Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
Do you chalk it up to a broken promise or a smart, evidence-based move?
I don't know.
I want to say broken promise, because it was clear to every single (logical) person that flying in a 747's worth of refugees every single day from election day to Dec 31 was completely stupid logistically, never mind the security issues.
But at the same time, it's a very prudent move based on reality.
I just don't want Trudeau to get credit for saying one thing during the campaign, and discrediting Harper/Mulcair's refugee plan (which were far more realistic and measured), and then get credit for "being realistic" after he's elected.
|
This seems like precisely the correct response and incidentally what I was telling a newly elected MP I was talking to on the weekend. I chalk it up to a smart evidence based move that happens to break a promise, but keeping a promise when it's bad policy is not a good idea.
If new information forces one to revise one's judgment as to what should be done, then keeping to the earlier plan is idiocy.
As you note, the issue is whether the initial plan was a bad plan all along and should have been recognized as such at the time. But I'm less worried about that than getting it right in fact, provided that cynical dishonesty of that sort doesn't become a trend.