Thursday, February 03, 2011

NDP Sends Budget Signals

They'll support the Tory budget, festooned as it is with imprudent corporate tax cuts, for a 4 month (120 day) agreement to "work" on improving CPP. So a committee will be struck, witnesses heard, and a report written. At the end of the day, all the NDP members of the committee will be given a free bowl of soup.

Steve V has a similar take.

22 comments:

Tom said...

If the NDP vote to support the budget, the liberal members will all be able to vote against while not forcing an election. No doubt this will make them feel more principled than when they would only allow five members to vote against to avoid an election.
Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

The Jurist said...

Some people might note that "consider supporting" and "absolutely, without question, support" are two different concepts entirely.

Some people aren't out for dishonest means of tarring the NDP with a brush that's long since coated the Libs with shame.

Food for thought.

Robert McClelland said...

Stop me if you've heard this one. The NDP keeps saying the same thing for years. Libfloggers find new meaning each and every time.

Steve V has a similar take.

Steve V lives in his own little reality.

I do have a scoop for you BCL. I heard that the NDP will support the Conservative budget in exchange for introducing a referendum on proportional representation. Wait, didn't I already sucker you with that one before.

Terence said...

Jack the ripper has seen the tea leaves and knows he will get slaughtered in an election this spring.

He continues to be an arrogant jerk. He detests the Hasrper government but sells his body like and old whore to survive and continue his fantasy and wet dream of thinking he canbecome the official opposition.

kirbycairo said...

I find it simply amazing that in the lead up to these kind of things, Liberals spend a great deal of time trying to paint an ugly picture of the NDP. And this before we even know what the budget looks like. And after all the pomp and circumstance on the part of Liberals bloggers it turns out not to happen and you hear no retractions on their part. The NDP will not support the next budget unless there is some game-changing provision in it. And if they did then, by all means give them the criticism that they will deserve. But of course, given the history of these events in the past five years, we can safely say that there is a 100 times greater chance that the Liberals will support the Conservatives than the NDP. Just go back and look at the votes guys.

Fat Arse said...

@ Tom, the issue is whether or not the NDP has principles - forget about how this translates for the rest of the opposition. the issue here is "Does Jack Layton's caucus have principles?"

@ Jurist, you may be correct - but the proof will be in the pudding. Tacit approval by the NDP of corp tax cuts will effectively weaken the power of the state to address, ameliorate, and fix our social disconnect.

@Terrence- bang on analysis!

CanadianSense said...

Did they reuse "Blue Ribbon" Panel?

I am curious in the logic by Liberals who have spent 2010 lifting several NDP policies attacking them for trying to cooperate on a policy they may end lifting.

When Pearson and PET had their minorities they both relied on the NDP to play nice.

It is strange how Liberals attack their natural allies.

kirbycairo said...

Canadian Sense - in the past few years surely the LPC is has been closer to the CP in most ways than it has to the NDP.

Tof KW said...

Robert McClelland said... "Steve V lives in his own little reality."

Yes Robert, just as you live in your own little world with that pretty orange-coloured sky.

I already made a very lengthy response to this typical NDP self-righteousness over at Steve's blog.

CanadianSense said...

Under Dion-Ignatieff leadership the Liberals have been great assets to both the NDP and CPC growth.

In 2004 to avoid a loss of power Martin did align with Jack Layton. To his credit Jack took credit and voted along with the CPC and Separatists when the polls were favourable.

The CPC have benefited from working with the Democrats, Liberals and Separatists.

I don't see a problem with the incumbent getting cooperation on a policy.

Ekos did a poll Feb 2010 and found roughly 30% of Liberals have NDP as second choice.
It would be a mistake to use a paintbrush and suggest the merger of the Liberals and NDP would be 1+1=2.

We saw the same loss, defections with PC+CA.

My point in since 2010 Ignatieff has been very active in lifting NDP policies.

wilson said...

NDP will support the Tory budget if
''a 4 month (120 day) agreement to "work" on improving CPP''

Done.
Dec 20, 2010
Next demand Jack?

"...Flaherty said the ministers agreed to continue reviewing potential changes to CPP and would discuss various options and concerns at their meeting in June."

CPP changes need the Provinces to agree. Got that back up from the provinces Jack?

'..Before the meeting, Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Bachand said he agreed that now is not the time to expand CPP and hike premiums.
But he said eventually such a move will be necessary.

"You make these decisions once a generation. You can take another nine months to study it closely," said Bachand.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20101220/flaherty-pension-plan-101220/

Terence said...

I see Canadian nonsense is back with more mistruths and Tory lies.
The party that lifts more policies is the reformatort bunch. The only original ones they have are the stupid ones like wasting billions on war planes and prisons.
As usual you come across as the nutbar everyone knows you to be.

CanadianSense said...

Terence,

Nice script but 46% of Liberal voters want your leader gone before an election.

I don't have to resort to name calling to point out Liberals fell behind 30% in fundraising in 2010.

The NDP has acted once in 2009 to avoid an election. They may decide again it is worthwhile to avoid another.

It would be easy to point out that 30% (Ekos Poll) from each opposition party want the CPC to reach their full term and not have an election until 2012.

The $ 9 billion for F35: See Colin Kenney and Romeo Dallaire

The $ 3.5 billion for over crowding in the prisons and the ending of 2 for 1 for violent offenders?

Terence said...

Canadian nonsense...I am not the only one who calls you names...ones you deserve by the way. You use lies and in nuendo and flood the blogosphere with your garbage. That's not debate, its propoganda, whic is typically tory. Lies ,half truths, libelous attack ads,etc.

On topic...you refuse to understand history. in 2005 the reformatories were running around looking to replace Harper. In 1993 the Libs were doing the same thing over Chretien.
Tell the whole story and not your wet dream stuff.

Tof KW said...

I see CS is doing her usual meandering, off-topic trolling expeditions again.

Have fun with your new socialist coalition buddies CS. Even wilson is honest enough to call Layton on his bullshit.

kirbycairo said...

Common Sense - While it is clear to anyone who is honest, Ignatieff has not particularly resonated with voters, if you were being honest you would admit that neither has Harper. While they increased their seats the CP received fewer vote in their second minority than they did in their first. There is at least 60 to nearly 70% of Canadian voters that clearly voted against Harper. That is just the way it is. At the present moment in history, neither major party is jiving with the people to the extent that they could receive a meaningful electoral victory.

Furthermore, if conservatives were honest they would admit that they would oppose much of what Harper has done if it were another party doing it. And in midst of a recession these huge spending efforts on prisons and airplane would be called 'deeply irresponsible' by 90% of Conservatives if it were a Liberal Government doing the same things. It is this hypocrisy that is killing the Canadian political system.

By the Way - the Harper regime has never framed the money for new prisons as an effort to eleviate overcrowding, and it is dishonest to do so. The Harper regime clearly wants to increase the prison population in an era when crime is significantly on the decline, and they want to do so for purely political reasons.

The partisan dishonesty is ridiculous.

CanadianSense said...

KC,
You don't vote against someone. Your only get one vote and our FPTP system does not allow a run off or PR system.

Your faulty math-logic means 74% against Lib,82% against the NDP in 2008.

I am not responsible for not parroting the CPC, MSM or opposition war room rhetoric.

KC, I suggest your read the actual reports and presentations from the experts. (Estimate 1,000 free beds exist.) Some are already over crowded with double bunking depending up geography.
When was the last time the Penal system had investments in repairing and providing extra capacity?

Kevin Page analysis suggests 4,000 new prisoners and $13 billion with changes in law and order agenda.

( I don't agree with KP numbers btw)


The platform of the CPC has been clear, criminals will spend more time in the system. Early parole and subsidies for parole application is no longer acceptable.

The political class in left are free to champion the rights of criminals.

I am impressed with your disparaging criticism of a lack of "honesty" when someone disagrees with your ideology or political talking points.

Cheers KC

kirbycairo said...

CS, again you are just so hopelessly partisan that you can see the woods for the trees. Everyone, even insider Torys know that crime is on the decline and that efforts to build more prisons is a simple ideological exercise and I have heard a number of insiders admit as much.

Your Math/Logic comment was so garbled that it was meaningless. The point that you ignored was clear - neither leader or party is resonating with people, just be honest about it.

And clearly many people do vote 'against' people, they do it all the time. You have a one-dimensional view of power.

And either you are a very poor reader or just continuing the blind partisan - but I don't accuse anyone who doesn't disagree with me of dishonesty. Again, you didn't address the real issue - people who presently support the government are consistently supporting programs and policies that they would vehemently criticise if another party were instituting them.

I am, however, glad to criticise any party that does the wrong thing. And I have done it over and over even for parties that are closer to my sympathies. But it seems to me that you are a perfect example of the partisanship that is so damaging to real political discourse.

And of course you don't agree with Kevin Page because you simply parrot anything the Harper Regime says and everyone on the Internet knows it, and so do you.

CanadianSense said...

KC,

I can be against a specific CPC policy like the auto bailout. I can be against the COP15 agreement they signed on to.
A regular criticism is Conservative voters can't disagree with decision of the Federal government. (Conbots)
The 62% fungible coalition vote is not real. Polls and results confirm when parties merge they don't keep all their support.
Harper and Layton are the most popular. Duceppe beats Ignatieff (latest poll).

KC,

You again insert a blanket statement/insult when I said I disagreed with his analysis on the costs for prisons, law and order agenda.

I did not say I disagree with EVERYTHING from the office of the PBO.I found his G8-G20 report credible.

Do you think it is reasonable to state my positions on subject matter you clearly don't understand?

I did not make a blanket statement on your views but you repeatedly assume you can against Conservatives based on their "partisan" views.

It sounds like you have already made up your mind regardless of what I have posted including examples that "refudiate" your point.

Yes I used a made up Sara Palin word for effect.

bigcitylib said...

CS will now not post comments until 11 pm EST. Any comments posted by CS between now and then, even if sensible, will be deleted.

Niles said...

Doesn't bother me if the NDP can wring actually positive concessions out of the Cons. Doesn't bother me if the Liberals can wring concessions out of the Cons.

IF

If I were the NDP (and my family worked on many an election campaign in Saskatchewan) I'd get the Cons on video with back up tape over a contract that would make a threewish djinn cry.

That's the basic problem. Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Green, whoever. It doesn't matter what you get the Cons to theoretically agree to do, they proceed to stall/lie/obfuscate/stall/look for loopholes/accuse/get rid of Parliament for a few months/etcetcetc. The Opposition did a LEGAL thing in demanding papers be produced months ago. So...where are we on that again?

The Cons think 'in good faith' is supporting theocratic evangelical stances.

I'm not going to waste energy on mocking the NDP for trying. They're not the problem. Every party has done its part to keep the Cons in power at one point or another in the past five years. Including the one called 'Apathetic Canadian Voter'

Maria said...

Surrender in tax cutting,since the tax are increase try to buy Zoot Suits that give discount and free shipping.