Snipes and Exchanges
Testy little verbal episodes revealing the ambitions and studied agendas of the participants. In the 12 April leaders' debate televised for the instruction and entertainment of Canadian voters all three opposition party leaders trotted out their disdain for the Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.
All made an effort to portray him as anti-democratic, an ambitious schemer, a hard-right-wing diehard ideologue with a hidden schedule not yet embarked upon because of his insecurity as a minority parliament Prime Minister. Patiently biding his time for a majority government when all the evils of a corrupt mind intent on destroying Canadian values would be unveiled.
Memory nudges there to the Liberal Chretien government cutting back on transfers to the provinces for health and education when Paul Martin was finance minister and bringing down the deficit was more important than maintaining the integrity of Canada's social values. That too was the time when the public service was targeted for cut-backs to an extent no Conservative-led government would ever have presumed to initiate.
But the thing of it is that the Prime Minister has been governing as though he had a majority. Boldly and with vision, both of which have been dreadfully upsetting to the opposition. Who, in their criticism of everything that Stephen Harper and his well-placed Cabinet have done, from immigration to the economy, to health care and international affairs, also managed to overlook the fact that he has not unleashed his secret agenda.
No strenuous efforts to alter the social agenda of the country's social fabric and values, from universal health care to access to abortions. Many of the initiatives, in fact, that the Conservative-led government has undertaken have had the support at one time or another, when it suited their own agendas, of the various oppositions; from investing in infrastructure funding to decreasing corporate tax rates.
And there was Michael Ignatieff hammering away at the democratic ideal which he insists the Prime Minister has insulted. He would promote democracy abroad, he avers, as prime minister. "But to that you have to believe in democracy at home and Mr. Harper has betrayed democracy at home", he claimed.
And then swallowed hard when the rejoinder from Mr. Harper was that Mr. Ignatieff's clinging to the idea that he is entitled to bring down a duly elected government - referring to the 41st one this time - should the Conservatives be re-elected with another minority, as soon as he might conceivably manage it; as a reflection of the latest effort.
"That's not how our system works. The party that wins most seats forms the government. The alternative is to allow a party dedicated to the break up of the country to decide who gets into power. That's not good for the country", said Mr. Harper. And most Canadians seem to feel the very same sentiment; they want the result of their vote to be respected.
Despite which, Michael Ignatieff made no secret of his intention to reject the budget which Mr. Harper said he would re-introduce if he is once again elected. The budget was rejected, and led the way to a no-confidence vote in the government on a pretext that the government had acted prejudicially in contempt of Parliament - by not supplying the costs demanded for the prison and the F-35 initiatives.
Which the Liberal-led governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin also engaged in, with their majority-led governments. But obviously what is sauce for that goose wasn't so for this gander. And Jack Layton's reproach to Michael Ignatieff was rather precious: "Why do you have [the] worst attendance record of any member of the House of Commons? If you want to be prime minister, you'd better learn to be a member of Parliament first."
With Ignatieff's huffy rejoinder that "I don't surrender to anyone in my respect for the institution of Parliament or my obligation to the people who put me there, so don't give me lessons on respect for democracy", rounding out the entertainment quotient of the evening's debate.
All made an effort to portray him as anti-democratic, an ambitious schemer, a hard-right-wing diehard ideologue with a hidden schedule not yet embarked upon because of his insecurity as a minority parliament Prime Minister. Patiently biding his time for a majority government when all the evils of a corrupt mind intent on destroying Canadian values would be unveiled.
Memory nudges there to the Liberal Chretien government cutting back on transfers to the provinces for health and education when Paul Martin was finance minister and bringing down the deficit was more important than maintaining the integrity of Canada's social values. That too was the time when the public service was targeted for cut-backs to an extent no Conservative-led government would ever have presumed to initiate.
But the thing of it is that the Prime Minister has been governing as though he had a majority. Boldly and with vision, both of which have been dreadfully upsetting to the opposition. Who, in their criticism of everything that Stephen Harper and his well-placed Cabinet have done, from immigration to the economy, to health care and international affairs, also managed to overlook the fact that he has not unleashed his secret agenda.
No strenuous efforts to alter the social agenda of the country's social fabric and values, from universal health care to access to abortions. Many of the initiatives, in fact, that the Conservative-led government has undertaken have had the support at one time or another, when it suited their own agendas, of the various oppositions; from investing in infrastructure funding to decreasing corporate tax rates.
And there was Michael Ignatieff hammering away at the democratic ideal which he insists the Prime Minister has insulted. He would promote democracy abroad, he avers, as prime minister. "But to that you have to believe in democracy at home and Mr. Harper has betrayed democracy at home", he claimed.
And then swallowed hard when the rejoinder from Mr. Harper was that Mr. Ignatieff's clinging to the idea that he is entitled to bring down a duly elected government - referring to the 41st one this time - should the Conservatives be re-elected with another minority, as soon as he might conceivably manage it; as a reflection of the latest effort.
"That's not how our system works. The party that wins most seats forms the government. The alternative is to allow a party dedicated to the break up of the country to decide who gets into power. That's not good for the country", said Mr. Harper. And most Canadians seem to feel the very same sentiment; they want the result of their vote to be respected.
Despite which, Michael Ignatieff made no secret of his intention to reject the budget which Mr. Harper said he would re-introduce if he is once again elected. The budget was rejected, and led the way to a no-confidence vote in the government on a pretext that the government had acted prejudicially in contempt of Parliament - by not supplying the costs demanded for the prison and the F-35 initiatives.
Which the Liberal-led governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin also engaged in, with their majority-led governments. But obviously what is sauce for that goose wasn't so for this gander. And Jack Layton's reproach to Michael Ignatieff was rather precious: "Why do you have [the] worst attendance record of any member of the House of Commons? If you want to be prime minister, you'd better learn to be a member of Parliament first."
With Ignatieff's huffy rejoinder that "I don't surrender to anyone in my respect for the institution of Parliament or my obligation to the people who put me there, so don't give me lessons on respect for democracy", rounding out the entertainment quotient of the evening's debate.
posted by Pieface | 7:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home