Democratic Coalition ideas

I agree that all the public fear of the coalition was planted in the papers. Coming from a part of the world where coalitions are totally normal, I saw shocking dumb remarks from political pundits all the time and their expressions! It was as if they had to eat raw shit from a pig farm. Murphy at least.

I certainly think your idea is plausible. I cannot find any reason for the GG granting Harper an extension when Harper lost the confidence of the house.

Harpers reason, coalition is unstable hardly qualifys when he himself called off his last minority government due to instability.  

UNLESS she is working for "The BIG BOYS" who control the liberal party. They wanted to quash the Dion attempt to retain power. Fearing that it would be permenently retained. Also, they feared rae would eventually beat their lovechild in a fair fight down the road. So first they used the gg to kill off dion. (remember he would be PM right now if the GG had used logic) and then they used the liberal party exec to beat rae.

Iggie is doing his best to nullify the coalition for his masters. Its a theory and it might be true. I believe a coalition is necessary to finish off Harper. This is essential for Canada to continue as a democracy.

But Iggie could fuck it all up if his masters are dumb enough. 

outwest wrote:

  The public would have accepted a coalition. As one of Nixon's henchman used to say: "If you have the guts (b***s) to do something - hearts and minds will follow."

All this talk about the "public not liking" Rae or Dion or Layton or the Bloc or Harper or Mackay or anyone else is pure red herring baloney. The public thinks what the media tells them to think, as with time it can become accustomed to anything, including  lies, backtracking, prevarications, corruption, and outright deception.

Think of Mulroney's air scandal, Harper's income trust fund reneging, the Liberals turnabout on NAFTA, blah blah blah blah blah. Nary a whimperfrom the "outraged public" about any of that now.

Don't tell me the coalition couldn't have succeeded. The big boy Liberals didn't want it to succeed. End of story.

Is Iggy a nationalist?

Quote:

The energy status quo is unfathomable and Ignatieff, quite naturally, has questions. He's an intelligent man. Why are we a big net importer of oil in the East and a big net exporter in the West?  Why indeed? And where is that east-west hydro corridor? What about stringent NAFTA energy provisions?

18,000 jobs goin' south with unrefined oil from tar sands

Free trade at twenty by Duncan Cameron

Quote:

An expatriate academic, writer and broadcaster living in Britain at the time said Canada signed its own economic death warrant when it signed the free trade agreement. His name: Michael Ignatieff

Let's hope the Igg man still holds that thought til at least the end of the month or next perogy fest, whichever comes first.

Sarann wrote:

Elizabeth May would make a great senator. 

Quote:

I'm not  a green voter but I think she is honest, out spoken, environmentally on the mark, and doesn't have a hidden agenda.  Why wouldn't I like her better than some of those who were chosen.  Her party got almost a million votes and no seat. 

Elizabeth May is no different then any other backroom dealing politician.  Just because ones hidden agenda becomes exposed, doesn't mean it wasn't meant to be hidden. I see you have changed from saying "She" received almost 1 million votes to "her party" received  almost 1 million votes, just ignore the fact that she  contributed to the failure of the coalition with her quest for a self serving Senate Seat.   

Quote:

 If she was in the senate those people would have a voice. 

We need a referendum to abolish the Senate or face further abuse from the likes of Harper, the next Liberal Government and elitists like Elizabeth May who believe they are entitled to large salaries and little work.

Once the Senate is abolished we could offer former Senators jobs in community service such as street sweeping. Then people like "senator May" could do something for those near one million people who voted for "her" ermm, Green.

Quote:

 

They are certainly not going to vote for the conservative demonizers and denegaters no matter how subtely they try to make their little points, and neither am I. Your subtelty doesn't work fellas.  We can spot you every time. 

What on earth are you talking about???

Ontario is not about to "turn around" when the purpose of the free trade agreements is to dumb down the economy, while creating the illusion of a technical and well paying service sector economy.  Considering I have both College and University and many many certificates, and there are more on the horizon, you mistake the fact that I am a believer in education and training.  Education and training provides a person with something that cannot be taken away. 

However, the is this mindset out there that all the people unemployed or losing their jobs are uneducated or poorly trained nicompoops who, if trained, will earn a better living and more secure future.

Once again, I watch as the government retains quality assurance/inspectors etc, in the health care fields, only to discover their is little to zero full time work available, and then these same people find themselves working for a temp agency back in a warehouse or manufacturing environment.

As for being overqualified, if you are applying for government jobs, that is never the case, and if you are applying in the private sector, you tailor your resume to the position applied. Dumb it down is very common, as the jobs that have been created in the "new economy" require few skills and are part time in nature.

The people being displaced from Auto, a small sector of the industrial economy that has been shattered in Ontario, has some of the more highly trained and skilled workforce to be found, much like anyone involved in manufacturing. 

The country requires an industrial policy.

Fact is, Ireland did what China did and that is what Ontario had but surrendered after a hundred years. If you think we can employ engineers for $600 a month, or get people to read Xrays for $249 a month, it is not going to happen. 

People need jobs to go to and as far as I can tell, if you want to make 2 to 3 times + vs the trend in the private sector, you must get a public sector job.

The Coalition has the best platform with regards to forestry and industrial policy. This is a result of the NDP challenging the official positions of the LPC which was the same as the CPC.  The LPC has to change if it is going to make a difference and needs the "coalition partner" to hold it accountable. 

To clarify.  My intent was not to box Chinas wages with Irelands, unfortuneately, it can be read that way, which if read that way, is wrong, so my apologies for the confusion of my sentence struture. My intent was to demonstrate that both Ireland & China have a well trained and skilled labour force to meet the latest labour market needs in order to secure capital investments supported by government incentives. However, those countries, have been well positioned to receive foreign capital investment along with government incentives. 

Canada has the same well trained workforce. It is this workforce that are losing their jobs, the same jobs to china and elsewhere.  I only intended to compare the wages of an Engineer in China, which can be had for as little as $600/month. 

Same goes with CNC, Lab Technologists etc... and when we consider workplaces such as Banks, Insurance, and Communications, all these operations can be run and many are run from India or in some cases Africa.

Thus, getting a financial quote, or an insurance quote, in fact getting past the quote and purchasing policies, stocks, or communications service is done outside of this country, same for diagnostic services.

Canada has become a resource export nation, a warehouse nation, and is rapidly becoming a post industrial nation.

Losing the industrial base, at this rate, will lead to a meltdown. The cost of losing these jobs over the past few years has had a large effect on local economies.  This was the trend that was supported by NeoLiberal economic and trade policies supported by consecutive liberal and conservative governments. It is a throwback to a time before Canada was a nation and all we did was supply resources for Europe and behave like a good colony.  

Sir John A MacDonald created a country with a National Policy that would have made no Econonic sense at the time. Certainly a policy that would never be supported by free market capitalism. But it built a country.

We have no governments with a vision for Canada. Growth for Growth sake built upon an expanding low wage economy is not healthy or sustainable, and when the downturn occurs, there is no boomcycle that returns a better future for more Canadians, just an end to a downturn, with the wealthy able to make bigger gains.

Fact is, Mr. White, I am concerned about the Canadian Economy and the government policies that are nothing more then Platitudes and spin.

I work with the government on its training programs and they have made many positive changes to their training programs to allow more people to participate and take advantage.

But this is only one side of the coin.  

Actually Sarann,

Even Australia has a form of PR, the Single-Transferable Vote, for their Senate elections.  Not my preferred method of PR and not in the House of Commons, but still something.

Sarann wrote:

If there is anything Elizabeth May doesn't have it's a hidden agenda.

Quote:

 She is refreshingly outspoken and honest.

Quote:

 

The democratic coalition would have a mandate of 62% of voters. 

This is nowhere near the 62% myth and the LPC/NDP were foolish to promote a 62% figure only to be undermined by polls that gave roughly 41% support for the coalition.  Which isn't a terrible figure in politics, but is a far cry from 62%.

Quote:

The NDP has a voice because it has members of parliament. 

Quote:

We need proportional representation of some kind. 

Cool idea..... I rarely hear about PR on babble :)

madmax wrote:

. . .  now that the LPC has put the breaks on the coalition choo choo.

Many media pundits have claimed this. But what Liberals have said so? Links, please.

 Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis says coalition is finished,

 Liberal MP hinted Thursday that a Grit-NDP coalition to bring down the ... could end up pitting MPs in the coalition against each other. .

Guelph Liberal MP Frank Valeriote has become the first in his party to openly oppose--albeit.

And Liberals are ready to ditch the tainted word coalition.

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings in a recent interview with the Canadian Jewish News. According to reporter David Lazarus, Jennings, who served as the top Liberal negotiator for the deal, reacted with impatience whenever the word came up. "There is no coalition," she told him.

Regardless of the posturing and shifting away from the word coalition, the Silence of the Liberals is deafening

I said before the NDP has to move away from the coalition and some people here said to me no, no stay the course somehow when the NDP is left alone there will be benfits in being in a coalition by ourselves.

Politically, the damage is already happening, we are associated with an idea that has unfortunately been discredited and abandonned. Like any relationship the one left behind usually suffers more than the one who left. When the Liberals were screwing around and Dion blew it, we should have walked. Then we might have preserved our ability to re-introduce the idea under circumstances that might lead to success and thereby look like leaders rather than losers as we do now.

It would have cost the party no political capital to admit that the public was only luke-warm at best and the Liberals were in no position as yet to lead a coalition. this would have been a small attack on the Liberals that would have done us no harm in admitting the truth everyone could see. Then we could have come back in the future saying now is the time. 

By not admitting that this was not the time we will not be believed when we say it is. And that could have been as early as the dropping of the budget on the 26th.

If the NDP had backed away in mid December and gone back to the public with an aim to get support and advice as to what to do with the budget we might have come full circle by budget day with a winning option but now we are more likely to be seen as irrelevant, predictable opportunists who have so little public support that nobody need listen. And if the Cons do something really aggressive we could end up in an election we could lose badly.

This is what I thought then and in the last month, there has been nothing to change my mind. Our one track policy has led us to posturing about the coalition rather than addressing the bigger problem with the Cons idea of replacing a direct stimulus with more tax cuts.

Frankly there is a lot at stake here. I think Layton's leadership could be doomed if the party continues to misplay this one. It may take a while but he might never recover as leader.

You have to be seen as dynamic, as leading and as aware of the political realities. Sticking with a coalition that in the end resulted in ending Dion's tenure leaves Layton associated more with Dion and failure than success. And the coalition is an option that could be revived-- that is exactly how Ignatief is playing it. He can revive it when he thinks it can work and he will look like the leader and Layton won't.

Harper can no longer be trusted, his financial statement revealed his true intentions, the tip of the iceberg if he were to win a majority.  His back-down on those proposals is only temporary, a short term sacrifice toward winning a majority, but he will enact all those proposals eventually if he gets the chance, and he can do a lot of it with "executive orders in council" without passing laws or even consulting parliament, he's already shown he's willing to defy his own laws recently passed such as the fixed length of term for federal elections.  If he realises his days are numbered as P.M., then he may do as much "damage" as possible under a short-lived minority  returned to power by the new liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Hopefully you all have figured most of this out,
Neither The liberals nor any of the opposition can support Harper when parliament is recalled, he intends to sell off canadian federal assets, probably to his friends at bargain prices alla Haris and hwy  no. 407, or the failed Ontario Realty Board Scandal, in which Earnie Eaves pocketed 50 million by flipping an Ontario Provincial realestate asset which he purchased with a provincial loan for 20 or 50 thousand.  Many others were given the same deal, it is unclear to me if all were stopped and moneys returned as it was not well covered by the media, i wonder why? Remember also that Harris , that means Flaherty and Clement also, intended to privatise  Ontario Hydro- thankfully we had the great blackout of 2003- remember, other wise they would have done it, and then were would we be now.  And harper can do such similar things without consulting parliament:

If Harper passes one confidence motion- namely a comprehensive ( if vague)  budget, he won't allow another confidence motion  until he's ready for another election, perhaps as short as six months to a year- he'll rule by "executive orders in council " and effectively undermine Federal laws and parliament as he did during the last two years, and he will sell off valuable federal government assets in the mean time, though he may promise not to because of the coalition,  but we know what his promises are worth.  He will do it eventually, we have to get him out of  federal politics once and for all,  for the good of the country!

Canadians deserve to understand his real intentions, he intends to sell off canadian federal assets, just like mulroney and harris- he has admitted it and he will do it

 The media is distorting  public opinion polls, and may try to force an immediate election if Harper loses a non-confidence vote- Canadians need to be prepared to win an election if somehow  the g.g. choses to ignore democracy, and with this info we can persuade the g.g. to allow the liberals to form a minority government.  If Harper wins, we all lose, just as with Mulroney and Harris, they are all cut from the same cloth.

We need to get rid of Harper from parliament, once and for all, for the good of the country, and for the good of the conservative party- they need to get an new leader and this will help them understand that- he has disgraced  himself with own sincere plans as revealed in his financial statement, backing down from that is only temporay, we know what the truth is now, we know what he would do if he got power again.

Under Harper the conservatives can never win a majority government because of the damage done in Quebec, the conservatives don't understand that has reprecussions in the rest of central and eastern Canada, which has  a much more sophisticated understanding of la Belle province than Western Canada.

 He Can't be trusted, His budget must be brought down regardless of its contents, because there are no laws to make him stick to it if there are any ambiguities in it, or do so much more with "executive orders in council".  Harper, Flaherety and Clement must be defeated.

    If the conservatives are allowed to rule, those three must  resign and be barred from any access to government, but that sort of compromise is not  likely if possible at all.  Therefore Ignatieff must ask the g-g to be allowed to form a government, and she must concede to his request, otherwise democracy has failed, the social contract is broken and "peace", order and good government are in serious peril.  Harper can't be trusted, we must not have another election till the coalition has been given a chance.

good luck, the country is depending on you, don't let us down

At the very least you must warn the general public of this grave threat - harper's plans to privatise public assets, billions and billions of dollars worth, in his own words, and explain it clearly, link him to the 407, through flarhety and clement- don't forget about the listeriosis debacle, due to deregulation like walkerton- work the facts, don't let the media force its selective memory on the canadian public, we need the coalition now, before harper does anymore damage , and he will with executive orders in council. act boldly, act now!

Harper can't be trusted! Regardless of the content of his next budget, He must be forced to resign! There must not be another election until the full effects of the last  election are allowed to be carried forward, there is no justice without due process, the coalition must be allowed to stand!

where did you buy those rose tinted glasses, cause i guess i need a pair, because i am not an ideologistist or a party hack-  wn't blindly trust any man woman or party- as far as i'm cpoincerned the last four yeas have been a disatster for the country, we went from a 13 billion dollar surplus, which jack had the opportunity of forcing martin  to spend on infrastructure, and soccial justice issue, nation child care- to tory incopetance with the tacit supprot of the new democrats- and if we allow the liberals to trust this little dictator again, we may be in for 4 or eight more years of tory incopetence, but the ndp has a few more seats, wow, i guess i do have my priorities mixed up. and who cares if democracy is demolished by the media, the ndp may get a couple mpore seats in the next election, may be officail opposition status in an impotent opposition to a harper majority- but the ndp parties will be better with afew more seats we'll get more funding, if the torries don't eliminate as they promised in their last finacial statement a harper wish list- i guess i do need those rose tinted glasses

On the Newsworld Politics Programme tonight, Susan Bonner questioned Ralph Goodale:

Bonner: We heard Ministers today saying that infrastructure sounds like its going to be a priority in terms of spending to stimulate the economy, Mr. Baird saying it's an immediate shot in the arm. What are Liberals thinking about what they would like to see in terms of more spending on infrastructure?

Goodale: "Well, Susan, this initiative should have been taken a long time ago. We know that under existing government infrastructure programming there's a backlog of about 3 billion dollars of projects that have gone through the vetting process as far as local communities are concerned, but the money still sits in Ottawa and has not been disbursed across the country. So there's that backlog that should never have existed, it goes back to 2006. The government should do its own homework and get its own program up and running and out the door as it should have done over the course of the last two and a half years. Secondly, there will need to be incremental investments over and above what is normally budgetted for for the coming year. What was budgetted for for past years never happened, so . . ."

Clear inference: they didn't spend the money they already had in the budget, so regardless what they promise to spend on infrastructure in this month's budget, why should Canadians trust them? 

Not an argument for supporting the budget or the government.

From Paul Kellogg's [url=http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2009/01/dear-jack-do-you-really-want-this... letter to Jack layton[/u][/url]:

Quote:

Last election, young people – the young people I see every day as a teacher, the young people that you and I both saw when we were both teachers at Ryerson University – just didn’t care about a choice between Harper, Dion or yourself. They didn’t see themselves in any of the parties. But I was able to tell them – in good conscience – that there was a big difference between your party and the others. Your party was committed to bringing the troops home – the troops sent to war by the Liberals, and dying in increasing numbers under the Conservatives. That argument worked. Young people hate this war. So when they were told that there was one party calling for an end to the war, they voted for you.

You have now lost their vote. You have sent them the message that principles like stopping a murderous, barbaric war are not as important – as what? What exactly did you get from your deal with the Liberals? Afghanistan is on the shelf. Taxing the corporations is on the shelf. The only thing you seem to have “won” is the promise of six cabinet seats. A religious man who greatly influenced me – an anti-war minister of the United Church – would have known what to call this – a mess of pottage. Look it up.

The coalition gambit was a top-down bureaucratic, back-room deal – and has been perceived as such by millions of ordinary Canadians who are recoiling in horror. The terrible effect of this backroom coalition adventure has been to bring Stephen Harper back from the dead – he’s soaring in the polls – and to accelerate the arrival of Michael Ignatieff as head of the Liberals – the same Michael Ignatieff who supported George W. Bush’s war on Iraq. Do you really want to sit at the cabinet table with Michael Ignatieff in the chair?

Paul Kellogg should explain to his students that Canada is a Northern colony of the U.S. and projecting their foreign policies for many years. And I hope Kellogg is also explaining to his students just how this obsolete electoral system has frustrated millions of Canadian voters since an extremely undemocratic neoliberal agenda was foisted on Canadians by U.S. and Canadian rightwing ideologues since Brian Mulroney.

If Kellogg does desire to point out a list of important differences between the NDP and the two big business and pro-USA parties in power and sharing power in Ottawa for the last 140 years in a row, I think I might be able to send him a brief lecture outline for the sake of better informing his students.

But apparently the choices are not difficult at all for Kellogg and the young people he talks to. This particular bit of Ottawa's vicious toadying to US empire expansion in Central Asia has put him and his students over the top. They've decided to take a stand on one single issue come the failure of neoliberal policies-induced financial meltdown around the western world or high water, and to heck with Canadians losing their jobs or the scores of children still living anywhere below poverty in this Northern colony. United we stand divided we fall. And there are so many issues for the left to be divided by. Paul Kellogg and his youthful friends have discovered their single issue and are going to challenge Canada's plutocracy and vicious empire without the NDP. Good for them, and I hope they achieve something by it. Meanwhile the two big business parties still arent budging on Afghanistan. The NDP could do nothing and quit this democratic coalition, but quitting on Canadians is what the Harper coalition of scabbed together rightwing forces have already done. Quitting is not an option for the NDP based on a single foreign policy issue. The troops are in the Stan for a few more years, and everyone knows it. Meanwhile there is no shortage of other issues just as important as phony war in the stan that need tending to. 

Fidel wrote:

Paul Kellogg should explain to his students that Canada is a Northern colony of the U.S. and projecting their foreign policies for many years.

And this would excuse the NDP's capitulation on Afghanistan how, exactly?

Quote:

And I hope Kellogg is also explaining to his students just how this obsolete electoral system has frustrated millions of Canadian voters since an extremely undemocratic neoliberal agenda was foisted on Canadians by U.S. and Canadian rightwing ideologues since Brian Mulroney.

Perhaps you could help by explaining how a perfect proportional representation system would bring the NDP to power with just 2.5 million votes?

Blaming the electoral system is a cop-out. Even if you could explain why the NDP is under-represented in Parliament it doesn't explain why they have to knuckle under to the neoliberal war agenda.

Quote:

If Kellogg does desire to point out a list of important differences between the NDP and the two big business and pro-USA parties in power and sharing power in Ottawa for the last 140 years in a row, I think I might be able to send him a brief lecture outline for the sake of better informing his students.

You could start by explaining the difference between the positions of Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff on Gaza.

Then you could share your theory on why it is important for the NDP leadership to ignore resolutions on Afghanistan passed by its membership conventions.

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Paul Kellogg should explain to his students that Canada is a Northern colony of the U.S. and projecting their foreign policies for many years.

And this would excuse the NDP's capitulation on Afghanistan how, exactly?

Crazy George II led our stooges into the Stan. We're there until at least 2011 unless Paul Kellogg and his fresh faced friends know another way. In addition to Canada's long-time stoogeocracy's vicious toadying to Crazy Jorge de la Yayo, I'm sure I'm not the only Canadian with a few things to add to a long list of what's wrong in this Puerto Rico du Nord. We can all go our separate ways and pout in our different corners, but it will only instill even more power in the hands of those who have it. So I don't think Paul Kellogg's approach is going to bring the troops home this time, during this particular Crazy George II-led phony war on terror. But we do have  to think about a next time.

And with Crazy Steve wanting to spend like a wild man on military and all things military in coming years, the prospects for having to volunteer more Canadian troops to aggressive U.S.-led phony wars abroad in the near future are fair to excellent by the looks of things. Remember that Paul Martin said in response to a US reporter's question as to why Canada wasnt sending troops to the phony war in Iraq, former PM PM only stated that Canadian forces were stretched too thin as it was then, not that he wouldnt like to.

 I do appreciate your posts, M Spector, but after 140 years of the same-old same-old, I think it's time Canadians tried something different.

Fidel wrote:

]And I hope Kellogg is also explaining to his students just how this obsolete electoral system has frustrated millions of Canadian voters since an extremely undemocratic neoliberal agenda was foisted on Canadians by U.S. and Canadian rightwing ideologues since Brian Mulroney.

M. Spector wrote:

Perhaps you could help by explaining how a perfect proportional representation system would bring the NDP to power with just 2.5 million votes?

It's the dynamics of the current first-past-the-ghost system that distorts results, really. We have to consider not just why the NDP doesnt have the number of seats they should have if one person equalled one vote, we also have to consider that many people who do still believe in our dated electoral system enough to vote are voting strategically so as not to elect another Brian Baloney, or that they simply want to vote for the winning party or any of a myriad of reasons why some record low percentage of voters voted the way they did within the context of a first past the majority electoral system invented before electricity. You'd have to consult the babble experts on how eliminating the democratic deficit in Canadian elections might play out over time, because I can only speculate myself.

M.Spector wrote:

]Blaming the electoral system is a cop-out. Even if you could explain why the NDP is under-represented in Parliament it doesn't explain why they have to knuckle under to the neoliberal war agenda.

They're trying not to have to knuckle under to 100% of the neoliberal agenda as opposed to only some of it until such time as the democracy gap, which is now a canyon in this frozen Puerto Rico, can be dealt with by democracy-loving Canadians.

M. Spector wrote:

You could start by explaining the difference between the positions of Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff on Gaza.

Right now with our phony electoral system, the leaders are obligated to give pat, brief comments on the situation in Israel. It's kind of like when the stoogeocracy in Ottawa helped out the CIA and US military when the vicious empire invaded Haiti for about the 25th time in 2004. How many Canadians are paying attention to what the NDP thinks about the war on democracy in Latin America anyway? With FPP and what Canadians have become used to over the last 14 decades in a row with politics, the NDP just doesnt have the time or resources to spend on a single foreign policy issue or any other single policy. Right now the best the NDP can do under the circumstances is let the two old line parties burn down to the wick with their failed second-hand economic and foreign policies. If Canadians really dont like the vicious toadying to US empire and imperialist ambitions abroad, then vote NDP but not for more of the same. It's pretty easy when you think about it. The NDP can lead the horses to water but cant make'em drink. We need a new way. The old way wasnt working some time ago.

to madmax, how did harper get into power- firstly jack brought martin down, then jack passed a throne speach and gave himself a raise along with the rest of parliament, a money bill to cement the tory minority two years ago, jack crowned harper. Had jack instead used his position over martin, a lot of that 13 billion dollar per year surplus could have been spent on ndp supported policies such as a national childcare program, education, healthcare etc. And while the ndp has been 'soaring' on the verge of winning a majority according to some here, the conservatives have bankrupted the country in the best of times, how can we support our policies while we allow the conservatives to demolish the country. All these arguements over petty points are interesting, almost admirable theoretically/ asthetically, but principles have to be measured with the results of actions, to support the conservatives in action, reardless of of all your vocal protestations, over the liberals is like cutting off your head to spite your arse- I think most of you are really closet conservatives if not actual just pretending to be leftists, because thats the effect of your advocasies- and it is this petty idiotic hairsplitting of princiles which holds the ndp back, not to mention the far left (trotskyites/marxist-lenninists/ad infinitum )which is probably the root of the problem. For example, If you can't see elizabeth may is a tory sabatour you must have been dropped on your head as a baby- why else would she run in an unwinable riding, she's done a great job undermining/ splitting the left and bleeding the centre, its time for her reward,her turn at the trough to quote her former boss b.m.: maybe a senate appointment or some back room job with a great pension- once a mulroney hack, always a mulroney hack- pay less attention to their words and more attention to the effect of their actions, its time to wake up canada -who says the coalition is dead, only tory hacks, and if the results of your advocacies is to support the tories you need to look into the mirror a long hard time- the caolition is alive and well, and many of you will be surprised iggy can taste it and he will not let the coalition down-it was only under dion he hesitated to support it- with himself running the 'new minority government', it can't fail and harper's carreer is dead- quit your petty squabbling- try to see the big picture, for the near future as well as the long term, you have to stop living for a perfect future which will never come because you can't focus on today and tommorrow. as long as the ndp attacks the liberals they will end up supporting the conservatives- the enemy of your enemy ends up being your friend-ancient chinese wisdom only an idiot would argue with, the ndp must out perform the liberals not beat them up, otherwise they will be doomed to marginalisation,but most of you don't seem to care about that, perhaps are comfortable with it afraid to do anything for fear of criticism of not being perfect, but i'm probably wasting my words, bob has not betrayed his ideals, he's become more pragmatic, and i guess he's realised that most you committed ndpers need to be committed- you're intellectually stunted and closed minded, more concerned with winning petty arguments than actually improving reality and doing something- perhaps its just an excuse for lazyness, an excuse not to do anything- on the brink of victory but too afraid of the responsibility, ready to give up the cause and throw in the towel- don't advocate the end of the coalition, just quit it yourselves like the losers you are, we'll welcome you back once we've kicked out the bum dictator and cleaned up the House .

m.spector, how did they miss kicking you out of the ndp when they got rid of buzz, probably you'renot in the ndp, your either a lenninist or a tory its hard to tell the differance, both totalitarians in sheeps clothing- just a shit disturber bouncing from one contradiction to another self contradiction- you true ndpers need to learn to filter out the frauds, and not waste your preceous intellect arguing with them, you have little enough as it is to go arround

Roystin, if they want to vote for stoogeocracy, then they are entirely free to do so. It's their democratic right to vote for the total Americanization of Canada and some other really stupid things that have happened in this country over the last 30 years or so. But the choice is theirs. Who are we to ask why?

madmax wrote:

Apparently Iggy talked this over with his coalition partner.........Stephen Harper.

 

Tax Cuts

Quote:

He called for fast, targeted tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians, a "shovel-ready" economic stimulus package with an emphasis on infrastructure and for changes to the EI program.

 

"I think it's important for us to have tax cuts for low and middle-income Canadians, to increase their purchase power," Ignatieff told reporters after the meeting.

Iggy is the man.  So what is the difference between Harper and Iggy again?

Well at least Iggy is making sense when he does talk about tax cuts. Supply side conservatives in the US explain the 1929-30's economic depression in a certain way that says manufacturers werent producing enough product for people to buy and leading to depression.

That and a lack of money in circulation.

Demand side Liberal Democrats in the US explained that the last deep economic depression was due to the poor and middle class not having enough money to spend on products and services while the rich were hoarding money. That and a lack of money in circulation.

So which is it? Do poor and middle class Canadians have enough money to increase overall demand and stimulate a labour-led economic revival across Canada?

I think the difference is that Stephen Harper will suggest that his multibillion dollar tax cuts for rich people and corporations will trickle down to the rest of the economy, like Ronald Reagan said would happen.

Here's what I think. I think tax cuts for the rich and corporations will lead to some recovery and take longer to work but cost a lot more than tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Money to the poor and middle class will work to stimulate a labour-led recovery more quickly than expensive and unecessary trickle-down a la Steve Harper and his Republican Party wannabes.

Sean, Why should the 62% majority back down to herr Steveler and his American style spending on all things war and economic madness in general?

Fidel wrote:

Sean, Why should the 62% majority back down to herr Steveler and his American style spending on all things war and economic madness in general?

where ever, how ever much you want, but we really don't care what tory hacks, in disguise or in the open think, and if you've heard any rumours about iggy supporting harper, thats just a scheme to lure harper and his neo-facist agenda into the open which i helped cook up, although there was enough in the financial update that this scheme isn't abssolutely necesary, but it also has the effect of taking the neo fascists and their propagandists in the corporate press off guard and cooling things down: if harper wants to hang on to power, then he has to be friendly with the liberals over the next few weeks and iggy has the opportunity to be polite and cordial, and offer some hope harper can continue to govern, there's no need to give him any warning he doesn't have a prayer. harper is out, along with his comon sense goons flatulence flarhety and cement head clement. But maybe i'm bluffing and iggy really will back harper, yeah thats it, aww shucks! hah! The new minority government is on for the 28th of january- yes iggy may seem almost as bad as harper, but we're only comparing with harper's tip of the iceberg, there's 90% more that is very scary, which we would have had to live with if he had the chance to win a majority- but thats all over now, the neo cons will hold a leadership review in the spring, much to the relief of many back bench conservatives who have been holding their breath waiting to see if this little dictator harper could actually win a majority- they're tired of being pushed around and silenced by this little tyrant and will throw him out, ensuring a fairly lengthy minority liberal-ndp government, as they hold a leadership review in the spring,a leadership convention in the summer or early fall, probably mail in after a short campaign. HOPEFULLY MCKAY OR PRENTICE WILL BRING SOME REAL COMMON SENSE INTO THE CONSRERVATIVE PARTY, before harper destroys it as his idols mulroney did with the p-c's federally and harris, flarety and clement did with the p.c.'s in ontario- its not good for democracy to have the conservatives demolished over and over again, its bad for the ndp and the liberals- though its nice to gloat over in the short term-the reply from the m.p. confirming the demise of harper's government, was a forwarded letter sent to a select few riding constituents a couple of weeks ago, his resending it reaffirms his commitment, and though it is wisely cautious and humble, the implications are clear as to what will happen in the house come end of january,here is a short exert:

Mr. Flaherty’s Economic Update, however, turned out to be fundamentally, economically, distressingly inadequate. It did not reflect the dimensions of our problem. Other countries were acting seriously and determinedly. ...(he was) not.

But Mr. Harper just couldn’t resist. He chose to do what he had done before, but never so outrageously as this time. It was the very wrong moment to do the very wrong thing.....

Second, a coalition government, though unusual in Canadian experience, is absolutely contemplated under our Constitution. In our Parliamentary System, a Government needs the support of the majority of the House of Commons. With a majority government, that support need come only from all the members of the governing party. With a minority government, there needs to be support from members of other parties as well. Mr. Harper’s Conservatives have 143 seats out of 308 in the entire House of Commons. A majority, therefore, is 155. The Coalition represents 163 seats. Just as it has been for the 141 years of our history, this Coalition would be a Government that represents the majority of the House of Commons. Again, different from what we are used to but entirely contemplated by our Constitution.

The last point –

I have said all that I’ve said above because the situation we have before us is not just about Canadians deciding between a Harper Government and a Liberal-led Liberal-NDP Coalition Government.

There is no doubt the Coalition has its work cut out for it. Between now and when Parliament resumes on January 26th, it must demonstrate to Canadians that it can be a strong, stable, effective Government. It needs to begin planning and setting out its priority directions like a Government. It needs to be ready to govern if it is called on to govern by the end of January. That is its challenge. That is its bargain with Canadians.

But Mr. Harper has a challenge too. And his challenge, I believe, is even harder.

A Prime Minister sets the tone of the House of Commons. Respect gets respect. Disrespect breeds disrespect. The Prime Minister is now fighting to stay on to win a battle that need never have been fought in the first place. To preside over a Parliament whose dynamics, whose very relationships, he has poisoned and destroyed. It’s too late. This Parliament cannot work with this Prime Minister. All of us have heard the angry voices every day in the House of Commons, and now across the country.

Mr. Harper has scorched the earth of civility and trust for all of us. For him, it is over. He cannot be trusted. He cannot repair what is irreparable.

We need a new Prime Minister.