[Psudo]

Jabrwock wrote:

Objecting to you being upset about them changing their rhetoric? Or are you just upset about the outcome?

I'm not sure what the intended meaning of the first sentence fragment was, but of course I'm upset about the outcome. But not "just". I'm also upset about the inability of politicians to stick by their decisions or to establish and follow clear sets of rules. That's pretty much government's whole job: to establish and follow rules. If they can't do that, what good are they?

[Jabrwock]

CanadianJeff wrote:

From what I have read the leaders asked to put down a requirement that only parites with current MPs seated can participate in the debate. The Greens objected saying they now have an MP. The conservatives and NDP pointed out that that MP was not elected by the public and thus shouldn't participate.

And when arguing over semantics failed, the NDP/Cons said if their interpretation of the conditions weren't met, they wouldn't participate.

Yes it was blown out of proportion, but when you boil it down, they basically said "do it my way or I'll go home". The NDP the networks probably couldn't have cared less about, but when the ruling party threatens to no-show, then you've got a problem.

[Jabrwock]

Psudo wrote:

I'm also upset about the inability of politicians to stick by their decisions or to establish and follow clear sets of rules. That's pretty much government's whole job: to establish and follow rules. If they can't do that, what good are they?

Good question. Good luck getting an answer on that one though.

Politicians hate setting out hard rules. Because it inevitably comes back to bite them in the ass later. Laxer rules give them wiggle room to weasel out of taking responsibility for gaming the system. That's why the Accountability Act was a joke.

[Psudo]

Jabrwock wrote:

And when arguing over semantics failed, the NDP/Cons said if their interpretation of the conditions weren't met, they wouldn't participate.

I hope that 'semantics' line wasn't intended as a criticism. Semantics is essential to law, and law is what government is for. Their inability to commit to law as written is inherently a political failure whether they like it or not.