Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Happy one year anniversary, 40th Parliament of Canada!

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:52am - 22 Comments

I know, it seems like so much longer, doesn’t it?

ITQ is just disappointed that the prime minister doesn’t seem to be planning to mark the occasion this time around, which is a break from tradition, at least as far as celebrating the anniversary of his first electoral victory. (ITQ’s live-ish blog of the 2007 festivities are, alas, lost somewhere in the pixelverse, but here’s her report from 2008.)

According to his official schedule for today, he’s just toodling around Alberta, posing for the cameras here, chatting with Edmontonian businessmen there. He seems to have some sort of announcement later this afternoon in Wabuman, but at the moment, there appear to be no plans for a grand ‘One Year Ago Today …’  speech, or even a closed-to-media-but-we’ll-tell-you-about-it-anyway party. Maybe he’s going to wait until he’s back in Ottawa next week, so he can buy a round for the Little Shop veterans who so successfully crushed Stephane Dion’s shifty green dreams of victory.

Anyway, congratulations, class of 2008! ITQ hopes you’ve enjoyed the last year of political antics and intrigue as much as she has. You haven’t always managed to Make Parliament Work, but you’ve definitely kept it interesting, which is really all that a Hill reporter can ask.

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Dot

    You still here? :)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    Isn't today's announcement by the PM on green energy?

    • even flow

      No, its on carbon sequestering. Neither green nor red nor blue nor gray, however it is a whole lot of taxpayer money literally being flushed down a hole.

  • knick

    Not so much to celebrate – no majority yet?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/kblack1 kblack1

    Wow, it does seem longer than 1 year. Much longer. Are the Cons getting the Oppostion flowers, or taking them out for dinner in celebration? They should consider it if they want the relationship to last another year :)

    Kady, have you come up with a clever name for the new blog?

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

      O'Malley is definitely not going to use Macleans to hype her CBC blog, and I am willing to bet the name will be part of a splashy launch on CBC.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    So Kady, what are you going to be doing at the CBC? Hopefully they'll have you doing more than Parliamentary gossip.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/DroppingBY DroppingBY

    I'm guessing that Kady may not be at liberty to, or willing to, discuss her new blog on this, her old blog.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

    Every time someone says "parliamentary gossip" I get this striking image of some political equivalent of E-Talk Canada in my head. Can't imagine why.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

    Hey Kady, good luck with your new job. It's understandable that you don't wish to promote the CBC from the Maclean's web site. Personally I prefer Maclean's over the CBC, but now I have a reason to check out the CBC site once in a while, too.

    As for the year of Parliament, it must have been one of the most roller-coaster parliaments Canada has ever seen.

  • Anon

    Let me also add my congratulations on your pending move to the Mother Ship. I won't be commenting on your new blog, fortunately I'd imagine, because CBC doesn't allow anons, but I'll continue to read it. Good luck!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      The joy of the internet.. lie.

      Seriously, anybody who thinks "Alvin F. Merkel" on an internet forum is any less anonymous than, say, "Anon" needs to have their head examined.

  • Mike514

    Personally I prefer Maclean's over the CBC

    I do too, but lately, that feeling is starting to change. The Macleans blog is slowly turning into a shell of its former self. I used to check Macleans blog central several times a day, but not anymore.

    Consider the following: Kady's leaving, Andrew Coyne never blogs, Paul Wells doesn't seem to blog as often as usual… Lately it's mostly Aaron Wherry and Jaime Weinman posts. And since I don't care for blogs about television programs (and judging by the number of comments that Weinman gets on his posts, I'm guessing I'm not the only one), that leaves me with Wherry. It's become a one-man blog central, and frankly, I'd rather go elsewhere.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Macleans admin deletes this post… but it's not written maliciously. It's that I genuinely miss the "old" blog central.

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

    As someone who very regularly is highly critical of Macleans content, I have to vouch for their extremely good record in keeping a hands off approach, in the comments section.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    I believe that President Obama has supported carbon sequestration as a possitive approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. So has the Liberal PArty.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    I believe that President Obama has supported carbon sequestration as a possitive approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. So has the Liberal Party.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

      Does he support clauses in agreements with the gov't that allow the oil companies like Shell to pump the liquid CO2 into old oil wells?

  • John.K

    Thus proving that stupidity is truly non-partisan.

  • John W.

    I thought some of your colleagues here would come on and wish you all the best . A little triubute like they do in the House of Commons.
    I'll do one. You were the spark plug that made this motor run.
    All the best.

  • Whiskey

    Congrats, Kady.

  • Anon

    You'd be surprised at how many — including one notable moderator — would disagree with you. CBC forums require registration, and anons typically — including this one — usually tend to have valid reasons for not giving out that information. Making up an identity just so you can post on a blog seems somewhat desperate, and I'm not quite there yet in terms of requiring virtual companionship.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      But you already have made up an identity — "Anon".

      That's what I"m trying to point out.. that any random name holds just as much.. or as little.. identity as "Anon" does. It's a random string of characters chosen to represent you. That some moderators have a weird preference for strings that happen to look like names is beside the point.

Previous

Next

From Macleans