layton is afraid of an election

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
mahmoud
layton is afraid of an election

just saw on some interviews he would prefer not to have an eelection

 

i think this is smart as NDPS approach for todays economy wouldnt be the best

We all know how Obama is handling things lol and Layton is in that phase where he may be trying to copy Obama

NorthReport

Sounds like the smartest move I've seen in quite some time around Ottawa. But of course Liberals will try to twist any reality into some fantasy.

mahmoud

I think Liberals are perfect balance at the moment

they are left to center, center to right

i just hate liberals when it came to money scandals and all their low intelligence ministers in past..also how they never fix problems

KeyStone

Funny how Layton blasted the Liberals for supporting the Tories previously, and suggested that the NDP were the only ones strong enough to stand up for Canadians, but now he is doing an about face.

If the Liberals had been voting with the Conservatives, no doubt Layton would still be bashing them for it. Of course, when there isn't anybody else to hold their nose and side with the conservatives to prevent an election, the NDP is hit with a pretty strong dose of reality.

It's too bad Layton couldn't have been honest and straighforward all the way along, instead of trying to win votes by suggesting that the Liberals are somehow in league with the Conservatives. Because now he looks like a giant hypocrite.

mahmoud

KeyStone wrote:

Funny how Layton blasted the Liberals for supporting the Tories previously, and suggested that the NDP were the only ones strong enough to stand up for Canadians, but now he is doing an about face.

If the Liberals had been voting with the Conservatives, no doubt Layton would still be bashing them for it. Of course, when there isn't anybody else to hold their nose and side with the conservatives to prevent an election, the NDP is hit with a pretty strong dose of reality.

It's too bad Layton couldn't have been honest and straighforward all the way along, instead of trying to win votes by suggesting that the Liberals are somehow in league with the Conservatives. Because now he looks like a giant hypocrite.

 

wow i forgot about that!!! you are so right

i remeber him yelling at liberals and so many blind NDP supporters looking at him as god when he went agaisnst liberals as the lil guy and against conservatives as they were the most evil...to the point of  political discrimination

Im a humainst so i think he is too hateful sometimes, but WOW i lost a lot of respect for LAYTON now that u meantioned this!!!! i remmeber saying to myself last time, wow layton has guts to go against everyone but now he doing full contradiction..maybe soon he will be in green party after he gets booted out

 

NorthReport

Yup, Layton is just shaking in his boots. Can't you feel the earth tremble. This must be the babble political comedy hour thread.

 

Bookish Agrarian

Ah the Liberal spin.  They do nothing in exchange for voting to keep a government and that is a good thing. The NDP considers voting for something that would actually be a gain for people and that is a bad thing.  So very typical.

People who think getting extra weeks of benefits right now, not in some airy fairy commission studying an issue, but actual cash money to the unemployed as soon as poosible as some sort of capitulation are divorced from reality and have obviously never had to try and get by on EI, or UI in a bad economy.  Let me tell you it sucks.

Good on Layton if we Canadians actually come out of this with something after all these years of Liberals doing squat.

 

Buddy Kat

I think Layton just screwed up bigtime.....It took years for the loyal nDP supporters to apologize and excuse the last time the nDP jumped into the tub with Harper. Now Harper has blown up the rubber ducky and says "come on Jack..let's do it again"...question is will Layton bite? Will he take the bait?

 

Looking at those latest cbc ekos polls and to me it looks like this is the gaff the greens have been waiting for to take over the nDP/Green lead. All it will take now is a quick witty response by liz May and for it to be pumped up by the media and It's game over.

So Jack isn't afraid of an election ..he is scared stiff of one. Shoule be intersting to see the next cbc ekos poll.Cry

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

speaking of divorced from reality

Stockholm

no kidding the so-called green party that is polling at a negligible 4%. I wonder if we will next see posts saying that the Christian Heritage party is about to form a majority government.

Unionist

I don't believe the NDP is afraid of an election. They were already starting the candidate search in late July. Ignatieff has bumbled his way down the Dion path.

As for the NDP voting with the Conservatives in exchange for a temporary bump in benefit duration for long-term EI contributors - I don't see how that can happen. Just [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/ignatieff-backs-down-on-ei-again]read the NDP's official position[/url] from the national party web site:

Quote:
The Liberal Party — first under Dion and now under Ignatieff — have a disgraceful track record of propping up Stephen Harper. They’ve rubberstamped his Conservative agenda 79 times and counting. Employment Insurance reform is just the latest example of Liberals standing up for Harper, instead of standing up for Canadians.  [...]

New Democrats have passed a comprehensive reform package in Parliament that makes benefits fairer and more accessible, while dropping the punitive waiting period and including self-employed workers. Now we are demanding that the Conservatives implement this plan as soon as Parliament resumes next month.

Emphasis added.

Their position is right there in plain view for all to see. Even if they were nervous about an election, how do they back off from this - after condemning Ignatieff for backing off on the very same issue?

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
  Good on Layton if we Canadians actually come out of this with something after all these years of Liberals doing squat.

Harper has already added a poison pill to the deal, there may be more. I trust Harper about as far as I can throw him. Layton had better be damned careful.

Stockholm

If there are "poison pills" then we can vote NO and blame Harper for causing an election by being devious and intransigent by sticking in unrelated "poison pills".

If in the end Harper tries to pull a fast one by putting some crap in the ways and means motion that the NDP and BQ cannot support - then we will have an election pronto - but at least we go into the election with Layton having had several days of saturation publicity for visibly making an effort to avoid an election and "make parliament work".

janfromthebruce

Boom Boom - what is the poison pill? I agree if Harper decides to put in something NDP could not accept it shows Harper's true intent and his stripes?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Boom Boom - what is the poison pill? I agree if Harper decides to put in something NDP could not accept it shows Harper's true intent and his stripes?

 

 

Ratification of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade deal.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

What did Iggy and the Liberal Party get for their 79 votes to keep Harper in power?

 

Yes, nothing.

mahmoud

i think layton and harper are the same, we've seen how they work for years

no one has seen the new dog in town ignatieff...seems like a smart chap

Stockholm

ummm...some Liberal bloggers have been grasping at straws about that. It seems that there is no ratification of the treaty in the ways and means bill - just something about how IF the treaty passes then tariffs on certain products imported from Columbia would be reduced.

Seriously, I think that's a pretty poor excuse for a "poison pill" given that the NDP is free to vote against the actual treaty when it comes up in which case this technical stuff in the ways and means bill becomes null and void anyways.

janfromthebruce

Boom Boom wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Boom Boom - what is the poison pill? I agree if Harper decides to put in something NDP could not accept it shows Harper's true intent and his stripes?

 

 

Ratification of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade deal.

The ways and means motion does not contain support for the free trade deal as suggested. All it contains is a provision to amend the tariff schedule if the free trade deal receives royal assent before the ways and means motion does. h/t

Robert McClelland @ Dawg's Blawg

janfromthebruce

More over at My Blahg - Robert actually read the ways and means motion - he is such a great NDP blogger

Coordinating Amendments
Bill C-23
24. (1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if Bill C-23, introduced in the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament and entitled the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (referred to in this section as the “other Act”), receives royal assent.
(2) If subsection 48(1) of the other Act comes into force before section 22 of this Act, tariff item No. 9801.10.30 in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Customs Tariff is amended by
(a) adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Initial Rate”, above the reference to “GPT: Free”, a reference to “COLT: Free”; and
(b) adding in the column “Preferential Tariff / Final Rate”, above the reference to “GPT: Free (A)”, a reference to “COLT: Free (A)”.
(3) If subsection 48(1) of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 22 of this Act, then that section 22 is deemed to have come into force before that subsection 48(1).

Anyway, Robert strongly suggests that one check the fine print when liberals are speaking and writing now - due to truth factor - I suppose as Robert suggests Libs and cons like to play fast and loose with the truth - just plausible - same party - different wings.Laughing

Stockholm

Like I said, the Liberals were really grasping at straws with this. Its especially ironic since the Liberals are actually 100% supportive of the free trade deal with Colombia!

Unionist

This free trade business is a diversion. If the NDP will prop up the government over EI improvements, let's ensure they are true to their own platform:

Quote:

Mr. Layton described Monday's announcement on EI as a good first step. However, the NDP called for far more in a motion passed by Parliament in March.

That NDP motion would have ended the system's two week waiting period, implemented a national standard to qualify for EI based on 360 hours of work, extended the program to self-employed workers, made the benefits more generous and encouraged re-training.

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-not-cutting-any-deals-...

Only one of those five points is addressed, for a limited group and with a time fuse on it.

Furthermore, the NDP demanded on August 28 that their March resolution - which Parliament has already adopted - be implemented in September:

Quote:
New Democrats have passed a comprehensive reform package in Parliament that makes benefits fairer and more accessible, while dropping the punitive waiting period and including self-employed workers. Now we are demanding that the Conservatives implement this plan as soon as Parliament resumes next month.

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/ignatieff-backs-down-on-ei-again]NDP web site.[/url]

The party is reviewing Harper's bill - but will they be reviewing their own published demands?

 

Stockholm

I think any measure that is a step in the right direction should be supported - otherwise instead iof half a loaf you get nothing at all. Of course if people want the entire NDP position on EI to be enshrined in law - they will have to elect an NDP majority government.

By the same token, if the minimum wage was $8 and I wanted it to be $12. I'd still vote in favour of a bill to raise it to $10 since defeating that bill would leave it at $8.

Parkdale High Park

The NDP's choice is pretty clear to me on this one. Supporting the EI reforms means supporting a motion that is closer to the NDP platform than the status quo. In other words it is a policy improvement. In doing so, the NDP avoids an election that would likely have cost them seats, and will possibly gain the gratitude of the 70%+ of Canadians that oppose an election. On top of this, it isn't as if the NDP has ceded the ability to defeat the Conservatives at some future date. There will be plenty of motions in which to do so. Motions that will make better casus belli for an election, and that will coincide with better NDP polling numbers.

It also sharpens an argument for the NDP as a force of stability - a valuable thing with the increased fretting about Canada having a broken democracy.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

I think any measure that is a step in the right direction should be supported - otherwise instead iof half a loaf you get nothing at all. Of course if people want the entire NDP position on EI to be enshrined in law - they will have to elect an NDP majority government.

 

Well, it's not the "entire NDP position" at all, Stockholm, as you well know - that position is [url=here[/url]:">http://www.ndp.ca/platform/jobsandaffordability/employmentinsurance][col...

Quote:

Reject Stephen Harper's plan to create a new Crown Corporation for EI. Instead, we will guarantee that 100% of EI premium revenue will be used to provide and improve EI benefits and training for workers. These funds must not be diverted to general revenue as was done by Liberal governments.

Increase the proportion of unemployed Canadians who are covered by Employment Insurance to 80 percent, from the current rate of under 40%, by making changes to eligibility requirements based on insurance principles.

Recognize the realities of seasonal employment by basing EI benefits on the best 12 weeks of employment earnings.

Improve the caregiver benefit to provide up to six months of EI benefits while caring for an infirm or elderly family member.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the diluted, far more moderate, but still incredibly significant EI improvements which were passed by the House of Commons in March, and which the NDP web site is still demanding be implement this month.

If no significant concession is made on EI (and the one reported in the media is a joke, unfortunately - it's akin to Harper's $100 per month per kid, only it expires when Flaherty declares that the economy has recovered) - then I repeat, the NDP will never live down having condemned the "79 times" and then become Harper's kingmaker on the 80th.

But - I reiterate - if they can even come close to half of what they've announced as their demand, they have an opportunity to make history here. The last thing they need right now is their own supporters drooling over Harper's gambit.

 

Debater

KeyStone wrote:

Funny how Layton blasted the Liberals for supporting the Tories previously, and suggested that the NDP were the only ones strong enough to stand up for Canadians, but now he is doing an about face.

If the Liberals had been voting with the Conservatives, no doubt Layton would still be bashing them for it. Of course, when there isn't anybody else to hold their nose and side with the conservatives to prevent an election, the NDP is hit with a pretty strong dose of reality.

It's too bad Layton couldn't have been honest and straighforward all the way along, instead of trying to win votes by suggesting that the Liberals are somehow in league with the Conservatives. Because now he looks like a giant hypocrite.

True - I think the NDP may find that they now have to be in the difficult position of supporting Harper because they don't want an election.  I've seen people laughing and mocking the Liberals for months, but it will be interesting if the NDP ends up doing the same thing.

Doug

mahmoud wrote:

i think layton and harper are the same, we've seen how they work for years

no one has seen the new dog in town ignatieff...seems like a smart chap

 

Nobody's seen him because he hasn't been here for thirty years - and suddenly he's qualified to run the place?

mybabble

KeyStone wrote:

Funny how Layton blasted the Liberals for supporting the Tories previously, and suggested that the NDP were the only ones strong enough to stand up for Canadians, but now he is doing an about face.

If the Liberals had been voting with the Conservatives, no doubt Layton would still be bashing them for it. Of course, when there isn't anybody else to hold their nose and side with the conservatives to prevent an election, the NDP is hit with a pretty strong dose of reality.

It's too bad Layton couldn't have been honest and straighforward all the way along, instead of trying to win votes by suggesting that the Liberals are somehow in league with the Conservatives. Because now he looks like a giant hypocrite.

Who can figure this guy out.  If anyone he should be eager to take Harper on, but Harper gives him the finger and Layton is working it out in Parliament.  Layton is stretching himself far right to be onboard with Harper.  And Harper didn't ask him, no Harper says later for you Layton.  What is wrong with this picture?

Remind, remind me why I thought the Federal NDP party had something to contribute to Canadian Politics?  Layton had lots to say, and now silence and it can't be a 5 week extension on the work week.  Like how does that do it?  It doesn't when Canadians are faced with increasing unemployment.  Is that the time anticipated to find new employment or is that what government is willing to give despite no real job creation?  I read another 10,000 Canadians lost their jobs today.  I can't see this trend changing despite Harper saying Canada is out of a recession that we are in.

Job creation vs job loses more full time job loses while part-time, low paying, few benfits jobs created, mostly women made the gains in employment.

There will also be some serious job loses in the public sector which will have a ripple affect as jobs will be lost in the private sector because of cut backs which will be felt in their communities.  I don't think we are out of the woods yet.  And focusing Canada's recovery on Canadians opening their pockets books to foreignor's interest dosen't equate profit, but another coporation out to bleed us to death, and we already have plenty of our own to do that as Major corporations enjoy record profits thanks to lowered taxes which have been passed onto the taxpayer. 

Why?  Its not about emptying your pockets for big business there is no money in that and big foreign investors can take their money out at anytime, hardly wothy of a tax that is going to be strapped to you for life.  It is really about supply and demand as take the oil patch as its the blackest yet it prospers because of demand.  So why would you want to give foreignors your hard earned money for what, for the priviledge of having them come bleed you to?  Because that is what it amounts to as don't sell Canada short we have lots to offer with out emptying the pockets of the poor while selling many Canadians out.  And don't forget the environment, Jack did and so did Harper.

 

 

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

OK Liberal fans, I'll tell you what. Get back to me after the NDP votes with Harper 79 times in a row. If that ever happens, we'll do a tally then to see which opposition party achieved the most for its efforts. Because, right now, the hypoGrits have exactly nothing to show for their three years as Canada's Natural Grovelling Party.

ghoris

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Good on Layton if we Canadians actually come out of this with something after all these years of Liberals doing squat.

Not merely doing squat, but actually making it harder for people to qualify for EI and reducing the amount of benefits when they were in office.

But to return to the thread topic, I don't know if Layton is afraid of an election, but he should be. Consider that in the last election, the Liberals had their worst performance since 1984 (and worst popular vote count ever, although they won more seats than 1984). The Liberals really have nowhere to go but up this election. The NDP failed to capitalize on this historic Liberal weakness last time and has limited prospects for gains this election (perhaps a seat in Nova Scotia, a couple of seats in Saskatchewan and a couple more in BC). Let's say the Liberals get the 30 percent of the vote the latest polls are giving them, versus the 14 percent projected for the NDP (also keeping in mind that the NDP typically underperforms on E-Day vis-a-vis the polls and the Liberals typically overperform). Even a modest Liberal recovery means that the Northern Ontario MPs (save Charlie Angus) are likely toast, ditto Linda Duncan, Malcolm Allen and Don Davies (all won because the Liberal vote in their respective ridings collapsed). Mulcair will most likely be gone too. A couple of other MPs (Dennis Bevington, Bill Siksay) are sitting on very small margins.

The good news is that Harper will not stay at 39 percent - incumbent parties almost always lose support over the course of the campaign. Unless there is a major game-changer in the campaign (always a possibility) I expect to see a result fairly similar to 2006, with the Tories around 130 seats, the Liberals around 100, the BQ around 45 and the NDP with around 30.

Caissa

Voting once with the Tories on a confidence matter is unacceptable.

londoninium

Oh you naive (not to mention stunningly hypocritical!) Dippers . . . The plan was never to go to an election over EI. Everyone in Ottawa and the media knows it's just a red herring. The real confidence vote that's going to topple the government has already been set: Sept. 30th, the economic update.

Think about it. The date is of Iggy's own choosing, it's a perfect issue over which to attack the Tories, and there is no way the NDP and Bloc can support it.  If they did it would be a tacit renunciation of the coalition and their entire criticism of the Tory government. After all, the NDP and Bloc have voted against the economic update before, what - some may ask - has the government done to change your assessment that it's wrong for Canada?

One way or another the NDP is going to have to stop supporting the Tories eventually; and make no mistake, the NDP *is* the  one propping up the Tories now. Even if you delude yourselves into thinking that you're 'making progress' with the EI bill (which you're not - you're just meekly bending over to accept, unaltered, what the Tories give), do you *really* think that this is a tenable position?

Ask yourselves, in light of all you've seen from Harper and all you've said about him, if you can honestly expect him to work with you on a regular basis. Do you really think Stephen Harper will change his policies just to help the NDP avoid looking hypocritical? - and make no mistake, you *are* being hypocritical if you support the Tories, sans compromise.

And by the way, what does it say about the principles and integrity of a party when it votes to bring down the government 79 times over the last three years but refuses to do so when there's actually a chance of the government falling? Are you guided by your principles or just your own self interest? If it's the latter then congratulations: you're becoming more like the Liberals all the time!

Unionist

Ummm... If Iggy's plan is to defeat the govt. on Sept. 30, why has he said he'll vote against them now? He's that confident someone will prop Harper up? Explain your logic, if any.

janfromthebruce

londoninium wrote:

Oh you naive (not to mention stunningly hypocritical!)

One way or another the NDP is going to have to stop supporting the Tories eventually; and make no mistake, the NDP *is* the  one propping up the Tories now. Even if you delude yourselves into thinking that you're 'making progress' with the EI bill (which you're not - you're just meekly bending over to accept, unaltered, what the Tories give), do you *really* think that this is a tenable position?

LOL - EVENTUALLY - at first I thought you were talking about the liberals - 79 times - sorry but personally there are lots of unemployed workers and those coming down the pike that are looking at welfare. Now you might think that the libs will be different - personally they will be telling all to buckle down and sacrifice like after they won in 1993.

Martin was probably the most conservative finance minister ever - all you Jane's and Joe's we are in it together - well except for Martin and his elite corporate buddies - corporate taxcuts, stealing EI money, screwing workers.

And make no mistake, it is the Martin liberals supporting Iggy - so tell me why do the libs want an election because so far beyond he wants to be - these red conservatives are the same as the blue conservatives.

Iggy can put his confidence motion forward.

londoninium

Unionist wrote:
Ummm... If Iggy's plan is to defeat the govt. on Sept. 30, why has he said he'll vote against them now? He's that confident someone will prop Harper up? Explain your logic, if any.

Isn't it obvious? By withdrawing support now Iggy can avoid looking too much like a flip-flopper, talk tough as the main opposition to the government, and put the NDP in the uncomfortable position of having to support the Tories. Like I said before, voting against the government 79 times when it doesn't count is a pretty empty gesture if you can't be counted on to come through when it does.

To Janfromthebruce: you're probably correct in that the Liberals tend to campaign from the left and govern from the right, but I think your observation is a bit short-sighted. The EI changes aren't going to become law until 2010 at the earliest. If there's another election in the interim, then a (presumably victorious) Liberal or Liberal/NDP budget could enact even more generous EI reforms - certainly better than the ones the NDP are supporting the Tories for.

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

londoninium wrote:
The date is of Iggy's own choosing, it's a perfect issue over which to attack the Tories, and there is no way the NDP and Bloc can support it.  If they did it would be a tacit renunciation of the coalition and their entire criticism of the Tory government.

1) In other words, the Liberals want an election only when they think they can win it. Confusing their party's interest with the country's interest is exactly why they are not in power any more.

2) A tacit renunciation of the coalition. As opposed to the Liberals' explicit recunciation of the coalition?

HypoGrits!

 

Polunatic2

Quote:
voting against the government 79 times when it doesn't count is a pretty empty gesture
That's about as disingenuous an argument as I've heard in a long time. Budgets count. 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

mahmoud wrote:

no one has seen the new dog in town ignatieff...seems like a smart chap

Yes, it's really smart how he's agitating for an election while languishing in the polls. If Ig and his Toronto frat-boy team remain as smart as this, we might just remove the Liberals from the game altogether.

 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Caissa wrote:

Voting once with the Tories on a confidence matter is unacceptable.

I'm glad you speak for yourself.

Caissa

Who else should I deign to speak for MUN prof?

Skinny Dipper

MUN Prof. wrote:

What did Iggy and the Liberal Party get for their 79 votes to keep Harper in power?

 

Yes, nothing.

It's not what you get now; it's what you get in the future.  Liberal influence on Conservative policies do not matter now; Liberal control of Parliament in the future matters.

Uncle John

This is funny stuff.

Who's going to take down Harper?

Can you?

LOL!

londoninium

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

1) In other words, the Liberals want an election only when they think they can win it. Confusing their party's interest with the country's interest is exactly why they are not in power any more.

2) A tacit renunciation of the coalition. As opposed to the Liberals' explicit recunciation of the coalition?

HypoGrits!

 

How can you be so eager to see hypocrisy in the Liberals and yet so blind to it in your own party? The NDP voted against Harper for 3 years while saying they were acting in the interests of the country. Now they're set to vote with Harper for the first time on a proposal that even the Liberals don't think goes far enough for the sole purpose of avoiding an election that's not well-timed for them. At the very least this shows the NDP is just as capable of hypocrisy as the Liberals. At worst it shows them to be hypocritical *and* disingenuous.

And to polunatic2, you're right. Budgets do count. Make sure you remember that on Sept. 30!

MightyAC MightyAC's picture

Layton is a parasite and has to go.  I once admired and supported the guy but now he is just a disappointment looking for a place to happen. 

Jack has told us that Harper has to go about a million times and he is right.  Now when push comes to shove the man is a coward.  It must be nice to have a giant soap box to preach from yet have absolutely no responsibilty to back up one's words. 

Black Jack bad mouthed Dion for propping up the devil and now he is dancing with him too. 

Just like the rest of our political leaders with on demand, ever changing, poll driven ethics and convictions Jack is choosing what he thinks will be popular instead of what is right. 

I wish we had some form of PR here our system is a joke.  Oh wait Layton once vowed that support for PR would be a requirement to get his support in a minority parliament.  I guess he forgot about that promise too.

Stockholm

Looks like Liberal HQ has started paying people to join babble for no other reason that to dispense Liberal talking points. I'm always suspicious of posts appearing that read like Liberal press releases from people who joined babble for the first time that very day.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:
  That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the diluted, far more moderate, but still incredibly significant EI improvements which were passed by the House of Commons in March, and which the NDP web site is still demanding be implement this month.

If no significant concession is made on EI (and the one reported in the media is a joke, unfortunately - it's akin to Harper's $100 per month per kid, only it expires when Flaherty declares that the economy has recovered) - then I repeat, the NDP will never live down having condemned the "79 times" and then become Harper's kingmaker on the 80th.

But - I reiterate - if they can even come close to half of what they've announced as their demand, they have an opportunity to make history here. The last thing they need right now is their own supporters drooling over Harper's gambit.

Well said. As I wrote earlier somewhere, the NDP needs to be careful here.

janfromthebruce

yes, they are desparate to share the blame for pulling the plug on the Harper govt. Interesting the sharing the pain but not a coalition.

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP is not going to pull the government down on a ways and means motion that contains the renovation tax credit and anything for Canadians on EI. Fair enough. A couple votes for something worthwhile and to get something of value is fine as long as it does nto go on long-- I can't see that it will either.

I also agreed with Ignatieff on a couple votes as well with the government because an election then would nto ahve been productive. My trouble is the 79 long voting record and I agree it needed to come to an end. The NDP is not getting in the Tub with Harper-- this is a short term arrangement since the party will not force an election on those things-- that said Layton's comments make it clear this is short term.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

MightyAC wrote:

Layton is a parasite and has to go.  I once admired and supported the guy but now he is just a disappointment looking for a place to happen. 

Jack has told us that Harper has to go about a million times and he is right.  Now when push comes to shove the man is a coward.  It must be nice to have a giant soap box to preach from yet have absolutely no responsibilty to back up one's words. 

Black Jack bad mouthed Dion for propping up the devil and now he is dancing with him too. 

Just like the rest of our political leaders with on demand, ever changing, poll driven ethics and convictions Jack is choosing what he thinks will be popular instead of what is right. 

I wish we had some form of PR here our system is a joke.  Oh wait Layton once vowed that support for PR would be a requirement to get his support in a minority parliament.  I guess he forgot about that promise too.

Do crawl back into your hole.

MightyAC MightyAC's picture

Stockholm wrote:
Looks like Liberal HQ has started paying people to join babble for no other reason that to dispense Liberal talking points. I'm always suspicious of posts appearing that read like Liberal press releases from people who joined babble for the first time that very day.

I'm not a Grit or a Dipper just a free agent that cares about the environment, ethics and human rights.

Your comment reminds me of what I see on Conservative sites, very partisan, angry and defensive.  However, if you are someone that supports your party regardless of their position or actions then I guess you would have to be defensive right now.  Just like the red team was when Dion was propping up satan himself.

Defend Black Jack Layton all you like but he is the guy keeping Harper in business.  He has been Harper's most outspoken critic and now Jack is saying hey just show a passing interest in something social and I'll overlook the war, Columbia, income trusts, your environmental and financial record.

Jack talks the talk, it's just too bad he can't walk. 

I think we should start to refer to Layton as Jack Russell now that he is a yappy little Conservative lap dog...just like Dion was.

janfromthebruce

yawn

Pages

Topic locked