I’m a bit hesitant to link again, for the umpteenth time, to Glen Pearson’s blog. But then I suppose it doesn’t do us any good to avoid celebrating candor from our politicians—rare as it is. (If any of our other 307 MPs are currently writing so freely online, please send any links I’ve missed.)
One way or another, last Thursday in Parliament will eventually be the stuff of undergraduate history texts. Here is how Mr. Pearson saw it.
To be sure, certain portions of the update had been leaked a day earlier, but the sheer scope of the Prime Minister’s statement suddenly laid bare everything that we had all feared might dwell beneath the veneer of the government’s civility. In that moment at least, we stared into a kind of abyss and didn’t like its depth. What fascinated me were the faces of the Conservative MPs during the reading of the statement itself. They appeared on edge, worried, and more than a little apprehensive, as if they knew danger was ahead.
No sooner was the speech ended than the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister left the House, along with half of the Conservative caucus. The faces on those that remained told the story in vivid detail. Listening to the response from the three opposition parties, you could tell from their countenance some kind of line had been crossed.
In the Opposition Lobby, I saw things I had never witnessed in my two years here. Bloc members were “high-fiving” NDP caucus members, and some women from the Bloc were embracing their counterparts in the Liberal caucus. It was incredible to watch.
Print
Comment
BTW the reference to Stockholm syndrome is that Quebecers all have to live in that environment, so learn to get along. The rules and attitude that enables that disappear once you leave the province, some would say once you leave Montreal.
“I stayed to watch Brison’s speech before returning to the bureau to write.”
Then you missed the three best speeches of that afternoon. To wit, I hope after this week, the media will stop thinking that just covering the Conservatives and Liberals is sufficient to cover the whole story on the Hill any more.
Stephen: “There is no accomodation here, he [Duceppe] will extract a price because support isnt free”
No doubt, but at the same time why would he want an election? He’s supporting the Coalition mainly in order to avoid his party’s getting bankrupted by the FU gambit. He’s not going to hand the reins back to Harper in two months, and Quebeckers won’t be that keen on a third election in six months. He’ll do what he always does: sulk, vote strategically, and hold lots of wild-eyed news conferences. Why change a winning formula?
Hey Stephen, then I suppose you filed your utter disgust with your own so-called Leader’s explicit agreement, noted in a letter signed to GG Adrienne Clarkson, some 4 years ago? Because that’s exactly what Harper had in mind, if only his attempt to buy a vote — he apparently still doesn’t know the cost of one — had panned out.
What ever way this turns out, I’d say Harper’s entering his final act.
Darth Vader? Nay, The Nixon analogy seems quite apropos now.
“In the Opposition Lobby, I saw things I had never witnessed in my two years here. Bloc members were “high-fiving” NDP caucus members, and some women from the Bloc were embracing their counterparts in the Liberal caucus. It was incredible to watch.”
This is a good thing? The Conservatives delivered a supposedly disastrous economic statement and the opposition parties were celebrating?
Seriously …celebrating?
“some women from the Bloc were embracing their counterparts in the Liberal caucus”
Oh my
A decent human being in Parliament should not be considered an exception.