More Coalition News and Comments
So I just admonished people to not engage in thread proliferation and
direct their comments to threads already open, then I went and closed
most of them for length. So I guess I should start this one.
Comments
Steven Harper should be on the PQ's Xmas card list!
His screwing around pitting Canadians against each other has managed to put the PQ back in the game and the Quebec Liberals may have a majority but an extremely shaky one when without Harper's attack on Canadian unity the result would have been different-- nice to see QS though!
Please advise. I am looking for a place where I can actually discuss religion and politics together in a frank and critical manner, without being banned for violating some unspoken rule about having to respect the religious freedoms of Canadians. I ask because I am an atheist and do NOT respect religious fundamentalism and, by extension, Harper's goverment.
I hate Harper AND fundamentalism more than most, so please direct me to any bill, law or policy that Harper has enacted that panders to fundamentalism I'd appreciate it. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that beyond the fervent wishes of would-be progressives who wish that Harper was an evil Christian because - somehow - that makes for a better narrative than him simply being an evil neo-liberal.
There's only one politician I've seen peddling religion - and he's not Canadian.
I think that Layton is doing exactly the right thing. Let the Liberals take the hit for propping up Harper (if that is what Iggy decides to do) then the NDP can have a field day blaming the Liberals for losing their nerve and condemning Canada to another year or more of Harper and his dreadful policies. If the coalition fails and Harper stays in power I want 100% of the blame to be on the Liberals and for the NDP to be on the side of the angels.
I agree Iggy will probably walk away from the coalition, but I can't see how he looks like a decisive leader while doing so. I suppose it's decisive in the sense that it's a decision, but you can't look like a leader when you refuse to lead.
Hey Iggy, would you like to run the country?
No thanks.
Gosh, what a decisive leader!
Of course, we all know that Iggy doesn't want to share what he figures he can get by himself, but will he be able to explain that to anyone? I mean, isn't that the problem with Harper, that he wants all the power for himself and can't work with others? By rejecting the coalition, Iggy doesn't just give Canada back to Harper, and doesn't just piss off the almost 70% of Liberal voters who support the coalition, but he also displays the same negative traits that harper displayed triggering this crisis. I can't see how he comes out ahead.
So, when Ignatieff pulls the plug on the monumentally unpopular coalition he'll be "taking a hit" eh? Meanwhile the NDP's dropped five to eight points.
Jack could use a hit like that.
Harper flip-flopped on most of his Economic Statement last week. I don't see people calling him indecisive. Knowing when to back down is a key part of politics. Harper seems to get it. Jack, for some reason, doesn't this time. I can't guarantee that Ignatieff won't look wishy washy I just don't think he HAS to.
I really don't see what the NDP has to gain from saying "ooops we made a mistake by wanting to cooperate with the Liberals and the BQ. Harper isn't so bad after all, so the NDP will vote FOR the next Tory budget and Harper can count on us to keep him in power". I think that would be a recipe for the NDp losing every single seat it has in the next election!
Canada isn't having an election today and we probably won't have one until Fall 2009 at the earliest (if there is no coalition) - and by then Harper will be ridiculously unpopular what with soaring unemployment and 40 billion dollar deficist etc... the coalition will be ancient history and it will be all about who is the true opposition to the Tories. If you take polls from last week at face value - the NDP might be at 14-15% - exactly where we were when the writ was dropped in Sept. - and but once people get exposed to Iggy and his Thurston Howell the Third imitation - even Dion will start to look pretty good to people.
Harper didn't flip-flop. He tried to push his authority and got slapped down. That's not a flip-flop, that's a retreat, and plenty of people are talking about it. It's all anyone is talking about lately. It wasn't indecisive, but it did show weakness. In any event, it's no parallel to Iggy's decision.
Iggy can take power by sharing power and working with other parties in parliament, or he can let Harper stay by refusing to work with others. These are his choices. If we are to believe the smattering of polls lately (and you clearly do) then as I said, almost 70% of the Liberal Party's own voters want to see this coalition happen. The Liberals are already lucky that anyone votes for them at all given the last two years of total capitulation. I think the biggest reason that people still vote Liberal is just to oppose the Conservatives, so how will it look when the Liberal Party is not only rubber-stamping his agenda, but actually refusing to replace them in government? How many Liberal voters will decide they are wasting their time trying to get these jerks to do their job?
I'm not asking you to guarantee anything, but I've outlined why I think leaving the coalition could be bad for Iggy. Can you explain why it could possibly be good?
Bob Rae's best before date is coming up very fast and he knows it. I think his last gambit is to be seen as a distinct choice from Michael Ignatief and hope that Ignatief loses so badly and quickly that he looks wise in his opposition and remains a solitary choice as leader. Given that the election sounds like a shoe-in for Ignatief, I wonder if this is best accomplished by his running with the necessary loyalty oaths at the completion, or if he should leave no in somewhat of a huff and maintain his distance from Ignatief's leadership choices.
I'm seeing that comments get better traffic when you replace the "c" with a "K', thus appearing all satirical, Swiftian, and clever like.
So; Koalition Komments Kontinued.
Yes, should dump the hard "C" in all rabble kontent. Just "K".
Sticking the Liberals with collapsing the coalition, and making it as difficult as possible is the winning formula. Layton and co. basically just have to sit back and watch the fun. Voters who are vehmently anti-coalition are also most likely to be those least likely to vote NDP ever, ever, ever.
Stay the course.
I think there is some good strategy on this one. The libs are going to have a hard time making us wear it like they did for the 2005 "dippers support harper" nonsense. With the way the libs are running the ship, she is sure to either run aground or simple sink. If she takes the SS Fascist down with her so much the better. If the choice was composting tories vs socialist dippers I think this country would be in much better shape. I can't see harper coming out of this without a stink. regardless of the end result.He still hasn't managed a majority. Despite the "we are still moving forward" manning was saying on sunday. No voter turnout is worse is all.
I think we all know the cons are good at 3 things.
1 Getting their vote out
2 Getting donations
3 Destroying the country.
So even with the worse leader the libs have EVER put forward. Handed the largest surplus in canadian history, 4 parties to their left to split the vote. Capitalism as the pentultimate of systems repeated daily, while the media all shout the praises of harper. He still could not get a majority. I mean a perfect storm and he still couldn't win. And now he has unified the centre/left(somewhat), somehow rejuvinated the libs created a constitutional crisis, an economic crisis and a unity crisis in the span of 1 week from opening his second term.
Is anyone else pissed at the cons not governing for almost 9 months. This should be harped on in the media. We won't have had government form early june till almost february. Esp during these troubled times. Since they love the military so much this would be termed Deriliction of Duty.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
Who wears the blame if they spurn the Coalition is looking to be the least of the Libs problems.
They are right now caught in a number of internal and public no-win dynamics that feed off each other.
Somehow they continue to find new ways to make things worse for themselves.
Right now I find particularly ironic Spectors continuing campaign to 'show the obvious:' how the Coalition was a trap laid by the Liberals for the NDP.
If for no other reason, I don't see how the Coalition could possibly move forward with the main party in such desperate shape. Iggy doesn't have to look for ways to scuttle the Coalition. All he has to do is make a convincing speech about how much he loves the coalition and the LPC will quickly find a way to screw it up for good.
I really don't see what the NDP has to gain from saying "ooops we made a mistake by wanting to cooperate with the Liberals and the BQ. Harper isn't so bad after all, so the NDP will vote FOR the next Tory budget and Harper can count on us to keep him in power". I think that would be a recipe for the NDp losing every single seat it has in the next election!
2) The NDP has lost 25 per cent of their popular support in a week yet you think they should keep doing what they're doing. That's a recipe for losing every seat we have.
Harper didn't flip-flop. He tried to push his authority and got slapped down. That's not a flip-flop, that's a retreat, and plenty of people are talking about it.
I'm not asking you to guarantee anything, but I've outlined why I think leaving the coalition could be bad for Iggy. Can you explain why it could possibly be good?
Liberals see their Leader's "job" as winning elections. Driving the party even lower than their historic low is not part of doing that job. If it was then the Liberal grassroots would be demanding that Dion stay on.
I don't think leaving the coalition will be good for Iggy but staying in will be worse. If think there's a strategic retreat that needs to be made and I'd rather see the NDP lead it then see Ignatieff waffle into it with Layton whining that he wants his Cabinet seats. There lies doom.
It is a mistake to make strategic decisions based on short-term polling trends. You need to think several steps down the road. People are reacting to the propaganda machine right now. Things will change.
I don't think leaving the coalition will be good for Iggy but staying in will be worse. If think there's a strategic retreat that needs to be made and I'd rather see the NDP lead it then see Ignatieff waffle into it with Layton whining that he wants his Cabinet seats. There lies doom.
This part of your argument is a straw person.
The Coalition will never happen with anyone waffling. On the Liberals part it will only happen when/if push comes to shove and Iggy says "this is what we have to do." If he has said a thousand times before that we'll have to wait to see what Harper offers- that won't matter.
I'm not saying he will, or is most likely, to end up going with the Coalition and becoming PM. But he can easily do that without it having looked like waffling. He has always said that we may go through with it. The fact people here and elswhere do not beleive him is not determining.
My personal hunch- which is all it is reasonable to have in these circumstances- is that Iggy will go with the Coalition and be PM as long as it isn't pretty clearly a poisoned chalice.
It is not determining that he doesn't like the NDP, doesn't like the policies he will be obliged to pursue, would never have started this, etc. Those are all important factors in the mix. But none of them- nor all of them aggregated- is/are determining. There are big time negatives to every single choice Iggy could make.
There is definitely a very big risk that Iggy becoming PM at the head of the Coalition will be a poisoned chalice. But there are equal hazards with his other choices.... and the rest of them only leave him in the position of mayybe he'll come out of this being the PM.
-------------
And returning to SH's straw person- Jack Layton hasn't done any whining and he isn't going to be. To paraphrase Iggy:
"Coalition is cool; but not necessarily the Coalition. And if we don't get the Coalition, we're still in the catbirds seat."
Bob Rae has told his supporters in a conference call Tuesday that he will end his bid for the Liberal leadership, CTV News has learned.
CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife confirmed Tuesday that Rae will not challenge frontrunner Michael Ignatieff -- virtually ensuring that Ignatieff will become Liberal leader.
Here is an excellent analysis of the Koalition Krisis. I hope the full text finds its way very soon onto Rabble's "coalition" page:
Political Crisis Exposes Canada's National, Class Divisions
by Richard Fidler [excerpt]
Perhaps more significant were the things it did not contain - most notably, no reference to Canada's military intervention in Afghanistan. The NDP's promise to end Canada's "combat mission" in that country was one of the major planks that distinguished it from the Liberals and other parties in the recent election.
Nor was there any reference to the North American Free Trade Agreement or other trade and investment deals that the NDP had previously opposed or pledged to reform in workers' interests. There was nothing in the agreement that would in any way mark a Canadian departure from its close alignment with U.S. economic or foreign policy and military strategy.
Best case scenario?
The coalition proposal struck a responsive chord, however, among many trade union and social movement activists. On-line pro-coalition petitions were swiftly organized, attracting tens of thousands of signatures in support. Media talk shows and email discussion lists buzzed with favourable commentary.
Prominent left critics of neoliberalism volunteered their support. Naomi Klein, setting aside her autonomism for the moment, envisaged a "best case scenario": "one, you get the coalition, and two, the NDP uses this moment to really launch a national discussion about why we need PR [proportional representation]…."
Socialist Register editor Leo Panitch, while expressing reservations about the anticapitalist potential of the coalition, hailed the "courage" of the coalition proponents and saw some promise in the NDP's role: "In Canada, as the New Democrats prepare themselves for federal office for the first time in their history, the prospect of turning banking into a public utility might be seen as laying the groundwork for the democratization of the economy that the party was originally committed to when it was founded…."
Even some Marxists saw merit in the Coalition. The International Socialists, in a special supplement to their newspaper Socialist Worker, opposed giving a "blank cheque" to the Coalition, but said "The key question now is what demands we make on the Liberal-NDP Coalition and how we mobilize to win them."
There were a few lonely dissenting voices. One that attracted some controversy in left circles was that of John Riddell, a co-editor of the web journal Socialist Voice. Writing in Rabble, a popular web journal of "progressive" opinion, Riddell asked "Have the advocates of coalition forgotten that it was the last Liberal government that originated most of the hated 'Harper' policies, including the gutting of social services, attacks on civil liberties dressed up as 'anti-terrorism' and Canada's disastrous war in Afghanistan?"
….
This warning rang like an echo of a period - not so long ago, in fact - when there was a workers movement that would have no truck or trade with bourgeois parties like the Liberals. The seeming unanimity of support for the Liberal-led coalition voiced by what passes today as Canada's "left" was a sobering reminder of just how deeply the neoliberal TINA mantra (There Is No Alternative) has penetrated popular consciousness.
Labour campaigns for coalition
Among the leading propagandists for the coalition were political commentators Murray Dobbin and prominent feminist Judy Rebick, who had long fought for closer collaboration between anti-Conservative forces and especially during the recent federal election campaign. They were overjoyed that the NDP, which had previously resisted their pleas, had now come on board.
The organizational clout behind the campaign for coalition government, however, was provided by the Canadian Labour Congress and its major affiliated unions. Overnight, the CLC poured money and staff into organizing mass "Coalition Yes" rallies in major cities across the country. "The Liberal-NDP Accord would get Canada working again by providing immediate money for infrastructure projects, transit, clean energy, water, housing and retrofits," proclaimed CLC literature and web sites.
For weeks the CLC brass had been labouring over successive versions of a draft "Plan to Deal with the Economic Crisis". The Coalition Accord offered somewhat less than the CLC's plan, of course, since its bottom line was what the Liberals were prepared to accept. But now, it seemed, the formation of a Liberal-led coalition held out the prospect of sufficient reforms to relieve the mounting pressure within labour's ranks for effective action by the union leadership in defence of beleaguered workers.
Few doubts were expressed in the ranks of organized labour. For example, a convention of the British Columbia Federation of Labour voted nearly unanimously on November 27 to support the formation of a coalition government.
The Quebec unions, too, were quick to sign up. The major centrals (FTQ, CSN and CSQ) issued a joint statement in support of what it called "the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition" and urged members to join the Montréal pro-Coalition rally. "Let's let the coalition, which has committed to implement a genuine plan of support to the economy, do the work," the statement said….
Quebec support for the coalition was bolstered by Harper's venomous attacks on the coalition as a capitulation to "separatists", and Tory MPs' characterization of the accord as a "deal with the devil" tantamount to "treason and sedition". Harper even challenged the legitimacy of representation by the Bloc and Bloc voters (close to 40 percent of Quebec voters) in Canada's parliament. The virulence of these attacks aroused some concern among leveller heads in the federalist camp, and led the editors of Canada's leading newspaper The Globe & Mail, among others, to call for Harper's resignation as Tory leader and prime minister: "Whether he contrives an exit from his immediate travails over the confidence vote, the Harper era appears to be approaching its end. But before that happens, there is danger Canadian unity will be harmed."
These concerns were reinforced by a surge in PQ support in the final days of the Quebec election, as "soft" nationalists rallied to the party. On election day the PQ won 51 seats with 35% of the vote, replacing the less nationalist right-wing party, the Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ) as Official Opposition and coming within a few seats of the governing Liberals. (Another notable result was the election of Québec solidaire co-leader Amir Khadir as that party's first member in the National Assembly.)
Real change?
The coalition accord is also attacked as "socialist", and indeed the NDP (along with the Bloc) is widely perceived as the driving force behind it. This in part explains the enthusiasm for the coalition among many working people. They see the NDP as a fetter on the Liberals, a potential restraint on the latters' predictable attempts to implement their own neoliberal program.
That is also a major reason why the corporate rulers on Toronto's Bay Street oppose the coalition. They know the NDP poses no threat to their system, and they have had little difficulty accommodating to the provincial governments the NDP has administered from time to time. But they also understand that the NDP is the actually existing political expression of the trade union movement and thus, in that sense, it is a destabilizing influence in Canada's politics. They prefer to keep it at one remove from the corridors of power. They don't see the need at present to call on the NDP as a direct partner in preserving their system.
Above all, however, the popular support of the coalition is a manifestation of how low expectations are among working people after close to three decades of neoliberal assault during which real wages (adjusted for inflation) have stagnated overall and even declined for many. The pro-coalition enthusiasm has expressed a real craving for some kind of change, any change, at the top in government. For many, the modest improvements in the coalition platform over Harper's agenda are sufficient to constitute change they can believe in.
Tories fan anti-Quebec hatred
This is not Canada's "Obama moment", however. The pro-coalition rallies in the immediate wake of Parliament's prorogation mobilized only a few thousand in Canada's largest cities, while counter-rallies called by Tory operatives were in some cases almost comparable in size. Public opinion surveys indicate a country deeply divided on the coalition proposal, with a majority of those outside Quebec registering opposition. Mass media opposition has no doubt played a role in this.
Some of the pro-Harper counter-rallies staged in major cities were remarkable for their overt Canadian nationalist hostility to the Québécois. Media talk shows featured rants against the coalition as an undemocratic power grab by a cabal of opportunist socialists and separatists. According to polls, support for the NDP and Liberals has declined.
The Tories are mobilizing their supporters in the streets and church basements in high hopes of breaking Liberal support for the coalition. And indeed, the coalition looks quite shaky. On December 8, only four days after Parliament was prorogued, Liberal leader Dion, the putative PM in the coalition arrangement, agreed under party pressure to resign as soon as the Liberals could choose a new leader.
Although one major Liberal leadership contender, Bob Rae (a former NDP premier of Ontario) began campaigning actively for it, the major contender, Michael Ignatieff, is reported to have serious reservations. Ignatieff, known internationally for his support of Washington's foreign policy as "Empire Lite", has indicated he would be prepared to support a Harper budget that contained similar measures, but says the coalition is "the only tool that's got us anywhere" in trying to force concessions from Harper. Call his position "Coalition lite"….
Shunned by progressives in Quebec because of its identification with the federal regime, the NDP has been unable to build a base in that province, although its identification with social democracy has led some to favour it over the BQ. The NDP's only hope for federal office in Ottawa, then, lies in forging some alliance with the Liberals. Which it is now doing. Ironically, the present configuration of parliamentary seats means that the two parties cannot make a credible case for government without a pledge of neutrality from the Bloc Québécois! The BQ, for its part, could not join such a coalition without jeopardizing its role as a harbinger of Quebec independence.
The Bloc stands as Quebec's continuing reproach to the rest of Canada for its failure to recognize the Quebec nation in reality - and not just in non-binding words, as did Harper's motion two years ago to recognize the Québécois as a "nation within a united Canada".
Coalition falters
It is likely that when Parliament resumes as scheduled, on January 26, the Liberals will be headed by Michael Ignatieff, and the coalition as a formal power-sharing agreement will be dead, at least for the time being.
Harper will likely bring in a budget that incorporates most of the proposals in the Coalition Accord, or at least enough to win Liberal support and ensure the survival of his government. But he will no doubt try to embarrass the Liberals and their Opposition allies with numerous "confidence" votes in the House. Unless the NDP or the Bloc vote with the Tories, the Liberals will be faced with a choice between voting down the government - almost certainly precipitating a general election, this time - and voting with the government or abstaining, a humiliating dilemma for the new Liberal leader. It is probably safe to predict another election in 2009.
Where does this leave the NDP - and, more importantly, the main body of its supporters in the unions and social movements?
The NDP clearly emerges much weakened from this episode. Just weeks ago, NDP leader Jack Layton claimed to be running to be "prime minister", arguing that there was no fundamental difference between Liberals and Tories and that the NDP was the only party that offered real "change you can believe in". Now that the NDP has demonstrated its willingness to cohabit in government under Liberal leadership, that claim looks pretty unconvincing. The party may even have trouble justifying a vote against a Harper budget based on the coalition proposals or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Since the NDP is the party of organized labour in English Canada, a weaker NDP lessens labour's influence in the Parliament.
In any event, Harper's budget, whatever its content, will not address the needs of working people in the economic crisis. Labour and its allies will have to go back to the drawing boards and hammer out a coherent and effective program of action, one that is not contingent on Liberal or Tory - or, for that matter, NDP - support but goes far beyond the extremely modest proposals in the coalition accord.
Critical balance-sheet needed
It is important, too, that militants press for a critical balance-sheet of the coalition episode. If the coalition were to hold together, labour would be mortgaging its ability to adopt an independent agenda and actions capable of advancing workers' interests. The discussion within the mass movements needs to get outside the straitjacket of devising a parliamentary agenda acceptable to the Liberals.
Canadian labour has not been defeated in major industrial struggles. In a series of important confrontations in recent years, militants have demonstrated their willingness and capacity to resist attacks on their living standards and organizations. In British Columbia, a number of struggles have come close to turning into general strikes: health workers (2004), teachers and Telus workers (2005), forest workers in 2004 and 2007. In Quebec, workers fighting the Charest government's antilabour legislation twice came to the verge of general strikes. Even the enthusiastic reception at pro-coalition rallies for speakers advocating more militant action is a promising sign of the mood in labour's ranks.
Labour in English Canada will also have to find ways to construct a pan-Canadian alternative to the crisis that includes the Québécois. The solidarity expressed with BQ leader Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc at pro-coalition rallies may signal new openness in the labour movement to collaboration with the "separatists". An anticapitalist coalition between grassroots activists in the two nations could pose a real challenge to Canada's capitalists and their governments. A coalition with one of the traditional parties of big business points in the opposite direction.
[footnotes omitted]
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Rae throws in the towel. Well that's interesting.
And just to make it explicit- I don't think what is out there on the public stage has or needs to result in killing the Coalition.
And as is apparent from the argument I just made that there are lots of reasons the Coalition could easily be the best available course for Iggy, if not his party. And he/they in principle could make the whole thing work.
The Coalition's biggest obstacle is that the Liberals are just too screwed up to get anything right- let alone something that requires some adept navigation.
I am surprised that Rae has bowed out! He has pushed so hard the past few days to ensure this isn't a coronation and now he has decided it will be an Iggy coronation. Do they have no one better than Iggy to offer?
Rae's out.
Since Kennedy endorsed him yesterday, it was only a matter of time.
So...any thoughts on what this means for the coalition? Iggy kept "leaking" through "advisors" that he was not happy with the coalition. I think it is most likely dead, but I guess anything can happen...
Iggy talking both ways about the Coalition is just prudent politics. He could be talking that way, and if the conditions look good enough, opt in January to take the brass ring. [Not love the Coalition, and know its not the same brass ring and that he can't just act as if it isn't a Coalition, but deal with all that later. And it wasn't as if there was a better option.]
Not even Iggys ambivalent intentions will kill the Coalition. Left to his own devices he could easily decide he wants to take the bird in the hand.
The likeliness the Coalition is dead is to be chalked up to the Liberals being incapable- not ultimately any particular intentions or machinations.
Iggy as head of coalition that the NDP supports seems just too incongruous to me.
The quotes from things he has written that Canadians will find offensive are more numerous than the vault of Harper stuff from his days at the NCC.
http://www.vigile.net/Lesser-Evils
To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils : indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil. The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions.
That quote is from four years ago. I think Layton should back away from this coalition and begin showing that he is the only non-right-wing candidate out there. He should be positioning himself for a fight against Ignatieff and Harper in the next election.
Iggy will hold off pulling the plug officially in order keep the coalition threat hanging over Harper. But unlike his simliar position vis-a-vis Iraq, when he came out in favour of pulling the trigger rather than keeping the threat, Iggy's plan is to pull the plug on the coalition in late January at the same time he brings down the government, thereby forcing new elections by late winter/early spring.
An election that Iggy has a decent chance of winning a minority government, or at least pushing the Cons' seat total back to where it was before the last election. The Liberals will likely be stronger with him at the helm in both Ontario and Quebec, and the Cons will almost certainly be weaker in Quebec.
can someone tell me how you quote from an outside link the way you used to? when I click on "More information about formatting options" it goes to a completely blank page.
Just to ensure that this is not off-topic, I hear that the Khoalition supports more user-friendly discussion forums. This is breaking news.
They don't have the blockquote feature anymore. Just put quotes around it, I guess.
Very likely a dead bird Ken. That said, its really the best of both worlds for the NDP. they got to be kingmaker in what was a popular and daring manouver, and will be able to let the Liberals wear the failure if it does, and on the slim chance Iggy goes for it they, wont have to be the governing party during the economic crisis, which is good.
If he is smart Iggy will propose both ways, an even more watered down coalition proposal to the NDP that will be unacceptable, and acceptance of the Conservatives as the government, with changes.
Problem will be that with strong leadership in the Liberals, and a stronger NDP, again the votes will split, and Harper is edging toward a majority situation.
Two things:
1) If the man that the Coalition wants to make PM is ambivalent about the Coalition what message does that send to the people of Canada? That this is a good idea they should embrace? Or that this is a stupid idea they should run screaming from? Assuming the latter, why, then, is Jack Layton insisting that Ignatieff become PM against his will? Does he think this makes the NDP look strong or effective? Does he think this makes people believe in the NDP?
2) People keep saying that polls are snapshots and trends change. All true. But here's my problem: the trend is going down, the snapshot is of a party in free-fall, and the people who keep insisting the polls will turn around can't say how it will happen. Trends don't change on their own unless you get very very lucky. Some examples? Harper is down in the polls because he introduced a stupid economic statement. He fixes things by backing away from his most controversial proposals, promising a detailed stimulus package and drawing attention to the weaknesses of the alternative government. How does the NDP/Lib/Bloc team reverse things back? An obvious answer would be to ditch the "coalition government no matter what Harper does" line, put Harper on notice that he has to produce a robust stimulus plan, and shift the focus to jobs-jobs-jobs. If someone has another strategy I'd love to see it. The current one stinks.
Assuming the polls are actually accurate, can anyone explain to me why the NDP seems to be losing support? The fact that some polls have shown the NDP losing support to the Conservatives doesn't make sense. Who votes for the NDP, then without the party changing any of its positions goes over to the party most diametrically opposed to it?
Two points:
1. Jon Stewart mocked the Harper government wonderfully last evening, including how the "Queen" got to decide what happens. It was just too funny.
2. Global created an interesting aside last night at Robertson's installment as Mayor, by asking him should he be letting council members attend pro-coalition and anti Harper rallies, when indeed Ottawa holds financial keys to help Vancouver's infrastructure.
Now this smacks of nasty politics, in fact dirty politics, as it is as close to a statement of accepting politics, as the way the current arrested Illinois governor did, cash and political favours for your vote/support. Because Global really stated that Vancouver would now be penalized by Harper, financially, because of the 2 councillors attending rallies against him.
This indicates the Global believes that Harper would/will conduct himself in a blindly partisan way, at best, and as a dictator, at worst, and would withhold money from Vancouver. It also indicates that Global approves of such dirty political actions by Harper, that they were willing to threaten Robertson with it and thus say he had better stay out of federal poltical statements on his part, or the city council's part. Indeed they basically threatened the entirety of Vancouver with that statement, disguised as a question! Support Harper or else face the financial consequences threat.
This type of dictatorial action has no place in our national news media and it is time, over time actually, for a unified boycott of Global sponsors!
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Before the last election the NDP claimed Stephane Dion would make a terrible PM - then we said he'd make a great one. Before the last election the NDP claimed the Liberals were corrupt and untrustworthy - then we said they were our "partners". Before the last election we said corporate tax giveaways would bankrupt the country - then we said we'd bring them in.
No one elected Ignatieff and without Rae in a race, there is no way anyone will. The son of Russian aristocrats will have a hard time living this one down. Having the NDP cooperate with Ignatieff is revolting, although cooperating with the phony Liberals at all was quite stomach churning. I'm sure the Bloc feels the same way. Ignatieff's ascension doesn't change the NDP's position. Hopefully they will focus on preparing for the next election and the next legislative/policy round. Up until now, the NDP and BQ have been the coalition's water carriers. The Liberals, as "leaders" of the coalition, will also now have to "lead" the press coverage if not the ground game.
By the way, it may warm some babblers hearts to know that the www.62percentmajority.ca website, which posts no direct link to any one political party, and has been pulling in the names of "progressive" coalition supporters (Liberals, Bloc, and NDP) from all over the country, is owned by the NDP. As is the facebook group, started by the NDP's online campaign chair, which now has 32,474 supporters- 6,000 more than facebook Jack Layton.
Let Canadians get a mouthful of it from both parties. Nothing will change in this country until they do.
The upside? As a blogger on the Glib & Masochistic put it this morning:
"I can hardly wait to see Iggy in a sweater-vest."
As far as many voters are concerned the NDP did change positions.
Before the last election the NDP claimed Stephane Dion would make a terrible PM - then we said he'd make a great one. Before the last election the NDP claimed the Liberals were corrupt and untrustworthy - then we said they were our "partners". Before the last election we said corporate tax giveaways would bankrupt the country - then we said we'd bring them in.
Yes, but I still don't understand why the votes would leak to the Conservatives. The Conservatives are still opposed to the NDP on almost every issue the NDP campaigned on. Are people just completely abandoning the principles they voted for? Are the voters leaving the NDP to vote Conservative completely unconcerned with Conservative policy? Or were there, perhaps, a lot of NDP voters who don't actually agree with the party on much and just voted for them to express displeasure with the Conservatives and Liberals? I still don't see what would make the Conservatives suddenly seem appealing to such a large number of people who just a couple months ago were diametrically opposed to them, especially in light of the fact that Harper has done nothing but prove everything people were afraid of about him correct since the election.
There is no way that this whole coalition business has sapped existing NDP support (M Spector notwithstanding). I'm not a fan of Iggy for PM but as has been pointed out by others the NDP has played things very well since Harper's attack in the "economic update". Jack should stay the course, Iggy will break and support Harper for the rest of the year; the coalition serves its purpose without ever coming to power: it put the breaks on Harper and it will drive the Liberals to the right... the NDP will get a boost from all this in next year's election. If they had supported Harper's assault on working people and democracy as we know it (their only other choice) they'd have been toast in the next election.
Because people lie to pollsters.
Konservatives in particular like to state their opinions by starting with, "I voted for the NDP last time but never again." In the riding I live in the MP's staff fielded many calls that started with that line but in this day and age of caller ID it is funny because most of the calls originated outside the lower mainland and literally from all across Canada.
As far as many voters are concerned the NDP did change positions.
Before the last election the NDP claimed Stephane Dion would make a terrible PM - then we said he'd make a great one. Before the last election the NDP claimed the Liberals were corrupt and untrustworthy - then we said they were our "partners". Before the last election we said corporate tax giveaways would bankrupt the country - then we said we'd bring them in.
Yes, but I still don't understand why the votes would leak to the Conservatives. The Conservatives are still opposed to the NDP on almost every issue the NDP campaigned on. Are people just completely abandoning the principles they voted for? Are the voters leaving the NDP to vote Conservative completely unconcerned with Conservative policy? Or were there, perhaps, a lot of NDP voters who don't actually agree with the party on much and just voted for them to express displeasure with the Conservatives and Liberals? I still don't see what would make the Conservatives suddenly seem appealing to such a large number of people who just a couple months ago were diametrically opposed to them, especially in light of the fact that Harper has done nothing but prove everything people were afraid of about him correct since the election.
Because people lie to pollsters.
That and pollsters themselves lie. I've worked for them. Its all bullshit no matter how they spin it.
First off, Conservatives lying to pollsters don't explain a five point drop for the NDP.
Second, if you actually look at policies it makes about as much sense for an NDPer to switch to the Tories as it does to switch to the Liberals. There's distinct ideological differences between all of the parties. People switch for pretty complex reasons that have more to do with the heart then the head.
In fact, most Liberals don't have the NDP as a second choice and vice versa - as this analysis shows.
Second, if you actually look at policies it makes about as much sense for an NDPer to switch to the Tories as it does to switch to the Liberals.
Wow. Where do you stand again? Are you a Tory-NDP swing voter yourself? That way I'll know there is at least one.
Wow. Where do you stand again? Are you a Tory-NDP swing voter yourself? That way I'll know there is at least one.
Hey, how about a Tory-NDP coalition against the dastardly Liberals?
Oh wait a sec, I think that was tried for the first few weeks after the January 2006 election. Or let's call it an accord, anyway...
Way to fail at understanding our political system unionist. Or are you agreeing with Harper's logic that the voters make coalitions, as opposed to the members they elect?
Way to fail at understanding our political system unionist. Or are you agreeing with Harper's logic that the voters make coalitions, as opposed to the members they elect?
Hahahaha I was kidding my friend. I guess I have to start using these stupid emoticons. Sorry about that.
Yeah, but these new emoticons suck 
The 5 point drop in the NDP is I believe anger about the coalition being invovled with seperatists and that it was precieved to be a backroom deal. Basically the Cons won the "air war".
That said I don't think that this drop is permanent. Also as this thing evolves, once the coalition is off the table, I suspect that people will over time get the point. I think that public opinion is likely to keep changing and it may not be as friendly to Harper after his budget as it is now.
I think the best policy is to have grass roots organizations continue to promote the coalition idea but not have the politicians discuss it much-- people need to see this as comign from outside Ottawa. Once we see the budget we shoudl take a second look at the strategy-- see where the Liberals are going on this.
I think Iggy is a good leader for the Liberals, closer in presentation to what they might deliver and I am all for truth in advertising. I have more difficulty with peopel who make that party sound progressive when it isn't than those who proclaim what it is -- a centre-right party. With Iggy representing a more accurate vision of the Liberals they can attract the centre right from the Cons leaving the more right wing Cons where they shoudl be. The NDP would not have the confusion the Liberals create on the left with them going after their own voters who are now in the Conservative camp.
Following an election, it is possible that a coalition or arrangement could be made witht he Liberals pulling them a little more to our positions on things on an issue by issue basis.
I should add, I think a coalition with the BQ is a non starter at the moment. That is very sad if you believe in a united country.
These MPs are the expression of their consitutents and they reflect more than just a sovereigntist agenda-- they also represent a shared desire of their supporters for a more progressive agenda. It is a serious problem that we have right now that they cannot be in a coalition without killing it. To that end much work needs to be done -- again in the grass roots. We need to publicly address this issue over time. People keep hoping the BQ will just dry up and blow away-- it is unlikely to do this. We need to acknowledge their reality and work with them. We need to accept that there is a sovereigntist reality elected to parliament and as long as it is elected this is a legitimate expression. We need to somehow turn opinion so that those who beleive in a united Canada recognize that the country gets united more by working with these legitimate representatives than by shutting them out.
To reject the involvement of the BQ is separatist. As individuals who are not politicians we need to point out that the answer to separation is not separation; It is their constituents who get to decide if they will be representated by separatists not the rest of us and we do not reject those consitutents from having a voice equal to others in the house if we are truly democratic..
"The 5 point drop in the NDP is I believe anger about the coalition being invovled with seperatists and that it was precieved to be a backroom deal. Basically the Cons won the "air war"."
I'm not sure that there even is a "5 point drop". According to Angus Reid - who was the most accurate pollster in the last election - NDP support is the same 18% it was in the election. If there has been any very short-term shifting from NDP to Tory (and I'm not sure there has been) there are several reasons why it might be the case. 1. There are a lot of NDP voters in western Canada who are populists who really didn't like Dion and who (to be frank) probably have some latent "francophobic" tendencies and freak out at the idea of working with the BQ - remember how so many NDP supporters out west shifted to the Reform Party in the early 90s after the NDP supported Meech Lake and Charlottetown. 2. Some soft NDP and Liberal voters in more working class milieus (ie: NOT the downtown Toronto crowd) may be aghast at the whole crisis and just want a strong government and for all this political talk to just go away.
The votes are leaking away because the Conservatives PR campaign has been successful. The Conservatives have been able to sell the idea that the NDP was involved in a coup to upend an elected government.
A lot of people who support the NDP don't follow politics very closely. Unfortunately, many NDP supporters believe that the Conservatives "won" the election. So now they don't support the NDP "overturning" the results of the election behind closed doors.
Our first-past-the-post system creates the impression that the Conservatives have the support of half the population. People see that the Cons have 48% of the seats inthe H of C and think that is the level of public support they have across the country. But how many know they only received 37% of the vote?
The polls are meaningless.
We are still in any governments honeymoon. People are worried about the economy and the politicians were just yelling at each other over who controled the sandbox. Support for the government is soft, soft, soft and there were no baseline polls to compare the number to between the election and the these polls. So we have no idea who moved how far once the election was over and another minority government was returned. It may have been a reaction to yet another minority government for all we know and have nothing to do with the coalition talk at all.
All in all they tell us about as much as trying to divine the secrets of the universe from your belly button lint.
That's silly the NDP routinely drops down to the low teens, and then bounces up again to a high watermark of 20 percent before settling in at 17 percent during elections, where it has been since Moses came down from the mountain. Always, always always the newly elected government has a honeymoon, and this translates into a positive blip in their polling, so there is nothing tangible here to suggest the coalition has anything to do with current polls, or with what would happen if an election were held.
If anything leftish Canadians, who support the coalition will be drawn to the NDP, when Iggy reneges on the deal and the dust settles. The Moustache is sitting pretty have no fear.
After people see Harper's interivew with Mansbridge, the polls will change. Look at how negative the comments are ... pages and pages
Thanks for noting this stock, and I notice those that are here wanting to manage some sort of message, just blew past it, and keep on insisting that the NDP have taken a hit.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Taken a hit or not, things are still very fluid at the moment. I don't think the data is reliable because the "data" hasn't really digested what's going on.
Good time for politicians that have good instincts. Harper, Layton and the just barely Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews should try to find one.
Strikes me though that even if Iggy doesn't like the NDP, and is a kissing cousin to Harper, philisophicaly, what other route does he really have? If he backs off from the coalition, then Harper governs as if he has a majority, which spells the end for the Liberals, and Iggy. If Iggy plays his cards right with the coalition, people get to see him as PM before an election, the timing of which is pretty much his to dictate instead of Harper's.
We'll see.
Strikes me though that even if Iggy doesn't like the NDP, and is a kissing cousin to Harper, philisophicaly,
What proof is there that Ignatieff and Harper are philosophically kissing cousins?
Well, they're both arrogant, unprincipled, and would do absolutely anything for power. That's close enough for me. Whatever the malarkey du jour they're spouting to get there might be is largely irrelevent. Politicians like them only differ in the sense that they are playing to different constituencies.
"Well, they're both arrogant, unprincipled, and would do absolutely anything for power."
That describes Bob Rae even more than it does Iggy. In fact i am hard pressed to think of anyone in the Liberal Party who that doesn't describe.
Shhh!
Don't start dissing our allies! Remember Harper is the bad guy, not Iggy!
Repeat it with me, everyone:
Harper is the bad guy, not Iggy!
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
You can just imagine the outcome of any proportionally reprepresentative vote here.
Only in Europe, eh?
Ipsos-Reid has the NDP down. EKOS had the NDP down. Strategic Counsel has the NDP down.
But Angus Reid has released a poll showing the NDP holding at 18 per cent IF Stephane Dion is leading the Liberals.
Throw a parade. The poll that says what we want to hear must be the only accurate one.
Of course, DIon is no longer leading the Liberals and the SAME POLL claimed that if the coalition-doubting Ignatieff is leading the Liberals the NDP support drops significantly.
Maybe Angus Reid has caught a rebound that others haven't noticed, but I'm skeptical.
C'mon.
The NDP were drawing some polling numbers worse than that just a month before the election (http://paulitics.wordpress.com/polls/). Big freaking deal. If you panic because of polls, you must not be a very good New Democrat!
Step back from preconceptions for a second (myself included) and lets look at it from a self-interested point of view. Everyone of the parties and their braintrusts want power. How do they define it? How do they keep it? What are the risks they face right now?
The Tories are the easiest to predict.
Harper wants a majority in Parliament. He will most likely do it by calling an election as soon as he realistically can without risking the GG giving the Opposition a chance, which would probably be in the summer. More than the 1926 precident of 6months but only by a bit. At that point the recession will be clearly hitting but it will still be early enough into its full effects on Canada and so clearly huge (as in global) that he won't yet be wearing the full brunt of it. He can claim that his stimulus package hasn't worked itself through yet but that because of the difficult times ahead Canadians need political stability in Ottawa and that means a majority. The "other national party", he's already laying the groundwork here in making this a Cons-Libs fight, have now (as of May) formally confirmed their new leader and Canadians deserve the chance to choose who best to lead the country in these difficult times.
Between now and the writ drop they start to ratchet up the swift-boat attacks on Ignatieff. The risk, which diminishes every day and probably disappears if the Budget passes, is that a fall in the House could prompt the GG to let the Coalition have a try (should it still exist).
The NDP are also pretty easy to predict.
All Coalition, all the time. We want power too but we are not poised to win a majority right now (if ever). We are poised to increase our influence either in-concert with the Liberals or at their expense (and maybe both).
If we can get the Government to fall in a non-confidence motion right away then the GG may well decide that Harper has now had three kicks at making his self-declared "unworkable" Parliament work and hasn't succeeded. If the Coalition gets a chance then we get a quarter of the cabinet - if it doesn't then we at least tried to stop Harper (which our base can't be too critical of). If the Coalition is scuttled by the Liberals, then we show that you can't trust them to stick by thier word (shock) and that Iggy's not only weak but indistinguishable from Harper.
The risks are there to be sure. The House falls and we are faced with a snap election where we could get hit and hit hard, though I think the Liberals will take the worst of it - they are far less ready for an election than we are - and a shattered Liberal party is always a good thing for our fortunes. If the Coalition is a go than there is the risk that we become absorbed by the Liberals - I don't put much stock in this but others claim it as a danger.
On the whole, whether it goes ahead or doesn't - I think the Coalition is a winner for Jack and the NDP. Same-old, same-old wasn't changing the dial much - the Coalition has the potential to.
The Bloc too is pretty easy to predict.
The Bloc's goal, beyond Sovereignty for Quebec, is to justify thier relevance in Ottawa. The harbingers of independence have, like the early Christians, been waiting around for a long time now for the constitutional transition they were supposed to help facilitate. The PQ, while rejuvinated by Harper's rants, are still in opposition so there will be no Referendum in the near future. The long-standing tradition of the Bloc has been to be primarily constructive actors in Ottawa and thier backing of a center (at least as compared to Harper)-left coalition in Ottawa gives them more obvious relevance than they have had, overtly, since they helped bring Martin down. If they can use Harper's death cries to fan the flames of nationalist sentiment in Quebec, all the better. The risk is that should the Coalition actually work and be successful their support for it may undermine the notion that Ottawa doesn't work for Quebec. Still, there is always enough salt around to rub into the wounds the Bloc try and emphasize so I think the risk for them is minor.
The big questions are for the Liberals.
Their goal is power too and right now they don't have it. The question is how much power can they have now vs later. Backing the Coalition or Harper (directly or through diplomatic flu) gives them partial power now - either shared with the NDP and beholden to the Bloc - or whatever they can wring from or have tossed to them by Harper. Potentially both plans have a prospect for giving the Liberals more power down the road.
Lets deal with supporting Harper, by action or inaction, first. I think that the Harper influence will be fleeting at best and that any election fought within the next year consigns the Liberals to the Opposition benches for 4 years of a Harper majority. Long-term it might be a benefit for them to be out of office while the economic storm hits but I think that to be a mistake. The worst of the recession will be over in 4 years regardless and there is no guarantee that Iggy will survive to fight a second election - Dion didn't. That much time on the opposition benches can also cement a role for a person - Leader of the Opposition - which is, ultimately, a different skill set than those needed in governement. The potential is that in four years or so the country is ready to sweep the Liberals into power with a majority (somehow cobbled together by dominating Ontario, regaining seats in Quebec, holding the Atlantic provinces and making inroads in the West). The risk is that a generation will have passed, since Trudeau, without knowing the Liberals as a party that can beat a united Conservative party (Chretien's three majorities were happy times but they were decidedly unfair tests of ultimate Liberal support).
If the Liberals go for the Coalition option they could be forced into an election right away tagged as making a blatant power-grab that emboldens socialists and separatists (Iggy will have to defend his signature on the agreements regardless of when, but if a non-confidence vote triggers an election you can be sure that's all the Tories will talk about). As noted above, I'm not sure that's any different from the outcome should the writ be dropped in the summer but it would be pretty natural to want to delay one's execution (see prorogation) and hope a comet hits or something to change the lay of the land. If the Coalition is given a chance, then what? You have to compromise with the NDP in government. Sure you get the levers of power but you have to share and Liberals are not much better at that than Conservatives - maybe worse. There is the potential that you can absorb the NDP into your tent, which from the Liberal perspective may be very tempting (if its a risk for us, it has to be a motivation for the Liberals) but it might also empower the NDP by removing the "scary" tag from Jack and his pack which could come back and bite at the next election (the flip side of the previous thought - now from a benefits the NDP perspective).
On the whole, I still see three parties who find more advantages than risks to hanging together and trying to make the Coalition work while I see only the Conservatives clearly harmed by a Coalition that gets a chance to govern - a telling sign about how loudly they protested the thought. The biggest wildcard has to do with what the GG will do should the budget vote bring the government down. I still see the scales tipped towards giving a coalition that has endured for 6 weeks of cooling off time a chance to try their hand at making this Parliament work. The risk of forcing a showdown in January is that we find ourselves in an election where Harper could finally win his majority. I really see this as an unavoidable risk regardless of what happens to the Coalition. Now or 6-9 months from now, Harper is still the best bet to win an election and win a majority. Are we, or the Liberals, better off having that election now or in 6-9 months? If so, why?
I don't think GG will let Harper spend $300 million taxpayer dollars on another election. I think that if the Harpers are defeated by a second non-confidence vote, she'll consider a coalition government before deciding on another election just weeks on the heels of the last one.
Fidel,
My thoughts as well.
Still...
( I'd like you to meet my client - Satan - I'm his advocate.)
If we are wrong, how do you fight an election as a coalition (or do you, and how could you avoid it?) if you haven't given any thought to coalition election-planning?
I think the results wouldnt be much different than the last one, a total waste of time and money. There will be no need for it however. I believe the shape-shifting Liberals have transformed themselves into Whigs, once again.
The Empire Strikes Back, Canadian Style
by Jeff Jewell and Diana Jewell
The drama of Canadian politics has reached new levels. The fascinating story line and interplay of personalities makes a compelling political soap opera. But the real story is much less about personalities, and much more about power.
Since confederation in 1867, Canada has always been governed by the Liberal-Conservative duopoly, and thereupon ruled by the Canadian Establishment. . . .
The Liberal-Conservative duopoly spans the political spectrum from centre to right. While it would be natural that the Canadian Establishment might have an ideological preference for the right-wing Conservatives, the centrist Liberals are historically the natural party of government since they appeal to a larger public constituency. . .
The Liberal-Conservative duopoly is the primary political asset of the Canadian Establishment. And one can assume that their control of these parties is exercised through the backrooms, through the party powerbrokers and the leaders. So one should conclude that the present abuse of democracy within the Liberal party is the direct result of that chain of command, and that the Canadian Establishment now has their desired Liberal leader.
While it's perfectly clear that the Canadian Establishment would always prefer its Liberal-Conservative duopoly to hold power with the stability and secrecy of a majority government, it's equally obvious that the power sharing and consensus requirements of a coalition would be antithetical to its interests; even worse, a coalition with socialists and separatists would be pure anathema. . .
Long live the Liberal-Conservative duopoly. Long live the Canadian Establishment. God save the Queen. The Empire has struck back, Canadian style.
C'mon.
The NDP were drawing some polling numbers worse than that just a month before the election (http://paulitics.wordpress.com/polls/). Big freaking deal. If you panic because of polls, you must not be a very good New Democrat!
Or much of a poker player. I call dibs on playing Sunday Hat in real life. Poppa needs a new tractor.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. Bob Newhart
It's not a duopoly, it's a kleptocracy, or for history nerds, The Family Compact.
Or if you are even nerdier you might point out it also includes the Chateau Clique or Clique du Chateau. And if you were really, really nerdy you would know they formed government in Lower Canada under the Parti Bureaucrate demostrating that power, wealth and government have always interacted.
Layton was on One on One last night on CBC. Was a very interesting and good interview and if one was paying attention, Jack gave out a lot of information.
But what really stuck out for me was the fact that Harper is apparently holding cities and municipalities across Canada hostage for their funding. Which was followed by the realization that that is also how he is cooking the books.
No, or held back, funding transfers to the cities and districts/municipalities would have the effect of artifically inflating our government's books, as long as the money sits there in the bank. One wonders how long the local governments are going to keep silent? Or if they are just going to pass along the transfer funding shortfalls to the residents in the form of property tax increases, and stay silent?
Which seems a possibility, as Edmonton, just yesterday, in a hostile meeting, raised it's tax rates for property significantly. And apparently several other cities across the province are following that rate hike. Does anyone know if property taxes are all of sudden going up in your community? If they are, you had better start asking questions about funding transfers from the feds, at your local level.
Had Peter been an actual reporter looking for a story, as opposed to a corporate hatchet man newsreader, he would have followed up on this with Layton. Could you imagine the breaking story across Canada, which should be happening, but for "some" reason isn't?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
remind: Thanks for the heads-up about Jack's interview, I don't have TV so I'll have to see if I can watch it online. As to the property tax increases I cannot speak for Edmonton but in my Town I'm certainly in a position to know as I work in the municipal administration here. The main hold-up in federal funding to us has been jumping through the myriad hoops put out there before promised funding can be accessed; in some small municipalities satisfying the requirements of the feds actually uses the majority of the money they're supposed to recieve (mostly in consultants' fees). This does delay infrastructure projects but in this Town and in most municipalities there really isn't an option to jack tax rates to cover the shortfall, so delays on new construction (as opposed to rate hikes) is the common problem we have as a result of federal funding. Harper has promised a lot of funding support, but in the name of "accountability" they are very leary to actually fork over the cash. Also, in my Town (and most) we would never raise the tax rate in the middle of a fiscal year (especially not for capital spending)... I'm not even sure how Edmonton plans to accomodate the increase you mentioned at this time; maybe its scheduled for the 2009 fiscal year and they plan to borrow in the interm (the options of municipalities in this regard are also different depending on the province)? I can certainly tell you that despite all the talk of infrastructure spending in the last couple years most municipalities are still waiting for federal support and in the meantime most municipal infrastructure is crumbling. I'm not sure how my Town's experience relates to that of the major cities though. As to keeping quiet, I'm sure there are a number of reasons but for small towns the main reason is lack of bargaining position (we don't want to jeopradize the promised funding); generally the FCM voices the collective position of the smaller municipalities and I doubt it is being silent (afterall, as past president Jack listens to the FCM and I assume thats where he is hearing about the funding issues he mentioned in the interview).
Here is an excellent analysis of the Koalition Krisis. I hope the full text finds its way very soon onto Rabble's "coalition" page
Apparently, it's not good enough for Rabble.ca, but it has been reprinted on several respectable left websites, like Socialist Voice, Links, Canadian Dimension, and MR Zine.
As René Magritte would say, "This is not a tag line". Only he'd say it in French. You may find it rather annoying to have to discipline yourself to ignore parts of certain other people's posts - but not everyone's. Wouldn't it be better to abolish them?
"Writing in Rabble, a popular web journal of "progressive" opinion, Riddell asked "Have the advocates of coalition forgotten that it was the last Liberal government that originated most of the hated 'Harper' policies, including the gutting of social services, attacks on civil liberties dressed up as 'anti-terrorism' and Canada's disastrous war in Afghanistan?"
It's true, the Liberals did give us the infamous federal budget of 1995 which laid waste to decades of social progress in Canada. But it was the Mulroney Conservatives who fully privatized money creation in 1991 after the Bank for International Settlements declared the debt of OECD countries to be risk-free. And now that same shadowy group of appointed central bankers, the same shadowy Basel group who Keynes accused of laundering money for the Nazis, is warning of a deep economic depression world-wide as are the World Bank and IMF as well as many respected economists. Our 22 percenters in Ottawa are the only G7 leaders who did not have a real stimulus plan for our faltering Canadian economy. The Harpers hid their election platform under Steve's sweater for all of the election campaign. And now herr Harper and his koalition of Reform Party retreads, rightwing Liberals, and Mike Harris castoffs have taken all of themselves and their right-wing agenda and are hiding out somewhere in an undisclosed location in the Alps or Eagle's nest at Mont Tremblanc and refusing to show up for work!
The Coalition's common plan aims to "provide active stimulus for the economy over the next two years, with a shared commitment to return to surplus within four years." This is the principle of fiscal responsibility and it promises future attacks on existing gains of the people. Even the promised support to families is limited "as finances permit." Not much, then.
The NDP and the Bloc are asking for measures to help people affected by the economic crisis, to protect pensions and employment insurance benefits, and to support cultural activities through cancellation of the budget cuts announced by the Conservative government. But there are very few clear and itemized commitments in the coalition's founding agreement. That is understandable, as it is led by a party that cut back on unemployment insurance, attacked democratic freedoms through its anti-terrorist laws and initiated the disastrous intervention in Afghanistan.
And then there is what is not explicitly written. "In order to sign the coalition agreement with the Liberals, on Monday, NDP leader Jack Layton renounced his party's call for the cancellation of a proposed reduction in corporate taxes." Even more serious: "The NDP's deputy leader Thomas Mulcair stated Wednesday that the party would no longer oppose Canada's war in Afghanistan while it was teamed with the Liberals. This was a significant concession for a party that was the standard-bearer of the country's peace movement. Mr. Mulcair, the only New Democrat MP from Quebec, stated that `the NDP is setting aside the differences that have always existed with the Liberals on issues such as Afghanistan'."
This is a minimalist agreement given the scope of the crisis, and it essentially replicates, as its framework, the positions elaborated by the G-20 countries aimed at maintaining a development model that has led us to this crisis, adding to it an interventionism that is oriented entirely toward support to big business. It is an agreement that says not a word about the withdrawal of Canadian troops, the colossal sums that are being spent on them, and the unacceptable nature of that intervention.
As René Magritte would say, "This is not a tag line". Only he'd say it in French. You may find it rather annoying to have to discipline yourself to ignore parts of certain other people's posts - but not everyone's. Wouldn't it be better to abolish them?
So it seems that Germany's version of Maggie Thatcher is vehemently against Gordon Brown's proposals for "crass Keynesianism. Apparently herr Harper, whevever he is now, isnt keen on Keynesian stimulus proposed by the koalition of kommunists and Kuebeckers', those potential despots comprising the 62% majority elected to Canadian parliament.
Here's an idea that the libs and NDP might consider unless, Iggy the "uncharming prince" would rather have a coalition with the centre-right Harper.
Cash writes in Now "Aura of entitlement" that perhaps For a while, the coalition was a lifeline the Liberal caucus gleefully grabbed - until polls showed they'd have to actually work at selling it. (Hey, how about a Chretien/Broadbent cross-Canada reunion tour?)
What a great idea unless Iggy thinks that his way to the big office is through Harper bestowing gifts of mirth. LOL
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
Jack will be addressing the Toronto Board of Trade today (Friday)
Stephen Harper is not socialist enough to fix the economy: Jack Laytonhttp://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Toronto-Board-Of-Trade-940810.html
VERY IMPORTANT OP-ED IN THE STAR
Written by Law and constitutional Professors from across Canada. In summary: If the Cons fall, The GG should ask the opposition to form Govm't.
"Liberal’s coalition negotiator speaks out"
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15964&Itemid=86
MONTREAL — The Bloc Québécois were prepared to keep a Liberal-led coalition government alive for two years, if the coalition allowed Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated companies in Quebec.
But Marlene Jennings ... the veteran Liberal MP in charge of negotiating the coalition deal for the Liberals, said “no way” to the Bloc.
The proposed change to the province’s French language law would have allowed employees of federally regulated companies, including post offices and banks, to conduct business in French only ...
In other news with Raitt-gate or Raitt-gate, this tidbit adds to Iggy and corporate loving liberals who tanked the progressive coalition for walking orders by corporate Canada - so bankers tell Iggy - no more gold for you if you actually represent Canadian citizens. Liberal/Tories always on the same page - I guess Iggy will be dancing to the one that brought you!
Later in her conversation with Ms. MacDonnell, Ms. Raitt tells the man driving them around Victoria that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had backed down from defeating the Conservative government on a budget a few days earlier because he got a message from Canadian bankers.
“They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room — and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it — stood up and said, ‘Ignatieff, don’t you even think about bringing us to an election,’” said Ms. Raitt.
“'We don’t need this. We have no interest in this. And we will never fund your party again.’ That was very powerful. So he heard it from very powerful people in the industry. He was definitely muzzled.”
Iggy in the pocket of bankers - who would have thought it??
These bankers are treasonous, as are those who comply with them. Or one could say they are fascists too!
OK, so I am like clearly totally lame in coming up with witty and/or gripping thread titles.
How bout "Coalition Comments Coalesced Continued".
I'm at wits end too OG.
How about "Thread # 1 of 50 before January 26th" ?
I'm seeing that comments get better traffic when you replace the "c" with a "K', thus appearing all satirical, Swiftian, and clever like.
So; Koalition Komments Kontinued.
Ok, So the Liberals are resigned (pun intended) to putting in a new permanent leader before the peroggies expire. Battlin' Bob has come out swinging against a coronation of Iggy Thumbscrews. He wants a full OMOV in place and makes a good case. Le Blanc backs Iggy, and Kennedy backs Rae.
Does Layton and Team Orange have anything to say? Should they?
How does this effect the Coalition? Thoughts?
Steve and the Harpers don't wanna work. They just wanna bang on these drums all day! There's work needs doing all over Canada, and Steve is no where to be found. Typical!
United we stand. Divided we fall.
I'd argue that, with Iggy poised to become Leader on a "Dion's coalition was a shitshow" platform that Jack should be figuring out ways to beat Iggy to the punch and negotiate a dignified climbdown.
Instead Layton has taken it upon himself to remind Ignatieff that he has a deal with the Bloc and the NDP.
I think this makes him look desperate and pathetic. I'm sure others will disagree.
So you reckon Iggy has too much integrity to go back on his word?
Iggy will withdraw from the coalition, and look like a decisive leader while doing so. Layton and Duceppe will look hapless and make annoyed sounds. Then Harper will ram a Budget laden with more poison pills down Iggy's throat (and Jack's throat and Gilles' throat) and force Iggy to decide between pushing a coalition or going to the polls. He'll waffle for a few days. The coalition partners, now wary after Iggy's betrayal, will demand more. Iggy will waffle then say he's not scared of an election. Harper will call one. Haeper will win a majority.
This is where we're heading.
I'm seeing that comments get better traffic when you replace the "c" with a "K', thus appearing all satirical, Swiftian, and clever like.
So; Koalition Komments Kontinued.
What an absurd suggestion!