I need to be convinced about this coalition!!

Interested Observer wrote:

M. Spector:

So other than an NDP majority (which won't happen) is there any other way you could see the NDP joining government?

We've seen NDP governments before, in the provinces. The NDP in power are invariably pro-capitalist and anti-labour, and they pursue a basically neoliberal agenda. Bob Rae's government, for example, might as well have been a Liberal government. So the prospect of the NDP "joining" government doesn't hold much of a thrill for me.

The NDP is of some use as a leftish opposition voice in Parliament, opposing in its own ambiguous way the war in Afghanistan, for example, or speaking up for Omar Khadr (at least until he gets back on Canmadian soil), but once they get into government, even that limited utility disappears.

So I will mourn the loss of a "left" opposition in Parliament, and be dismayed by the prospect of a neoliberal capitalist government in power, with a united, right-wing neoliberal capitalist opposition sitting across from them. Real progressive voices will not be heard much in Parliament, in the interests of keeping the Kanadian Koalition together, and avoiding the triggering of an election, which would result in a Conservative majority government.

Much more than that, however, I will mourn the setback for Canadian labour and progressive organizations, whose so-called leaders have called for their members to embrace capitalist government under the Liberals rather than pursue an independent agenda for real social change. I will mourn the Obamafication of Canadian politics, where "there is no alternative" to the duopoly of Conservative and Liberal rule in the interests of capital, and the definition of "progressive" means supporting one wing of the capitalist class against another.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

If you had bothered to read the poll chart you would find once you take out the partisan voters the clear plurality of voters were hoping for a minority.

Why would I want to take out the "partisan voters"? I was refuting a false statement you made about what "the majority of voters" wanted. You didn't say anything about "non-partisan" voters (whjatever the fuck that means).

The poll question asked was  "Regardless of your personal preference, which one of the following election outcomes would you prefer most?"

What could be a clearer measure of the voters' preferred outcome?

M. Spector wrote:

Um, it was what we like to call around here a "rhetorical question." Believe it or not I actually couldn't care less where you were.

It's just that it would have been fun to watch you getting torn to pieces by the slavering Emerson lynch-mob for suggesting that once MP's are elected they don't have to do what the voters expected them to do; the same mob that is now nodding its collective head sagely at the wisdom of your conception of democracy.

 

And my question, which you still haven't answered, was a real one - why is the proposed coalition not democratic?

It's clear you don't like the path the NDP has chosen and that's your perogative.  That doesn't mean it's not democratic just because you happen to disagree with it.

M. Spector wrote:

I'm just wondering how many NDP supporters will be showing up for anti-war rallies against their "own" government in future, or how many NDP MP's or trade union leaders will be speaking at the rallies.

I think you should slow down a little. Did you detect activists of all kinds in Manitoba - including NDP supporters - cool their ardour against the Afghanistan war just because the Doer government supports the "mission"?

When the Rae government viciously attacked the workers, did you detect some hesitation on workers' part to send those scum packing and never let them near power again - for the last 13 years??

I think plain old people like you and me believe in positions and actions and principles first - and parties second. We measure parties by where they stand. We don't judge our principles and values by whether some party espouses them.

Have a little more faith in people.

Unionist wrote:

M. Spector, you're taking on the easier arguments. I don't really care whether some NDPers have cabinet seats or not. I despise Dion and think he is essentially incapable of a progressive thought. But the defeat of Harper, when he arrogantly and cynically thought he could escalate his horrendous program unopposed, is a victory - especially when achieved via extra-partisan means and with the support of a majority of the people (I'm absolutely certain a majority will support the ouster of Harper - as long as they're not asked the wrong polling questions). You see the development as negative, I see it as a damned welcome change from the stagnation of the past. We'll have to see how it develops - but why not work to push it in a positive direction?

Well, enjoy your little escape from the frying pan.

I'm just wondering how many NDP supporters will be showing up for anti-war rallies against their "own" government in future, or how many NDP MP's or trade union leaders will be speaking at the rallies.

ETA: Why is getting rid of Harper suddenly such a huge overriding concern? Do we know something about him now that we didn't know during the election campaign? I don't think so. That's why I'm having a hard time seeing why it's so much better to have Stephane Dion as PM NOW, but it wasn't a good idea to vote for him in the last election. Is it because of the influence of the US election? Is it the ultimate triumph of lesser-evilism?

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

They should have voted strategically if they really wanted the phony-balogna majority.

Exactly. The Koalition is just the apotheosis of lesser-evil strategic voting. The Obamafication of Canadian politics. 

I cant believe some of the on-the-street comments. You'd think there was a military coup happening in the Northern Puerto Rico, or something. The Harpers are propagandizing hell out of this. 

Sometimes the long journey begins not with a step, but with a stumble. That said, be thankful that the journey is at least begun.

M. Spector wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

If you had bothered to read the poll chart you would find once you take out the partisan voters the clear plurality of voters were hoping for a minority.

Why would I want to take out the "partisan voters"? I was refuting a false statement you made about what "the majority of voters" wanted. You didn't say anything about "non-partisan" voters (whjatever the fuck that means).

The poll question asked was  "Regardless of your personal preference, which one of the following election outcomes would you prefer most?"

What could be a clearer measure of the voters' preferred outcome?

 

Nice try.  Go read the poll results agian.  Read them over, apply logic then get back to us. 

Unionist wrote:

[When the Rae government viciously attacked the workers, did you detect some hesitation on workers' part to send those scum packing and never let them near power again - for the last 13 years??

And so a minority of Ontarians voted for Mike the Knife, and he laid into unionized workers even more viciously handing ten thousand nurses, not a few days off, but permanent vacations. He waged war on teachers and public education in general and handing off a $5 billion dollar budget deficit to team Pinocchio. 

And today, Pinocchio and his 22 percent solution have stood by and done zero while the province hemorrhages hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, and many of them unionized, and bleeding somewhere close to $7 billion dollars in wages from the largest provincial economy in Canada. Ontarians are actually masochists, but they are not poor judges of horse flesh by any means - the 22 percent who elected Pinocchio and his wooden party, to be more specific that is.

Fidel, don't get upset. I was making a point - betray the workers, and they will destroy you - even if they hurt themselves in the process. M. Spector thinks that a coalition will mean NDP supporters stop opposing the war. He should have more faith in people.

thorin_bane wrote:

If Harper is allowed free reign again there will be nothing left woth voting for.

People were saying this before the 2006 election. And guess what? Harper has had free rein (not "reign", thank god) for three years and there is plenty left worth voting for.

It's like in the 2004 USA Presidential election, when Democrats said the same thing about GW Bush. Well, Kerry lost, Bush ruled for four more years, and yet the Democrats still found something to vote for in 2008.

Your argument is just the old Anybody-but-Harper lesser-evilism rehashed.

Quote:

Senate, Assets, SPP, Wiretapping, Etc Etc Etc..sure the Libs would do some of that, ut they wouldn't do ALL of it.

And it doesn't bother you that the NDP will be voting for all of those things for the next 2½ years? Not just voting for them, but unable to speak out against them. And the labour and progressive movements will be discouraged by their leaders from organizing and mobilizing against the Koalition government that they are now urging us all to support. So where will the opposition to the SPP, wiretapping, etc. come from?

LeighT wrote:

Indendent [sic] voicing doesn't stop just because the spectrum has shifted a bit in our direction.

It certainly won't stop, but it will be hurt badly by the so-called leaders of progressive and labour organizations who are telling their members to support the Liberal-led Koalition.

Those motherfuckers wouldn't lift a finger to mobilize anti-war rallies, but they will spend time and money holding rallies across the country to support the formation of a capitalist, Liberal-led government.

The only apparent alternative to the Kanadian Koalition government will be the Conservatives sitting in opposition. It will be of utmost importance to the Koalition-boosters that nothing be done or said to threaten the rule of the Koalition, for fear of the bogeymen sitting across the aisle in the House.

coeus wrote:

So it's nice that we all want a majority government, but again that's irrelevent because when we rephrase the question to a more realistic outcome such as "Do you prefer a Conservative majority or minority government" then may we would have seen different results from that poll.  As it stands, the poll tells us nothing relevant to the discussion.

When some ignoramus claims that most Canadians want a minority government, and uses that as an argument to support the idea that a coalition government is "democratic", then please don't tell me that it's irrelevant to point out that his premise is bullshit.

My position does not rest on any assumption about whether voters wanted a minority or a majority. I only mention the poll to expose the illogical idiocy of the above position.