Inkless Wells

 Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The NDP speaks! With enthusiasm that sounds only a little forced!

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:24pm - 53 Comments

Jack LaytonSo I ran into a surprising number of NDP types during my stroll up the Hill this afternoon, all eager to explain why this decision to support the government is not a 180-degree turnabout. Or in the words of one nameless but affable senior NDPer, “It’s not a 180.”

Having mocked Canada’s Natural Non-Governing Party in a couple of posts below for what, from where I’m standing, sure looks like a 180, it behooves me to print the NDP’s rationale in something approaching good faith. Off we go then:

• It’s not that the Liberals voted confidence in the government 79 times that upset the NDP so, it’s that they gave the government such unflagging support “and got nothing in return.”

• The NDP, on the other hand, “got $1 billion.” That’s the value (anticipated, at least) of the government’s latest proposed changes to EI payments. That $1 billion “isn’t enough, but it’s a pretty good start.”

• So, as Jack Layton put it in his scrum, the choice was between $1 billion for unemployed Canadians, or spending a third of a billion on an election. Layton asserts that he made the wise decision.

• Surely there’s a punchy talking point I haven’t quoted yet? Right you are. “A working group was the best the Liberals got out of the government for all those Yea votes,” one shadowy but determinedly chipper New Democrat told me. “So, Michael Ignatieff got lunch with Pierre Poilievre. We got a billion bucks.” Punchy!

There you go. Now. Having relayed this line of argument with an admirably straight face, perhaps I can be forgiven for adding this. The latest round of changes to EI, which have won the support of the NDP, aren’t the only incremental spending on employment insurance this year. Here’s a bunch of other changes, already passed, which add to $6.2 billion in value. One would be tempted to argue that is 6.2 times as good a start as a $1 billion change. But the NDP was against those earlier changes. That’s not a 180?

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    In other words, the NDP was mad at the Liberals for voting with the Government mainly because it made it impossible for the NDP to extract concessions from the Tories.

  • Krojac

    Sounds a lot like an Conservative, Socialist, Separatist coalition to me.

    • DavidL

      A coalition is when you agree, BEFOREHAND, in writing (like Ignatieff et al did), to always vote together so you can stay in power regardless of the issues.

      This is merely the NDP supporting a single Conservative policy and has nothing whatsoever to do with a coalition.

      This is what we all wanted: "Let's make government work". Now it is. Don't knock it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    I don't know if it's a 180 or not but Libs zigged and NDP definitely zagged.

    “So, Michael Ignatieff got lunch with Pierre Poilievre. We got a billion bucks.”

    I think this argument might seem plausible to people who don't really pay attention to politics, which is most Canadians.

    • Old School Liberal

      As Paul points out, they'd have to really not be paying any attention for that to work.

      6.2 times less in fact.

      • Marion

        Well, their communications department should have been working on getting that message out.

  • Mulletaur

    Nothing can obscure the fact that the game changer in all of this was Iggy saying he would no longer support the government, and Harper's subsequent need to throw the NDP dog a bone – or, to repeat the words of Ken Lewenza, "crumbs".

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    Incidentally, I've had lunch with Pierre Poilievre and it was easily worth at least a billion bucks.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      The meal or the experience?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Is that what you would have paid to get out of it?

    • herringchoker

      Is it true he eats kittens?

    • Canuckistanian

      i'd have lunch with poilievre…if someone paid me a billion ;)

  • Alan

    "But the NDP was against those earlier changes. "

    Can you provide a little more detail here? I don't recall which bill this money was in. If it was in with a bunch of other budget stuff (which I suspect), then it's a little disingenuous to say the NDP was against that money, given that it was probably in a much larger bill most of which the NDP was legitimately against.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      To be fair, their "logic" now is that even if there's stuff they don't like, one billion dollars for hard-working-kitchen-table-ordinary-etc. Canadians is worth it ("better than nothing", in their words).

      Can't hold both ends of the stick at the same time, I'm afraid.

      • Marion

        I think that was part of the actual Budget Bill, which included several things the NDP didn't like, IIRC. Personally, I think the government shouldn't be allowed to put all sorts of things into a big bill that are not directly related to each other. Or at least that they should be allowed to vote on each section separately.
        But since a budget is always a confidence motion, that wouldn't work, I guess…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      You can't have it both ways. You can't say the NDP is getting EI money by supporting the Conservatives, but the Liberals only got a dinner, when their support led to 6.2 B in EI money. That was the point, I presume.

    • Amateur Hour

      If this is a ways and means bill, too, there are likely items other than EI the NDP will end up supporting with their vote …

      Frankly, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest the NDP really even cared what was in any of the previous 70+ bills they voted against. They voted against them for only one reason: to force the Liberals to vote for them or spark an election.

      Now the shoe's on the other foot, and Jack is limping.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ottawasteph ottawasteph

        W&M bill includes Home Renovation Tax Credit and changes to the Customs Tariffs Act.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

          Now, Alan. Experience from my old rugby playing days tells me that when the piling on
          begins it's better to go to the sidelines for a drink of water and wait until the mud stops
          flying.

  • Evalina

    Question: Have the NDP agreed to vote against the liberal motion of non-confidence that will be tabled at the end of September?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    Another Question: How will the NDP avoid the Quarterly economic forecast vote? That is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.

  • Old School Liberal

    The shoes of opposition are too big for him.

  • Bonnie N

    Reality Check Anyone?

    Is this a divide and conquer EI benefit between forestry workers and auto workers? Afterall, forestry has been hammered for the past 2 to 3 years… I would bet the 35 hour threshold limit EI benefit over 5 years would be doubtful for most BC and Quebec forestry workers.

    We need Kevin Page to look at this one.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    All in all, a bad day to be a Dipper, unless you're Linda Duncan.

    It looks like Rahim Jaffer won't be trying to win back her Edmonton-Strathcona seat, given that Jaffer has been charged with drunk driving and cocaine possession.

    • edeast

      They replaced him a couple months ago.

      • edeast

        Here's the story,
        And here's the replacement. http://www.ryanhastman.com/

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

          Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that Jaffer had been replaced by Hastman.

          • edeast

            You're welcome.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

          Anything on the cocaine charge? I liked him better than Helena so I always thought the wrong half of the duo won, but if there's anything in this cocaine charge, I change my mind. Also, I wonder about this marriage. After all, when they tied the knot things were very different than they are now, and how do you defend your husband (assuming just for a minute that he is/was using cocaine) while simultaneously being a member of the "law and order" party? Okay, back to presuming innocence.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        I wonder if they replaced him because they suspected or knew he might have a cocaine habit.

        • edeast

          Maybe Macleans, can get a junior reporter to find out.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      That's too bad about Rahim Jaffer. Well, there's always the Senate.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        It really is too bad. When he was first elected in 1997, Jaffer was not only Canada's first Muslim MP but also one of the youngest MPs ever (he was 25 at the time).

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          He was also a very good MP, if I recall. I was happy to hear that the CPC lock on Alberta had been broken last election, but when I heard who'd lost I was sad.

          • edeast

            I'm not sure if he was a good m.p. But he's a good guy, very gregarious. He can probably use this notoriety to become a judge on sytycd or something similar. More likely a radio show.

    • scf

      Apparently a senator named Mobina Jaffer has her own scandal today, from NationalNewswatch: "Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer is being investigated by the B.C. Law Society over allegations she bilked a religious order she represented as a lawyer"

      What are the odds of that?

      It's a bad day all around for Jaffers everywhere.

      • Canuckistanian

        this is old news…although not the law society investigation. wish i could bill 30hours a day for several years plus collect a senate salary. must be nice.

        too bad for rahim.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lord_Bob Lord Bob

    Yeah, it does feel good to be right, actually.

    Really good.

    I mean, for once.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      You and Andrew Coyne both.

  • oppo guy

    It's only 180 if you think that Jack Layton has never talked about making parliament work.

    In exchange for their 77 votes Liberals got a "blue ribbon" meeting with Pierre Pollievre. Jack Layton got $1 billion for the unemployed. Not bad.

    • Dale

      Hey, the shadowy but determinedly chipper New Democrat is posting on your blog now, Paul!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Did you stop reading Paul's post halfway down?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      ". . . if you think that Jack Layton has never talked about making parliament work"

      That much I have never doubted.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    More like a 540 than a 180. A full 360 degree spin, plus an additional 180 degree turn to bring the NDP to their present position.

    Forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!

    • Mulletaur

      Sounds more like a triple salchow to me.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

      Don't blame me, I voted for Blaikie!

  • Brad Sallows

    Can someone explain how anyone can plausibly claim that Jack Layton and the NDP "got $1 billion", and not Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals?

  • John W.

    Of course from the Liberal point of view, they got the big stimulus package by voting for the budget etc, and everybody knows it is really a little begger than the Cons would have liked.

  • John W.

    Spelling slip not intentional. I'm not that smart.

  • margo delage

    What if the Assembly was honest AND voted for the PEOPLE? Not for a party line but just for the people? I can dream, can I???

  • Morley

    Yup…looks like a coalition to me. NDP and Conservatives. Layton and Harper in a coalition. Oh, yes, that's right….Harper just said a month ago that he would never be caught dead in a coalition. Yes..a man of his word. Can't be a coalition…. Harper doesn't do coalitions.

  • Frans Hoogeveen

    Everyone is vieing for the right time to call an election. It's not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" The Libs think the spring will bring a better economy and helps the Cons. The NDP don't have money and prefer a minority so they have at least some power.
    I predict Harpo to say in the spring "I just can't work with these people I need a majority" . Soon after winning that majority he will announce major cutbacks and a 70B deficit. I'm taking wagers.

Previous

Next

From Macleans