wakey wakey aive

Saying there is no difference does not make it so. There is a world of difference between Libs and Cons on child care, the environment, poverty, first nations and a whole host of other issues. Only someone who knows nothing about politics could say they are the same. Time to wake up.

Thanks, ChrisA ...

... somebody needs to keep saying that. There is a big difference between Liberals and this new thing which smirks as it calls itself "Conservative" and not "Progressive Conservative".

Let no Canadian forget that Harper has simply changed the name of his political party. No longer is he leader of Preston Manning's Reform party. He chose to make a deal, remember? A double-cross, actually.

Harper had a choice: either to continue running a no-hope gang called Reform ... CCRAP ... Alliance ... whatever; or ... to make a deal with the old, genuine, historic Progressive Conservative Party.

You remember that? He even signed a deal with the genuine old P.C.P. The instinct is in Harper to do the deal, get control, then tear up the deal.

Like, what deal? And his gang has flown a false flag ever since.

Look it up, alive.

Don't be fooled into spouting that nonsense about the Harper gang being pretty much the same as the Liberal Party. Not even close.

Shafting the Shift

The New Liberal Party will not be Super Green.

"Rae, Ignatieff, LeBlanc ditch Green Shift
Juliet O'Neill , Canwest News Service
Published: November 19, 2008

OTTAWA - Liberal leadership candidates Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff would ditch the Green Shift carbon tax, outgoing leader Stephane Dion's signature policy, on grounds it was rejected by voters on election day.

The two Toronto MPs said on separate occasions this week - Rae likened the Green Shift to "cod liver oil" - that the Grits have to go back to the drawing board to replace their plan to tax diesel and other fossil fuels and redistribute the revenue in tax cuts.

Their positions were aired as an official with the Prime Minister's Office signalled the Conservatives are readying lines of attack on Ignatieff and Rae on the issue. Briefing reporters on condition he not be named, the official noted that Ignatieff advocated a carbon tax in the 2006 race and that Rae helped write the Liberal election platform which contained the carbon tax."

Rae helpfully goes on to describe sensible politics, rather than passions.

"Rae said the Green Shift was pursued without applying common sense, good judgment or the daily experience of ordinary people. "Politics is not about philosophy or theory," he said in an interview with Canwest News Service."

Feels like we're grasping at

Feels like we're grasping at straws, eh? The situation is evidence of the great success of the perception managers i.e. the corporate media and the pr firms. It's simply astounding to any thinking person that Canadians elected the likes of Harper. And then when you look at the alternative, it's all rather breathtaking.

ChrisA

Quite right, a big difference. The Liberals promised child-care for, what, 10 years and just as they read the writing on the wall in 2006 child-care was promised with a pretty-please-I-mean-it-honest. The Conservatives came up with $1,200 per child in, what, one year?

Will the New Progressive Liberal Democratic Bloc up the ante?

speaking of realistic.....

Hmm I seem to recall Layton collapsing the Marin government and effectively ending the child care program that was rolling out across the country under Dryden's efforts. Child care lost a billion bucks in the 1st Con budget thanks to that episode. Unfortunately my memory is pretty long.

Legitimate leadership

Interesting piece. Two big bones of contention, though:

1. Any coalition with the Bloc would be extremely fragile and likely end in disaster. The Liberals would likely lose popularity in English-speaking Canada by toadying up to Quebec separatists, while the Bloc's legitimacy would be bolstered by participating in government for as long as it suited them -- and not a second longer. A written accord not to defeat the coalition would have as much legitimacy and force of law as Harper's fixed election date law under constitutional convention and would not keep the Bloc in the fold in a crisis, leaving the Liberals just as weak as they are now AND taking the blame for recession, toadying up to the seapratists and sending Canadians to the polls again.

2. If Dion doesn't have the legitimacy to lead a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition government, a new leader who has not faced the country as prime minister in waiting would have even less legitimacy, in my opinion. Harper could use this as an argument to ask the G-G to dissolve Parliament rather than calling on a new government -- and if she refuses, it could even cause another constitutional crisis a la 1926.

What?

Seems we have heard this record before. How many times has the Tyee ran this?

ChrisA makes an excellent point. It was Jack Layton who put Harper into power in the first place, and thus killed the Kelowna Accord and universal daycare. Layton has no chance of being PM and he killed two important initiatives pursuing his own political aims.

The liberals are not down and out. They will elect a new leader, adapt and come out fighting. They have done it before and they will do it again.

A coalition of parties of such distinctly different aims simply isn't going to work. It is not going to happen.

But I guess there were a certain number of words to write for this column.

Liberal Brand damaged...

The Liberals under Cretien mushed around the 'middle' of the spectrum and did the 'usual' Liberal thing...talked left during elections and governed right after them.

Inside the party Cretien did not do any service essentially splitting the factions with each power step he made. This brought the Martinites out in force. Prying a sitting PM out of his seat while governing.

The stink that came from these two factions left a bad smell in Ottawa and a bad taste in Bay Street's mouth. Especially the crazy REIT plans that were being discussed and investigated during a writ period. The RCMP are no-longer willing to 'play nice' with the natural governing party.

This rift in the Liberals continued with the leadership contest that put Dion in charge...leaving at least 1/3 of the party faithful (if not MORE) willing to sit on their hands during the last election run.

I see the rift continuing for some time yet and the 'leadership' question will continue to have the Liberals struggling.

Hopes for 'coalitions' involving the Liberals are simply pie in the sky dreams of the NDP. The Bloc are not likely to really want to co-operate with the Liberals unless teh PQ win in Quebec in the coming National Assembly vote. Even then the BQ are likely to use a strong PQ showing (especially if they win a majority) to leverage the Conservatives to 'get what they want' rather than a co-opt of their agenda by coalition with the Liberals whom, once they get their house in order, are going to have to start attacking the BQ...something that is next to impossible to do after you have 'laid in bed' with them.

The one thing certain is

The one thing certain is that Harper will not and can not do anything constructive to save Canada from the looming depression.

He's just another brainwashed and miseducated economist from the gang who have caused this mess and the biggest crime wave in history, in the first place.
One of the most dangerous people on Earth.

All export oriented economies must crash sooner or later and anybody who believes in them is either a fool, or a crook.

The only way to save anything would be a complete turnaround and develop from the ground up self sufficiency, by kicking out foreign investment, who control and mislead our economy, and turn our resource base to make things for ourselves. Canada is one of the countries on Earth capable of doing it. Then "trade" for resources we do not have or can not grow, by cutting out the middlemen racketeers.

Yes, it can be done, because imported goods are not "cheaper", but more expensive in real, physical terms, and it is the phony, imaginary monetary figures that have caused this mess and have been killing people all over the globe for decades.

In short, the present economic system is a racket and until we get rid of it, we'll be on our way to hell.

And I don't mean replacing it with any other kind of "ism", but with an economic system built on strict physical efficiency, then a monetary system designed to represent real values and not for the benefit of a mafia of speculators out to rule and steal.

Ed Deak.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other

I am happy that you see a difference between the two neocon parties; to me they are equally opposed to any initiative I would endorse.
You can dish up a lot of talk about what each party has promised, but in the end they have been stopgap measures because it became essential to appear friendly to the masses!
My point was that it is a waste to elect a party that does not genuinely wish to improve the lot of the majority of the population ............. (read: POOR people)

Alive....

:improve the lot of the majority of the population ............. (read: POOR people)"

So, alive, the majority of the Canadian population is poor then. How, then, would Canada's abject poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day buy the UN) compare to a country like, for example, Niger?

Canadians for a Progressive Coalition

Great article Murray.

Everyone interested in this cause -

A group called Canadians for a Progressive Coalition has been started to organize people to show the progressive parties that their supporters want a coalition government.

The group has started in the west coast and is spreading across Canada.

We need your help - sign up for our petition and tell your MP/Riding Association that you want a progressive coalition government.

http://www.progressivecoalition.ca/

Jack Layton not open to talks

Great article and yes Liberals need to start working with the NDP so to unite the centre-left and left. I even mentioned this idea to Mr. Rae a couple of weeks back when he was in Vancouver and was quite into the idea (he's also for reforming our election process which is great as we need some version of proportional representation).

And coalition governments aren't the perfect solution, but they have been quite successful in many countries in Europe and also in India to represent the diverse needs of the people.

And perfect example is here in Vancouver, where Cope and Vision banded together (left and the left-of-centre parties) and were successful to overthrow the NPA (right-wing party). Check out for more analysis on this: http://www.eastofmain.wordpress.com

HOWEVER, Mr. Rae indicated that even though he's for discussions around this, Jack Layton isn't. My feelings are that Mr. Layton may be a bit too opportunistic for his own good, and he should really consider working with the other opposition parties.

Also it doesn't have to necessarily be a coalition government, if NDP and Liberals would strategically run candidates against the Conservatives that would be great!

ChrisA and Wilfred Laurier

The way I remember it, the Canadian people voted Martin out of office.

I guess you guys just don't like the messy results of democracy in action?

You also might like this post at the Toronto Star by an anonymous poster

"Let's see now, the Liberals didn't pass any legislation establishing universal day care, the way our other great social programs were set up. There was no Canada Health Act equivalent for day care. And Kelowna was never brought before the house for ratification. Instead Martin forced an election by reneging on his deal with the NDP by reinstating the corporate tax cuts instead of funding health care. Then he proceeded to run the most inept campaign in recent history. "

Libs and Cons

If these parties are different why did they vote together on almost every piece of legislation that came before the House in the last parliament?

Paul Martin's memory seems to agree

The following is quoted from the Globe and Mail, strangely, Martin doesn't even mention the NDP :

In his book, Mr. Martin said he was hobbled when he became prime minister in late 2003 because he had to deal with Auditor-General Sheila Fraser’s damaging report on the sponsorship scandal.

“I was furious with Mr. Chrétien, who left this time-bomb behind him,” Mr. Martin said in an excerpt published in Le Devoir.

“Either because he was worried about his legacy being tarred by the sponsorship scandal, or because of rancour against me – only he can answer that question – he delayed the publication of the Auditor-General’s report until I replaced him at 24 Sussex Dr.,” Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin said the ensuing crisis, fuelled by evidence of a kickback scheme involving senior Liberal organizers, doomed his government.

“We ended up losing the communications battle on the sponsorship question. Honestly, I don’t know if it could have been won,” he said.

Mr. Martin added that he still cannot understand why Mr. Chrétien decided to prohibit donations of more than $5,000 to political parties. The Liberal Party had always relied on large corporate donations, while the Conservative Party drew more of its funds from a vast database of small donors.

“The law’s debilitating effects on the [Liberal] Party were gradual; they were only fully felt after I was replaced by Mr. Dion. He is the one, to my regret, who suffered most from a law that was intended to harm me,” Mr. Martin said.

The NDP “brought down the Martin government”?

Quoted from a Scott Piatkowski column at rabble.ca :

Do the math. Even if the NDP had voted with the Liberals in November 2006, the Liberals still would have lost the confidence vote. This is because two members of their own caucus (David Kilgour and John Bryden) joined or sided with the Conservatives and because, sadly, Chuck Cadman was no longer alive.

That’s the main reason why the Liberals refused the NDP’s demands to take action on protecting public health care as the price of its support — because, unlike six months earlier, the NDP could not save the Martin government (the other reason is that agreeing to the NDP’s demands would have required them to protect public health care… something that Liberals are good at talking about but never doing). For the NDP, the only choice facing it was whether it wanted to go into the inevitable election campaign as a fighting force or as an adjunct to a discredited Liberal government.

As well, Paul Martin had already promised to call an election thirty days after the report of the Gomery Commission. At the latest, that would have meant an election around March 13, 2006 (with the writ being dropped around February 4). During most of this time, Parliament would not have been sitting. So, please, tell us again about all the fantastic things that the Liberals would have done in that time.

AND...

The early defeat of the Liberals “squandered the gains” that the NDP (and Canadians) had made during the Martin minority

Yes, if only the Liberals had had more time in office!

The Liberals were in power for twelve-and-a-half years, eleven of them with a commanding majority. If they had wanted to deliver child care or aboriginal justice (which they had promised in 1993), they had plenty of time to do so. Instead, they kept recycling the same promises and then blamed the NDP for their failure to act.

The gains in the NDP Budget were actually not repealed by the Harper government. Money that is currently flowing into housing, transit and infrastructure is a direct result of Jack Layton’s deal.

Oh, and the Kelowna Accord? Implementing legislation for that was never even introduced into the House of Commons.

masalaman

Actually, Layton has said over and over, including in the debates, that he's happy to work with anybody. The Libs are too apparently as their support of the Cons suggests. However, they were too busy during the election digging up dirt on NDP candidates to find the time to talk I guess.

As for Bob Rae, either he can't do math or he was lying to you.

As Scott Piatkowski put it :

"Nettie Wiebe losing Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar by less than 300 votes. I guess that Bob Rae must be pretty pleased with the outcome of his visit to the riding (during which he called on New Democrats to switch their votes to the Liberals to stop the Conservatives)."

And in tonight's Yahoo news

"Liberals ensure Canadian government's survival "

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081119/canada/canada_us_politics_opposition

Jaimie B: Petitioning your

Jaimie B:

Petitioning your MP/riding association is a waste of time, other than to warn them know that a move is afoot. Ruling parties NEVER agree to proportional representation as it works against them; prop. rep. has to arise from a union of parties that are OUT OF POWER.

Movements pushing for prop. rep., such as FAIR VOTE CANADA, etc. are popping up in almost every province, but these movements won't win their agenda with mere petitions and letters to govt. and talking nice to MPs.

In each province, this is what has to happen:

1. UNITE and grow a membership of people interested in prop. rep until enough people have signed up to flood, en masse, their own parties (and the public) and push them to coalesce for ONE ELECTION ONLY
2. If the coalition wins, it then legislates prop. rep., after which each party goes back to fighting its own fight, unless they're wise enough to permanently coalesce (and that's highly doubtful, although it's been known to happen in other countries)

We won't get a coalition government without public pressure

Opposition parties aren't just going to negotiate a mutually-acceptable coalition agreement without intense public pressure.

It's probably the only thing that gets the politicians' attention.

Join with other concerned Canadians on the Facebook group majoritycoalitionforcanada http://tinyurl.com/3qwylz to push for this to happen.

Otherwise, we'll be stuck with this repressive Harper government.

Stuart Hertzog,
Editor,
http://greenpolitics.ca/

Perfect Name

I've come up with the perfect name for the coalition:

The Council of Concerned Canadian Citizens for Convincing Conquering Candidates to Create a Cross Caucus Coalition and Cabinet Clearly Committed to Crafting a Concrete Comprehensive Charter to Collectively Combat the Climate Change Crisis and Completely Crush the Cowardly Conservatives Conniving to Capitulate to the Corrupt Corporate Captains Causing Complete Catastrophe to Come to the Country's Children's Children for Countless Centuries

http://www.everyoneforever.org/

"I may be just a simple caveman but..."

The NY Times has an article saying we can bring back woolly mammoths and even neanderthals. I've let them know Canadian scientists are way ahead of them, but up here we call them Liberals eh.

I agree with Murray for the most part

Replace Dion with an interim leader (and there are a good half dozen choices there) and form a coalition. I believe Duceppe is ready as it will give him more power over Quebec's future but the big question mark is the NDP and I see no sucess in terms of forming a coalition unfortunately.

Why? Franks post exemplify it best. It is impossible to form an alliance with a party (NDP) that wants ones own (Liberal) ultimate destruction. I wished it wasn't so, but it is and so, Harper rules much to the distain of many.

brain

The Liberals and Conservatives vote together on almost everything as my links said.

Put the Con and Lib votes together, as they should be, and its clear that the majority of Canadians are happy with our federal government.

Only we in the NDP want change and we're in the minority.

spitballing

2008 federal election popular vote

Cons 37.65%
Libs 26.26%
Bloc 9.98%
NDP 18.18%
Greens 6.78%

Putting the two parties that vote together, together, gives a Lib-Con happiness total of about 64%.

Not counting the 10% that want to break up the country that leaves about 26% that want some changes made that the two big parties and most of the media sneer at.

On the bright side, the number of Canadians not voting either Lib or Con is on the upswing.

elsewhere than in Eistein's head -

"How, then, would Canada's abject poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day buy the UN) compare to a country like, for example, Niger?"

You can't be serious! We are not in Niger, but in North America. All things being relative, we should compare the conditions of most Canadians with what the big corp CEO's consider the accpeptable minimum, before they will whine and ask for bailouts, rather than cut further into their household budgets. In those terms, the lives of most Canadian are indeed lived in 'abject poverty'.

The theory has always been, that these types were worth so much more than the rest of us, due to their superior abilities and the oh-so heavy responsibilities they were carrying out. Now the air is out of that balloon! All they were good for was running things into the ditch and feathering their own nests into the bargain. Don't give them any more of your money. Weave your own baskets and walk to work. It may not be good for 'the economy', but it may be good for your sanity and self-esteem.

Oh Get Serious, will ya!

Murray Dobbin is a great writer, so I find it unpleasantly surprising that he would fall for this farce.

Chris A. wrote:

>>There is a world of difference between Libs and Cons on child care, the environment, poverty, first nations and a whole host of other issues. Only someone who knows nothing about politics could say they are the same. Time to wake up.<<

This poster should take his own prescription. No one is saying the Liberals and Conservatives are identical. But the hard fact is that on most social and economic policy, they are practically indistinguishable. You only need compare the Harper regime with the Chretien-Martin one and the Mulroney one before: all generally have inflicted similar Corporate Canada-promoted economic destruction on this country and pushed it in an impoverished and more repressive direction.

Over the last 20years, on everything from public services, democratic rights and fiscal policy to trade and investment, taxation and foreign policy, it's like Mulroney never left.

And in many instances, it's the Liberals that have pushed the dictatorial master-servant trickle-down economics of Corporate Canada harder than the Tories.

The only real difference is that the Liberals are better liars than the Conservatives. Whereas the latter is fairly brazen about what they stand for, the former implements the same ideas under a fraudulent veneer of supposedly caring about the public interest and social justice.

The Liberals have repeatedly campaigned on social reform agendas, sounding often like the NDP, and repeatedly have scrapped these in favour of the old oppressive trickle-down stupidity each time they have won--and have relied on their overwhelming support in the corporate media monopoly to cover for them.

Especially galling the open accolades expressed by federal Liberal leaders for the corrupt and dishonest, as well as economically destructive, BC Liberal regime.

And these are folks you want to form a coalition with!?!

Political principles and economic philosophy or strategy aside, if an organization lacks the fundamental ingredient of integrity, then all the rest doesn't matter. The Liberals clearly lack that ingredient.