Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Last Week In Clarkland...In Which Ron's Obviousness Demonstrates Why BC Liberal Government Malfeasance Never Ends In Lotusland.

CallingASpadeAPseudonym
UtterNonsenseVille


Gary Mason wrote a column in the Globe last week about the official opposition's and the youth and child advocate's efforts to hold the Liberal/Clark government's feet to the fire over their egregious repeated, longterm bungling of the Ministry of Child and Family Development file.

And in so doing Mr. Mason demonstrated precisely why the local proMedia never holds this government responsible for any (and I mean any) of its words, deeds and/or actions.

To wit:

"...Many in the Liberals see (child and youth advocate) Ms. Turpel-Lafond as an extension of the provincial NDP; as a member of the opposition. While it is certainly not true, if you are a partisan inside the government ranks I understand the sentiment. The representative does not appear to be a fan of quiet, back-channel negotiating to get results, likely because she doesn’t believe it would accomplish anything. And she is likely right; sadly, governments often only react to stories they feel are damaging them in the eyes of the public..."



Now.

How, precisely, does this demonstrate that the real problem here is Mr. Mason and his ilk?

Well...

Firstly, Mr. Mason clearly indicates that the truth (i.e. reality) is that Ms. Turpel-Lafond is NOT an extension of the opposition and then, in the same sentence, he lets the Clark government off the hook for pretending she is.

And then, in (in same bloody paragraph!) he slags Ms. Turpel-Lafond for not working behind the scenes to make things better while simultaneously acknowledging that the Clark government will NOT work behind the scenes to make things better.

In other words Mr. Mason is acknowledging that Mr. Turpel-Lafond is doing her job and that the Clark government is most definitely NOT doing its job.

And yet, still, he writes as if they are both at fault.

You think I'm cherry-picking here?

Well then...

Let's move a little further down Mr. Mason's column, shall we:

"...Personally, I can appreciate the frustration on both sides of this divide. For instance, I can see why an incredibly smart, no-nonsense advocate such as Ms. Turpel-Lafond would grow tired with the often dawdling pace at which government moves and its preoccupation with balancing budgets at the expense of protecting vulnerable children.

At the same time, I can understand the Liberal government’s weariness with a children’s advocate who has bludgeoned it, at every opportunity, for nine years. There are many senior Liberals who believe her reports are as much about politics as anything else. Yes, they say, there are serious issues in this ministry that need to be addressed. But constantly trying to shame the government into action is the wrong approach, they argue in private..."



I mean, it's almost as if there are absolutely no black cards in Mr. Mason's mental deck despite the fact that, in reality (as he himself has pointed out), they are everywhere to be found.

In addition, it would appear that Mr. Mason has completely forgotten the work, words and deeds of a fellow named Ted Hughes that dates back to the first days of the BC Liberal government of Gordon Campbell and everything that has come since.

So.

Now do you see where the real problem lies around here?


______
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but....Why the heckfire does Mr. Mason care what the Clarklandians argue 'in private'?....Hmmmmmmmm...Is it possible that he, like so many of his compatriots in the 'Club' has become beholden to the evils of 'insider access' for all of his 'important' information?


.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

As the "prickly" Mr. Horgan put it:

“I appear to be responsible for every sin of every New Democrat who’s walked the earth and she’s not responsible for what came out of her mouth yesterday.”

RossK said...

Anon-Above--

Or the day before that...Or the week before that...Or the month before that...Or the year before that...Or, even...The freaking decade before that...

All thanks, of course to the fine work of finest of the very ultra-fine folks like the most refined Mr. Mason.

(need I remind anyone that Ted Hughes' investigation which led to the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the office of the child and youth advocate AFTER Gordon Campbell killed it [and AFTER Christy Clark was the MCFD Minister] was released in....Wait for it....2006!)


.

Lew said...

“There are many senior Liberals who believe her reports are as much about politics as anything else.”

Care to name one that doesn’t, Mr. Mason?

I’m more interested in how Mr. Mason knows what many senior Liberals argue in private than I am in what they argue. Seems to me a journalist worth his salt would be able to provide his audience more insight than the vague references he trots out if he was, you know, actually connected. Unless of course the connection is by way of a short leash.

RossK said...

Lew--

I wonder how Mr. Mason feels about now being the ultimate Lotuslandian proMedia 'cut out' on this file?


______

'Cut-out'?....See Miller, Judith.


.

mark mounce said...

Mr. Mason should re-channel his sympathies to the two little children who were viciously raped by their paedopile father because MCFD staffers thought that flawed Ministry policy still over-ruled a valid, and very necessary, provincial no-contact order against the father.

paul said...

Odd column, including the claim that this relationship is somehow unusual or unprecedented.
That's just false.
Here's a Sun headline: "Ministry `crisis' raises fears for children's care: Child advocate blames underfunding as she cites concerns about children in custody." That's from 1999. Joyce Preston, Cindy Morton, Paul Pallan - all the occupants of similar posts in BC have made similar reports. (The difference is the Liberals in opposition championed them instead of slagging the advocates in "private conversations" with a reporter, who then shares those conversations, making them not so much private conversations as exercises in spin).
The column never actually notes that the children's representative is an independent officer of the legislature, with a specific mandate to report to MLAs and the public on how children and families are being treated by the state. The representative isn't a behind-the-scenes fixer or on the government's team.
Following the column logic, the auditor general, also an independent officer, wouldn't do audit reports. She would just chat with ministries quietly about how they were doing.