The Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson adds up the flip-flops — on contraception, rural Internet access, O Canada, and 10 per centers — and wonders:
The Conservatives are starting to make a habit of throwing out initiatives designed either to broaden support among centrist voters or to placate the conservative base, only to abandon the plan after protests from the conservative base or centrist voters. The previous prime minister was called Mr. Dithers because Paul Martin could never make up his mind. Stephen Harper, it seems, can't stop changing his.
The media and the opposition up to this point have portrayed Harper as a total control freak who muzzles his caucus, particularly his ministers.
So now that his ministers are no longer all reciting the same word-for-word PMO talking points the PM supposedly insists on, if media reports and the opposition are to be believed, that same choir now accuses the PM himself of flip-flopping.
Lawrence Cannon misspoke, apparently not clear on the exact meaning of the “maternal and child health” initiative? OK, he admitted his mistake. Is that flip-flopping by the PM? Not IMO.
When I heard about that initiative, I too interpreted it as the focus being on actual mothers and actual children being helped by providing clean water, proper nutrition, inoculations against disease, etc. I did not include the idea of contraception and abortion in that initiative. Not on ideological grounds — in my vocabulary, ideology is not a bad word — but because I thought the initiative had a very specific focus. I thus understand Cannon's interpretation of that initiative.
The anthem? Surely you wise guys in the media must know about politicians floating trial balloons? Would the population accept such and such a measure? Public reaction was negative to the change in the anthem, and the government responded. So how is this a flip-flop on the part of the PM?
And the 10%ers? The House apparently voted to eliminate them, but the NDP wants to keep them, to use them for “non-partisan” purposes. If I understand that issue correctly, the PM would go along with the elimination but tried to get the opposition to also agree to eliminate political party funding. If the argument is that eliminating the 10%ers would save the government $20+ million, why not save the government an additional $30+ million by eliminating political party funding? If the argument is one of saving money, why isn't the opposition OK with BOTH money-saving measures? Again, inconsistency on the opposition's part.
Isn't the fact the Liberals keep saying this is the worst government in Canadian history and then either vote WITH the government or ABSTAIN from voting, without even offering an amendment to the 2010 budget, a much greater inconsistency in positions?
They've had opportunities galore to defeat the government, yet have always retreated because of the uncertainty of the outcome.
Oh, and where's Ignatieff? A mere few days after Parliament was back in session, after pontificating on how MPs needed to be at work, off he goes on another “look at me, I'm a really nice guy who's good for the country” tour. So who's being inconsistent?
So who's being inconsistent?
You and Harper and the CPC.
The reason you and Harper and the CPC cannot see it is because, like vampires, hypocrisy does not reflect in mirrors.
What an insightful remark!
Do you get your insight from novels enjoyed by tweens and teenagers, like Twilight?
That's great! I support young adults' literacy, even if all that young people read is fantasy. That's a good place to start, Dumbar!
No, here's a good place to start Gabby in QC:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnstuart201721.html
What's the matter? Lost your moniker?