An Open Invitation To Jack Layton: Why Do We Not Fight?

Maybe Chris doesn't realize that the NDP wants to hold on to the 29 seats they have now, and maybe even expand them. Maybe the tactics and message Chis favours would only reduce the NDP to sub party status and further into irrelevancy.

Jack Layton is many things, but I don't think a coward is one of them (how can anyone be a coward and lead the NDP?). It is very easy for Chris Cook to lambaste this man from the sidelines and take this "morally superior" stance, but it is unrealistic, simplistic and quite frankly wrong.

Chris Cook should try and run for parliament. On any ticket. Try and get even a fraction of a percent of people to vote for him on his platform of skewed information and vitriol. Maybe then he'd see that a "majority of Canadians" don't support his viewpoints. Doubt it though. He'd blame the result on Republican tampering with voting, or some other conspiracy.

Running for parliament is indeed a daunting task. Getting the message out is very difficult I agree. However I think Chris is making some important points here. We have to look at the purpose of having those seats. If it is simply to have a job, paid benefits etc then I can see the importance of being quiet and holding onto the seats. But on the other hand if the purpose of running and being elected is to serve the public and public interests, then more can and should be done.

The NDP are the only party in a position to educate Canadians all across this nation. They are the only party with seats in the house that know the threats, and have said they are standing for the people. They know NAFTA is killing this country, they know the banking system has been taken over and that the alternatives are available to get us out from under the $500 billion debt, they know, their members certainly know as I have discussed this with many. They know about the plan for a North American Union under U.S. rule. Many NDP supporters write to CAP asking us to talk to Jack about these issues.

CAP is talking about the threats to our nation, but we do not have the platform Jack has, and his silence on Afghanistan, and the North American Union is quite deafening. What is the purpose of a platform if you don't use it? So while Chris maybe to blunt for some, I think he raises important points. Sure political strategy is one thing, but there has been a great deal of time to send out information, to speak on talk shows, to at least give the people the chance. Without the facts the people of Canada are being denied the choice. None of us are being given a real choice, even the many who do know, because these agreements and deals are going on outside of Parliament. I agree that the NDP have an obligation to bring it up in Parliament, in public, even if they risk their seats, the risk weighed against the threat of losing our country, should be considered a risk worth taking.

All we need is someone who is in Parliament to raise the issues and then the people of Canada can get behind those people. CAP mission is to educate, advocate and articulate and I don't know what Jack's mission is?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

So our options are what... Layton knows about these threats and arguments and doesn't articulate them because:
1. He doesn't believe they are true and won't give them any airtime
2. He believes these items, but cannot prove them and he believes the public will ridicule him for making up outlandish claims that cannot be proven
3. He believes in these issues, but won't make a stand on them for fear of losing money from his benefactors (maybe they are big oil)
4. He has never heard any of these arguments and therefore cannot make any sort stand on them

I'm going to go with #1 or #3. But if it is #3, then the NDP is as evil as the Conservatives, since they knew all the time and did nothing.

Anyone have any better reasoning?

The best peace strategy would be an NDP plan to rid Canada of the
Stephen Harper government. That's all Jack Layton needs to do.

What does worry me a lot, though, is this strange NDP fixation on
attacking the Liberal Party when they ought to attack the Harper gang.
What is this, anyway?

They did it when Ed Broadbent's NDP had a real chance of winning
Opposition status, if not government ... but instead they gave the hated
Mulroney govt a free pass, and attacked the Liberals. Now they seem to
be doing it again.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I was thinking after the 2006 election that a Lib-
Dem Coalition might be needed to knock off these Neo-Cons and their
threats of war, Deep Integration, and environmental disaster.

Somebody should yell in Jack Layton's ear that fighting the Liberals is the
wrong fight at the wrong time. Just like it was wrong the last time.

<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_II">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_II</a><p>---<br>RickW<br />
<br />
"The purpose of economic competition is to eliminate competition"...." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Micheal I am a bit surprised, I thought you were a Conservative fan, my mistake, "But if it is #3, then the NDP is as evil as the Conservatives, since they knew all the time and did nothing." So I agree Micheal, they all knew and they all did nothing. That is the truth.

I guess the question will eventually come down to what is evil? People can be good and bad, but they can also do good and evil things, and they can even do very evil things that they justify because the end is 'good' in their minds. What is good for all is likely to be not as good for some, but what is good for only a select few, usually means its bad or as you say evil, for the majority or worse is done while sacrificing the majority to reach that great good for the few. So what Jack knows or doesn't know is perhaps unknown to us, unless we are mindreaders. But we do know that he did have Monetary reform in previous policy, he also knows about the necessity of abrogating NAFTA it was in a previous platform, not to mention that many Canadians have written to him and other NDP'ers, so he cannot claim ignorance of these issues. We know he knows that our military is in Afghanistan, and that people are being murdered over there. But what he choses to do with that information is the question.

So Michael the options you chose to give readers here on vive, don't exaclty match with the options available. Jack knows, now if someone knows why Jack won't act, that would be a great post.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Keep in mind a couple things. First, like the states, Canada is a media run empire. Politics takes place to suit the press, not vice versa. Why do you think the NDP got almost zero coverage during the federal election even though their child care plan was more exhaustive than the liberals OR the PC's, and apart from liberal scandals, that was the chief theme of the election.

So, the NDP, as they get more powerful, tend to get less press. For those who think the NDP aren't doing anything, here's a quote from the House:

"Mr. Speaker, through you I call on the Prime Minister to set himself apart from his Liberal predecessors, by committing to a democratic debate and vote in this house on any further role for our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, beyond our current commitments."

Keep in mind also that the NDP are more tied to grassroots decisions made at policy conventions. That means that the leader can't simply say 'here's what we're gonna do'. He CAN, but in the NDP that's not real popular, although its done fairly regularly where they hold provincial power.

Like other parties, there is no doubt division within the NDP itself. I know many bleading heart peacenik liberals who still genuinely believe we should have troops overseas. Most have no idea what the troops are doing, but that's not the NDP's fault, and of course policy decisions can be made to 'change' what troops do overseas.

Finally, a Layton quote that shows the NDP have the same concerns as most canadians:

"The government can do this now by answering the very questions the Minister of Defence himself posed just a few short months ago.

* What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?
* What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
* What is the defined concept of operation?
* What is the effective command and control structure?
* Quelles sont les règles d’engagements?
* Est-ce que nos troupes sont équipées adéquatement pour cette mission?
* Peut-on s’engager ailleurs pendant que nous sommes en Afghanistan? Par exemple, serait-ce possible pour nos forces armées de s’impliquer au même moment pour contrer le génocide au Darfour?
* What are the mechanisms for effective consultation between mission partners?
* What are the criteria to measure progress?
* What is the definition of success in this mission?
* What is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these and other questions there are actions which the government of Canada must take immediately.

We must re-negotiate the agreement made on the transfer of detainees to third parties.

We must ensure that our obligations under the Geneva Convention are not merely alluded to in spirit, but spelled out in the letter of our agreement to match the much more meaningful and clear treaty made by the Netherlands."