Evening Star

Despite voting for them, I'm much more concerned about the NDP's support for 'asymmetrical federalism' than about the socialist stuff in the preamble to the party constitution.

He won another huge majority in 1988? After that, not so great but it's hard to say whether that was the fault of his Quebec caucus (who were no longer inexperienced by that point). I do agree that this is a real concern, more so than what the party constitution might say in its preamble and much more so than the exact nature of a massage clinic Layton visited in 1996.

Fwiw, from the NDP Socialist Caucus's own website: They basically acknowledge that they are a fringe element within the party. As far as I know, Davies has never been a member but I can't say for sure. Someone within the party could probably answer that more easily.

Basically, I'm guessing that this is the situation: The NDP has a constitution with some stuff about democratic socialism in the preamble. The NDP has not actually been governing (provincially) or advocating (federally) according to the principles in the preamble to that constitution for decades now and are probably less socialist than the federal Liberals were 30 years ago. However, they have not changed that constitution, for whatever reason. (You know, India's national constitution still describes it as a socialist state.) Most NDP members and voters subscribe to the NDP's platform, actions, and voting record as opposed to some stuff that's written in their constitution. As a result, now that it's starting to matter and people are interested, the party is reluctant to publicize the constitution since they realize the cognitive dissonance. I'm not necessarily defending the reluctance but trying to explain what I suspect to be the case. I don't actually think that anyone needs to worry that the NDP would nationalize the banks and abolish landlordism (or even e.g. renationalize Petro-Canada and Air Canada) even if they won a majority government (which is almost definitely not going to happen this week).

Mike Harris had a roughly similar situation as well, right?

I dunno, he seems like an OK union guy and community member. Who knows? Layton and Mulcair are fairly strong personalities who could probably maintain a fair level of control over a caucus. Perhaps these young backbenchers will bring something fresh. I think Niki Ashton, for example, has been a good presence in Parliament. (I do see the potential for comedy as well, to be clear.)

Why is this a different situation from what Mulroney dealt with in his first term?

Thanks, AW. I was too fatigued to try to explain that (again) myself.

What pass?? Afaik, no one was charged in this raid and the clinic never lost its licence.

You know, I'd actually like to see the constitution myself. Still, I don't know if this is actually as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. I don't see the LPC constitution on their website either. Until the election campaign, the NDP did have extensive lists of fundamental principles on all the major issues on the website. I'm not sure why they took them down tbh but I thought both that they were good and that they were not as radically socialist as the quotes in the linked articles suggest. Layton's Speaking Out is publicly available and contains a couple hundred pages of his views on the major policy issues. The party's campaign platform indicates the actual policies they are running on. I'm curious whether you guys are actually concerned that the NDP has a hidden agenda to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy.

Even if you're right, that's just one example out of how many? Most of the panels are clearly three-member panels. It doesn't seem at all evident that there's a strong bias in favour of one party. Honestly, I think you're just conflating the Liberals and NDP together as 'liberal voices' and so it seems like the 'conservative voices' are being outnumbered. But this just reflects the reality of our multi-party system. As I said, if anyone is getting left out, it's the Bloc.

Are you serious? Just about every single panel contains three people, each of whom is clearly representative of one party or its viewpoints. (This does mean that the Conservative will always be only one out of three: We have a multi-party system.) Let's look at their online videos right now: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics The first clip features Jamie Watts (CPC campaign manager), Alfred Apps (LPC president), and Judy Wasylycia-Leis (former NDP MP). The next panel I see features James Rajotte (CPC candidate), John McCallum (LPC candidate), and Fred Clipsham (NDP candidate). I suppose the third features Joan Crockett (CPC), Ian Capstick (NDP ties), Rob Silver (LPC ties), and also Greg Weston - who's really a journalist and not especially partisan afaik. If we go to the next page of clips from Apr 26, all FIVE different panels are three-member panels that break down fairly straightforwardly CPC/LPC/NDP. If anything, I'd say it's the NDP perspective that gets left out if you have Coyne/Gregg/Hebert. If anyone should be complaining, frankly, it's the BQ.

Who did you call? The Socialist Caucus themselves or some spokesperson for the NDP generally?

The Conservatives (or conservatives) are usually represented by someone high up in the party (Guy Giorno, Jamie Watt) or else by Tom Flanagan, their intellectual forefather, or a high-profile journalist like Tasha Kheiriddin. It's on for 2h nearly every day.

Um, yeah, to a fault, actually. Look at Power and Politics: Nothing is ever discussed without having one person representing each party's perspective.

I'm not sure I ever expected in my life to see a poll that showed the LPC below 20%.

Just saw those. You're probably right then.

My suspicion/fear as well... We'll all pinch ourselves and wake up...

That said, I would prefer an NDP-Lib coalition to an NDP government. There is a little more experience in the Liberal front bench that would be of value when it comes to governing.

Based on their campaign platform, yes. Based on their track record in the Commons, I'm not as sure...

I guess part of my feeling about the whole thing is that, even if all the rumours and suspicions are right and Layton was being a hypocrite, this happened 15 years ago. It just doesn't seem to mean much in the context of his current career.

OK, that's fair.

Svend Robinson has been out of politics since 2004.

Contrary examples have already been given. That Street View didn't even look that bad or dubious to me. Have you seen the massage parlours on Ouellette in Windsor?

Does no one legitimately practise massage therapy until they're 40 or something?? (I'm pretty sure my massage therapist - a dude at the local community health centre - is under 35, quite probably under 30.) Does no one immigrate to the country and legitimately practise massage therapy? I'll level with you though. I don't really care even if Jack Layton did pay for a hand job 15 years ago (although there IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to show that he did), even if he was crusading to ban lap dance clubs at the time. People have moments of weakness. I'd feel the same way about Stephen Harper. I had nothing but contempt for the Liberals' attempt to smear the CPC with the story of Bruce Carson's girlfriend.