Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


There are thoughtful readers of blogs out there too, not just Con astroturfers

There is a real thoughtful reader of Warren K’s site that has written in regarding coalition politics and how it could or should work here, but he focuses on the NDP and Liberals specifically. Warren thought enough of it to promote it as a front-page blogpost at his site, and I like it so much I’ve also linked to it and recommend you read it. I hope some politicians and strategists in the NDP and Liberal camps (and yes, we can throw the Greens in there too, I think) read it and think it over as well. The game has changed in Canada; perhaps the reality of that sinking in and the fact the UK election has shown coalitions can operate will make certain folks open to new possibilities.

(You’ll forgive me for not putting more effort into something more original; spending half the wee hrs of the morning at the Emergency ward in the hospital getting an awful neck to feet allergic rash/welt reaction looked at and under control makes me not very motivated right now.. perhaps later).

UPDATE @ 4:10 pm: There are also thoughtful senior Liberals out there too.


19 comments to There are thoughtful readers of blogs out there too, not just Con astroturfers

  • ridenrain

    It’s his blog and his right to do so but would we expect anything else from a spinmeister?
    I really don’t like to go there much because I don’t want to add to his hits hits but it’s worth it once and a while just to see what you guys will be saying in a day or so.

  • ridenrain

    Warren simply erases anything that he dosen’t like.

  • Well, Scott, I read Tim’s post because I respect you, but, um, I’m still waitin’. What did you expect me to see? An utterly risible comparison between our situation and Obama/Clinton? Find me the social democrat who is keen on authorizing massive violations of international law — illegal renditions, illegal overseas prisons, torture, assassination (including of American citizens), unrestrained surveillance, etc — both Obama and Clinton have signed on to those things happily, as any U.S. president or SoS would, and it takes an exceptionally naive L/liberal to go on thinking of either of those people as progressive in any way at all.

    The barrier for someone like me with the Liberal party is the expression “John Manley.” It’s such a deal-breaker, y’know, and you have more than a few of those in your caucus. Liberals are all in favour of women’s equality — uh huh. That’s why so few can ever make it to crucial votes on that turf, eh?

    I definitely agree that Harper has to be gone, however we do it. I happen to live in a Catch-22 riding that should swing NDP, so I’m happy about that. I am not at all inspired by David Cameron and not much by Clegg, although I hope that Clegg can push through some of his program in the time he’s got.

    Here, though, your party has gifted us with one of the worst elephants in the room known to modern politics — Iggy. Many of us were writing about this long before he came back. Your party should have fought much harder to back up Dion, who was far more acceptable to both the NDP and the GPC. Why didn’t you? Because you thought you had the magic solution, Iggy, in your back pocket all the time. Huge error. Error of historic proportions.

    Such a shame about Rae — automatic target from both the right and the left. It is a shame, actually. But you’re going to have to think of something better.

    • @skdadl, Yer on the money, Skdaddler. Trouble is, the diehard LPC card-carriers did make that epic error of historic proportions and, like all partisans, they are loathe to admit a mistake.

      Dion was a good man, a honorable man, a man of convictions. Despite the hatchet job done on him by the Cons, he stuck to the high road and he understands politics better than Ignatieff ever will. He understood the unfairness of FPTP and made a controversial deal with Elizabeth May. He could have paved the way to a full Green/Liberal merger. The Libs seem to be resigned to the idea that they must allow Ignatieff a kick at the electoral can before they dare even think about turfing him. Shades of Kim Campbell.

      I predict that the NDP will be the official opposition after the next election.

    • @skdadl, Many of us tried.. but after the election results, and after the botched videotape response to Harper via the coalition, he was DOA as Liberal leader.

  • In most polls, LPC + GPC support beats CPC without the NDP. There is considerable bad blood between the NDP and the LPC. Many NDP bloggers spend more pixels trashing the Grits than the Cons, despite the Cons being in power and being, well… cons. Dippers will point out past instances where the Liberals got NDP support only to stab them in the back later. From what I’ve seen, NDP supporters (and leaders) simply do not trust the Liberals.

    If there were to be a Green/Liberal coalition, it would need to include numerous non-compete agreements similar to May and Dion’s so-called Red-Green deal. Cabinet positions would need to be guaranteed to Green MPs (like the Cameron – Clegg deal).

    Anti-Earther Ignatieff could never lead such a coalition. His blanket support for the tar sands and nuclear energy makes him completely unpalatable to any Green voter. I would go so far as to say that the poor showing of the LPC in polls has to do with Iggy abandoning the environmental stance taken by Dion. Iggy’s tried to be all things to all people and, in doing so, has failed miserably. He’s dragging your party down. He wasn’t elected at a leadership race. The rank and file LPC membership had zero choice or say-so when he was named leader. He was named out of desperation at Dion’s poor showing but he’s proven to be worse.

    Today, Ignatieff is telling the Speaker they want to be transparent on MP expenses at the same time he’s telling his MPs not to post their expenses online. Duplicitousness like that is why the NDP and GPC will never cooperate with the Grits as long as he’s at the helm.

    • @jimbobbysez, Greens have to prove they can get elected to the House before any talk of cabinet deals can be made. So far, they haven’t proven they can do that.

      • @Scott Tribe, I guess you’re now endorsing FPTP. I thought you understood the need for electoral reform. I thought you believed in democracy but I was wrong. Only if it suits the LPC, eh, Scott? GPC got almost as many votes as BQ. BQ got 40+ seats GPC got zero. That ain’t democracy. I know you know it but you’ve chosen to use patently undemocratic results to try making a case for continuing to marginalize 1 million Canadian voters.

        Fact is, a GPC-LPC coalition could beat the Cons but since you’re okay with FPTP and your disaster of a party leader, it’ll never happen.

        In my comment, I said non-compete deals would be needed. Greens would have to forgo running in some ridings where GPC-LPC vote split would elect CPC. LPC would need to let GPC run unopposed by LPC in ridings where Greens stand a chance without LPC competition.

        You’ve demonstrated why we will never have a deal between GPC and LPC. You completely ignored the points about your anti-environment leader and instead chose to use a flim-flam argument based on an endorsement of FPTP results.

        • @jimbobbysez, Snort.. I’m now a supporter of FPTP? Don’t be obtuse, Jim.. I expect better from you then that.

          Fact is.. we’re stuck with FPTP right now, and that wont be unfortunately changing for the foreseeable future., and right now, under that setup, the Greens havent shown they can win a seat. Beyond their leader, I’ve not seen many if any 2nd place finishes.

        • @jimbobbysez, Bottom line, if you can find me some ridings where the Green have a shot of winning, I’d be more then happy to co-operate (even if many in my party wouldn’t). List some ridings where the Greens have a realistic shot of winning first. then we can talk.

        • @scott, If you don’t support FPTP then why do you demand electoral success under FPTP? You might be happy to talk but your leader certainly is not. FPTP has served the Liberal Party quite well and Ignatieff quashed any talk of future Red-Green deals.

          In the federal by-election to be held on November 27, 2006, in London North Centre, May finished second behind the Liberal candidate with 26%.

          Greens did quite well in Guelph last time around and without a Liberal challenger could have won. If May didn’t have a strong LPC challenger in Saanich Gulf Islands, she could win the next election.

          The thing is, though, you’re still demanding success with FPTP as the yardstick — even though you know it is undemocratic. WADR, I find that a disingenuous position. Dion was willing to work around the shortcomings of FPTP and try an end run. Ignatieff wants all the eggs and he’s hurting the LPC chances with his stubborn support of the status quo. His support for nuclear power and tar sands oil doesn’t help, either.

          You still haven’t acknowledged or refuted anything I said about your pitiful excuse for a Liberal leader. Ignatieff is not green enough to get any green (small g or big G) votes. He’s barely even a small-l liberal. He’s dragged your party down and as Skdadl says, he’s the elephant in the room.

          The fact is that the Greens are in a position to help the Liberals topple Harper but with your steadfast support for a lacklustre, duplicitous leader who cares more about the tar sands than about the planet, you have zero chance of getting any help from us. In the meantime, we’re happy to campaign on environmental principles and split the Liberal vote. Elizabeth May thinks Harper is the worst thing for the planet but I disagree with her. I think he’s no worse than the opportunist Ignatieff. She refrained from running in Guelph because she’d be running against a sitting Liberal as opposed to running against a more formidable CPC minister, Gary Lunn.

  • Inge Jordan

    Thank you for spreading this very good analysis. I fully agree with it and also with the comments, especially the very first one, to the effect that we need completely new leadership in both the major progressive parties. This became glaringly evident during the coalition attempt of 2008 when, despite the threat of financial ruin hanging over them, the parties seemed to be much more concerned about the number of their cabinet seats than the good of the country or even the future of their parties. We need tabula rasa, but how to get there? Too many egos involved as well as too much fear of the right-wing attack machine.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.