The Shotgun Blog
« Is Iran more republican than America? |
Main
| Howler of the Day »
Monday, June 15, 2009
Heart of Darkness
Wow, Tone is laying it on thick:
Tony Blair believes Gordon Brown's political future is doomed because of 'the darkness in his heart' and his 'lies' - and feels Mr Brown has no one to blame but himself.
The former Prime Minister's devastating verdict on his successor is a blow to Mr Brown's hopes of surviving further moves to topple him, expected this week.
Publicly, Mr Blair has kept out of the row. However, The Mail on Sunday can disclose that privately he shares the view held by Labour rebels that Mr Brown will lead the Party to a disastrous defeat at the next Election.
In a damning verdict on Mr Brown's character, Mr Blair said of the Prime Minister recently: 'The darkness in his heart and the lies will be his downfall.'
Friends of Mr Blair say he has been 'saddened' by Mr Brown's performance and believes that he has failed to show the necessary leadership or policies.
'Gordon's performance has confirmed Tony's reservations about his suitability to be PM,' said one source.
I believe they call this a delayed parting shot. Brown forced Blair out of No 10 prematurely. So Blair is returning the favour by knifing his successor in the back at exactly the right moment. They just don't do this in Canadian politics. Certainly betrayal is part and parcel of politics wherever in the world it's dark art is practiced. Paul Martin forced Papa Jean to retire early, and Papa Jean returned the favour by leaving him a small brown package labeled Adscam. As best as I can recall old JC never accused his successor of having a "darkness in his heart." Which would have been just a wee bit comical.
Paul Martin as Kurtz? "Oh, the banality...the banality." Paulie used to have this classic look when the camera lights went on. The rictus grin matched with the fear in the eyes. Like a deer starring at an oncoming tractor trailer. He never shook the Mr Dithers label The Economist tagged him with. He exuded panic, of an otherwise alright chap in way over his head. Evil in Canadian politics is limited to the odd kickback. That lack of grandeur in Canadian politics comes from a lack of importance. Nothing serious has been debated in national politics since the collapse of the Charlottetown Accords. It's been penny ante stuff ever since.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Big issues being debated in Parliament and the nation tend to lead to bigger government. The result however is the petty mudslinging of recent years. Gay marriage? Good or bad the courts decided for us. Abortion? Same thing. What exactly does Parliament do? Health care, the largest single expense of Canadian governments, is a provincial responsibility. Education, the same thing. Police, fire fighters and the courts, are mostly run by the provincial or municipal governments. How about legitimate fields of federal responsibility? Our military has been underfunded for decades and is at the point of exhaustion. A few military bases in the Maritimes aside, defense spending simply isn't much of a vote getter in Canada. Foreign affairs? Lacking either guns or dollars we're reasonable committee operators in various international QUANGOS. So what does the federal government do? Two things. It is the financial arbiter, directing vast sums of money from one region to another based on, mostly, electoral calculations. Is is the great emitter of red tap - in addition to the web of provincial and municipal red tape.
Unlike the junior levels of government, which deliver most services, the federal government mostly stays in touch with the voters through their tax returns and compliance paperwork in federally regulated industries. Knowing that doing its job, as laid out in the Constitution, would make it more of a watchman than a player, the Feds stick themselves wherever they can to remain relevant. Meddling in gun owners love lives - witness WS writer Pierre Lemieux's tragi-comical ordeal - and bribing provincial premiers does not make for grand politics or politicians.
Posted by Richard Anderson on June 15, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Ok, "Oh the banality.. the banality" was pretty darn funny.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-15 4:47:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
