I'm not worried that the Conservatives have said they'll support Bill C-48 if the same-sex marriage bill is delayed. This is not a foolish, contradictory move -- it actually makes a lot of sense.
As I said yesterday here, the budget amendment is worthless. Little, if any of the money will find its way to the various programmes for which it is so irresponsibly, non-specifically designated. The time frame for determining whether the money will even be available is beyond this government's mandate -- even if they were able to delay the election for another full year. By opposing it, they have actually inflated its value in the mind of the voters -- supporting it negates its political value.
By agreeing to support an amendment that is unpalateable, but also vague and unworkable the Conservatives are in effect, getting something for nothing.
Through their support for the amendment, the Conservatives will have gained time for more witnesses on the same-sex marriage issue -- witnesses who might shed light on the likelihood of proposed amendments standing up to a Constitutional challege. Given the recent musings of the left about charitable status of religious institutions, this extention will prove important.
They will also have negated the critics who have been able to label them: 'against post-secondary education', 'against the environment', 'against affordable housing' etc. Now, they are no longer on the wrong side of those issues.
The Conservatives have been labelled 'obstructionist'. They have just blown that label away -- and, because they can honestly say they believe none of the money will ever flow -- they are not contradicting their own policies on spending.
In the short-term, staunch conservatives might see this as just another capitulation -- but remember -- this amendment would likely pass anyway-- having 'co-operated' to 'make parliament work' can only be to their credit. They will have ended this session of Parliament on a quiet note -- no rancor, no acrimony.
They could continue the bitter fight over a bill that will ultimately pass -- and which in the end means nothing. Instead, they have made the choice to play along with the fiction.
When the Liberals start verbal S.M.O.G. that the Conservatives are 'flip-flopping' -- they can answer in all good conscience that they were co-operating.
If they are accused of 'equivocating' or 'capitulating' they can just tell the truth -- the long Liberal track record of lies gives them confidence that this amendment is just another myth, conjured up to keep their grip on power. They have no expectations of it actually materializing.
This amendment is a fraud. Since it will never come to pass, it cannot negatively affect the economy -- voting for it will have essentially the same outcome as if the bill had never even existed.
canadianna
5 comments:
My problem with the CPC supporting this bill NOW as opposed to last month is the optics. The CPC is now compromising it's laurels by supporting the 'bribe' bill.
They should have supported it a month ago and pointed out the fact that the bill was worthless to begin with - it seems again like the ball has been dropped.
Great post CA. I was about to embark on a similar post but perhaps will shorten it and link to you instead.
Perceptions on a so-called CPC flip flop would not appear as a blip on the screen...IF we lived in a properly balanced public information mechanism...but we don't. The media that reports this shite' is part of the single party state and they have a dual standard where the CPC is concerned...what apples to the Liberals, does not apply to the CPC. If the Liberals break election promises and flip flop openly on policy position...this is political craftsmanship or "pragmatism". When the CPC shift support on a bill as a matter of getting their amendments to it accepted...this is Flip=flopping.
Go figger
I think Ruth has it pegged.
If this happens, then it's another in the long line of strikes against Harper. This would be another example of a failure on his part to properly lead. This is so frustrating to see such incompetance.
Post a Comment