Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Insanity.

Ah, the NDP-bashing begins! I was waiting to see more like this. The poor, poor Liberals, forced back to negotiating with Harper by that mean ol' Jack Layton!

Honestly. Is this meant as a serious objection to the coalition? That, during an election campaign, Layton was angling for the best advantage for his party? That, during parliamentary sessions, Layton was angling to get influence within government? Anyone got a fainting couch they can lend these Liberals?

(NB: I know not all Liberals are so dense as to blame the NDP for looking for the best deal to get their policies enacted into legislation. The Liberal Party does the same thing, hence the push for the coalition in the first place. I also know that most Liberals realize Harper is pretty damn bad, regardless of what issues they have with Layton's NDP. However, there is this vocal segment which tries to blame the NDP for the Liberal Party's problems, including its inability to not support their supposed blood-enemy, King Steve.)

2 comments:

The Rational Number said...

I think that post includes no small amount of personal opinion. I even respect that opinion, some people may not trust Jack Layton.

I'm a Liberal, and my feelings are closer to yours. I think the threat of a coalition was necessary, and that wouldn't have been possible without an agreement between ALL of the Liberals, NDP and BQ. My sincere thanks to both Jack and Gilles for making the threat credible. I trust they feel likewise toward Dion.

My opinion was settled before Iggy expressed "... not necessarily a coalition" and I agree with him. The point (I hope) was never to sieze power but to force action in a minority parliament.

I hope Iggy is serious when he said "coalition if necessary..." We may yet have to go through with it, it's up to Harper et. al.

ADHR said...

It's fair enough not to trust/like Jack Layton. What I have trouble with is disliking him to the extent of turning to Harper instead. Even turning to the Conservatives rather than Harper would make sense to me (that is, endorse the claim that Harper is a bad PM, but deny the claim that a Con/Lib agreement would be a bad government).