Brian Topp's Coalition Memoirs

That crossed my mind too.

Whether all the way to the front page or not: political junkies have got to be the hardest core of the shrinking audience of newspapers. And this is the kind of thing you are only going to get from the big dalies. Plus they didn't even have to spend money, or have editors sweat over resources, to put the story out there.

You'd think they's be waving big signs "Over Here".

Maybe they are afraid of it being so partisan? If so, they are stupid and seriously lack imagination. This will be just as eagerly read by Conservatives. 

And to think the CBC was co-founded by Graham Spry who was the first secretary of the Ontario CCF. For years the CBC has taken its lead from the commercial media. It should be the other way around.

Fascinating reading.

Among other things, it confirms that the Liberals are the gang who couldn't shoot straight. I think the coalition would have flown if they had only shown some basic political competence (given that ideological consistency is probably too much to hope for).

I too am finding the series thoroughly interesting.

Go easy on Gerry Caplan, though. He has turned out to be a witty and worthwhile replacement for Peter Donolo on the CTV Power Play panel that was formerly composed of 3 shades of Liberals, and I've enjoyed most of what he's written for the Globe lately.

Still, the general point about so few NDP insiders writing for news sources is correct; and notice that almost no-one else in the blogosphere has even responded, except for Aaron Wherry (to promote his own feature on the same period for Macleans).

It was saving the country, as a Harper majority, will destroy it even quicker, than a minority is.....

[url=http://www.dwatch.ca/]D-Watch on our Northern Puerto Rico[/url] "The system is the scandal"

Get the money from supporters not taxpayers,  just like any other organization.  I'm on the Board of a health care charity, we fund raise to do what is needed.  I was also on a large provincial charity that hosts the largest per-capital telethon, we organized, worked our asses off and operated without demanding government funding.  All political parties should get of their asses and do the work and raise the money themselves.  Political parties should not be entitled to their entitlements from the taxpayer.  I would rather see that money go to education, roads etc. than to the Cons, Libs, Dippers or Bloc. 

Chester Drawers wrote:

Get the money from supporters not taxpayers,  just like any other organization. [...]  I would rather see that money go to education, roads etc. than to the Cons, Libs, Dippers or Bloc. 

Whaaat?

Be consistent, man.

Those schools and roads and hospitals should [b]get their money from supporters, not taxpayers[/b].

Just like your health care charity!

Taxes are like forced donations. Baaaaad!

Fund-raising is like voluntary donations. Gooooood!!!

And if you have a nice charity, it'll collect more in donations from rich rich people - niiiiice!!!

Same with schools. Roads. Hydro projects. Hospitals.

And political parties.

Actually, we could have the cops and the [s]robbers[/s] military go door to door selling coooookies to finance themselves!!

And the firefighters!!!

There shall be [b]NO MORE TAXES![/b]

And with the $$$ people save in taxes... they'll be able to donate more to the fire department!!! And they won't even need a tax receipt!!! Because there won't be no taxes!!! So we'll save on paper!!!!!

Ches, you're on to something here.

What what plum appointment Ignatieff is going to get, after everything is said and done, as payment for playing the patsy so well for corporate interests.....

Quote:

most at the very moment that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced his party would support the Conservative government’s HST motion, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a nasty missive to its MPs about Mr. Ignatieff.

 

“Exactly one year ago, on December 1st, 2008, the leaders of the Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and NDP signed their infamous deal to form a coalition government,” the confidential memo says. “And who was one of the signatories to this backroom deal? Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff … A year ago, Michael Ignatieff proved he was out-of-touch with Canadians and only in it for himself by signing up for the coalition deal.”

The talking points are nasty; there is no real narrative or logic to the Tory criticism of Mr. Ignatieff. It’s a rant.

“When it comes down to issues that matter most to Canadians, Michael Ignatieff is only looking out for himself. If another coalition will make him prime minister, he would gladly sign a new deal with the Bloc Quebecois and NDP [Huh? Where did this come from?] That’s because Michael Ignatieff isn’t in it for Canadians. He’s just in it for himself.”

Seconds later, after this landed in Tory email boxes across the country, Mr. Ignatieff announced he was supporting the government and two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, on the issue of a harmonized sales tax.

Never saw implied blame....??????

The more time political parties spend raising money the more corrupt they are likely to be.   See the US system.

First of all, Chester Drawers shows up here periodically with the Conservative talking points-du-jour, to try and derail the conversation when it serves his or her purpose.  So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, because he's trying to provoke people to say things the Conservative war-room can quote later on.

Although, Ches, for the record: I think Brian's recounting of the story makes it clear that it was the funding issue that they viewed as giving them an opening with the other parties: "I believe that the Liberals could be tempted by our earlier proposition, faced with such a catastrophic proposal. Self-preservation could provoke out-of-the-box thinking."  I.e., the Liberals' desire for self-preservation could provoke them into some out-of-the-box thinking about the NDP's earlier proposition.  I didn't see any evidence that the NDP had concerns about their own self-preservation.

And, V. Jara, I find your take very very harsh.  It's oh-so-easy to criticize what others attempt to do, especially when it's unique or never tried before.  I actually find your use of the term "self-serving" very unkind and quite unworthy of you.  And I agree with remind, I didn't hear him laying any blame anywhere, but reporting in retrospect what he thought his own errors were without a lot of drama or spin.

They tried to do something that had never been tried in Canadian politics in our lifetime, and which was really creative.  Do you want to hear the inside story or not?  If so, then of all the ways it could have been written by someone who was actually there, this sounds like about the LEAST self-serving writing of it that I could imagine.

Thanks, Unionist.

jrootham wrote:

The more time political parties spend raising money the more corrupt they are likely to be.   See the US system.

 

By having the donation limits that we currently have, help mitigate the potential for corruption as no one can buy their influence unlike the American system.  Our system before the limits was corrupt, corps. unions and the wealthy did influence the political system in their favor, but those influences have been greatly reduced with donation limits.

Parties that raise their own funds have to work harder to identify their supporters, it also brings the party closer to the grassroots and voters.  If the party ideals match the individual they will most likely support that party with their hard earned money.  It takes effort and in this day of instant gratification the polital machines have become lazy and it is easier if someone else does the work and simply hand over the money.

This is neither a Con or Dipper or Libs issue it is a taxpayer issue.  I know many people who are supporters of other parties who think that the subsidy system is not right.

If we want to save money - i have a better idea. How's about abolishing all self-serving government advertising. The Tories spent more tax dollars on their 100% political propaganda masquerading as ad promoting their action plan - than all money spent on the political subsidy in a year.

On top of that, I think that since the governing party is able to use the entire public service to promote itself for free, we should reform the political subsidy so that if you are in government you get HALF the subsidy that you get in opposition!

Good job, Chester.  You managed to completely draw the focus away from Brian's series.  Mission accomplished.

By your comments Ches, you clearly take as authentic Brian Topp's account.

And by his account, 'the motivating factor' of the coalition was definitely the NDPs desire to have one. In fact, they had already tried to initiate this before Stephen Harpers naerly fatal Grand Overeach.

The subsidy issue was not the motivating factor.  It was the enabling game changer.

It was the match that would get the Liberals to think again. And as is the case with all matches that are the final step in lighting a fire- the story is the fire.

V. Jara wrote:

I find Topp's story self-serving but interesting nonetheless. Maybe he will fess up to more of his mistakes and the NDP's shared naïveté in the last installment.

Re: Brian Topp

Now I understand why ACTRA is so badly run and why contract negotiations always go the way of the Producers...

WELL SAID KEN!!!

KenS wrote:

By your comments Ches, you clearly take as authentic Brian Topp's account.

And by his account, 'the motivating factor' of the coalition was definitely the NDPs desire to have one. In fact, they had already tried to initiate this before Stephen Harpers naerly fatal Grand Overeach.

The subsidy issue was not the motivating factor.  It was the enabling game changer.

It was the match that would get the Liberals to think again. And as is the case with all matches that are the final step in lighting a fire- the story is the fire.

The NDP does not seem to have put proportional representation on the table.

Yet PR would have helped western Liberals, and Quebec Liberals, and Liberals in Ontario outside the GTA.

It would have been hard to implement because the Bloc, although they favour it in principle, would have tried to find a reason not to vote for it since it would have cut their caucus from 49 MPs to about 28. Is that why it was never mentioned?

Or is it because Toronto Liberals, who would have been hurt as much as the Bloc, would have veto'd it?