Buckdog

Some of the Libs puzzle me.

They went from "Vote strategically because we all want the same thing!" to "Jack Layton is a pervert so vote Lib" to "Jack Layton wants to destroy Canada".

Also, when Lib politicians open their mouths about "unity", they unwittingly remind us that their form of unity comes in the form of slush funds to advertising agencies.

Canadians can't afford THAT type of Lib unity!

I am so sick of these center-right 'liberals'. They do not deserve to use the word. They refuse to believe that people didn't vote for them because they don't like their lack of policies. Instead, they prefer to liken all 'true' left-wingers to a mass of people who made a serious mistake by turning to the NDP. I have always voted NDP or Green, have never voted for the small-c liberals and probably never will. And maybe Jedras is wrong about Quebecers. Perhaps they, too are tired of the old separatist line and want a new party to represent them. I guess we will see what happens in the coming years...

It is disgusting. Not the first time either for Mr. Jedras.

That famous friend of socialists and separatists - Preston Manning - also endorsed the concept of a simple majority. Here's a few links:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/housepublications/publication.aspx?docid=2332485&language=e&mode=1&parl=35&ses=1
http://global-economics.ca/dth.chap3.htm


The Liberal bloggers are going are just echoing talking points made by Jean Chretien against Reform in the 1990s. The old Reform policy was a clear question with the (dire) consequences of a Yes vote spelled out to Quebec voters... but with a simple majority to pass.

The Liberals carbon-copied much of the Clarity act from the Reform handbook - in some ways Manning and Harper its godfathers - but "clear majority" (instead of a simple majority) was a Liberal invention.

[ Manning's position on a simple majority didn't hurt him much in Western Canada... ]

I would like to offer you kudos for not attacking me personally or on the basis of what someone else said about something I wrote, but instead taking the time to examine the argument I made, explain why you disagree with it and rebut it point by point.

It is this kind of rational, reasoned debate, free of hyperbole and personal attack, that is clearly the sort of progressive ideal that all that seek to call ourselves "progressive" should strive to.

Kudos also for not trying to apply some sort of un-defined litmus test for the term progressive, and for allowing that someone can be progressive and still disagree with the NDP, because we can all agree such litmus tests would have no place in progressiveism.

Again, kudos to you for your well-reasoned, positive arguments. You are an inspiration to those other non-progressive bloggers who would just resort to personal attacks against anyone that doesn't exactly share their beliefs while hiding being pseudonymous.

Bravo.

This is quite simple. Liberal strategy is currently based on attempting to raise the issue of a potential next referendum (if ever) in Quebec. The purpose of the desired debate is to engage the public on potential positions that New Dems may hold in this hypothetical referendum. Yet you attribute the 'debate' as being started by Layton - "Fueled purely by his own ego, he's opening up a can of worms that is likely to be more than a little rancid. Do the majority of Canadians really want to spend this next decade dwelling on Quebec sovereignty issues ... yet again?!,
Your colleague at Calgary Grit exposed Liberal strategy here.

You used a wide forum (good on ya) in the National Post to attack Layton as part of that ongoing Liberal Party strategy. Fair ball, but don't think that you won't be challenged on it. The fact that Conservatives (of the more Right persuasion) are giving you kudos is of note in a progressive forum. No litmus test is needed. I pointed it out with the title comment 'it comes as no surprise to me ...'. Is that an attack?

There is no referendum anticipated in Quebec. Trying to make it an issue is ridiculous. It is the only thing you have to attack Layton on so have at it.

Expect pushback - or kudos. If the shoe fits it, wear it.

OOPs
Here's the Calgary Grit link I mentioned above:


"The NDP has taken great joy in dividing the Liberal Party at every opportunity during the minority years. Now, the Liberals have a golden opportunity to return the favour if they can bring what's left of their Quebec caucus onside. It won't be hard to toss federalism grenades into the NDP tent - a few mischievious opposition day motions should do the trick."

I pointed out that the NDP is saying one thing in Quebec and another in the rest of Canada, and I said they're free to take whatever position they want but they should take the same one across the country. I said I find the NDP's position confused, and I invited clarification.

You may feel free to spout whatever grand conspiracy theories you wish. But I find it very telling that, rather than address the thesis I put forward, or even state the nature of your disagreement, you instead ignore it and simply blindly attack anyone that disagrees with you.

I'm happy to engage with those with differing opinions that would like to offer a counter-argument and debate one another's opinions. Unfortunately, we have nothing to debate because you haven't offered a counter-argument at all, other than I fail to meet your definition of progressive because I disagree with you or something.

If this is the new civility and level of debate the new NDP opposition has promised, it should be a fine four years indeed.

The problem is that it is the goal of Liberal strategy to engage and continue in debate on a potential referendum. If I follow your invitiation: "I'm happy to engage with those with differing opinions that would like to offer a counter-argument and debate one another's opinions." ... then you have succeeded in lengthening a useless, pointless, unproductive debate WHICH IS CURRENT LIBERAL STRATEGY!.

For goodness sakes ...

"I pointed out that the NDP is saying one thing in Quebec and another in the rest of Canada, and..."

But the NDP ISN'T saying one thing in Quebec and another in the rest of Canada.

The NDP clearly believes in the principle of a clear majority on a clear question, but is also upfront about the fact that they believe a clear 50%+1 majority is a clear majority and--because provinces have the clear power to hold referenda on whatever subject or subjects they choose--it isn't useful to debate whether a particular hypothetical question would provide a mandate for secession.

When asked--in English or French--whether the NDP supports the Clarity Act Jack Layton generally says that the NDP supports the clear majority, clear question principle laid out by the SCC. This is basically a way of the showing support for a key principle that many people associate with the Clarity Act while making it clear that the NDP would never use the Clarity Act--as many Quebecers fear it will be used--to throw up BS legalistic roadblocks meant to derail the clear democratic will of a particular province.

When asked--in French or English--whether the NDP supports 50%+1, Jack Layton generally says "that's in our declaration" as he did a week ago the first day this came up.

First of all, if a post by a random blogger somehow equals official party strategy, I shall henceforth take every post you write as official NDP policy.

Second, if you were really so concerned about not playing into this supposed grand conspiracy theory you wouldn't have written this post. It seems what you're really not interested in is trying to rebut the original point: the NDP is saying one thing in Quebec and another thing in the rest of Canada. Perhaps because you have no argument.

Third, as you have made clear you have no interest in reasonable debate or even defending your own party's policies and instead would prefer to float conspiracies, impose purity attacks and attack people for the opinions of others, shall bid you good day.

Thanks for the post, RayK. It's nice to actually have clarity on this matter (sorry) instead of the blather and outright lies coming from the likes of Dion and Chretien.