Thursday, June 22, 2006

Rona Lives

A lot of people are saying the Liberals lacked guts with their abstention on the NDP motion calling for Rona Ambrose to resign.

Personally, I find a motion asking for a Cabinet Minister to resign because of five months of inaction and dithering pretty asinine. If any Cabinet Minister who was perceived as being incompetent was forced to resign, we'd have so many Cabinet shuffles that even Myron Thompson would find his way into the Privy Council before long. And if any Environment Minister who didn't force Canada to live up to its Kyoto commitments resigned, the Liberals would have lost quite a few of them as well.

The entire concept of passing a motion like this is, quite frankly, a waste of parliamentarians' time and I think John Godfrey and the Liberals made the right call by abstaining.

posted by calgarygrit at 12:32 a.m.

33 Comments:

  • You are taking the party line. Pragmatism is one thing but these guys have just demonstrated that a Liberal opposition is no opposition at all. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

    Harper "owned" them.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 1:16 a.m.  

  • Matt, unfortunately the argument that the leaderless Liberals had no choice speaks to a view of the Liberal party as pure pragmatists.

    The optics are not good and Liberals had better hope that this story has no legs.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 2:43 a.m.  

  • I was actually proud of the Liberals abstention. It showed some level-headed judgement and that they aren't out on a suicide mission.

    You can't force a minister to resign because you disagree with government policy. It's like the NDP are out in the school yard throwing rocks at the principle's office.... ridiculous.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 9:40 a.m.  

  • Did the Liberal's abstention show "level-headed judgement"? Did you catch how he publicly rationalized the Liberals abstention?

    "Mr. Godfrey denied that the Liberals are abstaining because they fear an early election. He said he agrees with the NDP that Ms. Ambrose is incompetent, but he said he wants to give her time to demonstrate her incompetence more fully."

    Funny, but not exactly a level-headed response along the lines of Calgary Grit's and most reasonable people's analysis (that the motion is ridiculous).

    By Blogger Olaf, at 9:44 a.m.  

  • I agree with CG.

    *puts on a name tag saying 'I'm with CG'*

    By Blogger Eric, at 10:00 a.m.  

  • Thought I heard on the radio that Harper declared that this vote would be a confidence motion if it passed the committee and then the house... Is this correct?

    Who would have been punished for this ending up in an election?

    (pass me one of those 'I'm with CG' tags please)

    By Blogger Robert, at 10:08 a.m.  

  • duh. ok, now I've read the article.

    Yeah, I think the Tories would have been all over the Liberal party for causing the election over this.

    By Blogger Robert, at 10:11 a.m.  

  • This one won't have legs, it's just silly politics. Didn't see anybody demanding FMPM's resignation because the Liberals didn't fulfill the pledge to eliminate the GST...didn't (insert broken pledge here)...the media needs a story to pass the time and they've latched on to this one.

    By Blogger RGM, at 10:18 a.m.  

  • Harper promised us that he would only make money bills a matter of confidence. He flip flopped on that one pretty early so it’s no surprise he’d continue to flip flop with this.

    Still, for the House of Commons to try to fire a cabinet minister, who serves at the pleasure of the PM (not Parliament), I would think that that would be a proper issue of confidence in the government. Certainly, if the Liberals were in government, as they will be this time next year, they would take the same position. If they didn’t, then every opposition party would try to oust a minister they don’t like. Asking the PM to fire a minister for incompetence or corruption is a very different thing than passing a committee motion for her dismissal.

    Talk about making Parliament even nastier. I thought Layton was all about making Parliament work? Another “look at me, look at me” moment brought to you be Carsalesman Jack.

    And really, do you think ousting lame duck Ambrose is going to make a whit of difference to anything, least of all the environment?

    Ted
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 10:48 a.m.  

  • "if the Liberals were in government, as they will be this time next year,"

    Wow. Talk about deluded.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 11:08 a.m.  

  • seems the Liberals, yet again, gave into the Harper game of election-chicken...what does that make it 4 or 5 times in the past 5 months?

    Last time I checked the man held roughly 36% of the seats, a far worse minority then the Martin-Liberals. Maybe it is time for the Liberals to start acting like an official opposition party with teeth instead of letting Harper run over Canada.

    Now that doesn't mean forcing an election, but it does mean attempting to force compromises. This is something they should be very familiar with given the events of the last two years.

    This most recent example is just a symptom of a the larger problem of Liberal ineffectiveness.

    By Blogger Sean S., at 11:19 a.m.  

  • "Personally, I find a motion asking for a Cabinet Minister to resign because of five months of inaction and dithering pretty asinine. If any Cabinet Minister who was perceived as being incompetent was forced to resign, we'd have so many Cabinet shuffles...."

    This is the problem I have with the left and Kyoto. Being opposed to the treaty is perceived as "inaction", "dithering", and "incompetence."

    With today's left, you're not allowed to disagree with them on basic policy issues. If you do, you're branded incompetent on Kyoto, a bigot on gay marriage, or asked to resign as finance minister by John McCallum.

    I thought in free countries that two sides of a debate were supposed to be allowed.

    By Blogger Dennis (Second Thots), at 11:39 a.m.  

  • "if the Liberals were in government, as they will be this time next year,"

    I personally think Cerberus is on to something here and I almost concur. Where exactly are the 25 seats Harper needs to form majority going to come from? This Conservative government did not get its majority mandate because they did nothing in our three largest cities and next to nothing in Quebec. Ten seats, WOW. Dismantling the gun registry? Opening up SSM again? The Kyoto dance? These issues only preach to the choir and do fuck all to garner votes where Harper needs them. Liberals in power this time next year? Maybe, but probably not. What I feel is certain though is Harper, like Rodney MacDonald here in Nova Scotia, will again get to savour the not-so-sweet victory of another minority mandate.

    By Blogger Omar, at 11:54 a.m.  

  • Cyber Menace: "This is the problem I have with the left and Kyoto. Being opposed to the treaty is perceived as "inaction", "dithering", and "incompetence." "

    No, it's not opposing Kyoto that is perceived as inaction, dithering and incompetence. It is not having a plan of any kind at all despite over a decade of criticizing Kyoto. Cancelling Kyoto related programs (over $1B so far) but not having any replacement. Demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of basic environmental issues and policies (regardles of being pro or anti-Kyoto) on the extremely extremely rare ocassions (has there been even one?) where she responds to questions or is not reading from a script (no doubt written/pre-approved by the PMO).

    That's why she is being considered inactive, incompetent and dithering.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

    You're welcome.

    Ted
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 12:18 p.m.  

  • "Where exactly are the 25 seats Harper needs to form majority going to come from?"

    Five seats in Atlantic Canada,former traditional PC seats. Several close seats in Ont could swing from the Libs to the Tories. They could win back several seats they lost in the west.

    And then there is Quebec. The Tories came in second in 40 of those seats. The Liberals came in third, or worse, in over 40. The Liberals received 15 per cent of the vote or less in 37 of Quebec's ridings. A Conservative majority is much more likely than a Liberal majority and a Conservative minority almost a sure thing.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 1:14 p.m.  

  • If you want to see something really funny, click on the link "Find your member of Parliament" and choose " Alberta" on the
    Liberal website.

    It's kinda hilarious that apparently we don't have any MP's. Oh, I get it, we have no Liberal MP's, apparently the rest don't count.

    I took a quick look at the CPC site, their similar search is titled "Meet OUR MP's" and the NDP is titled "Caucus", both which are a much more honest representation.

    Perception is reality in politics, and this is just one, albeit small, example of the LPC not being able to get it's act together.

    By Blogger Andy, at 1:33 p.m.  

  • nuna d. above,

    Five seats in Atlantic Canada,former traditional PC seats. Several close seats in Ont could swing from the Libs to the Tories. They could win back several seats they lost in the west.And then there is Quebec. The Tories came in second in 40 of those seats. The Liberals came in third, or worse, in over 40.

    None of the above.

    Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.

    By Blogger Omar, at 1:37 p.m.  

  • First prize goes to What the Puck for being the first Tory in this comments thread to raise the defence that "the Liberals didn't do anything so it doesn't matter if we don't do anything." Your reward is this big Blue "H" you get to pin on your jacket. Five more "H"s and you get to sit in the opposition benches.

    For not having a "plan" though, the Conservatives sure are finding a lot of things to cut. A $1 billion "no plan" so far, I think.

    The Liberals didn't do much on the environment. But the Conservatives are gutting all of that and, despite whining about Kyoto and "made in Canada" plan for over a decade, they've never managed to come up with a plan.

    Whether you want to argue the Liberals had a plan or not doesn't change the fact that (1) the Conservatives are now the government or hadn't you noticed and (2) THEY HAVE NO PLAN.

    Ted
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 2:52 p.m.  

  • Oh yeah, the Libs are going to sweep the next election with a 200 seat Majority.. *cough cough*. Those ol' Cons who are up in the polls and came a close second in so many ridings are going to collapse cause the country is so worse off with them in power.. *cough cough*.

    Already there's chaos in the streets, our children are being put in jails, and I could have sworn an army of polar bears marched on Parliament hill!

    In fact, right now I'm watching Harper apologize for the Chinese Head Tax.. HOW DARE HE! It's true, this man is the devil and will be wiped out next election *cough cough*

    Please someone hide the women and children!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 3:21 p.m.  

  • And Sean gets second prize as the second Tory defend his party with the already tired line of "the Liberals didn't do anything so it doesn't matter if we don't do anything." You too get a big Blue "H" to pin on your jacket with a chance win five more "H"s and sit in the opposition benches.

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 5:07 p.m.  

  • Cat Mutant,

    great comment. I agree with you. Sometimes I also feel squeezed out of the "big Liberal tent" when I disagree with rhetoric. It's like Ignatieff said, we can't just keep throwing the name of a Japanese city at the government and expect that people will elect us. It has to be about more.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 6:14 p.m.  

  • Although I don't agree with Kyoto - it's a massive waste of money - Cerberus has a point. It would have been smarter from a political standpoint to have the "Made in Canada" envrionmental plan ready for when the government said they would not honor Kyoto. It would have provided a lot of cover for the Tories.

    In the end I don't think it matters much. The next election will not be faught on Kyoto, and I don't think Harper will call one anytime soon. He knows the Tories still need to prove themselves a little more before most Canadians are ready to trust him with a majority government, so I think he will continue to stay the course, keep his major promises and provide competent government to Canadians

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:04 p.m.  

  • I know better then feeding the trolls but...

    Sean, speaking of delusional, arrogant and out of touch with the ordinary Canadian.

    That is you bub.
    What an absolute moonbat you are.
    You are the reason candian do not and never will trust conservatives. You are mean, bitter, petty and small minded and dare I say it just plan evil.
    I am so glad you and your ilk are talking away, every word you type, every syllable you breath makes sure the tories will NEVER have a majority.
    Everyone we have met teh enemy and it is Sean!

    By Blogger Aristo, at 10:01 p.m.  

  • Aristo,

    *yawns* I love whenever people say voters don't trust *enter target party*. I don't like the NDP, but 18% of people trust them. I didn't like the Liberals under Paul Martin, but 30% of people seemed to trust them. I didn't particularly like Harper before the election, but 36% of people trusted them.

    Stop fear mongering and name calling. It's sad and pathetic.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 10:35 p.m.  

  • You guys would do well to listen to Cat Mutant. But you won't.

    Oh, and Omar: stop sniffing the toenail polish remover. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. What kind of an argument is that?

    By Blogger pheenster, at 12:48 a.m.  

  • Ted, do I get an "H" for saying I don't give a shit? :)

    By Blogger Michael Fox, at 12:51 a.m.  

  • Oh, and Omar: stop sniffing the toenail polish remover. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. What kind of an argument is that?

    Gee, pheenster, I guess because it's a statement. If you want to argue about it, go right the fuck ahead. Twat.

    By Blogger Omar, at 11:10 a.m.  

  • Isn't it nuts though that a national party like the Conservatives didn't have an ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN when they came to power? Why do we have to wait until the Fall, they've only been waiting to govern since 1993.

    By Blogger Saskboy, at 11:37 a.m.  

  • SaskBoy:

    Thank you for bringing us back on topic. You'll note the only answer offered by the Conservative echo chamber as to why the Conservatives HAVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL policy despite years opposing Kyoto, the only reason they give is... "Liberals are bad... Liberals are bad... Liberals are bad..." The truly independent minded Tory, however, will throw in the ocassional "Adscam! Adscam! Adscam!" response.

    It's a good strategy in a way because it can be used no matter what the question, issue, flip flop, discarded principle.

    Ted
    Cerberus

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 12:00 p.m.  

  • I've read all the comments but remain in disagreement with the original post. The motion might seem "silly" but the Liberal party needs a good old fashioned scrap to get em worked up. The troops are disillusioned, the coffers are empty, the MPs are in a funk and the news is all Harper. At this point anything would help, even something as small as this.

    By Blogger Psychols, at 1:13 p.m.  

  • So the Conservative Party didn't sweep into to power with a plan to save the world from percieved environmental devistation 500 years from now. My reaction - I don't care. I'm a fairly young man, and I've only got to tolerate the world for the next 50-60 years something potentially problematic hundreds of years from now qualifies as someone else's problem to begin with.

    Furthermore, the whole acting on "global warming" presumes its a legitimate scientific worry as opposed to pop-science with dodgy actual numbers behind it.

    Additionally, being indifferent to a plan which was going to cost billions upon billions and the net effect of which was to change the climate by 0.5 degrees celcius over a six year period tends to strike me as a rather expensive and ineffective plan to begin with. Furthermore, a plan that didn't have more than half of the world participating in its "program" is not exactly built upon a solid foundation.

    Furthermore, Conservatives ran on their five priorities accountability, cutting the gst, money for parents , fixing the fiscal imbalance and getting tough on crime. They also played up strengthening the military and being strong on defense. Where was the environment priority wise on the list of things put in the middle? Well it definately didn't make the top 5, if it makes the top 10 it likely came in 9th or 10th as far as priorities go.

    Its absolutely non-sensical for parties to bitch about the fact that god forbid the Conservatives ran on their platform and are actually acting like they mean to keep their promises and address those areas they championed as being priorities. Although perhaps its telling for the Liberals that expect a party to say one thing and then do another.

    By Blogger Chris, at 8:35 a.m.  

  • Unfortunately, in a minority parliament, these motions can be very useful, even if they fall, because the mover can ultimately use it as a card to play down the road.

    I think the NDP have the upper hand on the Liberals, now, when it comes to fighting for Kyoto. As does Harper, when it comes to furthering our mission in Afghanistan. Ignatieff and Brison are well aware of this.

    By Blogger scott, at 2:15 p.m.  

  • Really helpful data, thank you for the post.

    By Anonymous www.inmobiliaria.cn, at 2:19 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home