|
---|
Sunday 27 September 2009
Layton has lead his NDP party into supporting the Harper Tory minority government, in return for a promise to inject a paltry $1 billion more into EI. This is the crux of Layton's reasoning:
"He did reach out. The $1 billion he is proposing to spend on improving EI benefits isn't enough, of course. Too many unemployed won't benefit from these changes. And critics have called it "peanuts" and a "bone." But that's absurd. Only Bernie Madoff ever believed that $1 billion is peanuts and he has, I suspect, recently changed his views.
For us, though, the real question is how to use political leverage responsibly when you have it. Do we support this measure, which will get much-needed financial help into the hands of people whose benefits will be running out this winter and may end up on social assistance? We fully appreciate that doing so means an election will not happen right away, and will leave in place, for a time, Stephen Harper's minority government, whose right-wing agenda we have vigorously opposed."
Layton's reasoning is suspect and faulty. If he really is concerned about the plight of the many unemployed, and about the inadequate unemployment regime Harper is now applying across our country, then he should have followed his "real question" of how to use political leverage responsibility to its logical end.
And that end is simply this: Given that many Canadians are hurting because they or their family members have lost their jobs; given that many more will lose their jobs in the next two years; given that many of the replacement jobs will pay far less and be less stable than the jobs lost in our manufacturing sector; given that the Harper Tories do not believe in changing the ability of Canada to compete and provide high paying, stable jobs for all, through the use of partnerships between the federal government and Canadians; given that the Bloc support in Quebec means it is unlikely that there will be a majority government (Tory of Liberal) in the near future, then the question is – How should the NDP best exercise the political leverage it might have in Parliament in order to properly protect and help Canadians in the short, medium and long term?
Jack Layton's action in accepting the mess of porridge offered him by Harper is flawed because he looked only to the short term, and not the short, medium and long term.
The bulk of Canadians would be better off if we had a minority Liberal government in power right now, supported by the NDP and if needed the Bloc in order to provide progressive governance to Canada.
Layton should re-consider the timeframe of his decision, and vote the current government out of power.
That would be the proper way to act in the interests of most Canadians.
Revert to your principles, Jack, and think of the alternatives. You do have a choice.
Labels: confidence vote, Layton, NDP