Jesse:
... as the media claims that the Liberals and the NDP have agreed to a 2 and a half year deal... is it wrong that, long term concerns (that I'll try to discuss in a later post) aside, I think it's a freakin' hilairous f!@# you to Stephen Harper if we actually have a Prime Minister Dion?
Sunday, November 30
Call Me Vindictive, But...
Like I Was Going To Talk About Anything Else
Jesse:
Saw the cover of the Star today in a news box. My thought for right now? I think the Prime Minister screwed up twice.
First, in tacking on the political subsidies cut, and thinking the opposition would a) back down or b) look terrible opposing it. That one didn't exactly fly, did it?
Then, now that Cam's favourite minister John Baird confirms they're dropping the political subsidy thing (for now)... another mistake.
For how are even these lying liars supposed to reasonably claim that this is only about the subsidies? When wieners like Pierre Poilievre (pronounced Paul-iver to enhance sliminess in an anglophone riding) show up claiming that this is about political subsidies, will even he, snakiest snake that he is, be able to handle the snappy rebuttal, "But you pulled to subsidy proposal"? I can' t see it.
PP - "The Liberals are looking out for their own financial interests in a time of financial crisis"
Liberal - "Mr Poilievre [pronounced correctly to make him mad] is obviously out of the loop. His political puppeteers have already recognized that partisan attacks in such a trying economic time were wrong, and backed down. Our concern is with the fact that Stephen Harper and his minions are completely wrong on the economy. They were wrong when they claimed they wouldn't run a deficit, they were wrong when they said everything was fine, they were wrong when they counselled Canadians to buy stock which has since continued to plunge, and they were wrong when they failed to fall in line with the rest of the world in trying to fix the problem."
Congratulations on screwing yourself coming and going.
Saturday, November 29
It's The Economy, You Firewalling Bastard (II)
Jesse:
Huh... apparently I already used this title. Who knew?
Nevertheless, I'm going to (foolishly, like as not) ring in on the issue. This is driven partly because in private e-conversation (I do have those, y'know. I don't pour everything out on this blog. This should comfort those of you who may have thought I was locked in a closet for the past month or so) I was getting pushed on why the Liberals should be so up-in-arms that we get an economic stimulus package now, instead of in a little bit. His argument was that since the whole Big Three auto-sector bailout question was so crucial to Canada's economy, and depended on things outside of our control (will Obama bail them out? Will he demand they repatriate jobs? Did Mark really perish when he was pushed into the tank of ill-tempered carp?) we should wait until we know the full extent of the problem.
I shall now explain why I disagree. This seems like a prime opportunity for Cam to say I'm an idiot.
For me, the stimulus is less about what quantitative effect it will have (creating jobs and spinoffs) but rather about how it's received by Bay Street. To me, haute finance is far less about making and selling actual widgets than it is about what a bunch of too-rich-for-their-own-good white guys think is happening.
That's what I took away from a book I read about the economic work of the Clinton administration in its first year (which someone stole, by the way, and I want back. I have my suspicions it's another "Jesse" who shall remain nameless whom some of you may know). The Clintonistas essentially went to some guys who bond traders thought knew what was going on, and asked what they wanted. They picked some sort of "rate" (which I forget, and would know if that bastard had returned my book. This was like 5 years ago), and the Clinton guys said "fine". So they then went to some experts and asked how to fix that rate. Then they came out with a "plan" to do it. In my opinion, the actual financial steps taken were far, far less important than gaining the confidence of the bond trader dudes, who then went on to do what the administration wanted.
So. That's a long way of saying that the first (and foremost) reason why I think some big-time spending is needed ASAP. Because it's what a bunch of guys in pin stripe suits expect. And if they think it's going to work, maybe it will.
Second, I think the above argument applies to a broader swathe of Canadians who pay attention to media. They need to see that government is trying to help. And if they think it'll fix things, maybe it will! The explanations I've seen of deflation are that it's greatly exacerbated by people holding out for better deals as prices fall. So it's not just belt-tightening (like our idiot PM wants us to do), it's people deal hunting. And what makes people stop holding out for a lower price and just buy the damn thing? Thinking that there isn't going to be a lower price. So if they think things are going to be fixed, it'll help. Even if it just makes people a little more cautious about cutting way back (like our idiot PM wants us to do), it's good.
Finally, the stimulus (which it seems like, by hook or by crook (PM) we're going to get) needs to start now because it takes time for the quantitative effects to be felt. Hopefully it'll be infrastructure spending, which we need anyway. The feds can't just snap their fingers and spend that money. It takes time. And the stuff we buy to build with, and the jobs, and the spinoffs from the stuff we buy, and the jobs from those spinoffs, all take time to filter on through reality. So we start now.
And if we go overboard, and create too many jobs? I think it'll be OK.
Obviously this is going to have to be deficit financed (partly because the Cons wasted federal money on the GST cut, but perhaps not entirely), and that means we're going to have to pay it back later. But the sooner we get going, and the sooner it has its effect, the sooner we can start on that, too. We're going to have to pay the price for Conservative wastefulness, and for the irresponsibility of Big Finance in the States and elsewhere.
We should start now.
Update:
At least I'm not totally alone in result, if not process.
Sleight of Hand
Jesse:
I think it's possible that the best outcome for the Libs, at this point, is to get the NDP to torpedo the coalition. Preferably publicly.
Friday, November 28
Talking Points I'd Like To See
Jesse:
First in a potentially continuing series.
Canada needs a non-ideological, competent government.
-The Liberal Party of Canada
PG Update
Jesse:
The preceding post should have included that Jim Flaherty (who I don't need to tell you is the Finance Minister) says the Cons won't change their fiscal update (which already does not include the public financing cheap shot).
So... if the Cons back down, the Minister of Finance looks like an idiot. In the middle of a financial crisis. If that sticks... at least with business... it could be a serious part of the story here.
Parliamentary Games
Jesse:
Wow... big couple days in Parliament. Finally, some good times. And yet tragically, I've been stuck at work, unable to veg out in front of CBC Newsworld. Dark days. And yet, I comment!
First, my understanding of the story so far.
1) Prime Minister Harper, like an ass, decided that an important part of his economic update (to address the recession we're heading in to but he derided Dion for trying to deal with during the campaign and has been pretending isn't going to happen half the time) was going to be to eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive to compensate them for the fact that they can't fundraise freely. This would knee cap the opposition parties and greatly benefit the Cons. Importantly, it is not a principled move, because there would still be tax dollars available to political parties, through candidate reimbursement and donation tax breaks [it is no longer clear to me whether the tax breaks would still be available]. Those, however, benefit the Conservative party more than the opposition.
2) The opposition freaked.
3) The Liberal supposedly started talking about brokering a deal to pick a leader right away, allegedly brokered by The Maestro, Jean Chrétien. I'm so clear if this actually happened in light of
4) The opposition entered briskly into negotiations to form a coalition, brokered by Steady Eddy Broadbent and The Maestro (who, hilariously, pretended that he didn't speak english to avoid reporters).
5) The Liberals, at least, wisely decided to base their public opposition to the economic update on the fact that, unlike the entire rest of the world, there was no stimulus. The Cons plan is apparently to wait until the new year to try to do something about the economic maelstrom on its way.
6) The Cons back down on the public financing thing, saying it won't be in the update.
7) The Liberals decide to introduce a motion of no-confidence in the government, offering a Liberal-NDP coalition. The motion will be based on the Cons failure to address the economic situation
8) Harper appears in front of the cameras to announce that he's going to cancel the opposition day, putting any such action off until the 8th. Harper apparently forgets he stormed out in a hissy fit when Prime Minister Martin did the same to him.
I can't really be sure the above is accurate, because this is happening incredibly fast and I'm a little confused.
So, what do I think?
The Conservatives could not possibly be further out of line. They are, in fact, trying to take advantage of an economic crisis to attack their opponents. The 30 million dollars in subsidies the feds would save is, interestingly, precisely 1/10 of what Harper had Elections Canada blow on an unnecessary election that achieved nothing. People had better see it for what it is.
As to the Conservatives reasoning... I don't think they understand that the "belt tightening" is the opposite of what we need people to do. However, being completely clueless about "economics" may not, in fact, hurt them with the voters. A lack of results will. Therefore, this bit would not be a good move.
Their thinking on bringing down an update with no stimulus has everything to do with their claim that they're going to run a $100 million dollar (read: chump change) surplus. That way, they will be in the clear to claim that the only reason they're in deficit is because of the international situation. This claim will be untrue, but the Cons have learned well that they don't need to be accurate; they need to be vaguely plausible and lie a lot.
The Liberals wisely decided to talk about the failures of the economic update for Canadians, instead of for themselves, while attacking Harper for playing partisan games in a crisis.
Also wisely, the Liberals are going on the offensive, and are forcing our bully of a Prime Minister to back down.
However, I am unsure whether the coalition government plan (if that's still the plan...) is the right idea. It is crucial that Harper wear this economic trouble; allowing him to pawn it off on someone else might prove to be disastrous. But it's hard to say. The counterargument would be that the Liberals can take over and claim that Harper screwed things up so badly that they've done their best to fix it. I think that taking a gamble by spitting in Harper's face was the right move. They could not afford to be crippled by Harper's partisanship, and economic stimulus was the right thing to do.
I believe that the ideal scenario would be if Harper wants to stay in, and therefore allows the Liberals to strong arm him into some sort of stimulus. The Liberals can, therefore, take all of the credit and none of the blame for anything that goes wrong. They support a stimulus in the short term. If the deficit remains, they can blame Harper, and claim they would've (magically, whatever, I don't care) fixed the problem, perhaps by pointing at his idiot GST cuts, which it finally sounds like they're opposing actively (not doing so initially was a bad idea because 1) the opposition opposes and 2) it can take time to explain things to Canadians, and to figure out the best way to explain them). If they can jerry rig things so they end up this way... cash money. They can take credit for every job not-lost (which will be purely speculative, so they can say whatever they want), while blaming the Cons for spending and cutting the federal government so hard that when the Liberals wisely forced them to spend some money to help Canadians, instead of to try to buy votes, there was nothing there.
Game on!
Thursday, November 27
Those Clowns at Carleton Did It Again. What a Bunch of Clowns
Jesse:
Following, my thoughts on how CUSA (Carleton University Student Association) are a bunch of idiots. Oh, and mad props to Kyle for the idea of ripping off Simpson's lines rather than thinking of my own titles. Which I assume he invented.
Straight up, they're morons. How it's possible that you could any twenty people who would think it was a good move to try to cut off funding for CF because it's a "white man's disease", let alone people who are supposed to be in charge of anything, is absolutely, 110% beyond me. This is idiocy at it's finest, folks.
And to the genius who is, wait for it, still standing by his initial vote because, wait for it, to raise money to combat an awful disease would be "the same mentality that kept slavery legal, and prevented the women's vote."? He should, literally, be run out of town on a rail. And "Donnie Northrup" had bloody well turn out to be a female black. How dare he (she?)?. Words escape me.
The beauty of it is, it hurts the value of Carleton degrees for everyone. If Carleton students don't vote all of these idiots out... I don't even know.
I'm going to push the Facebook group (now several thousand strong). But, seriously... I dunno. If you have words for how outrageous this is, let me know in the comments.
Linked In
Jesse:
Check it this great history of voting in the United States which I picked up off the newest addition (oh, why do I keep adding?) to my Google Reader: Give Me Something To Read, which I highly recommend, unless you've a job or something.
Wednesday, November 26
Leadership Jumble
Jesse:
I feel like I need to comment on the leadership race, and I'm not entirely sure what to say, really. It sounds like (I haven't seen him yet) Leblanc is an interesting candidate, and he has received the coveted Calgary Grit Endorsement™. Iggy has Warren Kinsella (which, and I don't want to jinx it may prove to be even more valuable. My thoughts below the break...
So.... yeah. Toughie. I just finished (OK, I have like 15 pages left, but I'll go finish right after this) Iggy's biography of Isaiah Berlin. Fascinating read, and I'm very interested in Berlin. I've just had two of his books arrive from chapters.ca, and... wait, is he not the candidate? Anyway, the book was good, if at times a little bit pretentious in its armchair psychoanalysis. I'd be fascinated to find out how much (if any) of the touchy-feely-here's-why-he-did-x stuff Berlin himself brought up to the Igster.
Not sure yet how that'll affect my opinion of Ignatieff (probably he'll be tinged with a bit of Berlin's aura).
Right now, given how the economy's going, and given how horribly, horribly, horribly bad the Cons are looking on it (oh, the attack ads the Libs should be able to run), I'm not sure if the Liberals can afford to go with Bob. I don't think it's fair. I think he's great. I think he absolutely should be afforded the opportunity to succeed despite having made some mistakes, and I think he probably has learned from his past.
But.
He's going to be comically easy to caricature. The Cons are absolutely going to try to not-bother bringing out any policy (sidebar: I can't wait to see what they use for their "platform" next time, given how little was in their last one. Promises to be hilarious.), and Rae's going to give them the opening to do that. It's going to be all economic devastation he wrought in Ontario, all the time.
Further, I would like to mention this: not everyone in Canada gets to be Prime Minister. We don't take turns. So maybe being denied a shot at the big seat because you completely *&^%ed the *&^ when you were Premier of the biggest province isn't as out of line as I sometimes think it is.
However, I reserve the right to absolutely flipflop on this one if the campaign goes badly.
Now, does this mean I'm throwing in for Ignatieff? I'm not quite ready to go that far yet. He made some pretty confusing gaffes last time. He can come across as somewhat overbearing. And, (and this is my biggest concern), I have the strong impression that his team of obnoxious Liberals and Young Liberals really blew it for him with strong-arm tactics. This is something that his campaign either did not recognize, or did not control, and I believe it cost them the crown last time. If he and his campaign come off as just as offputting (we're going to win, get on board, why haven't you gotten on board yet?) as before, I think it'll cost them, and I think it speaks volume about his potential to lead the party.
And I basically don't know anything about Leblanc, but will definitely be watching.
Weekly Update
Jesse:
As per usual, I've been away for a while again. I suppose at this point I may as well stop pretending it's going to change any time soon, and stop addressing it every (seldom) time I post. Interesting note, though; this has allowed me to look at my Google Analytics (how I track "traffic" (scare quotes intentional)). Looks like it absolutely has not affected anything when I do manage to get a post up. Fascinating.
Wednesday, November 19
Quick Hit
Jesse:
Anyone still out there? Irregardless, a fantastic thought as we watch the Throne Speech recap on Politics with Don Newman (is there any other political program?).
As the NDP and the BQ have irresponsibly opposed the Throne Speech, Stéphane Dion should make one demand of Stephen Harper: That he apologize to the Canadian people for lying about not running a deficit.
Tuesday, November 4
Gotta Have It
Jesse:
So I'm just sitting here, sick to my stomach. Brutal day at work. Hard to concentrate. Tonight HAS to go our way, or else I'm going to tell my "walk in the snow" story from 2004 again. My comment for now is that it's scary how much more I'm excited/nervous/terrified about this than I was about the Canadian election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
