Wednesday, March 17, 2010

NDP "Ten Percenter" Sham

The NDP voted with the Liberals to ban "ten percenters". Now, if the NDP didn't agree with the Liberal motion, then it was their prerogative to vote against, no qualms with that. However, to VOTE for the motion, while simulaneously working in "cohoots" with the Conservatives BEHIND the scenes (as Fife said today) to KILL the Liberal initiative, is the definition of "hypocrisy". I'm not terribly interested in the apologist rationalizations, because it boils down to a simple, irrefutable fact. The NDP are being disingenious, manipulating optics, while actually agreeing with the Conservatives.

Both broadcasts today, whether it be Lavigne, Comartin, Layton, all conveyed complete duplicity. Lavigne said the Liberals should use the ten percenters more, Comartin said the NDP would stop if others do (with full knowledge that the Cons have no intention, rendering his pledge nonsense). Layton was straddled on the fence, to the point of absurdity. So, when the Liberal initiative moves to the arena of application next week, it has become clear that the NDP will sandbag, all the while claiming to be in agreement. The NDP will be chastizing the government, at the same time they're working together to thwart the Liberals.

The Liberal motion isn't binding, just as the NDP prorogue package is really nothing more than desired presentation. What it all means, parliamentarians passing measures means nothing, apart from providing talking points. However, if the NDP was truly sincere, then they could join the Liberals next week at the Board of Internal Economy to curb the ten percenters, they just VOTED against. Sadly, it's apparently all a ruse, because the NDP has no intention of fulfilling their vote obligation.

What a sham! Oh, and spare me the pontifications from Mount Pure, it looks more like a mole hill everyday.

44 comments:

marie said...

Happy saint Paddy day.

This is not the first time that Layton has been in cahoots with the cons. He is an opportunists and a shyster and how anyone can beleive him is beyond me.

Steve V said...

If the NDP don't truly believe that 10%'s should be banned, then why not offer their own proposal that puts restraints on what can be handed out. Philosophically, I don't disagree with MP's directly talking to constituents. Why not some kind of screening process, wherein these flyers must be substantive, avoid personal attacks, certain parameters. If the NDP believes these flyers have a value, but agree on the hate propaganda, then let's hear it. Just don't vote for something, and then go into the shadows with these creeps to kill the Lib proposal.

Greg said...

I am still waiting for a party (any party) to assert the supremacy of parliament, so you know how I am feeling.

Steve V said...

Well, it looks like everybody is caving on that one.

Marpman said...

I am curious how a Parliamentary system can work when the will of parliament is ignored. Were these bills or motions? If they were bills, but the Tories refuse to implement them then are they not in contempt of parliament. This is a judicial system, and this would result in sanctions.
The Tories could hold it up procedurally anyways, they control the Senate...or gut it, not that there is much to gut...but to not attempt to appear to implement it would seem fairly blatant.

leftdog said...

Pure Liberal nonsense! On the day that the Conservatives once again state that they are NOT going to respect the supremacy of parliament; that they are going to defy the will of the House of Commons ... you blog an attack on the New Democrats??? Is the intention of this post to distact and take some heat off of the Conservatives ... to give Harper some cover??

Steve V said...

Marpman

It's been a pretty disappointing couple of days. Both the prorogue vote tonight, the "ten percenter" vote yesterday, neither are binding, the gov't can just ignore with little accountability. Makes you wonder why elect MP's in the first place.

fern hill said...

Oy. Over at the CAPP Facebook group, people are celebrating what looks like a little progress (ooo, 'progress'??). A little cooperation in the Opposition.

And then there's this.

I despair. We're fucked.

Steve V said...

It's all a ruse.

Mark Francis said...

I've been drowning in NDP 10%s for years. They have my riding targeted. To make htigns worse, their mailign list is way off, and I get several mailed to my address for people who haven't lived here in years.

Hey, Dippers: One per household is all you need! Better yet, none!

Marpman said...

So, what is the point of a parliamentary system which allows for non-binding legislative orders?
Yes, why elect MPs if our PM decides what is best for the country, without any form of debate.
I would like to see a SCC ruling on the legality of ignoring voted legislation...of course,he would just ignore the SCC as well.
I am wondering when the GG would act? What does the ruling party have to do, in defiance of the will of the people, in order for her to force an election?

Steve V said...

Depressing little system we have, isn't it?

RuralSandi said...

leftdog - Layton is a snake in the grass. He spews one thing and does another. Even Comartin had trouble answering the question from Tom Clark.

Ya, the party of principle. How come the NDP are afraid to show their supporters and others their Constitution? All other parties do. What are they hiding?

DL said...

What I would like to know is why are the Liberals so bad and making use of the "10 percenters" I don't want to debate whether they ought to exist or not here. The fact is that they do exist and for quite a few years MPs and their parties have had this free tool at their disposal. The Tories have clearly milked it for all it was worth. The NDP has also used it quite efficiently and without resorting the type of politics of personal destruction that the Tories. I've received 10%ers from NDP MPs who are not my MP - like a piece from Charlie Angus on net neutrality and something from Bill Siksay on international gay rights issues. I have no problem with that.

What I don't understand is why the Liberals make full use of these free mailings. By NOT doing so, its the equivalent of walking way from a roulette wheel leaving hundreds of dollars on the table unclaimed. You'd think that with the money problems the Liberals have had for the last few years, they would learn to take full advantage of these FREE opportunities to get their message out to Canadians. Why can't they do it???

RuralSandi said...

DL - it isn't free mailing. Taxpayers pay for it.

And, the NDP abuse it almost as much as the Cons.

But hey, NDP don't mind burning up taxpayer money. I remember a report in the Hill Times about parties and their offices expenses (paper clips, etc) and it was the NDP that spent the most.

Ah, NDP do like freebies.

Pearce Richards said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pearce Richards said...

DL - I don't want to get mail from someone who isn't my MP unless it is paid for by their party. I don't care if it's standard practice. Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean it's not a giant waste of money that is abused more often than it is used properly.

I don't trust the NDP's altruism on this one. Methinks they don't want to lose a "free" propaganda arm.

DL said...

The ten percenters have been around for many years and the Liberals have sent them out many times as well. I want to know why they have done such a bad job of sending them out to the full extent that they can. It's free advertising that they don't have to pay for. It's not as if for the past six years the Liberals have refused to send out any ten percenters on the grounds that they want to save tax dollars. They have sent them out - they just haven't been as good at sending them out as have the other parties. I want to know why. Seriously, when you are handed this tool that allows you to send out the Liberal view on national issues to hundreds of thousands of people at no cost to the party - and you don't make full use of it - its just plain stupid. Its like being offered a free time political broadcast - and then saying "NO, we won't bother using our free air time!".

Pearce Richards said...

"It's free advertising that they don't have to pay for."

IT IS NOT FUCKING FREE. WE PAY FOR IT!

Sorry to lose my cool, but you're missing the central point here. Eliminating government waste.

Nero Wolfe said...

Looks like we have a new coalition on our hands folks.

NDP/CPC

Aren't the NDP always giving sermons from the mount?

Aren't they always the ethical ones.

Aren't they the ones alway's opposing Harper?

DL have any answers for that

I thought you despised the CPC

DL said...

I tend to agree that the 10 percenters have been abused and should be eliminated. But, its not as if the Liberals care about saving taxpayers money. I mean if they really cared about that I suppose they could voluntarily refuse to accept the $8 million dollars a year they get from Elections Canada and give the money back to general revenues (so the Tories can spend it on more ads promoting the "Action Plan").
Its pretty obvious that the only reason the Liberals suddenly want to get rid of ten percenters is that they are too dense to figure out how to use them as effectively as the Tories and NDP do. I want to know why that is. There are some smart people in the Liberal party (supposedly) it shouldn't be rocket science to write a leaflet, take it to the parliamentary post office and have it mailed out to millions of Canadians at ZERO cost to the Liberal party. Are they that stupid that they can't figure out how to do that???

Nero Wolfe said...

DL

How about that an NDPer with a good idea.

If the Liberals give up their subsidy, will the NDP follow suit?

You still don't get the point.

It is taxpayers money.

Maybe it would be nice if the NDP could actually start living by that lofty rhetoric, of theirs.

I guess the NDP is just like the CPC

You guys have a lot more in common than you think.

Are you sure you don't belong to the CPC party?

RuralSandi said...

DL - been around for years but the abuse is out of control. Actually, there's no need for them with internet/emails and all.

Besides, we are in economic rough times and it is a total waste.

Olivia Chow spent over $69,000 dollars on them. Abuse

Gayle said...

"Is the intention of this post to distact and take some heat off of the Conservatives ... to give Harper some cover??"

Actually, I think Layton is the one giving Harper cover...again.

"Its pretty obvious that the only reason the Liberals suddenly want to get rid of ten percenters is that they are too dense to figure out how to use them as effectively as the Tories and NDP do. I want to know why that is."

Do you really want an answer to this question? Because if you do I would suggest you need to get a dog and call it "Life".

In any event, pardon my language, but it is not too fucking hard to be "good" at sending out propoganda. Your little question is utterly disengenuous and clearly designed to draw attention away from the fact the NDP are being total hypocrites here.

It is not about the liberals being too dense to draw up a pamphlet and send it off. Even your little dog named Life could probably do that. Maybe the LPC simply do not want to be dragged down into the gutter where Harper and Layton obviously feel at home. Maybe the LPC feel it is time Parliamentarians actually walked the walk and stopped looking a tax dollars as "free" money. You might want to follow suit.

Marpman said...

These 10-percenters are BS...always were and it is time that they ended. I do not want to see garbage from every Tory MP in the country..since when does an Ontario MP know squat about the issues which face me in BC.
Crap!!!!!!!!
Worse that they are a propaganda engine. I received one today, from Cummins and it was all about Ignatieff and the fact that he taught at Harvard. Who friggin cares...glad to see someone with some education running the country, not like yourself...half-wit.
LPC....don't send them...don't want them and stand behind your word...let the CPC and the falsetto party (NDP) do whatever they want....
take a stand and stick to it!

Dr.Dawg said...

Nice little ruse you have here. Your party is caving utterly on an issue that goes to the heart of responsible government, and your leader is out of town. Just the time to launch a silly attack on the NDP--for voting with you on something.

At this point, "ROTFLMAO" doesn't do your effort full justice.

Steve V said...

Dawg

Weak tea my friend.


DL

If the NDP like ten percenters fine. Don't vote to ban them, then huddle with Pierre to kill it behind the scenes. Your not even addressing the point.

RuralSandi said...

My, my Dr Dawg. NDP voting for and working behind the scenes with the Cons against. Principled-no? Sleazy-yes.

Steve V said...

"NDP Leader Jack Layton launched a blistering tirade against "King Stephen Harper" only to waffle when it came down to whether his party would actually support the ten-percenter ban behind the closed doors of the Board of Internal Economy meetings"

Winnipeg Free Press


I note NOBODY has dealt with the substance of this post. As for parliament's supremacy, I wait with baited breath TOMORROW when the NDP deadline passes and the concurrent silence from selective bashers.

Steve V said...

Hey, looks like the Cons might be flipping to:

"Three hours later -- after news reports of Conservative intransigence began to circulate -- another PMO spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, emailed The Canadian Press to say the "Conservative caucus supports eliminating out-of-riding 10-percenters so long as this restriction applies to all parties.""

DL said...

So basically all the parties are saying they are willing to get rid of the ten percenters as long as all the other parties agree. so looks like we have a deal.

I still want to know why the Liberals were so bad at making use of the ten percenters during the time they existed. I've received some from Liberal MPs and they were usually black and white thingamajigees that looked like they were run off on a Xerox machine circa 1975.

Dr.Dawg said...

Gosh, how do we read this now, then--that the Cons moved swiftly to salvage the NDP's tattered reputation?

This place is getting better than weed.

Stay tuned for important doings on Friday.

Dr.Dawg said...

In fact, as I speak...

Steve V said...

Dawg

That you can't acknowledge the duplicity of voting for, then working behind the scenes to unravel, is more a testament to your own bias, than any error in logic here. I find it amusing to be honest.

Steve V said...

Oh, oh look at Derek Lee "beating Harris to the punch" as Kady points out. Care to apologize for your earlier UNFOUNDED outburst, or are we still high and unable to decipher reality ;)

Steve V said...

From Kady's:

10:18 AM
Well, this is a bit of an unexpected turn of events -- Derek Lee has beaten Jack Harris to the punch on the privilege front, and is now on his feet, arguing his motion of privilege -- which may or may not be the same as the draft motion that has been the subject of so much discussion and speculation in the weeks leading up to -- well, this moment.


Is that .. is that a spine I see before me? Most unexpected. Oh, and he just referred to the Grand Inquest of the Nation, which I am going to take as a shoutout to me and Colleague Coyne. I'm going to hit post. and then fill you in on his arguments.


10::22 AM
Lee is asserting his little heart out -- the power of parliament to subpoena persons, papers and records is supreme, for the House -- and the Senate -- and its creature committees as well -- and a failure to comply can result in the House -- and the Sargent-at-Arms -- being brought in; that, he notes, is an issue for the House -- committees have the power to demand, but it is ultimately parliament to which the enforcement -- and any ensuing finding of contempt, and punishment -- falls.

10:27 AM
For a quick-ish recap of the motion that Lee had planned to bring forward when the House reconvened -- which may or may not be identical to the wording on which he eventually settled -- click here. For the full, unredacted (couldn't resist) background information, click here.

Steve V said...

Silence?

Well no matter, I'm just happy to see the opposition showing some spine. Good development.

Dr.Dawg said...

Patience, lad.

Just back from watching it all unfold on TV and putting up a quick blog. Mea culpa on what looked like a Liberal fold.

But where's your leader? Addressing a cub scout troop in Delisle?

Steve V said...

Libs seem to operating just fine in Ottawa ;)

Great day, all around, from all sides. Very happy.

Dr.Dawg said...

Beer?

Steve V said...

Who's buying?

MERBOY said...

RE: DL...

"I mean if they really cared about that I suppose they could voluntarily refuse to accept the $8 million dollars a year they get from Elections Canada and give the money back to general revenues"

The money government gives to fund the parties is intended for partisan uses... and if you don't like that part of our system the alternative is 100% private donations... which takes us back to the way things were before... corporations and unions will own the parties.

The money government gives to individual MPs is supposed to be for them to interact with THEIR constituents... there is absolutely no reason for one MP to send anything to people living in another riding.

Dr.Dawg said...

Who's buying?

Me--I do think a round on me is deserved.

Steve V said...

Well, you know I was getting worried too. Call it even. If you're coming to the Drinkers Conference in Montreal, we'll share a glass.

I was seriously cancelling my Victory Fund if we caved, and I told Derek Lee just that. I also know others conveyed the same.