De-evolution of Iceman on Milliken: 2009 – he’d make a ‘good Tory’; 2011 – he’s a ‘partisan Liberal’.

Over the years, Peter Milliken has been a reliably non-partisan Speaker of the House. When he rules in favour of the Liberals, he makes sure the Conservatives get a little gravy too. Liberals wish he was a little tougher on Conservative misdeeds and the Conservatives feel he’s a little too tough. But rightblogger Iceman can’t seem to decide how he feels about Milliken. He was a fan when Milliken looked like he might be another Con stooge. In 2009, Iceman gushed that ‘Liberal’ Milliken would make a ‘great Tory’.

Why, even just a few days ago, Iceman waxed positively optimistic over Milliken’s upcoming rulings on the Bev Oda and prison-funding scandals. The rightblogger gleefully noted that Milliken ‘was appointed by Stephen Harper despite being a Liberal’ while also worrying that the Speaker may have ‘too much power for one individual’ (Iceman does not mention that concern would more likely suit his master).

Then we come to Thursday last.  Whilst ducking the spittle from Iceman’s melting prose from a post that day on Milliken, we are entertained by the blogger’s savage attacks on the Speaker as a ‘partisan Liberal’. Why this evolution from praise to cautious optimism to outright scorn? Milliken did not rule on the aforementioned scandals the way the Iceman would have liked. The blogger is BT outraged and bids ‘good riddance’ to the good Speaker. How quickly they turn.

An aside: can Harper’s Conservatives be called ‘Tories’ anymore? Obviously not. The Tories were dead and buried with the ascension of Harper. So Iceman had it partially right. Milliken would have made a reasonable Tory. But never a modern Reform Alliance Conservative. Not many Progressive Conservatives of our past – and certainly not a non-partisan ‘Liberal’ – would.