babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » NDP playing footsie with Harper

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: NDP playing footsie with Harper
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 15 November 2007 04:25 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another opportunity for those folks who like to remind us about the NDP being patsies for the government, paving the way for Harper's secret agenda.

FromTories' proposed rule changes for Commons committees rile opposition:

quote:
Motions that are not quickly debated would die, the number of questions that the New Democrats could ask would be reduced...

And [whip Jay Hill] added that the fact the New Democrats get a number of questions at many committees that is disproportionate to their representation in the House is "something that has irritated the hell out of me."



From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 November 2007 04:54 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of patsies, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the NDP calling for the Liberals to be included in the Mulroney-KHS-Airbus investigation for a $10K donation they had received.

We couldn't have left that for the Conservatives to bring up? Did someone really think that joining the pile-on in the pig pen was a necessity?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 05:10 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What have we got to lose by tarring the Liberals and Conservatives with the same brush of corruption?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 November 2007 05:30 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Respect for the entire political system, perhaps?

I'd rather let the neolibs and neocons roll about in the mire, and point out fixes that could reform the system and limit the damage they can do.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 15 November 2007 06:02 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Should we be surprised? It's all about control.

quote:
Yvon Godin, the NDP whip, said the Conservatives are ready to give more questions to Independents who are willing to vote with the government than to the New Democrats, who have 30 MPs.

The proposed rule changes mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper "is trying to run all parties the way he is trying to run his own," Mr. Godin said. "It's his way or the highway."



From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 15 November 2007 06:41 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry Ken S, but how do you figure the NDP is playing "patsie" with the Conservatives on their attempt to LIMIT the NDP's questions at committees?

Let's be clear, if anyone is propping up the Conservatives right now it is the Liberals, who are abstaining or endorsing everything Harper and Co bring to the House...all in a lame, self-serving attempt to avoid an election and the ensuing political meltdown.

Already in the last month the Libs have given the thumbs up to a Speech from the Throne that killed Dion's cherished Kyoto Accord and a mini budget that handed out $50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

On this and every confidence motion that has come before the House under the Tories, the NDP has stood up to the Tories. Unlike the Libs.

So lets keep to the facts shall we.


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 15 November 2007 06:59 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyRiddle:
I'm sorry Ken S, but how do you figure the NDP is playing "patsie" with the Conservatives on their attempt to LIMIT the NDP's questions at committees?

My guess is KenS was being ironic.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 15 November 2007 07:14 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's always surprising how much irony goes awry online.

Awrony ??

And I suspect LTJ jumping in there with that immediately helped it become awrony.

The problem with not joining in the 'rolling in the mud' of scandals is that people do care. Sure there is all too much sensationalism, and it undermines peoples' faith in any principles being out there.

But this stuff also matters to the politically motivated- to the unaligned as well as the partisans.

There is no neat line between talking about wrongdoing and talking about democratic reform. It's just like every other issue. If you don't talk about it in the form it is already out there- the bus leaves you behind.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 November 2007 07:24 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The irony here resides in the fact that the NDP continues to target the Liberals when it is now the Conservatives who are on the rampage.

Do a better job of being an effective opposition to an anti-democratic government, and you'll get yourself noticed in a good way. Snipe at the fellows on the benches beside you, and the attention you'll draw to yourself won't be very productive.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 15 November 2007 07:33 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like I was giving you more benefit of the doubt than you were due LTJ.

It doesn't matter to you how often the NDP goes after the Conservatives. All that matters to you is that the NDP is not supposed to attack the Liberals.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 November 2007 07:37 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
~ yawn ~
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 15 November 2007 07:54 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LTJ is exhibiting all the symptoms of Liberalitis.

It is similar to Stockholm syndrome (no relation to the regular babble poster) where the kidnapped feel sympathy for the kidnapper. In people like newspaper heiress Patti Hearst it led her to rob banks for terrorists.

Liberalitis, however, is sadly a much more common condition where patients lose all critical thought and believe that whatever is bad for the Liberal Party of Canada is bad for all Canadians.

However valid and proven the allegations of incompetence or wrongdoing, patients are adamant that the Liberals must, at all times, be considered above reproach. Liberalitis is most commonly found among Press Gallery hacks (hello Susan Delacourt) and the CBC.

LTJ's continued rantings and ravings in favour of a thoroughly discredited party suggest a stronger dose of Liberal bashing is in order.

Either that or his doctor should order him a lobotomy and a lifetime membership to the Liberal Party of Canada and be done with him.


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 November 2007 08:09 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
What have we got to lose by tarring the Liberals and Conservatives with the same brush of corruption?

Other than credibility? Nothing I guess.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 15 November 2007 08:17 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Other than credibility? Nothing I guess.


Why would we lose credibility?


From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 November 2007 08:33 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo:

Why would we lose credibility?


Because it makes it look like partisan politics rather than focusing on the main issue. Just as if, during Gomery, someone had brought up some insignificant or remote example of Tory corruption.

By the way, I really find posts like JimmyRiddle's offensive. Those who can't deal with people's ideas, comments and proposals without insulting them personally should use the thread specially created for that purpose (push button below). It's the quickest way to derail any thread, besides detracting attention from any serious contribution the posters (both abuser and abused) may have had to make.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 08:42 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If there are genuine examples of malfeasance by liberals in the Schreiber affair - then by all means - the NDP has a DUTY to point it out. People should know that the two big business parties are corrupt and on the take!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 08:48 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Liberalitis, however, is sadly a much more common condition where patients lose all critical thought and believe that whatever is bad for the Liberal Party of Canada is bad for all Canadians.

However valid and proven the allegations of incompetence or wrongdoing, patients are adamant that the Liberals must, at all times, be considered above reproach. Liberalitis is most commonly found among Press Gallery hacks (hello Susan Delacourt) and the CBC.


I totally agree. The CBC/G&M types and all the brain-dead Think 200 Times Coalition types act as if this is Britain during the reign of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan "roundheads" (aka the Tories) - and that we all have a God-given duty to restore the monarchy (ie: the Grits)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 10:07 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
Another opportunity for those folks who like to remind us about the NDP being patsies for the government, paving the way for Harper's secret agenda.

FromTories' proposed rule changes for Commons committees rile opposition:



Now this is rich.
After pulling the plug on the enfeebled, scandal-ridden Liberals in the 2005-2006 election (thereby killing NDP negotiated progressive legislation including childcare) Jack Layton said he could and would work with Harper.
So now that one side (surprise, surprise) doesn't see an advantage to playing nicely anymore, it's somehow proof that those who questioned, in the first place, the NDP's bean-counting, parliamentary "strategic voting" to gain a few more seats from the moribund Liberals were wrong because--well, because the Cons no longer want to play. Now that's chutzpah.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 10:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that in Nov. 2005, the NDP had ZERO leverage with the Liberals because the NDP didn't have enough seats to prevent the Liberals from losing a non-confidence motion - so the central premise of your post is absurd.

Paul Martin engineered his own defeat because he thought he could get a majority - his plan backfired and now the liberals try to blame everyone and everything except themselves.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 15 November 2007 10:32 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And say, didn't Paul Martin promise to call an election six months after Gomery's report? Which would have been, er, round November/December 2005...

Unless the former Liberal leader was lying to Canadians.


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 15 November 2007 11:03 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyRiddle:
And say, didn't Paul Martin promise to call an election six months after Gomery's report? Which would have been, er, round November/December 2005...

Unless the former Liberal leader was lying to Canadians.


Um, the first phase of the Gomery report was released on November 1st 2005. So December was 1 month.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 15 November 2007 11:07 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

Now this is rich.
After pulling the plug on the enfeebled, scandal-ridden Liberals in the 2005-2006 election (thereby killing NDP negotiated progressive legislation including childcare) Jack Layton said he could and would work with Harper.
So now that one side (surprise, surprise) doesn't see an advantage to playing nicely anymore, it's somehow proof that those who questioned, in the first place, the NDP's bean-counting, parliamentary "strategic voting" to gain a few more seats from the moribund Liberals were wrong because--well, because the Cons no longer want to play. Now that's chutzpah.

what's rich is you should know very well that this theory/opinion has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed as impossible in countless threads right here on babble, too numerous to bother linking to them all.

so if you are done with the blatant silliness and thread drift, let's get back to the topic at hand before it develops more awrony.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 11:21 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Except that in Nov. 2005, the NDP had ZERO leverage with the Liberals because the NDP didn't have enough seats to prevent the Liberals from losing a non-confidence motion - so the central premise of your post is absurd.


The "premise" of my post was not that the NDP held the total balance of power through its votes alone (though the non-confidence play would have been much less likely at this time if the NDP, working for it's progressive legislation, had put arguments forward against bringing down the government immediately, instead of actively collaborating with the bloc and Cons on the strategy and wording of the motion).

Although I am happy to see a change in current NDP strategy now more willing to attack the Cons, during the election itself (and for some time after), there was a conscious decision to lay off the Cons them as Liberal pickings were easier. I hope it is not too little too late.

The point of my post was a rejoinder to the supposed evidence that the critics of the NDP-Con quid pro quo, were wrong simply because the Cons have now decided it is in their power and better interests to play "hardball" against the NDP.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 11:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The job of opposition parties is primarily to attack the government. In the last election, the Liberals were the government (and a dreadfully low quality one at that) and the role of all opposition parties was to attack them - not to waste time attacking each other.

Its not the NDP's job to be handmaidens and apologists to a party of corrupt incompetents like Paul Martin and his brain-dead advisors.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 11:31 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by farnival:

what's rich is you should know very well that this theory/opinion has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed as impossible in countless threads right here on babble, too numerous to bother linking to them all.

so if you are done with the blatant silliness and thread drift, let's get back to the topic at hand before it develops more awrony.



And what you say "three times is true".
Thread drift? Get a grip, my post was in direct response to the argument originally put forward.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 15 November 2007 11:32 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With regards to the whole NDP aspect of this. I don't really mind if they get a disproportionately high number of questions in committee, as long as they have a disproportionally low number of seats in the house.

quote:
Motions that are not quickly debated would die.... and at least one government and one opposition member would be required for quorum.

So... to do the math... Stephen Harper can kill a motion by pulling his party from the committee?!


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 12:15 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The job of opposition parties is primarily to attack the government.

or not:
"Asked how long he believes another minority government could last, Layton said it could hold on for months or years if it's willing to negotiate.

Although the NDP was able to find some common ground with the Liberals in the previous fractured Parliament, there have been doubts raised about what kind of relationship the New Democrats could forge with Conservatives in the new House of Commons.

He said his party has not begun to analyze any proposals the Conservatives plan to bring forward and would not comment on whether he'll support specific Tory promises.

But he said he believes both parties share the common ground of wanting to improve living standards for working families.

"We'll have our different views on precisely how that can be accomplished," he said, "and it's our responsibility to find ways to do that."

"We feel that when you bring good ideas forward in the context of a Parliament where no one party has been given the absolute authority to proceed, then you roll up your sleeves, you discuss, you negotiate . . . ""
NDP to Play Vital Role in Next Parliament: Layton


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 15 November 2007 12:28 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Its not the NDP's job to be handmaidens and apologists to a party of corrupt incompetents like Paul Martin and his brain-dead advisors.
I agree - or at least, I agreed at the time that Paul Martin was Liberal leader, both as Prime Minister and during the election.

But as Lou Reed sings: Man, those were different times. Now Stephen Harper occupies the PMO, and the Dion Liberals are not currently a threat.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 12:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now Stephen Harper occupies the PMO, and the Dion Liberals are not currently a threat.

...and that is why the NDP now spends about 90% of its time attacking the Conservatives and only mentions the Liberals in the context of dismissing them as irrelevant.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 12:55 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

...and that is why the NDP now spends about 90% of its time attacking the Conservatives and only mentions the Liberals in the context of dismissing them as irrelevant.



You wouldn't guess it from some of the avid "NDP" posters on babble.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 01:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As long as there are partisan Liberal party apologists putting forth their talking points on babble - i will attack them. No one here tries to defend the Harper government, so there is no one to argue with.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 15 November 2007 02:26 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
As long as there are partisan Liberal party apologists putting forth their talking points on babble - i will attack them. No one here tries to defend the Harper government, so there is no one to argue with.

Noble sentiments, but there is more than one poster who's always running interference for Harper who you could add to your apologists list. Here's a sample:
"quote:Huh? When did the Conservatives move left?

Well let's see:

-recognizing Quebec as a nation
-making sure that any attempt to "reopen" equal marriage would fail
-a budget with the biggest increases in spending in the last 15 years
-all Reform Party inspired "direct democracy" crap like referenda and recall have been scrapped.
-no attempts to expand two-tiered health care
-no significant income tax cuts
-nothing has been privatized
-the abortion issue is dead and buried
-ditching the income trust loophole

etc...

Now, anyone can argue that this has only been done for opportunistic reasons and that if they thought they could get away with it - the CPC would be much more rightiwng than it is. But that's not the point. Since taking power they have cut a few things that were of symbolic value to their base (ie: a few Status of Women Canada offices and the Court Challenges) - but other than that, almost nothing has changed since the Liberals were in power and a lot of ideological rightwingers are hopping mad about and and considering recreating the Reform Party! "
apologists


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 November 2007 02:57 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not trying to tell people they should vote for the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out that they and the Liberals are equally rightwing with only a few minor differences - for example the Liberals want deeper corporate tax cuts than do the Conservatives.

I think that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are stymied by being in minority situations. Imagine, if Paul Martin had won a majority? He probably would have made Tom Wappell Justice Minister and embarked on a rightwing reign of terror while he curried favour with the oil-patch.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 15 November 2007 06:03 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Because it makes it look like partisan politics rather than focusing on the main issue. Just as if, during Gomery, someone had brought up some insignificant or remote example of Tory corruption.

By the way, I really find posts like JimmyRiddle's offensive. Those who can't deal with people's ideas, comments and proposals without insulting them personally should use the thread specially created for that purpose (push button below). It's the quickest way to derail any thread, besides detracting attention from any serious contribution the posters (both abuser and abused) may have had to make.


And then babble ought to introduce a feature where there's a Mommy!!! button for Michelle and a Daddy!!! button for Oldgoat. I totally agree with that premise and I'm not at all being sarcastic.

But you know, I have to disagree with the first assertion that this is purely partisan call on anyones behalf. Obviously there are partisan implications, but that doesn't mean the call shouldn't be made. I think that any opposition party, whether they're the official opposition, or a third-party, or a fourth-party has an obligation to shed light on possible corruption. If they don't do that they're abandoning their jobs and we ought not to elect them in the first place.

[ 15 November 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 15 November 2007 06:15 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't have trouble with this:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/5901
This mentions the Liberals in the Con scandal but only in a passing way-- also the big focus is what working families deserve....
(Although I am not enjoying the working families showing up in everything- I feel it is in the same vein as the "taxpayers" comment. I think we should be more inclusive when it is a non-working related point-- All Canadians deserve better including those who are unemployed, sick, seniors etc-- but still this is a minor quibble on a good press release)

As far as the NDP going after Liberals or conservatives I like to see the NDP draw blood at any opportunity on either one. That said, it should not sound like opportunism or automatic. But there are tons of targets that are pretty good.

By the way look at this: http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php
Choose "New Liberal Ad" .... Sweet!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 15 November 2007 10:56 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now this is rich.
After pulling the plug on the enfeebled, scandal-ridden Liberals in the 2005-2006 election (thereby killing NDP negotiated progressive legislation including childcare) Jack Layton said he could and would work with Harper.
So now that one side (surprise, surprise) doesn't see an advantage to playing nicely anymore, it's somehow proof that those who questioned, in the first place, the NDP's bean-counting, parliamentary "strategic voting" to gain a few more seats from the moribund Liberals were wrong because--well, because the Cons no longer want to play. Now that's chutzpah.

As one of the posters who has ad nauseum made those accustations summarised in the bolded part, you would know that they were at the time and numerous times since refuted ad nauseum.

Briefly: On the second round between the NDP and the Martin government, in the run-up to the confidence motion- the Libs told the NDP to pound sand. They preferred an election they figured they could win.

You are free to hold the opinion the NDP should have voted with the Martin government no matter what else was involved- but don't throw all that other drivel in.

Obviously, when I started this thread it was pretty transperent baiting. But the baiting wasn't a reference back to that old stuff.

The reference is to the fact that people like you bring up the NDP playing footsie every time the NDP holds out the possibility of negotiating with the government to get something done.

How many times have we been treated to comments about services performed for Harper?

quote:
The point of my post was a rejoinder to the supposed evidence that the critics of the NDP-Con quid pro quo, were wrong simply because the Cons have now decided it is in their power and better interests to play "hardball" against the NDP.

Your point must be a rejoinder to some straw person. Doesn't address anything said here.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621

posted 16 November 2007 08:19 AM      Profile for St. Paul's Progressive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I'm not trying to tell people they should vote for the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out that they and the Liberals are equally rightwing with only a few minor differences - for example the Liberals want deeper corporate tax cuts than do the Conservatives.

I think that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are stymied by being in minority situations. Imagine, if Paul Martin had won a majority? He probably would have made Tom Wappell Justice Minister and embarked on a rightwing reign of terror while he curried favour with the oil-patch.


I agree that the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives are often exaggerated. The Liberals are for the most part not progressive especially on economic issues. On the whole I would say they are centre to centre-right.

However there is certainly a perception that there's a big difference between them. My guess is Liberal voters are actually closer to NDP voters than Conservative voters. And there are some pretty progressive Liberals like Carolyn Bennett and Ken Dryden.

People may choose to vote strategically but it won't really work unless the Libs and NDP agree to not seriously contest certain ridings. The Libs propose it but aren't serious.

In the end I would like to see the left-Libs in the same party as the NDP but that's a long way off. Simply calling for strategic voting to stop Harper doesn't work and people like John Manley or Maurizio Bevilacqua don't belong in a progressive party.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: Sheldon Gordon ]


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 November 2007 08:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My guess is Liberal voters are actually closer to NDP voters than Conservative voters.

That might be true in Toronto, but in rural Ontario and rural parts of Atlantic Canada and in 905-like exurban areas, Liberal voters and Conservative voters are all pretty rightwing.

Look at all those total reactionaries that keep getting elected as Liberal MPs from Scarborough!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 16 November 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Obviously, when I started this thread it was pretty transperent baiting. But the baiting wasn't a reference back to that old stuff.

The reference is to the fact that people like you bring up the NDP playing footsie every time the NDP holds out the possibility of negotiating with the government to get something done.


Really?
I took it that it was you who was referring to "old stuff" in your original, self-described "baiting" jibe here:
"Another opportunity for those folks who like to remind us about the NDP being patsies for the government, paving the way for Harper's secret agenda."

Do you have some other way of construing the words "remind" and "paving the way" than the recent historical past, which involves the non-confidence move that predictably resulted in the name-snatching-Reform Party, gaining the legitimacy of a national government in this CURRENT 39th Parliament? A way other than the decision in the NDP election campaign to "lay off Harper?". Also, if the embarrassing comments of Layton on working with Harper, I quoted above, sync with your word "patsies" in the light your linked Harper attack on the NDP, it is not my fault.

As for the contemporary reality (which you now claim you were referring to), I am supportive of recent the NDP attacks on Harper (as I mentioned above) and I heartily approve of its now principled position on Afghanistan (as I mentioned several times in these threads) which strongly distinguishes itself from both the Libs and the Cons. This position alone, from my perspective, should make the NDP party the first choice for any riding in which they have a real chance of beating ANY other party to be elected. But the NDP is also my first choice of the major parties for their majority of social and economic policy (and on the Senate).

My criticisms have not been on current NDP policies or current party positions but of the (relatively small number) of (often right-wing) self-proclaimed NDP posters who still treat the Liberals as if they were a majority government and deflect and downplay the pernicious nature of the ruling HarperCons.
I find it strange that you should frame a serious blatant and destructive Con attack on the NDP's ability to carry out its parliamentary business with your attempt to bait (thus pre-emptively derailing the more serious issue at hand)those who have observed a very real (and now hopefully past) quid pro quo relationship between the NDP and Cons.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 16 November 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Really?
I took it that it was you who was referring to "old stuff" in your original, self-described "baiting" jibe here:
"Another opportunity for those folks who like to remind us about the NDP being patsies for the government, paving the way for Harper's secret agenda."

Do you have some other way of construing the words "remind" and "paving the way" than the recent historical past, which involves the non-confidence move [against the Martin government] that predictably resulted in...


Don't have time right now to read, let alone deal with all your verbiage.

Leave it for now with the most fundamental. You have an interesting way of reading in what you like. As you referred yourself, I said "remiding us about being patsies for the government." It takes 'deep reading' to not see that is a reference to the government in power right now.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 November 2007 11:04 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...if you want to talk about the NDP really being a "patsie". Imagine if the NDP had voted confidence in the corrupt, incompetent Martin government in Nov. 2005 AFTER Martin publicly announced that he would make no concessions of any kind to the NDP and that the NDP could expect nothing in return for trying to prop up the criminal Martin regime.

THAT'S what I would call being a total patsie and being the laughing stock of Canadian politics.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
tostig
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9751

posted 16 November 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for tostig     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, I've got news. If the NDP is to form the next government they've got to jump past at least two parties to win the next election. That seems to be the only way to change the stink that the Cons and Liberals have left in parliament for so long.

But if you're all happy with the Cons and Liberals in power, then I don't see any point in all this b*tching 'cause the government of today isn't listening no matter what Layton said two years ago about making this Parliament work.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: tostig ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 16 November 2007 11:37 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Don't have time right now to read, let alone deal with all your verbiage.

Leave it for now with the most fundamental. You have an interesting way of reading in what you like. As you referred yourself, I said "remiding us about being patsies for the government." It takes 'deep reading' to not see that is a reference to the government in power right now.

[ 16 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


I can hardly reply if you don't have the time to formulate a sensible argument
So "leave it now for the most fundimental":

It is hardly "deep reading" to understand that it ill-considered activities in the recent past that leave one susceptible to being a "patsy" or "easy mark" in the present. That is why I relate the state to the "CURRENT" parliament in your selective quote--is this a stretch for you?
You might notice, if you read further, that I don't believe "patsyhood" to be a permanent condition of the NDP and there is plenty to like about the current party.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red Partisan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13860

posted 16 November 2007 11:42 AM      Profile for Red Partisan        Edit/Delete Post
I think the Liberals and the Conservatives are even because the Canadian people are a lot smarter than the policymakers.

They want said policymakers to be an equal amount inflationary and deflationary...

Works for me....


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 17 November 2007 10:04 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

He (Layton) said his party has not begun to analyze any proposals the Conservatives plan to bring forward and would not comment on whether he'll support specific Tory promises.

But he said he believes both parties share the common ground of wanting to improve living standards for working families.



What? Layton actually said that?

Why do you think they're called "Conservatives", Jack?

Good thing Tommy Douglas isn't around to hear that. Good God, he or David Lewis or Ed Broadbent wouldn't even had said that about the Liberals.


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 17 November 2007 03:15 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Layton had actually said that there would have been quotation marks. I'm sure that Tommy is resting comfortably.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 November 2007 03:15 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile, the NDP keeps voting against virtually everything the Conservatives propose while the Liberals keep showing their tacit support for the entire Conservative policy manual when they abstain on every vote.

The proof is in the pudding.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 17 November 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
If Layton had actually said that there would have been quotation marks. I'm sure that Tommy is resting comfortably.

Do note that it was not me that said that (as suggested by the last citation) but was paraphrased in the CTV interview. The direct quotes from Jack that immediately follow are consistent with that sentiment:
"He said his party has not begun to analyze any proposals the Conservatives plan to bring forward and would not comment on whether he'll support specific Tory promises.

But he said he believes both parties share the common ground of wanting to improve living standards for working families.

"We'll have our different views on precisely how that can be accomplished," he said, "and it's our responsibility to find ways to do that."

"We feel that when you bring good ideas forward in the context of a Parliament where no one party has been given the absolute authority to proceed, then you roll up your sleeves, you discuss, you negotiate . . . ""
NDP to Play Vital Role in Next Parliament: Layton

I posted it not to illustrate what Jack would be saying now (which is better than either of the other parties)but to illustrate a point.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 November 2007 05:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"We feel that when you bring good ideas forward in the context of a Parliament where no one party has been given the absolute authority to proceed, then you roll up your sleeves, you discuss, you negotiate . . . ""

Sounds like a good idea to me. It sure beats the Liberals strategy of propping up the Conservatives and not getting anything in return for it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 17 November 2007 08:36 PM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
If Layton had actually said that there would have been quotation marks. I'm sure that Tommy is resting comfortably.

Why do you assume that? If a newspaper said something like: "Stephen Harper said that Canadian troops would stay in Afghanistan indefinitely", does that not mean that Harper actually said, "Canadian troops will stay in Afghanistan indefinitely", or something very close to it? (assuming the newspaper is not trying to mislead).

Look at the direct quote immediately following:
"We'll have our different views on precisely how that can be accomplished," he said, "and it's our responsibility to find ways to do that." How does that make any sense if Layton didn't actually say previously that the Cons and NDP had shared aspirations with respect to working families?

So what did Layton actually say? Did he talk about "sharing common ground of wanting to improve living standards for working families" or didn't he? Because I for one don't feel the Cons and the NDP share (or should I say ought to share) any ground at all on that issue.

[ 17 November 2007: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 17 November 2007 08:56 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course, the knee-jerk Liberal position seems to be that Jack shouldn't examine any Tory proposal, ever. He should just declare he will always vote against them.

(As opposed to the Liberals, who will sit on their lazy hypocritical fat asses.)

But what if by some chance the Harper Conservatives actually did introduce a good piece of legislation - however base their motives. Should Jack vote against it just because it came from hard right Conserverals instead of hard right Liberatives?

Liberals make me want to puke most of the time. Their feigned outrage over Jack possibly saying he'll look at Tory proposals before condemning them demonstrates that the Liberals are as intellectually and morally bankrupt as ever - especially since we know that the Liberals are determined to prop up this Conservative government indefinitely by the phony tactic of abstention.

The Liberal Party is a moral cancer in Parliament.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 18 November 2007 08:32 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Of course, the knee-jerk Liberal position seems to be that Jack shouldn't examine any Tory proposal, ever. He should just declare he will always vote against them.

(As opposed to the Liberals, who will sit on their lazy hypocritical fat asses.)

But what if by some chance the Harper Conservatives actually did introduce a good piece of legislation - however base their motives. Should Jack vote against it just because it came from hard right Conserverals instead of hard right Liberatives?

Liberals make me want to puke most of the time. Their feigned outrage over Jack possibly saying he'll look at Tory proposals before condemning them demonstrates that the Liberals are as intellectually and morally bankrupt as ever - especially since we know that the Liberals are determined to prop up this Conservative government indefinitely by the phony tactic of abstention.

The Liberal Party is a moral cancer in Parliament.



Yes, beware of knee-jerks. I don't know what the Liberals have to do with it--the original citation was in response to a self-proclaimed NDP supporter :
Originally posted by Stockholm:
"The job of opposition parties is primarily to attack the government."
I agree that whatever the source,good legislation should be supported-and that negotiation with any party to that end is the right decision.
But Jack's stated commonality of goals with the Reform Conservative's and his stated expectation to "negotiate" with them and be treated with respect by these ideologues would strike many, even at the time, as naive.

[ 18 November 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 November 2007 08:43 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the meantime, its the Liberals who have flushed ALL their principles down the toilet (not that they had any in the first place) when they decided to vote for every single Conservative bill this session.

The list is mounting of all the devastating Conservative policies that the Liberals keep acquiescing to while the NDP stands up for its principles and votes NO, No, No, No.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 18 November 2007 05:34 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Sounds like a good idea to me. It sure beats the Liberals strategy of propping up the Conservatives and not getting anything in return for it.


They get to keep their seats for a while longer.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 19 November 2007 08:27 AM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the dominance of the bourgeois party with two faces is a greater concern than the supposed "unique evil" of the Harper government. What is so special about Harper, that hasn't been explained, contrarianna?
From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 November 2007 12:09 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Layton was in Halifax over the weekend.

Grits pick their own jobs over voters’ needs, Layton charges. Liberal MP Savage: People don’t want election.

Background here: The Bloc motion tabled last week in the House of Commons aimed at protecting forestry and manufacturing jobs that is referred to is as big a deal in Nova Scotia as it would be in BC. [Actually, I think forest products may be a higher percentage of the GDP here than it is in BC. At any rate, it is #1 by a long shot. This IS very much a big local issue.]

The motion would have passed with Liberal support.

And the local Liberal MP's gave as their reason that the government "might have made it a confidence vote."

How lame can you get?

The government did not deem it a confidence vote, and that's still the reason the Libs give in not voting for it. ???

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 November 2007 06:52 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is so lame coming from the Liberals. The government cannot retroactively declare a motion to be a confidence vote after it passes.

The Liberals are obviously so petrified of an election that they will vote for ANYTHING (and I mean ANYTHING) if voting for it would mean even in a one in a million chance of an election.

One thing this tells me is that the Liberals themselves don't believe for one second that they are tied or only a couple of points behind the Tories. They must know in their hearts that they will be obliterated in the next election and so now all they want is to keep earning pay cheques for a few more weeks.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 20 November 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course the Liberals are terrified of an election not going their way, and therefore are doing everything they can to make sure they don't have one. Party hacks, (of all parties), rationalize this kind "flexible" application of "principles". It might go something like, "well, we can't do anything positive for the country if we are wiped out, we'll wait for a better time to bring on an election." This the stated line of the Libs. Some may actually believe that to some degree and some may believe the rest of the story: "my political career and pay might be over" --and some hacks have their personal identity so inextricably tied with the fortunes of "their party", right or wrong, that "their party" is the only real "principle".
There are all kinds of similar rationalizations for the NDP's decision to studiously avoid attacking the Reform-Cons in the last election- which has assisted in bringing on this current anti-democratic government of ultra-regressive legislation--which now elicits indignance because it's the Liberals in hiding from them.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 November 2007 08:55 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
blah, blah, blah, blah...so in other words, it's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to cynically do whatever is good for their own short-term political interests - no matter how unprincipled - but the NDP is supposed to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid if it will help bring the liberals back to power.

Meanwhile the Liberals voted against a motion calling for more government help to the forestry sector - a motion that was NOT a confidence vote.

I repeat, Is is there ANYTHING the Liberals won't vote for from the Conservatives just to hang on to their seats for a few more weeks. i can just imagine a Conservative bill declaring that Whites are superior to Blacks...and dion will demand that all Liberals abstain because "Canadians" (in other words the Liberal Party) doesn't think that now is a convenient time for an election.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 November 2007 09:24 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
contrarianna:

quote:
Of course the Liberals are terrified of an election not going their way, and therefore are doing everything they can to make sure they don't have one.

So maybe you can illuminate us how the Liberals would be afraid of causing an election over a motion that is NOT a confidence motion. ??


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Giggity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10772

posted 20 November 2007 09:34 AM      Profile for Giggity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So maybe you can illuminate us how the Liberals would be afraid of causing an election over a motion that is NOT a confidence motion. ??

Is Stephane Dion still in charge? Then...


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 November 2007 09:47 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Giggity:

Is Stephane Dion still in charge? Then...


Rumor says there are more than one hundred Liberal MP's floating around Ottawa somewhere. And I believe Stephen Dion really is fearless leader of the official opposition Liberals. Don't quote me though. It's just a rumor at this point.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Max Bialystock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13870

posted 20 November 2007 09:56 AM      Profile for Max Bialystock     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What "unique evil" does Harper represent that requires a popular front (dominated by the Liberals of course)?

Somehow I remember Chretien and Martin gutting social services much more than Harper has. Somehow I remember the Liberals putting us in Afghanistan in the first place.


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 20 November 2007 11:00 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
blah, blah, blah, blah...so in other words, it's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to cynically do whatever is good for their own short-term political interests - no matter how unprincipled - but the NDP is supposed to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid if it will help bring the liberals back to power.

Surly "blah, blah, blah, blah" in "other words" would be "yada, yada, yada"?? Not your persistently absurd habit of inventing strawmen out of what was not said.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 November 2007 11:02 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So maybe you can illuminate us how the Liberals would be afraid of causing an election over a motion that is NOT a confidence motion. ??

so what's the answer from our Liberal apologists?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 20 November 2007 11:27 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

so what's the answer from our Liberal apologists?


I could suggest the rhetoric Harper might use to justify an election in the face of "legislation paralyzing obstruction" from the opposition ganging up on him, but surly that would be the explanation of a "Con apologist" so I'll leave you to wait for your "Liberal apologists" to explain from their perspective.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 November 2007 11:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This wasn't legislation it was a motion. The government has absolutely no right to retroactively declare a motion a "confidence measure" after the fact.

The Liberals are just scared of their own shadows and that's why they keep propping up Harper and giving him a de facto minority government. Harper might just as well name Dion as Deputy PM.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 20 November 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
This wasn't legislation it was a motion. The government has absolutely no right to retroactively declare a motion a "confidence measure" after the fact.

The Liberals are just scared of their own shadows and that's why they keep propping up Harper and giving him a de facto minority government. Harper might just as well name Dion as Deputy PM.



Yes, it was a motion not legislation. I was suggesting the kind of justification that might be used as an excuse for calling an election in the face of an "obstructionist" opposition to the minority government. This after all is a government which dismisses committees if they say anything out of the Con playbook.
Yes, the Liberals are scared sh**less.
Hey, I'm agreeing with you, you must be a Liberal apologist.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 20 November 2007 01:32 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In case you didn't know, the government has passed a bill that very clearly states that an early can only happen if the House votes down the government on an explicit motion of non-confidence or if the government declares a specific bill to be a confidence measure. This was not the case on this motion.

The Liberals are just a bunch of pathetic scared wimps running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Only the NDP is willing to vote NO to each and every horrible policy of the Harper government.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 20 November 2007 06:52 PM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:

There are all kinds of similar rationalizations for the NDP's decision to studiously avoid attacking the Reform-Cons in the last election- ...

So what election was that? Cuz, where I was in the 2006 campaign, Layton's press releases and public events talked about the regressive agenda of both the Liberals and Conservatives.

In fact, when I canvassed, the best responses I got from people were when I used the approach along the lines of "Liberals once actually did progressive things, but now brag they have reduced the deficit while ignoring how much of our social services they chopped along the way -- sounds like Brian Mulroney's Tories to me, doesn't it sound like that to you?"

Of course, Liberals equate not using every sentence to denounce the Tories and ignore their record as "playing footsies with the Tories". I call it telling progrssives that real progressives don't vote Liberal.

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Robo ]


From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 20 November 2007 09:19 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hypocrite + Coward = Liberal
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 November 2007 11:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NDP supports "show-your-face" Bill

INFURIATING.

quote:
Canadians hoping to vote in the next federal election with a veil, pumpkin, sheet or anything else covering their faces will soon be out of luck as the Conservative government has secured enough support to pass a bill forcing voters to show their faces.

NDP MP Yvon Godin told Government House Leader Peter Van Loan yesterday during a committee review of the bill that his party will support the proposed law. That ensures the government has enough votes to pass the bill through the House of Commons, though it would still have to clear the Liberal-dominated Senate. The position of Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs on the committee was unclear yesterday as both parties expressed concerns.



From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 29 November 2007 11:21 AM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post
This article only appeared in the Globe and Mail (and perhaps in a few small, local papers, taking the story from the GM). Because it is so difficult to fathom, I wonder if the story is accurate. My own view, is we have to wait for the vote and see what happens, because this is really out of character for the NDP. It prompted me to check out the bill, and sure enough, it clearly states that in using any of the three allowed avenues for identification (only one of which requires photo ID) you must have an "uncovered face".

They are now saying this is to stop pumpkins and hockey masks, but people have already pointed out that an uncovered face does not mean you must remove your makeup, and presumably some people would still have a field day with makeup. The point is that if Harper and his kind really just want to make Muslim women unveil (for no purpose, as in this case) they really should just spell it out. Otherwise, anyone can still make a mockery of it, but, I guess, the point is that by not spelling it out, they still think they can argue it is not based on bigotry. It does seem that some politicians are falling for that line. It reminds me of the town in Europe (I've forgotten where) which banned face coverings in public, and then had to make all sort of exceptions for motorcycle helmets, halloween, bridal wear,... Really they just wanted to ban Muslim veils.


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 November 2007 11:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, check it out! rabble got the okay to post this on babble today. It's a letter that Paul Dewar wrote to the Globe in response to the article I just posted. Check it out:

quote:
Dear Editor,

RE: Bill C-6 - visual identification while voting [NDP supports show-your-face bill, Nov 28, 2007]

We have serious concerns about Bill C-6, the motivations behind it, and the manner in which it will be applied. That's why, as responsible parliamentarians, we believe the testimony of witnesses before Committee, the views of Canadians and any amendments that result will be so important.

To be clear, contrary to the above-noted article, our caucus has not taken a final position on Bill C-6.

New Democrats agree with the Globe and Mail's editorial position that this bill was motivated by politics and that “the last thing Canada needed was this unnecessary targeting of a minority group that had done nothing to provoke it.” We will be introducing amendments at committee to fix the Bill.

I would like to remind your readers that problems around Canada’s voter identification laws began with the introduction of another Bill on voter identification: Bill C-31. That bill, supported by all parties except the NDP, introduced new rules around voter identification, which the government claimed would improve the integrity of the electoral process, despite the fact they couldn’t point to any actual examples of voter fraud.

Bill C-31 was a solution looking for a problem. The NDP was very concerned that this bill would create new problems, disenfranchise voters and infringe on Canadians’ right to privacy by revealing their birth dates to the political parties.

New Democrats believe that if this government was really concerned about voters’ rights, their priority would have been to fix existing barriers to democratic participation through measures that would increase voter turnout, instead of combating problems that never existed.


Paul Dewar, MP (Ottawa Centre)
House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada


[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 November 2007 11:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently the BQ doesn't like the bill because it doesn't go far enough!

quote:
The Bloc Québécois MPs told Mr. Van Loan they disapprove of one section in the bill that would allow veiled Muslim women to show their faces only to female electoral officers. Bloc MP Michel Guimond argued that in small communities, it is possible that only males will be available.

But, its obvious that something had to be done about the mockery of the electoral process that was set in motion when dozens of people started voting in the by-elections with pumpkins on their heads and wearing face masks of superheroes etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 November 2007 11:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I just started a new thread on the show-your-face bill, because we have a response from Paul Dewar to this article.

Stockholm, you might want to read it and refresh your talking points.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 December 2007 04:23 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Flaherty is warning that Canadians may not get a GST cut on Jan. 1 if the NDP keeps blocking the Harper government's effort to pass legislation enacting it before the Christmas break.

ETA:

Come to think of it- it has been a while since I’ve heard any Liberals accusing the NDP of being a tool of Harper’s. Guess that would be kind of hard since the Throne Speech, even for them.

Do you suppose they will also stop trying to replay the dastardly role of the NDP in bringing down the progressive Martin government?

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 December 2007 06:53 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And maybe this is why back early in the thread contrarianna jumped to the [then] puzzling conclusion that my sarcasm- "NDP playing footsie with Harper"- was directed at mocking the Liberal line on blaming the NDP for Harper... rather than my sarcasm being directed at the more recent Liberal crowing about the NDP cooperating with the government and being it's friend.

... that in the Liberal universe, "we've moved on from the latter" [translation: our voting with the government all the time makes that particular talking point unsustainable]

...and therefore, that KenS guy must be having the nerve to say what the NDP is doing now puts the lie to accusations they are responsible for the existence of the Harper government.

Something like that.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 12 December 2007 09:57 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
And maybe this is why back early in the thread contrarianna jumped to the [then] puzzling conclusion that my sarcasm- "NDP playing footsie with Harper"- was directed at mocking the Liberal line on blaming the NDP for Harper... rather than my sarcasm being directed at the more recent Liberal crowing about the NDP cooperating with the government and being it's friend.

... that in the Liberal universe, "we've moved on from the latter" [translation: our voting with the government all the time makes that particular talking point unsustainable]

Something like that.



Puzzling? Only if one tries to bizarrely deny causality--as if the present AllianceCon government sprung out of nowhere with the NDP bravely engaged in battle against it.
KenS is like the boy that murdered his parents and then wants sympathy from the court because he is an orphan.

There are 2 causes that have resulted in the AllianceCons gaining the "legitimacy and respectability" of power, with its springboard to majority. The most important, obviously, is Liberal corruption and incompetence, the second (lesser, but still essential to existence of the present government) was the NDP's strategic policy decision in the election not to criticize the AllianceCons or provide any spotlight on its agenda.

Flash forward. We now have the NDP with more seats (and zero influence) regularly opposing legislation of the AllianceCons knowing full well that the Liberals will continue to embarrass themselves by not drinking the election coolaid to oblivion--by voting with the NDP's generally good positions. Ain't party politics grand.

Having been alleged to be variously a commie and a nazi on these threads, I guess being alleged a Liberal is a (relatively) mild smear. There are likely a small minority of Liberals more trustworthy than Stockholm or KenS-- but fortunately neither of these guys are running for the NDP so that isn't an issue.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 December 2007 10:10 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny, I don't remember saying there isn't a link between the NDP voting against the Martin government, and the fact we have a Harper government.

I did question the relevance of continuing to bring it up... let alone that contrarianna thought I was mocking of the Liberals was a reference to events in Fall '05... ever on the lookout for another opportunity to bring up this near-to-original sin of the NDP.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2007 11:12 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Funny, I don't remember saying there isn't a link between the NDP voting against the Martin government, and the fact we have a Harper government.

Then I'll say. There is no link between the NDP voting against the Martin gov't and the fact that we have a Harper gov't. The NDP could have tied itself to the Liberal anvil in November 2005 and voted confidence in the brain-dead Martin gov't and the result would have been that the non-confidence motion against martin would have passed by 4 votes instead of by 40 votes and then we still would have had an election on January 23rd with about the same result - except that maybe a few people who ended up voting NDP would have voted Conservative instead because they would have been so disgusted with the NDP trying vainly to prop up an incompetent government of thieves under Paul martin for a couple more weeks.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 12 December 2007 11:27 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
Funny, I don't remember saying there isn't a link between the NDP voting against the Martin government, and the fact we have a Harper government.

I did question the relevance of continuing to bring it up... let alone that contrarianna thought I was mocking of the Liberals was a reference to events in Fall '05... ever on the lookout for another opportunity to bring up this near-to-original sin of the NDP.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]



Funny, I never suggested you did.
Funny, NDP policy to gain seats in the CURRENT government by carefully not criticizing the AllianceCons is "ancient history" while the older transgressions (pre-biblical sins in KenS's mythology?) of the Liberal governments are always being brought up.

Stockholms claim that " There is no link between the NDP voting against the Martin gov't and the fact that we have a Harper gov't." is either a denial that an NDP policy of non-criticism of the AllianceCons in the last election--or a claim that that policy of non-criticism was irrelevant to the election results, I'm not sure which.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 December 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, the NDP did campaign against the Conservatives in the '06 election. Everytime that Layton was in NDP/CPC marginals in BC or Saskatchewan, his whole speech tended to be a denunciation of the CPC policies. But when he was campaigning in Liberal/NDP marginals he focused more on Liberal corruption and broken promises.

I also recall, how in the dying days of the failed incompetent Liberal campaign in January 2006, Martin gave up on trying to get Liberal/CPC switchers to come back to the Liberals and instead spent all his time in a failed attempt to get NDPers to vote Liberal. Why was Martin wasting his time attacking the NDP when he could have been attacking the Conservatives?????


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 12 December 2007 03:04 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
NDP policy to gain seats in the CURRENT government by carefully not criticizing the AllianceCons

I just came back from Ottawa, where the NDP sponsored a resolution to assist US military deserters, to the great consternation of the Conservatives, who argued that the present immigration system is perfect, and should not be changed to create a "loophole".

The whole hearing was a criticism of the Conservatives!


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 12 December 2007 08:11 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Contrarianna is just repeating the same Liberal lie - that the NDP have some sort of obligation to do everything in their power to advance the cause of the Liberal Party.

All the Liberals deserve from anyone is the finger. Hell, Harper's record on global warming, appalling as it is, is better than the two-thirds of four-fifths of SFA we got from contrarianna's band of thieves and liars.

Like every other lying Liberal apologist, contrarianna tells us that our choice is between a right wing party that admits to being a right wing party, or a right wing party that pretends to be something else, all the while stealing our money.

Frankly, that's a choice I want no part of.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 12 December 2007 11:24 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeff:
It's clear from my reference to "gaining seats" (and my previous posts) I'm referring to the NDP's actions in the last election not its present behaviour.

Malcolm:
If your insulting rant accusing me of lying, of being a liberal apologist, and of making absurd statements I never made-- had any base in reality, I might be offended, but your just being embarrassing silly.

[ 12 December 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 12 December 2007 11:58 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm referring to the NDP's actions in the last election

In fact, you're misrepresenting the NDP's actions during the last federal election campaign.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 13 December 2007 01:02 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not only has contrarianna misrepresented the NDP's actions in the last election, but he or she has never replied when detailed refutations have been offered.

Either in this thread or earlier. I have characterised this as 'serial hit and run'. IE, accusations are made about the NDP's role in the elction. Then there is a response with as much detail as the original accusation. And no reply to that.

And there is no general obligation to reply. Except that the same accustations are repeated later.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 13 December 2007 03:38 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I'm in the venting stream, I'm going to take exception to contrarianna's "more left than thou" crap... after sloughing it off a few times.

Of course these holier than thou types are never actual Liberal Party members. They are just willing stooges- as is the case with current fellow stooges Buzz Hargrove and Jim Stnaford... following in a fine tradition running at least as far back as Hazen Argue, for whom Tommy Douglas was not left enough, so he became a Liberal Senator.

Clearly, I'm into making partisan attacks on the credibility of the Liberals. Plus some more even handed but trenchant criticism of the Greens [I occassionaly extend the same to the Liberals, they just don't give me much opportunity].

But I'm not just here to make partisan points. I participate in a big way in discussions about climate change, and what actions to take- including some criticism of NDP shortcomings. Same thing occasionally around Afghanistan. I've done as much as I could to create some kind of buzz around the government's own adscam, including providing for reporters campaigners tips on where they might look for bodies and evidence. And lately I've participated in an extensive Babble discussion of labour activists figuring out the CAW - Magna deal. Etc.

Contrarianna is clearly no dummy, and knows how to write. But it would appear that the only subject worthy of applying those skills around here is attacking the credibility of the NDP.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 13 December 2007 01:00 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was willing to let my detractors have the last word, but, since the goading continues....

There are two issues; one is a personal attack questioning my motives and attitude to the NDP, and the other my "misrepresentation" of the NDP in the last election campaign.
So, instead of my alleged sin of "silence", here is my alleged sin of "blah blah blah".

As for "lefter than thou":
No longer a member, I may be out of touch with the party but I don't believe most NDPers are as right-wing as the most vociferous of my attackers. (This point is unprovable, and based on observation of posts, and NDP friends--and hope).
I have always voted NDP (except once) and I don't expect to change my voting patterns despite attacks here from the neoNDP (I presume) posters who regularly prefer the Conservatives to the Liberals, not only strategic reasons but some, apparently, for its more sympatico policies.

The reason the NDP itself (not its self-proclaimed embodiment on Babble) is still my usual choice for voting is that its positions on social, economic and military are still far superior to any of the other parties.
Despite my rancorous disagreements with some of the "party faithful", the NDP remains my first consideration for support, and should be for anyone willing to actually look at party platforms.

That said, I confess I was actually leaning to vote Liberal in my riding when it looked like the only chance of beating the AllianceCon, Gary Lunn, appeared to be a high-profile environmental candidate. But now, with the addition of a high-profile environmental NDPer,
I'll vote NDP because that is my default position when:
a) the NDP has a chance to win against any leading candidate: Lib, Con or Green,
b) when nobody has a chance to beat an AllianceCon.

Now, moving from the "evils" of strategic voting, to the somehow "benign" operations of strategic campaigning.

Here is NDP historian Alan Whitehorn in a generally positive piece on the NDP 2006 campaign called "The NDP and the Enigma of Strategic Voting" (from a collection of papers on the election):

"[The NDP aimed to]...to inoculate NDP supporters by making the Liberal Party seem so unappealing to social democrats that the gulf between the Liberal Party and the NDP would widen. To accomplish this ads targeted the Liberals and were more negative."

Fair enough, that's a smart strategy in itself to gain seats from the vulnerable Liberals.
But what immediately follows, in Whitehorn's account, is essentially the "normalizing of the AllianceCons" (continued by many "NDP"posters here) component of the NDP campaign which, in my opinion, has been (and will be) destructive to the last remnants of Canada:

"The other side of the strategy was to lessen fear of the Conservative Party and its Alberta based leader. In order to achieve this this the NDP had to resist the inevitable temptation to portray the Conservatives as extremely right-wing and their leader as a scary man with a hidden agenda. Instead, the Conservative Party would be characterized as simply wrong on policies and not congruent with most Canadian values."
Whitehorn
So if I disagree with THIS part of the campaign (which I do) I'm tarred with being an "enabler" of the Liberals when in fact I'm deploring the NDP having been deliberate "enablers" and legitimizers of the AllianceCons (I'l refrain from KenS's slur and not say "stooges").

Whitehorn is in line with the comments of the hated old progressive NDPer, Laxer (Yeah,I know I'm repeating this but in response to the repeated accusations that I was "misrepresenting" the campaign):

"Layton’s speech capped a campaign in which he studiously avoided warning Canadians about any potential threat from Harper and the Conservatives. This odd fact had been driven home to me a few days earlier when a newspaper reporter phoned to do an interview. Clearly frustrated, he told me he had been on the NDP campaign plane for three weeks and that despite repeated efforts, he had been unable to induce Layton to say anything about Harper. The NDP leader was quick to attack Paul Martin and the Liberals, but all he would say about the front-running Conservatives was that they were “wrong on the issues.” Shortly after the election, arguing that Canadians wanted parliament to function and for the sniping to end, Layton said that he could and would work with Harper. But based on ominous early warning signs from the Conservatives, he must be wondering if Harper will work with him."
and from another article:
"Only in a few cases in Saskatchewan and B.C., where the NDP was locked in races against Conservatives, did Layton take on Harper directly. National reporters found Layton unwilling to say anything about Harper beyond a pat statement that “the Conservatives are wrong on the issues.”

As for my supposed relentless attacks on the NDP, I regularly praise NDP policy on issues (which is why I almost always vote for them). What I do find irritating is the robotic perpetuation of the "bash the worse Libs, not the AllianceCons" deflections that I find still prominent on Babble threads. At this point, thankfully, I think it reflects more the individual posters positions rather than any continued official NDP policy.

[ 13 December 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 13 December 2007 08:45 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When one's every post argues a) that the NDP acted immorally by not sustaining the corrupt Liberal government of Paul Martin in the last Parliament and / or b) that the NDP were under some bizarre moral obligation to give the Liberals a pass in the last election, the possibility that the poster just might be a Liberal apologist is bound to occur to even the most illiterate reader.

The possibility that that same someone might be lying is merely a corollary of the conclusion that the person is a Liberal apologist, since the one follows from the other.

That, and the fact that the poster in question told several lies in the course of the thread.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 December 2007 08:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
the possibility that the poster just might be a Liberal apologist is bound to occur to even the most illiterate reader.

Hmmm.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 14 December 2007 07:40 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Malcolm French
"...the rage of Caliban at seeing his own face in a glass"

[ 14 December 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 16 December 2007 01:04 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to backtrack somewhat from calling contrarianna a Liberal stooge. And it has nothing to do with the bit about who you vote for or support.

You don't say anything Laxer hasn't said and I wouldn't call him a stooge.

I react to you because of the arrogance in the delivery. And after several times of having my position chalked up to being 'right wing' and not representative of the NDP.

In the first place, you know precious little about my politics. Or, you understand little. The NDP is chock full of straight up centrists. That does not describe me.

But more to the point, it's an ad hominem attack. It doesn't have anything to do with criticisms leveled at you [and I'm referring to what was said before I started returning the favour of the labelling].

And you have still not addressed the criticism of misrepresenting the NDP campaign- you've just limited your repetition to the part of it where you feel you are on safer ground.

You repeated at least twice in quotes from Laxer your earlier claims that the NDP was responsible for bringing down the Martin government. You ignored the refutations that have outlined the Liberals role in their own demise.

As I already pointed out, you weren't obliged to reply to that. Or at least you weren't until you just repeat the same reftuted distortion the next time there is an opportunity, and did it yet again.

[ 16 December 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca