Monday, September 21, 2009

The NDP Need To Pick a Side, huh?

That's what Ignatieff told us.

It seems like a stupid thing to say, but it's not the first.

The retort is blatantly simple. The "sides" in this discussion are not "conservative politicians" and "liberal politicians". One does not choose "sides" between two sets of elites.

The side that the NDP has taken is that of the recently unemployed, the victims of the banking shenanigans that caused the economic mess in which we find ourselves. They took the side of some of the worse off.

Maybe it's not a side that entered in to Mr. Ignatieff's thoughts. Maybe he's a little too mired in politics to realize that he's supposed to be on the side of the people, not the side of a political party.

Mr. Layton's move was surely calculated. I'm sure polls and party financing entered in to it. To pretend otherwise is naive. These things are always calculated.

But in this case he did pick a side: the side of people. It may mean voting with the Liberal Party - occasionally. It may mean voting with the Conservative party - somewhat less frequently. But straying from one party to another doesn't mean he doesn't have a philosophical guideline, which seems to be Ignatieff's implication.

Nice try, Iggy. Better luck next time.

Recommend this PostProgressive Bloggers

9 comments:

Mark Francis said...

The NDP is lacking money for a campaign. It's that simple.

Next, the legislation is the pits, and most certainly does not help the worst off, unless they've been lucky enough to have been employed for a very long time.

This is all just playing Harper's game, where he pits one party after another so he can get what he wants.

Which is of course, an election call when he wants, maximizing the chance for a majority.

At which time, only Harper will be calling the shots without interference.

In light of that, selling out for a billion is cheap.

janfromthebruce said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
janfromthebruce said...

Really Mark, did the NDP give you their audit statements?
Iggy doesn't tell the NDP what to do - but he sure sounds arrogant.
What Iggy has shared is that "the red conservatives will let the public know what they will do once elected" - trust us!
ah, no thanks, I remember 1993 liberal redbook.
Libs making promises and being iffy just don't cut it with this progressive.
Good post DTK - talk to the hand, right?
* note to self - proofread before pressing send. LOL

Mark Francis said...

The NDP is 500k behind on fundraising. It's a matter of record.

And, wow, politicians who didn't keep promises! Really?

And the NDP's perfect record is because... they've never been elected to government. It's easy to be perfect when there's no record to defend.

Of course, we've seen the NDP break all kinds of promises provincially.

They are just like every other political party when it comes to promises.

Jack had better grow some amazing roses out of this turd.

leftdog said...

Jan ... Mark is merely repeating the same 4 or 5 talking points that the Liberal bloggers were emailed to pound out on the blogs. He has been repeating the same line ... site after site ... for days now.

This is merely a few Lib bloggers working and acting like the political lemmings they have proven themselves to be of late.

Dylan said...

Are you suggesting that had the Liberals came out and stated that they would support the government's ways-and-means motion, like they had the January Budget, like they had on Harper's first fiscal report in June, that Jack would have gone against 4 year track record? If Jack stamps around talking about how the Liberals have propped up the CPC 79 times, coincidentally, 79 times that he has voted AGAINST the government, you're really suggesting that Friday he was going to end that streak whether or not the Liberals or Bloc was with him.

Really? That this ways-and-means motion was on the side of "the people" more than the January budget - a budget that if brought down would have sent us into an election. Against the June fiscal update, that if defeated, would have sent Canadians into an election situation?

You're saying that on Friday - September 18, 2009 - the interests of "the people" had shifted from decrying a January budget and going to the polls, from seething at the June fiscal update, from all the in-between drama in parliament that Jack had voted in favour to end; to a position where the passing of a WAYS AND MEANS motion was critical.

That's your stance? Really?

Ok. Good to know.

Greg said...

Yes, Dylan, that's what I'm telling you.

Previous budgets and supplementary budget motions - ways-and-means and what have you - did not have anything in them that matched the philosophy of the NDP.

So the NDP voted against them.

This particular motion contains an extension of EI benefits for certain hard-working, long-employed folk who have been hit by this recession.

So the NDP voted for it.

Parliament is not a schoolyard (Question Period notwithstanding). One does not pick one's favourite bully and stick to him. One chooses a moral position and sticks to that.

Dylan said...

Phew! Thanks for clarifying Greg.

So all of that about not just EXTENDING EI benefits, what was at the heart of the NDP vote against the Conservative Jan budget and other budgetary updates, but opening up the application process to thousands of Canadians who are ineligible, that is sidelined in order to gain MORE EI for those who currently eligible.

Are you saying that the NDP philosophy is now "take what you can get" as opposed to, what I always believed, "fight for what's right"? Which said fight would have been an election if this were January and not September.

"The people" deserved better in January and they deserve better now. That's my position. But you seem to be resigned, as with the rest of the NDP caucus, to take what they can get.

Iggy put his money where his mouth is. If the NDP had any right now, I'm sure they would have done the same instead of hiding behind "the people."

Greg said...

Dylan.

We have a democracy. In a democracy, no one gets everything they want, but everyone gets something.

The populace did not vote for a 100% NDP government. Therefore, the NDP does not get to implement 100% of their philosophy.

So yes; it's about taking what you can get. More people voted Conservative than NDP, so you're going to get general policies that are more Conservative than NDP.

Would you prefer the NDP get nothing for its constituency unless the Conservatives were willing to give everything? That won't happen and it's that kind of stubborn behaviour the Conservatives have used to stop everything they can in Parliament.

The NDP saw an opportunity, a gap between the Liberals and Conservatives, to get a portion of their platform implemented. So they took it.

That may be cynical. That may be calculated. I will not argue.

What I do call "shenanigan" on Iggy's declaration that the NDP have to "pick a side" of either Liberal or Conservative.