babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Buzz in the Globe and Mail

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Buzz in the Globe and Mail
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 26 January 2006 07:08 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz explains his actions during the election... have some popcorn and grab a beer

You might need to register with G & M, it's an interesting read...

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: stupendousgirlie ]


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 January 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wipes vomit away.... pardon me...

If you type in "Buzz Hargrove" at Google News, this piece is the first hit. No registration required.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 26 January 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a mealy mouthed justification for bad behaviour. The arrogance of people who have been in power longer than their sell by dates is amazing. Buzz sounds just like all of those members of the Liberal party that could not take responsibility for the situation that they found themselves in after the election was called, or take responsibility for the fact of the election itself.
I am somewhat puzzled lately by news stories like this one that I have seen on CBC and other sources. The pat on the back for the Liberal party for all those progressive policies that they introduced, no mention of the refusal to protect healthcare, and then blame Jack Layton for bringing down the government.
I have heard the media describe ndp policies pre-election as too expensive and yet on the other hand the same media, along with Buzz, gives the LIberals credit for those same NDP policies. So are the policies good when described as Liberal and bad when a platform of the NDP?
I have also heard the media describe the NDP as insignificant in the vote percentage and number of seats yet they are torn apart for causing the election. Harper, Duceppe, and Martin with far more seats than the NDP were helpless in the face of the steamroller 18 seat party, and are given a complete pass by the media for the last election - it's all the NDP's fault.
So which is it, is the NDP the political fringe or the dangerous socialist horde? The MSM can't seem to make up it's mind. The stories out of Vancouver particularly on the National seem to be doing journalistic backflips to demonise and marginalise the NDP all at the same time.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 January 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
or use the google news backdoor
From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 26 January 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't tell whether to be shocked or appalled.

First off the hypocritical positioning on the Bloc. He now has nothing but praise for them but he spent the month of December shit-talking them to anyone who would listen - claiming they would conspire with Harper to destroy the country.

Secondly, the obliviousness. Now, he claims that his efforts held Harper to a minority? Is he insane? He was a national embarassment. He still is.

Here for the record, Basil, is what people thought of your "help":

"The pair was attempting to make a double-barreled effort to stop Harper and his Conservatives from achieving further gains in Quebec.But the controversy now has Martin on the defensive, saying that he's never doubted Harper's federalist position."

""Liberal Leader Paul Martin was forced to defend Stephen Harper's patriotism yesterday after campaigning with Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove, who used the opportunity to call the Conservative Leader a separatist."

"Now Paul Martin's wearing a Buzz Hargrove union jacket while he complains about Jack Layton's "political expediency" while he campaigns for Liberal candidate Gary Carr, a former Mike Harris Scary Ontario Conservative. Tonight in Thunder Bay the prime minister will stand next to three Martians and a bowl of clam chowder while he accuses Harper and Layton of dancing the tarantella by the pale moonlight. "

"Hargrove, president of the Canadian Autoworkers Union, attended a Martin campaign event, where he endorsed the local Liberal candidates and then launched his eyebrow-raising assault. "

Buzz, you aren't a Leader you are a punch line.

And the joke's getting old.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 26 January 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's something Buzz wrote that I liked.

quote:
Why don't the Liberals, NDP and Bloc sign a joint pact identifying crucial progressive priorities to protect under Mr. Harper's government? This list would include:

renewing the child care deals;

maintaining Kyoto;

implementing the aboriginal commitment;

finalizing bankruptcy protection legislation;

keeping health care public;

not dismantling the gun registry;

completing planned fiscal transfers to the cities;

no new votes on abortion or equal marriage rights.

If the three parties pledged to collectively defeat the government over any of these priorities, Mr. Harper's leash would be a short one. If his government fell as a result, the Governor-General could call on the opposition parties to attempt a centre-left government.


This can be something that the NDP can spearhead in order to draw a line in the sand that the Harper Government cannot cross.

The NDP can also work on the Broadbent Accountability and Ethics report that Harper apparantly endorsed. The Bloc made this an issue in the campaign.

The NDP can also nit-pick some of the more socially humane CON proposals and expand on them and maybe work on these issues with any remnant of a progressive red tory caucus.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 26 January 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I would imagine Layton wants to stay as far away as possible from Hargrove's suggestions and from any tainting association with the ethically damaged Liberals for a little while. You know, guilt by association, at least for a while. Hargrove has shown himself to be a joke.

But Layton certainly will want to work with Harper to merge the Tory federal accountability act proposal with Broadbent's ethics package and to improve any tax package aimed at low income earners such as GST reductions. And the anti-gun crime package will be a winner in urban areas, so Layton can work to improve that proposal to make it more workable and to take into account aid programs for at risk youngsters.

But an NDP-Liberal-Bloc alliance? Buzz has been smoking up again.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
ravenj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5357

posted 26 January 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for ravenj     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hargrove on Toronto's local Now Magazine (January 26):

quote:
Strategic voting played incredibly well. Harper got about the same percentage as the Liberals got in 2004, but he got 10 fewer seats. I think creating a debate around this caused a lot of people to think, and the numbers reflect that.

From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 26 January 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Basil is right. I think it did cause a lot of people to think.
Think, "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out Basil."

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 26 January 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grant I R:
I think it did cause a lot of people to think.
Think, "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out Basil."

[drift]Why is that only ever said about people who frankly, one would like to see hit with a door on the ass not just once, but repeatedly?[/drift]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 26 January 2006 04:30 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
This can be something that the NDP can spearhead in order to draw a line in the sand that the Harper Government cannot cross.

The NDP can also work on the Broadbent Accountability and Ethics report that Harper apparantly endorsed. The Bloc made this an issue in the campaign.

The NDP can also nit-pick some of the more socially humane CON proposals and expand on them and maybe work on these issues with any remnant of a progressive red tory caucus.


I think New Dems should disabuse ourselves of a few things very quickly.

First off, we won't be working "with" the Liberals on anything unless the Liberals think it will return them to majority status and wipe us out. So, the idea that we'll be able to "spearhead" anything is, unfortunately, laughable. The Liberal party wants to destroy the NDP not work with it. We will have to be very very tactical.

Secondly, that tactical advice will not come from Buzz. He has not only revealed himself to be an absolute moron but, I think, will soon be having some internal problems of his own.

Thrid, as proof of my second point, protecting the wildly unpopular and ridiculously over-budget gun registry would be political suicide that would pretty much ensure the loss of about a third of our new caucus in the next election.

Fourth, Harper's already said there won't be a vote on abortion and, as others have noted the free vote on same-sex marriage will fail - which, ironically, will make Harper look like a moderate hero and could possibly clinch his re-election efforts. Especially if Hargrove and the rest of the moron army keep acting like it's a done deal.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 27 January 2006 07:20 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I agree that the NDP shouldn't be doing any deals with the Liberals, they shouldn't be doing any deals with the Conservative either.

Inevitably, dealing with the Conservatives will do them damage.

However, I do believe they can 'spearhead', in the sense that they can bring foward issues, and a their policy on the specific issue. Then the people can decide whether they are in favour or no. Following a strategy of sticking to first principles never hurt anyone in the long run.

As to the gun registry, that's easy. As it should have been from the beginning, the registry should be paid for by those who manufacture and sell guns. A tax on gun sales at the wholesale level could be instituted instantly, and collected until the registry is paid for, then set so as to maintain the system.

Alternatively, a registry could be initiated and maintained by those who make and sell firearms in any way they see fit, provided it meets the criteria set by the government.

In any case, by sticking with first principles, developing policy in tune with those principles and leading the debate on issues that concern those principles, I think the NDP can do well without worrying about tactical questions.

There's going to be another election relatively soon. The time to start preparing is now.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 27 January 2006 08:37 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ravenj:
Hargrove on Toronto's local Now Magazine (January 26):
Strategic voting played incredibly well. Harper got about the same percentage as the Liberals got in 2004, but he got 10 fewer seats. I think creating a debate around this caused a lot of people to think, and the numbers reflect that.

If Basil thinks that, it just proves he's an idiot. The Conservative vote is less efficient because of provinces where they win seats by overwhelming majorities, and parts of provinces where they cannot win seats despite significant support (ie: Toronto). It doesn't take strategic voting to stop Conservatives from winning in Toronto.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 27 January 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that any credibility Senator Hargrove had prior to the election has been pretty much spent as a result of his actions.
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
solarpower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7609

posted 27 January 2006 09:22 AM      Profile for solarpower   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He used the word fundamental.
And the article' has 666 words.

Buzz Hargrove

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The fundamental direction of Canadian society was at stake in this election.
The full text of this article has 666 words.


From: that which the creator created from | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 27 January 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz is the Anti-christ? Hmmmmmm
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
BCastro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11420

posted 27 January 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for BCastro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
tear up his membership, on live tv, charge admission, in a city, in canada.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: BCastro ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the bard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8375

posted 27 January 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for the bard     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:

The NDP can also nit-pick some of the more socially humane CON proposals and expand on them and maybe work on these issues with any remnant of a progressive red tory caucus.

And who are these progressive red tories you speak of? You mean the three who supported SSM but have pretty much the same views on economic issues as the rest of the party? Or the supposed "moderates" like Bev Oda and Mike Chong who quietly voted against SSM rather than declaring a holy war on gays and lesbians.

Progressive red tories were people like Dalton Camp, David Crombie, David Macdonald and Flora Macdonald. But I think it now means James Moore and Jim Prentice.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 27 January 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The full text of this article has 666 words.

From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 27 January 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
It's worth noting that two of the three who voted for marriage had consistently anti-gay voting records until then. (Prentice, of course, had no record being a rookie MP).

It's a mistake to think of people as progressive, merely because they don't believe in singling out one group of people for mandatory discrimination. I'm not just talking about Conservatives here. Is Scott Brison a progressive? Not by any definition I can think of.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 28 January 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And who are these progressive red tories you speak of?

i did mention "any remnant of a pregressive red tory caucus"...don't know who they are...it was a hypothetical statment if one exists..or if something close to one exists.

the idea is to seek mps out who are close to us somawhat and start from there.

Harper's mandate is to clean correction up that is all. I don't believe he has received an ok for moving Canada further Right.

Anyway if are going to be pushing for PR, we've got to prove that coalition politics works and that minority governments are both stable and responsive to the public.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 29 January 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
It's time the NDP got strategic, not tactical

It's completely irresponsible to engage in a minority government with Harper. Working with him is contrary to a progressive agenda. Buzz and his advisors got it. Too bad the NDP leadership didn't.

Buzz' appeal for strategic voting is what saved us from a majority Conservative government. That's what we're going to get in a very short period of time if the NDP look to cooperate with the rightwingers.

I don't blame the unions if they go along with Harper's plan to stop contributions by them to political parties. The NDP is just helping Harper look good. Harper is trying to look moderate and by saying he can be worked with, Layton is helping him fool people about his agenda.

That's what the fight is now. Are we going to help Harper slide home or create resistance?

quote:
"The Federal Accountability Act: In the wake of Liberal scandals, this one's a no-brainer. The spiritual father of this legislation, the one who's been trumpeting the need for more ethics in government, is none other than former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. Chances are good, in fact, that Broadbent may end up with an appointed role in policing ethics, just as Brian Mulroney picked NDP stalwart Stephen Lewis to be Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. For any new government, it's a fetchingly non-partisan perfume. "

the Parliamentary Twister Game

Is it the time for payoffs by appointments?
Is this why the attack on Harper was so much softer than the attack on Martin?

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: bluebird ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 29 January 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps we should wait to see what stance the NDP takes in the negotiations before we pass judgement on it.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455

posted 29 January 2006 08:24 PM      Profile for tommie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's completely irresponsible to engage in a minority government with Harper. Working with him is contrary to a progressive agenda. Buzz and his advisors got it. Too bad the NDP leadership didn't.

I completely agree. Hargrove's remarks in the beginning of the campaign were dot on. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was delivered by Jack Layton thanks to his absurd anti-Liberal and almost pro-Conservative campaign. Where I draw the line is when Hargrove endorsed the Bloc. There is no excuse for backing this anti-Canadian organization. Personally, I believe if the NDP is really committed to federalism they would not run candidates in Quebec and back the Liberal Party.


From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 29 January 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
It's time the NDP got strategic, not tactical
Agreed. Following Buzz Hargrove is neither strategic NOR tactical. It's just dumb.
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
It's completely irresponsible to engage in a minority government with Harper. Working with him is contrary to a progressive agenda.
Why? (Real answers please - besides a blind driving belief that Liberals MUST be better than Tories)

If Harper agreed to stay in Kyoto, to invest real money in national childcare, and to raise corporate taxes could the NDP support him? Or should we oppose him because we know (in his heart of hearts) that he wants to eat babies?

quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
Buzz and his advisors got it. Too bad the NDP leadership didn't. Buzz' appeal for strategic voting is what saved us from a majority Conservative government.
Actually, the overwhelming evidence indicates that, if anything, Buzz saved us from another Liberal minority. An election poll indicates that Hargrove drove voters to the Conservatives - not the Liberals and the NDP.
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
That's what we're going to get in a very short period of time if the NDP look to cooperate with the rightwingers.
I actually think the quickest route to a Harper majority would be a ham-fisted Hargovesque attempt to bring down the government over GST cuts - which almost certainly will be Harper's first order of business.
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
That's what the fight is now. Are we going to help Harper slide home or create resistance?
Would that be like the ever-so-effective "resistance" that resulted in back-to-back wins for Mike Harris. Thanks for the help Buzz!
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
Is it the time for payoffs by appointments?
Is this why the attack on Harper was so much softer than the attack on Martin?

That's rich coming from the "Senator Hargrove" fanclub. Let's agree that Jack, if he was inclined to vanity and self-promotion, could be a Cabinet Minister in the Paul Martin government today if he had just crossed the floor like Belinda.

Before too many "progressives" blow their brains out pining for the Liberals let's remember the last decade: the billion dollar cuts to social services, the corporate tax giveaways, the corruption, the theft, the growing pollution. Why exactly should I be fighting to get these crooks re-elected?

Why should I be fighting to make an anti-choice nutbar like Frank McKenna or an anti-union Harrisite like Belinda Stronach Prime Minister?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 29 January 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Tommie, you're full of it.

And so is Buzz Hargrove. His strategic voting follies have helped elect right wing governments in Ottawa and Ontario for the past dozen years.

At least his buddy Paul Martin had the decency to step down from the Liberal leadership. Too bad Hargrove doesn't have the decency to do the same. But then decency and Hargrove are two words that don't even bear a passing resemblance to one another.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 29 January 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tommie:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was delivered by Jack Layton thanks to his absurd anti-Liberal and almost pro-Conservative campaign. ... Personally, I believe if the NDP is really committed to federalism they would not run candidates in Quebec and back the Liberal Party.

Oh holy crap. How many times do I have to hear "damn you Jack Layton, you didn't help us continue our natural right to govern."??!! The NDP did not run a pro-Conservative campaign. It only seemed that way to Liberals who can dish out the attacks on their opponents but not take them. It is not the responsibility of the NDP to ensure that the Liberals continue to function as the natural governing party. The NDP's responsibility is to elect as many MPs as possible with an eye to one day forming government. If you paid attention and perhaps watched CPAC, you would have seen that every speech Jack Layton gave he mentioned that the Conservatives are "wrong on the issues." As for not running candidates in Quebec, get a life. The NDP is a national party and would forfeit all the legitimacy that comes with that if it were to not run candidates in Quebec, to say nothing of the differences in policy and practice between the LPC and the NDP.

quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

[drift]Why is that only ever said about people who frankly, one would like to see hit with a door on the ass not just once, but repeatedly?[/drift]


[chanelling Futurama] Because we don't want ass marks on our door.[/chanelling Futurama]

From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455

posted 29 January 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for tommie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Tommie, you're full of it.

If you mean full of brilliant, pragmatic socialist thought then you are indeed correct.

As for the Liberal record in the nineties, the previous poster is correct to bought on the economic rightward drift the party took. But let us not forget the party's legendary fight for Canada in the 1995 "referendum" and also the decision not to invade Iraq.

But the cuts Martin made are not forgivable. This is what happens when the NDP is not strong enough to keep the Liberal Party in line. Let us never forget the progressive legacy of the 1960s and 1970s -- a legacy of Liberal-NDP working together.


From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 29 January 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah yes. The progressiveness of the 60's and 70's.

When the Liberal Party put Soldiers. In Our Streets.
With Guns.

And then there was wage controls, which set the tone for the Liberals to always look to rescue the economy on the backs of workers.

I am probably a cult of one, but I like my tories out in the open, instead of the creepy crawly liberal tories that hide from the light of day under rocks.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 29 January 2006 09:43 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Ah yes. The progressiveness of the 60's and 70's.

When the Liberal Party put Soldiers. In Our Streets.
With Guns.

And then there was wage controls, which set the tone for the Liberals to always look to rescue the economy on the backs of workers.

I am probably a cult of one, but I like my tories out in the open, instead of the creepy crawly liberal tories that hide from the light of day under rocks.


Ditto.


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 29 January 2006 09:44 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but during the campaign Layton said he could work with the Conservatives.
That made a difference. The SES pollster, Nikos, who got the numbers right, said that the Conservative drop from 38% to 32% on Jan 22 was caused by strategic voting in Ontario and by Layton finally saying something critical about Harper. Then people began to question the moderate image Harper has been selling, instead of thinking that it was only Martin's view. Too little, too late.

And from the most recent statements, it looks like Layton will go along with the Financial Accountability Act instead of tackling the infrastructure it will create.

So are we going to have to watch the NDP prop up Harper's minority until he's ready to get his majority?

The social democrats in Quebec are in the Bloc and there is surely room to negotiate with them to expose that Harper's program is not moderate and will lead us directly and quickly to downsize federal government social programs and to deep integration with the United States.

The way I see it Buzz Hargrove was trying to draw attention to these issues, because there was a vacuum in the political leadership on the left. Where was the attack on Harper's National Citizens Coalition program? Not there.
Where was the attack on his rejection of equal pay for work of equal value? Not there.
Where was the attack on more BILLIONS of dollars into military expenditures? Not there.
It wasn't enough to say the Conservative program was wrong. Whether Harper looks personally moderate is irrelevant. His views, goals and program have not changed.

Can Harper hold the middle ground?

But we're already being told he's not such a scary guy. The focus has moved from his program to his not-scary personality!

The NDP is fighting for the front seats on the Titanic.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 29 January 2006 10:00 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're right to be suspicious of any tory that wants to bring ethics into government. But the way to deal with this is to take Harper at face value, and pledge to work with him on that.

Harper said, in very certain terms, that he had no problem with Broadbent's reforms. If, in power, he has cold feet, then we'll show him for an hypocrite.

If Harper is earnest, then by working with them on this common goal, we will have accomplished something worthy.

And, btw, put another few nails in the Liberal Coffin.

When it gets sticky, like budget time, we can count on the Liberals to prop up a tory budget, and we can position ourselves elsewhere-- and get lots of media attention for alternatives, because the liberals will line up behind Harper. Probably even give him suggestions for the best way to shake down working people, to boot.

They are the experts.

------------

All you really need to know about Canadian Politics is contained in the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter".

Buzz would have us believe that it's much better to be eaten by the remorsefull Walrus than the unrepentant Carpenter.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455

posted 29 January 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for tommie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]
When the Liberal Party put Soldiers. In Our Streets.
With Guns.
[QUOTE]

A great time in Canadian history, when we said "No" to Quebec sepratists.


From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 29 January 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tommie:
[QUOTE]
When the Liberal Party put Soldiers. In Our Streets.
With Guns.
[QUOTE]

A great time in Canadian history, when we said "No" to Quebec sepratists.



A great time? When the government effectively suspended habeus corpus and launched one of the most extreme crack-downs ever directed at a Canadian city to deal with a tiny group of zealots? When the goverment claimed to have discovered an 'apprehended insurrection' but never gave any evidence to support that? When the only people who challenged this were Tommy Douglas and his caucus - who were condemned as seperatist sympathizers for standing up for basic human legal rights?

Au contraire. This was one of the worst moments in our nation's history. That moment - as much as anything - was a spark for the Parti Quebecois, and modern Quebec Nationalism. If that's standing up to seperatists, Canada can't afford it.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 29 January 2006 10:58 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
........not sure it was the worst time in Canadian History, Byron.... but it ranks up with the Liberals putting Japanese Canadians in Consentration Camps during WWII...


Fascism if necessary, but not necessarily fascism.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 29 January 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One of the worst moments in our political history, I'd say. Not the Winnipeg General Strike or the 1917 election, but a solid top fifteen.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 30 January 2006 03:29 AM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy Paine:
But the way to deal with this is to take Harper at face value, and pledge to work with him on that.
Harper said, in very certain terms, that he had no problem with Broadbent's reforms. If, in power, he has cold feet, then we'll show him for an hypocrite.
If Harper is earnest, then by working with them on this common goal, we will have accomplished something worthy.
And, btw, put another few nails in the Liberal Coffin.

Seems bizarre to me the way you guys jump into Liberal bashing but don’t whisper a word of complaint about Harper! It’s preposterous to think his Accountability Act is going to “clean up” government. It’s going to overly bureaucratize the federal government and give broad sweeping powers to the “budget police”. He’s going to make the Auditor General the most powerful position in Canada, “following the dollar” to audit and investigate any individual or organization. He’s forcing a review of all government programs every 5 years. This is setting the stage to privatize government programs. In Florida, for example, there is a “sunset review” on all government programs and they are discontinued automatically at the end of 8 years unless specific enactments continue them. One of the purposes of the reviews is to look for “opportunities for privatization”. So you sweethearts of Harper can keep on bashing the Liberals and bashing Buzz Hargrove, but have you so quickly forgotten that Harper wanted to amend the Liberal throne speech in 2004 to have a vote on Bush’s missile defence system?

Buzz wasn't saying everyone should vote Liberal. He said vote for whoever could stop the neo-Conservatives because there was a better negotiating opportunity with a Liberal minority than with a Conservative minority. In fact, it was the BC and Ontario strategic voting that saved us from a Conservative majority.

Why did Jack talk about “reconciliation” in the next Parliament? Why did he say he could work with Harper and not say he could work with Martin? What's that about?

Propping up Harper is a deal with a worse devil. For women, it is completely disastrous. Harper is supported by the most right-wing women's groups. He categorically rejects equal pay for work of equal value. He wants to move immediately to destroy the $5 billion day care program with real day care spaces that are regulated and affordable that the Liberals introduced. This is miles apart. Harper’s plan is a taxable allowance that hardly covers any childcare expenses. His candidates were muzzled because they are rabidly anti-choice and he’s covering up by saying he would have a “free vote” on the issue but does not intend to introduce it. He certainly doesn’t favour affirmative action and his “appointments on the basis of merit” will have no room for any nominations of community representatives or of women or ethnic minorities as affirmative action measures.

He won’t respect the agreement reached with the First Nations and won’t protect workers faced with bankrupt employers. The best he can say about the environment is that he’s going to give a tax break to some public transit users. Kyoto is down the drain. His views on promoting a “market economy” ensure a free fall for protection of and advocacy for important industries in Canada. He’s going to bring in another “free vote” on equal marriage rights. He wants to make Canadian governance more like the American system in many ways, including the anti-democratic role of regional interests in the Senate to control the House of Commons.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommie
Let us never forget the progressive legacy of the 1960s and 1970s -- a legacy of Liberal-NDP working together.

I agree with you, Tommie. There’s still time to forge an accord between the NDP and the progressive elements in the Liberal party and those in the Bloc. They should defeat the Cons as soon as possible and apply to the Governor General to form a coalition government. There aren’t really any common goals between progressives and Harper and his gang of bigots and right-wing neocons. Acting like there is dangerous because it endorses Harper's strategy of appearing moderate and will lead us rapidly down a catastrophic path.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 30 January 2006 06:47 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They should defeat the Cons as soon as possible and apply to the Governor General to form a coalition government.

Who would lead this coalition government?

Buzz Hargrove has lost credibility with many not only for his words but for those endless photos of him smiling up at Paul Martin.

I would like to see Parliament work on an issue by issue basis. I would like to think there are enough moderate and progressive voices that working together is a possibility.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 30 January 2006 07:10 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
There’s still time to forge an accord between the NDP and the progressive elements in the Liberal party and those in the Bloc. They should defeat the Cons as soon as possible and apply to the Governor General to form a coalition government. There aren’t really any common goals between progressives and Harper and his gang of bigots and right-wing neocons. Acting like there is dangerous because it endorses Harper's strategy of appearing moderate and will lead us rapidly down a catastrophic path.

It doesn't work that way. The Bloc does not, will not, participate in government. Nor is it going to sit by and let a Liberal/NDP coalition take over.

The NDP got what it was working towards - a few more seats and near powerlessness in a Conservative government that no one can afford to defeat for a couple of years.

Since they worked so hard to get a Conservative minority government, I can only assume they have some form of strategy for working with one.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 30 January 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The NDP got what it was working towards - a few more seats and near powerlessness in a Conservative government that no one can afford to defeat for a couple of years.

Since they worked so hard to get a Conservative minority government, I can only assume they have some form of strategy for working with one.


I'm sure that's not intended personally but as someone who spent hours volunteering, thanks for the support. Perhaps you did too, I'm not assuming that you didn't, but I know all the volunteers I saw were hoping for more than a few seats.


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 30 January 2006 07:44 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
If the Cons don't compromise with the Libs, NDP, and Bloc, their government could be over before the summer.

Layton, Duceppe, and Bill Graham, should have a few interesting meetings regarding the future of this Parliament. If push comes to shove, they could take control of the government.

Would Layton go along with a coalition government if the NDP could have strong representation in the cabinet?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 30 January 2006 07:52 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I don't care what people hoped for. I deal in reality as I see it.

The NDP got pretty much the best possible outcome from the election. NDP government, NDP opposition were never realistic goals. Nor was balance of power. The only thing the NDP could get was a larger caucus, and that's what it did get. I said this all during the campaign as well.

Having nominal balance of power wouldn't have changed anything, since the determining factor is that the BQ and Liberals (or Cons had the Liberals won) are not willing to precipitate another election, in marked contrast to last time.

The NDP has no power to block any legislation supported by the Conservatives and another party. Nor does it have the power to pass any legislation in conjunction with the Conservatives - although it's hard to imagine what legislation there could be that's supported by the Conservatives and NDP, but opposed by the two other parties.

JKR, as I said in another thread, the BQ does not, will not, cannot participate in government. Put away the fantasies of coalition government. They died with Martin's announcement he was stepping down.

Harper has to get his budget through, that's about it. For the rest, he'll work on things he can get support on or do outside of parliament.

This government isn't falling anytime soon and the NDP doesn't have any power in it. That's reality. It bites.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 30 January 2006 08:50 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Seems bizarre to me the way you guys jump into Liberal bashing but don’t whisper a word of complaint about Harper!

Well, one thing at a time. I'm sure Harper won't waste too much time in getting around to screwing over yours truly, every bit as bad as the Liberals ever did.

Patience, bluebird.

I'm interested in seeing an NDP majority government in Ottawa before I shuffle off this mortal coil, and as long as the Liberals are a force, then it ain't going to happen.

quote:
Buzz wasn't saying everyone should vote Liberal.

I know he wasn't saying that. He was demonstrating it with his appearing on stage with Martin. People can say anything. It's what they do what counts, and what Buzz did was tell everyone to vote Liberal.

quote:
He categorically rejects equal pay for work of equal value. He wants to move immediately to destroy the $5 billion day care program with real day care spaces that are regulated and affordable that the Liberals introduced.

The Liberals have been dangling this carrot for what, about a decade, and they only got around to "introducing" it? At least with Harper's flat denial, we have a starting point for activism. The Liberals never intended to give anything for day care, but their sadistic promises in that direction put the damper on people demanding it.

The cheque, you see, was in the mail.


quote:
He won’t respect the agreement reached with the First Nations and won’t protect workers faced with bankrupt employers.

Yeah, living near Ipperwash beach and knowing the Liberals dithered for eons over the return of that land makes me wonder what respect the Liberals would have had to their own agreement, particularly when their inaction at Kesechewan is kept in mind.

If the Liberals were going to protect First Nations, then, by god, First Nations really don't need any enemies.

And again, the Liberals had forever to do something to protect workers when their employer claimed bankruptcy, but did nothing but string unions along with lies and empty promises, like a carny keeping the marks at a ring toss game.

C'mon, don't be a rube forever.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Magnolia
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10086

posted 30 January 2006 09:23 AM      Profile for Magnolia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buzz has GOT to go. I know from personal experience that trying to have someone kicked out of the party is not easy but it MUST be done.

In our riding (one of the many 'unwinnable') we had to battle against the Buzz syndrome and I think we did so effectively - but the point is - WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! He's supposed to be one of US, on OUR side - Sheesh, I thought I'd calmed down about him, but I haven't


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 30 January 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Naahhh Senator Hargrove is feathering his nest for the next time a Liberal government takes over. 20 bucks says that Prime Minister (insert Liberal name here) will appoint him to the Senate for his unwavering support of bla bla bla bla yak...
From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Magnolia
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10086

posted 30 January 2006 09:42 AM      Profile for Magnolia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the Libs will reward him with a senate seat - he managed to blot his copybook with them too - you've got to give it to him though - he's an 'equal opportunity menace'
From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 30 January 2006 10:05 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
If the Cons don't compromise with the Libs, NDP, and Bloc, their government could be over before the summer.

Layton, Duceppe, and Bill Graham, should have a few interesting meetings regarding the future of this Parliament. If push comes to shove, they could take control of the government.


On the flip side if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc don't find some way to work with Harper, his government could be a majority before the summer. Harper's first order of business will be to bring in the most popular chunks of his platform in legislation. If the opposition parties force an election on an issue like the Accountability Act or cutting the GST, you can pretty much count on a Harper majority.

And as for a Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition, I think the Liberals tasteless over-the-top attacks on Harper for "working with" the Bloc will make it difficult for them to do the same. Not to mention the fact that the Bloc's raison d'etre (after fighting for sovereignty) is fighting Liberals and their corruption.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 30 January 2006 10:10 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
And as for a Bloc-NDP-Liberal coalition, I think the Liberals tasteless over-the-top attacks on Harper for "working with" the Bloc will make it difficult for them to do the same. Not to mention the fact that the Bloc's raison d'etre (after fighting for sovereignty) is fighting Liberals and their corruption.

The Liberals won't find it difficult to work with the Bloc. Liberals are the most shameless bunch of opportunists that ever evolved from apes.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 30 January 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right. I forgot.

Still... the Bloc would find it difficult to form a coalition government with the Liberals. Or, for that matter, to form a coalition government with any party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 30 January 2006 10:33 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
Seems bizarre to me the way you guys jump into Liberal bashing but don’t whisper a word of complaint about Harper! It’s preposterous to think his Accountability Act is going to “clean up” government. It’s going to overly bureaucratize the federal government and give broad sweeping powers to the “budget police”. He’s going to make the Auditor General the most powerful position in Canada, “following the dollar” to audit and investigate any individual or organization. He’s forcing a review of all government programs every 5 years. This is setting the stage to privatize government programs. In Florida, for example, there is a “sunset review” on all government programs and they are discontinued automatically at the end of 8 years unless specific enactments continue them. One of the purposes of the reviews is to look for “opportunities for privatization”.
Contrary to what bluebird thinks, the non-partisan Democracy Watch (to my shame as a New Democrat) said the Tories had the best accountability platform. Though they did give us points for the best corporate responsibility platform.

And that mandatory five-year review of all programs? It's not there. I went and checked. See for yourself.

Now, it seems to me, that we have an opportunity here to get some tough corporate responsibility legislation through in exchnage for support of some (actually good) government accountability legislation.

Or, we can shriek like hyena monkeys, oppose good legislation, make shit up, and get Harper that majority.

The time to bring down Harper is when he's bringing in bad legislation that Canadians don't want. Not when he's brining in good legislation that Canadians do want.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
In Exile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11601

posted 30 January 2006 10:50 AM      Profile for In Exile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Krago:

The Liberals won't find it difficult to work with the Bloc. Liberals are the most shameless bunch of opportunists that ever evolved from apes.


But I don't think that the Bloc will ever work with them. Even if they see a tactical advantage doing something to keeping the Liberals viable in Quebec in order to split the federalist/soft nationalist vote, it's highly doubtful that the Bloc's activists and support base (which has made hating the Liberals a way of life) would support such a move.


From: Boston, MA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 30 January 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Krago:
The Liberals won't find it difficult to work with the Bloc. Liberals are the most shameless bunch of opportunists that ever evolved from apes.

And what do we call it when the NDP doesn't find it difficult to work with the Conservatives – honourable?

Remember Brian Mulroney? A key player in fundraising for Harper and the Cons in Quebec is David Angus, a senator named by Mulroney. Derek Burney the head of transition is a former Mulroney staffer. Senators Marjorie LeBreton and Pierre Nolin are strong players in Harper’s team and they were both close to Mulroney. Nolin was head of the Quebec campaign. Senator Hugh Segal, a Mulroney strategist, is right on the scene and links to Bill Davis who managed a minority government by dividing the other parties with skill. Other Mulroney disciples: Paul Terrien, a journalist who wrote speeches for Mulroney , Camille Guilbeault, who’s helping choose political staff…..

And I can just imagine Klein chortling ….

Of course, Justice Gomery appointed Bernard Roy the chief counsel of the Gomery inquiry. Roy was Mulroney’s principal secretary in the 1980’s Conservative government, and belongs to the Ogilvy Renault law firm, the same firm Mulroney belongs to and where Justice Gomery’s daughter, Sally Gomery is a partner.

Today Gomery called for "more accountability".

Look carefully at the accountability agenda as laying the foundation for privatization and a plan for ongoing discrediting of the Liberals;

quote:
Give the Auditor General a mandate to conduct a complete review of the more than $30 billion in annual federal grants, contributions and contracts.
…./
· Ask the Auditor General to conduct, on an expedited basis, an audit of all federal grant, contribution and contracting policies, and will commit to following her recommendations.
· Increase funding for the Office of the Auditor General to ensure she has the necessary resources to conduct a complete audit of grants and contributions programs and of any such departments, agencies and Crown corporations as she deems necessary.
· Allow the Auditor General to “follow the money” to end recipients by providing her with the statutory authority to conduct audits of the records, documents and accounts of any individual, institution or company that receives grants, contribution or transfers under an agreement with the Government of Canada.
· Ensure that all granting programs are reviewed every five years
· Strengthen enforcement of government financial guidelines, and introduce new Criminal Code penalties for fraud involving the misuse of taxpayers’ money.

As for approaching the Bloc, remember that the Quebec Liberal Minister of Health welcomed the Harper government.

The Bloc
· Firmly opposes Star Wars and militarization of space
· wants parliament to reconsider Canada’s role in the world before changing military expenditures
· Supports gun control
· Supports the expansion of the Guaranteed Income Supplement
· Supports employment insurance, expansion of eligibility
· Supports a transition program for senior workers
· Supports tax credits (not allowances or deductions) for families with children
· Supports lower federal taxes for low income families
· Supports settling land claims with First Nations

NUPGE reported that Harper was the only federal leader who failed to sign The Workers' Bill of Rights, drawn up by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and the UFCW Canada.

quote:
Liberal Leader Paul Martin, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Green Party Leader Jim Harris all chose to sign the document on behalf of their parties. Harper conspicuously declined.


quote:
Or, we can shriek like hyena monkeys, oppose good legislation, make shit up, and get Harper that majority.
The time to bring down Harper is when he's bringing in bad legislation that Canadians don't want. Not when he's bringing in good legislation that Canadians do want.

Surely that’s his plan – get consensus until the conditions are right to table legislation he knows the opposition won’t accept and then get his majority. (Trudeau did this in the past.)

Is his legislation good? Or will he be creating the infrastructure for deep integration with the USA? Will the NDP go along with the taxable child care allowance, dismantling the possibility for a national child care program? His policies are tax-based exemptions, favouring higher income earners.

The struggle to prevent his majority is to vigorously expose the neoCons agenda and what it really means for Canadians. Going along with him and allowing him to appear successful at consensus-building will defeat progressives in the end.

quote:
If the Conservatives can't find consensus
The government is the government unless it is defeated on a motion of no confidence or it resigns. The Conservatives will keep trying unless they are specifically defeated on a money bill, or in a non-confidence motion. Then, one of two things could happen.
The Governor General could order a new election, or ask another party to try to govern. Michaëlle Jean has the right to ask the Liberals, as the holders of the second most seats in the House, to try to form a government, either on their own, or through a coalition with another party. Joining with the NDP would put them ahead of the Conservatives in the seat count, but still well below a majority.
It is very unusual for the Governor General to offer the government to another party, if the governing party has asked for an election (especially since the King-Byng affair). However, one of the reasons this power is given to the Governor General is to protect Canadians from excessive visits to the polls and an unstable Parliament. It is yet to be seen how many elections is too many.

A Conservative consensus?

Harper and advisors have skilfully camouflaged their longterm agenda. If Harper’s minority government is defeated, a coalition government could be called upon by the GG to take over without an election.

In the interim, the fight is to expose the neoCons agenda and not let them slide into a bland period while he builds his prime ministerial image and prepares to manipulate the next election. The Cons have declared they will now work to build support in urban areas. They have lots of money and will study popular reactions with polls and use them to create the conditions for their majority.

Only by uniting the opposition can they be countered.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: bluebird ]

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: bluebird ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 30 January 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Buzz's article:

quote:
That minority government was a historical moment of opportunity for building a more just and inclusive country. I am still scratching my head as to why it had to end.

Maybe he wasn't paying attention to the strong sentiment among the Canadian public that the Liberals were corrupt and arrogant, and that it was time for a change?

quote:
Originally posted by TCD:
Or, we can shriek like hyena monkeys, oppose good legislation, make shit up, and get Harper that majority.

This is also critical in the campaign for proportional representation. Since proportional representation usually produces minority governments, it is important to demonstrate to Canadians that political parties can play nicely in a minority government. Otherwise, people will tolerate the stability of majority governments, despite the fact that they're inherently arrogant. That's the reality, and sometimes it's more effective to work within the constraints of the given realities than to curse them.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 30 January 2006 10:27 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bluebird is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
Look carefully at the accountability agenda as laying the foundation for privatization and a plan for ongoing discrediting of the Liberals.
I don't doubt that Harper wouldn't mind privatizing most things but I don't see how having the Auditor General review programs every five years leads to that. In fact, I'm not sure where in the socialist handbook it says good progressive are opposed to transparency. Maybe Buzz Hargrove doesn't have a problem with advertising executives getting rich off of money that could be going to schools and hospitals but his members don't like it one bit. Most normal people, most socialists with a brain, don't like it. There's a lot of things to oppose in the Harper platform - I think I'll pass on defending lax rules and corrupt Liberals.
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
Senator Hugh Segal, a Mulroney strategist, is right on the scene and links to Bill Davis who managed a minority government by dividing the other parties with skill.
So, let me get this straight... we should all run screaming to bring back the program-slashing, corporate-tax-break-giving "leadership" of Paul Martin because Harper has links to.... Bill Davis. That would be the Ontario Premier who brought in rent control, set up community colleges, built subsidized housing and took on the oil companies to bring in a 90-day freeze on energy prices.

Okay!

quote:
Is his legislation good? Or will he be creating the infrastructure for deep integration with the USA? Will the NDP go along with the taxable child care allowance, dismantling the possibility for a national child care program? His policies are tax-based exemptions, favouring higher income earners.
To answer the second question first, I'll eat my hat if the NDP supports Harper's tax-credit plan - especially if it meant cancelling the childcare funding to the provinces. The Bloc might since Quebec (unlike the other provinces) already manages to run an excellent childcare program without federal dollars. Quebeckers will get the best of both worlds - a big payout and subsidized daycare. Who knows what the Liberals will do when the chips are down? They might oppose it- but if Harper's plan looks popular they also might support it.

As for "deep integration" I'll just note that the most extreme pro-integration politcian in the country, the only MP who wants Canada to use the US dollar, is Liberal Leadership contender Maurizio Bevilacqua.

I trust the NDP will oppose Liberal and Tory moves towards deep integration.

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
NDPundit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3847

posted 31 January 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for NDPundit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A retort to Buzz from the head of the Steelworkers Union. Unfortunately, the Globe, in its wisdom prints Buzz nationally, but relegates this smart response to the Metro edition which appears only in some of its papers (excerpt here, link in posts below):

quote:
GLOBE AND MAIL Jan 31, 2006
Why we didn't do what Buzz Hargrove did

KEN NEUMANN
...While in the past he had criticized the NDP for, in his view, straying from the left, by the time the 2006 election campaign rolled around, Mr. Hargrove had publicly hugged Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin and put a CAW jacket on the man's back.

Mr. Hargrove said he had called on "progressive" voters to support "whomever had the best chance of stopping the Tories." For others in the labour movement, it's hard to understand how Mr. Hargrove could warmly endorse Mr. Martin, whose government ensured the narrow defeat of union-supported, anti-scab legislation in the last Parliament. Or who, as finance minister, implemented the largest cuts to public services, health and education funding transfers to the provinces that Canada has ever seen.

Mr. Hargrove rationalized that his position had also helped the NDP. But by actively campaigning for Mr. Martin and cabinet minister Belinda Stronach, he was really telling unionized workers that the Liberal Party is a good "progressive" choice. Unfortunately, the experience of organized labour shows it is decidedly not.

[...

By publicly embracing the Liberals in the last election, Mr. Hargrove may have denied the NDP a real opportunity to win progressive change. Had the New Democrats won just a few more seats, they would have held the balance of power and been able to push Mr. Harper to meet the needs of working Canadians.

[...]

In the long term, endorsing the Liberals, even if only in a "strategic" way, will lead Canada down the road to a two-party system like that in the United States, where labour's interests are always shortchanged in the Democratic Party and ignored by Republicans.

The CAW and Buzz Hargrove have every right to endorse Liberal candidates in any election, if that's what they feel is in their interests. But it's important Canadians know that the vast majority of unions and their leaders simply don't agree and are sticking to supporting the New Democratic Party as the best choice for working people.

Ken Neumann is national director for Canada of the United Steelworkers of America union.


[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: NDPundit ]


From: Green and Pleasant Land | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 31 January 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The article in question appeared in the comment section of the Vancouver printed Globe as well.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 31 January 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
So, TCD,
you believe that Harper's a moderate!?
you're the one who's wrong

and you think that

quote:
the most extreme pro-integration politcian in the country, ... is Liberal Leadership contender Maurizio Bevilacqua

Ha!ha!ha! Do you want to buy a bridge?

Let the Trojan Horse in!

Harper wants to gut federal social programs and he'll use the Auditor General to do it. Taking him at face value is buying into a con. His agenda will have the provinces competing with each other for the lowest taxes and minimum wages to attract jobs and we'll be paying plenty of taxes to help Bush secure the Alberta oil sands for the US military.
Won't Klein be laughing when Alberta gets the firewall Harper envisaged.

quote:
he wants to radically decentralize power and taxing authority so that the federal government no longer plays a significant role in social areas

Harper's grand plan externally..(decentralize power internally)

edited for sp.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: bluebird ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 31 January 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
BTW
quote:
TCD said
I'll eat my hat if the NDP supports Harper's tax-credit plan - especially if it meant cancelling the childcare funding to the provinces

Harper's two-pronged child care plan is a good example of his "moderate" plan to destroy social programs: an allowance of $100 to parents and a tax credit to employers.

quote:
A Tory government would offer tax credits to employers, both business and non-profit organizations, who create child-care spaces.

"The money would go directly to assist those who make the capital investment to build new child-care spaces," Harper said. "The money will not be funnelled through politicians; it will not create a huge new bureaucracy."


What about all those years we've spent advocating for community-based child care? Wiped out with the sleight of a pen - he's got Rona on his team.
With the Cons in charge, the Quebec model is dead.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 31 January 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The mere fact that Hargrove had the same opinion as NOW hack-editor Alice Klein, should tell you something. Did anyone read the piece Klein wrote about strategic voting in NOW just before the election? It was as if Hargrove wrote it himself.
Here's a little slice:
Actually, Jack, no. That's an option for opposition, not for government. As a long-time NDP supporter, I want to see my party in a place of actual power, not just the same comfortable, self-righteous good-old-days of opposition politics. Of the many possible scenarios by the end of Monday night, the only foreseeable outcome that brings the NDP real power to effect major change in this country is a minority Liberal-NDP governing alliance. That's what I want to see emerge from this debacle election.

And to get that, voters must vote strategically, depending on the race in their riding.

Over the last 18 months, we've had a chance to see the kind of positive social policies and spending that can come from Liberal-NDP power-sharing during this special time in Canada of huge budget surpluses.

Instead of milking this moment for every last golden drop of social good possible, Layton decided to pre-empt his governing opportunity and force an election. Then he aimed his ad campaign almost exclusively against the Liberals. Why? It feels like he'd rather see the Conservatives come to power than admit that his supporters would be best served by strategically supporting the Liberals in close-call Tory-Liberal races. To me, that is playing political games with the progressive future of our country....

Just pathetic...


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 31 January 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Instead of milking this moment for every last golden drop of social good possible, Layton decided to pre-empt his governing opportunity and force an election. Then he aimed his ad campaign almost exclusively against the Liberals.

I guess the 2 deals that Layton took to Martin offering to delay any bargains with the Bloc and the Cons, in order to protect healthcare was just a disguised attempt to actually do the opposite? The first offer to delay any election call in order to pass progressive legislation was pissed on by Martin and the second offer to wait until after Gomery if healthcare guarantees were passed was treated the same way - by Martin. A Liberal. In power in Ottawa.
It would appear to me that Martin wanted an election.
I have heard this coddling the Conservatives criticism of Jack over and over on babble, who knew there were so many Liberals? I don't know what went on in Ontario but in BC the Conservatives were attacked equally along with the Liberals. BC was in many areas a 3 way race and in others the party to beat was the Conservatives, so in my BC view the 'easy on Harper' theory just doesnt' have any credibility.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6462

posted 31 January 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Robert James     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by faith:

I guess the 2 deals that Layton took to Martin offering to delay any bargains with the Bloc and the Cons, in order to protect healthcare was just a disguised attempt to actually do the opposite? The first offer to delay any election call in order to pass progressive legislation was pissed on by Martin and the second offer to wait until after Gomery if healthcare guarantees were passed was treated the same way - by Martin. A Liberal. In power in Ottawa.
It would appear to me that Martin wanted an election.
I have heard this coddling the Conservatives criticism of Jack over and over on babble, who knew there were so many Liberals? I don't know what went on in Ontario but in BC the Conservatives were attacked equally along with the Liberals. BC was in many areas a 3 way race and in others the party to beat was the Conservatives, so in my BC view the 'easy on Harper' theory just doesnt' have any credibility.

Yah, well, some people here in Ontario, unfortunately, do not keep abreast of what goes on back in BC. As a transplanted British Columbian (for the time being) it is immensely frustrating - not to mention irritating. Especially because I try to fight constantly to reject the standard assumptions about 'western alienation' among many friends and family back home.

Moreover, a lot of Liberal shills wanted to paint the picture that the NDP was cozying up to the Conservatives precisely because they were shaking in their boots that their usual election campaign ploy of scaring weak-kneed New Democrat voters to park their votes with them was not going to work in the last election. Unfortunately, again, it seemed to work a little - though not as much as in the past.

The funny thing is, these types of critics basically imply that people thinking of voting NDP are stupid. Most people even remotely aware of what the NDP stands for safely assume that the party is critical of the Conservatives; it's patently obvious! Thus, Jack and co. only need to reiterate the reasons once in a while.

Meanwhile, a great deal of attention was focused on the Liberals in certain parts of the country - particularly in Ontario - precisely because the NDP wanted to *differentiate* itself, its program, and its intentions in parliament FROM the Liberals so as to prevent the Liberals from persuading people that the Liberals are basically as progressive as the NDP - but with the added bonus of a history of winning elections and forming government.

So, this kind of criticism, in my view, actually amounts to one of a few things: total ignorance of reality (e.g., your incisive comment about the myopic perception among some Ontarians that the NDP did not attack the Conservatives, or my comment that most people take it for granted that the NDP opposes the Conservatives); or, purposeful blindness to that reality because said critics are actually Liberals or Liberal sympathizers.

Either way you slice it, it's profoundly disingenuous (at best) to lay blame at the feet of the NDP.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Robert James ]


From: on hiatus | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 31 January 2006 06:03 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
from faith:

I have heard this coddling the Conservatives criticism of Jack over and over on babble, who knew there were so many Liberals? I don't know what went on in Ontario but in BC the Conservatives were attacked equally along with the Liberals.


Same thing here in Saskatchewan, faith. I heard Layton speak three times in Regina and once in Moose Jaw.

On every occasion, he sharply attacked Harper and the Conservatives for their do-nothing record, their wrong-headed approach, and their bad plans.

For some commentators, reporters and media pundits, unfortunately, these facts don't fit the Official Narrative (i.e. Liberal spin), and so they've been sent down the memory hole.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 January 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NDPundit:
A retort to Buzz from the head of the Steelworkers Union. Unfrotunately, the Globe, in its wisdom prints Buzz nationally, but relegates this smart response to the Metro edition (for which there is no link, sorry):
The article was printed in the Toronto edition opposite the editorial page.

The Globe website doesn't have it, but you can read it here.

Now, NDPundit, you can remove the full text from your post, to comply with copyright laws.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
spiffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3518

posted 31 January 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for spiffy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
uswa head kenny neumann's excellent response to the buzzard was also in the bc edition of the globe.
From: where do you think i'm from? | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 31 January 2006 07:37 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Robert James and sgm thanks for confirming election 2006, I was beginning to think I had been involved in a completely different election than most of the posters in this thread.
Robert I liked your comment about the Conservatives being the natural 'enemies' of the NDP. I too have always thought that was a given.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 31 January 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've wondered the same thing faith. Seems to me people where just hearing what they wanted to hear filtered through the prism of the media who wanted to frame the story in a certain way. I was mere inches away from Jack in London where he spent a goodly amount of time pointing out the flaws in both the Liberal and Conservative vision for this country.
People like Basil have some egg on their face, willing to take pats on the heads in exchange for feeling imporant. They will have to reconcile their own determination to create a silk purse out of the pigs ear of Liberal scandal and broken promises.

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 31 January 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP's attacks on the Conservatives didn't count... because we didn't have scary drumbeats in our commercials... or make stuff up.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 01 February 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
The NDP's attacks on the Conservatives didn't count... because we didn't have scary drumbeats in our commercials... or make stuff up.

I can't remember a single NDP commercial critical of the Conservatives. As I recall, almost every NDP commercial was an attack on the Liberals.

In his speeches I did see Layton being critical of the Conservatives but how many Canadians watch Layton's speeches on CPAC or Newsworld?

The only thing I remember Layton saying against the Cons was "they're wrong on the issues." He never seemed to elaborate on this throwaway line.

The NDP's strategy was to aim almost all their ammuntion at the Liberals. This made electoral sense. It helped the NDP win 29 seats. The fact is that the best way to win a lot of seats was to go after the Libs and ignore the Cons. The NDP purposely ignored the Cons out of fear that creating a scary image of the Conservatives would drive voters to the Liberals.

But the progressive movement understands this electoral strategy. They saw the NDP give the Cons a free ride. And a lot of people in the progressive movement won't forget it no matter how much partisan NDP'ers want them to.

The NDP ignored the Cons in order to gain seats in Parliament. That may have made electoral sense but something tells me this tactic has caused a lot of progressives to lost enthusiasm for the NDP. I know I have.

As an NDP member, I'm going to try to make sure that next time around we attack the Cons every bit as much as the Libs.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 01 February 2006 02:09 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Scott's on the right track here.

Apparently, in order to meet CBC/Liberal party standards of 'attack' or 'criticism,' reasoned argument isn't enough.

Rather, it seems you have to run hysterical attack ads chock-full of demonstrable falsehoods before you can be said to meet noted progressive Paul Martin's standard of opposition to the un-Canadian values of the Conservative party.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 01 February 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
What criticism of the Cons did the NDP make in their large-scale ads? I don't remember any.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 01 February 2006 02:22 AM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These NDP TV ads attack libs and cons equally:
http://www.ndp.ca/bothad
http://www.ndp.ca/whoad

But the point is that the NDP targeted voters who were undecided between the Liberals and the NDP. Most of these voters had already decided the cons were icky. Most were traditional NDP voters (or at least people with NDP values) who had voted Liberal in recent elections. There weren't as many people deciding between NDP and Cons and those that were could also be convinced to vote NDP by anti-Liberal messaging.

The Liberals could have targeted the much bigger group of fed-up former Liberal voters who were leaning Cons. But instead, yet again, the Libs (and the "think twice" kind of felllow travellers and "useful idiots") assumed they were entitled to NDP voters despite the broken promises and miserable record. These voters were only a few percent of the population but critical for the relatively modest ambition of the NDP winning a few more seats and thus being able to keep doing the work in Parliament that all progressives agree has been critically important in Canadian history (from championing medicare to re-writing last year's budget).

I am proud that 2.6 million people withstood the lies and the fear-mongering of the Liberal campaign and voted NDP, for people who truly represent their values.


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 01 February 2006 02:24 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I saw Layton speak several times on the news media while he was in BC, he was here a lot and he never failed to mention the Conservatives in unflattering terms. I don't watch TV a lot so I really don't have a good memory for the commercials, but one I remember had a voice pointing out that you didn't have to choose between corruption or poor social policy (my words) there was a better choice - vote for the new democrats, or something to that effect.
There was other times that the lack of difference between the 2 other parties was pointed out as well. The Conservatives did not get a free ride from the NDP at least in BC, but Peter Mansbridge gave them a free ride, and to be fair to Harper he campaigned circles around Paul Martin.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 01 February 2006 02:40 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
from JKR:
What criticism of the Cons did the NDP make in their large-scale ads?I don't remember any.

Apparently, JKR would have us substitute anecdotal recollection for the factual record.

I'm sure many Liberal spin-meisters/CBC reporters would be happy to agree with JKR's approach.

Now, to be fair, it's possible that JKR does not own a television, or perhaps JKR's television has been fitted with some sort of chip that prevented JKR seeing the NDP's 'Both Want Your Vote' ad, which--aarrgh, anecdotally!--I saw aired several times here in Regina, SK.

It's also possible that, in JKR's neck of the woods, the NDP made no effort--as they did in Saskatchewan--to back up the 'Both Want Your Vote' television ad with other efforts, such as the large billboard spot the NDP purchased just north of the railroad tracks on Albert Street in Regina, to cite one example.

Now, perhaps JKR will argue that neither a nation-wide television ad, nor a major urban back-up advertising campaign should count as 'criticism of the Cons' in the NDP's 'large-scale ads.'

If JKR does make that argument, then I think JKR should explain much more clearly what ought to have been done instead.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 01 February 2006 04:06 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Already, this campaign is starting to have a place in the public mindset similar to 1988. There were (and are) people who insist that Ed Broadbent and the NDP did not campaign against Free Trade in 1988. Likewise, there are people who will insist that Jack Layton didn't attack the Conservatives in this campaign.

Both claims have little credibility, but I think it's important that we challenge them as vigourously as possible. At least in the latter case, there may still be a possibility of avoiding myths about this campaign from becoming the dominent implanted recollection of people who weren't really paying attention.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 01 February 2006 05:25 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
JKR should explain much more clearly what ought to have been done instead.

I wish the NDP had attacked the neo-Cons just as aggressively as they attacked the Liberals. I think that would have gone a long way in preventing the neo-Cons from taking power.

What I have a problem with is the FPTP electoral system that allows a neo-Con party to form a government with just over 1/3rd of the vote because centre-left voters split their votes 4 ways between the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and Greens.

The sooner we get electoral reform the better. FPTP and a multi-party political system don't mix.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 01 February 2006 06:31 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yup... these election results are all the fault of the NDP and because Jack Didn't Put The Country First. Nothing to do with Liberal corruption and arrogance, or how the electorate voted, or anything else. It's All Jack's Fault.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 01 February 2006 08:22 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
Now that we have a Conservative government the NDP should be the lead critics of neo-Conservative policies.

The NDP will likely vote against the Cons budget. Hopefully the Libs and BQ will too. Then maybe the opposition parties can establish a coalition government.

One can dream.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 February 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
JRK said
Heph are you happy with a Conservative government. (It has now been edited, but I will leave my response for posterity.)

What a load of horse manure.
Of course no one is happy with a Conservative government, but if we are going to have one I, and I expect others are glad it is a weak minority one.

Say this to yourself ove and over JRK. The Liberals lost the election. The Liberals lost the election. This outcome was set in motion the moment Paul Martin went on national television to plead for his governemnts life and then went on to demonstrate he was running a tired, meaningless government that could only get things done if the NDP made them. Voters were chomping at the bit to find an excuse to vote against the Liberals. Trouble for the Liberals is Paul Martin gave them plenty of excuses.

Why not blame Paul Martin. If he hadn't enticed Belinda Stronach across the floor, let his government fall and went to an election he might be planning a redecorate of 24 Sussex instead of handing over the keys.

The Liberals lost the election.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Grant I R ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
TonyToo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11421

posted 01 February 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for TonyToo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's All Jack's Fault.

That's the LPOC's position on why they left govenment.

No enough people, like Jack, who didn't support them didn't support them, go figure eh?


From: here | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 February 2006 09:32 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

All of the media considered that Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, had made a major mistake. Still, no one in the media did a piece on why Hargrove was so personally angry with Harper and urged the NDP to vote strategically to stop him.

Well, there is an answer. Hargrove is a labour leader and he hates with a passion the National Citizens Coalition. The NCC stands for “free enterprise” and is totally opposed to normal collective bargaining. The NCC prefers company unions and legislation that makes it difficult for unions like the CAW to get recognition in organizing smaller plants.

. . . .

Meanwhile, Hargrove was only acting on behalf of the auto workers he represents. He has every reason to be suspicious of Harper’s NCC past and, indeed, of Alberta, a province where labour is not looked on kindly. Hargrove prefers Gilles Duceppe to Harper because Duceppe is a former labour organizer.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060131.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 01 February 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
I wish the NDP had attacked the neo-Cons just as aggressively as they attacked the Liberals. I think that would have gone a long way in preventing the neo-Cons from taking power.
Two problems with this statement:

1 - Harper didn't take power. He has a very weak minority.

2 - It assumes there is some inherent good in keeping the Liberals in power.

If the extent of the analysis on the so-called "movement left" is: "Stop Stephen Harper! Won't someone think of the children!" then we are headed towards a Harper majority or a Liberal majority that looks a lot like a Harper majority.

I think it's important to bear in mind that the front-runners for the Liberal Leadership one supports giving up the Canadian dollar so we can use US currency, another thinks Mike Harris is a visionary leader and then there's the guy who wanted to send troops to Iraq. I'm not too excited about switching Harper with one of these.

If we're actually concerned about moving "issues", as the Buzzites claim, then let's focus on issues - what can we do in this minority parliament? What can we stop? What can we move forward?

If we do that for a second we can see that "the Left" (broadly speaking) is winning a lot of key battles - and has a good chance to keep winning in a Harper-led minority:

On Abortion: despite Harper's fundamentalist support, he insisted repeatedly that he would block any bill to change abortion legislation - because he knew it would be political suicide. I suspect that alos factored into McKenna's decision to drop out of the Leadership race.

On Same-Sex Marriage: Harper was eventually forced to water his position down to a free vote on whether to consider the issue and also forced to explicitly pledge NOT to use the notwithstanding clause. From all indications that vote will not pass - which would close the issue. Another win.

On Kyoto: Harper's committed to pulling out and that will be a huge comfort to the Bush administration. Of course, his position was made all the easier by the complete inaction on this file by the Liberals. They did nothing and that made it easy for Harper to say - this is too hard let's give up. Moving forward, environmentalists will have to find a way to make Kyoto popular enough that Harper won't want it to be an election issue next time out.

On Child-Care: I think Harper will have to fight an election on this - and I'm not convinced he'd win. The provinces will scream blue murder on this - because they want the money. McGuinty, for example, hasn't put a single provincial dollar into childcare, but likes to brag about all the childcare spaces he's making. The biggest problem is that people like the idea of a $1000 cheque. It's way more real to them than a "regulated childcare space being constructed on or before 2010" In this election Harper won the debate, by and large, and childcare advocates lost. They'll have to get a lot smarter of getting people to understand the difference between regulated childcare and unregulated childcare.

On First Nations: Thanks to the work of Chief Leo Friday and Charlie Angus, Kasechewan was on everyone's lips and shamed the PM into some major concessions at Kelowna. Harper waffled a bit on this during the election but promised to honour the "spirit" of the deal. That's weasel-words for sure but it's a commitment we all can hold him to.

I could go on. That's just a start and it assumes that all the people who claim they're "concerned about the issues" actually are. I think Jack's critics will have to decide whether they want to fight for these things or work to elect Prime Minister Stronach.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: TCD ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 01 February 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JKR:
I wish the NDP had attacked the neo-Cons just as aggressively as they attacked the Liberals. I think that would have gone a long way in preventing the neo-Cons from taking power.

The neo-cons were already in power. If the Liberals had won (the probable results of focussing all of our attacks on the Conservatives), the neo-cons would still be in power.

With the Conservatives holding a minority, we now have different neo-cons than we had before. At least this bunch understands that they have a minority and doesn't believe that they hold a divine right to govern.

Either way, we're going to have to rely on the NDP to fight against neo-con policies.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 02 February 2006 02:19 AM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD
If we're actually concerned about moving "issues"… then let's focus on issues - what can we do in this minority parliament? What can we stop? What can we move forward?

That’s exactly the point. By itself, the NDP can’t stop legislation. It has to work with the other parties to be effective.

And WHEN will anything be stopped?

This is what Harper said his agenda will be:

quote:
Our new government will act quickly to get down to work on delivering the change that Canadians voted for on January the 23rd. As you all know, we campaigned on a very clear set of priorities — priorities that will benefit working people and their families, priorities that will strengthen our country. And we’ll use our time in the new parliament to pursue those priorities.

Our first priority will be to clean up government, make it more open and more accountable to taxpayers. We will do this by way of the [B}federal Accountability Act[/B]. Given that we expect the release of Judge Gomery’s second report and since every party ran on platforms that included accountability measures, I’m confident that we will find broad-based consensus to move forward on these changes and on this legislation.

Beyond the federal Accountability Act, we intend to move to implement our GST and other tax reductions, to toughen up our criminal justice system and to implement our child care program. We’ll also commence negotiations with the provinces on the fiscal imbalance and on the introduction of a patient wait times guarantee so that Canadians get the health care they’ve paid for.

During the campaign I found that there was a remarkable amount of multi-party consensus on many of the key priorities I just mentioned. We’ll look for shared goals and for common ideas. And, working together, we’ll seek to implement ideas that will help ordinary working people and that will strengthen our federation.



Conservative Party web page

There are some important issues around accountability – a main one being how extensive should the powers of the Auditor General be and how will that department be changed. What would an “accountability” department do? These changes need to be studied from the point of view of how transition to a social democratic government could be enhanced (or thwarted). Will the changes make it easier for citizens to deal with government or more bureaucratic?

Within the accountability framework (it’s obvious that we need more accountability, but there needs to be discussion and debate about what accountability means), for example, what will be the scope of the Auditor General’s powers and the length of retroactive time periods for investigation? There is a budget issue here. Look for immediate cuts to granting programs like multiculturalism, the women’s program, court challenges in Secretary of State, for example. When social programs are being cut, do we really want to make the AG’s investigations the priority for spending? To chase $40 million? The Gomery investigation cost around $80 million to assess a program worth about $335 million over 10 years for which $44 million led to a legal claim for recovery and for which $3 million has been recovered. In the meantime, the elected minority Conservative government has planned $1.8 billion more than the extra the Liberals had already committed [$13 billion] to expand military expenditures, $10 billion over 10 years has been taken away from childcare transfers, a reconsideration of the militarization of space has been suggested.

Another issue: Equating contributions from corporations with contributions from organizations and unions. Will the NDP back off because it looks self-serving to oppose the principle that unions can contribute to it? What position will unions take? corporations?

2. What departments of government will be dismantled or reorganized immediately – for example, Secretary of State (multiculturalism, women’s program, sports, OUT, defence, IN). “Less government” will be the slogan.
From a Liberal press release"

quote:
[harper] told L’Actualité magazine on May 15, 2001,that “There is not a national government because there is not a national economy, no national culture, no national defence. The problem is not that the wrong party is running Ottawa. The problem is Ottawa.” ....
And in a speech to the National Citizen’s Coalition in June 1994, he said, “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.”

Liberal party press release

Will progressives support special status for Quebec OR end up agreeing to transfers of money and power and the wholesale dismantling of the federal power so that the Conservatives can pass decentralization with the support of the Bloc?

Harper’s intention to decentralize and dismantle the federal government has to be exposed and discussed from a progressive point of view.

Remember that any programs dismantled that are privatized and offered by American or other foreign corporations in Canada open up the possibility of a Chapter 11 lawsuit against the government.

3. Child care – please post a link to any speech or ad where the NDP analyzed and attacked Harper’s child care allowances and credits for employers. I saw attacks on Liberals as in this:
"NDP statement"
– but didn’t see Harper's claim that he was “creating spaces” by credits to employers explained or attacked by the NDP.

4. GST down 1% and other tax changes – what other tax changes will be thrown in? Will the GST rebate survive? Why not increase the level of income at which a rebate can be claimed? The Liberals have said they will oppose the increase in income tax.

5. changes to the justice system – mandatory sentencing? Does this include parliamentary control of judges – see article:
"unaccountable appointed judges"

Harper has been quoted as saying:
"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."

6. There is also a question of a free vote on a bill to repeal the gay marriage law passed by the Liberals – agree that current readings indicate a narrow vote against.

Why does the 5-issue program of the Cons have to set the agenda?

7. Conveniently missing is the whole question of Canadian oil. It took Gore to mention oil after the election.

Gore cautions Canadians

Why wasn’t this discussed during the campaign? Will there be a fear of losing votes in the next election if opposing decentralization of the federal government at a time when oil revenues will flow into provinces in the east and the west?

In all proposed legislation, we need to watch for a governmental infrastructure to destroy the present equalization system to ensure that profits from oil are provincially controlled and probably directly negotiated with the US–

8-11. Other major issues: Repeal the gun control law, strengthen the armed forces, send forces to Iraq, reopen the question of participating in ballistic missile defence

quote:
Originally posted by Scott
With the Conservatives holding a minority, we now have different neo-cons than we had before. At least this bunch understands that they have a minority and doesn't believe that they hold a divine right to govern.

Different and worse – the structural changes they intend to make will change Canada so that a social democratic government with national social programs will be impossible in the future. They are planning their "divine right to govern", as they planned the election strategy for 2 years, and have said they will act quickly.

Harper will use polls to pick the right time for the next election and will set it up at that time by bringing in legislation he knows the opposition won’t agree to. He’ll then go for an election to get a mandate.

He might have to postpone that date if the opposition, acting in concert, hold him in check. Better than propping Harper up, demonstrating an effective coalition by an accord between the opposition parties is what is needed. Every issue will be a time for defining the issues for the next election.

I predict that in the next election, just like in 1993, strategic voting will be strongly advocated to stop Harper. Will the NDP be the party people expect to defeat him?

The way issues are handled in the interim will determine that and will also determine whether the left remains or becomes even more divided on the strategy.

The real question is how much time do we have?

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: bluebird ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 02 February 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluebird:
[QB][/QB]

(1) I don't think anybody can credibly oppose more spending for the Auditor General. Supporting graft is not an NDP principle. The NDP has also long-supported a ban on corporate and union donations. The NDP in Manitoba's already done it and ironically Harper attacked them for it at the time.

(2) The NDP (and the CAW for that matter) nominally supports "asymetrical federalism". It will be interesting to see what approach the party takes when Harper starts to move on equalization - assuming he actually does. It will depend a lot on what he actually does.

(3) The NDP did critique Harper AND Martin on Childcare. More detail, and the explcit critique of Harper's plan is here.

(4) Layton slammed the income tax hike as well but I, for one, would be really disgusted if we opposed a GST cut in favour of an income tax cut. The National Anti-Poverty Organization has noted The proposed Conservative GST tax cut is slightly more progressive than the Liberal income tax cuts, but neither will do much to help the poor. . Having supported GST cuts in the past the NDP would look pretty stupid opposing them now. The corporate tax cuts, and the capital gains cuts, are the real problem.

(5) Both parties that have governed Canada have used judicial appointments as patronage and it's caused serious problems. Joe Comartin and the NDP have long backed moves to have a more merit-based non-partisan approach to hiring judges. He's had some success.

(6) The Conservatives get to set the agenda because they got the most votes. I wish they didn't but they did. Any other party that claimed they had no right to govern would look churlish (at best).

(7) Fuck Al Gore. I'm sure he knows a thing or two about extreme right wing fanatics. Good God, where do some people get the gall?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 02 February 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The NDP has also long-supported a ban on corporate and union donations.

Well, no. There is a fight about whether to ban them. In Trinity Spadina at least the non banning side won.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 02 February 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, no. There is a fight about whether to ban them. In Trinity Spadina at least the non banning side won.
Outside of the world of Wiesleder (he would support a ban corporate but not union donations), the banning of corporate and union donations has been widely accepted in the NDP, put forward in the federal NDP ethics package and implemented in Manitoba. 'Tis pretty much a resolved debate.

From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 02 February 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know that Manitoba's done it. The BC and Ontario NDP ran on it last time out. And when Chretien moved to severely limit corp and union donations the federal NDP supported that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 02 February 2006 04:31 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TCD
Having supported GST cuts in the past the NDP would look pretty stupid opposing them now.

The NDP will look worse if it props up the Conservative party’s proposal of 1% off teh GST as a solution to poverty or a beneficial program for “working families” without qualification. It’s a mistake to stay stuck in the old arguments about the GST. The GST credit has made a difference, admittedly not enough. The problem is that with all taxes combined, we now have a flat tax system, not a progressive one.

The NAPO paper you linked to supports my view that it is more effective to legislate an increase in the GST credit than to obtain tax decreases.

It also supports my view that a blanket support of 1% GST reduction is not a good idea. More redistribution could be achieved by eliminating GST on essential consumption and improving the GST credit, leaving the GST at 7% on luxury goods.

quote:
This includes an increase in the GST credit, (a measure that would target 19% of the benefit to low income families)…
And tax measures, especially tax benefits such as increasing the Child Tax Benefit, the GST credit or the Guaranteed Income Supplement which target benefits to those most in need, are an important part of a poverty reduction strategy….
But we need to make sure that there is sufficient tax revenue to fund badly needed investments in social programs such as social housing, childcare and increasing the Social Transfer. The personal and corporate tax cuts proposed by the Liberals and by the Conservatives (especially if their GST rate cut is in addition to what the Liberals have already proposed) add up to a lot of money, especially down the road. This could seriously undermine the government’s capacity to fund social programs, especially if there is an economic down-turn in the next five years.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 03 February 2006 01:39 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bluebird, you definitely are on a mission to defend the Senator (do they have assistants?).

This Liberal rant of blaming Jack and the NDP for Harpie's win has a serious flaw:

1 - The main reason that people voted Martin out was because they wanted a change in government and were sick of Liberal sleze, arrogance and lies. Nothing could change this fact.

Without the NDP, Harpie's numbers would have been even higher because no matter what fiction you like to spin many people were never going to reward a corrupt and politically exhausted party.

Your favourite Senator only added to the general disgust Canadians felt with the Liberals as a reminder that they will make a pact with anyone to stay in power.

The Senator's pal paulie Pockets showed his true colours by campaigning in Oshawa and Windsor. This is NDP territory, yet there was "progressive" Paulie Douglas trying to take NDP votes away to elect a Conservative. So much for strategic voting!

This strategy had everything to do with destroying the NDP and if it wasn't for Jack's brilliant attacks against the Liberals it could have happened.

Thanks god, Tommy Douglas didn't have a "friendly" Senator to deal with when he was campaigning against the Liberals in Saskatchewan.

I suspect that the main reason the Senator is so worried about Harpie is because of his pledge to scrap all union donations to political parties. This cuts him at the knees. Originally I opposed this move (I am a committed trade unionist) but after this election I can't wait to see false friends like our Senator's influence removed.

If you really care about having a progressive voice in Ottawa, why don't you join the millions of other progressives working for PR, instead of just shilling for the Liberals?

Better yet, why didn't the Senator push for this instead of doing his best to squash the NDP?

Increasingly the CAW is beginning to look like nothing more than a prop for a corporate photo op. Just like the UAW. How sad.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 03 February 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Thanks god, Tommy Douglas didn't have a "friendly" Senator to deal with when he was campaigning against the Liberals in Saskatchewan.

I think that one could Argue that point.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 03 February 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
groan
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 03 February 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The announcement on mandatory sentencing was a kick in the stomach for a lot of progressive activists I know, and they almost didn't vote as a result. Layton's Liberal-Lite pitch was also disappointing. His dalliance with working with a Conservative minority was also disturbing, not enough to lose too many votes, but enough to question Layton's judgement and his right-wing drift. This resulted in our union local not endorsing any side nor being active in the campaign.

Also, I only kept hearing the NDP's anti-Liberal television ads. I never heard the ads where they criticized the Conservatives, and only ever heard Layton say that Conservatives were wrong on the policies. Very lightweight attack indeed, as opposed to the constant harping about the Liberal's corruption. This is why a lot of people think Layton played a large part in handing the government to the Conservatives.

I've also heard enough right-wing posts from NDP members here on rabble to question whether the NDP even stands for the Left or for just gaining power.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
bluebird
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11804

posted 04 February 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for bluebird        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
His dalliance with working with a Conservative minority was also disturbing, not enough to lose too many votes

That's debatable. The Cons theme was "vote for a change". By being soft on the Cons, the NDP weakened the Liberal claim that the Cons had a program that was scary. Instead of being the main "change" to vote for, the NDP lost votes to the Cons when Layton said he could work with them. At the end of the campaign, when he spoke out more strongly, it had an effect on the vote and the Cons dropped 2 points in a day. The campaign strategy was wrong and it's time to draw some lessons for the period between now and the next election. Allowing Liberal corruption to be the moving issue of the campaign, took the focus off the Cons agenda - and the common neoCon agenda - big mistake. It also set the Cons up for arguing that the changes they would make would benefit "working families".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 11 February 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Basil Hargrove has proved beyond all doubt that he is the most unprincipled person in Canadian politics.

Even David Emerson had the integrity to admit he was joining another party.

Basil merely lies.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 06:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Basil Hargrove has proved beyond all doubt that he is the most unprincipled person in Canadian politics.

Even David Emerson had the integrity to admit he was joining another party.

Basil merely lies.


So the president of he CAW is actually a politician. Who knew?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 11 February 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When a person engages himself as deeply in an election campaign as Basil did in the last one, that makes him a politician.

And he fit right in to the Liberal campaign. Not only was he completely unprincipled, he was completely incoherent as well.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
m0nkyman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5027

posted 11 February 2006 10:25 PM      Profile for m0nkyman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

So the president of he CAW is actually a politician. Who knew?


"A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office."
Using that definition from Wikipedia the only question is whether you consider the presidency of the CAW a public office. I tend to. It certainly is a public bully pulpit, and the CAW has more members than most parliamentary ridings....


From: Go Left. Further. Bit Further. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca