New Democrats Bask In Their Glory Today

[bigdude]

City keeps up pressure on Ottawa

Toronto officials, desperate for the more than $1-billion in funding the city will receive from the federal budget, say they need to keep the heat on so the budget wins final approval.

"We have no choice but to put pressure on so that what is committed actually is fulfilled," deputy mayor Joe Pantalone said.

Mayor David Miller also plans to write to all federal party leaders urging quick approval of the bill.

Toronto expects to receive between $250-million and $300-million this year from the budget, with an additional $1-billion to $2-billion over the next five years.

I am wondering if this really is the beginning of the shift to bypass provinces as it is primarily the urban areas where the action is votewise.

[bigdude]

Linda McQuaig praises Stronach for allowing the budget to survive amid vicious attacks from outraged right

But when that same inexperienced little rich girl impulsively grabbed at a brass ring last week, no scornful epithet was spared — sell-out, whore, dipstick, political slattern, blonde ambition, Judas.

Suddenly her wealth became an issue.

The same crowd who never condemn the unfairness of inherited wealth, abruptly began disparaging Stronach for her inherited wealth.

It was fine when all that money was being used to finance her run at the Conservative party leadership, so she could champion more tax cuts for the rich.

But now that she was helping NDP leader Jack Layton deliver more than a billion dollars in affordable housing for the poor, her wealth apparently became annoying.

"I will not be lectured to by some poor little rich girl," snarled Christie Blatchford in The Globe and Mail. After interviewing Stronach, a CBC radio program played the song "She's a rich girl and she's gone too far ..."

She was also denounced as ambitious.

Yet, for years the media encouraged a nakedly ambitious Paul Martin as he plotted against Jean Chrétien.

Nor did pundits accuse Martin of betraying his principles for abandoning the social spending promises he made in the 1993 Liberal Red Book.

As long as politicians veer to the right, pundits seem satisfied they're acting on principle.

I suspect Stronach was motivated by a number of things: a deep dislike of Stephen Harper (imagine not warming to that guy!), a growing alienation from her party, a sense that she had no future there. It's even possible she was motivated, in part, by what she feels is good for the country.

If she had simply quit the party and sat in obscurity as an independent, she would have eventually been forgiven.

But to grab a job on the Liberal front bench, and to do it so dramatically, when so much was at stake — why that's downright cocky.

No right-wing pundit is going to let some smart-ass little rich girl get away with all that.

Hilarious but to the point.

[cybercoma]

What I don't understand is how Toronto can get a 1-2 billion out of the budget; meanwhile, Windsor which desperately needs to implement its border plan for the good of the entire nation gets next to nothing. Exports are being stifled by horrendous gridlock at the ambassador bridge, yet the government continues to sit on its hands.

[bigdude]

What's the border plan - more security paranoia? Windsor will get its money just like the rest of Canada's municipalities will, if the New Democrats have their way.

[cybercoma]

Me give it a break? Your the one saying people will vote for the NDP over the Liberals. I laughed so hard I damn near shook a ball loose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what happened when Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray left office. Windsor-West elected Brian Masse NDP.

[lenwick]

>ADVERTISEMENT<

Get set for long, U.S.-style election campaign

RICHARD GWYN

So we've escaped an election-plagued late spring. In its place, we're going to get an election-infested fall and winter.

Add together all that happened in the run-up to last Thursday's non-confidence vote in the Commons and all that's going to happen until Prime Minister Paul Martin calls an election within 30 days of Justice John Gomery turning in his report, and we're about to undergo the longest election campaign in our history.

It will be Canada's first experience of what happens every four years south of the border.

Beginning with the Democrat and Republican campaigns to choose their presidential nominees, American presidential contests now stretch out for more than a year.

Our election is likely to last about as long — nine months or so and longer if, as is probable, Gomery falls behind schedule. There, as here, if the date of election is known far in advance (give or take a few weeks).

After the government's one-vote survival, all of the media, and Martin himself, have appealed for calm, civility, and for a return to dealing with the public's business rather than that of the politicians'. The sentiment is laudable. Uttering it is a waste of time.

From now until election day, any governing of the country done in Ottawa will be an occasional tactical exercise to convince voters that those involved — the government, the opposition parties — really do, honestly and truly, care about voter concerns.

Because this is our first experience with a prolonged, fixed-term election, we've done it badly, so far.

Only Jack Layton and the New Democrats have gained in stature, politically and morally, from all the cynicism and opportunism.

Their moral advantage derives from the fact that they've used the opportunity to help those they represent — bargaining their votes for nearly $5 billion in spending on socially-worthy causes.

Politically, Layton and the NDP have gained because they haven't played politics. More exactly, they've played politics of the constructive, rather than negative, kind. Everyone else has been out for themselves; Layton and the NDP have been out to help others.

Everyone else has diminished themselves, and hollowed out our entire political system.

Martin came to office by displacing Jean Chrétien by using tactics as rough as those that have been used against him by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives these past few weeks — unsuccessfully, as it turns out.

To justify these tactics, Martin portrayed himself as a new kind of politician, open, democratic, eager to end corruption and bribery.

Instead, Martin has bribed his way to political survival no differently than the most manipulative of politicians before him:

The bribe to Belinda Stronach of a senior cabinet post in exchange for her crossing the floor. The attempted bribe by his senior aide — on the evidence of the tapes — of a Conservative MP to absent himself from the vote in exchange for later favours. The bribing of voters with their own money — some $21 billion worth of spending, the largest pre-election splurge in our history.

Harper, throughout the affair, has been obsessed with himself.

He ignored the public's resistance to an election; a resistance prompted, in part, because voters never really want an election and, in part, because many Canadians feared that its only real winner would be the pro-separatist Bloc Québécois.

Harper's self-obsession caused him to fail to recognize the magnitude of Stronach's disaffection. He therefore failed the most critical test of political leadership — the ability to manage, to cajole and to inspire his own supporters.

It's not going to get any better. It's not going to change.

None of the above — but the NDP — is the only way to vote when, eventually, the chance comes for us to end the charade.

[bigdude]

I am looking forward to the polls over the coming months leading up to the next federal election as they will probably show gians by the Layton New Democrats at the expense of all three of the other federal political parities the Cons, the Libs & the Blocs.

[cybercoma]

>ADVERTISEMENT<

Get set for long, U.S.-style election campaign

RICHARD GWYN

So we've escaped an election-plagued late spring. In its place, we're going to get an election-infested fall and winter.

Add together all that happened in the run-up to last Thursday's non-confidence vote in the Commons and all that's going to happen until Prime Minister Paul Martin calls an election within 30 days of Justice John Gomery turning in his report, and we're about to undergo the longest election campaign in our history.

It will be Canada's first experience of what happens every four years south of the border.

Beginning with the Democrat and Republican campaigns to choose their presidential nominees, American presidential contests now stretch out for more than a year.

Our election is likely to last about as long — nine months or so and longer if, as is probable, Gomery falls behind schedule. There, as here, if the date of election is known far in advance (give or take a few weeks).

After the government's one-vote survival, all of the media, and Martin himself, have appealed for calm, civility, and for a return to dealing with the public's business rather than that of the politicians'. The sentiment is laudable. Uttering it is a waste of time.

From now until election day, any governing of the country done in Ottawa will be an occasional tactical exercise to convince voters that those involved — the government, the opposition parties — really do, honestly and truly, care about voter concerns.

Because this is our first experience with a prolonged, fixed-term election, we've done it badly, so far.

Only Jack Layton and the New Democrats have gained in stature, politically and morally, from all the cynicism and opportunism.

Their moral advantage derives from the fact that they've used the opportunity to help those they represent — bargaining their votes for nearly $5 billion in spending on socially-worthy causes.

Politically, Layton and the NDP have gained because they haven't played politics. More exactly, they've played politics of the constructive, rather than negative, kind. Everyone else has been out for themselves; Layton and the NDP have been out to help others.

Everyone else has diminished themselves, and hollowed out our entire political system.

Martin came to office by displacing Jean Chrétien by using tactics as rough as those that have been used against him by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives these past few weeks — unsuccessfully, as it turns out.

To justify these tactics, Martin portrayed himself as a new kind of politician, open, democratic, eager to end corruption and bribery.

Instead, Martin has bribed his way to political survival no differently than the most manipulative of politicians before him:

The bribe to Belinda Stronach of a senior cabinet post in exchange for her crossing the floor. The attempted bribe by his senior aide — on the evidence of the tapes — of a Conservative MP to absent himself from the vote in exchange for later favours. The bribing of voters with their own money — some $21 billion worth of spending, the largest pre-election splurge in our history.

Harper, throughout the affair, has been obsessed with himself.

He ignored the public's resistance to an election; a resistance prompted, in part, because voters never really want an election and, in part, because many Canadians feared that its only real winner would be the pro-separatist Bloc Québécois.

Harper's self-obsession caused him to fail to recognize the magnitude of Stronach's disaffection. He therefore failed the most critical test of political leadership — the ability to manage, to cajole and to inspire his own supporters.

It's not going to get any better. It's not going to change.

None of the above — but the NDP — is the only way to vote when, eventually, the chance comes for us to end the charade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NDP certainly weren't out for their own interests when Jack Layton said, "Hey Paul, need some votes to stay in office?"

And Paul said, "Are you blackmailing me?"

"Nonsense Paul. I'm trying to help Canadians, " Layton replied and they both laughed and laughed as Martin wrote out the check.

[bigdude]

To the shrill cries that this NDP budget is going to bankrupct our country PM Martin responds this is only an additional 1% of expenditures, and that is not going to damage Canada's finances:

PM defends recent spending

The Prime Minister told the Empire Club and Toronto Board of Trade that recent daycare agreements signed with five provinces were part of the Liberals' priorities when they won last June's election.

"A couple weeks ago, I was in Nova Scotia, announcing an agreement with the province on early learning and child care. I looked at the papers the next morning – Martin continues spending spree! blared the headlines. You'd think I was out there dishing out $20 bills to toddlers – telling them, here, go buy yourself something that squeaks, courtesy of the government of Canada," Mr. Martin told the Board in prepared remarks.

Advertisements

He said the daycare agreements have been in place since last year and the money – $5-billion – has already been set aside.

Mr. Martin also defended a deal made with the NDP in which the New Democrats agreed to support the Liberals in the Commons on any no-confidence motion in return for $4.6-billion in concessions to the 2005 budget. The opposition Conservatives heavily criticized the agreement, saying the Liberals had bought NDP support.

Mr. Martin said the money represents an increase in spending of 1 per cent.

It will not move the country backward, he said.

"It [the agreement with the NDP] explicitly declares that we will not return to deficit. That's not a guideline – it's a condition of the agreement," the Prime Minister said. He also defended deal-making with the NDP as a necessity to making a minority government work.

"Canadians sent us to Ottawa with a minority government, and a minority government means you work with the opposition. That's not just some quaint political tradition – it's a matter of cold arithmetic. A minority government cannot try to pass a budget by pretending it has a majority."

He said that while the Liberal government has an "unflinching commitment" to fiscal responsibility," it will continue to focus spending on priority areas such as education, cities and the environment.

[willy]

Well if PMPM said so.

[bigdude]

Ya, 1% is going to bankrupct Canada if you listened to the Cons.

[Conrad]

I somewhat remember a Bob Rae ndp budget.Both my party and the cons worked or are working to repair the damage done by that budget.If the ndp can so severely harm the prosperity of one province,does this new {forced}budget really bode well for the rest of Canada?I think our Mr. Goodale should have protested a little more strongly.

[bigdude]

I somewhat remember a Bob Rae ndp budget.Both my party and the cons worked or are working to repair the damage done by that budget.If the ndp can so severely harm the prosperity of one province,does this new {forced}budget really bode well for the rest of Canada?I think our Mr. Goodale should have protested a little more strongly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes and the rest of us remember Grant Devine.....yada, yada, yada!

Please explain how increasing 1% of the expenditures of a vastly underestimated surplus is going to hurt the country's finances? You can't because it won't and as usual you right wingers are whistling dixie!

[Canuck E Stan]

You're right BIGDUDE, what's 1% and besides when, and if this surplus isn't enough we can always get more. That's why we have bigger and better surpluses every year. Isn't government great.

[bigdude]

Another tax hater.

What can I say!

[Canuck E Stan]

Love taxes, spending taxes would be like winning the lottery I could spend it on a whole bunch of foolish things and then when the dough is all gone having another winning ticket and do it all over again. It would be wonderful.

[bigdude]

Try writing a bit more coherently so at least some of us can understand what in the heck you are taking about, eh!

[Canuck E Stan]

Spending is easy. Saving is hard.

[Argus]

They got more time to get back just enough support from Quebec, regain just enough support from Ontario, and get their ducks in a row and then the writ is dropped, perhaps by the government orchestrating it's own defeat, perhaps Martin calls an election. But either way the Liberals will be back to a majority, they're only 22 away right now. that's like what? 5-7 points nationally? and then the Ultra Right CONs, the Ultra Left N-Dippers and the Bloc can go piss up their backs and call it rain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NDP are not "ultra left, and the Conservatives are not "Ultra Right".

You are confused by the fact both have ideological leanings and some sense of principal. The Liberal Party abandoned anything and everything that didn't turn a profit in money or votes during Trudeau's era. All they care about now is raw power. They exist to hold power and to feed at the trough. They have no other goals, purpose or needs. They are not driven by any sense of vision, any ideals about improving the state of the nation or any determination to right wrongs. They are in power for the sake of power.

But to suggest that everyone who isn't as morally corrupt is somehow an extremist is typically Liberal in its patent dishonesty and arrogance.

[Argus]

One could say that Martin was the best Conserative Finance Minister this country has ever had. 

If one were an imbecile, yes.

Martin has not behaved like a conservative Finance Minister. A conservative finance minister would not have stashed billions away in "trust funds" in order to hide the mone. He would have either cut taxes or used the money to pay down the debt.

If you want to see what Canada's spending and debt would be like under Harper and the CA, one doesn't have to look any further then south of the border.  Increased spending, ballooning debt and deminishing services.  That is Harpers vision of our Nation. 

To compare Harper's slightly right of centre conservative philosophy, a philosophy which has focussed his entire life on cost and tax cutting, no deficits, and paying down the debt, to the fiscal idiocy of Bush's so-called conservatives is preposterous drivel. You might as well compare the Liberals to Russia and its government corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

On a side note, I met the man once and shook his hand.....he struck me as a used car sellsman trying to pawn off a really bad lemon to me.  After shaking his hand, I beat feet to the nearest washroom and spent ten minutes trying to scrub the slime off.

No way of proving it, of course, but I'm willing to be that you never met Harper. Harper is unlikely to have visited your mom's basement.

[bigdude]

Spending is easy. Saving is hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

But spending 1% is not cause for consternation, and had Harper been in Martin's place, he would have undoubtly cut the same deal with Canada's rising political star Jack Layton.

[Riverwind]

To compare Harper's slightly right of centre conservative philosophy, a philosophy which has focussed his entire life on cost and tax cutting, no deficits, and paying down the debt, to the fiscal idiocy of Bush's so-called conservatives is  preposterous drivel. You might as well compare the Liberals to Russia and its government corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

This is the first time I have heard a conservative supporter explicitly disavow the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and his band of merry spenders. Do you have any more information to confirm that this is a widely held belief within the Conservative party?

[Argus]

To the shrill cries that this NDP budget is going to bankrupct our country PM Martin responds this is only an additional 1% of expenditures, and that is not going to damage Canada's finances:

The budget would have been $191.8 billion without the NDPs addition. One per cent of that is $1.92 billion. Apparently neither Martin, nor any of his sycophantic admirers here can do basic arithmetic.

And of course, that's after the Liberals went around pouring money into every gopher hole it oculd find, adding their own tens of billions in spending. All told, between that and the NDP, the cost was probably another 15%, something along the lines of $30 billion dumped down the toilet in the name of power for Liberals.

[Argus]

Ya, 1% is going to bankrupct Canada if you listened to the Cons. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Learn to add, bigdummy.

[Argus]

To compare Harper's slightly right of centre conservative philosophy, a philosophy which has focussed his entire life on cost and tax cutting, no deficits, and paying down the debt, to the fiscal idiocy of Bush's so-called conservatives is  preposterous drivel. You might as well compare the Liberals to Russia and its government corruption, nepotism and kleptocracy.

This is the first time I have heard a conservative supporter explicitly disavow the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and his band of merry spenders. Do you have any more information to confirm that this is a widely held belief within the Conservative party?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You clearly haven't been listening. Even many Republicans are getting extremely frustrated at the Bush administration's big deficits. But with a war on, and Bush basically claiming it's all because of security and the military (It's not, it's because of his idiotic tax cuts) they find it difficult to say so aloud. Nevertheless, some of them have been doing so. Hell, even Newt Gingrich is becoming a vocal critic.

Canada's conservatives have always been a considerably more moderate group, with little of the religious themes of the US Republicans. Comparing them to the Republicans is an old propaganda ploy, but not very realistic. Especially in an era when Republicans no longer stand for austerity and small government.