in defending that right when the Conservatives introduced a statement saying they'd take it away from the federal public service? In your column you talked about the removal of the per-vote subsidy and why a Coalition was wrong but didn't even mention the removal of the right to strike.
Free speech IS a great thing.
It tends to reveal the real talents of one's interlocutors for actual debate.
If you had an relevant point and were capable of pressing it home, you'd do it without the ad hominem epithets.
You don't and you haven't.
What that says about Canadian journalism these days is quite a lot.
What surprises me is that anyone would pay for it. The weakness of one’s argument is almost always in inverse proportion to the need any author has to cheapen the exercise with the kinds of things you think are clever. Look back over your offerings from the start of this little 'dialogue' and try to judge them in that context. I have, and I know where the nonsense started – it wasn’t with me.
Cheers my friend.
Sure you and Bill are for the right to strike and pay equity Alex, Right up until a poll or a prime minister says otherwise. Then you don't have anything to say.
That's the problem with the far-right and their new-found desire to govern via polling. Unless of course its Afghanistan or the environment or homelessness or something, then its polls be damned and calling enviromentalists "fascists".
Classy.
Alex (BC's version of Ezra Levant) is right about one thing Bill, you betrayed the NDP. On the bright side all the Western Producer readers agree with you so your audience will increase.
Someone who is used to collective bargaining will be familiar with the notion, borrowed from the world of military strategy, of the credible threat. For a threatened action to scare or dissuade an opponent, it has to be believable, something the opponent could do and might be willing to do.
Talk of coalition made the threat of defeating the government more credible.
If John and Jane Q Public, as measured by public opinion polls, found that threat by the parliamentary opposition parties disturbing and distasteful, how is that any different from their reaction to most actions by organized labour?
Bill, I'm surprised that you call Alex a straight shooter. He calls a spade a fu****g shovel, but he also calls them toothbrushes when it suits him. His comments, oft heard in media, on how Insite and harm reduction are the only Pillar of the Four Pillars strategy yet implemented ignores the tens of millions of dollars spent on enforcement each year in this city. It also ignores the tens of millions of dollars of charitable dollars spent in this city on housing initiatives for the drug addicted, and the approximately two million spent on detox, again by charitable organizations.
Choose your drinking companions how you will, but this Chris Hitchens wanna-be isn't your equal - he has much more in common with syncophants of the past like Edgar Hoover who specialized in telling truth to money.
Gratuitous insults to the left a specialty.
Since my comments are continually misinterpreted by some posters here, take a look at what the Toronto Star's wise columnist Chantal Hebert had to say about the coalition's future in her December 8 article:
"Harper's polarizing approach to politics offers the Liberals their best opening in Quebec in 25 years.
They have a unique opportunity to recast themselves, not by twisting the party into a pretzel in search of a so-called Quebec message but simply by playing up what they already are, i.e. the only readily available progressive governing alternative to Harper.
It is that ace in the Liberal deck that the party stands to squander by pursuing the pipe-dream of an opposition coalition.
As the first post-crisis batch of polls showed, the Bloc was the sole Quebec beneficiary of events of the past week.
At 23 per cent in the popular vote, the Liberals are still 15 to 20 points behind Jean Chrétien's best Quebec scores.
The bulk of their missing support has moved, not to the Bloc or the Conservatives, but to the NDP. It has doubled its Quebec support since Chrétien retired.
At this potentially opportune juncture in the life of their party in Quebec, giving the Bloc a reinforced purpose and empowering the NDP by pursuing a contentious opposition coalition should be the last thing the federal Liberals would want to do."
Chantel's column doesn't support your case Bill, it supports ours. If the Coalition is bad for the Liberals then ergo, no-Coalition (which you want) is good for the Liberals.
Has Harper dodged the bullet? I think that's still a big 'if'.
And Bill, you should also not forget that Chantal picked Ignatieff to win the Liberal leadership in the fall of 2006. She also, much more recently, joined Andrew Coyne in predicting that Harper's government was dead meat just a couple of weeks ago (she said 100% and Andrew claimed it was only a 75% sure thing).
So as a seer I think her record is a little spotty.
As to the rest, I think I've already written more that enough on the subject - if the media were less inclined to spin and more inclined to actually report objectively what Harper has been up to it seems clear that the polls you put so much stock in might be revealing something a little more accurate about the state of the nation.
Harper has clearly manipulated public opinion with lies and misinformation; you know that's true Bill. The fact that you and your colleagues haven't called him on it more directly and honestly and loudly is not something you're going to be able to live down quite so quickly or easily.
And that bit about the bloc being part of the coalition – come on, why accept every lie that Harper spins and then deny that the Liberal NDP deal was carefully crafted to avoid that possibility?
Ok boys and girls let's stop arguing and calling others names. Especially those who can't even find a name to post their stuff. Harper, who a couple of weeks ago came up with some stuff that woudn't sell now wants to work with people, or so he says. He wants a package to stimulate things, but not too big a one. The guy is being dragged a bit toward the center. What really counts is, the folks going bancrupt, losing their jobs and their homes. Lets not keep insulting folks who have a lot of background in political events. Sure some folks. make that a fairly large number, were hoping for anything that would topple Harper. It hasn't happened yet, but if Harper shifts right some more, who knows what might happen. Maybe some folks whow didn't quite get around to voting will, the next time around. If nothing else, a lot of us figured Harper shot himself in the foot and was going to ram a few things as the opposition had been pretty weak for some times. Rolling over and voting along doesn't always sell. There are two guys on this blog who write elsewhere and it's only because Bill T. set up a blog that the other posters here can raise their electronic voices. Hell some of us lived through Dief, Joe Clarke and Lying Brian and now Harper. The cons show up now and again, usually when some Liberal leader upsets a lot of folks.People don't always vote for people, they get mad and vote against people and often don't like the results. If you don't like what's going on, go organise for some party. This has been the longest time a minority has lasted and with luck it should fall fairly soon. Insulting Bill or AGT isn't winning any points. I use my initials and if anyone really wants to shout at me ,I'll give you my name and phone number as well
DPL: You're kidding aren't you Denis? Cause otherwise you haven't been paying attention.
I didn't call anyone names - if you take the time to actually read the posts in the order they were written you'll see it's been exactly the other way around.
As for posting anonymously, I've seen several things, in various places, that look and sound an awful lot like your posts Denis - and they've been signed 'anonymous'.
And you know what, they almost always make the same tired point - that anyone who's upset at the way the 'system', political, legal, judicial and above all police related has behaved should sit on their hands and wait.
Above all, don't rock the boat or demand something fairer and better. Just go along to get along....
Garth - you continually attempt to manipulate what I have said and written - the record is clear.
For example, you say: "And that bit about the bloc being part of the coalition – come on, why accept every lie that Harper spins and then deny that the Liberal NDP deal was carefully crafted to avoid that possibility?"
But what I said in my column was very clear: "Canadians do not want a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc Quebecois support." What part of that statement did you not understand? Or are you simply intent on misinformation?
Garth, you continue: "Harper has clearly manipulated public opinion with lies and misinformation; you know that's true Bill. The fact that you and your colleagues haven't called him on it more directly and honestly and loudly is not something you're going to be able to live down quite so quickly or easily."
But you don't list which lies and misinformation I've allegedly accepted - just an ad hominem attack.
You also wrote, incredibly, unbelievably for anyone who reads what I write: "You [Bill] were making, as you have from the beginning of this mess, as case based of being deceptive, manipulative and - as someone else pointed - both anti-union; anti-equity and anti-woman."
This is so ridiculous that I have to question your entire judgment to even say it publicly.
This is so absurd I can't even fathom how you came up with it - once again, try reading this blog.
Lastly, one thing I can agree with you on:
"As to the rest, I think I've already written more that enough on the subject..."
Amen.
Bill,
Again with respect - you're colouring a long way outside the lines. And you're doing it in a childish and personal way. Slightly more polite than your buddy A G. but not all that much.
I'm not interested in a yelling match with you - nor with the kind of personal attacks that you've been leveling at anyone who disagrees with you from the beginning of this mess. You expect everyone else to assume you’re a paragon of virtue and yet you dismiss others conclusions out of hand – and without actually looking at the reasons for their thinking.
Instead of dealing with what I've written - for example your clear accusation that Layton was supporting Dion for anything but interim PM, you've spent virtually all of your effort describing what's wrong with me – personally.
How Come? Look at my first two paragraphs on this comment line up. Fact is, when you say something foolish and wrong you simply ignore it and motor on with another diatribe about polls. It's not possible to have a public discussion with someone who behaves that way - I think maybe you've been on talk radio a little too long.
I'll reply to you privately - I'm not interested in a public slanging match with you or your 'friends'.
Cheers and no hard feelings. Publish this – or not, as you see fit.
Garth - I'm exasperated at your apparent unwillingness to read clearly what I wrote - I said in my column: "There were two insurmountable obstacles to taking power - proposing a discredited Dion as temporary prime minister..." I used the word temporary very clearly there - and anyone following the story knew that anyway - so I didn't use it on every Dion reference.
I have about 470 words in a column, so repetition isn't either desirable or possible.
But I made the point again later in the column when I said: "That Liberal MPs could impose Dion as Canada's next prime minister after pushing him out as leader was bad enough.
But to imagine Canadians would then accept a new Liberal prime minister chosen only by party convention delegates next May to govern without a mandate until mid-2010 - the length of the 30-month deal with the NDP - was madness."
Anyone reading the column must understand that Layton was supporting Dion as an interim or temporary prime minister until the Liberals picked a new leader.
Yet you continued to say I wasn't being honest right from the very first comment on this topic! And then you say I's "not deal with what you've written."
If we can't even agree on what to argue I don't know how to have the conversation.
Anyway, I've run everything you've posted and still will but I'd truly like a more substantive argument if we're going to have one.
Yeah well I'm exasperated too. You keep hammering the same nails and they have little to do with the actual problem - which is an out of control Prime Minister who doesn't care about fairness, truth, honesty or anything else that doesn't pertain to imposing his image of what Canada ought to be on the place.
I don't care who or what Dion is or was - he's not the problem - and you've done nothing but try to shift the focus away from the real problem here and its source.
Again, all in my opinion and without throwing in any cheap shots.
Sorry Bill I think you can't see the forest for the trees. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions.
The point is, the people were presented with a coalition government in which the party you and I believe in would have had at least 6 cabinet ministers. I think that was worth a try and you don’t. And I clearly pointed out the example of Labour in Britain - which you pointedly ignored.
For someone who believes in first past the post at all costs, as you do, I take it you’re satisfied that the NDP will NEVER get anything more than brownie points in this country.
You're just ignoring the problem - again, with respect.
As I said, I'll take this up privately since I'm not interested in indulging in a gong show - I get enough of that at the Tyee.
Hi there G.West. I don't believe I singled you out but if that's what you feel was done, it wasn't necessarily my intention.
And for your information I never write anything anywhere without attaching my name. Heck I even do if making a comment about how good my local recreational Center works. Everyone has a email address connection, that any person with the ability can figure if a anon writes on both sides of a question. As Tieleman says, the same arguments keep getting regurgitated. I for one would like to see Harper sent out to pasture but Dion was spoiled goods and it looked like a desperate thing to do. Mind you Harper made the problem and he will pay for it eventually. In the mean time others have and will pay just as dearly for the state of the economy. When interest rates drop to the lowest in 50 years, even a guy like Harper has to notice.
A very good friend and his wife ,of ours, as they entered retirment with limited pension, scraped together enough money to buy a double lot out west of the town of Victoria, the intent was to subdivide and build two houses. The banks backed them, every inch of the way.Can't lose says the money lenders. They now, with the downturn lost their tiny place in town, back to the same friendly bank and have nowhere to live. Is there a recession? Well maybe a timy little one says Harper and his local chearleader Gordo. As soon as the Liberals get united behind someone, the opposition will be stronger. A vote of confidence will happen probrably followed by an election, but possibly by a coalition with Bloc support. But I am no constitutional expert nor can I read the GG's mind. Best way to defeat the guy is to organize not splinter the folks who want it to happen.
Your column attacked the NDP for "selling out" on the issues of Afghanistan and corporate tax cuts. There was no mention of what the NDP was defending, which was pay equity and the right to strike in addition to a level electoral playing field. Your column was written before the Conservatives caved in on those issues.
Further, there was no admittance that the only reason the Conservatives did so was because of the existence of the NDP-Liberal Coalition.
You didn't stand up and shout when the Conservatives attacked historical NDP policies, instead you chose to attack the NDP.
So you're against proportional-rep and you're against the NDP forming a coalition with the Bloc, the Liberals or the Conservatives, which obviously means you're either against the NDP ever being part of government or you're living in a fantasyland where an NDP majority is just around the corner.
Whether you ever want the NDP to be part of government federally or not some issues are not up for debate and the right to strike is one of them. If you want to throw that issue out of the NDP policy book when polls show its holding us back then you really have to ask yourself if you wouldn't be more comfortable in another party. After all, on both the policy front and the political power front you don't support Layton or the federal NDP.
References to past support of an NDP position is all well and good but this is 2008 and the entire NDP caucus was in support of that Coalition.
Even your friend Alex said you betrayed the Left so its not just me saying so.
I can't make it more clearer than that.
Time to leave this article. For gosh sakes folks. Tieleman is often called a NDP suporter, voice of the left and such. He used to work for that party for God's sake. His views must mean something . I do see his face on places like Voice of BC. Palmer has never asked us to do the questioning. His blog tells us when he will be on radio and what he will be discussing. No matter what political stripe a commentator has , it's always worth listening to such programs. Some wise person said, read the opposing side to get to know what they are pushing, or words to that effect.
Who each of us votes for is our business in a free country. Some folks publically declare who they support some don't. I rather doubt that Tieleman runs in and votes Liberal or Conservative, and can't vote Bloc if he wanted to as he doesn't live in Quebec.
G.West your offer to argue with Teileman somewhere else is the best thing you have said lately, in my view. Reading entrails is what some folks do well and report what they find. I read teileman with interst ans as well The Rebel with a Cause. Not always agreeing with them but if I do, I do it with respect. hell they do it for a living and know a lot more in the inner circles that we do. Let's leave it to those folks.
Not wishing to be rude but a time out right now won't hurt anyone.
There are millions of votes behind all those MP's in Ottawa. To dismiss them offhand, as the Cons wish to do, is not a way to govern a minority parliament.
How are those voices to be heard when a coalition is not doable? Are you saying a coalition only works if the dynamics are right? Could we not debate how to make a minority government work. Stephen Harper certainly doesn't have a handle on it. He still wants to dismiss all NDP and Bloc voters as of today. He even said that he feels he is not at fault at all for the recent events. Sociopathic.
If Canadians don't like having a BLOC party and a possiblity of a coalition in the parliament, then that is what they need to be screaming about.
Actually, what I said was in jest...but reading comprehension is tough when you hate Harper so much that you're willing to argue for crap.
That's the calling card of the doctrinaire far left wingnut and those of you who have posted such idiocy have proved the point beyond words.
Bill actually didn't betray the NDP...he just differentiated himself as an honest Canadian who will not put political expediency and bald faced power hunger, before the best interests of future generations of Canadians.
DPL gets it right. Budd gets it.
This isn;t about being a Tory, Grit or Dipper you idiots, it's about standing up for what's right for Canada.
Layton is a jerk who is on his way down and the gamble is worth it. Dion showed that he was further down the continuum.
Wake up. Then go to a keyboard.
More drivel from you Alex?
I knew there was a reason I never heard fo you.
Pretty sad when you can't even keep up with part-time bloggers.
I guess it hurts when you're a failure at your job eh? I guess for you job security is spelled "being a relative".
Keep taking those night classes at Kwantlen, one day you'll be able to go above and beyond use of the word "idiotic".
Thanks goof, its been fun.
This isn;t about being a Tory, Grit or Dipper you idiots, it's about standing up for what's right for Canada.
says Alex....
Okay, you right wing boy you, so it seems we do have something in common. Only, we left wingnut pinko commies believe that Harper believes in standing up for Corporate Canada only, not Canada.
Big difference.
Though I said I wouldn't post here again, I'm shelving that commitment for this short message. Just for the record.
I did write to Bill Tieleman more than 24 hours ago - he hasn't replied.
I'll let readers draw their own conclusions - maybe Bill was just busy.
Garth - I replied at length to your private email to me. If you didn't get it let me know and I'll find out what happened but I sent it some time ago.
If you want another public comment from me on something you said here, clarify about what.
didn't get it Bill - maybe try again, I'll check my filter file.
thanks
Bill,
Got your message - thanks!
Here's the last para:
I'm always up for a reasonable discussion - then as now. I'm more than willing to grant that you come from a certain place and look at things differently than I do - but I think reason and civility determines that I deserve the same kind of consideration from you. I'll post something on your blog to put paid to this whole thing and we'll move on. I must say I do appreciate the much more balanced piece you wrote introducing the Conservative fund-raisng letter. Thanks.
G West.
G West said
"What that says about Canadian journalism these days is quite a lot."
If its anything like BC journalism we are in trouble. Remember the 'Fastcat Fiasco'? True, the design didn't fit BC very well. True, it was trying to compete in a saturated (international) market. But the total bill was about $427 million and we heard about everyday. But, Clark was trying to keep our shipyards alive. He probably should have built C-class ferries instead. Instead BC Ferries buys a vessel built in Germany for something like $526 million.
I seem to recall that the Convention Centre expansion construction was started before the plans were finalized. In 2007 I remember a price tag of about $880 million, which was over budget by by a fair margin. Basi-Virk-Basi case is in trial, Ken Dobell has tainted evidence by his accessing the archives in the Legislature Office, risking the case being thrown out. We haven't heard a peep.
Why? It looks like most 'journalists' get all of their 'news' from government press releases and do very little digging. The newspapers and radio stations and TV stations appear to be firmly in Campbell's back pocket.
Some of the dollar amounts are from memory. If some one could post links to that info, we could clarify. It just seems that Campbell's government is the worst I've seen in the last twenty years.
27 full Cabinet Ministers? that's more than the federal government
The BC Rail sale, in my mind, directly caused the deaths of two men in the derailment of June 2006. The locomotive involved was a CN loco from the prairies, operating on the steepest grade in BC if not North America. It didn't have DB (dynamic/engine braking) and relied on its brakes, which had been replaced the week before.
OK, OK
I know its BC not federal.
I have more to say, but am getting tired of all the back and forth bickering.
Post a Comment