Over this headline: "Prime Minister Layton?"
For some absurd reason known only to the Harperites that are fabricating the story's foundation point to make political hay, coalition talk is all the rage in Canada again. And of all the complex and multitude of ways to formulate such a coalition to topple Stephen Harper, apparently the idea that Jack Layton should head it up is the most popular among Canadians.
Folks, I know that I've been on the sidelines for a while and haven't been particularly active on the political scene, but really? REALLY? Are we so bored and complacent in this country that we're letting the Conservatives air re-runs of their 2008 propaganda spiels and falling for them? Why are otherwise seemingly-intelligent people buying into this ridiculous notion that the Liberals and the NDP will find sufficient common ground for a long enough term to provide a sustainable viable alternative to Harper, and why would anybody think that Jack Layton is the person for the job?
I'm very curious to know because this is twilight zone stuff here.
4 comments:
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
I recall the ridiculous PM Paul Martin saying that Stephen Harper and Ralph Kline were having secret meetings to devise ways to destroy medicare.
There is nothing new here. It is just on the other foot now.
Besides, I'd say that the sounds of PM Layton is perhaps less frightening to Canadians than PM Ignatieff.
....and why would anybody think that Jack Layton is the person for the job?
Because when we look at the Liberals post-Ignatieff (which seems nigh on inevitable now), there is NO one else left to replace Harper.
Sometimes it helps to read what's below the headlines.
A survey said that Taliban Jack stood more chance of becoming PM of a coalition government including the LPC than Count Iggy does.
Surveys like this are speculative at best and should be seen that way, but to cast it as evil poitics by the Cons is a bit wild.
Martin said a lot of ridiculous things in a vain attempt to save his own skin, be it "social conscience"-lacking Americans, banning the use of the notwithstanding clause of the Charter, or indeed said secret meetings. Pointing out the faults of the previous Prime Minister, however, is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Tom, when you consider the fact that less than a week ago the Conservatives were raising the alarm bells about coalition again (and I'll grant you this: the fool Bob Rae gave them an opening) it's not at all wild to lay this on their feet. They've taken a ball that Rae put in their court and they're running with it. It's mere hypothetical fodder, to be sure, but Canadians tend to get to wound up into the hyperbole and instead get distracted from the real serious matters at hand facing the country - in large part because the Conservatives want it that way so as to avoid focusing on their record.
Post a Comment