![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyesetz(On this post, but Google keeps telling me that my browser is sending a malformed request, so I'll post it here instead.)
With all due respect to your valid complaints, Harper does have a point about "back-room deals". Immediately after the election, Dion said he wouldn't form a coalition because "the voters have spoken" and they gave Harper's party an increase in seats, so clearly they are happy with him and his policies. That's just as true now as it was then, so either Dion was BSing then or he's BSing now.
While I don't like Harper's social-conservative policies, and I would be really concerned about plutocratic sell-outs like C-61 if he actually had an actual majority to pass them with, the fact remains that Harper is an excellent economist and his handling of the banking mess has been the envy of the world, or of the IMF at least (which ranks Canada's banks as #1 most stable). All Canadians should be proud of how Harper handled the CIBC mess last year, quietly and effectively, so this year CIBC did not go belly-up—unlike a few American banks I could name.
Canada does not have the problems of the USA and does not need Depression-era programs to get going again. Its neighbour and major trading partner has a national hangover from eight years of partying like there's no tomorrow, but *Canada* don't actually have the hangover. The claim that Dion can do a better job than Harper is already doing on the recession recovery is an extraordinary one and would require extraordinary proof—but such proof has not been offered.
The coalition seems to be forming now because it can, not because it should. The coalition is in the best interests of the MP's involved, but not in the best interests of the Canadians they are supposed to serve. I am very disappointed in Dion's latest move and the best thing I can say about Layton is that at least his name doesn't appear in any of the articles I've seen about how his party will be forming a government with the Liberals.
With all due respect to your valid complaints, Harper does have a point about "back-room deals". Immediately after the election, Dion said he wouldn't form a coalition because "the voters have spoken" and they gave Harper's party an increase in seats, so clearly they are happy with him and his policies. That's just as true now as it was then, so either Dion was BSing then or he's BSing now.
While I don't like Harper's social-conservative policies, and I would be really concerned about plutocratic sell-outs like C-61 if he actually had an actual majority to pass them with, the fact remains that Harper is an excellent economist and his handling of the banking mess has been the envy of the world, or of the IMF at least (which ranks Canada's banks as #1 most stable). All Canadians should be proud of how Harper handled the CIBC mess last year, quietly and effectively, so this year CIBC did not go belly-up—unlike a few American banks I could name.
Canada does not have the problems of the USA and does not need Depression-era programs to get going again. Its neighbour and major trading partner has a national hangover from eight years of partying like there's no tomorrow, but *Canada* don't actually have the hangover. The claim that Dion can do a better job than Harper is already doing on the recession recovery is an extraordinary one and would require extraordinary proof—but such proof has not been offered.
The coalition seems to be forming now because it can, not because it should. The coalition is in the best interests of the MP's involved, but not in the best interests of the Canadians they are supposed to serve. I am very disappointed in Dion's latest move and the best thing I can say about Layton is that at least his name doesn't appear in any of the articles I've seen about how his party will be forming a government with the Liberals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-30 12:14 am (UTC)Anyway, I'm actually not at all sure this is a good move for the two parties involved. It might actually be a really terrible one for their fortunes. But regardless, I don't see that as either here or there. If the coalition is a good idea for the country, it's a good idea whether or not it will be good for the MPs involved. If it's a bad idea for the country, then that's also true whether it will be good for the MPs involved.
As for the answer to that, well, I don't think we can be sure yet whether it will be good for the country. But here's the thing: I do think there's a chance that it could be, and I think we know for certain that a Harper-led single-party government was going to be bad for the country as long as he was going to continue to govern as if he had a majority. I'm willing to take a chance on this coalition now, to improve that situation. I'm also willing to see this all end now with the Conservatives staying in power but more willing to cooperate. Either of those situations would be an improvement, and either of them will have made all this craziness worth it.
By the way, I completely disagree with you that the election told us that "Canadians" are "happy" with Harper and his policies. I think the election told us that approximately the same number of Canadians are "happy" with him as were happy with him in 2006--about 37% of voters.
-IP
no subject
Date: 2008-11-30 03:36 pm (UTC)After the Liberals have a real leader, then they can do a no confidence at any time. But not while Dion clings to power when he should have already stepped down.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-01 04:32 am (UTC)So, the Canadian government is planning to purchase $75 billion of bad mortgage debt from Canada's banks. Given the 1:10 ratio of the size of Canada and the US, that scales up to... the magic bailout number of $750 billion.
And that is only so far - the Canadian government does have additional stimulus programs planned. So just how are Canada's banks any better off in the current crisis than any other country's banks in the world? They seem to have exactly their fair share of problems, no more and no less.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 12:12 am (UTC)But really, aid for the Canadian auto industry? That is owned by the Big Three US auto makers who are apparently not going to get aid from their own government? In what way is that "prudent"?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 01:33 am (UTC)It is my contention that the "old news" we all heard about Canada's banks being so much better off was misleading and/or wrong.
Take any metric you want for quantitatively comparing the economies of the two countries. For example, look at the relative amounts that various stock markets are down from their peaks. It is roughly the same on both side of the border.
And when you finally do go through the old quotes, make sure you find the one where Harper said something along the lines of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".
But really, aid for the Canadian auto industry?
I don't suppose you are seeing this for what it is - a sign that the Canadian economy suffers the same problems as the US economy.
What it boils down to, and I know you are not going to like this, is that if you live in Canada, you better hope for the American economy to not collapse.