An accord, NOT a coalition, between Grit-NDP-Bloc (Part 2)

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day
An accord, NOT a coalition, between Grit-NDP-Bloc (Part 2)

 

Wilf Day

Continued from[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007863] this thread.[/url]

[url=http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2008/10/22/LeftCoalition/?utm_source=mondayh... Dobbin is still plugging away: "Left Coalition Badly Needed" (but as you will see, he says "minority" which means Accord, not Coalition. [/url]

quote:

Was the federal election just a bad dream? After five weeks of fear and loathing, disappointment and disbelief, Canadians woke up to election results that were hardly different than when the election started. Most of the commentary since has been about numbers and pro-Harper media spin. The man who is claiming a new "enhanced" mandate actually received 168,737 fewer votes than last time but garnered an additional 19 seats. The turnout, at 59 per cent, was the lowest in our history, which means that the Harper Conservatives will govern the country with the support of fewer than 23 per cent of the eligible voters. Democracy in Canada has seldom seemed so corrupted or so unrepresentative.

For many of the 62 per cent who voted against Harper and his unhidden agenda, there has been an outpouring of demands for a coalition government of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a minority government as soon as they can conceivably bring down the Harper government.

. . . The campaign to give democracy a cold shower actually started with the 1975 publication of a book called The Crisis of Democracy. Put out by the Trilateral Commission, the most powerful elite group in the world at the time, it concluded that there was an "excess of democracy." The authors lamented that the public now questioned "the legitimacy of hierarchy, coercion, discipline, secrecy, and deception -- all of which are in some measure inescapable attributes of the process of government." A governable democracy, the American co-author Samuel P. Huntington wrote, requires a large degree of "apathy and non-involvement." That they now have it is no accident.

For the succeeding 30 years, corporate think tanks, media outlets and foundations got down to work to rid the world of its excess of democracy. In Canada, beginning with the national debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the neo-liberal movement waged an extremely effective campaign along the lines of "there is no alternative" -- known by its acronym TINA. In the late '80s through the early 1990s the focus was the deficit and it was relentless: thousands of articles, TV programs, editorials, academic studies and political campaigns warned about hitting the "debt wall."

But always connected with the deficit terror campaign was the solution: cutting government spending -- specifically, social spending. The result? In 1995, when Paul Martin slashed federal social spending by 40 per cent, Canadians barely complained. Other aspects of the campaign denigrated government and those who provided its front line services. Preston Manning characterized government as having its "hands in taxpayers' pockets."

There is no hidden Harper agenda. It is there for all to see. A rigid ideologue who detests government, he will continue to corrupt Canadian democracy and political culture with negative advertising, aggressive partisanship, out-right lies and cynical policy initiatives aimed at capturing carefully calculated segments of the population.

At the same time, Harper will resume the implementation of his plan to diminish the nation through more tax cuts, a gradual end to federal spending powers, and the devolution of more power to the provinces. Harper's true vision of the federal government's role is restricted to funding the military, the RCMP, CSIS and the Bank of Canada. Medicare, post-secondary education, climate change, poverty reduction, cultural and social development, indeed all collective solutions to the problems facing Canada would be left up to a balkanized state with 10 disparate parts pulling in 10 directions.

And on a parallel track with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Harper will facilitate the integration of a fatally weakened Canadian nation into the U.S., just as that failed state enters the final stages of its decline.

Stephen Harper must be forced from office at the earliest opportunity, to be replaced by a new minority government representing the vast majority of Canadians. The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc must start planning for it now.


[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

janfromthebruce

quote:


And on a parallel track with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Harper will facilitate the integration of a fatally weakened Canadian nation into the U.S., just as that failed state enters the final stages of its decline.

So the "answer to his prayers" is "The Liberals, NDP and the Bloc must start planning for it now.

I highlighted this particular section as the liberals have lately remained publicly "silent" on their position of the SPP, but we know that in 2005, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched by the former Liberal government to “improve the safety and enhance the prosperity of citizens of Canada, the United States and Mexico.”

So Dobbin seems that he is losing it and appears so selective in his memory recall that he wants the NDP to partner with libs who started Canada down this path. Can someone provide some analysis where Dobbin is coming from?

janfromthebruce

I think Dobbin needs to give his head a shake here. With Manley putting his toes in to test for warmth of entering the lib leadership race, what he's advocating gives much needed time for libs to "pick a new leader" and put a warchest together, to do what?
If Manley becomes the leader, can we say SPP fast enough?
[url=http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/ensign2/politicsNpoliticalSc/SPP/FirstLook/spp... and Prosperity Partnership[/url] article by CofC made this note:

quote:

The SPP was signed by Prime Minister Martin, President Bush and President Fox in March 2005. It was reaffirmed in April of 2006 by Prime Minister Harper. The S.P.P sanctioned the recommendations of the North American Task force released in May of 2005.

John Manley, a former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, now heads the Canada, USA, Mexico Task Force which released its recommendations for a North American continent wide union on May 17/18, 2005. Manley was quoted in All Patriot News in the USA, May 17, 2005. He said, "We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be the architects of a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo."


So again, can someone explain why Dobbin wants this accord if like he is so against SPP?

George Victor

quote:


So Dobbin seems that he is losing it and appears so selective in his memory recall that he wants the NDP to partner with libs who started Canada down this path. Can someone provide some analysis where Dobbin is coming from?


Fear of the neo-cons as we enter an apocalyptic period.

Quite simply, naked fear.

---------------------------------

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Why are we still talking about this half-baked stillborn scheme.

It ain't gonna happen.

There ain't no way it could happen.

Even if it did magically happen, it wouldn't bloody work.

The discussion is a waste of bandwidth.

Has Murray Dobbin lost his freakin' mind?

It would be more useful (and more realistic) to discuss the merits of pixie dust and ground unicorn horn as potential means to influence voter choice.

nicky

There were some vague murmurs late in the campaign about some kind of arrangement between the NDP and the Liberals to take power. This of course would have been dependant on them getting more seats that the Conservatives. The present electoral system dooomed that even though they received a total vote of almost 45% vs just over 37% for the Conservatives. Add in the Greens and the Bloq and we have a groteque situation where almost 2/3 of the voters chose a party that ran to the left of the present goverbmnet.

I would personally favour a coalition rather than an accord. History has shown that minority Liberal governments get the credit for implementing NDP policies and the NDP suffers in the next election. For example, Ontario 1984 and Federal 1972. If the NDP had ministers it would get the credit as well as demonstrate it can govern.

The best way to ensure such a coalition is proportional representation. It would put the Conservatives in an almost perpetual minority. But that it not feasible in the short run. Most Liberals for partisan reasons oppose PR even though it would ensure them coming to power in a minority.They prefer the prospect of a majority that the FPTP system often gives them.

Dion, however, did propose during the election a preferential ballot like in Australia. Perhaps this could be implemented through a private mebers bill. Many polls during the election showed that the Conservatives were the second choice of only about 10% of the voters so a preferential ballot might well knock them out of power.

I would be interested in the views of Babblers on a preferential ballot. How feasible would it be to have it implemted for the next election?The Conservatives would of course oppose it. Would the Bloq support it? Should the NDP? What effect would it have on the outcome of the election? Would it lead to electoral cooperation that would facilitate coalition building?

KenS

Dion's wishing for a preferential vote was discussed here when he came up with it.

Aside from the fact that it isn't PR, it also just coincidentally is the system that will elect the most Liberals.

Every single one of these 'proposals' that float around- today its Norman Spector in the Globe- are about framing it as we need a 2 party system, without sullying themselves by saying that.

Just temporary you know.

And as to a private member's bill.... the Liberals do like grand gestures when they know there is no chance of them having to back them up [the Kyoto or Bust 'Rodriguez Bill' for example].

But this is one grand gesture the Liberals would pass on. They would not want to be reminded of it if PR should come on to the public stage.

KenS

All this beseeching of all the 'centre-left' parties is more than misplaced.

It is weird given that there is a straightforward alternative available. All that has to happen is the Liberals vote the Throne Speech down, and Dion is PM.

And a Dion government does not have to be short lived. Nor does it require formal agreements with the NDP and Bloc be worked out ahead of time.

So those questions put into the political ether should be about why the Liberals don't do it.

Because they don't want to put their survival at risk would be the answers.

But really. They are absolutely floundering right now. Compared to that, what is so risky about working to execute adept compromises that are virtually guaranteed to have pretty deep popular support?

Really, what is so great about the path they have set themsleves on right now, and how wonderfully that looks to unfold?

Great it isn't.

But it has the virtue of being consistent with how the Liberal Party of Canada has for decades conducted itself.

Caissa

Not quite true. If the throne speech failed the Governor-General would ask Dion to try to form a government. At best that would make him Prime Minister designate. He would then have the opportunity to achieve the confidence of the House through a throne speech. If the confidence motion fails, I doubt Dion would ever be considered to have been PM merely a PM designate.

KenS

Nit picking formalist.

Obviously the Liberals would have to immediately set about getting support for a legislative agenda. [And in practice that would be two pronged: immediate and longer terms. With only enough agreement on the immediate term to ensure short term survival in the House.... but even that being the basis for more comprehensive and longer term agreements.]

The point is that it is doable by a Liberal party that made it its priority. And despite that not being a bad raison d'etre- let alone a far better one than the pathetic position they are in now- we know they won't do it.

Caissa

Thanks for the compliment. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] We'll have to disagree on whether the deal is doable. Given the state of the economy, the most politically savvy place for the Liberals, NDP and Bloc is on the opposition benches.

janfromthebruce

Weighing into this debate is [url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=23036efb-... Axworthy, in the Ottawa Citizen[/url] today and his spin a bit different but the same.
He asked what to do.

[LIST][*]the opposition parties must begin immediately to have direct conversations about the forthcoming parliamentary session - de facto parliamentary alliance. [*]Fashioning a credible and unified alternative to Mr. Harper's government and his committed goal of transforming this country into a conservative state needs serious work. [*]to actively explore a basis of partnership of progressive forces and how to translate that into political action[/LIST]

Of note in his article are these three nuggets:

quote:

shifts going on in the diverse demographics of the country;
the advancement of a new generation that does not have the same political loyalties of old (realignments); and
a serious look at electoral reform.

Lloyd figured out that the liberal vote is now fluid. Also, that the libs leadership might move right which puts this whole progressive agenda in peril.

KenS

You don't need me to tell you doable and politically savvy are two different things.

But in the context of the thread title, and the tiresome proposals that the opposition parties 'get together', I would argue that 'doable' is what is relevant to this discussion.

The Liberals simply voting down the Throne Speech- and with a reslove to do what is necessary to follow that up- is a whole lot simpler than the vague pap that comes of columnists wringing their hands.

Caissa

I don't think we are going to find common ground on this one, KenS. It's not doable withoutt support of all three opposition parties in the House and its not politically savvy.

Sean in Ottawa

The Liberals participating in an alliance to bring down a party with almost twice as many seats as they have? -- now I really know this is humour. They have a chance to get rid of Dion. If he became PM that might close.
Who here really thinks that the Liberals would want to lead a government into deficit and recession with 77 seats? Parties are scared of that with a majority. Expect the Liberals to work on their new leader and wait for the economy to do to Stephen Harper what they could not do in the last election.

KenS

The point is not what is wise or politically savvy.

The handwringing of all the columinists is not wise, and it just happens to carry a just barely not spoken subtext that the other parties deferr to the Liberals.

My point is that there is something simpler than their whining. "All" it requires is that the Liberals find a backbone and practice what they preach [and what others love to chime in and help them preach].

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Murray seems to have developed some sort of delusional problem. The Liberals especially at the caucus level are just not progressives. Some of them are a little to the left of the Conservatives but most members of both parties listen to the same advice givers from the corporate board rooms and think tanks like the CD Howe Institute.

Murray needs to watch Mouseland again and ruminate on black cats versus white cats. This proposal is for two mice to join with the white cat who has the most seats and expect that the cat will now put the interests of mice first.

LOL [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Lord Palmerston

Judy Rebick has said that such an accord isn't going to happen because the Liberals just have too few seats.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
[b]Judy Rebick has said that such an accord isn't going to happen because the Liberals just have too few seats.[/b]

And where did Judy say that, just for interest sake.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Murray seems to have developed some sort of delusional problem. The Liberals especially at the caucus level are just not progressives. Some of them are a little to the left of the Conservatives but most members of both parties listen to the same advice givers from the corporate board rooms and think tanks like the CD Howe Institute.

Murray needs to watch Mouseland again and ruminate on black cats versus white cats. This proposal is for two mice to join with the white cat who has the most seats and expect that the cat will now put the interests of mice first.

LOL [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Like Klein from NOW, I think these authors think that if this coalition comes together that the NDP and Bloc thinking on SPP, for instance, will knock some sense into the liberals. That's only way I can possibly think where they are coming from. It's like being forever stuck in Trudeau mania.
"When the Liberals returned to power in 1993 under the leadership of Jean Chrйtien, Axworthy became one of the most important Cabinet ministers. After the election, he was given responsibility for the vast new Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), and launched a major overhaul of employment insurance."

If anybody remembers, Axworthy was overpowered in cabinet in dealing with the deficit and also the overhaul of UI which turned into the Frankenstein of EI. All his progressive ideas went to crap as the right wingers took over. He supported Bob Rae in the last leadership race.

Tommy_Paine

The sad reality is that Canadians won't react to the damage a tory government can do, until they have seen a tory government do the damage.

We have to organize against it to best mitigate the damage on the street level, and at the same time present the NDP as the clear alternative to tory social and economic dogma.

Getting in bed with the Liberals will just allow them to present themselves as the clear alternative-- so they can ultimately go and finish whatever Harper leaves undone.

Where Dobbin goes wrong is in thinking the Liberals are anything but the same tory beast the Conservatives also represent.

Lord Palmerston

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

And where did Judy say that, just for interest sake.[/b]


At this event:

quote:

"After the election -- Neo-liberal crisis or neo-conservative advance? Strategies for the Left"

A panel discussion followed by Q&A.

Speakers:

Bryan Evans, Socialist Project; Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University.

Grace-Edward Galabuzi, Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University.

Tam Goossen, Research Associate, Asian Institute of the Munk Centre (University of Toronto); Board of Directors, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto; former President, Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

Judy Rebick, Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy, School of Social Work and the Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University.

The Canadian election is taking place in the context of a severe financial crisis in the US, a Presidential election that seems to be breaking from Bush's America, and multiple crises in neoliberalism. Yet, the Canadian political right under the leadership of Stephen Harper's Conservative government appears to be consolidating power; the centre-left remains electorally divided between the Liberals, Greens and NDP, and limited in its policy horizons; and the wider progressive and radical left barely seems to have a foothold in either electoral or policy debates, which was not the case even a decade or so ago.

This discussion brings together some of the most prominent and unique voices on Canadian politics and policy to debate these issues in light of the results of the October 14 election.


Tommy_Paine

Being in government going into what is a worse than usual recession, with the potential of becoming something worse, has proven to be the booby prize in times past.

The Liberals must be forced to be seen supporting the Conservatives at every turn, and the NDP would be wise to shrilly point out every time they do.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Wilf Day

[url=http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=cf39e452-... Robson, Canwest News Service:[/url]

quote:

The day after the election a BQ press release attributed to Mr. Duceppe the idea (my translation) that "the election result shows clearly that two visions confront one another, that of Quebec and that of Stephen Harper; the proof is that it is Quebec that kept the Conservatives in a minority by giving the Bloc two thirds of the seats." But the Tories got less than half the seats in Ontario and were wiped out in Newfoundland. Plenty of other voters and politicians desperately wanted Mr. Harper held to a minority, and helped do it. Why not work with them?

. . . what is their game? It's a fair question . .

One prominent separatist tried to ask it during the election, reproaching Mr. Duceppe for having made the BQ just another social democratic party. The Bloc leader brushed him off. But social democrats should raise the same question from the other side, demanding to know what policies the Bloc, and their supporters, want implemented in a separate Quebec that could not be implemented across Canada by a social democratic government.

Of course neither the party of Laurier and Trudeau nor that of Tommy Douglas would form a coalition with separatists. But why does sovereignty matter when the position of the Bloc on questions from abortion to Kyoto to Afghanistan is substantially identical with that of Liberals and the NDP? Why not form a Social Democratic Party of Canada and implement them, in Quebec and elsewhere?


Wilf Day

[url=http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/in... Times: Duceppe's Bloc Quйbйcois has an opportunity to make this Parliament the starting point of a new era of Canadian federalism:[/url]

quote:

The only party that can really make a big change is the Bloc Quйbйcois.

Up until now, and also during the last election, Bloc Quйbйcois Leader Gilles Duceppe's electoral support came mainly from disgruntled Liberal voters desperately looking for an alternative. The Oct. 14 vote was not a vote of confidence for Duceppe but a rebuttal of the Liberals and the Conservatives. Duceppe can, of course, wait for the next election hoping that, again, the Liberals and Conservatives will not be a charm for Quebec voters or do something different.

The first option is dangerous because, sooner or later, the Conservatives and Liberals will be able to come back in Quebec and the electorate is not prepared to be on the sidelines forever and the Bloc Quйbйcois will be erased. Or the Bloc can become a real Canadian party whose base is still in Quebec but ready to work with other political organizations.

Just to be clear, if the Bloc realizes that the idea of separating Quebec from this country is on fewer and fewer people's minds and the bulk of their support comes from voters that only want a better representation in the Canadian Parliament, the role of the Bloc will increase greatly. Duceppe is an intelligent person and he knows that the time of "Vive le Quйbec libre" of Charles De Gaulle is long gone; and, if anybody had any doubts, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reminded it to everybody last week right in the Quebec National Assembly.


[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

janfromthebruce

Now here's a fantasy, the NDP and bloc become the social democratic party of Canada (merge). Now we become the official opposition.

Unionist

The article isn't very well written; it's tendentious and somewhat exaggerated; but it does contain several grains of truth.

One chief flaw, IMHO, at least from the portion that Wilf has cited, is its failure to entertain the prospect of a strategic alliance/accord between the Bloc and the NDP. Some give and take would be required on both sides. Duceppe might need to be even wilier in his balancing act as a separatist in a federal institution. Layton might have to dust off the Sherbrooke Declaration and re-read the September 2006 convention resolution. Duceppe (and Layton, who is sometimes there, sometimes not) would have to give up his bizarre "End the War in Iraq but I don't know about Afghanistan!" nonsense and decide, once and for all, that Canadian troops do need to come home now. And both of them would have to carve out a somewhat more left-wing stand on the social and economic issues of the day.

I'd love to see it happen. It would drive the Liberals insane. And it would show the Conservatives that a Quйbec - Rest of Canada alliance can be built on a progressive basis, not just а la Mulroney.

ETA: [b]Omigod[/b]! Janfromthebruce and I crossposted, and we drank the same koolaid!!!

This could be bigger than the Orange Shift™. Let's do it!!!

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Jacob Richter

I don't think a Bloc-NDP merger is realistic, for the simple reason that, in spite of the Bloc's overtly "social-democratic" platform, its voter support is across the mainstream, reaching out even to rural conservatives.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
[b]I don't think a Bloc-NDP merger is realistic, for the simple reason that, in spite of the Bloc's overtly "social-democratic" platform, its voter support is across the mainstream, reaching out even to rural conservatives.[/b]

How about "rural populist conservatives." Out west the 2nd choice of Reform voters was the NDP so this is not an impossibility.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Jacob Richter:
[b]I don't think a Bloc-NDP merger is realistic, for the simple reason that, in spite of the Bloc's overtly "social-democratic" platform, its voter support is across the mainstream, reaching out even to rural conservatives.[/b]

1. Not a merger. A strategic alliance.

2. You condemn a party because of who supports it? The Conservatives made a big and too-successful play for that support in 2006 and 2008. That support needs to return to the Bloc.

Jacob Richter

^^^ I was responding to the "fantasy" post above, which clearly indicated a merger.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

How about "rural populist conservatives." Out west the 2nd choice of Reform voters was the NDP so this is not an impossibility.[/b]


Exactly. And that seeming left-right anomaly goes back into the mists of time on the Prairies. My parents always voted CCF/NDP, except during the Diefenbaker sweep, when they marched straight to the Tories. It was about populism, the underdog, resentment of Toronto imperialism, opposition to monopolies, opposition to U.S. domination, all kinds of stuff mixed up together. It transcended accepted political boundaries. Quйbec has many of the same features.

Michelle

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76902]Left coalition badly needed[/url]

quote:

Was the federal election just a bad dream? After five weeks of fear and loathing, disappointment and disbelief, Canadians woke up to election results that were hardly different than when the election started. Most of the commentary since has been about numbers and pro-Harper media spin. The man who is claiming a new "enhanced" mandate actually received 168,737 fewer votes than last time but garnered an additional 19 seats. The turnout, at 59 per cent, was the lowest in our history, which means that the Harper Conservatives will govern the country with the support of fewer than 23 per cent of the eligible voters. Democracy in Canada has seldom seemed so corrupted or so unrepresentative.

For many of the 62 per cent who voted against Harper and his unhidden agenda, there has been an outpouring of demands for a coalition government of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a minority government as soon as they can conceivably bring down the Harper government.

The movement for proportional representation suddenly has thousands of new recruits and supporters as Fair Vote Canada's website is being flooded with visitors and its petition has been sent out through hundreds of individual e-mail lists.

Those of us on the left can be enraged by Harper's win, but we should not be surprised. The political right has been working for this result for some 20 years with a campaign deliberately aimed at lowering Canadians' expectations of what is possible from government, and hence elections.


Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=76902]Left coalition badly needed[/url]

[/b]


Ummm, same article is already debunked linked in the OP.

Michelle

Oh...I'm an idiot. Sorry, I didn't notice. I just read it on rabble and thought I'd link to it. Apologies.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

Exactly. And that seeming left-right anomaly goes back into the mists of time on the Prairies. My parents always voted CCF/NDP, except during the Diefenbaker sweep, when they marched straight to the Tories. It was about populism, the underdog, resentment of Toronto imperialism, opposition to monopolies, opposition to U.S. domination, all kinds of stuff mixed up together. It transcended accepted political boundaries. Quйbec has many of the same features.[/b]


And having lived for a short period of time outside of Quebec City, it had a similar kind of social/cultural feel to it as experienced in Sask.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Those of us on the left can be enraged by Harper's win, but we should not be surprised. The political right has been working for this result for some 20 years with a campaign deliberately aimed at lowering Canadians' expectations of what is possible from government, and hence elections.

Beyond not defining who the political "left" is (are we talking about the libs, NDP, bloc???), Dobbin alludes to a deliberate campaign on the "right" (also not defined) for the last 20 years. And yet, in looking at the last 20 years, and beginning in 1988, this suggests that both conservative and liberal (right wing govts of both) have been responsible for the lowering of expectations.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust

pixie dust[/b]


[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

Adam T

An interesting letter in The Vancouver weekly publication The Georgia Straight suggested that the local riding executives of the Liberals, Greens and NDP get together to see if they can find common ground.

I'm not sure where any of that would go, but it might be worthwhile for a start.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Adam T:
[b]An interesting letter in The Vancouver weekly publication The Georgia Straight suggested that the local riding executives of the Liberals, Greens and NDP get together to see if they can find common ground.

I'm not sure where any of that would go, but it might be worthwhile for a start.[/b]


LOL LOL LOL

I can assure you that no sitting NDP MP's Riding Association will be meeting with the Liberals or the Greens. Mind you we welcome all to join if you share our ideals. The letter was likely from a Green hoping that maybe the NDP and Liberals will bow out next time so that a Green might come in second in a riding.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


I was referring to my previous post at 0009, 28 Oct

quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Why are we still talking about this half-baked stillborn scheme.

It ain't gonna happen.

There ain't no way it could happen.

Even if it did magically happen, it wouldn't bloody work.

The discussion is a waste of bandwidth.

Has Murray Dobbin lost his freakin' mind?

It would be more useful (and more realistic) to discuss the merits of pixie dust and ground unicorn horn as potential means to influence voter choice.[/b]


janfromthebruce

Oh, ok, one unground unicorn horn coming up (but really it's so pretty I don't want you to do it).
[img]http://www.masksandthings.net/ProductImages/big_Masks%20185.jpg[/img]

CanadianAlien

quote:


Tommy_Paine said:The sad reality is that Canadians won't react to the damage a tory government can do, until they have seen a tory government do the damage.

We have to organize against it to best mitigate the damage on the street level, and at the same time present the NDP as the clear alternative to tory social and economic dogma.

Getting in bed with the Liberals will just allow them to present themselves as the clear alternative-- so they can ultimately go and finish whatever Harper leaves undone.


I am surprised the NDP doesn't jump at the chance to form a coalition (or whatever you want to call it).

I'll turn this on its head ... [the NDP] getting in bed with the Liberals will allow the NDP to be seen undertaking actual governance. Then the NDP actually has practical opportunities as part of a government to "mitigate the damage on the street level, and at the same time present the NDP as the clear alternative to tory social and economic dogma."

Listen, if the NDP agrees to be part of a coalition with Liberals, Canadians get to see the NDP in action, actually governing. NDP ideas and policies can actually be put into play.

Also, by joining coalition is a chance to put brakes to the Reform Cons plans. In this way, the NDP gets to say they are putting Canadians first .. or whatever .. holding their noses to do a deal with Libs, BQ, etc ...

Seems like a no-brainer ...

What is the NDP doing otherwise?

George Victor

quote:


Seems like a no-brainer ...


You'd have to go back to a time in Canadian politics, Canadian alien, not too long after you joined the biological scene, to understand hesitancy on this one. Read the history. If only one could count on a perfectly rational electorate, free of the urge to conspicuously consume and free of fear itself (to reach even further back). [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

jrootham

Let's see what happens with the Throne Speech. An accord might well happen by accident.

ETA.

Let me explain that.

The Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc all individually decide to vote against the throne speech. None of them really want the government to fall, more to the point none want an immediate election, but they are all playing chicken with each other to see who doesn't show up for the vote.

Nobody blinks. The government falls.

Now what happens?

The GG gets advice from Harper. Election or Dion?

Dion gets asked if he CAN form a government, note this is an exploratory question at this point.

Major Lib-NDP-Bloc negotiations. The results are going to need to stand up for 4 years because no government is going to want to face the people in the middle of a recession.

If a deal gets cut, Dion gets to form government. If not, another election, almost certainly Con majority. This probable outcome puts a lot of pressure on getting that deal done.

The key to this scenario is nobody blinking.

The odds on that???????

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

Mr.Canada

Hrm, lets see. The LPC and the NDP forming an accord with separtists.

Yeah would be a dream come true our PM RH Stephan Harper and the CPC.

By all means do it. The Conservatives will cruise to an easy majority.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Mr.Canada ]

jrootham

Depends on how the dancing works.

I would expect no action on the part of the Libs on anything that would seriously get up the Bloc's nose.

Given the no blinking scenario the alternative would be another election immediately after an election that was considered useless. You're right, that's a tough place. But being in government for a few years might well make it palatable.

Mr.Canada

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Depends on how the dancing works.

I would expect no action on the part of the Libs on anything that would seriously get up the Bloc's nose.

Given the no blinking scenario the alternative would be another election immediately after an election that was considered useless. You're right, that's a tough place. But being in government for a few years might well make it palatable.[/b]


The Liberals cannot do anything. They will not defeat the gov't and have Dion in another election, there's no way.

The Liberals will have no choice but to support the Tories or be absent from the vote. The latter is more likely.

Until the Liberals have a new leader and get some funds. They don't know how to fundraise as they have always gotten donations from corp but that was cut off. Whereas the Tories get most of their funds from people.

But, yeah who knows what time will do, you never know.

[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Mr.Canada ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Did I mention pixie dust?

Oh, you've all found the pixie dust.

And smoked it.

Pages