Thursday, January 29, 2009

Can You Feel the Heat? Libs Back Harper, Vote Down Pay Equity

That's what happens when you dance with the devil.

The Liberal Party of Canada (Ignatieff) was tonight forced to vote down pay equity. The pay equity issue was included in a Bloc Quebecois amendment motion that incorporated equalization formulae and rescinding the proposed tax breaks in the Harper-Ignatieff budget.

Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.

Doubtless though, the Liberal Party of Canada, to preserve its last shred of integrity and honour, will excise the pay equity issue from the Bloc's blatantly politico amendment and move to demand the very same themselves. Right? C'mon, we've had the glove across the face. This is the point where you stand up and defend your ideals, right?

What, I'm wrong? Oh, I see. We got rid of all those pesky ideals when we granted Israel pre-absolution for all the carnage it inflicted on Gaza. Of course, what was I thinking?

Tomorrow, Jack Layton will egg us on into defeating the amendment that scraps the tax cuts and frees the slaves. Do these guys sooo have us over the barrel, that same barrel we made.

Sorry, Iggy, but Ian is no Keith, not even remotely. And you're no Pierre, or Jean, or Alexander, you're no Lester, or Wilfred, or William Lyon, or Paul. Those guys made the ideals of this party and they made them on a perfectly defensible basis that people accepted. Yet, as though you would have far rather found a niche in a different party, you decided to accept second best - reshape the Liberal Party in your image according to your beliefs.

Ignatieff has pretty much shown his hand here and I think a lot of you Liberals who haven't been willing to acknowledge that yet, know it anyway.

Right now this country needs, so very much, a return to classic Liberal ideals that carry back to Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else. That's where we really started this thing - back at stonemason Alexander Mackenzie.

It's been a lumpy ride at times but, to hold and develop these ideals, you are going to be rocking some boats. Sometimes that was the big boats, usually it was the big boats, but, every now and then it was the little boats' turn to be rocked a bit. The idea was to balance all interests - in fairness.

This guy we've got now, he isn't much concerned about fairness. He's a one man show - he's the decider - and he'll gag his entire caucus to ensure his so very Harperesque iron-hand control of information. Let's face it, no matter whether you think Iggy is a conservative or not, you cannot deny that he likes Harper's style of running a party. We all found that contemptible when Harper did it but suddenly it's become just dandy when Ignatieff does it? Who actually gets the right to turn this Liberal Party of Canada's tap on and off? Did the job specification indicate "strongman" or "leader?" Here's a rule every Latin American knows by heart - never let a strongman in unless that's really what you want and unless you're willing to live with the inevitable outcome.

Now I am, for the first time in a long, long time, absolutely ashamed of the conduct of my party and its Members of Parliament. They've decided it's okay to pursue Harper not just to the right but also into the gutter.

And I guess that's where we part company.


Oemissions said...

I've said it many times. Look at the Bloc's record. They stand up for all Canadians and humanity, but get instead of respect, bigotry from Canadians.
It is utterly exasperating to see Liberals turning a deaf ear and blind eye to human suffering.
Maybe there just aren't enough Liberals in need of EI yet?

tdwebste said...

Michael and the Liberals are screwed.

> I think for Ignatieff, getting rid of Harper now is not his priority. He can wait a year or two.

He is needs to wait a year or two and HOPE Canadians forget.

Dion let Harper walk over him.
Michael joined Harper, just one month after Harper set out to completely destroy balanced elections and the Liberals in the process through cutting election funding. How could Michael join Harper after that? Please tell me.

Michael and the Liberals are screwed. Neither the NDP or the BLOC will ever come to their aid again. Listen to what was said, I am pretty sure they met and more.

This is NOT probation. Harper has absolute victory.

The opposition has been divided and conquered. Thanks to Michael joining Harper even after what Harper has done.

Anonymous said...

Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.
The BQ should run pan-Canada....

Ted Betts said...

Aside from a lot of other nonsense in this post, what history books were you reading when you wrote that "Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else"?

Mackenzie and Laurier were very much laissez-faire free markerters and believed very very strongly that individuals were better off without any assistance from government. The only one remotely even reformist in Laurier's cabinet was Clifford Sifton who can hardly be called a strong reformist. From Clippingdale's Laurier: His Life and Times (1979):

"Both federal and provincial Liberals... since 1896 have been highly conservative in their social and economic policies.... Certainly, until at least Maurice Duplessis's time in the 1930s and after, the Liberals had this generally pro-business, pro-growth orientation, with little if any involvement in, or reputation for, social reform. The great political revolution of the 1890s, by which Laurier Liberalism displaced Cartier-Chapleau Conservativism, was not really a triumph of social reform. In fact, Laurier's party... eschewed radical changes in anything. He gained and kept massive support, for the most part, for profoundly conservative reasons."

Also, I have to question your view that Liberals don't want or like strong leaders. Not only was it the most significant reason for the rejection and quick ouster of Dion, strong leadership is the most distinguishing feature of our most heralded and defining leaders like Laurier (16 years as PM), King (22 years as PM), Trudeau (16 years as PM) and Chretien (13 years as PM). By contrast all of the leaders we consider unsuccessful have all been noted for their weak leadership skills: Mackenzie, Turner, Martin, Dion. Pearson, another minority opposition leader who rejected coalitions, is the only leader who was noted for weak leadership skills but who was considered successful.

I don't have time today to take on the rest of this hour's anti-Iggy rant, but as a historian the incredible historical revisionism of your post irked me. Canadians don't know enough about their history generally so we certainly don't need to be sending out such misinformation about our past.