Layton Flip-Flopping?

I must confess that Jack Layton's antics lately are making less and less sense.

Yesterday, the G&M was reporting that Layton had taken Tax Cuts off the NDP's list of budget demands that the HarperCon$ must meet in order to get the NDP to vote for the budget.

This morning, he seems to be speaking out the other side of his mouth.

The last time I saw something this incoherent out of anyone, I was pretty sure the individual was having a psychotic episode. Layton's changing his position on things so rapidly - and frequently - that it's almost impossible to figure out what direction he is trying to head.

But then again, Layton's behaviour in the HOC has been plain bizarre ever since 2006 - to a degree that makes me question Layton's objectives and his commitment to the principles upon which his party is founded.

Ken Chapman on the Purple Coalition

Go Read

... and I hope for all our sakes he's right.

So ... How Much Is Harper Paying You, Jack?

I see that the NDP has chosen to prop up the HarperCon$:

The NDP will join with Bloc Québécois to support the Conservatives financial ways-and-means motion to be introduced on Friday. The motion, which includes the popular tax credits for home renovation, is considered a confidence issue and its defeat could trigger an election.

But the NDP will also support the proposed EI reforms and will vote for the measures in order to get them into a parliamentary committee, which can be a lengthy process.

That means the party would refrain from voting the government down on any other confidence motion that would trigger an election, including a Liberal no-confidence motion expected the first week of October.

I sure hope Harper's paid you a bundle, Jack ... because when he screws you over, it had better be worth every dime of it to you.

It seems to me that Layton has just shown that his principles are for sale - no NDP leader with any actual principles should ever be willing to get into bed with Harper's band of neoCons.

As for Mr. Harper, remind me again why "unelected coalitions" are a bad thing? Seems to me that's exactly what you've just created.

The Purple Coalition Takes Shape

The timing and choice of Canada's next ambassador to the United States just smells wrong to me.

I'm speculating a bit here, but in the last couple of weeks, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper meet, and then this week, NDP Premier Gary Doer is appointed Canada's next ambassador to Washington.

To say that the timing of this is a little fishy is an understatement, but it fits. Layton has very carefully avoided actually criticizing the Harper government directly - instead choosing to frame his criticism of Harper's recent round of pork barrel patronage in terms of the Liberals:

"He has declared to the Canadian public that he would not name unelected people to the Senate. ... His word means less and less every day he's in office, and he's behaving more and more like the Liberals," NDP Leader Jack Layton said of Harper.

One has to wonder about the NDP's soft-pedalling of its criticisms of the Harper government when suddenly one of the NDP's longest serving public figures is granted a plum appointment by Canada's most partisan Prime Minister. Harper doesn't typically do things like this unless he's getting something out of it.

In this case, he gets to point to Doer as an example where he has apparently not been partisan, and I suspect that he also gets Layton to be somewhat passive for the next few months - and Layton will continue to focus his efforts on the Liberals instead of the government.

Layton will, of course, continue to talk vaguely in terms of "fundamental differences" with the Conservatives and it will be a rare vote that he actually aligns with the Conservatives in the House of Commons. He holds enough of a weight in the House of Commons that he can order his caucus to vote against the government, and thereby act as a fulcrum for whatever lever Harper is trying to apply to the Liberals.

Layton knows that an election right now will go against him, and likely as not end his political career - party leaders that lose seats tend not to survive so very long...even in the NDP.

Of Debates and Conspiracy

Okay, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will be in the leader's debate this election.

In spite of the fact that the Greens haven't elected any MPs to seats, they have run numbers in the 5-8% range in the last two elections - more than enough base support to demonstrate that there is a significant amount of interest in what they have to say.

There have been many times in the past when the NDP in particular has been polling down in that same range. Which is one of the reasons I take exception to the argument that 'only people who have a chance of becoming PM should be in the debate' that has been put forward. This is a spurious argument, IMO, because it suggests that only two leaders should ever be in these debates - the incumbent PM and the Leader of the Opposition. (Historically, I don't think that the 'third party' leaders have ever prevailed on election day)

But, what really bothers me about this whole affair is the way that Harper and Layton have been moving in virtual lock-step with each other on this:

The broadcasters changed course after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

... and just a few days ago, we have this:

In arguing against May's inclusion, the Tories and NDP cited a deal she struck with Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective Nova Scotia and Quebec ridings.

It strikes me that Msrs. Harper and Layton are cut from the same Machiavellian cloth - it's all about personal gain for them, not about making Canada a better place to live.

Dear Jack:

You're starting to sound like a CPC party member. His latest blathering about abolishing the senate is pulling a line straight out of Stephen Harper's underwear drawer.

He said the Senate is outdated and undemocratic, but the NDP still wants Canadians to have a say on its future.

So...you just throw it away? Sorry Jack, but you've just demonstrated how little you really understand. Like Harper's piddling Bill C-43 which he couldn't seem to ram through parliament, simply abolishing the Senate isn't doing us any favors either.

I suggest that Mr. Layton review the legal constructs that surround the Senate, as well as its practical role in parliament (which is actually quite limited). Simply abolishing the Senate leaves us with a parliament that has no natural "counter check" on bills passed. While the Senate may irritate me in a dozen different ways, having a second set of eyes that is not beholden to the often turbulent currents of public opinion is a good thing for Canada. In the past it has forced the House of Commons to go back and place limits on the more dangerous clauses of legislation that could be used to unjustly abrogate the principles of civil rights, and equality before the law.

Senate Reform, whether it is making the senate elected or removing it altogether is not trivial, nor should we treat it as such. Among other things, any meaningful reform involves a constitutional amendment - anything else is little more than legislative window dressing. If we are going to go down the path of creating an elected Senate, that's fine, but let's examine what we expect the role of that Senate to be.

Similarly, if we are going to outright abolish the Senate then we must ask what kind of structure do we put in place to act as a counterweight to the House of Commons.

If we fail to do so, we will create a situation where even greater powers will devolve to the courts and the Governor General. (and, I would argue that both bodies would find themselves swamped with demands to overturn Parliament's excesses)

Layton needs a wake-up pill ... or a serious boot to the head. If he doesn't focus his efforts on countering Harper's legislative agenda in a meaningful way - instead of playing to it - the leader of "Canada's Effective Opposition"(™) will have allowed the CPC to damage Canada very badly indeed.

He may think he's scoring political points right now, but what Layton's really doing is pissing off everybody who might consider voting for him - largely because he is acting more and more like a Conservative Party shill every day.

Dear Jack - The Target's Further Right ...

I have no idea just what Jack Layton thinks he's doing.

Instead of focusing his attacks on Stephen Harper's utterly destructive government, he instead plays into Harper's game by critiquing Stephane Dion:

Mr. Dion cannot have it both ways. He cannot in good conscience complain about the negative effects of Mr. Harper's agenda one day and then see to it that it passes in Parliament the next. Increasingly, this is what is wrong with politics. More and more Canadians are seeing that this is what is wrong with the Liberal party.

I hate to point this out to Mr. Layton, but the issue at hand is not Mr. Dion - it's the dishonesty of the current occupant of the PMO and his antics. Every time Layton opens his mouth these days, there's a "half hearted critique" of the government, followed by a long winded attack directed at the Liberals.

Perhaps Mr. Layton thinks he's going to make some political points this way, but ultimately all he is doing is selling out to Harper's tactics of political thuggery and confrontation.

What Layton continually misses, and fails to focus on is how "Canada's Gnu Government" under PMSH is selling us down the river and turning us into a vassal state to George Bush's America.

A while ago on a friend's blog, I criticized Layton for supporting Harper and was asked what I meant - this is precisely what I mean. Layton is not being an effective opposition, he is being Harper's ally by playing to Harper's tactics. He doesn't attack Harper for making everything before the house a confrontation; he hasn't been going after Harper's government for writing laws that breach fundamental tenets of our justice system; he hasn't held Harper to account for liquidating the very government programs that hold the government accountable for its own programs.

If I was an active NDP supporter, I'd be a might bit pissed with Mr. Layton's tacit endorsement of PMSH's governance.

Quebec ByElection Results

Interesting - in spite of the hoopla in the media, I'm not so convinced that anybody actually "won".

The more I look at the outcomes, it almost seems like the overall picture is that voters were voting "against the status quo". A long-time Liberal "safe" riding swung to the NDP, the Con$ picked up a Bloc seat, and while the Bloc hung onto a seat it had held in the past, it doesn't sound like a particularly strong victory for them either. While Layton's NDP gained a seat, it's not clear that the NDP actually made gains, or was the vote more a matter of "not voting for the other parties"? (I doubt very much that the NDP will hold that seat after the next Federal election)

Perhaps this statement captured in this mornings Globe and Mail reflects the unsettled mood of politics in Quebec, and large portions of Canada as well:

Another voter leaving the polls, Phil Koropotkin, said he's not impressed with Mr. Dion, and switched from past elections: “I've always voted Liberal, but it's time for a change. There's nobody there that stimulates me,” he said. “I think the leadership is in for a rude awakening.”

In other words, all of the parties have a lot of work to do - last night's byelections seem to reinforce the malaise that voters in Canada as a whole seem to be feeling. (Notable by the utter lack of real traction for any of the major parties in the polls for the last 24 months or more)