We must stay on mesage - It's the economy, Harper

Re: the message on Harper, how about this.

Stephen Harper: Afraid to face Parliament.

Not a Leader.

Wouldn't this be a good subject to debate:  how to fashion an argument for a change of government because it's not just the economy, it's the kids, stupid?

But this isn't according to the latest poll

I think both this, our political crisis, and our electoral system needs some long healthy debates to educate the public. I am sick and tired of our news media having talking heads every day spinning the news their own way. The Conservatives are winning this game. We need debate programs that invite academics on all issues discussing these matters with public participation. These types of programs are common in Europe. It gets the public much more engaged. What we have in our country is spinsters, pundits, and hacks appearing on the news every day. A weekly 2-hour program during prime time with an educated diverse panel and audience participation would be nice. It may not get the best ratings, but during these times I'm sure more people would tune in to such debates.

On the heart of the matter, JKR you're completely right. There are a bunch of distracting issues that King Stephen has been acting out on and they show how terrible he is. But these are not the most important ones. By proroguing parliament now nothing is going to get done on the economy. For instance, let's suppose the automakers do actually getting a bailout (questionable that they will but they might) - what will happen to their Canadian operations? I bet you, despite their efficiency advantage compared to their American counterparts, they will suffer disproportionately - this will be compounded by the fact that we have a "government" that has done sweet fuck all about this issue. We need to link this anti-democratic proroguing business to a lack of action on the economy. Then when anyone even mentions why the proroguing was needed, because the opposition was "trying to steal government" we will point out that the government wasn't doing anything to help the economy and that it had therefore lost the authority to govern.

It's not just the economy, JKR.

You can't form a government around a single issue. The government has to act on a number of fronts and has a very broad agenda. Any coalition that aspires to form a government has to have a clear understanding and agreement on much more than the economy.

There's the environmental crisis, which is even more important than the financial crisis and the economic crisis. There's a food crisis, which is related to all the other crises. There's an energy crisis. There's a war going on; the government has to take responsibility for that. There has been much destruction of the fabric of Canadian society by Harper; that needs to be repaired.

We're not talking about a single-issue united front here. A coalition government is in every sense a government, and must be prepared to deal with everything that a government deals with.

This is why an NDP coalition with the Liberals will effectively liquidate the NDP into the coalition for as long as it lasts. The NDP will be neither a government nor an opposition, but it will bear a share of responsibility for everything that the Dion-Rae-Ignatieff regime does.

What will happen to it after the coalition is hard to predict. 

If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.

So who else is available at this particular juncture?  And what emergencies other than food on the table, pensions, and roofs over their heads could trump Canadians' immediate concerns and anxieties?

Except that the NDP has it in writing as to what and where emergency spending will be allocated.

And if the Liberals, for example, decided to join Brack Obomba with attacking Iran or invading nuclear-armed Pakistan, I, personally, would not point a finger at Jack Layton. Because that agenda is nowhere in the accord. And I'm pretty sure the NDP would condemn any vicious toadying to US empire that we've come to expect of phony majority Whig and Tory regimes and vice versa. 

It's how to find the money to put forward advertising for our side -Obama did it beautifully says Chomsky, who went on to say:

And notice incidentally on the side that the institutions that run the elections, public relations industry, advertisers, they have a role—their major role is commercial advertising. I mean, selling a candidate is kind of a side rule. In commercial advertising as everybody knows, everybody who has ever looked at a television program, the advertising is not intended to provide information about the product, all right? I don’t have to go on about that. It’s obvious. The point of the advertising is to delude people with the imagery and, you know, tales of a football player, sexy actress, who you know, drives to the moon in a car or something like that. But, that’s certainly not to inform people. In fact, it’s to keep people uninformed.



The goal of advertising is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Those of you who suffered through an economics course know that markets are supposed to be based on informed consumers making rational choices. But industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to undermine markets and to ensure, you know, to get uninformed consumers making irrational choices.



And when they turn to selling a candidate they do the same thing. They want uninformed consumers, you know, uninformed voters to make irrational choices based on the success of illusion, slander, and effective body language or whatever else is supposed to be significant. So you undermine democracy pretty much the same way you undermine markets. Well, that’s the nature of an election when it’s run by the business world, and you’d expect it to be like that. There should be no surprise there. And it should also turn out the elected candidate didn’t have any debts. So you can follow Brand Obama can be whatever they decide it to be, not what the population decides that it should be, as in the south, let’s say. I’m going to say on the side, this may be an actual instance of a familiar and unusually vacuous slogan about the clash of civilization. Maybe there really is one, but not the kind that’s usually touted.

-----------------------------------------------------

Yep, this quote's  been used elsewhere, but not with any apparent effect.

This is the nature of the neo-con.

Jack Layton and the NDP are on the hook not just for what is explicitly in the accord, but for everything the coalition government does, because Jack and five other NDPers will be sitting at the Cabinet table for every discussion about every topic about every aspect of government business. They will be bound by Cabinet secrecy and Cabinet solidarity not to disclose the debates in Cabinet and not to criticize the government.

We can't foresee all the issues that will come up during the course of any Koalition government, but the one thing we do know is that the Liberals and the NDP will speak with one voice on all of them. If the government decides to engage in "vicious toadying" to the US empire, to use your phrase, the NDP will not only be unable to condemn it, it will be obliged to defend it.

That's the reality of coalition politics.

If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.

Dion said the coalition will not revisit the issue of war in Afghanistan while the accord is in effect. Phony war in the stan is a deal signed in blood between Whigs, Tories, and Crazy George II's republican-conservative government. Dion said nothing about bypassing parliamentary debate concerning an entirely new war with Warshington leading Whigs and Tories by their nasal hairs as per usual.

Pretty outrageous thing to say, don't you think, considering that the war is, if nothing else, a big drain on the public purse, and the Koalition is supposed to be trying to tackle the financial and economic crisis as Job One? They are taking Afghanistan off the table as a possible way to redirect funds to more worthwhile measures. I wonder what else is considered by the Koalition to be untouchable?

If Dion said that, presumably he was speaking on behalf of the Koalition he leads. That means that Jack Layton has agreed, for the sake of peaceful coexistence with the Liberal Party of Canada, not to rock the boat on Afghanistan for the next 2½ years, by which time it will be too late to bring the troops home before the deadline Harper has already set. So can we now add Jack Layton's signature to that "deal signed in blood" to which you referred? 

This is exactly the kind of political trap that you get into when you get in bed with capitalist neoliberal parties. What other Tory/Liberal monstrosities has the Kanadian Koalition agreed not to "revisit" in the next 2½ years?

If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.

I think it's even more outrageous that Harper plans to spend somewhere close to half a trillion dollars on US style military buildup by something like 2020. I think he needs stopping in his tracks, to be honest.

And the Harpers have no intention of deviating from failed neoliberal ideology. Harper backed Bush's opposition to financial disarmament at a G20 conference recently. Globalization and deregulation are proven to be disasterous policies for every country involved. You point out the speck in this coalition's eye, but I can't identify even one positive aspect of having the Harpers dictate their policies to the 62% majority in Ottawa. Nada one. And by all indications, Harper could well hamstring any future fiscal elbow room for economic repairs by jacking national indebtedness to a private banking cabal through the roof as per Brian Mulroney's phony baloney government did while on the  take for two terms.

Again, it was Canada's Whigs and Tories puckered up to Crazy George on Afghanistan. They outnumbered and outvoted the NDP and Bloc on this issue several times before. And in all likelyhood, Whigs and Tories would combine their less than 40% of eligible voter support to defeat the NDP and Bloc in kowtowing to Uncle Sam to at least 2011. We don't have advanced democracy in Canada, and the NDP is trying to make lemonade from sewer water. They can't work miracles though given the circumstances.  

They werent coming home before 2011 anyway. The NDP understands that reality. Not unless there is a significant change in electoral politics in the Northern Puerto Rico in the mean time.

What will herr Steveler do? His economic plan was stashed under the sweater for all of the election campaign. You seem to be more concerned that the NDP has a crack at six cabinet positions and coalition than you are for the women in Canada who will lose their right to sue for pay equity under a harper regime, or for the tens of thousands of Canadians out of work, or for the environment that is sure to take a beating under this neoliberal rightist regime.

So do I, to be honest. Is the Kanadian Koalition going to do that, or is the half a trillion in military spending one of those issues the Koalition has agreed not to "revisit", like Afghanistan?

Do Dion, Rae, and Ignazieff have any such intention?

Now they will have to make room for Layton. It's getting pretty crowded back there.

The Whigs won't need any help from the Tories to outvote the Bloc and the NDP in the Koalition.

Good metaphor. Why would anybody want to drink it?  

They will bloody well come home the minute the Canadian government tells them to. But it seems that even a government that includes the NDP won't be telling them to come home. The NDP will have to share the guilt for thousands of unnecessary deaths in an imperialist adventure halfway around the world.

If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.

Too true, M.Spector. One may also extrapolate your words to reflect on the connundrum Canada faces in removing itself from the multinational obligations it faces regarding its NATO committments.

If a nation abrogates its committments in one area of multinational endevour, other committments will be suspect and national credibility lost. Canadamust either be partof multinational institutions, living up to its word or give notice of its decision to go its own (neutral?) way.

 The economic situation is the reason for the coalition to be sure and a plan that is clear and consistant and credible is essential.  But the Tories will have a plan too and economists will argue over which is better - maybe we are more successful at convincing Canadians in our plan, maybe not.  The motivation for the coalition is not as important as the one feature that distinguishes the coalition, potentially, from the Tories and that is, I believe, at the root of most Canadians' disgust with politics in general is the issue of style and tone.  The coalition is mocked by the "kumbaya" chorus but, in fact, a demonstration that we can act like grown ups - even though we disagree on issues (even crucially important issues) - that we can actually "agree to disagree" on some things but still work hard to fix those things we do agree on.  That's the Tories' biggest weakness - they are INCAPABLE of compromise, they see it as capitulation.  We say hope wins out over fear - this is our chance to back it up.

Make the "ballot issue" working together to solve some big problems and the coalition takes this thing hands down.  They spent the first week of this fight into negativity (and we helped them).  If we make the next 6 weeks about working together, cooperating even in the face of serious disagreements - we win hands down.  The very fact of the coalition speaks to the willingness to put some fights aside.

Acknowlege that we will disagree of things.  Important things.  But with an agreement that the a coalition government will not play brinksmanship games whenever someone doesn't get their way - we beat Harper at the one thing he can never out manouver us on, statesmanship.

We focus on the economy, yes, but by committing to a government not falling on issues other than the Speech from the Throne, the Budget and express non-confidence measures.  We show that we can act like grown-ups.  That's what the timetable of the agreements are all about.  It's not that the Bloc won't vote to promote its agenda - or that we won't vote againt a bad trade deal.  But we agree that Parliament's right to decide those votes won't result in the government falling.

That's how we beat them.

The polls are not anti-coalition because they distrust us.  Obviously that's not the case because in October we outpolled the Tories almost 2-1.  The anti-coalition polling is a reflection of a disgust of political games.  In a "pox on both your houses" environment people will stick with the devil they know.  Change the dynamic by showing that the coalition is truly different in terms of how things will be done - they will flock to the cause. 

Without pause or penalty? Do you really believe that there are no consequences to hubris?

My 'dictum' applies to all entities included in multinational agreements. The recipients of American 'diplomacy' will remember for generations and the consequences of American hubris will not be avoided.

Canada can extricate itself from multilateral agreements on due notice but since Canada's foreign policy, or lack thereof appears based mainly on plunging its nose into American heiney, one would assume that a policy to run to is prerequisite to a policy to run from.

Steveler is on vacation. And he's coming back in two months with a brand new attitude and budget proposal, thanks to the coalition. You should have read what Harper was proposing. It wasn't very impressive at all.

Rae is not one of those Liberals who supports deregulation and further cuts to social programs. Or at least, that is what he is saying. Liberals as a whole are at least distancing themselves from neoliberal ideology they pursued since signing NAFTA, and-or, refusing to talk about deregulation and banking sector policies. The Harpers are shamelessly pro-Bay Street/Wall Street, pro-Bush, pro USSA all the way 24-7 without a doubt.

As I was saying at least once before, and perhaps you skimmed over it for lack of anything to say about it, the NDP and Bloc combined have zero chance of reversing the decision on Afghanistan any way it's sliced.  

Bloc and NDP combined are 86. Liberals number 76.  Combined they are 162 strong and more than the AWOL Tories. The Liberals need support of the NDP and Bloc, and they must ALL make concessions to honour the accord. That's how coalitions work in general.

This sounds more like a tantrum than demonstrating a basic understanding of how this particular coalition would work. The NDP will receive assurances on the social front and somewhat proportionate to the number of seats they hold in parliament relative to the other two parties. That's about as many revs as the NDP can produce with our rusty 19th century Westminster contraption.

And you still havent produced a single good reason for not toppling these dangerous AWOL idiots from phony minority power.

I agree that if you want to succeed you need to use the economy, and those job numbers can't help Harper, but there are some problems with this.

The supposed official raison d'etre of the coalition was essentially a lie that pretended the fiscal update was a budget and lamented a lack of stimulus. It is pretty obvious that the Conservatives will propose some stimulus, so what the opposition needs is an actual alternative plan, crafted by January at the latest, which they can sell to Canadians. You simply can't have more of John McCallum defending a stimulus that might be 30 billion, might be much less. The coalition assumed the honus would be on Harper to justify that his government should stay in power - instead it looks like the public wants the coalition to justify why it is necessary.

Now, the coalition has a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Conservatives if it wants to do this because any proposals must be acceptable to three parties instead of just one - and one of those parties only cares about three parties. So, what is the plan - what can the coalition offer that Harper won't, which will win over large numbers of Canadians?

1. A much greater willingness to go into deficit for a larger stimulus: I don't think Canadians are very good at differentiating between small deficits and large deficits, so it might be better to go big or go home. Moreover we can argue that a large stimulus will shield the economy better, and actually lead to smaller deficits in the long-run. Of course that means emphasizing one-time payouts.

2. Broad-based relief versus "bailouts": the Conservatives are going to do a mix of things, from infrastructure spending to bailouts to broader measures like tax cuts. This is a political opening. The coalition can propose spending money in a more geographically targeted fashion, so as to win over swing voters. This means emphasizing bailouts in key industries: aerospace (a sop to the bloc), autos and forestry come to mind. Infrastructure spending is also much more targeted. Tax cuts, R&D spending, or national government programs are not. 

3. Energy is the key: the coalition needs a new National Energy Plan by some other name. The Conservatives could never propose such a thing because they have most of their MP's from Alberta and Saskatchewan. Gouging energy producers with taxes will be popular (nobody likes oil companies) and can enable a defensible redistribution of wealth towards less pollution intensive industries. Obviously we can't call it a carbon tax, but there is surely a way to market it. Something like an "excess profits tax"? 

4. Labour peace: we need to get our friends in organized labour to start threatening strikes, and possibly going on them. We can then blame the Tories for bringing this on with their unnecessary austerity, and promise comparative peace.

If you want to win on the economy, you have to play hardball. 

It's the Harpers who will return January 26th with a brand new plan. Their proposed stimulus package was already deemed to be non-stimulus. 

 As you suggest further on, any stimulus package needs to be big or "go home", at least one percent of GDP in order to affect GDP growth according to economists. McCallum is probably going to be weak link in this regard. 

Harper will come back with certain concessions on stimulus. But he's already poisoned the well as far as cooperation is concerned. He's already threatened some fairly undemocratic maneuvering with cancelling public servants' right to strike and womens' ability to sue for pay equity, attacked public funding for those parties not familiar with Bay Street kick-back etc. I think they will work on pulling rightwing Liberals over to their side and undermining the will for coalition in Liberal ranks by Jan 26. Then the fiscal Frankensteins in our two oldest political parties will do their worst. I hope I'm wrong and that Liberals still have spines end of next month. Stranger things have happened

"Harper will come back with certain concessions on stimulus. But he's already poisoned the well as far as cooperation is concerned."

 With prorogation and Harper's promise to reach out the honus is on him to make concessions. If the coalition refuses all concessions, however, Canadians will turn against them. The coalition needs to have a clear demand to Harper. For its own purposes, it should be one Harper is unlikely to meet, but that demand needs to be out there so the optics are "Harper refuses coalition attempt to end crisis" and not "coalition rejects all compromise, prolongs horrible crisis." I think Harper will compromise, at the end of the day. This is the first time since 2005 that he has feared for his job both as PM and Tory leader.

That said, if you have read Manley's attack on Dion, it isn't pretty. John Manley may be about to enter the leadership race, outflanking Ignatieff as an anti-coalition dump Dion Liberal. Manley is ideological identical to Harper on almost every issue. I think he has the connections and organization to ensure the coalition tanks (is it that hard to believe 12 or so MP's would back Manley in a leadership race), even if Iggy stays silent. That is why time is of the essence on a compromise - if everything falls apart the Tories can largely do as they please.

I hope Liberals can put off stabbing one another in the back for a few weeks longer. It's our only hope.

Conservatives wanted to wait to see what President Obama is doing? Well, here it is:

President-elect Barack Obama said on Saturday his plan to create at least 2.5 million new jobs included the largest infrastructure investment since the 1950s and a huge effort to reduce U.S. government energy use.

The United States will also make a big push to expand access to high-speed Internet and modernize school buildings across the country, he said.

Obama promises aggressive growth measures [23]

So, that done - what's their excuse now?

You've come a long way, baby, in just three weeks.

From denouncing the Liberals as no better than the Tories to hoping that they can lead the country to glory once again.

I'm getting whiplash just watching the twists and turns. I can't imagine how tough it must be on your neck to be actually doing them. 

I've got more faith in six NDPers than all the Harpers and Liberals combined.

I didnt know you were a closet Tory, M. tsk tsk

I didn't know you were a closet Liberal, F. tsk tsk

I've got NDP'ers in my coalition. All you have are former Reform Party retreads, a few rightwing Liberals and Mike Harris castoffs.

The Liberals wouldn't have dreamed that this is what would become of Washington consensus neoliberalism. Chretien and Martin did give us the worst aggregate economic performance of 35 or 40 industrialised economies in the decade of the 90's. But then things seemed to pick up. Joe Stiglitz wrote about capitalism's swan song at that time. And for a few years, it really did seem like something good might be happening. The Liberals believed it, too, I'm sure. And we know for certain these Harpers still believe it and that more laissez-faire is the answer. They'll put the country on the bum to serve rich friends of the party's interests first and foremost.

It's obvious to G7 leaders today that what's needed now is Keynes not Friedman All of them except Harper. Harper is the odd man out. In fact, Harper is just plain odd.

I like that, it should be put on billboards and bumper stickers:

"It's the economy, Harper."

___________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...

Governments have never done a thing for the economy except scew it up. We need demand for our products. THeir tinkering will just put us form deflation to inflation. I guess goverment handhouts always gets votes. Thats what the real political fight is about, who controls the cash.

But they've got that big neoliberal sledgehammer, the prime lending rate, to clobber the national economy first sniff of "Weimar-like" inflation on a breeze out of Alberta. They play and Canada pays.

BUMP

Just because of the thread title.

BUMP

Despite the thread title, which has been thoroughly refuted by my posts herein.

Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?

[offtopic] 

So far I haven't had any e-mails yet, M. Spector. :p

(Besides, I probably hate taglines more than you do, so any complaints to me about them would be merely preaching to the choir.)

[/offtopic]

Where are we supposed to complain, then?

I thought you had indicated in another thread that "tech issues" of this nature should go through the moderators, to be discussed at your meetings with the tech guy.

Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?

Bank of Canada cuts key rate to lowest level since  1950's Canada entering recession

Nortel shares plunge on bankruptcy advice report [36]

New Democrats press government to “poverty- proof” communities [37] 

'Corporate welfare bums' cost Canadians $182-billion [38] says right-wing Vancouver make-believe think tank

The average canadian is paying 43% of their income toward taxes to all 3 levels of government. We must get Harper to stop taxing and start ruducing the deficit before we all go broke. We're going to end up like France and other European countries. BROKE!

echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe....

echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe, echoe...

@Mcgregok:

Uh, you know this is a left wing blog right? Sorry, there aren't any supply siders or monterists here.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg