The Star
Mar 20, 2012
Among New Democrats, Jack Layton is regarded as a saint, a larger-than-life figure who could do no wrong. The party’s lopsided by-election win in Layton’s old Toronto riding Monday has solidified the myth.
But as New Democrats grapple with who should replace their former leader, they would be wise to consider his shortcomings.
Layton did vault the NDP into second place in the last federal election. Yet the party he bequeaths to his successor this weekend is perhaps more confused than it ever has been about why it exists, and what, if anything, it would do differently should it win power.
As the tepid NDP leadership race has shown, it is also more timid.
The boldest initiatives — and even these weren't terribly bold — came from candidates least likely to win.
Thus Prince Edward Island druggist Martin Singh campaigned on a national pharmacare program, while Manitoba MP Niki Ashton called for Ottawa to establish a public generic drug manufacturer.
When Brian Topp, at one point a putative front-runner, called for higher taxes on the rich, he was chastised by his rivals as overly radical.
Instead, most contenders hewed closely to Layton’s deliberately middle-of-the-road line: fiscal sobriety; more tax breaks for small business and fewer for large corporations; some help for pensioners and the poor elderly; a vaguely activist foreign policy centred on peacekeeping and the occasional Libyan-style war.
All are positions that echo either the Conservatives or Liberals.
Even Toronto MP Peggy Nash who, more than anyone else, was the candidate of the party’s traditional left and seemed to deliberately pull her punches, avoiding most controversy and emphasizing instead her managerial competence.
To blame this all on Layton might seem unfair. But by the time of his death last year, he had firmly remolded the NDP into a party focused almost entirely on winning power.
On this plus side, his cheerful opportunism reinvigorated the party. It attracted a cadre of energetic new MPs, including B.C.’s Nathan Cullen, now another contender for the leadership.
As well, Layton’s deliberate vagueness on questions of policy allowed the party to say different things to different audiences.
Thus, in Quebec, the NDP pitched asymmetrical federalism — endorsing schemes that would give Quebecers more clout in the Commons than other Canadians, that would allow Quebec to thumb its nose at, say, medicare without financial penalty and that would allow Quebec to secede more easily from Confederation.
Outside Quebec, meanwhile, the NDP continued to present itself as the defender of national programs, strong central government, electoral fairness and medicare.
When I asked him once to explain the contradictions, Layton just grinned and said: “It’s a complicated country.”
But the downside of Laytonism was its short-term nature. With Layton, everything was tactical. In the Commons, the party often took positions that, when measured against one another, made no sense.
That became most obvious in late 2005 when Layton helped bring down a minority Liberal government just as it was unrolling a national child care program that the NDP had long called for. He figured, correctly, that in the ensuing election his party would get more seats.
Is there any point in having a watered-down NDP win more seats? That’s what former party leader Ed Broadbent was asking last week when he accused leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair of being too Liberal.
Broadbent was taking aim at the front-runner in this race. But he could have said the same about the man he helped win the NDP leadership nine years ago. That man was Jack Layton.
Mar 20, 2012
Among New Democrats, Jack Layton is regarded as a saint, a larger-than-life figure who could do no wrong. The party’s lopsided by-election win in Layton’s old Toronto riding Monday has solidified the myth.But as New Democrats grapple with who should replace their former leader, they would be wise to consider his shortcomings.
Layton did vault the NDP into second place in the last federal election. Yet the party he bequeaths to his successor this weekend is perhaps more confused than it ever has been about why it exists, and what, if anything, it would do differently should it win power.
As the tepid NDP leadership race has shown, it is also more timid.
The boldest initiatives — and even these weren't terribly bold — came from candidates least likely to win.
Thus Prince Edward Island druggist Martin Singh campaigned on a national pharmacare program, while Manitoba MP Niki Ashton called for Ottawa to establish a public generic drug manufacturer.
When Brian Topp, at one point a putative front-runner, called for higher taxes on the rich, he was chastised by his rivals as overly radical.
Instead, most contenders hewed closely to Layton’s deliberately middle-of-the-road line: fiscal sobriety; more tax breaks for small business and fewer for large corporations; some help for pensioners and the poor elderly; a vaguely activist foreign policy centred on peacekeeping and the occasional Libyan-style war.
All are positions that echo either the Conservatives or Liberals.
Even Toronto MP Peggy Nash who, more than anyone else, was the candidate of the party’s traditional left and seemed to deliberately pull her punches, avoiding most controversy and emphasizing instead her managerial competence.
To blame this all on Layton might seem unfair. But by the time of his death last year, he had firmly remolded the NDP into a party focused almost entirely on winning power.
On this plus side, his cheerful opportunism reinvigorated the party. It attracted a cadre of energetic new MPs, including B.C.’s Nathan Cullen, now another contender for the leadership.
As well, Layton’s deliberate vagueness on questions of policy allowed the party to say different things to different audiences.
Thus, in Quebec, the NDP pitched asymmetrical federalism — endorsing schemes that would give Quebecers more clout in the Commons than other Canadians, that would allow Quebec to thumb its nose at, say, medicare without financial penalty and that would allow Quebec to secede more easily from Confederation.
Outside Quebec, meanwhile, the NDP continued to present itself as the defender of national programs, strong central government, electoral fairness and medicare.
When I asked him once to explain the contradictions, Layton just grinned and said: “It’s a complicated country.”
But the downside of Laytonism was its short-term nature. With Layton, everything was tactical. In the Commons, the party often took positions that, when measured against one another, made no sense.
That became most obvious in late 2005 when Layton helped bring down a minority Liberal government just as it was unrolling a national child care program that the NDP had long called for. He figured, correctly, that in the ensuing election his party would get more seats.
Is there any point in having a watered-down NDP win more seats? That’s what former party leader Ed Broadbent was asking last week when he accused leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair of being too Liberal.
Broadbent was taking aim at the front-runner in this race. But he could have said the same about the man he helped win the NDP leadership nine years ago. That man was Jack Layton.
No comments:
Post a Comment