Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic (did I mention pathetic)
Silly me, I've been writing a political blog for months now and I actually thought that, in responding to the stupid bill-bargaining deal the Conservatives proposed yesterday (see my last post), the Liberals only had two options: a) say yes or b) say no.
I should have realized that the Liberals follow their own third way - say yes, but publicly state that they are saying no.
I actually thought the Liberals would just tell the Conservatives to take a hike - if not because if it was the right thing to do, then because it just made sense: if they lost one of the votes then why wouldn't the Liberals want to face the polls as the party that went down fighting for tolerance, the charter, spending for cities, spending for education and so on? And if they won then they get the legislation passed and the appearance of having integrity and steadfastness at the same time.
Maybe, Liberals might argue, they are just acknowledging that the Conservatives can throw up procedural hurdles to slow the legislation down, but if that was really the case, I'd expect rhetoric along the lines of 'We'll do everything in our power to get this legislation passed' from the Liberals, not, “I would like to get to report stage in the spring and do the vote on report stage in the spring,”, as Liberal house leader Tony Valeri is quoted as saying.
These comments only make sense to me coming from a Liberal party that doesn't really care that much about getting the same-sex marriage bill passed.
Liberal party slogan for the next election: "Canada ain't broke, so don't expect us to fix anything".
Update: June 24 - Those Liberals are tricky. Turns out they wanted to publicly state that they had said no, still send a signal to the Conservatives that they would go along and then turn around and backstab the Conservatives a few days later.
You sure can't believe a word these guys say, but at this point it looks like they may try to get same sex marriage legislation passed before the summer break, so perhaps I should retract some of my criticism above - perhaps. At this point I'll beleive it when I see it.
Update: June 29 - seeing is believing, and credit where credit is due, Same Sex Marriage legislation passed last night.
I should have realized that the Liberals follow their own third way - say yes, but publicly state that they are saying no.
I actually thought the Liberals would just tell the Conservatives to take a hike - if not because if it was the right thing to do, then because it just made sense: if they lost one of the votes then why wouldn't the Liberals want to face the polls as the party that went down fighting for tolerance, the charter, spending for cities, spending for education and so on? And if they won then they get the legislation passed and the appearance of having integrity and steadfastness at the same time.
Maybe, Liberals might argue, they are just acknowledging that the Conservatives can throw up procedural hurdles to slow the legislation down, but if that was really the case, I'd expect rhetoric along the lines of 'We'll do everything in our power to get this legislation passed' from the Liberals, not, “I would like to get to report stage in the spring and do the vote on report stage in the spring,”, as Liberal house leader Tony Valeri is quoted as saying.
These comments only make sense to me coming from a Liberal party that doesn't really care that much about getting the same-sex marriage bill passed.
Liberal party slogan for the next election: "Canada ain't broke, so don't expect us to fix anything".
Update: June 24 - Those Liberals are tricky. Turns out they wanted to publicly state that they had said no, still send a signal to the Conservatives that they would go along and then turn around and backstab the Conservatives a few days later.
You sure can't believe a word these guys say, but at this point it looks like they may try to get same sex marriage legislation passed before the summer break, so perhaps I should retract some of my criticism above - perhaps. At this point I'll beleive it when I see it.
Update: June 29 - seeing is believing, and credit where credit is due, Same Sex Marriage legislation passed last night.
Labels: federal politics, same sex marriage
posted by Declan at
Thursday, June 16, 2005
8 Comments:
Declan, go to my place and click on the link to Et tu Paul in the headline. Take a gander at the globe and mail from a year and a half ago on Paul Martin and same sex marriage. They were right then and they are still right. This guy just doesn't want the bill to pass.
By
Greg, at 12:42 PM
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that if Martin really wanted this bill to pass it would have by now.
By
Declan, at 4:36 PM
Canadian politics are sad these days, huh?
Jack Layton looks good because he's keeping him mouth shut. What a kick-ass election strategy that's turning out to be. :P
By
Andrew, at 6:21 PM
My hope is that politics has always been this sad (or worse) but I'm just paying more attention now. I'm not convinced though.
By
Declan, at 9:45 PM
Minority governemnts: We Stay Out Of The Way More!
You've got four kids and one circular rope on a raft in the middle of the ocean: one lets go, they might ALL fall in, or one MIGHT be standing at the end of it.
And no one wants to let go.
Layton needs to improve his (the NDP) standing in Quebec before next election, or he's getting burned.
By
Thursday, at 8:43 PM
I think if I was an NDP strategist i'd almosst wannt to throw the election in Quebec and focus on the rest of Canada. There's no way the NDP will either form a majority or win seats in Quebec (IMO) so the best bet is to hope the Liberals do well in Quebec but the NDP does well enough elsewhere that together they form a minority government.
By
Declan, at 11:35 PM
I agree. Quebec is a no fly zone for the NDP. However, Layton isn't just keeping his mouth shut, I think he is the only one who is legitimately playing the game, hence the "pairing" idea at the budget vote or calling immediately for an investigation into Grewal's allegations. While I seriously doubt that a minority gov. is possible, opposition looks like a viable outcome for the NDP at election time.
By
Anonymous, at 9:54 PM
I think there is a big, big opportunity for the 'Dippers in Quebec, but payouts are only going to come in 10-15 years. They've got to look that far ahead, but they've always traditionally let it (Quebec) slide.
Realistically, it's the only place to make any gains next election, and for the same reason as ever: the hard-core Conservatives (those who still support Harper) will never vote NDP; the Liberals on the soft-left who might switch are terrified of the evil NeoCons and will stay with the Libs; and those fiscal conservatives who switch back and forth either believe the NDP are commies or will simply be disillusioned with the Libs and Cons so they won't vote.
It's not the people who don't vote that the NDP has to go after, it's the folks who do vote (at least occasionally) and don't like their usual options. Layton's getting face time, and he's got to use it.
By
Thursday, at 6:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home