John Baird decries irresponsible Japanese election - Macleans.ca
 

John Baird decries irresponsible Japanese election


 

Oh, not really. But in case you were wondering what the Transport Minister had to say at a press conference here in Ottawa this morning, a few excerpts from the transcript.

It would be irresponsible to interrupt our important work on the economy with an unnecessary election … the last thing, the very last thing this country needs is an unnecessary election … You know, election threats and election posturing and political posturing, I don’t think is what the economy needs … We have got to stay really focused and what that requires is the government to be on the job, every day, making things happen and that is why an unnecessary election is I think the last thing that the country needs … we have been working very hard with premier Dexter’s government, very well in Nova Scotia, recently approving a good number of projects to go forward and we are working the same in British Columbia, but they were delayed by a good number of months because of the political instability that elections generate. You can’t negotiate those types of things during an election campaign. You can’t make announcements during an election campaign and frankly both provinces took a considerable number of months after the election was over before a new cabinet was sworn in and a new minister was appointed …  I think, you know, backing down from triggering an early election that nobody wants is positive and constructive and that is what I think Canadians want … We have seen some positive signs in the auto sector. I think that has been good, but we are not out of the woods yet and I think that is why Canadians want all hands on deck, fighting for our economy and not – and not precipitating an early election.


 

John Baird decries irresponsible Japanese election

  1. John Baird, the ultimate in pomposity and windbaggery, lecturing on "responsibility."

    Coming next: Stephen Harper on eating responsibly, Jack Layton on modesty, and Michael Ignatieff on the importance of clarity.

  2. Translation: "I really don't want to have to go out on the campaign trail and justify all of our recent screw-ups."

    • It wouldn't be responsible!

  3. Proroguing Parliament at the onset of the recession didn't seem to concern the Tories

  4. This is the government that violated their own election law in order to call a snap election during the middle of the worst stock market crash in history

    • The worst stock market crash in history? The 1929 crash was much more severe. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 89% of its value before finally bottoming out in July 1932.

  5. Isn't this the same Joh Baird that sent out a press release for an announcement at the beginning of the last election?

    I'm pretty sure I remember Kady mentioning something about it because it was so curious and there was definitely a question with regard to crossing lines between partisan political announcement by a candidate and government announcement by a Minister.

    Just another example of these pompous, windbaggish, conniving Conservatives who are the very definition of "do as I used to say a long time ago but not as I have done since I got elected."

  6. we should go over Mr Baird's head and take the matter straight to the people! Oh wait… :|

  7. One has to wonder if Mr Baird ever feels embarrassed about all the patently absurd statements that tumble from his mouth…

  8. Good grief.. What is this nonsense Baird has gone on about?

    If I didn't know any better, I would've said it was Sarah Palin talking there (you know).

  9. Good grief.. What is this nonsense Baird has gone on about?

    If I didn't know any better, I would've said it was Sarah Palin rambling on there (you know).

  10. If I were a Machiavlellian I would say john just did a good job of setting up a ' plausible denialbility statement – 3 months from now = Hey see us Conservatives didn't want to drag every one out for a useless election (shrug shoulders) .. and he would definitley have a point!

    • You mean like last time when after deliberately disrupting parliamentary committees, calling everything and anything a confidence vote and baiting the Opposition at every turn, THE CoNSERVATIVES called the election and pretended it was because they needed a mandate to make parliament work? Who cares about plausibility if blatant lying works just as well?

  11. In 2006, Canada's voters timidly dumped our “natural governing party” after it had held power for too long. Yesterday, Japan's voters showed the world the right way to overthrow a dynasty. Perhaps next time Canada's voters will have the courage …to finish the job and give our own “natural governing party” the boot once and for all. It's time we have a two party system in Canada.

    • You're kidding, right?

      They have a two-party system south of the border and it's a disaster.

      <Family Guy> "The people have spoken and they want four more years of Douchebag! </Family Guy>

      • No, I am not kidding. The Liberals were in power for too long. It is very healthy for a political system to have at least two parties that have a realistic chance to form government. The Canadian electorate decided in 2006 that the Liberals should spend a few years in the wilderness but Liberal pols seem not to have gotten the message and keep looking for ways to get back in power.

        What made the Japanese election so significant is that voters this time actually believed they had a chance to have an influence in which party was to form government. For many years, it was just assumed that the LDP would win so only a few political junkies cared about voting. That's why we saw a surge in turnout. When voters believe they will make a difference they will vote.

        • "When voters believe they will make a difference they will vote." … or when the people are just so upset at the direction the government is taking the country and is fed up with them and believe real change is possible then they will come out in greater numbers.

          The LIberal were only in power "too long" if the electorate think so. The real problem had been that there was no competative alternative and the country did risk turning into Japan under the LDP (or worse still, Ontario under the PCs until 1985).

          I would posit that if not for the Sponsoship Scandal the Liberals would have still been in power from 2004 until at least 2008 with perhaps another shot a being relected then.

        • Give me a break.

          I'm sure you think the same thing about the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta and the Liberals in BC, right?

          Please. 11 years majority plus 2 years shared power in a minority in a confederation with power divided between the federal and 13 provincial jursidictions (and every single one of those years with a conservative government somewhere, including 13 years in Alberta, 8 years in BC and 8 years on Ontario) is hardly in any way comparable to the Japanese LDP monopoly of the last 50 years in a unitary state.

        • That's a mindf**k there

  12. You are not reading Baird correctly. The Tory dialect Toryscrit is a subset of English that is in a few but very significant cases very different from ordinary English. Reproduced here, your own handy-dandy Google translated version in square brackets: "We have got to stay [in power] and what that requires is the government to avoid an election, every day, making things happen for our party]and that is why an unnecessary election is I think the last thing that the [our party] needs."

    Scholars have debated the Toryscrit use of the term "unnecessary election" now for some time. While much debate rages on the use of this term, a consensus has developed that it means roughly "an election that might result in our losing seats". This is consistent with documents found from circa 2000 and 2004 during the "Juggernaught Era" with recurring use again circa 2009 during the "Change in Government Era". This is to be distinguished from the Toryscrit term "necessary election" which was used frequently from 2005-2008 during the "Our Principles Don't Apply to Us Era".

    • Isn't that the era in which the saying "how can it be wrong to give a voice to the people" and "it is never wrong to ask the people their opinion directly" and similar such sayings? So so long long ago.

  13. Imagine, had we not had the unnecessary election in fall of 2008, we would have a very necessary official election in the fall of 2009.
    They broke their own law, although one has to be a fool to actually believe a Con in the first place, to hide the fact they broke the economy (and their word, their law, their principles, the laws of basic decency, accountability, honesty, etc…)
    If Cons had principles and believed in their own election law, they would still sound just as desperate and terrified of losing the quality seats at the Olympics as they do now.

  14. The Cons "broke the economy"?

    In case you didn't notice, we went through a global economic and financial meltdown. It is a stretch, to say the least, to suggest that the Conservative Government was responsible for a global financial collapse.

    • In case you didn't notice, their myopic ideology and mean spiritedness made it worse and totally lowered Canada's capacity deal with it in a mature and appropriate manner.
      It is not a stretch, to say the least, to suggest that the Con Governement IS responsible for making a global financial collapse even worse.
      And yes, the Cons broke the economy, along with political discourse and intellectual debate in this country.