Are we about to see the Bloc Newfoundlander?

[August1991]

Now that the great and unbeatable Michael Ignatieff has acknowledged that Newfoundland and Labrador MPs have a separate status in the Liberal caucus and that Premier Williams still has the ability to push around Liberal leaders, maybe he should tell us what he really thinks about equalization.

G & M

It seems to me that Danny Williams has gone the extra step and turned the Newfoundland PCs into a party even more distinct than the Quebec Liberal Party. It now appears that the federal Newfoundland MPs are on the verge of sitting as a new Bloc Newfoundlander.

One wonders where Newfoundland would be today if it had never joined confederation.

[Mr.Canada]

G & M

It seems to me that Danny Williams has gone the extra step and turned the Newfoundland PCs into a party even more distinct than the Quebec Liberal Party. It now appears that the federal Newfoundland MPs are on the verge of sitting as a new Bloc Newfoundlander.

One wonders where Newfoundland would be today if it had never joined confederation.

6 whole MP's...who cares. Let them pout. NL is no longer a have not province and must pay their share. That is in the equalization agreement. You should read it sometime.

[August1991]

6 whole MP's...who cares. Let them pout. NL is no longer a have not province and must pay their share. That is in the equalization agreement. You should read it sometime.

Mr. Canada, I think you are missing the point - it's not about the money.

[Smallc]

That is in the equalization agreement. You should read it sometime.

You should read the Atlantic Accord sometime.

[Mr.Canada]

Mr. Canada, I think you are missing the point - it's not about the money.

Yeah sure it isn't. It's only the first thing out of Danny's mouth every interview. Just like the Coalition isn't about money either.

[Wilber]

It's not about the money.

[August1991]

It's not about the money.

I couldn't help myself. You know the old line: "When someone says that it's not about the money, you know that it's about the money."

----

Nevertheless, there is in fact more than money involved and money is merely the surface appearance of what's going on below. We call ourselves a confederation for a reason that too many Canadians forget.

Canada works best when people are not forced to choose between the federal state and their province. In such disputes, the federal power will lose.

Newfoundland has a long history independent of Canada.

Edited February 5, 2009 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

Jerry Boyle ssays

If you can mark an 'X', you are my kind of people

!

[Wilber]

I couldn't help myself. You know the old line: "When someone says that it's not about the money, you know that it's about the money."

----

Nevertheless, there is in fact more than money involved and money is merely the surface appearance of what's going on below. We call ourselves a confederation for a reason that too many Canadians forget.

Canada works best when people are not forced to choose between the federal state and their province. In such disputes, the federal power will lose.

Newfoundland has a long history independent of Canada.

I disagree, this country's problem has always been that people have never been forced to decide whether they are in or out, so they keep playing both ends against the middle and will continue to do so as long as our system continues to let them. We are doomed to an eternity of regional bitching because unlike most mature countries, we have never undergone the kind of trauma that has forced us to grow up as a nation.

[August1991]

I disagree, this country's problem has always been that people have never been forced to decide whether they are in or out, so they keep playing both ends against the middle and will continue to do so as long as our system continues to let them. We are doomed to an eternity of regional bitching because unlike most mature countries, we have never undergone the kind of trauma that has forced us to grow up as a nation.

A country is not a marriage. The relations between people in a family are not the same as the relations between people in a country. Marriage and government are not the same.

The mere threat of divorce can poison a marriage. People leave countries every day.

Wilber, by your logic, we should live in a unitary state with one (central) level of government. I strongly prefer a federal state with autonomous governments.

[Wilber]

A country is not a marriage. The relations between people in a family are not the same as the relations between people in a country. Marriage and government are not the same.

The mere threat of divorce can poison a marriage. People leave countries every day.

Wilber, by your logic, we should live in a unitary state with one (central) level of government. I strongly prefer a federal state with autonomous governments.

I don't prefer a unitary state with one central government but unlike countries which have been forced to grow up, Canada lives under the continual threat of divorce, a luxury that mature countries have learned the hard way that they can't afford. We continue to play at this game of threatened succession because we can't appreciate the consequences of the real thing, unlike others who have actually been to the wall. Bottom line, we don't really have a clue how fortunate we have been in our history.

[August1991]

I don't prefer a unitary state with one central government but unlike countries which have been forced to grow up...

Do you mean the US, or federal Germany?

Canada has so far thankfully avoided such bloody disputes in organizing our federal affairs. I guess your definition of mature (or "grow up", as you put it) differs from mine.

[punked]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/582483

[Progressive Tory]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/582483

"As far as people back home are concerned, we've made our stand on the budget and I'm moving on . . . We could keep reliving things and reliving things but I don't think that's very productive for anybody."

I hope they all think that way. Sitting as independants will get them nowhere. Provinces with more representation can afford a few independants, but if the majority ends up that way, why bother showing up? They have a better chance sticking it out with Iggy, since he has a very good chance of forming the next government.

Their symbolic stand gave them headlines. Now let's move on.

[Progressive Tory]

Coalition isn't about money either.

What is your fixation with Coalitions? When did money factor in?

Harper's 2004 Coalition with Duceppe and Layton, forced Paul Martin to do his job.

The Liberal/NDP Coalition of 2008, forced Stephen Harper to do his.

What goes around, comes around.

Both coalitions worked. They're gone. Get over it.

[Wilber]

Do you mean the US, or federal Germany?

Among many others including most every country in Europe, Mexico, and most of South America. We are in a fortunate minority which interestingly enough includes a couple of other ex pieces of the empire, Australia and New Zealand.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Wilber

[Argus]

G & M

It seems to me that Danny Williams has gone the extra step and turned the Newfoundland PCs into a party even more distinct than the Quebec Liberal Party. It now appears that the federal Newfoundland MPs are on the verge of sitting as a new Bloc Newfoundlander.

One wonders where Newfoundland would be today if it had never joined confederation.

The Western Hemisphere's version of Bangladesh?

[Progressive Tory]

The Western Hemisphere's version of Bangladesh?

During WWI the Newfoundlanders were cannon fodder for the British. After the War, they asked for a break on their taxes so they could rebound, and were told no by Great Britian.

They refuse to be treated like fodder again.

[Moonbox]

During WWI the Newfoundlanders were cannon fodder for the British. After the War, they asked for a break on their taxes so they could rebound, and were told no by Great Britian.

They refuse to be treated like fodder again.

That's about the dumbest comparison you could have made.

WWI grievances with Britain have literally NOTHING to do with the fact that equalization formulas on the most very BASIC of levels are meant to help poorer provincial governments. Now that Newfoundland is becoming one of the richer provinces, they STILL believe they are entitled to the same sort of federal transfer payments as when they were the armpit of Canada. Danny Williams is the equivalent of a rich man crying that his welfare was cut off.

The Atlantic Accord be damned, it was stupidly signed by a pandering previous prime minister (wow alliteration) and was COMPLETELY against the best interest of most of Canada. The Newfoundlanders can cry all they want and that's their place to do so, but it's pure idiocy for them to expect Ontario/Alberta etc to continue to subsidize their revenue when they are already doing better for themselves than most of Canada.

[capricorn]

We would like to extend a formal welcome to our newest federal party, the Bloc Newfoundlandois.

---

t is not a novelty, mind you, for a charismatic provincial politician to claim victim status and become the de facto leader of a bloc in the House of Commons. Indeed, if you set out to count the provinces that have never played this game, you would have genuine trouble getting past zero. The larger problem is that our economic and constitutional evolution toward centralization conflicts with the underlying form of our government: Provinces cannot stand as the essential sovereign units of Confederation if they are not in some sense really self-sufficient. Equalization has diminished that self-sufficiency, taking away from the provinces all responsibility for maintaining their own “fiscal capacity,” and turned Confederation into a grubby zero-sum game.

---

As for the crux of Mr. Williams’ complaint — the reason he is constantly bellowing about the imagined crimes committed by whoever happens to be prime minister — they inevitably revolve around the claim that Newfoundland is getting ripped off under the country’s Byzantine equalization scheme. But the fact that the province still receives any money — despite recently graduating into the category of “have” provinces — is itself a swindle perpetrated against the rest of the Canada.

Mr. Williams’ rageaholism would be bad enough if it were confined to The Rock. But it now infects Parliament itself: The deference shown him by Newfoundland members of the Liberal caucus signals that they have chosen militant regionalism over the chance to contribute to debates of genuinely national import.

---

The Bloc Québécois, to its credit, largely understands that it cannot govern Canada while serving what its members regard as a higher political interest; that is why BQ members agreed to stay out of the Cabinet room when the anti-Harper coalition was being assembled. We wonder: Will the Newfoundlander dissidents in Mr. Ignatieff’s caucus agree to do the same, as justice requires, if he is elected prime minister?

Or perhaps, along with Mr. Williams, they might like to explore other, shall we say, constitutional options for Newfoundland? Perhaps they think what happened 60 years ago was a mistake. If so, they should have the courage to say so, lay their cards on the table, and let that game begin.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...undlandois.aspx

It would be comforting to be assured that Ignatieff's decision to give a pass to his 6 Newfoundland MPs is merely a different way to do politics in Ottawa. Yet, beyond the nobleness of letting these MPs break party ranks in order to send a message to the government, an unfolding agenda which may prove detrimental to the federation rears its ugly head.

The power hungry Williams has tasted victory. It's unlikely he will let matters rest and the question is how far is he willing to go to instill undue advantage for his province over other provinces in Parliament. I also wonder whether other Provincial Premiers will be tempted to play Williams' game as they witness the success of his interventions.

[Alta4ever]

this has proven that Danny Williams has more control over a peice of the liberal caucus then the new liberal party leader.

[waldo]

this has proven that Danny Williams has more control over a peice of the liberal caucus then the new liberal party leader.

lame partisan NP editorial analysis, albeit a significant factual acknowledgment is included:

Indeed, if you set out to count the provinces that have never played this game, you would have genuine trouble getting past zero.

next

[Alta4ever]

lame partisan NP editorial analysis, albeit a significant factual acknowledgment is included:

Indeed, if you set out to count the provinces that have never played this game, you would have genuine trouble getting past zero.

next

Keep making you pathetic excuses.

[capricorn]

lame partisan NP editorial analysis, albeit a significant factual acknowledgment is included:

Indeed, if you set out to count the provinces that have never played this game, you would have genuine trouble getting past zero.

next

Would a Globe and Mail editorial be more to your liking?

But this was not some minor vote on an obscure piece of legislation. It was a confidence vote on the federal budget – a document that will set the direction for Canada as it attempts to fight its way out of recession. The Liberals decided, behind closed doors, to support that direction. By allowing several MPs to publicly break with that decision shortly thereafter, Mr. Ignatieff has all but encouraged members of his party to challenge his leadership.

Of course, most Liberal MPs would not be allowed to do so as brazenly. It is unthinkable that the Liberals' 38-member Ontario caucus would be permitted to break rank en masse to appease Dalton McGuinty. Nor would MPs from Quebec, British Columbia or most other provinces. In other words, Mr. Ignatieff has allowed for two different classes of MPs: those from Newfoundland, and those from everywhere else. That hardly seems like the way to restore party unity.

Worse, Mr. Ignatieff has encouraged Mr. Williams to continue setting the very worst example on how to conduct federal-provincial relations. His over-the-top opposition to the federal Conservatives helped wipe them off Newfoundland's electoral map, but it also eliminated Newfoundland influence inside the federal government. Now, he has been sent a signal that if the Liberals form a government, they will bow down before him. Mr. Williams is not a leader who will accept a measure of victory graciously; next time, he will only be emboldened to seek more from the Liberals. And other premiers might be encouraged to follow Mr. Williams's lead – albeit with fewer histrionics – if the Liberals are in power.

Mr. Ignatieff need not have threatened his Newfoundland MPs with outright expulsion for voting against the budget. Lesser forms of discipline could have been sufficient. But he should not have permitted them to chart their own policy course without consequence. Whether or not this proves to be a “one-time pass,” as Mr. Ignatieff has claimed, it could have far-reaching consequences for him, for his party, and potentially for the country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...4/BNStory/Front

(bolding is mine)

In allowing his MPs to vote against the budget and against the party line in order to make a point, unwittingly, Ignatieff has armed Premier Williams. Emboldened with this victory, the Premier will continue wrestling with the federal government with added gusto to push for undue economic advantage for Newfoundland and Labrador.