Canadian politics, Conservatives, Stephen Harper

Change We Can Believe In

Scott Reid at The Globe and Mail has written, I think, an excellant essay on why Harper has to go .( ) I don’t know how the rest of you feel about the current instability in our Parliment but I know how I feel about it. Every word Reid has written is true. At a time of a looming catastrophic economic crisis he has chosen to ignore it and play vindictive power games in Parliment. I would add to Reid’s column by saying that Harper believes in nothing so much as that he should be the Prime Minister and that the driving force in his life is to destroy anything that gets in the way of his holding of power. Consequences to the nation can be buggered, as long as he gets to be the guy in charge. The man is no more than a schoolyard bully and just this once the opposition parties remembered that they own spines and stood up to him. And he blinked. Then he sent out a lackey to tell us that he really didn’t mean it and why’s everyone so worked up anyway? Although, I’ve got to say, I’m impressed by Baird’s ability to fill the role of Harper’s trusted lackey. The only way he would be more suitable is if they stuck a hunch on his back and renamed him Igor.   

Whether this is the start of a new dynamic for the opposition parties and I certainly hope it is, remains to be seen. Personally, I’m convinced that for the good of the country, hell, for the good of the Conservative party, he should be no more than a backbencher at worst and a private citizen at best. It’s likely that after this latest high-grade miscalculation the knives will start to come out for him within the Conservative party. The rest of us need to start protesting in the streets because, credit where it’s due, the bastard has proved himself to be very good at changing with the wind. He needs some very visible and forceful winds to see how the majority of us feel right now.  

 Neocons, feel free to release your frothing hounds of blithering partisan anger. You can’t all be screaming “Treason” on the CBC’s website and I’ve been dealing with Navy officers all weekend. I could use a good punch-up.

Doug has spoken. He awaits your replies


3 thoughts on “Change We Can Believe In

  1. “Although, I’ve got to say, I’m impressed by Baird’s ability to fill the role of Harper’s trusted lackey. The only way he would be more suitable is if they stuck a hunch on his back and renamed him Igor.” – LOL – appropos!

    Let’s hope Harper does NOT prorogue. Enough is enough already & we need “the coalition” to get started with implementing THEIR stimulus package.


  2. Let the fear-mongering begin. I’ve seen several people interviewed (those annoying on-the-street interviews) who think that this means another election. Wrongo. This guarantees no election until 2011, assuming that the coalition holds together as long as planned.

    What Stevie has done reminds me of one of the great potential psychological pitfalls of playing poker. When playing poker, your mind tends to give you positive reinforcement when you make negative decisions. When you bet out with the worst hand and hit a miracle card on the river, you get very excited and euphoric, and your brain likes that, even though the decision that put you in the position of needing a miracle was a bad decision. This occurs quite often, making many bad poker players even worse, as they actually start thinking that poor decisions are good decisions.

    I think the same thing doomed poor Stevie when he made every vote a confidence vote last year. The Liberals obliged his poor decision-making and insecure authoritarian mania by avoiding those votes. But that didn’t make ruling a minority as though he had a majority a good decision. A good decision-maker would have sought broader support in the House, given the fragile situation that minority governments present. A good decision-maker would have kept to his original election schedule, instead of trying to get a jump on the obvious upcoming recession. A good decision-maker would have come up with a plan for dealing with an economic downturn, rather than demonizing those who were simply stating the obvious. Unfortunately for Stevie (and for Canada), his poor decisions last year were being positively reinforced. His brain tricked him into thinking that bad decisions were actually good decisions.

    You can only play chicken for so long. Eventually, you end up in the ditch (or worse). Welcome to the ditch, Stevie.


  3. A good decision would have been to reach out to the other parties saying “we’re in tough economic times and we need to all think of ways to get out”. Then Harper do what he wanted, but could pick and choose ideas from various places to add spice to a Conservative plan. That would have three direct, and pretty immediate benefits: he gets to take credit for a good plan, spread out the blame for a bad one, and look more like the FDR that the situation requires. If he was to successfully guide Canada through the tough economic times ahead, he comes out all shiny and unbeatable in any election he chooses to call. If he doesn’t, his ass is more covered than otherwise and his chances at the ballot are still pretty good.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s