NDP牛！
人口只有4百多万， 安省1/3， 人均比安省还牛！
人口只有4百多万， 安省1/3， 人均比安省还牛！
NDP控制的亚省估计年度赤字65亿
- 主题发起人 ottawa_it_blue_collar
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2006-06-05
- 消息
- 5,694
- 荣誉分数
- 1,410
- 声望点数
- 373
阿省这歌女省长对小土豆还挺关照。在竞选前，她声明等联邦选举后在公布阿省预算。俺就知道有相当大的赤字。如果在选举前公布，会对选民是个刺激。对联邦NDP不利（同时对推行赤字预算的自由党也不利）。现在尘埃落定。才露出真面目。
NDP就是能把别人口袋里钱尽快花光为止。
NDP就是能把别人口袋里钱尽快花光为止。
- 注册
- 2003-11-24
- 消息
- 36,394
- 荣誉分数
- 9,570
- 声望点数
- 373
哪个亚省？ 阿尔伯塔？那不是保守党的地盘吗？ 怎么成了NDP的了？
可见的未来，能源价格会一直低迷，除非中东发生战争。
赤字很难去掉，因为一勒紧裤腰带过日子，立马下台，各党只能借钱讨好选民。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 241,105
- 荣誉分数
- 37,888
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Christopher Moore: Conservative MPs should choose the party’s next leader
Christopher Moore, National Post | October 26, 2015 7:26 PM ET
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldPrime Minister Stephen Harper answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2014.
The 99 Conservative MPs who survived Oct. 19 face a rebuilding challenge. After 10 years as “Harper Conservatives” and foot soldiers of the “New Harper Government,” the Conservative caucus has lost more than an election and leader. It has lost its identity as well.
As they set out to build a new reputation for their party, Tory MPs might look at restoring the dignity of Parliament at the same time.
Nothing did more to turn Canadians against the Harper Conservative government than its centralized, autocratic one-man control over every aspect of policy and politics. The Conservative election campaign, focused nearly exclusively on Stephen Harper, reminded Canadians painfully of the years when he entrusted far more untrammelled, unaccountable power in the Ray Novaks and the Nigel Wrights than to any MP actually elected by the Canadian people.
Despite the servile behaviour of far too many ministers and backbenchers during the Harper years, many MPs are ambitious, decent, and dedicated to parliamentary democracy. There must be some in the Conservative caucus who shared the public’s chagrin at seeing Parliament rendered ever more meaningless in the Harper years.
Those MPs now have an opportunity to step forward. They should ensure that when the post-election caucus of Conservative MPs meets, the MPs will select, not an interim leader waiting for the results of a faraway and extra-parliamentary leadership race, but a real parliamentary leader. The MPs should assert their right to choose Harper’s successor, the new leader of the Conservative Party, the new leader of the Loyal Opposition. They should tell the party executive to make the next Conservative convention a policy conference, not a leadership race.
Can they do that? Absolutely. It is the parliamentary norm that MPs are accountable to the voters who select them, and that leaders are accountable to the MPs who select them. This, even more than elections, is the vital mechanism that keeps a government constantly accountable to the people’s elected representatives in parliament. Whether it was Margaret Thatcher in 1980s Britain or Tony Abbott in Australia in 2015, parliamentary leaders have always been selected by their caucus, and when necessary removed by caucus. For most of a century, Canada has rejected the parliamentary norm, and it has not worked out well.
They should reject all proposals to have the next Conservative party leader imposed by one of those long, slow, costly, extra-parliamentary vote-buying orgies we call a leadership race
What advantage would the Conservative caucus get from taking the responsibility for leadership selection? The Tories now face a confident majority government whose leadership team is sure to be tempted by the absolute power of the Prime Minister’s Office. To have any impact, the new opposition needs to restore legitimacy and authority to the House of Commons. Nothing could demonstrate that the Conservatives have learned from their past excesses than a declaration that this caucus believes parliamentary leaders must be accountable to the elected representatives of the Canadian people. They should reject all proposals to have the next Conservative party leader imposed by one of those long, slow, costly, extra-parliamentary vote-buying orgies we call a leadership race.
By selecting a leader accountable to caucus, Conservative MPs could start a competition to show which party most truly respects the Parliament of Canada. Justin Trudeau is certain to lead the Liberals for the foreseeable future — while wielding all the autocratic power of the PMO. The NDP, with its strong grassroots and labour-union traditions in leadership choice, is unlikely to lead a fight to empower Parliament. Choosing a truly parliamentary leader, the Conservatives could have a 10-year head start in moving from the ugly autocratic past to a new commitment to parliamentary accountability.
Canadian politicians, party operatives, pundits, and commentators are united in preferring autocratic leaders over accountable ones. They would initially be outraged. Many potential candidates prefer the prospect of absolute power over parliamentary accountability. And a small army of professional spin-doctors, strategists, and policy advisors would hate the prospect of sharing their vast and secret influence with the people’s elected representatives.
But if they need inspiration, the Conservative caucus might consider two examples from within their ranks.
One is Brent Rathgerber. In the Harper years, Rathgerber expressed a degree of backbench independence that would have been utterly uncontroversial in any real parliamentary democracy, but was suicidal in Canada. The Harper team drove him out of caucus, out of the party, and now, out of politics.
The other is Michael Chong. Chong defended the idea that MPs mattered — and survived. He saw his Reform Act compromised and watered-down, but no one did more to keep the idea of backbench integrity alive. Today, re-elected by his constituents, Chong is one of 99 Conservative MPs who hold a unique opportunity to begin rebuilding their reputations as parliamentarians — by helping restore the authority of Parliament itself.
National Post
Christopher Moore (christophermoore.ca) is a Toronto writer and historian and the author of Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada, published by Penguin Canada this year.
Christopher Moore: Conservative MPs should choose the party’s next leader
Christopher Moore, National Post | October 26, 2015 7:26 PM ET
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldPrime Minister Stephen Harper answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2014.
The 99 Conservative MPs who survived Oct. 19 face a rebuilding challenge. After 10 years as “Harper Conservatives” and foot soldiers of the “New Harper Government,” the Conservative caucus has lost more than an election and leader. It has lost its identity as well.
As they set out to build a new reputation for their party, Tory MPs might look at restoring the dignity of Parliament at the same time.
Nothing did more to turn Canadians against the Harper Conservative government than its centralized, autocratic one-man control over every aspect of policy and politics. The Conservative election campaign, focused nearly exclusively on Stephen Harper, reminded Canadians painfully of the years when he entrusted far more untrammelled, unaccountable power in the Ray Novaks and the Nigel Wrights than to any MP actually elected by the Canadian people.
Despite the servile behaviour of far too many ministers and backbenchers during the Harper years, many MPs are ambitious, decent, and dedicated to parliamentary democracy. There must be some in the Conservative caucus who shared the public’s chagrin at seeing Parliament rendered ever more meaningless in the Harper years.
Those MPs now have an opportunity to step forward. They should ensure that when the post-election caucus of Conservative MPs meets, the MPs will select, not an interim leader waiting for the results of a faraway and extra-parliamentary leadership race, but a real parliamentary leader. The MPs should assert their right to choose Harper’s successor, the new leader of the Conservative Party, the new leader of the Loyal Opposition. They should tell the party executive to make the next Conservative convention a policy conference, not a leadership race.
Can they do that? Absolutely. It is the parliamentary norm that MPs are accountable to the voters who select them, and that leaders are accountable to the MPs who select them. This, even more than elections, is the vital mechanism that keeps a government constantly accountable to the people’s elected representatives in parliament. Whether it was Margaret Thatcher in 1980s Britain or Tony Abbott in Australia in 2015, parliamentary leaders have always been selected by their caucus, and when necessary removed by caucus. For most of a century, Canada has rejected the parliamentary norm, and it has not worked out well.
They should reject all proposals to have the next Conservative party leader imposed by one of those long, slow, costly, extra-parliamentary vote-buying orgies we call a leadership race
What advantage would the Conservative caucus get from taking the responsibility for leadership selection? The Tories now face a confident majority government whose leadership team is sure to be tempted by the absolute power of the Prime Minister’s Office. To have any impact, the new opposition needs to restore legitimacy and authority to the House of Commons. Nothing could demonstrate that the Conservatives have learned from their past excesses than a declaration that this caucus believes parliamentary leaders must be accountable to the elected representatives of the Canadian people. They should reject all proposals to have the next Conservative party leader imposed by one of those long, slow, costly, extra-parliamentary vote-buying orgies we call a leadership race.
By selecting a leader accountable to caucus, Conservative MPs could start a competition to show which party most truly respects the Parliament of Canada. Justin Trudeau is certain to lead the Liberals for the foreseeable future — while wielding all the autocratic power of the PMO. The NDP, with its strong grassroots and labour-union traditions in leadership choice, is unlikely to lead a fight to empower Parliament. Choosing a truly parliamentary leader, the Conservatives could have a 10-year head start in moving from the ugly autocratic past to a new commitment to parliamentary accountability.
Canadian politicians, party operatives, pundits, and commentators are united in preferring autocratic leaders over accountable ones. They would initially be outraged. Many potential candidates prefer the prospect of absolute power over parliamentary accountability. And a small army of professional spin-doctors, strategists, and policy advisors would hate the prospect of sharing their vast and secret influence with the people’s elected representatives.
But if they need inspiration, the Conservative caucus might consider two examples from within their ranks.
One is Brent Rathgerber. In the Harper years, Rathgerber expressed a degree of backbench independence that would have been utterly uncontroversial in any real parliamentary democracy, but was suicidal in Canada. The Harper team drove him out of caucus, out of the party, and now, out of politics.
The other is Michael Chong. Chong defended the idea that MPs mattered — and survived. He saw his Reform Act compromised and watered-down, but no one did more to keep the idea of backbench integrity alive. Today, re-elected by his constituents, Chong is one of 99 Conservative MPs who hold a unique opportunity to begin rebuilding their reputations as parliamentarians — by helping restore the authority of Parliament itself.
National Post
Christopher Moore (christophermoore.ca) is a Toronto writer and historian and the author of Three Weeks in Quebec City: The Meeting that Made Canada, published by Penguin Canada this year.
媒体是哈伯得罪的特殊利益集团之一，也是这次土豆竞选得胜的主力军。经过媒体恶意的歪曲，保守党的任何政策都显得荒谬，包括他们其实最应该应该受到加拿大人支持的稳健的经济政策，谨慎的中东难民政策和积极配合盟国打击恐怖主义的政策。而经过媒体的刻意美化，任何自由党及土豆的荒谬言行都成为天然的正确。这例子不胜枚举，我也懒得麻烦了。
媒体在欢呼胜利之后乘胜追击是人性之恶最自然的体现。而保守党在一代领导核心退出舞台之后，要重新集结并形成新的强有力的领导中心显然尚需时日。 只是加拿大只怕是越陷越深、愈行愈左、不被自由党带入深重危机是难以回头了。
最后编辑:
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 241,105
- 荣誉分数
- 37,888
- 声望点数
- 1,393
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...ives-can-learn-from-the-federal-election.html
What progressives can learn from the federal election
The reversal of fortunes between the NDP and the Liberals deserves careful consideration, as it provides important lessons for those on the left.
MATHIEU BELANGER / REUTERS
A New Democratic Party supporter reacts to results from Canada's federal election in Montreal, Quebec, October 19, 2015.
By: Seth Klein and Shannon Daub Published on Mon Oct 26 2015
For a couple of Gen-Xers like us, who came of age politically just as neo-liberalism was taking the world by storm, last week’s election brings mixed feelings — relief that the mean man is gone, optimism and hope about the new Liberal government, tempered by our memories of the last time the Conservatives were sent packing.
We first met and began working together as student activists fighting then-Finance Minister Paul Martin’s 1995 federal budget — the budget that entrenched Canada’s era of austerity, only two years after the Liberals were elected on a platform that included universal child care and a host of other progressive promises never to see the light of day.
But there is much to celebrate with respect to political culture.
Canadians rejected the ugly and xenophobic strategy employed by the Conservatives during this campaign. A commanding majority instead voted for progressive change, including meaningful action on climate change, electoral reform, and fairer taxes. And in voting for the Liberals, the largest share of Canadians said they understood the need to run deficits, to raise taxes on the wealthy, and to spend on important infrastructure.
The public has voted against austerity, what the Leap Manifesto calls “a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth.” Political comedian Sean Devlin notes that austerity asks us “to put boundaries around our hearts, around our compassion.” Perhaps that’s what incoming prime minister Justin Trudeau was getting at when he opined during the election that we could “grow the economy from the heart outwards.”
The reversal of fortunes between the NDP and the Liberals deserves careful consideration, as it provides important lessons for progressives.
The Liberals’ fiscal plan was a turning-point. Their willingness to run deficits combined with their earlier commitment to raise taxes on the rich and to cancel the misnamed Universal Child Care Benefit in favour of a more targeted Child Tax Benefit (in the face of Thomas Mulcair’s refusal to do so), allowed the Liberals to position themselves as the “real” agents of bold and progressive change.
True, the NDP’s early platform announcements included some bold items that excited many, notably the promise of $15/day child care and the $15/hour federal minimum wage. But these came well before the writ period.
Late September polling by Bruce Anderson’s Abacus Data confirms this dynamic. Of the vast majority of voters who said they wanted a change of government, 57 per cent wanted ambitious change, and 58 per cent change that would be felt sooner rather than gradually (even more so among swing voters). They were much more likely to associate these desires with the Liberals.
It is worth recalling that the NDP first managed to overtake the Liberals in the national polls thanks to the C-51 debate. On C-51, the NDP took a principled and, what seemed then at least, risky decision to oppose the bill. And for their political courage they were rewarded.
But rather than building on this lesson, once victory seemed within reach, a cautionary impulse kicked in, as we have seen time and again. And inexplicably, the NDP chose not to run on the issue of inequality, despite the deep-seated concern Canadians have expressed about the growing gap.
The double-standard imposed on the left around economic policy may be real. But capitulating to the right-wing’s fiscal agenda signalled to voters this is a party that will stand by some of its core principles but not others.
More importantly, speaking the language of fiscal conservatism reinforces the culture of austerity. As George Monbiot put it recently in his commentary on Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to Labour Party leadership in the UK: “Politicians reinforce the values they espouse. The harder you try to win by adopting your opponents’ values, the more you legitimize and promote them, making your task — and that of your successors — more difficult.”
In the wake of the B.C. NDP’s stunning loss in the 2013 provincial election, one of the dominant explanations was that they had been “too positive.” But Trudeau ran a very positive campaign, critiquing Conservative and NDP policies without making it personal or employing attack ads. And he won handily.
The problem isn’t that these NDP campaigns lacked negativity. It’s that they lacked ambition. Their fiscal conservatism meant they were simply incapable of capturing the public’s imagination or excitement.
Perhaps this is the most important lesson for progressives. Aiming for the centre means you’re chasing a moving target. Pursuing a centrist agenda when political culture is tracking right, as it arguably did in the 80s and 90s, can at least be rationalized on short-term pragmatic grounds, though it is damaging in the long run. But it’s a recipe for electoral collapse when you fail to recognize the majority is shifting in the other direction.
Seth Klein is the British Columbia Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Shannon Daub is the CCPA-BC’s Director of Communications. A longer version of this piece, as well as a second instalment on a progressive agenda for the new federal government can be found here.
