Liberals support government on the budget, despite critics

The Liberals, through their leader Michael Ignatieff, have informed Parliament yesterday that they will support the Conservative budget, minus an amendment requiring that the government present updates to the House regarding their budget promises to verify funding actually goes out the door.

The Conservatives have told the House, through the Government House Leader Jay Hill, that they feel this amendment is acceptable, and in fact is an accountability measure that similar the ones they would have taken in either case.

"It does nothing that we don't normally do, which is report back to Parliament upon the progress that we intend to make in ad-dressing the economic situation that faces our nation," government House leader Jay Hill told reporters.

The Calgary Herald elaborates on that point:

“…In any case, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already promised regular updates: on Page 72 of the budget document, the government commits itself to providing "an initial report on progress this summer, and responsible ministers will provide an update to Parliament the first week following the summer recess. The government will reassess and, if necessary, reallocate funding in the 2009 Economic and Fiscal Update.”

The Conservatives are, so far, satisfied with the Liberal position. Jay Hill is quoted in Sun Media as being “very pleased” with their support. "We look forward to working co-operatively with them," Hill also said.

Ignatieff says that these reports to Parliament will hold the Conservatives “on probation” and on a “very tight leash,” vowing to defeat the government after the presentation of any of these reports, which will be considered confidence motions, if the Government’s response is deemed inadequate.

However, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe argued outside the Commons following Ignatieff’s press conference yesterday that the Liberals would likely avoid bringing the Conservatives down at these times, by saying that Canadians need an election “like a hole in the head,” in reference to an earlier statement by Ignatieff.

Many have criticized Ignatieff and the Liberals for not having had the guts to seek more in their amendment, for example the softening of the eligibility rules for those seeking Employment Insurance. NDP leader Jack Layton openly criticized Ignatieff, saying the coalition was now between Harper and Ignatieff. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe also said that the coalition, agreed upon in December, was formally dead. A humorous “obituary” is even featured in the Toronto Star.

The Star has officially rallied with Ignatieff’s position, in an editorial published today. Though their position was slightly nuanced, saying that the Liberals could have tried pushing for more substantial changes to the budget, their choice was the best to hold off rushing to power by defeating the Conservatives on this budget.

“Yes, the budget fell short of the accord's demands in other areas, including the easing of eligibility requirements for employment insurance (EI) and an early learning and child care program. So it was less than perfect. It was, instead, a compromise – the basis on which minority parliaments are supposed to work.

“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is right, therefore, not to rush to the barricades with the other two opposition parties to defeat this budget and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government with it. That would mean either putting the coalition in office (which, unfortunately, many parts of the country would see as illegitimate) or forcing yet another election (which would be the fourth in five years).”

Yet, the Star also featured conflicting views on the subject with one article saying that Ignatieff and the Liberals had missed a chance to help the country. Thomas Walkom writes:

…He has missed a chance to force Stephen Harper's government to markedly improve Tuesday's budget – to plug gaping holes in its approach to recession and
eliminate small, but loathsome ideological leftovers slipped into its back pages.

[…]

Instead, the Liberals could have insisted on substantive conditions. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has signalled that he's open to reasonable amendments. His only proviso is that they not contradict the budget's overall thrust.

[…]

Having listed the budget's flaws, he said his party would support it anyway.

"We are in the opposition," he explained. "We are not the government. It is the responsibility of the government to govern."

[…]

Had Ignatieff's Liberals cared enough, they almost certainly could have forced the government to back down here. But clearly they did not.

Instead, they took what, in more normal times, would be the standard opposition approach: Don't take responsibility; avoid being identified with policies that might not work; focus on the next election.

What Ignatieff forgets is that these are not normal times."

Then again, Ignatieff keeps playing the spin to his advantage, hoping Canadians will forget his actions leading up to the budget. Despite his initial attitude during pre-budgetary consultations with the Prime Minister, where he explained it was up to the government to come up with a plan, this despite the multiple attempts by the government to seek suggestions from the opposition, Ignatieff argues today that it is thanks to them that some of the good measures in the budget have been brought forward.

The Calgary Herald writes:

“…When Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff comments on the budget that anything bad belongs to the Conservatives, anything good is there because of the opposition and that the Liberals have the government "on probation"--well, what else would one expect him to say?”

Ignatieff is building himself quite a "legacy"…

Federal budget positioning

The Liberal's decision to be made today, when the vote bells ring in the House of Common, will determine if the Conservatives remain in government. The three vague requirements on which the budget will be judge by Ignatieff and his caucus were the following, which the Toronto Star has the courtesy of presenting in comparison with yesterday's budget announcement:

"Protect the vulnerable"

• Extension of employment insurance benefits by five weeks for the next two years.

• Extension of protections to safeguard severance and termination pay for workers hit by company bankruptcies.

• Greater tax relief from the working income tax benefit to encourage low-income Canadians to find and keep jobs.

• Up to $150 in tax savings for low- and middle-income seniors through an increase in age credit amount.

• $1 billion for renovating social housing.

"Protect the jobs of today"

• $12 billion over two years for new infrastructure spending.

• $7.8 billion in tax relief measures and funding to stimulate the housing sector and to improve housing.

• $170 million toward a "more sustainable and competitive" forestry sector.

"Create jobs for tomorrow"

• $55 million over two years to help young Canadians find summer jobs, giving them valuable experience in the workforce.

• $2 billion to repair, retrofit and expand facilities at post-secondary institutions.

• $750 million for leading-edge research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

• $110 million over three years to the Canadian Space Agency for more advanced robotics and space technologies.

Despite what appears to be addressing these main three requirements, the Liberals have some hesitations which they divulged yesterday, regarding the Finance Minister's projections.

"My concerns about the budget are have they underestimated the seriousness of the crisis? That affects all the numbers. If they make that judgment wrong, pretty well everything goes south, including their deficit projections," said Ignatieff in the Star.

Others referred incredulously to the budget's plan to turn big deficits into surplus in five years.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said "it's tough to trust" Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's projections, after he projected a $100 million surplus in November and now announced a deficit "before one penny is invested in stimulus."

The announced budget predicts it will help save or create 190,000 jobs while a $85-billion deficit is expected to occur over the next five years, with the economy recovering from this deficit around 2013.

NDP leader Jack Layton, whose position with the budget has been no secret, believes the announcement doesn't even pass the test laid out by the Liberals.

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe swiftly condemned the budget as a failed "ideological" document that does not address the needs of the jobless and the most vulnerable, or move Canada toward a greener economy.

Their parties intend to vote to defeat the government on the budget, and Layton publicly pressured Ignatieff to do the same.

Layton said the budget fails on the very tests – helping the most vulnerable, protecting the jobs of today and creating jobs for tomorrow – that Ignatieff had set out.

I am not sure how Layton comes to this conclusion. Maybe he simply does not want to lose face.

"He has a choice to make," Layton told reporters. "It's either to prop up the Harper government and allow it to continue in a fashion that is clearly wrong-headed, or to pursue the agenda laid out by the coalition, which would create jobs for the future and would transform our economy and would really protect the people who are suffering the most from the economic crisis." [My emphasis]

Really Layton? And how do you figure? What different ideas would your coalition bring to the table? How would you, as opposed to the Conservative government proposals, transform the economy? By way of wishful thinking?

The Liberals are expected to present amendments to the budget, explains the Globe and Mail.

Some MPs, speaking on condition they not be named, said all options appeared possible, but that it was unlikely the Liberals would vote for the budget in its current form. It seemed probably they would propose amendments.

"Obviously, that could still lead to an election if they're not co-operative," one MP said.

At the top of the Liberals' concerns were objections that there was not enough softening of the employment-insurance rules, and that the tax cuts announced yesterday could leave the federal government mired in deficit years from now, even after the economy recovers.

[...]

"It is up to this party to decide whether the choices they made today are the right ones," Mr. Ignatieff told the Commons. "It will be a tough call. We will make this choice calmly and serenely."

For more details on the announcement, the National Post presents the highlights of the budget presented yesterday afternoon by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. See also the Department of Finance's website.

Stay tuned...

Weak coalition no longer a serious option

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff still says he is prepared to bring down the government over the budget, if it does not meet his three main requirements.

"This budget has three simple tests that it must pass," Ignatieff said on Sunday during a Liberal caucus meeting. "Will it protect the most
vulnerable? Will it save jobs? And most important of all, will it create the
jobs of tomorrow?"

Some say these requests are vague enough to allow the Liberals to easily support the government’s budget. However, the main weapon of the opposition before Parliament was prorogued, a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support, seems to have faded from the discussion.

Radio-Canada points out that there was absolutely no mention of the coalition during today’s Liberal caucus meetings, a good indicator that support for the coalition has completely evaporated.

A couple of Liberal MPs were asked about the coalition following caucus meetings, and their response was equally disinterested. Quebec Liberal MPs Marlene Jennings and Raymonde Folco both said the coalition was a “just-in-case” scenario, if the government were to be defeated, so the Governor General could have an alternative.

We are very far from the animated rhetoric which made headlines before the Christmas break. In my opinion, although Ignatieff keeps this weapon in his back pocket, his lack of enthusiasm for the coalition is likely to play a part in the Governor General’s considerations if the Conservatives were defeated over the budget.

This deflated balloon proves how delicate the Liberal-NDP coalition really was and how it cannot possibly provide the certainty needed to guide our country during these uncertain times.

Federal deficit does not necessarily need to be so heafty: Duceppe

Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe has come forward saying that the federal deficit needed to prop up the Canadian economy does not necessarily need to be as high as projected. This comes as a surprise, considering the many demands and accusations of inaction on the economy from the opposition in December.

However, Duceppe is quoted in La Presse yesterday as saying that cuts to the government apparatus could yield many savings, and produce a deficit of only $3 billion dollars, instead of $40 billion.

Duceppe gives the example of the Ministry of Justice whose budget grew by 115% in recent years as evidence there are savings to be made. However, the BQ leader said these cuts should not impact jobs.

Duceppe also took aim at Ignatieff saying that the Liberal leader should not support an unsatisfactory budget, by fear of an election, because he would then become just like Stéphane Dion - who avoided bringing down the Conservative government on 18 confidence votes.

The Bloc leader continued to say that the opposition coalition was the best alternative for the country, and that Michael Ignatieff would have a very likely chance of becoming Prime Minister should his party decide to defeat the government on the January 27 budget. He strongly believes the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, would let a coalition of opposition parties govern rather than send Canadians to the polls again.

Flanagan denounces unelected coalition government

Conservative strategist and professor of political science at the University of Calgary, Tom Flanagan, signs an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail this morning, denouncing the lack of democratic legitimacy of a coalition government brought to power without a voter mandate. He brings us his educated perspective on the matter of strengthened democracy in Canada, and the evolution of conventions.

The coalition's apologists glory in the supposed fact that Canada's Constitution is not democratic. Responsible government, they say, means only that the cabinet has to maintain majority support in the House; it doesn't mean the voters have a voice. Canadians, in their view, are just deluded if they think Canada is a democracy.

Obviously, the apologists didn't pay attention in Political Science 101. Here's why they're wrong.

[...] Canada changed from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy as the franchise was extended to all adults and political parties became national in scope. That evolution was recognized in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 characterizes Canada as "a free and democratic society," and Section 3 grants the right to vote to "every citizen of Canada."

[...] The most important decision in modern politics is choosing the executive of the national government, and democracy in the 21st century means the voters must have a meaningful voice in that decision. Our machinery for choosing the executive is not prescribed by legislative or constitutional text; rather, it consists of constitutional conventions - past precedents followed in the light of present exigencies. The Supreme Court has said it will expound these conventions but will not try to enforce them. The virtue of relying on conventions is that they can evolve over time, like common law, and can be adapted to the new realities of the democratic age. [My emphasis]

I agree, and I think most Canadians do too. The context of our democracy has changed. With a new day of information and all its associated technologies, the public is much more aware of issues of importance, and do not simply rely on "their voice in Parliament" to decide what is best for them. Canadians demand ownership of their right to decide.

The coalition partners, moreover, did not run on a platform of forming a coalition; indeed, the Liberals' Stéphane Dion denied that he would make a coalition with the NDP.

Right on the nail, of course. The leading concern with this coalition is that they cannot be held accountable, because they have taken no specific engagements towards Canadian voters.

The Governor-General, as the protector of Canada's constitutional democracy, should ensure the voters get a chance to say whether they want the coalition as a government.

Yes, she should.

In the news... a medley

Lorne Gunter tells us this morning that Layton is the biggest loser of his coalition scheme.

...it was Layton who suffered most.

First, he had a chance to do in the Liberals and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP has the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals; instead, he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.

With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist with no compunction about making a deal with separatists, even weeks before the Tories lit the match on the crisis. And with the coalition's demise, Layton is now even further from power than he was before.

He also reminds us of a sad political reality in Canada, when it comes to the "natural governing party"

...Ignatieff will be aided [in having his mistakes forgotten] by the infinite malleability of the Liberal conscience. Anything a Liberal does can be forgotten by all other Liberals (and the vast majority of the parliamentary press gallery), if shoving it down the memory hole is in the best interest of the Liberal party.

For instance, in Saturday's Toronto Star, senior Liberal strategist Tom Axworthy wrote that Ignatieff's selection gives the Liberals their best chance in a generation of "democratic renewal of the party," even while admitting that Ignatieff's selection marked the first time since the 19th century that the Liberal rank-and-file played no direct part in choosing the party boss.

Chantal Hébert writes that all parties are quietly preparing for a spring election.

...the prospect of a popular Conservative budget only acts as an accelerant on the election flames.

That's because the opposition suspects the Conservatives are preparing for war even as they overtly seek peace, by crafting a budget designed to become the stepping stone to a spring campaign. Having consolidated their advantage in public opinion with a well-received budget, they would be free to engineer their defeat on an issue of their own choosing later in the session.

[...] If there is a community of interest between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at this point, it is in bringing the Liberals to an election battle before the party has had time to regroup under a new leader.

Where is Ignatieff these days, wonder Lawrence Martin? This so-called "man of magnitude," as the columnist dubs him...

Michael Ignatieff has been completing a book over the holidays, the last chapter in a family saga. That's fine and well, but there are Liberals who wish he'd chosen another time - a better moment than the immediate aftermath of becoming party leader.

[...] By comparison to his predecessor, he is a man of magnitude. But where is the new dynamism? And where is he? At a volatile political juncture when the moment needs be seized, Iggy's off to a quiet and rather unremarkable beginning.

[...] There was no leadership race. That meant no high-profile campaign, no media-saturated convention, no hallmark speech. His overnight enthronement served the good purpose of quickly terminating the Dion stewardship. But coronations cannot be said to be democratically edifying. Rather than bolstering credibility, they can bleach it.

[...] Public opposition to the coalition idea has been allowed to cement. No concerted attempt by Mr. Ignatieff or his followers has been made to discredit misconceptions surrounding it. [...] The coalition question is one on which Mr. Ignatieff has to fish or cut bait, lest he be Dionized. He has to get himself out of the early limbo. It needs to be emphasized that he has only just begun his leadership journey. But it also needs to be emphasized that opening steps are steps remembered. His low profile speaks too much of a party inclined to stay the course, as opposed to being in a rush to change it.

While Hassan Arif, in the Telegraph Journal makes the point that Ignatieff and the Liberals' fate is out of their hands.

If the Liberals vote to support Harper's budget (or at the very least abstain) while the NDP votes against it, then Ignatieff's standing as leader could be severely damaged. For progressive-leaning Canadians, he will be seen as "collaborating with Harper" and "abdicating his role as Official opposition leader," both of which would gravely damage the Liberal Party among a crucial group of voters.

This would open the door for Jack Layton and the NDP to be the dominant voice of progressive Canadians.

The Coalition may not have caught on with the public at large, but it does enjoy a significant degree of popularity among progressive and left-leaning Canadians.

[...] The only way he could plausibly support the Conservative budget is if the NDP supports it too.

This does not seem likely unless Harper strikes a truly multi-partisan tone and offers substantial government intervention to help stimulate the economy.

This important and decisive federal budget is now 20 days away. Speculation is fine and dandy, but only the true power plays ahead will be of importance. Stay tuned...

Joke of the day: "Layton no longer trusts Harper"

From Sun News comes this hilarious headline. Did someone actually believe that Layton trusted Harper at one point or another?

And the positioning continues...

"I don't have confidence in him to deliver what he says now, because what we have experienced with Mr. Harper is that he will say anything and then reverse himself," said Layton. "He will say anything to retain power."

What about you Layton, the Liberals and your coalition, you are willing to say anything to steal power...

"If what Harper is going to recommend is the approach of the coalition, then I feel it would be better to have a government that actually believes in these ideas to do the implementation," said Layton.

Shut up Jack Layton. No one wants your coalition, no matter how many times and how differently you try to convince us. Full stop.

Should the Liberals decide to support the budget, Layton's dream of a coalition government with the Liberals will be over, and so will a rocky time in Canadian politics that has left some wondering if Ottawa is full of squabbling children rather than elected officials.

"I don't believe that's the case," said Layton.

"No doubt people will throw that kind of terminology around, but this is far from squabbling. This is ... a process that says we need a government that actually addresses an economic crisis."

And Stephen Harper's Conservatives are addressing this economic crisis. If you could remove your angry NDP leader glasses, you might notice reality once in a while.

If the budget passes, that won't be the end of Layton's challenges. In August, he will face a mandatory leadership review from his party. He's hoping his record will secure his job.

I hope NDP supporters take a long hard look at Layton and replace him. Sure, he has been the loudest, most in-your-face NDP leader in a long time, but he's insane. Will no one else realize that his tin-foil hat is on way too tight? Maybe the dippers will this time.

Layton cools the rhetoric... a bit

NDP leader Jack Layton spoke of the upcoming budget and coalition plans at the United Steelworkers annual Christmas luncheon in Toronto yesterday. The National Post colourfully adds the meeting took place "at a luxury hotel," how ironic!

During this meeting, Layton seemed to show more of the reservation he has adopted in recent days, following Michael Ignatieff's selection as Liberal interim leader.

When discussing the upcoming Conservative budget, Layton said that while he believes stimulus elements proposed by the Liberal-NDP Coalition should be included, that it may be a miracle for it to happen.

"One must always leave one's mind open to the possibility of miracles, but I don't think it's going to happen with Mr. Harper," Mr. Layton said. "We have not been able to develop confidence in Mr. Harper to deliver, because he doesn't really believe in the direction we're suggesting."

Layton continued to demand speedy action on the economy, repeating that the auto industry needs an immediate bailout. The Ontario Manufacturing Council released a study yesterday estimating employment losses linked to a collapse of the Detroit Big Three automakers in Canada to nearly 600,000 jobs within five years.

While not completely renouncing his confrontational tone, Layton remained ambiguous about his party's intentions on the Budget vote, saying only that Harper makes promises but doesn't keep them.

"It is the season of miracles and one has to keep one's mind open to that but I'll remind Canadians that Mr. Harper promised a major infrastructure program and put it in the budgets of 2006 and 2007 but mayors of most communities haven't received that money yet," he said.

Still, sounds like our friend Layton might have resigned himself to the fact that his coalition government dream is nothing more than a bargaining chip, and not a real desire on the Liberal side. He did make sure to keep it alive, at least in script, saying that he and Ignatieff has a good discussion on Monday.

"The coalition continues as a very significant presence in the debate that's taking place now."

Wearing his tin-foil hat, Layton added that if the January 27 budget were to pass, that it would only lead to a period of instability.

"Everyone will be talking if there will be an election. Every month, it'll be a new crisis," said Layton.

On the other hand, the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support from the Bloc Québécois, would offer a stable government, he said.

Yeah, good one Jack.

Senate appointments 'the only option': Harper

In an interview with Steve Murphy on ATV, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his intention to appoint 18 senators to the red chamber.

"It's the only option. There is no prospect for electing these senators in the near term. There's none," Harper said. "So the option is do we appoint them -- the government that people elected -- or do we allow an un-elected coalition to appoint them?"

Harper also said that his decision to appoint senators was never one that we would have dreamed to make. He explains that while he has waited and waited to see Senate reform pass in Parliament, there is now a certain expectation from his party to work within his means.

"In a way, it's a sad day for me," said Harper. "I've waited for three years. We've invited provinces to hold elections. We've put an electoral bill before the House of Commons. But for the most part, neither in Parliament nor in the provinces has there been any willingness to move forward on reform."

When asked if Canadians would see this move as hypocritical or as another example of broken promises, Harper answered confidently:

"Quite frankly, I think the public would prefer to see senators supporting the government they elected."

The PM and his staff have apparently been flooded with applications to become senator since the news broke of his intention. One story mentions that one Conservative staffer says he even received an email from a high-school teacher he never got along with and hadn't heard from in years.

Harper jokingly mentions during his ATV interview that never before now had he received requests of appointment to the Senate.

"Now I'm getting deluged. [...] It's not the favourite thing I've ever done – but at this point it's the right thing."

Opposition to the move has been vocal, calling out the PM for his "hypocritical" decision, which goes against his electoral promises as well as those in the Speech from the Throne.

CTV writes:

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, meanwhile, said that Harper has no right to make patronage appointments when the House of Commons remains locked in a constitutional grey area.

Easter noted that the majority of MPs don't have confidence in the prime minister, and that it is unacceptable that Harper "would turn around and stack the senate with his friends" after proroguing Parliament.

But constitutional experts say that there is nothing illegitimate or wrong in Harper's move:

"Absolutely, unreservedly so, there are no limitations on his appointment powers," said Peter Woolstencroft, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo, in an interview with CTV Newsnet."The opposition will fume ... but he's not doing anything out of line."

NDP Leader Jack Layton also criticized the decision to appoint Conservative senators in a letter, asking the PM to wait until after the House resumes before making the appointment.

"You have often stated ... you would not appoint any new senators until that body becomes truly representative."

"Why then, Prime Minister, would you choose to make 18 costly and undemocratic patronage appointments in this time of unprecedented economic crisis?"

In their current form, Senate appointments pay $130,000 a year. Members can keep other jobs while pulling in their Senate salary until mandatory retirement at age 75.

Harper also discussed Afghanistan, the economy and the current minority government situation. Watch the full clip.

Coalition nightmare fading rapidly

Some delightful poll results from CanWest and Global National yesterday reveal that most Canadians do not want a Liberal-NDP coalition - and even want Ignatieff to vow not to work towards one:

Almost two-thirds of Canadians say they want Michael Ignatieff, the new head of the federal Liberal party, to seek a compromise with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to keep the Conservatives in power instead of joining the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois early in the new year to defeat the minority government, according to the findings of a poll released Friday by Ipsos Reid.

[Five] per cent of those surveyed said they believe Ignatieff should try to find a compromise with Harper, compared with 27 per cent who said they should "stick with the Liberal-NDP coalition." Eight per cent said they didn't know how Ignatieff should proceed.

Poll results also suggest Canadians are so uncomfortable at the prospect of a Liberal-NDP coalition government, backed by the Bloc, that a majority - 56 per cent - would prefer going to the polls again early in 2009 if Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean is forced to choose between the two options. That number is unchanged from a similar poll conducted last week, prior to Ignatieff's promotion to the Liberal leadership.

The poll also said the Conservative party would garner 45 per cent of the vote and score a majority victory if an election were held today.

Now, if Ignatieff has a shred of common sense, he will look at this result and consider what is best for his political ambition. Bringing down the government on the budget could damage him and the Liberals for a decade, perhaps. I think he will see the same and let Stephen Harper's Conservatives govern.

The Globe and Mail also commented on the fate of the coalition agreement, with no one coming out clearly about if the prospect is still on the agenda or not.

...on the few occasions that Mr. Ignatieff has been pushed to clarify the most central question in all of Canadian politics - is the agreement to bring down Stephen Harper still in force? - the most erudite washing machine in Canadian politics goes into full spin cycle.

And out tumbles yes, no, and maybe as if they were synonyms.

I think that with the change in conviction from coalition members we can safely say that this nightmare won't return to haunt us for a good long while.

Another reason why we cannot afford a Liberal-NDP Coalition

Bloomberg writes:

Canada’s opposition parties would implement tough carbon-dioxide emissions targets if they vote to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government next year, the country’s Green Party leader said.

A coalition government would aim to reduce output of the greenhouse gas by 30 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels and 80 percent by 2050, Elizabeth May said in an interview in Poland where United Nations climate negotiations are taking place.

[...]

As part of a possible coalition pact, the Liberals had to give up their plan to introduce a carbon tax, May said. Sources of tension in environmental policy among the opposition parties include oil production from Alberta’s tar sands, she added.

Either Lizzy May is spewing hot air (wouldn't be surprised) or she is actually talking from her knowledge of the backroom coalition negotiations. If this is really considered by a potential coalition government, Canada would be in serious economic trouble. We cannot possibly meet those targets in such a short period of time without this having disastrous repercussions.

Introducing Capital C

After much time spent reading conservative blogs and forums, I have finally decided to jump in the action and start one of my own. The urge had been with me for a while, but I lacked the motivation to put my words and ideas down officially.

With the recent political and parliamentary crisis, namely the proposal of a Liberal-NDP coalition government, propped up and vetoed by the Bloc Quebecois, I felt the need to finally create my outlet to discuss these events and those that will surely follow.

In coming weeks, as Stephen Harper's Conservative government continues to prepare its 2009 Budget, the Liberal camp will be working on a strategy for its response. While I hope the opposition will be willing to work with the government, many of us also know that when it comes to political ambition, we are looking at a very eager crowd.

So, as the posts add up here in the weeks and months to come, I will be mostly looking at the state of the Liberal Party with its newly crowned leader, Michael Ignatieff. Also, at the attitude the Jack Layton and his NDP. I will pay attention to what the media is saying in all of this, and where they are trying to lead public opinion. But let's not forget, we will look at what our Conservative government is doing with its power, as it looks to regain control of the agenda in the New Year.

Thank you and welcome to Capital C.