The 'united opposition' may well succeed in passing a motion, slated to be tabled on the NDP's Opposition Day, which would politely request that the government impale itself on its own dagger.
So what?
Please Mr. Martin, admit to the country that your government is ineffective and unable to sustain itself. In the meantime, some of us will continue to vote in favour of various bills, which will of course render that admission inaccurate -- because when some of us are willing to vote in favour of your initiatives, you are in fact a workable government -- corrupt, unaccountable, contemptible, inefficient, inept and scandal-ridden, but workable nonetheless.
What is all this posturing for? It makes all of the Opposition parties look just plain stupid.
We have stumbled along with this sad-excuse for a government for this long -- why on earth is it suddenly so important for Jack Layton to take the soap-box and claim moral superiority? If the Liberals aren't worth propping up now, it stands to reason they weren't six months ago. The Gomery report changed nothing. It is politically neutral. No one cares.
Six months ago the governing party had withdrawn opposition days to prevent what it perceived to be a threat to its existence --- that was the time to go and that was the issue the election could have and should have been fought on --- the high-handed actions of the government aimed at thwarting the workings of democracy --- now that would have been an election that meant something.
But no. Jack Layton decided to be king-maker. He played the wise and patient conciliator -- while Buzz Hargrove bargained for the booty that would make Jack look like a hot shot. He sold out truth and democracy in exchange for fool's gold. Oh, I know it sounds melodramatic -- but that's what this parliament has been -- high drama and farce.
So here we are, the united opposition making itself look foolish and redundant by trying to push an election call in February -- when one was already promised for . . . well . . . February.
Why not just leave things be? Why not wait and see if Martin fulfills his promised to 'call an election within 30 days of the release of the Gomery Report and its recommendations'? Said recommendations are due out February 1st. A bit of patience on the part of the 'united opposition' might just prove Martin to be a liar yet again. And even if he's true to his word and does call an election within that time-frame -- what difference does a few weeks make when you've been sustaining corruption since last spring?
The 'united opposition' has been making 'this parliament work' much longer than was ever justifiable. The only thing worse than pulling the plug now, when we expect an election call at some point in February, is the charade of pulling the plug with a spineless, unbinding motion.
canadianna
10 comments:
Harper needs a backbone and needs to call a confidence motion. Otherwise he is just harping and has no plan.
It's all up to the Opposition leader to show leadership.
"Up the Opposition leader to show leadership" -- Funny, I thought that was the Prime Minister's job.
You speak as though Harper had a majority. Calling a confidence motion when you are unsure of the numbers is a losing proposition. And, as I recall, it's Layton who's 'harping'.
Ah Canadianna - you've said it beautifully - Jack the Dipper cannot redeem himself by his actions, and in fact serves only as a pathetic diversion - a Jester - in the convoluted denouement of this farcical session of Parliament...
"If the Liberals aren't worth propping up now, it stands to reason they weren't six months ago."
Canadianna, unfortunately, reason doesn't work like that. There are many reasons why the Liberal government was worth propping up then. If there had not been, the NDP would not have propped them up. The difference between then and now is that the Liberals are unwilling to meet the demands of an NDP caucus. Six months ago, they were. Don't forget, the budget that passed was essentially an NDP budget. The NDP was able to extract certain political capital out of the shaky Liberal minority, and that in and of itself counts as a reason for why the Liberal governement was worth propping up. Presumably, NDP MP's, being democratically elected, are representing their constituents. They are then responsible to obtain the most out of the government that they can, even if they are not the controlling party. By weaselling an NDP budget out of the Liberal minority, NDP MP's were fulfilling their democratically given duty to their constituents. If they had just given up and gone home and not tried (as it seems most Conservatives did), they they would not be doing their job.
I really don't understand why Conservatives insist on vilifying Layton. Is it because they resent that he was the most successful politician in the last parliamentary campaign? He was able to orchestrate key concessions from a minority government, in exchange for them maintaining control of the house. You can scream 'corruption' all you want, but you still have to get something done. And it appears to me that that is precisely what Layton and company did.
What has changed between then and now? The Liberals, feeling vindicated and emboldned by the Gomery Report (Gomery spent signfincant time explaning how Martin was innocent of all connection to the scandal - the Gomery Report DID change something), now feel they don't have to give up so much to the NDP. The NDP's support is not worth as much as it was before, and so they don't need it quite as bad. That puts Layton and friends in the position of being unable to properly serve their constiuents (and Canadians as a whole), and so there is no point in propping the Liberals up anymore. They would be ineffective at doing their job, and so that signals the point at which they withdraw their support.
As I said before, I really scratch my head at how Conservatives scoff at Layton. When you look at the situation objectively, he is the only leader in pariliament that was able to effectively advance the interests of his party, his constituents and his Country. That, if you ask me, is more than what Harper has done. I charge my conservative friends... what has Harper acheived in the last parliamentary sessions to advance the interests of his party, his constituents and his Country?
So Canadianna, I charge that your 'stands to reason' is wrong. There are many reasons why today is better than yesterday, and many reasons why now is a better time to topple the government than 6 months ago. Those reasons may not be reasons you like, but they are reasons nonetheless.
Peter, you're missing the point. Layton is saying that the Liberals are too corrupt to allow to stay in power. Nothing has changed in six months that allows us to see they are more corrupt now, or that they were corrupt back then but we just didn't know it. Therefore, if they were worthy of his tacit support then, Jack's reason for withdrawing his support has nothing to do with Liberal corruption -- but with their refusal to bow to extortion (this time).
Jack and the NDP were being opportunistic. They were motivated by a sense of power and of controlling the agenda which you state rather well in your first few sentences.
That doesn't necessarily translate into the Liberals being 'worth' propping up -- just because they were willing to act in a way that was worth something to Jack and his crew, does not mean they were 'worthy'. Subtle difference, but a distinction that the public should make.
Layton has advanced the intesests of Layton. His caucus is divided, and the public has become cynical about his motivations. As for advancing the interests of the country -- get real. An NDP budget doesn't please anyone but NDP voters and those who rely on public handouts. The deal Jack made with Paul and the gang will never come to fruition -- I'm no economist, but I knew it and economists have been saying it since the ink dried. Don't tell me Jack didn't realise it at the time -- nope, he was cynically positioning himself for an election he knew would be coming within a year.
As for Harper, I agree with you. But then, I still like him better than Jack because he seems sincere. Jack's form of smarmy, self-serving, backroom politics turn my stomach.
Canadianna,
I went and had a look at Layton's speeches from the last few days, The Speech to the Empire Club on Nov 7 and his statement concerning the timing of the election. You are right, he does refer to the Liberal Party as a Party whose ethical conduct has been indicted by the Gomery Report. I suppose one could interpret that to mean that the Liberal are corrupt. In that sense, you are right. They were corrupt then just as they are corrupt now. But contrary to Conservative opinion, corruption is not the only variable associated with proping up a Liberal government. If you read Layton's speeches carefully, you should be able to pick up that what has changed is the Liberal's unwillingness to go the whole way with the NDP plan for the saving of public healthcare. Now the Liberals have every right to reject the NDP's proposals - it is a Liberal government not an NDP government.
I don't understand how you say that Layton is attempting to 'extort' the governement, or that Layton is acting for Layton's sake. I don't think that is the case at all. Layton is a smart politician. When he sees an opportunity to get things done, he'll do it. He stated several times, both in his address to The Empire Club and his statement on Election Timing, that he could no longer get things done for the people. He envisions 'getting things done for the people' as responding to issues of environment, fixing and maintaining an ailing public healthcare system, ensuring that the poorest in Canada are looked after, all the while paying down debt and keeping tax hikes at a minimum. If he felt he could do that six months ago but not now, thats not a matter of extortion or Layton opportunism, but rather a matter of getting things done for all Canadians.
An NDP budget doesn't please anyone but NDP voters and those who rely on public handouts.
I challenge you to go to the poorest areas of the city where you live. To watch as the people drag their dirty smelly butts around, begging for some spare change to get a coffee or a loaf of bread. Watch in the downtown as rich businessmen and businesswomen pass by them without so much as a glance. The late political philospher John Rawls, credited with having changed the way politics is done post-1970, envisioned in his 1971 book "A Theory of Justice", a society where Justice counts as maximizing the greatest good for the least advantaged. The old saying, that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link applies to politics as well. A country is only as rich as its poorest member, and only as just as the justice it provides to the least well off. It is my understanding that that is the kind of thing that Layton and the NDP stand for. You say the economists know it will never come to fruition - of course it wont, they will see to it. Economists think only in black and white. They think soley in terms of cash flow and profit at the end of the day. But if that is all a society is about, then we have some serious questions about providing justice for all Canadians. Perhaps some Canadians rely on handouts. But if we would do something about equiping them to find jobs, if we would aid the poor in clothing and feeding themselves, if we would provide them with shelter and a telephone so that can go out and find a job, if we would stop sneering at them everytime we walk by them on the street, if we would maintain a healthcare system that ensures that they have the same access to the best treatmets as the rich guy, if we would look at them and see injustice and the opportunity to correct injustice, then perhaps we might get past mere 'handouts'. (cf. Matthew 25:31-46; James 1:27)
The economists are right that the budget likely wont come about. I know it wont. But that doesn't mean that Layton was acting with only his interests in mind. Nor does it mean that he supports the corruption of the Liberal Party. All it means is that he saw an opportunity to 'get things done' and deliver a glimmer of hope to those who need it most. Perhaps he is cynical. He knows that canadians likely wont give him the time of day at the next election - they'll likely vote in a minority Liberal or minority Conservative government. Why? because the majority of those who vote are NOT on the streets. They are the middle class, those who are best served by tax cuts. he also knows that the middle class is more concerned about climbing the ladder of prosperity than in seeing justice done to those who are least advantaged. Simply put, voters usually have the attitude of "What can I GET from the government" as opposed to "What government is best suited to provide justice and prosperity for all of its citizens, ."
I think that if we ask and vote according to the first question, the answer is clearly the Conservatives or the Liberals. If we ask the second question, and make the harder decision to give up a little for the greater benefit of others, the answer is clearly Jack Layton the the NDP.
My apologies for the long comment. As you can see, it is something I'm passionate about. I'll try to keep it shorter next time.
Peter, I work in a church. We have young able-bodied people coming in all the time after their welfare cheques have run out. They tell me how they've just have their liver removed and need money for the meds and how their children all have cancer. They are often offered the opportunity to do a little work around the church in return for their handout. All of the young ones refuse.
Some have been offered steady employment after having come repeatedly. The money they would earn would be deducted from their welfare, but they could establish a work history and receive a letter of recommendation for the future -- they are usually not heard from again.
There are people who are victims of circumstance. There are people who, through no fault of their own are unable to work. But there are a great many people who just don't see the point of menial labour that pays a couple of dollars above minimum wage, but doesn't provide free dental, free prescriptions, a clothing allowance, etc. as welfare does.
I'll save my sympathy for those who really need it -- the working poor. You and Jack can cry for the squeegee kids who live under the bridge and demand the right to squat where they please.
Jack's ideas on healthcare are pie in the sky. They are unworkable. Unwillingness to look at new solutions is never going to fix healthcare. All Jack wants to do is maintain the status quo, but provide more funding. It isn't a long-term solution. This is not a vision -- it is tunnel vision. His aims may be pure, but his inability to compromise and seek real workable fixes on this most serious issue is nothing but pride and folly.
As for the length of your comment -- go to it. I like it when people are passionate about their ideas, even when I disagree.
"what has Harper acheived in the last parliamentary sessions to advance the interests of his party, his constituents and his Country?"
Peter, whose idea was the Accord? Who hounded Martin for months and months in the House to pass it (after Martin & team said they'd offer the same deal to the maritimes during the election)?
That was a REAL accomplishment vs. passing a budget full of promises of possible future spending.
Thanks Candace. How soon we forget -- and I'm a Harper supporter.
Cheers.
Post a Comment