Afghanistan motion
Well, the motion was defeated today by the Conservatives and NDP, one saying it went too far, the other not far enough.
Now, I would need to actually read the motion, but it still seems weird the NDP not liking it. I mean, I guess they're trying to make the argument that it would be similar to saying they want Kyoto targets by 2012, so they would vote down a plan that meets the targets by 2015 (or 2050, as the Conservatives would put it). Really, if they don't like it and object to the mission, would it not make even more sense for them to simply abstain from voting? That way the bill would at least pass, and I can't see how they could argue that life without the bill further advances their cause than life with the bill, unless if they think that the Conservatives will pull a "We were going to propose withdrawing them now, but now that we already have a date, it's too much trouble to change it" type of philosophy.
Oh well, it's the NDP's loss. Apart from the hippy group that already likes the NDP, I can't see them gaining any votes from this. And even if they voted for the motion, they could still publicly rally that they want the troops out now, and that if they can't have them out now, then as early as possible (which would be right after we've legally agreed to). Unless if they're secretly in some sort of "now or never" type of clan, which I would have lots of trouble with.
Be interesting to see if this is held over his head if/when we go to an election. I'd like to hear his justification, or at least see him squirm trying to argue that no date is better than a date.
1 comment:
It is shamefull... We will have to remind voters that the NDP stood with the Conservatives and by doing so officially scrap the obligation to withdraw by 2009. I just can't beleive it... just can't.
Post a Comment