But I’ll reiterate that the opposition ought to get the lion’s share of the blame for our current crisis. Since they weren’t willing to compromise an inch after Harper made his concessions on the offending proposals, they showed themselves unwilling to make this parliament work.

It will take goodwill from both sides to make our system work.

This squabble is nervous-making mostly *because* of the times. Yeah, it’s legal and by the book. It’s deal-making, which is always unpalateable, but doesn’t normally constitute a “crisis”.

But against the backdrop of a certain economic kerfuffle — the “Chaotic Unwinding” they’re calling it, maybe you’ve heard? — it’s a waking nightmare. Her Majesty’s Partly Loyal Opposition is *already* impoverishing the people, lunging for the wheel at a time like this, and it’s only gonna get worse.

And then we’ll be back to the polls in months anyway, where the BQLPCNDP will be trounced, those *idiots*.

And all this over their pogey cheques! Over the taxpayer lolly the factions suck up in lieu of raising support — but raising support is what parties *do*, by definition, innit?

I strenuously oppose any subsidy to her Maj.’s Occasionally Loyal Oppo, and to any political party ever, because parties that take government boodle literally *cease to be parties*. From potentially valuable (if aconstitutional) *citizen* and *volunteer* associations, free money transforms parties like le NDPBQLPC into indistinguishable packs of welfare bums.

Who’ll do *anything* — vandalize the state, disturb the Queen’s peace, knock the TSX into the crapper — to keep those cheques flowing. Obviously.

Man, I get madder the more I think about this. Some math: $28, 000, 000 divided by the averageish annual wage of let’s say $40,000 = 700 Canadians who worked a full year to tip swill into a sty full of Bloquistes, Dippers and Grits who know damn well they are meant to earn their livings, and would if they had any honour. 700 real people!

(I always find this a useful way to think about “measly” government expenditures. “Small” programme funding, ya know, “minor” budget items? The money involved is not at all trivial, to the men and women who have to earn it).

OK, whoops, metaphors gettin’ extravagant; time to retire. I will say I feel duty-bound to oppose this. Terry Glavin is a bit peppier on the matter:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the chatter, Twitterers.

Cheers,
EC.