layton is afraid of an election

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
mybabble

Boom Boom wrote:

I'll leave 'thoughts' to the others, Centrist, because I'm not up to speed today. Good question, though.

ps: I hate this thread title - I don't believe Layton has ever been afraid of an election. It's bullshit to suggest he is.

No, its politics.  And there are jokes and cartoons putting Layton right in Harper's lap all over the media and I guess friday will tell the stuff the NDP are made of.

I'm no Layton lover but I have an admiration for the NDP party and Canada has much to be thankful for the contributions the party has made which Canadians still enjoy today like Health Care, something the leader at the time thought was worth fighting for as he has a vision where all Canadians count.  Now its Home Street Home and Treat and Street and I can hear the former leader turning over in his grave.   

Erik Redburn

If the NDP isn't afraid of an electon why is he supporting Harper again?  

Erik Redburn

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

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.

 

Great, so does that mean the NDP feels it can support another 78 confidence motions before the Liberals can call them on it too?  Or make it 75 given theyve already supported Harper twice before.   Did Layton playing footsy with Harper over the previously ballyhooed environmental bill help the NDP get more progressive legislation passed, or did it just help gain the CPC more credibility on the issue before the government spiked it for even an emptier series or promises?  And did the NDp even gain a lasting boost in the polls over that previous episode?

Making "Parliament work" when it's run by rightwingers is never a good strategy for any left of centre party, as the latest polling numbers indicate again.  Mauybe the lesson is: act like liberals and more people will just figure they might as well vote for the ones with a decent chance of winning.

NorthReport

==

NorthReport

==

Erik Redburn

 

But there we go, the answer.  now Layton can say with good conscience that he did his best to "make parliament work" but Harper was never seriously interested so he too will have to vote No.  Display of courage like that could even make Harper tread abit more carefully himself, knowing he doesn't have one or another opposition party willing to support him no matter what.

NorthReport

Erik Redburn wrote:

If the NDP isn't afraid of an electon why is he supporting Harper again?  

Home renovation tax credits and improvements to EI. It's not rocket science. 

Erik Redburn

He aint gonna get either, asnd neither are we, that aint even highschool stuff. 

KenS

All that is happening is that the NDP is [apparently or probably] going to vote for the supply motion.

Two things going on here: some modestly important substantive leg, and all the parties positioning themselves in their distinct ways for the showdown to come.

Neither the Bloc or the NDP [should they also vote yes] is 'supporting Harper'.

We can read our tea leaves and weigh in as to what we think will happen, about supporting the government, but it has not happened yet.

For myself, I've seen nothing in all this shadow boxing to change my existing assessment of what is likely to happen:

** as Iggy said, they will vote non confidence no matter what [if for no other reason: continuing to support Harper would be more damaging to the Libs than anything else... and if you are going to vote no you might as well be as firm as you possibly can].

** the NDP is highly unlikey to vote with the government in the confidence motion unless there are major concessions that are themselves highly unlikely [if for no there reason: because it would be too costly to the NDP].

** The Bloc can easily handle the PR of a deal with Harper [unlike the other 2], has no reason to want an election, and likely reasons to wait. So its up to Harper: if he doesn't want an election [my guess], he offers goodies for Quebec. [It won't have to be a king's ransom.]

 

janfromthebruce

mybabble wrote:

And there are jokes and cartoons putting Layton right in Harper's lap all over the media and I guess friday will tell the stuff the NDP are made of. [CHECK THIS OUT - sure paints a different picture than the one you cont to spin]

I'm no Layton lover [no kidding - LOL]

Say, does this looking like "harper's lap" to you?

Jack Layton weighs the second election in two years against $1 billion for the unemployed as depicted by the deft eye (and pen) of Globe cartoonist Brian Gable ...

hmm - looks like the laugh is on harper

Erik Redburn

Ken S, I get your point but you may be looking at it in too partisan a manner.  To the average voters it will look like he IS supporting Harper.  And Most Canadians are not and never will be CPC supporters, regardless of any reluctance to return to the polls again.  (thank Gawd for small mercies) 

And in electoral terms he IS in fact supporting him/them by doing this, in that it allows Harper to stay in power longer, claim he has the "confidence" of at least one other party (one most Canadians see as most progressive, therefore legitimizing him again in eyes of some, many?) and allow him more time to set the agenda and push through gawd knows what other measures while the NDP is busy focusing on this one, albiet important, issue. 

I doubt he is that eager for an electon either, given that his lead is not that great and likely exagerated (as it usually is, and more Greens likley to swing Liberal again) so there is no reason to give him so much slack.  Think on what I'm saying here.  Seriously.  I'm not just doing this to be difficult. 

KenS

I would agree that it will look like he is supporting Harper when and if he votes with Harper on the determining confidence motion. [With the pro forma caveat: not if Harper makes concessions that surprise everyone, which is highly unlikely.]

But we are not there yet. I'm not so sure that even now people would see Fridays vote as supporting Harper. Except thats what the media will call it, so most will. But thats irrelevant, because whatever happens Friday will be massively trumprd by what happens with the confidence vote in a few weeks. Nobody but junkies will even remember Fridays vote.

Thats not a partisan point. [And note that even though I was late hearing the news when it happened, I was possibly the first person here to say that this time Iggy's not bluffing. And have gone on to say that so far it looks to me like the tables have turned so that Iggy and the Liberals are probably the party best situated such that it works for them either way- election or not.]

Stockholm

One thing we should all realize is that we are all in a bubble. We on babble and maybe a hundred or so other political junkies across Canada, plus a few inside the beltway journalists and politicos. Then there is the 99.99% of Canada that is outside the bubble who don't follow all this endless blow by blow and don't remember who said what to whom six months ago.

We live in two different worlds. My concern is what is absorbed by the 98% of voters who only pay attention to politics for about 5 minutes PER WEEK.

Bookish Agrarian

Erik - the average voter does not think that way.  The average voter sees this stuff and says to themselves 'what a bunch of tools, but at least Jack Layton seems to be talking about something I understand, doing their job, working together"  That's assuming they get past the tool part.  Which is probably not a given.

You are reading waaaay too much into some simple positioning.

The average voter is not even remotely ideological, including most left leaning voters. 

 

 

 

Parkdale High Park

Erik Redburn wrote:

Ken S, I get your point but you may be looking at it in too partisan a manner.  To the average voters it will look like he IS supporting Harper.  And Most Canadians are not and never will be CPC supporters, regardless of any reluctance to return to the polls again.  (thank Gawd for small mercies)

 

The relevant question here is "how have voters historically reacted to the NDP propping up governments?"

The answer is that it depends. In 1968 after getting the Liberals to enact medicare, the NDP made small gains (no small feat since this was at the height of Trudeaumania). In 1974, after two years of working with the Liberals, however, the NDP tanked losing 15 seats. In Ontario in 1987 the NDP gained support but lost seats after two years of an accord with the Liberals. So really it can go either way.

However, what seems consistent to me, is that when NDP cooperation has positive and marketable policy results (eg. medicare and the policy accomplishments generally popular accord) they do well. When there are no clear accomplishments that gets tougher.

 

 

KenS

More complex than that, or more key variables. The NDP was still getting positive policy results from its cooperation in 1974.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I'm disappointed today because IMHO, the one thing I notice most people pay attention to daily are the editorial cartoons.  It's all they have time to catch quite often, along with headlines.  And today's weren't good in the 2 main Toronto dailies.  Layton as a child reaching for a cookie jar labelled"Power"  and Layton wearing a female cheerleading uniform with a "C" on it saying "Gimme a C".  Guess which ran which.

Debater

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I'm disappointed today because IMHO, the one thing I notice most people pay attention to daily are the editorial cartoons.  It's all they have time to catch quite often, along with headlines.  And today's weren't good in the 2 main Toronto dailies.  Layton as a child reaching for a cookie jar labelled"Power"  and Layton wearing a female cheerleading uniform with a "C" on it saying "Gimme a C".  Guess which ran which.

Reminds me of the cartoon in the French papers in Quebec last week.  Layton has fallen into Ignatieff's trap - now the NDP is in the position of having to take the heat for supporting Harper.

Stockholm

The only "heat" is crocodile tears from the usual Liberal bloggers who are probably praying to God that Layton actually does vote down the non-confidence motion and saves the Liberals from themselves since its clear that Iggy is not ready for primetime.

The rest of the population (ie: everyone other than Liberal bloggers) would probably just be glad that someone saved them from having to go through an election so soon after the last one.

This brinkmanship is a lot tougher for the NDP than it is for the Liberals. The NDP needs to balance strategic considerations with questions of principle. There will always be people within the NDP "base" who will demand total adherence to principle to the point of self-destructiveness and as we all know the "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Whatever the NDP does, it has to be able to make the case that it is being principled.

The Liberals have a very one dimensional calculation. For them its 100% a stratgic decision. The Liberal "base" has absolutely no expecation that their party will do anything other than - what is good for the Liberal Party. If the Liberals were polling at below 20% and were flat broke right now, I guarantee you that Harper could bring in a bill calling for the sacrifice of the first born son of every family in Canada and declare it a confidence measure - and the Liberals would vote for the bill and you would never hear a peep from Liberal supporters - because they take it for granted that the ONLY thing that matters is what's good for the party.

If the Liberals want to prop up Harper, all they have to do is say "we will vote confidence in the Harper government because its not in our interest to have an election right now" - and everyone accepts that as a valid excuse. Imagine if Layton ever said "the NDP will vote confidence in Haroer because now is not a good time for us to have an election" - you'd never hear the end of all the hectoring and shrieking.

One of the truisms in Canadian politics is that the punditocracy will always hold the NDP to a vastly higher standard than the Liberals.

Erik Redburn

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Erik - the average voter does not think that way.  The average voter sees this stuff and says to themselves 'what a bunch of tools, but at least Jack Layton seems to be talking about something I understand, doing their job, working together"  That's assuming they get past the tool part.  Which is probably not a given.

You are reading waaaay too much into some simple positioning.

The average voter is not even remotely ideological, including most left leaning voters. 

 

Sorry BA but I have to disagree on this one again.  The average voter is more ideological than they think if they insist they're not at All ideoligical but purely pragmatic politically.   If they still follow the headlines afer thirty years of talking heads nd pundits telling them that Campbell, Harris, Harper et al aren't really so scarey (anymore) but really quite moderate...well. 

To the Revolutions Please's point, even just going by headlines, which too many think they can go by now, the NDp won't look good by this.  (Also a point of mine in another thread, regarding trying to win people over via the backstabbing media supporting Harpers "new image")  Think the CBc or TorStar will point out the liberals record of buckling now they got the man they wanted heading our "natural governing party"? 

Anyhow, enough on this, I will wait and see and hope you're all right that it's just more political positioning.  I'm not so confident anymore after all the other pronouncements made by head office recently, but I'm willing to wait awhile longer to see where Layton is leading us.  Peace out.

Stockholm

Its interesting that I suppose that you're a typical person who posts on babble and your entire social circle consists of people working for NGOs who wear mismatched socks - you might think that "everyone" in Canada hates Harper. But actually when i look at polls where people are asked to rate what they think of the Harper on a 4-point scale - only 15% of Canadians say that they STRONGLY disapprove of him, the other 85% either like him or only "somewhat" disapprove of him - which is not all that intense a sentiment.

Sad but true, that only very small proportion of Canadians really find Haroer to be the devil incarnate. I wish it were higher, but it simply isn't. 

Centrist

I'm still trying to come to a reasonable conclusion on this matter. OK, so the Libs intend to bring in a "non-confidence" motion within the next few weeks.

Again, the BQ appears that it will support that "non-confidence" motion. Some signals from the media makes one inclined to believe that the NDP will oppose that Lib motion. Again, does that mean that the NDP will be portrayed as supporting/having confidence in the Cons??

On that matter, has any opposition party brought forward a motion of "non-confidence" against the Cons since they held power? I just can't recall right now. 

 

 

Stockholm

"On that matter, has any opposition party brought forward a motion of "non-confidence" against the Cons since they held power. I just can't recall right now."

Yes, many times. The NDP and BQ put forth a number of non-confidence motions in the last parliament that failed and I think the Liberals at one point wrote up a non-confidence motion that was worded in such a way that it was designed to be impossible for the NDP or the BQ to support (ie: it contained glowing references to the glory of a united Canada and to how wonderful the previous Liberal government was etc...)

KenS

Centrist wrote:
Again, the BQ appears that it will support that "non-confidence" motion. Some signals from the media makes one inclined to believe that the NDP will oppose that Lib motion. Again, does that mean that the NDP will be portrayed as supporting/having confidence in the Cons??

Sounds like you may be confusing/blurring Friday's supply motion with the confidence vote expected in a few weeks. And/or blurring pundits comments on the two.

The supply motion on Friday is a confidence matter, but not a 'confidence motion'. A motion of non-confidence is different.

The media commentary has virtually all been about Friday's motion. As much as most of them like to diig at the NDP, only a few have even mentioned the possibility that the NDP might not vote with the Liberals on the motion of non-confidence... and even they have not gone on about it.

Erik Redburn

Stockholm wrote:

Its interesting that I suppose that you're a typical person who posts on babble and your entire social circle consists of people working for NGOs who wear mismatched socks - you might think that "everyone" in Canada hates Harper. But actually when i look at polls where people are asked to rate what they think of the Harper on a 4-point scale - only 15% of Canadians say that they STRONGLY disapprove of him, the other 85% either like him or only "somewhat" disapprove of him - which is not all that intense a sentiment.

Sad but true, that only very small proportion of Canadians really find Haroer to be the devil incarnate. I wish it were higher, but it simply isn't. 

 

RRrrrr.  Stockholm, I appreciate cheerful evil among sometimes team-mates as much as any other puck chasing Canuck, but have you not seen my other posts Re how many NDP Canucks are Really "centrists"...like You?   Like Ever?  And do you not think that if self-described "mainstream" members like You also Tried to dispel media illusions that Harper Isn't the devil incarnate (along with lesser daemons and spooks like Iggy and emay) you might also help the home team More.  Even if it also means helping the actual causes and aims of our dear departed Tommy and other reformers who made Canada just a wee bit better.  Even if Some of us Do wear mismatched socks?  (like when "we're" in a rush to get to the latest rally or group hug...)   One more then I retreat to other more amenable rabble banter, like other wiser Babblers have before me.   No. This time I mean it.  Really.

 

ETA:  There you go BA, one living breathing example of your "non-ideological" NDP-friendly Canuck.

KenS

Erik Redburn wrote:
Even if Some of us Do wear mismatched socks?  (like when "we're" in a rush to get to the latest rally or group hug...)  

Ah, thats sweet.

Nighty, night.

Smile

George Victor

Quite the thread.  Starts out with the late mahmoud posing the statement, "layton is afraid of an election", followed quickly by the usual assortment of ideologues in support of the statement, and then the thread finishes with the cooler heads considering whether the decision to support the Cons will help or hurt.

The Globe and Mail's Gable put Layton in the driver's seat, the "Toronto" papers did it to him, and generally all the media did their usual work of enlightening the Great Unread (not) by playing the usual partisan cards (very like babble in that way).

 

But I just wonder, if by some stroke of fate, Canada came to have a system of proportional representation, and government necessarily made up of parties negotiating to hold power in combination, just what it would do to those "made up" partisan minds "out there" and "in here"?  Mind-blowing thought, actually.

Frmrsldr

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

That sums it up right there. Case closed.

Frmrsldr

Buddy Kat wrote:

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

Two points:

"We must not allow a coalition of Liberals, socialists and separatists." - Stephen Harper. If Harper accepts Layton's 'olive branch' on EI, then his Conservative governmentent will be a coalition with 'socialists'. If the Bloc votes in favor of the ways and means measures Friday, then the Conservative minority government will be propped up by the 'separatists'.

Most Canadians do not want an election now. Viewed by most Canadians, the NDP offering to cooperate with the government to provide immediate improved assistance to Canada's unemployed, working to improve the economy and reducing the likelihood of an early election, will benefit the NDP. The only party that now (ostensibly) will oppose the Conservative government are the Liberals. The Liberal's perceived desire for an early election will hurt them. All things considered equal, perhaps in the next election (whenever that may be) the NDP will become the Official Opposition.

Frmrsldr

Caissa wrote:

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

Is it? That sounds a bit extreme. Losing sight of the trees for the forest, perhaps?

George Victor

Certainly losing sight of the realities of party politics in a national atmosphere of induced ignorance.

Frmrsldr

Caissa wrote:

Why does the price tag keep getting metioned re. elections?

Good point. The cost of elections isn't going to make or break the economy. The economy is already broken.

Ward

Maybe, the bloc and Ndp should continue tag teaming like this for a while just to maintain the liberals irrelevence. Who knows, the conservatives may develope a taste for dealing with treehugging -pinko-commies.

janfromthebruce

In reading one of my favourite blogs today it's titled:

Apparently Ignatieff's destiny is more imporant than the lives of unemployed Canadians

I liked what he reflected on as his girlfriend is now going to loss her job.

So once again for the those who can't seem to grasp it - the NDP have not said we will support the government, we have not said that the improvements in EI offered by Harper are sufficient, on the contrary 'a step in the right direction' very explicitly means that they aren't. Yet.

But if Harper offers sufficient improvements to EI to make real and immediate improvements for thousands of Canadian workers struggling with unemployment in these hard economic times then I don't see any reason not to take those gains. A billion dollars in improvements isn't chicken feed. It beats supporting them for no other reason but electoral expediency, while loudly decrying the motions you are voting to support and getting nothing for that support. 79 times in a row.

Voting, potentially, to change the Harper agenda is fundamentally, qualitatively different from repeatedly voting to sustain that agenda unchanged because rhetoric aside your party doesn't really oppose that agenda.

If you really don't see the difference than you really aren't paying attention.

"potentially changing the Harper agenda is fundamentality different than repeatedly voting to sustain that agenda." amen

Mr.Canada_ts

I don't believe that Jack Layton is afraid of an election but he just knows that if he votes against the EI package he will be doing so at his own peril.  As his voters up in Northern Ontario need this package badly.   I think he would suffer some serious backlash if this was allowed to not go through.

Same reason why the BQ are voting for it.  It's a non partisan bill in my pov.  Therefore can and should be voted on honestly as to what their constituents would wish.

janfromthebruce

yap, moving in the right direction.

Unionist

Harper's EI move is no more a step in the right direction than his $100 a month bonus for children was. It is a puny short-term discriminatory diversion from EI reform. It is also a trap set for the cowardly.

remind remind's picture

Not a thing saying that EI cannot be reformed, it is not an either or. Just as life never is an all or nothing reality.

Mr.Canada_ts

The PM is doing this to show Ignatieff to be uncooperative.  To show that Ignatieff walked away from the EI reform meetings.  To show that the PM is working with over parties.  With everyone voting with Harper it only looks like The Liberals are not working with other parties and I'm sure Harper will at some point paint Ignatieff as being against the working people. 

Harper needs to divert support from the Liberal party and funnel it to the NDP.  Harper needs to split the left vote in order to gain his majority.  Nothing this man does is by accident.  Ignatieff is simply out matched.

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:
Harper's EI move is no more a step in the right direction than his $100 a month bonus for children was. It is a puny short-term discriminatory diversion from EI reform. It is also a trap set for the cowardly.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

"The original quote in French is "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.", from Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764) Literally translated as "The best is the enemy of good.", but is more commonly cited as "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

In other words, pursuing the "best" solution may end up doing less actual good than accepting a solution that, while not perfect, is effective. One could also infer that the best makes that which is good seem to be worth less than it is."

Doug

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:
Nothing this man does is by accident.

The sweater-vests are on purpose? Surprised

boomerbsg

So much for the real opposition.

Mr.Canada_ts

Doug wrote:

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:
Nothing this man does is by accident.

The sweater-vests are on purpose? Surprised

Lol, it would appear to be so.  My guess is he was trying his best to appear grandfatherly and non threatening but he ended up looking quite silly...:)

NorthReport

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

The PM is doing this to show Ignatieff to be uncooperative.  To show that Ignatieff walked away from the EI reform meetings.  To show that the PM is working with over parties.  With everyone voting with Harper it only looks like The Liberals are not working with other parties and I'm sure Harper will at some point paint Ignatieff as being against the working people. 

Harper needs to divert support from the Liberal party and funnel it to the NDP.  Harper needs to split the left vote in order to gain his majority.  Nothing this man does is by accident.  Ignatieff is simply out matched.

Very well said.

 

londoninium

Why can't you Dippers just accept it?: you sold out!

Your principles are meaningless if you refuse to stand up for them when the chips are down. You had it easy for three years while the Liberals tore themselves apart and you annointed yourselves as the 'real' opposition based SOLELY on the fact that you unerringly voted against the government on confidence motions.

But the second that a situation comes along where you have to choose between adhering to your principles and acting out of self-preservation, you fold. The EI proposal by the Tories is a pittance, even when it isn't compared to your own party platform on the matter, which you seem to have completely abandoned now.

As of Friday (or at least after the first confidence motion the bloc votes against) the NDP will be the only reason why Stephen Harper is still in power.

- YOU are the reason GLBT events in Canada won't get proper funding

- YOU are the reason there will be a Conservative majority in the Senate by January

- YOU are the reason why Canadians abroad won't be able to rely on their government for reprieve or representation

The NDP is in bed with the Tories. Accept it. Wear it. You can blame the Liberals all you want for the events of the last three years but from now on the Tory government is your legacy.

Stockholm

Thanks for giving me my afternoon laugh!

I guuess word has gone out from Liberal HQ to start flooding the progressive blogosphere with their talking points. I'm assuming this is the latest vomit from Warren Kinsella.

I get the impression that NOTHING bothers the Liberals more than having to miss out on all those juicy senate appointments they would otherwise be giving to their hacks and bagmen.

"You can blame the Liberals all you want for the events of the last three years but from now on the Tory government is your legacy."

If you say so, I'll take your word for it - the Liberals are to be blamed for three and a half years of Tory rule and the NDP can be blamed for about three months.

NorthReport

It must be very frustrating to ses the once mighty Canada's "natural governing party" cut out of the decision-making process in Ottawa. What a comedown it has been.

Myself I'm pretty happy to see the NDP support an extra billion dollars to help Canada's unemployed.

Not surprised, but it's a real shame that the Ignatieff Liberals are voting against the Canadian workers. As A Canadian worker I am going to remember that when I go to the polls next time.

 

madmax

Topp Perspective 

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 02:13 PM

Worth waiting for

Brian Topp

However there was also some interesting analysis in the comments.

Quote:
I think this is a pretty frank assessment as far as it goes, Brian, but there are some other elements to this situation that need to be articulated by someone.

The NDP played a masterful strategic game during the events of last December, but made the potentially fatal political error of counting on a successful outcome to the coalition effort and not doing proper contingency planning. Stephane Dion's incomprehensible incomptence and Michael Ignatieff's coronation as Liberal leader changed the game, and the response from the NDP appeared peevish and self-interested. All advantages that could have been taken from the coalition project were squandered. When you consider that all that needed to happen was for the NDP leadership to throw up their hands, roll their eyes and make noises about the shallowness of Liberal commitments to anything, that's really hard to understand. In the ensuing months, you guys looked lost.

The second problem the NDP confronts was front and centre around the convention in Halifax this past summer. With an election pending, the political landscape left in turmoil by economic events of the last year and the situation ripe for a political agenda drawn straight from social democratic ideas, how did the NDP brain trust invest the opportunity provided by a convention in a province that just elected an NDP government for the first time? With a stupidly conceived, amateurishly executed effort to force an ill-considered name change on the party. Talk about wasted opportunity.



Maysie Maysie's picture

Holy moly long thread. Just trying to spice things up. "Closing, long thread" is so boring isn't it.

Pages

Topic locked