Things that help to define Canada as a 'progressive' country

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
Things that help to define Canada as a 'progressive' country

(I hope this is in the right forum)

500_Apples

I appreciate your thread, but CMHC and Peacekeeping don't belong in here. The former is a subsidy for the banks, the latter is imperialism euphemized.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Things that help  define Canadians as progressive and which need to be defended or restored

National Health Care - under attack by the federal government as well as the provinces in the form of increasing privatization, especially here in Quebec

CMHC - makes low interest home ownership loans available to Canadians

Canadian Wheat Board - about to be scrapped by the government

Credit Unions

Peacekeeping - abolished by the Conservatives in favour of aggression and occupation

Canada Pension Plan

Housing co-operatives

(please post other examples that help to define progressive values in Canada)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think Pearson's blue berets are a good contrast to Harper's wars of aggression. And if low-interest loans from CMHC are abolished, how the heck are low income Canadians ever going to afford to buy a house? I am living at the poverty level on disability - I haven't paid income tax in almost ten years - and my CMHC loan payments are much less than half of what rent would cost. So, I respectfully disagree with you.

ps: my CMHC loan was done through a Credit Union. I haven't used the services of any bank in twenty years.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I was going to add Canada Student Loan/grant programs, but these have fallen much short of what they were when I was a student 40 years ago. They definitely need to be funded properly - but I'm not an expert on this - maybe someone with knowledge of the subject could please comment?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I was going to add Canada Student Loan/grant programs, but these have fallen much short of what they were when I was a student 40 years ago. They definitely need to be funded properly - but I'm not an expert on this - maybe someone with knowledge of the subject could please comment?

Canadian Federation of Students wrote:

Debt Aversion 

Debt aversion is the personal calculation that the sacrifice of debt accumulation and repayment are not worth the return from post-secondary education. When examining the details of financial barriers to participation in Canada, Malatest and Associates found that debt aversion was strong among nonattendees, cited by one in four who said that financial issues were preventing their enrolment1.

More detailed studies on debt aversion have been conducted in the United Kingdom. It has been determined that students from racialised communities and lower income backgrounds, as well as single parents are more likely to hold negative feelings about taking on student debt2. Two thirds ofstudents who decide against enrolling in university say that student debt affected their decision3. Debt aversion has also been linked to decisions about where to study. In one UK survey, the vast majority of those who chose to live with their parents while studying cited a desire to minimize student debt4.

http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/studentdebt/index.html

The student debt clock on the site is about to turn to $14,000,000,000.  

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

(I hope this is in the right forum)

It's not even on the right website.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:

http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/studentdebt/index.html

The student debt clock on the site is about to turn to $14,000,000,000.  

That's an eye-opener. Thanks for posting.

Maysie Maysie's picture

The Canada Student Loan Program was sold to the banks over 15 years ago. 

When I entered graduate school in the fall of 1995 I applied for and received OSAP (Canada and Ontario). My loans were approved by the OSAP structure, but the money itself flowed through the evil bank of my choice. Figuring if I had to pay some banking-type entity interest on my loan, I tried to get the loan through my credit union which, surprise, wasn't on the approved list. The OSAP peeps refused my requests. I needed the loan, so I went with CIBC. 

Boom Boom, while I appreciate the sentiment of your thread, a counter-thread called "Things that help define Canada as a non-progressive country" would fill up much faster and with far less introspection. I can't get on board the "rah-rah" Canada thing you want to have here. Good luck.

And the activism forum is absolutely not the place for this thread.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

"rah rah Canada"???? That wasn't my intention. I had the intention of building solidarity for a return to a progressive values, which is why I said in post #2 "...which need to be defended or restored". But move or close the thread if necessary. I tried.

500_Apples

Boom Boom wrote:

I think Pearson's blue berets are a good contrast to Harper's wars of aggression. And if low-interest loans from CMHC are abolished, how the heck are low income Canadians ever going to afford to buy a house? I am living at the poverty level on disability - I haven't paid income tax in almost ten years - and my CMHC loan payments are much less than half of what rent would cost. So, I respectfully disagree with you.

ps: my CMHC loan was done through a Credit Union. I haven't used the services of any bank in twenty years.

The average Canadian would own a home much more easily if it were not for the ridiculous and intentional inflation of housing prices. For every dollar increase in housing prices due to evil programs such as CMHC, the banks get an additional 2 or 3 dollars in interest via 30 year mortgages. 

There is nothing progressive about the cult of home "ownership". In fact, I'd argue it is regressive. As evidence of this, I'll point out that interest on mortgages is tax deductiible in the Reaganite USA. Why do you think they would encourage increasing housing prices -- to help the middle class?

ygtbk

I think that Boom Boom has a point, unless we're willing to say straight-up that Canada is the least-progressive country around.

500_Apples

ygtbk wrote:

 unless we're willing to say straight-up that Canada is the least-progressive country around.

OK.

1) Canadian blacks are not being lynched like blacks in liberated Libya, we're only giving military support to the lynchers.

 

...

Maysie Maysie's picture

ygtbk wrote:

I think that Boom Boom has a point, unless we're willing to say straight-up that Canada is the least-progressive country around.

I didn't realize those were the only two options.

6079_Smith_W

I am a bit rushed and don't have time for a full response, but I also think peacekeeping does not belong. For one thing, it barely exists anymore. I read an article not too long ago that it had dwindled to a few thousand soldiers. If I read this correctly it is more like a few hundred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Peacekeeping_Missions

 

As for the question itself, I think it's a fair, especially since I don't think it should necessarily be restricted to what the government of Canada is doing. Most countries have progressive and oppressive aspects.

It can be treated as "rah rah" or it can be treated as a fair look at things people here are doing right, and things which we are doing wrong.

It seems to me it is up to us how we deal with the question.

But there are at least a few areas in which we are progressive. Marriage equality is one I can think of. 

Another area: while we are far from the most multicultural country in the world, we are far from the worst. 

(edit)

And besides, unless we actually look at things which we can build on to make that progressive society we want, it is never going to happen.

 

 

NDPP

Canada is NOT a progressive country.

Todrick of Chat...

 

Which country is the currently most progressive in the world?

howeird beale

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 unless we actually look at things which we can build on to make that progressive society we want, it is never going to happen.

 

 

agreed.

ygtbk

Maysie wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

I think that Boom Boom has a point, unless we're willing to say straight-up that Canada is the least-progressive country around.

I didn't realize those were the only two options.

Boom Boom is (I'm guessing) trying to list progressive things about Canada. Presumably there are some?

DaveW

Boom Boom wrote:

"rah rah Canada"???? That wasn't my intention. I had the intention of building solidarity for a return to a progressive values, which is why I said in post #2 "...which need to be defended or restored". But move or close the thread if necessary. I tried.

Boom, you are barking up the wrong tree here; we're just average NDP voters/supporters, and we look at Canada and see a variety of interesting social accomplishments -- as does the rest of the world, certainly in Europe

the wiser folk here see nothing but catastrophe in a country that led the UN's Human Development Index non-stop through the 1990s; they have sure-fire social remedies at hand, policies that are currently being applied successfully in ....

Undecided hmmm,  actually, nowhere on the planet Earth at last check 

 

Slumberjack

Rather than a non-starter discussion about Canada as a 'progressive' country, I suppose there can be some scope for a discourse regarding programs and services which people can access, that are unavailable or woefully inadequate elsewhere in the developed world, and which are constantly under threat by neo-liberalism's greatest cheerleaders, the Harper conservatives and a sorry assed liberal rump reduced to dragging itself along.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

DaveW wrote:

Boom, you are barking up the wrong tree here; we're just average NDP voters/supporters, and we look at Canada and see a variety of interesting social accomplishments -- as does the rest of the world, certainly in Europe

the wiser folk here see nothing but catastrophe in a country that led the UN's Human Development Index non-stop through the 1990s; they have sure-fire social remedies at hand, policies that are currently being applied successfully in ....

Undecided hmmm,  actually, nowhere on the planet Earth at last check

Hey, you could make a good living doing PR work for Stephen Harper! You certainly have mastered the voice of white, male, straight, middle-class privilege.

I'm sure the first task he would want you to perform is to explain to the public how a country can be "progressive" (whatever that means) without electing "progressive" governments.

Slumberjack

DaveW wrote:
....we're just average NDP voters/supporters,...

You don't have to tell us. 

Quote:
....the wiser folk here see nothing but catastrophe....  

Probably because they've been outside recently.

 

6079_Smith_W

 

Well I'll risk a shitstorm and name a few more: 

Our firearms regulations. Even if the long gun registry is struck down, our policies and traditions around handguns are far more progressive than places where people think they have to walk around armed to the teeth (or where they really have to).

Our less adversarial legal system. It is less of a litigious money-making system than it is south of the border. I would think this is the case even in provinces which do not have no-fault insurance systems. We have also not seen copyright laws used as a means of censorship in the same way that they have been in the U.S.

Our regulations against the marketing of prescription drugs. 

The absence of a death penalty.

The CBC (I am opening my umbrella now)

Our diplomatic and business relations with Cuba.

Our supreme court. I know there are some here who disagree with that, but I think the fact our justices are not expected to use political bias in their rulings is more progressive than the way it is in the U.S. As well, several of the most progressive changes in Canadian society have been the result of supreme court rulings.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Separation of Church and State. Politicians in our country don't need to invoke a god's blessing, or be seen attending church in order to get elected, and fortunately it still seems awkward when they try to do so. Even the most vocal politicians on religious issues like abortion are very careful about bringing faith into the argument.

Of course "progressive" is a relative and highly-subjective term. But the more I think about it the more I think it is a useful exercise, because all these more progressive things are currently under attack, as Slumberjack says.

 

 

milo204

perhaps the title in the thread should be "why we are a tad more progressive than the US"....

but in the grand scheme of things, we're not at all a "progressive" country...sure PEOPLE from canada have done some great things, but the system here works like any other, doing it's best to reverse any positive changes people make.

however, if you go back to the original people that lived here (first nations) they had some truly progressive ideas like equality, democracy, respect for the environment around us, sharing instead of profits etc.

6079_Smith_W

milo204 wrote:

perhaps the title in the thread should be "why we are a tad more progressive than the US"....

Well I would expect nothing less, as a properly demure and understated Canadian approach to the question. 

And you have to even ask why we are more progressive? I rest my case.

outwest

quote:
"Boom Boom, while I appreciate the sentiment of your thread, a counter-thread called "Things that help define Canada as a non-progressive country" would fill up much faster and with far less introspection. I can't get on board the "rah-rah" Canada thing you want to have here. Good luck. And the activism forum is absolutely not the place for this thread."

Not to pick on you, Maysie, but your comment above (supported by a couple of other people here) is the precise reason why people are turned off from reading blogs and comments. It's nitpicking and I think it's uncalled for and the kind of comments I try to skip over whenever possible.

Boom Boom has constructively called for a list of progressive agendas in Canada that we should keep a steady eye on, and I see nothing wrong with it, whatsoever. I suggest we all focus on the CONTENT of comments, not superficial things such as heading titles, semantic wording, etc.... the discussion of which is a complete and utter waste of time. No wonder the left can't get ahead - its supporters spend their time dancing on the heads of pins and picking petty fights with each other instead of concentrating on the crux of important issues. 

 

Slumberjack

As far as I know, Boom Boom has the respect of most, if not all who post here.  I seriously doubt that a conversation regarding Canada as a progressive nation could be sustained beyond an opening paragraph however; because what we'd gain in the way of points from such a discourse in terms of universal health care and the social safety net, etc, would be quickly overtaken by points against.  In short order we'd be mired in those semantic, waste of time, petty dances on the head of a pin exchanges involving the throngs of communities for whom the experience of progressive Canada in all of its glory is one of woeful inadequacy.  We'd have to block an awful lot out to carry it through.

howeird beale

outwest wrote:

quote:
"Boom Boom, while I appreciate the sentiment of your thread, a counter-thread called "Things that help define Canada as a non-progressive country" would fill up much faster and with far less introspection. I can't get on board the "rah-rah" Canada thing you want to have here. Good luck. And the activism forum is absolutely not the place for this thread."

Not to pick on you, Maysie, but your comment above (supported by a couple of other people here) is the precise reason why people are turned off from reading blogs and comments. It's nitpicking and I think it's uncalled for and the kind of comments I try to skip over whenever possible.

Boom Boom has constructively called for a list of progressive agendas in Canada that we should keep a steady eye on, and I see nothing wrong with it, whatsoever. I suggest we all focus on the CONTENT of comments, not superficial things such as heading titles, semantic wording, etc.... the discussion of which is a complete and utter waste of time. No wonder the left can't get ahead - its supporters spend their time dancing on the heads of pins and picking petty fights with each other instead of concentrating on the crux of important issues. 

 

Well put, outwest

Of course picking petty fights is all some posters do. Its not like they're out there organizing. You wouldnt want to take their illusion of participation in social change away from them, would you? Its all they have.

Its like "Mass for Shut-Ins" on the Catholic channel

Also, I think they resent any portrayal of the world that differs from the binary, black/ white, good/ bad simplicity of a Medeival play: here comes Marxist Goodfriend, he's so brave and bold! Ewwww, there's Plutocrat Bastard, you can tell him by the tophat and the monocle. Boo! Hsssss.

I agree that borders are just 'lines on dirt' but you have to give people something to defend, something to fight for. To say that our constantly stressed half assed progressive attributes in this country aren't something to cherish isnt pissing on Stephen Harper, its pissing on all those people like sit down strikers and Tommy Douglas, who fought their asses off to get us those things.

And its where most Canadians heads are at. Wanna be completely bleak? Be one of those three member cadres screaming at everyone to buy their crummy angry papers as you walk into a rally they didnt organize.

See where that gets you.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Well Maysie the voices of privilege are sure putting you in your place.  Gee why can't you understand all "real" activists are white middle class social democrats.  People like "you" know nothing.  Its not like "you" have every done anything to promote either social justice or electoral success.  

Yell 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Northern Shoveler, I think howeird has one song that he just keeps singing. Earworm!

As for outwest, why he chose my rather mildly stated, respectful yet bland critique of Boom Boom's premise, and not, say, post #6, or other posters here who've been far more severe in their critiques is a question for him to ponder.

6079_Smith_W

I'll go a bit further out on a limb and suggest that the most developed and colonial cultures (including the U.S.) are an important nexus of progressive thought in the world, and further, that that has always been the case for the wealthiest and most privileged societies of the world.

After all, if you were to name the most well-known and influential progressive thinkers in the world, where did some of them do their work and express their ideas?

I should be clear that I don't think that this is the result of any superiority or higher intelligence on the part of people who live in more privileged societies, but rather the higher standard of living, resources and freedom that some people in our society enjoy, as well as the ability to have our ideas circulated efficiently and freely. 

Also, I should point out that I don't think developed nations are the only important source of progressive thought and reform. But I think our coutnries are important because of the power we have.

I think the same thing goes for some of the progressive policies, innovations and reforms in our countries. I can see how some here might want to downplay them because of the inequitable system which spawned them, but the fact remains that there are some progressive policies which were first implemented at the heart of colonial empires. 

Is it a vindication of those systems? Of course not. But it is a fact that we would be foolish to deny.

 

500_Apples

The greatest progressive thinkers from the global south had a brain, they had a voice, but they never had a microphone. That's why they're not as famous. We only hear, from our media, about frauds like the Bengali Younnus of microcredit fame, and the revolting useful idiots who helped NATO destroy Libya.

6079_Smith_W

@ 500_ Apples

I agree, and I hope I made that clear in my comment. 

It still doesn't change the fact that in any conversation about revolutionary change the name that most often comes up is the guy who always had a maid to serve him tea, and is resting in a nice plot (with a much better marker than I will ever be able to afford) in Highgate cemetary.

howeird beale

Uhhh Gandhi wasn't from the 1st world...

Franz Fanon...

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Great books havent just been written in leisure; they've been written in prison, or from hiding, living on the run, underground, too.

The micrphone analogy is apt. How many books have we lost by keeping their authors uneducated and in toil and bondage so the affluent might be idle?

 

 

MegB

howeird beale wrote:

outwest wrote:

quote:
"Boom Boom, while I appreciate the sentiment of your thread, a counter-thread called "Things that help define Canada as a non-progressive country" would fill up much faster and with far less introspection. I can't get on board the "rah-rah" Canada thing you want to have here. Good luck. And the activism forum is absolutely not the place for this thread."

Not to pick on you, Maysie, but your comment above (supported by a couple of other people here) is the precise reason why people are turned off from reading blogs and comments. It's nitpicking and I think it's uncalled for and the kind of comments I try to skip over whenever possible.

Boom Boom has constructively called for a list of progressive agendas in Canada that we should keep a steady eye on, and I see nothing wrong with it, whatsoever. I suggest we all focus on the CONTENT of comments, not superficial things such as heading titles, semantic wording, etc.... the discussion of which is a complete and utter waste of time. No wonder the left can't get ahead - its supporters spend their time dancing on the heads of pins and picking petty fights with each other instead of concentrating on the crux of important issues. 

 

[quote=Howeird
Beale

Well put, outwest

Of course picking petty fights is all some posters do. Its not like they're out there organizing. You wouldnt want to take their illusion of participation in social change away from them, would you? Its all they have.

Its like "Mass for Shut-Ins" on the Catholic channel

Also, I think they resent any portrayal of the world that differs from the binary, black/ white, good/ bad simplicity of a Medeival play: here comes Marxist Goodfriend, he's so brave and bold! Ewwww, there's Plutocrat Bastard, you can tell him by the tophat and the monocle. Boo! Hsssss.

I agree that borders are just 'lines on dirt' but you have to give people something to defend, something to fight for. To say that our constantly stressed half assed progressive attributes in this country aren't something to cherish isnt pissing on Stephen Harper, its pissing on all those people like sit down strikers and Tommy Douglas, who fought their asses off to get us those things.

And its where most Canadians heads are at. Wanna be completely bleak? Be one of those three member cadres screaming at everyone to buy their crummy angry papers as you walk into a rally they didnt organize.

See where that gets you.

 

Surely you aren't suggesting that any critique or opposing opinion about what Canadian progressiveness looks like is merely "nitpicking " and an example of armschair activism.  Case in point: Maysie has been an activist for anti-rascism, human rights, social equity, and attends every demonstration, meeting, colloquial, eductional upgrading, and teaches workshops on anti-racism and how to recognize it in ourselves and others.

 

Quote:

picking petty fights is all some posters do. Its not like they're out there organizing. You wouldnt want to take their illusion of participation in social change away from them, would you? Its all they have.

Its like "Mass for Shut-Ins" on the Catholic channel

 

 

This sad fantasy of yours has no relation to the adtivities of many babblers who protest, organize, teach anti-racism training workshops, write powerful and inspiring stories about events on the ground.  In fact, they are quite the opposite to that which you are accusing them.

Caissa

I'd add EI/UI to Boom Boom's list. A vast improvement over how we treated the issue of Relief in the 1930s. Can they be improved? Of course.

Transfer payments recognize the Federal nature of the country.

In NB, the OLA and Equal Opportunity legislation were both progressive moves.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Rebecca West wrote:
  Maysie has been an activist for anti-rascism, human rights, social equity, and attends every demonstration, meeting, colloquial, eductional upgrading, and teaches workshops on anti-racism and how to recognize it in ourselves and others.

Thanks Rebecca, but to be fair, I haven't attended every demonstration and meeting. I need my beauty sleep ya know.

Kiss

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I thought this thread would be closed but I see it's still going. I now realize I made an error with putting CMHC on my list - I really wasn't aware it was more than just a gov't program offering low cost mortgages. I know so many others who have benefitted from CMHC mortgages, and it had been my assumption that therefore it was a good thing. Sigh. But credit unions handle CMHC mortgages as well as the banks (my CMHC mortgage was done through Desjardins Credit Union here in Quebec), so what do we do - do we ask our credit unions to now cease and desist from handling CMHC mortgages? That could put a lot of low income people off from their dream of eventually having their own home. I think our housing co-operative when I was a student  in Toronto in the 1970s got their mortgage from CMHC. I shudder to think of how many people on the progressive spectrum in Canada have used CMHC as their funding for homes and other properties, without knowing CMHC is just another capitalistic banking shill.

howeird beale

I didnt say every poster.

There certainly seem to be a few here who think everytime someone gets up and does something here, in Iran, in Syria, on Wall Street, anywhere, that they must be either a puppet or a spy. That's a sad fantasy, too. There's hardly a shortage of posts to that effect on this board, and thats pretty depressing. My first reaction is "well what did you do then?"

But Maysie isnt one of those people to whom I was referring. Its clear from her posts how active she is. But from my post it didnt read that way. At all.So i would up dumping on someone who is on the street, the same thing that pissed me off in others.

So what I wrote was ham-handed and unfair. So sorry Maysie, and to the others who are actually walking the walk.

Keep up the good work.

500_Apples

howeird beale wrote:

Uhhh Gandhi wasn't from the 1st world...

Franz Fanon...

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Great books havent just been written in leisure; they've been written in prison, or from hiding, living on the run, underground, too.

The micrphone analogy is apt. How many books have we lost by keeping their authors uneducated and in toil and bondage so the affluent might be idle?

Ask leftists from South Asia what they think of Gandhi, or even mother Teresa, or even microcredit, for that matter.

Since they don't havve microphones you'll have to go find them.

6079_Smith_W

howeird beale wrote:

The micrphone analogy is apt. How many books have we lost by keeping their authors uneducated and in toil and bondage so the affluent might be idle?

Exactly, and that was an important part of my point. The microphone is here. It is not that people in developed nations are more dedicated, more intelligent or have a better perspective on things. Quite the opposite, actually.

But generally speaking developed nations have more resources, higher visibility, more security and a more free flow of information. Therefore not just more freedom to speak, but also more opportunity to form links with others who experience oppression.

The image of people pushed and oppressed until they revolt is only part of the story. There are just as many cases of reform and revolution coming about when people had enough of an improvement in their lives that they were able to act.

The way I see it we have more of an opportunity, and therefore more of a responsibility - to use our resources for positive change, and to try and undo the negative influence our society has here and in the rest of the world.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Thanks, howeird.

And Boom Boom, knowing you on babble all these years, I do appreciate what you intended by this thread, even as I strongly disagree with the exercise. I think I just should have stayed out of this thread, despite greatly dialing down my usual snark. And that hurt, ya know. Tongue out

Slumberjack

Maysie wrote:
And that hurt, ya know. Tongue out 

Take two pinners..one now and one before lights out...and call me in the morning.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Caissa wrote:

I'd add EI/UI to Boom Boom's list. A vast improvement over how we treated the issue of Relief in the 1930s. Can they be improved? Of course.

Ei is window dressing so that middle class Canadians can be willfully blind to the lack of a social safety net for most Canadians.  Even with recent improvements after years of cuts the rate of eligibility for the unemployed went from 43.4% to 51%.  So not only do we have the lowest benefits amongst our peer countries we also have about half of the unemployed who are not even eligible for the low amounts provided.  

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publication...

Quote:

It is much less likely for Canada's unemployed to receive EI benefits during this recession than in previous downturns. Now that they need a social safety net, many Canadians are discovering they don't have much of one.

Compared to the majority of OECD nations, unemployment benefits in Canada are very low - much below the OECD average. As the accompanying table shows, our EI system's replacement rate - the ratio of unemployment benefits to employment earnings - is tied with Britain's in last place among the 16 OECD according to the latest available OECD statistics.

However, the response of Canada's federal government to the recessionary surge in unemployment since last fall has been decidedly meagre. Budget 2009 did little to change the fact that, in terms of access, benefit duration and income replacement levels, EI in Canada continues to fall far below OECD norms. Inadequate eligibility and benefit levels remained unchanged, while benefit duration was increased by only five weeks.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7497/is_200909/ai_n39231904/

 

Slumberjack

Boom Boom wrote:
...now I have a migraine headache.

Same advice to you Boom Boom.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I stayed out of this thread (which I started!!!) until today - now I have a migraine headache. I don't blame it exclusively on this thread, rather on computer and TV time in general. But I think going back to this thread has made it worse. Tongue out

 

ETA: I realize I've made some rather enormous blunders in babble over the course of my seven years here, and am trying to learn from them. I never claimed to be perfect. I think I'm doing rather well for someone from the Mob.  Innocent

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Assuming the NDP (I'm being rather too optimistically hopeful) become government in 2015, can the NDP then turn things around after Harper has completely eviscerated everything even remotely smacking of progressivism in this country? Or will they simply maintain the new status quo?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Assuming the NDP (I'm being rather too optimistically hopeful) become government in 2015, can the NDP then turn things around after Harper has completely eviscerated everything even remotely smacking of progressivism in this country? Or will they simply maintain the new status quo?

If they can't then it will prove that electoral politics is irrelevant and voter turnout will go down again. The Liberals always ran from the left and ruled from the centrist right in line with their corporate masters.  I have worked for the NDP for 40 years because that was not good enough for me.  I sure as fuck hope the NDP turns out to be better in power than the Liberals.  If not then what was the point?

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

ETA: I realize I've made some rather enormous blunders in babble over the course of my seven years here, and am trying to learn from them. I never claimed to be perfect. I think I'm doing rather well for someone from the Mob.  Innocent

I hope you don't think this is one of them, despite the flak.

I prefer to think there are no stupid questions, and how people deal with your proposition is entirely up to them.

 

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

Can they bring back the Wheat Board after it's killed?

No. So long as we are bound by international trade rules, no.

 

Pages