Consistently Inconsistent, Thy Name Is Jack Layton
June 24, 2009 · By Sean
[h/t to Paul] Thanks!
As you may or may not know, one of my favorite subjects is the delightful wackiness of Jack Layton, and few things make me smile as I do when a little light is shone on whatever insanity (or pure lunacy) he’s up to at the current moment. I swear, this man makes it just too easy. Again, I put forward the disclaimer that I am no fan of Jack Layton, and no other politician frustrates me more with their irrelevance on Parliament Hill as he does. (Aside from Stephane Dion who has pulled a ‘Houdini’ since he stepped down)
Now Jack Layton is coming out (again) flopping around like a fish out of water.
Only just the other day, Jack Layton was responding to Michael Ignatieff’s implication that he may just leave the NDP to prop up the Government in the fall, bragging about his record on 79 confidence motions.
Today, he’s saying he’s willing to compromise on E.I. (Again, thanks Paul), and presumably, Michael Ignatieff will use the results and subsequent actions taken from this “committee” when it reports in September as the catalyst once again for a fall election.
So, if Jack Layton has proven only one thing this past year or two, is that not only is he willing to lift NDP skirts to the highest bidder, but that any ‘hard line’ position he takes is subject to probable change. And given that this will likely be Jack Layton’s final year as NDP Leader (assuming that there are term limits with the NDP) he needs to do an about face on the direction he has been taking the party recently: The Hinterlands of Parliament Hill.
Can you imagine this man having to explain why an “historic” success in Nova Scotia can’t be followed up nationally? I mean, he was bragging about the huge gains the NDP were going to make in Quebec in the last election and that didn’t exactly work out for him…
No. Jack Layton is a has-been who is so far out in left field that the news has to be shipped in along with daylight.
Your sloppy logic–and your projection of your assumptions on to others–makes for poor commentary.
Michael Ignatieff has supported the Conservatives on 79 consecutive confidence votes–supporting Stephen Harper’s entire legislative agenda and receiving no concessions in return.
The NDP has opposed the Conservatives on most of these votes–and has never been the sole opposition party left “propping up” the Conservatives–but the NDP HAS voted with the Conservatives on a handful of confidence votes where the NDP subtantively supported the measures in question.
On the issue of EI, the NDP has laid out five specific changes that they want to see made. When asked whether one of these changes–a 360 hour eligibility standard–was sacroscant Layton said “no”. In other words, unlike Michael Ignatieff, the NDP hasn’t focused all their energy on just one change to EI–the NDP has asked for several–and if Stephen Harper brought forward a bill that largely addressed the issues raised by the NDP they’d support it.
That doesn’t mean the NDP would start supporting the broader Conservatives agenda or start propping the Conservatives up on every single vote
That’s not contradcitory. It’s not even hard to understand.
Jack Layton was a commie clown in Toronto and is, was and always will be a commie clown anywhere else he goes. The real sad fact is that anyone would follow this buffoon
RayK, you’re forgetting that Jack Layton made a huge deal during the Coalition lead-up where he said that he and the NDP had no confidence in this government whatsoever and could not, would not support this government on anything. No way, no how.
Could you provide me with any examples where the NDP has supported the government on a confidence issue once during the much touted 79 figure because I can’t seem to remember any. Sure they may have voted the same way as the Conservatives on some non-critical votes that wouldn’t cast the country into a General Election, but actual Confidence votes?
Now, I haven’t suggested that the NDP will at any time support the broader Conservative agenda. I think it’s very clear that the Conservatives and NDP are worlds apart in philosophy and it would take an act of God to bring them together on most things. Neither have I suggested that the NDP will prop up the Conservative Government on every single vote. As I mentioned before, Jack Layton has already made his thoughts on the Conservative Government excruciatingly clear. This is why I find it so amusing when his “hard line” position crumbles when the pressure is on him.
What I AM suggesting is that Jack Layton openly puts the NDP vote up for sale which I find reprehensible. Jack Layton is trying to claim integrity while sacrificing it “for the right price”.
Best illustration of the ‘house that Jack built ‘ is for sale:
the coalition of losers.
For a cabinet seat, Jack tossed out the Dipper #1 policy: no tax cuts for big oil/business;
once the 3 stooges went down in flames, Jack is back condemning corp tax cuts.
But same can be said about Iffy. It took him 5 months to come to the conclusion that separatists are a threat to national unity.
Guess he missed that chapter when reading up on Canada.
“Jack Layton made a huge deal during the Coalition lead-up where he said that he and the NDP had no confidence in this government whatsoever and could not, would not support this government on anything. No way, no how.”
No, Jack Layton said that the NDP (a) had lost confidence in the government and (b) would defeat them in order to form a new coalition government at the earliest possible opportunity. That does not imply that the NDP would specifically vote against their own EI policies if the Conservatives came to embrace all, most or many of them. Two totally different things–particularly since Ignatieff killed the coalition option.
“Could you provide me with any examples where the NDP has supported the government on a confidence issue once during the much touted 79 figure because I can’t seem to remember any.”
In the NDP’s press release on the subject (link below) there are three occasions on which the NDP voted against motions (amendments, to be precise) that would have been considered motions of non-confidence against the Conservatives. As I wrote before, on each of these three occasions the NDP, the Conservatives and one other opposition party voted against the motion in question–meaning that the Conservatives would have survived the vote regardless of how the NDP had voted–but the NDP still voted against these motions on the substance of what they contained.
“ Now, I haven’t suggested that the NDP will at any time support the broader Conservative agenda… Neither have I suggested that the NDP will prop up the Conservative Government on every single vote.”
No, but the whole premise of your post was that it was “inconsistent” for Jack Layton criticize Michael Ignatieff for supporting the Conservatives on “every single vote“–thus “support[ing] the broader Conservative agenda”–while suggesting that the NDP might support an EI reform bill even if it didn’t completely meet every one of their demands. My point is that those are two totally different things.
“As I mentioned before, Jack Layton has already made his thoughts on the Conservative Government excruciatingly clear. This is why I find it so amusing when his ‘hard line’ position crumbles when the pressure is on him. What I AM suggesting is that Jack Layton openly puts the NDP vote up for sale which I find reprehensible. Jack Layton is trying to claim integrity while sacrificing it ‘for the right price’.”
This I don’t understand in the slightest. In fact, I think it’s downright juvenile.
NDP MPs were elected to represent/pursue/implement a specific policy agenda. The NDP should vote in whatever way will best advance that policy agenda.
Form a coalition government? Check. Vote against budgets and bills they oppose? Check? Vote for specific initiatives they support? Check. Use their votes as leverage to negotiate deals that would result in the implementation of their policies than the alternative? Check. Support the Conservatives in exchange for no policy concessions as Michael Ignatieff has? Not so much.
“[S]acrificing” ones “integrity… for the right price” would entail vote for measures you disagreed with or voting against measures you agreed to serve your personal benefit–not voting for measures you actually do agree.
“Best illustration of the ‘house that Jack built‘ is for sale: the coalition of losers. For a cabinet seat, Jack tossed out the Dipper #1 policy: no tax cuts for big oil/business;”
Oh, please. The NDP has 37 seats in the House of Commons; they were never going to able all to get all–or even most–of their agenda wanted implemented.
The only relevant question was/is “Would the coalition (or any other course of action) result in more or less of the NDP’s agenda being implemented?”
Do you really believe more NDP policies are being implemented today than would have been implemented had the coalition gone ahead? If so, you must be really angry with the Conservatives.