I will say that at least the threat of all this will neuter the worst of the neocon impulses that Darth Harper started to succumb to, so we're going to see much less "stay the course" and more intervention in the upcoming budget.
As to whether that budget will contain enough pork to feed the ravening alliance of crocodiles circling around the flaming, listing marsh-buggy that is the CPC, dunno; I'd click a "damfino" button if there was one.
-- Steve should probably lay in some popcorn for next week.
I've changed my mind, or maybe it's the ague clouding my judgement, but I think that Harper likes the PM's chair too much and he'll make enough concessions in the budget to make the coalition look churlish if they go through with the non-confidence motion. We'll get another armed-truce style parliament for a few months with all sides eyeing each other for false moves, and probably another election in the summer or fall.
-- Steve's wondering if sustained tylenol-and-hot-chocolate doses have Delphic properites.
I am not convinced Harper won't still manage to piss off the loyal opposition. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090122.wPOLenvi0122/BNStory/politics/home) Of course, if Ig's Liberals can be bought off, that won't matter.
With respect, that's a "57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party" type accusation at the moment; no proof, sounds good, tars the opposition, and it's easy to say because the bomb-throwing wing of the NDP isn't going to wear much blame if we go to the polls again.
-- Steve doesn't doubt that there are CPC-droids on the benches who'd try to do precisely that, but thinks that Harper will be shoving pillows into any faces advocating anything (else) that would terminate his lease on 24 Sussex.
I voted for unexpected hilarious result, since hey, that's always fun. Realistically, those in power like to stay there if possible. I'd be surprised if Harper doesn't smarten up and try and work with the rest of parliment to get something done.
Harper will cave just enough for Iggy to feel comfortable but Harper will say he doesn't believe in it but if doesn't do it then someone, a traitorous cheat of a coalitionist, will do it even worse. Failing that it will be a February election. I hope there is a blizzard in Alberta if that happens.
The current political system here is extremely argh-rich. In fact, I have a nutritional disease right now caused by the superabundance of argh. I've been attempting to remedy it with gin-and-gingerales, with limited success.
* I also table a motion to declare a moratorium on the awful "ticky-box," a word which will never appear in any of my software documentation...
I like ticky box - probably because I will never ever be allowed anywhere near the composition of software documentation - so I second your motion.
Regarding the arghosis - stealth meds: grande marnier in hot tea. Okay, yes, it doesn't actually reduce the argh count, but one does have hot tea with grande marnier in it, so that's a plus.
James makes entertaining screaming sounds on his LJ whenever he discusses either Harper or Ignatieff, so either way the budget vote, etc. goes, you win.
I am sure there's a name for this logical error but Ignatieff annoys me more than Harper does. Harper's a Conservative, he's supposed to make the world a worse place for most people. The Liberals are supposed to be the generally competent [1] technocrats. Ig would be a much better fit for the Conservatives.
1: Except for [removed because it attracts flame-wars] policy, which is wasteful and ineffective and yet apparently bullet-proof.
I am sure there's a name for this logical error ...
Who says it's a logical error? Maybe Harper's unapologetic and unalloyed Harpertude implies a level of (cough) trustworthiness that Ignatieff's weaselaceous and casuitrously tergiversative Ignatieffosity self-evidently lacks -- and you are emotionally responding to a trust-test, not a correctness test.
Something you know to be poison, is more useful -- and, paradoxically, safer -- than something that might be poison[1].
Plus, when you write, "The Liberals are supposed to be the generally competent ... technocrats," you describe them as of, say, 1935-2003 or so, and I'm not even sure the last part of the Chrétien years qualify. It's a bit like saying "General Motors has a reputation for making quality cars," in the mid-20th C. sense of that expression: it ain't necessarily so, anymore. In evidence, as exhibit "A" I offer an out-of-focus, late-delivered and grainy video of recent notoriety, and so on.
Plus, find me an essay where Harper defends torture, with a follow up where he weaselaceously denies actually having meant to say that (citations available on request, for Iggy-poo).
Your ranking Harper > Ignatieff (admittedly in the context of Satan > Harper > Ignatieff) strikes me as being both logical and rational.
TSM_in_Toronto
[1] (Though, personally, I do not believe Harper to be political 'poison'.)
Right now it has a considerable lead (52.2%)... so it looks like a lot of people won't be completely surprised when the Monarch of Canada title is transfered to Queen Beatrix on the 31th as a Birthday present.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
As to whether that budget will contain enough pork to feed the ravening alliance of crocodiles circling around the flaming, listing marsh-buggy that is the CPC, dunno; I'd click a "damfino" button if there was one.
-- Steve should probably lay in some popcorn for next week.
no subject
-- Steve's wondering if sustained tylenol-and-hot-chocolate doses have Delphic properites.
no subject
no subject
-- Steve doesn't doubt that there are CPC-droids on the benches who'd try to do precisely that, but thinks that Harper will be shoving pillows into any faces advocating anything (else) that would terminate his lease on 24 Sussex.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Alternatively, Harper being chased around the capital to the tune of "Yakkity Sax" would be acceptable too.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-01-22 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)With Ignatieff, "wanting to read the budget first" [strike pose, here], is simply the optimal way for him to ensure maximal weasel-space.
TSM_in_Toronto
no subject
no subject
no subject
The current political system here is extremely argh-rich. In fact, I have a nutritional disease right now caused by the superabundance of argh. I've been attempting to remedy it with gin-and-gingerales, with limited success.
* I also table a motion to declare a moratorium on the awful "ticky-box," a word which will never appear in any of my software documentation...
no subject
Regarding the arghosis - stealth meds: grande marnier in hot tea. Okay, yes, it doesn't actually reduce the argh count, but one does have hot tea with grande marnier in it, so that's a plus.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-01-23 02:31 am (UTC)(link)James makes entertaining screaming sounds on his LJ whenever he discusses either Harper or Ignatieff, so either way the budget vote, etc. goes, you win.
TSM_in_Toronto
no subject
1: Except for [removed because it attracts flame-wars] policy, which is wasteful and ineffective and yet apparently bullet-proof.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-01-23 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)Who says it's a logical error? Maybe Harper's unapologetic and unalloyed Harpertude implies a level of (cough) trustworthiness that Ignatieff's weaselaceous and casuitrously tergiversative Ignatieffosity self-evidently lacks -- and you are emotionally responding to a trust-test, not a correctness test.
Something you know to be poison, is more useful -- and, paradoxically, safer -- than something that might be poison[1].
Plus, when you write, "The Liberals are supposed to be the generally competent ... technocrats," you describe them as of, say, 1935-2003 or so, and I'm not even sure the last part of the Chrétien years qualify. It's a bit like saying "General Motors has a reputation for making quality cars," in the mid-20th C. sense of that expression: it ain't necessarily so, anymore. In evidence, as exhibit "A" I offer an out-of-focus, late-delivered and grainy video of recent notoriety, and so on.
Plus, find me an essay where Harper defends torture, with a follow up where he weaselaceously denies actually having meant to say that (citations available on request, for Iggy-poo).
Your ranking Harper > Ignatieff (admittedly in the context of Satan > Harper > Ignatieff) strikes me as being both logical and rational.
TSM_in_Toronto
[1] (Though, personally, I do not believe Harper to be political 'poison'.)
no subject
Right now it has a considerable lead (52.2%)... so it looks like a lot of people won't be completely surprised when the Monarch of Canada title is transfered to Queen Beatrix on the 31th as a Birthday present.