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
As our economy is intrinsically linked to the US and the rest of the world it's hard to argue that urgent action is not required. However well or poorly Canada has handled itself has little to do with whether we are facing a problem or not.
As for the bailouts: They were incredibally poorly executed! The Treasury Secretary in the states was recently the head of Goldman Sachs and there were no checks or balances as the legislation was rammed through Congress. They don't deserve help, but considering the situation we are in action was necessary.
Not quite sure where you are coming from with immigration and housing there.
You're right that the subsidies had something to do with this. However, it is not the sole reason but rather the trigger or last straw. It demonstrated to the other parties that Harper was not interested in governing in a minority parliament but scoring a political coup by bankrupting the other parties. I actually agree with this funding as it was part of measure chretien brought in that sought to keep out the influence of trade unions and corporations from the political process.
The conservatives have already cancelled the idea of cutting the subsidies FYI. However, it has yet to have any effect on the resolve of the opposition to present an alternative government that is prepared to start taking action on the economic crisis.
"There is time for partisanship and times to set it aside. This is one of those times."
Yeah, but which one of those times you mentioned is it?
Obviously the latter.
And then, tax dollars for those who don't pay them and program cuts for those who do. Remarkably, an exact mirror policy as the USofA.
I agree. But on the otherhand, Stephen Harper said we are entering an economic period unparalled since the Great Depression. Google those words if they are unknown to you beyond in an abstract historical way. Harper, himself, is warning of a major economic collapse that could last a decade. Think about the gravity of that.
And then, his first economic statement to guide the nation through these troubled waters contains no specific economic polciy but spits on the opposition he needs to convince Canadians to get behind the government in these trying days ahead.
Think about that!
This is petty, petty, partisan politics at their most depraved. He has put scoring cheap points against the opposition before the interests of the nation. Does he even know what his fucking job is and what responsibilty that entails? We've put a schoolboy at the head of our government.
And there are peopke who will defend this? Conservatives who maintain the party line should be ashamed and both their intelligence and their integrity should be openly mocked.
It sure would be nice if this works out. I heard part of Flaherty's speech and found it petty, two faced, certainly not anything to be proud off.
It will all , in my opinion, hinge on what proposals will come on the table with respect to the environment and economy. Building more cars, digging into fossil tarpits and cutting more trees for lumber is not what we need. We need more public transportation infrastructure, a stable and transparent financial system, reduce corporate power and above all deal with environmental problems, plant trees, stop soil erosion, etc.
It is a lot easier to deal with clear objectives. And what is clear about corporate and financial institutions these days?
While I do like the sentiment of refusing to cooperate with the capitalists, I find it an ironic sentiment coming from a capitalist party.
First, I am not sure that this sort of change in the balance of forces will effect positive change or bring about socialism. I live in a province that has undergone this change and I haven't seen any serious socialism in a while. If anything, this change will only force the NDP to the center and make them more like the Liberals, as has happened on the provincial level in a few provinces.
Furthermore, as the NDP is a capitalist party, what is the difference between the NDP and the other parties, apart from the NDP never getting elected federally?
And in the extremely likely scenario that NDP continues to refuse to propose a socialist alternative, what then?
I can understand the sentiments behind not wanting to make coalitions with capitalist parties, but I just don't see how the NDP would have any credibility proclaiming "no coalitions with the bosses parties" when they are a capitalist party themselves. Just get together with the Liberals to get some minor shit done and block the Conservatives, it's not like you haven't done it before ("NDP budget" a few years back) or have any sort of anticapitalist principles which would prevent you from working with a capitalist party. I see a lot of language of socialism and anti-capitalism in this thing, but I don't see the same coming out of any mainstream New Democrats (read: anyone with any actual power)
That's what I see happening, unless PR can be implemented by a coalition.
Could PR be implemented that quickly? How could the BQ be enticed to back PR?
If there is a coalition, it would be nice if the 3 parties needed to keep it in power fixed a "no earlier than" election date and signed in it blood. Then, throughout the coalition term, I think it should be left to the BQ to choose between the Lib or NDP leader as to who will be PM. (reviewable every year, or every time the LPC/NDP changes their leader)
What a dismal yet intriguing mess the federal scene is now!
=========================================
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html
Resisting the move to the right in the vacuum the Liberal party might leave would be a "happy problem" compared to the problems we face today.
And while fundraising is important to polical parties, it is not as important as some make it out to be.
Governments in Canada hardly ever get elected. Governments get unelected. What we have been seeing, forever, is people unelecting Liberals from time to time, and when they get an eyefull of the Conservative clown show, they unelect them, with the Liberals as the default position.
So, the Tories, or for fans of history, The Family Compact is maintained in power.
If we allow the Liberal party of Canada to go the way of the Liberal party of England, then we can, without much effort, expect to be elected a bit more often than previously.
In the mean time, Tory policies have to be fought on the street level-- which would be a good thing. Maybe through that excersize the left might actually understand the nature of political power.
Do you people even know what a coalition is?
What we had in Ontario was an accord, not a coalition. The NDP had no obligation to support the Liberal government on any particular political position, other than what was expressly in the accord. The Liberals were in effect kept on a short leash, and when they failed the NDP was the logical alternative to replace them.
With a coalition, on the other hand, the NDP would share joint responsibility for the government's policies, not just the parts they like. This means they would have to defend and promote the coalition's (i.e. Liberals') policies and they would be politically accountable to the voters for them.
Do you really want Jack Layton to be defending the war in Afghanistan in exchange for a seat at the cabinet table? (Where, BTW, he would be bound by cabinet solidarity to advocate for all the other Liberal policies he didn't agree with.)
Do you really want to see the voice of the social democratic left silenced in Parliament? Do you really want the NDP to have to answer to the voters in the next election for the policies of the coalition government?
Is there no principle you will not sacrifice in order to share power with the capitalists?
Tommy, I am extremely partisan, probably more so than most here. However, it does not blind me to the need at this time for non-partisan endeavors.
For me, there is no way I could support the NDP, not having a concrete seat at the table. And there is no way I could support the continuation of a Harper government, or allowing a majority to happen, if the government was brought down and we were forced into another election. It is too dangerous for my gender, and thus too dangerous for my daughter and granddaughter.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"Exactly.
Pretending that the NDP is something that it is not, and demanding that it stay on the sidelines when people are actually in motion and want to taste a small victory - will guarantee that the NDP never becomes what it might perhaps be.
To those who say, "no cooperation with the bosses' parties" - even leaving aside what the NDP really is or is not - I reply, come spend some time in the workers' movement. By your slogan, we would never sign a collective agreement. We would never call a truce. We would keep fighting till we had nothing left. And that would make the bosses very unhappy, would it?
Why are you operating with pre-fab definitions?
A "coalition" is whatever the contracting parties say it is.
For example, why not advise the NDP that in exchange for joining a coalition, its spokespersons maintain complete freedom of public expression? Not breaching cabinet secrecy, of course, but still complete freedom to say what they think about government policy they don't like?
E.g., if they can't negotiate a decent stand on withdrawal from Afghanistan within the coalition, they continue to publicly agitate for what they believe - and rally support? Should be a lot easier once they are also in government and visibly implementing at least some very pro-people measures.
You can't fight this with definitions IMHO. We're in a completely unprecedented situation right now. Make some proposals as to how to make it work. I'm from the union. Everything is negotiable. And the NDP has some bargaining power right now.
Based on what I said, why would we have to sacrifice one single principle? Not to mention all the principles the NDP has already sacrificed, with nothing in return...
Furthermore, I blew the nonsensical notion/ploy of "sharing power with capitalist" out of the water above, in my first post in this thread. For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Well said remind. I think people are missing that the economic statement was gratuitously hard right, with attacks on pay equity, labour rights and the like. Thomas Walkom’s Tor Star column explored this very well yesterday I think. In this climate to give into the bases of political and ideological instincts does not bode well for the future- time to use the tools of our democracy for the good of Canadians while they can be used.
I am uneasy about a coalition I must say, but better a coalition based on some simple principles than allowing Harper to sink this country deeper into a mean-spirited morass.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/545795
Of course they have a legitimate basis on which to direct policy from. In fact, more of one that they had when they forced the introduction of social safety nets actions and universal health care.
The Liberals got a million more votes than the NDP, or 9.1% more of the popular vote. Nothing in there suggests that the Liberals have anymore right to direct policy than the NDP, or Bloc, do. Moreover, we have no idea how many swing/strategic voters that million entails. The NDP increased its seat totals, while the Liberals lost on every front. More people wanted Layton as PM in several polls, than even Harper. The NDP are not the poor cousins at this table. Nor will they allow themselves to be. The NDP a have legitimate democratic basis to dictate policies and they will.
Moreover, I feel that your comment is one of actual Liberal hubris sentiments, as it indicates a belief that only they have the legitimate wherewithawl to govern, and not in partnership with the NDP. If the Liberals are going to start pulling that type of shit already, with only 9.1% of the popular vote higher, they can go fuck themselves and there will be no coalition, nor p[ropping up. And we will see just where they end up if another election is then called. Because the NDP support is not going anywhere. However the Liberal Party's is, and it is going down, and would go down further, as if Canadians wanted Liberal policies they would have voted LIBERAL.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Ken S asked in another thread, (they are opening and closing fast), what are the Green party doing. They launched the website, to sign a petition to have money flow to them. $1.95. And donate money. The site is in Liberal Red Colours, and you have to look carefully to see it is GPC.
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/
No word about the coalition or bringing down the conservatives.
Yeah, whatever.
Youtube video
I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying a bit. The word "dictate" was very deliberately chosen. The NDP do not have the right to essentially become, on their own, the government of Canada, as it seems some posters believe. I also don't think that the Liberals have any right to dictate policy, but I do think that, based on the results of the election, the Liberals do have the right to be the senior member in the coalition. I don't believe for a second that they have that power on their own, and if they're not willing to give the NDP and the Bloc a significant voice then their power is not legitimate either.
"It is too dangerous for my gender, and thus too dangerous for my daughter and granddaughter."
Indeed, it is dangerous times for many of us. And it is in the deffense of the hopes and security of my daughters, and grandchildren who will no doubt arrive in the not too distant future, that I take the position that I do.
We are likely, as much as I do wish we weren't, at the beginning of an economic crisis that will set the stage for economic planning for generations to come. If we were further down the road in this crisis, where the Conservatives and their policies were firmly embeded in people's minds as the policies of economic failure, I would be taking a different approach to the idea of coalition.
This is a blow struck prematurely.
Coalition, as a solution to, or amelioration of, the short term economic and political devistation, is predicated on the idea that political power rests exclusively in Parliament or our legislatures.
Political power is nothing more than the ability to do things for or too people. I think we on the left have been very good at advocating for the powerless, and being active in, or promoting progressive organizations.
But we are woefully inadept at doing things too people.
In the last month, while bragging about the stable and nicely regulated Canadian banking system, the Conservative government has been shovelling money at the banks like a gang of whipped stokers in the bowels of the Titanic.
The banks have taken the money from your daughters, and your grand daughters.
And, if we do not do our best to sieze this opportunity to relegate the Liberals to obscurity, we will watch the banks take the money from your great grand children.
Jeez Tommy I wish I had less respect for you so I could dismiss what you are saying. However, whenever I start to thinking this is all good in terms of forming a coalition you come along and make me pull back from that thinking and just become confused and ambivelant.
Stop it!
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
So if the liberals cease to exist, there most certainly will be a conservative majority. I fail to understand how this will improve the lives of canadians, or my potential children for that matter. Your logic on this = Fail.
You're right though that this does present an enormous opportunity to redirect financial and economic policy for some time. For the life of me though, I don't understand why the ndp would not want to be a part of this.
"You're right though that this does present an enormous opportunity to redirect financial and economic policy for some time. For the life of me though, I don't understand why the ndp would not want to be a part of this."
You are assuming that a coalition could last years. I think that's unlikely.
What I think is likely is that once the Liberals are in power, and have their hands on the ability to send government contracts this way and that, their fundraising woes will miraculously dissapear. And, with a new leader, the NDP is right back, firmly ensconced once again as the perenial third party with 15% of the popular vote. Or less.
So, at best, if the coalition is seen to govern well, the rejuvinated Liberals garner the laurels.
Then they get elected to a majority, and do the "bait and switch", and we are yet again victims of right wing economic policy.
Even worse is if the coalition is seen to govern badly-- which the NDP will likely get credit for, along with the Liberals. Then the Conservatives return as the economic saviors, and then we're really up the creek without a paddle.
Or, everything could go smashingly well, and the NDP is seen as the orchestrator of the success-- because we all know how much the media loves to spin things our way-- and the NDP gets elected to a majority.
I'd love to see that needle threaded.
remind: "For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution"
Hear hear. It is crucial to take advantage of the pickle that Harper's hubris got him into.
For me the only real risk - and Harper seems to be betting on it - is that the Grits will pull out of - or otherwise scuttle - coalition talks over the next ten days in the hope of taking over government sometime later, when a new leader (Iggy or someone else - is Hervieux-Payette a possibility?) gives them enough pull to dream of winning power without compromising with the NDP and having to face an opposition that claims legitimacy.