03.21.2010 11:49 AM

Question Period, March 21: Recognizing the Honourable member from Whiplash

This morning’s show, wherein Tim attempts to rationalize whiplash-inducing Reformatory flip-flops on Ten Percenters, Internet in libraries, O Canada and womens’ reproductive choice. Strap on your seat belts for this one.


I like that: “Former Chretien advisor.” Has a ring to it.

Linkage here.

9 Comments

  1. JIm Rieder says:

    I think the issue of changing minds on issues or portions of issues to fine tune policies, laws etc. is the new reality for a government going forward. with 5 national political parties carving up the vote, it looks like there is no way to form a majority government going forward. So if a party wants to stay in (minority) control they will have to acquiesce on their stances in order to go forward. Calling it a “flip flop” is an insult and shows that you are missing the change that is occurring to the status quo governing model that we had in days of old.
    the gotcha nitpicky mudslinging that goes on between you and Tim (and of course many others) makes no difference to the voters who have basically settled into their respective parties.

    It might make a difference if for every stance the government took on an issue, the opposition parties, really offered alternatives or fine tuning suggestions,, and then they would have a record to stand on when we do go to the polls (which at this point is looking more and more like the fixed election date)

    • Ted says:

      Calling a flip flop a flip flop is hardly insulting and flipping and flopping hardly shows “the chagne that is occurring to the status quot governing model”.

      It shows a government out of touch with a tin ear for Canadian interests and bad judgment, but a keen interest for political survival.

      They took three months off so they could re-calibrate and reach out to their constituents and consult with Canadians about their priorities. Allegedly. And then they come out with this kind of crap.

      A government that makes a clanger of a decision every now and then, and then reverses its mistake, is honourable and shows good judgement. But a government that gets it so wrong on so many things and flip flops so quickly (and pretends they aren’t even changing anything) shows no backbackbone, no judgment and no connection.

  2. Bill says:

    I like how Powers said these were “nothing” issues? Really, changing the lyrics to the anthem? Issues on women’s reproductive rights? 10%rs that waste taxpayers dollars? And funding libraries?

    If so inconsequential, why reverse position on them?

    How about maybe they should have gotten all these right in the first place?

    So much for “recalibration”.

    I thought Tim Horton’s was the CPC model. With all this flip flopping, you’d swear it was IHOP!

  3. parnel says:

    Tim was clearly on the defensive by trying to stick the Liberals with Iggy’s absence. He never brought up the fact that this past week was supposed to be an off week for the HOC but was changed due to the three month vacation the Tories took. I think Iggy did the more important stuff in my opinion.

  4. Derek Lipman says:

    @Jim:

    Or, the NDP and Green Party will tank (which is probably Harper’s greatest fear), and bleed supporters to the Liberals, when voters decide they have had enough of Stephen Harper and his brand of “conservatism.”

    Harper and the Conservatives have much to fear when an election is finally on the table. They generally don’t perform well in elections. That is when their true colours come out, and it ain’t pretty…

  5. Elizabeth says:

    Tim goes into those interviews with ammunition at the ready. He’s defensive, and weak . . . and excuse me, but Ignatieff did not put a stop to the entire function of Parliament. He did not stop the committees from carrying on. He did not stop everyone else from doing their job, as Harper did. He’s trying to get kids engaged in the political process. He should get a bonus – because Harper sure isn’t trying to get anyone engaged in it — he’s trying to kill off any interest; he’s the equivalent of Agent Orange.

    Jane shouldn’t even have co-operated with that being brought in as a topic, and she certainly shouldn’t have pushed it. I have tried to like Jane Taber but I find her just too superficial, and too inclined to go with the inflammatory phrases and headlines. She’s got to know that comparing Ignatieff’s absence and Harper whacking out Parliament for six weeks is unfair.

    I like the tweedy look, btw – makes a nice contrast to Powers’ mob look.

    • Winnipegger says:

      Jane Taber was continually interrupting James Travers on the journalist panel near the end of the show on QP this past Sunday. He couldn’t finish many of his thoughts because she was either trying to beat him to the point or interject some useless blather. This kind of thing is common with Jane. I hope CTV has the good sense to replace her one day. Surely they can find someone better at CTV or the G&M; and Jane should stick to the ‘lighter side stuff’ such as what colour of tie is most popular on The Hill, what Liz May likes to eat for breakfast, Jack Layton’s playlist on his Ipod, etc, etc.

  6. Elizabeth says:

    I don’t think I’d be that nice to powers. Civil, but not so friendly.

  7. Elizabeth says:

    How about supporting women’s right to owning their bodies? I think men should be out of the discussion altogether.

Leave a Reply to JIm Rieder Cancel reply

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


*