Why I Can't Be Fucked to Follow Canadian Politics: Hake-on-white-bean-gate!

This article had the kind of headline that caught my eye immediately: "Ignatieff takes heat for allowing rebellion". Ooh, I thought, some blowback. Recently, for the yanks among us, Michael Ignatieff, traveling scholar and recent posessor of the Liberal throne, told the Liberals that they should all vote in favour of Harper's budget, arguing that, basically, now is not the time to take the government down. The strategy, for him, was fairly simple: if the budget didn't pass, it was time for (another) election, and Canadians are consistent in their hatred of those who force an election, especially during a recession. I don't think anyone really believed he was going to oppose this budget, but everyone did the kabuki dance, said their piece about average hard-working Canadians, and then went on with the business of running this sham of a government.

Anyway, the trouble supposedly came when Ignatieff, after a dinner-meeting (of "hake on white bean and roasted cherry tomato salad", we are told) with the six liberal MPs from Newfoundland, allowed them to vote against the bill, contra the rest of the party. In America, where you're either a Democrat, a Republican, or from Vermont, voting against your party once or twice is not frowned upon, or at least not punished (especially if you're Joe Lieberman). In Canada, it often gets you kicked out of the party, which makes re-election a considerably more difficult process. Ignatieff, in a supposed moment of fatal weakness, said they could vote how they wanted and would not be cast out.

So, interesting story, in a typically uninteresting Canadian way. Their votes mean nothing, they were pissed about (as I understand it) a change in equalization payments, it's not like Ignatieff would have kicked all six of them out of his tiny little party, everything's cool, right? Wrong! The Globe and Mail has fearlessly dug up two and a half sources, all well-trained seismologists, to measure the shockwaves of this decision as they ripple across Ottawa. Who, might you ask? Well, an unnamed Liberal party member, some mysterious "Others among the Liberals", and Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, who now lives in Calgary. What a line-up!

This is the equivalent of the Washington Post publishing a report about those seven house Democrats who voted against the stimulus, and citing Andrew Card as a reliable source on how fucked Obama is now. The most laughable part of the article, though, is this:

“But it is a sign of weakness in the brutal world of politics and will create problems in the longer run. Harper would never do something similar,” said Mr. Flanagan, now a political science professor at the University of Calgary.

Of course Harper would never do something similar! That's why no one likes the guy! This is like arguing that Luke Skywalker can't defeat Vader cause he just isn't that willing to run around force choking every idiot in his way. It is unimaginable to me that Ignatieff could ever hope to be Prime Minister by making himself as unpopular as the guy he wants to replace.

This is part one of my upcoming many-part series: "Why I can't be fucked to follow Canadian Politics".

Update: Bonus hilarity: the Globe and Mail editorial page asserts that the real fall-out from Hake-and-white-bean-gate is that

"Mr. Ignatieff has allowed for two different classes of MPs: those from Newfoundland, and those from everywhere else. That hardly seems like the way to restore party unity."

This, it is further argued, somehow winds up hurting Newfoundland's chances for remaining relevant in federal politics, as it convinces Conservatives that Newfoundland is electorally irrelevant. Buh?