Deux Maudits Anglais

Martin Patriquin and Philippe Gohier dissect the latest out of Quebec. Follow Philippe on Twitter: @pgohier

Categories: Deux Maudits Anglais

Faster, Irony! Die! Die!

by Martin Patriquin on Monday, September 14, 2009 3:27pm - 42 Comments

September 2: Prime Minister decries a potential Liberal government “propped up by the socialists and the separatists”.

September 14: Prime Minister’s own government may survive, thanks to the socialists and the separatists.

My, this bile is delicious.

More by Martin Patriquin

Dakota

I wouldn't exactly call it "propped up" when the Conservatives aren't too worried about falling in the first place. I think "held up" would be a more appropriate phrase.

I think the Liberals are quite happy that Layton will be doing the Dion impersonation this time instead of Ignatieff.

Just look at Nanos' recent poll,

http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/137

and this is from the guy that normal inflates Liberal numbers!

Jason

Those numbers are from September 2, bud.

Since then: we've seen what Harper is like behind closed doors, Flaherty told us just how badly they have been managing our finances, the Liberals have once and for all ended the coalition notion, the Libs have started their own ads (nice contrast to the Cons character assassination ads), etc.

Keep up will you.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

got it everyone 'not "propped" up, "held up"'… are you guys getting t-shirts made and postcards printed?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

got it everyone 'not "propped" up, only "held up"'… are you guys getting t-shirts made and postcards printed?
wilson

And another Ipsos poll today, Cons 39….
http://news.globaltv.com/world/Latest+poll+gives+…

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

And another poll today that says…

"I have a poll. This trumps discussion of issues if it goes my way, and is proof of media bias if it doesn't"

Polls. Stealing time from rational discussion since sometime in the 80's.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Props to the PM.
ROLFSTEIN

And the ad is still running today. There is no end to the outrageous hypocricy of this government

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

I think historical fact would suggest that "outrageous" is a bit of an overstatement.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

It's like rain on your inauguration day
It's a free vote when you've prorogued debate
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Who would've thought … it figures

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to step aside
He hugged the NDP and kissed his base good-bye
He waited his whole damn career to take that deal
And as the House crashed down he thought
'Well isn't this nice…'

And isn't it ironic … don't you think
Mike T.

Incidentally, we are now at war with Eurasia, and we always have been.

John

This is a war of ideas — those who have none want some, and they're prepared to fight for them.

Seriously?

Let's be clear, here. Prime Minister Harper is just getting in a couple of "Making Parliament Work" photo ops before he engineers the fall of his own government. If he hadn't, Layton would have placed blame for the election squarely on Stephen's shoulders. When parliament is dissolved in three weeks, Harper will head into the election saying "see? I tried to work with them." As for Layton, he's desperate to keep parliament going. His party is too strapped for cash to successfully manage an election campaign. Of course, this whole analysis goes out the window if Harper starts implementing socialist policies, which I suspect he won't, because that would deprive him of the coalition issue going forward into the next election, and that's too good an issue to just throw away.
jarrid

You know Martin, if you can't tell the difference between opposition parties supporting government legislation on a case by case basis and three parties forming an agreement to co-operatively run the government "ensemble", then I suspect many things appear "ironical" to you.

http://twitter.com/pato31 @pato31

I think it has more to do with the rather harsh categorization of the parties as "separatists" and "socialists". At that time, the Harper Conservatives made them seem like the spawns of satan himself, but now its ok that they are supporting his government… What does that say about Harpers government?

wilson

Are separatist and socialist derogatory terms?
One party was formed to advance their platform of separating Quebec from Canada.
One party's mandate is to advance socialism (tho Libs like to say they are that party).
A little on the 'sensitve' side, no?

Katherine

I'd categorize NDP positions more as social democratic than socialist, if we want to get technical. But the terms aren't inherently derogatory – the point is that Harper is clearly using them as denunciations and trying to portray both parties as something frightening, and now he's trying to get them to support his government.
http://twitter.com/pato31 @pato31

Nope the words aren't derogatory, unfortunately, Harper and his conservatives were using them as though they were! That's the small detail you fail to notice.

scf

I fail to see the irony, the two situations are completely different.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

Incidentally, we are now at war with Eurasia, and we always have been.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

We are now at war with Eurasia, and we always have been.

Blammo

The quote from Harper was a liberal government "propped up," not necesarily "in a coalition with".
But I understand your point, it's only wrong if someone else does it; that's the way it is with the Harpercrites.

wilson

No, the coalition was wrong because it's formation was to seize power from the WINNING party,
against the desire of the winning party and (polls say) a majority of Canadians.
The 'second best' party only holds 1/2 as many seats as the winning party.

And I don't need a lecture on 'how our parliament works'. I know how it works.
But just because they 'can', doesn't mean it's acceptable to Canadians.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

"But just because they 'can', doesn't mean it's acceptable to Canadians."

See, here's the problem. You've made a broad, sweeping statement, with no evidentiary support.

They "can" form a coalition, because it is an article of fact that this is allowed within the rules of parliament, with the intervention of the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
Yes, that's her whole title.

Now, should this majority of "canadians" you psychically channel decide that, in fact, they do not accept this option, they may speak to their legislators and have the rules changed. Of course, to do so, they need to elect a government willing to carry out this change. They are able to do this with the simple election of a majority government who are willing to do so.

The day they do so, your statement will be accurate. Until that day, it would seem you do, in fact, find yourself in need of a refresher course in parliamentary procedure.

MBToday

Mr Harper doesn't know how to govern period. He knows how to oppose. Opposing the policies (or lack thereof) is not governing! Set up a clear and fair conservative policy and forget the name calling. Start by leading and defending your policy choices, consult the public and introduce and amend laws that a majority of the house of parliament can pass. If that is too hard then we should get someone else to do the job as this seems beyond Mr. Harper skills set.

wilson

''Mr Harper doesn't know how to govern period. He knows how to oppose.''

So then how is it PMSH has the longest running minority government in Canadian history?
And how did he get elected for a second mandate, more seats, and winning 56% of the seats in the ROC, if he doesn't know how to govern?

''Opposing the policies (or lack thereof) is not governing!''

What's there to oppose? The ONLY policy Liberals put out there was the Dipper policy of EI360.
MI refused to contribute to the stimulus budget, saying "Harper gets to wear this recession."
Liberals refused to offer up any ideas to guiding Canada thru the recession, because "Harper will steal them."

Please tell me what contribution the MI Liberals have made to anything other than the Punch and Judy Show, where Libs and Dippers keep fighting over who's turn it is to support the evil Harper.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DaveFromToronto DaveFromToronto

"And how did he get elected for a second mandate, more seats, and winning 56% of the seats in the ROC, if he doesn't know how to govern?"

This shows that he knows how to win elections (though not majorities). It doesn't show that he knows how to govern.

"What's there to oppose? The ONLY policy Liberals put out there was the Dipper policy of EI360."

If Ignatieff had put serious policy proposals forward, the Conservatives would have (a) unleashed a fusillade of attack ads distorting the Liberals' policies and (b) taken the best ideas and claimed them as their own.

The lesson that the Liberals learned from the Dion era was, sadly, that making policy statements is bad political strategy.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/DaveFromToronto DaveFromToronto

"And how did he get elected for a second mandate, more seats, and winning 56% of the seats in the ROC, if he doesn't know how to govern?"

This shows that he knows how to win elections (though not majorities). It doesn't show that he knows how to govern.

"What's there to oppose? The ONLY policy Liberals put out there was the Dipper policy of EI360."

If Ignatieff had put serious policy proposals forward, the Conservatives would have (a) unleashed a fusillade of attack ads distorting the Liberals' policies and (b) taken the best ideas and claimed them as their own.

The lesson that the Liberals learned from the Dion era was, sadly, that making policy statements is bad political strategy. (I say "sadly" because, as a voter, I'd like to know what the parties will do if elected. But, since policy statements are bad politics, all we'll get is campaign strategies based on the leaders' personalities.)

Sigh

But of course Mr Harper will refuse their support, as he wouldn't allow his government to be propped up by socialists and separatists.

wilson

Liberals didn't ask the socialists and separatists to prop them up,
they asked Dippers and the BLOC to join them in a coalition with enough members to seize the government from the party that actually won the election: the Coalition of Losers.

Harper getting support from one or more of the three 'individual' opposition parties IS called making a minority parliament work.
and isn't that what everyone wants?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Is Patriquin trying to out-Wherry Wherry?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Here, let me try this Wherry/Patriquin school of journalism, i.e. no original content, linking disparate issues with out-of-context quotes. Where to start, how about the 'Most Recent' Macleans list item – Afghan farmers?

Irony of Ironies!

Jan 2003 – UN wants to Help Afghan farmers

Sept 2009 – UN wants to Hurt Afghan farmers
scf

I like your use of Wherry as a verb.

http://macleans.ca Martin Patriquin

I don't. It Wherrys me.
Hey-O! Don't forget to tip your waiter, folks.

Sigh

One should always be Wherry of the misuse of nouns.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

How do you conjugate that (in the past perfect tense)?

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

Incidentally, we are now at war with Oceana, and we always have been.
jarrid

The Liberal partisans are decrying the polls showing the Conservatives flirting with a majority. It apparently gets in the way of rational discussion. Why don't Liberals take a cue from the polls and start doing some serious soul-searching. They're not connecting with Canadians. Acting rationally, the Liberals need to change thing up, and quickly. Getting some policy positions would be a great place to start.
http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

See, that's a start, right there. I'd love to see lots and lots of policy positions, preferably ones without charts. From all sides.

However, the fact-checker in me asks you to provide the names of the "liberal partisans" you so refer to, in the interest of accuracy. If you are including me in the count, you are mistaken. Also, inaccurate.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

We are now at war with Oceana, and we always have been.
jarrid

Your comment archive says otherwise. Look in times of adversity, it's no time to turn tail or place a paper bag over your head. It's O.K. if you're a Liberal, it's just not fashionable these days.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

Again, what is your definition of Partisan? Mine is one who refuses to admit when his/her side has made a mistake. I have no party loyalty, and none of the parties as currently formulated comes close to matching my idea of responsible or representative.

If you can pull a clear definition of "partisan" from my comment history, perhaps you need to ask yourself a question: Is it just possible that the most ridiculous statements made in these comment threads, the ones I like to skewer, fall more often on one side?

Consider it a compliment, if you like. Clearly, one of the two main parties has a more robust internet presence than the other. Don't believe me? Remember that fabulous Stephan Dion video?