Chretien, Broadbent brokering possible coalition

Harper is trying to delay the opposition day by a week but I heard Libby Davies say that he can only do it for a day.

Anybody know what's up?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

So you can see this is why I opposed your idea of coalition in September but agree with a coalition in November: that minor detail of an election in between.

Well, Sean in Ottawa, to be clear, it was never my idea. My argument was very simply put. The Left, by definition, is a coalition of interests and the only way the Left gains power is through coalitions. To argue a coalition is acceptable after an election but not during is hair splitting in the interests of reconciling disparate view points.

The party partisans are quick to jump on your bandwagon, of course. But let's be clear, those very same people, on this board, have demonized Liberals -- the very same group of people and politicans they are now prepared to jump blindly into bed with. 

And they are ecstatic about it. So are the Liberals not really as evil and demonic as they have been characterized on this board, or is the NDP, once more, sacrificing principles for the taste of power?

P.S. This web site is slow as hell. 

Y es  Indeed  the  ne w    b abbl e   is  

as              slow                            as                           hell.   

What           is        up                     with              that?

I bet everybody has double posted a few times because of it.  I know i have.       

Frustrated Mess wrote:

 

P.S. This web site is slow as hell. 

Y es  Indeed  the  ne w    b abbl e   is  

as              slow                            as                           hell.   

What           is        up                     with              that?

I bet everybody has double posted a few times because of it.  I know i have.       

Frustrated Mess wrote:

 

P.S. This web site is slow as hell. 

Doug wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

"...but no risk no reward."

 

All risk, no reward.

 The reward is government experience, and with luck and hard work, some evidence of competence. The lack of that is a big strike against the NDP in a lot of people's opinion.

If these were ordinary times, I would, if not outright agree with you, at least see much more reason in that view.

But these are not ordinary times.   Take a look at political parties in Canada and in the U.S. that were in power at the onset of the Great Depression, and note their fortunes afterwards.

I guess it depends on one's view on how bad the economic meltdown is going to get.  

This is an instance where I would really, really, really like to be wrong, and something we could all laugh about in six months.  

And you know, the liberals are on the ropes right now, I don't think in any circumstance letting them off helps the NDP politically, or working people generally.

Nothing good can come of this.

Tommy -that was my first reaction, but I am sort of coming around, although I am not totally there yet.  I see big potential downsides if things go bad, but at the same time I do see some pretty postive outcomes if it goes well.  It might mean the NDP is relegated back to opposition in the following election, but an important milestone of imagining the NDP as goverment will have been reached.  If the Liberals are seen as the 'senior' partner there is also a good chance the NDP would not wear it as much.  But I do share your concern and am a little less whoo-hoo than others here.

Ok, as posted in pevious threads,  I believe that if a majority of MPs vote non-confidence in PM Harper and indicate they want somene else as Prime Minister (something like the Liberal motion)  the Gov-Gen has little chocie but to accept the wishes of the House, particulary given the last few elections and in particular the elecion a few months go  one where Harper broke his fixed electiion date law and dissolved Parlaiment as unworkable in a failed  quest for a mandate.

Add to that the economic crisis going on and getting worse, and the timing of the Harper govenment fialure to bring in a response the majority of the House can support and the situaion calls for a new PM. Harpers move of the non conficence vote to Decmber 8 makes this a true scheduled vote of confidence, no excuse for MPs to miss it or for the Gov Gen and her advisrs to be surprised and lots of time for the pundits and the people to weigh in on the desired outcome. 

We can predict prety well the  exact time the government will fall and book a spot in the Gov-Gens calendar to approve the new PM.  I cannot see the Gov- Gen allowing a new election  ,once again over Xmas,  after the failure of Harper to obtain the confiidence of the House in this economic crisis.. 

I was raised by parents who grew up durring the Great Depression.  My mother, in fact, had rickets as a child.  I know how bad things can get.   And, besides my parental annectdotes, I've read a thing or two about it.

The similarities between then and now are alarming. 

And, the best a government can do is ameliorate or, in the worst case, exacerbate.  We may be beyond the point already where governments can actually effect a solution, left wing, right wing or centerist.

In the short view, maybe the more courageous view, maybe the NDP can sacrifice it's long term objectives to try to ameliorate things for some people in the short term through this coalition.

However, if I am right (and I, believe me, go to bed everynight hoping that I am an alarmist idiot)  the storm is already upon us.   Real economies that truly help people, that allow them to truly pursue life, liberty and happiness are years, if not decades in the making.  

I think the NDP should focus on that.

remind wrote:

Malcolm you sound decidedly disgruntled about the Harper government coming down, in fact there is only 2 of you who have sounded this way about this issue and possible reprieve for Canadians from a evil  Harper government.

I'm not disgruntled about it.  I just don't think it's going to happen.

That said, my certainty on that score is slightly less now.  The chances have moved from two-thirds of four-fifths of fuck all to merely fuck all.

 "...or you can take the place of harper and help them survive."  That's a valid way of looking at things, and it's not like I do not consider that viewpoint.

But, if we oust Harper now before he is firmly branded as the Leader who did nothing while we lost our jobs and our houses, he can come back as the saviour-- or martyr-- later.   Which is not the worst of it.

The worst of it is the economy getting worse -- through no fault of progressive or left wing economic ideology-- and people associating that with progresive or left wing eonomic ideology.   Which is the death of those ideas for fifty years, if the lesson of the 30's is any indication.

 I think it comes down to short term vs. long term.   I believe that working people and the poor would be much better off with the Liberal party removed from the political landscape.   I do not think we should veer from that course under any circumstances.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

I was raised by parents who grew up durring the Great Depression.  My mother, in fact, had rickets as a child.  I know how bad things can get.   And, besides my parental annectdotes, I've read a thing or two about it.

The similarities between then and now are alarming. 

And, the best a government can do is ameliorate or, in the worst case, exacerbate.  We may be beyond the point already where governments can actually effect a solution, left wing, right wing or centerist.

In the short view, maybe the more courageous view, maybe the NDP can sacrifice it's long term objectives to try to ameliorate things for some people in the short term through this coalition.

However, if I am right (and I, believe me, go to bed everynight hoping that I am an alarmist idiot)  the storm is already upon us.   Real economies that truly help people, that allow them to truly pursue life, liberty and happiness are years, if not decades in the making.  

I think the NDP should focus on that.

 

 

While no one in my family had rickets my parents were both children of the Depression.  It is why we never threw anything out that could be used  4 or 5 times.  There is still a quite a bit of that in me yet.  Times were very hard for my father's family in particular.  My father left school in grade 6 to start working full time on a neighbouring farm (why do I hear a Monty Python skit in my head)

Anyway I get how bad things will get, and I expect it is far worse than most people think.  One of the reasons I cling so desperately to our farm, despite the difficulties, is so I know I will always be able to feed my family and friends.  That said I beleive government can do two things, make things a lot worse, or make things a little better.  If people can get through with food and shelter and a little bit of cheer now and again then I think government will have done the right thing.  Harper, to my mind has shown he is not moving to the centre, but is moving economically the absolute wrong direction. 

This would be a gamble for the NDP no doubt about it.  But the alternative of standing by and doing nothing is far worse.  Much, much worse.   That is the alternative facing progressives right now - do nothing and share the guilt of the hardships to come for working people and the vulnerable by sitting on hands, or try to do something and maybe wear the blame.  It is not an easy choice and frankly I am glad no one is asking me what the right thing is.   Because I sure as shit don't know, although my inclination is always to roll up the sleeves and get to work.

All that said,

1. The NDP conditions are apparently 1/3 of all Cabinet seats, including both Finance and Environment.  Finance may be the deal-breaker.

2. I can't see the Liberals letting any declared leadership candidate be PM.

3. I can't see the Liberal caucus letting Dion be PM because it gives him a window to unresign a la Pierre Trudeau in 1979.

4. Since the NDP have called for both immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and cancellation of the corporate tax cuts, I can see one (probably the tax cuts in the present climate) giving way as part of the necessary compromise.  Alternatively, I could see some compromise on both - ie reduce the corporate tax cuts and set out a detailed and concrete calendar for withdrawal.

5. If I'm right on 2 and 3, the most likely Liberal acting leader / PM designate would probably be the stalwart Ralph Goodale.  Apparently McCallum is a possibility despite his rumoured drinking problem.  (This was the guy turfed by airport security after an alcohol fueled rant.)  That would make Goodale the fourth MP elected in a Saskatchewan constituency to serve as PM,  (Laurier, King and Diefenbaker) but the first such not to represent Prince Albert.  He'd be the first Prime Minister born in Saskatchewan. 

6. There is, of course, nothing to say that the PM has to be from the larger coalition partner.  Prime Minister Layton?  He has applied for the job. 

7. There is also nothing to say that the PM has to be one of the party leaders.  we could have our first (openly) LGBTQ Prime Minister, or our first Prime Minister of Colour, or our first non-Christian Prime Minister.

8. I still don't think any of it is going to happen.

So the NDP has resolved to become another party in the process of the Boss's Democracy. The NDP was supposed to be a labour party but apparently we will sell the working class up the river for a bloody cabinet post. we ran against the right wing agenda (both tory and grit) and yet now we will jump into bed with them so long as the job titles and subsidies keep rolling. despicable, the party will lose all credibility when this missadventure in capitalist government falls flat on its face. NDP must no join the bosses parties in coalition or else we should clip our orange cards and subscribe to the TINA mantra. Socialist solutions the way forward.

www.marxist.ca

enemy_of_capital wrote:

So the NDP has resolved to become another party in the process of the Boss's Democracy. The NDP was supposed to be a labour party but apparently we will sell the working class up the river for a bloody cabinet post. we ran against the right wing agenda (both tory and grit) and yet now we will jump into bed with them so long as the job titles and subsidies keep rolling. despicable, the party will lose all credibility when this missadventure in capitalist government falls flat on its face. NDP must no join the bosses parties in coalition or else we should clip our orange cards and subscribe to the TINA mantra. Socialist solutions the way forward.

www.marxist.ca

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the ndp has not been strictly a labour party for some time now. They created a larger coalition some decades ago when they changed their name from ccp, no?

 I also highly doubt you hold an orange card, unless you have two memberships, which would be against official ndp policy!?!

Brian White wrote:

He wants pro rep. Well pro rep is coalitions most of the time.  This can be a dry run for a new Canada.

"a dry run for a new Canada"

Jeez, I really like that!

I hafta say that I've got permagrin today.  I suspect that if it does happen, Dion will be PM until after the Libs leadership convention and then, perhaps Jack will take the reins...

What would be great is a jobshare, but Parliament is so not into progress on that level! 

the regina mom wrote:

I hafta say that I've got permagrin today.

me too!

I was prepared to go into political hibernation until the next election until this happened.

To jump into the convo between SiO and FM

Who says the NDP are sacrificing anything in working with the Liberals for the best interests of Canada, democracy and Canadians?  And as for demonizing, what party is guilt-free on that accord?

From where I sit on the globally-warmed prairies, this has become, for the Liberals and the NDP, a matter that goes beyond party politics, that transcends a partisan response.  Finally, I think, the politicians *get* that it is Canada that is losing because they could not find a way to share power.

Here's hoping they learn.  Really.  Fast.

I assumed this long thread would be closed last night. Moderators?

Interested Observer wrote:

However, like you said, a week is a long time. I just can't see Liberals backing down on this under the circumstances.

I cannot imagine a circumstance where Liberals backing down is even unlikely, let alone impossibe.

Backing down is what Liberals do in the face of the right.  This is because they don't really believe those progressive things they say.

Never underestimate Liberal perfidy.

Liberals are also motivated above all else by self-preservation. They have to know that if they don't take this opportunity to dump Harper and bring in a Liberal/NDP coalition - then Harper will bring in a stand-alone bill in the next couple of weeks eliminating the subsidy for political parties - at which point the Liberals (and perhaps the NDP and BQ) are unable to pay back any of their bank loans from the last election and they all have to file for bankruptcy and ceased to exist as viable political parties.

Don't kid yourself, when Harper does bring in a bill to eliminate subsidies for parties, it will be a confidence vote and surely the Liberal would not want a January election on those terms.

Quote:

 CBC has been swift boated, the number of con recommens is almost as high as other comments, no fucking way are canadians that stupid. I know I managed to vote for the same comment at least 3 times today. So if they set up a bot they can vote away and pretend they are actually voting. My habs have seen some stupid fans do the same thing for the starting lineup at the all star game.

If computer bots are the reason, then I hope media outlets put CAPTCHAS on thier web forms. Mobilization of CONs however cannot be helped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha 

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

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?