Brian Topp's Coalition Memoirs
December 1, 2009 - 2:32am
+-_-+
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Coalition redux: The Prime Minister
makes a big mistake
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-prime-minister-makes-a-big-mistake/article1382092/
Coalition redux: The shape of the deal
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-the-shape-of-the-deal/article1383166/?cid=art-rail-briantopp
This is terrific stuff. It should be on the front page. But then the Globe has not idea of what its readership is about.
That crossed my mind too.
Whether all the way to the front page or not: political junkies have got to be the hardest core of the shrinking audience of newspapers. And this is the kind of thing you are only going to get from the big dalies. Plus they didn't even have to spend money, or have editors sweat over resources, to put the story out there.
You'd think they's be waving big signs "Over Here".
Maybe they are afraid of it being so partisan? If so, they are stupid and seriously lack imagination. This will be just as eagerly read by Conservatives.
Apart from the occasional Op-Ed piece from someone like Ed Broadbent, the NDP has rarely had anyone writing about politics from their corner in the msp. NDP supporters are not used to it.
Usually in the msp NDP fans only get to hear from some poor old depressed former party hack who is on the outs with the current leadership and has an axe to grind like Caplan, etc. The CBC are masterful at finding people like him to comment on on behalf of the NDP. Political scumbags that they are, the CBC wouldn't touch someone like Topp with a 10 foot pole.
And to think the CBC was co-founded by Graham Spry who was the first secretary of the Ontario CCF. For years the CBC has taken its lead from the commercial media. It should be the other way around.
Topp's creating quite a sensation. Now everybody wants to weigh in.
La coalition PLC/NPD…comme un roman
http://www2.lactualite.com/chantal-hebert/2009-12-01/la-coalition-plcnpd-comme-un-roman/
Fascinating reading.
Among other things, it confirms that the Liberals are the gang who couldn't shoot straight. I think the coalition would have flown if they had only shown some basic political competence (given that ideological consistency is probably too much to hope for).
LOL@Scott
I too am finding the series thoroughly interesting.
Go easy on Gerry Caplan, though. He has turned out to be a witty and worthwhile replacement for Peter Donolo on the CTV Power Play panel that was formerly composed of 3 shades of Liberals, and I've enjoyed most of what he's written for the Globe lately.
Still, the general point about so few NDP insiders writing for news sources is correct; and notice that almost no-one else in the blogosphere has even responded, except for Aaron Wherry (to promote his own feature on the same period for Macleans).
In their own words. Simply proves that the only reason for the coalition was to protect the oppositions taxpayer funded entitlements visa vie the voter subsidy. It was nothing about governance, only self-preservation.
Sad, truely sad how the opposition tried to sell it as saving the country.
This is exactly the reason why Canadians are disillusioned with politics. Politicians and political parties doing and saying anything to save their own skin at taxpayers expense.
It was saving the country, as a Harper majority, will destroy it even quicker, than a minority is.....
Public funding for democracy is all about good governance.
That's quite a remarkable interpretation.
In their own words. Simply proves that the only reason for the coalition was to protect the oppositions taxpayer funded entitlements visa vie the voter subsidy. It was nothing about governance, only self-preservation.
Sad, truely sad how the opposition tried to sell it as saving the country.
This is exactly the reason why Canadians are disillusioned with politics. Politicians and political parties doing and saying anything to save their own skin at taxpayers expense.
This is exactly the reason why Canadians are disillusioned with politics. Politicians and political parties doing and saying anything to save their own skin at taxpayers expense.
If only we went back to a system where corporations and billionaires had unlimited power to fund the NDP (or anyone else), Canadians' faith in politics would definitely see a revival.
Thanks for the inspirational post, Ches.
You'll like the BC NDP though Chester as they voted for the rich and powerful to keep funding and controlling our political parties at their recent convention in Vancouver.
Tories throw coalition fit
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-throw-coalition-fit/article1384402/
---
Wednesday, November 26, 2008: Just before 6:00 p.m., my BlackBerry buzzed. An email from Jack Layton.
"CTV is reporting that the per voter public financing scheme is to be cancelled in tomorrow's update," he wrote. "I believe that the Liberals could be tempted by our earlier proposition, faced with such a catastrophic proposal. Self-preservation could provoke out-of-the-box thinking. I would like to discuss having you re-open your line of communication with your contact."
The quote above is pretty evident in what the true meaning of the coalition was about. Saying otherwise insults the intelligence of Canadians.
I have never stated that I support corp. or union or wealth financing of political parties. Only those that have the privilege to vote should fund political parties. Yes there should be a cap on donations and it should be reduced even more, currently a maximum of $1,100 to the local EDA and $1,100 to the national party. This should be reduced to $1,100 total between the EDA and national. I would also be ok with eliminating the tax credit for political donations as well, I donate to charities and political parties based on their ideals not the tax credit.
D-Watch on our Northern Puerto Rico "The system is the scandal"
Wednesday, November 26, 2008:
On the one hand, the federal Liberals were in worse financial shape than we were, and would have to look at their options again in light of Harper's attempt to bankrupt them. Indeed all three opposition parties now had a compelling, concurrent reason to cooperate to rid the country of Mr. Harper.
Thursday, November 27, 2008: Jack Layton wasted no time pursuing this issue.
"I don't believe the Bloc will be in as strong a position as they were a few weeks ago in opposing Dion as PM," he wrote (8:14 a.m.). "They will be very concerned about losing the public funding and they will be seized with the importance of strong action on EI and stimulus. Standing in the way of a new government because of their attitude towards Dion could be very damaging to them. I will meet with Dion and propose that he consider the scenario, based upon a lack of economic stimulus and the anti-democratic nature of the proposal to cancel, essentially retroactively, the funding of the democratic process - bringing in the era of big-money politics again."
Self-preservation again, protecting their entitlements. This is what the Canadian public sees and thinks. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Holy smokes, a political party wants some funding to help them continue to exist. What a scandal this is - call the Mounties.
Get the money from supporters not taxpayers, just like any other organization. I'm on the Board of a health care charity, we fund raise to do what is needed. I was also on a large provincial charity that hosts the largest per-capital telethon, we organized, worked our asses off and operated without demanding government funding. All political parties should get of their asses and do the work and raise the money themselves. Political parties should not be entitled to their entitlements from the taxpayer. I would rather see that money go to education, roads etc. than to the Cons, Libs, Dippers or Bloc.
Get the money from supporters not taxpayers, just like any other organization. [...] I would rather see that money go to education, roads etc. than to the Cons, Libs, Dippers or Bloc.
Whaaat?
Be consistent, man.
Those schools and roads and hospitals should get their money from supporters, not taxpayers.
Just like your health care charity!
Taxes are like forced donations. Baaaaad!
Fund-raising is like voluntary donations. Gooooood!!!
And if you have a nice charity, it'll collect more in donations from rich rich people - niiiiice!!!
Same with schools. Roads. Hydro projects. Hospitals.
And political parties.
Actually, we could have the cops and the
robbersmilitary go door to door selling coooookies to finance themselves!!And the firefighters!!!
There shall be NO MORE TAXES!
And with the $$$ people save in taxes... they'll be able to donate more to the fire department!!! And they won't even need a tax receipt!!! Because there won't be no taxes!!! So we'll save on paper!!!!!
Ches, you're on to something here.
Come on Unionist. I never said abolish taxes, I said abolish the subsidy, and political parties should raise funds just like any other quasi public entity like charities or community groups. Taxes are necessary for the services provided to all Canadians. Funding political parties is not an essential service that any Canadian Government should fund. It may not be a large sum of money in the grand scheme of things, but that $20 million paid out each year to political parties could be used to hire 300 more nurses or police or teachers. Which of these examples is a better use of taxpayers dollars; public services or political parties?
What what plum appointment Ignatieff is going to get, after everything is said and done, as payment for playing the patsy so well for corporate interests.....
“Exactly one year ago, on December 1st, 2008, the leaders of the Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and NDP signed their infamous deal to form a coalition government,” the confidential memo says. “And who was one of the signatories to this backroom deal? Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff … A year ago, Michael Ignatieff proved he was out-of-touch with Canadians and only in it for himself by signing up for the coalition deal.”
The talking points are nasty; there is no real narrative or logic to the Tory criticism of Mr. Ignatieff. It’s a rant.
“When it comes down to issues that matter most to Canadians, Michael Ignatieff is only looking out for himself. If another coalition will make him prime minister, he would gladly sign a new deal with the Bloc Quebecois and NDP [Huh? Where did this come from?] That’s because Michael Ignatieff isn’t in it for Canadians. He’s just in it for himself.”
Seconds later, after this landed in Tory email boxes across the country, Mr. Ignatieff announced he was supporting the government and two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, on the issue of a harmonized sales tax.
I find Topp's story self-serving but interesting nonetheless. Maybe he will fess up to more of his mistakes and the NDP's shared naïveté in the last installment. I was definitely a fan of the coalition when it was announced but in retrospect I can see reasons all around (not just the Liberals) for why it failed. I think part of the reason was that the NDP's overwhelming enthusiasm for a possible role in cabinet caused it to overlook some of the political dangers that developed as the coalition idea was progressing. It is a good time, strategically, for Topp to be writing this series because it reminds people of how close the NDP came to governing just 1 year ago. After about a year of low profile to irrelevance on the Parliamentary circuit this is the kind of booster the party needs. It is also interesting to see where he implies blame, including on Jack Layton!
Never saw implied blame....??????
A democratic electoral system is a public service.
The more time political parties spend raising money the more corrupt they are likely to be. See the US system.
Cons do not care about corruption look at who they are voting for.....
First of all, Chester Drawers shows up here periodically with the Conservative talking points-du-jour, to try and derail the conversation when it serves his or her purpose. So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, because he's trying to provoke people to say things the Conservative war-room can quote later on.
Although, Ches, for the record: I think Brian's recounting of the story makes it clear that it was the funding issue that they viewed as giving them an opening with the other parties: "I believe that the Liberals could be tempted by our earlier proposition, faced with such a catastrophic proposal. Self-preservation could provoke out-of-the-box thinking." I.e., the Liberals' desire for self-preservation could provoke them into some out-of-the-box thinking about the NDP's earlier proposition. I didn't see any evidence that the NDP had concerns about their own self-preservation.
And, V. Jara, I find your take very very harsh. It's oh-so-easy to criticize what others attempt to do, especially when it's unique or never tried before. I actually find your use of the term "self-serving" very unkind and quite unworthy of you. And I agree with remind, I didn't hear him laying any blame anywhere, but reporting in retrospect what he thought his own errors were without a lot of drama or spin.
They tried to do something that had never been tried in Canadian politics in our lifetime, and which was really creative. Do you want to hear the inside story or not? If so, then of all the ways it could have been written by someone who was actually there, this sounds like about the LEAST self-serving writing of it that I could imagine.
Well said, ottawaobserver. It was creative all right, and it actually opened up a space for Canadians to think that partisan interests could be transcended by a greater goal - besides scaring the bejeezus out of Harper, whose blackmail and intimidation momentarily faltered. Until he got his puppet G-G Jean and then the coward Ignatieff to rescue him.
Thanks, Unionist.
We finally get to find out from one of the participants what happened during the coalition talks, and why Harper is still in power, and yet that still isn't good enough for some here. Jeesh!
The more time political parties spend raising money the more corrupt they are likely to be. See the US system.
By having the donation limits that we currently have, help mitigate the potential for corruption as no one can buy their influence unlike the American system. Our system before the limits was corrupt, corps. unions and the wealthy did influence the political system in their favor, but those influences have been greatly reduced with donation limits.
Parties that raise their own funds have to work harder to identify their supporters, it also brings the party closer to the grassroots and voters. If the party ideals match the individual they will most likely support that party with their hard earned money. It takes effort and in this day of instant gratification the polital machines have become lazy and it is easier if someone else does the work and simply hand over the money.
This is neither a Con or Dipper or Libs issue it is a taxpayer issue. I know many people who are supporters of other parties who think that the subsidy system is not right.
Get the money from supporters not taxpayers, just like any other organization. I'm on the Board of a health care charity, we fund raise to do what is needed.
You and your ilk are the reason that so much healthcare in this country is dependent upon charity. Simply shutting your gob-hole would be a far more efficient contribution to society....
If we want to save money - i have a better idea. How's about abolishing all self-serving government advertising. The Tories spent more tax dollars on their 100% political propaganda masquerading as ad promoting their action plan - than all money spent on the political subsidy in a year.
On top of that, I think that since the governing party is able to use the entire public service to promote itself for free, we should reform the political subsidy so that if you are in government you get HALF the subsidy that you get in opposition!
Get the money from supporters not taxpayers, just like any other organization. I'm on the Board of a health care charity, we fund raise to do what is needed.
You and your ilk are the reason that so much healthcare in this country is dependent upon charity. Simply shutting your gob-hole would be a far more efficient contribution to society....
Wasteful spending by government such as this subsidy, government advertizing, useless gun registry, federal sponsorships of tradeshows and cultural events, oceans and fisheries in landlocked Saskatchewan and the like are the reasons that health charities are needed. Money that should be spent on the core infrastructure for society is wasted on non essentials. Government should be run like you or I run our household budget. Necessities first and luxuries after. If the money isn't there then we wait until it is there.
The best that you can do is insult and name call.
Good job, Chester. You managed to completely draw the focus away from Brian's series. Mission accomplished.
Yes it did get off track a little. However the essence of the debate still goes back to what Brian had published, the subsidy was the motivating factor for the coalition.
Silence can often be golden.
I really like how Brian writes - it's simple and follows a narrative - one with feeling and inside the head thinking - no gloss here. Topps is tops!
By your comments Ches, you clearly take as authentic Brian Topp's account.
And by his account, 'the motivating factor' of the coalition was definitely the NDPs desire to have one. In fact, they had already tried to initiate this before Stephen Harpers naerly fatal Grand Overeach.
The subsidy issue was not the motivating factor. It was the enabling game changer.
It was the match that would get the Liberals to think again. And as is the case with all matches that are the final step in lighting a fire- the story is the fire.
The latest installment is out now. Boy that Marlene Jennings ... ay-yay-yay!
I find Topp's story self-serving but interesting nonetheless. Maybe he will fess up to more of his mistakes and the NDP's shared naïveté in the last installment.
Re: Brian Topp
Now I understand why ACTRA is so badly run and why contract negotiations always go the way of the Producers...
sure blame it on Topps - he hasn't been there in a long time but for sure - the libs look like the self-serving entitled elites that are so out of vogue!
WELL SAID KEN!!!
By your comments Ches, you clearly take as authentic Brian Topp's account.
And by his account, 'the motivating factor' of the coalition was definitely the NDPs desire to have one. In fact, they had already tried to initiate this before Stephen Harpers naerly fatal Grand Overeach.
The subsidy issue was not the motivating factor. It was the enabling game changer.
It was the match that would get the Liberals to think again. And as is the case with all matches that are the final step in lighting a fire- the story is the fire.
I know it's a longshot but so what. And you never know until you try. It sure would be sweet for the NPD to take NDG in the next federal election.
The NDP does not seem to have put proportional representation on the table.
Yet PR would have helped western Liberals, and Quebec Liberals, and Liberals in Ontario outside the GTA.
It would have been hard to implement because the Bloc, although they favour it in principle, would have tried to find a reason not to vote for it since it would have cut their caucus from 49 MPs to about 28. Is that why it was never mentioned?
Or is it because Toronto Liberals, who would have been hurt as much as the Bloc, would have veto'd it?
I suspect they never even raised it because they knew it would be a deal breaker. There wasn't time for anyone in those negotiations to work at forcing or finessing one of their favourite but doomed hobby horses into some recognition.
Wasteful spending by government such as this subsidy, government advertizing, useless gun registry, federal sponsorships of tradeshows and cultural events, oceans and fisheries in landlocked Saskatchewan and the like are the reasons that health charities are needed. Money that should be spent on the core infrastructure for society is wasted on non essentials. Government should be run like you or I run our household budget. Necessities first and luxuries after. If the money isn't there then we wait until it is there.
How telling that the spending of scant millions for democracy tops Chester's list of irritants, while multiple billions spent to kill brown people for oil and empire goes conspicuously unnoticed.
Wasteful spending by government such as this subsidy, government advertizing, useless gun registry, federal sponsorships of tradeshows and cultural events, oceans and fisheries in landlocked Saskatchewan and the like are the reasons that health charities are needed. Money that should be spent on the core infrastructure for society is wasted on non essentials. Government should be run like you or I run our household budget. Necessities first and luxuries after. If the money isn't there then we wait until it is there.
How telling that the spending of scant millions for democracy tops Chester's list of irritants, while multiple billions spent to kill brown people for oil and empire goes conspicuously unnoticed.
I assume you mean Afganistan. On one hand how do you respond to 911, do nothing, bomb the hell out of the country, or negotiate with a philosophy that would skin you alive for being a Kaffur? What should we have done? We (NATO) have been there too long now and that is because of the lack of balls from many NATO countries. If 911 never occured that money would have been spent at home, I agree.
Not that its unusual, but we're getting far away from the topic.
More to the point: the tangents revolve around Ches, and there really isn't any possible meeting ground with him on any of this.
I've been following Topp's articles and find them fascinating. This part is particularly interesting:
Note, the language: Dion is referenced in the singular; the NDP, in the plural: Dion needed "us more than we needed him" The NDP was united. The Libs were divided - as they always are.
The NDP wanted the coalition (and had wanted it for some time it seems) because this was their best chance to govern and have some meaningful say in what's going on. The Liberal Party (at the time) still thought they were the natural governing party who would ultimately return to power with or without the NDP. Dion, on the other hand, knew that this was his last shot to be PM. He'd already announced his intention not to run for PM. Dion's interests were not necessarily in line with those of his party. Iggy did not want the coalition for his own self-interest. If Dion became leader of the coalition, this would delay his shot at the leadership. Who knows where the rest of the party stood. The Libs spend so much time back-stabbing, in-fighting and attempting to make powerplays, it's no wonder they're in such disarray.
Another thing that is interesting to learn from Topp is that although the negotiations around the coalition happened quickly, the NDP had done its homework and had good plans in place for how to run a coalition. They had done research from other jurisdictions. Harper, the GG and Iggy killed the coalition the first go around but I don't think it's dead. With the Libs doing so badly in the polls, maybe the idea will resurface. Unfortunately for the NDP, it seems that the Liberals' loss is the Cons gain and not the NDP's ...Query whether the NDP is still interested (I suspect they are) and whether the Libs can put individual self-interest aside ( I suspect they can't) or finally realize that they're not the natural governing party and this is good for the party and the country (this they might be able to do)
From today's account....
And thus Harper was given time to devise his sabatoge, by the obvious sell out...Iggy....
Iggy sells out - no surprise - what I loved about living that observation dangling and not proposing suggestions in what that meant - was that readers were easily able to "connect the dots". Do you really want to elect the liberals with a leader who is as sleazy as that? One who is more than willing to pull the rug from under his own party - sellout - for his own political self-interest? That's the gem that is embedded there and plays into the framed national narrative that Iggy is about Iggy and the country be damned.
Is this person PM material - remember this is the individual who would be the supreme role model of ethics and morals - not!
Good on Brian for revealing that slimeball!
I'm still waiting for him to get to this part:
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/500862
Why?
We already know the answer: the NDP agreed that the Coalition govt would follow the Liberals stand. Topp isn't going to cover every policy question they covered. If it comes up, it'll be part of the story of overall horse trading. No coalition without that.
Brian Topp G & M
"At which point Marlene Jennings exploded. "I want to say a few things," she said.
She informed us, emphatically, that the coalition proposal was not selling well with her Liberal colleagues because it implied that NDP Members of Parliament might gain access to cabinet jobs. Liberal MPs had been waiting for many years for those positions, she explained, and they did not accept that people from some other party might take their places in line."
This is priceless. Entitled to their entitlements. Brian has provided some very interesting insight to the coalition development and implementation. A lot of work by many.And thus we see the first useful post ever written by CD.
Remember this date. It may be the last.
Is this person PM material - remember this is the individual who would be the supreme role model of ethics and morals - not!
Good on Brian for revealing that slimeball!
At this point one wonders if he is actually a Conservative plant in the Liberal Party?
Everything he has done in the last year, well documented here in all the Ignatieff threads, has further diminished the Liberal Party and it would seem the first public indication was the huddled meeting of a year ago...
But then again they are at heart the same evil thing anyway......
I wanted to comment on a few of your other points and would have but for thread drift. Regardless, good to see you steer back into the thread. The sense of entitlement is troubling. This is some great background reading. I also agree with some of the other posters who read the article in that the NDP were Coalition seeking and saw the situation as the LPC needing the Public Funding and thus the LPC would become interested working with the NDP. The other obvious point is that Dion is seeking to revive his prospects and it is clear he needed the coalition more then the NDP needed one. Thus, any strategist would realize to kill LPC support for the coalition, you back off on the public funds and await internal LPC divisions to implode the agreement. The CPC did their part, but this wasn't enough to stop a coalition, but Ignatieffs desire for power will take over the train when Dion stalls the engine, live and on TV.... I am hoping the Six Parter goes as far as Dions Television appearance. To know what the NDP insiders were thinking after Dions "performance" would be entertaining.
THis series is fantastic reading. It ought to be made into a CBC mini-series!
Stock I agree.
This says it all, doesn't it.
The 2 people most threatened by the coalition killed it plain and simple.
All the BS in the press about the coalition not being popular was exactly that: BS
Thanks Canadian msp & journalists for screwing Canadians over once again.
That didn’t sound encouraging.
It was time to call it a day.
Interesting series.
"All the BS in the press about the coalition not being popular was exactly that: BS"
The coalition was unpopular with many westerners and rural ridings. The rallies, letters to the editors and talkshows were proof of this. I believe if the coalition was to have succeeded the political landscape and unity of this country would have been damaged beyond repair.
The four western premiers even held an emergency meeting over this, Wall, Campbell, Stelmach met personally and Doer by conference call. I would like to hear what happened at that meeting in Dec. 2008. That too would ba an interesting read.
You meant to say a campaign organized by the Cons.
Don't worry Canada is a lot more resilient than that - look we are even surviving, barely though, having Harper as PM.
Huh?
The new government's shape
Coalition redux: In the third of three parts, the NDP strategist reveals the Liberal negotiating team's reticence to cough up cabinet positions
Are you reading Brian Topp’s series about the coalition thingie yet? by Paul Wells on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:07pm - 56 CommentsYou should be.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/02/are-you-reading-brian-topps-series-about-the-coalition-thingie-yet/
What was Bob Rae up to when all this was going on?
Trying to ride the coalition to being Leader- definitely promoting it.
Coalition redux: Things come togetherDawn Black (8:26 a.m.): “Ujjal. We just spoke. He said we must be hard line – not give an inch to the Conservatives no matter what they bring forward. His view was that Peter J[ulian] and Paul Dewar left an impression on TV we would consider a new package if one is brought forward from the Conservatives.”
This, of course, is exactly what Dosanjh and his Liberal colleagues themselves would agree to do only a few days later.
-------------------------------
Tomorrow: Things Fall Apart
://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/coalition-redux-things-come-together/article1386199/
- from one of the globe readers
12/3/2009 12:17:56 AM
Mr. Sharp, I see you are back on the job with your diatribes trying to prop up the leaky Con job done on the coalition last year. Do you feel like you have your finger in the dike? Anyway, you failed to reply to my post last time, and it is still relevant as I see you are spouting the same tired Con arguments. So I am giving you another chance to reply. If you can't reply, then please stop repeating yourself. Here is what I said:
Come on Mr. Sharp, coalitions are legal and legitimate. They are a product of elected representatives working together. Mr. Harper said during the election that he would work with parliament but then, as has been well-documented, he went back on his word. Coalescing before an election is pointless because everyone is hoping for a majority and no one is sure how well they are going to do.
Admit it, you appear to be an intelligent guy. The coalition as illegitimate argument was cynically used by the Cons to manipulate those in the electorate who were naive as to how a parliamentary democracy works. How do we know this for sure? Because the Cons had proposed a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc some years before to unseat Mr. Martin.
By the way, your references to the separatists in this coalition are false. As Mr. Topp had demonstrated in his column, this was a Lib-NDP coalition. The Bloc was not included but was expected to support it in the same way they had previously supported the Cons.
'nuff said. Con lies have been exposed. The electorate is increasing savvy to what really went on. The Cons will never get a majority.
"The coalition was unpopular with many westerners and rural ridings."
so?? The Tories are currently unpopular with many easterners and urban ridings (and quite a few people out west and in rural ridings vote something other than Tory as well!)
This really wants to make you go out there and beat the drum for the Liberals doesn't it.
Wait until Canadians have had a chance to digest this stuff.
Black picked up the cudgel, demanding to know what the Liberals had against families and children, especially given all the complaining they had done about the fate of their last-days-of-Martin press releases about childcare.
The Liberal front-line seemed extremely embarrassed to defend the position they were taking, and as the discussion proceeded more and more of the Liberal talking was being done by their leader’s office research staffer.
He argued, relentlessly and repetitively, that no spending commitments must be made that would be “structural spending.” Helping families and children, to his mind, was “structural spending,” and so nothing could be done about child poverty or the real-world consequences of unemployment to average Canadian families.
It was fascinating to look at the Liberal team during this exchange. They looked ashamed of themselves. They also looked defeated and powerless. How many times during their recent decade in office, I wondered, had elected Liberals had expressions like that on their faces, while staff and bureaucrats chanted neo-con blather? Permanent tax cuts for wealthy individuals and business were “investments.” Help for poor families was “structural spending.”
Black was on a bottom line. She spelled it out for the arrogant young Liberal staffer. If there was nothing about child poverty and childcare in the agreement, Black said, then there would be no agreement and no coalition government.
Ed Broadbent, author of a landmark motion in the House of Commons calling for concrete steps to end child poverty in Canada, unanimously adopted, backed her up strongly.
wow - I'm lovin it. The liberals - we are progressive mask just got ripped off - the liberal ship is run by their corporate masters and each one of those liberal MPs are sellouts. What's running through my head is the tune, befitting for this scene, "if I only had a brain".... I could.... that for those liberals sitting there not doing squat!
Thank goodness there were some caring ADULTS in the room!
I'm still waiting for him to get to this part:
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/500862
Looks like he won't
I read on some forgotten blog that after Parliament was prorogued there was a meeting of several important bankers and top Liberals. The message was sent that if you ally with the NDP you will never again receive any support from us. Don't know where I read this or if it is true but it sounds like it might be, particularly considering the opposition to the coalition from various right-wing Liberals like Manley and Ignatieff.
Can anyone elaborate on this? I am also very interested in what went on behind the scenes with the Liberals leading to Ignatieff's retreat from the coalition.I know there was an obvious split with people like Bob Rae openly in favour of the coalition.
Can anyone shed light on this? There are only two more intalments in Brian Topp's series and I don't know how much he will be able to tell us about internal Liberal politics.
Personally, I think it was an urbam myth. It didn't even have any reference to unamed sources. More of an apocrophyl story of what was said at some meeting.
Bankers may well have expressed being unhappy- and that matters- but they don't have substantial direct purse strings. The solidarity of the like minded people has plently of effect on what goes on in the Liberal Party of Canada, without attributing more to it.
Brian Topp isn't going to delve that much into Liberal internal politics. Certainly not its murky depths. Their internal politics is just a part of the story.
And Iggy didn't "retreat" from the coalition. He made it clear he never liked it, and that his signing on the dotted line while Dion was still leader was just because he had to.
That said, I still don't think it was ruled out that once he was leader he might have decided it was the right way to go.
But we're getting ahead of the story, and should first let Brian tell it.
That idea that bankers told the Liberals to toe the line - I believe - came from Lisa Riatte's (sp) assistant when she left her tape recorder in a public washroom and a press person found it (Halifax press) and released all the juicy tidbits. It sounds like that came from the run back in the winter and played out in MSM, where thea AID was fired.
Exactly. A story told in private by a not very credible source with an axe to grind.
But remember, when the story broke, the Liberals didn't do much to deny it. John McCallum said, "You don't think they'd actually say that in public , do you?" (implying that these kind of marching orders are expected, but usually made in a much more subtle manner).
BTW, the Afghanistan story is pure spin, disguised (not very well) as journalism. The NDP never abandoned its position on withdrawal; it just recongnized that, as the minority partner in the coalition, it wasn't going to get its way on the matter
So much for Liberal whining here about no national child care when Martin went down to defeat.....
I think this is the first time I have ever seen constructive articles about the federal NDP in the msp for more than one day in a row.
How did they let it slip through.
I believe that Topps blog is very popular! He's a great writer and the Globe is not going to tamper with something that is bringing a wider readership to their virtual door step!
Tomorrow's blog should be fascinating.
What really happened with the Cons getting a transcript?
Did the NDP actually screw up with their distribution list, or was there a covert taping process going on?
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that.
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he s
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting,
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was,
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know t
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would b
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCM
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once,
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation,
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right,
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and asked
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and asked them
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and asked them to
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and asked them to go
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and asked them to go back
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation, if I'm remembering right, and have
I'm told it was a slip of the finger ... DuncaJ instead of DuncaL, or something like that. Of course he should not have phoned in to the Caucus meeting, since he would have known PERFECTLY WELL what it was, and know that it would be eavesdropping.
The RCMP has been through this once, and the NDP complained about the investigation (for concluding the investigation without interviewing many of the principals), if I'm remembering right, and have filed a complaint with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission about the inadequate investigation.
What slip of the finger caused all that?!
Ha! I was wondering how this thread went from 87 to 144 in about 10 minutes. Hopefully a moderator can delete the spam from this thread, which was turning into something pretty interesting.
Holy cow. I did notice that the comment posted itself once, so I went back in and edited it. How the rest occurred I have no frigging idea.
Sorry guys!
wow to see the sentence progression was wierd LOL....
Such suspense.
Good time to start a new thread:
Topp's Coalition Memoirs, part2