Jack Layton has led the NDP into a dark and backwards position. Their moves don’t have to make sense any longer, so long as they make more seats in the next election.
Mrvn Mouse, and Red Tory, and many others are piling on the shaming of a party that used to be the most principled party in the House.
Layton has the party faithful scratching their heads as to what is going on. A hint: It’s for next election, not what the party’s platform stands for.
–
I’ve been so swamped today with moving, applying to jobs and such, that I haven’t had time to fix the Progressivebloggers.ca front page code which went funny after an update, for Internet Explorer users. My apologies to anyone relying on that piece of turd web browser. Hang in there, or flip to Firefox, and I’ll have a fix shortly I hope.
UPDATE: I’ve managed to find the biggest problem in the code, an extra heading tag slipped in. So with that gone, IE users should have a normal experience again.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Sean. S. | 24-Apr-07 at 11:36 pm | Permalink
My original post did have me scratching my head, as you will see in the updated one I have exercised some of those demons from my head.
If you actually read into the motion and the NDPs reason’s for voting it down (which I originally didn’t, which is bad on my part) you will see that they were forced to take a principled stand…which unfortunately meant the perceived bad optics (on first glance at least) of supporting the Conservatives.
So I think it would be wise to define the meaning of the first line of your post, since you are implying that the NDP did something against its own principles/policy, which it didn’t…
Lance | 24-Apr-07 at 11:50 pm | Permalink
The NDP made the correct choice. Now they are the only ones who can campaign on Afghanistan. It’s a dead issue as far as the Liberals go. They endorsed it, nothing left to say.
Dumb on their part.
Cheers,
lance
Werner Patels | 25-Apr-07 at 12:09 am | Permalink
Layton did the right thing — it was a principled move, and his stock has gone up YET AGAIN! He’s the best leader we have in the House right now (in fact, he is the best and most professional leader of any political party in Canada right now).
Jan Johnstone | 25-Apr-07 at 6:09 am | Permalink
So does that mean the libs are for the continued tortore, killing and so on of Afghanistan detainees until 2009 in the South? And of course, after that when you want them moved to 2010 to somewhere else in Afghanistan? Just wondering?
canuckistanian | 25-Apr-07 at 11:05 am | Permalink
well, i think we can stop speculating about the “backroom deal” between the ndp and the conservatives…or we can just assume the ndp have lost there frickin’ minds! either way, not good.
blogging a dead horse | 25-Apr-07 at 11:55 am | Permalink
Check out military analyist Steve Staples blog. He had an interesting seat in all this.
It turns out that he and others acted as go-betweens between the Liberals and NDP to craft a better motion, but the Liberals wouldn’t play ball. They were more interested in politics than having their motion pass. Staples writes:
“The Liberal motion was uncritical of the military mission and supported its continuance unchanged . . . We urged the Liberals to make a small amendment to their motion in order to win NDP support, and Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Peggy Mason actually suggested specific changes to the language that would likely have been palatable to both Liberals and the NDP. We sent the suggestions to every Liberal and NDP Member of Parliament. The NDP even proposed an amendment during the debate, but the Liberals rejected it.”
http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/what-was-stephane-dion-thinking/