No, seriously. No word yet if Johnny Fever is going to do the 6 o'clock news.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Progressives strike back
So it looks like a deal -- the Liberals and NDP will form a coalition with the support of the Bloc. There's a written agreement and admittedly, the devil is in the details, but there's more money for infrastructure, the environment, seniors and children; and the scheduled corporate tax reductions will go ahead as scheduled. There's also a commitment to go ahead with a national daycare strategy. All things I like.
What I'm not sure about is Stéphane Dion serving as interim Prime Minister until the Liberals have their convention in May. Sounds like an accidental PM, but at least he can say he served as PM.
The question is, what will Harper do? I think there is about a 50% chance he'll try to prorogue Parliament by this weekend, but that would only delay what he must know is inevitable. I think he should just face the music and throw in the towel before he is non-confidenced out of office. If he did, history might judge him as a gentleman. Right now, he doesn't come close to that. I lost respect for him a long time ago but he might get some of it back before it's too late.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What I'm not sure about is Stéphane Dion serving as interim Prime Minister until the Liberals have their convention in May. Sounds like an accidental PM, but at least he can say he served as PM.
The question is, what will Harper do? I think there is about a 50% chance he'll try to prorogue Parliament by this weekend, but that would only delay what he must know is inevitable. I think he should just face the music and throw in the towel before he is non-confidenced out of office. If he did, history might judge him as a gentleman. Right now, he doesn't come close to that. I lost respect for him a long time ago but he might get some of it back before it's too late.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Still up in the air, but ...
The details were first reported last night, but it looks like we have an idea of what a coalition government might look like here in Canada -- if it pulls off and that is still actually far from a certainty. The Liberals and NDP would form the government with the Libs getting 18 Cabinet seats and the NDs 6 (none of them economic or the deputy PM slot). The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the inner circle but would agree to support the coalition. The grouping would last 30 months.
The two hang-ups? First, who's going to lead this thing. Will it be Stéphane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff, or someone else who would be a caretaker? The leader has to be someone who can be a uniter but is still willing to take the fall if the leadership convention in May goes against him or her. While I'd like it to be Ignatieff, there is an argument that would give him an unfair advantage going into the leadership. If it was Dion, would he really relish being a PM for just five months?
Second, and it's something I and some others talked about the other day before the MSM picked up on it -- Stephen Harper could always ask the GG to prorogue Parliament and try again with a new session in the new year. Obviously a no-confidence vote could not take place while Parliament is not sitting, and I believe there would have to be eight sitting days minimum before such a new motion could be considered (since the Speech from the Throne would be the first topic for debate).
The only time I can recall such a protracted session was in 1988 after the free trade election. There was a brief three week session (two in the House, one in the Senate) to ratify the treaty after the election was forced on the issue in the previous Parliament.
But it would be one of the most cynical moves imaginable, and GG Jean would have to ask, what stunt is being pulled here? It would be an impossible position for her. If she accepted prorogation she'd be stopping a legitimate debate in Parliament from taking its course. If she refused, she'd be accused of taking a partisan position.
In the UK, there's a new session that begins every fall. It's as simple as that. It'd be a lot easier if we did it that way here -- but Canadian politics is a peculiar thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The two hang-ups? First, who's going to lead this thing. Will it be Stéphane Dion, or Michael Ignatieff, or someone else who would be a caretaker? The leader has to be someone who can be a uniter but is still willing to take the fall if the leadership convention in May goes against him or her. While I'd like it to be Ignatieff, there is an argument that would give him an unfair advantage going into the leadership. If it was Dion, would he really relish being a PM for just five months?
Second, and it's something I and some others talked about the other day before the MSM picked up on it -- Stephen Harper could always ask the GG to prorogue Parliament and try again with a new session in the new year. Obviously a no-confidence vote could not take place while Parliament is not sitting, and I believe there would have to be eight sitting days minimum before such a new motion could be considered (since the Speech from the Throne would be the first topic for debate).
The only time I can recall such a protracted session was in 1988 after the free trade election. There was a brief three week session (two in the House, one in the Senate) to ratify the treaty after the election was forced on the issue in the previous Parliament.
But it would be one of the most cynical moves imaginable, and GG Jean would have to ask, what stunt is being pulled here? It would be an impossible position for her. If she accepted prorogation she'd be stopping a legitimate debate in Parliament from taking its course. If she refused, she'd be accused of taking a partisan position.
In the UK, there's a new session that begins every fall. It's as simple as that. It'd be a lot easier if we did it that way here -- but Canadian politics is a peculiar thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Nothing unethical, eh? Try illegal (maybe)
Canada has a history of dirty tricks in politics. But the PMO's admission that a Conservative member hacked into an NDP conference call yesterday takes things to a new low. I was under the presumption that warrantless wiretapping, or recording a phone conversation without consent, is illegal in Canada. To openly release the tape is beyond comprehension.
But like Duplessis and Nixon, Harper must presume that if he's the leader then nothing he does is illegal. Or unethical.
At this point, a normal person would hire an independent prosecutor to investigate. But Harper is anything but a normal person. If there is any way to bring down his government before next Monday's no-confidence vote (short of a military coup d'état) then I'd like to know.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But like Duplessis and Nixon, Harper must presume that if he's the leader then nothing he does is illegal. Or unethical.
At this point, a normal person would hire an independent prosecutor to investigate. But Harper is anything but a normal person. If there is any way to bring down his government before next Monday's no-confidence vote (short of a military coup d'état) then I'd like to know.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
More backpeddling -- not good enough
The Conservatives continue to backwheel. They've now backed down on the right to strike and pay equity issues -- at least, for now (as with the case on party financing). But that doesn't change the fact that they never should have brought it those issues in the first place. As for announcing the budget date as January 27, much earlier than would be expected in the cycle, one has to note this is even more cynical as it's just one week after Obama's inauguration.
We can't wait two months.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
We can't wait two months.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Another reason to dump the Cons: Pay equity (or the end of it)
After going through the economic statement last week, that's caused the left to unite as it hasn't been in a very long time, I noticed something else very odious that's reason enough for me to hope Stephen Harper is forced to resign next week -- even if all the other concerns were somehow addressed (which of course they won't be). The Conservatives want to wipe out outstanding lawsuits regarding pay equity in federally regulated industries as well as the right to sue for any suits that might be forthcoming.
Pay equity goes beyond equal pay for equal work. It's the principle that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. It does this by measuring what the comparative worth of a job classifcation is and the value it provides to society at large (in the case of government) or to a corporation (in the case of industry). In plain language, it tries on an objective scale to compare apples to oranges.
For example, on a purely hypothetical example, say you're comparing federal public health officials (some working for the Health Department, others for Defence or for Indian Affairs) to a disparate class -- for this example,. detachments of constable Mounties (under the jurisdiction of Public Safety). Both groups are public employees on the federal payroll. The jobs are obviously vastly different and serve different purposes, but on an independent evaluation they are found to prove equal value to the community at large. Under pay equity, whoever is getting paid less should have their salaries raised to match the higher paid job. Further, identical jobs across different departments should also get paid the same.
While the vast majority of pay equity cases have involved underpaid women, some have involved underpaid men. Now the government wants to take that away citing "budgetary constraints."
No. Wrong. We cannot sacrifice equal rights at the altar of the bean counters. I should not be surprised that this would be happening. Mike Harris did away with pay equity in Ontario (wrongly) and the hatchetman he picked for the job was Jim Flaherty. He had a majority behind him in the Ontario Legislature (as well as a sailing economy at the time) so he mostly got away with it.
He, and Harper, cannot be allowed to get away with it at the federal level even if we are in recession.
This is a matter of equal rights. It's as simple as that. Anyone against something as simple as the equality of men and women in the workplace does not deserve to even sit as an MP let alone be a Minister of the Crown.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Pay equity goes beyond equal pay for equal work. It's the principle that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. It does this by measuring what the comparative worth of a job classifcation is and the value it provides to society at large (in the case of government) or to a corporation (in the case of industry). In plain language, it tries on an objective scale to compare apples to oranges.
For example, on a purely hypothetical example, say you're comparing federal public health officials (some working for the Health Department, others for Defence or for Indian Affairs) to a disparate class -- for this example,. detachments of constable Mounties (under the jurisdiction of Public Safety). Both groups are public employees on the federal payroll. The jobs are obviously vastly different and serve different purposes, but on an independent evaluation they are found to prove equal value to the community at large. Under pay equity, whoever is getting paid less should have their salaries raised to match the higher paid job. Further, identical jobs across different departments should also get paid the same.
While the vast majority of pay equity cases have involved underpaid women, some have involved underpaid men. Now the government wants to take that away citing "budgetary constraints."
No. Wrong. We cannot sacrifice equal rights at the altar of the bean counters. I should not be surprised that this would be happening. Mike Harris did away with pay equity in Ontario (wrongly) and the hatchetman he picked for the job was Jim Flaherty. He had a majority behind him in the Ontario Legislature (as well as a sailing economy at the time) so he mostly got away with it.
He, and Harper, cannot be allowed to get away with it at the federal level even if we are in recession.
This is a matter of equal rights. It's as simple as that. Anyone against something as simple as the equality of men and women in the workplace does not deserve to even sit as an MP let alone be a Minister of the Crown.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Saturday night music vault: Let's Call the Whole Thing Off (and life imitates art)!
Well, what do you know? Who would have thought Steve would have caved in but he did just that tonight and scrapped his plan to destroy his enemies by eliminating public party financing.
Clearly they got the message on that one point but they still don't get it on the stimulus issue. The fact Harper has finally been shown to have a weak spot demonstrates the Opposition can be effective if it just gets its act together; and far as I can tell they have no plans to call off their non-confidence vote on December 8 nor should they.
In honour of this surprise news, I present my musical selection for the week. I was going to pick this one anyway, but the breaking news was just plain serendipity. Ladies and gentleman, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
Now to whatever's on TV, besides ice hockey ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Clearly they got the message on that one point but they still don't get it on the stimulus issue. The fact Harper has finally been shown to have a weak spot demonstrates the Opposition can be effective if it just gets its act together; and far as I can tell they have no plans to call off their non-confidence vote on December 8 nor should they.
In honour of this surprise news, I present my musical selection for the week. I was going to pick this one anyway, but the breaking news was just plain serendipity. Ladies and gentleman, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
Now to whatever's on TV, besides ice hockey ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
King-Byng no precedent now
I decided to look over the events surrounding the King-Byng Affair in 1926 and see if it has any lessons for the current stalemate in Ottawa. Let's review the facts. (I've reviewed a couple of online articles to get my facts straight.)
After the 1925 generals, the House of Commons was in a minority or "hung" situation. The Conservatives under Arthur Meighen (grandfather of current Senator Michael) won 116 seats, the Liberals (led by Mackenzie King) had 101 and the left-leaning Progressives under Robert Forke had 24. King had an informal agreement with the Progressives to stay in power.
A few months after the election, one of King's hacks at Customs and Excise was accused of taking kickbacks. The Minister in charge of the Department was fired but then quickly promoted to the Senate. The Progressives were outraged and pulled their support. King, who had lost two procedural votes (not on confidence) but fearing he'd lose one on the corruption issue (which was possibly a confidence matter) asked the Governor General, Field Marshall Viscount Julian Bing of Vimy, to dissolve Parliament and call a new election.
Byng refused, but for two specific reasons: First, the House was still considering a motion of censure and to interfere in that would be tantamount to the Crown stamping on Parliament's freedom of speech; second, he thought the Conservatives should have a chance to rule since they were the largest bloc in the House. King asked Byng to reconsider and that he should consult the British government (remember, Canada was still a colony in those days). Byng declined that, too. Furious, King resigned. Byng then asked Meighen to form a government.
Under the rules of the time, a Prime Minister called in mid-stream ould only make his ministers "acting" ones; to get their posts locked up they would have to individually resign and run in by-elections. King seized on the opportunity, got the Progressives back on his side, and voted non-confidence; an election was called and King won by a landslide. Ironically, he made Canadian independence his issue notwithstanding he was the one who had asked the Colonial Office to intervene; and even though Byng saw correctly that it was an issue for Canadians, not the British, to decide.
After the election, the Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few others) got an understanding (called the Balfour Declaration) that a Governor General was not to be the agent of the London government but of the Sovereign. Thus, the viceroy or vicereine became a "vice-regal" representative. Representation of 10 Downing Street's interests would be instead taken up by a High Commissioner (the functional equivalent of an Ambassador).
So is Stephen Harper correct in saying that the 1926 crisis sets a precedent? I'm not so sure. I'm no constitutional expert, but there are four problems I see with the argument.
First, Balfour did not end the residual power that a Governor General has to seek out a possible government that can be formed in case of a deadlock or vote of non-confidence. There is an example for this -- many cite the 1985 alliance formed in Ontario between the Liberals and NDP, although in that case it was the lieutenant governor that called upon Peterson to replace Miller. The people would not have tolerated two elections in only three months and we're only six, seven weeks past the last election.
Second, King tried to have it both ways first by being for the Colonial Office before being against it. There's no more Colonial Office, and there's no way the Comonwealth Office or the Queen herself is going to get involved in this one; she got burned over Lord Hume in the UK in 1963 and she vowed never again to get involved in party politics.
Third, there wasn't a non-confidence vote that forced King to resign. It was still being considered. He resigned out of disgust to avert the humiliation.
Fourth, I think Harper might have an argument if he won the popular vote by a margin so large the other parties with their combined totals would barely surpass it if at all. That was the case in 1925: The Conservatives had 46.13%, the Liberals 39.74%, the Progressives 8.45%. Add the latter two, you get 48.19%, a difference of 2.03%.
Now look at the 2008 numbers. Conservatives: 37.65%, Liberals 26.26%, NDP 18.18%, Bloc 9.98%. (The Greens, who unfortunately didn't get any, won 6.78%.) Add up the numbers for the progressive parties. 54.42% voted for progressive parties that got into the House, if you add the Greens it was 61.20%. That's a gap of 16.77% or 23.55% depending on how you count it; a huge difference compared to 1925.
A reasonable GG would have to look both at the numbers in the House as well as the popular vote and say to herself, wait a minute -- the opposition parties do have a mandate (albeit a tricky one); it was given to them by the people even if they may disagree on a number of points. Let's see if they can work out their differences and try something.
Now, of course, Harper can end this game of brinksmanship and offer a real economic package rather than make us wait until the New Year. Or he could do what he should have done in the first place, and talk deal with one of the opposition parties to get their support. But if he doesn't, then the opposition parties will have to act. When you promise to make Parliament a calmer place and then make it explode in just the session's second week, then you've lost the moral right to govern.
As for sober second thought that Flaherty referred to yesterday -- that's the Senate's job to do on legislation, and they have no say on confidence whatsoever.
That's my view. If you think the GG has no choice but to call an immediate election, I'd welcome your argument.
UPDATE (10:41 am EST, 1541 GMT): Some minor edits. Also, some may think about the 1975 crisis in Australia where the GG and PM fired each other; but that country's situation was complicated by a double dissolution of both Houses of Parliament, something that couldn't happen here since the Senate is presently an appointed body; also I wonder if it's possible for our Senate to hold up a supply bill for an indefinite period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
After the 1925 generals, the House of Commons was in a minority or "hung" situation. The Conservatives under Arthur Meighen (grandfather of current Senator Michael) won 116 seats, the Liberals (led by Mackenzie King) had 101 and the left-leaning Progressives under Robert Forke had 24. King had an informal agreement with the Progressives to stay in power.
A few months after the election, one of King's hacks at Customs and Excise was accused of taking kickbacks. The Minister in charge of the Department was fired but then quickly promoted to the Senate. The Progressives were outraged and pulled their support. King, who had lost two procedural votes (not on confidence) but fearing he'd lose one on the corruption issue (which was possibly a confidence matter) asked the Governor General, Field Marshall Viscount Julian Bing of Vimy, to dissolve Parliament and call a new election.
Byng refused, but for two specific reasons: First, the House was still considering a motion of censure and to interfere in that would be tantamount to the Crown stamping on Parliament's freedom of speech; second, he thought the Conservatives should have a chance to rule since they were the largest bloc in the House. King asked Byng to reconsider and that he should consult the British government (remember, Canada was still a colony in those days). Byng declined that, too. Furious, King resigned. Byng then asked Meighen to form a government.
Under the rules of the time, a Prime Minister called in mid-stream ould only make his ministers "acting" ones; to get their posts locked up they would have to individually resign and run in by-elections. King seized on the opportunity, got the Progressives back on his side, and voted non-confidence; an election was called and King won by a landslide. Ironically, he made Canadian independence his issue notwithstanding he was the one who had asked the Colonial Office to intervene; and even though Byng saw correctly that it was an issue for Canadians, not the British, to decide.
After the election, the Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few others) got an understanding (called the Balfour Declaration) that a Governor General was not to be the agent of the London government but of the Sovereign. Thus, the viceroy or vicereine became a "vice-regal" representative. Representation of 10 Downing Street's interests would be instead taken up by a High Commissioner (the functional equivalent of an Ambassador).
So is Stephen Harper correct in saying that the 1926 crisis sets a precedent? I'm not so sure. I'm no constitutional expert, but there are four problems I see with the argument.
First, Balfour did not end the residual power that a Governor General has to seek out a possible government that can be formed in case of a deadlock or vote of non-confidence. There is an example for this -- many cite the 1985 alliance formed in Ontario between the Liberals and NDP, although in that case it was the lieutenant governor that called upon Peterson to replace Miller. The people would not have tolerated two elections in only three months and we're only six, seven weeks past the last election.
Second, King tried to have it both ways first by being for the Colonial Office before being against it. There's no more Colonial Office, and there's no way the Comonwealth Office or the Queen herself is going to get involved in this one; she got burned over Lord Hume in the UK in 1963 and she vowed never again to get involved in party politics.
Third, there wasn't a non-confidence vote that forced King to resign. It was still being considered. He resigned out of disgust to avert the humiliation.
Fourth, I think Harper might have an argument if he won the popular vote by a margin so large the other parties with their combined totals would barely surpass it if at all. That was the case in 1925: The Conservatives had 46.13%, the Liberals 39.74%, the Progressives 8.45%. Add the latter two, you get 48.19%, a difference of 2.03%.
Now look at the 2008 numbers. Conservatives: 37.65%, Liberals 26.26%, NDP 18.18%, Bloc 9.98%. (The Greens, who unfortunately didn't get any, won 6.78%.) Add up the numbers for the progressive parties. 54.42% voted for progressive parties that got into the House, if you add the Greens it was 61.20%. That's a gap of 16.77% or 23.55% depending on how you count it; a huge difference compared to 1925.
A reasonable GG would have to look both at the numbers in the House as well as the popular vote and say to herself, wait a minute -- the opposition parties do have a mandate (albeit a tricky one); it was given to them by the people even if they may disagree on a number of points. Let's see if they can work out their differences and try something.
Now, of course, Harper can end this game of brinksmanship and offer a real economic package rather than make us wait until the New Year. Or he could do what he should have done in the first place, and talk deal with one of the opposition parties to get their support. But if he doesn't, then the opposition parties will have to act. When you promise to make Parliament a calmer place and then make it explode in just the session's second week, then you've lost the moral right to govern.
As for sober second thought that Flaherty referred to yesterday -- that's the Senate's job to do on legislation, and they have no say on confidence whatsoever.
That's my view. If you think the GG has no choice but to call an immediate election, I'd welcome your argument.
UPDATE (10:41 am EST, 1541 GMT): Some minor edits. Also, some may think about the 1975 crisis in Australia where the GG and PM fired each other; but that country's situation was complicated by a double dissolution of both Houses of Parliament, something that couldn't happen here since the Senate is presently an appointed body; also I wonder if it's possible for our Senate to hold up a supply bill for an indefinite period.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Steve stalls for time
Driving home about a half hour ago I heard PMS say that he's not going to have the vote on the Ways and Means motion on Monday after all but instead will let the chips fall with however the non-confidence motion goes on December 8, the earliest it can be voted on.
This is just a stalling tactic, but it's hard to see how six sittings days are going to change the minds of the opposition. And as for his claim that he has the right to govern because he was elected, well no he wasn't. In Canada, like the UK, we elect MPs who are committed to a party platform and not directly for a PM. An overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for a majority of MPs who are progressives, not regressives. If he had a majority of members then it would be a different story -- but his survival now depends on the House.
Unless Steve says that he's actually going to do something to help the agriculture, automobile and forestry industries, he can forget deal. He's going to get voted down. Of course, he can always prorogue and have Parliament sit out for a one year cooling off period. But most Canadians would easily see that for what it is, too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This is just a stalling tactic, but it's hard to see how six sittings days are going to change the minds of the opposition. And as for his claim that he has the right to govern because he was elected, well no he wasn't. In Canada, like the UK, we elect MPs who are committed to a party platform and not directly for a PM. An overwhelming majority of Canadians voted for a majority of MPs who are progressives, not regressives. If he had a majority of members then it would be a different story -- but his survival now depends on the House.
Unless Steve says that he's actually going to do something to help the agriculture, automobile and forestry industries, he can forget deal. He's going to get voted down. Of course, he can always prorogue and have Parliament sit out for a one year cooling off period. But most Canadians would easily see that for what it is, too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Way more fun than "Deal" or "5th Grader"
Howie Mandel (a joint Canadian / US citizen) and Jeff Foxworthy (a true blue American but a hero to all of us rednecks rich and poor around the world) must read the news like many of us, and both must be wondering, are we Canadian rednecks to have gotten into this game of brinksmanship? And how did we ever get to this -- a standoff between not the bourgeoise and the proletariat (which Marx and Engels predicted) but between two groups of rednecks? Both sides, quite frankly, are demonstrating a "glorious lack of sophistication," as Foxworthy calls it.
Or was this the Opposition's plan all along, just biding their time before striking like the Massasauga snake? You have to wonder.
That's the state of Canadian politics this Friday. And here's the latest:
It's being reported this afternoon that the Liberals will try for a takedown of the Conservatives after all. There also appears to be agreement that Dion would be a caretaker PM until the Liberals can hold a convention. Imagine that.
Meanwhile, in an act of chastisement, the government has apparently backed down slightly and will have the party financing issue dealt with in a separate motion. That's as it should be -- changes to election rules, as well as who runs the elections agency are traditionally done with all party support; and this was a case of changing the rules after the fact without opposition consent, an unwritten but well established constitutional convention.
That does not change the fact that the opposition parties have to get better at grassroots organizing and funding that would more than overcome whatever subsidies the parties do get. However, the heavy-handed way Harper wanted to deal with the Green Party which does not have seats in Parliament at all was totally unacceptable in my view. I do not believe this was about the Liberals, NDP or the Bloc -- it was about silencing what the Cons still believe is a fringe movement but which clearly has more and more public support. After all, they got 6.8% of the popular vote. Does that sound like a "fringe" party?
It is truly possible Harper hates Elizabeth May that much?
Still it doesn't mean the government should be saved. Its broadsided attack against federal civil servants as well as virtually no help for businesses, especially small business which creates the most jobs, should be an insult to most Canadians. Even those who would normally support the Conservative cause are saying the time to help is now and there is little to none.
Also, the fact that the party of "fiscal restraint" has been anything but. It has raised program spending by 25% while slashing revenues when all the winds were blowing to a huge worldwide meltdown. Does that sound like a prudent manager of the economy?
That's why the government has to be brought down. Responsible government should mean literally that, not just that it responds to the legislative branch.
****
While I welcome any possibility of getting the Cons out of government, there are two things that need to happen for me to support the idea of a coalition government fully.
First, we need definitively to move to a better election system. Whether that's single transferable vote or some form of PR the votes of Canadians need to start counting. Second, eliminating poverty among children and seniors must be our top priority. Whatever we do to get the economy back on track there will be no point unless the most vulnerable in our society can enjoy the new prosperity when it ultimately returns. A country with a trillion dollar GDP (one of only about a dozen in the world) should not have this kind of disgrace.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Or was this the Opposition's plan all along, just biding their time before striking like the Massasauga snake? You have to wonder.
That's the state of Canadian politics this Friday. And here's the latest:
It's being reported this afternoon that the Liberals will try for a takedown of the Conservatives after all. There also appears to be agreement that Dion would be a caretaker PM until the Liberals can hold a convention. Imagine that.
Meanwhile, in an act of chastisement, the government has apparently backed down slightly and will have the party financing issue dealt with in a separate motion. That's as it should be -- changes to election rules, as well as who runs the elections agency are traditionally done with all party support; and this was a case of changing the rules after the fact without opposition consent, an unwritten but well established constitutional convention.
That does not change the fact that the opposition parties have to get better at grassroots organizing and funding that would more than overcome whatever subsidies the parties do get. However, the heavy-handed way Harper wanted to deal with the Green Party which does not have seats in Parliament at all was totally unacceptable in my view. I do not believe this was about the Liberals, NDP or the Bloc -- it was about silencing what the Cons still believe is a fringe movement but which clearly has more and more public support. After all, they got 6.8% of the popular vote. Does that sound like a "fringe" party?
It is truly possible Harper hates Elizabeth May that much?
Still it doesn't mean the government should be saved. Its broadsided attack against federal civil servants as well as virtually no help for businesses, especially small business which creates the most jobs, should be an insult to most Canadians. Even those who would normally support the Conservative cause are saying the time to help is now and there is little to none.
Also, the fact that the party of "fiscal restraint" has been anything but. It has raised program spending by 25% while slashing revenues when all the winds were blowing to a huge worldwide meltdown. Does that sound like a prudent manager of the economy?
That's why the government has to be brought down. Responsible government should mean literally that, not just that it responds to the legislative branch.
****
While I welcome any possibility of getting the Cons out of government, there are two things that need to happen for me to support the idea of a coalition government fully.
First, we need definitively to move to a better election system. Whether that's single transferable vote or some form of PR the votes of Canadians need to start counting. Second, eliminating poverty among children and seniors must be our top priority. Whatever we do to get the economy back on track there will be no point unless the most vulnerable in our society can enjoy the new prosperity when it ultimately returns. A country with a trillion dollar GDP (one of only about a dozen in the world) should not have this kind of disgrace.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Substituting for Monty Hall: Broadbent and Chrétien?
Two of Parliament Hill's greatest warriors, Jean Chrétien and Edward Broadbent, are trying to put together a coalition deal between their two respective parties, the Liberals and the NDP.
How this version of Let's Make a Deal plays out is anyone's guess. But Broadbent had a lot of spunk in him when he came back to the Hill (only to retire again early because of his wife's illness), and Chrétien warned his colleagues they hadn't seen the last of him. Who would have thought as a facilitator?
There's a lot to bridge between the two groups, let alone the Bloc whose support would absolutely be needed. But the creeks between them are nothing compared to the gulf that separates all three from CRAP. Of course, Flaherty can always come up with something that all Canadians would find more reasonable.
Tick, tick, tick ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
How this version of Let's Make a Deal plays out is anyone's guess. But Broadbent had a lot of spunk in him when he came back to the Hill (only to retire again early because of his wife's illness), and Chrétien warned his colleagues they hadn't seen the last of him. Who would have thought as a facilitator?
There's a lot to bridge between the two groups, let alone the Bloc whose support would absolutely be needed. But the creeks between them are nothing compared to the gulf that separates all three from CRAP. Of course, Flaherty can always come up with something that all Canadians would find more reasonable.
Tick, tick, tick ...
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This time, it's Ignatieff
I still feel the choices that Liberals are being presented this time around for leader leave a lot to be desired. The actions by two of the three so far are far less than gentlemanly. However, given the choices there are, the one name that stands out for me is Michael Ignatieff. Briefly, here are my reasons.
At this time, Canada needs someone who can take on Stephen Harper -- or any other Conservative leader for that matter -- toe to toe. There's no question that Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc are up to the task but Ignatieff is the most in the class required. More important, Iggy has ideas both for domestic as well as foreign policy to help Canada reclaim its place as a world leader as well an honest broker both of which are lacking under the Cons.
Bob Rae is a fine gentleman, but too many people in Ontario haven't forgiven him for, or forgetten about, what he did as NDP Premer (not just the economy and Rae Days, but also reneging on public auto insurance). He would get clobbered if he got the leadership now. As for LeBlanc, I just don't know enough about him even though he is a four term MP.
We don't need a messianic figure (like Obama in the States), but we do need someone who combines pragmatism with dignity and fire. Ignatieff is not perfect and his voice is only slightly better than David Dodge (the former Bank of Canada governor who, in the words of the CBC Shanghai correspondent Anthony Germain could "make paint peel"), but he -- the man who should have won the last time out -- is my choice.
UPDATE (10:17 am EST, 1517 GMT): My bad; Germain is based in Shanghai, not Beijing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
At this time, Canada needs someone who can take on Stephen Harper -- or any other Conservative leader for that matter -- toe to toe. There's no question that Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc are up to the task but Ignatieff is the most in the class required. More important, Iggy has ideas both for domestic as well as foreign policy to help Canada reclaim its place as a world leader as well an honest broker both of which are lacking under the Cons.
Bob Rae is a fine gentleman, but too many people in Ontario haven't forgiven him for, or forgetten about, what he did as NDP Premer (not just the economy and Rae Days, but also reneging on public auto insurance). He would get clobbered if he got the leadership now. As for LeBlanc, I just don't know enough about him even though he is a four term MP.
We don't need a messianic figure (like Obama in the States), but we do need someone who combines pragmatism with dignity and fire. Ignatieff is not perfect and his voice is only slightly better than David Dodge (the former Bank of Canada governor who, in the words of the CBC Shanghai correspondent Anthony Germain could "make paint peel"), but he -- the man who should have won the last time out -- is my choice.
UPDATE (10:17 am EST, 1517 GMT): My bad; Germain is based in Shanghai, not Beijing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Craig Oliver: Today's worst person in the world!
I had laugh last night when Craig Oliver, one of the crony denizens of the Conservative Television Network, tried to frame the issue about the economic statement down to a single statement, which basically was that if the Opposition parties overthrow the government on an issue as petty as party financing, then the wrath of Canadians will know no bounds.
Uh, Craig, maybe should you should nominate yourself as Keith Olbermann's daily "Worst Person in the World." Because it's more than about the $30 million, although changing the rules after the fact is one part of it. The fact is, there is absolutely no stimulus of any kind. Oh sure, there's a few hundred million to the Export Development Corporation (which guarantees accounts receivable for foreign sales) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (often the lender of last resort for start-up companies). But that's peanuts.
Seniors are getting a one year break on minimum withdrawals from their RRIFs but most withdraw monthly and since many have already withdrawn the minimum or more under the old rules (before the markets tanked and so did their portfolios) there's no way they can take advantage.
An increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the working income supplement? No. An increase in child benefits? No. A cut in income taxes? No!
We need to get money into the system and more money into people's pocketbooks, now. Instead the government is just content to sit on its hands and maybe at some point have some kind of stimulus. All other countries in the G-7 are trying something to benefit their citizens at this time. But, not Canada. One has to think that the Conservatives cut the GST and increased spending drastically on purpose to get us into this fine mess.
Sorry, Craig, but if the Opposition parties do what they have to do and kicks out Harper from Number 24 on Monday it won't just because of the checks they get every three months. If you had bothered to pay attention to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton had said you'd know better than to just pick one issue and run with it.
UPDATE (7:25 pm EST, 1225 GMT): Oh, and another thing, Craig: You forgot to mention the fact that labour rights are suspended at the federal level for the next few years. No right to strike and a cap on wage increases. That's a slap in the face if there ever was one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Uh, Craig, maybe should you should nominate yourself as Keith Olbermann's daily "Worst Person in the World." Because it's more than about the $30 million, although changing the rules after the fact is one part of it. The fact is, there is absolutely no stimulus of any kind. Oh sure, there's a few hundred million to the Export Development Corporation (which guarantees accounts receivable for foreign sales) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (often the lender of last resort for start-up companies). But that's peanuts.
Seniors are getting a one year break on minimum withdrawals from their RRIFs but most withdraw monthly and since many have already withdrawn the minimum or more under the old rules (before the markets tanked and so did their portfolios) there's no way they can take advantage.
An increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the working income supplement? No. An increase in child benefits? No. A cut in income taxes? No!
We need to get money into the system and more money into people's pocketbooks, now. Instead the government is just content to sit on its hands and maybe at some point have some kind of stimulus. All other countries in the G-7 are trying something to benefit their citizens at this time. But, not Canada. One has to think that the Conservatives cut the GST and increased spending drastically on purpose to get us into this fine mess.
Sorry, Craig, but if the Opposition parties do what they have to do and kicks out Harper from Number 24 on Monday it won't just because of the checks they get every three months. If you had bothered to pay attention to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton had said you'd know better than to just pick one issue and run with it.
UPDATE (7:25 pm EST, 1225 GMT): Oh, and another thing, Craig: You forgot to mention the fact that labour rights are suspended at the federal level for the next few years. No right to strike and a cap on wage increases. That's a slap in the face if there ever was one.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Would Harper resign or would he pull a Major?
The Liberals and NDP are saying tonight that they will vote against the Ways and Means motion based on today's economic statement from Slim Jim ™ Flaherty.
I'll believe it when I see it quite frankly, but if the Bloc gangs up with the other opposition parties to defeat the government it would be a major humiliation for PM Stephen Harper. The question would be what would he do then? Would he call it a "false start" and demand immediately a self-contained no-confidence vote; or would he recognize it for what it was (an actual act of non-confidence) and resign? Moreover, would the GG, Michaëlle Jean, want to call a snap election or would she actually ask Stéphane Dion (who has already resigned as Liberal leader) to form a caretaker government?
I point this out because back in 1993, John Major in the UK was facing one problem after another barely a year after his upset victory over Neil Kinnock in the generals. There was Black Wednesday, a series of corruption scandals and to top it off, he had Parliament vote on the Maastricht Treaty which merged the "European Communities" into the present EU.
To appease the Euroskeptics in the ruling Conservatives, he negotiated an opt-out from the sections of the treaty dealing with social and labour rights. Some Conservatives who were opposed to the EU all together ganged up with Labour and the Lib Dems (who supported the social chapter) to (ironically) attach the social chapter (which lost on a tie vote), then voted to defeat a "take note" motion by just eight votes. Major then reintroduced the bill and vowed he would call a snap election on the issue. He won by forty votes. (Here's a link to discussion of the Maastricht Rebels who continued to plague Major for the rest of his term -- some of those rebels went on to form the UK Independence Party which advocates for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.)
Now I realize an international treaty to bind several countries even further together, is not at all like a ways and means motion to end public financing of political parties. But given our reliance on the "Westminster" system, would Harper cite the Major precedent and introduce his own non-confidence motion in a game of chicken and dare the opposition to cluck? After all, the old Reform Blue Book said that that a no confidence vote would only come if there was first a defeat of a budget or appropriations bill.
If he does pull the "triple dog dare," he may be in for a shock. The Liberals just might find losing $7 million per year all the motivation they need to pull the trigger.
UPDATE (7:53 pm EST, 0053 Friday GMT): Quite a few of my fellow ProgBlogs seem quite giddy about the possibilities, too. Scott Tribe raises a good point about 1985 and the Liberal / NDP alliance in Ontario -- although it should be remembered that David Peterson had actually won the popular vote but not the seat count (which Frank Miller had). Cam and Steve also have some good thoughts on this as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll believe it when I see it quite frankly, but if the Bloc gangs up with the other opposition parties to defeat the government it would be a major humiliation for PM Stephen Harper. The question would be what would he do then? Would he call it a "false start" and demand immediately a self-contained no-confidence vote; or would he recognize it for what it was (an actual act of non-confidence) and resign? Moreover, would the GG, Michaëlle Jean, want to call a snap election or would she actually ask Stéphane Dion (who has already resigned as Liberal leader) to form a caretaker government?
I point this out because back in 1993, John Major in the UK was facing one problem after another barely a year after his upset victory over Neil Kinnock in the generals. There was Black Wednesday, a series of corruption scandals and to top it off, he had Parliament vote on the Maastricht Treaty which merged the "European Communities" into the present EU.
To appease the Euroskeptics in the ruling Conservatives, he negotiated an opt-out from the sections of the treaty dealing with social and labour rights. Some Conservatives who were opposed to the EU all together ganged up with Labour and the Lib Dems (who supported the social chapter) to (ironically) attach the social chapter (which lost on a tie vote), then voted to defeat a "take note" motion by just eight votes. Major then reintroduced the bill and vowed he would call a snap election on the issue. He won by forty votes. (Here's a link to discussion of the Maastricht Rebels who continued to plague Major for the rest of his term -- some of those rebels went on to form the UK Independence Party which advocates for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.)
Now I realize an international treaty to bind several countries even further together, is not at all like a ways and means motion to end public financing of political parties. But given our reliance on the "Westminster" system, would Harper cite the Major precedent and introduce his own non-confidence motion in a game of chicken and dare the opposition to cluck? After all, the old Reform Blue Book said that that a no confidence vote would only come if there was first a defeat of a budget or appropriations bill.
If he does pull the "triple dog dare," he may be in for a shock. The Liberals just might find losing $7 million per year all the motivation they need to pull the trigger.
UPDATE (7:53 pm EST, 0053 Friday GMT): Quite a few of my fellow ProgBlogs seem quite giddy about the possibilities, too. Scott Tribe raises a good point about 1985 and the Liberal / NDP alliance in Ontario -- although it should be remembered that David Peterson had actually won the popular vote but not the seat count (which Frank Miller had). Cam and Steve also have some good thoughts on this as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
We shall not be moved
Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) cannot go unanswered. Going after tourists is especially unforgiveable -- let alone attacking the heart of the business and entertainment industries in India. Regardless of whether this is linked to Al Qaeda or not, people simply will not be bullied like this.
I refuse to live in fear, and regardless of the colour of our skin, everyone should also refuse to live in fear. When the fear is taken away, then and only then the terrorists will no longer have a basis on which to operate or to execute their evil schemes.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I refuse to live in fear, and regardless of the colour of our skin, everyone should also refuse to live in fear. When the fear is taken away, then and only then the terrorists will no longer have a basis on which to operate or to execute their evil schemes.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)