While it is not easy defending Mr. Lali at the best of times it is interesting that his alleged crime is violating a caucus agreement. Didn't this whole thing start when Lali's illustrious leader violated an agreement on pay increases in the first place? Only Carole James could be on the right side of an issue like this and end being the one under attack. As Mike Harcourt's slogan said in 1991 - "It's time for a change".

When I read twisted pieces of complete non-logic like that offered above by Huh?, I really have to wonder which NDP Caucus dissident or staffer, or party payroll appendage, is using the handle Huh?.

When I read twisted pieces of complete blind loyalty like that offered above by Budd Campbell, I really have to wonder which NDP Caucus suck-up or staffer, or party payroll appendage, is using the handle Budd Campbell.

When I read twisted non-logic by Huh? and blind loyalth by Budd, I really have to wonder would they support the same candidate in an NDP leadership vote?

So what exactly is the NDP position on this ? I heard Carole James being “perfectly clear” as she likes to say, that she and the NDP reject the pay increase outright and that is the end of it.

Now Lali is suggesting something different that the caucus position is actually the wait and see approach or as he put it “the caucus agreement to await the legislation in order to review it before collectively arriving at a decision regarding a response”

In other words, now that there might be an opt in or opt out clause and we can’t bitch about it and still collect it like my leader first thought, I will wait and see if the clause is there and if so than I will sign up for it.

Can the resident NDP apologists here confirm the NDP position? Is Carole James correct or is Lali correct? Budd ? DL ? SB ?

Is this what it has come to?

The credibility of the party is hanging on the positions of Carole or Harry.

Yikes!

I want the last 15 years of my life back!