Feelin' like a Liberal partisan.
Dana at Galloping Beaver wrote a few days ago about why he quit the NDP. Today's Globe & Mail brings me more proof of why I'll never join it:
[Paul] Martin said the Tory plan for a "theoretical payment" of $1,200 per child under age six has "tactical elegance" — easy for voters to understand, easy to remember and framed in choice-in-child-care language.
"Who could possibly be against choice?" Mr. Martin asked.
Yet the Conservatives, the former finance minister argued, are paying for the $2.5-billion annual benefit program by cancelling an existing low-income child supplement and by raising the lowest income-tax rate by half a percentage point.
The new child benefit, which is taxable for the lowest earning parent, will provide more cash in hand to the stay-at-home spouse of a wealthy breadwinner than to two-income parents of modest means.
"It is difficult to understand the perverse thinking that would take money out of the pockets of the working poor so that their better-off brethren might benefit," said Mr. Martin.
Moreover, "a few dollars a day does not provide choice," he said.
Despite using arguments identical to those of New Democrats, Mr. Martin looked in vain for back-up.
Wayne Marston, the rookie NDP MP from Hamilton, Ont., said he was having a hard time "choking down" Mr. Martin's speech, "when I consider the fact the former Liberal government traded on child care since 1993 to achieve three majority governments."
Mr. Marston then rubbed salt in the wounds of Mr. Martin, who stepped down as Liberal leader on election night and has said he won't run again.
"You lost the confidence, we did not," the New Democrat taunted.
"Now, like spoiled children across the way, they continue to try to gain crass political points. They don't seem to realize it was the Canadian public that gave them the boot."
Let's start with the fact that Martin is right on the merits about the Tory child care plan, which -- even ignoring its basic uselessness to the poor -- was always an unserious feel-good sop to the provincial treasuries and single-earner families, and a giant waste of federal dollars (the newest Caledon report, which I haven't had time to read, is here). Then let's take in the fact that, despite (technically) losing confidence, Paul Martin's party still won 13% more of the national popular vote and 74 more seats than Marston's party did, making Marston's "you're-so-uncool" rebuttal rather asinine. Then there's the fact that Marston has the gall to attack Martin for playing politics by making policy critiques in the House when all he's doing in his own rebuttal is trading on Martin's unpopularity from the last election to generate more Liberal-bashing headlines, which the NDP obviously think will help them in their quest to chip away at the Liberal coalition (so far, without a whole lot of success).
I've always been glad that Canada has an NDP -- a party of true bleeding hearts is conspicuously lacking in the US and that's a long-term structural problem that we thankfully don't have (and a reason why I don't support the recent merger talk, or a Liberal leadership candidate who embraces the idea). But that assumes the NDP cares about keeping their national face substantive. If they keep this Bloc-ish sectarian nonsense up, I'm personally going take just as much pleasure from watching them lose to the Liberals (which I expect they will, for years to come) as I would watching the Tories go down.
[Paul] Martin said the Tory plan for a "theoretical payment" of $1,200 per child under age six has "tactical elegance" — easy for voters to understand, easy to remember and framed in choice-in-child-care language.
"Who could possibly be against choice?" Mr. Martin asked.
Yet the Conservatives, the former finance minister argued, are paying for the $2.5-billion annual benefit program by cancelling an existing low-income child supplement and by raising the lowest income-tax rate by half a percentage point.
The new child benefit, which is taxable for the lowest earning parent, will provide more cash in hand to the stay-at-home spouse of a wealthy breadwinner than to two-income parents of modest means.
"It is difficult to understand the perverse thinking that would take money out of the pockets of the working poor so that their better-off brethren might benefit," said Mr. Martin.
Moreover, "a few dollars a day does not provide choice," he said.
Despite using arguments identical to those of New Democrats, Mr. Martin looked in vain for back-up.
Wayne Marston, the rookie NDP MP from Hamilton, Ont., said he was having a hard time "choking down" Mr. Martin's speech, "when I consider the fact the former Liberal government traded on child care since 1993 to achieve three majority governments."
Mr. Marston then rubbed salt in the wounds of Mr. Martin, who stepped down as Liberal leader on election night and has said he won't run again.
"You lost the confidence, we did not," the New Democrat taunted.
"Now, like spoiled children across the way, they continue to try to gain crass political points. They don't seem to realize it was the Canadian public that gave them the boot."
Let's start with the fact that Martin is right on the merits about the Tory child care plan, which -- even ignoring its basic uselessness to the poor -- was always an unserious feel-good sop to the provincial treasuries and single-earner families, and a giant waste of federal dollars (the newest Caledon report, which I haven't had time to read, is here). Then let's take in the fact that, despite (technically) losing confidence, Paul Martin's party still won 13% more of the national popular vote and 74 more seats than Marston's party did, making Marston's "you're-so-uncool" rebuttal rather asinine. Then there's the fact that Marston has the gall to attack Martin for playing politics by making policy critiques in the House when all he's doing in his own rebuttal is trading on Martin's unpopularity from the last election to generate more Liberal-bashing headlines, which the NDP obviously think will help them in their quest to chip away at the Liberal coalition (so far, without a whole lot of success).
I've always been glad that Canada has an NDP -- a party of true bleeding hearts is conspicuously lacking in the US and that's a long-term structural problem that we thankfully don't have (and a reason why I don't support the recent merger talk, or a Liberal leadership candidate who embraces the idea). But that assumes the NDP cares about keeping their national face substantive. If they keep this Bloc-ish sectarian nonsense up, I'm personally going take just as much pleasure from watching them lose to the Liberals (which I expect they will, for years to come) as I would watching the Tories go down.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home