Sunday, December 21, 2008
Summary video
I agree with Rex Murphy, that Mr. Harper was either too dumb or too arrogant. But I think his arrogance was not in that he didn't care. I think he was arrogant to think the people of Canada would believe anything he spoke. I hope people will begin or continue to question what he says in 2009.
Hat tip to 90210bt for the video.
How is BQ veto of a Lib-NDP coalition possible?
This is another talking point I keep running into in discussions with Conservative-minded people: the BQ would have an effective veto over the coalition. This is usually followed by Bloq-bashing. Check out The Galloping Beaver.
How could the BQ veto anything with only 49 votes of 308?
Here's the current mix:
I believe this exposes the deeply partisan thinking in this argument. Why wouldn't the Conservatives absent enough MPs to allow such a vote to pass? If they could simply vote with the coalition to prevent a "BQ veto", why wouldn't they? Or more to the point, why would they vote with the BQ?
If the Conservatives are voting against a motion, wouldn't they welcome help from the BQ to defeat it? After all, if the BQ votes with the coalition the motion would pass.
Only the partisan assumption that the Conservatives would vote against the Lib-NDP coalition consistently without regard to the matter of the vote holds up the argument of a BQ veto. Of course everything depends on the subject matter of the vote, but that nevers appears in those Conservative-minded talking points.
How could the BQ veto anything with only 49 votes of 308?
Here's the current mix:
- 143 Conservatives
- 77 Liberals
- 49 BQ
- 37 NDP
- 2 Independent
I believe this exposes the deeply partisan thinking in this argument. Why wouldn't the Conservatives absent enough MPs to allow such a vote to pass? If they could simply vote with the coalition to prevent a "BQ veto", why wouldn't they? Or more to the point, why would they vote with the BQ?
If the Conservatives are voting against a motion, wouldn't they welcome help from the BQ to defeat it? After all, if the BQ votes with the coalition the motion would pass.
Only the partisan assumption that the Conservatives would vote against the Lib-NDP coalition consistently without regard to the matter of the vote holds up the argument of a BQ veto. Of course everything depends on the subject matter of the vote, but that nevers appears in those Conservative-minded talking points.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Hot Potato
Hello to all the Progressive Bloggers, and my thanks to the webmasters. I feel honored in such company. Newcomers might check out some of my attempts at satire like A Stephen Harper Christmas, or A Coalition Bride (in 4 parts).
I've been saying this on a few blogs lately, I thought I'd post it here to avoid repeating myself further.
I think the upcoming budget (update, whatever) is a 'hot potato'. The Conservatives don't want to be accused of spending on stimulus which turns out to fail, or to be blamed for a deficit.
They'd like the opposition to contribute suggestions, which they accept only under threat of a coalition. They can then blame the opposition for the deficit and any failure of the stimulus to revive the economy.
Iggy can see this too, and has tossed the 'hot potato' back to Harper: how can credible suggestions be made without a coherent model from which to develop them? As evidence, Flaherty has already revised his numbers once since the update.
Iggy figures if the Conservatives don't come up with numbers, he can paint them as uncooperative. If they come back with too optimistic numbers, the same applies. If Flaherty comes back with pessimistic numbers (I think this will be the case) then Iggy will beat him over the head with them. Partisan response to a partisan tactic - right back at ya.
I expect a partisan response to future budget suggestions from Mr. Harper - "OK, I guess we're forced into this, as my only alternative is to hand over the government to an undemocratic coalition." And he'll say this even after making any partisan changes he thinks he can get away with. I've totally lost all trust in this man.
So, if Iggy makes suggestions which are just a thinly veiled attempt to buy soft Liberal votes, I won't blame him (but remember I'm a Liberal). I suggest the NDP and BQ follow suit or get trampled. I wish it weren't this way, but you can't make peace with someone who won't parlay (e.g. Mr. Harper IMHO, and the meeting between Flaherty, MacCallum and Brison doesn't count).
I've been saying this on a few blogs lately, I thought I'd post it here to avoid repeating myself further.
I think the upcoming budget (update, whatever) is a 'hot potato'. The Conservatives don't want to be accused of spending on stimulus which turns out to fail, or to be blamed for a deficit.
They'd like the opposition to contribute suggestions, which they accept only under threat of a coalition. They can then blame the opposition for the deficit and any failure of the stimulus to revive the economy.
Iggy can see this too, and has tossed the 'hot potato' back to Harper: how can credible suggestions be made without a coherent model from which to develop them? As evidence, Flaherty has already revised his numbers once since the update.
Iggy figures if the Conservatives don't come up with numbers, he can paint them as uncooperative. If they come back with too optimistic numbers, the same applies. If Flaherty comes back with pessimistic numbers (I think this will be the case) then Iggy will beat him over the head with them. Partisan response to a partisan tactic - right back at ya.
I expect a partisan response to future budget suggestions from Mr. Harper - "OK, I guess we're forced into this, as my only alternative is to hand over the government to an undemocratic coalition." And he'll say this even after making any partisan changes he thinks he can get away with. I've totally lost all trust in this man.
So, if Iggy makes suggestions which are just a thinly veiled attempt to buy soft Liberal votes, I won't blame him (but remember I'm a Liberal). I suggest the NDP and BQ follow suit or get trampled. I wish it weren't this way, but you can't make peace with someone who won't parlay (e.g. Mr. Harper IMHO, and the meeting between Flaherty, MacCallum and Brison doesn't count).
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Suggestions for the budget
I've been commenting on some other blogs that the budget is a hot potato. Neither the Conservatives or Liberals want to contribute significant ideas, for fear of being blamed for spending which doesn't work and for any resulting deficit.
The Conservatives desperately want to take some suggestions from the opposition so they can share the blame for any future economic problems. I won't beat them up too much over what's happened so far, other than spending away the contingency buffer. Canada didn't start this mess, it wasn't the Conservatives.
The Liberals are demanding better numbers from Flaherty before responding with suggestions. This may be partisan defense against being forced to make budget suggestions. If Flaherty doesn't cough up new numbers (or too late) the Conservatives appear uncooperative. If Flaherty comes back with optimistic numbers again, he'll appear to be lying (again). So I expect he'll come back with more pessimistic numbers. Both he and Harper have being managing expectations this week.
It is understandable to demand realistic numbers before contributing suggestions, and it might not be a partisan response but a necessary one. However Brison and MacCallum may already have their own numbers which may be close enough.
So what could the Liberals suggest for the budget? I guess that depends on knowing more about economics than I do. I'm a layman, speculating here. But this is a blog and that's my prerogative.
I think the worry is so many people curtail spending that demand falls, followed by deflation, which reduces demand, etc. in a spiral. So how to keep people spending?
Well, people need confidence in their jobs, and in the economy. I know the latest fed rate cut gave me cause for concern - I don't think it can go any lower, literally. I'm not worried about my job, but I work for the federal government. I bet everyone else is worried.
I guess the government spending is proposed to offset the drop in non-government spending. But how can infrastructure spending substitute for consumer spending? Surely there would still be job loss as the economy shifts from producing (distributing, etc.) consumer goods to infrastructure.
Much to consider. If anyone has some good links, drop me a pointer and I'll follow them up.
The Conservatives desperately want to take some suggestions from the opposition so they can share the blame for any future economic problems. I won't beat them up too much over what's happened so far, other than spending away the contingency buffer. Canada didn't start this mess, it wasn't the Conservatives.
The Liberals are demanding better numbers from Flaherty before responding with suggestions. This may be partisan defense against being forced to make budget suggestions. If Flaherty doesn't cough up new numbers (or too late) the Conservatives appear uncooperative. If Flaherty comes back with optimistic numbers again, he'll appear to be lying (again). So I expect he'll come back with more pessimistic numbers. Both he and Harper have being managing expectations this week.
It is understandable to demand realistic numbers before contributing suggestions, and it might not be a partisan response but a necessary one. However Brison and MacCallum may already have their own numbers which may be close enough.
So what could the Liberals suggest for the budget? I guess that depends on knowing more about economics than I do. I'm a layman, speculating here. But this is a blog and that's my prerogative.
I think the worry is so many people curtail spending that demand falls, followed by deflation, which reduces demand, etc. in a spiral. So how to keep people spending?
Well, people need confidence in their jobs, and in the economy. I know the latest fed rate cut gave me cause for concern - I don't think it can go any lower, literally. I'm not worried about my job, but I work for the federal government. I bet everyone else is worried.
I guess the government spending is proposed to offset the drop in non-government spending. But how can infrastructure spending substitute for consumer spending? Surely there would still be job loss as the economy shifts from producing (distributing, etc.) consumer goods to infrastructure.
Much to consider. If anyone has some good links, drop me a pointer and I'll follow them up.
Monday, December 15, 2008
A Stephen Harper Christmas
The cast: Stephen Harper as Charlie Brown, Michael Ignatieff as Linus van Pelt, Gilles Duceppe as Lucy van Pelt, and Jack Layton as Sally Brown.
The scene: parliament lobby, just after the prorogation. The lobby is well decorated for Christmas.
Harper: [Yells into Commons chamber] Hello in there. [his voice echoes in an empty chamber] Rats. Nobody sent me a majority. I almost wish there weren't elections. I know nobody wants a Conservative majority. Why do we have to have elections to emphasize it?
Iggy: Stephen Harper, you're the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem. Maybe Duceppe's right. Of all the Stephen Harpers in the world, you're the Stephen Harper-est.
Harper: Well, I don't have much time. I'm supposed to cancel a Christmas party.
[Harper looks at him]
Iggy: Sure, Stephen Harper, I can tell you what democracy is all about. Lights, please. [a spotlight shines on him] "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost." [ - quoted from Aristotle. Iggy picks up his blanket and walks back towards Harper] That's what democracy is all about, Stephen Harper.
All: Merry Christmas, Stephen Harper! [all sing Oh,
Friday, December 12, 2008
On the other hand
Every so often I read through the Blogging Tories. Progressive Bloggers gets a little repetitive when you read it as often as I do.
I read this post: Searching for Liberty: Mr. Harper - You have an option, sir!
Well said. Indeed, he had many options.
But what I like best about this blog post, was that it was not sensationalist, distorted or disgustingly partisan. It was an honest expression of opinion.
I also found this post "Prime Minister Material" by thepolitic.com. Reading the comments showed 100% support for Mr. Harper. Again, I didn't find the article sensationalist, distorted or disgustingly partisan. But it makes me re-think an earlier post. The attitude there strikes me as "Well, you can't blame our side for trying to push through some things we wanted - what did you expect? Oh well, no harm no foul."
I must remind myself that others see public funding of political parties as a waste of tax revenue, that the people who support the parties should provide the funding, and that it is wrong for their tax money to fund opposing parties. I see it quite differently of course, and I'm not alone.
But my point is these people don't see the poison pill as a dirty, partisan trick like I do. And the ensuing crisis and coalition threat appears to them as itself a dirty, partisan trick of the opposition. A minority must feel to them like a special hell, having come to power and now denied their due (I mean this parliament, not the last).
But until the Conservatives actually deliver a majority, my sympathy ends there.
It looks like things may be backing down. But until they do the opposition must keep their guard up. coalition at the ready.
I read this post: Searching for Liberty: Mr. Harper - You have an option, sir!
Well said. Indeed, he had many options.
But what I like best about this blog post, was that it was not sensationalist, distorted or disgustingly partisan. It was an honest expression of opinion.
I also found this post "Prime Minister Material" by thepolitic.com. Reading the comments showed 100% support for Mr. Harper. Again, I didn't find the article sensationalist, distorted or disgustingly partisan. But it makes me re-think an earlier post. The attitude there strikes me as "Well, you can't blame our side for trying to push through some things we wanted - what did you expect? Oh well, no harm no foul."
I must remind myself that others see public funding of political parties as a waste of tax revenue, that the people who support the parties should provide the funding, and that it is wrong for their tax money to fund opposing parties. I see it quite differently of course, and I'm not alone.
But my point is these people don't see the poison pill as a dirty, partisan trick like I do. And the ensuing crisis and coalition threat appears to them as itself a dirty, partisan trick of the opposition. A minority must feel to them like a special hell, having come to power and now denied their due (I mean this parliament, not the last).
But until the Conservatives actually deliver a majority, my sympathy ends there.
It looks like things may be backing down. But until they do the opposition must keep their guard up. coalition at the ready.
Do Conservatives really support Harper?
I'm often reminded Liberals either voted with Conservatives or abstained to allow confidence votes to pass in the last parliament, and this is used as evidence that Liberals supported the Conservatives. I believe this support was not genuine, but rather an effort to avoid an unpopular early election and (perceived) punishment for whoever caused it, or so I had thought.
The same argument applies to the Conservative party support for Mr. Harper. Currently no Conservatives speak any ill of him or question him publicly. Not even for appointing senators rather than working for an elected senate, or breaking promises of cooperation. What happened to "Promise Made, Promise Kept"? Oh yeah.
But is that support genuine also? For some I don't doubt it. But let me speculate (come on, this is just a blog after all ;-). Perhaps the more right-leaning Conservatives (possibly from the Reform side) may be getting impatient for more action. Some of his cabinet may be sharpening their knives, expecting his resignation upon a possible loss of confidence (assuming he follows convention, who knows). Et tu, Jim? And the Conservative party overall must certainly ask Mr. Harper "Why were you so reckless?", at least in private. No doubt the public talk will blame everyone but him. But as we've seen, there are many closed doors.
The Conservative party has chosen to wear this support for Mr. Harper, and wear it they must. Even after he resigns [if ever, OK, a BIG assumption, LOL].
Ask yourself, can this party really change its sweater so quickly?
Or should they wash out the smell first?
The same argument applies to the Conservative party support for Mr. Harper. Currently no Conservatives speak any ill of him or question him publicly. Not even for appointing senators rather than working for an elected senate, or breaking promises of cooperation. What happened to "Promise Made, Promise Kept"? Oh yeah.
But is that support genuine also? For some I don't doubt it. But let me speculate (come on, this is just a blog after all ;-). Perhaps the more right-leaning Conservatives (possibly from the Reform side) may be getting impatient for more action. Some of his cabinet may be sharpening their knives, expecting his resignation upon a possible loss of confidence (assuming he follows convention, who knows). Et tu, Jim? And the Conservative party overall must certainly ask Mr. Harper "Why were you so reckless?", at least in private. No doubt the public talk will blame everyone but him. But as we've seen, there are many closed doors.
The Conservative party has chosen to wear this support for Mr. Harper, and wear it they must. Even after he resigns [if ever, OK, a BIG assumption, LOL].
Ask yourself, can this party really change its sweater so quickly?
Or should they wash out the smell first?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)