Seriously, is it me or did Stephen Harper fire Jim Flaherty over his disloyalty over the income splitting policy disaster?
Certainly, I haven’t read EVERYthing written this week about dude going back to spend more time with his
family private sector, but the finance minister was perhaps the strongest credible threat to Harper’s executive overdrive control over his domain [echo echo echo].
Here’s how this played out:
I think Flaherty was a more credible threat to Harper’s leadership than Baird, Moore, McKay, Clement and Kenney.
And Flaherty spouted off on how income splitting was bad policy while Harper’s neoliberal ideology is all about massive revenue declines to downsize governments, and if they happen to give the rich a bit more of a break, so be it.
So Harper fired him.
And replaced him with a septuagenarian muppet.
And had him sworn in in secret, as if there was something serious to hide. [He might actually BE a muppet.]
But here’s my bigger point. While I haven’t actually read EVERYthing written this week about Flaherty, I have yet to read anything that even suggests that Harper pulled a Frank Underwood and made Flaherty an offer he couldn’t refuse. Something like, “Dude, I can’t believe you broke all ten commandments by disagreeing with me in public. You, Fredo, you, whom I love, you who are the most powerful of cabinet ministers. You broke my heart [sic]. I’m going to replace you with a muppet as punishment, so you can either resign from politics, or I am going to shame you profoundly.”
Then Harper kissed him on the lips.
Seriously, why isn’t anyone writing about this?