Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Attack of the Conservative Pod People, Part II

Friday’s post about Stephen Harper’s plan to appoint undemocratic “official liaisons to the federal government” as a way to supplant democratically elected NDP MPs has gotten loads of blog attention, but very little in the mainstream press outside of northern BC, where NDP MP Nathan Cullen has been targeted.

That is until now. The whole stinking mess is written up today for the readers of the Vancouver Sun by Barbara Yaffe.

Yaffe hits the nail on the head when she says that Conservative MP Dick Harris’ explanation that NDP MPs are unable to represent their constituents becasue they aren't the government throws “in the waste bin the principles that make representative government in Canada function.”

But an altogether new revelation comes in Harris’ admission that the Conservatives have been willing to help out their pals in the Liberal caucus: “There seems to be a cooperation between the official Opposition and the government when it comes to riding issues, so we were able to get a fair amount done.” Just not for the NDP.

For his part, Cullen calls Harris’ reckless spin-job “ridiculous”, pointing out that his constituents in Skeena—Bulkley Valley are being better served now by his four riding offices, than they had been when the riding was Blue.

But, the greatest offence in the Harper / Harris “Pod People” plan remains the revolting notion that ordinary Canadians’ access to the resources of their federal government is being dolled out to “the friends of the regime” à la a banana republic.

When the Liberals acted this way, Canadians had a word for it: corruption. What makes it any different when the Conservatives do it?


Dave said...

A big BRAVO ZULU to you for breaking this story and giving it the traction it deserves.

Be proud. You just hammered one out of the park.

janfromthebruce said...

I'm confused. I thought that it is the NDP propping up this govt, but since all is chummy, chummy between the libs and the cons, I guess this revealation contradicts that "false belief." Who would have thought that....

J said...

Maybe would you see at this :