Tuesday, March 14, 2006

NDP Hypocrisy

This cowboy, of the social responsibility-boosting variety, made an excellent point on the NDP's call for an ethics commissioner investigation of Belinda Stronach's floor-crossing:

"Having missed the appropriate opportunity to complain, the only investigation required now is whether there can be a statute of limitations on political hypocrisy and cheap politics."

Not to mention a statute of limitations period - Stronach crossed the floor in May of 2005. It is now almost April of 2006, almost a year later. Stronach has been duly re-elected by the people of her riding by a fairly comfortable margin - certainly more than she won by as a Conservative. So the NDP does raise the question by calling for an ethics investigation, "Why now?"

It's a good question. Why did they wait almost a year to get up in arms? Was it because Stronach's floor-crossing, at the time, benefited them in their passage of the budget amendment? I think that is almost certainly the case - it's definitely the most logically apparent answer. Hell, why don't get call for an ethics commissioner investigation of Scott Brison's floor-crossing, too, or how about Keith Martin's? And while we're at it, do Ujjal Dosanjh and Bob Rae - okay I know, they didn't technically cross the floor, but why let reason dictate the lengths to which the NDP is willing to go to make a farce of the office of the ethics commissioner? (As if Stephen Harper isn't trying hard enough.)

This is a case of brazen hypocrisy on the part of the NDP - the party that likes to present itself as being "above" petty politics is getting just as dirty as everybody else. The message they send is clear - "If you do something of questionable ethics, prepare to be investigated by the good doctor Shapiro, unless of course it benefits us." Pathetic.



I do have to disagree with Mr. CfSR on the matter of the NDP's handling of Bev Desjarlais, however. The fact of the matter is, the NDP has had a party policy for many years dictating that its members must support gay rights. Jack Layton made it clear in the election of 2004 that he would not allow his MPs to vote against equal rights for gays. Bev Desjarlais ran in that election as a New Democrat. If she was unable to abide by the decision of her leader, she should not have run to join his caucus. It is entirely within the prerogative of party leaders to decide critic portfolios, and that includes rescinding them. As for not doing anything to ensure her renomination, that would have been undemocratic - the NDP members in her riding association wanted her gone, and they made it happen. For Jack Layton to criticize parachute candidates and then force candidates on ridings would be rank hypocrisy.

2 Comments:

At 3/14/2006 10:21 AM, Blogger Nathan Hewitson said...

Keep in mind that for every time the NDP attacks the Conservatives, they must attack the Liberals at least as much..... where are they more likely to take votes from? They attack the CPC because they would look foolish not to, they attack the Liberals out of political opportunism.

 
At 3/15/2006 9:42 AM, Blogger Mike said...

You are missing the point.

The NDP didn't do this to attack the Liberals, but to further attack the Conservatives on the Emerson affair and take away one of their talking points.

Conservatives and Blogging Tories have been trying to defend against the Shapiro investigation by saying "But he didn't investigate Belinda!". We now he is, so they can shut the hell up.

Of course, Shaprio won't find anything since there is nothing to find. That Belinda has been since re-elected as a Liberal only adds wieght to that conculsion.

Now if Beleinda and Paul Martin cooperate with Sharpiro (as they are legally bound to do) and make a very public showing of it, the Conservatives will look very bad - Shapiro will investigate, taking away one of their defences and talking points about the Emerson case, then Beleinda wnd Martin will cooperate, something that Harper is 'loathe to do', showing they have nothing to hide and will abide by parliamentary rules.

In the end, Harper and the Conservatives look like hypocrites ethically, the Liberals look good ethically, Belinda looks good for the leadership race, and PM the exPM looks good for a potential early election, should one occur before the leadership, and the NDP has a chance at the seat, should they be able to force a byelection.

In the end, Harper is exposed for the liar and hypocrite he is and the opposition comes out looking good, just as the sessions starts.

Really, you ought to be thanking us.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home