Why shouldn't the NDP work with Harper?
Fri, 2007-01-26 15:31
#1
Why shouldn't the NDP work with Harper?
Fri, 2007-01-26 15:31
#2
quote:
As Jim Laxer would have it, politics' rules flow from never hurting a Liberal because that would help Tories. And as long as progressives accept that silliness, crises will only become crises when Liberals decide that's okay.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?sh_itm=897ab6521031d... Jamey Heath [/url]
Fri, 2007-01-26 22:34
#3
Malcolm
Good on Jamey Heath.
I'm tired of pretendy progressives attacking the NDP for daring to place real progressive politics ahead of the electoral interests of another party - a party whose record in government is every bit as dismal, and on some issues even more dismal, than the present government.
If I wanted to support the Liberal Party, I'd support the Liberal Party. But despite all sorts of pretty words about progressive ideas, whenever the Liberals have had the opportunity to earn my respect (let alone my support) they have failed to deliver.
There is an old story from Ed Schreyer, when he was campaigning for Parliament in the 1960s.
He met a farmer who said, "I really like you, Mr. Schreyer, and I really like the NDP. But I've always been a Conservative. My father was a Conservative. My grandfather was a Conservative and I'm a Conservative."
"But what if your father and your grandfather had been horsethieves?" asked Ed.
"I guess then I'd'a been a Liberal," the farmer replied.
Sat, 2007-01-27 00:44
#4
why would the NDP support this government???? The conservatives are a stonch capitalist elitist government...
Why would you support that if you are suppose to the exact opposite??
Well maybe the answer lies in asking what kind of party has the NDP turned into????
If the NDP has turned into a party that upholds the deadly deeds of capitalism, then ya they can hold the conservatives up....
IF we look at history for reference the NDP did help the conservatives frame that last election around Liberal corruption... When they should have framed it around the Liberals being the most anti-worker/prolitarian party that Canada has ever seen...
But then that would never have helped maintain the capitlist advantures of the Canadian ruling elite...
Sat, 2007-01-27 00:46
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
[b] - a party whose record in government is every bit as dismal, and on some issues even more dismal, than the present government.[/b]
You [b]cannot[/b] make a valid comparison between the performance of a majority government versus a minority government.
Harper [b]must[/b] govern with the support of the other parties. His government is doing what it does because it has to, not what it wants to.
Harper doesn't have a hidden agenda, it's right out in the open, and that's the agenda you'd get if he had a majority. Including the environment.
IMHO, the NDP ought to get together with the Liberals and the BQ on the environment and tell Harper "our way or the highway".
Sat, 2007-01-27 01:44
#6
remind
Liked the way Heath slammed the Liberals he was dead on, however his commentary suggesting we support the CPC chokes me.
I make no apologies, if the NDP support the CPC, I cannot support the NDP. Just the suggestion that it could happen I am sure has knocked us down in the polls.
Whatever the Liberals are/were they were not trying/wanting to strip me of my Rights if they had half the chance.
Giving Harper support, gives him the means to gain a majority, and that is unacceptable. And it makes me think Jack has not been real with the NDP ever. In fact, the deafening silence from Jack these days makes me even more suspicious of what is going on.
Sat, 2007-01-27 02:19
#7
I think that's ridiculous. What your saying is that politics, in the worst sense of the word, is more important than issues and problems. And I think that's what people hate the most about politicians. We can look at the polls and speculate all day. But A) the NDP really hasn't been in the news that much, B) all the other parties have, C) unlike the last parliament Layton hasn't been able to ring concessions from Harper like he did with Martin. If Harper and Layton came to an agreement on the environment, and Layton got everything he wanted, should the NDP then say "nope, it comes from Harper, and we [i]hate[/i] him!" If they did that then they'd be pretty irresponsible, and not ready to govern a Popsicle stand. I don't like Harper, I don't trust Harper, I don't agree with Harper on much, and I'd prefer Harper not get any political boost from anything, but jeez, he isn't the friggin Devil who likes to eat babies and drink cat's blood.
Sat, 2007-01-27 03:32
#8
quote:
Giving Harper support, gives him the means to gain a majority,
Remind, please explain how this works.
Sat, 2007-01-27 05:58
#9
What Laxner and Hargrove and other strategic voter types are really recomending is a one party state, given the current political structure in Canada.
The CPC represent the NDP's philisophical number one opponent. But the Liberals represent our number one strategic opponent in politics. This is what Laxner and others fail to grasp. And that's looking at it kindly.
Let me say that given how the Liberals have used political patronage in the past, I have concerns that Laxner comes by his views honestly, as I do others of influence on the left who's views, when distilled, amount to keeping the Liberals the natural governing party of Canada.
Like trippie, I find it dissapointing the the NDP has written of the working class, and seem to care little how the Liberals have stolen so much from us. We had to look to Gilles Duceppe for any kind of recognition on that point. And, it was fleeting at that.
However, I think Layton is doing his best to get what he can while he can from either the Martin Liberals or Harper tories.
One doesn't get much more anti worker than Paul Martin. If knickers were to be gotten into a knot over the wrong of supporting non progressive politicians, surely this is where the debate should have started first.
But Laxner didn't seem to mind supporting the Martin Liberals. The Liberals of money stuffed in brown envelopes. The Liberals that handed out ambassadorships and senate appointments, and all manner of government jobs to those it took a shine too.
Certainly no one here would put that past the Liberals. And certainly everyone knows that everyone has his or her price.
Even yours truly.
Even you.
But even the constant debate is victory enough for the Liberals. We on the left should be developing an extra parliamentary strategy for social progress, one that goes a long way to negate the effects of the two sides of the tory face: the CPC and the Liberals.
Sat, 2007-01-27 07:00
#10
One thing we keep forgetting is that the Liberals had their chance to cooperate with the NDP and they refused. In November 2005, the NDP made some perfectly reasonable demands that the Liberal government take some steps to stop the privatization of Medicare. Martin and his fart catchers decided that they wanted an early election because they foolishly thought they could get a majority and so they told the NDP to fuck off.
It takes two to tango and for the NDP to work with the Liberals there has to be some evidence that the Liberals are willinbg partners - so far there is no sign of that.
I think the best and most responsible strategy in ANY minority government is that you vote for legislation that you agree with and against legislation that you disagree with. So far the Liberals have been voting with Harper far more than the NDP has and that is not surprising since there is so little philosophical difference between the Liberals and Conservatives (why else do you think that people like Keith Martin, Belinda Stronach, Wajid Khan and David Emerson find it soooo easy to switch back and forth between the two parties).
If Harper, for example, Harper brought forth a bill to eliminate ATM fees after the NDP made a big deal about that, what do you expect the NDP to do? Vote against it for no other reqason that anytime Harper says "black" we have to say "white"?
BTW: Can anyone give me a concrete example of how their personal life has been affected negatively by having a Conservative minority government instead of a Liberal minority government?
Sat, 2007-01-27 08:05
#11
Stockholm:
quote:
Can anyone give me a concrete example of how their personal life has been affected negatively by having a Conservative minority government instead of a Liberal minority government?
Yes but the rub is, as Remind and many others fear, it's not what the Conservative's do with a minority, it's the not very hidden agenda that will come out when they get the majority... and that we might help them in that process of snaeking in.
As I already asked Remind, or any one else who wants to answer it, how does this actually work?
"Giving Harper support, gives him the means to gain a majority".... IE, what is the chain of events that leads from supporting the government to the real capability to exercise said hidden agenda?
Sat, 2007-01-27 08:52
#12
Boom Boom
Appearances are important. The sight of the NDP working with their polar opposites, the extreme necons, doesn't bode well for any growth for the NDP. And, if the Cons get their majority next time around, and start implementing Harper's [i]real[/i] agenda, the NDP will be blamed for having eased the Con's way into a majority.
Sat, 2007-01-27 09:13
#13
If the Conservatives get a majority government it will be because that is what Canadians will have voted for. But so far there is no sign that they are anywhere near the level of support they need to get there.
Meanwhile, if you really want to look at who to "blame" for having a Conservative government, look no further than the Liberal Party and their extreme theft and corruption that so nauseated Canadians that they were desperate to have a change of government. If all those Liberals had not stolen millions of dollars of taxpayers money - Paul Martin would have a majority government right now (and would probably be busy implementing the neo-con agenda that we all know he actually believes in). We can also blame the Liberals for running a ridiculously bad campaign in 2006.
Right now though I think that most Canadians have exactly the government they wanted: they wanted to boot out the Liberals and they did NOT want a major ideological shift in government. Thanks to the Tories having such a weak minority that is exactly what they have. I think that Canada may be in for a very, very, very long period of minority government -sometimes led by the Conservatives and sometimes by the Liberals. The role people expect of the NDP is to extract as much as it can from whoever is in power and to act as a safety valve against the government doing anything drastic.
Sat, 2007-01-27 09:19
#14
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If the Conservatives get a majority government it will be because that is what Canadians will have voted for.
Yes, after the NDP has made the Cons seem 'not so scary after all'. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-01-27 09:34
#15
That's absurd. So, are you seriously saying that you hope that the Conservatives do NOTHING about the environment, just so that they can NOT look UNscary and that way they MIGHT get less seats in the next election than they otherwise would - notice I capitalize the word MIGHT. In other words we want the Conservatives to be as bad as possible so they can lose the election?
It doesn't always work that way. Look at how genuinely scary Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell were and they both won subsequent minoriuty governments! The Chretien Liberals in the 1993-1997 period brought in the biggest neo-conservative reign of terror Canada has ever seen and they didn't manage to scare anyone enough to prevent themselves from winning two more majority7 governments!
I suppose by the same token you must think its such a shame that the vote to repeal same sex marriage failed since that also made the Conservative seem less scary. It would have been so much better if they could have repealed same sex marriage and looked a teeny bit scarier.
It could be years before we have another election and even if we have one it is not clear that the Conservatives won't still be the biggest party. We need action on climate change NOW. We can just obstruct any action indefinitely just so that it might make the Conservatives look "scarier".
BTW: I;d still like some to explain to me why we think that Rona Ambrose was such a disaster as Environment Minister because she did nothing for 10 months, but no one seems to think Stephane Dion was a disaster as Environment Minister when he had the same job of 17 months and also did NOTHING. By my reckoning Dion was 1.5 times worse than Ambrose since he did nothing during one and a half times as long a period in office!!
Sat, 2007-01-27 09:47
#16
Boom Boom
The Cons have suddenly 'discovered' the environment as an issue - this from the same Harper who said 'global warming is a myth' just four years ago. Do you seriously believe the Cons will push through an [i]effective [/i] Clean Air Act without the Opposition hounding them every inch of the way?
Sat, 2007-01-27 09:55
#17
quote:
Do you seriously believe the Cons will push through an effective Clean Air Act without the Opposition hounding them every inch of the way?
No, but I also don't expect the Liberals do to anything about the environment without being hounded. They had 13 years in power to do something and they twittled their thumbs the whole time and did NOTHING absolutely NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING!!!
The only way that Canada will ever get any action on the environment is if we have a minority government and the NDP and perhaps the BQ are in a position to make demands. We have a minority government now and the NDP is trying to use its influence to get as much action as it can get under the circumstances.
WE go on the campaign trail asking Canadians to elect as many NDP MPs as possible so that we can pressure whoever is in power to give us some progressive legislation.
I (and I suspect about 99.999% of Canadians) don't give a shit about what the Conservatives MOTIVES are or whether or not they really believe in what they are doing. If as a result of the current parliamentary configuration, Canada gets some environmental legislation that we would not have had otherwise - then that is all that matters. I don't care at all about whether Step[hen Harper personally believes in what he is doing as long as the we get the legislation.
Similarly, when the NDP dragged Paul Martin kicking and scratching into making those budget changes - I really didn't care about the fact that Martin was only acting under duresss, all I cared about was that it happened.
You seem to have the absurd idea that the average person actually cares about the MOTIVES of politicians. They don't - they just want to see results.
Sat, 2007-01-27 10:49
#18
Boom Boom
Look at what the Cons did as soon as they moved into office - cut or slashed funding to programs such as EnerGuide, the Kelowna Accord, Status of Women Canada, etc.... and undoubtedly would have us committed in Iraq if they had assumed power earlier.
Back on topic: I stand by my belief that the NDP is doomed if it is [i]perceived[/i] by the electorate at large to be working closely with Harper; and, if by some catastrophe Harper manages to squeeze out a majority govt (I agree it's unlikely at this point).
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 10:50
#19
Boom Boom wrote:
quote:
The Cons have suddenly 'discovered' the environment as an issue - this from the same Harper who said 'global warming is a myth' just four years ago. Do you seriously believe the Cons will push through an effective Clean Air Act without the Opposition hounding them every inch of the way?
No, of course they won't. But I'm concerned about the environment or health care or whatever becoming the number one issue with Canadians.
During several election, [b]health care[/b] was the number one issue for Canadians. You would think the NDP would be rewarded with many votes, since the CCF/NDP pushed for health care until we got it.
But the votes never materialize. If afraid the same thing will happen now that the [b]environment[/b] has become the number one issue. The NDP should get the credit and the votes for its environmental policies but it probably won't happen.
How do we get beyond this?
Sat, 2007-01-27 10:55
#20
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
The NDP should get the credit and the votes for its environmental policies but it probably won't happen.How do we get beyond this?
I think Jack has to stick to his guns and demand a [i]very[/i] radical Clean Air Act that mandates emission controls on the very worse polluters )the oil and gas sector) but not at the cost of passing an extreme neocon budget. Actually, I suspect Flaherty is going to try to flim-flam us by proposing a rather benevolent budget, in the hopes it propels the Cons to a majority, and then the [i]real[/i] neocon agenda will emerge. The Cons are thinking long-term.
Sat, 2007-01-27 11:02
#21
quote:
The Cons are thinking long-term.
Yes, they probably are thinking long-term.
I remember Harper disappearing from public view after his first unsuccessful election. Some pundits thought he was licking his wounds or, perhaps, thinking of quitting.
But he wasn't doing any of that. He was learning how not to commit the same errors as before. He was brushing up on tactics and politics and his image. And he got a minority.
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: ocsi ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 11:06
#22
Yes, the cons are thinking long term, and it's high time we started thinking in the long term also.
By taking an ideological stance against anything the conservatives propose, and doing what we can to ensure a Liberal majority, embodies the short term strategy-- that only serves to benifit the Liberal party.
How do we get beyond this?
A good step is by not giving the Liberals a free pass on their anti environment and anti worker policy cornerstones.
Better yet would be for the left to finally understand the nature of political power. You don't need even one member of parliament to have political power.
Ask the banks. Or the pharmacuetical companies.
It's all about what you can do for, or to, people-- not about how many members of parliament are in your party.
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 11:08
#23
Boom Boom
Progressives need to think long term as to how to keep either the Cons or the Libs from a majority - anyone getting a majority will be detrimental to the good of the country.
Sat, 2007-01-27 11:10
#24
We need to create a movement to which it doesn't matter if the Liberals or Conservatives win a majority.
Sat, 2007-01-27 11:17
#25
Boom Boom
It'd be difficult. There's the problem of educating the electorate at large that a majority govt is a recipe for disaster - you'd get the counter argument that folks are sick of more constant elections caused by minority govt.s falling. There may be still some folks out there who want a strong central government - for instance, the banks, corporations, the oil and gas sector, for example.
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 12:23
#26
The reformers gave up half their principles to merge with the tories and be able to form a government. Nowadays, many of them are bitter about that tradeoff, but overall their philosophy is doing better now than before. Would an NDP merger with the greens be analogous? A Green Democratic Party would start at 25% and ~50 seats, much like the territory the CPC started out with.
And before anyone flames, I'm asking a question.
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 12:36
#27
People talk as if "voting for a minority government" is an option on the ballot.
It isn't.
Similar to Murray Dobbin and others with their "vote NDP to keep the Liberals honest"- as if some combination of them is on the ballot.
It isn't
Now the response to this may be 'that's obvious'. OK, then why do these complex formulations of non-entities keep coming back and back?
Voters chose parties. And as was pointed out, most of them choose on the results they expect. Hoping for a minority government MAY be part of the mix. But the emphasis is on those words 'may', 'mix' and 'some people'.
In other words, massively mediated tentative possibilities.... unlike very basic real voter choices.
Boom Boom:
quote:
Appearances are important. The sight of the NDP working with their polar opposites, the extreme necons, doesn't bode well for any growth for the NDP. And, if the Cons get their majority next time around, and start implementing Harper's real agenda, the NDP will be blamed for having eased the Con's way into a majority.
This cautionary note comes with two edges [at least]. I'm not worried about what ccoperating with Harper to get strong climate change legislation will do to the 'growth of the NDP'. While we know what a knee jerk habit of giving the Liberals even qualified trust has done for the country, the environment, and the fate of the NDP.
Thanks, but I'll take my chances with the opposite of your advice.
Sat, 2007-01-27 12:53
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
[b]Remind, please explain how this works.[/b]
Quite simply it starts with comfort zones and people who are NOT politically aware. They grow used to seeing a government in power, and their MP. The longer the government in power, the more resistent to change the voting public is.
We saw this with the Liberals. NO matter what they did, or DID NOT do, until something was a full blown criminal with a national investigation people did not stop voting liberal. In fact, it still didn't deter that many.
So, you can see as the voting public becomes more and more aware of seeing the Haprer government governing, the longer and more they will vote for him. They see msm optics like; MacKay in Israel and Afghanistan, Stockwell in the USA speaking out for Canadians, Harper giving money for alternative energy, and Baird and Lund running around donating money to the Vancouver Parks Board. They don't see the BS political reasons and optic behind it. And they start to forget who these people are, as they have been normalized.
Ergo, the more the average Canadian voting public see the CPC governing and not doing drastic things the more they will feel comfortable in keeping them in power, perhaps even going to the majority level. The band wagon effect has been labelled as such for a reason, eh.
Comfort Zone voting worked for the Liberals, it will work for the CPC too. In fact it has, they took over the PC's and thus became "Tories", and look where they are! The realities that they are not the Tories do not matter it is comfort zone dwelling. In many Canadian minds, we again have our 2 legitimate comfort zone governing parties back.
I believe that is why people do not vote NDP, they would have to step out side of "normal" comfort zone levels.
The longer Harper is in power the greater the chance of a majority. If the NDP keeps them there and the CPC get their majority because people have grown comfortable with them, then shame on the NDP. Because we all know, just where the CPC are headed the minute they get a majority.
Jack's silence on; MacKay's comments on Israel and Palestine, May's words in the by LNC by election, what is happening in Haiti and Sommalia, Zacardelli/RCMP and offensive operations by our military in Afghanistan, for example are not acceptable to me.
They have already started their foundations by eliminating the court challenges program, closing down Status of Women offices and cutting funds to women's programs, trashing national day care, increased militarization of Canada, and not addressing health care issues. That is just naming a few of their cornerstones for future actions and non-actions.
Sat, 2007-01-27 13:10
#29
Boom Boom
Excellent post, remind. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-01-27 14:19
#30
Meanwhile the NDP has voted against the Conservatives on every single confidence vote and the if you go to the NDP website about 95% of the content consists of attacks on Conservative policies.
The Liberals meanwhile gave the Conservatives a figleaf for their Afghanistan policies by having so many of their members vote in favour of statiung there until 2009 and the it is Dion who has mused openly about voting in favour of the Conservative budget. its not as if the Liberals are in any hurry to have an early election at all.
The fact that the Conservatives closed a few Status of Women canada regional offices was roundly condemned by the NDP even though it should be noted that when paul Martin was financed minister the cuts to Environment Canada and to Status of Women Canada were about a hundred times more draconian than anything that Harper has done.
I tink there is a bit of an "only Nixon can go to China" phenomenon going on. For reasons that defy logic canadians have this crazy idea that the Liberals are not a righgtwing party and therefore when a Liberal government brings in all these very rightwing policies, we all turn a blind eye as we saw in the 90s. But when a Conservative government does stuff that isn't even one tenth as draconian as what the Liberals have done - every screams bloody murder.
What we are now seeing is how a Conservative government is having to bend over backwards not to appear to be too rightwing (ie: recognizing Quebec as a nation, sabotaging any attempt to scrap SSM, apologizing to Arar and now the new "green" stuff"). If Martin were running a majority government, we would be in the midst of an unbridled rightiwng reign of terror and don't kid yourself, if martin had been PM in 2003, Canada would have had troops in Iraq and would have signed on to missile defence too!
Sat, 2007-01-27 14:32
#31
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
If Martin were running a majority government, we would be in the midst of an unbridled rightiwng reign of terror and don't kid yourself, if martin had been PM in 2003, Canada would have had troops in Iraq and would have signed on to missile defence too!
In his 14 months in power Martin increased federal transfers to the provinces and territories for health care, passed federal legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry, gave large personal income tax cuts, achieved agreements with the Atlantic provinces over offshore gas and oil revenues, and kept Canada out of Iraq and ballistic missile defence.
Sat, 2007-01-27 14:34
#32
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Meanwhile the NDP has voted against the Conservatives on every single confidence vote and the if you go to the NDP website about 95% of the content consists of attacks on Conservative policies.[/b]
I know, I have been to the webiste looking, and saw what is there, and NOT there. My point is, I should not have to go to the website to look. The should be public denunciations that all can see, not too many non-political people go to party web sites.
I also know that the NDP has voted against most everything the CPC has done. Except they are not going to, it appears, on what is most important to Canadians. The environment.
IMV, getting a good environmental law through by supporting the CPC and continuing the government to get it, is not a good thing.
There are strong issues happening right now to fight the CPC on in an election setting. They need not to be seen as a governing party for any longer than necessary.
Sat, 2007-01-27 14:55
#33
BB, and others, I need to ask you a question.
Supposing the NDP is able to get a radical clean air act through committee and to a vote. Which is more important: 1) Ending [i]this[/i] Conservative government as soon as possible? 2) Or acting to protect the environment as soon as possible? One or Two?
Sat, 2007-01-27 14:58
#34
As an electorate we have to become a lot more sophisticated in this country - and fast. It's not about liberals or conservatives or progressives, it's about a society which has been practically bred to take rather than to give back. Our ancestors took from the First Peoples and we have never looked back. It's time to right past wrongs and start on a path of reconciliation, change our electoral system so that all votes count, and reorganize this country into a model for the rest of the world to follow. Stewardship of our resources, a basic guaranteed income, public ownership of key industries, collective bargaining as a basic right and accessable education. This all will take concerted political action and someone has to take the lead. I don't think Jacl Layton is able to because he is being pressured to keep the NDP close to the centre and so is missing the chance to truly lead.
Sat, 2007-01-27 15:27
#35
quote:
In his 14 months in power Martin increased federal transfers to the provinces and territories for health care, passed federal legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry, gave large personal income tax cuts, achieved agreements with the Atlantic provinces over offshore gas and oil revenues, and kept Canada out of Iraq and ballistic missile defence.
That is just a list of what Martin was dragged grudgingly into doing because he was in a minority situation and scared to death of the NDP peeling off more Liberal votes. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that any of those things would have materialized if Martin had had a majority government and had felt secure enough to bring in the ultra rightwing pro-business agenda he had been itching to bring all those long years that he was in Chretien's shadow as Finance Minister.
Sat, 2007-01-27 15:31
#36
quote:
I also know that the NDP has voted against most everything the CPC has done. Except they are not going to, it appears, on what is most important to Canadians. The environment.IMV, getting a good environmental law through by supporting the CPC and continuing the government to get it, is not a good thing.
If the CPC caves into to all the NDP's demands on the environment, then No of course the NDP is not going to vote down a bill that it more or less wrote. But, in case you didn't know, Parliament votes on issues one at a time. If the CPC brings in a largely NDP authored bill on the environment, then the NDP can vote in favour of that, but the NDP is still free to vote agaionst any other bill that the CPC proposes including the budget.
But to tell you the truth, I think it is all academic, the BQ will probably vote for the budget in exchange for a some money for Quebec and it won't matter what the Liberals or the NDP do.
Sat, 2007-01-27 16:23
#37
These are the times that try men's souls, as someone once said.
Facing the immediate parliamentary problem of what the NDP should do, one has to consider that there might not be a solution.
The Laxner's and Hargrove's would have us sleep with an anti- worker, anti democratic corupt, and morally bankrupt political party to keep us ideologically pure from the taint of a political party that is visciously anti social, that thinks hypocrisy is a positive character trait, and would be ever bit as morally bankrupt and corupt given the same chance as the Liberals have had.
All you can do is play the cards you are dealt. The key is to survive, to out last, in the parliamentary game.
In the larger picture, we need to think harder.
Big business has negated the threat of democracy with the WTO and NAFTA.
We need to negate the threat of rotten parliaments and self serving, corupt governments by creating a new economy for working people, one that provides without having to go hat in hand to the government.
Sat, 2007-01-27 16:24
#38
I'm with Stockholm and VanKid on this. And I think that minority govs are here for a while, too, partially because we're all paying more attention.
The perception here is important. I think that political eggheads like ourselves over-value our savvy. The voting public gets what it wants, Cons and Libs. Afraid that's the way our current system works. The NDP can work within the system or try to change it from completely outside.
The NDP can't make people vote for it because it's Right on all the issues, alone. To the voting public they have to demonstrate that they are an effective party, that can Do something other than hold the high moral ground. The NDP has to do something constructive with their seats.
Sat, 2007-01-27 16:37
#39
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b] But, in case you didn't know, Parliament votes on issues one at a time. .[/b]
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Nice!
quote:
[b]If the CPC brings in a largely NDP authored bill on the environment, then the NDP can vote in favour of that, but the NDP is still free to vote agaionst any other bill that the CPC proposes including the budget.[/b]
Um, really, that begs the question why bother writing their Green Plan for them to campaign on when it is the NDP's? Because if the NDP make the plan, and then the government comes down, for another reason, the plan won't stand anyway. But hey, the CPC will have a great Green Plan, handcrafted by the NDP to use!!!
Seems to me to be utter stupidity on the part of the NDP to get involved in the CPC's Green Plan in anyway, there is no profit in this for the NDP, only losses.
Either the NDP will have to prop uup the CPC until the next election and see it through, or they will have to accept the fact they have given their Green Plan to the CPC to use in their campaign THEREBY UNDERCUTTING the NDP out of our strongest campaign issue.
So which is it going to be? Or should they just stop the nonsense of writting the CPC green Plan in the first place?
Sat, 2007-01-27 16:41
#40
quote:
But to tell you the truth, I think it is all academic, the BQ will probably vote for the budget in exchange for a some money for Quebec and it won't matter what the Liberals or the NDP do.
Might be the case. But it will take a big pound of flesh to buy off the Bloc- they are probably in better position viz both Liberals and Conservatives now than they will be a year from now.
But if the Bloc sees Harper will otherwise cut a deal with the NDP and there will be no election, they may as well get something.
Harper would no doubt rather buy off the Bloc than sing to Layton's tune on climate change action. But then he'll face the same bill passed by the opposition parties... leaving him with no easy way to work out of the hole that puts him in.
The situation is very fluid. None of the possible end games has greatly stronger odds.
Sat, 2007-01-27 17:22
#41
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
[b]BB, and others, I need to ask you a question.Supposing the NDP is able to get a radical clean air act through committee and to a vote. Which is more important: 1) Ending [i]this[/i] Conservative government as soon as possible? 2) Or acting to protect the environment as soon as possible? One or Two?[/b]
Interesting question. There's a lot of thing to consider - what will the Cons put in the next federal budget, for starters. I'd say push the Cons as far as possible - get a really great Clean Air Act out of them, and then force them to amend their Budget, if necessary.
Somewhere else on this forum I suggested Flaherty's next budget will be somewhat benevolent, just to impress the electorate that the Cons aren't scary at all, then an election will happen, the Cons will get their much desired majority, and then the [i]real[/i] neocon agenda will emerge.
So, I haven't answered your question; instead, just raised some things to think about.
Sat, 2007-01-27 17:28
#42
Bringing in Harper's 'real agenda' by stealth is a mythological creature.
Harris and Thatcher and Reagan all told people what they were going to get before they were elected. That was what was so chilling at the time watching Harris roll to victory.
You don't bring in that kind of radical agenda by stealth; and people's comfort zones do not stretch by little increments that far. [As right wing as the Martin budgets look to us, and to some degree to the current mainstream, at the time they conformed to centrist range of expectations.]
When governments come to power how far they can go is not just limited by whether or not they have a majority. Even with a majority, governments are constrained by the 'mandate' they got based on what they told voters they would do.
This for example is why it is unlikely to see much of substance when / if the Nova Scotia NDP achieves government: the mandate is absolute zero when you came to power by steadily flying under the radar.
The last example in Canada of a government that exceeded it's mandate was the Barret NDP govt in BC elected in 1972.
The Barret government was not trying to sneak anything in, they were just naive about what would be acceptable to the citizens of BC.
And no one has ever accused Stephen Harper of naivete, not at least since he bcame Leader then Prime Minister.
My guess is that Stephen Harper still hopes he can bring about more fundamental change than is in the cards right now.
Which by the way is the approach Tommy Douglas took in Saskatchewan. Universal medical care and other reforms did not come in one government mandate- they were brought in gradually.
Tommy Douglas and the CCF succeeded in gradual bringing citizens around.
I don't think Harper & Company will ever succeed in moving enough Candians substantially from what they are now willing to buy into.
Whether they do succeed or not, the relevant point here is that it isn't going to happen by stealth, and the shifts required are too great to get by just stretching comfort zones.
In the first place, it isn't likely Harper is going to get a majority in the near term. He certainly isn't going to get it by being a little greener and a little nicer, even less by being Jack Layton's chum.
When and if he ever gets a majority [and he won't have more than another kick or two at the can], you won't be seeing the mask rip off and the fangs showing.
Thats a recipe for a one time majority, and no government can bring change in just one term.
Sat, 2007-01-27 17:40
#43
quote:
Seems to me to be utter stupidity on the part of the NDP to get involved in the CPC's Green Plan in anyway, there is no profit in this for the NDP, only losses.
Why not, given that we don't have an NDP government, the next best thing is getting other parties to adopt NDP policies. You make it sound like you think it was a bad thing that the NDP forced the Liberals to bring in Medicare in the 60s since it "undercut" the NDP on the issue of health care. Never mind that we got universal health as a result of the NDP being undercut.
I just want a good Green Plan. Who gets credit for it is of secondary importance.
Sat, 2007-01-27 18:21
#44
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
Bringing in Harper's 'real agenda' by stealth is a mythological creature.- snip -
When and if he ever gets a majority [and he won't have more than another kick or two at the can], you won't be seeing the mask rip off and the fangs showing.
Thats a recipe for a one time majority, and no government can bring change in just one term.
Funny, I don't recall Harper running on a platform that included slashing funding to Status of Women Canada, the Court Challenges Program, assistance to museums, medical marijuana research, the fight against the mountain pine beetle, adult literacy programs, youth employment programs, dumping the Kelowna Accord, etc.....
[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Sat, 2007-01-27 18:36
#45
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Why not, [/b]
Because apparently, you do not feel your rights might be up for grabs should Harper get a majority. I do. He has made NO secret of where he wanted to go and what he plans on doing when he gets a majority.
quote:
[b]given that we don't have an NDP government, the next best thing is getting other parties to adopt NDP policies.[/b]
Oh, yes, I agree, but not by giving the CPC a majority government and/or ownership of NDP green startegies, to campaign on, because it's either one. And neither is acceptable for me.
quote:
[b] You make it sound like you think it was a bad thing that the NDP forced the Liberals to bring in Medicare in the 60s since it "undercut" the NDP on the issue of health care. Never mind that we got universal health as a result of the NDP being undercut.[/b]
Never said such a thing, and your red herring is just that. Different circumstances entirely.
quote:
[b]I just want a good Green Plan. Who gets credit for it is of secondary importance.[/b]
I am speaking of the the CPC losing confidence and us going into an election campaign with the CPC using NDP green plans as their own, I was very clear on that. Because if we want the Green Plan through then the NDP is going to have to prop the CPC all the way to 2008. Then they will have their majority.
No thanks, I just my rights protected actually, green plans come second to me.
Boy, can I see where the NDP appears to be going, and I am NOT comfortable.
Harper is not working by stealth either, he laid what he wanted to do out when he was with Reform and the CA and his activities through the NCC. And he has laid the foundations for a majority government for those plans.
Sat, 2007-01-27 19:55
#46
quote:
Funny, I don't recall Harper running on a platform that included slashing funding to Status of Women Canada, the Court Challenges Program, assistance to museums, medical marijuana research, the fight against the mountain pine beetle, adult literacy programs, youth employment programs, dumping the Kelowna Accord, etc.....
This is the same sort of stuff we got from all those Martin budgets. The same bait and switch, and the same slash and burn. SOME of the programs are different, but after 13 years of the Liberals doing it, you have to reach farther.
This is what we are getting NOW, and is obviously not hidden. And the same as I said about Martin, it's within the bounds of what voters tolerate.
You all are arguing that there is a deeper and meaner neo-con agenda that will stay under wraps until Harper has soothed Canadians enough to get a majority- then he'll spring it on us.
quote:
Harper is not working by stealth either, he laid what he wanted to do out when he was with Reform and the CA and his activities through the NCC. And he has laid the foundations for a majority government for those plans.
Voters judge on the program put in front of them, and on that basis what Harper said when he was not Leader is not relevant.
When a government unequivocally exceeds the mandate he gets from voters when/if he gets a majority, they will not survive their first term.
Show one that has.
And the contained bait and switch done by Martin for 13 years, and by Harper so far is not unequivocally exceeding the mandate.
Partial subject shift.
quote:
I am speaking of the the CPC losing confidence and us going into an election campaign with the CPC using NDP green plans as their own, I was very clear on that. Because if we want the Green Plan through then the NDP is going to have to prop the CPC all the way to 2008. Then they will have their majority.No thanks, I just my rights protected actually, green plans come second to me.
Boy, can I see where the NDP appears to be going, and I am NOT comfortable.
If Harper does agree to Laytons demands on climate change action, no one, Harper included, expects for that to be attributed to a "CPC Green Plan".
They will get credit for agreeing to it, and it will take some of the anti-green tint away from them... but even they do not expect to ever 'own' climate change action even if they sign onto it.
Sat, 2007-01-27 20:08
#47
Malcolm
quote:
Originally posted by trippie:[b]why would the NDP support this government???? The conservatives are a stonch capitalist elitist government...
Why would you support that if you are suppose to the exact opposite??
[/b]
Clearly trippie is tripping, since that's exactly what we did in the last Parliament and all the pretendy progressives thought that was just dandy. The LPC's commitment to capitalism is every bit as staunch as the CPC's.
Sat, 2007-01-27 20:11
#48
Malcolm
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]The Cons have suddenly 'discovered' the environment as an issue - this from the same Harper who said 'global warming is a myth' just four years ago. Do you seriously believe the Cons will push through an [i]effective [/i] Clean Air Act without the Opposition hounding them every inch of the way?[/b]
So, are you telling me that the federal Liberals actually were sincere about universal health care in the 1960s? Given that the Sask Liberals tried to strangle Medicare at birth, I'd suggest that's a trifle delusional.
I could give a rat's backside about how sincere Harper is on the environmental file. He certainly couldn't be any less sincere than Do Nothing Dion.
The issue isn't sincerity, it's getting something done.
Sat, 2007-01-27 20:13
#49
Malcolm
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]In his 14 months in power Martin increased federal transfers to the provinces and territories for health care, passed federal legislation granting same-sex couples the right to marry, gave large personal income tax cuts, achieved agreements with the Atlantic provinces over offshore gas and oil revenues, and kept Canada out of Iraq and ballistic missile defence.[/b]
Because we held an electoral gun to his head. Surely you don;'t believe he was sincere?
And BTW, he chose tell Saskatchewan to go to hell rather than offer the same deal as he did in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Sat, 2007-01-27 20:15
#50
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
[b]You all are arguing that there is a deeper and meaner neo-con agenda that will stay under wraps until Harper has soothed Canadians enough to get a majority- then he'll spring it on us.[/b]
I personally don't see how the current agenda could get worse. Do you?
Sat, 2007-01-27 20:19
#51
Exactly, the Conservatives will have to piss off a lot of their core supporters (esp. in Alberta) if they are going to bring in an NDP inspired GReen Plan. There is no way that the public will ever buy the idea that the CPC is in the vanguard of environmentalism - only that they will do the bare minimum if coerced enough by the NDP.
I can assure you that if the government falls before they get a chance to implement an NDP inspired environmental plan - the following will happen. The CPC will try as hard as they can to bury the environment as an issue and get people to vote instead on their strong suits of crime and taxes. The NDP on the other hand will have a valuable tool in being able to say "look at what we were able to accomplish even with only 29 seats and a minority government" give us even more seats and this is just a taste of what the NDP can extract in the next minority government regardless of whether it is a Harper or a Dion led government.
You see the difference? The NDP just wants strong environmental legislation. The Liberals and their apologists hope to God that there is ZERO action on the environment because they woudl rather see the world go to hell in a handbasket than see anything good happen that the Liberals cannot take any credit for.
Tough.