Why the despair?
I've never seen Canadian Conservatives as heartbroken and let-down as I see them today.
Never during the entire reign of Jean Chretien did I see them this unhappy.
Is Paul Martin really worse than Jean Chretien?
Yes, his political instincts are worse, making it all the more frustrating that he's barely hanging on to power, but is he really worse for the country than Jean Chretien?
There are two conflicting issues at play here.
Firstly, Paul Martin HAS tightened up certain kinds of federal spending since he got into office. He's actually eliminated quite a few programs and concentrated that money towards traditional social spending and new projects. He's probably even made the bureaucracy less corrupt (Budget 2004 - the spending comptrollers and stuff). So basically, he's probably less corrupt, but since he has "ideas", i.e. new ways to spend money, he's better in one way and worse in another.
Second, because of the current dynamics of the house, and because of Chuck Cadman's unwillingness to side with the Conservatives, (I don't blame Belinda for the Parliamentary math since David Kilgour evens her out) Canada is obviously presented with the worst possible realistic governing scenario: the Liberals propped up by the NDP.
Jean Chretien would probably be spending just as much if he were in such a scenario, so how does this reflect poorly on Paul Martin?
I think it's only because Martin projects far more desperation.
He makes himself look incredibly weak... weak enough to make his enemies smell blood and then find themselves unable to capitalize by the narrowest of margins (damn you, Chuck Cadman!).
Never during the entire reign of Jean Chretien did I see them this unhappy.
Is Paul Martin really worse than Jean Chretien?
Yes, his political instincts are worse, making it all the more frustrating that he's barely hanging on to power, but is he really worse for the country than Jean Chretien?
There are two conflicting issues at play here.
Firstly, Paul Martin HAS tightened up certain kinds of federal spending since he got into office. He's actually eliminated quite a few programs and concentrated that money towards traditional social spending and new projects. He's probably even made the bureaucracy less corrupt (Budget 2004 - the spending comptrollers and stuff). So basically, he's probably less corrupt, but since he has "ideas", i.e. new ways to spend money, he's better in one way and worse in another.
Second, because of the current dynamics of the house, and because of Chuck Cadman's unwillingness to side with the Conservatives, (I don't blame Belinda for the Parliamentary math since David Kilgour evens her out) Canada is obviously presented with the worst possible realistic governing scenario: the Liberals propped up by the NDP.
Jean Chretien would probably be spending just as much if he were in such a scenario, so how does this reflect poorly on Paul Martin?
I think it's only because Martin projects far more desperation.
He makes himself look incredibly weak... weak enough to make his enemies smell blood and then find themselves unable to capitalize by the narrowest of margins (damn you, Chuck Cadman!).
posted by Japnaam Singh at
2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home