Awesome.
(Credit to a Dipper- yes, a Dipper- for posting this to their Facebook first)
December 28, 2008
December 9, 2008
December 5, 2008
Anyone Else Notice This?
Stephen Harper has been pretty sound strategically in his first 2.5 years in office; yet, for that entire time he remained in the 35-38% range in the polls, and the election; yet on the only major doozy of a strategic blunder he's made, one where he overplayed his hand way too far and ended up on the defensive when it looked like his job and his goverment were in jeopardy, he has ended up ranging from majority territory to Mulroney in 1984 territory in the polls this week.
You have to admit, that's kind of ironic.
You have to admit, that's kind of ironic.
December 4, 2008
Yeah, About That 62% Majority.....
I'm gonna go ahead and say that it ain't exactly a majority after all.
I know, I know; it's one poll, and polls are never a perfect science. That said, most other polls reflect the same result. Plus, this is a better insight into public opinion than election results when you consider that the 62% that didn't vote for Harper did not vote for a coalition, but for an individual party independent of any sort of coalition. When the question of coalition comes up, they have yet to have a majority of voters on board with the proposal.
I won't stake claim to the Conservatives being a "majority" or anything like that, but I'd wish that the progressives who have acted in a rather smug manner about being a so-called majority all week follow my lead on that one.
I know, I know; it's one poll, and polls are never a perfect science. That said, most other polls reflect the same result. Plus, this is a better insight into public opinion than election results when you consider that the 62% that didn't vote for Harper did not vote for a coalition, but for an individual party independent of any sort of coalition. When the question of coalition comes up, they have yet to have a majority of voters on board with the proposal.
I won't stake claim to the Conservatives being a "majority" or anything like that, but I'd wish that the progressives who have acted in a rather smug manner about being a so-called majority all week follow my lead on that one.
So It's Come To This, Part II
Well, prorogation it is.
For the love of God, Harper, I hope this scared the life into you. The PM has just been handed a large political lifesaver, and I hope he uses it wisely. And what he needs to do is cooperate with Dion and the Liberals on the budget. Sit down with them, and consult them on the economic plan for this country.
It may be a tough pill for some partisan Tories to swallow, but there's enough common ground between the two parties on the economy to make a cooperative budget work. And I, for one, would take a Conservative-Liberal economic plan over a Liberal-NDP one anyday.
For the love of God, Harper, I hope this scared the life into you. The PM has just been handed a large political lifesaver, and I hope he uses it wisely. And what he needs to do is cooperate with Dion and the Liberals on the budget. Sit down with them, and consult them on the economic plan for this country.
It may be a tough pill for some partisan Tories to swallow, but there's enough common ground between the two parties on the economy to make a cooperative budget work. And I, for one, would take a Conservative-Liberal economic plan over a Liberal-NDP one anyday.
December 2, 2008
So It's Come To This...
I was really hoping my little blog vacation would have lasted longer, but unfortunately there seems to be a Murphy's Law with whenever I take a publicly-announced hiatus: something happens that just jolts me right back into the blogosphere. I managed to make it two whole weeks this time (!), but with what is going on, I can stay silent no longer.
First off, I can't say I condone the behaviour of the PM on this file. In the time when serious economic stewardship is needed, hollow political maneuvers like cutting party subsidies (something that, by itself, I happen to fully agree with) leave a lot to be desired. He should have known better, and, much like Joe Clark, should have probably known better than to overplay his hand and act as if he had a majority.
That said, to replace the sitting government with a cobbled together coalition made up of a fractured Liberal Party governing the country with its lowest level of popular support in Canadian history, an NDP that wishes to economically party like it's 1979 likely in important portfolios of finance and trade, all hobbled together and propped up by a federal party of provincial sovereigntists. Centralists, federalists and sovereigntists. Neoliberals and Keynesians. How exactly this comedic triumvrate expects to be the guiding hand through troubling times is beyond me. The last guys were united in bickering endlessly with the other guys, and our replacement is....a new government that will likely bicker endlessly with...itself?
I'm afraid this line of logic is kind of lost on me.
But, that's just the point. There is no long-term vision for this coalition. You could look at what is put on paper, but when push comes to shove, do you think it'll happen? These parties disagree on a lot of fundamental issues, both economic and otherwise. These parties had platforms that, at least in the economic realm, couldn't have been farther apart. Indeed, they disagree on a lot, if not too much, and what do they agree on?
I can only think of one thing: a visceral hatred of Stephen Harper.
That's all this is. A petty game to bring down the guy they don't like who defeated all of them in the election just six weeks previous. In a strategic blunder to end all blunders, Harper gave all three parties a chance to topple him, and now they intend to do just that. And the touchy feely crap about doing "what's best for Canadians"? Bull. The NDP is doing what's best for the NDP: getting it a voice in government that is has often desired yet, with its low level of popularity, never been able to obtain. The Bloc is doing what's best for the Bloc: by holding a coalition hostage, it will be able to make some significant strides in advancing its interests.
The one exception here, however, is the Liberals. What would be best for the Liberals is to find a new leader, a new fundraising strategy, and dump the sense of arrogance and entitlement that says that they, and only they, are fit to govern this country. October 14th seemed to open the door to that possibility. Now, however, that's gone out the window as the chance to return to power is back in Grit hands. And, in the end, what's best for the Liberal Party isn't to be in power right now, but it's all they desire. And so, the beat goes on, as the Liberals, still led by someone that garnered just 26% of the vote. What a mandate!
I know, I know. The next retort among progressives is "well, we have a 62% majority!" Or, so you believe. Do you really think all New Democrats wish to align with the Liberals? Do you think any right-leaning Liberals will be comfortable with joining forces with the NDP (especially those in BC, who are used to working with Conservatives and against the NDP)? Will federalist Liberals, particularly Anglophones on the Island of Montreal, who have fought separatism tooth and nail be comfortable with a coalition dependent on the Bloc Quebecois, Public Enemy No. 1 of these people? Are you to actually believe that every single person that cast a ballot for the Liberals, NDP or Bloc Quebecois actually wants a coalition? If the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance into the Conservatives, and subsequent drop in share of the vote, taught us anything, it's that such a line of thinking is nothing short of naive.
The second point to this is that not only were the platforms- aside from the consistent antagonism of Harper, of course- totally different among all three parties, but the Liberals that would govern this coalition rejected such a notion during the election! And while the NDP pitched the idea to Dion during the campaign, it certainly wasn't one that included the Bloc Quebecois as the major form of life support.
Yes, this is constitutionally legal; there is nothing stopping any group of parties or MPs that form a plurality or majority of seats from forming a government if it can command the majority of the house. But then again, floor crossing is constitutionally legal; ah yes, but is it an ethical practice?
Raise your hand if you own a "De-Elect Emerson" sign. Now raise your hand if you support this coalition. See, now we're getting somewhere!
Point is, I won't challenge the idea that it is "democratic" within the confines of our Westminster system. But, if you're defining "democratic" in ethical boundaries that may not be explained by parliamentary procedure....well, now you've just gone and waded into a different debate altogether! And one I just can't see any of the three parties winning.
Bottom line is this: if this coalition government wants a mandate, it should get one the way the Conservatives got it- through an election. The coalition should face the people, as a coalition. And if the people support their right to govern, then fine; game on. But if they are defeated, then let Harper be. In all honesty, I really would rather not have another election right now, but when the alternative is a PM that only 26% of Canadians wanted likely implementing economic policies only 18% voted for propped up by a party that only even runs candidates in one province, it doesn't seem so bad anymore. My preferred alternative would be for Michaelle Jean to say no to everyone and everything, and to tell Harper to play nice with the others, while the Bloc of Grits and Dippers put away their knives from the time being.
Either way, all I know is that this a crazy moment in Canadian politics. And if this coalition takes power, it may get all the more crazier.
First off, I can't say I condone the behaviour of the PM on this file. In the time when serious economic stewardship is needed, hollow political maneuvers like cutting party subsidies (something that, by itself, I happen to fully agree with) leave a lot to be desired. He should have known better, and, much like Joe Clark, should have probably known better than to overplay his hand and act as if he had a majority.
That said, to replace the sitting government with a cobbled together coalition made up of a fractured Liberal Party governing the country with its lowest level of popular support in Canadian history, an NDP that wishes to economically party like it's 1979 likely in important portfolios of finance and trade, all hobbled together and propped up by a federal party of provincial sovereigntists. Centralists, federalists and sovereigntists. Neoliberals and Keynesians. How exactly this comedic triumvrate expects to be the guiding hand through troubling times is beyond me. The last guys were united in bickering endlessly with the other guys, and our replacement is....a new government that will likely bicker endlessly with...itself?
I'm afraid this line of logic is kind of lost on me.
But, that's just the point. There is no long-term vision for this coalition. You could look at what is put on paper, but when push comes to shove, do you think it'll happen? These parties disagree on a lot of fundamental issues, both economic and otherwise. These parties had platforms that, at least in the economic realm, couldn't have been farther apart. Indeed, they disagree on a lot, if not too much, and what do they agree on?
I can only think of one thing: a visceral hatred of Stephen Harper.
That's all this is. A petty game to bring down the guy they don't like who defeated all of them in the election just six weeks previous. In a strategic blunder to end all blunders, Harper gave all three parties a chance to topple him, and now they intend to do just that. And the touchy feely crap about doing "what's best for Canadians"? Bull. The NDP is doing what's best for the NDP: getting it a voice in government that is has often desired yet, with its low level of popularity, never been able to obtain. The Bloc is doing what's best for the Bloc: by holding a coalition hostage, it will be able to make some significant strides in advancing its interests.
The one exception here, however, is the Liberals. What would be best for the Liberals is to find a new leader, a new fundraising strategy, and dump the sense of arrogance and entitlement that says that they, and only they, are fit to govern this country. October 14th seemed to open the door to that possibility. Now, however, that's gone out the window as the chance to return to power is back in Grit hands. And, in the end, what's best for the Liberal Party isn't to be in power right now, but it's all they desire. And so, the beat goes on, as the Liberals, still led by someone that garnered just 26% of the vote. What a mandate!
I know, I know. The next retort among progressives is "well, we have a 62% majority!" Or, so you believe. Do you really think all New Democrats wish to align with the Liberals? Do you think any right-leaning Liberals will be comfortable with joining forces with the NDP (especially those in BC, who are used to working with Conservatives and against the NDP)? Will federalist Liberals, particularly Anglophones on the Island of Montreal, who have fought separatism tooth and nail be comfortable with a coalition dependent on the Bloc Quebecois, Public Enemy No. 1 of these people? Are you to actually believe that every single person that cast a ballot for the Liberals, NDP or Bloc Quebecois actually wants a coalition? If the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance into the Conservatives, and subsequent drop in share of the vote, taught us anything, it's that such a line of thinking is nothing short of naive.
The second point to this is that not only were the platforms- aside from the consistent antagonism of Harper, of course- totally different among all three parties, but the Liberals that would govern this coalition rejected such a notion during the election! And while the NDP pitched the idea to Dion during the campaign, it certainly wasn't one that included the Bloc Quebecois as the major form of life support.
Yes, this is constitutionally legal; there is nothing stopping any group of parties or MPs that form a plurality or majority of seats from forming a government if it can command the majority of the house. But then again, floor crossing is constitutionally legal; ah yes, but is it an ethical practice?
Raise your hand if you own a "De-Elect Emerson" sign. Now raise your hand if you support this coalition. See, now we're getting somewhere!
Point is, I won't challenge the idea that it is "democratic" within the confines of our Westminster system. But, if you're defining "democratic" in ethical boundaries that may not be explained by parliamentary procedure....well, now you've just gone and waded into a different debate altogether! And one I just can't see any of the three parties winning.
Bottom line is this: if this coalition government wants a mandate, it should get one the way the Conservatives got it- through an election. The coalition should face the people, as a coalition. And if the people support their right to govern, then fine; game on. But if they are defeated, then let Harper be. In all honesty, I really would rather not have another election right now, but when the alternative is a PM that only 26% of Canadians wanted likely implementing economic policies only 18% voted for propped up by a party that only even runs candidates in one province, it doesn't seem so bad anymore. My preferred alternative would be for Michaelle Jean to say no to everyone and everything, and to tell Harper to play nice with the others, while the Bloc of Grits and Dippers put away their knives from the time being.
Either way, all I know is that this a crazy moment in Canadian politics. And if this coalition takes power, it may get all the more crazier.
November 17, 2008
Sleeping On It
Yep, I'm taking a hiatus. Probably a longer one this time.
After a major federal election, a historic Presidential election, a relatively low-key series of municipal elections, and a provincial election and Liberal leadership convention on the horizon this spring, I'll be honest. I'm tired. I've got nothing to say. And a whole lot of schoolwork to get done. I enjoy reading and commenting on other blogs, but for now I think I've just hit the peak of blogging fatigue. So that's it for the time being; see you on the other side.
November 14, 2008
November 10, 2008
Lest We Forget
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
(And please, keep it classy in the comments this time. We don't need this again.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
