I only just had the opportunity to listen to the October 1st edition of CBC's At Issue Panel, and I must say that the pundits did a fantastic job of telling the story the way it is. Normally I listen for Andrew Coyne, whom I consider to be among the very best journalists in the country, maybe even THE best. This week I was impressed by Chantal Hebert. I often find myself in strong disagreement with her opinion, but this time she said what needed to be said. I find she is generally apprehensive about engaging in "friendly fire" with her own side, but Thursday she was prowling with sharp elbows (like Gordie Howe on a "dump and chase").
Ironically, they also spoke about Ignatieff's strategy being a bluff that someone will eventually call. They must have read the piece I wrote as I was watching Ignatieff's Sudbury speech.
Call Their Bluff
Yes except one of the panelists was saying Iggy should say that for two years he wouldn't bring down the government. That is like writing a blank cheque. As a Conservative that would be great for me and mine, but I think that is just as wrong a strategy as to telegraph that you will always vote against the government.
ReplyDeleteDamn, I just noticed Dr. Roy blogged on this subject a few hours earlier. Oh well, I just wanted to draw attention to them talking about something I wrote while I was watching Iggy's Sudbury speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chantal that Iggy is finished. He has flip-flopped on so many issues, that his credibility is close to zero. His mis-handling of the Coderre affair is the latest example.
ReplyDeleteThe question is: how and when does Iggy lose power.
I suspect that Jack has decided that it's better to have Iggy as Lib leader for as long as possible. Thus I don't forsee Jack playing hardball via calling Iggy's bluff on a non-confidence vote.
I may not always like what Chantal Hebert has to say or write but I do respect it a lot. I find her up there in the Steve Paikin level of objectively.
ReplyDeleteWhat is going to happen next is that Harper is going to put something before Parliament that is so common good sense that no one would be able to frame it as engineering his own defeat.
ReplyDeleteLets say for argument that he decides to table a motion to end that political subsidy to stop parties that abuse the public purse *cough*bloc*cough* and never try to campaign outside of one province. How could Iggy vote against this (as he said he would) without fighting an election on the one issue that caused that "crisis" last fall? Both the Bloc and the NDP are dead set against losing that subsidy and they would be first out of the gate saying they would be voting no. Poor Iggy woudl be faced with the worst of both worlds. Side with the NDP and the Bloc and fight an election on a hill the conservatives already hold firmly, or back down and proceed to be the next vegtable to be diced like a potato through Vince's Slap-Chop.