I just wonder if this is true. I mean, it’s at least more true than ever before, given how close the NDP is to maybe becoming partners in government, but things are so volatile in Ottawa right now. Who knows?

Joey brings up a great point. Budget consultations will come soon and they’ll be swift. I also wonder if this motion will have nay discernible effect on CFS-PMO relations.

My bet: No.

Just a quick point.

You wrote: “Unions align with political parities that advance their agenda. I don’t see why the CFS should or would even want to behave differently. It’s a good idea because it works.”

I assume you are referring for their call for, “dedicated provincial transfer for post-secondary education that promotes national standards in quality and affordability”

Two budgets ago the Tories said they would do this, presumably the following year. The CFS was aware that the Tories had promised to do it and released a press release prior to the last budget calling on the government to attach further strings to the Canada Social Transfer with respect to PSE. When the Tories did not do this, the CFS basically ignored it because the CMSF was ditched.

I only raise this to show that on a key plank of the CFS’s stated policy goals, there was a Tory promise to do it. The Tories haven’t done it and are probably unlikely to, but the CFS hasn’t bothered to call them on it either.

As for the coalition, as much as the NDP might be more likely to implement CFS policy, the NDP would have been a junior member of the coalition, and we all know how much the CFS has appreciated Liberal education policy. And how much they like Bob Rae.

It becomes very muddy very quickly over which parties would be more likely to implement certain policies.

Yeah, I do see why the point was raised, and I know that partisanship within the CFS is a wider discussion. I also think the CFS is too closely linked to the NDP. But I feel that’s a problem when the CFS gets drawn into supporting the NDP’s wider agenda, which isn’t the case here. It’s perfectly fine for the CFS to back one party (NDP or otherwise) as the most likely vehicle to get what it wants. That backing has got to stop well short of picking up any party’s full platform, but again I don’t see a problem here.

This is a motion of partisan support, yes, but on a key topic of great student concern. If it was partisan on a topic unrelated to the CFS’s key mandate I’d cry foul. Unions align with political parities that advance their agenda. I don’t see why the CFS should or would even want to behave differently. It’s a good idea because it works.

If I were to be even more cynical I’d say that in this occasion, if there ever was one, the CFS should be cashing in all it’s political chips for the coalition. It’s the first time in living memory the CFS’s relationship with the Federal NDP might actually pay off in immediate terms. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this isn’t a good occasion to hedge.

Further to that, the Conservatives did choose the CFS path of replacing the CMSF with the “new” grant program and there did seem to be a level of “cooperation” between the Conservative government and the CFS. (This may have been more of a function of Minister Solberg than the Conservatives)

Solberg even spoke to the CFS during their meeting in May by videolink.

We haven’t had time yet to see how Finley would act as Minister in her second tenure at HRSDC. Based on the experience of the last 18 months, I would say that the CFS appears to have traction with the Conservative government. (Appearance’s may be deceiving however, we don’t know what affect the lobbying of the CFS had in the CMSF/CSG decision.)

The government has survived to introduce a budget and calls for budget submissions are underway. What happens to the CFS submission when it arrives in the PMO?

The willingness of the CFS to come out so strongly in favour of the Coalition serves to confirm a belief held by some significant individuals that the CFS is too closely aligned with the NDP.

(Interestly, I get a lot of criticism from Liberal and Conservative circles for my common use of quotes from the NDP leader and PSE critic – this is a function of them returning calls quickly.)

What happens next remains to be seen, however, this hasty motion may come back to haunt the CFS in the near future.

To the debate on if the CFS was within its rights to pass the motion. It was and the decision was made at a General Meeting, not by the national executive.

I would not have passed the motion for the reason that it will make no difference in the outcome and only has potential to damage the lobbying power of the CFS.

I am sorry Carson. But I realized that by jumping in now and objecting to the original premise of your story I’m a bit late to the discussion. You’re always good enough to not comment immediately to my stories and say “so what?” so I would never do that to you either. =)

Of course the motion is partisan. If it was only about outcomes the motion would call on all parties “to develop a plan to increase funding for public infrastructure….” By calling only on opposition parties it very clearly endorses a change of government. Implicitly, even if the Conservatives offered you everything you want, that apparently isn’t good enough because it isn’t from who you want it from.

The thing is, I agree it’s entirely reasonable to give up on getting that from the Conservatives. I agree it’s more likely that hell will freeze over. The CFS is clearly asking for what it wants from a coalition because it knows the Conservative party isn’t onside. It’s calling for a change of government to hopefully get people in power who do support the CFS’s goals. To my mind that’s perfectly reasonable, and in fact one of the most sensible things the CFS does.

The only thing I can’t understand is why you insist on denying that, even in the teeth of what’s right in front of you.

“Be it resolved that the November federal economic update be strongly opposed; and

Be it further resolved that the opposition parties be called upon to work together to oppose the economic update and to develop a plan to increase funding for public infrastructure, including a dedicated provincial transfer for post-secondary education that promotes national standards in quality and affordability.”

There’s no mention here of opposing any particular party. It’s focused upon POLICY — of the GOVERNMENT.

So, again, NOT PARTISAN.

Rick seems to think that partisan politics means overtly supporting a particular party – and so long as the CFS doesn’t do so overtly, they’re fine. But I’d counter that opposing a particular party – instead of a particular policy – is just as partisan.

Those priorities relate to student, education, and related social justice issues. And those priorities are reflected in policy positions on a wide range of issues. In turn, the CFS follows its policies, and member students’ unions use them as a guide, to lobby.

Maybe you missed Lobbying 101 in your political science education, but what that means is — quite often — the CFS will find itself opposing policies/initiatives/actions of REAL LIVE GOVERNMENTS. Again, you can call that being “partisan” — your rhetorically preferred descriptor — but most people call that lobbying/advocacy.

As for the “context,” I’m guessing you are overly sensitive to it because you hate to see your cherished Harper Conservatives fall. But the fact of the matter is that effective lobbying happens when governments are vulnerable/weak. In other words, the CFS position is smartly strategic — not “partisan.”

What we all know is that the Conservatives garnered only 38% of the votes — from a whopping 22% of eligible voters. On the other hand, 62% of voters — the majority — chose other parties. The opposition parties, as you are surely aware, are the majority in the House. This “context” makes the government vulnerable.

When the iron is hot, lobby groups must strike. If the CFS didn’t strike, now, then when, Carson? Should the CFS wait until the government has a majority and operates like a dictatorship? Would that be a “context” in which lobbying would not be “partisan”?

Seriously, you’re really grasping, here.

http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2008/08/25/solberg-unveils-changes-to-student-loan-repayment/

“The CFS made four press releases all full of glowing praise for the Tory government with respect to the millenium fund, but no mention of the fact the government put no extra strings on the CSF as it had promised to do, and that the CFS had stated as a priority.

It seemed, as I noted at the time, odd that they were quiet on this, but perhaps not so odd given their peculiar position on the new repayment scheme. So does the CFS know something the rest of us don’t know, or has some sort of weird alliance been struck with the Harper government? Or have I missed something?”