Tuesday, April 3, 2012

The New Politics of the NDP

... is looking a lot like the old politics of the Conservatives:
..the New Democrats have still not let the Liberals respond to last week’s budget in the House of Commons and are going against tradition to use all of the response time themselves. When asked about the strategy after Question Period, Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair said the NDP plans to use every opportunity the parliamentary rule book presented to demonstrate what is wrong with the budget. 
That's the NDP, or at least the Thomas Mulcair, way - sticking it to the third party (which they recently were) because they can, and they need something to feed Mulcair's bloated ego.

Honestly, if this is what Canadians can expect from Mulcair and co. then they don't they just stick with Harper? You get the same bullying tactics but with a new colour scheme behind it.
“These are things that have to be pointed out,” [Mulcair] added. “Their economic management has been abysmal and we’re going to take all the time that we need and use all of the parliamentary tools at our disposal to make sure that we do our jobs as Canadians have elected us to do.” 
Apparently Canadians didn't elect the Liberals to do anything, according to Mulcair. Hence why the allotted time should be all his!

Granted, this is politics and any upper hand you can get, you usually take. Though no other party has apparently done this before. But hey, when these jokers are back as the third or fourth party, we'll remember this.

15 comments:

  1. Wonderful way to attract Liberal voters

    ReplyDelete
  2. I condemn these types of strategies regardless of who practices them. Unfortunately, this is what I have come to expect in the atmosphere of poisoned politics that both Harper and the previous Liberal governments have fostered. Another irony here is that the types of economic strategies that the Harpercons are pursing were introduced to this country by Paul Martin. Putting partisanship aside, expect these types of parliamentary approaches from the Liberal Party if they ever reemerge as a force in the House, and expect Liberals to be quiet about them once such strategies benefit them. It is not the NDP (or even the Conservatives) who are the problem here, it is the partisanship that everyone seems willing to adopt, and there is no leader on the horizon that seems interested in addressing this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not the NDP (or even the Conservatives) who are the problem here, it is the partisanship that everyone seems willing to adopt, and there is no leader on the horizon that seems interested in addressing this.

      Partisanship isn't a force that possesses people. It's something they decide to engage in. So yeah, I do think people are to blame when they engage in it. Leaders could tell people to stop, but you don't have to create rules for things people don't do. For example, thankfully leaders don't have to tell their MPs not to spit on the floor when they're in the House of Commons. Seriously, they're adults, if they don't think this is right, they should take responsibility for their own behavior.

      As for this being repeated when other parties become the official opposition. It didn't happen in the recent past under the Liberals. Here's 2010. Here's 2011.

      And I'm not sure what the point of doing this is? You piss off the other opposition parties. The media ignored you. The government is absolutely indifferent for good reason.

      Delete
  3. "Putting partisanship aside, expect these types of parliamentary approaches from the Liberal Party if they ever reemerge as a force in the House, and expect Liberals to be quiet about them once such strategies benefit them."

    Come on KC, indicting Liberals for something they haven't done but you assure us they will do, and prefacing this with phrase "putting partisanship aside" is a bit much, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wouldn't condone the same actions if we did it whenever we're back on top - but karma's a bitch, you know?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Come on PDO" do you really need a list of the parliamentary shenanigans to which the Liberals have been prone in the past????? It would be a pretty long list. The point I am making is that the past governments have poisoned the process and if you suddenly expect the LPC to change that you are guilty of the most naive kind of partisanship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KC. Pot-kettle-black. That's all.

      But really, what's the point of doing something like this? I'd support the NDP, if I could figure out what this is suppose to accomplish -- other than piss off the other opposition parties. As far as I can tell, the government's going to shrug this off and vote for their crappy budget in the end. What's the end game in all of this?

      Delete
    2. Except in the passage quoted you weren't talking about the past, you were talking about the future. Furthermore, the Liberals did not employ this particular tactic between 2006 and 2011.

      You can try and blame current and past governments for poisoning the process to such an extent that even your beloved NDP has fallen victim to it, if that helps you sleep easier, or you can face up to the reality that the NDP is wilfully transforming into a rather distasteful shadow of its former self.

      Delete
  6. kirbycairo how about backing up your bull with facts. Most of us DO know political history so stop trying to pull this bull that Liberals did it. A favourite CON smear.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kitt, I am as far from a CON as anyone can get and do you really need a list?? Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish. The shenanigans of Liberal governments is well known and they were once the masters of manipulating the operations of the House of Commons. Don Boudria understood the mechanisms of the House perhaps better than anyone and he was very good at manipulating it in favor of the LIberals. Really kitt, call me all the names you like if it helps to bolster your partisan fantasy, but if you know your political history as you say then you wouldn't deny the very simple facts.

    Sharonapple88 - pot-kettle-black indeed. It is remarkable how quickly people attempt to rewrite history. But as I said, I sort of expected this from the NDP, particularly if Mulcair won. I was hoping for a leader with a new style like Cullen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish

      That's the usual list of Liberal crimes. It's sort of a knee-jerk response. Let's talk about the Red Book.

      How many people have read the Red Book? It's not avaiable on-line except for a few pages as a pdf. Anyway, interesting summary on it by Stephen Clarkson. Some of the promises were to limit the deficit to 3% of GNP (and to stop via a 0% inflation policy); scrap the helicopter purchase; stricter gun control; rejigger the GST; day-care dependent on 3% growth in the economy.... Some of the promises appear to be more cautious than some critics would like to believe.

      Here's what on economist had to say about his experience with The Red Book.

      "The critics claim that the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and tear up the NAFTA, whereas the Liberals (other than Sheila Copps who, honouring what she mistakenly thought was the promise, resigned to run in a by-election over the issue) hold up their efforts to achieve a harmonized sales tax and the NAFTA side agreements they reached on labour and environmental standards. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And, as an economist, there is little I add to this partisan debate, other than to say that it has occurred with much more information thanks to the Red Book."

      The last part is interesting. Parties put out a platform, and when in government, they end up having to make choices. And in the end the public is to judge the government on the choices it makes. The Red Book helps make something like this possible. It's fascinating that almost 20 years after its creation that it can still stir up discussion.

      Delete
    2. Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish.

      That's the usual list of Liberal crimes. I want to go into detail about one -- the Red Book.

      I don't believe there's a copy of the Red Book on-line. I've just seen two pages as a pdf. Has anyone ever read it? According to Stephen Clarkson, here are some of the promises it made: targeting a deficit of 3% of GNP; stop trying to control the deficit via a zero-inflation policy; scraping the purchase of helicopters; rejigger the GST; job training; gun control; address ozone depletion; national parks to be expanded; a national day-care program conditional with 3% economic growth (ah, the caveat emptor). It's more cautious than its critics want to believe.

      Anyway, here's on economist's experiences on the Red Book. It's a fascinating read, but focusing on this quote:

      "The critics claim that the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and tear up the NAFTA, whereas the Liberals (other than Sheila Copps who, honouring what she mistakenly thought was the promise, resigned to run in a by-election over the issue) hold up their efforts to achieve a harmonized sales tax and the NAFTA side agreements they reached on labour and environmental standards. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And, as an economist, there is little I add to this partisan debate, other than to say that it has occurred with much more information thanks to the Red Book."

      Parties make platforms. When they're in government they make choices. In the end the public has the judge them on the choices that they make. The fact that we can have a discussion/debate on the Red Book around 20 years after it was written shows the power it has on the political scene.

      Delete
    3. Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish.

      That's the usual list of Liberal crimes. Let's take a closer look at the Red Book.

      Has anyone read it? It's not on-line, although there are a few pages up there as a pdf. According to Stephen Clarkson there were promises to scrap the purchase of military helicopters; reduce the deficit to 3% of GNP, the zero percent inflation targets set by PCers wasn't working; more gun control; job training; a national day-care program on the condition of 3% absolute growth in the economy; rejiggering the GST. It's more cautious than the critics would make it seem (or so it appears).

      Here are the experiences of an economist who worked on it.

      "The critics claim that the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and tear up the NAFTA, whereas the Liberals (other than Sheila Copps who, honouring what she mistakenly thought was the promise, resigned to run in a by-election over the issue) hold up their efforts to achieve a harmonized sales tax and the NAFTA side agreements they reached on labour and environmental standards. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And, as an economist, there is little I add to this partisan debate, other than to say that it has occurred with much more information thanks to the Red Book. "

      The last part's interesting. Parties present platforms. Then they get into government and have to make choices at times. The public in the end has to judge the government on the choices it makes. (Sort of fascinating that practically 20 years after it was released, that we can still have a debate on it.)

      Delete
    4. Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish.

      That's the usual list of Liberal crimes. Let's take a closer look at the Red Book.

      Has anyone read it? It's not on-line, although there are a few pages up there as a pdf. According to Stephen Clarkson there were promises to scrap the purchase of military helicopters; reduce the deficit to 3% of GNP, the zero percent inflation targets set by PCers wasn't working; more gun control; job training; a national day-care program on the condition of 3% absolute growth in the economy; rejiggering the GST. It's more cautious than the critics would make it seem (or so it appears).

      Here are the experiences of an economist who worked on it.

      "The critics claim that the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and tear up the NAFTA, whereas the Liberals (other than Sheila Copps who, honouring what she mistakenly thought was the promise, resigned to run in a by-election over the issue) hold up their efforts to achieve a harmonized sales tax and the NAFTA side agreements they reached on labour and environmental standards. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And, as an economist, there is little I add to this partisan debate, other than to say that it has occurred with much more information thanks to the Red Book. "

      The last part's interesting. Parties present platforms. Then they get into government and have to make choices at times. The public in the end has to judge the government on the choices it makes. (Sort of fascinating that practically 20 years after it was released, that we can still have a debate on it.)

      Delete
  8. Like APEC, Shawinigate, Sponsorship, the GST lie, the entire Red Book fraud, the list is endless. and to suggest that it is "bull" is vulgar and childish.

    That's the usual list of Liberal crimes. Let's take a closer look at the Red Book.

    Has anyone read it? It's not on-line, although there are a few pages up there as a pdf. According to Stephen Clarkson there were promises to scrap the purchase of military helicopters; reduce the deficit to 3% of GNP, the zero percent inflation targets set by PCers wasn't working; more gun control; job training; a national day-care program on the condition of 3% absolute growth in the economy; rejiggering the GST. It's more cautious than the critics would make it seem (or so it appears).

    Here are the experiences of an economist who worked on it.

    "The critics claim that the Liberals promised to scrap the GST and tear up the NAFTA, whereas the Liberals (other than Sheila Copps who, honouring what she mistakenly thought was the promise, resigned to run in a by-election over the issue) hold up their efforts to achieve a harmonized sales tax and the NAFTA side agreements they reached on labour and environmental standards. Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And, as an economist, there is little I add to this partisan debate, other than to say that it has occurred with much more information thanks to the Red Book. "

    The last part's interesting. Parties present platforms. Then they get into government and have to make choices at times. The public in the end has to judge the government on the choices it makes. (Sort of fascinating that practically 20 years after it was released, that we can still have a debate on it.)

    ReplyDelete