You're missing the deeper problem. Layton is a classic post-materialist politician, a creature of the 1980s peace, women's and environmental movements. When he ran for leader, he capitalized on the post-materialist New Politics Initiative and made close alliances with Svend Robinson and Libby Davies.

And yet, as you point out, class-based issues remain relevant within the NDP. They can still win seats in Windsor, Hamilton and Winnipeg and working-class suburbs of Vancouver.

Without a coherent ideology (which the party hasn't had for 20 years) it oscillates between these two tendencies depending on the leader and whatever seems popular.

I'd welcome your thoughts!

Your article on the NDP seems contradictory. You start off by saying Jack is hoping on a bandwagon but then go on to say that the NDP has been working on these issues for some time now.

which you should be reading every day

As soon as Macleans sets up an RSS feed for them. Otherwise I for one might read them once a month if I remember to actually go to the site. Oh, and point out that they're long overdue to add a writer who writes from a socialist point of view to the team. Drop Scott Piatkowski's name on them.

"Oh, and point out that they're long overdue to add a writer who writes from a socialist point of view to the team."

Why? It would seem that their advertisers are not clamouring for such a move, which in turn indicates that their audience does not see this as a serious deficiency.

Enjoyed the Stanley Park piece, but it irks me terribly when people write "disinterest" when they mean "uninterest."

And it would irk me terribly if someone were to insert "uninterest" in my Stanley Park piece, because it sounds so silly. I'd never use disinterested to mean uninterested, but my Canadian OED acknowledges "disinterest" - as disputed, it's true, but also as far more common than "uninterest."

So I'm afraid it's full steam ahead with "disinterest," pending any editors' concerns. I will take "beg the question" to my grave, though.

I don't want to pick a fight here, but you are simply wrong. "Lack of interest" was what you should have used. We all make mistakes, myself included, and it's always best to state your sins clearly and take your punishment like a man--as I was taught many years ago in a somewhat different context.

To be honest, I have an extreme "lack of interest" in whether Chris or anyone else uses "disinterest" or not.

Stanley Park is one of my favourite places in Canada - I've spent many days in there, by myself or with a dog, or with friends. I just love it, everything about it.

I didn't love how fussy everyone was over it. Christ, a tree falls over and they want to hold a freaking wake for it. "Let's not mourn the tree, friends - let us instead celebrate the life it led, here among nature!" Ughhh.

I've never, ever thought, "Gee, I'm glad I'm not in Vancouver today," until that windstorm. Then I thought, "Man, if I was heading back today - I'd divert my flight to Victoria or Portland. UGGHHHHH."

What a bunch of morons.