07.16.2015 09:26 AM

Typical Jamie Heath

A windy, wordy exposition. Proposes marriage with Liberals, then attacks them on the steps of the church, here.

Typical. 

24 Comments

  1. Alex says:

    I completely agree with your assessment of Heath’s piece. I found his article incredibly unhelpful, and to be frank pointless. While he attacks the Liberals for being faux progressives, he fails to mention that Mulcair has put a lot of water in the traditional NDP socialist wine.

    Quick question: Who is more left-wing, Lloyd Axworthy — one of Canada’s best foreign ministers — or Thomas Mulcair? Similarly, was Sheila Copps a right-wing ideologue, or was she as progressive (if not more) than many NDP members? I ask these questions to point out that, sometimes, Liberals can be to the left of Dippers.

    While I will likely vote NDP in the next election, let’s not pretend that the NDP is some progressive utopia, while the Liberals are only comprised of Blue Liberals like John Manley.

    • The Doctor says:

      True, Alex, there are lots of examples like that. Pierre Trudeau himself was decidedly on the left side of the Liberal Party, and I think it’s fair to say that ideologically and economically speaking he was a Dipper — it’s just that he grew up in Quebec at a time when the NDP was a complete non-factor there. So for a young PET, the Liberal Party was really the only viable political choice for him. The major economic policies he brought in — NEP, FIRA — were right out the NDP wet dream playbook. He was also congenitally anti-American, protectionist and had no problem whatsoever with running chronic budget deficits.

      Meanwhile, out West especially you’ll find a lot of NDP members and voters who are socially quite conservative, it’s just that they’re union people or come from union families and see the NDP as the “party of the little guy.” Yet these people would have SFA in common with urban progressives on social issues.

      Another confounder like that is the Canadian Election Study, which pointed out that in the 1993 federal election, one of the most significant shifts in voter support in the Western Provinces was a wave of former NDP voters shifting their support to Reform (while flying over the Liberal and PC parties). So would you call those people “progressive”?

    • Franklin T. Urtle says:

      Quick: name five progressive things that Chretien did.

      • Ridiculosity says:

        Progressive things Chretien did? Seriously?

        1. Doubled Marital/Parental Leave 2. Gun Control 3. Same-Sex Marriage 4. Eliminated the Federal Deficit 5. The Kyoto Protocol 6. Border Security 7. Introduced The Clarity Act 8. Kept Canada out of the Iraq war.

        I could go on, but by now you should get the general idea…

      • terry quinn says:

        He created the Shawinigan hand shake.

  2. davie says:

    Oh, I have waited decades and decades to say this. Now, at last, I get to say it. Finally…here it is:

    A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives.

    (Man, that felt so good that I think I will just keep repeating it.)

  3. Kevin T. says:

    I dunno, but this seems mightily like the kind of blustering that comes right before the rude awakening.

  4. MississaugaPeter says:

    Purpose of article: to subtlety attack the Liberals and for Liberals to consider the most popular progressive party at the moment.

    IMO, successful.

    Just enough truth truth to it to not offend but make one consider.

    Well done.

    Don’t see this kind of thinly veiled stuff coming from the Liberal War Room.

  5. Michael S says:

    Cmon WK you know as well as I do that the true NDP hate has never been for the Conservatives, it’s always been for the class traitor Liberals.

    • The Doctor says:

      Just like the Bolsheviks saved their most bitter contempt for moderates like Kerensky. To a True Believer, there is nothing more contemptible than ideological impurity.

    • JJackson says:

      The late Jack Layton realized that the only way for the NDP to ascend is for the Liberals to descend. As long as the LPC existed the NDP would forever be a rump addition to the LPC.

      So in 2006, Jack voted no confidence in the Martin minority government and in the election he made Stephen Harper the PM of Canada — step One.

      The rest is history, like Jack unfortunately because if he had survived he would have undoubtedly been elected PM of Canada in 2015. Mulcair maybe, maybe not.

      • doconnor says:

        How would Jack Layton have known that making Stephen Harper the PM of Canada cause the Liberals to descend? The Conservatives have formed government lots of times in that past and the Liberals never descend before.

        How would he know triggering an election a few month before Martin promised to call one cause a decade long decline in Liberal fortunes?

        • JJackson says:

          Jack took the risk in 2006 of defeating the Martin minority government saying that he didn’t believe the Liberals would keep their promises. He was the leader of the third party then and he fully knew that the Harper Conservatives had a chance of forming the next government, and that would defeat and displace the Liberals. It was a calculated risk and he was willing to take it.

          In the 2011 election, the NDP only nominally improved in the rest of Canada, and Jack, who knew his time was short, went out on the limb in Quebec and promised them the moon and they drank the orange koolaid destroying the BQ! Again, if Jack were still alive and healthy today, he would have been the runaway winner in the 2015 election, with the final decimation of the Liberals.

          Unfortunately, I can’t see Mulcair as the NDP saviour for Canada even though the polls are tilting towards the NDP. It’s only Round One in the election campaign and it’s going to be a Fifteen Round affair. Hold on to your hats and gonads!

  6. edward nuff says:

    what were they thinking / on the church steps
    they left the motor running / with no gas left
    just a couple playing couple / putting on a show
    who dont even know / what it is they don’t know

    but everybody says / they look so nice
    all decked out / in their wedding whites
    but what we cant see / are the constant fights
    bout who is number one / who is always right

    thats all i got. Can someone add a chorus?

  7. e.a.f. says:

    There are members of both parties who might feel comfortable in each other’s parties. However, basically the parties are two different kettles of fish. We have seen more than one B.C. provincial NDP politician switch to the federal Liberals. If it works for them good.

    In my humble opinion it is best to keep the two parties separate. They can always choose to support each other in case there is a minority government. We need different parties to continue to provide voters an alternative. One or two parties is never good for a democracy.

  8. Matt says:

    well, that was kind of strange.

    Did a Dipper just kinda defend Harper?

  9. JJackson says:

    So the centre-left vote is not split; it’s uniting around the NDP and that’s why the NDP is leading in the premature polling.

    It’s the centre-right vote that is being split between the Liberals and Conservatives!

    No wonder the CPC has launched their “Just Not Ready” attack ad campaign; they want to get the Liberal Blue Grit vote to survive the NDP Orange Wave!

    • doconnor says:

      How would Jack Layton have known that making Stephen Harper the PM of Canada cause the Liberals to descend? The Conservatives have formed government lots of times in that past and the Liberals never descend before.

      How would he know triggering an election a few month before Martin promised to call one cause a decade long decline in Liberal fortunes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*