The Critical NDP-Watch Thread 2
Another question now that the NDP is the Official Opposition...
Who becomes the leader of the Official Opposition in the Senate?
Are the Liberals entitled to continue in this role because of all their previous appointments?
With 3 vacancies in the Senate at the present time, will Harper offer an appointment to a New Democrat sanctioned by the Party executive?
Can the NDP use it's new status to push for the abolition of the Senate?
.
Sounds good to me.
just like they used to call for Canada out of NATO - things can change...
I'm not sure why an NDP senator is needed. Not to say they don't occasionally do useful work but the Senate is hardly the center of attention.
I'm still trying to determine why we need to be critical of the NDP watch.
Actually, I'd like to get one of those watchs.
They've been upgraded to Thread 2.
Frankly, Jack bobbled the issue at the time. It wasn't like Lllian Dyck had been appointed as a Martin plot to embarrass the NDP (like some Progressive Conservative senators who were appointed to embarrass the newly merged Conservative Party). The MartinLibs had fully expected Dyck to sit as a Liberal until she indicated her intention to sit as a New Democrat since that was the party she felt most in synch with. Not being the sort of political junkie who spends evening on babble, she was not aware of the NDP's practice regarding the refusal of senate appointments. (A practice which is, BTW, entirely unofficial.)
Instead of seeing what could be done with this development, Layton's office dropped the ball. Instead of asking Dyck to sit as an Independent Socialist or some such designation and agreeing to work with her as issues arose (and say, perhaps, having her move a senate abolition bill in the senate), he let some of his office staff dis her in entirely inappropriate ways. (I understand the individual in question did get taken to the woodshed.)
In any event, Senator Dyck long ago decided that if we couldn't be bothered to act like grown-ups towards her, she'd go sit as aa Liberal. She is now a Liberal senator.
David: my understanding is that the Official Opposition in the Senate is deemed to be the largest Senate caucus which is not part of government. Therefore, the leader of the Official Opposition in the Canadian Senate would be whoever the Liberals designate.
.
Liberalism has become a bore. It dims the imagination. It's mush. By contrast, the New Democrats have some ideological teeth. They can speak with authenticity of voice for social democratic values. With the visibility the Official Opposition party gets, they can now have those values highlighted against the Conservative template.
. . . . They're out front on representing the proverbial little guy. If they handle it properly, they can make the issue of growing income inequality - the egregious gap between rich and poor
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/the-left-ha...
I actually think we need to revisit that practice of refusing Senate seats. Until we can abolish the damned thing, we can't give the right a default veto on the legislative agenda of a future NDP government.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-ndp-in-quebec-w...
Maybe we need to rename this thread. How about the NDP Bashing Thread.
Contrary to the article you posted by Maioni, Duncan, there was another article somewhere that said the NDP's success in Quebec was the result of a long, quiet campaign by the NDP. I assume there are other articles in the MSM not so critical of the NDP.
Boom Boom I thought the Orange Surge chapter by Paul Wells in his take on the election showed some balance. Sure he had to make fun of Charles Taylor, and of the NDP stand on the constitution, and he missed the Sherbrooke Declaration, but at least he understood that it was NDP work that payed off in seats in Quebec.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/08/the-orange-wave-rises/
Otherwise the coverage has been pathetic. I have yet to see a piece on how the NDP won its 59 seats. The coverage either bashes the NDP or Quebec, and usually bashes both. Sexist, anti-youth, it is open season on anything orange. Investors do not like the NDP and that sets the frame for the coverage.
Yes, you're right. I was trying the accentuate the positive. Your link in #17 is the one I was thinking about.
I should have mentioned Haroon Siddiqui in The Star, a positive, forward looking account.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/991387--siddiqui...
I actually think we need to revisit that practice of refusing Senate seats. Until we can abolish the damned thing, we can't give the right a default veto on the legislative agenda of a future NDP government.
If Harper and/or any provinces actually implement the Conservative plan for Senate elections I would definitely favor the NDP reexamining its views and running candidates (or at least endorsing independent progressives). However under the current system, even assuming Harper was willing to offer a handful of courtesy appointments to the NDP, they would hardly be enough to make a difference. Its not worth legitimizing the system in place now by accepting them. If the NDP wins the next election and then is frustrated by an all-appointed Senate of Conservatives and Liberals, the ensuing constitutional crisis would in fact be the best opportunity for the NDP to implement its abolition agenda.
Edited to add: I do think the Lilian Dyck situation could have been handled better though, even while staying consistent with the position set forth above. Basically IMO it was right to say "thanks but no thanks" to her, but we could have been nicer about it.
Did anyone notice that Susan "dumb as a post" Delacourt was up to her usual tricks today in still vainly trying to promote the Liberals and trying to pretend that May 2 never happened? She has a half page article in today's Star about the Tory "ethnic/immigrant" strategy and whether or not it was actually as effective as it was supposed to be. She managed to fill almost an entire page speculating about how the Conservative and Liberal vote among immigrants went - not once in the entire lengthy article did the acronym "N-D-P" appear (you know the official opposition that has 103 seats compared to the Liberals' 34). The fact is - exit polling by Ipsos shows that the NDP was the number one party among people who immigrated to Canada in the last 10 years!! The NDP is also the number one party among visible minorities. I wonder how many hours of work it took "dumb as a post" Delacourt to contort herself like a pretzel to write an article about voting patterns among immigrants while avoiding any mention of the party that won the largest share of the vote among recent immigrants!
Why doesn't she stop this ridiculous charade of being a journalist and just apply for a job as a Liberal "strategist" or spin doctor and follow her true calling. Then she can spend the rest of her carer hanging out at Hy's steakhouse giving the Liberal party talking points to her old press gallery cronies who have had too many gin and tonics!
Most of her columns just consist of her parroting any malicious gossip passed on to her by Liberal hacks without any verification or fact checking of any kind. It's common knowledge in Ottawa that if you are a Liberal - you can make up ANY story you want - no matter how ridiculous, e-mail it to Delacourt and look forward to seeing her report it as news in her next article. Honestly, if I found a way to be an imposter and pose as a big "L" Liberal and sent her a note that there was now evidence that the word was flat - the next day she would run an article all about how the world was now flat!
If Harper and/or any provinces actually implement the Conservative plan for Senate elections I would definitely favor the NDP reexamining its views and running candidates (or at least endorsing independent progressives). However under the current system, even assuming Harper was willing to offer a handful of courtesy appointments to the NDP, they would hardly be enough to make a difference. Its not worth legitimizing the system in place now by accepting them. If the NDP wins the next election and then is frustrated by an all-appointed Senate of Conservatives and Liberals, the ensuing constitutional crisis would in fact be the best opportunity for the NDP to implement its abolition agenda.
Edited to add: I do think the Lilian Dyck situation could have been handled better though, even while staying consistent with the position set forth above. Basically IMO it was right to say "thanks but no thanks" to her, but we could have been nicer about it.
Since Harper seems to be determined (unlike most recent Prime Ministers) to appoint only Conservatives, the point is probably moot.
That said, I think that we need to be serious about the question. A future NDP government WILL be hostage to the Senate until we can abolish it. Even abolishing it will require Senators prepared to vote for abolition. The only way we can guarantee that is to have New Democrats in the Senate.
Certainly we can set parameters on it - ie, NDP Senators not being full members of caucus, or perhaps sitting as "Independent Socialists" or something like that.
But the current practice is policy suicide.
As to Lillian Dyck, I think "thanks but no thanks" was a mind-numbingly stupid response. It was proper that the official who was such an ass about it was taken behind the woodshed, and it was proper that Jack acknowledged the clumsiness of it at a party meeting. A far more sensible response would to have been to agree to work with her to accomplish the values we clearly share. I could certainly have seen asking her to sit as an Independent New Democrat or some such, and I expect Senator Dyck would have agreed at the time.
The thing is the echo-chamber around the leader all made the same ignorant and boneheaded assumption - that Paul Martin had deliberately appointed Lillian Dyck to sit as a New Democrat and that Lillian Dyck agreed with the deliberate intent of embarrassing the NDP. That assumes (moronically) that every person in the country who supports the NDP is aware of some fairly obscure nuances of NDP practice. Not policy, mind you (since there is no policy of refusing Senate appointments, merely a firmly established practice).
We had a potential ally in the Senate and the people around the leader screwed it up, pure and simple.
Did anyone notice that Susan "dumb as a post" Delacourt was up to her usual tricks today in still vainly trying to promote the Liberals and trying to pretend that May 2 never happened? She has a half page article in today's Star about the Tory "ethnic/immigrant" strategy and whether or not it was actually as effective as it was supposed to be. She managed to fill almost an entire page speculating about how the Conservative and Liberal vote among immigrants went - not once in the entire lengthy article did the acronym "N-D-P" appear (you know the official opposition that has 103 seats compared to the Liberals' 34). The fact is - exit polling by Ipsos shows that the NDP was the number one party among people who immigrated to Canada in the last 10 years!! The NDP is also the number one party among visible minorities. I wonder how many hours of work it took "dumb as a post" Delacourt to contort herself like a pretzel to write an article about voting patterns among immigrants while avoiding any mention of the party that won the largest share of the vote among recent immigrants!
Why doesn't she stop this ridiculous charade of being a journalist and just apply for a job as a Liberal "strategist" or spin doctor and follow her true calling. Then she can spend the rest of her carer hanging out at Hy's steakhouse giving the Liberal party talking points to her old press gallery cronies who have had too many gin and tonics!
Most of her columns just consist of her parroting any malicious gossip passed on to her by Liberal hacks without any verification or fact checking of any kind. It's common knowledge in Ottawa that if you are a Liberal - you can make up ANY story you want - no matter how ridiculous, e-mail it to Delacourt and look forward to seeing her report it as news in her next article. Honestly, if I found a way to be an imposter and pose as a big "L" Liberal and sent her a note that there was now evidence that the word was flat - the next day she would run an article all about how the world was now flat!
Here's the article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/994850--the-ethnic-conservative-myth
She bases her story on comments made by professors involved with the Canadian Election Study. They base their comments on research done by the Study that has yet to be released. Darrell Bricker of Ipsos is also quoted (who did the exit poll whose results you refer to.) He doesn't mention the NDP, so maybe your beef should be with him.
She selectively quotes about two sentences by Bricker from what was probably an hour long presentation. For all we know, he may have had a lot of the say about the NDP - she just decided not to include it because that would run counter to Liberal spin. The whole article is still from the pre May 2 "frame" where everything gets looked at though a zero-sum lens of Tories and Grits. "Dumb as Post" Delacourt decided how she wanted to slant the article and away she went.If she was going to write a genuine balanced article about voting patterns among new Canadians - all she had to do was to ask a question of the people she interviewed for the piece like "What about the NDP vote? How did they do among immigrants this time compared to past elections?" But no, she thinks that if she ignores the official opposition she can make them go away.
I think its absurd to write a massive article about how the "ethnic vote" went in the election without a single mention of the official opposition which by all accounts made significant gains among visible minorities and recent immigrants - in Scarborough-Rouge River - the number one riding out of 308 in terms of the proportion of eligible voters born outside Canada (something like 89%!!) the NDP vote went from 13% and third in 2008 to 40% and a win on May 2.
She also has some delusions of grandeur about the impact on the electorate of the musings of pundits like her. I heard that at the same conference Delacourt told everyone that the ONLY reason the NDP soared in Quebec was that Chantal Hebert and Jean Lapierre plotted together to talk up the NDP's prospects in Quebec when the election was called and that all it took was for Hebert and Lapierre to say that the NDP had momentum on a panel discussion - and BOOM the NDP won 59 seats in Quebec. This is laughably absurd on so many levels I don't even know where to begin! I feel sorry for her if she is actually stupid enough to think that political pundits like her have that kind of power (of course she's also dead wrong about Hebert and Lapierre - they both made the usual condescending, ridiculing comments about NDP prospects in Quebec - until that CROP poll showed the NDP in the lead - only THEN did they start to take the NDP seriously - after the wave had already happened)
I realize everyone has their personal biases and Delacourt is from a Liberal family and her brother is (was) one of the top people in Ignatieff's office - so of course 100% of her writing will be totally biased towards Liberal spin. Now that the Star has endorsed the NDP and the NDP is going to lead the fight against Harper for the foreseeable future - maybe the Star needs to fire Delacourt and get someone to start writing articles that are as biased towards the NDP as all her writings always were towards the Liberals. At the very least, the Star's ottawa bureau needs someone who actually has sources in the NDP and has some understanding of the political culture of the NDP. Delacourt has none of that - if the Star is smart they'll dismiss her immediately.
I think most people know that most journalists are just Liberal and Tory bootlickers, or at least have to pretend to be so to keep their jobs. The NDP bootlickers will appear when the economy for that becomes evident.
.
Now we really know the NDP has hit the big times! A costume shop in Trois Rivieres is selling a Jack layton super hero costume in bright orange!
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150209335137945&id=1...
.
NDP Foreign, Defence Policy Differs from Tories in Style More Than Substance - by John Ibbotson
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-foreign-defence-policy-...
"...The New Democrats once had a reputation for being a party of reflexively anti-American pacifists, and with good reason, given that they were committed to pulling Canada out of NATO whle opposing free trade and supporting asylum for American war resisters...But the NDP is supposed to be the government in waiting, and Mr Layton has steadily moderated party policy in his seven years as leader to the point where it is getting hard to distinguish the NDP's foreign and defence policy from the Conservatives.
Mr Dewar acknowledges that any differences between the NDP and the Conservatives are based 'on emphasis, and I would say direction,' rather than on 'substance'."
a winning combination obviously...
John Ibbotson is one of the premier continental integration, neo-conservatives in the journalistic world. Witness this statement from the article:
"The New Democrats once had a reputation for being a party of reflexively anti-American pacifists, and with good reason, given that they were committed to pulling Canada out of NATO while opposing free trade and supporting asylum for American war resisters."
It is anti-American to welcome Americans to Canada? The Americans would not sign a free trade agreement that suspended their use of protectionist laws, so we signed one that endorsed them, though it was not in our interest to do so. Defending Canadian interests is somehow anti-American? If you are American maybe.
He adds " Pulling Canada out of NATO" so as to equate opposition to a cold war alliance based on the unilateral use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. with being dumb, instead of seeing it as wasteful spending to keep up appearances.
The NDP and CCF have never been pacifist. But, Ibbotson thinks name calling is part of his job description it seems.
The opinions of Ibbotson are indeed odious, thus he gives gloating and grudging approval to the odious changes in NDP positioning on foreign policy which are cynically designed to bring them more in line with Harper government and its fawning media.
Even Dewar's meek differentiation from Harper Government's foreign policy "on emphasis, and I would say direction" is not born out by his actions: his offer to lobby for Harper's foreign policy on the Security Council.
Look to Syria and you see nothing but compliance with the NATO framing of the issues in the region. NDP approved sanctions for Syria, bombs for Libya and nice platitudes for Israel. The NDP is now ready for the big time at the head of a modern nation in the new multinational Empire.
Good! Maybe all the whackos will give up on the NDP and instead try to infiltrate Elizabeth May's Green Party - they have so few members that it would be EASY for the socialist caucus of the NDP (n = about 40 people) to stage a hostile takeover of the Green Party!!
And Now For Something Completely Different: Debating Real Issues in Parliament - by Brian Topp
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/a...
..."Opposition Leader Jack Layton and foreign-affairs critic Paul Dewar have undone most of the damage - speaking directly and clearly to the rights of the Israeli people to legitimacy, to security and to freedom from terror...
Carefully, prudently, without repeating past mistakes, the opposition has a further opportunity to occupy the national and international mainstream on the issue of peace in the Middle East...
Murdered Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, one of your modest blogger's personal heroes, shows the way forward."
He sure does - Rabin famously ordered his IDF to 'break the bones' of Palestinian demonstrators during the First Intifada and under whose poisonous tutelage and Oslo Accords, explosively expanded Jewish settlements - the largest single increase of Jewish settlers on Arab land - a 50 % rise in 1992-96, while putting in place a new Palestinian comprador regime bought and paid to administer Israeli colonialism and apartheid upon the true indigenous owners and their illegally occupied lands.
'occupying the national and international mainstream' and 'make friends with mainstream interlocutors in the US administration, the EU and the region' eh? Looks like the more things change the more they'll be staying the same. No Difference Party indeed.
Good! Maybe all the whackos will give up on the NDP
Please do name names? Are any of the elected MP's in this category. How about the Federal executive are there whackos on that executive? Care to name the riding associations in the thrall of this nefarious cabal that you believe needs removing from the party.
Or are you just being an asshole and insulting everyone in the party with views that are more progressive than your own?
Seems you can't wail to start purging the left wing of the party. Shall we rename it the NLP once you've purged all the whackos and have nothing but centre left and centrists in the party.
For the life of me I can't understand with all the whackos how the NDP ever became the official opposition. Maybe the voters don't share your views on what is whacko after all?
This is the thread for criticism of the NDP. Isn't Stockholm's criticism valid?
Or are you just being an asshole and insulting everyone in the party with views that are more progressive than your own?
Since the holier than thou crowd constantly attacks anyone who dares to support the NDP as a vehicle of progressive change perhaps both of you could have a look in the mirror. Because as an outsider it sure seems to me that both crowds employ the same behaviour.
I don't believe the honorific term 'whacko' should be bandied about nearly as often and carelessly as it is by some quarters. The NDP should have to earn that type of description from the centrist and right wing punditry.
right on cue
I'm not criticising the NDP. I'm criticising the critics!
I'm not criticising the NDP. I'm criticising the critics!
Who do you mean?
You have such a broad brush that I have no fucking idea who you are talking about. I presume I have a right to criticize the party I have worked within for 40 years so it can't be me.
So who are you talking about and why the broad brush indiscriminate slurs. Do you think it adds something to the conversation? If so then what is it adding and again who is it directed at?
Whacko who?
There will inevitably be a great deal of temptation for the NDP to run from more controversial yet very important positions in order to try to expand the base of the party to be considered "electable." The NDP has already at times presented rather bland positions instead of what would be a more courageous stance. The balance between seeking more power to implement policies you hold dear and giving up on some of those in order to get that power is delicate.
It is the job of people here and elsewhere to criticize when the party strays too far and hopefully make sure that the party stands for what we expect it to even as it reaches for more popularity. I think this can be done and I still believe the party has enough principle that with the right nudges can remain a positive different progressive voice. Those in the NDP would be best being respectful to those critics as they may in fact be the guardians of the soul of the party they care about.
As well the NDP in seeking and getting the support of so many, it occupies space on the progressive side of the political equation. This means it has a responsibility to the principles that gained it the popularity it enjoys. It also has in my view a responsibility to people who may have held other views or supported other parties previously but came to the NDP to help achieve something. It is more than reasonable that the party should be examined and forced to live up to the promise it made by occupying that political space. This includes in the case of Green supporters who moved to the NDP both a strong environmental advocacy to prove the case the NDP is the better party environmentally and to advocate for political reform including PR.
It would be most helpful if there were greater respect between partisans of the NDP here and those offering the NDP what it needs most -- constructive support for its conscience and principles. Even if those critics sound angry, as an issue dear to them is not being managed as they would like, we all need to realize the value their criticism brings. It also would be helpful if that criticism take on the substance and appearance of being constructive as much as possible but this cannot always be relied on. I believe there are enough people of pretty good will and high principles here to help that happen.
I would say to my fellow partisan NDPers-- we need these criticisms if the party is going to be what we have supported in more than name in the next election. I think most of them actually agree with this perspective. I do not support those who try to make this site a before or against the NDP place.
I personally think anyone using the kind of extremist and inflammatory language below is totally out of the mainstream of Canadian politics. That's why I'm glad that this person is not part of the NDP, but rather is a supporter of some other party/faction. I assume that the acronym NDPP implies a total rejection of the NDP for not being ideologically "pure" enough. So be it. I am not shedding any tears over the fact that the NDP is not supported of this individual.
My advice to people who support doctrinaire socialism is that they try to stage a hostile takeover of the Greenh party. Its much easier for a band of 50 ideologues to seize control of a partyy that only has about 1,000 members in the whole country and one egocentric MP than to think they can have any influence over a party with 100,000 members and 103 MPs almost all of whom owe their election to being in a party that has a mainstream image.
Rabin famously ordered his IDF to 'break the bones' of Palestinian demonstrators during the First Intifada and under whose poisonous tutelage and Oslo Accords, explosively expanded Jewish settlements - the largest single increase of Jewish settlers on Arab land - a 50 % rise in 1992-96, while putting in place a new Palestinian comprador regime bought and paid to administer Israeli colonialism and apartheid upon the true indigenous owners and their illegally occupied lands.
'occupying the national and international mainstream' and 'make friends with mainstream interlocutors in the US administration, the EU and the region' eh? Looks like the more things change the more they'll be staying the same. No Difference Party indeed.
Sorry Stockholm but my above statement was meant in part to ask you if you really think the partisanship you are showing is helpful. I believe I am as strong an NDP supporter as you but see that there is not only value in the criticisms, there is great legitimacy in criticism and we should be pleased to see it here where we can evaluate it honestly, support it where it makes positive change and refute it when it is off-base. Nobody gets convinced with unquestioning support. Empty hostility to people supporting other movements than the NDP won't convince them to join you either.
I think this can be done and I still believe the party has enough principle that with the right nudges can remain a positive different progressive voice.
Shouldn't that be "the left nudges?" ;)
In that spirit Sean, a fair example has been provided to us. NDPP made a statement which Stockholm charges as being extremist and inflammatory. Let's hear your honest evaluation of the legitimacy and substance of the statement, and it's applicability toward any criticism of NDP foreign policy that might be offered up as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It will be interesting to see the NDP's position when a Palestinian state comes up for debate in the General assembly this fall.
It certainly would be interesting if it were to differ in any substantive way from the Conservative and Liberal positions.
In that spirit Sean, a fair example has been provided to us. NDPP made a statement which Stockholm charges as being extremist and inflammatory. Let's hear your honest evaluation of the legitimacy and substance of the statement, and it's applicability toward any criticism of NDP foreign policy that might be offered up as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yes it is nice we can now get to discussing actual posts and the content. Tell me Stock since you claim it was NDDP who you were referring to and since you know he is not an active NDP supporter why the slur on the Socialist caucus? By the way I have never been aligned with that group although I have occasionally at convention voted for some of its proposals.
That is why I responded to your post. You seem to have a very wide brush that tars socialist within the party with statements made by people from outside the party. Disingenuous much?
Good! Maybe all the whackos will give up on the NDP and instead try to infiltrate Elizabeth May's Green Party - they have so few members that it would be EASY for the socialist caucus of the NDP (n = about 40 people) to stage a hostile takeover of the Green Party!!
In that spirit Sean, a fair example has been provided to us. NDPP made a statement which Stockholm charges as being extremist and inflammatory. Let's hear your honest evaluation of the legitimacy and substance of the statement, and it's applicability toward any criticism of NDP foreign policy that might be offered up as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mid-East policy is extremely difficult isn't it? There are expectations from all sides and more than enough unreasonable positions to go round. I don't pretend to have the answers short of saying blind support of Israel is unreasonable given its behavior. Support of an occupation is untenable. Pretending the occupation is not germane to the rest of the security equation is nonsensical. To ignore the fact that Israel is not just a victim but the more powerful aggressor makes no sense.
I'd like to hope that in listening to criticism of NDP policy on the Middle East we would be better off and learn from it. I don't think we need to adopt every idea that comes across but dismissing what is an essential discussion of our principles when it comes to Palestine and Israel does not work even if we don't agree on every position. This is an area the NDP does not seem to have found the answers and has made statements I am not comfortable with.
I hate being drawn in to debates on the Middle East because they never end well. But I sure cannot support shouting down someone raising this. I admit I try to avoid the topic having started my adult life with tremendous sympathy for the dream and creation of Israel only to watch with ever increasing realization the crimes against the Palestinian people. The fact that the occupation of Palestinian lands is made possible only by the specific support of North America does not leave me as much room to say well that is their problem, we can ignore it.
Back to your question-- NDPP-- I think the very name of this character is baiting. However, the criticism should be respected better all the same. I cannot take either NDPP side given the tone from there but I do not support what Stockholm has replied. This leaves me quite unpopular with both sides no doubt.
I wish I could be more clear-- if I can figure out all the answers on this -- I'll let you know. I think the NDP is not doing well on the file and ought to take more criticism and advice on Palestine -- not less.