Two Things

First, take a look at the picture attached to this article. It portrays Bob Rae as he is, a constipated member of the ruling class. I have never seen such an accurate portrait. Way to go Bob, you have finally made it.

Second, "bi-partisanship" in Canada, just as it does in the U.S., means "giving in to the military industrial complex". This kind of cooperation is approved of and encouraged by the corporate press. "Coalitions", on the other hand, are interpreted as somehow against elite consensus (or at least out of their control) and are therefore discouraged and vilified by the corporate press. So note the use of bi-partisanship in the case of the blue Liberal establishment's backroom deal with the Harperites on Afghanistan. Our owners are pleased with this outcome, praise God.

Recommend this Post

Journalmalism

Headline in the Vancouver Sun: Canadians frown upon Liberal-NDP coalition. First line of this story: Canadians have given a thumbs-down to the notion of a merger between the Liberals and NDP, a poll suggests. Do you see the difference? Of course you can, you are neither a retarded three year old nor a journalist working for one of Canada's news outlets. Merger and coalition are two different concepts, but the MSM insists on using them interchangeably. They know that if they do not, they cannot confuse people and make them angry and making and keeping them angry seems to be our media's main job. No wonder Harper was able to manipulate the coalition debate so easily in 2008. Our press corp is corrupt in its soul.

Recommend this Post

Teh Stupid. It Burns

Christ, the intellectual dishonesty in this statement, by MP Jim Abbott is breathtaking:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal leader admitted that he would form a coalition government. Last time the Liberal strategy was hidden, but now we know the Liberals will ignore the wishes of Canadians and join forces with the NDP and Bloc Québécois to ignore an election result.

Canadians remember his statement the last time the Liberals tried to form a coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP when the leader said, “I am prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government”.

However, the Liberal leader's plan is not acceptable. If Canadians reject his party, he cannot ignore the election result and install a coalition rejected by the voters. It is not acceptable to give the NDP co-management of the economy. It is not acceptable to share power with a political party committed to the breakup of our country.

Regrettably the coalition plan is more proof that the Liberal leader is not in it for Canadians. He is just in it for himself.

I am not sure what is worse, the fact that this is nonsense spouted by someone who clearly knows it is nonsense, but is saying it anyway; or the fact that it is nonsense by someone who is saying it anyway so as to whip up hysteria among people who either don't know or care it is nonsense. Seriously, how to you fight an opponent who doesn't care if you call him a liar, because his target audience will take your charge as "proof" that he is telling the truth? Conservatives have taken post-modernism to the furthest edges and are threatening to push us all into the abyss.

Recommend this Post

Coalition Panic

Seems to be everywhere. Scott Reid is afraid it means "merger", which is understandable, since the media use the two terms interchangeably. I think he should stop worrying. Merger is not in the cards. It just won't happen. However, working together to form a government after an election is something that just might happen and it might as well be discussed openly.

Recommend this Post

Oh, That's Why

Stephen Harper tells the world why he would never be involved in a coalition: "Losers don't get to form coalitions." And here I thought it was because he was a sociopathic asshole. You learn something new every day.

Update: As someone else has pointed out, it is a good thing Harper did not condemn Coalitions of Losers the other day when his buddy Netanyahu was in town. Bad manners and all that.

Recommend this Post

Liberals Suicidal Or Colluding With Conservatives

Warren does not provide a link, so I am not sure where this is coming from. But, if it is from Liberal HQ, I would say it either means the Liberals are delusional about their chances to form a majority government, or the faction in charge of the party likes things as they are, with the Conservatives in charge (my preferred theory). Such a strategy confirms my suspicions that the blue Liberals have a defacto coalition with the Conservatives, but want to pretend otherwise so as to protect their own positions with their party and ward off civil war with the reds.

Recommend this Post

On Coalitions

Jeff Jedras has an interesting post about coalitions today. For what it is worth, I think the Liberals would be wise to float the possibility of creating a "grand coalition" with the Conservatives, or vice versa, if the Liberals get more seats in the next election. It would dampen the Conservative attacks and it is a much more plausible scenario, given who is running the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. Such a strategy would show that somebody in the Liberal Party is actually thinking about things, as they are, rather than wishing their lives away, praying for the return of the good old days. It would also show that the Liberals are putting country before party and who knows, it might prove to boost the party's popularity.

Recommend this Post

No, But

Brian Topp from his concluding essay about the coalition:

Canada does not have to have a fundamentally illegitimate, hyper-centralized, artificial “majority” government elected through the quirks of our antiquated electoral system, against the wishes of the real majority of our citizens. We are not eternally condemned to elected dictatorship or to Napoleonic politics.

Nor does Canada have to be governed by isolated minority administrations, surviving through inaction or Parliamentary blackmail and brinksmanship.

This is true. We don't have to have these things. But, as long as the elites of this country see their interests best served by this dysfunctional system, and as long as the population at large can be cowed into submission by fear politics and tribalism, this is what we will have. Canada, as a country, would benefit from time in counseling. It is a sick place. Sick at its very core.

Recommend this Post

Of Coalitions II

I stand by yesterday's posting that Harper and Iggy acted in a way that was proper for a coalition. But something about this arrangement still bothers me. I think it is destructive of our democracy to have an official opposition that isn't. Having an official opposition that acts as an opposition party only up until a vote of confidence, at which time it switches to support the government, breeds cynicism among the voters. How can a party say one day that the government is full of crooks and incompetents and then the next casts its votes with the same government? It just looks really, really bad. It makes it look like the official opposition is play acting and does not oppose at all. And that is not a good thing. It is not how our system is set up.

If the people running the Liberal party cannot work with the other opposition parties because they find they are ideologically closer to the Conservatives, then they should enter into a formal coalition with the government. That way, the opposition will really oppose, we will not be going to the polls every 12 months, and (this is important), Liberals would have more influence sitting around the cabinet table, than they do being caught in an endless "we oppose -- we back away", cycle. Entering a formal coalition would also enjoy the benefit of being intellectually honest and who knows, such a coalition might restore Canadians' faith in their politicians.

Recommend this Post