Layton Says Canada NDP ‘Least Likely’ to Back Harper
I like Layton's approach - first out of the gate again. Over to you Ignatieff. 
Canada's New Democratic Party, one of three opposition blocs holding the balance of power in Parliament, will probably continue seeking the ouster of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government when lawmakers return from their break in September, the party's leader said.
"Probably the least likely party in the House of Commons to be supporting the Conservatives would be the New Democrats," Layton told Bloomberg News in Toronto, adding his party has consistently voted against the government. "They have a very different view of how to run an economy."
Any refusal by the labor-friendly New Democrats to support Harper reduces the government's options for remaining in power if the main opposition Liberal Party decides to withdraw its backing. The Liberals, who have regularly voted to keep Harper in power since October 2007, warned earlier this year they will withdraw their backing unless the government eases rules for jobless benefits.
The government can also seek to partner with the separatist Bloc Quebecois party. Harper's Conservatives, with 143 of Parliament's 308 seats, lack a majority and need support from at least one of the country's three opposition parties. The Liberals hold 77 seats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois 48 and the New Democrats 36 seats.
Jobless Benefits
The Liberals and governing Conservatives agreed in June to set up a working group to provide recommendations by Sept. 28 on easing eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance. As part of their agreement, the Conservatives say they will present another progress report on their fiscal plan during the week beginning Sept. 28. Two days after that report is presented, the Liberals will have a chance to try to topple the government if they aren't satisfied with the Conservative's proposals.
An expected rebound in growth this year will only be a "false recovery" because unemployment is expected to keep rising, Layton said in the interview. That will require an extension of employment insurance benefits and assistance to badly hurt industries, which the Conservatives aren't likely to make, the NDP leader said.
Well, the NDP backed the Conservatives before, when they joined with Harper to bring down Paul Martin. At the time, Jack said he could work with anybody. Funny how he has suddenly rediscovered a "principled approach".
Mind you, if all the NDP is going to do is vote for the ouster of the sitting minority parliament, you gotta wonder how we can ask people to vote for us to "get things done." Frankly, Jack gotten nothing done in the past 5 years anyway (oh yeah, he did manage to forge a coalition with the Bloc)?
I really wish we had the NDP of Ed Broadbent back. Is it time to get rid of crazy Jack?
Well, that's just the "Canada NDP". The Greek one would probably work just fine with the Tories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy_(Greece)
(question is...would Jason Kenney make THEM get visas?)
Oust Jack for voting against Conservatives? Really?
Well, the NDP backed the Conservatives before, when they joined with Harper to bring down Paul Martin. At the time, Jack said he could work with anybody. Funny how he has suddenly rediscovered a "principled approach".
Mind you, if all the NDP is going to do is vote for the ouster of the sitting minority parliament, you gotta wonder how we can ask people to vote for us to "get things done." Frankly, Jack gotten nothing done in the past 5 years anyway (oh yeah, he did manage to forge a coalition with the Bloc)?
I really wish we had the NDP of Ed Broadbent back. Is it time to get rid of crazy Jack?
1)Ed Broadbent was, if anything, to the LEFT of Jack Layton on most issues. Broadbent was perfectly comfortable calling himself a democratic socialist.
2)I wouldn't be surprised if, in the mid-60's, you'd have been calling Mr. Douglas "Tommy The Commie" and demanding that the party beg Ross Thatcher to come back.
3)There's no way the NDP could back the Tories now and then still ask people to vote for them AGAINST the Tories during the next election.
Jack's timing couldn't be better.
Tories issue ultimatum to Ignatieff on EI reform
Conservatives have issued a thinly veiled ultimatum to Michael Ignatieff: Drop your proposal for easier access to employment insurance or there'll be no election-averting deal on EI reform.
The Liberal leader is advocating a single national standard of 360 hours of work to qualify for EI. That's less stringent than the current regime, which requires from 420 to 700 hours of work depending on local jobless rates.
But Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, a member of the bipartisan working group struck last month to negotiate an agreement with the Liberals on EI reforms, says the Harper government will "never" accept Ignatieff's proposal.
"The bottom line is we're not going to be supporting the notion that someone could collect EI for almost a year after working only 360 hours or nine weeks," Poilievre said in an interview Friday.
"All the costing shows that a nine-week work year would cost billions and the only way to fund it is through higher taxes, so we can't support that proposal."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jH9pC6egtCD...
"Mind you, if all the NDP is going to do is vote for the ouster of the sitting minority parliament, you gotta wonder how we can ask people to vote for us to "get things done." Frankly, Jack gotten nothing done in the past 5 years anyway (oh yeah, he did manage to forge a coalition with the Bloc)? "
I guess you forgot the budget deal with Paul Martin that injected billions into cities and social programs. We cold have had more of that, but Martin thought he could get a majority if there was an early election so he refused to make any compromises with the NDP and the rest is history. We saw last December that the NDP was very willing to compromise and put "water in its wine" when there was someone to talk to (ie: Dion and at one point Martin). Obviously, there is nothing to discuss with Harper. Why should he try to wine and dine Laytron when Iggy is already the cheapest date in town?
From what I am seeing the NDP is definetely gearing up candidate search.
From what I am seeing the NDP is definetely gearing up candidate search.
yup.
The NDP would be very foolish to pull the plug on the Conservatives right now. We will undoubtedly lose seats if there is an election anytime soon.
And, no, I had a lot of respect for Tommy Douglas. Don't forget, he was premier of Saskatchewan and had to make tough decisions and ran afoul of many "socialists" who felt "betrayed" because he didn't hand over the entire treasury to pet projects on day 1.. While he was a leftist, he was a pragmatist who ultimately was willing to sacrifice ideological purity to make a positive difference in the world. Broadbent, too, was a pragmatist though he did identify as left. I support reasonable people who have the courage to step up and make a difference, not whiners who would rather lose an election than compromise their ideology.
Someday you're going to have to explain this choking hatred of left-wing activists you have. I can't really believe any of them could ever have done you THAT much harm.
"The NDP would be very foolish to pull the plug on the Conservatives right now. We will undoubtedly lose seats if there is an election anytime soon."
Yes, just think of the tantalizing alternative. The NDP votes CONFIDENCE in the Harper government and starts supports all its initiatives - setting the stage for the NDP to be eliminated as a political force in Canada at the next election. The only alternative to voting to "pull the plug" on Harper is voting to support him every step of the way in exchange for NOTHING - as the Liberals have done 79 times.
No he said his party woud lose seats...I think he meant libs or cons.
In related news- Ignatieff tries to steal spotlight after disappearing for the summer by declaring "The Liberals are the least likely to back Harper too - well into a corner I mean."
"Yes, just think of the tantalizing alternative. The NDP votes CONFIDENCE in the Harper government and starts supports all its initiatives - setting the stage for the NDP to be eliminated as a political force in Canada at the next election."
True, true. Let Iggy keep Harper breathing if that's what Liberals want.
Perhaps a "progressive conservative" NDP cross voter? ;)
Perhaps a "progressive conservative" NDP cross voter? ;)
I don't have a choking hatred. I'm getting a bit impatient though, because the NDP is floundering and has been for awhile, yet steadfastly refuses to move to the places that the voters are at. And then I see people saying that the NDP has to become more left to succeed... sorry, not many people are crying out for a left wing party to vote for. Not enough to win anyhow.
Stock, I get where you are coming from and the NDP probably has no alternative but to vote the government down but know this: we are going to lose seats no matter what we do, whether we support the Conservatives or defeat them. The stench of the NDP/Bloc alliance is too much. I think the best strategy would be to disappear the day of the confidence vote, take some time, get organized, and give people time to forget about the NDP/Bloc coalition. The Liberals were smart in that they dumped their leader and sent i all away on him. The train has probably left the station on that one for us...
You're the only one who seems to be obsessed with the NDP cooperating with the BQ - no one else seems to care - and in western Canada where supposedly people were up in arms over it (though for some reason they don't seem to mind when Harper and the Tories play footsie with the BQ and give them everything but the kitchen sink) - NDP support in all the polls is right where it was on election night 2008.
Last election, the NDP picked up most of the Liberal seats that they targeted - there probably isn't much left to take there (with a few exceptions). Next election, the NDP targets are mostly Tory-held seats such as Surrey North, North Vancouver Island, Kamloops, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Palliser, Oshawa, Kenora, South Shore St. Margarets, CCMV - it should be easy pickings the way Tory support is tumbling and has no where to go but down compared to last time. A big part of winning those seats is to consolidate the anti-Tory vote behind the NDP - and great way to do that is keep on being as steadfast as possible in TOTAL opposition to Harper and all his nauseating policies and keep on embarrassing the Liberals about how they are Harper's silent partner.
"sorry, not many people are crying out for a left wing party to vote for."
If that is honestly what ou believe then why don't you propose that the NDP be liquidated and merge with the Conservative Party? sine you seem to be under this bizarre illusion that there is so much common ground between the NDP and the Tories.
Of course there is a chance that the NDP loses seats in a Fall election that it helps trigger - but I'd rather take my chances on a 40% chance of losing a couple of seats after voting down Harper this fall - than follow "big daddy"'s advice an give Harper a free pass to do more damage for the next few years - and then have a 100% certainty that in the next election the NDP would lose official party status as a result of having totally disaffected its voter base.
A big part of winning those seats is to consolidate the anti-Tory vote behind the NDP - and great way to do that is keep on being as steadfast as possible in TOTAL opposition to Harper and all his nauseating policies and keep on embarrassing the Liberals about how they are Harper's silent partner.
Actually, that is the mistake that the Federal NDP consistently makes and it has cost us big time. The key to winning these seats is by draining Tory vote and the NDP can do that by positioning itself as the party that sticks up for the "little guy." People vote Conservative unthinkingly because, despite their rigid right wing ideology, they manage to tone it down at election time, put a lit on their extremists and lunatics, and present themselves as the only party that cares for ordinary families by making a few simple promises that are virtually unassailable mom and apple pie issues ie. "get tough on crime" or "tax cuts for the middle class". People forget that they're right wing lunatics and they vote for them.
I would suggest a similar strategy for the NDP. Put a lid on the lunatics during the campaign, stay away from windmills, growing potatoes on your roof, inheritance taxes and the like and propose some ideas that have widespread appeal. Why not cut taxes for the middle class? (You can always quietly raise taxes for the wealthy and corporations to pay for this, but no sense in talking about it.) Why not get rid of ridiculous things like faint hope clauses for murderers? Why not introduce mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? The Tories have been very successful not because they have governed well (they have led us from surplus to deficit, from good times to bad) but because they do this sort of stuff.
The NDP used to be known as the party of the little guy. In 1988, we took a lot of seats away from the Conservatives because Mulroney was too arrogant and people wanted a party that would stick up for the little guy. We have missed that opportunity in 2004, 2006, and 2008 despite the arrogance of the government, because we have become too bogged down with issues that are meaningless to the average voter.
It's not apparent to me as to whether 'Big Daddy' is a particularly obnoxious troll, or a truly disturbed and rather stupid individual who actually does support the NDP, for some reason that he doesn't really understand (perhaps it's family history, or perhaps some kind of labour connection).
Either way, I'm no longer tempted to respond to his trash talk.
It's impossible to "stick up for the little guy" by voting for what the Tories want. And, if the NDP moved as far to the hard right as you want it(cut taxes and bash the poor and to hell with the environment, and, for all I know long live Nato and let build up the Forces)that wouldn't leave anything where they would still be DIFFERENT than the Tories and the Liberals.
The voters don't want another party that's pretty much the same as the Liberals and the Tories. And it could hardly be worth electing an NDP government if it lowered itself to what Tony Blair's policies were like. I hope even YOU would agree with that.
It's not about not wanting to "win". It's about not wanting victory in name only. Electing a centrist NDP would be pointless. When The Who sang "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss', they weren't saying that that was a GOOD thing.
If you led the NDP, Daddy, would it disagree with the Liberals or the Tories on ANYTHING important? Or would you maintain the status quo and just keep screaming to the people who elected you "Shut up, you punks! it's enough that this is an NDP goverment"?
It's not apparent to me as to whether 'Big Daddy' is a particularly obnoxious troll, or a truly disturbed and rather stupid individual who actually does support the NDP, for some reason that he doesn't really understand (perhaps it's family history, or perhaps some kind of labour connection).
Either way, I'm no longer tempted to respond to his trash talk.
Are you suggesting the NDP does not want labour support?
The man is a building contractor(if we can trust his posts). He's management. He isn't labour.
And he persists in carrying on spreading this Tory meme that working-class people are always anti-left and that leftists are always middle class. In the States, we'd assume that someone who talked like that was a Nixon/Reagan/Bush The Second supporter.
He tips his hand when he says the NDP should oppose an inheritance tax. Inheritance taxes are only opposed by the very wealthy, because they are the only ones who are going to end up paying them. I'm surprised he didn't call it "the death tax", as his class does in the States.
I support the idea of an inheritance tax but there is a time and place for everything. Look what happened the last time the NDP tried the inheritance tax thingy. I doubt very much that the NDP is going to get elected with a platform supoorting this tax.
While I don't agree with Big Daddy's assessment, I do think he makes a point worth considering, even if it might be unintentional.
I have found that some in the NDP end up talking down and dismissing the concerns of the very working people they say they want to represent. They don't represent the NDP, but they do make it difficult to move towards greater electoral success. They're stance seems to be, and I have seen it repeatedly on babble, that if the NDP is not on the verge of ushering in the glorious revolution it has sold out and is some kind of right wing bastion.
I'll provide a for instance. Every time I look at my bank or credit card statement I get pissed off seeing the charges and gouging. It is an issue that speaks to average income people. Yet when the NDP decided to focus on those kinds of issues there were some from the chattering crowd who poo-pooed the NDP leadership for even raising it and suggesting it was some kind of sell out because the NDP was not focusing on (choose your favourite pet issue). Yet if you want to start a conversation that moves people towards recognizing the NDP is on their side talk about issues like the banks. They don't really give a crap at this point about nationalizing the banks, they just don't want to be nickel, dimed and loonied to death by them. Down the road you might be able to have that conversation if you wish, but first you have to get them on the damn road.
I have seen this scenario played out time and again over the years. The NDP needs to start listening to real people more and the chattering crowd a lot less. When we do then we will be able to talk directly about a few key specific issues with voters. Issues that they actually sit around their kitchen tables and talk about in their real lives, not in some contrived metaphor. Issues like what are we going to do with no palliative care bed available anywhere for a sick parent, how are we going to pay for that new roof we need, how am I or how are our kids (or grandkids) going to be able to afford to go to school, how are we going to pay all these bills that keep piling up, I hate that I can't take my kids to swim at the beaches I grew up swimming at because they are too polluted, or how much longer are we going to have to wait to bring my relative to Canada.
The Conservatives and the Liberals exploit these issues with phoney concern. Yet, NDP policy actually addresses many of them, but we are so worked up about protecting the Green flank we start debating how many carbon credits can dance on the head of a pin and miss the things that would draw many of those voters our way if we talked about them more. In an electoral cycle where we are competing with episodes of Lost, TV commercials for laundry detergent we can't waste words on rhetorical flourishes, but go right to the heart of where people live, with something that is concrete and can be grasped and held onto amongst all the information bombardment people deal with these days. Like or not the Conservatives have been masters at this, even though we all know the "solutions" they provide are full of dung.
He tips his hand when he says the NDP should oppose an inheritance tax. Inheritance taxes are only opposed by the very wealthy, because they are the only ones who are going to end up paying them. I'm surprised he didn't call it "the death tax", as his class does in the States.
This is categorically untrue. Plenty of people can be conviced to oppose an inheritance tax from many different walks of life that are not 'wealthy'. Farmers for instance who are asset rich and cash poor can be very nervous about an inheritance tax and the damage it would do to the very few young farmers who can be convinced to take up farming.
I'm not opposed to an inheritance tax per se, but to suggest it is only right-wing wealth-o-crats that can be concerned about them is just plain false. It is all in how you frame it, and how you deal with the ramifications of them.
Good post BA!
Even though I am part of the Green flank! ;)
Are you suggesting the NDP does not want labour support?
We've all met the odd "Tory, Tory, Tory" blue collar worker who occasionally votes NDP instead of Liberal when it becomes obvious it's time to boot the corrupt bastards out.
I assumed 'Big Daddy' is one of those - one who'd like to be even more comfortable voting NDP once in a blue moon.
Thanks remind.
I am not suggesting they should be ignored, just that there are some other places we need to be looking towards too - and those places hold a lot of potential NDP voters!
If I am anything I am probably an environmental voter - that's what first brought me to the NDP.
Every time I look at my bank or credit card statement I get pissed off seeing the charges and gouging. It is an issue that speaks to average income people. Yet when the NDP decided to focus on those kinds of issues there were some from the chattering crowd who poo-pooed the NDP leadership for even raising it and suggesting it was some kind of sell out because the NDP was not focusing on (choose your favourite pet issue). Yet if you want to start a conversation that moves people towards recognizing the NDP is on their side talk about issues like the banks. They don't really give a crap at this point about nationalizing the banks, they just don't want to be nickel, dimed and loonied to death by them. Down the road you might be able to have that conversation if you wish, but first you have to get them on the damn road.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, I think that by focussing on the issue of credit card interest rates that the NDP missed a huge opportunity to attack the corporate miscreants at the major banks.
If we had any guts, we'd go to war with the banks for financing the sellout of Canadian companies when they could be financing their growth instead (something they refuse to do). We'd call them on their lobbying, which has cost Canadian citizens trillions in subsidy and lost taxation over the years. Such things as ATM fees are just a small (yet real) part of the issue, but somehow we only dare mention the smallest of these issues.
"Big Daddy" ( an unfortunate choice of pen name, should have remained a character in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) is talking about a populist position to out-populist the putrid right.
Unfortunately, the chattering classes, unable to empathize with the life (and mindset) of the average working stiff, and not being so naturally manipulative and cynical as the salespeople who make up the bulk of Conservative strategists, aren't about to budge on principle. Gave up on convertin' them a long time ago.
But anyone who can't understand what BD is saying, should stay the hell out of active politics.
LTJ
But you see that is exactly the problem. We leftist policy wonks think we have to bombard the average voter with every little nuance of an issue. The average voter is bombarded with information and just trying to keep their head above water. Everytime I see an Interac fee it hits me right between the eyes. When I hear about the banks getting wacks of taxpayer dollars - my freakin money - and then they stick me with yet another stupid fee and pay pittance in interest then I get mad.
The rest of your comments are necessary stuff and I totally agree, but as I said we have to get them on the damn road first before we can get them down it.
I always laugh when I see the first draft of local ridings literature or ads. They are jammed full of information with every possible connetation covered, and end up being almost totally unreadable or grabbing of attention for all but the hardest of diehard policy wonks. For some the mindset seems to be why use 25 words when you can cram in 250 with a smaller font and fill in the entire ad with type.
I agree, BA,
I am going to take big daddy at his word. He says he is an NDP supporter like lots of other posters here. The NDP is a big tent and will have to get an even bigger tent, if it is going to govern some day. I'm sure that thousands, more probably, hundreds of thousands of people like big daddy, consider themselves little guys, and vote NDP.
But you see that is exactly the problem. We leftist policy wonks think we have to bombard the average voter with every little nuance of an issue.
I disagree, and I think you missed the big picture I was painting. The right doesn't hesitate to name their enemy: unions, illegal immigrants, etc.
We need the same courage. Why aren't we brave enough to go to war with the banks?
But anyone who can't understand what BD is saying, should stay the hell out of active politics.
Bingo!
So what is he saying that isn't straight out of the Harper handbook of talking points???
LtJ
But the right doesn't get into the nuances of an issue- they just baldly declare illegal immigrants are taking away your jobs and pillaging our neignbourhoods. Unions are taking money out of your pocket and driving away good jobs.
They don't let anything like reality or facts get in the way.
They target the fear factor in an uncertain economy and give a very, very simple message. They are most assuradly not taking the approach you are talking about - they live on the simplier the better. If they actually talked about those issues in any kind of fulsome way it would be all to clear they were full of shit. In other words unlike the bank example you used, when it comes to the right's issue usage the underlying reality is that there is no there there.
I have no problem with taking on the banks, and I understand the big picture just fine - what I am suggesting is that the average voter is not up for a 15 minute explanation on the structure of capital and how it effects the quality of their job. It is not that they don't care - it is they have 50 other things on their minds from getting the kids to softball, to taking their aging mother out to get her groceries, to all the other things non-policy wonks like us (or as I like to call them - normal people) spend time obsessing about all in an environment where they are being overrun with messages about everything from their sagging bottom to the brightness of their white shirt. We have the there there, but we need to get people coming to our where first.
People who worry about bank charges are people who have nothing else to worry about in life. No one will be inspired and energized by such phoney "issues".
LtJ
But the right doesn't get into the nuances of an issue- they just baldly declare illegal immigrants are taking away your jobs and pillaging our neignbourhoods. Unions are taking money out of your pocket and driving away good jobs.
They don't let anything like reality or facts get in the way.
I can keep the message simple. What was so complicated about the points I previously made? And how would the 'reality or facts' get in the way of my message?
The fact is, the banks are the front line, the storm troopers in the class war being waged against the interests of 95% of Canadians.
Oh I wasn't trying to suggest your points weren't factual. They are very factual - what I was suggesting was that the right never worries about factual issues. It was just an observation about their strategy nothing more.
People who worry about bank charges are people who have nothing else to worry about in life. No one will be inspired and energized by such phoney "issues".
You should try talking to real live 3d people then. In a world that is increasingly making people feel powerless something as tangible and in your face as bank gouging is very real.
But thanks for proving my point from post #24. You are a prime example of someone who talks about working folks, but in reality does a great deal of looking down on them and is focused on the glorious revolution without ever wondering what an average working person actually hopes for in their mundane lives focused on things like paying the bills, worrying about the care of aging parents, or children who can no longer play in our polluted water.
Actually, that is the mistake that the Federal NDP consistently makes and it has cost us big time. The key to winning these seats is by draining Tory vote and the NDP can do that by positioning itself as the party that sticks up for the "little guy." I would suggest a similar strategy for the NDP. Put a lid on the lunatics during the campaign, stay away from windmills, growing potatoes on your roof, inheritance taxes and the like and propose some ideas that have widespread appeal.
Excuse me, but have you actually been on the planet Earth during the last two federal election campaigns - or were on vacationing on Mars? Much to the chagrin of the "chattering classes", the NDP campaign in the last election was populist and focused on "the little guy" almost to a fault. All we heard for the duration of the campaign was that the NDP stands for the kitchen table not the board room table and the platform was larded with populist themes that drove the "lefwting activists" you seem to hate so much crazy! In fact, much as I hate to say, in some ways the NDP strategy in the last election could have been written by "Big Daddy" - we talked about kitchen table not boardroom table, we talked about how Harper claims to be a strong leader, but that the NDP offers a new kind of strong that puts the interest of struggling families first! There was never a word said about windmills or green roofs or any other "esoteric issues and on top of that the NDP was willing to incur the wrath of the environmentalists that Big Daddy hates so much by opposing the so-called carbon tax that they all see as a sacred cow and the NDP supported new mandatory minimums for gun related crimes and supported raising the age of consent to 16! I can understand that some people weren't happy - but "Big Daddy" should be overjoyed, the last two NDP campaigns have been 100% exactly the strategy he keeps advocating. But for some reason he seems to have some weird personal animus towards Jack Layton that makes it impossible for him to ever give credit where credit is due!
To hear "Daddy", you'd think that, at every NDP election rally, Layton was getting the microphone yanked out of his hand by wandering press gangs of scruffy kaffiyeh-wearing vegetarian pacifists who refused to allow any "bread and butter" issue to ever be discussed and led the crowds in chants of "Death to the Zionist Scum" or something.
The truth is, leftists spend as much time talking about bread and butter issues as anybody else. Redistribution of wealth is a bread and butter issue. So is opposing globalization. They're about bread being taken out of peoples' mouths, not feelgood utopian fantasies.
This false dichotomy, this false opposition Big Daddy sets up between leftist "lunatics" and "the little guy" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with reality. Activists organize their communities, provide support and walk picket lines during strikes, and oppose wars in large measure because they are sickened by the large number of working class "little guys" being sent off to die for the rich. All of that is "bread and butter". All of that is about real people and real lives. It's time for Daddy to stop the pointless insults and abuse and to admit that leftists not only DO fight for "the little guy" many of us ARE "the little guy".
Me I am a leftist and a little guy as long as we are talking height - width unfortunetly a different story.
I hear ya on that. We could say we have "peasant builds".
I have voted NDP all my life except when I voted CCF but if the NDP is in any way responsible for the survival of that bunch of psychopathic fools who are in power now they have lost me.
The CCF....sigh.
Yes, Sarann, the psychopaths must not , NOT, get a majority. For they menace our grandkids and their children in turn.
You should try talking to real live 3d people then. In a world that is increasingly making people feel powerless something as tangible and in your face as bank gouging is very real.
I deal with real people all the time. Some of them tell me they're fed up with immigrants coming and using social services. Some tell me they're fed up with paying taxes. Some of them say bad things about same-sex marriage and queer folks. Some tell me they like the Calgary Stampede. Some say how proud they are of their neighbour's kid who is doing a tour in Afghanistan. Some, yes, whine and gripe about bank service charges, even though it is the tiniest of the problems affecting their family income.
These are fellow workers and union members. I treat all these real people with respect and engage them in discussion on these matters, knowing that in the big picture we have many important questions where we will be united despite such opinions.
But when self-styled progressive people seriously suggest that we should pander to the lowest common denominator in order to "corner" some part of the political marketplace, and that we should feature some opportunistic slogan so as to lure the great unwashed, that's when my respectful feelings fade. Working people need a party, need champions, to show them the way forward, not to suck them in by playing to ignorance.
I have voted NDP all my life except when I voted CCF but if the NDP is in any way responsible for the survival of that bunch of psychopathic fools who are in power now they have lost me.
You have nothing to worry about unless Bid Daddy takes control of the party. I wish there were some "lifelong Liberals" in this land of ours who had the slightest qualms about their party propping up the Tory psychopaths who are in power now and who would write letters to Iggy threatening to desert the party. But Liberals don't seem to care!
I disagree that focusing on bank fees and credit card interest is a good idea. For one, it's too easily dismissed by saying, "you don't like it, use your own bank, bank during normal hours, and pay your credit card bill on time." And the issue is too easily co-opted by the governing party. If the government snaps that platform plank and eliminates those fees, what next for the NDP?
Having said that, I agree that there is a disconnect between the NDP brass and the everyday world.
well then what policies do you suggest the NDP adopt that relate to the real world of struggling families and that are not easily co-opted by the other parties?
And the issue is too easily co-opted by the governing party. If the government snaps that platform plank and eliminates those fees, what next for the NDP?
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
unionist wrote:
I deal with real people all the time. Some of them tell me they're fed up with immigrants coming and using social services. Some tell me they're fed up with paying taxes. Some of them say bad things about same-sex marriage and queer folks. Some tell me they like the Calgary Stampede. Some say how proud they are of their neighbour's kid who is doing a tour in Afghanistan. Some, yes, whine and gripe about bank service charges, even though it is the tiniest of the problems affecting their family income.
These are fellow workers and union members. I treat all these real people with respect and engage them in discussion on these matters, knowing that in the big picture we have many important questions where we will be united despite such opinions.
But when self-styled progressive people seriously suggest that we should pander to the lowest common denominator in order to "corner" some part of the political marketplace, and that we should feature some opportunistic slogan so as to lure the great unwashed, that's when my respectful feelings fade. Working people need a party, need champions, to show them the way forward, not to suck them in by playing to ignorance.
Bang on, unionist. People gripe and complain about a bunch of things, including bank charges, but to think that Layton is going to make some huge breakthrough by talking about micro-issues like that when we're in a huge economic crisis with thousands of job losses, with whole sectors like autos, forestry and local media outlets being wiped out; when poverty, homelessness and drug addiciton are at record levels; when Canada has been engaging in an immoral and criminal war effort in Afghanistan which the public strongly opposed; when the planet is on the verge of irreversible climate change that will cause millions of deaths and threaten the future of humanity...it would be a complete travesty and won't win votes.
Yes, we won a few more seats in 2008 and went up a tad in popular vote, but the bigger story is declining turnout across the board and increasing disengagement from politics - we should have won 50+ seats given how weak Dion was and Harper's flailing on the economy.
I agree we have to speak in plain and clear terms and keep our points concise and focused, but if we want to run for national leadership, Layton needs to express a national vision and put forward bold yet practical ideas to turn our country around. Bank charges and ATM fees are good for our NDP critic in those areas, petitions, etc, but they are not the focus of our party or our campaign. Layton clearly understands this as he hasn't raised this issue at all since the 2008 campaign.
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Not sure how that "forcing" would happen, but I gather you believe that campaigning against bank service charges is a good idea?
"Layton needs to express a national vision and put forward bold yet practical ideas to turn our country around."
Such as? I have my pen and paper ready to start making a list.
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Not sure how that "forcing" would happen, but I gather you believe that campaigning against bank service charges is a good idea?
No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough.
In the world of international finance, banks everywhere today are finding it difficult to meet demands for credit and thus meet the needs of a recovering economy. Their paper holdings aren't worth what they thought. They very badly needed to maintain interest levels on their lines of credit, for instance - and other real cash cows.
This is all needed to keep investors, including your pension funds - happily investing in the banks, maintaining finance capital in their portfolios.
So you can only get so much mileage out of pointing out bank charges. Yet it seems that we need to be able to make capital work for Canadians' future. And if mention of capital only brings visions of revolution, there will naturally be a dearth of ideas about a "national vision" on how to "turn our country around."
Example. The remnants of Nortel, a Canadian corporation that was born as Northern Electric to manufacture telephones soon after Bell invented the new means of communication, has just been sold out to other countries. The inventions important to development of new technologies went with them.
The thread offering posted here, to discuss Harper's laissez faire position on this (as opposed to vote-rich automobiles in Ontario) went nowhere. And has anyone heard a peep from our convention-focused leadership? Something about saving Canadian corporations because we are going to need their earnings and jobs down the road?
I stand to be corrected, perhaps someone has heard all these things and I mised them. But at this point, it would seem not many would realize the opportunity for "big picture" political positions if they fell on them.
From Friday's big Rally in Sudbury....
George, this is a bit of a cross post from another thread......
"Layton had some more words for Clement."
“He's now saying (his “valley of death” comment) was a boneheaded remark, that's the first time I've agreed with him in months. I'll tell you what was boneheaded... These boneheaded conservatives signed an agreement that allowed companies to come in and do damage to this part of the country and do damage to this community.”
Gerard said earlier, “I think 'boneheaded' is a kind thing to say. I think he owes the community an apology, I think he owes the workers an apology.”
Layton called on all Canadians to use Sudbury as an example.
“I say to all Canadians, 'pay attention to what is happening in Sudbury,'” Layton said. “We've seen time and time again, a little too often, these foreign-multinationals some in with permission from the government, buy up Canadian companies and resources and then begin to throw people out of work. They did it with the softwood industry, you can go to any number of mills where people have been thrown out of work, having worked there their whole lives.”
Video Coverage: LINK
No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough.
If they called for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (not "negotiations") and a slightly independent and more progressive foreign policy, free universal publicly delivered childcare, pharmacare, denticare, elder care, and home care; government subsidies and friendly laws to groups of workers wishing to unionize; national standards and transfers to provinces with respect to free tuition and support for student living expenses; an end to private insurance of basic medical care using the "notwithstanding" clause if necessary to overcome Chaoulli; justice for Aboriginal peoples; enforceable equity for women in pay, the workplace, and society; and a few similar policies, I'd be happy to hold my nose while they promise to do something about bank service charges (although, if you're going to antagonize the banks, might as well make it worthwhile).
Until they do, I'll be encouraging them to emphasize bread over circuses.
ETA: And Stockholm, if the Libs or Cons want to "co-opt" those policies, I will support them! Then we can have a Grand Coalition with no need for any more elections for a long time.
Just a thought about when the next election may occur!
Harper stacked the Senate with Conservative appointees last year when there was the coalition threat (Senator Elizabeth May? Be afraid...be very afraid!).
The current standings in the Senate are:
Liberals 55, Conservatives 37, Independent 3, P.C. 2, Other 1, Vacant 7.
Between now and January 2nd, 2010, 5 more Liberals and one Independent will be forced to retire when they reach age 75.
On January 3rd, 2010, Harper can stack the Senate once again with 13 more Conservatives, evening the count with the Liberals.
My guess is that Harper wants to wait until 2010 before facing the electorate again.
You should try talking to real live 3d people then. In a world that is increasingly making people feel powerless something as tangible and in your face as bank gouging is very real.
I deal with real people all the time. Some of them tell me they're fed up with immigrants coming and using social services. Some tell me they're fed up with paying taxes. Some of them say bad things about same-sex marriage and queer folks. Some tell me they like the Calgary Stampede. Some say how proud they are of their neighbour's kid who is doing a tour in Afghanistan. Some, yes, whine and gripe about bank service charges, even though it is the tiniest of the problems affecting their family income.
These are fellow workers and union members. I treat all these real people with respect and engage them in discussion on these matters, knowing that in the big picture we have many important questions where we will be united despite such opinions.
But when self-styled progressive people seriously suggest that we should pander to the lowest common denominator in order to "corner" some part of the political marketplace, and that we should feature some opportunistic slogan so as to lure the great unwashed, that's when my respectful feelings fade. Working people need a party, need champions, to show them the way forward, not to suck them in by playing to ignorance.
Oh Unionist you are so cute sometimes. Your penchant for characterizing other posts with absolute horsecrap that they did not say is breathtaking sometimes it seems so skillful.
I have repeatedly said that you have to open the conversation with people with things they can relate to in their everyday world. Stuff they experience in their daily lives. I love how you just completely glossed over all the other issues I mentioned to come back to your pet peeve. From there you can talk about the bigger issues. Its a bit like discovering a new musical group. You might hear one song and think 'hey that's kind of interesting'. So then you might go out and buy the whole album and find out 'wow I really dig those gals". Soon you look around and you have the whole CD collection.
If your posting history wasn't such a broken record all the time it might be worth responding to, however how many times can you say you don't like Jack Layton and the NDP. We get it. Its okay - it's your right. But please stop pretending you have the corner on understanding what issues are truly important and the rest of us are faux progressives.
I would love for you to lay out an electoral platform for a party. The whole thing, including the messaging, that would work towards electoral success. You know the stuff that you can get across in a 15 second sound bite, because in today's media market that's about all you get - if that. So you have to explain things quick and fast. Or try the doorstep where you might get 30 second to start the conversation and if it doesn't go well in those few seconds the moment is lost. Please let us know how you accomplish all that without simplifying things to start the conversation. Please remember to include issues that cut across a bunch of divides so that you are talking to people not just about a few issues in a particular area, or demographic, or what have you.
Oh right you are just expecting the glorious revolution to occur without ever having to sully your hands in the dirty garden of real life.
It is like none of the last 20 elections have occurred. They have all been about defining a single or a very few issues and then campaigning on them while having a comphrehenisive platform backing it up. What have you missed about the winning campaigns in all the elections you have witnessed. The difference about the NDP is that it actually has policies beyond those conversation starters unlike the Conservatives and Liberals.
Just like in football with the Alouettes, the Lions, or the Eskies, etc., the NDP always has more than enough armchair quarterbacks to go round
NR:
"No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough."
Accuracy can be expected from even "armchair quarterbacks" in the big game of politics, NR. It's far more important than football.
Oh Unionist you are so cute sometimes. Your penchant for characterizing other posts with absolute horsecrap that they did not say is breathtaking sometimes it seems so skillful. [...]
I love how you just completely glossed over all the other issues I mentioned to come back to your pet peeve. [...]
If your posting history wasn't such a broken record all the time it might be worth responding to, however how many times can you say you don't like Jack Layton and the NDP. We get it. Its okay - it's your right. But please stop pretending you have the corner on understanding what issues are truly important and the rest of us are faux progressives. [...]
Oh right you are just expecting the glorious revolution to occur without ever having to sully your hands in the dirty garden of real life.
How do you work up enough emotion to speak so cynically and disrespectfully to someone on this board who does not call you names or insult you personally? And you are giving lectures on how to do doorknocking and media sound bytes? Of course you don't talk to people that way in real life, now do you? And what do you think we do over decades in the union movement - where we deal not only with members whose opinions range from extreme to extreme, but send our troops into election campaigns as well?
I laid one out for you at post #59 - sorry, I only spent about 60 seconds on it - I know it's a bit Bolshevik Communist Radical, but you didn't comment on it. I guess it would cause cardiac arrest when you knocked on people's doors. They'd pull out their pitchforks. They'd conceal their nubile children. They'd burn crosses in your lawn. You really have an elevated view of the ignorant unwashed out there. They won't listen to you for more than 30 seconds? Physician, heal thyself. Maybe it's you!?
Here, just in case you were to angry to read my Revolutionary Marxist Platform:
I like it unionist, so I'm voting for you.
Unfortunatly the right-wing would crucify the NDP even more than presently, by asking how all this will be paid for. And I know it is basically just a redistribution of the tax system, but if we tried that, the US would proably invade Canada, if we cut into their profits like that.
Oh Unionist you are still so cute. I treat you no differently than you treat everyone else, so why you should think it would be insulting is beyond me. You constantly make up your own paraphrases of what others post that have no relation to what they actually posted. If it bothers you having that pointed out I am truly sorry, but maybe you should reflect on why having it pointed out bothers you so much - guilty conscious maybe.
I read what you wrote. All you did was pass on a laundry list of issues. It is fairly good list, but making a list is pretty darn easy. What I specifically asked was how you would get the conversation going with voters to the point they would actually vote for your program. As it is now if you pass people a laundry list like that they would roll their eyes and guffaw after successive years of Liberal and Conservative broken promises. (And yes in Ontario some of the record of Mr Rae) So tell us - how would you open the door with them to even look your way?
Let me guess - you would start with a few more universal issues that can appeal to a broad cross section of people.
I like it unionist, so I'm voting for you.
Unfortunatly the right-wing would crucify the NDP even more than presently, by asking how all this will be paid for.
It would be paid for (in large part) by expropriating a healthy chunk of the billions of dollars of bank profits you mentioned above.
Unless you think the U.S. would invade us if we did that to our own banks?
Or unless you weren't really seriously concerned when you mentioned their billions in profits?
Simple. I'd take a leaf from Layton's litany:
Unfortunately Unionist, your shopping list - while being laudable - is also so expensive that even if the Government of Canada expropriated all the chartered banks and pocketed every penny of their profits - it wouldn't pay for even 10% of that stuff.
Unfortunately Unionist, your shopping list - while being laudable - is also so expensive that even if the Government of Canada expropriated all the chartered banks and pocketed every penny of their profits - it wouldn't pay for even 10% of that stuff.
Thanks, Tommy Douglas, for your optimistic view that a better world is possible. You are so opposed to anything inspiring, anything visionary, that you don't even grasp that Québec already has $7 daycare and universal pharmacare, and they haven't touched the banks yet. So let me repeat my doorknocking script, and tell me who will slam the door:
I would say - explain to me how you plan to completely liquidate all bank profits in Canada and have us left with a functional banking system at all?
To a certain extent, what you are proposing sounds a lot like the NDP campaign last year where the consistent message was to reverse the corporate tax cuts that Harper and Martin brought in and use the money to pay for blah-blah-blah
PS: How would you campaign in the US where the banks are all LOSING money so there is no profit to confiscate?
Well there is always the oil companies, no slouches either when it comes to profits, and the inheritance tax, say a measly 10%. That should just about cover it. Oh, and the elimination of all those executive bonuses of course.
Personally, taking on Bay Street seems to have ignited lots of support especially if these commenters are any indicator of supressed feelings and thoughts floating out there - indicates that ordinary main street folk - the little guy - is some pissed at corporate CEOs and their political/media in bed together cabals.
Check out comments in this article - hmm - beginning of a revolution???
Time for CEOs to pay the piper
egs.
Pure greed
I work in a corporate environment and my experience is that the little guys work the most. The higher you are on the management scale, the less real work you do (but bs more and have longer lunches). If these bonuses are paid not for the perfomance, but to attract "the best" in the market, I admit they've done a damn good job - in screwing all of us. We do not seem to learn anything from the past. This greed will destroy north-American economies.
I agree
Damn right! Only the conservatives and flip flopping liberals support corporate CEO's and self-payment of bonuses.
My Own Experience
Personally, I have worked for three CEOs. I have also lost over $40,000 on Nortel stocks. Most CEOs and executives behave as corporate politicians definitely not worth the compensation money they are getting. I don't understand how a court could approve millions of dollars to pay "useless" people while letting productive employees be hung out to dry. Didn't the judge know the reality with private corporations?
I haven't even begun to save money which will pay for social services and create jobs.
You ain't seen nuthin yet.
Even the official understated figures of the costs of the Afghanistan war show that it exceeded $1 billion last year - and the government will no longer release the figures, because they're too embarrassing. Tally that up in my column once we retreat from Afghanistan.
Likewise, the only reason I mentioned the bank profits (in case it was too deep) was in response to the nonsensical tripe about bank charges. I tried to turn that little sound byte into something meaningful - somehow suspecting that some of its advocates would run away screaming the moment that happened. That's only the knock on the door. Once somehow says, "well, would taxing bank profits at 80% be enough to pay for all that?", the answer would be:
"Frankly - no. But it's a start, isn't it? And then there are two steps forward: 1) Tell us your social spending priorities, because we can't do everything at once; and 2) it's not just the banks. It's big corporations and wealthy taxpayers. They'll have to start paying some taxes for a change. We'll be making lots of changes, and we'll be doing lots of listening before we do."
Send that person to my door.
PS: How would you campaign in the US where the banks are all LOSING money so there is no profit to confiscate?
I wouldn't. Nor should Jack Layton. The U.S. is fucked.
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
Well there is always the oil companies, no slouches either when it comes to profits, and the inheritance tax, say a measly 10%. That should just about cover it. Oh, and the elimination of all those executive bonuses of course.
I'm all for eliminating executive bonuses - but that doesn't create revenue for the government, it just reduces the overhead of the companies those executives work for.
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
~ sound of applause ~
And the issue is too easily co-opted by the governing party. If the government snaps that platform plank and eliminates those fees, what next for the NDP?
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Exactly! Please, steal ALL the NDP's ideas! Implement them all! The more, the better!
As Henny Youngman would have said "take my wife...PLEASE"
Understandably, visual cues become unrecognizable and are easily bypassed when trying to absorb information in bulk, but did you even hear the whoosh sound?
A bit too abstract for this old plodder to see what you mean, Jack. I need visual clues that are recognizable. Something about the unfortunate absence of a voice in that debate? Heck, BA and I were on the same wave length, and I'm still waiting for someone to respond negatively to my postings in this thread. Anything substantive to offer?
I wouldn't waste the effort George, only to observe yet another fly by, other than to inquire about the status of the enhanced 'ignore' function that I've seen being discussed, and how quickly we might expect it to be rolled out.
3)There's no way the NDP could back the Tories now and then still ask people to vote for them AGAINST the Tories during the next election.
I can see it all now with Iggy shouting at Jack in parliament for mowing the Liberals grass for them. "You stole our jobs and our lawnmowers, and now Liberal MP's are lining up for UI-EI-O!" Happy 79th, Liberals
Thought this might be a bit too substantive for a rational back and forth, Jack
George Victor wrote:
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
I think that until Layton lays out an alternative scheme for the folks to be able to rely on a pension worth the powder to blow it to hell, others may continue to get more votes.
No matter who backs whomever, this fall.
From the OP:
Layton consistently voted against the government - until the very day the Liberals, after 79 pro-Harper votes, said they would be voting against the government too. Then everything changed.
From the OP:
Layton consistently voted against the government - until the very day the Liberals, after 79 pro-Harper votes, said they would be voting against the government too. Then everything changed
So what do you think changed other than the Liberals handing the Tories a blank cheque since 2006?
Statement by Jack Layton regarding proposed EI changes
And unfortunately throughout this coming winter many more Canadians will lose their jobs.
Most economists agree that the job losses will continue until at least next spring. Those people need help.
I spent the summer visiting ridings across the country. I met many people who had lost their jobs. I heard their stories about how badly they need help.
Many of them are coming to the end of their benefits and are going to end up on welfare. Those people are counting on us.
The announcement today appears to be a step in the right direction.
There is much more to be done. And many workers are left out.
Our preference remains fighting for the unemployed - not fighting a second election within the year.
Liberals want a stooge-off with Harper. The NDP wants to fill in the Liberals' blank cheque to the Tories with guarantees for help to unemployed Canadians. Jack wants to get to work for Canadians while Liberals want to spend millions on another election
I'm a little disgusted by the possibility of the NDP actually voting with Harper on Friday. Harper has wrecked this country, and giving a bit on EI will not change that reality. Furthermore, the longer Harper stays in power, the more he can do to really f*ck this country up. Layton should remain consistent and vote NO on Friday.
you know Boom boom I would be with you here, if it wasn't the 5 election in 4 years, and that the results of the election would be actually different. In my mind's eye - right now if either Harper cons or Iggy libs got a minority - nothing would change for working people.
I think the NDP should look at the proposed changes and then decide if and for how long they might support the Harpers. Liberals took all the time in the world to oppose the other wing of the party. So why shouldnt the NDP decide themselves whether Harper is offering anything positive to unemployed Canadians and their families in desperate need?
In reality, the NDP (and the other parties) has voted with the Conservatives on lots of specific measures. The NDP voted for the residential schools apology, the NDP voted to recognize Quebec as a "nation", the NDP voted for the Accountability Act and probably a number of other things. They have always voted for bills that they agree with. The only difference this time is that since the Liberals have decided to vote against everything without even reading it - suddenly whether the NDP votes for a bill means whether or not parliament is dissolved instantly.
I think that you have to pay some attention to the substance of what is being voted on.
Right now, Ignatieff looks so bad that I think that the Liberals are praying that the NDP or the BQ saves them from an snap election because while the Liberals could form a minority government if they gained some ground and the Liberal+NDP seat count was greater than the Tories. I think that if the Tories came back with a minority that was just as string as what they have now - it would give Harper another lease on life for a few years.
I'd rather wait until early 2010, let the Tories get roasted in the house for a few months, let the green shoots of economuic recovery turn out to be a mirage and then go for the kill on the budget that is likely to have a lot of controversial and unpopular stuff in it.
I'm sick of Harper myself, but I'm already sick of this iteration of the Liberal Party.
I'm solidly behind the person who said "There's no shame in not being goaded into an election we don't want".
And don't forget to tell the man or woman of the household that Quebec's piecemeal daycare fails horizontal and vertical equity tests and no thanks to the NDP. What we need are some guarantees from the feds not to open up daycare to private enterprise big box companies waiting offshore for a slice of the daycare pie.
So, Fidel and Stephen Gordon have contempt for Québec's $7 per day public daycare. Why am I unsurprised? It's not a "good first step" - like Harper's gambit on EI. No, it's only worthy of scorn.
Anyway, instead of looking for feeble excuses to slam Québec, you might recall that this thread is about Jack Layton's statement that the NDP is the "least likely" party to back Harper.
Remember that?
Here's a post from August 18:
3)There's no way the NDP could back the Tories now and then still ask people to vote for them AGAINST the Tories during the next election.
I can see it all now with Iggy shouting at Jack in parliament for mowing the Liberals grass for them. "You stole our jobs and our lawnmowers, and now Liberal MP's are lining up for UI-EI-O!" Happy 79th, Liberals
Of course, that was before Harper capitulated to Jack's demand for a wholesale revamping of Employment Insurance.
Speaking of old posts, remember this?
I'm a little disgusted by the possibility of the NDP actually voting with Harper on Friday. Harper has wrecked this country, and giving a bit on EI will not change that reality. Furthermore, the longer Harper stays in power, the more he can do to really f*ck this country up. Layton should remain consistent and vote NO on Friday.
Harper has wrecked the country just like Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin did - it's all the same agenda, Boom Boom. The NDP voted with Martin on the 2005 budget deal even though Martin was (and still is, I would argue) the most extreme right-wing finance minister/PM we have ever had - the Libs completely gutted the social safety net under Martin's budget and allowed the Klein and Harris agenda to dominate provincial governments from 1993-2005. Despite that, Layton used his leverage in 2005 with 19 seats and got the biggest investment in public transit, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid in a very long time with the 2005 budget deal.
The current issue with Harper is, can we get something meaningful on EI, pensions, green economy, consumer protection? If Harper brings in changes that are very similar to NDP motions on these issues, do we oppose them just because the Conservatives are finally agreeing with our approach? That wouldn't make sense. We are not proposing to back Harper on the budget, only to support him temporarily IF we get real progress on these issues. It's the exact same thing that Stephen Lewis did with Bill Davis in minority governments in Ontario in the 70's on rent control and other files.
Boom Boom, your post above suggests we should elect the Liberals no matter what - we tried that in 1993 when we booted out Kim Campbell and the Conservatives, and the Libs were just as bad and likely worse on the cuts to social programs and transfers to provinces.
Interesting thread title now.
So, Fidel and Stephen Gordon have contempt for Québec's $7 per day public daycare. Why am I unsurprised? It's not a "good first step" - like Harper's gambit on EI. No, it's only worthy of scorn.
So why were you not advocating for $7 dollar a day PSE here with Stephen Gordon? Apparently only universally accessible PSE was good enough for the sake of your argument then.
Why not also support the NDP's proposal for a national level and regulated daycare program with federal funding?
Or is it because certain political parties refuse to create a publicly funded national level daycare and shutting out would-be big box daycare service providers in the US and Australia waiting offshore for our FTA-NAFTA abiding stooges to allow them to horn-in on the public purse and further undermining any chance for a nationalised daycare in Canada? Hmmm?
It's like trying to nail jello to moth-eaten curtains.
Nothing has changed yet.
There are 2 possibilities. One is that Layton is going to settle for smaller changes to EI than were expected.
The other possibility is that Layton and the NDP are playing for maximum effect: saying that it looks worth considering, we want Parliamnet to work [which is what the even the vast majority of the NDP's 'universe' wants to hear], and then voting against it if the offer is not sweetened.
We don't know which possibility it is going to be.
[And there's a variant of the second option, where the NDP votes for the Friday supply motion more or less as is- 'Its a sincere start and Canadians want Parliament to work'... but publicaly presses for substantially more and plans to vote with the Liberals on the confidence motion if that is not forthcoming. Different vote on Friday, but same narrative and final effect.]
This whoe thing- not just the NDP- is getting so staged now, that it is silly to simply follow the words themselves of what any party says.
And think about the NDP's strategic position and needs if they know [or are pretty sure] that they are not going to be stopping an election... which means they have to plan as if its inevitable. If they know there is going to be an election and continue to say just what they have said before- and the only thing that would make people here happy- then from this moment forward they will be absolutely ignored in public discussion... which is a fatal position for the NDP to be in going into an election.
And don't forget that its very likely that all the opposition parties will vote for the Friday motion.
Because that motion is not decisive as to whether the government stands or falls. So allthe parties look to it as a stand alone: what message do they want to impart? A
And specifically, if it has good things in it and we can vote the government down in a month, why vote against it? With the additional specific angle for the NDP that they will continue being ignored in what will be the medias narrative of Harper versus Iggnaieff, unless they do something to stir it up.
that's right Ken.
Don't forget the age of consent bill criminalising youth sex.
I know right, how irresponsible is that, voting against something without even reading it? Almost as bad as Jack Layton bragging that he would vote against the January budget/economic update without even reading it.
That was then and this is now.
I know right, how irresponsible is that, voting against something without even reading it? Almost as bad as Jack Layton bragging that he would vote against the January budget/economic update without even reading it.
I would say it's just as bad, if it is indeed "bad". Funny how the media isn't interested in that narrative now that it's the Liberals who are implicated.
Funny that eh?
That's right.
Then, Layton was gung-ho about voting against the government because he knew it wouldn't do anything.
Now, when the party's opposition could actually cause the Harper government to fall, he is changing his tune.
But it's not a criticism, just the political reality. Layton and the NDP are just trading places with the Liberals and now a different party gets to bluster and grandstand while the other votes in favour of the government to avoid an election that neither party wants.
Actually, in January Layton was gung-ho about voting against the government because it was a golden opportunity to bring in a progressive government on the spot. The Liberals decided they they preferred to let Harper stay in power and retool himself - leading to the situation we now find ourselves in.
Actually, in January Layton was gung-ho about voting against the government because it was a golden opportunity to bring in a progressive government on the spot. The Liberals decided they they preferred to let Harper stay in power and retool himself - leading to the situation we now find ourselves in.
Iggy would rather waste tax payers money for an election than to have stuck with the coalition - oh right - his corination hadn't happen than.
If we had an election now the NDP would spend a lot of money in an election that has as much chance, or more, of the party losing seats than gaining. The government is unlikely to change. The people do not want to vote. So this is a worthless election. It would not take much worthwhile to be more valuable than that.
I did not support the idea of voting against something before reading it last January and don't now. I can't see any reason to cause an election now- this would be stupid, not leadership. The party does nto ahve to go far but at least past the 1 year mark. that said the NDP is unlikely to vote for a Con budget so this just delays things which is worthwhile but very short term.
If the Tories are offering something on the EI file, and the NDP votes for it because a half a loaf is better than none, the NDP has stood up for less privileged Canadians, even if they had to get in bed with the devil to do it.
If the Liberals vote against it, it makes them look even worse than they do now, especially in the eyes of the unemployed.
For any party to vote against the home improvement bill, and improvements EI, it would be political suicide, and the Cons would get a majority over it too.
Time to close this for length.
There's a similar thread going here, although it's not going well. Maybe it just needs a few more intelligent posters.