Could you explain to me why you bother with threads where the topic is electoral politics?
At the very least you think all of the parties are hopeless.
So why do you bother asking?
No I won't explain shit to you ... if you don't believe an opinion that all parties are useless is not a valid political opinion then report my ass to the moderators for violating whatever rule you think I'm breaking... otherwise create a post showing how hopeful one or all these parties are and we can have a debate.
Well, Venomous Yards, here's your original question:
Excuse me, I seem to be having a harder and harder time figuring out what difference there is between the CPC, Libs, and NDP ... could someone explain which of those parties, if any, have a principle?
If you had actually stated it as an opinion, that would be fine.
But you asked people to explain, and then get abusive that the same in turn is asked of you?
And by the way, I didnt question the validity of the opinion that all political parties are useless- not even implicitly. And for the record- the actual argument, when its made [which you didnt] is not one I dismiss in the least. I'm well aware of its validity.
I questioned why someone would bring a rhetorical flash of that- not even the respect to others of an actual expressed opinion- to a thread where the entire parameters of the discussion assume the system as it is.
Coalition poll on the CBC website now:
I guess the minions did not get there yet
Yes 448 votes 80%
No 18% 101 votes
Unsure 2% 9 votes...
And look at the comments underneath!
Many people would love to see Harper removed that do not want to give the big keys to the Liberals alone.
Also Liberals have not earned it because they do not dare to oppose.
How about this comment:
elf-girl writes: I would support a co-alition of Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse if I thought Iit would get rid of Harper -
71 agree 6 disagree
Or Mountain roost writes Anything to get rid of Harper and his cronies
71 agree 16 disagree
If there are any Liberals here (overt or covert) someone take this message back to Iggy!
If you don't agree to a coalition and to be part of the solution getting rid of Harper, half your caucus may get replaced with New Dems.
Frankly, some people may not care which result happens the coalition or the final self destruct of the Liberals but I think Canada
would be better served if the Liberals choose to light their asses on fire another day and governed with the NDP as much as it would be
entertaining to see the Liberals fall to fourth party status.
Now
Yes 80.3% 630 votes
No 19% 145 votes
unsure 1% 10 votes
Are there enough people here to drive that number up to 90%
And by the way, I didnt question the validity of the opinion that all political parties are useless- not even implicitly. And for the record- the actual argument, when its made [which you didnt] is not one I dismiss in the least. I'm well aware of its validity.
I questioned why someone would bring a rhetorical flash of that- not even the respect to others of an actual expressed opinion- to a thread where the entire parameters of the discussion assume the system as it is.
And that's exactly why I told you I wouldn't be explaining shit to you ... but since you obviously don't get it and I feel generous tonight!
I was question the quality of our political parties ... you on the other hand were question my motivation for having such an opinion.
If you're interested in why I don't consider any of the parties as having any real principles then maybe that's the question you should ask ... and not instead questioning why I bother to post.
Why don't you start your own little thread entitled "No parties have principles and elections are a sham" and then you (and the two or three other people in canada who agree with you) can post in it to your heart's delight and the rest of us can feel free to simply ignore the thread and read the threads that we find interesting.
Who are you? The thread police?
Again, you have a problem with my opinion in this thread, then why don't you either report it to the mods if you think it crosses some line, or provide your rebuttal.
There's also the option of ignoring posts that you find unhelpful.
Yeah, I take advantage of that option a lot.
I'm just offering a suggestion I'm not trying to "police" anything. I just think that if someone wants to post about how all politics are a waste of time and all parties are the same - why not have a thread 100% dedicated to that theme - think of all the fun you can have No Yards - you can post that you think politics and elections are a sham and that all parties are alike and then some one else can chirp - "I think so too" and then you can post again that you really, really, really think that politics and elections are a sham and that all parties are alike and someone else can say "right on!" and you can all have fun complementing each other on being such advanced political thinkers.
Meanwhile those of us who take politics and elections seriously can exchange ideas about politics and elections.
I happen to believe that the Bible is a pack of lies. I suppose if I took the No Yards approach, I could start finding discussion threads about the Bible where biblical scholars share their interpretations - and i could just decide to be disruptive and keep posting that the Bible is a pack of lies - but what's the point? I figure that if I think the Bible is a crock - i will not debase myself and waste my time getting into arguments about it. I just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
well, really let's examine this contention that no parties have any principles, for validity or even useability in this circumstance.
As IMV, 'principles' are pretty damn selective to the person perceiving them, or a lack of them.
Really, when you break it down, there is no over-arching set of "principles" that govern life and people's actions. It is said everyone has their price, and I have come to know the truth of this fact, over the course of my lifetime. People's price points are differing, from others, and even personally can fluctuate positions, many, many times throughout the course of one's life.
So, let's be real about what it is one is talking about, when one says "principles", or lack of "principles", as without a frame of reference, it is open to vast interpretations by the receiver of those word.
Principles are also usually class driven. For some, it is pretty damn hard for example to have 'principles' while one is starving, but for others, they starve themselves to death on 'principle'.
Who is correct?
Now having said that, it is obvious from Conservative behaviour that they have no principles that we can agree with, but we must recognize that about 24% of Canadians, either have the same set, or the same lack thereof.
Same is so for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and GP, are we to take it to mean that no one in Canada, actually has any principles, except for those who declare no one else has any but them?
Bringing clarity to coalitions
3. Clarity: What would we, as a party, consider in terms of arrangement – which partners, which policies. Put out a five-point statement of principles. Lots of ways to frame and word it; but at the end of the day, while we obviously don't know what the House will look like after the election, voters will know what the party will, and will not, consider in terms of coalitions. Clarity.
Ah, the critics of option 3 say, that's not how things work. You run an election to win and once the chips fall, you consider options.
Sure. That's how things normally work, and I don't see anything mutually exclusive between being clear with voters and fighting to win. In fact, I think being honest and clear with voters may help you win (naive as I am).
All the parties should be able to tell the voters "which partners and which policies" they will be open to if the next election does not produce a majority.
This is how I think all the parties should answer Silver's question:
Question 1: Which parties would your party consider in an arrangement?
Answer: We would consider all the parties. There is no party we would consider not working with. We believe in cooperation in the interest of all Canadians, not partisanship in the interest of our own party.
Question 2: Which policies would your party require in an arrangement?
- a fixed election date every 3 years whereby the Prime Minister can not call an election before the fixed election date.
- the Prime Minister can not prorogue the House of Commons without a vote by the House in favour of prorogation.
- the implementation of an electoral system suitable for a multi-party system that treats all parties fairly. (AV or some form of PR)
- recall elections that allow a majority of voters to get rid of politicians who they no longer have confidence in.
- the government can no longer hide info from Parliament and its committees.
Parties could also add requirements that the vast majority of people agree with. They could turn their coalition requirements into good PR for their party.
The parties should support these measures even if a party gets a majority after the next election.
Here's a longer look at some of the backroom perspectives on the week's coalition musings, from the CBC Inside Politics blog.
Travers: Panicked Liberals Ponder Return To Jean Chretien
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/819437--travers-slapstick-jea...
"...a measure of the madness here is the seriousness some backroom Liberals are lending to Chretien's mischievous remark that he, like Britain's iconic William Gladstone, might return in old age for a fourth term. Astonishingly, Chretien's resurrection as interim leader continues to circulate here along with speculation about the NDP coalition the former Prime Minister is exploring.."
better and better...why not bring back Broadbent...and what the hell Mulroney too? Couldn't do any worse than the present clowns..
Oh, god.... Chretien again. 
Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press does some terrific reporting and gets Ignatieff on the record contradicting himself right, left and centre on the coalition question. That man can have 5 different positions within the same interview. The more he keeps talking, the more screwed up they get.
For the record, by the way, he says he's "a uniter, not a divider". Yes indeed, just look at his party right now.
It's becoming clearer today that when Warren Kinsella says "coalition", he actually meant the merger/pre-election kind, and he for one is not satisfied with Iggy's comments to Canadian Press, and fears the keys to Stornaway are being handed to the NDP.
The rest of the Libloggers are in a kind of religious thrall, forgetting that Iggy disavowed exactly what he's saying now less than a year ago, and even just two weeks ago.
Hard to follow any more.
Except to say "twisting in the wind."
well, really let's examine this contention that no parties have any principles, for validity or even useability in this circumstance.
As IMV, 'principles' are pretty damn selective to the person perceiving them, or a lack of them.
Really, when you break it down, there is no over-arching set of "principles" that govern life and people's actions. It is said everyone has their price, and I have come to know the truth of this fact, over the course of my lifetime. People's price points are differing, from others, and even personally can fluctuate positions, many, many times throughout the course of one's life.
So, let's be real about what it is one is talking about, when one says "principles", or lack of "principles", as without a frame of reference, it is open to vast interpretations by the receiver of those word.
Principles are also usually class driven. For some, it is pretty damn hard for example to have 'principles' while one is starving, but for others, they starve themselves to death on 'principle'.
Who is correct?
Now having said that, it is obvious from Conservative behaviour that they have no principles that we can agree with, but we must recognize that about 24% of Canadians, either have the same set, or the same lack thereof.
Same is so for the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and GP, are we to take it to mean that no one in Canada, actually has any principles, except for those who declare no one else has any but them?
I meant "no principles" as in regards to how almost everyone on this board would describe the Liberals as having "no principles" ... in other words willing to toss principles of even equality, justice, and human rights for a few votes.
Of course I could give a shit about the Cons and Libs and their so called "principles", but with the NDP being so highly supported on this board I just have to wonder how the membership can allow them to be so loose with fundamental principles of equality? Now I don't really expect that all NDP supporters will simply leave the party, but I would think that supporters would at least speak out against such a disregard of basic equality principles ... but, even worst, many supporters actually defend the NDP.
Point being that we now know that the cons, Libs, and the NDP will all essentially treat principles in the same manner ... you might be able to argue that a merging of Libs and NDP would lead to a better mixture of "bending principles", but the bottom line for me is that I certainly wouldn't look at such a merger as anything more than a way to get rid of the cons ... the resulting Lib/NDP party would simply be another party that at best might temporarily revert the Liberals to a slightly more left leaning Liberal party ... fine I suppose if all we want is to "buy time" by setting the march rightwards back 10 or 15 years, but since the NDP were already marching right wards anyway, the result is still going to be Canadian politics moving rightward based on the "wedge issue" politics of appealing to the least common denominator.
Or maybe people just think you are full of crap and disagree, but you seem unwilling to allow people to hold that opinion. So in the end it seems you are the one that is lacking in basic principles such as the democratic right to disagree. In the end your interjections in these kinds of threads is little more than a type of trolling as it contributes nothing to the discussion in the thread.
If you want to have a thread talking about how terrible the NDP is and how electoral politics are both responsible for all evil in the world there are plenty of other opportunities on babble in lots of other threads. Or you could even start your own. Otherwise you are little different than the child who tries to interupt to get attention when others are talking because you can't stand these threads not being about you and your so very important views.
Do you stamp your foot after you click 'post comment' because your comments sure read that way?
Is that a reasoned political argument?
Again with the thread police.
If you think I posted something out of line then maybe you should report it to the mods.
I criticized what I believe is the NDPs "flexible" principles and how that would relate to any potential merging of the Libs and NDP ... what's the big deal?
Are you suggesting that the NDP are without "sin", and any Lib/NDP merger would result in something more than just an incremental improvement over the CPC, or that this new party would not be anything but a mild slowdown in the Liberal (now Liberal/NDP) movement to the right? Are you saying the NDP haven't been moving policy rightwards as of late?
If so, then please feel free to present your argument, I don't recall saying you shouldn't be allowed to do so ... and if you do choose to do so, and disagree, I certainly won't resort to a personal attack as my rebuttal.
There are few around here who think that the NDP merging with the Liberals would change the Liberal party- and many have said so explicitly.
You make the same argument- as if its new- but what difference is it to you anyway since there is little daylight between NDP and Liberals?
By the way, you are the only one on babble talking about a merger of the NDP and Liberals.
It would appear that for you cooperation after an election to form some kind of government is the same as a merger, and for that matter there is no difference between the parties anyway.
Its a crucial matter to anyone else in the discussion whether its a merger- which everyone in the NDP here is opposed to- or it is a coalition. But you don't even notice that there is a difference.
Huh? One post you claim I am the only one talking about a merger, and the very next post you talk about other who think the merger would change the Liberals? What's that about?
Anyway, nothing I said precludes the Liberals being changed as well ... matter of fact that's just about what I said, that any merger (be it merger or coalition) would at best result in an incremental change of the approximate equivalent of setting the right ward moving Liberals back 10 or 15 years ... but still moving rightward ... we've just bought ourselves a decade or so ... that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but I'm not under any illusion that Canada needs the Liberals of 15 years ago more than it needs a truly progressive principled party ... which a merger or coalition of the NDP with the Liberals is not likely to promote.
Now as to your question as to what difference it makes to me ... that's really not the point. Every party should have its critics, and the NDP certainly needs its critics from the left ... a party that only listens to its cheerleaders is likely a party that's headed for trouble.
.... Lib/NDP merger would result in something more than just an incremental improvement over the CPC, or that this new party would not be anything but a mild slowdown in the Liberal (now Liberal/NDP) movement to the right? Are you saying the NDP haven't been moving policy rightwards as of late?
On the abstract political spectrum an NDP-Lib coalition might be placed at 1 degree left of centre if Goodale is finance minister or 11 degrees left of centre if Muclair is finance minister or 44 degrees left of centre if Libby Davies is finance minister. Political scientists and political partisans can argue about this to their hearts content.
But in concrete terms a NDP-Lib coalition, established after the next election, would likely bring concrete change to a lot of people.
Concrete changes such as:
- National day care
- Increased pensions
- National housing program
- Greater access to post-secondary education
- Greater equality for First Nations via a Kelowna Accord 2
- Early Childhood education
- Cap and trade
- Incentives for a greener economy
- Fewer people incarcerated
Incremental changes to some are major life-altering changes to others. That's why so many people want the NDP, BQ, Greens, and Liberals to cooperate. People see that, to varying degrees, these parties support progressive initiatives in their party platforms. They also see that these parties represent 2/3rds of the voters. Since these parties have the backing of a large majority, people expect these parties to band together and implement their policies. People assume that in a democracy that's how things work.
If the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, with the support of little more then 1/3 of the electorate, the clamor for a left-wing merger will intensify. The pressure on the NDP and Liberals to merge will be much greater if Harper can win a fake FPTP majority. And, with Harper in power, there will be no chance of getting rid of FPTP. So the only viable alternative for a lot of progressives in Canada will be an outright merger. Hopefully things won't come to that.
There are few around here who think that the NDP merging with the Liberals would change the Liberal party- and many have said so explicitly.
Huh? One post you claim I am the only one talking about a merger, and the very next post you talk about other who think the merger would change the Liberals? What's that about?
You illustrate my point that you pay no attention to the discussion you entered into. You are the only one talking about a merger.
In the second post you act baffled by me making the brief point why no one around here except you is talking about a merger.
Now as to your question as to what difference it makes to me ... that's really not the point. Every party should have its critics, and the NDP certainly needs its critics from the left ... a party that only listens to its cheerleaders is likely a party that's headed for trouble.
I wasnt really asking you a question. It was phrased that way, but you obviously know the rhetorical device because this foolish run aroung started with you "asking" what difference there is between the parties anyway [and the next post referring to it as a criticism you made].
I already know from what you have said that it makes no difference to you whether its a merger or a fixed term governing agreement between the Liberals and NDP. And because its all the same to you is why you did not notice you are the only one talking about a merger.
What you have done is come into a discussion where you have said what everybody is talking about is useless [so useless I didnt even catch what you were saying], the conversation needs to be about something else.
Where I come fro thats called rude and arrogant.
KenS, Life, the Universe and No Yards, please stick with arguing the arguments and not targeting the poster.
Incremental changes to some are major life-altering changes to others. That's why so many people want the NDP, BQ, Greens, and Liberals to cooperate. People see that, to varying degrees, these parties support progressive initiatives in their party platforms. They also see that these parties represent 2/3rds of the voters. Since these parties have the backing of a large majority, people expect these parties to band together and implement their policies. People assume that in a democracy that's how things work.
If the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, with the support of little more then 1/3 of the electorate, the clamor for a left-wing merger will intensify. The pressure on the NDP and Liberals to merge will be much greater if Harper can win a fake FPTP majority. And, with Harper in power, there will be no chance of getting rid of FPTP. So the only viable alternative for a lot of progressives in Canada will be an outright merger. Hopefully things won't come to that.
I ave no argument with incremental change being important in some cases, that's why I said in previous posts that I would (reluctantly) support such a move simply to get rid of the CPC.
That said, I don't share your confidence that a merger or coalition of the Libs and NDP would bring about the changes you listed. What NDP government has ever made that many left leaning changes when they actually became government let alone hamstrung with having to cooperate with a larger Liberal party?
Now, if this were a Lib/NDP/BQ coalition then you might get a bit more radically left leaning policies, but I don't see how a sensible coalition like that would make it past the anti-Quebec racism in Canada.
Anyway, the NDP are moving rightward on their own, so while it may be they are just pulling a "bait and switch" and will move back to the left if and when elected, I don't really count on that ... especially since Layton seems to be made of the same "consensus cloth" (ie: too much emphasis on consensus to the detriment of actually getting something progressive accomplished) that Obama is made of, the chances of the NDP having anything but a very very mild left leaning influence on a Lib/NDP coalition government is IMO pretty dang slim.
Ever since Layton supported the "Niqab voting law", then expressed his disappointment that Maynard left some wiggle room in the policy, I was left with the opinion that earlier cases of lack of sensitivity to minority rights issues (keeping Bev in the caucus after explicitly defying the party on a minority rights issue, then essentially kicking a transvestite out of the party for being "controversial" for example) were not just aberrations ... the NDP in my opinion has become the "CBC" of progressive politics ... a good history, but a history that no longer describes the modern day institution.
I certainly don't take issue with your prediction on what might happen with a CPC majority, especially if it's based on less than 40% of the electorate ... my only hope is that any "merger" of the left is far more holding to actual democratic principles and processes than the Reform -> party constitutional burining -> backstabbing ->CPC process turned out to be.
keeping Bev in the caucus after explicitly defying the party on a minority rights issue, then essentially kicking a transvestite out of the party for being "controversial" for example
How can we take your point of view seriously, No Yards, when you mistate facts such as those above.
The transgendered candidate in question stepped down by mutual agreement, but continued to sit on the party's federal council.
Bev Desjarlais was stripped of her critic area for her vote on the same sex marriage bill, just as the Leader said she would be. She subsequently lost the confidence of her riding association at nomination-time, and left the caucus of her own accord. Democratically, that part was the riding's call more so than the Leader's.
Canada's Coalition of Confusion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/07/canada-coalition-of-...
"A merged Liberal/NDP led by current NDP leader Jack Layton would garner 43% of the vote - a full 7% more than the Harper Conservatives. On the other hand, given that same scenario with Michael Ignatieff at the helm, the Liberal/NDP combo would only tie the Tories at 38%."
Whatever, however, whoever - Let these LEPs (Lesser-Evil-Parties) get it together and make it happen before it's too late. STEPHEN HARPER MUST GO!
How can we take your point of view seriously, No Yards, when you mistate facts such as those above.
Thread drift in the cause of setting the record straight.
They could have suspended Bev from caucus, just like the provincial NDP in NS did this year with Zinck.
Are you really saying that Montreuil stepped down by mutal agreement?
I think you are getting confused between Francis Chartrand and Micheline Montreull.
Micheline Montreull is the transgendered candidate, and she was definitely dropped by the NDP after being voted in as a candidate by the local riding association.
Francis Chartrand is another Quebec Candidate that was elected by their riding association but was dropped by the NDP big wigs ... and yes, they announced it as a case of "mutual agreement", but Chartrand wasn't even aware of the action until he read about it in the news .. that said, he was dropped because of his stance against reasonable accommodation of minorities in Quebec ... so don't go telling me that the party big wigs can't dump candidates against riding association wishes, because in both cases that's exactly what happened ... they could have at least done the same to Bev - announce that she would no longer be accepted as an NDP candidate even if her constituency voted to return her as a candidate.
Thank gawd Desjariais' riding association had the good sense to dump her or she might still be in the party if the NDP leadership had anything to say about it.
As I recall, the party was delighted at the idea of having a transgendered candidate and they went out of their way to promote that fact. Then the candidate turned out to be a loose cannon who no one could work with. This happens sometimes - if she had not been transgendered the decision to rescind the nomination would have happened early and with less hesitation.
As I recall, the party was delighted at the idea of having a transgendered candidate and they went out of their way to promote that fact. Then the candidate turned out to be a loose cannon who no one could work with. This happens sometimes - if she had not been transgendered the decision to rescind the nomination would have happened early and with less hesitation.
Then Bev must have been one hell of a high profile transgendered person in order for them to leave her NDP candidate status intact ... or is it now considered that being a "loose cannon" is so much more offensive to the NDP than is defying a whipped vote on a very important human rights law? It didn't outrage the NDP leadership when Bev slapped the party and human rights in the face as much as a candidate with a strong independent streak?
I'll accept that there are two processes for ridding the party of unwanted candidates ... one process via the riding association, and the other process via the NDP leadership ... my beef is with the apparent poor decisions by the NDP leadership as to what is "serious" enough for the leadership to bypass the democratic process at the riding association level ... seems to me they got things exactly backwards as to which case deserved which process.
The relevent distinction between the cases was that Desjarlais was already elected to the House.
It turns out there is a interesting interaction between the caucus rules at the federal level and how the NDP handles membership. A parliamentary caucus consists of all members of a party who are MPs. If you want to throw somebody out of your caucus you have to throw them out of your party. This is not a problem for the Libs or the Cons, the leader just does the tossing. In the case of the NDP membership is dealt with at the Provincial level, so Jack and the caucus CANNOT remove members.
I admit it looked a bit weird, but Jack applied the heaviest discipline in his power.
Notice that people's appetite for "party democracy" goes right out the window when they want to lynch someone they disagree with.
I appreciate that there is a difference between the NDP and oter parties in ths respect, but that also holds true for candidates ... there is a specific process for removing candidates which was mostly overlooked in the cases of Francis Chartrand and Micheline Montreull ...
ARTICLE XVI: CANDIDATES
1. Subject to section 2 below, candidates shall be nominated in accordance with the procedures laid down in the constitution of the appropriate provincial Party.
2. The Council of the Federal Party shall have authority to intervene with respect to a federal nomination if the interests of the Federal Party are involved and if the provincial Party concerned had failed to take appropriate action. The Council of the Federal Party shall have the authority to establish rules for nomination to achieve affirmative action goals.
3. Where it is contemplated that the Council may intervene under section 2 above to nullify the nomination of a candidate, the Secretary shall notify the candidate, the constituency and the provincial Party in writing, and the candidate, authorized representatives of the constituency and the provincial Party shall have the right to be heard by the Council of the Federal Party or its representatives before a final decision is rendered.
Chartrand didn't know he was dumped until he read it in the newspapers, and I don't believe Montreull had much more warning either, so while the council may have had the ability to start the process, the process was not followed very closely (ie: part 3) .... if they wanted to play loose with the rules, then they could have played just as loose with the rules concerning Bev ... or preferably they could have followed both sets of rules to the letter.
My problem is not so much that they allowed Bev to remain in the party, but with the bending of rules to get rid of some candidates and being sticklers for the rules in some other cases .. I strongly criticized the Reform party during their transformation for playing fast and loose with their constitution ... the NDP should be better than the Reform party when it comes to honouring a constitution so IMO the offence when committed by the NDP is even worst than when the conservatives do it.
so are you still trying to argue that Montreuil was dumped as a candidate for no other reason than that the people running the party are bigots who don't want anyone transgendered running? or have you given up on that line...
Well, since Brian Topp has linked to the Babble discussions of the recent coalition chatter, perhaps we should return the favour.
"Listening to Leaders Worthy of the Name"
Certainly, there is more to be said about this matter than the boring and predictable repetition of Paul Martin's partisan political strategy by its authors -- a strategy that installed Stephen Harper in office, has facilitated his government ever since, and continues to fail as it heads into its second decade.
On the positive side, we can tell that we might be on to something because it is making Prime Minister Stephen Harper nervous. And when Harper gets nervous, he deals with it by inventing new chapters of our constitution off the top of his head. This time: "losers don't get to form coalitions," the Prime Minister declared in Britain last week.
What Harper means by this is that in his latest self-serving interpretation of our constitution, only the party with the most seats after an election has the right to consider working with other parties in Parliament.
This being the Prime Minister's view, it is his duty to inform his good friend and soul mate Israeli Prime Minister and loser Benjamin Netanyahu that he heads an illegitimate and undemocratic government, and must immediately resign and hand over the reins to winner Tzipi Livni and the winning Kadima party, . Winner Ms. Livni and her winner party received 28% of the vote and 28 seats in the most recent Israeli election as compared to loser Netayahu and the loser Likud party, who only received 27% and 27 seats.
As the next step in his global democratic mission, Harper must then fly over to Prague to tell loser Petr Necas, leader of the loser conservative party in that country, that he must refuse the request of the President to form a coalition government (a very interesting situation over there right now ).
....
But Harper is not done yet. His next stop must be Australia, to inform his other good friend and soul mate loser conservative Michael Howard that he owes the people of Australia a craven apology for having governed that country, illegitimately and against the constitution. After all, loser Howard took power in 1998 with only 34 per cent of the vote, well behind the winning Australian Labour party with 40 per cent. Loser Howard took power in coalition with the also-losing National Party of Australia, who won only 5.29 per cent of the vote.
(Much of this has been rather wittily discussed over at www.rabble.ca/babble, if you'd like more of it.)
Let's put the point directly. Prime Minister Harper's latest comment on the constitutional and democratic rules of the game doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny. It is another piece of nonsense - like much of what he has had to say on this topic. The truth of it is that Harper does not like talk about coalitions because he has no friends in the House of Commons, and is therefore not in a position to form one.
That is a permanent vulnerability. The issue is whether his opponents will have the collective wit to exploit it.
Canada's Coalition of Confusion
During his press conference with David Cameron last Thursday, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper was asked to comment on the new UK coalition government. He said that the "verdict of public opinion," in the UK was clear: Cameron's Conservatives, finishing with the most votes, had been entitled to form a government. Harper then echoed a familiar line from British tabloids: "Losers," he said, "don't get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments."
Back in Canada, constitutional experts roundly disagreed (as would a Labour government, had it been formed in May). But Harper's answer was strategic, in spite of its inaccuracy. As was the case for his entire trip abroad (one he spent in London and Paris redundantly expressing his government's dislike for a proposed global bank tax) Harper had domestic political gains on his mind.
The reply Harper might have been waiting for came on Sunday from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, whose party, as official opposition, was one third of Harper's intended target. In an interview with the Canadian Press, Ignatieff said: "Co-operation between parties to produce political and electoral stability is not illegitimate. It's never been illegitimate; it's part of our system." He continued, saying that talk of a coalition now was disrespectful to Canadian voters and instead that: "I think what's right is we should stand up and raise that Liberal banner and say, 'Here's what we stand for. Vote for us.'"
Which is all very good, except that the inability to raise the Liberal banner as a united party with declared intentions is exactly the reason that renewed talk of a coalition exists at all.
The idea of a coalition government has been drifting around in Canada ever since the fall of 2008, when Harper prorogued parliament after the opposition threatened to vote down his minority government. During the prorogation period, the Liberals replaced former leader Stéphane Dion with Michael Ignatieff, who almost immediately threw cold water on a proposed plan for the three opposition parties to join to form a coalition government (dubbing it - uncomfortably - as "illegitimate"). Despite Ignatieff's reluctance, the damage had been done, and the Tories lampooned the idea as a combination of all the parties Canadians didn't want.
Since then, the Liberals have struggled, and have been unable to break from their second-place position in the polls, where they endlessly hover around 25% in popularity. In the last few weeks, the idea of a combined Liberal-New Democrat party (NDP) government either through a coalition or merger had begun to take hold, fuelled by things such as an endorsement from the president of the Young Liberals of Canada, and a throwaway comment from former Liberal prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who said: "If it's doable, let's do it."
It also didn't help that Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic (and a close second choice for leader of the party in 2008) recently harkened back to the 1985 Ontario provincial Liberal-NDP coalition in a piece on his website. Rae, who at the time was the Ontario NDP leader, played a pivotal role in that agreement - "not a coalition, but a working partnership". He further reminded readers that: "Parliamentary system elections produce a parliament, and parliament makes a government." The suggestion was duly noted: that members of parliament - even those from losing sides - have it within their mandate to form a government by way of coalition.
But the biggest cog in this discussion has always been Ignatieff himself, who is leading a fractured party, divided along old alliances to former Liberal prime ministers: on the one side are the Paul Martin-ists (Ignatieff), and on the other, the Chrétien-ites (Rae). That united Liberal banner that Ignatieff promises to raise for Canadians is even more difficult to form when the party itself is torn at the seams. Worse is Ignatieff's lacklustre performance in the House of Commons and consistent inability to ignite the party's base, increasingly making him a liability, rather than an asset.
The proof of this, along with further fuel for a Liberal-NDP coalition, was granted by an Angus Reid poll that was released last week. It revealed that a merged Liberal/NDP led by current NDP leader Jack Layton would garner 43% of the vote - a full 7% more than the Harper Conservatives. On the other hand, given that same scenario with Michael Ignatieff at the helm, the Liberal/NDP combo would only tie the Tories at 38%. If it wasn't clear to the Liberals before that Ignatieff has an image problem in Canada, it must surely be by now.
In his interview, Ignatieff stated that the Liberals would work their way back into government with "policies that speak to the Canadian people". This is really what's at the heart of the discussion about a possible coalition: that when it comes to Liberal party policy, there is none. That is to say, when Canadians are talking about how the Liberal party might save itself through a coalition with the NDP, any attention to its polices is obscured. If nobody cares what Liberal policies are, then for all intents and purposes, they don't exist, making the party unelectable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/07/canada-coalition-of-...
The NDP could turn the idea of a coalition after the next election into a positive. The NDP should tell the public what it will require from the other parties before they are willing to enter into a coalition government with them.
If these coalition requirements are popular with the voters, the NDP should gain support.
So what coalition requirements could the NDP support that would gain favour with the voters?
If these coalition requirements highlight flaws in the current government, all the better. In any case, the NDP's coalition requirements should highlight for the public the positive aspects of voting for the NDP.
By doing things in an open and honest way, the idea of coalitions might also be strengthened.
so are you still trying to argue that Montreuil was dumped as a candidate for no other reason than that the people running the party are bigots who don't want anyone transgendered running? or have you given up on that line...
And have you stopped beating your wife?
They obviously did this for political reasons .. it may have had nothing directly to do with her sexual assignment at all, except that it provided a high profile target to a controversial candidate that the NDP figured was more trouble than they were worth... what I have consistently stated is that I believe that the NDP has shown they are easily capable of ignoring progressive principles in the quest for votes and power.
They were able to bend their constitution to get rid of a couple of other candidates (no constitutionally sanctioned notice or appeal,) but held firm to one part of the constitution (sitting member) while ignoring another part of the constitution (elected candidate, where Jack could have announced Bev would not have her NDP candidacy approved for the next election) in another case.
That's not "bigotry", that's simply "greedy hardball politics". It's only the results that happened to resemble racism, so without knowing their mind, I subscribe to the unprincipled politics theory rather than the bigotry theory ... but I guess it servers a purpose for people who support this kind of politics to continue to keep the old "bigotry / racism" canard around ... much better impact if they are seen to be defending the NDP from charges of racism rather than charges of unprincipled actions.
There's also Jacks' support of the proposed anti-Muslim law requiring removal of the niqab for voting so they could compare a face to an ID that didn't have to have a photo in the first place... clearly a racist law directed at Muslim women, against a problem that never existed except in the mind of racists ... yet, Jack not only supported the law, but criticized Maynard when he created an interm policy that didn't make it mandatory for Muslim women to "unmask".
I assume Jack was not being racist himself, and was simply tossing away a progressive principle of justice and freedom in the name of pandering to a few worked up racists and their less informed victims of fear... but I'm sure we can forgive Jack, because after all, he's jeopardizing our rights and freedoms in the name of power for the NDP.
This video interview with The Mark News online, gives greater detail on Warren Kinsella's position. Amongst other things, he says:
* well, in effect, he's advocating a merger rather than a coalition
* he says that 25% in the polls is the demarcation between being an "alternative government" and a "fringe party", and that if the Liberals drop below that, they are in serious trouble, because it will affect their fundraising, membership, and credibility.
* he says that the problems for the Liberals with waiting until after an election are two-fold: (i) their fiscal situation, should Stephen Harper be successful in eliminating public financing of political parties, would be in serious jeopardy, (ii) in the event they don't do as well as they expect to now ("as a lawyer, I was always trained to ask 'what if I'm wrong'"), then the risk is that the NDP having done as well as or better than the Liberals, might be completely unwilling to enter a coalition with them
* if the Liberals lock us in now, they have a chance to form a government; if they wait, they risk their continued viability as a political party
So, pretty much what we've been saying here.
But, to be very very clear: Warren Kinsella, when he says "coalition", does not mean a post-election coalition government. He means a pre-election merger.
If both the Conservatives and Liberals are this worried, it means our future potential is a lot greater than the Toronto and Ottawa media currently give us credit for.
Not interested Warren.
Most of us never were interested. And nothing has changed on that.
I don't question that Warren means it. And thinking about it- even if his fears are not the most likely otcome [and he isn't saying they are]- they are to be taken seriously if you care about the future of your party.
So I don't doubt his sincerity [which is saying something about a person you see as a shameless bullshitter]. But it still leaves me wondering why he is saying it. Though I guess it makes sense: if you are worried, then you really want people to talk about it, despite the short term harm you know you are doing and how daunting are the [internal] challenges you face.
But theres still something about this- not the content of what he says, but who is saying it- that doesn't quite seem right. I mean, I know hes not talking to New Democrats- but still... pushing this converstaion in the LPC is going to have some credibility/viability minimums that Dippers can be brought into this.
Sure they can trot out a few individuals, some of them no doubt with broad appeal in the NDP [and that may be Warren and Rae's next shoe].... but the minute that happens there will be 10 times more of the same saying no way.... and snowballing.
I mean, what else are they going to do, they have to try. But even that misses something for me.
I don't know.
I have no trouble seeing how Warrens recipe works for Liberals.
It would always be better for the Liberal Party of Canada if the NDP would dissapear. And now, Warren and others are seeing it as a necessity.
If talking about it now torches you for the next election- too bad. They see the situation as too serious to let that get in the way.
Small problem- how do you get the mice to play?
And maybe at bottom they are just naive. .....That they sincerely don't mean to just offer us being swallowed up. They probably believe that the Liberal Party can be made different to accomodate us.
Any coalition/merger between Libs and the no difference party would likely entail a repeat of this:
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/500862
At least that's my impression after reading this:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/06/0...
"Rae went further and pledged the Liberal party to back serious discussions between Canada and NATO and alliance allies about a future role for our troops in Afghanistan...'we have an obligation to see this through.'
The NDP position on Afghanistan has been slippery enough as it is. If this merger/coalition goes through it's highly likely they'll once again agree to the same dirty deal as last time. Stephen Harper as the anti-war champion anyone?
More than half of Canadians favour Liberal-NDP co-operation: poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/more-than-half-of-canadians...
From the link above provided by NDPP:
OTTAWA - New Democrats will stop opposing Canada's war in Afghanistan while the party is in league with the Liberals, the NDP's deputy leader declared Wednesday.It's a significant concession for a party that has been the standard-bearer for the peace movement in Canada.
"The NDP is putting aside its differences that have existed historically with the Liberals on such issues as Afghanistan," said Thomas Mulcair, the party's only MP in Quebec.
Can there be any question now as to whether the NDP has anything approaching a true principle?
Fuck the NDP and the sycophants they drove in on.
