National Unity Watch

by Aaron Wherry

Denis Coderre said yesterday that a Wild Rose win in Alberta might have an impact on national unity.

“We have to be very, very careful to have a Wildrose government because when the leader’s saying, ‘well, Quebec is complaining all the time, we shouldn’t give them (equalization), they have to understand where the money’s coming from …’ Hello? What’s that?” said Coderre. ”Everybody at one moment of their history was there to help each other. So I think we have to remember what Canadians stand for.”

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff sat down with the BBC to talk about Scotland and ended up musing about the potential eventuality of independence for Quebec.

Both men seem to forget that in defeating the Liberals in 2008 and electing a majority Conservative government last year, Canadians have already assured this nation’s unity.




Browse

National Unity Watch

  1. Ignatieff apparently said Quebec independence is inevitable. In other words, Reason #4732 for why he should have never come back to try to rule over us. Thank God he failed, and miserably, too. 

    • That is not the same as saying it is desirable – which he didn’t. He’s commenting well after being LOLO. He’s an academic, get a grip.

      I did see he made some claims that seem untrue – tranfer of power that either happened long ago or may be imaginery. Why not fault him where he was acutally wrong?

      • I do not think it is true that Quebec separation is inevitable, nor should anyone who wanted to be prime minister of Canada. Again, thank God he lost.

  2. iggy’s comments certainly misidentified some facts about when Quebec got certain powers, and it’s central thesis (Scottish independence will fuel Quebec independence) appears unsupported.  It’s like a middling undergraduate essay.

    But as I recall, the Harper line wasn’t that he was a BAD academic, it’s that he was an academic, period. 

    • No, the Conservative line was that Iggy thought a lot of himself to come back after 30 years to try to rule over us. Canadians seem to have agreed.

      Harper plays up his own “economist” credentials often, so they’re hardly against academics, just those obviously unqualified to lead. You know, those who end up running the Liberal Party of Canada. lol

      •  To give you more attention than you are worth, I would have welcomed an actual debate about Iggy’s beliefs and views and whether they made him a fit prime minister.  That’s not what we got from the CPC (the Liberal leadership convention, where his “torture light” stuff came up, was actually superior in this regard).

        To his credit, mr. Cosh did his best to try to unravel the matter, and came up with something about Iggy not being close to water coolers, IIRC.

        • God, you’re just as arrogant as Iggy was. How isn’t directly responding to points you made an example of debating you? That you can’t answer is not my fault. Sorry.

          •  I wasn’t saying I wanted to debate you.  I was saying I wanted an actual debate about Iggy’s positions during the election.  WHY is it bad that Iggy was a professor who spent time out of Canada?

          • Here is what you actually wrote:

            “To give you more attention than you are worth, I would have welcomed an actual debate about Iggy’s beliefs and views and whether they made him a fit prime minister.”

            You told me specifically you would have welcomed a debate, albeit about a topic that has very little to do with this thread.

            And, yet again, who said it was bad for Iggy to be a professor?

            You’re not reading my posts or your own. Maybe you should try to be more professor-like. lol.

          • REad it again.

          • Coming from someone who writes “REad”. You obviously can’t debate. lol. Next.

      • Well Dennis, there are those of us who think most members of the current cabinet are obviously unqualified to lead – but it doesn’t seem to be stopping them. ;-)

        • Well, it would appear as though you and your friends are at odds with the Canadian electorate. It’s the latter that ultimately decides the leadership merits of the politicians put before them.

          • Not exactly true, Dennis. It’s the Prime Minister who decides who makes up the cabinet; cabinet ministers were merely elected as MPs for their ridings. The “electorate” had no direct say; in fact, Harper has been known to choose people who weren’t elected for cabinet posts.

            Further, I suspect there are large numbers even within the CPC that shake their heads over the continuing support for ministers like pork-barrel Clement, choppers MacKay, ranter Toews, and OJ Oda.

            The last poll I read about re Harper’s perceived leadership ability showed a serious dip; his choice of and support of these buffoons certainly isn’t helping with that.

          • Voters know the pool from which the prime minister has to choose a cabinet, especially from an incumbent government. Look, people don’t hate or resent this government as much as you, Wherry et al do.

          • et al., should go so…Einstein. :)

          • Again, not entirely true – first, a voter only gets to vote on the person running in their riding; one can draw no conclusions based on that as to who they want in cabinet (unless it’s an incumbent minister, in which case his or her reelection would likely indicate the people of that riding would like to see their MP back in cabinet). I might think Clement is a complete doofus, but as he isn’t running in my riding (he fled Brampton some years back when he realized he was no longer electable here) I have to vote for who is running locally. So I either vote based on the candidates, or, overall, the party and the package deal that it represents – but that wouldn’t necessarily mean liking all elements.

            Also, as I eluded to earlier, Harper has been known to appoint senators or seduce people into crossing the floor in order to put them in his cabinet, so one just never knows who might show up.

            So, in short, the only certain conclusion you can reach about the electorate is that a significant enough number of them voted for more Conservatives than any one other candidate in enough ridings to give the CPC a majority. Everything else is speculation.

          • He must be addicted to the contrast. Anyone…even Steve looks like a sure fired blue chip bet compared to those guys eh!

            You missed Klimate klown Kent. :)

      • No yourself. Wells wote a piece about CPC strategists intending to convey the message that Ignatieff wasn’t just a poor politician [ a given] but also a bad man.
        It was an outrageous admission, one that did not get much airtime as i recall. Which often seems to be the case with Well’s work, more’s the pity.

        • and what does that have to do with the claim that they attacked him for being a professor? God, I’m losing patience today with pseudo-intellects lacking basic reading and reasoning skills.

          • No your frustrated cuz you can’t keep up…and you’re an asshole of course.

          • You mean “you’re” lol. Like I said, engaging the uneducated, as well as crude and angry, can be frustrating, to say the least.

          • You know the etiquette on blogging Dennis…your really pathetic.[ spot the errer]

          • Yes, people like you probably think bad grammar is the “etiquette” on blogging. lol.

          • Funny but my screen is showing no error on you’re….are you needing a nap D?

        •  Part of the reason the quote didn’t get as much attention as it deserved is because it was embargoed – in exchange for greater access Wells agreed to hold off on the piece he was writing until after the election.  To maintain the deal  there was little that could be done about the matter.

          • I don’t blame PW. But i do blame the rest of the media for not picking it up eventually and making more of a big deal of it.

  3. Quite true.  Eventually all the places that want to become independent will be.

    They’ll have ally themselves with an even larger place though for trade and travel benefits among other things.

    In Scotland that means the EU. Maybe Quebec will have to consider that option as well.

  4. “Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff sat down with the BBC …. ”

    Iggy is plastic Canadian, good riddance to bad rubbish. 

    Cat Power ~ The Greatest:

    Once I wanted to be the greatest
    No wind or waterfall could stall me
    And then came the rush of the flood
    Stars of night turned deep to dust

  5. I wont say anything about the other two but seriously have we ever chosen a PM who’s as clueless as Harper with respect to national unity? So bringing in a carbon tax – which Quebecers favour – is going to revive separatism…what a bozo!

  6. I’m just trying this; having trouble with the new format.

  7. Am liking the new Disqus… if your comment is awful enough, it is hidden from the feed. Makes reading the comments somewhat more pleasant. (… somewhat)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *