Friday, April 22, 2011

Will the Real Jack Layton Please Stand Up

I was furious this week with Mr. Layton when he said that he would now be going after Michael Ignatieff. We were hoping for a progressive revolution to unseat Harper, and this was the wrong way to go.

But then one of my readers sent me a link to an old article about Layton, and now I'm just furious. Layton isn't a progressive at all. He's an opportunist who will do what it takes for power, even being Kingmaker for Stephen Harper.

I should have known this, but missed it completely.

The RCMP election tampering was done at the hands of an NDPer. Why was she the one contacted? And it was an NDP MP who was responsible for the burying of the Auditor Generals report.

Right now I'm furious with myself because I voted NDP in 2006, believing that they stood for Canadian values. Apparently not. And the May 2006 article in Walrus Magazine, was written by an NDP insider, angry with Layton himself.
On election night, January 23, 2006, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton stood before a buoyant victory party crowd in downtown Toronto and announced that Canadians had voted for change and that more New Democrats in Parliament would mean better lives for working families and seniors ...

But it was what Layton did not say that evening that was more interesting. He did not mention that the most ideologically right-wing prime minister in Canadian history was about to be sworn into office, and he did not mention that while the ndp’s 2006 election result was impressive, the party no longer held the same sway in Parliament.

Layton’s speech capped a campaign in which he had studiously avoided warning Canadians about any potential threat from Harper and the Conservatives. This odd fact was driven home to me a few days before election day when a newspaper reporter phoned to do an interview. Clearly frustrated, he told me he had been on the ndp campaign plane for three weeks and that despite repeated efforts, he couldn’t get Layton to say anything of significance about Harper, except a one-off shot at his proclivity for decentralization. The ndp leader was quick to attack Paul Martin and the Liberals, but all he would say about the front-running Conservatives was that they were “wrong on the issues.”
This fits in with what Elizabeth May wrote , that Jack Layton had a pact with Harper where they wouldn't attack each other.

She was angry with him because he took down Paul Martin on the same day that Kyoto was being ratified.

But if NDPers were shocked at Layton's actions during this campaign, they must really be shocked to learn that he tried to make Harper prime minister in 2004. A fact confirmed by both Mike Duffy and insider Tom Flanagan.

So while Layton is suggesting that Michael Ignatieff is just like Harper, it would appear that Layton and Harper have more in common. Both are pushing for a Conservative majority.

So let's see:

He is responsible for Harper being in power.

Campaigning against the carbon tax meant giving them a stronger mandate.

And he was ready to thrust Harper on us two years prior to his complete takeover of our country.

- And his actions stopped talks to avoid the spread of privatized healthcare.
- They stopped any action on climate change.
- They left a national childcare plan on the table
- And put an end to the Kelowna Accord, which was five years in the making.

I am still promoting strategic voting and if we put an end to Harper before he puts an end to us, it will be in spite of Jack Layton.

I've been telling people who say they don't necessarily like the Liberals, to hold their nose and vote for them if they have the best chance against a Conservative candidate.

Now I will have to tell them to hold their nose and vote NDP if they have the best chance.

But I will never forgive you for this Jack Layton. The last five years could have been avoided. Thank you very much.


  1. You're still advocating "strategic voting," even after recent reports on its overall uselessness and how much the Conservatives love what it does to the morale or the opposition? Most of the estimates are off-base, if based on recently polling anyway. Vote for whomever you think would best represent your values. It may not seem as strategic, but strategic really doesn't work; indeed, it may have prevented a number of representatives from holding office (if we assume that followers of this strategy realised their supposed intentions).

  2. Horrifying, Emily. How could we have let this happen? How could the NDP faithful have let this happen? I know, getting a new NDP leader is always difficult, but a leader who leans hard right is no leftist leader at all.

  3. Ryan: Fortunately I do believe in my local Liberal candidate. PhD in science. Remember science? An environmentalist and an economist.

    But we are doing more than voting strategically. We are hands on, donating time and money in close ridings.

  4. Don't be a sore loser just because Iggy isn't cutting it, if I remember you changed in this election because Iggy was coming on strong. Now Jack is and you don't like it.

  5. No actually I didn't change. I've always supported Michael Ignatieff. This election anyway. I used to be PC. Voted NDP twice. Layton's rise is all bluff though. I doubt it will transform into more seats. It will only split the progressive vote.

    I just hadn't realized before that Layton wasn't a progressive. I thought as NDP he would be more like Tommy Douglas.

    I've since been reading things from other progressives who are also disappointed with the direction that Layton has taken the party. They say he has destroyed the gains made.

  6. I appreciate the RULE OF LAW in our country and will not stand by quietly to live in a police state as this Bill C-36 would allow.
    If you vote to pass Bill C-36, I will have to secede from Canada and charge all public servants who support Bill C-36 with High Treason, as this bill effectively will destroy any illusions Canadians have of living in a real democracy.
    If this bill passes through Senate without amendments Canada will have become a TYRANNY! We might have to join an Anarchist Hugging Group that prays to Angels for Salvation of Government and Law.
    You Politicians are a Representative for the Canadian People who elected you and We the People demand a free and open debate on core issues affecting the People’s of Canada.

    There are only two types of countries: [1] A Country where the Government is owned and operated by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE,
[2] A Country where the Government owns the People and does whatever it wants to the PEOPLE and resources of the County!

    The Truth Will Set You Free
    Canadians should be allowed to vote on individual bills,and the outcome should be law.
    Our government should be comprised of administrators,who implement the people's wishes, and they should have no decision making powers.
    Or: there should be citizen's initiatives at all levels of government ,whereby petition citizens could create ,amend , overturn, or destroy any piece of legislation put forth by THEIR government!

    Yours for Freedom, Truth and Peace

  7. Tommy Douglas wasn't all that progressive either. He may have created universal health care in this country, but he also believed in eugenics.

  8. Also, strategic voting can work, but only in swing ridings. For everyone else, it's a wasted effort. You might as well vote however you want if you're not in a swing riding, and hope for the best.

  9. A lot of people supported Eugenics then, including Ernest Manning and Social Credit. An ufortunate period in our history.

  10. Right on, Emily!

    I too tried to warn of this.

    People forget that just one week before the contempt motion in the House, Jack was trying to make a deal with Steve, a man he was telling us all "can't be trusted".

    He did ^NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with all progressive Canadians.

    He did