Jack Layton

November 17, 2008

More of the same in a prettier package?

February 2003

Several telling comments were ascribed to NDP leadership candidate Jack Layton in a recent version of the online newsmagazine Straight Goods. “In reality, the policy differences between the candidates are small…that’s why this campaign is about the kind of party we want”, says Layton, or someone writing on his behalf. “New Democrats are supporting Jack because they want to be back in the news and win more seats”.

Putting aside the silly implication that the supporters of other candidates don’t want to be in the news and don’t want to win more seats, these comments point to a fundamental problem of the Layton candidacy — Jack Layton has said precious little about how a Jack Layton NDP would be different from an Alexa McDonough NDP, or the NDP of the last decade or so.

It’s time that NDP supporters stopped deluding themselves that the basic NDP message is fine and that the messenger just needs to be changed. Alexa McDonough, it should be remembered, was hailed as a fresh face in 1995 - an attractive, articulate candidate with a enviable track record as a provincial politician; a person with a proven ability to get press attention in Nova Scotia. Unfortunately she was put in charge of turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse and she, like Audrey McLaughlin before her, was stuck with an unresponsive party structure, outdated and unpopular policies, a lacklustre (with some notable exceptions) Parliamentary caucus, status quo obsessed union partners, and a radical left flank that drove down public support every time it made public utterances.

A Layton leadership will be a brief flash in the pan if he is not willing to tackle the intractable problems enumerated above and address the party’s true weakness - its irrelevance to the 2002 political and policy debate. Are there any signs that Jack Layton is willing to take on this daunting challenge? No, quite the opposite, in fact. Both Layton’s stated policies and his list of supporters would lead one to believe that this is yet another attempt to repackage an unsellable commodity.

The Layton Campaign’s major policy announcements, as listed on the Layton campaign website, far from being the stuff of real change, parrot all of the usual old left dogma:

  1. Environment - Layton’s environmental policy repeatedly blames trade agreements for poor environmental policy and makes ill advised absolutist statements on two of the most complicated policy issues of the decade - water exports and genetically modified foods. Instead of trying to convey the nuances of the issues, the Layton campaign has adopted the typical old left rhetoric.
  2. Privatization - Layton’s stand on public-private partnerships deliberately avoids the many success stories related to government and the private sector working together. The remarkable inner-city renewal seen in places like Chicago and Washington DC has been very much a product of public private partnerships. Most Canadians, while appreciating and wishing to maintain a strong role for government, recognize that there are areas where private competition may lead to better policy results. Layton’s old style ideas sound like the dream policies of public sector union leaders. Also, under the rubric of criticizing privatization, Layton’s policy statements point out that he “fought”, both the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) and the FTA/FTAA - the typical touchstones of the old left.
  3. Municipalities - Layton’s “Real Deal for Canadian Communities” is a real non-starter. Layton’s policies for cities, arguably his only new contribution to the Canadian policy debate, are misplaced for someone aspiring to lead a national party in Canada. Cities are wholly (legally) creatures of provincial governments, and many of Layton’s ideas, for example, direct federal investment in housing, or the spending of six billion dollars plus in areas of provincial jurisdiction, would not only raise eyebrows in Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and elsewhere — they may be downright unconstitutional.
  4. Party Reform - Scanning websites and news articles brings little, if any, information on how Jack Layton plans to reform the NDP. There is no mention of changing the role of organized labour within the party and no mention of a policy on corporate and union political donations. It would also be helpful to know where Jack Layton stands on the future of the federal NDP - is it to continue to be a hollowed out shell controlled by provincial sections and reliant on financial transfers from provincial parties, or should the federal NDP develop an existence of its own?

Layton’s main political boast - that he will take on Paul Martin on city issues - shows political naivety. If the next election hinges on who can best provide real resources to cities, Paul Martin will win hands down. The NDP had better hope that’s not the issue at the ballot box.

Pervasive in the text of all of Layton’s policy pronouncements is a hoary anti-Americanism that always seems to be in style among the “white wine socialist” set in the country, but out of favour with most Canadians. Why can’t a candidate for NDP leader have enough faith in himself and in our country to put forward policies that reflect Canada’s strengths, rather than harping on our neighbour’s real and perceived weaknesses?

The Layton “endorsers” and the future of the NDP

Who we surround ourselves says something about who we are, and in the case of Jack Layton there is a distinctly mixed message. To the degree that he has been able to motivate and bring in new faces he is to be congratulated, and, of all of the leadership hopefuls, his campaign has been the most successful in that regard. But Layton has also surrounded himself with the worst of the old guard. Most worrisome is the seeming alliance with proven negative influences within the NDP - if Jack Layton wins the NDP leadership he will soon find out that the same forces within the party that played such a negative role in undermining Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin will set to work on him, and he’ll become another victim of the party that couldn’t change itself.
Back to top

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.