Layton backs down on ‘stand up’ message (1)
OTTAWA — Does Jack Layton want an election?
Last spring, it certainly seemed that way. As his caucus voted against the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one confidence vote after another, Mr. Layton and the NDP taunted Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals for propping up the Tories.
They even took out radio ads that challenged Mr. Ignatieff to “take a stand” and defeat the government.
But now, as MPs prepare to return to the House of Commons Monday and with the Liberal declaration that they will no longer support the Tories and will indeed push for an election at the first opportunity, Mr. Layton’s springtime ardour to “stand up” to Mr. Harper has changed.
“I think some Canadians are going to be looking for a new direction,” Mr. Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. “There’s two ways we can get it: either by Mr. Mr. Harper working with other parties to establish a new approach on some key issues — that’s what we’re offering — or by rattling the cages and trying to take us off into an election.”
Mr. Layton has been here before, ready to “offer” a prime minister with a minority government the chance to continue governing.
[More]
Updates:
4:29 pm EDT, September 12th, 2009 — Fall election not inevitable, Layton says
Popularity: 16% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
fernstalbert Says:
Layton would be thrilled to be part of a coalition government with the Liberals being senior partners. However, if Jack is your “righthand man” what could go wrong? The MSM will be constantly deferring to the NDP for loud, colourful comment. Ignatieff will have an enfant terroriser (my apologies to French) in his happy government. Cheers.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Mac Says:
The game of “election chicken” continues unabated.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
MaryT Says:
Perhaps the route for Layton is to say, With the overwhelming evidence that canadians do not want an election, we have made the decision to save the taxpayer millions of dollars and will support the government. We will work to try and get responsible legislation passed for the good of all canadians. As no govt can work with the threat of an election every other day, we promise to support the govt for 18 months.
Iggy has thrown Jack under the bus with his stmts he would not form a coalition.
His next campaign can be on we saved you money that the liberals wanted to spend to salve the ego of their leader. He could probably gain liberal votes. He could paint this as working for canadians.
In other words, throw Iggy under the bus, and see the backroom boys do the same.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
ward Says:
What Harper realized some time ago is that any election would see one of the leftist parties gaining at the others expense. An ascendent Lib party comes at the expense of the Bloc or NDP and vice versa.
If one is up the other is down and as such the weaker one will not want to face the electorate at a time when thier political fortunes are weak.
Harper was able to successfully translate this into a minority government that was able to operate much like a majority.
The opposition and political power elite (which includes the media) realized this and had to change the game, to stop Harper from being able to govern successfully, and the sedition coalition was born (and validated by the MSM)
The dynamic that brought to treasonous coaltion attept to bare still exists. Despite their rhetoric, there is no way the NDP and Libs are going to both support an election at the same time, and if this were to magically happen it would be at the expense of the Bloc who would then find a reason to avoid an election.
This traitorous bunch knows the only way they are going to get a sniff at power is to install themselves into power while circumventing the electorate.
Harper should table a motion that any successful non-confidence vote must be followed by an election. If the opposition did not support this motion it would expose their hidden agenda.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
UV Says:
Perhaps Jackass Layton will cross the floor and like Billy Bob Rae before him, become what he really is ‘a closet lieberal.’
A coalition butt not necessarily a coalition! Iggy
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
stageleft Says:
Sitting as pretty as he is right now Layton would be an idiot to push for an election….. Iggy and Duceppe are both backed pretty solidly into corners, it will take all three parties to take down the current government, and Harper doesn’t want to fight another election and end up with a third minority – that sort of thing rattles one’s credibility doesn’t it?
Layton is in the perfect position to prop up Harper as long as he gets something out of it, and you can bet your arse that if Harper survives confidence votes its because he’s cut some sort of deal with Layton for his block of votes.
@ward: Just curious ward. When Harper put his name on a document with Duceppe and Layton on September 9, 2004 asking the GG to, “as constitutional practice has determined”, look at him and the other opposition parties who had “been in close consultation” with each other with an eye to allowing them to form a government, was he acting in a “treasonous” manner?
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Joe Says:
Dunno Stage Left but I understood “as constitutional practice has determined”, meant hold a general election not form a coalition government. I can see the difference. Can you see the difference?
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
ward Says:
Stage compare this..
“We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority,” the letter stated. Sept. 9 , 2004
With this..
Mr. Dion told a news conference with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc chief Gilles Duceppe. “We are ready to form a new government that will address the best interests of the people instead of plunging Canadians into another election.” (A truly jaw dropping statement)
Nowhere did Stephen Harper say that he wanted to install himself into power, by specifically circumventing the electorate. Nowhere does the word coalition exist. Nowhere is there a specific plan about how the power sharing would work. There was no plan here and no evidence of the intent to form a coalition. So no treason there.
I believe that the letter was in regards to the fact that the opposition was concerned that Martin was going to call a another snap election to try to hobble the opposition.
Martin had just done that calling for the June election only 3 ½ years into the Liberal majority. The goal here was to capitalize on the newly minted Conservative party’s relative unprepared ness both financially and as a new party trying to unify under a single banner.
It backfired and Martin ended up with a minority. However the LPC still had the financial clout to call another election in short succession that the opposition would have had a very difficult time fighting only a few months after having fought one. Basically the same idea as the first one that backfired but with the financial advantage now much stronger for the Libs.
Re the Oppositions letter, I read it that none of the opposition parties were wanting to go to the polls again a scant 3 months after the previous election, and that the GG should consider her options in denying Martin the right to call another unnecessary election so quickly – a move by Martin that had absolutely no precedent. ( I do not know if the GG could deny PM Martin his bid to dissolve Parliament – the above para is a presumption on my part that she may have been able to) .
Or if Mr. Martin was going to try to force the election and the GG was not able to deny him his wish, that the GG should remind Mr. Martin that she may just decide to allow Mr. Martin to dissolve Parliament, but that given there was no reason to that she just might allow the opposition to step in and fill the power vacuum created by Martin.
The goal of the Oppositions letter of the day was not to try to steal power from an existing government but to force the newly elected Liberals to govern by killing the second snap election gambit/scenario.
So no there was no treason or evidence of intent of it in the 2004 letter.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
stageleft Says:
@joe: Really, that’s your understanding of the statement? My, my, my……
@ward: You sir are to be congratulated, when the Canada games allows mental gymnastics it will most certainly be as a result of your efforts – your explanation was wonderful and I really hope you won’t mind when I quote you as others deserve the opportunity to learn from this.
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
ward Says:
Stage: until you can come up with some evidence supporting your assertation that Harper attempted a coup – besides your own imagination – you might want to hold off on the mental gymnastics comments. I’d say my interpretation of what happened and why contains more defensible points than your imagined coup does.
I think what you and the other Harper haters count on is that people do not know timeline nor the surrounding circumstances of that letter. Most think it was during the Parliamentary meltdown of the Libs when they were ignoring the various non confidence votes and clinging desperately to power in the spring.
So we have had a real coup attempt in which the media calls out various left wing constitutional “experts” to somehow suggest that based on the King Byng affair that sedition coalitions actions were somehow constitutional – and doing their best to mitigate the damage.
Then on the other hand we have a letter that is rather ambigously worded where one must assume – with no evidence whatsoever- that Harper had the very worst of intentions in mind – which is precisely what you and the MSM engage in.
And you imply its the same thing – and call other people partisan?
Posted on September 12th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Annie Says:
Not only that but there was no formal arrangement to put represetatives of other parties in cabinet and the senate. Cooperation is one thing, a formal coalition is another
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Jack Says:
Watching the comments and I want people to clearly understand the power of our PM.
When Trudeau patrioted the Charter he left a “bolt hole” and it has to do with the GG. When the Charter was patriated it left all the power in the PM’s hands “as planned”.
Stupid is as stupid thinks.
“Well ya”…the GG is our final resort (but not so much). The truth is that because of the wording in the Charter we come to realize that IF the PM disagrees with the GG he can fire her. All he has to do is pick up a phone and the Queen is compelled to comply.
The point: Harper can replace our GG with someone of his own choosing with a simple phone call if she (or he) tries to screw him.
Did you know that?
And who made that arrangement?
You get one guess but I’ll give you a hint.
‘It has to do with the natural governing party’ and it has come back to bite them in the ass.
Do you also know that Harper has the samer power as Trudeau and he’s using it?
Do you know that?
If you read the MSM and take what they say as “gospel” you are in for a rude awakening because things are NOT as they appear. Trudeau gave Harper the power and he can call an election anytime he wants.
Did you know that?
If you didn’t check out Jean Chretien. You may be surprised.
He used the power three times and would have used it a fourth time had Paul Martin not stabbed him in the back because of “9/11″ and Harper in the background.
Do you know that?
I’ll give you another clue. Do you know that the the Liberal Pary of Canada started to “self destruct” right around the time that Harper took over the “Alliance” and are you aware that the big boys want nothing to do with a party that is spinning in neutral.
I am and voters should pay attention.
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Mac Says:
The backroom boys in the Liberal Party must be getting mighty nervous as they watch their hold on the Senate slip away while the games in the House continue unabated. They thought Count Iggy would be the next Philosopher King but, instead, Iggy spends half the time with one foot or the other stuck in his mouth.
Will the LPC cease to be a significant power? It is possible but I haven’t heard the “death knell” yet… That signal would be the creation of a liberal version of the Reform Party.
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
nomdeblog Says:
“Will the LPC cease to be a significant power?”
There will always be utopians and elitists to fight. Just look at Obama/Pelosi and Reid, not to mention Soros and ACORN. It never ends.
Mac, my mistake was thinking there would be a peace dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the enemy always arises again, just in a different disguise.
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Mac Says:
Here’s a quote which Cynapse seems to enjoy for some reason…
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith dated November 13, 1787
The struggle between liberty and tyranny shows no sign of abating…
Posted on September 13th, 2009 at 7:47 pm