"""""
National Child Care Program
Mon, 2014-09-15 10:43
#1
National Child Care Program
Mon, 2014-09-15 10:44
#2
The Liberals had 13 years of majority government and refused to implement a national child care program - shame on them.
Mon, 2014-09-15 10:46
#3
The Conservatives have had how many years now of majority government and have, just like the Liberals, refused to implement a national child care program - shame on them as well.
Mon, 2014-09-15 11:30
#4
And let's not forget the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP provincial and territorial governments, none of whom have followed Québec's example in setting up a public affordable child care program. In fact, I haven't even seen election promises from losing parties to that effect. Shame on all of them as well.
Mon, 2014-09-15 11:51
#5
Arthur Cramer
And let's not forget the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP provincial and territorial governments, none of whom have followed Québec's example in setting up a public affordable child care program. In fact, I haven't even seen election promises from losing parties to that effect. Shame on all of them as well.
Well that really gets to the heart of it, doesn' it? So called "left-wing" parties failing to do the right thing, co-opted by the drive for power. Its pretty much hopeless.
Mon, 2014-09-15 23:08
#6
And let's not forget the Conservative, Liberal, and NDP provincial and territorial governments, none of whom have followed Québec's example in setting up a public affordable child care program. In fact, I haven't even seen election promises from losing parties to that effect. Shame on all of them as well.
Unionist, with all due respect, you are flat wrong at least on what's going on in Manitoba. Manitoba has expanded the number of childcare spaces, increased wages for child care workers, improved training options, and also provides pension benefits for child care staff as well. We still have a long way to go, as the plan the government is currently working on still has thousands of waiting spaces, but Manitoba is making progress. And while I understand that daycare is still somewhat more expensive here than in Quebec, frankly if the spaces don't exist it doesn't matter what it costs, and there are subsidies in place as it is. I'm with the government in that the main priority is to expand the number of child care spaces first, and once the waiting list is eliminated, then we can look at lowering the cost.
While I'm at it, a couple of questions about Quebec's program. Is there a waiting list to get into child care in Quebec? Do child care staff receive workplace pensions?
Tue, 2014-09-16 10:16
#7
While I'm at it, a couple of questions about Quebec's program. Is there a waiting list to get into child care in Quebec?
Yes, of course there are waiting lists. Last year, the PQ government announced a plan to consolidate them into one online portal covering public and subsidized centres on a mandatory basis (i.e. the ones that have $7 spaces).
Do child care staff receive workplace pensions?
Unionized staff at the public facilities (CPEs - Early Childhood Centres) won defined benefit pension plans in 2002.
And the new Liberal government is getting ready to dismantle as many public services as it can get away with. Their new proposal is to increase the daily fee to $7.30 on Oct. 1, index it to the cost of living, and introduce a sliding scale - higher family income, higher fee. The PQ had also proposed increases (going up to I think $9 over a few years), which the Liberals of course campaigned against, before breaking their promise once in power. It's going to be a tough struggle on many fronts against this reactionary regime.
The NDP promise to adopt a Québec-style system for a national plan is welcome news and can only help the struggle to preserve what we have.
Tue, 2014-09-16 10:36
#8
Unionized staff at the public facilities (CPEs - Early Childhood Centres) won defined benefit pension plans in 2002.
Good to know. Staff in Manitoba receive pension benefits regardless of whether or not they are unionized, and most of them aren't.
The NDP promise to adopt a Québec-style system for a national plan is welcome news and can only help the struggle to preserve what we have.
I agree. I hope you will also be encouraged to see provinces like Manitoba moving towards the model that you have.
Tue, 2014-09-16 10:49
#9
Unionized staff at the public facilities (CPEs - Early Childhood Centres) won defined benefit pension plans in 2002.Good to know. Staff in Manitoba receive pension benefits regardless of whether or not they are unionized, and most of them aren't.
Hope I didn't misspeak. All staff at all CPEs and at all subsidized private child care facilities are part of the pension plan. The union won the plan in 2002, and it was established effective April 1, 2003.
Sat, 2014-09-20 00:49
#10
A national child care initiative, affordable for working families, will make more of a difference for more families than most other initiatives. Maybe after years of failed promises from both of the old line parties, an ndp government will finally breathe life into it!
Tue, 2014-09-23 14:33
#11
Daycare was one of the pieces of progressive legislation that fell along with the Martin government in 2006 which we have been furiously debating in multiple threads during which time this thread was introduced. The opening post seems like an invitation to have the debate here. For that reason this is where I am continuing the conversation.
From now on I will link to this thread when the discussion comes up on Layton’s involvement in the fall of the Martin government to avoid tainting all the other threads with the same debate.
I am not claiming Layton was responsible for the early fall of the government as fact, but as a justifiable opinion based on fact. Meaning, other people can come to different conclusions but my opinion is not unreasonable. It’s broadly accepted by all mainstream news and even progressive NDP cheerleader commentators that Layton was responsible but I am not claiming there is no counter argument to that perspective. I claim only that it is reasonable for people to have credited Layton.
I called out those I have been debating with for refusing to engage in the facts I have presented. In contrast I have acknowledged that on the date of the actual non-confidence vote Layton did not have the official numbers to save the government.
Aristotle replied challenging one of my assertions.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/latest-polling-thread-5-july-2012?page=261#comment-1458897
I stated:
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc due to the optics and uncertainty over independent votes if Layton was not on board which is why he did not present a motion of non-confidence until Layton was willing to go along with him.
Aristotle replied:
Harper had been quite willing to team up with the Bloc in 2005 to take down the Liberal government. Harper wanted the Liberals gone at any cost, and if that had to come at the expense of teaming up with the Bloc, that's what Harper was willing to do.
As of October 17, 2005 Layton no longer officially had the numbers to continue supporting the Martin government because Bev Desjarlais became an independent; however the split was not acrimonious.
On October 17, 2005, Desjarlais lost the Churchill NDP nomination to Niki Ashton, daughter of Manitoba cabinet minister Steve Ashton, in a vote of the membership of the Churchill NDP riding association.[16] She resigned from the NDP caucus on the same day, and announced she would run as an Independent in the next federal election[17] She acknowledged that her position on same-sex marriage was a prominent factor in her defeat.Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Desjarlais#Independent_MP>
The second independent was:
David Kilgour - In April 2005, he received media attention when he speculated about quitting the Liberal Party because of his disgust with the sponsorship scandal, saying that the issue made Canada look like "a northern banana republic". On April 12, 2005, he announced that he was crossing the floor to sit as an independent MP. He also cited the Canada's lack of action on the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, as reasons for quitting. He asserted that he has no plans to move back to the Conservatives, and stated that he had no plans to run for re-election.Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilgour>
The numbers at this time were 133 Liberal, 98 Conservative, 53 Bloc, 18 NDP and 2 independent.
98 + 53 = 151
133 + 18 = 151
Harper and the Bloc could not take Harper down alone. They would have needed both independents to vote with them otherwise it would be a tie and the speaker would be the tie breaker.
This is what two bloggers had to say:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002910.htmlNovember 7, 2005
Layton To Pull Plug?
So says Bourque;
EXCLUSIVE: Bourque has learned that NDP leader Jack Layton has decided to pull the plug on the governing Liberals, this in the wake of last week's Gomery Report, a weekend think about a proposed Liberal health care package, various arm twists from the likes of the CAW's Buzz Hargrove and myriad MPs like Ed Broadbent and Bill Blaikie, provincial heavyweights, and ordinary NDP members from one end of the country to the other. The bombshell is being let loose now in a speech to the Empire Club. According to sources inside the party, "It could be his finest hour, or it could blow up in his face", this referring to the very real risk that the next election may cost the NDP both seats AND influence due to the election of either another minority government or a new majority government for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. One Parliament Hill regular told Bourque that "Layton is smart to pull the plug, he's hit the end of the road. The only way to capitalize on what he's done is to go into an election while the Liberals are down. It's about opportunity, and it doesn't get much better than this." Already, phone lines are buzzing as NDP insiders reach out to party movers and shakers, all of them waiting, wondering, and watching for the big announcement's blowtorch ramifications. Developing.
Unless you believe there was some sort of conspiracy to put obscure blogs on the net the above is illuminating to me. It was known that Layton and Martin were negotiating and that the survival of the government depended on it.
http://www.invisiblehand.ca/archive/2005_11_01_index.php November 07, 2005Layton pulls the plug (maybe)
Jack Layton is having a press conference. After several minutes of platitudes, he got around to saying that the Liberal response to his health care demands was "unacceptable" and therefore, his party couldn't continue to show "confidence" in the government. (Update: His exact wording was "there's no basis for our party to express confidence in this government.")
However, I got the impression that he was leaving the door open to reversing his position if the Liberals caved to more of his demands.
So, do you think he will actually follow through this time, or will he chicken out and continue to prop up the Liberals?
2 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments 1 – 2 of 2
Anonymous said...
Unfortunately Harper lost his backbone. Now after 6 months of whining he won't call a non-confidence motion. HArper is such a doofus. You can never tell where this guy is coming from.
November 07, 2005 3:50 PM
Jack's Newswatch said...
Actually, Harper is very smart. He smells a trap and is not going to end up looking like a fool as Layton stabs him in the back.
I'd dump it on Layton too.
The man can't be trusted.
November 07, 2005 4:30 PM
(I suggest the "The man can't be trusted" is in reference to the spring when Harper tried to take down Martin and Layton didn't back him)
Notice there was already talk of Harper presenting a motion of non-confidence.
I found Layton’s speech from the Empire Club online. He did not give the original speech that he had planned to give.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/62911/data?n=34…I had a speech written for today about how Canada's prosperity depends on investing in people, infrastructure and our environment………But this week has been a tumultuous one in Ottawa. And events have intervened.
So we proposed changes we believed people wanted in a budget--not to make it perfect, but to make it better.…..Our proposals were ultimately accepted and the first NDP budget in history was well received.
He basically announced himself Prime Minister by calling the Liberal budget the first NDP budget. That was a total slap in the face to Martin.
This Parliament's life is likely limited. Limited not by the choice of any opposition party, but by the unethical behaviour of the Liberal Party.I believe that in these circumstances Canada should not have to wait to determine how best to get more done. The time is approaching--sooner, not later--for the Canadian people to render judgment on the Liberal Party.
In the coming election, I will invite Canadians to judge the NDP's record of getting things done for people in this Parliament. I'll ask the people of Canada to give us more support so we can get even more done in the next one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006November 9: Layton announced that, in order to avoid an election of the Christmas holidays and to avoid the cancellation of the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, he would use his opposition day motion on November 24 to propose that an election be called in early January with a vote in mid-February. Such a motion would not be binding on the government and could not guarantee the election timing contained in its language.
The 2 independents were tie-breakers and were the reason Layton still felt he had leverage after his November 7th announcement at the Empire Club.
November 10th commentary from an NDP partisan
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtmlAlready burned by the election dance he had last spring, Harper was reluctant to bring down the government in such a fashion. So he made an excuse: I won’t bring down the government unless I have Jack Layton’s support. …..Harper pressed the matter, offering the NDP the Conservative’s first Opposition Day in parliament (November 15) to bring in their own motion of non-confidence (“I don’t want to force an election; you force an election!”), but Layton refused to play Harper’s patsy. But then Layton came back with the brilliant plan: introduce a non-binding motion during the NDP’s Opposition Day demanding that Paul Martin call an election during the first week of January, rather than thirty days after the release of Gomery’s second report.
(In the spring of 2005 Layton blocked Harper by making a deal with Martin.)
November 13 - Harper, Duceppe and Layton met after Martin says he would not honour Layton's motion calling for an election campaign beginning in January. They proposed that they move forward with the NDP motion but, unless the Prime Minister committed to honouring it, they would vote no confidence in the government, forcing an election call sometime in November.
The motion had not actually been made yet. The motion only happened on November 21st. Layton had just announced that he would make it and Martin had replied that he wouldn’t accept it.
Harper and the Bloc could not take out Martin without either Layton or the both independents cooperating. The independents were not included in the meeting of the three leaders and Harper could not count on their support. Harper needed Layton's support. Layton did not just “go along with” Harper’s motion of non-confidence. Layton’s role was central and he wanted it known.
Layton’s intentions were make clear when he took credit for the Federal budget calling it an NDP budget, as if there would be any chance of negotiation after that.
I think the above is ample evidence to support that Harper would not have introduced the motion of non-confidence had he not been certain of Layton’s support and that Layton was responsible for precipitating the election of early 2006 which would have otherwise occurred in early March rather than in January.
I will alter my statement of "fact":
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc due to the optics and uncertainty over independent votes if Layton was not on board which is why he did not present a motion of non-confidence until Layton was willing to go along with him.
Replacing it with:
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc because he could not count on the votes of the independents. Layton had made a deal with Martin the previous Spring so Harper was suspicious that he would do it again. That's why he wanted Layton to present the non-confidence motion.
Tue, 2014-09-23 15:01
#12
Arthur Cramer
Daycare was one of the pieces of progressive legislation that fell along with the Martin government in 2006 which we have been furiously debating in multiple threads during which time this thread was introduced. The opening post seems like an invitation to have the debate here. For that reason this is where I am continuing the conversation.
From now on I will link to this thread when the discussion comes up on Layton’s involvement in the fall of the Martin government to avoid tainting all the other threads with the same debate.
I am not claiming Layton was responsible for the early fall of the government as fact, but as a justifiable opinion based on fact. Meaning, other people can come to different conclusions but my opinion is not unreasonable. It’s broadly accepted by all mainstream news and even progressive NDP cheerleader commentators that Layton was responsible but I am not claiming there is no counter argument to that perspective. I claim only that it is reasonable for people to have credited Layton.
I called out those I have been debating with for refusing to engage in the facts I have presented. In contrast I have acknowledged that on the date of the actual non-confidence vote Layton did not have the official numbers to save the government.
Aristotle replied challenging one of my assertions.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/latest-polling-thread-5-july-2012?page=261#comment-1458897
I stated:
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc due to the optics and uncertainty over independent votes if Layton was not on board which is why he did not present a motion of non-confidence until Layton was willing to go along with him.
Aristotle replied:
Harper had been quite willing to team up with the Bloc in 2005 to take down the Liberal government. Harper wanted the Liberals gone at any cost, and if that had to come at the expense of teaming up with the Bloc, that's what Harper was willing to do.
As of October 17, 2005 Layton no longer officially had the numbers to continue supporting the Martin government because Bev Desjarlais became an independent; however the split was not acrimonious.
On October 17, 2005, Desjarlais lost the Churchill NDP nomination to Niki Ashton, daughter of Manitoba cabinet minister Steve Ashton, in a vote of the membership of the Churchill NDP riding association.[16] She resigned from the NDP caucus on the same day, and announced she would run as an Independent in the next federal election[17] She acknowledged that her position on same-sex marriage was a prominent factor in her defeat.Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Desjarlais#Independent_MP>
The second independent was:
David Kilgour - In April 2005, he received media attention when he speculated about quitting the Liberal Party because of his disgust with the sponsorship scandal, saying that the issue made Canada look like "a northern banana republic". On April 12, 2005, he announced that he was crossing the floor to sit as an independent MP. He also cited the Canada's lack of action on the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, as reasons for quitting. He asserted that he has no plans to move back to the Conservatives, and stated that he had no plans to run for re-election.Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilgour>
The numbers at this time were 133 Liberal, 98 Conservative, 53 Bloc, 18 NDP and 2 independent.
98 + 53 = 151
133 + 18 = 151
Harper and the Bloc could not take Harper down alone. They would have needed both independents to vote with them otherwise it would be a tie and the speaker would be the tie breaker.
This is what two bloggers had to say:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002910.htmlNovember 7, 2005
Layton To Pull Plug?
So says Bourque;
EXCLUSIVE: Bourque has learned that NDP leader Jack Layton has decided to pull the plug on the governing Liberals, this in the wake of last week's Gomery Report, a weekend think about a proposed Liberal health care package, various arm twists from the likes of the CAW's Buzz Hargrove and myriad MPs like Ed Broadbent and Bill Blaikie, provincial heavyweights, and ordinary NDP members from one end of the country to the other. The bombshell is being let loose now in a speech to the Empire Club. According to sources inside the party, "It could be his finest hour, or it could blow up in his face", this referring to the very real risk that the next election may cost the NDP both seats AND influence due to the election of either another minority government or a new majority government for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. One Parliament Hill regular told Bourque that "Layton is smart to pull the plug, he's hit the end of the road. The only way to capitalize on what he's done is to go into an election while the Liberals are down. It's about opportunity, and it doesn't get much better than this." Already, phone lines are buzzing as NDP insiders reach out to party movers and shakers, all of them waiting, wondering, and watching for the big announcement's blowtorch ramifications. Developing.
Unless you believe there was some sort of conspiracy to put obscure blogs on the net the above is illuminating to me. It was known that Layton and Martin were negotiating and that the survival of the government depended on it.
http://www.invisiblehand.ca/archive/2005_11_01_index.php November 07, 2005Layton pulls the plug (maybe)
Jack Layton is having a press conference. After several minutes of platitudes, he got around to saying that the Liberal response to his health care demands was "unacceptable" and therefore, his party couldn't continue to show "confidence" in the government. (Update: His exact wording was "there's no basis for our party to express confidence in this government.")
However, I got the impression that he was leaving the door open to reversing his position if the Liberals caved to more of his demands.
So, do you think he will actually follow through this time, or will he chicken out and continue to prop up the Liberals?
2 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments 1 – 2 of 2
Anonymous said...
Unfortunately Harper lost his backbone. Now after 6 months of whining he won't call a non-confidence motion. HArper is such a doofus. You can never tell where this guy is coming from.
November 07, 2005 3:50 PM
Jack's Newswatch said...
Actually, Harper is very smart. He smells a trap and is not going to end up looking like a fool as Layton stabs him in the back.
I'd dump it on Layton too.
The man can't be trusted.
November 07, 2005 4:30 PM
(I suggest the "The man can't be trusted" is in reference to the spring when Harper tried to take down Martin and Layton didn't back him)
Notice there was already talk of Harper presenting a motion of non-confidence.
I found Layton’s speech from the Empire Club online. He did not give the original speech that he had planned to give.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/62911/data?n=34…I had a speech written for today about how Canada's prosperity depends on investing in people, infrastructure and our environment………But this week has been a tumultuous one in Ottawa. And events have intervened.
So we proposed changes we believed people wanted in a budget--not to make it perfect, but to make it better.…..Our proposals were ultimately accepted and the first NDP budget in history was well received.He basically announced himself Prime Minister by calling the Liberal budget the first NDP budget. That was a total slap in the face to Martin.
This Parliament's life is likely limited. Limited not by the choice of any opposition party, but by the unethical behaviour of the Liberal Party.I believe that in these circumstances Canada should not have to wait to determine how best to get more done. The time is approaching--sooner, not later--for the Canadian people to render judgment on the Liberal Party.
In the coming election, I will invite Canadians to judge the NDP's record of getting things done for people in this Parliament. I'll ask the people of Canada to give us more support so we can get even more done in the next one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006November 9: Layton announced that, in order to avoid an election of the Christmas holidays and to avoid the cancellation of the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, he would use his opposition day motion on November 24 to propose that an election be called in early January with a vote in mid-February. Such a motion would not be binding on the government and could not guarantee the election timing contained in its language.
The 2 independents were tie-breakers and were the reason Layton still felt he had leverage after his November 7th announcement at the Empire Club.
November 10th commentary from an NDP partisan
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtmlAlready burned by the election dance he had last spring, Harper was reluctant to bring down the government in such a fashion. So he made an excuse: I won’t bring down the government unless I have Jack Layton’s support. …..Harper pressed the matter, offering the NDP the Conservative’s first Opposition Day in parliament (November 15) to bring in their own motion of non-confidence (“I don’t want to force an election; you force an election!”), but Layton refused to play Harper’s patsy. But then Layton came back with the brilliant plan: introduce a non-binding motion during the NDP’s Opposition Day demanding that Paul Martin call an election during the first week of January, rather than thirty days after the release of Gomery’s second report.
(In the spring of 2005 Layton blocked Harper by making a deal with Martin.)
November 13 - Harper, Duceppe and Layton met after Martin says he would not honour Layton's motion calling for an election campaign beginning in January. They proposed that they move forward with the NDP motion but, unless the Prime Minister committed to honouring it, they would vote no confidence in the government, forcing an election call sometime in November.The motion had not actually been made yet. The motion only happened on November 21st. Layton had just announced that he would make it and Martin had replied that he wouldn’t accept it.
Harper and the Bloc could not take out Martin without either Layton or the both independents cooperating. The independents were not included in the meeting of the three leaders and Harper could not count on their support. Harper needed Layton's support. Layton did not just “go along with” Harper’s motion of non-confidence. Layton’s role was central and he wanted it known.
Layton’s intentions were make clear when he took credit for the Federal budget calling it an NDP budget, as if there would be any chance of negotiation after that.
I think the above is ample evidence to support that Harper would not have introduced the motion of non-confidence had he not been certain of Layton’s support and that Layton was responsible for precipitating the election of early 2006 which would have otherwise occurred in early March rather than in January.
I will alter my statement of "fact":
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc due to the optics and uncertainty over independent votes if Layton was not on board which is why he did not present a motion of non-confidence until Layton was willing to go along with him.
Replacing it with:
Fact: Harper was not willing to introduce a motion of non-confidence with just the Bloc because he could not count on the votes of the independents. Layton had made a deal with Martin the previous Spring so Harper was suspicious that he would do it again. That's why he wanted Layton to present the non-confidence motion.
Pondering, stop trying to derail aother thread. You are shameless.
Tue, 2014-09-23 15:41
#13
Pondering, stop trying to derail aother thread. You are shameless.
Arthur, I challenged my opponents sincerity by accusing them of ignoring all the facts I raised when I had acknowledge the only fact they raised.
Aristotle then challenged one of my facts. I wasn't going to ignore him.
This interchange took place in the polling thread which was obviously not the right place to continue the discussion.
The first post in this thread was in reference to the same debate therefore it is more on topic here than in any other thread.
Tue, 2014-09-23 18:06
#14
Arthur Cramer
Pondering, stop trying to derail aother thread. You are shameless.Arthur, I challenged my opponents sincerity by accusing them of ignoring all the facts I raised when I had acknowledge the only fact they raised.
Aristotle then challenged one of my facts. I wasn't going to ignore him.
This interchange took place in the polling thread which was obviously not the right place to continue the discussion.
The first post in this thread was in reference to the same debate therefore it is more on topic here than in any other thread.
More nonsenese Pondering. But if it makes you feel better, then as we said in the Navy, "fill your boots". 
Tue, 2014-09-23 18:38
#15
We are not talking about an opinion supported by fact-- it is an opinion directly and completely refuted by facts for which there can be no dispute.
I feel the need to once more introduce these facts becuase this conversation has had a lot of investment in it and there is no point having it now misrepresented by bold falsehoods.
First, the Liberals only had 132 voting MPs except in the case of a tie as the 133 included the Speaker
There were more than two independents involved -- Chuck Cadman had been around at the time of the budget vote of 2005. He cast the deciding vote to pass Martin's Spring budget but he died during the year so was not there to help the Liberals in the fall with the nonconfidence vote.
In the fall there were 4 independents:
- Carolyn Parrish who voted with the Liberals
- David Kilgour who voted against the Liberals in the Spring as well as the November vote.
- Pat O'Brien a former Liberal stated early on he would vote against the Liberals
- Bev Desjarlais estranged from the NDP stated early on she would vote against the Martin government no matter what the NDP did
So the math if the NDP had supported Martin actually was
Conservative 98 BQ 53 Independents 3= 154
Liberal 132 Independent 1 NDP 18 = 151
The NDP were the last to declare which way they would vote so this was a done deal before the NDP decided. EArlier in the negotiations the NDP may have thoguht there was an opportunity but by November it was passed and the Liberals and NDP were no longer talking have both acknowledged the math. The NDP made the decision to vote symbolically with the opposition after it was already clear they could not save the government.
What we have is a false and discredited argument being spammed on this board.
To have an opinion that the NDP could have prevented the fall of Martin's government is no more legitimate than to have an opinion that Chuck Cadman is still alive or that planet earth has six moons. You can frame it as just your opinion but the cost is an absolute loss of credibility.
Facts are not subject to opinion but opinion ought to be subject to facts.
I tried to ignore this latest round and was doing so until a new round of false facts got introduced and that's enough.
I do think denying numerical fact in order to present an opinion that is completely unsupportable by facts is trolling and baiting. This is the kind of stuff that is leading to fights even if the mods want to blame everyone but Pondering.
Let's not pretend that this is an innocent mistake when this argument has been going on for over a week and has had thousands of words written on it and the public record is available at the click of a mouse.
Not interested in having an extended argument but who is really at fault for that -- the people correcting the record or the people misrepresenting it? This fantasy argument repeated enough could affect the next election. I don't think it is reasonable in spite of Pondering's persistence to allow a false record to stand.
Tue, 2014-09-23 18:41
#16
Arthur Cramer
Pondering wrote in part, "This interchange took place in the polling thread which was obviously not the right place to continue the discussion."
Arthur Cramer wrote, bull!
Tue, 2014-09-23 19:11
#17
Liberals had ample opportunity to do whatever they wished, having had a majority run for, was it 13 years straight.
But Liberals campaign on the left and govern on the right. We all know that.
And that is the reason why we don't have a national child care program, and why the Kelowna Accord never ever saw the light of day.
Tue, 2014-09-23 21:41
#18
We are not talking about an opinion supported by fact-- it is an opinion directly and completely refuted by facts for which there can be no dispute.
I feel the need to once more introduce these facts becuase this conversation has had a lot of investment in it and there is no point having it now misrepresented by bold falsehoods.
First, the Liberals only had 132 voting MPs except in the case of a tie as the 133 included the Speaker
There were more than two independents involved -- Chuck Cadman had been around at the time of the budget vote of 2005. He cast the deciding vote to pass Martin's Spring budget but he died during the year so was not there to help the Liberals in the fall with the nonconfidence vote.
In the fall there were 4 independents:
- Carolyn Parrish who voted with the Liberals
- David Kilgour who voted against the Liberals in the Spring as well as the November vote.
- Pat O'Brien a former Liberal stated early on he would vote against the Liberals
- Bev Desjarlais estranged from the NDP stated early on she would vote against the Martin government no matter what the NDP did
So the math if the NDP had supported Martin actually was
Conservative 98 BQ 53 Independents 3= 154
Liberal 132 Independent 1 NDP 18 = 151
Facts are not subject to opinion but opinion ought to be subject to facts.
I tried to ignore this latest round and was doing so until a new round of false facts got introduced and that's enough.
Thank you for correcting the numbers on independent MPs Sean but it doesn't change anything.
Harper did not invite the 3 ex Liberals or the ex NDP to the meetings with the Bloc and Layton. Whether it was 2 independents or 4 they were still a wild card Harper wasn't willing to bet on or he wouldn't have bothered negotiating the two motions with Layton.
You claim that the 4 independents had confirmed which way they would vote. On what dates did they confirm? If Harper was sure of them it seems odd that he would bother trying to make a deal with Harper.
Tue, 2014-09-23 22:38
#19
Your argument is not going anywhere but I'll indulge you anyway with more of the 2005 drama.
Martin would have needed to turn two of the following three independents to avoid defeat (was not going to happen):
1) David Kilgour who voted against Martin in May and was itching to bring him down.The date you could use here is the May budget which he opposed and the NDP supported.
2) Pat O'Brien who left the Liberals in anger in part over Gomery and in part over same sex marriage. That took place on June 6. It was known back in June that Martin could count on those two to vote against him at any opportunity.
3) The last independent to declare was Bev Desjarlais. I don't remember the date except it was only a few days before the NDP announced what it would do. However: she had no loyalty to the NDP, was against same sex marriage (reason for losing her nomination) and was distinctly unfriendly to the Liberals. After the election she went to work for a Harper Minister having found her social conservatism.
But as I say, her vote or any one of the three was not required by Stephen Harper. Even if one were persuaded, Martin would have gone down 153-152 anyway.
Back in 1979 when the Joe Clark government fell it was a surprise-- he neglected to make a deal with 6 Social Credit MPs... But nobody who was following politics thought it was a surprise in 2005. You could see that coming a mile away. There were no more levers for Martin to pull. All the stops had been pulled out in May including inducing a Conservative MP and getting the support of a very sick man you later died and was unable to repeat that support.
After the loss of the independents over the summer Martin could not be saved.
Now you Liberals trying to make hay over pretending that Layton brought you down just make fools of yourselves (If you want to govern you need to be better at math than this).
There is one argument you really could make that might hold water and be politically useful.
What really brought down Paul Martin (other than the sponsorship scandal itself) was his position on same sex marriage. Due to that legislation introduced in early 2005 he eventually lost two MPS who voted with the Conservatives from then on (and the NDP lost one). It is the loss of these two MPs that took away the balance of power the NDP had and doomed Martin to fail. He got a brief reprieve in May when the Liberals induced Stronach to cross the floor and with the support of Chuck Cadman who died in August. But when those two former Liberals went against Martin there was no chance his government was going to survive.
So the date you are looking for is June 6. That is the day the Martin government died. From then on it was a zombie government of the walking dead. By November it was clear with Gomery there were going to be no more conservatives crossing the floor to save Martin, no opposition MPs dying or resigning in time and the only question was the scheduling of the vote to make it official.
Now none of this is my opinion. It is all facts.
Tue, 2014-09-23 22:39
#20
So Pondering can we move on from this train-wreck of an argument? There is nothing to win here. The math is not there for you.
Wed, 2014-09-24 00:00
#21
When did the Liberals first promise to bring in national child care program? This long diatribe about 2005 is irrelevant as it can be found in the "red book" at least a decade earlier. This doesn't hinge on 2005... it hinges on the long standing history of the Liberals to run to the left in elections, and to govern from the right.
Wed, 2014-09-24 00:14
#22
When did the Liberals first promise to bring in national child care program? This long diatribe about 2005 is irrelevant as it can be found in the "red book" at least a decade earlier. This doesn't hinge on 2005... it hinges on the long standing history of the Liberals to run to the left in elections, and to govern from the right.
My daughter who is 21 was not born
Wed, 2014-09-24 01:41
#23
But as I say, her vote or any one of the three was not required by Stephen Harper. Even if one were persuaded, Martin would have gone down 153-152 anyway.
There would have been no vote to lose without the Harper/Layton deal.
What other explanation do you have for the links that state Layton precipitated the election?
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-did-jack-layton-mean/
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtml
http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/08/21/01224.html
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jack-layton-profile/
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_layton.html
In particular someone should look into correcting the Jack Layton bios for the CBC and the Canadian Enclopedia.
Wed, 2014-09-24 01:54
#24
We are not talking about an opinion supported by fact-- it is an opinion directly and completely refuted by facts for which there can be no dispute.
I feel the need to once more introduce these facts becuase this conversation has had a lot of investment in it and there is no point having it now misrepresented by bold falsehoods.
First, the Liberals only had 132 voting MPs except in the case of a tie as the 133 included the Speaker
There were more than two independents involved -- Chuck Cadman had been around at the time of the budget vote of 2005. He cast the deciding vote to pass Martin's Spring budget but he died during the year so was not there to help the Liberals in the fall with the nonconfidence vote.
In the fall there were 4 independents:
- Carolyn Parrish who voted with the Liberals
- David Kilgour who voted against the Liberals in the Spring as well as the November vote.
- Pat O'Brien a former Liberal stated early on he would vote against the Liberals
- Bev Desjarlais estranged from the NDP stated early on she would vote against the Martin government no matter what the NDP did
So the math if the NDP had supported Martin actually was
Conservative 98 BQ 53 Independents 3= 154
Liberal 132 Independent 1 NDP 18 = 151
Facts are not subject to opinion but opinion ought to be subject to facts.
I tried to ignore this latest round and was doing so until a new round of false facts got introduced and that's enough.
Thank you for correcting the numbers on independent MPs Sean but it doesn't change anything.
Harper did not invite the 3 ex Liberals or the ex NDP to the meetings with the Bloc and Layton. Whether it was 2 independents or 4 they were still a wild card Harper wasn't willing to bet on or he wouldn't have bothered negotiating the two motions with Layton.
You claim that the 4 independents had confirmed which way they would vote. On what dates did they confirm? If Harper was sure of them it seems odd that he would bother trying to make a deal with Harper.
Math is such a funny thing. If you get it wrong it tends to undermine your argument. This is a second time you have made a math mistake on this issue. It matters, it really matters.
Wed, 2014-09-24 01:57
#25
Pondering is proud of her political illiteracy.
Wed, 2014-09-24 01:58
#26
Pondering is proud of her political illiteracy.
So are you going to look into having the CBC and Canadian Encyclopedia Jack Layton bios corrected?
Wed, 2014-09-24 02:16
#27
I'm not responsible to make sure you understand what you're reading. Only you can take responsibility for that.
The only valid argument you've made throughout these discussions is that when Jack positioned himself to take credit for the fall of the government, it was disingenuous and cynical (given that the NDP did not have any control over the situation).
Wed, 2014-09-24 03:16
#28
I'm not responsible to make sure you understand what you're reading. Only you can take responsibility for that.
The only valid argument you've made throughout these discussions is that when Jack positioned himself to take credit for the fall of the government, it was disingenuous and cynical (given that the NDP did not have any control over the situation).
CBC, Canadian Encyclopidia, Macleans, and more, all give Layton credit for bringing down the government. I'm pretty sure they were and are all aware of what the numbers were in parliament at the time. There would have been no reason for Martin/Layton to negotiate if the outcome was inevidable. There would have been no reason for Harper and Layton to make a deal either.
I think I've provided enough information and links that I am willing to allow readers to come to their own conclusions about the part Layton played in bringing down the government.
Wed, 2014-09-24 03:34
#29
While I'm at it, a couple of questions about Quebec's program. Is there a waiting list to get into child care in Quebec?
Yes, of course there are waiting lists. Last year, the PQ government announced a plan to consolidate them into one online portal covering public and subsidized centres on a mandatory basis (i.e. the ones that have $7 spaces).
[/quote]
Manitoba already has something similar, Aristotleded24 probably knows more about it than I do.
Wed, 2014-09-24 03:45
#30
Relavent exerpt from the Layton entry of the Canadian Encyclopedia:
"In the minority Parliament of 2004-2005, the NDP was able to play a key role. The NDP's amendment in the spring of 2005 to the Liberal government's budget generated more spending for infrastructure and social programs. The NDP also successfully lobbied the Martin government to resist involvement in the US missile defence system and to pass the same-sex marriage legislation.
Layton's constructive role amidst the turbulent minority Parliament contributed to the growth in his profile and positive assessment by the public. In the 2006 election, the NDP, under Layton, continued to make gains and rose in percent vote to 17.5% and in seats to 29. With the election of his wife to Parliament in 2006, Layton and Chow were a powerful and charismatic couple in national politics."
No mention about him bringing down the Martin government. Now, where is this CBC bio you speak of?
Also, appealing to authority (though, I'd hardly call the Canadian media an authority) is a logical fallacy. Why not engage the issue based on math, logic, and the historical evidence instead of just saying something is so because otehr people said so?
Wed, 2014-09-24 03:50
#31
But as I say, her vote or any one of the three was not required by Stephen Harper. Even if one were persuaded, Martin would have gone down 153-152 anyway.There would have been no vote to lose without the Harper/Layton deal.
What other explanation do you have for the links that state Layton precipitated the election?
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-did-jack-layton-mean/
http://bowjamesbow.ca/2005/11/10/brilliant.shtml
http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/08/21/01224.html
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jack-layton-profile/
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_layton.html
In particular someone should look into correcting the Jack Layton bios for the CBC and the Canadian Enclopedia.
It is possible that you might very well not be the only person who is wrong, politically motivated or just plain sloppy. In fact I heard that the blaming the NDP for the Martin defeat was a strategy cooked up by Axworthy...
1) The first article is wrong but it is one opinion writer quoting another several years after the fact. You had the benefit of the facts being put in front of your nose.
2) Your second link does not support your point at all-- At the time that article was written Layton had not even said how he would vote on Harper's non confidence vote. But Layton did avoid a non-confidence motion and never did bring one in. He did second Harper's but by then the math that is obvious to everyone but you was well known.
"Already burned by the election dance he had last spring, Harper was reluctant to bring down the government in such a fashion. So he made an excuse: I won’t bring down the government unless I have Jack Layton’s support. Meaning: if things go wrong, it’s Jack Layton’s fault. Jack then milked his renewed prominence in parliament for a while longer, but then decided — as Warren Kinsella recommended — to get out of Martin’s “blast radius”. An election was coming in February at the latest, so now was the time to extricate himself from his lucrative deal with the Liberals. But he wisely decided against doing Harper’s dirtywork, remaining coy over whether he’d cooperate on a motion of non-confidence."
"Harper pressed the matter, offering the NDP the Conservative’s first Opposition Day in parliament (November 15) to bring in their own motion of non-confidence (“I don’t want to force an election; you force an election!”), but Layton refused to play Harper’s patsy. But then Layton came back with the brilliant plan: introduce a non-binding motion during the NDP’s Opposition Day demanding that Paul Martin call an election during the first week of January, rather than thirty days after the release of Gomery’s second report."
3) Then there is the Liberal Star. Artfully written says helped. Gets around admitting that help meant to support what was happening anyway. Very different from your statement of blame and responsibility. If you don't know the reputation of the Star on all things Liberal you won't appreciate how the word "help" works...
4) Next up Laxer who is clear about why the Liberals lost with this quote: "Unlike Chretien, Martin was not lucky. He inherited the Sponsorship Scandal from his predecessor. When it blew up on his watch, he was never able to recover from it." It is true he was shocked at the Harper government but he recovered from blaming the NDP for inconveniently advocating for themselves when this was not the best thing for the Liberal party. Certainly he does not anywhere blame the NDP for Martin falling. He does say the NDP decision to run against the government of the day as an opposition party helped to defeat the government and the NDP did not kiss up to Martin by running as hard against the other opposition party. It is of course normal to
a) run against the government (no complaints from the Liberals when Layton ignored the Liberals in the next election and focused on the new government) and
b) run against the party trying to take your votes away
5) The Canadian is not much of a publication, Agora the publisher is vanity press and the article is so full of mistakes. The author also has not published very much (just google you will see). Sure sounds like a Liberal pissed at Layton more than anything else.
6) Oh yes David Akin -- from that source of real news SUN news. Isn't he the guy that said Gordon Lightfoot died in 2010? Read him for entertainment or opinion, sure -- facts? not so much.
7) MacLeans again -- twice to the well already -- you can see the liberal bias in the article about Layton but well, it is Macleans
8) CBC article saying Layton did not get a deal with Martin or with the other opposition parties. But it does not make your point. Not at all.
I am not doing this again when you post irrelevant links.
The only reason I did was this point was proven conclusively even with a video of the House vote and then you bring this stuff.
Wed, 2014-09-24 14:09
#32
Relavent exerpt from the Layton entry of the Canadian Encyclopedia:
Not relevant to this discussion but I did think if anyone bothered to read the link they would notice the credit given Layton for the progressive legislation which is why Jack Layton called it an "NDP budget" in his speech at the Empire Club.
Also, appealing to authority (though, I'd hardly call the Canadian media an authority) is a logical fallacy. Why not engage the issue based on math, logic, and the historical evidence instead of just saying something is so because otehr people said so?
I have acknowledged countless times that at the time of the vote Layton could not have saved the government. I am basing it on historical evidence. Layton got the ball rolling, he did it deliberately, it was common knowledge, once it was rolling he could not have stopped it even if he wanted to.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jack-layton-profile/
The Liberals are preoccupied with the Tories, but also seem aware that they can't afford to keep feeding the emboldened rival on their left flank. When Stephen HARPER and Gilles DUCEPPE were ready to gang up to defeat Martin's government after Gomery's November report, Layton tried once more to parlay the votes of his little group of MPs into more polices to hang in the NDP shop window. But this time, when he asked for significant steps to curb private health services, Martin's counter-offer was so vague that it would have given the NDP little to brag about. The Liberals were clearly loath to hand Layton more campaign ammunition. So he walked away from the table. As one NDP insider explained, letting the Liberals survive well into 2006 - long enough to deliver a budget that would eclipse the "NDP budget" from last spring - was only worth it if Layton could plausibly claim to have imposed his will on the key health care file. If he couldn't keep running the country, in other words, we'd just have to have another election.
Those who know him well are not surprised Layton is playing the angles to leverage slim numbers into substantial clout.
This is the Canadian Encyclopedia. They would not imply that Layton had the power to impact the election date if he didn't. They are not referring to the non-confidence vote nor am I. At that point Layton could (probably) not have saved the government. No one is claiming that had the NDP voted for Martin the government would have survived. The government's fate was sealed on November 7th, or rather when Layton decided to replace his speech at the Empire Club to announce that he would no longer support the Liberal government. He then made a deal with Harper for the one two punch motions of proposing the February election, and using the failure of that motion to justify Harper's non-confidence motion the following week. That way they could blame Martin for the Christmas election.
All four parties were trying to time the election to their advantage. The Bloc, NDP and Conservatives all wanted it sooner rather than later because they were afraid that the progressive legislation, and Martin implementing all the reforms recommended by the final Gomery report, would help him and he was still leading in the polls.
Most accounts don't go into all the details of what was going on. It's just a given. That's why Thomas Walkom, (the guy who just gave Mulcair massive kodos for not approving the advisers for Iraq) said this:
In 2005, it was then NDP leader Jack Layton’s decision to pull the plug on Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government that helped kill the closest thing Canada has ever had to a national child care system.
He wasn't being delusional or lying or misremembering. It's common knowledge.
This is from the CBC Canada votes, 2006 election guides:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_layton.html
He had to walk a tightrope in November 2005 while deciding whether or not to continue supporting the Liberals after the first sponsorship scandal report was released. Layton tried for what he called a "compromise", getting some health-care guarantees in exchange for further NDP support. In the end, he said the government response wasn't enough. He then came up with what he called another compromise - an agreement among the opposition to wait until January for an election, if the government would agree. Again, that failed.
November 7th is when Layton rejected the Liberal package which started the ball rolling. The talks between Martin and Layton prior to November 7th were critical. If Layton had accepted the deal the election would have occurred as planned, 30 days after the final Gomery report which would have been first week of March.
I find it particularly droll that in a rabble thread from 2012, Arthur confirms what I am saying, only he blames Martin for not accepting Layton's terms.
http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/kelowna-accord-wha...
Post # 17
The discussions with the NDP prior to the Martin government falling were ongoing from that summer, 2005. It finally came down to Martin's refusal to agree that the government would penalize provinces that allowed the growth in private medicine. I had a whole bunch of references on this but left them at work. I'll post them tomorrow. I am also still trying to get a little more background on this. I am waiting for a call back from someone who was in Ottawa at the time.I really hate how this issue gets dragged into what was actually happening at the time. It seems to me that if the NDP hadn't been so adamant regarding health care, and gone along with Martin, it would have done to bolster his false "left" bonafides, ultimately at the expense of the New Dems. I realize that political considerations shouldn't play into important things, but they do.
Arthur is referring to the timing of the election being a political consideration because Martin would have passed more progressive legislation and been given credit for it.
That is exactly the calculation that this article explains was a hot debate amongst progressives and amongst NDP party members.
http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
On one side of the debate progressives wanted Layton to fold in order to solidify the gains already made. On the other side of the debate it was argued that the best thing for Canadians was to maximize NDP votes, which meant taking down Martin at his weakest and not letting him present a budget full of all sorts of goodies with his huge surplus achieved through the cuts of the 90s.
The November 7th announcement that he would no longer support the Martin government is what got the ball rolling. The rest was just the formalities. That is why commentators and historians refer to Layton precipitating the election as common knowledge. It has nothing to do with the non-confidence motion of late November.
Post 23 from the same thread
Well what I know pretty much for sure now is Martin got pushed by the New Dems, and decided to let the government fall, rather then do the righ thing.
Again, Arthur comfirms. He is claiming that had Martin acceded to NDP demands the government would not have fallen.
Wed, 2014-09-24 14:17
#33
I addressed the pathetic list of mostly irrelevant links.
But nothing has changed.
This was simple math. Not trig. Just math.
It is truly rare to see someone beat a dead horse this long and then do it again just in case it might wake up.
Wed, 2014-09-24 14:34
#34
Relavent exerpt from the Layton entry of the Canadian Encyclopedia:
Not relevant to this discussion but I did think if anyone bothered to read the link they would notice the credit given Layton for the progressive legislation which is why Jack Layton called it an "NDP budget" in his speech at the Empire Club.
Also, appealing to authority (though, I'd hardly call the Canadian media an authority) is a logical fallacy. Why not engage the issue based on math, logic, and the historical evidence instead of just saying something is so because otehr people said so?
I have acknowledged countless times that at the time of the vote Layton could not have saved the government. I am basing it on historical evidence. Layton got the ball rolling, he did it deliberately, it was common knowledge, once it was rolling he could not have stopped it even if he wanted to.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jack-layton-profile/
The Liberals are preoccupied with the Tories, but also seem aware that they can't afford to keep feeding the emboldened rival on their left flank. When Stephen HARPER and Gilles DUCEPPE were ready to gang up to defeat Martin's government after Gomery's November report, Layton tried once more to parlay the votes of his little group of MPs into more polices to hang in the NDP shop window. But this time, when he asked for significant steps to curb private health services, Martin's counter-offer was so vague that it would have given the NDP little to brag about. The Liberals were clearly loath to hand Layton more campaign ammunition. So he walked away from the table. As one NDP insider explained, letting the Liberals survive well into 2006 - long enough to deliver a budget that would eclipse the "NDP budget" from last spring - was only worth it if Layton could plausibly claim to have imposed his will on the key health care file. If he couldn't keep running the country, in other words, we'd just have to have another election.
Those who know him well are not surprised Layton is playing the angles to leverage slim numbers into substantial clout.
This is the Canadian Encyclopedia. They would not imply that Layton had the power to impact the election date if he didn't. They are not referring to the non-confidence vote nor am I. At that point Layton could (probably) not have saved the government. No one is claiming that had the NDP voted for Martin the government would have survived. The government's fate was sealed on November 7th, or rather when Layton decided to replace his speech at the Empire Club to announce that he would no longer support the Liberal government. He then made a deal with Harper for the one two punch motions of proposing the February election, and using the failure of that motion to justify Harper's non-confidence motion the following week. That way they could blame Martin for the Christmas election.
All four parties were trying to time the election to their advantage. The Bloc, NDP and Conservatives all wanted it sooner rather than later because they were afraid that the progressive legislation, and Martin implementing all the reforms recommended by the final Gomery report, would help him and he was still leading in the polls.
Most accounts don't go into all the details of what was going on. It's just a given. That's why Thomas Walkom, (the guy who just gave Mulcair massive kodos for not approving the advisers for Iraq) said this:
In 2005, it was then NDP leader Jack Layton’s decision to pull the plug on Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government that helped kill the closest thing Canada has ever had to a national child care system.
He wasn't being delusional or lying or misremembering. It's common knowledge.
This is from the CBC Canada votes, 2006 election guides:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/leaders/bio_layton.html
He had to walk a tightrope in November 2005 while deciding whether or not to continue supporting the Liberals after the first sponsorship scandal report was released. Layton tried for what he called a "compromise", getting some health-care guarantees in exchange for further NDP support. In the end, he said the government response wasn't enough. He then came up with what he called another compromise - an agreement among the opposition to wait until January for an election, if the government would agree. Again, that failed.
November 7th is when Layton rejected the Liberal package which started the ball rolling. The talks between Martin and Layton prior to November 7th were critical. If Layton had accepted the deal the election would have occurred as planned, 30 days after the final Gomery report which would have been first week of March.
I find it particularly droll that in a rabble thread from 2012, Arthur confirms what I am saying, only he blames Martin for not accepting Layton's terms.
http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/kelowna-accord-wha...
Post # 17
The discussions with the NDP prior to the Martin government falling were ongoing from that summer, 2005. It finally came down to Martin's refusal to agree that the government would penalize provinces that allowed the growth in private medicine. I had a whole bunch of references on this but left them at work. I'll post them tomorrow. I am also still trying to get a little more background on this. I am waiting for a call back from someone who was in Ottawa at the time.I really hate how this issue gets dragged into what was actually happening at the time. It seems to me that if the NDP hadn't been so adamant regarding health care, and gone along with Martin, it would have done to bolster his false "left" bonafides, ultimately at the expense of the New Dems. I realize that political considerations shouldn't play into important things, but they do.
Arthur is referring to the timing of the election being a political consideration because Martin would have passed more progressive legislation and been given credit for it.
That is exactly the calculation that this article explains was a hot debate amongst progressives and amongst NDP party members.
http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
On one side of the debate progressives wanted Layton to fold in order to solidify the gains already made. On the other side of the debate it was argued that the best thing for Canadians was to maximize NDP votes, which meant taking down Martin at his weakest and not letting him present a budget full of all sorts of goodies with his huge surplus achieved through the cuts of the 90s.
The November 7th announcement that he would no longer support the Martin government is what got the ball rolling. The rest was just the formalities. That is why commentators and historians refer to Layton precipitating the election as common knowledge. It has nothing to do with the non-confidence motion of late November.
Post 23 from the same thread
Well what I know pretty much for sure now is Martin got pushed by the New Dems, and decided to let the government fall, rather then do the righ thing.Again, Arthur comfirms. He is claiming that had Martin acceded to NDP demands the government would not have fallen.
Pondering I know your reading comprehension skills are simply not handling this data but you are misrepresenting what Arthur said.
Should we have this as a teaching moment?
The subject of the sentence was Martin. The object was the New Democrats. The subject of the word decided was Martin. It was Martin who decided to let the government fall.
a) Martin was pushed by the NDP
b) He let the government fall
What he could have done about it?
He had three choices:
1) call an election before the vote
2) agree to the NDP proposal to schedule the election a month later
3) let the government fall and have an imediate election
But you are still pretending that there was another option the 18 seats of the NDP could have offered.
Denial when you don't know but should know is called willful ignorance.
Denial when the facts have been in front of you is called lying. You passed into lying quite a while ago.
In this case you had the numbers and even a video of the House vote. Now you are trying to twist what Arthur said.
You have spent some time trying to find secondary crap references-- anywhere where someone else got it wrong either by making a mistake or being as biased as you have been.
You have even extracted the admission that Layton laid it on a little thick exaggerating the role he had for political purpose.
But you are still left with a mathematical argument. The Martin government could not have been saved by Layton and the fall of that government could not have been delayed by Layton (although he tried).
This is called trolling. Being a Troll. That is what you are doing.
And you have succeeded-- we are not talking about a generation of broken Liberal promises to bring in a national child care program. We are still talking about the BS argument that Layton could have decided with his merry band of 18 New Democrats the fate of the Martin government. You have derailed the thread. Again.
Wed, 2014-09-24 14:58
#35
I addressed the pathetic list of mostly irrelevant links.But nothing has changed.
This was simple math. Not trig. Just math.
It is truly rare to see someone beat a dead horse this long and then do it again just in case it might wake up.
I agree that the debate is over in that I am satisfied the arguments have been fully presented but I will continue to respond to posts here. From now on whenever the topic is raised I will link to this thread and let people come to their own conclusions.
If my links are so pathetic then people will read your critiques and agree with you and discount my argument. More likely they will find the whole thing a bore and not read either of our posts.
Neither of our arguments will impact people who have their own vague memories of those times. The headlines were all about Layton "pulling the plug" on the Martin government and whether or not he would do it. Everyone was waiting with baited breath to see if we were going to be forced into a Christmas election.
Wed, 2014-09-24 15:17
#36
hopefully more people use facts than your bafflegab -- and those are easy to find from official sources.
This was about math only.
Really sets out the level of credibility you should expect after that display.
What happens if something actually subjective comes up?
I actually find it a little amusing that you would take on official sources like the House of Commons and even video recordings with a a handful of links that mostly don't even get close to saying what you would need them to say.
I assume you have not heard of the concept of primary vs secondary sources vs opinion articles. Too bad.
Actually I think I'll use this as an example to show a high school kid the value of considering sources.
I think most people, when they are wondering, will tend to use primary sources especially when they are available as easily as these ones are.
-- And no -- outside of fantasy land people familiar with the story were not holding their breath. It had been well-covered in the news and people were just waiting for the shoe to drop by vote or election call.
Wed, 2014-09-24 15:23
#37
Liberal Fail!
The Liberals had their chance, over many, many years of majority government to bring a national child care program. They didn't.
Wed, 2014-09-24 15:24
#38
... More likely they will find the whole thing a bore and not read either of our posts.
....
And that is why trolls without any facts to back them up shovel volume in place of reasoned argument so that they can neutralize the truth rather than be called upon it.
Your strategy for avoiding uncomfortable arguments is transparent: Bury them in BS till nobody has the time to see which is true-- or hope the other person walks away and lets you present BS as truth.
We have had over a week of you running from objective numerical facts. And enough investment not to let you get away with it this time. You have already been asked to give it up by another Liberal here who likely thinks you are embarassing the party and needlessly reminding people of why the Liberals got turfed in 2006.
The added bonus is you are laying your credibility on the line to dispute hard objective facts.
Wed, 2014-09-24 16:37
#39
In any case, how do we proceed with a national child care program when education is under the purview of the provinces? In terms of a national program, in the interim I think it's critical for advocates to push their own provinces to move as much as they can on this topic, holding up accomplishments in Quebec, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island as models to emulate. Increase the number of spaces. Pay the child care staff more. Give them pension plans, which will help to retain people over the long term. Let these 3 provinces lead the way, and that will pave the way for the feds to come in and give support for this initiative across the country.
It's really important to bring the provinces on board from the ground up, lest it be seen as Ottawa imposing another one-size-fits-all social program on the rest of the country. At the risk of being repetitious, having a Harper government did not prevent Manitoba from providing pension plans for child care workers. If Manitoba can do this on its own, what excuse does BC, Alberta, and Ontario have for not doing this?
Wed, 2014-09-24 16:56
#40
In any case, how do we proceed with a national child care program when education is under the purview of the provinces? In terms of a national program, in the interim I think it's critical for advocates to push their own provinces to move as much as they can on this topic, holding up accomplishments in Quebec, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island as models to emulate. Increase the number of spaces. Pay the child care staff more. Give them pension plans, which will help to retain people over the long term. Let these 3 provinces lead the way, and that will pave the way for the feds to come in and give support for this initiative across the country.
It's really important to bring the provinces on board from the ground up, lest it be seen as Ottawa imposing another one-size-fits-all social program on the rest of the country. At the risk of being repetitious, having a Harper government did not prevent Manitoba from providing pension plans for child care workers. If Manitoba can do this on its own, what excuse does BC, Alberta, and Ontario have for not doing this?
Good thoughts.
A national child care program is possible using the federal spending power but you are right the provincial power over education does mean any can go it alone.
The problem I see here is that eventually this means a loss of the federation. These are programs that some provinces can afford and others will not be able to. More patchwork -- less portability and less participation in a shared economic system.
It is one thing to give provinces the means and let them decide if they just want to take the cash through opt-out -- another if some don't get the choice.
Thu, 2014-09-25 00:33
#41
In any case, how do we proceed with a national child care program when education is under the purview of the provinces?
We have medicare, but I don't agree with opting out unless there is a referendum. Otherwise Canadians can be deprived by their province.
Thu, 2014-09-25 01:39
#42
I'm not responsible to make sure you understand what you're reading. Only you can take responsibility for that.
The only valid argument you've made throughout these discussions is that when Jack positioned himself to take credit for the fall of the government, it was disingenuous and cynical (given that the NDP did not have any control over the situation).
CBC, Canadian Encyclopidia, Macleans, and more, all give Layton credit for bringing down the government. I'm pretty sure they were and are all aware of what the numbers were in parliament at the time. There would have been no reason for Martin/Layton to negotiate if the outcome was inevidable. There would have been no reason for Harper and Layton to make a deal either.
I think I've provided enough information and links that I am willing to allow readers to come to their own conclusions about the part Layton played in bringing down the government.
And we know there's no bias in the media... 