i'm going to give him a little advice.

being the leader of the ndp in a minority parliament is a hard job in any circumstance, and even harder given that they don't actually have the balance of power right now. if the ndp supports the government with too much enthusiasm, then what's the point of voting ndp? why not vote liberal, if you get a liberal anyway....or green if you want a real protest? on the other hand, if they're too aggressive, they do run the risk of being seen as running interference, of being perceived as disinterested in actually governing.

jack layton actually ran a lot of interference, and he was rewarded for it, but it's because he was up against not one but two prime ministers that had a lot of entrenched opposition on the left. more to the point for today, layton could vote against martin's budget because he was paul martin - somebody that the left side of the liberal party had spent years pushing back against. it's not clear that trudeau is going to generate that kind of backlash any time soon.

rather, the mood in the country, foolishly or not, seems to be to give him another chance and hope he does a better job, this time, which is a level of goodwill that probably originates with his father and is probably going to be more seriously tested before the next election.

the ndp are not getting anywhere by being pliable - they will need to stand up for their principles when they are challenged, or they will need to cede their position as the party of principles. after mulcair & notley, as well as darrell dexter and a few others, their reputation for being principled has been severely damaged.

but, if this is the best argument they have for voting against the speech, it's not very compelling.

blanchet is actually doing this right - you start off by broadcasting a desire for co-operation, by taking them at face value, by indicating a desire for compromise, and then you viciously attack them when they break their promises. that way, you can go to liberal voters and say "they promised us this and this and this, and then they betrayed all of us.".

the cynical analysis is that the ndp doesn't think it even has the strength to run against the liberals as the hypocrites that they are, that it's essentially trying to prevent itself from being a factor in the operation of parliament. but, if that's the case, then they should just disband. if they're not going to show up, they're wasting everybody's time, and it won't work out for them - not with the greens coming up behind them, like they are.

back at the beginning of the nafta negotiations, i tried to suggest in this space that the liberals should spend some time reading or watching some dawkins, as he's done a lot of important work on evolutionary strategies that is keenly relevant, in context. we then got completely embarrassed at the nafta negotiations, and signed a deal we really shouldn't have. i have to wonder if the outcome would have been a bit better if we had a better negotiation team in place, one that was more focused on game theory as an optimization tool.

i'm going to repeat the suggestion to mr. singh and the ndp. there's a gentle introduction in the form of a film called nice guys finish first.

as of right now, blanchet is following the correct strategy and singh is following an incorrect one.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/singh-says-bloc-won-t-push-government-after-supporting-throne-speech-1.4719205