"The opposition has rediscovered that it has the majority"

How about Mulcair for Prime Minister? Seriously. I'd even give him back to the Liberal Party if that's what it took to get a coalition going. Well, maybe not, but anyway.

Unionist wrote:

This just in:

Layton, Duceppe, and Dion had a vote on a coalition agreement.

 

 

 

Dion abstained.

 

 

 

Just kidding.

 

 

I think.

 

Pulling the fishhook out of my mouth. Thanks, that's how much confidence I have in Dion.. I Believed you.

It appears though that discriminating agaisnt women is still an important Conservative 'value'

Remind (or anyone), can you explain to me what exactly Flaherty proposed on pay equity? I could probably look it up, but babble is as good as resource as any...

The reason I'm asking (besides the fact that I don't know) is that the PSAC tentative agreement includes a one-time payment for everyone of $4000 under the heading of "pay equity", which I don't understand either.

Jim Flaherty's quote on pay equity:

"Another issue we intend to address is the litigious, adversarial, and complaints-based approach to pay equity. Since the mid-1980s, Canadian taxpayers have paid out over $4 billion in pay equity settlements.

"These settlements were the result of pay equity complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. These complaints were filed after agreements on public sector wages had already been reached through collective bargaining.

"New complaints continue to be filed, sometimes for the same groups that have already received past pay equity settlements. These represent large potential future costs to taxpayers.

"This costly and litigious regime of "double pay equity" has been in place for too long. We are introducing legislation to make pay equity an integral part of collective bargaining."

From: http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=1001234

Comments on things that already seem like old news by now:

1) I don't like Scott Reid's article. It shows why he was such a liability. Anyone that writes "kill him dead" about another human being in a political column destined to a wide readership has a screw loose. This is not "Lord of the Flies," this is a democratic society. That being said, what I took from Reid's article is that the Liberals are still cowards and need moronic chanting to convince them to get on side and take the risk of a coalition. As for his general point that Harper is mean and dangerous, well duh! It's about time the Liberals bought their own spin.

2) I disagree with the mostly Liberal pundits that say the NDP has the most to lose from quitting the coalition. The NDP has done most of what I wanted them to do this far. They have: a) tried to stop the fiscal update b) considered even taking extreme measures like forming a coalition to ensure it c) understood what's at stake and pressed hard on the issues. That being said, I nor any of the NDP membership I assume, wants the party to sell out or even sell itself cheap. For me there are no absolutes regarding success. The party needs to try it's hardest to achieve ideal results, and falling short, make sure there is a better-than-the-starting-point alternative.

3) The NDP is behind the ball right now, both in terms of communicating with the public (they better come out with a bang on Monday) and fundraising. The party should not forget that there is still the risk of an election- whether real or not- floating in the air. The party needs to fundraise and step up communications in readiness for that potential threat. This should not just be a moment for mobilizing support for the coalition, but also support for the party. The Conservatives get this, why can't the NDP?

Why do I feel a hockey riot coming on? 

Nothing wrong with the green's support we need it all.

[Edit] maybe I'll add to that, if the Liberals need the NDP, and the Bloc and vice versa.  Well remember that outside battles are being waged for the popular support, enter the green reserves. 

The Layton Bloc thing is indeed "so what". The Conservative member recording a conference call isn't, in my opinion.

The Greens should have 1 strategic objective: keep the public financing. After that, the other issues do not really affect them. In fact, staying quiet on topics other than the environment or democratic reform- as they crop up in this process- is probably a good move, because nobody knows how this process will turn out. The coalition building effort could turn out to be an unmitigated failure or a brilliant success. The Greens would look foolish have opined the wrong way, too early. That being said, some press coverage is better than no press coverage.

As for why Harper did this to himself. I think it's quite simple. I think he thought there were enough thorns in the fiscal update to tangle up the opposition parties. He never thought that they could or would coordinate. The Liberals have no leader, no spine or cares, and don't want an election. The NDP doesn't really mind if the Liberals and BQ get screwed over out of a lack of public financing. The BQ doesn't care if the federal government gets hacked back and there are tax cuts. In short, not enough incentive to stand up and oppose him. In the end, Harper was probably counting on enough Liberals to fold for the Liberal party just to choose to abstain- as they did for exiting Kyoto, giving the CIC minister dictatorial powers, the last budget, etc. etc. etc. No one ever bought the talk about the Liberals planning to "stand up" to Harper this time. Especially after Dion said he would let the Throne Speech pass. In fact, I bet it was after the throne speech collapse of any Liberal "resistance" that Harper decided to throw in the political financing poison pill.

Quote:

I'd like to know more about Conservative members bugging NDP conference calls etc...

now we know where the increase in the CSIS budget went lol. 

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

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

Stockholm wrote:

I mean to me it isn't exactly "news" that the NDP and BQ might be meeting behind the scenes and trying to cooperate etc

It'd be funny if when the media ask Layton what he meant by that on the phone conference he days, "If you really want to know, the first time this came up was in 2005, when the Conservatives were considering replacing the Liberals over the sponsorship scandal."

Stockholm wrote:

I'd like to know more about Conservative members bugging NDP conference calls etc...

Has Gurmant Grewal returned  oh please make it so!

Loretta wrote:

"This costly and litigious regime of "double pay equity" has been in place for too long. We are introducing legislation to make pay equity an integral part of collective bargaining."

 

Thanks, Loretta. Still confusing. Pay equity is definitely negotiable right now, although classification issues are not negotiable in the federal public service. The only thing I can understand is that perhaps he intends to remove pay equity issues from the jurisdiction of the CHRC, and I can't see him doing that without doing major violence to its power to deal with gender-based discrimination in general. That would be a major attack indeed against women's rights.

Anyway, I'd rather not wait to find out the details. Throw the bastards out!

Webgear wrote:

I think the so-what it is important becuase did party members agree to thier leaders forming a three way coalition? I did not recall a vote/motion at the last party convention about forming a coalition?

What is a Conservative member doing in a room full of oposition members during a conference call between the NDP and Bloc? Talk about a lack of security and situational awareness, and we want these any people in charge of the country (I am including all parties).

 

What a disgrace.

 

 

 

I think you are confusing a few things.  This was not a Bloc-NDP meeting, but an NDP caucus call according to CTV.  It also appears that the Conservatives broke in somehow, not that no one noticed a Conservative sitting amongst them.

On the larger issue.  In a minority parliament I expect leaders to work in the best interests of my nation.  Harper has shown that is not his goal, so if others are willing to do so - then go to'er I say.

V. Jara wrote:

The Greens should have 1 strategic objective: keep the public financing. After that, the other issues do not really affect them. In fact, staying quiet on topics other than the environment or democratic reform- as they crop up in this process- is probably a good move, because nobody knows how this process will turn out. The coalition building effort could turn out to be an unmitigated failure or a brilliant success. The Greens would look foolish have opined the wrong way, too early. That being said, some press coverage is better than no press coverage.

Greens want a progressive coalition just as much as the rest of us, if not more so. Strategically this is incredibly important for their continued existance and prosperity, possibly more so than the financing issue, although that is now basically dealt with anyway.

In previous thread, Frustrated Mess wrote: 

*************************************** 

Stockholm wrote:

it must be driving EMay nuts to see the NDP - the party she hates
with all her heart - playing such a major role in dumping the Tories.
She is like a child with her nose pressed against the glass window of a
candy shop watching all the other parties having fun - while all she
can do is watch. In this case "green" means green with ENVY.

You don't read anything you haven't wrote yourself, do you? No
wonder political discourse in this country borders on the infantile.

*****************************************************

(random rumbling....I hate that the thread quoting gets disjointed)

Frustrated Mess, Stockholm actually has lots of interesting good stuff to say, and knows quite a bit of political history, that I, as a youngster appreciate.

Of course, everything he says about the Green Party is hate-erific, but once you get used to it, it can actually become a resource for anybody who is interested in Canada's Greens and social democrats get togther. Just look at how ridiculous the things Stockholm says are...and you'll easily see the opposite pat-way, where hate and vitriol have no place.

For example, in the above quote, Stockholm claims EMAY hates the NDP, which is certianly not the case. The fact is that Elizabeth May got pissed at Jack for not returning calls re: jury-rigging FPTP to give both the NDP and Greens better chances of picking off con seats.

Yeah sure, they have both acted childish about it...but it certainly doesn't mean that EMAY hates the NDP any more than Jack hates the Greens.

In fact,  Stockholm has, as he often does, provided the seed of his own rebuttal, by referencing "the party she hates
with all her heart." Of course, that party is in fact the Cons, not the NDP, and is why I see my progressive friends from both the Greens and the NDP hoping madly for a coalition gov't.

You see...Stockhom is one stop shopping- take what he says about the Greens/NDP, realize how it is ovbiously false, and you start walking down the path of NDP/Green cooperation. :) :) :)

I shouldn't have mentioned the so-called greens at all. This whole story is limited to parties with parliamentary representation - so they are completely irrelavent - unless a PM Dion plans to fill one of the vacant senate seats with Elizabeth May and give her the one and only thing she has always wanted.

If I could put my tin foil hat on for a moment, I find it odd that the government would have included such "hot button" issues-- the right to strike,  attack on pay equity,  and the unabashed attempt to economically ruin the Liberal party ( see, there's always a silver lining)  and not expect a backlash of tremendous proportions. 

Now, I am in the habit of giving opponents too much credit, but is Harper and co setting us up?  Do they want the Liberals and NDP to carry the ball into this economic disaster?

The panic in the Conservative Party at the notion of losing power seems to indicate they aren't that savy, that is is more in fact due to an underestimation of opposition-- read Liberal-- resolve.   Most likely, because of Liberal dissaray, and the Fabian tactics employed by Dion in the last Parliament,  they felt they could govern as if they had a majority, and we saw the true face of the Conservatives revealed.

Further, we know that while Harper has been a master at controlling the party loonies over the years, he himself is prone to errors, as witnessed by the way he lost the chance of a majority in the recent election.

So, I think Harper and Jimmy "I only kick beggars when they're down" Flaherty miscalculated.

But it may turn out to be a fortuitous miscalculation, for them.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Now, I am in the habit of giving opponents too much credit, but is Harper and co setting us up?  Do they want the Liberals and NDP to carry the ball into this economic disaster?

Exactly. Or perhaps, they don't care one way or the other. "We will rule ideologically, as if we have a majority" or you can carry the can, and then we can "rule ideologically, with a majority."

Then the decision for the NDP/Liberal coalition is simple. Unification, or seriously putting PR into place. Would the Bloc go for the latter? If they do not, then unification of the two Anglo-centerist parties is almost a certainty.

Interested Observer wrote:

All the greens that I know have already started facebook groups and such urging people to show support for this potential coalition because they fully understand the importance of this move. This opportunity is absolutely the best thing ever to happen to Canada. I don't know if you've noticed but greens naturally love coalitions.

I second Interested Observer on this one. All my friends who are interested in the NDP doing well, the Green Party doing well, PR reform, and changing our governance system to one of coalitions are estatic- and what is really significant- the above four groups share way more intersecting space than mutually exclusive space.

 As someone pointed out about popular vote and 'green reserves' - EMAY's blog entry makes clear that the Green Party will try and spin the fact that their vote total is a little less than the Bloq's (an accord partner), and about one fifth of the current governing screwups as evidence that Canadians who voted for the Green Party should be considered too (as evidence that Canadians didn't vote for a con government)

From Emay's blog: 

Quote:

Add the Liberal vote (3,629,990) to the NDP vote (2,517,075) and our
Green vote (940,747) you get 7,077,812 votes. That is over 7 million
votes for parties other than Conservatives without even counting the
Bloc Quebecois vote of over one million. So all in all, over 8.4
million Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In percentages
it's 37.6% versus 61.2%. Clearly the democratic choice is for a
coalition government representing the vast majority of Canadians.

 (compared to the 5 million who voted for Harper)

Obviously, the Greens have no role to play in the HoC "who can win a confidence motion" game - but I think they could certainly help win the battle for popular support. 

As others have pointed out, the Greens certainly do have a vested interest in helping show Canadians that coalitions are viable. If the Green party is able to go to potential green supporters  in the next election in a situation where a governing coalition is dissolved and likely to be replaced by another governing coalition- I think voters will be much more likely to vote green. Something along the lines of "Add some real green to a red-orange coalition- because although they've been stealing our platform, they haven't been doing it well enough" goes over a lot better when you don't have progressives running scared of SH forming a minority or majority gov.

I am just wondering about what is going on with after ctv was spoon fed that scoop about a "backroom deal"  I can hear the spin now "socialists are plotting a coup it's a crisis". this parliament is so going to be hating each other.  

Many twists and turns, I'd laugh if Harper pulls out an "enabling act"

I hope the coalition holds, I can see Liberals getting cold feet.  Or more determined after the spy incident. 

a bizarre day. 

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

why is it that polling booths look like cattle chutes?

Kady O'Malley has some of the transcript of the conference call....which was mailed from the PM's office to the press gallery????Am I reading her posting right????

I agree that the opposition parties share a common agenda and clearly have lots to work with policy-wise.

Robert Fife, CTV's ottawa dude, is reporting that a conservative got the call-in number for the caucus conference call, and recorded it.

I never realized that Robert Fife was an unofficial spokesperson for the Tories disguised as a CTV journalist...but then again, I always suspected CTV news was full of his kind. 

Ahh.. yes. Canadians automatically view parties as having mature discussions on the governing of Canada as automatically slimey and nefarious in nature. Isn't that why they sent consecutive minority parliaments so that people would work together?