Harper's in bed with socialists and separatists - again

Steve, last week:

...in the candid speech given to party members in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. last week, the prime minister repeatedly stressed his aspiration to win a majority.

He warned that, without one, the country would get a Liberal government propped up by "the socialists and the separatists."

Steve, this week:

OTTAWA — The New Democratic Party will join the Bloc Quebecois in supporting the minority Conservative government in Friday's confidence vote.

Red herring alert!

NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair announced the decision Wednesday following a caucus meeting.

He told reporters it would be "irresponsible" not to support the ways and means motion, which is a confidence vote, because of the home renovation tax credit that it contains.

Ignatieff has already stated that the Liberals would make sure that if they won the next election they would preserve the tax credit.

"Mr. Harper is trying to scare Canadians with the thought that we would jeopardize the home renovation tax credit," Ignatieff said on Friday. "That’s completely false, and he knows it."

“We supported the home renovation tax credit before. Our problem is we just don’t support the government any more. But home renovation tax credit is a good measure, and it would continue under a Liberal government."

Ignatieff's Talking Tough - Again

The headline du jour coming out of the Liberal party's caucus meeting in Sudbury courtesy of Ignatieff is: "Mr Harper, your time is up; we cannot support this government any further".

Speaking after Mr Ignatieff and going further than Iggy was willing to, Denis Coderre informed reporters that the Liberals will take their first opposition day in October to introduce a non-confidence motion. That certainly remains to be seen considering the cry wolf scenario the Liberals have been repeating over and over this year.

In response to Ignatieff, Steve said:

"Going through more political games, more political instability, does not serve the country's interests right now."

Games like perogying proroguing parliament? Because that little chess game sure was fun.

The Liberal party may have the lead in the fund raising race but the party platform that Ignatieff promised when he was anointed back in the spring which he said would be released in June has yet to materialize. Ignatieff talked about their "vision" during his speech. Okay then: what is it? Because from where I sit, the talk is about being Conservative-Lite (which is basically what the party has become anyway).

It's no secret that I find Ignatieff to be incredibly uninspiring and about as exciting as melba toast. And I'm not alone in that. How the party plans to actually win an election after a year of basically being tied in the polls with Steve's government is beyond me.

I think the party missed the boat when it backed down in June at a time when the recession was a majorly stressful concern across this country. That stress has eased somewhat since then even though the economics haven't improved all that much (and are, in fact, worse in some areas). Steve's government didn't deserve to coast through the summer while being allowed every opportunity to make its case. The poll results clearly show that the summer was a write-off for the opposition parties that provided a boost for the Conservatives.

So, here the Liberals are without a clear platform and with a leader who'd do a better job of narrating lullaby books on tape than rallying Canadians to vote for him. "We can do better" is not a policy statement.

Related:

You can read Ignatieff's speech here.

In my next post about that speech, I'll expose one big lie that Ignatieff spouted. Stay tuned.

Update:

Skepticism abounds in the blogosphere:

Calgary Grit: This Time We Mean It?

Driving the Porcelain Bus: "Liberals won't prop up Tories: Ignatieff" - Hard to believe with their record

Scott's Diatribes: Ignatieff: '‘The Liberal Party of Canada cannot support this government any further’

Accidental Deliberations: On revelations

Hell, Upside Down: Iggy Applies the George Costanza Theory

BigCityLib: What The Hell Does It Mean?
 

Non-partisan Canadian Political Bloggers

After I discovered CBC's Ormiston Online this past week, which I'd heard about but hadn't yet visited, I found out that the research group Infoscape used to compile blog data was only sourcing partisan blogs so I e-mailed the contact and asked why independents like me weren't being considered. The short answer was that there really isn't a reliable aggregator for non-partisan blogs. That's true. The site that hails itself as The Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians actually includes several partisan bloggers who were grandfathered in. Not only that, the list includes non-political blogs as well.

The Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians is happy to attract a wide range of bloggers. Your blog does NOT have to be political in order to belong. Indeed, cultural blogs or photoblogs are welcome as they add to the diversity of the group. Likewise, if you have committed yourself to a particular political party, this does NOT disqualify you, so long as you haven’t already joined one of the partisan blogrolls mentioned above. We are seeking only to grant traffic to a diverse set of quality bloggers who are uncomfortable with joining the explicitly partisan blogrolls in the Canadian blogosphere. We only ask that you display the BANPC blogroll code, so that all the members of the BANPC can benefit from the link your membership provides.

Sites which meet the criteria when they joined the BANPC, and which went on to join other partisan blogging associations will NOT be asked to leave the BANPC. They can stay as part of a grandfather clause. Members of the Progressive Bloggers, the Liberty Logs, the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and the Red Ensign Brigade are also welcome to join.

As far as I know, the BANPC is the only aggregator that claims to be non-partisan. Are there others I don't know about?

Maybe by the time the next election rolls around - and who knows when that might happen considering the fixed election dates law isn't actually a real law according to Harper? - we independents can organize ourselves in such a manner as to allow blog researchers to include our voices so that we can have a bigger impact in the MSM and election races.

Thoughts?
 

So, Steve Wants an Election...

When parliament broke for the summer, there was speculation about when the Cons might start the fall session or if they would at all since they'd basically run out of agenda items. Since that time, Harper has done everything possible to try to convince Canadians that parliament is "dysfunctional", despite the passage of numerous bills with the help of the other parties.

Flashback to 2006: Harper promises law to set election date every four years

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

That bill eventually became law and the scheduled date for the next election is supposed to be Oct. 19, 2009.

Stephen Harper has proven he's just another political opportunist (not that that's news) by threatening, once again, to send the public to the polls this fall while he's holding meetings with Layton and Duceppe in a lame attempt to prove that the parties can't work together. Well, cry me a river and lie to me one more time, Steve.

After talks with Harper on Friday, Duceppe said the Conservative minority could continue to work with various opposition parties to pass legislation, as it has over the last two years, but that Harper "absolutely" wants to call a snap election.

"Instead of making efforts to try finding solutions in the best interest of the population, he wants an election in the best interest of his party," Duceppe said.

Later in the day, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office said it's probable Harper will seek to dissolve Parliament next week, sending the country to the ballot box on Oct. 14.

Meanhwile, the Green Party scored a coup of sorts when it managed to recruit sitting independent MP Blair Wilson thus securing a place for party leader Elizabeth May in the debates. In response to that news, spokespuppet for the Harper regime Kory Teneycke told reporters Saturday afternoon that he didn't think May should be allowed to debate because she's said she publicly supports Dion for PM. He said they're effectively two members of the same party - more proof that the Cons don't understand the concept of democracy.

Here's the actual Green Party statement from May, 2007:

We have agreed that the country needs a strong signal that puts progress ahead of partisanship. To achieve Kyoto, Canada needs MPs and a government that actually understand the threat of climate change and the need for urgent action. This reality has impelled us to seek limited cooperation. While the need for cooperation may be obvious to the average Canadian, within political parties, one is not supposed to allow even limited cooperation.

We admit we are different from most adversarial, political leaders. We respect each other. We will always put the country and the planet first.

Out of respect for each other and out of our shared commitment to a greener Canada, we are not running candidates in each other’s ridings.

We recognize that a government in which Stéphane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green Caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate. On many issues, we would have policy disagreements; on others cooperation would be possible. No matter what the issue, we recognize that, although opponents in the political sphere, we are committed to doing politics differently. That means open and transparent, fair-minded communication. Another issue where we believe progress could be made is in the potential for electoral reform.

Today there are larger issues at stake than the petty partisanship of politics. We are confident that Canadians will appreciate this shared commitment and our efforts to protect our children’s future.

Let's see just how far the Cons go to try to muzzle May if an election is called and they refuse to debate her.

Update: Dion agrees to meet Harper [on Labour Day] for election talk