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
Thank you Becca for all your efforts here so far. Much appreciated.
What the left needs is access to some leaks about what is really going on behind the scenes because chances are you will not see it in the mainsteam press. I don't care how they obtain them, but for goodness sake's, this is the very dirty game of politics. Lefties are often idealists, they want a better world for everyone, whereas the reality of our dirty politics is all about who gets the next government contract.
Here's a possibility: The pollsters may well be going to be in the field soon, and the Liberal's only hope, with what may be one of their few desperate remaining chances to at least not lose their official party status, it could happen, in the next election, is to crush the NDP. So we have the mainstream press and the Liberal sycophants doing a number on the NDP to shrink them in the polling that could be taking place.
ottawaobserver rabble-rouser-supreme Member: 15981 Joined: Feb 24 2008
February 20, 2011 - 4:03pm #83 (permalink)
Roscoe wrote:
It is my opinion that Jack has created a wedge issue that can resonate with the voter - this issue can really explode if handled right. This issue is universal and speaks directly to the insecurities Canadians have for their future in an uncertain world. A world where unsavoury financial interests prosper on the backs of a citizenry faced with higher food and energy costs. The NDP can spotlight the government's unwillingness to protect Canadians' pensions in favour of the financial community's predations on our incomes.
Go for it, Jack, don't get lost in the irrelevant nitpicking of NDP navel-gazers. Stay on message and win.
I think I'm in love.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos
Sweet!
Of course, the self-appointed vanguards of the working class would $**+ all over Jack if he managed to get Harper to eradicate capitalism and institute the co-operative commonwealth. Their sole purpose in life, it seems, is to trash the NDP as not pure enough. Like Prominent Liberal and Class Quisling Basil Harper, they seem determined to serve the interests of the Liberal Party by aping the Liberal narrative.
Meanwhile, the Liberals are besides themselves that they've been left out of the story, and have taken to parsing every nuance of Layton's interview with CTV's Question Period (e.g., over here), and trying to revive lame Twitter memes about Bev Oda.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives gave the Tommy Douglas files to their stooges at SunMedia who are pumping them for every red-baiting tidbit they can think of, and trying to bait people on Twitter to engage in a debate that SunMedia can report about again tomorrow.
So, mission accomplished, Jack and Caucus. Well done! When they're talking about us, and attacking us, it means they're afraid of us.
Oh, and Nanos for CTV tonight?
CPC-39.9, Lib 26.6, NDP 18.9, GPC 4.9 (Bloc in Quebec 37.3 or something).
Nanos concedes that those numbers have been a bit inflated by the ad buy. Iggy is running third behind Layton as best PM though.
Sure, we're supposed to be wide open to being described as neoBolsheviks while their party pretends to be pragmatic centrists or some such. We're just not playing by cold war rules anymore, I guess.
Unionist we will find you a family doctor. I go to someone in Chinatown here in Vancouver. None other than Murray Dobbin convinced me of the benefits of Chinese medicine.
Note that CTV are now backing Jack. It turns out he and the PM spent one-third of their time talking about why corporate tax cuts should be shelved.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110220/craig-oliver-110220/
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110220/layton-budget-meeting-with...
So prepare for the election because Harper is not about to eliminate senior poverty, revisit the CPP, commit to retrofit for the environment, or to find a family doctor for Unionist.
I think it will be a ground war, and I expect the NDP to come out strong against the Harper Sales Tax aka the HST. It should do the trick in BC. Tax fairness is a left issue, as Stock has pointed out on these boards.
I think it will be a ground war, and I expect the NDP to come out strong against the Harper Sales Tax aka the HST. It should do the trick in BC. Tax fairness is a left issue, as Stock has pointed out on these boards.
Oy. We (Québec) harmonized our sales taxes 14 years ago... We'll need another issue. Can I promise Chinese doctors for all my local union members?
Harper wants to get an election out of the way before the economy gets really messy. That way, he can continue to govern through the tough times while the opposition is in no position to bring him down. Plus, with fall elections to take place in several provinces, including Ontario and possibly Quebec, none of the parties want to divide their resources between 2 different campaigns.
seriously, what would an election change?
Thanks OO & updated.
So let's have a look at what's happened since the last election:
Nanos Research
Party / 2008 GE / Poll / Change
Cons - 37.7% / 39.7% / Up 2%
Libs - 26.3% / 26.6% / Up 0.3%
NDP - 18.2% / 18.9% / Up 0.7%
Bloc - 10% / 9.9% / Down 0.1%
These results are actually dreadful for the Liberals as they now trail the Cons by 13.1% in the polls, and as Paul Wells has pointed out, based on his analysis of the previous 5 election results and NANOS Research polling, the Libs have lost 10% to the Cons from the time the writ was dropped until election day each time. So if history is any indicator, the Libs could end up 20%-25% behind the Cons by the time the votes are counted this election.
Nanos has just published his numbers, and I got the Conservative number wrong from memory ... it's actually 39.7%. Off by 0.2; sorry about that.
NR, I know Paul Wells wrote that, but he's not exactly a math wizard. He didn't do the analysis himself, he was just repeating the spin someone else gave him. There's a LOT of that going around right now, and although the Conservatives can artificially inflate their numbers by a few points between elections by pounding the airwaves with millions of dollars of ads, they usually fall back again afterwards.
I think the Conservatives have some vulnerabilities going in to this campaign that they didn't have last time, though I also think the Liberals are unlikely to flub up quite so badly as under the hapless Stéphane Dion.
So, I would expect this election to disprove that particular rule of thumb this time around, but of course we'll have to see, won't we.
Well OO, Paul Wells is one of only a very, very few Canadian political analysts that are worth following, and I have been quite impressed with his independence of thought. Regardless of Well's comments though, Harper is developing a growing lead for the Best PM and Leadership Qualities categories in the Nanos PDF. That concerns me.
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W11-T454E.pdf
Thanks for posting the link, though.
NDP and Conservatives get ready to play 'let's make a deal' on budget
The Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois are not part of this budget conversation, because they've dealt themselves out of the game.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Conservatives+ready+play+make+deal+b...
I don't think all this "let's make a deal" stuff really matters. Very few people, 15% according to the experts, pay attention to politics between elections. And these 15% are mostly confirmed voters. The only good way to get to the mass of undecided voters is through political advertising on popular shows like Hockey Night in Canada and CSI.
Once the election starts, all parties will finally be in a position to have political advertising. It'll be interesting to see which parties come up with the best ads. Whichever party does might pick up a lot of seats come election day.
The election debates may also prove to be a game changer. Since we don't have real debates in the House of Commons anymore, we have to wait until election time to get a sliver of democracy. Maybe the party leaders and cabinet/shadow ministers should be required to have formal televised/internet debates on a yearly basis?
Be careful what you ask for as the Conservatives seem to know what they are doing with their ads.
There is always the possibility that things can change during an election campaign. One possibility is the Liberal leader, facing 3 other seasoned political leaders, could be blown out of the ballpark and we end up in a Kim Campbell situation for the Liberals. As you say anything is possible.
Anything is possible. Huge shifts in support during elections have become commonplace. Maybe Harper's record will catch up with him and he'll fall flat on his face and Layton will shine leaving the 3 parties in a dead heat. Maybe the election outcome will be:
NDP: 27
Con: 27
Lib: 27
BQ: 11
Grn: 6
Oth: 2
I'm not sure what kind of Parliament that could produce but a 9 point gain by the NDP from last election is entirely within the scope of possibility. With our 5-party universe the NDP could be in first place with just 28% support.
I think you are right that the 'lets make a deal' stuff makes no difference- good or bad.
Not directly.
But its important in the larger narrative. The positioning that the NDP is setting for the election is to counterpose their agenda with Harper not even being willing to come baby steps along the way.
Which is why it is important right now to cut off the possibility of the Conservatives being able to say that the NDP was asking for the moon.
The latest from Nanos is creating some excitement. The attack ads worked. And the Liberal attempt to walk over the NDP is not working:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-attack...
"The Liberals freely admit that their goal is to defeat the Conservatives by siphoning support from the New Democrats. Mr. Ignatieff’s position on corporate tax cuts, purchasing F-35 fighter jets and opposing tough-on-crime legislation is now virtually identical to that of Mr. Layton’s.
It may be backfiring, Mr. Nanos believes. What little advertising the Liberals have conducted may reaffirm voters’ support for the NDP, which has held to its views longer and firmer. Mr. Layton is more popular than Mr. Ignatieff among voters, and the latest Nanos poll has the party at 18.9 per cent, an uptick from the December Nanos poll."
Maybe the election outcome will be:
NDP: 27
Con: 27
Lib: 27
BQ: 11
Grn: 6
Oth: 2
And maybe pigs will fly. I think we're looking instead at numbers like these in the next election:
Cons 40 (very close to a majority, but a couple of seats short)
Libs 28
NDP 21
BQ 11
Other: 0
ETA: I still do NOT believe there will be an election over the Budget, because enough Liberals will stay home with the diplomatic flu on budget voting day.
Jehovah, this pep rally needs a dose of reality.
From an earlier post the NDP, since 2008, have only increased their likely share of the votes by .7%.That is a joke considering what has happened to the world Capitalist economic system during that time.
Lets see, the working class party of Canada, the NDP. could not increase their share of the vote even though the followoing has taken place.
- Largest Capitalist crash since the Great Depression
- Trillions of dollars given to the banks to prop them up
- austerity measure put in place against the working class
- Corporate leaders pocketing billions in bonuses taken from the bail out money
- Mass working class revolts against it all in Iran, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, England, and the USA stc
- Mass revolution in the Middle East with the fall of Tunisian and Egyptian leaders
- The closing of Parliament twice in Canada
- a 5 year conservative lead government with the support of only 25% of the electorate.
Like really, what better conditions could a working class party ask for and have, to take power?
And someone here says they have to wait for an election, so they can place some ads on Hockey Night in Canada. Cause that's gonna be the deal breaker right there, those ads are gonna bring down the Government. What a joke...
Lets see, the working class party of Canada, the NDP. could not increase their share of the vote even though the followoing has taken place.
- Largest Capitalist crash since the Great Depression
... and so forth..
First of all, you are mixing apples and oranges. You are saying the NDP has not increased its vote. But the NDP polling levels have not increased over the 2008 vote share. Thats no mere technical point. Because historically the NDP polls lower between elections, whatever is going on. [And actually has begun to go stay at polling levels over the 2008 vote share... but thats still not a vote tally, on which we will see.]
But leaving that aside, you are making an argument that the NDP has been unable to make progress in support.
And what about the Canadian alternatives to the left, while capitalism is obviously biting more people. ??
Well, hats off at least for the fact that they've thought of everything. Indeed there seems to be nothing lacking, neither illusion, fallacy, absurdity, or jingoism; all of which is supported by the prosthesis of sycophancy to ensure the entire affair doesn't just topple over.
Why don't all the people, including several people, here who were suckered over the weekend by the lying Liberals over the NDP's position on corporate taxes, in relation to Layton's meeting with Harper, make a vow to themselves, that when this reoccurs, which it will ad nauseum, to automatically assume it it is those lying Liberal pricks, and the chances are pretty godd you will be right on the money. Thank goodness that slimeball is long gone from the NDP.
Liberals would attempt to smoke Canadians by having them believe that the Liberals are now against the very corporate tax cuts they voted to support and keep Harper afloat.
The Liberals totally support the tax cuts, but because the NDP don't, they are during their usual Liberal lying in the run-up period leading to the next election by saying they are on the left to try and steal NDP votes.
It is the Liberals with their lying that is the true enemy of the NDP and of Canadians as well.
Can you believe Rae's bullshit below!!!
This is the reality of Canada's politics.
Though Michael Ignatieff has supported tax relief for business in the past, the Liberals now say they cannot support the budget if the government does not roll back this latest round of cuts to corporations.
The NDP opposes the cuts as well, but this was not clear after Mr. Layton's meeting with Mr. Harper since they were not part of the New Democratic budget wish list. The Liberals jumped on this over the weekend.
"It's sad to see the NDP abandon the fight for tax fairness without a whimper," Liberal MP Bob Rae told The Globe. "NDP figures it is losing tax cuts issue to the Liberals, and so needs its own territory. As the Tom Lehrer song says, 'playing second fiddle's a hard part, I know, when they won't give you the bow'."
Mr. Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, believes Mr. Layton's caucus is divided on whether to try to take down the government over the budget. "If they do join in to the opposition to the budget - because the Tories don't play ball - they see a small victory. If the Tories play ball - they 'win' (according to their theory). People will reward them for gaining concessions."
The Liberal MP warns, however, that there is a "fatal weakness" to this strategy.
"The first is that everyone can see through it - it simply papers over the split in their caucus, they've ceded the tax cut issue to the Liberals (big mistake) and if they support the Tories they're done for because their base is fiercely anti-Harper. If they don't support them no one will notice. They are playing a bad hand of cards."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/with-harper...
It is the Liberals with their lying that is the true enemy of the NDP and of Canadians as well.
Can you believe Rae's bullshit below!!!
Why not include the Conservatives? Why the exclusive focus on the Liberals. Aren't the Conservatives the current ruling party that are about to lower corporate income taxes to 12.5% by 2015?
It makes no sense for the NDP to focus exclusively on the Liberals and let the Conservatives go ahead and implement their aganda unopposed.
And it makes no sense to make this issue so personal. All this tribal hatred gets in the way of the message that corporate tax cuts are wrong economically, socially, and morally.
I never said that the NDP should wait for an election.
I'd actually agree that the NDP's policies should be bolder and that more people would flock to the NDP if it had a stronger more coherent message.
I think the NDP should clearly and unequivocally support policies such as:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Adding more income tax brackets and raising taxes on the top 2% of earners
- Exempt the first $20,000 from payroll taxes
- Increase the income limit for payroll taxes to $250,000
- National early childhood education program
- Add homecare, dental care, optometry to Medicare
- Proportional Representation
- National housing plan
- National environment plan
- National mass transit program
- National high speed rail program
- Leave NATO
- Reduce political spending
etc....
I think basing their commercials on these kinds of bold ideas during Hockey Night in Canada would be great. Although I can't see Don Cherry cheering for them.
The 2% or less bubble. There is simply no way that people, including potential NDP universe voters, would ever buy a party programme that includes a laundry list like that. Talk about incoherent and all over the map. It would be dismissed out of hand as unrealistic and way too expenisve. People just don't believe that stuff anymore. The more I read babble and comments on facebook and twitter the more I understand why the left loses to the right every single time in our modern era.
I don't think that "laundry list", give or take an item or two, (those socks are always somehow getting lost) is that different from what the NDP is already proposing.
What kind of laundry list would get the masses revved up to support the NDP?
How about just adding "free pot for all"?
Legalizing weed would be supported by a lot of people.
It's would also be the right thing to do. [legalizing that is, not smoking it, although there's nothing wrong with that either]
I think it will be a ground war, and I expect the NDP to come out strong against the Harper Sales Tax aka the HST. It should do the trick in BC. Tax fairness is a left issue, as Stock has pointed out on these boards.
Oy. We (Québec) harmonized our sales taxes 14 years ago... We'll need another issue. Can I promise Chinese doctors for all my local union members?
We already have an issue - Poverty and CPP reform. Playing silly buggers with the Liberals over corporate taxes simply gets the Dippers drawn into a black hole of irrelevancy. Stick to the wedge issue that will resonate with the voter rather than confusing the voter with Liberal 'he said...she said'. The Liberals are masters at this tactic - its all they are good at but it works for them. Take the issue to the vote. Don't bother sparring with the Liberals- ignore them.
"It's sad to see the NDP abandon the fight for tax fairness without a whimper," Liberal MP Bob Rae told The Globe. "NDP figures it is losing tax cuts issue to the Liberals, and so needs its own territory. As the Tom Lehrer song says, 'playing second fiddle's a hard part, I know, when they won't give you the bow'."... ....
The Liberal MP warns, however, that there is a "fatal weakness" to this strategy.
"The first is that everyone can see through it - it simply papers over the split in their caucus, they've ceded the tax cut issue to the Liberals (big mistake) and if they support the Tories they're done for because their base is fiercely anti-Harper. If they don't support them no one will notice. They are playing a bad hand of cards."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/with-harper-playing-games-ndp-rattles-election-sabre/article1914927/
Note that this Liberal genius makes no mention of the fact that it was his party that allowed these corporate tax cuts to pass in the first place. Engaging this sort of toxic disinformation merely gives it legitimacy. Trust the voter to see through it on their own and invest in the poverty message.
In northern BC, most, if not all of our new doctors are South African. They must do their pennance here before qualifying for a MSP billing number. Perhaps, PQ could do the same. Of course, I assume that South Africans without access to a doctor feel differently.
I never said that the NDP should wait for an election.
I'd actually agree that the NDP's policies should be bolder and that more people would flock to the NDP if it had a stronger more coherent message.
I think the NDP should clearly and unequivocally support policies...
...-I think basing their commercials on these kinds of bold ideas during Hockey Night in Canada would be great. Although I can't see Don Cherry cheering for them.
Yeah, radically alterating the political landscape without any indication of how to pay for it all - that will really draw attention: all of it bad.
Stick to a single wedge issue that resonates with the voter - CPP reform involves everyone and it focusses the spotlight on the government's refusal to support ordinary Canadians in favour of the financial elites.
JKR's got the ideal recipe on how to lose an election.
Yep too many promises to make or break...Just look at the libs and their tactic that won them 2 elections.maybe more and well covered. Remember the red book or some shit...of course when you have media propping it up for you ..helps..Jack doesn't have ANY media to prop up anything.
The GST removal promise = election won, promise broken
The national child care program = election won, promise broken
So we all are familiar with Lib tricks and lies, so is the con supporter
Now look at the Cons
The GST reduction = election won, promise kept
The NDP must face the fact that theses are the things the majority of simpleton Canadians desire...quick cash...that's all. The NDP has to be way tougher than they are.
They appear wimpy every time they make any deal with Harper they look ...Weak weak weak and wimpy.so much so Harper has come out saying he isn't doing any "horse trading".... the first thing that I think of when I hear that is "Jack-ass" think about it.
Show no mercy NDP...and yeah legalize pot and place the money saved for a national child care.gst removal.some big amount to shove in front of Dummy Canucks simpleton face...already. . And while yer at it say you will remove all evidence of Canada's participation in a genocidal go nowhere war,saving billions and billions in Afghanistan.... and. ...There is no shortage of issues....
Could it be that the NDP has been infiltrated with right wing moles? Deliberately swaying the NDP away from being tough? It sure looks that way!
When the Liberal Red Books could work their cynical magic was a short term window now long gone.
At the time, the overwhelming substantive emphasis was to govern right and cover the flank there. The Red Books were issued and re-cylcled as a salve for gullible liberals and social democrats.... which the Libs could get away with when there was no competition.
Leaving aside the more important measures of cynicism, just looking at the pragmatics and realpolitik: the current version of Liberals playing both ways is pathetic in comparison.
Now instead of the potential threat to their dominance the Reform Party posed, they are second fiddle to the current version. And they "adapt" by contesting the Conservatives for centrist swing voters less forcelfully than they did Reform. Go figure. They run a holding pattern on that flank to keep the staus quo [if things work out], while putting their chips into posturing/positioning to grub a much smaller number of votes from the NDP. And despite that being their main positioning, they put far less into it than they did with the Red Books.
The NDP platform is to stop the corporate tax cuts so our government can pay for the programs we need.
I don't think that "laundry list", give or take an item or two, (those socks are always somehow getting lost) is that different from what the NDP is already proposing.
What kind of laundry list would get the masses revved up to support the NDP?
The point is a laundry list no longer works, if it ever really did. People don't believe that any more.
A few easily digested items that lead to bigger issues are what is needed, and as far as I can tell what the NDP is attempting to do. However, trust the NDP, and the Greens too, to put out a 70 page tome coering every conceivable nuance and angle when a half a page would suffice.
Here's a simpler way to look at it. If people on babble, me included, think it is about right in terms of covering all the bases, it is pretty much a lost cause already.
Steve Janke: Liberal Woes Give Layton Cause for Optimism
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/22/steve-janke-liberal-woes-...
"Is this the argument presented to Jack Layton?
...If the NDP and Liberals duke it out, and the Liberals come out of it with a bloodied nose, and the Conservatives get their majority and with it, cut off the Liberal Party's lifeline of public subsidies, a merger could very well happen, and on terms very favourable to the NDP."
Just Janke trying to stir the NDP's pot. Making up factions even.
He even puts forth something the Conservatives would not want: facilitating that merger. But no matter- because the purpose isnt to further that, its just for show to try to create dissension among NDP supporters.
He has lots of fellow travellers.
Thanks Duncan.
Misrepresented by the media: Layton meets Harper
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/02/misrepresented-media-layton-meets-harper
PS JKR, you really need to read this and get your head out of the sand
Timing of Election In The Hands of Harper and Layton - by Mark Kennedy
http://www.canada.com/business/Timing+election+hands+Harper+Layton/43283...
"...Harper and Layton, who have known each other for several years, are said by their officials to have a good working relationship and grudging respect for each other. Ironically, they have similar political objectives and dilemmas. Eventually both men will have a critical choice to make: Can Harper, in the interest of staying in power, make significant concessions to the NDP that cost hundreds of millions of dollars? And can Layton, presented with some concessions, publicly justify keeping Harper in power longer than many Canadians would like?.."
First reported on CTV news tonight, and now on SunMedia:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/22/17373516.html
Push to find doctors for rural Canada
By DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
Last Updated: February 22, 2011 10:42pm
OTTAWA - The federal government will announce Wednesday it's ready to spend millions to hire 100 new doctors for rural Canada, QMI Agency has learned.
On Tuesday, Ottawa announced it would spend $4.9 million over the next six years to pay for eight new doctors in Canada's Arctic.
On Wednesday, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq will hold a press conference in Ottawa to announce her department, in partnership with some provinces, is moving to find the money for as many as 100 new family doctors in rural Canada.
The federal government's announcements this week about funding doctors comes days after NDP Leader Jack Layton said one of his demands to support next month's federal budget - and avoid a general election - is that Ottawa take action to find a doctor for the five million Canadians who don't have one.
The initiative to be announced by Aglukkaq Wednesday will help put new doctors on the ground in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and British Columbia. The Conservatives hope for a big publicity splash with this announcement and have planned simultaneous press conference in most of those provinces.
The funding comes from a federal program called the Pan-Canadian Health Human Resources Strategy, an initiative started up by the Liberals in 2004 to help fill the human resources gaps in Canada's health care system.
Yeah, radically alterating the political landscape without any indication of how to pay for it all - that will really draw attention: all of it bad.
Stick to a single wedge issue that resonates with the voter - CPP reform involves everyone and it focusses the spotlight on the government's refusal to support ordinary Canadians in favour of the financial elites.
I indicated that the NDP should propose tax increases on the very rich and on corporations.
And how are we to have CPP reforms without raising revenues for it? As it is, even before the Conservatives cut corporate taxes, the government is running deficits in the tens of billions.
If the NDP proposes more social programs without telling people where the funding will come from, the Conservatives will be handed a strong counter argumant that the NDP wants to raise everyones taxes.
The NDP platform is to stop the corporate tax cuts so our government can pay for the programs we need.
Stopping corporate tax cuts will not produce enough revenues to pay for the programs we need. As it is, without any more corporate tax cuts, the government is running large deficits.
And how are we to have CPP reforms without raising revenues for it?
OAS and GIS come out of general revenues (aka the "Consolidated Revenue Fund").
But CPP is funded out of employer and employee contributions ... what comes out of your paycheque every two weeks, and their payroll.
The way to pay for a phasing in of a doubled CPP, is to phase in premium increases for both employers and employees. It will be a helluva lot cheaper for private employers than establishing and funding their own private pension plans, that's for sure.
Another source of CPP funding is the income and capital gains earned on the fund. The Chretien government changed the legislation so that some of the CPP fund could be invested in the market. Predictably, when the markets blew up, some of it disappeared, but I'm not completely up to date on the latest performance of the CPP Investment Board. The NDP opposed that change, and then tried to get an ethical screen on the CPP investments, but no support from the Libs on that.
Incidentally, Elizabeth May has said she's against an increase in the CPP, because it would increase "job-killing payroll taxes" on employers and prevent them from creating jobs. Another reason that woman is ^NOT^ a progressive, and shouldn't be let anywhere near the House of Commons.
ETA: though, she's also against corporate tax cuts, and (using Murray Dobbin's column and the Globe story) lit into Jack Layton for selling out his principles for having traded that issue away. God I dislike that woman.
The point is a laundry list no longer works, if it ever really did. People don't believe that any more.
A few easily digested items that lead to bigger issues are what is needed, and as far as I can tell what the NDP is attempting to do.
Political platforms [AKA laundry lists] are part and parcel of politics. All the parties have them. It's important for a party to have policies that are internally consistent because the public can tell when they are being snowed. One of the strangths of the Consevative platform is that their policies are internally consistent. The Conservatives message of lower taxes - lower government spending passes the sniff test. The message of higher spending - lower taxes does not.
That being said, using a few big issues for a political campaign is probably the best way to go.
The NDP platform is to stop the corporate tax cuts so our government can pay for the programs we need.
Misrepresented by the media: Layton meets Harper
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/02/misrepresented-media-layton-meets-harper
PS JKR, you really need to read this and get your head out of the sand
From the NR's article:
The Liberals want corporate taxes to stay the same; the NDP want business taxes to go up. To pay for CPP improvements, business premiums must increase.
NR, your head also seems to be subteranean. Your position on corporate tax cuts sounds more like the Liberal's then the NDP's.
I also haven't heard anyone explain why a "senior NDP official" told the Globe and Mail that the NDP had taken corporate tax cuts off the table. Has the NDP said that this "senior NDP official misspoke"? If they haven't, it's unfair to attack people like Dobbin.
It's easy to cast aspersions on others instead of looking in the mirror.
And how are we to have CPP reforms without raising revenues for it?
OAS and GIS come out of general revenues (aka the "Consolidated Revenue Fund").
But CPP is funded out of employer and employee contributions ... what comes out of your paycheque every two weeks, and their payroll.
The way to pay for a phasing in of a doubled CPP, is to phase in premium increases for both employers and employees. It will be a helluva lot cheaper for private employers than establishing and funding their own private pension plans, that's for sure.
Either way more money has to be taken from peoples pockets. I agree this is the best way to go.
In the US many people are advocating raising the upper income levels for payroll taxes to make payroll taxes more progressive. I think this is an idea we should also be looking at in Canada. I'm no actuarial expert. Would this be a good idea for Canada?
One of the biggest issues in Canada is the ever-growing gap between haves and have-nots.
I think that makes a lot of sense, JKR. I stand to be corrected, but I believe Layton's proposal involves raising the maximum insurable earnings, as well as the benefit, so it does anticipate a more progressive financing of the plan, along the lines you've suggested. I'd have to go back and double-check (unlikely at this hour, but I'll keep an eye out).
It just occurs to me a likely way Harper can throw out some tacks for Layton and the NDP.
We tend to think of the dynamic as a negotiation discussion between Harper and Layton. Where ultimately Harper just walks away; or tells Layton what he would do, gets turned down because its too little, and the specifics are never specified because the futile attempt is not put in the Budget,
But Harper might simply table into the Budget what is designed to look like they are making a sincere effort, but they are reasonably certain the NDP will consider to be too little. The idea to turn the tables on who doesnt look good. [Layton turning down will always look good around here, but not with a lot of swing voters if it is set up right.]
Possible, and may see this.
But I'm guessing not. Because if the Cons want an election- and I'm pretty sure they do- then that would leave too much to chance. They cannot know what Layton would not take... except to pitch at such a stingy level that the offer earns no brownie points with swing voters.
This is one reason why Layton needs to send out very mixed signals and make the Tories think that he might actually be trying to avoid an election. Its better that the Tories think that the only way to get an election is to give the NDP nothing.
Good!!!
Cash for rural doctors doesn't guarantee NDP budget support
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cash-for-ru...
Unfortunately, mixed signals don't give the electorate a whole lot of confidence.
Nervous nellies, the bunch of them.
The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about. If layton can succeed in making himself the centre of attention for the next four weeks - what's not to like?
Gotta love The Jurist at Accidental Deliberations:
On effective responses
A quick message to those who have spent the better part of the last month spreading the Lib-serving theory that the NDP would seize on any theoretical concession the Cons might offer in order to pass a budget: try again.
Did anyone else hear the panel at CTV talking about the effect of MP pensions. Basically that if we hold off on calling an election a lot of politicians will get their pension eligibility.
They will all be aware of that, but I don't believe it will be a decisive factor at all.
Did anyone else hear the panel at CTV talking about the effect of MP pensions. Basically that if we hold off on calling an election a lot of politicians will get their pension eligibility.
when I raised this earlier it was rejected and denounced out of hand. Supposedly our pols, ( especially Jack and Olivia), are above such things
They are above such things....I think that is a complete non-factor.
I would think it would be more of a factor with the Conservatives. First because Harper is known for his loyalty to his fellow MPs and secondly because they are the biggest faction of seats in on the edge of pension eligibility (I am assuming this).
Here is Jack closing that barn door: talking about the likelihood of Harper hyping things in the Budget that are just cosmetic gestures to what the NDP asked for.
story
Good long quote in there, but I cant cut and paste from it. Someone else wants to do it, that would be great.
A couple of disjointed observations.
__________________________________
Long laundry lists of policies are . . . idiotic, counterproductive, stupid &c.
Short lists of commitments work.
Like the HarperCons with their five priorities.
So, a Layton list of (say) five items (each one of which could have multiple points buty the talking point has to be bite sized), with at least two of the items easily achievable - comparable, say to Harper's GST cut.
Perhaps:
1. Ensuring retirement security for Canadians. Over the first mandate, and NDP government will double GIS and OAS and will implement a plan to double CPP over ten years. (Or something like that.)
2. Action on Climate Change. (Short summary of the bill Tory Senators killed.)
3. Addressing the doctor shortage. (As per the plan I've seen laid out elsewhere in the last two days.)
4. Tax fairness. (Cancelling the planned extension of corporate tax cuts and reversing the last two rounds. Etc., Etc.)
5. Democratic Reform. (Abolish the Senate. Proportional Representation.)
______________________________________________
Slamming that talentless hack Dobbin is entirely legitimate. When someone pretends to be a thoughtful commentator on national affairs, one has some obligation to use what passes for a brain. Mindless parroting of Liberal talking points and corporate media spin - which is all I've seen from Dobbin for years - is not thoughtful commentary.
_____________________________________________
This visual aid is excellent material for an NDP ad or brochure. Click on it.
PM Harper acts as if he has a majority governmenthttp://www.oyetimes.com/views/columns/9735-pm-harper-acts-as-if-he-has-a...
@JFK
Keep it up, You know you are on to something when you feel the heat. Nice list, Im not really into reform politics, but at least now you are publicly standing for something. Good on you man.
For all you people that have been asking how the NDP could pay from all those reforms. It's easy, stop letting the bourgeoisie control the purse strings.
Here in Toronto people are bickering because they can not find the money to pay for the type of City they want. So they start pointing the fingers at one another, blaming City and TTC workers for being greedy and taking all the money.
Fact is, the corporate profits made in Toronto are not paying their fair share.
Low corporate and wealth tax and high consumption tax is the name of their game. As they control the argument.
But lets be real with ourselves.
The inter Capitalist setup is designed towards the monopoly. The monopoly of power and wealth.
If you want to build an equitable society, it can not be done under Capitalism. It's pure delusion to think you can keep tweaking and reforming it for the better of all.
I think Dobbin's done some excellent work. It can't be dipper cheerleading all the time, even here.
So, Layton is making the rounds of interviews with the news bureaux in Ottawa. First was with Mark Kennedy at Postmedia (formerly Canwest), and now Heather Scoffield (currently with CP).
As Ken says, the stories all run quite long, and have a lot of quotes in them.
(Anyone see Iggy in the news much recently? I saw him once saying that "polls don't matter". He's been in incumbent ridings all week).
You want to pay for all those reforms? Take control of the means of production. At present it is the bourgeoisie with their Capitalist economy that does. They decide what gets built and what does not.
If you want universal drug coverage, you have to ask them to do it.
If you want set up a child care program, you have to ask them to do it.
If you want to provide better education, you have to ask them to do it.
You want drug rehabe centers, you have top ask them for it.
The working class can not set up the systems it choices, why? Because the working class does not control the means of production. We sell our labour power to them and they decide what happens after that.
Bicker all you want about winning this or that election and how to pay for everything in a Bourgeois state running a Capitalist economy. Your just chasing your tail, selling yourself short.
This is how it is:
The means of production are going to be controlled either by individual bourgeoisie, a bourgeois Government bureaucracy both using some form of Capitalism. Or the working class using a Socialist economy.
Actually Jack seems to handling things well seeing as the NDP has only 37 out of 308 seats at the moment but we all know that's gonna change next election. And the polls are looking good for the NDP, with Nanos, Canada's most reliable pollster, placing the NDP at 19% Canadawide, and in particular in Ontario at close to 24%. There could well be a Bob Rae factor at work there. Anyway keep it up Bob and the NDP may end up with 30% in Ontario before too much longer.
Similarly, the Tories on Wednesday made an effort to invest in training more doctors and nurses for rural areas. But again, the 100 people that would be helped by the $40 million announced by Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq are just a drop in the bucket compared to the 7,200 people and $200 million the NDP is asking for.
"It seems to be a very small fraction of what we've been talking about," Layton said in a phone interview from Toronto. "There are five million Canadians without family physicians.... It's not in the range of what is needed, that's for sure."
As for the other NDP demands, Harper's reaction has ranged from dismissive to "defeatist," Layton said.
The NDP wants the government to remove the harmonized sales tax on home heating, a move the party says would cost the federal treasury about $700 million a year.
But Layton said Harper seems to want nothing to do with topics linked to the unpopular HST.
"It didn't seem to be the topic he wanted to spend much time on, let's put it that way," Layton said.
"He doesn't want to be associated with the HST, even though he and the Liberals combined to ram it through Parliament."
On the NDP's request to expand the Canada Pension Plan over time, Harper said any movement on the CPP would depend on the provinces -- even though his own government championed such an option just a few months ago.
"It seems to me that they're taking sort of a defeatist attitude towards it," Layton said.
The NDP leader said Harper had a similar "defeatist" approach to job creation in the wake of the recession, telling Layton that full recovery in Canada would depend on the fortunes of the United States.
And on rolling back the plans to cut corporate tax, Harper would have none of it, Layton said.
The prime minister did commit to not cutting corporate tax again, after the current round of tax cuts comes to an end in 2012, Layton said. But that was hardly any consolation for the NDP leader, who believes the foregone tax revenue could be better spent elsewhere.
Still, it's too early to conclude that the Conservatives are not ready to work with the NDP, Layton said.
When MPs return next Monday from a week in their ridings, they'll be analyzing Harper's every word, and asking pointed questions about how they can move forward with their agenda, Layton added.
"You never know how things are going to unfold."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110223/jack-layton-says-caucus-will-b...
The recent Nanos' polling for the NDP in Ontario is up from 18.2% in the last election, which is a 5.2% increase. Not too shabby at all, and so it seems like there is a reasonably good chance of Layton's team adding 10 more seats in Ontario alone in the next election. Bring on Quebec.
The NDP in Ontario needs to treat this upcoming federal campaign as a dress rehearsal for the provincial run later this fall.
I think I would have a different take on that one, AriD. The provincial one in the fall needs a good result from us federally in the spring first.
The recent Nanos' polling for the NDP in Ontario is up from 18.2% in the last election, which is a 5.2% increase. Not too shabby at all, and so it seems like there is a reasonably good chance of Layton's team adding 10 more seats in Ontario alone in the next election. Bring on Quebec.
Well, to do that they'd have to win all 9 seats where they were within 20% in the last election. And one other.
In the previous (2008) election, for the seats that changed hands, I wonder what the percentages were required to move, in order to win the seats.
How many seats total changed hands in total?
0% to 5 % - number of seats =
6% to 10% - number of seats =
11% to 15% - number of seats =
16% to 20% - number of seats =
21% to 25% - number of seats =
26% or more - number of seats =
I think Dobbin's done some excellent work. It can't be dipper cheerleading all the time, even here.
I think Dobbin did some excellent work many, many, many years ago.
Of late, all he does is repeat Liberal talking points and corporate media spin.
Either Murray has lost any capcity for critical thinking, or he's been replaced with a pod person.
Either way, I don't recall seeing much Dobbin worth reading in a VERY long time.
In the previous (2008) election, for the seats that changed hands, I wonder what the percentages were required to move, in order to win the seats.
How many seats total changed hands in total?
0% to 5 % - number of seats =
6% to 10% - number of seats =
11% to 15% - number of seats =
16% to 20% - number of seats =
21% to 25% - number of seats =
26% or more - number of seats =
Here's the seats that changed in the last election:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/elections/?elec_event=22&qry=1
Not counting the 4 seats that flipped in byelections, 39 seats changed. Of those, 9 were won by more than 10% in 2006. 4 of 9 were open seats, and 3 of the 9 were Conservative seats in Nefoundland
Oh but indeed it can.
So calling Dobbin on being led by the nose [again] by the latest Liberal-driven media narrative.... thats "Dipper cheerleading"?
Are Bill Curry AND John Ibbitson Liberal operatives?
NDP takes corporate tax cuts off the table - by BILL CURRY AND JOHN IBBITSON
Did "a senior NDP official" tell the Globe and Mail that the NDP took corporate tax cuts off the table?
Has the NDP come out and stated that this "senior NDP official lied" or that Curry and Ibbitson lied?
Without answering these questions it is unfair to attack Dobbin or the Liberals or anyone else other then the "senior NDP official" or Curry and Ibbitson if the NDP states that a "senior NDP official" never said what was quoted to them in the article.
I have said, and I will repeat, that it is utterly obvious to anyone (especially Jack Layton) that there will be no deal on the budget which requires rolling back the corporate tax cuts. Thus, it would be idiotic at best, or bad faith bargaining at worst, for Layton to be demanding that as a condition for for his support. The NDP put forward four points, none of which include tax cuts. Indeed, if the NDP achieved significant gains on those points, I would applaud them for brilliant bargaining, even if the tax cuts went ahead.
ETA: And, needless to say, if the NDP did come out of this with some significant rollback of the tax cuts as well, I would happily eat my words and wash them down with a shot of bile. Don't reserve your tickets for that performance just yet, however.
Harper's going to go ahead with corporate tax cuts. The Conservatives are not about to reverse their position that tax cuts benefit the economy. The Conservatives plan on making this argument that tax cuts are good until kingdom come. If there's one thing the Conservatives are all about it's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. They're not about to weaken the meme they and the right have worked so hard to create here and abroad.
Also,
If the Globe and Mail had reported that Ignatieff and the Liberals had taken corporate tax cuts off the table, would anyone be critisizing Dobbin for writing a similar article aimed at the Liberals?
That is silly JKR.
You would NEVER react to a narrative like that by saying that people passing the story around are incorrect- let alone say they lied. That is the best way to give the story legs.
And you would not do that even if the story put you on the defensive- let alone in this case where the groundwork was in place to just let it get shuffled aside.
Besides- it isnt "lies" anyway. That isnt the point. Spin distortion is spin distortion- whether or not all the elements of the spin are facts. There is much more in that narrative than merely the observation that the corporate tax cuts are not part of the negotiations.
Curry and Ibbitson are more reliable than average- less likely to spin pure BS- but they are looking for eyeballs like anyone else. So as well as the fact as Unionist says we all know that corporate tax cuts were no longer a primary live point of contention for the moment... the whole narrative they are spouting is nothing more than spin. And the addition of "senior NDP official" is just gratuitous.
So its one thing for Curry and Ibbitson to pander this crap- it is their job in the trained seal show. But if Dobbin wasnt so eager to buy in, he'd have known it was a set-up. So eager that just hours after he rushes in there is already concrete evidence that his regurgitated story line was bunk.. not to mention that the dots were easy to connect even before that evidence was out there.
Isn't it fortunate that journalists still insist on protecting their sources for the most part? Otherwise we'd have at least some veracity to toss around. Dobbin's mistake is in expecting an entirely untenable positioning to occur and then piggybacking on a non-story just for kicks.
The tax cuts already happened. They would have to be rolled back, which makes it that much more unlikely.
Sidepoint- but I dont remember seeing any media ever saying that the Liberals had taken the tax cuts off the table. I dont know why I ask, because you are really stretching for a point even if some reporter somewhere did say so.
And whether we are talking political negotiations, collective bargaining, or business deals, no on ever just takes a major element "off the table" the way the term is being thrown around. If you know pressing that particular element is a deal killer, and you therefore are not going to get it, you still don't just "take it off the table". You very much bring it 'into the room,' talk about why you have to have it, and only gradualy work around to acknowledging that it will not be pressed now: establishing both that the demand will have to be dealt with in the future, and the implicit but clear quid pro quo that even in temporarily setting it aside, you have to get something significant.
In fact, we did see later the evidence that the political version of that did happen around the corporate tax cuts in the Layton-Harper discussion.
Let's also keep in mind that rolling back corporate tax cuts is a means to an end - not an end in itself. I for one want corporate tax cuts rolled back because that would give the government extra revenue that can be used for things like the NDP's list of demands etc...I want the corporate tax cuts rolled back because of what the money can be used for - not because i feel like beating up on big businesses. If the GIS and CPP could be massively enriched - i don't really care whether the government pays for it by cancelling corporate tax cuts, increasing marginal tax rates on income over $100k, or by cancelling plans to spend more on prisons and fighter jets!
I think there's some reason to believe the NDP might have been trying to persuade the government to change "across the board" corporate tax cuts into some kind of job creation tax credit. In other words, a change from giving money to already profitable corporations, many of whom increased their profit margins by moving jobs out of the country, to an incentive to create jobs here.
The implications of the two are quite different -- both in terms of the country's balance sheet, and the incentives contained therein.
I for one would have applauded such a move. In any event, I think when it's said that corporate taxes were off the table, it could have been a signal that the proposal for a job creation tax credit was a non-starter.
Jack has positioned the party as saying when government spends it can have a transformative effect on peoples lives: family doctor, no more senior poverty, protect the environment, and improve later life economic security.
This contrasts with the Cons approach, give more money to the private sector and all will be well.
I also like the comparison of NDP priorities with the Cons spending spree on jets, ships, and prisons.
Is Flaherty's offer of budget help for seniors enough for the NDP?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/02/is-flahertys-offer-of-budget-help-for...
Is Flaherty's offer of budget help for seniors enough for the NDP?
But after declaring there would be no significant new spending, and repeating yet again that the budget's main focus would be reducing deficits and getting the government's book back in the black, Flaherty pointedly signaled the likelihood of measures that might allow Layton to tick off at least one item from his NDP budget wish list.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/02/is-flahertys-offer-of-budget-help-for...
I doubt it. There's too much stench (Bev Oda, In and Out Scandal, corporate tax cuts, planes and prisons, etc...) coming from the Con Caucus for Jack Layton to deviate from his four demands. If he gives in, the Cons can do a heck of a lot more damage before an election has to be called.
I just don't see any of those issues, combined or separately, moving many voters in the polling booth
The NDP would do well to focus on the bread and butter issues - jobs, health care, environment and education. Stuff like that.
And here's why from Canada's independent pollster. Unprompted has been highlighted because it explains Nanos Research success
Healthcare and jobs/economy still the top issues for Canadians (Nanos Poll completed Feb. 14th, 2011)
Nik on the Numbers
The latest wave of Nanos issue tracking indicated that Canadians continue to cite healthcare (22.9%) and jobs/economy (20.2%) as their top issues of concern, followed by the environment (10.3%), education (5.3%) and the debt/deficit (5.2%).
The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with the national trendline. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.
Methodology
Between February 11th and February 14th, 2011, Nanos Research conducted a random telephone survey of 1,016 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,016 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Results for December 2010 are from a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians conducted between November 29th and December 2nd, 2010. A random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]
The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed December 2nd, 2010.
National (n=1,016)
Top Five Issues
Healthcare: 22.9% (+2.2)
Jobs/economy: 20.2% (-2.1)
The environment: 10.3% (+2.3)
Education: 5.3% (no change)
Debt/deficit: 5.2% (+0.4)
Unsure: 12.4% (-2.8)
Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll."
I just don't see any of those issues, combined or separately, moving many voters in the polling booth
Yeah, but if he gives in after getting next to nothing from Harper, Jack's integrity - or the party's - goes down the tubes.
ETA: However, I think enough Liberals will get the 'flu that the Budget passes, without the NDP's help.
It doesn't appear that the NDP will support the budget
NDP Leader Jack Layton says the prime minister "isn't giving much of a signal" that he wants to avoid an election, as the opposition parties prepare for a showdown over the March 22 budget.
Late Wednesday morning, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed the date the budget would be unveiled, saying it would be a responsible budget with no new major spending programs or tax increases.
Hours later, Layton said he still believes the demands he has made as a trade-off for his party's support of the budget are "practical and doable" despite the clear signals of government belt-tightening in order to pay down the deficit.
"There's no reason why the government couldn't adopt them," Layton told CTV's Power Play Wednesday evening. "I think maybe Stephen Harper would prefer to see an election. He certainly isn't giving much of a signal that he wants to work with us."
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110302/flaherty-budget-a...
Maybe the fix is in... the Libs have already decided enough of them will stay at home on the Budget vote that it passes?
I don't think there is any chance of that. If the Liberals let the budget pass while the NDP and BQ vote against it - it would be such a total humiliation that they would never recover. They have been so categorical and have been so gratuitous in needling the NDP about wanting to "cave" etc... that if they flip flopped at the last minute, they would never live it down.
I don't think there is any chance of that. If the Liberals let the budget pass while the NDP and BQ vote against it - it would be such a total humiliation that they would never recover. They have been so categorical and have been so gratuitous in needling the NDP about wanting to "cave" etc... that if they flip flopped at the last minute, they would never live it down.
So depressing, that it needs to be said...
Jehovah, compromising on your principles so sucks. Glade I'm not an NDPer.
how about instead of compromising, Jack goes around explaining why giving the rich people tax cuts and making the working class pay for everything is a total scam.
You know just highlite the facts.
Like this, Corporations have gotten X amount of tax cuts over the last X years and the income gap has grown. Tax cuts in America have resulted in infrastructure degradation like this( then shows pictures of inner city Detroit). Then shows pictures of greedy bankers living the goodlife and unemplyed workers lining up at food banks.
Then goes on to say, that as corporate tax cuts have fallen, consumption taxes have risen. You, show the working class the way it is. That the rich are paying less taxes and living in the an advanced country like Canada as the working class pays for it through consumption taxes and user fees.
You know, just high lite the facts. It's simple, explain to people what surplus value is, what the means of production are and how individual ownership fucks everyone over.
Na, I guess Jack is right, compromising on their principles is way much easier.
You know just highlite the facts.
Hopefully the NDP's elections ads will show Canadians how the Cons have worked for the interests of the very rich to the detriment of the rest of Canadians.
If the NDP does have these kind of election ads, will the NDP's detractors on the left change their tune and give the NDP credit where credits due?
The other thing is that Harper wants an election. Even if the Liberals did abstain on the budget vote (unlikely), I'm sure Harper would find a way to get around that.
You're talking about the party that kept the Conservative government alive through, what is it, 100+ confidence votes so far? Is further humiliation even possible???
In each of the other cases where the Liberals kept the Tories alive - they signaled their intention to do so far in advance and/or they left themselves some sort of an "out". Not this time - Ignatieff is still swearing up and down the country that he is 100% unswervingly committed to voting against the budget unless the Liberal Party's corporate tax cut policy is rescinded by the Conservative government. There is no escape.
Yes, I know, I know.... but these are Liberals after all. Can you really believe anything they say? Even a promise from Iggy sworned upon a mile high stack of Bibles, I still wouldn't take him at his word.
Continued here.