Well, well, the NDP are getting closer to Harpercon mentality, aren’t they? As retired History professor and broadcaster and sometimes contributor here at SSM, Graeme Decarie pointed out, the NDP no longer stand for much, do they? But I disagree, they are no longer gentle even.
In addition to doing everything possible to contradict the Liberals, including supporting Harpercons, he no longer seems to be an adament supporter of our health care system. It was disappointing to see that Jack Layton, who once upon a time joined liberals like Ujjal Dosangh, going to the U.S. to defend our health care system, basically, shut the fuck up when Charest announced proposed that 25$ user fee everytime we use the health care system.
After watching MP Megan Leslie on Question Period crying about how heartbreaking it is to see diviseness in the house of commons over gun control and even musing about long gun registry (by extension, gun control; because, with those Harpercons, it never ends at just one cut; they throw the baby out with the bath water; wait and see, Harpercons will turn our streets very much like in the U.S.,) not being such a good idea. I (as well as others, I’m sure) got the idea that Leslie was blaming the Liberal camp as she was looking at Kirsty Duncan’s screen rather than at Twiggy-Mullet-head Hoeppner when she was ranting. Megan, you should find it more heartbreaking that Brother Steve wants to endager us by eliminating gun control. Remember another thing he does well; slow-cooking the frog.
Now, it’s confirmed by notable absences by NDP MPs So, NDP starts to resemble Steve more and more (minus the theocracy; give that time) as we further approach ourselves to that American way of life of walking the streets, armed with a gun. It’s one thing for Jack to allow his MPs to vote their conscience; it’s quite another to be completely indifferent to the matter of gun control. Also, unlike Iggy, Jack didn’t even offer any alternatives or propose modifications to the long gun registry.
Ever since the British elections and their novelty coalition, I read more and more suggesting a Harpercon-NDP partnership rather than a Liberal-NDP partnership: something I’ve mentioned for years, a vibe I’ve had for awhile now.
Jack has steered his party more toward the center, that much has been quite obvious; whether it was because Jack still thinks he can be PM or he did it simply to annoy the Liberals, is definitely a hint of something to come.
In addition to not supporting gun control or the Canada Health Act, I don’t hear him jumping up at Question Period to hammer the Harpercons over the head with the cuts to all those programs and funding for for groups like Bible translators and Youth For Christ the way Gilles Duceppe did.
Furthermore, I wonder why we criticize the Liberals for trying to avoid either having Steve or they, themselves, trigger and election over the Detainee document issue, yet not as many are criticizing the NDP for doing the same.
I have observed that trend of critiques: when the NDP plays ball with Harpercons, they’re applauded for trying to work with Parliament: when the Liberals do it, it’s considered whimpy. If Iggy and the Liberals suffer from Battered woman’s syndrome as a few bloggers have put it, the NDP are enablers.
Even Norman Spector’s column yesterday indicated that Jack Layton wasn’t able to find a dance partner, indicating to me he would get into bed with anybody who could lift him to cabinet. However, more and more, it looks less and less that it would be with the Liberals, leading me and no doubt others to wonder if Jack’s relationship with Steve would be my enemy’s enemy is my friend.
Remember how violently most Canadians reacted to that proposed coalition in 2009? I suspect that is why Iggy won’t go down that road. He notices the pattern of the Harpercon cheerleaders in the media give him and/or his party a beating everytime they try something. It’s why he backs away. Many would remember even many Liberal and NDP supporters not even going along with that coalition. Yes, different circumstances, nobody wanted Stephane Dion as prime minister; guess what? The same number don’t appear to want Iggy as prime minister neither.
However an NDP and Harpercon merger, well, Harpercon cheerleaders would love it because it would strengthen their numbers and NDP supporters would seem to think that they will be able to keep Steve moderate. Problem with that thinking is that it wouldn’t happen quite that way.
The idea of a Jack Layton-Brother Steve ‘partnership’ (more like hostile take-over…but anyway) also just seems more feasable than a Liberal/NDP partnership, simply because at this time, Steve has the best shot to hang onto power. Jack might see that getting into bed with Steve is his best chance at cabinet posts for his party. Given what we have either learned or have forgotten with the elections in Britain, we have learned that even if the Liberals under any leader win a minority, Steve has every right to continue as PM and to form the government. That would be the only circumstance I would see Steve welcoming Jack. Unlike Trudeau and Martin who gracefully stepped down after losing to minority parliaments, I don’t see Steve with his King mentality wanting to throw the towel in that quickly. No, he will do what he does best; a hostile take over.
If the next election yields him another minority, but a weakened one, he will still need a party to be in bed with; lock, stock and barrel.
NDP supporters who would perhaps welcome a partnership with the Harpercons should be careful what they wish for. Steve will be able to get his theocracy at full-throttle. Remember before Reform merged with Progressive Conservative: Steve predicted this merger and he also said that Progressive Conservative was not going to win. That, alone should determine that the NDP would disappear.
Jack, I see where your choice would be leading to; be very careful. Yes, Layton will get into bed with another party, the question is which one. Unless there is some miracle and Layton is all of a sudden playing nicely with the Liberals and MPs like Mulcair the mouth can stop slamming the liberals for five minutes while either on the big tv screen or on the radio, I see this becoming more of a Harpercon hostile take over.
![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Keep in mind that when the conbots where screaming “coup” with respect to the Dion coalition, Layton defended the move by pointing out that he, Harpy, and Duceppe had tried the same thing during the dying days of the Martin government.
ck Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 7:56 PM
I pointed out in an earlier post that he almost went to bed with Harpercons. I even linked the letter to that post.
Of course, the historical record is that it was the NDP that actually put the kibosh on attempt to install Harper as PM in 2004. From Brian Topp’s How We Almost Gave The Tories The Boot, p. 36:
Confronted with (Gilles Duceppe’s statement that he would accept Harper as PM), and in these circumstances, Layton concluded he and our party had no obvious interest in making Stephen Harper prime minister. He therefore withdrew from the three-party group. No longer in control of the entire Opposition bench, the two other opposition parties then met with Martin and cobbled together a deal that kept the Liberal government in office for a few more months.
In fact, Layton’s track record is one of doing everything within his power to ensure the Cons aren’t in control (that decision, his choice to make a budget deal with Martin rather than bringing down the Libs when Adscam was at its worst, and his assembling the coalition in 2008 when the Cons expected him to kick the Libs while they were down). So the imagined prospect of the NDP showing any interest in a formal coalition with the Cons seems fairly certainly destined to remain just that.
Other than the ‘letter’, ev link is Opinion. No idea of what your on about. “NDP supporters who would perhaps welcome a partnership with the Harpercons should be careful what they wish for.” There isn’t a ndp supporter in Canada that ‘wishes’ a partnership with the Cons, a stake thru the party perhaps, but a coalition, that’s as bad as Iggy implying an ndp/con coalition in ’09 when Layton supported the IE changes, because some Con bot said Easteners were loafer bastards or some such. Sheesh.
ck Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 1:32 AM
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper, September 9, 2004
They were ready to form an unholy alliance together in 2004-2005 to get Martin out of power.
Never mind Iggy, I’ve been observing for a few years now. Steve divides and conquers; he governs case by case; he only needs one party to keep him swimming on confidence issues; he doesn’t care who it is at any given time. Layton will go to bed with Steve when it suits him, the odd time go to bed with the Liberals even less of the time. Then he and his MPs trash the Liberals and seem to do and say things just for the sake of being contrary to the Liberals.
We’ve all been observing. Layton and Iggy and Harper, it’s a threesome. I think the difference between us is that you believe that our system is democratic, I do not. I think the government is an instrument of the ruling class. Just me.
ck Reply:
May 15th, 2010 at 8:23 AM
This one is certainly proving this more than others. It will get worse if Steve succeeds in removing the 1.95$ per vote subsidy.
The question becomes do you want this theocratic totalitarian regime until the end of time? I hate the corporate ruling class, but do you want the evangelical right to rule on top of that.
Democracy or not: most have proven they don’t know nor do they understand democracy and they seem content to remain that way.
For me, it’s not to gain anything right now (baby steps), I simply don’t want to lose what little we do have left. Getting back what Steve has taken away has to come from a different government in power.
Not going out to vote is just more helpful to Steve.
Steve has proven different than the rest. He’s just much worse and promises a life of regression.