According to this morning's Star, the "pact" between Jack Layton's NDP and Stephen Harper's Tories has been sealed with $30,000,000 in pork spending for NDP Environment Critic Nathan Cullen's riding in Skeena-Bulkley Valley:
Before consenting to anything, sources in B.C. and Ottawa said, Layton told Baird he wanted to see a sign of good faith showing the Conservatives were actually committed to the environment, and not just trying to save their minority government from defeat.
"That absolutely happened," said one source. "It was one of many, many components that helped get them over the top on this."
Then, last week, the environment minister arrived in Vancouver to announce a $30-million contribution to an investment and incentive fund to help conserve the Spirit Bear Rainforest. It was matched with $30 million from the British Columbia government for economic development and $60 million in private funds.
"A number of political stars aligned," the source said.
Not that it's a bad cause, but it has absolutely nothing to do with carbon emissions and frankly gives the impression that the NDP will trade on that issue for goo-gaws in other areas. Also, is it a co-incidence that the "goodwill gesture" just happens to be a wad of federal money to the riding of a powerful Dipper? I find that hard to believe.
A bad smell is starting to linger over Jack and his deal making.
So its finally time for the Liberals to let the Tories have their turn with Laytons's soul and they don't want the Tories to have it. C'mon, why can't Liberals play nice?
So you are conceding then that Harper is playing the old game of using taxpayer dollars to buy political support that he used to decry before he came to power? That is implicit you know in your comment...
This is a valid point BCLSB is raising, both in terms of the money going to the NDP riding of the main ally Baird needs (Wasn't it Cullen who also worked with Baird on the Parliamentary committee reviewing the Accountability Act last spring blocking out the Libs and BQ members of the committee from making amendments?) but also in terms of asking for a show of good faith on the environment file (which in today's context should be on global warming, not forest/habitat protection as worthy as that cause also is) and getting this. This action, as environmentally positive as it is for land/forest/habitat protection is unrelated to global warming in the slightest and therefore shows/proves nothing as a sign of good faith on that issue, and if the NDP take this as a sign of good faith then that should raise major red flags for people. I agree with BCLSB, this is starting to pick up a whiff of something more than simply a convergence of political aims/intentions between the NDP and CPC in taking out the Libs.
This bears paying increased attention to IMHO.
*Sigh*, Clearly, sarcasm is lost on you.
No, just when I have no way of knowing that it is present, it is one of the drawbacks of text, no overtones to use to judge such. Your statement can be at least as easily read as serious as it can be as sarcastic and without any further cue I tend to assume serious until told otherwise as you have now done.
Post a Comment