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
We can speculate on Iggy's intentions till the cows come home.
Unless he wants to go to an election...which he very well could lose, he's going to have to work with his coalition partners.
One of the things that I think was a bad move during the Liberal/NDP "Accord" days of 1985-87, was that the only demands the NDP made on the Liberals were those that they held in common in their election platforms.
When Peterson "pulled the plug" and called the election, he ended up with a majority government...and progressive initiatives went out the window.
What the NDP should have done was made "additional" demands on the Liberals ...progressive demands that were in the NDP platform but not in the Liberal platform...Peterson may never have gotten that majority in 1987.
Within the "coalition" the NDP/Bloc should be leaning heavily on the Liberals on things like EI reform. It was the Liberals who made the mess in the first place...Harper is simply carrying on with previous Liberal policy.
As part of the "coalition deal" the two week waiting period for EI recipients will be removed. That small change is welcome. It'll help the "newly unemployed".
But daily, I'm seeing folks who have already exhausted their EI benefits...and are heading onto social assistance. By this time next year, we're going to be seeing hundreds of thousands of "EI exhaustees".
So there is a real need to see EI benefits extended in some way, shape or form. Money has to be put into worker's pockets so that they can make it through the tough times ahead.
The labour and social movements should be hammering the government on this issue no matter who's in charge.
Exactly
In the irregular party strategists' column that is back at the Globe, Scott Reid is characteristically pumped about the Liberals shot in the arm.
But he also says this:
The objective for Mr. Layton is not to sell the idea of the coalition. It is to sell the idea of defeating Mr. Harper — that's the more fertile ground.
In addition, pursue two specific tactics. First, begin to define publicly what sort of mea culpa you believe is needed from the Prime Minister. If you can shape that part of the equation, it may box the Liberals into demanding the same, which Mr. Harper is likely incapable of providing.
This is pretty much what I had in mind.
How Ignatieff changes the game
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.WStrategists12/BNStory/politics/home
Will Iggy turn down the chance to be PM without going through the tedious process of an election?
Sorry, dumb question that should have been a statement.
And the NDP will be supporting him.
The key difference between then and now is that (a) the public was excited by the idea of a coalition, and (b) they had a legsilative agenda that meant something.
The only people who care about what Harper wrote 10 years ago are people who would never vote Conservative in the first place. Otherwise the hysterical Liberal fear-based campaigns against Harper were a total failure.
The best way to attack Ignatieff is to focus on his actions as Liberal leader and in parliament. If he caves in and props up Harper as the economy meltsdown - that will give the NDP tions of fodder to use. Let's not waste our time with opinion pieces Iggy wrote in the Guardian on foreign policy issues many years ago. The vast majority of of Canadians simply DO NOT CARE!
So, your theory is that:
a) The only people who cared that Stephen Harper supported the illegal invasion of Iraq are people who weren't going to vote for Harper anyway (ie. Liberals and New Democrats)
b) Therefore, New Democrats shouldn't talk about it, even though the people who care (as you noted) were people who switch between Liberal and New Democrat
c) We should instead focus on Ignatieff's inability to commit to the mind-numbingly unpopular coalition idea.
Good plan.
If Canadians cared that Harper supported the invasion of Iraq - he wouldn't be PM in the first place!!
We are in a totally different place now. This isn't 2003, it is about to be 2009. Obama is about to be President and the Iraq War is about to be wound down. Its a non-issue for the vast majority of Canadians. I think its a waste of time to try to keep touching the "blarney stone" of Bush and Iraq when these are OLD ISSUES now. Only a very tiny minority of Canadians get excited about foreign policy issues - especially issues that are six years out of date.
In Europe, where opposition to the war in Iraq is even more intense than it is here - look at how many parties that actually sent their troops into that war - still got re-elected?? In Italy, 85% of the population was opposed to the war in Iraq - they responded by voting for Berlusconi the war-monger. Pro-war government also won in Denmark and the Netherlands. If the Dutch won't defeat a government that actually put them into war - why would Canadians care about what Ignatieff said about the war many years ago - given that we never fought in the war in the first place?
You should spend less time talking to a few foreign policy wonks who go to protest marches in Montreal and spend more time talking to people in economically depressed one industry towns who are losing their homes.
Yeah, and Barack Obama spoke positively of Ronald Reagan. Didn't stop him.
Straw person. Who said anything about focusing on Iggy spurning the Coalition?
The NDP will spend the run-up to January 27 raising expectations on what is expected of Harper. [Way too early for that now.] While the Liberals are doing what they have set the stage for: soothing everyone that they are back in the saddle, consulting all around to big wigs, and We [Will] Have A Plan. Gestures and posturing.
When [if] Iggy votes with Harper. He gets tagged with what Harper is not doing. In that narrative the Coaltion that wasn't is just a small part of the story- that Iggy had other options. There is more to raising questions about what kind of leader passed on being Prime Minister so he could play a supporting role to Harper, than there is in raising what the Coalition could have been/done.
Please read the thread KenS. Stockholm said it and I was responding to him.
Of the three options (allowing Harper's Budget to pass, forming a coalition government, going to an election) I think the Coalition will be the least appetizing to Ignatieff. It's possible that the coalition could govern well and overcome the huge antipathy currently stacked against it, but I doubt Iggy will take the odds.
If he opts for an election, he will destroy the NDP - given that the NDP will have spent the preceding eight weeks telling Canadians he should be Prime Minister.
If he dodges the vote he might scramble to explain himself but I'm not sure how the NDP will score points arguing that the coalition no one wanted (including the man who was supposed to lead it) would have been better. I don't think Igntaieff will have to struggle hard to explain that he opposes Harper, didn't want an election, and didn't want a coalition with the Bloc.
Looking at these options I'm realizing Iggy may go for an election.
George Ignatieff was Provost (not Chancellor) of Trinity College. He was subsequently Chancellor of the University of Toronto.
In those days, the Chancellor of Trinity College was always a retired Anglican Bishop (the former Robert Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador at that point, IIRC).
If the Liberals bail on the coalition (as I am convinced they will), the course for the NDP is as follows.
- Point to the evidence that the Liberals really do support the Harper agenda.
- Indicate that the NDP would be prepared to support a Conservative initiative to phase out public funding of political parties over a (say) two year period - accompanied by a reduction of the maximum donation provisions. (Besides the Cons, the NDP is the only party with a snowball's chance of surviving that.)
Why not just a Con-NDP coalition, Malcolm? Why pussyfoot around?
========================== Join M. Spector's tagline Satyagraha!
Malcolm:
- Indicate that the NDP would be prepared to support a Conservative initiative to phase out public funding of political parties over a (say) two year period - accompanied by a reduction of the maximum donation provisions. (Besides the Cons, the NDP is the only party with a snowball's chance of surviving that.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then we'll bring all our media friends to spread the word as to the nuances involved while "point(ing) to the evidence" , on some national blackboard, and wait for enlightenment to strike the great unread.
Love your droll sense of humour.
My bad. I think the Chancellor was John Bothwell at that time (1977 - 1980), another retired bishop. I met George Ignatieff many times while I was at Trinity.
Straw person. Who said anything about focusing on Iggy spurning the Coalition?
The NDP will spend the run-up to January 27 raising expectations on what is expected of Harper. [Way too early for that now.] While the Liberals are doing what they have set the stage for: soothing everyone that they are back in the saddle, consulting all around to big wigs, and We [Will] Have A Plan. Gestures and posturing.
When [if] Iggy votes with Harper. He gets tagged with what Harper is not doing.... Etcetera.
To which Sunday Hat replied: "Please read the thread KenS. Stockholm said it and I was responding to him."
I did read the thread, and I know you were responding to Stockholm. Here's what he said rather than your straw person: "The best way to attack Ignatieff is to focus on his actions as Liberal leader and in parliament. If he caves in and props up Harper as the economy meltsdown - that will give the NDP tions of fodder to use."
New straw person [with the old one repeated]. Who said the NDP is going to spend the next 8 weeks telling people Iggy should be Prime Minister? Several people- including a Liberal- said the obvious: given the Iggy game plan the NDP will presumably spend its time raising the bar on what is expected of Harper to make it harder for the Liberals to vote for the Throne Speech and declare victory.
I think the new "straw person" is to call someone's argument a "straw person". Congrats. We've hit a low.
I take it as self-evident that if we follow Stockholm's logic and ignore Ignatieff's positions on everything he's ever taken a position on prior to December 12, 2008 we'll only be talking about "the Coalition". If there's something other than that you have not filled me in on what exactly what that is. Please explain what the NDP message on Ignatieff will be beyond "He'll make a great Prime Minister" and/or "He betrayed the Coalition idea. He's in bed with Harper."
I think there's something about the Coalition idea that's eluded some of the champions. If the NDP is arguing that Harper should be replaced by a coalition government headed by the Liberal leader the NDP is arguing that Michael Ignatieff should be Prime Minister. In today's newspapers the NDP are still insisting the coalition is a go.
So, maybe you can explain this to me: how can the NDP head into this new session, claim that they plan to knock off the government and install a coalition with the Liberal party at it's head, and NOT be telling people Iggy should be PM? Whether you like it or not, that's what the NDP is saying.
Way back in the NDP's post-1993 nadir, didn't Nelson Riis propose a strategic alliance with Reform?
Paul Wells put Harper in a context that leads to why the coalition is the right choice to make ~ Parliament in chaos-just how Harper likes it
And right away, the opposition will face an oddly familiar choice among three options, the third a little fresher than the others:
(a) vote against the government and force an election;
(b) humiliating climbdown, followed (in this instance) by a bad case of Spiky Bed Back;
(c) coalition government.
Sounds familar and more things seem to change, the more they stay the same!
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
There's a problem with what you take as self-evident. There isn't any NDP message that you ascribe here in the first place. And as to what there is- it's been said several times by a few people: the focus should be on raising expectations of what should be in the Throne Speech. Its the right thing to do, its the kind of thing people want to hear, and it strategically sets the stage best for any of the possibilities that follow from the Throne Speech.
One thing no one has raised yet is.... what if Harper comes up with a stimulus package that satisfies two thirds of Canadians?
I don't know if I'd hazard a guess how likely that is. But I wouldn't call it unlikely.
Now there is something that would leave the NDP out on a limb. I think thats in the category of bridge to be crossed when/if you come to it.
But that possibility is one of the reasons for working to articulate and raise public expectations of a stimulus package.
Making a comparison between the US and Canadian systems in this case has very little validity.
____________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html
I think the idea of "leave it to harper" is totally cowardly to start with. It has nothing to do with making comparisons between the 2 systems. Left wing voters voted for left wing candidates to get as much of their policy implimented as possible. Running away from the job is not an option if you expect people to continue voting for you.
The NDP's position is that it doesn't matter what's in the Budget - the "coalition" will defeat the government regardless. So the idea that they are tactically trying to raise expectations of what's in the Throne Speech makes no sense. Ignatieff may be but Layton's made it clear he doesn't care.
But regardless, I'll play along. What exactly should Harper's Throne Speech contain? What would be the "deal-maker" that would make it easy to launch a coalition? What would be the "deal-breaker"?
Can anyone explain how the auto-sector stimulus plan announced today is different from the auto-sector stimulus plan that the "Coalition" would launch? Can anyone explain how the coalition's corporate tax cuts will be different from the ones Harper will announce? What is the Coalition willing to do that Harper won't? Specifically?
The NDP hasn't said anything other than holding pattern statements for days. Which is a long time right now.
Conditions will change and so will what the NDP says. In fact, the little that has been said at least implicitly takes account of the Liberal shift: "we'll see".
And Iggy is not raising expectations. Its back to the same old Liberal line [before Dion]: we'll take care of things, getting a plan, be reasonable. Etc. Plus some tough generic talk.
What should Harper's Throne Speech contain? I don't know. I don't just work that kind of thing off the top of my head. I'd have to be part of some fairly extensive discussion process to have even a good general idea.
It isn't rocket science either. Just not something as self-evident as it seems to some what it 'must be' about.
"Of the three options (allowing Harper's Budget to pass, forming a coalition government, going to an election) I think the Coalition will be the least appetizing to Ignatieff. It's possible that the coalition could govern well and overcome the huge antipathy currently stacked against it, but I doubt Iggy will take the odds."
ummm....NO! By far the worst case scenario for the Liberals would be a snap election in February. The party is totally broke and cannot even afford a plane or to run any ads and their organization is as atrophied as ever. Its also way too soon for Ignatieff to be remotely prepared to campaign. It would just lead to a Conservative majority government and Iggy either being an impotent opposition leader for the next four years OR Iggy being dumped as Liberal leader in May for having lost the election.
I think that a far better scenario for the Liberals would be to form a coalition and for Ignatieff to be sworn in as PM of Canada on Feb. 28th.
You could conceivably argue that the Liberals MIGHT be better off letting the Harper minority survive another six months or a year before forcing an election at the right time - but if Liberals have to choose between certain defeat in a snap February election OR taking power in a coalition - they will opt for the latter hands down.
Yes-yes! The shortest path between the Igg man and reigns of power is by koalition of kommunists and Kuebeckers. In the prairie provinces and Calgary Herald news, that's abbreviated to just KKK. Much easier and faster than rebuilding the party from scratch and waiting for an R.B. Bennett do-over five years later. koup-koup katchoo?
Should the Cons present a budget acceptable to the Liberals, NDP, and most of the Canadian public, it would be politically suicidal to bring the Cons down and attempt to replace it with the coalition.
We are not at the end of a fixed four year term here, there is some fluidity in the possibilities.
____________________________________________________________
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.html
Ugh, talked to my dad on the phone last night and he said Ignatieff seemed like a "good man." He hasn´t had any time for Liberals since the early days of Trudeau. Obviously my father doesn´t have great politics but he is non-partisan and fairly typical in his general apathy for recent Canadian politicians, in the past voted for Clark, Broadbent, and in recent years for the Green party.
I think Iggy is going to benefit a lot from the fact all of the parties are going to give him an extended honeymoon awaiting his final position on the coalition. We´ll see what happens after that, I think if he supports Harper, it will get more difficult for him to look sympathetic but right now the Liberals are sitting pretty for the first time in a while.