Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber Pushing for Two Party System

It started with Ignatieff joining Harper's anti-coalition bandwagon, the common message being that the big boys don't share power with the little guys and it's extended to the push for a debate between just Harper and Ignatieff because they think that they lead the only two parties that really matter.

It is clear that the fight for a more democratic Canada and a more representative electoral system that recognizes that voters have the right to choose who governs them (not just the right to go through the motions of choosing between two establishment parties) will have be a hard fought battle led by the voters themselves.

It starts with refusing to give any party a majority, even if our flawed system is designed to give parties a majority of seats with under 40% of votes.

This election is about democracy.

The Coalition is Dead - Someone Tell Stephen Harper

The idea of a coalition government is dead for the simple reason that it is not in Michael Ignatieff's political interest to enter into a coalition that would require him to share power. Although it is in his political interest not to contradict Stephen Harper's coalition fear mongering but to leave the impression he is opposed to a coalition because of it's supposed illegitimacy.

Of course, if coalitions were illegitimate the governments of most western democracies, including that of the United Kingdom that our government is modelled on, would be illegitimate.

It is clearly to the political advantage of the Liberals to reject a coalition and try to leave the impression that the only way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the Liberals. That is not true of course. Strategically speaking the best way to defeat the Harper Reformatories is to vote for the candidate in your constituency that has the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate.

If the Conservatives do not receive a majority, but receive another minority and face the House of Commons and attempt to govern as if they had a majority (as they have in the previous Parliament) they will face certain defeat, either on their Throne Speech or Budget, leaving the Governor General bound by precedent to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition if he believes he can form a government. Michael Ignatieff would most certainly reply yes, and as long as his government acted responsibly, presenting measures that a majority of the House of Commons could support, he would be able to govern.

The situation was different when the last coalition proposal was put together because the constitutional precedents become less clear and certain the longer a government is in power and it was deemed advisable to present the Governor General with a very clear indication that a stable government was possible because, despite Stephen Harper's irrational ravings, coalition governments are much more stable than minority governments.

So despite Stephen Harper's desperate fear mongering (over something there is no reason to fear) the Liberals will not enter into a coalition simply because it is not in their political interest to do so.

Too Smart For Canada

I am not a big fan of Michael Ignatieff but this is brilliant.

Liberals Pretend to Oppose Tory Budget

In a bold move yesterday the leader of Canada's Natural Abstaining Party declared "Liberals will vote against the budget but not in sufficient numbers to defeat the government".

This was further clarified: "A senior Liberal, talking on background, said the party will probably register its opposition to the budget through absences of MPs from the confidence votes in the weeks ahead".

What is Progressive About the Liberal Party

Well, nothing, actually.

The Liberal Party has always been a centrist (and opportunistic) party, slightly to the left of the Progressive Conservative Party. The fact that the latest incarnation of the Conservative Party has moved to the right does not make the Liberals progressive. Indeed, if anything, the Liberals under Iggy have moved to the right into (and past) the spot held by the old Progressive Conservatives.

As for the Greens, they are simply a recognition that broader support for environmentalism has created a spot for a right wing environmental party that recognizes that without an environment there can be no profits and that there are profits to be made from environmentalism. But their solutions are clearly capitalistic and not progressive.

The fact is that Canada has only one mainstream progressive political party. It is the party that has always been the political wing of the progressive movements, including the environmental movement. And, of course, that party, with it's own inherent problems from time to time, is the New Democratic Party.

More Liberal Nothingness From Ignatieff

So what are the Liberals' conditions for keeping the government in power. Well actually there are none. The Liberals are not demanding that the government actually do anything, only that it report on what it is doing.

As the CBC reports:

According to Ignatieff, the government must meet the following four conditions to maintain support from the Liberals:

- Provide more details about improving the employment insurance system before the House of Commons votes on budget estimates at the end of the week. The government has said it will introduce unspecified new EI proposals in the fall.

- Give more information about the rate of stimulus spending than included in last Thursday's progress report.

- Show more details on the government's plan to contain the ballooning deficit, instead of offering what Ignatieff called "rosy projections."

- Provide clearer answers on the government's plan to deal with Canada's medical isotopes shortage.

Yessirree, they have to “provide more details”, “give more information”, “show more details” and “provide clearer answers”. However, they are not required to actually do anything.

That's the Liberal hardline. Go Iggy Go.

Just Say “No”

House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 142 NUMBER 036 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

[English]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that this side of the House did its duty last night.

[Translation]

Since the Chalk River reactor will now be restarted, can the Minister of Health guarantee that Canadian patients will be the first to benefit from the isotopes produced, before the international markets are supplied?

[English]

Would the minister guarantee that worried Canadians will not be waiting in line for isotopes while other foreign contracts for AECL are fulfilled?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, each hospital and each clinic has a contract that is sometimes with Nordion, AECL or with another supplier. Those contracts would be honoured.

At this time in the House, I want to give our thanks to the medical oncologists and the nuclear medicine specialists who have worked day and night across this country to ensure this particular situation did not create a medical crisis. I think they deserve all of our applause for doing so.

If the answer is “no” just say so. Don’t try to confuse everyone with bafflegab just because you know the Canadian public will not be happy with your answer that translates to “despite the fact that we are putting Canadian lives at risk we are not going to give Canadians priority access to the isotopes produced while this reactor operates in an unsafe manner unapproved by the nuclear safety regulator”.


PS : I wonder how much this had to do with the government’s decision