The Shotgun Blog
« Could the Coalition for Canada save Canadian publisher Marc Emery from a lifetime in a US prison? | Main | Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition accord signed with Stephane Dion as leader, some economic details emerge »
Monday, December 01, 2008
Coalition deal is being signed
Let's start by saying that I am now clearly wrong. I thought that this was all sound and fury signifying nothing. Now I'm sitting here stunned wondering at the magnitude that this signifies. Three bitter enemies are coming together at a chance to grab power. The NDP, the Liberals, and yes the Bloc are as I write this signing an agreement to make a coalition.
There is no backing down now. There is nothing that Harper can do. He will be brought down on the 8th. There is no way for the opposition parties to change their minds.
Mr. Layton asked that Harper not create more instability. I find this funny. It if someone punches someone else in the nose then says, "violence is wrong don't hit me back."
The political scientist in me is jumping up and down with the excitement of the unprecedented. The political activist in me is grinning with the knowledge of the fight to come. The citizen in me is shaking with fear.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on December 1, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053627b405970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Coalition deal is being signed:
Comments
Mr. Layton asked that Harper not create more instability. I find this funny. It if someone punches someone else in the nose then says, "violence is wrong don't hit me back."
The political scientist in me is jumping up and down with the excitement of the unprecedented. The political activist in me is grinning with the knowledge of the fight to come. The citizen in me is shaking with fear.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on December 1, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Uhuu, let's not forget who has been doing the punching over the last few years by making a lot of the votes a "no confidence" one, let's also not forget who wasted 300 million just recently to gain more power and who threw 75 billion at the "solid" Canadian banks to "help them out".
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-01 3:22:59 PM
First of all Snowrunner the 300 million complaint is idiotic and I wish that people would stop making it. Read this, http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-much-did-election-cost.html
Secondly, Harper never created an unstable situation like this. And that is what my punch metaphore meant.
Lastly I agree that the 75 billion would have been better spent on tax cuts.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-12-01 3:28:45 PM
Secondly, Harper never created an unstable situation like this. And that is what my punch metaphore meant.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 1-Dec-08 3:28:45 PM
So by bullying parliament to do things "his way" because he knew the opposition wasn't willing to go to the polls he didn't create an "unstable" position, but then when his bullying DOES lead to an unstable situation it's the fault of the opposition?
Why do I have the feeling you are, in no way, writing on here as a politicial scientist and all as a partisan hack?
Harper succeeds in his bullying --> He shows great leadership.
Hapers bullying backfires --> This damn opposition, how dare they to destabilize the situation, they should just roll over and go along with our great leader.
Right, because a democratic society is all about having one guy calling all the shots and nobody opposing him.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-01 3:40:52 PM
Heh, I'm a partisan hack...you are too funny Snowrunner.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-12-01 3:44:22 PM
Lastly I agree that the 75 billion would have been better spent on tax cuts.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 1-Dec-08 3:28:45 PM
The $75 billion that the banks got was an asset swop that the federal government would have been on the hook for anyway through CHMC if the borrowers had defaulted. Monthly mortgage payments that would have gone to the banks are now going to CHMC.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-01 3:59:47 PM
Heh, I'm a partisan hack...you are too funny Snowrunner.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 1-Dec-08 3:44:22 PM
Oh no worries, I know that the blinders are on extra tight since the end of last week. Must hurt badly to realize that your fearless leader just pissed it all away in his power grab.
Whatever makes you believe in puppy dogs and happy endings Hugh.
Maybe one day you can provide an objective analysis on what is going on on Parliament Hill, but your frantic postings on here over the last few days do not pass muster.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-01 5:29:46 PM
Never claimed to be objective, in fact I would argue that it is impossible to be objective. I have a bias towards certain principles. And though Harper has been a dissapointment, I find it reasonable to think that a Dion and Layton coaltion will be far worse.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-01 6:42:43 PM
I feel like we're living in a Banana Republic. Why add to the instability that is happening around us right now? Give the government that we chose, even if it is a minority, to table a budget and not take knee-jerk action right now.
Posted by: emily jubb | 2008-12-01 7:27:55 PM
So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-12-01 7:35:54 PM
Ha! Thanks Padma
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-01 9:35:17 PM
Come one SnowRunner, Harper is not the first PM to act in defiance of Parliament. Martin did the same thing and you know it. I hope that jackass take a vacation some day to Mumbai. That twit and asshole couldn't run a pencil sharpener.
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-12-02 12:15:23 AM
Never claimed to be objective, in fact I would argue that it is impossible to be objective. I have a bias towards certain principles. And though Harper has been a dissapointment, I find it reasonable to think that a Dion and Layton coaltion will be far worse.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 1-Dec-08 6:42:43 PM
How so? There will be at least a handful of core issues where they will have disagreements with and HAVE to come to something that they both can live with?
What is bringing Harper down is his inability to see the other side of an argument and the lack of willingness to cooperate.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 12:41:34 AM
Come one SnowRunner, Harper is not the first PM to act in defiance of Parliament. Martin did the same thing and you know it. I hope that jackass take a vacation some day to Mumbai. That twit and asshole couldn't run a pencil sharpener.
Posted by: Faramir | 2-Dec-08 12:15:23 AM
Martin or Harper? And how did it end for Martin again?
The point you're missing is that I couldn't give a lick about Harpers ideological leaning, I don't like the guy for the guy he is and the way he behaves.
I didn't like Martin either because I didn't appreciate his way of getting to power, just like Harper he is willing to go over dead bodies and in the end killed himself.... wait for it, just like Harper. Those two have more in common than you would like to admit.
Just for the record, I came to Canada in 2000 and I didn't like Cretchien either, only after he announced his retirement he seemed to be doing what he believe in, instead what he thought he could get away with.
Harper is not a leader, never was, what he is (or rather was) was a good tactician that knew how to read the opposition and ruthlessly played the game, that got him re-elected and only a month later it seems to have become his undoing.
I am curious to see who in the CPC is going to stick the knife in his back.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 12:45:30 AM
I'm not interested in the Liberal's ability to agree with the NDP. I'm interested in the policy that such agreement is likely to produce. They will be worse for economic freedom. Spending (or what they call investment), bailouts, and regulation. All, I expect, will be worse under this coalition
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-02 12:47:05 AM
I feel like we're living in a Banana Republic. Why add to the instability that is happening around us right now? Give the government that we chose, even if it is a minority, to table a budget and not take knee-jerk action right now.
Posted by: emily jubb | 1-Dec-08 7:27:55 PM
So you see a kid balancing on the ledge of your balcony. Do you sit back and wait until it falls, then call the ambulance, or try to pull it back in?
Harpers "Economic Outlook" was not even a "sit and wait" approach, it was activly attempting to push the kid off the ledge only to then call the ambulance afterwards.
Harper had all the options in his hand, he chose the partisan one, if you want someone at the helm, at this time in our history that puts his own hunger for power above the well being of the country, then go ahead and continue to support Harper and his acolytes. If you think there are more pressing matters then I would suggest to re-evaluate ALL the parties involved and judge them by their actions, not their names.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 12:48:37 AM
I'm not interested in the Liberal's ability to agree with the NDP. I'm interested in the policy that such agreement is likely to produce. They will be worse for economic freedom. Spending (or what they call investment), bailouts, and regulation. All, I expect, will be worse under this coalition
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 12:47:05 AM
Right, as if Harper wouldn't bailout his buddies, he did it already with the solid banks (as he called them) and he would do it with other industries as well.
The difference seems to be that the coalition seems to take a broader approach, if they invest into public infrastructure etc. I am all for it, those are things that will be around for generations to come, throwing money at companies of any kind is akin of throwing the money into a furnace.
The problem with you, Hugh, is that you don't even WAIT to hear what they are proposing you are opposing them alone on the fact that they are not "Conservative" (and yes, I put that in quotation, Harper is a NeoCon, not a Conservative).
Get a grip, Harper has shown no Leadership since he took over, he has shown he can bully people though like no other and now he got punched in the nose for it, and like the loving mother who cannot see anything wrong with her "beautiful boy" you come running onto the playground yelling at all the other kids who hit your precious little one.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 12:52:11 AM
Snowrunner that is a silly metaphore. But if you were to use that metaphore than the sort of policies being proposed by the Grippers would be like pushing the kid off the fence. Bailouts and government spending doesn't save the economy. The last fifty years of economic history proves that. All it does is drain capital and resources with no increae in productivity.
You want to save the economy? cut taxes and cut spending.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-02 12:56:28 AM
You didn't wait to see what Harper is proposing before you oppose it. The budget hasn't come yet. You have no idea what he would propose.
I am making assumptions on what the Grippers will do I admit. Those assumptions are based on what they have indicated and what was in their election platforms. If you are saying that they are lying about their principles. I would be very happy to hear that.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-02 12:59:41 AM
You want to save the economy? cut taxes and cut spending.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 12:56:28 AM
This isn't about saving anything. The economic model (or thinking of it) is faulted at the very basic level: There is no unlimited growth.
As such, we have to go through boom & bust cycles, we build up "wealth", and then it gets destroyed because there is only so much we can produce.
A Governments role is not to "save the economy", the role of ANY Government right now is to midigate the impact of the downward cycle and THAT means to make sure that the average person can keep a roof over their head and put food on the table.
A "Common Sense" fiscal policy right now in my book would be to:
- Invest in public infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail lines etc.)
- Invest in education (read, "free" university, research etc.)
- Invest in new technologies / busineeses (resarch grants etc.)
- Provide Seed capital for new and innovative companies and technologies.
ALL of this would midigate the fallout but the longer these investemens are deferred the harder the fall will be.
Additionally, the "we have a surplus, we're overtaxed" is a stupid argument. If you don't spend all your money at the end of the month you don't give it back to your employer either, if you're smart you pay down your debt and put it into a savings account. Why should the Government be any different?
Harper and his buddies have hurt Canada in the last two years quite a bit, first by cutting a consumption tax (GST) that has taken money away from the Government while at the same time increased spending.
If your idea is to only have a Government in name, then fine, go ahead, cut taxes and button down the hatches.
If you want a society that provides opportunities for everybody, safety and the chance of prosperity for all you may want to rethink your priorities.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 1:03:14 AM
You didn't wait to see what Harper is proposing before you oppose it. The budget hasn't come yet. You have no idea what he would propose.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 12:59:41 AM
I oppose Harper on two fronts:
1. He had two+ years to show leadership, he has shown none.
2. His behaviour during the election. He was ADAMANT about the fact that Canada is in perfect health, nothing bad could be happing, not here, not in Canada, not while he was PM.
The first one is pretty self explainatory, the second just reinforces the point. I do not want someone to lead the country who seems to be unable to open a newspaper and read a few articles in the business section, or if he does, realize what this means.
His Economic update was more of the usual, he was playing to his fanclub, quite frankly he could have farted the economic statement and the Western Standard and similar publications would have lauded the "audacity and power" of the update. For everybody else who understands what is actually really going on the update was not just a disappointment it was a fucking barrage of emergency rockets going up.
---------------------
I am making assumptions on what the Grippers will do I admit. Those assumptions are based on what they have indicated and what was in their election platforms. If you are saying that they are lying about their principles. I would be very happy to hear that.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 12:59:41 AM
I am saying neither of this, what I AM saying is that they can't do any worse. Harper has way more information at his disposal, supposely has access to the brightest minds in Canada (and abroad) and yet he acts as if he doesn't know what to do. HE was the one who was ADAMANT about the fact that nothing bad was happening in Canada, he was ADAMANT about the fact that he would not run a deficit, heck, the guy STILL claims there will be a balanced budget.
I am not quite sure what they are smoking / ingesting / drinking in the PMOs office, but man, that must be some really good stuff.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 1:08:45 AM
Nope, I'm sorry but that's not the role of government. That simply is not in government's powers. As I said before what you are proposing would not help in a recovery. It will only divert capital from the individuals that otherwise would have used it to create jobs.
"If you don't spend all your money at the end of the month you don't give it back to your employer either"
Another bad metaphore. The state is not my employee. If I had an employee that person would be working for me of their own will and I will give them money of my own will. I do not willingly give the state money. The state takes the money away from me with force. The moral and practical differences are very clear.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-02 1:10:59 AM
Nope, I'm sorry but that's not the role of government. That simply is not in government's powers. As I said before what you are proposing would not help in a recovery. It will only divert capital from the individuals that otherwise would have used it to create jobs.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 1:10:59 AM
Excuse me, but the Corporate taxes in Canada are already lower than in most other parts of the world, unless you count the "Free Trade Zones" in China et. al.
Maybe the Government should BRING money to the companies in order to "stimulate" the businsess? Oh, wait, that would be a subsidy.
---------------------------
"If you don't spend all your money at the end of the month you don't give it back to your employer either"
Another bad metaphore. The state is not my employee. If I had an employee that person would be working for me of their own will and I will give them money of my own will. I do not willingly give the state money. The state takes the money away from me with force. The moral and practical differences are very clear.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 1:10:59 AM
The State IS your employee. YOU pay them taxes to take care of certain aspects of your daily. YOUR taxes pay for public infrastructure, YOU "hire" the politicians after an interview process called "an Election Campaign", you then get to evaluate their performance and if they do not perform to your satisfaction you get to fire them.
You have it ass backwards, which isn't really unsually in these parts of the Internet. The Government IS you and YOU (and every other person who can cast a vote in Canada) owns a part of it.
This constant argument by the Liberitarians and NeoCons that the Government is the enemy of you and me is a bunch of Bullshit.
Try it, live a week without ANYTHING that was in one way or the other financed by tax money in your daily life. You'll have a hard time making your life even remotely as comfortable as it is now.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 8:23:43 AM
I didn't say that the state is the enemy. I agree that it is required for freedom to exist to any degree. I just gave you one of the MANY reasons why the relationship between an employer and empoloyee is not the same as between a citizen and the state. I am not the government, and neither are you. We have some say in selecting the government (a very small say) but that doesn't mean we are a part of it. That simply is not the way that Parliamentary democracy works. As for politicians, they are merely one apparatus of the state. Even if you buy into the concept that you hire them, which I don't, you can't claim that I hired any member of the civil service, or even the Governor General.
"Maybe the Government should BRING money to the companies in order to "stimulate" the businsess? Oh, wait, that would be a subsidy"
Good grief what don't you understand about this. The government does not produce capital it can only take it from one person and give it to another. So when you say 'bring' you don't really meen adding anything to the economy. You are talking about taking capital away from effecient sectors to ineffecient sectors. How is that in any way a good policy?
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-02 9:47:26 AM
I didn't say that the state is the enemy. I agree that it is required for freedom to exist to any degree. I just gave you one of the MANY reasons why the relationship between an employer and empoloyee is not the same as between a citizen and the state.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 9:47:26 AM
You gave me no example, you told me it's not the same.
----------
I am not the government, and neither are you.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 9:47:26 AM
No, you (I am not a citizen) ELECT the Government that is representing you, or more realistically you elect an MP that is representing you and if lucky gets to be part of the ruling Government.
-------------------
We have some say in selecting the government (a very small say) but that doesn't mean we are a part of it. That simply is not the way that Parliamentary democracy works.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 9:47:26 AM
Where the heck did I claim we are part of the Government? We HIRE the Govenrment to work for US, they are our employees, CITIZENS form the State, not some faceless Bureaucracy.
--------------
As for politicians, they are merely one apparatus of the state. Even if you buy into the concept that you hire them, which I don't, you can't claim that I hired any member of the civil service, or even the Governor General.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 9:47:26 AM
Oh boy, there are several levels to the whole thing:
1. The Government (that includes the elected officials and the Civil Servants)
2. The Citizens (that should be self explaining)
3. The "State" which would be 1 + 2.
1 works for 2, 2 needs to keep 1 in check and make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
------------
Good grief what don't you understand about this. The government does not produce capital it can only take it from one person and give it to another. So when you say 'bring' you don't really meen adding anything to the economy. You are talking about taking capital away from effecient sectors to ineffecient sectors. How is that in any way a good policy?
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2-Dec-08 9:47:26 AM
What don't YOU get? I am not in favour of blanket subsidies, I do believe thought that the Government has to make sure some kind of balance exists wtihin society, otherwise an imbalance leads to a lot of "heartbreak".
Lowering taxes is NOT an answer, throwing money around wildy isn't either.
You want to know what's going on right now? Read this series:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/personal-story-by-a-lawyer-from-a-previous-asset-bubble-can-we-learn-from-the-past-and-how-will-the-housing-decline-impact-you/
It's "US centric" but up here in the North it isn't much different, we're just two years behind.
Happy reading.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-02 9:27:56 PM
"The Government IS you and YOU (and every other person who can cast a vote in Canada) owns a part of it."
That is the answer to "Where the heck did I claim we are part of the Government?"
Basically you're problem is that you misunderstand the fundemental nature of teh state. I suggest you read Thomas Hobbes and get back to me.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-12-02 9:34:47 PM
Snowrunner,
I think you're correct that sometimes the rhetoric of "government = enemy" you hear from certain libertarians is a bit much.
I prefer Washington's take:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Government is dangerous. Governments kill people. That alone is enough of a reason to want to limit its ability to do so, and to defend those limits against encroachment by ambitious politicians.
But your assertion that "you are the government" doesn't help much, either. I'm not the government. The government will throw me in jail and impoverish me for doing something as harmless as smoking a joint. That's not something I'm doing to myself; rather, it's something that's being done to me by others.
Blurring that line is itself dangerous.
You can say, "Well, you hired them!" But I didn't, not really. If I were looking to hire someone to run my life, and all the prospective applicants wanted to throw me in a cage for smoking a joint, I wouldn't hire any of them. If it came down to it, I'd do the job myself: but that isn't an option.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-12-02 9:49:49 PM
Basically you're problem is that you misunderstand the fundemental nature of teh state. I suggest you read Thomas Hobbes and get back to me.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2-Dec-08 9:34:47 PM
I have read Hobbes, but he wrote his piece when the idea of Democracy was still a new one and he wrote it, like Rand, from a point of view where democracy doesn't / hasn't existed.
Although his thoughts are still valid they are not necessarily applicable anymore.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-03 12:24:44 AM
But your assertion that "you are the government" doesn't help much, either. I'm not the government. The government will throw me in jail and impoverish me for doing something as harmless as smoking a joint. That's not something I'm doing to myself; rather, it's something that's being done to me by others.
Blurring that line is itself dangerous.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2-Dec-08 9:49:49 PM
I am not blurring the line. I am not saying "We are the State" is an excuse for sitting on your butt and reaping the fruits of "Democracy".
In fact my MAIN gripe is that many people are happy with sitting on their asses and saying: "Hey, what's the problem? We're living in a Democracy, Churchill himself thought it was the best way to live things, now leave me alone, I have to watch Canadian Idol."
Democracy takes WORK, it needs the will to activly participate, a State / Nation / Government isn't something that just "happens" in a good way, it requires the citizen to get engaged and involved.
-----------
You can say, "Well, you hired them!" But I didn't, not really. If I were looking to hire someone to run my life, and all the prospective applicants wanted to throw me in a cage for smoking a joint, I wouldn't hire any of them. If it came down to it, I'd do the job myself: but that isn't an option.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2-Dec-08 9:49:49 PM
Here's the thing.
When I first came to Canada I looked at the riding system and though: 'Well, that's dumb... Why not have proportional representation, that would be way better."
Then I read up on it, looked at Canada and realized that when the riding system was divised it was actually quite smart. It allows you to directly control the people that represent you instead of having this a level removed as it is in proportional reprsentation.
Unfortunately I THEN realized that most people don't give a fuck about who they elect as long as that person is flying the "right" colours.
Reality today in Canada is this: Canada's system is fucked. Not because the opposition parties got together and agreed on forming a Government, if anything that's a GOOD thing, but because the average Canadian has been brainwashed (thanks to the US media and their reporting on politics?) to vote for a party instead of the person in their riding.
If Canada is to have a future some serious re-thinking has to happen, first and foremost I am more than interested to see whoever takes over next to put aside money for a decent civics education so that individuals understand how the electoral process works.
If that is not an option than move to a proportional representation, this way more voices will be in the HoC and hopefully it will make a difference.
But in all honesty, until Canadians get off their asses and realize that they need to actualy participate in their Government (and no, that does not mean going to the ballots every time someone calls an election, but rather a continously understanding on the big issues that the nation faces) nothing will change.
As it stands right now the Democratic process in Canada is broken. Not because of the Coaltion that is being formed (if anything that's a sign of hope) but because the average Canadian likes the idea of living in a Democracy better than actualy living in one.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-12-03 12:34:03 AM
Read it again. Hobbes very clearly allowed for the possibility of democracy. In fact a large portion of the book is how to give the state moral legitimacy. In his time they used religion. Now we use elections. It amounts to the same thing.
The state may derive it's legitimacy from democratic principles. But that doesn't mean we truly control the state as a people.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2008-12-03 1:35:31 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.