 Layton coy on non-confidence vote NDP Leader Jack Layton would not say on Tuesday whether his party would support a Liberal non-confidence motion to try and topple the government and send Canadians to the polls.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
He said he prefers not to answer hypothetical propositions concerning the Liberals because they keep changing their mind and that "you're never sure what they're going to do."
You can't dispute that.
Dions Liberals continually talked the talk, and puffed their chests in front of the camera every chance they got.... and when it came to voting against what they complained about.... exactly how many times did all the Liberals simply walk out?
Who were they actually representing when they did this?
Nobody, because nobody's voice was being heard, and their excuse was that they were "Protesting"
If you want to fk'n protest, vote against them.
And Iggy hasn't been much different. Talking tough.... talking about probations and at any moment they'd vote the cons down and goto an election if they felt things wern't going as they expect.
Then they do nothing, even though the majority of their demands were never even close to being met.
So I'd say Layton is yet again on par.
Layton said the pair had a "lively debate" but that there was no sign Harper is willing to compromise on "fundamental issues" such as job creation, infrastructure funding and employment insurance reform.
Also sounds about par for the course.
But from what I'm told, Layton has a long laundry list of things he expects the Cons to do before he starts to support them.
There's his fault right there.
Rather then trying to expect the Cons or any other party to accept everyone of your demands right off the bat, how about presenting those demands and say you would like to see at least 5 of these met for the time being and we'll go from there?
That's the problem with all the parties right now.... each has their own list of things they want done, and expect everybody else to abide by those demands, while not accepting anybody else's demands.
This is why it's so dysfunctional in the first place.
That's the problem with all the parties right now.... each has their own list of things they want done, and expect everybody else to abide by those demands, while not accepting anybody else's demands.
This is why it's so dysfunctional in the first place.
Apologists for PR (which include Mr Layton) talk about "natural groupings" of parties that will come together to form alliances to govern. Well, if cooperation and accommodation doesn't work with four parties - why would it work with fourteen?!
If one wants to see how well PR works take a look at Israel.
It's clear to me that parties who actually have a vision and a direction can have a better and more sustainable agreement than parties that exist only to stay in power. The Libs burned the NDP and Bloc after the coalition so we're probably not going to see much trust or cooperation between those 2 parties.
We could be looking at a three way division, where the Bloc, NDP, Green all stick together until one screws the other over, and the Liberals and Conservatives are sorta each on their own.
Not much will get done in that sort of situation, that's for sure.