The description of Stephen Harper as a "quitter" (rolled out by Jack Layton yesterday) is a solid first step in defining the imminent end of Harper's stay in office. But the broader theme is one with plenty of room for further development.
Just imagine a business whose single top manager had managed to significantly damage his employer's balance sheet while holding authority, in no small part because he went out of his way to use company resources for his own private interests.
Suppose that employee had repeatedly ordered his loyalists to sabotage the efforts of co-workers who had different ideas as to how to run the company, then publicly blamed everybody but himself for a dysfunctional workplace.
Add into the mix that the employee consistently picked fights with suppliers, customers, or anybody else who could deflect attention from his mismanagement of the business.
Suppose that one day the employee were to storm into a board meeting and inform his bosses that he was sick of dealing with the people around him, and that they could take his job and shove it - but that he'd be back the next day to interview for a promotion.
How likely would any board member be to even want the employee back, let alone provide him with expanded authority? And if the concept of rewarding a problem employee who storms out of his job seems that far-fetched under any other circumstances, then how could a Harper majority in Parliament - or even another Con minority government - be anything but a disastrous outcome?
(Edit: fixed typo.)
No comments:
Post a Comment