Say it ain't so, Jack!
In a post, Liberal Catnip has identified the most recent outrage that Jack Layton might be contemplating for the NDP - supporting the Conservatives against a possible spring or winter election. Jack has apparently partaken of the Kool-Aid and actually believes that the New Democrats must stave off short-term blips in the polls and electoral defeats at the cost of their souls. Propping up a decrepit Tory government that will sell out Leftist concerns as soon as it is convenient is simply beyond idiotic.
The only thing drawing the two parties together is political expediency - both are dropping in the polls and a quick election would likely be ugly for both. For the Conservatives this would be catastrophic, they are just getting a taste for power and want stability and a majority government to start remaking Canada in the Harper vision (blurp). Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. For the NDP, it is less of a concern, they have never had national power and are not going to get it anytime soon. Sure they would lose a few seats, but the role of the NDP would not change - it is the voice of the Left in our Parliament and snuggling up to Harper destroys any real credibility the party has with the Left. I'm not saying that they should tear the government down at all costs, but for heaven's sake, let it sink or swim based on it's policies, not because you're afraid of an election call; for the NDP, that's a fool's game.
The only thing that Jack stands to gain is to drive committed social democrats like me toward the Greens or the Liberals. There is no short-term gain for the NDP, only long-term pain.
The NDP, more than any party in this country, needs a change at the top.
The only thing drawing the two parties together is political expediency - both are dropping in the polls and a quick election would likely be ugly for both. For the Conservatives this would be catastrophic, they are just getting a taste for power and want stability and a majority government to start remaking Canada in the Harper vision (blurp). Sorry, I just threw up a little in my mouth. For the NDP, it is less of a concern, they have never had national power and are not going to get it anytime soon. Sure they would lose a few seats, but the role of the NDP would not change - it is the voice of the Left in our Parliament and snuggling up to Harper destroys any real credibility the party has with the Left. I'm not saying that they should tear the government down at all costs, but for heaven's sake, let it sink or swim based on it's policies, not because you're afraid of an election call; for the NDP, that's a fool's game.
The only thing that Jack stands to gain is to drive committed social democrats like me toward the Greens or the Liberals. There is no short-term gain for the NDP, only long-term pain.
The NDP, more than any party in this country, needs a change at the top.
So far, in this minority government, all the Liberals have done is be obstructionists, zero achievements.
If Libs think their performance has won over Canadians, as opposed to NDP getting the Accountability Act passed, and furthering the enviro issue by sending the Clean Air Act to committee, time to take off the "I Am Liberal" blinders.
The Lib on again off again non-stand on Afghanistan is costing the party the respect it so desperately needs.
Posted by
wilson |
Wed Dec 20, 01:09:00 PM
If this is true, it is foolish, at best. Playing such obvious political games isn't going to get any votes, either. And propping up the most right-wing government we've seen in my lifetime isn't going to bring people ringing phones off hooks to buy memberships, either.
If this is true, this is Jack, giving up leadership to strategists playing politics. It's appalling.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Wed Dec 20, 01:53:00 PM
wilson,
The environmental act passed last Parliament was at best treading water - and I would argue far worse; the NDP have nothing to be proud of on that issue in my eyes. I will, however agree 100% with you on Afghanistan - if it's an important enough mission to be part of, then we have to stop using it, and our relationship with critical allies, as a political football. We agreed to be there until 2009, and our allies are depending on our presence. If we expect any help when we need it, we best shut our pie holes and see it through until then.
I find it interesting how quickly "opposition" becomes "obstructionist" as soon as power changes hands. Helping the CPC pass legislation is all well and good, if the legislation is also something that the NDP membership can support as their own. Otherwise it's not cooperation, it's selling out those that support you.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Wed Dec 20, 07:30:00 PM
I wouldn't consider the Liberals obstructionist at all. They were compliant, and really didn't threaten the Conservatives at all on any issue of significance. How could they? An election before the leadership convention would have decimated them even further.
They certainly weren't an opposition party. I'd argue that the Bloc was the only real opposition this time around.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Thu Dec 21, 08:43:00 AM