- Harper and the Con's . . . 'PU' (Party of Unaccountability)

Posted: 5/22/2010 10:34:41 AM The Globe and Mail
MP expense audit not my call, Harper says, Jane Taber, May 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mp-expense-audit-not-my-call-harper-says/article1577228/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 36

Stephen Harper replying that not “under the government’s jurisdiction,” is in a word, obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation. Oh, and did I mention, hypocrisy, hyperbola and unadulterated horse-[redacted].

How is it that just about everybody in Canada knows the solution but Mr. Super-Strategist Harper apparently hasn't got a clue.

As so many people have pointed out, if Harper had the political will he would simply 'whip' his Caucus into agreeing on so doing. Or, he could instruct the Con MP's on the Board of Internal Economy to support it. My understanding is that it would take only one other MP on the Board to pass it.

It is just another example of Stephen Harper refusing to giving a straight answer to a serious question, as we have seen so many times.

People answer questions in this way often when they have something to hide. Some people, of course, can't think on their feet and make stupid statements when put on the spot and asked a question off-the-cuff. And sometimes, they are just unsophisticated, uneducated and unable to properly express themselves. You decide.

My take is that perhaps there is some dirty little secrets that Harper would rather the Auditor General not shine a light upon.

If Harper were not afraid of what Fraser might uncover, he might have said something like:"
“I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency. We are going to find a way … we have to work out a way to move forward on this.” [Ignatieff, see Taber, G&M, 19 May '10]

It is becoming more and more apparent that there is something rotten in the State of Harperdom, that Harper and the Con's are the Party of Unaccountability . . . PU (Ugly, Noxious, Shocking, Smelly, or Odious - Freedictionary)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html


5/22/2010 10:57:47 AM
. . . continued

“I generally don't comment on private member's legislation,” the Prime Minister said. “But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”

This is just double-talk.

What does this mean.

Does this mean that Harper will 'whip' the Con Caucus into voting against this Bill or any other such.

Or, does this mean simply that Harper is undertaking to, personally, as a MP vote against it, but the Con Caucus may vote as they wish in a free vote.

And if Harper is so against any attempt to create new abortion law, why not simply take the opportunity to send out the message that the Con MP's are not to bring in such private members Bills. Yah, like he has ever done such messaging before.

How can you hold someone to his word when his word is so obfuscated, . . . how do you say it . . . un-clear, . . .ahhh, I've got it 'un-transparent'.

For someone that rules with such an iron fist, Harper is apparently being very shy about his power over his Party as this and his statement about an Audit if Parliamentary expenses.

Anyone out there get the impression we being Con'd

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html