Posts from our progressive community

Stephen Harper's Sinister Plan to Kill Our Medicare System

Montreal Simon - mar, 01/13/2015 - 03:32


Over the years I have written dozens and dozens of posts about the way Stephen Harper is planning to slowly strangle our precious medicare system.

This one being the latest.

And the reason I have is because NOTHING he is doing bothers me more. For it would cause mass misery, and be the end of the Canadian dream.

So I'm really glad to see that people like Linda McQuaig are also raising the alarm. 
Read more »

Stephen Harper, Joe Oliver, and the Latest Porky Ad Scandal

Montreal Simon - mar, 01/13/2015 - 00:27


As you may have noticed, Stephen Harper has stopped bragging about his government's economic record.

Now it's all about the Great War on Terror, and the dangerous jihadis Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair.

But then who can blame him?

If I had screwed up the economy like that, I'd also be hiding in a closet.

But sadly that still hasn't stopped him from using OUR money to pump out even more porky ads like this one...



Even if it is totally fraudulent.
Read more »

New Harper Stooge Goes After a Veteran's Group

Montreal Simon - lun, 01/12/2015 - 15:59


Last week I predicted that Erin O'Toole, who replaced Julian Fantino as the Con Minister of Veteran Affairs would turn out to be no better than his predecessor.

Or just another Harper stooge.

And sure enough it hasn't taken long for him to show his true colours.
Read more »

"Dirty Secrets From The Man Who Worked For Harper"

Politics and its Discontents - lun, 01/12/2015 - 14:35
This needs to be watched by all Canadians concerned about our country's future. Please circulate widely:



H/t Operation MapleRecommend this Post

Fey and Poehler at Their Best

The Disaffected Lib - lun, 01/12/2015 - 13:10
As a human rights lawyer, she's represented Wikileaks' Julian Assange and former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.  She's served the UN and has investigated both the Egyptian judiciary and the assault on Gaza.  And, after all that and so much more, Amal Clooney gets this:

New Year resolution

Cathie from Canada - lun, 01/12/2015 - 12:47
Our one-word resolution this year: Clean.
We have had a difficult fall and winter due to dealing with the illness and long term care of a relative, including cleaning out a two-bedroom apartment, and it was even more complicated because we needed to travel to another city to deal with it. But everything is handled now, at last.
As a result of this experience, my husband and I have adopted a firm resolution: we will clean up after ourselves.
We will not leave a tangled mountain of stuff for our kids to have to sort out, clean up, or throw away. Deciding what to do with the furniture and so forth was hard enough, but then came the closets and the shelves and the drawers -- old photos and pictures, mementos of trips that nobody can remember, clothes unworn for twenty years, fabric for projects unstarted, Christmas cards a decade old, chequebooks and statements for accounts long-closed, stacked sets of forgotten linens and towels, dishes and cookware last used before the turn of the century, tchotchkes and geegaws and ornaments of all kinds.
We promise we will never say "but its still good" or "maybe I will use this again someday" or "we can't throw this out until we check with ...." -- any of these are a license to put something back on a shelf and never pick it up again. We are going to get rid of our extra stuff come hell or high water -- come to think of it, high water might be the answer!
And if you are in the habit of opening your mail, perusing the contents, carefully folding everything up again, putting it all back in one of the envelopes, and tucking it away into a drawer -- please STOP!

The Harper Strategy Strikes Again

Politics and its Discontents - lun, 01/12/2015 - 11:47
To which of the myriad Machiavellian Harper strategies do I refer? It's the one that says if you don't like what a group is saying, muzzle them or shut them down.

The Hill Times today reports the following:
Newly-appointed Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole has informed an advocacy group for wounded and psychologically injured veterans that it is no longer a stakeholder adviser to the Veterans Affairs department.

Mike Blais, who helped launch Canadian Veterans Advocacy in 2011 to advocate for veterans and serving Canadian Forces members who did combat tours in Afghanistan and their families, told The Hill Times that Mr. O’Toole (Durham, Ont.) gave the bad news to the group in a voicemail he left on Mr. Blais’ phone service Jan. 7.Mr. Blais' group, which had been part of a Veterans Affairs Canada Stakeholder Committee established in 2012,
had been one of the most vocal critics of the department’s treatment of injured veterans and Canadian Forces members in the months leading up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) decision to shuffle former Veterans Affairs minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) out of the post last week, following scathing criticism from Auditor General Michael Ferguson for delays in treatment for veterans.What prompted the termination, which the 'classy' Mr. O'Toole left in a voicemail message to Mr. Blais? Here is what the former said last June in the House:
“As a veteran myself, I have been quite offended by some of the work that group does. It is not sincere. It is not based on sound policy. I understand, at committee, that they have acknowledged that their funding has come from unions”.Setting the record straight, Blais offered the following:
The advocacy group lobbied against government budget plans in 2012 that would have resulted in job losses at Veterans Affairs Canada, he said, after which the union representing the employees provided Canadian Veterans Advocacy a donation of $2,000.

“Every department at that time took a 10-per-cent hit except Veterans Affairs Canada,” Mr. Blais said.

“We worked hard on that and the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees made a donation of $2,000, no strings attached, just a donation to the war chest. There is not tit for tat, no, nothing, right. As a consequence to that, even though it was three years ago and a meagre $2,000, they’ve been attempting to label us,” Mr. Blais said.Julian Fantino may have been replaced as Veterans Affairs minister, but his malignant, vindictive spirit clearly lives on.

Recommend this Post

"Wicked and Tragic Events" Do Not a War Make

The Disaffected Lib - lun, 01/12/2015 - 11:17


The first instinct of the chickenhawk is to proclaim the existence of a state of war where none actually exists.  By "chickenhawk" I mean Canada's very own prime ministerial closet croucher, Stephen Harper, who exploited the Paris massacre as proof that radical Muslims are waging war against Canada.

A Canadian who knows a few things about war, Gwynne Dyer, says the Charlie Hebdo attacks were tragic, to be sure, but war?  Not hardly.

This is not a “war of civilizations”. Seventeen innocent people killed in Paris is not the equivalent of the Crusades. For that matter, neither was 9/11. These are wicked and tragic events, but they are not a war.

There is a war going on, but it is a civil war within the “House of Islam” that occasionally spills over into non-Muslim countries. As foot-soldiers in that war, the three killers in Paris probably did not fully understand the role they were playing, but they were serving a quite sophisticated strategy.

Two of these Muslim civil wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were ignited by U.S.-led invasions in 2001 and 2003. Four others, in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and the northern, mostly Muslim half of Nigeria, have begun since 2011. Others go back even further, like the war in Somalia, or have flared up and then become dormant again, like Mali and Algeria.

In every one of these wars the victims are overwhelmingly Muslims killed by other Muslims. From time to time non-Muslims in other countries are killed too, as in New York in 2001, in London in 2007, in Bombay in 2008 and last week in Paris, and these killings do have a strategic purpose, but it’s not to “terrify non-Muslims into submission.” Quite the contrary.

The great Muslim civil war is about the political, social, and cultural modernization of the Muslim world. Should it continue down much the same track that other major global cultures have followed, or should those changes be stopped and indeed reversed? The Islamists take the latter position.

Some aspects of modernization are very attractive to many Muslims, so stopping the changes would require a lot of violence, including the overthrow of most existing governments in Muslim countries. But that is the task that the Islamists in general, and the jihadi activists in particular, have undertaken.

As they are minorities even in their own countries, the Islamists’ hardest job is to mobilize popular support for their struggle. The best way to do this is to convince Muslims that modernization—democracy, equality, the whole cultural package—is part of a Western plot to undermine Islam.

This will be a more credible claim if Western countries are actually attacking Muslim countries, so one of the main jihadi strategies is to carry out terrorist atrocities that will trigger Western military attacks on Muslim countries. That was the real goal of 9/11, and it was spectacularly successful: it tricked the United States into invading not one but two Muslim countries.

...There is a sub-theme in some of the Middle Eastern wars that muddies the waters a bit: in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the general radicalization has also revived and militarized the age-old conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims. But even in these countries most of the killings are of Sunni Muslims by other Sunni Muslims.

There will be more attacks like the ones in Paris, because lost young men seeking a cause abound in every community, including the Muslim communities of the West. We can't arrest them all, so we will go on having to live with a certain amount of terrorism from both Muslim and non-Muslim extremist groups and trying not to over-react—just as we have been doing for many decades already.

Israel's Unanswered Questions

The Disaffected Lib - lun, 01/12/2015 - 10:58

Just like every other US client state (except us, for now), Israel was quick to sign up to buy the Lockheed F-35 light attack bomber.  The Israeli air force inked the papers for 19 of Lockheed's controversial warplanes and then went back to the trough to order another 32.  At this point something quite curious happened. Powerful voices such as the Minister for Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, began asking some very awkward questions.

The opposition's stand was related to Aviation Week by a senior Israeli official:

"For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability.  ...We shouldn't be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it.  There are vast gaps in performance between the [fifth-generation] F-35 and fourth-generation fighters."

As the opposition turned tenacious a deal was brokered that will see Israel's follow-on buy cut from 32 to 13-aircraft.

When the head of Israeli intelligence calls out the F-35 for its compromised maneuverability, meager operational range and limited payload and questions whether its supposed stealth cloaking even remains viable then Canada needs to listen and get some answers before we too leap into the F-35 pit of uncertainty.



Holding Police to Account

Politics and its Discontents - lun, 01/12/2015 - 06:28


Late last month I wrote a piece for The Paper News examining the nearly impenetrable 'blue wall' that is an ever-present barrier to justice and accountability whenever the police abuse their authority, violate the public's rights, or otherwise brutalize them. One of the cases I wrote about was the disabling beating OPP Sgt. Russell Watson administered to Tonie Farrell, a 48-year-old Orillia ‘Good Samaritan’ whose only 'crime' was to try to help a woman who had been assaulted by three thugs.

The SIU (Special Investigations Unit) did its usual 'stellar' job. It found there were no reasonable grounds to charge the offending officer.

In today's edition of The Star, readers weigh in with their usual penetrating insights. I reproduce a few of them below:

Re: Good Samaritan brutally beaten by OPP officer, Dec. 30
Officer assaults citizen, causes serious, permanent injury. Officer charges citizen with assault and obstruction. SIU investigates officer but lays no charges. Judge dismisses charges against citizen, condemns officer’s actions.

Sadly, this case is not unique; it demonstrates the double standard that exists when the citizen victim of the assault is charged while the police perpetrator suffers no legal or disciplinary consequences. By setting the bar for charging police far too high, the SIU is failing its duty to protect Ontarians from the “bad apples” who perpetuate a culture of violence in police forces across the province.

How many more victims will it take before citizens take to the streets to demand accountability?

M. Goldstein, MississaugaI was appalled to read about OPP Sgt. Russell Watson’s life-shattering assault on Tonie Farrell, and even more appalled to hear that he will face no consequences. This is another in a long line of incidents proving that our police are a law unto themselves.

If they are particularly stupid or their acts particularly egregious, judges may scold them, but the SIU will find there’s no grounds to lay a charge, and their superiors will not even discipline, much less dismiss them. Evidently Watson’s OPP superiors consider punching and kicking women to be all in a day’s work.

When police officers lie under oath, they are not charged with perjury. When they conspire to cover for each other and subvert the course of justice, they are not charged with conspiracy. That “blue wall of silence” seems to reach around the entire justice system.

If an individual’s safety is based on happening not to cross a police officer’s path at the wrong moment (or in the “wrong” skin), we’re in serious trouble. Governments at all levels must take steps to bring police under the rule of law. We cannot trust our justice system or our police if they can break the law with impunity.

Nina Littman-Sharp, TorontoAnd about that curious provision in the law that allows the police to obstruct SIU investigations by refusing to turn over to them their investigation notes:
As I read this article, I became ever more appalled as Tonie Farrell was transformed from Good Samaritan to an abused victim to an accused defendant and then the SIU finding of no wrongdoing. Truly a disgrace.

The most infuriating and confusing aspect of this sorry tale is present in the following passage from the Dec. 30th article: “The SIU conducted a month-long investigation in 2013 and interviewed Watson, but he did not provide his notes, as is his legal right.”

This is a mind-boggling situation. I have never been a police officer nor faced violent danger in my employment. Nonetheless, I have never for one second considered the notes that I took with the pen and paper or computer (supplied by the employer and used during a paid workday) to be my property or facts that I could keep secret.

I worked as a quality assurance manager, and as such I performed investigations into quality issues, and as a member of the joint health and safety committee also conducted investigations on safety incidents. I cannot imagine a circumstance where my refusal to fully co-operate with my co-workers and management supervisors would not result in disciplinary action, which would appear on my HR records and, if there were repeat infractions, result in my dismissal.

My wife and close friends with whom I discussed this issue were similarly confused at learning that the rules appear to allow police officers to withhold information and not fully and completely assist and comply with investigations.

I wish to request the Star to prepare an article to explain to readers like myself the legal logic behind the ability (or “right”) of officers to withhold their field notes. This article should include a complete review of the pros and cons of this “right.” It would be very enlightening to learn of situations where the exercising of this “right” is clearly the correct course of action as well as the flip-side, such as the Farrell vs. Watson case and others like it.

Stan Taylor, BramptonRecommend this Post

It's Come Back To Haunt Us

Northern Reflections - lun, 01/12/2015 - 06:23


After events such as those in France last week, it's natural for people to feel anger. But when anger turns to rage, and rage spawns ignorance, we are in dangerous territory. In Europe, the parties of the Far Right are counselling ignorance. Michael Harris writes:

The leader of the Front National party, Marine Le Pen, is stoking the view that immigration is an “invasion” — a coinage of her father, the party’s founder, Jean-Marie LePen. Her ‘ban refugees’ message is aped by the leader of the United Kingdom Independent Party of Nigel Farage, and the Dutch Party of Freedom led by Geert Wilders.

Among other things, Le Pen wants to bring back capital punishment to protect what she calls the “countrymen.” Islam, she proclaims, is an evil ideology. Perhaps that’s why her father wanted Muslims expelled before they “took over” France.
Predictably, the Harper Right is also counselling ignorance. Enter Michelle Rempel:

Calling the opposition’s position “deeply ignorant,” (both the NDP and Liberals voted against the latest war in Iraq) Rempel went on to advise total ignorance in dealing with ISIL. Don’t bother trying to understand what happened, just experience the horror of it all. Channel the victims. Rempel’s advocacy comes down to this: kill the evil-doers before they kill us. Where have you heard that before?
Stop, for a minute, and consider where ignorance has got us:

After 13 years of the War on Terror, the Rempel Doctrine has given the world a fractured Iraq never far from civil war, a dysfunctional Afghanistan, chaos in Libya, horrendous civil war in Syria, excruciating pain in Gaza, and radicalized an even more vicious strain of fundamentalism that is so bad that it makes Al Qaida look moderate.
That ignorance is most evident in our refusal to consider history and the context that it provides. Eric Margolis, Harris writes, provides both history and context:

Starting with the premise that absolutely nothing justifies the savagery that took place in Paris last week – (and let me stress those words “absolutely nothing”), Margolis educates rather than incites. He points out that France has emerged as one of the most active interveners in the Muslim world, with military operations in Libya, Mali, Ivory Coast, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Abu Dhabi, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

And behind all that, there is of course the bloody legacy of Algeria, where liberation fighters were tortured by electro-shock occasionally with the assistance of psychiatrists. The French military presence has been so pervasive, Margolis points out that critics have accused the country of a new era of Mideast and African colonialism.
The old adage what goes around comes around applies now as it has always applied. Our problem is that we have forgotten what we sent around the first time. And we fail to understand why it has come back to haunt us.

Monday Morning Links

accidentaldeliberations - lun, 01/12/2015 - 05:35
Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Stephen Burgen reports on Thomas Piketty's view that it's long past time for voters to have anti-austerity options where none existed in the past. And along similar lines, Murray Dobbin sets out the stark choice facing Canadians:
Canadians will have to continue to watch their Scandinavian neighbours use the wheel and prosper while we remain captives to the free market priesthood. Norway is the logical choice of neighbour to compare ourselves to, if you can stomach it. In Canada we have virtually given away our energy heritage through criminally low royalty rates over a period of some 70 years. Norway bargained hard with oil companies to develop its relatively newfound resource -- and kept ownership of it. The result, as reported in The Tyee last year, is a heritage fund of (as of a year ago) $909,364 billion (Canadian). That puts tiny Norway $1.5 trillion ahead of us and while each Canadian has a $17,000 share of our $600 billion debt national debt, each Norwegian has a $178,000 stake in their surplus. Norway puts aside a billion dollars a week from its oil resource.

But all that oil money aside (literally), Norway actually funds its government services through taxes which its citizens gladly pay. And why not? As Mitch Andersen reported, "Norwegians enjoy universal day care, free university tuition, per capita spending on health care 30 per cent higher than Canada and 25 days of paid vacation every year." We, on the other hand, live in a country where a third of citizens believe in Harper's fiscal self-flagellation, in an extremist religion that calls upon us all to deliberately impoverish ourselves. Hallelujah.- Meanwhile, Carol Goar notes that we could build a stronger society by ensuring that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share:
For decades there have been sporadic calls from economists, think-tanks and opposition MPs to jack up tax rates for the privileged elite. The response of the finance department is best captured by a 1985 remark from then finance minister Michael Wilson. “Canada has an acute shortage of rich people,” he told the Canadian Economics Association, dismissing the budgetary impact as negligible.

That mindset prevailed through five Conservative and Liberal governments although no politician has expressed it as bluntly as Wilson. It still holds sway, despite a dramatic widening of the gap between rich and poor; a proliferation of self-styled “supermanagers” who rake in 170 times as much as the average worker; and a deepening sense of injustice among young people, victims of corporate cost-cutting, struggling wage earners and worried middle-class families.

It is true, as Wilson observed, that imposing higher taxes on the ultra-rich wouldn’t produce a fiscal bonanza. But it would slow the growth of inequality, ensure high-income earners pay their share of the cost of running the country and give the stalled majority a stake in Canada’s economic success. It would also bring Canada’s tax code into the 21st century. When the current rules were enacted, a salary of $137,000 put an individual in the economic stratosphere. Stock options were unheard of. The distribution of wealth was relatively stable.

None of those assumptions pertain to today’s socio-economic landscape. - Keith Reynolds discusses another scathing report on P3s - this time from British Columbia, where a provincial cheerleading agency has regularly avoided considering publicly-owned options in order to make privatization look palatable.

- Aurin Squire notes that many in New York are far better off as a result of police refusing to enforce "quality of life" offences.

- Finally, Lana Payne comments on the broken relationship between the Harper Cons and the veterans who were used as political props for so long. And Tim Naumetz reports that a minor cabinet shuffle has done nothing to change the Cons' preference for silencing veterans rather than listening to them.

Stephen Harper, the Terrorist Menace, and the Web of Deception

Montreal Simon - lun, 01/12/2015 - 04:27


One thing I learned long ago is that if you want to know what Stephen Harper is really up to, you can't just cover one story and move on, like so many other bloggers like to do.

You have to put them all together like a jig saw puzzle, or the strands of a monstrous spider's web, to understand what sinister plan he is stealthily spinning.

Understand for example, that in the case of the Great Terrorist Menace that he is trying to whip up to try to scare Canadians into voting for him, he is spinning a giant web of DECEPTION.
Read more »

Mayhem Show in Montreal Monday

Anti-Racist Canada - dim, 01/11/2015 - 19:47
We've been taking a lot of time away from the blog and haven't been checking our email lately. Managed to catch this from our friends in Quebec in time however:

We’d like to spread the word about a show happening in Montreal in Monday, January 12, where the bands Mayhem, Watain and Revenge will be performing at Club Soda.

The band Mayhem from Norway is headlining this show. Mayhem’s drummer Hellhammer  has made racist, white supremacist and homophobic statements in past interviews.

In the book “Lords of Chaos”, Hellhammer is quoted in an interview saying,“I'll put it this way, we don't like black people here. Black metal is for white people.... I'm pretty convinced that there are differences between
races as well as everything else. I think that like animals, some races are more ... you know, like a cat is much more intelligent than a bird or a cow, or even a dog, and I think that's also the case with different races." We’ve attached pages of this book for context.

Later, in an interview taken from the film “Until the Light Takes Us” (2009) Hellhammer “honours” fellow musician Faust (member of the band Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_%28musician%29) for his murder of a gay man (or in his words, a ‘fucking faggot’) in 1992.  Please see the interview for yourself:  http://youtu.be/10oqjp6msyQ?t=34m10s

Read more »

On predictable arrangements

accidentaldeliberations - dim, 01/11/2015 - 14:50
Aaron Wherry nicely summarizes the possible outcomes of the next federal election so the rest of us don't have to. But let's take a moment to consider what we can expect if we indeed have a hung Parliament, requiring parties to deal with each other to determine who will hold office.

To start with, Michael Den Tandt's theory about the NDP having any interest in propping up continued Con government is utterly out to lunch. But CuriosityCat's Lib spin is far from the right way to look at the NDP's position as well.

No, Jack Layton's tenure as leader (and rise to the position of Leader of the Opposition) isn't a cautionary tale. And that's precisely because Layton refused to make the type of deal Den Tandt sees as possible.

Here's Layton's first-hand account as to what happened when discussions after the 2004 election shifted from merely amending the Throne Speech, and turned to the possibility that Stephen Harper could become prime minister as head of a new government (Speaking Out Louder at p. 341-342):
I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would have to turn "to one of us" to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.

Stephen Harper, while less inclined to brinksmanship, nevertheless warmed to the seduction of Mr. Duceppe's strategy. Under this scenario, Mr. Harper would become prime minister in an informal alliance with the Bloc. Unthinkable? Not to either Mr. Harper or Mr. Duceppe. The Bloc leader was willing to strategize for Stephen Harper to become prime minister, despite the Conservatives' many negative policies...Mr. Duceppe and the Bloc would have been key players in any Harper coalition, demanding significant dismantling of our collective capacities as Canadians as the price of his support. That dismantling was something that would coincide nicely with Mr. Harper's ideological and visceral distaste for any federal government oversight or ability to intervene in any social or economic programs administered by the provinces but utilizing federal tax dollars.

Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper.So Layton rightly concluded that installing the Cons in power was antithetical to the values he had been elected to promote. And he held to that position throughout the minority Parliaments from 2004 to 2011 - while the Bloc and Libs took turns supporting Harper (or running for the hills) when faced with opportunities to avoid Con government through a vote in Parliament.

There's no reason to think the NDP would change its view from the position it has held since 2004, as Thomas Mulcair has taken up Layton's mantle in defending the concept of a coalition in pursuit of progressive government. And if anything, the large group of Quebec MPs elected in no small part to maximize the chance of building an alternative government would have all the more reason to hold to the position.

We can thus expect the NDP to be strongly motivated to remove Harper from power if any opportunity presents itself.

And as I've noted before, there should be ample room for a deal between an NDP which is primarily focused on ensuring progressive policy outcomes, and a Lib party which is built primarily around personal advancement (and which is prepared to change its policies at the drop of a hat in pursuit of that end).

If the NDP ranks ahead of the Libs with enough combined seats to form government, it will be in a position to offer Justin Trudeau and his entourage a place in the cabinet to start shedding their "inexperienced" label - and likely wouldn't have much trouble fitting a prominent Lib platform plank or two into a governing agenda.

Similarly, if the Libs finish with more seats than the NDP, there's reason to expect the NDP to focus on having as much of its platform as possible implemented, while the Libs would try to maintain as much personal profile as possible while offering enough of a role in Cabinet to satisfy (and make use of) the NDP's strongest performers.

Of course, it's not clear that Trudeau shares Michael Ignatieff's intention of shedding the Cons' government given the opportunity. And that's where there's some significant risk for progressive voters: the stronger the Libs' perceived likelihood of approaching a majority in a subsequent election, the greater the danger that they'll leave Harper in power.

But there's plenty of reason to think it will be possible for the NDP and the Libs to work out a deal if both want a change in government. And there's no basis at all to worry that the NDP will be the party holding up that process.

Pages

Subscribe to canadianprogressives.ca agrégateur - Posts from our progressive community