On missions

I'm not sure exactly how "wry" the NDP strategist cited by Greg Weston was in providing quotes for Weston's article. But let's take a moment to note how problematic it would be if some of the NDP's braintrust is indeed narrowly focused on avoiding "anything that would give the Liberals a chance to score points" - as the result could only be a failure of both principle and strategy.

The principle point should be a fairly obvious one. But the question of what strategy is most likely to lead to success for the NDP deserves a bit more of an explanation.

In order to establish itself as a governing alternative, the NDP needs to convince a substantial number of voters of the answers to two questions: whether the Cons deserve to stay in power, and which party deserves to take their place if not. Given the need to get both of those questions answered in the NDP's favour, it makes little sense to concentrate only on the second one - and even less to focus solely on whether a particular action might potentially assist the Libs rather than on whether it can be turned to the NDP's favour.

Moreover, even to the extent the NDP needs to capitalize on Lib weakness now, it won't do that successfully by letting the Libs land more effective blows to Harper when it comes to Con scandals. If the Libs are given a chance to balance their ineffectiveness in opposing the Cons on policy with a relative advantage in challenging the Cons' ethics, then the NDP is far less likely to persuade historic Lib voters that they're a more effective contrast to a government which is wrong on both.

Which means that the NDP needs to keep the Cons' feet to the fire. And while it can validly do so by reaching different conclusions than the Libs as to which scandals and ethical issues need to be brought to light (e.g. choosing a different target for its punches), it can't get anywhere by pulling punches altogether - as the strategist's position would suggest.

Fortunately, the NDP's actions are far more in keeping with what the party should be doing than with what the strategist says it's doing. As I've pointed out, the NDP has in fact made repeated efforts to bring together the opposition to Harper's Cons. Meanwhile, it's the Libs who have refused entreaties to do so, ensuring that they appear as petty in opposition as they are ineffective.

And contrary to what Weston implies in the rest of his article, the NDP has indeed kept challenging the Cons on ethics as well as policy - helping to ensure that the Canadian public does reach the right answer as to whether or not it can afford to leave Harper in power. Which means that as long as the NDP's actions continue where they're headed rather than where the strategist suggests they're aimed, Layton and company should remain on the best possible path for both party and country.