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
I can't see the liberals gaining a majority or any other party for that matter for quite some time, possibly forever, especially after destroying harper.
Regardless of how long it lasts, the dynamic of federal politics will have changed and the ndp will have become a viable option. If they succeed in implementing PR then things will most definately change for the better.
Thank you.
You know, I read carefully the points made by those who favour this coalition. And I fully understand, and respect those views. They are not "stupid" ideas, and I wouldn't even characterize them as "wrong", or ill advised.
It's, as the English might say, "a sticky wicket".
But as is my reductionist habit, it all comes down to short term vs. long term. I think those who favour the coalition do so because of shorter term interests. I am not in favour of coalition at this time because it presents little opportunity for reward in our long term interests.
These are the times that try people's souls.
"If they succeed in implementing PR then things will most definately change for the better. "
If the deal cut on this has PR as "Bill 1", then I might do an about face on the subject.
However, I am not holding my breath.
Yes, well, you are a reactionary.
The problem with your conceptualization of revolution is that you seem to think that "revolution" is necessarily some kind of "decision" made by some people, or group of people, to violently overthrow the existing order by force. I doesn't work that way. Revolutions are complex events, with a number of causual factors, not the least of which is collapse of the power of the existing order, which people consent to because the existing order has moral legitimacy in the eyes of the poplulation.
Some revolutionaries like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are "causing" the revolution to happen. This is usually hubris, or propoganda posturing. What is actually happening is that the power of existing order has failed and new political organization are inserting themselves into the political discourse to assert power, where there is a vacuum of legitimate power.
Violence errupts when elements of the existing order try to repress the new order, and vis versa. In reality, being opposed to "revolution" is to say that you will side with the old order, in its efforts to repress the emerging order. There may be very good reason to do so, depending on the shape of the emerging order, but the meta-concept behind this opposition to revolution is a typical right wing image of molotov cocktail lobbing Bolsheviks attacking the state, when just as often, these "revolutionaries" are actually defending legitimate social organizations from the repressive violence of the state.
Revolutions are never a good thing. Sometimes, they are necessary, unfortunately. Nor are they necessarily something that an individual, or a group of individuals choose. In my view, real revolutionaries are not those who are simply lashing out and trying destabalize the existing system, but those who have taken on the job of doing damage control, when the existing order fails to operate effectively.
One can also see "Revolution" - in the field of discourse, not that of history. since discourse is where we are at here and now - as a complacent male fantasy of well-then-we'll (or they'll)-resort-to-Force-by-golly.
Just back from the convenience store and the front page of today's edition of La PRESSE is very telling: Eyebrow: Le gouvernement Harper en péril" and main garish title "La guerre de succession", with this "war" carefully framed as fought between bitter angy Dion and Harper - a desperate attempt - supported by the main editorial - to convince readers (or mere glancers) that the NPD and the Grits cannot find common ground and that it would be choosing instability and war to let them create a coalition government.
Some people seem to be running very scared at Power Corporation...
In subtext, an appeal to federalists : Do you really want Gilles Duceppe to have a hand in running your country?
That was with regards to the defend our democracy site. Not the GP site. Anymember can write a blog on the party webpage.
Or as Douglas Adams might say - this is the long, dark tea time of the soul.
Seemed like you were suggesting that the main page had nothing on the topic to me, but I could have misunderstood.
I fail to see how a spirit of cooperation with the liberals on the ndps part is any different than that of the greens. Canada's flag is red, I don't see how you can associate it with the liberal party automatically. They don't hold copyright on the colour red. The site was not overtly partisan so I don't get your criticism.
double post deleted
The problem is with Harper. That said, Liberal arrogance will rise with the smoke from their ashes. A fire will light up, and yes, business as usual. Their are already signs of LPC arrogance formenting, and all they have managed so far is to get out from the fetal position and barely standing on both knees. Yes, they need the NDP to give them that hand up.
The NDP has lots to risk in doing this. They must be careful, but the coalition is still the most interesting prospect the CCF and NDP have ever encountered.
You only live once.
Is that what happened in the 1974 election?
I agree with the Dump Harper, but don't really beleive that we should hand a coalition governemnt a blank cheque. So many folks who are on the left seem to have lost sight of many things in the discussion about a coalition government.
The crucial thing is that the economic crisis has created a political crisis for the ruling class in Canada. We should have no illusions that a coalition governement won't be at the front of arguing that we are all in this together and everyone has to tighten their belts.
Those calling for a coalition governemnt seem to have some case of amnesia - the liberals are the same as the Tories.
It was the lib erals who slashed EI, tried introducing ICLRPS on students, slashed the health and social transfer, downloaded services to the provinces etc, etc, etc,
To think that they won't try to make the working class pay for the crisis is just silly.
The key is that our eyes have to be on fightbacks from below that put demands on whoever is in power.
Callinig for a coalition governemnt without conditions is to forget history, the NDP in Ontario attacked workers and the union leadership didn't mobilise, the Liberals have savaged social programs and the labour movement did very little.
If we want to take advantage of teh crisis, the real question then is about how can we mobilise against bailouts for the rich and argue for nationalisation and green jobs, pension protection etc...
Without that sort of mobilisation, the I beleive taht any coalition governemnt will find itself instituting cuts, and doling out dollars to businesses.
The NDP should be very clear that a coalition government will leave them in the position of implementing as they have before austerity measures on the working class.
http://progressivecoalition.ca/
Sign the petition
That's nice Martin, but I am sure you would be the last person to suggest that woman would be in the wrong for defending herself from assault. In fact, no one is. If the police start shooting at demonstrators, they have the right to shoot back. End of story.
And I agree with you about discourse. But as the discourse changes, not everyone changes with it.
How has the NDP fared in elections where it teamed up with the Liberals?
1987 Ontario (the alliance collapsed the Tories - guess who disaffected Tories voted for next time)
Vote: +2%
Seats: -6
1974 Federal (again, Tory vote collapsed against a kinder gentler Liberal party, some Tories voted Liberal and the NDP suffered)
Vote: -2%
Seats: -15
1968 federal (NDP vote held against Trudeaumania)
Vote: -1%
Seats: +1
On the other hand, if they back out of the coalition and let the destruction of the Liberals happen, where do you think those left of centre votes are going to go? The NDP is giving life to a dying Liberal party - a move that risks a return of majority governments, and crowding out of the NDP on the left. Moreover, it means the NDP gets tagged with the recession, especially if the recession turns out to be deeper than expected (and in part because in a coalition the NDP will not be able to solve the recession NDP-style).
So in that sense, the Marxists may not be too far off the mark.
Excellent comment, arthur! This unconditional coalition proposal is a trap for the NDP. Far better to sign an accord that would allow them to pull the plug at any time by making their support for the Liberals conditional.
But anything that would make the NDP carry the can for the inevitable failure of capitalism to solve its financial crisis, while imposing austerity on the workers, should be out of the question.
It can do both, with the right measures.
1. The NDP should insist on Dion as Prime Minister, that way Dion gets to contest the next election. With the Tories weakened by this affair and Dion's lack of political skills, it will mean the NDP gains once the coalition falls (and face it, that is going to happen). That is CRITICAL to the NDP's power within the coalition - if the Liberals ever have an incentive to call an election and gain seats (after about a year) they will take it.
2. The NDP must use its power to push the Liberals to the left. There are three reasons for that. First-off, Dippers surely like left wing policies. Secondly, the alliance is rooted in ideology - if the coalition moves to the centre, the Tories can split it by focusing on federal-provincial issues. Thirdly, doing so will hurt the Liberals (but not the NDP) in the next election, possibly aiding them in replacing the Liberals as the government. Whoever has more seats in the coalition gets to govern.
If the NDP does this they can avoid the fate of say, Mario Dumont.
IMO, those who think that the Liberal Party has no program, and that an NDP-Liberal coalition will adopt NDP policies are dreaming in Technicolour.
Better to dream in technicolour, than wallow in the depths of hedonistic pessimism, and negativity.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate what you say is truth, in fact, according to the leaked caucus meeting, there is much evidence to prove you wrong. Moreover, also according to the leaked meeting, it is a 3 way accord, with the Bloc also signing an agreement.
Having said that, I agree the Liberals must be watched closely because they will try to turn it into a them thing.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
M. Spector: Hedonistic pessimist. HP! Is this some kind of B&D, BDSM thing you can do with friends?
As if he has not in the proceeding parliament?
I also doubt he's going to be able to force any constitutional changes. So long as Quebec gets a generous helping of whatever stimulus is coming, he'll go with it.
In some ways, yes. The Liberals generally took credit for nationalist NDP policies. But the whole issue of who had done what in the previous parliament was sidetracked by the debate on stagflation. It was about what to do in the crisis to come, not who had done what. Also, economic conditions were rapidly worsening, so association with previous parliament was not necessarily an asset.
I am adamantly opposed to any coalition between the NDP and the Liberals.
It does not really matter what verbal concessions the NDP is able to get out of the Liberals in a coalition deal. The Liberals will be the senior partner in the coalition, Dion will be Prime Minister, and the Liberals will be able to dictate policy.
The NDP will get a few cabinet posts in a coalition, but the legislation that these cabinet minsters draw up will still have to pass a Canbinet vote where the majority of votes are held by Liberals. The Liberals will be able to pull a "bait and switch" in the cabinet room, decide that policies agreed to in order to form the coalition are being ditched, and vote down bills put forward by NDP cabinet mininsters which contain said policies. And because of cabinet secrecy, the public will never know about any of it.
The Liberals, on the other hand, will be able to use their majority in Cabinet to bring bills before the HOC, that the NDP oppose. And, if the NDP vote against any such bills, in order to maintain some semblence of principles, the media will spin it as the NDP breaking the deal they signed when they formed the coalition.
In short, if the NDP joins in a coalition with the Liberals, they will be on a very short leash, with very few card to play. Not an acceptable situation, IMO.