babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Source
See also: Norway's Dirty Little Secrets
I'm on board with any action that will turf the Reform Party,bring the country back to a sane centre and if the NDP can monopolize with an accord and force some left leaning policies,that would be a HUGE bonus.
Yes we all yearn for the good old "sane" days of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.
I hated both of them...Paul Martin was bad but next to Harper,Chretien was Che Gueverra
A Che Guevara with a mean handshake. What's afta NAFTA?
M. Spector--Perhaps you know of some countries with less economic inequality than Sweden or Norway?
M. Spector's right I was just doing a little reading up on how the Nordic countries are mirror images of the neoliberal setup here in the Puerto Rico del Norte:
Sweden's current account balance: surpluses since 1995 Apparently our corrupt stooges in Ottawa need some help with addition and subtraction
Sweden proves neoliberals wrong about how to slash poverty. But Brown isn't listening Monbiot 2005
Norway's Petroleum/Pension Fund $512B USD socially responsible investing Nordic style. Making Canada look like "a corrupt petro state" by comparison.
Economic, environmental, and social statistics: OECD
Freely accessible PSE for all Swedes, Norwegians, Finlanders and Danes(Google)
High voter turnouts in Denmark Election rigging no doubt
Infant mortality in Sweden? 2.3/1000
Virtually indistinguishable if it wasn't for a few minor diffs with universal daycare, education, and unionized labour rates, and so on. But otherwise, they have pretty much the same weather for a few months a year. And they play winter sports there, too. Our corrupt stoogeaucracy in Ottawa compares fairly well on closer look.
Brian Topp's memoir confirms that the NDP wanted more Cabinet seats and the Liberals wanted them to have fewer.
November 29, 2008: "We wanted seven cabinet seats out of twenty-four. The last Liberal offer was three....In principle, we wanted enough of a team to have at least one minister from every region of the country. One from BC, one from the Prairies, one from Toronto (Layton) [as Deputy PM], one from either Northern or industrial Ontario; one from Quebec; one from the Atlantic."
November 30, 2008: The Liberals offered five seats; Topp countered with six, including Deputy PM. Broadbent met with Chretien and they agreed on six, with no Deputy PM. Their recommendations to their respective parties were accepted.
And that's how the accord ended up with NDP getting 6 out of 24 cabinet seats.
No deals! Screw the Liberals!
I'd rather make a deal with the Liberals than have 4 extra years of Conservative phony FPTP government.
Hopefully the NDP will win a majority in 2015 but if that's not in the cards, the only way the NDP will govern will be with the cooperation of another party or parties that doesn't include the Conservatives.
Chretien and Martin are a dream team next to the garbage we have now.
The NDP will not win a majority...But a coalition CAN.
Well considering that you think the lib team is garbage presently, it makes even more sense that the NDP will majority. I mean who votes or wants garbage? And personally, Martin was a slimy piece of work - corporate steam ship master with his crew flying under a foreign flag so they didn't have to pay benefits and pension plans for their labour - now that's slimy.
I agree with you in regards to Paul Martin...I didn't like Chretien either...And I do not support the Libs because they are ball-less liars.
But I can't recall a more divisive,destructive gang of bastards like the 'Conservatives'
They got to go at any and all costs.
And if that means voting Liberal.Rhino or Doug Hennig's old party then sobeit.
Do you really believe the NDP can win a majority on their own?
I wish but let's be realistic,please.
At this point,a coalition would defeat Harper---effortlessly...And it would be a REAL majority--over 50%!
well Alan I beg to disagree with you. Chretien with Martin as the finance minister brought in more unprogressive economic changes than Mulroney only dreamed of. Not sure what yu mean by coalition but that is decided after an election and not before.
Great points Jan. Chreiten and Martin got away with murder !(can I say that word?)
I agree with you. But what's the point of that comment? That you can only form coalitions with nice people? First of all, replace "Mulroney" by "Harper", and see how your statement reads. Next, replace "Chrétien and Martin" by "Liberal-NDP coalition", and see if it still reads the same.
Notwithstanding all the terrible cuts that Paul Martin had brought about as Finance Minister and Prime Minister, Jack Layton met with him in spring of 2005 and agreed to support the Liberal budget, and in fact prop up the Liberal government, in exchange for concessions. That deal lasted for about six months. Was that wrong? If Paul Martin had agreed to some NDP cabinet seats, would Layton have been forced to say, "No, you're worse than Mulroney"?
Interesting point. Why does that have to be the case?
There's really not much point in discussing this until after the next election. Neither party is in a position yet to think it needs the other.
The Liberals made cuts...They didn't GUT services.
To state that Chretien and Martin were worse than Harper is delusional at best.
The NDP and Liberals must put this country ahead of their parties and MERGE.
Fact is,if they merged a year ago,there'd be no Harper government today....also fact that a merger would guarantee the Cons will be shown the door in 2015.
How can anyone think that past governments were worse than these fascist bastards---including Mulroney.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Well alan, I let facts get in the way of passion. In fact, Chretien and Martin brought in cuts and gutted services in which Mulroney wanted to do but as a "conversative" couldn't get away with without being branded as a hard nosed and uncaring "conservative". Meanwhile the Chretien govt of 1993 got elected on a platform of "jobs jobs jobs", universal childcare, getting rid of the GST, and rejigging NAFTA, and guess what, they did none of those things and restructured social programs, cuts to provincial transfers and so on. Oh, and they took the unemployment money and used it to balance their books - that was workers' $$$.
It wasn't until 2006 and a minority govt, after building a surplus, and giving lots of corporate give aways that they actually had to do anything progressive. I guess you forgot who kept Harper in minority govt up until the 2011 election - eg. it was not the NDP.
Alan I don't want Canada to become what is going on in the states - republican and democratic with just some light really between them.
Unionist, a coalition in my view happens after an election, an accord is an agreement that happens before.
I don't want to be accused of being a Liberal---I'm not...I always vote NDP as I would if there was a provincial NDP party in Quebec which we all know there isn't (I have no idea why since Quebec NEEDS a provincial NDP)
I'm simply stating that Harper has to go and this will never happen with so called 'progressives' choosing not to vote and believing that the NDP can somehow win a majority without merging with the Liberals.
I think we're all on the same team,I just do not buy the notion that this country has ever (atleast in my lifetime) had a more divisive,deceitful,un-Canadian government as the current regime we are stuck with.
Of course PR would probably give the NDP majority numbers,PR is not going to happen any time soon.
I'm with you,I don't want a 2 party system like the Americans but we are dealing with a fascist government right now and we should be working on ridding such a government from ever attaining power again.
I'd rather a merger than a civil war.
Ok. Personally, I'd like to see a strategy to defeat Harper that has some chances of success. Full disclosure: I consider Harper's regime to be many times worse than what we experienced under Chrétien and Martin.
Jack Layton negotiated a deal with Paul Martin in spring of 2005 to support the budget if it contained certain NDP demands. I thought that was a great idea, in principle.
Jack Layton spearheaded an attempted coalition in December 2008 to defeat the Harper regime. I enthusiastically supported that.
Could we try to imagine an accord before the next election, to prevent Harper from winning another majority? Because if we wait till after, and he wins another majority, it will be too late for a coalition - right?
What do you think of Nathan Cullen's cooperation scheme, unionist?
His particular proposal is a non-starter for me primarily because "progressive" isn't good enough to stand for office - you have to swear allegiance to the federation. If I applied that criterion in the union movement, we wouldn't have one. If you want Quebecers to appreciate Canada, let them figure out its worth through experience - not by requiring loyalty oaths as a prerequisite for unity. Cullen's proposal, in that sole respect, would drag the (CCF-)NDP into the deserved wilderness in which it roamed in Québec for 73 years.
Suppose we subtract that criterion. Then we could have an interesting discussion about how to Stop Harper and do something forward-looking, at least in the electoral forum.
The problem with having that discussion here is partisan politics - "partisan" not in the sense of being on the side of workers or women or the poor etc., but in the sense of "[fill in the name of your party] right or wrong!". The discussion degenerates quickly. People remind you of how the Liberals always break promises, as if you were born yesterday and don't know how rotten their governments have been. They don't allow for the fact that there may be individual Liberal/Green/Bloc/other voters who are just as progressive-minded as we think we are in many significant respects - maybe more. Then they tell you how bad the Greens are, as if they're all one colour. Then they tell you the Bloc are traitors to Canada, but even if we're broadminded and ally with them, the stupid Canadian electorate will tar and feather us if we appear in the same photo as one of them. Then when you remind them of the trail of broken promises and neoliberal agendas and betrayals of working people committed by many NDP provincial governments, and say: "... but I'm still prepared to unite with them, so what's your problem with Greens, Liberals, Bloc, etc.?" - the shit hits the fan.
In short, LP, what's the point of having that discussion here? It just leads to fireworks.
Having said that, let's get back to Cullen's proposal for a moment, because I don't really understand it. My bad, I guess. Here's what he says:
What does that mean? Which banner? Who would decide? Would it automatically be the party banner of the individual that happens to be nominated? Would it have to be that? Why not a new banner - one that reflects very specifically the progressive coalition (or whatever you want to call it) aimed at stopping Harper? If the Elections Act can't handle that, maybe they could all run as Independents with that informal banner?
That way, dyed-in-the-wool Liberals/NDPers/Greens/Bloquistes/Cons wouldn't have to go against their religion by casting a ballot for a rival party. A member of the NDP wouldn't actually be violating the NDP constitution, for example, by supporting another party.
Just thinking out loud here.
ETA: In case anyone is actually reading this rambling post, I should of course add the obvious, namely, that after the election, the "Independents" would join with willing partners to form a coalition government if Harper doesn't win a majority. And his chances of a majority would naturally be greatly reduced by such joint nomination contests.
I think it could make sense in the Cullen proposal to designate joint-nominated candidates as distinct - whether the ballot would say "Joint NDP-Liberal Green Nomination", or "Coalition" or whatever.
I think it would also be important to decide - if the joint nominee is going to represent voters who would have voted for any of 3 or more parties, what are their responsibilities post-election? Should a joint nominee agree in advance not to side with the Conservatives on a specific list of policy issues even when Liberals do? Should they be up-front about which issues they *would* side with Conservatives on if the Liberals do? Should a joint nominee promise not to sit with one party's caucus post-election, or should they clearly define which caucus they will sit with?
Would a joint nomination perhaps be best suited for people who are not actually members of any of the federal parties but who share the aim of a progressive coalition? There are a lot of popular local municipal politicians across the country who fit this description and could do well. Perhaps a Vision Vancouver type could be the one to land a solid defeat of Wai Young in whatever the new Vancouver South will look like.
In regards to Quebec - there aren't very many Conservative held ridings there in the first place, so that limits the number of seats it'd apply to in the first place. Even if Cullen hadn't specifically excluded the Bloc, I am doubtful that residents of those ridings would end up opting for the joint nomination.
That's hardly the point. It's Cullen's insistence that joint candidates be "federalist" which is the problem. Why not just omit that and let people choose whom they want, without professions of allegiance to the current federation?
As for the rest of your post, it's all food for an interesting discussion, although I don't think the ballot could indicate anything except either a legally registered party, or "independent". Unfortunately, Cullen's proposal never got off the ground, because of all the reasons we know - so none of these issues have been fleshed out - at least, as far as I know.
Doesn't the NDP already have a policy against floor-crossing? Wouldn't running as an independent and then joining the NDP (or Liberal) caucus violate that policy, unless the member resigns and runs in a byelection for the party he or she wants to sit with?
No one needs to join anyone else's caucus. The whole point is to have a coalition after the election (unless Harper wins a majority). They need to agree to vote together and form a government together. Everyone would be running on that program, so there's no surprise to the electors.
What do you think of my tweak on Cullen's proposal, Spector?
In India they have had to deal with this problem [aka FPTP] too. They've dealt with FPTP by having opposition parties put up common candidates.
India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale
I think Unionist's idea of common anti-Harper candidates running as independents is a very good one. I would suggest a few more refinements.
1. A central plank of the coalition platform should be to bring in P.R. during the first term, so that the common candidate stratagem would only be necessary for one election.
2. The common candidates chosen could be individuals who have not been active members of any political party, but who are well known and respected in their communities. Thus none of the party cadres would have to feel that they were being forced to vote for "the enemy".
3. The common candidates could agree beforehand to only run once. Thus, there would be no fear of long term effects on the balance between the cooperating parties.
I really think something like this could work. Too bad it seems very unlikely to happen.
Last Thursday, we sent a message to the whole Leadnow community. We asked if you would support political cooperation between the NDP, Liberals and Greens to defeat the current government in the next election, and then pass electoral reform. Almost 10,000 responded. 95% said yes, with an astounding 72% “strongly agreeing”.[1]
Now, as the NDP and Liberals choose their new leaders, we urgently need to turn that incredible support into real action.
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation