You love this. As soon as you think you have a whiff of the NDP colluding with the Conservatives you love to blog about it. Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office. Once again your posting is premature and the NDP will not support Harper and you will have waisted this energy that could be used to criticize the Tories. And if for some reason the NDP does support the Tories when the time comes I promise to be among the first to criticize them.
Hey look, nobody knows how this all shakes out. That said, seeing the NDP immediately change their tune the moment the Libs come out strong, well it's just telling on so many levels.
I doubt there is an agreement, but that's really not the point.
Why is it dippers always get their panties in a twist when a Liberal says something even slightly negative about them, moaning "attack the Conservatives" yet it's perfectly legit for them to spend the bulk of their time attacking the Liberals?
"Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office."
If I was energetic enough I would dig up that old blog posting by an NDP campaign manager in Ontario where he admitted the CPC shared polling information with the NDP in order to use the NDP to assist in electing a CPC MP in that particular riding (Nicholson's I think).
I recall a letter to the Edmonton Journal from one of Linda Duncan's campaign workers complaining about how the NDP promoted strategic voting in her riding, but also went all out to take votes from the LPC in Edmonton Centre, despite the fact there was no chance the NDP could win that one.
While I have no more evidence than that, it certainly appears to me that Harper and Layton have been working hand in hand to destroy the LPC. Sure, that means a CPC government for the forseeable future, but that does not seem to matter to the principled NDP.
I will still vote for Linda Duncan, but that is because I see an NDP MP as better than a CPC MP. I am holding my nose though because I am not happy about supporting Layton.
If I was energetic enough I would digg up the new paper article about the whole PC canidates campigne team working for the Liberals in a ridding in NS.
Or I would talk about Sask where the Liberals and Cons gave and joined together in a right leaning party to beat the NDP.
Enough from you Gayle some how you are beter then the NDP for doing the samething right?
"Why is it dippers always get their panties in a twist when a Liberal says something even slightly negative about them, moaning "attack the Conservatives" yet it's perfectly legit for them to spend the bulk of their time attacking the Liberals?"
Bingo! Especially this election stuff, they ridiculed us at EVERY turn, over and over. My only point here, these guys are exactly the same, just as partisan and self interested, just as calculating and hypocritical, as their FOREVER targets. This is the NDP's "down to earth moment".
Can you find the energy and time to look for that. It would be very interesting... and useful. Or tell us about when, where it was reported, etc. anything you can recall?
Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office.
Kirbycairo, maybe he didn't collude with Harper since he became PM but he sure did to defeat Paul Martin. Layton is in politics for himself, no one else and if Harper offered him an Olive leaf, he would be in his back pocket. Criticize all you want but facts are facts and just because you support the NDP, it dose not make you right. Layton has not supported the lIberals either so how can the Liberals count on him for support. He is as much a two faced baboon and as much a liar as Harper is.
And, that's only because they could hide behind the Liberals, it was always false bravado. If you want proof, look at the backpeddling the MINUTE the Liberals change direction. Amazing, given all this nonsense we've heard.
In the last election the Cons and ndp had a deal to vote against LP..In the ridings where Con candidate was stronger..he would get Ndp votes to make liberal candidate lose and the opposite in the riding where the Ndp were ahead...The Cons were boasting about it on the talk shows and I know it for a fact as I am a close relative to one who took part....so kirbycairo U are wrong...you have colluded with the Cons...when I scolded her for it my relative said it would not happen again....but I dont think they can stick to that or they will lose the extra seats they won because of it..eight wan it not. Shame on NDP.
In the last election the Cons and ndp had a deal to vote against LP..In the ridings where Con candidate was stronger..he would get Ndp votes to make liberal candidate lose and the opposite in the riding where the Ndp were ahead...The Cons were boasting about it on the talk shows and I know it for a fact as I am a close relative to one who took part....so kirbycairo U are wrong...you have colluded with the Cons...when I scolded her for it my relative said it would not happen again....but I dont think they can stick to that or they will lose the extra seats they won because of it..eight wan it not. Shame on NDP.
"if the Liberals come through with a non-confidence motion, don’t hold your breath that the NDP will back up Mr. Harper — you’d fall over,” Jack Layton last week
This whole discussion is so juvenile and pointless. Its obvious that the NDP feels that its good PR to at least go through the motions of being willing to compromise. Canadians all like to see parties being conciliatory (unlike the Liberal version of being conciliatory which is also known as unconditional surrender). If the Tories refuse to make any concessions then they are the ones who look like they refuse to work with anyone and are intransigent.
It was always obvious that there was zero common ground between the NDP and the Tories, but there is no harm in putting out your position on the off chance that you might have to take Yes for an answer. So in the end we are back to where we knew we would be - all three opposition parties committed to voting down the government.
What's particularly amusing, apart from these lame partisan rationalizations, is that the Conservatives don't seem to want anything to do with Layton:
"There's not much to be gained playing footsie with Jack Layton," one Tory official said."
On top of Kenney's comments, the Cons have clearly chosen to a)take a hard line to see if they don't have to give up much or b) decided there's no point and they're out manoeuvering Layton straight off.
Old School - I will try maybe after the long weekend. I recall I got the link off a liblogger - maybe BCL???
Hopefully whomever posted it will drop by here and let us know.
The entire post was about how the campaign manager justified his actions as he believed ridding the country of the nefarious liberals was the higher ideal.
"Jack Layton is set to announce he will support the government on a case-by-case basis if the Tories back New Democrats' private member bills on issues ranging from EI benefits to regulating credit-card rates."
I love the Liberal sense of entitlement. According to you, the NDP were wrong to vote against the most corrupt government in recent history because Paul Martin was entitled to be Prime Minister. And they really meant to do that childcare thing this time, really.
Sorry to break it to you boys and girls, but the fall of the Martin government was because the people of Canada don't like being robbed.
(BTW, even if every NDP MP had voted with the Liberals, Ali Martin and the 124 thieves would have fallen anyway.)
And in the highly unlikely event the NDP support the current government on a confidence motion, it will be because they have won significant policy and fiscal concessions. That would be completely different from the 79 (soon to be 80) times the Liberals voted with the Cons and got exactly two-thirds of four-fifths of bugger all.
25 comments:
You love this. As soon as you think you have a whiff of the NDP colluding with the Conservatives you love to blog about it. Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office. Once again your posting is premature and the NDP will not support Harper and you will have waisted this energy that could be used to criticize the Tories. And if for some reason the NDP does support the Tories when the time comes I promise to be among the first to criticize them.
Premature?
Hey look, nobody knows how this all shakes out. That said, seeing the NDP immediately change their tune the moment the Libs come out strong, well it's just telling on so many levels.
I doubt there is an agreement, but that's really not the point.
Why is it dippers always get their panties in a twist when a Liberal says something even slightly negative about them, moaning "attack the Conservatives" yet it's perfectly legit for them to spend the bulk of their time attacking the Liberals?
"Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office."
If I was energetic enough I would dig up that old blog posting by an NDP campaign manager in Ontario where he admitted the CPC shared polling information with the NDP in order to use the NDP to assist in electing a CPC MP in that particular riding (Nicholson's I think).
I recall a letter to the Edmonton Journal from one of Linda Duncan's campaign workers complaining about how the NDP promoted strategic voting in her riding, but also went all out to take votes from the LPC in Edmonton Centre, despite the fact there was no chance the NDP could win that one.
While I have no more evidence than that, it certainly appears to me that Harper and Layton have been working hand in hand to destroy the LPC. Sure, that means a CPC government for the forseeable future, but that does not seem to matter to the principled NDP.
I will still vote for Linda Duncan, but that is because I see an NDP MP as better than a CPC MP. I am holding my nose though because I am not happy about supporting Layton.
We know where Harper was when he went missing at the G8 - methinks Layton needs some Imodium.
If I was energetic enough I would digg up the new paper article about the whole PC canidates campigne team working for the Liberals in a ridding in NS.
Or I would talk about Sask where the Liberals and Cons gave and joined together in a right leaning party to beat the NDP.
Enough from you Gayle some how you are beter then the NDP for doing the samething right?
"Why is it dippers always get their panties in a twist when a Liberal says something even slightly negative about them, moaning "attack the Conservatives" yet it's perfectly legit for them to spend the bulk of their time attacking the Liberals?"
Bingo! Especially this election stuff, they ridiculed us at EVERY turn, over and over. My only point here, these guys are exactly the same, just as partisan and self interested, just as calculating and hypocritical, as their FOREVER targets. This is the NDP's "down to earth moment".
Why is it dippers always get their panties in a twist when a Liberal says something even slightly negative about them
I would hardly call laughing at you as getting our panties in a twist. Now shouldn't you be running toward that football, Charlie.
Gayle:
Can you find the energy and time to look for that. It would be very interesting... and useful. Or tell us about when, where it was reported, etc. anything you can recall?
Yet NDP has been the only party that has not colluded with Harper and since he has been in office.
Kirbycairo, maybe he didn't collude with Harper since he became PM but he sure did to defeat Paul Martin. Layton is in politics for himself, no one else and if Harper offered him an Olive leaf, he would be in his back pocket. Criticize all you want but facts are facts and just because you support the NDP, it dose not make you right. Layton has not supported the lIberals either so how can the Liberals count on him for support. He is as much a two faced baboon and as much a liar as Harper is.
Marie
Marie
And, that's only because they could hide behind the Liberals, it was always false bravado. If you want proof, look at the backpeddling the MINUTE the Liberals change direction. Amazing, given all this nonsense we've heard.
In the last election the Cons and ndp had a deal to vote against LP..In the ridings where Con candidate was stronger..he would get Ndp votes to make liberal candidate lose and the opposite in the riding where the Ndp were ahead...The Cons were boasting about it on the talk shows and I know it for a fact as I am a close relative to one who took part....so kirbycairo U are wrong...you have colluded with the Cons...when I scolded her for it my relative said it would not happen again....but I dont think they can stick to that or they will lose the extra seats they won because of it..eight wan it not. Shame on NDP.
In the last election the Cons and ndp had a deal to vote against LP..In the ridings where Con candidate was stronger..he would get Ndp votes to make liberal candidate lose and the opposite in the riding where the Ndp were ahead...The Cons were boasting about it on the talk shows and I know it for a fact as I am a close relative to one who took part....so kirbycairo U are wrong...you have colluded with the Cons...when I scolded her for it my relative said it would not happen again....but I dont think they can stick to that or they will lose the extra seats they won because of it..eight wan it not. Shame on NDP.
"if the Liberals come through with a non-confidence motion, don’t hold your breath that the NDP will back up Mr. Harper — you’d fall over,” Jack Layton last week
Looks like they may not get the chance per NN...
Kenney on the Rutherford Show: 'We're not for sale to the highest bidder, least of all the NDP'
Kris
That would be the final indignity, if the Cons spurned their advance.
This whole discussion is so juvenile and pointless. Its obvious that the NDP feels that its good PR to at least go through the motions of being willing to compromise. Canadians all like to see parties being conciliatory (unlike the Liberal version of being conciliatory which is also known as unconditional surrender). If the Tories refuse to make any concessions then they are the ones who look like they refuse to work with anyone and are intransigent.
It was always obvious that there was zero common ground between the NDP and the Tories, but there is no harm in putting out your position on the off chance that you might have to take Yes for an answer. So in the end we are back to where we knew we would be - all three opposition parties committed to voting down the government.
"This whole discussion is so juvenile and pointless."
Funny, I don't remember that defence when the shoe was on the other foot?? Whatever.
What's particularly amusing, apart from these lame partisan rationalizations, is that the Conservatives don't seem to want anything to do with Layton:
"There's not much to be gained playing footsie with Jack Layton," one Tory official said."
On top of Kenney's comments, the Cons have clearly chosen to a)take a hard line to see if they don't have to give up much or b) decided there's no point and they're out manoeuvering Layton straight off.
"Enough from you Gayle some how you are beter then the NDP for doing the samething right?"
Not sure what you think I have done...
In any event, this is not about the NDP doing anything "wrong" - it is about countering KC's point that the NDP are not colluding with Harper.
Old School - I will try maybe after the long weekend. I recall I got the link off a liblogger - maybe BCL???
Hopefully whomever posted it will drop by here and let us know.
The entire post was about how the campaign manager justified his actions as he believed ridding the country of the nefarious liberals was the higher ideal.
If I may interject, it is all about the "same thing". That's the only point. Nobody's "beter", that's the point.
"Jack Layton is set to announce he will support the government on a case-by-case basis if the Tories back New Democrats' private member bills on issues ranging from EI benefits to regulating credit-card rates."
I love the Liberal sense of entitlement. According to you, the NDP were wrong to vote against the most corrupt government in recent history because Paul Martin was entitled to be Prime Minister. And they really meant to do that childcare thing this time, really.
Sorry to break it to you boys and girls, but the fall of the Martin government was because the people of Canada don't like being robbed.
(BTW, even if every NDP MP had voted with the Liberals, Ali Martin and the 124 thieves would have fallen anyway.)
And in the highly unlikely event the NDP support the current government on a confidence motion, it will be because they have won significant policy and fiscal concessions. That would be completely different from the 79 (soon to be 80) times the Liberals voted with the Cons and got exactly two-thirds of four-fifths of bugger all.
Malcolm
Just to return to your entitlement point, I voted NDP in that election. What were you saying again?
Post a Comment