Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Liberals and the Road Not Taken

In this life, there are times when you have to make fundamental choices. You go one way or you go the other. The Liberal Party had such a choice to make: between the formation of a progressive coalition government with the NDP, or propping up the Harper government. The first choice would have allowed for the presentation of a budget to parliament that really would have offered hope to Canadians in a dark time. The budget would have provided stimulus through direct government spending on the scale needed to deal with the rising tide of joblessness in the country. I believe, and I’ve argued the case in previous posts, that the direct spending would have to be at least $50 billion this year and again next year. Fifty billion dollars amounts to about three per cent of Canada’s GDP. That level of spending would have created about half a million new jobs, perhaps more, depending on the capital intensity of the projects undertaken.

Such spending on carefully chosen projects, many to begin immediately, would have made a major contribution to renewing the nation’s dilapidated infrastructure and would have made our economy more efficient, more productive for the future. (I’ve spelled out my ideas on this in previous posts.)

The Harper-Flaherty budget doesn’t do the job. New spending of about $6 billion this year and again next year, will create about 60,000 jobs. It won’t make a dent in the rising tide of new joblessness that is forecast to engulf Canadian communities from coast to coast. The layoff notices are going out every day. The descent of our economy into deflation is proceeding. Within a few months, the utter inadequacy of the government’s policy will be evident to millions of Canadians.

In the face of this, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals have made the second choice. They have decided to prop up the Harper government. If I had to speculate about the reason for this, I’d conclude that they are more comfortable with the Conservatives and the business community than they are with social democrats, trade unionists and wage and salary earners.

So be it. This is not a personal matter. Although the media is trying to make it seem that social democrats are miffed because they have been jilted by Ignatieff who is now dating the Prime Minister, it’s really about whose basic interests a party chooses to serve. The Liberals have made things very clear. That’s sad, not for Jack Layton and the NDP, but for Canadians who deserved better.

Over the next six months, at least, we are going to be reading about layoff notices every day. We are going to be seeing families unable to pay the mortgage, send their kids to college, or meet their basic obligations.

For those progressive Liberal MPs who believe their party has made the wrong choice, the alternative is to rise in the House and take a few steps down the floor to join Jack Layton and the NDP.

21 comments:

VictoriaD&D said...

James,

Reasoned and eloquent as usual.

What of the previous Fiberal commitment to to a national daycare program? This would both emancipate and stimulate. Why not windfall tax the bank's credit card profits as they surpass a formally usurious 12 percent?
Why not directly tax oil company windfall profits? Why not nationalize Nortel, our Canadian version of Xeroc PARC?

Iggy supports Steve O's budget because it a classic Fiberal two step budget, speak from the left and act from the right. The carpetbagger Ignatieff is only the lesser of two weavils. Jack and Gilles truly lead the hill as these current goniffs stumble behind them, committed to yet another Greenspan inspired death march embroidered with some ineffective Keynesian window dressing.

We deserve way better.

Anonymous said...

Well said James; we truly deserve better than we get from our politicians, especially in Ottawa. Ignatieff's choice came as no surprise to me. He lectured the Harper government and anyone else who cared to listen, on the basis of a political choice not out of concern for his fellow citizens. With all due respect, he can't connect with working Canadians whatsoever, so he lectures us on what the Liberal party will do by putting the government "on probation". This is ridiculous policy by any standard. The Harper government's been on probation since 2006 and clearly they barely get a passing grade.

We don't need a psuedo coalition alternative because the spending numbers will not change, just the rhetoric. And no party wants to look like the bad guy and call for an election. Quite frankly the world has really changed in attitude since last October. Harper has failed to lead, Ignatieff has failed to provide the alternative, for reasons you've clearly indicated.

I'm betting on another election this year,as the Liberal Party starts fundraising and Ignatieff starts a lecture tour across the country.

LeonT.

Anonymous said...

This makes me think that we are caught between a rock and a hard place. If Stephen Harper is removed from office we may have better luck addressing our economic woes but on the other hand if we force Stephen Harper to stay for the time being he will suffer the consequences of his inaction and failure to address our economy.

Anonymous said...

What to do, what to do. At the next federal election we will have the same problem as we faced with the last Ontario election - trying to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Both are self-centred manipulators who do not place the interests of ordinary Canadians first even though the ordinary are the majority.

Patrick Ross said...

Polling indicates that %57 of Canadians want this budget passed.

Add this to the majority of Canadians who opposed the coalition, and I think you have the answer to why Ignatieff decided not to go along with Jack Layton on a political adventure that would have given the Conservative party a majority in a coming election.

It was the wise decision. More importantly, it was the right decision.

Oemissions said...

Patrick Ross is not acknowledging the whole picture. He is seeing what he wants to see.
Read the Rick Mercer report on how many people understand the Constitution and the legitimacy of a Coalition government.
Go back to the time of the Coalition proposal. An immediate loud reaction from the Cons shouting "separatists" and "socialists. And boy did they play that up. As did the press. Cry "wolf" and everybody runs on the first cry.Canadians began to sing O Canada ! louder than Christmas carols.None of that pea soup stuff for Western Canadians.
Then, Canadians got confused about who would actually be PM
and Libs were divisive for a time. Then Harper goes to the PM. For over 2 hours we wait. What he said, she said, it seems we will never know.
We should. We should have heard EVERY word exchanged.
Then its Christmas, and Canadians are tired after the holidays, the snow and the Christmas bills and they just want to get on with things.There is still the fear of an election. Ignatieff speaks in a confusing manner about where the Libs are at on this Coalition.
Maybe so, maybe not.What's a poor voter to do?
The separatist issue is still played up with no precise resolve from the educational pundits about the actual role of the Bloc.
The Constitutional experts, from the hallowed halls of the law and poli sci schools say that the GG would need to call on the opposition leader to form a government rather than declare an election since parliament would not have sat LONG enough .This doesnot make the FRONT page, or even a back page.
The poll does not contain this information.
Given all this info and ofcourse lack of info to the electorate, I am not surprised by the poll. I am surprised that it wasn't a HIGHER percentage. Lets take that poll again, reworded.
And maybe another poll, that asks about some amendments that Canadians would want.
Right decision? For whom?

Unknown said...

Good effort, Mr Laxer, as usual.

With this latest turn, Jack Layton and the NDP can stop playing nice with the Liberals and get back to shouting opposition to the suicide mission in Afghanistan. The media has forgotten about the war and it's time the NDP brought that fiasco back into focus. Canadian soldiers killed and wounded for what? Just think how the billions wasted on that NATO misadventure could be used to support real jobs and infrastructure in Canada.

Scott MacNeil said...

Bottom line Mr. Laxer, Jack Layton is not cutting it as leader of the national NDP.

Those of us who are firm supporters of the party's goals and ideals are tired of his antics. We expect an adult at the helm - not a man-child.

Time we got a person of substance in the job. Otherwise we are doomed to be pissing into the wind for yet another generation.

Patrick Ross said...

"Patrick Ross is not acknowledging the whole picture. He is seeing what he wants to see."

Which is something that the pro-coalition crowd indulged themselves in as well.

"Read the Rick Mercer report on how many people understand the Constitution and the legitimacy of a Coalition government."

Now, if legitimacy were only judged according to the Constitution, you'd almost be in business with an argument like that.

But it isn't.

A government has important responsibilities. The legitimacy of a government has to be judged
on how well it can be expected to uphold those responsibilities and, indeed, if it's capable of doing so at all.

The Liberal-NDP coalition would have been incapable of addressing a key governmental responsibility in Canada: that of national unity.

No government with a separatist party as a partner could be expected to act decisively on the national unity portfolio.

Whether you like it or not, this is indisputable.

"Go back to the time of the Coalition proposal. An immediate loud reaction from the Cons shouting "separatists" and "socialists. And boy did they play that up. As did the press. Cry "wolf" and everybody runs on the first cry.Canadians began to sing O Canada ! louder than Christmas carols.None of that pea soup stuff for Western Canadians."

You can call it "crying wolf" if you want. The rest of us look at it very different:

Two political parties forging a partnership with a separatist party in exchange for political power, and putting that party in a position where it can make all manners of demands.

Even the "sovereignty off the agenda for 18 months" argument held no water. First off, Parliament has nothing in place to enforce such an agreement.

Secondly, any self-respecting Canadian should remember what happened during the 1995 referendum when the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois ensured that a confusing question would up on the referendum ballot, then decieved Quebeckers into thinking they would retain use of Canadian currency and, in some cases, believe that they would still elect MPs to federal Parliament.

This is a party that lied to its own people in order to deceive them into voting to separate from the country.

I have never heard a persuasive argument from the pro-coalition crowd to answer this.

"Then, Canadians got confused about who would actually be PM
and Libs were divisive for a time. Then Harper goes to the PM. For over 2 hours we wait. What he said, she said, it seems we will never know.
We should. We should have heard EVERY word exchanged.
Then its Christmas, and Canadians are tired after the holidays, the snow and the Christmas bills and they just want to get on with things.There is still the fear of an election. Ignatieff speaks in a confusing manner about where the Libs are at on this Coalition.
Maybe so, maybe not.What's a poor voter to do?
"

Recognize that you just had an election, and you just elected a government.

Then, oppose the coalition government by a margin of 57% according to polling.

"The separatist issue is still played up with no precise resolve from the educational pundits about the actual role of the Bloc.
The Constitutional experts, from the hallowed halls of the law and poli sci schools say that the GG would need to call on the opposition leader to form a government rather than declare an election since parliament would not have sat LONG enough .This doesnot make the FRONT page, or even a back page.
"

There's no consensus on this except the fictional consensus peddled by the pro-coalition crowd.

Some have noted that the only responsible option the GG has is to call an election if the government is defeated.

"The poll does not contain this information.
Given all this info and ofcourse lack of info to the electorate, I am not surprised by the poll. I am surprised that it wasn't a HIGHER percentage. Lets take that poll again, reworded.
And maybe another poll, that asks about some amendments that Canadians would want.
"

Canadians made it clear. They didn't want the coalition.

"Right decision? For whom?"

For his party, and for the country.

It's very rare that those two things intersect, but on this occasion they did.

While we're at it, let's not overlook the fact that the Liberals and NDP won't reveal what they offered the Bloc in return for their support.

Canadians have a right to know that, too.

Oemissions said...

Hi there Patrick. Its me again:
Thank you for your response.
I went to Ispos Reid website to see if I could get the actual wording of that poll, and the exact time and day it was conducted.
Seems as tho' I would have to pay $95 to get that info.
I did notice that there is a prelude about what the GG might or might not do because of her last decision. So, I wonder how the questions were presented in this poll.
While at the site I noticed another poll, results published on Jan 31st/2009 that say only 24% of Canadians give the budget a "thumbs up"
Hmmm...
Makes me wonder how this one was worded too.
You were relatively thorough in your responses to many of my thoughts and observations but you didn't mention how many Canadians think there should be amendments and what they could, should be. (?)
I wonder how many Canadians know
that amendments are possible, how, when and what happens when an admentment is voted on?

Patrick Ross said...

There probably aren't many Canadians who do know the process for amending a federal budget.

That being said, here's an interesting story: Gilles Duceppe today called for the Bloc Quebecois to renew its push toward Quebec sovereignty.

In the story, he cites three reasons: the 2008 political successes of the BQ and PQ, the Liberal party's support for multiculturalism, and the Constitution.

Aside from Michael Ignatieff deciding not to press forward with the coalition, what precisely changed?

Clearly, the political fortunes of the separatist parties didn't change.

So then what did the Liberals offer the BQ in exchange for their support? Did it have something to do with multiculturalism? Did it have something to do with the Constitution?

What did the Liberals and NDP offer up?

Canadians have a right to know.

Oemissions said...

The Bloc agreed to support the Libs and NDP on a confidence vote for 18 months ,in the interest of the Canadian economy.
If you follow Hansard over the years, you will see that the Bloc have proposed many bills in the interest of all Canadians.
Recently, their amendment.
I was born and raised on the prairies. I reside in Western Canada, but I did spend 18 years in Canada as an English speaking Quebecer. I voted for the PQ. I also liked Rene Levesque.
I am not afraid of the Bloc and I am not afraid of separatism. I am just not sure of how well they could pull it off. Who knows, in these times, maybe they could fare as well or better than the rest of the country.
They are very resourceful.
The last referendum was a very close call.
Since Dion was a co-signer,I can't imagine him singling out concessions to Quebec above other parties.
This Coalition was not about the Bloc and separatism, it was about the 62% of us ABCers who do not support the Conservative agenda.
It was our HOPE for a better democracy and a fairer budget.
After the last election, I resolved to campaign for a Coalition Party. I still do, but, the way they are all behaving I am losing faith and support for the entire bunch.
I think that each MP should be reporting back to his/her constituency to get a general sense of what their riding supports in this budget and vote accordingly.

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, wow.

Because that's how you build a better democracy: by voting for, and colluding with, parties who would happily tear this country apart.

By voting for, and colluding with, political parties based on a racial ideology.

By mortgaging the government to a political party that would happily destroy this country, and is known to have lied to their own people in order to obtain that very result.

I can speak for at least 57% of Canadians when I say: thanks, but no thanks.

And it's interesting: if you think you can justify the coalition by claiming that 62% of people voted ABC (didn't vote for the Liberals, NDP or Bloc, but voted against the Conservatives), why did 57% of Canadians oppose the coalition, and only 30% of Canadians support it?

Patrick Ross said...

And don't tell me the BQ did it "in the interests of Canada".

Gilles Duceppe has made it plainly clear: Canada's interests come second to Quebec's on his agenda, and he still regards sovereignty as the prize.

Oemissions said...

OK: Patrick: If you sincerely believe that the Liberals, by supporting this budget are clearly looking after the interests and well being of the majority of Canadians, then stick with your beliefs.
I will stay with mine which could only, as I see it ,be achieved (somewhat) through the Coalition Accord.

Patrick Ross said...

Um, no.

I think you underestimate the seriousness of this disagreement.

From where I stand, one of us actually gives a damn about the survival and well-being of this country, and one of us doesn't.

I'll put it to you this way: no one who has ever voted for the Parti Quebecois knowing full well the goals of that party could ever expect anyone to believe they give a damn about this country.

Anonymous said...

There's no chance of a coalition government. The GG would do as she was asked by Harper and call an election, after which harper would win a majority.

If the coalition actually ran as a coalition in the election, then they'd win. But running coalition candidates in an election doesn't seem to have been part of the plan.

That Layton could come up with a half-baked plan like that and then persuade Dion to adopt it shows that at a crucial moment in our history the Opposition might as well have been led by Cheech and Chong.

Oemissions said...

Johnny:Some of us who have been busy for years with peace and justice and environmental issues and serving on committees and marching and writing to governmental departments and making presentations and lowering our carbon footprints believed this Colaition would be a great adventure into a new era of respectful politics.I kept my hope alive for this as well in the next election until Mr. Ignatieff ascended.Now, too many of us are left with sour milk.
Can't even feed our babies or grandchildren
And some of us are too fatigued to get out and do it all again.
All hail another Conservative minority government.
As for the GG, most Constitutional experts I have read say No, she would be expected to call up the opposition Leader to see what HE could do.

Anonymous said...

The Libs should ditch Iggy and get Rae to be chief.

susansmith said...

Patrick Ross said...

Patrick Ross said that "Polling indicates that %57 of Canadians want this budget passed.

Add this to the majority of Canadians who opposed the coalition, and I think you have the answer to why Ignatieff decided not to go along with Jack Layton on a political adventure that would have given the Conservative party a majority in a coming election."

And more recently in liberal spin cycle, and media was that Iggy picked right according to a latest poll done by strategic council, except, if one goes to that poll, one gets some better insights.
Accidental Deliberations did just that and looked behind the numbers.
First, on the question of the budget's impact on perceptions of the Cons, it's worth noting that remarkably high numbers among current Con voters seriously skewed the top-line numbers on a few of the issues. In every other party, at least 61% of respondents noted a loss of confidence in the Cons - a particularly striking number when that confidence wouldn't figure to have been all that high to begin with. And 69% or more of respondents from every party aside from the Cons wanted to see another government given a chance - yet that figure was only 51% in the total numbers since only 6% of Con respondents shared the view.
Anyway, go read the rest. It's a great post and takes you to inside the poll.

Oemissions said...

Another poll from IPSOS last week saids only 24% of Canadians give a "thumbs up" to the budget!