Democrats Live

New Tweets This Hour

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0300

2009-08-23 14:03:51: @ujjaldosanjh Good for you everyone who can should be doing the same.#hfx09 #cdnpoli #roft #lpc #ndp #gpc #layton #pmharper #ignatieff

Compare and contrast

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:17:50 -0300

There's still plenty of ground to be covered in examining the Cons' responsibility for bribing Ontario and B.C. to raise taxes on their citizens. And one of the more interesting areas for further discussion comes in comparing the process followed for the HST payoff with the one applied to the Cons' much-ballyhooed infrastructure spending.

In the case of infrastructure, the Cons made a pool of money available with a stated intended purpose. But rather than actually proposing any projects, the Cons have left it to municipalities and provinces to apply with their own "ideas" for spending - pausing at most to filter out some spending for partisan gain, then passing money along based on proposals from the provincial or municipal level.

And the predictable result? Con actors from Stephen Harper down to to rank-and-file MPs have spent the entire summer running to the nearest camera to claim full responsibility for every announcement they can fit into their schedules.

In the case of the HST, the Cons actually spent more time and effort trying to convince the provinces to go along with a scheme which actually originated at the federal level. But the rough process has been the same: money was set aside for a specified purpose, and the Cons have responded to provincial interest by signing on to pay out money as they initially proposed.

But the Cons claim they bear no responsibility that since the provinces made a decision to go along with their payoff.

So let's assume that there's some validity to the Cons' effort to flee any responsibility for the HST. By the same standard, hasn't every single infrastructure project initiated this year been the result of a proposal and decision from one or more other levels of government? And applying the same standard which they're trying to apply to the HST, shouldn't the Cons be scrupulously avoiding any credit for infrastructure spending which doesn't come from their own ideas?

New Tweets This Hour

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:00:00 -0300

2009-08-23 13:12:49: #ptgreen If U arnt outraged after seeing ths vid nothing will,compassion yea rt,how abt his victims? http://bit.ly/J1PiT #hfx09 #roft #lpc
2009-08-23 13:12:19: #cdnpoli If U arnt outraged after seeing ths vid nothing will,compassion yea rt,how abt his victims? http://bit.ly/J1PiT #hfx09 #roft #lpc

McGuinty’s New Paternalism

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:54:03 -0300

Back in April, I wrote here about the McGuinty Liberals attempts at updating the Ontario Mining Act, the same act that hadn’t been updated since about Confederation, fell foe fully short. The McGuinty Liberals said that their government as building a "new respect and working relationship" with Ontario First Nations in the process. Since that time, the new act has been making it’s way through the system and this month we saw the public consultations on the act itself. Now, sadly thanks to the actions of both the McGuinty Liberals and Hudak Conservatives, I have to use the term “consultations” quite loosely, and the term "new respect and working relationship" has been taking on a whole new, negative meaning.

First of all, if the McGuinty Liberals were looking to have this new relationship with First Nations, you’d think that would involve giving various First Nations groups the change to take part in the public consultations right? Well, unfortunately the McGuinty Liberals don’t see it that way (courtesy NetNewsLedger.com):

The Ontario New Democrats are accusing the McGuinty Liberals of deliberately short circuiting proposed changes to Ontario's Mining Act. "On the first day of public hearings into a bill that will change Ontario’s Mining Act, Liberal government MPPs used their majority on a legislative committee to set a deadline that will make it impossible to properly consult affected communities and will give MPPs precious little time to make amendments to the bill," charges Gilles Bisson, NDP MPP for Timmins-Bay James and a member of the committee.

“Such a short time-frame makes it impossible to hear from, let alone consult, all the communities and groups affected by this far-reaching bill. It also gives opposition MPPs virtually no time to make amendments based on what we hear from the public,” warned Bisson. “The action of government MPPs leads me to conclude that the McGuinty Liberals have already made up their mind on this bill. Why hold public hearings if the government will only lend a deaf ear to Northern Ontarians? The hearings have barely begun and already it looks like the fix is in.”

This bill has major flaws in it, but thanks to the actions of the McGuinty Liberals, they won’t have a chance to get acted on. You’d think that if you were really sincere in your desire to have this new working relationship that you’d give a bit more time than a whole month to do the consultations on this bill that means so much to the future of Ontario’s First Nations communities. Now this approach from the McGuinty Liberals has not gone unnoticed, and it prompted the following response from a newspaper that has been known over the years for being friendly to Mr. McGuinty and his party (courtesy Toronto Star):

Premier Dalton McGuinty says his government is building a "new respect and working relationship" with First Nations.

Yet chiefs of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) territory – seething over new planning legislation for the far north – are now threatening to "exercise full and exclusive jurisdiction" over traditional lands.

NAN, which represents most of the people who live in the northern boreal region (the northernmost 40 per cent of our province) increasingly feels betrayed by Queen's Park for failing to deliver on its promises to First Nations.

When Ontario was updating the antiquated mining act, the aboriginal minister of the day said "there will be no situation where exploration will take place on traditional territories ... without the consent of First Nations."

The changes, introduced in May, required far more consultation and cooperation with First Nations. Now, natives are understandably disappointed to learn they will not get any clear power to veto attempts to stake claims on traditional lands….

Yet, the legislation – which passed first reading in June and underwent hurried committee hearings this month – is such a disappointment to First Nations that NAN chiefs are vowing to fight it.

The bill requires the creation of land-use plans before development can take place. But the government controls the process, the money to create a plan and the final approval of a plan.

This does not feel like the "true partnership" First Nations were promised. Indeed, it is a continuation of the old paternalistic relationship.

It also goes against the advice of the government's own advisory council, made up of environmental and industry representatives. The council called for a planning board, jointly appointed by First Nations and the government, to manage the region.

The province should consider including this in amended legislation to ensure it delivers on its stated vision of protection, and economic development, for Ontario's far north. It would also go some way to bringing First Nations back into the fold.

If the government unwisely continues to ignore the views of those who have long called this region home, there is little hope the province's legislation will succeed in meeting its goals.

Folks, we saw what happened last year with the case of the KI 6 and the Ardoch Algonquins thanks to the old flawed legislation. We saw the pain and strife that it caused. So why go through this exercise of updating this law if it doesn’t actually fix the problems that were caused by the old legislation? And worse yet, why string along these First Nations leaders and communities with more promises, promises that this new legislation shows that the McGuinty Liberals have no intention at all of keeping?

A true partnership means treating all partners as equals, with equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal rewards. What Mr. McGuinty’s new legislation offers is much less than equality for Ontario’s First Nations. What it does is flaunt the rulings of the Supreme Court of this land and tries to give the Province of Ontario a veto over the constitutional rights of First Nations and Aboriginal people in Ontario. That’s not right, and these communities have every right to be upset. If this is supposed to be a what Mr. McGuinty thinks a new relationship looks like, I’d have to say that it sure looks and smells a lot like the old one. I guess we can add this to the long list of broken promises of the McGuinty Liberals, but unlike many of those other broken promises, this one will have a major effects on some of the poorest communities in our province. I doubt that’s keeping Dalton up at night at all because if it did, he’d make sure this act was done right the first time.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:10:39 -0300

In some ways, Friday night's game again the Alouettes made for as positive a loss as a team can hope for. Facing the cream of the CFL crop this season, the 'Riders kept the game within reach virtually all the way - but lost by just enough that it's tough to cast blame or second-guessing on any one player or play. But there's obviously room for concern that the team's weaknesses this season only seem to be getting more glaring with time - and the bye week would seem to be the last and best chance to bring in some new personnel to deal with those problems.

While most of the focus after the game has been on the 'Riders' offence in both its effectiveness moving the ball and the number of turnovers that kept Montreal ahead, the biggest plus from the game looks to me to have once again come on the defensive side of the ball.

For the second week in a row, the 'Riders dedicated their defensive efforts to limiting the effectiveness of a red-hot player. And after holding DeAndra Cobb to 29 yards against Hamilton, Saskatchewan again did the job, holding Anthony Calvillo to by far his weakest passing totals of the season, with 170 yards in the air compared to a previous low of 236.

But there were two problems with that approach. First, the Als's dink-and-dunk offence based on short passes and a solid ground game from Avon Cobourne was effective in limiting Saskatchewan's ability to force turnovers - which put the pressure on the offense to similarly hold onto the ball. And conversely, the Als often started with superb field position - meaning that the yardage totals didn't mean limiting the Als' scoring, as the defence gave up touchdowns on drives of 22, 28 and 57 yards.

Meanwhile, the 'Riders' offence followed exactly the opposite approach, piling up big yardage (8.5 per play to 5.2 for Montreal) but losing the field-position and turnover battles. In particular, while Darien Durant deserves full credit for making plenty of big plays, his interceptions ended one promising Saskatchewan drive and gave the Alouettes a short field for two of their touchdowns. And the 'Riders seem to have relied almost entirely on Durant rather than establishing much of a running game - making it all the easier for Montreal to focus in on his passes.

As for the special teams, this was once again a case of the less said, the better. But it's particularly noteworthy that the kick coverage teams - which had been the one relative strength for the 'Riders' special teams this year - managed to sink to the same depths as the rest of the unit, giving up two massive returns to Larry Taylor. That might be a sign of the special teams spending more time than they could afford trying to paper over their weaknesses - but with a bye week ahead, there can't be any excuses if the 'Riders aren't able to start improving some of the problem areas, whether or not that can be done with the talent now on the roster.

Lead Trail Balloon

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:52:52 -0300

Just a few days ago, we heard about the newest missive from the Conservative brain trust about their supposed plans for any election that might come. And what was that shocking twist? (courtesy Globe and Mail):

The Conservatives are breaking their own taboo by starting to call on Canadians to award them a majority government in the next election.

The tactic will be part of an appeal for stability in a recession if the opposition defeats the government in the Commons early this fall, a year after the last election.

Wow, who would have thought it right? Stephen Harper wanting a majority, I never would have thought that possible. Oh the shock! So we should expect to hear a lot more of this now, right? Well, let’s just say it’s amazing what a day can do to change things(courtesy Globe and Mail):

Harper Tory "talking-points" flew out of the PMO on Thursday, warning Conservatives that a fall election is not part of the Prime Minister's strategy: Under the headline, Fall Election Speculation, the e-mail said, "We will not and should not encourage speculation about a Fall election. Our clear and consistent position is that now is no time for an election. Therefore, we will not join in speculation about a Fall election, including speculation about our positioning and strategy."

What provoked this strong reaction? A story in The Globe and Mail detailing how some Tories are beginning to utter the once-taboo words "majority government." The "M" word has not passed Tory lips since the 2004 election, when Mr. Harper's bullish statements about forming a majority may have scared off voters. "Canadians do not want and do not need the Liberals to force an unnecessary, opportunistic election that would interrupt our Economic Action Plan and would put Canada's economic recovery at risk," said the e-mail.

"It is essential that all Caucus members and activists remember that we are NOT - repeat NOT - pushing for a Fall election." Wow. The story clearly hit a nerve in the top Tory ranks.

Well, there you go, action brings on reaction, and that lead test balloon gets shot down out of the sky. So now we’ll go into the Fall seeing Stephen Harper continue is passive-aggressive “I don’t want an election/I want all the power” shtick, the same that we’ve come to expect over the past few years. Oh the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sudbury Being Thrown To The Vale-Inco Wolves By Conservative Inaction

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:31:08 -0300

Back in July here I wrote about the start of a big strike at Vale-Inco in Sudbury. Well seven weeks have gone by and there has been no movement from the part of the employers Vale-Inco. Basically, Vale-Inco is still demanding that the workers in Sudbury lower their expectations closer to their operations is places like China, South Africa and Peru. The Real News has continued it’s strong coverage, and part of what they have uncovered is quite stunning:

The nickel miner strike in Sudbury, Canada is about to enter its seventh week, and there is no sign that the company, Vale, is willing to compromise on its demands for concessions. This despite the fact that the demand for nickel has surged causing the price to rise and Vale to default on at least one contract. Worker's argue that the mine is hugely profitable, sighting $4B in profit made in Sudbury alone over the past two years, but as Industry Analyst Marin Kotusa explains, being profitable is just not enough. "You have to be number one in all sectors," he says, referring to the requirements for victory in the global mining game, in which the winners are the ones who integrate all facets of the supply chain, not just mining, into their business. This requires extracting as much profit as possible in order to finance the necessary expansion into other sectors, lest be gobbled up by one's competitors. The union however, believes that the federal government of Canada ought to protect its people against such threats, and that work can be done to unify unions around the world to even the playing field.

Folks, this isn’t a typical labour dispute that we are seeing in Sudbury. This isn’t about a company fighting for it’s survival or anything of that nature. Vale-Inco made $4 Billion in two years in that operation in Sudbury. $4 Billion folks. That’s not chicken scratch, yet Vale-Inco is not satisfied. No, it’s very clear folks. This is not about simply being profitable because they are already that. This is about “Being number one”. This is about being in total control. This is not about the needs of the local workers and the local community.This is about a major multi-national corporation only worrying about great profits and prestige for itself. And where have the Harper Conservatives been on this? Where have the Ignatieff Liberals been on this too? The workers in Sudbury sure are wondering. Also, what’s worse here is that according to the video report from The Real News, Vale-Inco is preparing to hire scab workers, all while they refuse to negotiate at all.

What we are seeing here folks could very well be the tipping point. Vale-Inco is flaunting their requirements to the people and Government of Canada. The signed an agreement in 2006 when they bought up with operation states that the actions of Vale-Inco must be “in the best interests of Canada”. Is what is going on in Sudbury in the best interest of Canadians? Surely not, because if Vale-Inco is successful in breaking the Unites Steelworkers here in this case, they will surely not be the last to try to pull such a stunt. If Vale-Inco keeps this up and hires scab workers, in one of the most profitable mining operations on the planet, then what’s next? Right now is when our government is supposed to be standing up for our workers and families, and instead we’re getting the opposite from the Conservatives.

Deep thought

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:58:34 -0300

Since Peter Van Loan is avoiding responsibility for tornado relief by saying any emergency response depends on a mathematical formula rather than anything within his control, we can surely count on the Cons not being so crass and dishonest as to try to take credit for the application of that formula if money ever gets paid.

One down, many more to go

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:12:48 -0300

There's seldom much doubt that the causes of tying Canada to the U.S. and handcuffing government in the name of corporatism will always emerge in some new format as soon as the last one falls by the wayside. But Stuart Trew is right to note that the official demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership still calls for at least some celebration - if only to help build energy for the next battles to come.

Another Conservative Minister Missing In Action

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:59:23 -0300

In these tough economic times, many people are feeling the pinch and feeling the pain of it. We’ve sadly seen job losses across the country and that’s left many people wondering how they are going to get by. While it can be said that some of these job losses have been preventable or something could be done about them, the same cannot be said for others. A prime example of that is playing out in British Columbia right now with the sockeye salmon fishery (courtesy cbc.ca):

Scientists and others are scrambling to determine what happened to millions of sockeye salmon that defied their predictions and failed to return to the Fraser River this summer, leading to the closure of all the sockeye fishing on the river for the third year in a row.

After two of the leanest years on record, scientists had predicted a healthy return of sockeye in 2009. But the most recent numbers show this year's Fraser River sockeye run is only expected to be 600,000 fish, about seven per cent of the original prediction of 8.7 million, making it perhaps the worst return on record.

This crisis is being compared to the collapse of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and as a result, many who rely on this fishery for their livelihoods are looking for help from their government. The Conservative Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is none other than Gail Shea, the lone Conservative MP from Prince Edward Island. So given that this crisis is having such a vast effect, you’d think that this would be when we’d be seeing Ms. Shea all over the news, visiting with the fishing community and such, right? Well, see for yourself (courtesy National Post):

Julian and Skeena Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Fisheries Minister Gail Shae has been "AWOL" on the issue and has visited the region only once to attend a fundraiser on Vancouver Island in July.

"I've talked to commercial, sport and native fishermen in my part of the world and they are not even sure who she is," said Mr. Cullen.

Wow, that’s really a bad sign when the group that you’re supposed to be helping isn’t even sure who you are. I doubt that’s what they were aiming for, right? Now, Ms. Shea doesn’t refute that she’s only been out there once, and being as how her spokesperson is quoted in the article as saying that this issue is their “No. 1 priority at the moment”, you’d think that she would have been there more than once to meet with those who are being affected by this. That leaves one to ask why it is that Ms. Shea wouldn’t want to meet with those affected. Well, maybe this is it here:

But the opposition said the Conservative government doesn't quite grasp the immensity of the crisis facing B.C. sockeye salmon, and wild salmon in general which, according to estimates, generates about $1.6-billion in revenue and 52,000 jobs on the West Coast.

They called on the government to increase funding for the salmon enhancement program, which focuses on hatcheries and restoration of habitat and has been cut over the years to $26-million, down from $37-million in 1990.

Well well, nothing like having cut funding to keep a minister away, right? No wonder Ms. Shea has been avoiding these fine people. But really now, doesn’t this just fit the Conservative profile all too well? There’s a crisis, for which they actually have to take some responsibility, and instead of facing that head on, they go quiet and say they’re doing otherwise. Folks, it’s typical and it’s just not right but here we have another example of a Conservative minister missing in action, hiding in the background, right when they’re needed.

New Tweets This Hour

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:00:00 -0300

2009-08-22 13:18:07: #cdnpoli Ignatieff's Bay St. brain trust:http://bit.ly/JSQkw #hfx09 #roft #ndp #gpc #pmharper #layton #hoc #ignatieff
2009-08-22 13:12:36: #ptlib Michael Ignatieff's curiously wasted summer: http://bit.ly/puSf7 #cdnpoli #hfx09 #roft #lpc #gpc #layton #ignatieff #pmharper
2009-08-22 13:01:48: #cdnpoli Military favours stealthy jet to replace CF-18s: http://bit.ly/XUJMF #hfx09 #roft #lpc #gpc #pmharper #layton #ignatieff #hoc

Feeding the grassroots

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:14:29 -0300

For quite some time, I've wondered why many political parties have seemed reluctant to build up online support networks for themselves, using their websites as self-contained messaging devices rather than trying to develop a network of supporters. But it's great to see that the Saskatchewan NDP is apparently breaking out of that pattern with its caucus website, sending interested readers to this and other familiar blogs which have commented on the Wall government's fiscal mismanagement.

Of course, that along with a successful venture into Facebook and Twitter makes for only a start in trying to build online capacity for the Saskatchewan NDP - and hopefully the next little while will see a concerted effort to encourage member-generated content and discussion in addition to pointing toward existing sources. But it's certainly a step in the right direction for the party to be building connections to its grassroots supporters - and both the NDP and the blogs themselves figure to benefit in the long run from the move.

The HST Ties That Binds

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:25:57 -0300

Here’s what I had to say about the McGuinty Liberals Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) plan back on March 31, 2009:

The idea that the Conservatives were putting out there is that this was those “Tax and Spend” Liberals at work and that they would never in a million years do anything like that. Right? Well lets go back to that Toronto Star report from last week and see what it says:

“Under the deal, Ottawa will make transfer payments to Queen's Park totalling $4.3 billion in 2010 and 2011 to ease the transition.”

Yeah, you know those checks that Dalton McGuinty says he’s going to cut to every Ontarian before the next election to help “soften the blow”, they’re being paid for by none other than Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in Ottawa. So not only did Stephen Harper just help slap an extra 8% tax on all Ontarians, they actually paid the McGuinty Liberals to do it. No wonder the Toronto Star wrote on Saturday that the McGuinty Liberals and the Harper Conservatives are each others new BFF’s.

Yep, at that time it looked like “Stephen and Dalton’s New 8% Tax On Everything” was going to be a sure fire provincial election issue in 2011 and any by-elections before then, like the one in St. Paul’s. But one had to wonder if it would become a Federal one and how this would come back to bit the Harper Conservatives. But now that British Columbia announced they were going to do the same (which really shouldn’t have caught anyone too off guard because Jim Flaherty was talking about it happening back in March, before the BC provincial election) and with a summer for people to talk about it, this issue is starting to take off on the federal scene. People are starting to connect the dots about how this all came to be. So this is great news for the Ignatieff Liberals, right? Well, not so fast now folks (courtesy BigCityLib):

Interesting to try to work out how anti-HST anger might play out in B.C. and Ontario during a fall election (which, my goodness!, is starting to look halfway possible). I don't see the issue helping the two major parties that much. In both provinces, the harmonization involves cooperation between federal Tories and provincial Liberals, so it would be difficult for the Federal Libs to oppose it, at least in a full-throated fashion. And in Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak's position has been to arm-wave and protest while at the same time refusing to commit to a repeal if ever elected.

There seems a bit more for the Federal NDP to work with here. Provincially (Ontario), for example, Andrea Horwath has promised a simple repeal. Federally, I haven't noticed a response from Jack Layton, although Nova Scotia's Darrell Dexter has urged other provincial leaders to exercise caution in the implementation of the plan. In any case, they can, should they choose, take a more definitive stand, and without looking at the B.C./Ontario electoral maps I would nevertheless assume there are ridings in both provinces where a such a stance might pull enough protest votes to put the local NDPer over the top.

Now BigCityLib and I rarely see eye to eye on much, so I like to point out such things whenever it happens. I really do agree with his observation on this one. The HST is so unpopular in BC that it’s brought former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm out of retirement to plan rallies against it. Last month, Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath announced that so far, her party had received over 50,000 signatures on a petition to repeal the tax. And in Ontario it’s gotten so bad that Ontario Conservative MPP’s are turning on Ontario Conservative MP’s while those same MP’s try to distance themselves from the move.

You’ve got two Liberal Premiers, ones who Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal caucus haven’t been shy about being close with, getting paid by the Conservative Federal government to implement a tax change that’s highly unpopular. Yes, that does make life hard for both the Liberals and the Conservatives and I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that whenever that election does come, that both the Conservatives and Liberals are going to do the best to try to not talk about this. I wouldn’t say that they’d have a “gentleman’s agreement” to avoid the topic, but I can see how both will be keen to avoid it. That leaves it up to the New Democrats to not only offer the solid alternative and to take that definitive stand but to make sure that this issue does not fall off the table. Could the HST in Ontario and BC a Federal Election issue? Maybe not nation wide, but in this day and age when our voting patterns are so regionalized and the effects that has on the outcome, the results could have a big effect. The fact is that the Conservatives and Liberals both see Ontario and British Columbia as places they must do better, and if this issue really takes off, like it seems to be, that puts a big crimp on those aspirations, while opening a big door to the New Democrats.

Better Said

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:18:59 -0300

Last night I wrote a piece in response to the Liberals most recent attempt at using the “Vote for me if you want to live” argument, and I thought I did a pretty good job. But this morning The Jurist over at Accidental Deliberations made an even better point in regards to this, one that I’m just wishing I had thought of first:

The claim is based on the following pattern of reasoning:

1. Canadian voters have only two choices for government, the Cons and the Libs. (False, but let's keep going to see where it leads.)

2. Because Canadians have only those two choices, any statement or action related to one of the Libs or the Cons constitutes an endorsement as between the two.

3. Included within (2), any statement that the Cons should be removed from government is then taken to constitute an endorsement of the Libs.

But there's just one glaring problem from the Libs' standpoint if that reasoning is accepted.

Assume that it's true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be removed from power constitutes an endorsements of the Libs as against them. Isn't it then equally true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be kept in power constitutes no less an endorsement of the Cons as against the Libs?

And by that logic, haven't the Libs been endorsing Stephen Harper against their own leaders for the better part of two years?

Again, there are obvious flaws in the argument to begin with (if ones which the Libs have gone to great pains to avoid noticing). But Steve V and other Libs might want to take a closer look at what they're saying in stating that each party can choose between Con government or Lib government, full stop - because they've made a rather damaging choice in that department themselves for the past 79 confidence votes.
*photo courtesy Harper Valley

By necessary implication

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:50:41 -0300

Cameron has answered the latest attempt to pretend that opposing the Cons is the same as supporting the Libs with due mockery. But let's go a step further and ask what it means if the Libs' logic is taken at face value.

The claim is based on the following pattern of reasoning:

1. Canadian voters have only two choices for government, the Cons and the Libs. (False, but let's keep going to see where it leads.)
2. Because Canadians have only those two choices, any statement or action related to one of the Libs or the Cons constitutes an endorsement as between the two.
3. Included within (2), any statement that the Cons should be removed from government is then taken to constitute an endorsement of the Libs.

But there's just one glaring problem from the Libs' standpoint if that reasoning is accepted.

Assume that it's true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be removed from power constitutes an endorsements of the Libs as against them. Isn't it then equally true that any declaration that the Cons ought to be kept in power constitutes no less an endorsement of the Cons as against the Libs?

And by that logic, haven't the Libs been endorsing Stephen Harper against their own leaders for the better part of two years?

Again, there are obvious flaws in the argument to begin with (if ones which the Libs have gone to great pains to avoid noticing). But Steve V and other Libs might want to take a closer look at what they're saying in stating that each party can choose between Con government or Lib government, full stop - because they've made a rather damaging choice in that department themselves for the past 79 confidence votes.

(Edit: fixed title.)