My sense is this reflects the changing leadership in the NDP. Jack Layton was taking (had taken?) the NDP towards a moderate social democrat party -- and now the NDP seems to be moving away from where Jack was taking it:
http://bit.ly/zrkDqz
OTTAWA— Lise St.-Denis, an NDP member of Parliament for the Quebec riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, is defecting to the Liberals.
St-Denis was elected as part of the NDP's "orange wave" in the last federal election, and says her decision was made over the past few weeks after hearing Liberal speeches in the House of Commons.
She says she was impressed by the Liberals' "sense of duty" to the country and found herself growing more uncomfortable within the NDP caucus over the fall, as she realized she didn't share their views on a number of issues.
"This wasn't a decision made blindly or lightly," St.-Denis said. "I believe the Liberals are in a better position, have more experience and can do a better job of defending Quebec's place in Canada, in the confederation, than other parties."
5 comments:
With all due respect Morton, your claim seems unfounded. The reasons that Ms. St-Denis gave to leaving the party were all legacies of Mr. Layton. There is no reason to believe that the NDP is in any way 'radicalizing.' I suspect that Ms. St-Denis' departure was motivated by the realization, once she actually found herself around a diverse group of NDP members from numerous places, that the NDP is actually attempting to stand against a corporate agenda which both the LPC and the CPC have embraced. Many people are naive enough to believe that one can fight in favor of the actually people and still accept the corporate dominance. Ms. St-Denis has chosen corporate dominance and the neo-liberal globalizing agenda.
This really seems like strange timing if it's supposedly based on party policies. Wouldn't it have made more sense to wait till both parties chose permanent leaders and there is a better indication of where both parties are going to be policy-wise.
Seems more like she'd rather be a bigger fish in a smaller pond than a smaller fish in a bigger pond.
What her comments tell me is something I've realized a few years ago. With the system we have in place there is really no better place to be then in the Liberal fold.
I wonder why no one actually gives her credit for actually showing up in Parliament, observing how things are and then making a decision. What people are forgetting is that the Cons have a majority. Neither the NDP or Liberals can make the Cons change their agenda. All of us no matter which party affiliation we have are basically screwed until the next election. Hopefully by then no one's decision will be made blindly or lightly.
So, a 71 year old backbencher that no one has ever heard of before crosses the floor a few months after winning a seat on the popularity of a party leader.
There is no rationale for this development. This is like trying to figure out the logic in a move made by a novice playing a grandmaster in a game of chess.
This makes little sense and as has already been pointed out, makes even less difference in the outcome in parliament.
It would have made more sense for her to cross the floor to the Conservatives and then cross over to the NDP the next day. Same ultimate effect, but as a bonus you'd get to see the look on Harper's face. And the boring TV panelists would have more to yap about.
Post a Comment