Questioning Whose Principles?
Trust the ancient philosophers, they knew whereof they spoke. Plato, for example, held that politics was no place for men of conscience. Perhaps we could enlarge the eligible category and include women there, as well. It's a generalization of course, but given its source, obviously one that was given great and deep thought.
From the greatest heights of public executive administration, where highly respected Western leaders of enlightened democratic countries make their accommodation with tyrants and dictators who oppress their people and indulge in abysmal corruption, lining their pockets and those of their friends, while their people live in abject poverty, to the story appearing in today's newspaper.
And that might be about Frank Klees, MPP for Newmarket-Aurora. A (failed) runner-up for the leadership position of the Ontario Conservative party. Offered a position in his party's shadow cabinet post-election that left Ontario with a squeaker of a minority-majority, he has refused. He's done them all, all those positions, and he'd like to try something new.
He plans to run for speaker of the provincial parliament. Conventionally, we're informed, the Ontario speaker casts his votes with the government on confidence motions. And with Mr. Klees out of the Conservative caucus, both opposition parties combined are left with 53 seats, equalling that of the Liberals. Effectively handing a slim, minuscule 'majority' to the Liberals.
"To draw the conclusion ... that somehow this is confirming a majority for Dalton McGuinty is fundamentally wrong", Mr. Klees huffed indignantly. "While it's convention, a speaker would vote to maintain the status quo and to vote with the government, that is not a rule." He would be principled about it, you see.
"The speaker can vote based on what the speaker believes is the right thing to do", he explained. Now why don't his colleagues simply accept this in good faith and move on? Isn't it the reasonable thing to do? Particularly when you can't do anything about the choice he's made?
"We're surprised and disappointed that Frank has decided that this is a better approach for him in the assembly", Tim Hudak admitted. "Frank's made a decision. And Frank is Frank. We did our best as a team to encourage Frank to take on a couple of key critic portfolios, but Frank felt that his energies were best directed elsewhere."
Frankly, we'd be surprised if they weren't surprised. We'd also be surprised if they weren't disappointed. Since, as Mr. Hudak said realistically that Mr. Klees's considered decision to treat himself to something different - special and challenging, bearing in mind of course, his loyalty to his party and his colleagues there - would "certainly make our job more challenging".
How's that for the understatement of the week.
Mr. Klees says that he is "...one who has to believe that he's making a meaningful contribution in what he's doing". And a Liberal official, who declined to be named, said "Chances are we'll end up with a Liberal (speaker)".
Both scenarios at one and the same time equally high-principled and most certainly unlikely.
From the greatest heights of public executive administration, where highly respected Western leaders of enlightened democratic countries make their accommodation with tyrants and dictators who oppress their people and indulge in abysmal corruption, lining their pockets and those of their friends, while their people live in abject poverty, to the story appearing in today's newspaper.
And that might be about Frank Klees, MPP for Newmarket-Aurora. A (failed) runner-up for the leadership position of the Ontario Conservative party. Offered a position in his party's shadow cabinet post-election that left Ontario with a squeaker of a minority-majority, he has refused. He's done them all, all those positions, and he'd like to try something new.
He plans to run for speaker of the provincial parliament. Conventionally, we're informed, the Ontario speaker casts his votes with the government on confidence motions. And with Mr. Klees out of the Conservative caucus, both opposition parties combined are left with 53 seats, equalling that of the Liberals. Effectively handing a slim, minuscule 'majority' to the Liberals.
"To draw the conclusion ... that somehow this is confirming a majority for Dalton McGuinty is fundamentally wrong", Mr. Klees huffed indignantly. "While it's convention, a speaker would vote to maintain the status quo and to vote with the government, that is not a rule." He would be principled about it, you see.
"The speaker can vote based on what the speaker believes is the right thing to do", he explained. Now why don't his colleagues simply accept this in good faith and move on? Isn't it the reasonable thing to do? Particularly when you can't do anything about the choice he's made?
"We're surprised and disappointed that Frank has decided that this is a better approach for him in the assembly", Tim Hudak admitted. "Frank's made a decision. And Frank is Frank. We did our best as a team to encourage Frank to take on a couple of key critic portfolios, but Frank felt that his energies were best directed elsewhere."
Frankly, we'd be surprised if they weren't surprised. We'd also be surprised if they weren't disappointed. Since, as Mr. Hudak said realistically that Mr. Klees's considered decision to treat himself to something different - special and challenging, bearing in mind of course, his loyalty to his party and his colleagues there - would "certainly make our job more challenging".
How's that for the understatement of the week.
Mr. Klees says that he is "...one who has to believe that he's making a meaningful contribution in what he's doing". And a Liberal official, who declined to be named, said "Chances are we'll end up with a Liberal (speaker)".
Both scenarios at one and the same time equally high-principled and most certainly unlikely.
posted by Pieface @ 6:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home