![[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.
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