Friday, January 18, 2013

This Day In Snookland...What Would A Doyle Reversal Mean?



The Premier hides for days and days on the Doyle firing thing.

And then, suddenly, on Wednesday she calls for the legislative 'committee' that her party controls to reverse itself and keep the AG around for a couple of extra years while simultaneously babbling on about how the process is 'deeply flawed'.

But does this mean that Madame Premier has actually listened to the public the way she just loves to listen to and respond to Shock-Jocks (plural intentional)?

Somehow I doubt it.

Instead, I'd be willing to take pretty short odds on a bet that says she has 'seen' something.

As in internal poll numbers that show that this thing...this thing that I cannot believe was not done without her (at the very least) 'knowledge'.... is bad, bad mojo for her, indeed.

And so now she and her wizards are trying to spin a 180 to position her as the saviour of the AG her party has tried to bump off for good.

Which means that the real thing to watch for now is whether or not the Lotuslandian proMedia will have the gumption to go at her directly and ask and ask and ask (until they get a straight answer) if she:

First - knew of the committee's original decision to fire Doyle?

Second - if she approved of that decision?


Third - Did she influence the committee's original decision in any way?




Lew said...

Depending upon when Mr. Doyle indicated his desire for reappointment, it might not be legal for him to be reappointed without a change in legislation. The Auditor General Act reads at section 2:

2(5) The Legislative Assembly must not appoint an Auditor General for a second term under subsection (2) unless:
(a) the Auditor General notifies the committee at least 6 months before the end of the first term that he or she wishes to be considered for reappointment, and
(b) the committee unanimously recommends the reappointment within 60 days of being notified by the Auditor General under paragraph (a).

So when did he first ask to be considered for reappointment?

RossK said...

Another good question Lew.

Perhaps that should be top of the pops.


Anonymous said...

Am I missing something here?

I don't understand why a 6-year term is "deeply flawed", but an 8 year term is the height of democracy. Sure, it solves CC's immediate problem, but how in hell is one transcendentally better than the other??

I must be missing!!

Mike K

RossK said...

You are missing absolutely nothing Mike.

I think the attempt to solve the 'immediate problem' is all that was at play here.

Nice catch.