Prime Minister Jack Layton
May 31, 2010 - 12:22pm
According to the results published in Monday's edition of La Presse, the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper would defeat a coalition led by Michael Ignatieff 40-34 per cent.
With Bob Rae as Liberal leader, the coalition and Conservatives would be tied.
However, if the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.
The reason: Jack Layton is well-liked by Quebecers but they don't vote for the NDP because they see no chance of the party forming government; with the prospect of Mr. Layton in the prime minister's office, 44 per cent of Quebecers would vote NDP - 10 per cent more than the Bloc.
Yes!!!
Now let's go for it!!!
Throw this back in my face if I'm proven wrong but, there will not be a pre-election accord, coalition or wink and a nod agreement between the NDP and Libs. While the suggestion may strike a chord with anti-Conservative voters, it would not go over well with much of the membership of the parties.
I'm also wary about any national "polls" from which seat distribution is deduced.
Norman Spector
According to the results published in Monday's edition of La Presse, the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper would defeat a coalition led by Michael Ignatieff 40-34 per cent.
With Bob Rae as Liberal leader, the coalition and Conservatives would be tied.
However, if the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.
The reason: Jack Layton is well-liked by Quebecers but they don't vote for the NDP because they see no chance of the party forming government; with the prospect of Mr. Layton in the prime minister's office, 44 per cent of Quebecers would vote NDP - 10 per cent more than the Bloc.
No thanks. I would stick with the devil I know. Judging by Ontario's experience with the NDP in government, it was hypocrisy, flip-flops, corruption, favouritsim, racism, cronyism and plain incompetence all over the place. While the Party may have successfully governmed elswhere, we are talking provinces with no more than 3 million inhabitants tops. More populated than that a jurisdiction, too much for the NDP.
This kind of polling data also gives the NDP a great message to use in the next election. If you want Jack Layton to be PM in a coalition government and NOT Ignatieff - you have to vote NDP and give the NDP more votes and seats than the Liberals - that way Layton would be PM.
It would also be great to use in Quebec with soft BQ voters - vote NDP and make Layton PM!
Are you sure you're not describing the Harris-Eves crooks who came after?
The truth is that Canada's premiers and federal leaders have all scrambled to be Bob Rae clones since the country has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs during this ideologically-induced meltdown. We're being forced down a debt hole by fiscal Frankensteins who have no idea why tying the country's economic wagon to US fortunes has worked out so badly. We can see now that the national economic crisis of the late 80s and spilling over into the nineties was an early sign of bad things to come.
This is freakin hilarious, as you are directly describing in actuality the CONservatives and Liberals, have to rate you -8 on the good propaganda scale.
Its a poll. And the questions are driven by what interests people, not necessarily what is likely to happen.
What is definitely being measured is the cachet of Jack Layton and the NDP. That enhances the NDP's chances in the next election, and in principle opens up the possibilities of what might unfold from the election [and perhaps start unfolding during and/or before].
But the actual form, who knows now. And the odds are still strongly against a formal/overt agreement of any kind before the election. Could be lots and lots of nods and winks... but anybody's guess how little or much they might add up to.
I think the emphasis is on the secomd paragraph above, with anything else being pure speculation with the odds of any particular type of prediction changing vastly all the time, if one wants to make them.
What it says is that most of the old truisms are rapidly floating away and the next election will be potentially one of the most unpredictable ever.
One thing leaves me scratching my head in this poll. They seem to be phrasing the question to be about an Ignatieff or Rae or Layton led "coalition" - but then the answer categories suggest a MERGER into one party.
If the Liberals and NDP were going to form a coalition - chances are they would still each run candidates in every riding. The only way that you would ever have a ballot where you choices are Conservative, Green, BQ, Other or Liberal/NDP led by person x is if there is a new party called the Liberal Democratic Party.
Why don't these idiots scratch the word "coalition" and call it what it is MERGER.
Well, people are either confused about (or deliberately confusing) the terms "electoral coalition", "coalition government", "merger" and so forth.
Liberal blogger Robert Silver got his hands on some of the unpublished questions and crosstabs, and reports that Liberal supporters claimed to be more supportive of a "merger" than did NDP supporters, *much* more supportive of candidate arrangements than NDPers, but both parties' supporters were equally supportive of a post-election coalition-type government arrangement.
Later I'll get to those numbers Silver posted. But intuitively, I'm sceptical. Paradoxically, I think it likely you'd get answers less reflective of respondents intentions if you through in the word merger instead of coalition. That most people- even the party supporters tend to run it all together in a mish-mash that really just means 'working together, with no distinction of when or how... and that if you use the word 'coalition' in the question, that sounds familiar, but if you call it merger you'll get more head scratching and answers that reflect peoples [renewed] unfamiliarity with what is being talked about, rather than reflecting what they would liek to see.
Silver:
Agreed. Granted, we dont see the numbers and questions, but I'd be scratching my head first over what we're actually looking at.
I wonder how soft Liberal Party supporters have felt about the ongoing Tory-Liberal coalition in Canadian Parliament? Apparently they haven't been all that enthusiastic about it.
Granted you really need to see the numbers and questions that Silver summarised. BUT...
The strong sentiment in the Liberal party to ANY and all arrangements with the NDP, and being considerably stronger than in the NDP, is marked enough that you have to think it would show up no matter how the questions might be asked.
And I'm pretty surprised. I really would have thought that the number of Liberal identifiers who do not like the NDP would have been as great as the NDP supporters who do not like the prospect of getting chummier with the Liberals.
Silver not knowing what to make of it may include a large dose of being stunned his party's support base is not what it was... seeing what these numbers indicate as something of a problem if they are for real. I don't have that issue to deal with, and I don't know what to make of it either.
Like yes, some of the strength of those Liberal numbers would have to do with how even Liberal identifiers are dissapointed in the lacklusre performance, but for those who have never liked the NDP, that isnt going to tip them more in the NDPs direction.
Something tells me the Liberals should be doing some serious polling of their base.... and of the possibility that the numbers of people that have been deserting them have preponderently been the ones who see the Cons as their second choice [and who would be not showing up in these numbers because they are essentially gone from counting themselves as Liberal identifiers].
???
Or possibly the rough understanding many of us have always had [and i mean Liberals as well as Dippers] of how many Liberal identifiers don't like the NDP is just wrong.
??
What this poll reveals is that Jack Layton is a lot more popular than Michael Ignatieff because of Ignatieff's dismal performance as Liberal leader. Ignatieff has totally failed to resonate as a leader.
What still remains the case though is that the large majority of Canadians are not going to vote NDP. Even the Liberal party is still more popular than the NDP.
Therefore, what we are left with is a situation in which the Liberals are more popular than the NDP as a party, but that Layton is more popular than Ignatieff as a leader.
Interesting dilemma for both parties.
Hardly a dillema. I think Broadbent was more popular than Turner if not always then at least at times.
The dillema, such as it is, for the NDP is whether to repeat the failed strategies of the past by throwing a life line to the Liberals, or embark on a new strategy; throw the Liberals an anchor for a change.
They threw their own anchor, we need to let them keep it where it is...
have no use for them, and their pretense.
they are in cahoots with the CONs at thew higher levels end of story.
I'd even be slightly happier if one of the two Bay Street power parties actually won a true majority for a nice change. It might be some indication that their deeply flawed economic philosophy is experiencing another temporary upswing, or something. But the outlook for Canadians doesn't even look that good.
Are you sure you're not describing the Harris-Eves crooks who came after?
The truth is that Canada's premiers and federal leaders have all scrambled to be Bob Rae clones since the country has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs during this ideologically-induced meltdown. We're being forced down a debt hole by fiscal Frankensteins who have no idea why tying the country's economic wagon to US fortunes has worked out so badly. We can see now that the national economic crisis of the late 80s and spilling over into the nineties was an early sign of bad things to come.
Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Fidel and Remind, we evidently have different perspectives. You seem convinced that the NDP is the Party that should govern and I am convinced that it is better in opposition, lest the downtrodden and the ethnically "different" would be totally ignored, if not plain screwed. (It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
What a bunch of clap trap, yet again.
What a bunch of clap trap, yet again.
Could you please put that in words that are more conducive to discussing. Much more constructive than qualifiers to put down non-whites' experiences with the NDP. As a white woman you have much to praise the NDP for and I understand that, but that does not justify your banalizing others' experiences.
You got a citatation for your accusation about the welfare police and snitch line?
Are you sure you're not describing the Harris-Eves crooks who came after?
The truth is that Canada's premiers and federal leaders have all scrambled to be Bob Rae clones since the country has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs during this ideologically-induced meltdown. We're being forced down a debt hole by fiscal Frankensteins who have no idea why tying the country's economic wagon to US fortunes has worked out so badly. We can see now that the national economic crisis of the late 80s and spilling over into the nineties was an early sign of bad things to come.
Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Fidel and Remind, we evidently have different perspectives. You seem convinced that the NDP is the Party that should govern and I am convinced that it is better in opposition, lest the downtrodden and the ethnically "different" would be totally ignored, if not plain screwed. (It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
I'm no (longer) a support of the NDP, but indefense of the NDP your history is somewhat backwards.
First, The Rae NDP came into power in the middle of a big economic downturn (a Conservative owned national downturn.)
The first two years of their reign the debt did indeed go up (to around $11B deficit per year if I recall correctly.) This was during the afore mentioned recession and interest rates in the 10-15% or more range.
The last two years the Ontario NDP had started reducing the deficit so that had they had two more years and continued with the same deficit cutting rate they would have eliminated the deficit ... but instead the Harris cons got in and rather than eliminating the debt in two years they increased it and eventually left power with a large (and lied about it) deficit.
As for the welfare cheats .. that was a Harris initiative .. hell, he even hired a bunch of friends from the now defunct criminal consulting organization FKA Anderson consulting (of Enron fame.) The Cons paid this firm more in consulting fees to come up with half baked "anti-welfare-fraud" schemes than they actually recovered from real fraud.
Rae came up with "Rae Days", which were met with outrage back then, but which are all the rage in right wing circles these days.
I do agree with anyone that might claim that the NDP no longer have anything resembling a "real value" or principle, but the "historic NDP" sometimes gets a rap that it doesn't deserve.
Are you sure you're not describing the Harris-Eves crooks who came after?
The truth is that Canada's premiers and federal leaders have all scrambled to be Bob Rae clones since the country has hemorrhaged hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs during this ideologically-induced meltdown. We're being forced down a debt hole by fiscal Frankensteins who have no idea why tying the country's economic wagon to US fortunes has worked out so badly. We can see now that the national economic crisis of the late 80s and spilling over into the nineties was an early sign of bad things to come.
Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Fidel and Remind, we evidently have different perspectives. You seem convinced that the NDP is the Party that should govern and I am convinced that it is better in opposition, lest the downtrodden and the ethnically "different" would be totally ignored, if not plain screwed. (It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
I'm no (longer) a support of the NDP, but indefense of the NDP your history is somewhat backwards.
First, The Rae NDP came into power in the middle of a big economic downturn (a Conservative owned national downturn.)
The first two years of their reign the debt did indeed go up (to around $11B deficit per year if I recall correctly.) This was during the afore mentioned recession and interest rates in the 10-15% or more range.
The last two years the Ontario NDP had started reducing the deficit so that had they had two more years and continued with the same deficit cutting rate they would have eliminated the deficit ... but instead the Harris cons got in and rather than eliminating the debt in two years they increased it and eventually left power with a large (and lied about it) deficit.
As for the welfare cheats .. that was a Harris initiative .. hell, he even hired a bunch of friends from the now defunct criminal consulting organization FKA Anderson consulting (of Enron fame.) The Cons paid this firm more in consulting fees to come up with half baked "anti-welfare-fraud" schemes than they actually recovered from real fraud.
Rae came up with "Rae Days", which were met with outrage back then, but which are all the rage in right wing circles these days.
I do agree with anyone that might claim that the NDP no longer have anything resembling a "real value" or principle, but the "historic NDP" sometimes gets a rap that it doesn't deserve.
National Council of Welfare / Conseil National du Bien-Etre Social
(To facilitate finding whatyou are looking for, you may want to search the words 'Bob Rae" "snitch-line" ..)
http://tinyurl.com/36t4suk
Damn Bob Rae, 5 months after he was thrown out of office ( June 8, 1995) he went and implemented a "welfare snitch line".
Damn Bob Rae, 5 months after he was thrown out of office ( June 8, 1995) he went and implemented a "welfare snitch line".
You have no clue how government bureaucracy works. There is a time line between formulating a policy and implementing it. It is obvious you have never sat in a course related to public policy and and administration or if you did you were day-dreaming.
It was the Bob Rae NDP government that came up with the policy, a memo about which we received then from the Rae Administration at the social services agency I was with. Mike Harris had the NDP to thank for paving the way.
Your "Gotcha" just blew up in your face and reflected only on your ignorance and your blind partisan fundamentalism.
Damn Bob Rae, 5 months after he was thrown out of office ( June 8, 1995) he went and implemented a "welfare snitch line".
You have no clue how government bureaucracy works. There is a time line between formulating a policy and implementing it. It is obvious you have never sat in a course related to public policy and and administration or if you did you were day-dreaming.
I was the Bob Rae NDP government that came up with the policy, a memo about which we received then from the Rae Administration at the social services agency I was with.
Your "Gotcha" just blew up in your face and reflected only on your ignorance and your blind partisan fundamentalism.
Mahmud, Harris campaigned on the basis of less funding for welfare and reining in teacher salaries. The bureaucracy may have been lining up something to curb welfare cheating, but it sure as shit was not lining up a 20.1 per cent cut in welfare payments to all. Neither did it plan on reducing care of old timers in nursing homes so that administrations of those places could get away with giving them ONE GODDAM BATH/SHOWER PER WEEK.
Why in the name of Christ do you suppose you can get away with such pathetic attempts at creativity? Do you think that it is all history, that people are not still living out the social savagery, the human debasement that the neo-con practices?
Damn Bob Rae, 5 months after he was thrown out of office ( June 8, 1995) he went and implemented a "welfare snitch line".
You have no clue how government bureaucracy works. There is a time line between formulating a policy and implementing it. It is obvious you have never sat in a course related to public policy and and administration or if you did you were day-dreaming.
I was the Bob Rae NDP government that came up with the policy, a memo about which we received then from the Rae Administration at the social services agency I was with.
Your "Gotcha" just blew up in your face and reflected only on your ignorance and your blind partisan fundamentalism.
Mahmud, Harris campaigned on the basis of less funding for welfare and reining in teacher salaries. The bureaucracy may have been lining up something to curb welfare cheating, but it sure as shit was not lining up a 20.1 per cent cut in welfare payments to all. Neither did it plan on reducing care of old timers in nursing homes so that administrations of those places could get away with giving them ONE GODDAM BATH/SHOWER PER WEEK.
Why in the name of Christ do you suppose you can get away with such pathetic attempts at creativity? Do you think that it is all history, that people are not still living out the social savagery, the human debasement that the neo-con practices?
I said the NDP paved the way for Harris and that is a well known and documented fact. Since you brought in Harris, I may add that to a certain segment of society, the difference between Harris' COns and Rae's NDP is very insigniificant. Bringing in Employment Equity for white women and exclusing the non-white segment of society would have been flagrant. Thus, just let them have a ride !
I think you better re-read your linked document, and then review exactly how "government bureaucracy works" in regards to enacting previous government "policy" vs ""law".
You claimed that the NDP created the welafare police and snitch line .. those were not NDP "law" nor "policy" ... the NDP did make some welfare reforms, many of which were unpopular, but there is no requirement for any government to continue to follow a former government's "policies" ... and there certainly is no reason to believe that one could "blame" the Harris neo-cons' policies regarding welfare on having to follow the previous NDP's policies.
Fine criticize the Rae NDP's welfare policies, but do so by referencing their actual policies and not the Harris implementation of Harris policies.
mahmud:
I said the NDP paved the way for Harris and that is a well known and documented fact. Since you brought in Harris, I may add that to a certain segment of society, the difference between Harris' COns and Rae's NDP is very insigniificant. Bringing in Employment Equity for white women and exclusing the non-white segment of society would have been flagrant. Thus, just let them have a ride !
Again, this is such a flagrant lie - and you put such garbage forward in the belief that it will be believed by mature political veterans - that I believe you fantasize on a regular basis. You have all the makings of a racist and disseminator of hatred along ethnic lines, as seen in you drooling "let them have a ride" end note.
What a bunch of clap trap, yet again.
Could you please put that in words that are more conducive to discussing. Much more constructive than qualifiers to put down non-whites' experiences with the NDP. As a white woman you have much to praise the NDP for and I understand that, but that does not justify your banalizing others' experiences.
You seem to be trolling since you're not actually saying which party is "the party" for people of colour. NDP = bad. Okay? Then which party is good? Not to mention the fact that you're accusing No Yards of blind partisanship, when he's proven himself to be a pretty vociferous critic (from the left) of the NDP.
In any case the BC NDP caucus is pretty diverse. Carole James is Metis for starters, there are a lot of Indo-Canadian NDP MLA's not to mention the fact that they're the only party (provincially or federally) that I can think of with a diversity "quota" for women AND minorities (and other disadvantaged groups, like gays and lesbians, disabled people, etc). I'd like to see more Chinese-Canadian MLA's, but it's understandable that there aren't any others than Jenny Kwan because newer Chinese-Canadians tend to vote for "free enterprise" parties because guess what they have their own ideas of what's in their own interests (and it isn't left-wing politics, by and large).
The federal NDP caucus is rather white and obviously they need to do work diversifying there. Then again, the federal NDP caucus was only twelve people six years ago. Frankly just because the Conservatives have more MP's of colour doesn't mean they're more responsive to the needs of people of colour. Ditto with the Liberals, who were in government for tweleve years but did a whole lot of nothing to help immigrants (whom the majority are now people of colour) get their credentials recognized and work in the professional positions they used to back home. (Not to play "the race card" because I find it annoying) But since you insist, as a visible minority, I'll vote for a progressive WASP like Linda Duncan before I vote for a conservative minority like Rahim Jaffer any day, because what's more important is their policies not their skin colour.
Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Fidel and Remind, we evidently have different perspectives. You seem convinced that the NDP is the Party that should govern and I am convinced that it is better in opposition, lest the downtrodden and the ethnically "different" would be totally ignored, if not plain screwed. (It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
Your first contention is not borne out by the facts, and having spent time as an invited guest to meeting of the Greens, Liberals and Conservatives I have to say the NDP is far more diverse, even if there is still a lot more work to do - and there is.
Anyway, that's not what I wanted to respond too- but rather your next contention- and I will do it as someone who knows a great deal from the inside and the outside how government policy works, is created and implemented.
I am no defender of the Rae government. I had problems with Rae's leadership before 6 September 1990 and that continued after that date as well. However, what you have written is both factually incorrect and materially distorts the reality of the times.
First a little background. I was a municipal social services caseworker before, during and after the Rae years. Finally quitting during the Harris years because I would not be a party to that agenda having gone from being able to help people to having a system so constraining and bureaucratic that was geared to not helping, but punishing people. As a municipal employee I was charged with the task of assessing welfare eligibility and enforcing the relevant acts. I was also a young Union leader at the time so had a great deal of involvement with my brothers and sisters from other municipal jurisdictions. And I will remind you and everyone else that it was municipalities that administered welfare, not the province, although as a huge funder of the system they had a lot of influence and set the overall policies.
Your contention that the Rae government initiated a snitch line is factually incorrect. Such lines were common place prior to the Rae government. There was an overall provincial welfare fraud line and many municipalities had dedicated lines as well. The first provincial line was initiated in the 2nd mandate of the Petersen government for what it's worth.
And let's be honest fraud was rampant in those years. I am not talking about penny-ante rule breaking stuff most people think is fraud like buddy getting a couple of hundred bucks for working on a friend's deck, but organized fraud. These were often fraud rings run out of 'respectable' businesses and by pillars of the community. They involved falsified UI (as it was called then) records, collecting from more than one municipality (often many municipalities) and other organized techniques. The numbers were small, but it added up to big money. One fraud case I caught was totaled at ¾ of a million dollars when all of the various players were added together and to this day I still think I likely only scratched the surface. With businesses in a tailspin thanks to the free trade job losses many businesses went looking for other opportunities and saw the patchwork system of welfare as a place to make some money. They might have had good reasons for doing what they were doing initially, but many found out it was easy money and they got greedy.
Many of us in the system who believed strongly in a system that helped, not penalized the poor asked the Rae government for extra tools to help deal with these types of fraud that were sucking our resources dry. One of those requests included a more centralized tip system in order to catch these rings that often operated in more than one jurisdiction. The tip line, (and there was one in use during the Rae years), was specifically geared towards this kind of discovery. It was not geared to catch the woman who just lost her job, had her UI run, was collecting welfare and did a bit of side babysitting to make ends meet. That came later under Harris and was specifically targeted at those people. As well, we often had that type of calls coming in regularly, before a more centralized system, usually from other welfare recipients, but they were mostly ignored by all but the few jackass caseworkers who went out of their way to make others lives miserable (incidentally these are the ones who got put in charge under Harris). Because large databases were in their infancy, and many smaller municipalities had someone with other duties (like say a deputy clerk) overwhelmed doing welfare casework, by hand still, when the roles were exploding thanks to the free trade recession it was recognized that we were very vulnerable to fraud and that some streamlining and sharing of data was needed.
One other thing we asked for and the Rae government implemented was to allow welfare recipients to keep some of the money they earned at jobs whether casual or part time. So rather than cuts benefits the Rae government actually extended them by allowing the first portion of what they made doing anything to be exempt effectively increasing their benefits by many percent. We also asked for a large grace area where if someone was working, but did not have any benefits they could keep their drug card and use it to fill prescriptions. This too was implemented. Some people objected to these moves, but I still believe they were a net benefit to those collecting welfare. What it shows though is that the Rae government did not have a 'snitch' mentality, quite the opposite.
I was not involved with the provincial level disability, mothers allowance (as it was called) and seniors benefit programs so I can't speak to those, but your allegations were specifically about welfare, and with those I was on the ground working in the system and had a great deal of involvement in policy consultation during those years so can speak very specifically about what was done and why it was being done. Your contentions on the face of it are just plain wrong and seem to have been made specifically to be misleading.
Like No Yards, I'm feeling for the first time in years, after reviewing this thread, that I have to defend not only the NDP but Bob Rae's government against unfair criticisms.
Yikes.
Anyway, to return to what is supposed to be the topic, a coalition government with Jack Layton as PM, with the involvement/support/acquiescence/whatever of Libs and BQ, is such an exciting dream that I will believe even distorted and inaccurate polls if it will help make it a reality.
I don't care how phony and treacherous and regressive and _______ (fill in the blank) the Liberals are. If history calls upon Canadians to set aside partisanship, however temporarily, and make a great democratic declaration that "we will not tolerate one single inch more in the dismantlement of our achievements by the Harper regime!" - then let's go for it.
Seriously.
Right on!
Yep, the NDP may not be much of a principled party anymore IMO, but stopping the cons is the real priority ... with the cons out of the way maybe the NDP can stop playing "politics" and start remembering what a principle looked like.
I'd prefer Layton over Iggy, but even Iggy would be better for Canada than Harper and his regressive minions.
even Iggy would be better for Canada than Harper and his regressive minions
I am not being remotely partisan when I say this, but I think that is dillusional. Iggy and Harper agree on most everything of consequence. I will grant that some in the Liberal party might make such a comment possible, but not Iggy, not by a long shot.
Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Fidel and Remind, we evidently have different perspectives. You seem convinced that the NDP is the Party that should govern and I am convinced that it is better in opposition, lest the downtrodden and the ethnically "different" would be totally ignored, if not plain screwed. (It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
Your first contention is not borne out by the facts, and having spent time as an invited guest to meeting of the Greens, Liberals and Conservatives I have to say the NDP is far more diverse, even if there is still a lot more work to do - and there is.
Anyway, that's not what I wanted to respond too- but rather your next contention- and I will do it as someone who knows a great deal from the inside and the outside how government policy works, is created and implemented.
I am no defender of the Rae government. I had problems with Rae's leadership before 6 September 1990 and that continued after that date as well. However, what you have written is both factually incorrect and materially distorts the reality of the times.
First a little background. I was a municipal social services caseworker before, during and after the Rae years. Finally quitting during the Harris years because I would not be a party to that agenda having gone from being able to help people to having a system so constraining and bureaucratic that was geared to not helping, but punishing people. As a municipal employee I was charged with the task of assessing welfare eligibility and enforcing the relevant acts. I was also a young Union leader at the time so had a great deal of involvement with my brothers and sisters from other municipal jurisdictions. And I will remind you and everyone else that it was municipalities that administered welfare, not the province, although as a huge funder of the system they had a lot of influence and set the overall policies.
Your contention that the Rae government initiated a snitch line is factually incorrect. Such lines were common place prior to the Rae government. There was an overall provincial welfare fraud line and many municipalities had dedicated lines as well. The first provincial line was initiated in the 2nd mandate of the Petersen government for what it's worth.
And let's be honest fraud was rampant in those years. I am not talking about penny-ante rule breaking stuff most people think is fraud like buddy getting a couple of hundred bucks for working on a friend's deck, but organized fraud. These were often fraud rings run out of 'respectable' businesses and by pillars of the community. They involved falsified UI (as it was called then) records, collecting from more than one municipality (often many municipalities) and other organized techniques. The numbers were small, but it added up to big money. One fraud case I caught was totaled at ¾ of a million dollars when all of the various players were added together and to this day I still think I likely only scratched the surface. With businesses in a tailspin thanks to the free trade job losses many businesses went looking for other opportunities and saw the patchwork system of welfare as a place to make some money. They might have had good reasons for doing what they were doing initially, but many found out it was easy money and they got greedy.
Many of us in the system who believed strongly in a system that helped, not penalized the poor asked the Rae government for extra tools to help deal with these types of fraud that were sucking our resources dry. One of those requests included a more centralized tip system in order to catch these rings that often operated in more than one jurisdiction. The tip line, (and there was one in use during the Rae years), was specifically geared towards this kind of discovery. It was not geared to catch the woman who just lost her job, had her UI run, was collecting welfare and did a bit of side babysitting to make ends meet. That came later under Harris and was specifically targeted at those people. As well, we often had that type of calls coming in regularly, before a more centralized system, usually from other welfare recipients, but they were mostly ignored by all but the few jackass caseworkers who went out of their way to make others lives miserable (incidentally these are the ones who got put in charge under Harris). Because large databases were in their infancy, and many smaller municipalities had someone with other duties (like say a deputy clerk) overwhelmed doing welfare casework, by hand still, when the roles were exploding thanks to the free trade recession it was recognized that we were very vulnerable to fraud and that some streamlining and sharing of data was needed.
One other thing we asked for and the Rae government implemented was to allow welfare recipients to keep some of the money they earned at jobs whether casual or part time. So rather than cuts benefits the Rae government actually extended them by allowing the first portion of what they made doing anything to be exempt effectively increasing their benefits by many percent. We also asked for a large grace area where if someone was working, but did not have any benefits they could keep their drug card and use it to fill prescriptions. This too was implemented. Some people objected to these moves, but I still believe they were a net benefit to those collecting welfare. What it shows though is that the Rae government did not have a 'snitch' mentality, quite the opposite.
I was not involved with the provincial level disability, mothers allowance (as it was called) and seniors benefit programs so I can't speak to those, but your allegations were specifically about welfare, and with those I was on the ground working in the system and had a great deal of involvement in policy consultation during those years so can speak very specifically about what was done and why it was being done. Your contentions on the face of it are just plain wrong and seem to have been made specifically to be misleading.
"seem to have been made specifically to be misleading". You are accusing me of coming on this forum to specifically mislead? Shame on you for such gratuitous accusation.
I have alerted the moderator.
Why did you bother quoting a whole text mahmud, if you were going to just give it a one line dismissal.
BA gave detailed specific refutations of claims you have made. If they are misleading, follow his example and tell us how.
Can I just say how much I hate this formatting stuff and if the mods are coming anyway, maybe they could tell me how to fix these things. I have tried the putting space thing in a number of times now to no avail.
Mahmud - Before concluding that the NDP would be better in opposition than in government, shouldn't they at least get a chance to prove you right? Not that I think it's likely but I'll take PM Layton over just about anybody. I'll dream for a while with Unionist. Who knows, maybe he'd even reform the voting system, get us out of Afghanistan, institute BDS against Israel until they comply with international law, kick the banks and oil companies off of welfare, reduce greenhouse gases and thereby leave a true legacy.
Mahmoud, let me make myself perfectly clear, I don't think you came on this board to mislead, I think you are lying through your fucking teeth.
Why did you bother quoting a whole text mahmud, if you were going to just give it a one line dismissal.
BA gave detailed specific refutations of claims you have made. If they are misleading, follow his example and tell us how.
Yes he put some arguments that deserve to be responded to. But again, his last statement claims that I am here to purposefully mislead. He/she seems to be apt at read and tell about intentions and minds, perhaps he/she could also tell what would be my response.
Yep, first serious campaign I worked on was for Archie Patrick, FN's POC and NDP candidate, he almost won, and in racist northern BC that was a miracle
I don't care how phony and treacherous and regressive and _______ (fill in the blank) the Liberals are. If history calls upon Canadians to set aside partisanship, however temporarily, and make a great democratic declaration that "we will not tolerate one single inch more in the dismantlement of our achievements by the Harper regime!" - then let's go for it.
Seriously.
If you are talking about a coalition-- or even merger-- between an ascendant NDP and a rump Liberal party, hey, I have no problem.
But if the control is still with a resurgent (thanks to us) Liberal party, there would be no dismantling of the things Harper has put in place and set in motion.
That's the trademark of the Liberals; even when they campaign against a certain thing the Conservatives have done, they never do anything about it after they are elected.
Because they like Tory policies, because, in the classical sense of the word, the Liberals are very much Tory to the bone.
Any hope we place in the Liberals is a waste of time and energy, and in the end only profits our opponents, and further weakens our position.
Count Atamanenko in for a coalition should the opportunity arise after thenext election :)
http://tinyurl.com/Atam-Coal
PS - sorry about the original link
Mahmoud, let me make myself perfectly clear, I don't think you came on this board to mislead, I think you are lying through your fucking teeth.
I didn't know that lying is frowned upon within the NDP. Hasn't an Ontario NDP Minister gone distances to prove she was lying? I just wanted to belong.
Count Atamanenko in for a coalition should the opportunity arise after thenext election :)
http://ow.ly/1SMHd
Your link is kind of wonky. I had to re-do it once I got re-directed.
But in any case yes, it's good to hear reporting that uses terminology correctly, since people are throwing the words 'coalition', 'merger' and 'non-aggression/non-competition pact' around like they're interchangeable. The poll that sparked this thread, before it was derailed by the strange tangent on the early 1990's NDP government in Ontario, is a good example. It was an interesting, but somewhat awkwardly worded, attempt to gauge support for these positions.
In any case the first option is desirable and realistic. Canadians need to understand how their parliament works and unfortunately too many of us are ignorant about basic civics to understand that a coalition government is perfectly legitimate in a parliamentary system. Frankly, I think people think we have an American-style Presidential system. People need to understand that it's actually the parliamentarians who make up parliament, not the clapping seals who belong to blue, red, orange and light blue teams, even though unfortunately the latter is the way things have become in a de facto sense. The second term is completely unacceptable seeing as the merged party would likely have the same policies and politics of the current Liberals, seeing as they're the bigger party. Not to mention the fact that a merged party would lead to something like 1 + 1 equalling something like 1.4, with business liberals going to the Conservatives and socialist New Democrats going to the Greens or something. Hence, kind of pointless since that sort of a party would probably score along the lines of the "Ignatieff led merged Liberal/NDP" party. The 'non-aggression' pact would be a bad idea too since it's essentially a merger, would leave neither party a lot of flexibility when it comes to changing circumstances and would likely be rejected by voters in ridings where they can't vote for their number one choice (see: Central Nova, Election 2008).
ETA: Wonky grammar.
But if the control is still with a resurgent (thanks to us) Liberal party, there would be no dismantling of the things Harper has put in place and set in motion.
That's the trademark of the Liberals; even when they campaign against a certain thing the Conservatives have done, they never do anything about it after they are elected.
Because they like Tory policies, because, in the classical sense of the word, the Liberals are very much Tory to the bone.
Any hope we place in the Liberals is a waste of time and energy, and in the end only profits our opponents, and further weakens our position.
That is so true ...they both pave the road for each other to follow. Just look at the last 5 years or the last 100 for that matter...all the abstentions or lack of voting and the result..and they still continue to prop up the conservative agenda whle trying to look like the " good cop" in the "good cop bad cop" game they have honed to a tee.
Canadians fall for it every time..but there is a problem in Housten...there support is dieing off and being replaced with baby boomers, soon the "don't trust anyone over 30" crowd will be history and they know it. Years of cold war paranoia and media brainwashing are coming to an end and being exposed for what it was and the NEW mantra of war on terror that is supposed to replace it is just being swallowed by the gullible and old ...Just where are the dwindling right going to get a foothold and influence? Why...The NDP of course..the party that is reponsible for medicare ..old age security...centralized banking ...etc.
Just like agent provoceteurs infiltrate demonstrations the right wants to infiltrate the left and when the time comes they will gut them like a fillet. But yeah the idea of getting rid of harper and his band of crooked conservatives is too enticing to ignore...PM Jack Layton does have a nice ring to it. I think he would also become on of the worlds most respected leaders also and restore Canada's name that has been utterly wrecked by the conservatives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user
mahmud:"Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Mahmud:"I said the NDP paved the way for Harris and that is a well known and documented fact. Since you brought in Harris, I may add that to a certain segment of society, the difference between Harris' COns and Rae's NDP is very insigniificant. Bringing in Employment Equity for white women and exclusing the non-white segment of society would have been flagrant. Thus, just let them have a ride ! "
This tinpot provocateur is here saying that the NDP is "no friend of non-whites" and that employment equity legislation was brought in for "non-white" women at the same time as "white women" only because leaving them out would have been too "flagrant" (obvious). So employment equity was realized in the NDP legislation by "non-whites", only because they were allowed to "have a ride."
I'll bet that's what the contemporary, lying, former social worker gets paid to put out in multicultural circles there days...paid for by the Cons. What a wormy bastard.
Mahmoud, let me make myself perfectly clear, I don't think you came on this board to mislead, I think you are lying through your fucking teeth.
I would second that. As Heph use to say, Flying Monkey.
Another problem with a non-aggression pact is that every party participating in the pact will be made to own any controversial statement by a candidate in a riding subject to the pact, regardless of whether or not that party actually nominated the candidate who made the specific controversial statement in question. What's worse for advocates of a non-aggression pact is that such statement-owning could possibly be the case even in ridings not subject to the pact.
Increasing the transferabilty of degrees from foreign countries would win the NDP a lot of support. Canada should give accreditation to foreign universities and colleges to help facilitate people being able to work in their chosen fields when they come to Canada.
Another problem with a non-aggression pact is that every party participating in the pact will be made to own any controversial statement by a candidate in a riding subject to the pact, regardless of whether or not that party actually nominated the candidate who made the specific controversial statement in question. What's worse for advocates of a non-aggression pact is that such statement-owning could possibly be the case even in ridings not subject to the pact.
A non-aggression pact is not the answer. Electoral reform is.
In reviewing this thread, I find the comments suggesting the NDP in Ontario were just like the Harris Cons patently absurd and revisionist.
But there is another point missing here. Federal and provincial parties are hardly ever that similar anyway. I am sure this confusion has come in part because our current Cons are directly related to the Harris Cons with key personalities, outlooks and policies transferred from one jurisdiction to another. However, that is in fact rare. The federal NDP may have a lot of shiny new NDPers from Ontario but they are of a different generation for the most part than the Rae NDP. Those that are in common with the Rae NDP, elected and in the background are not the leading lights of the party today. It is only the federal Cons that are a failed provincial government retreaded for a new jurisdiction. Layton's NDP are very, very different than what Rae worked with (and I am not putting down the Rae cabinet either as it did have several very good people-- just correcting the record here.)
Count Atamanenko in for a coalition should the opportunity arise after thenext election :)
http://tinyurl.com/Atam-Coal
PS - sorry about the original link
I'm not sure why this is even a story. This has been the central NDP talking point for years now. I suspect that every NDP MP would say the exact same thing if asked.
It may be a "talking point", but when it comes to an actual election the NDP's strategy is to basically ignore the cons and go after the Liberals as much as possible.
The NDP strategy always ends up being - throw out some interesting policy ideas, then throw those policies under the bus at the first sign of resistance;
Replace sensible progressive policies with "grass roots" policies (the kind that are popular on the face of it, but regressive and harmful in the end, but as Kim Campbell said, and the NDP has taken to heart, "an election is ""no time to discuss serious issues.");
Ignore the real danger (the Conservatives) to Canada and concentrate on a known flawed strategy that goes after taking seats away from the Liberals in a bald faced grab for power for powers' sake.
End up with 15% of the vote and have the media treat them as the fucking joke they are..
Hey everyone, I don't really have the background knowledge about this whole scenario, but it would be a whole lot more productive and constructive if we didn't accuse other babblers of "deliberately" misleading or "lying through their fucking teeth." I think that the NDP's historical treatment of POCs is an interesting issue and, like the other major parties, they don't have a 100% record. So let's try to keep that in mind without invalidating someone's lived experience, even if your experience differs.
And BA, yes, I agree, the formatting is hell. Usually a few carriage returns clean it up. But when cutting and pasting text from other places, sometimes you import tags that rabble's feeble engine can't handle, so you can also try looking at the HTML code and deleting the excess tags. If that sounds like too much hassle (and it is!) we'll just have to deal with it.
It may be a "talking point", but when it comes to an actual election the NDP's strategy is to basically ignore the cons and go after the Liberals as much as possible.
I guess you must have been out ofr the country for the last two years and didn't observe the 2008 election campaign and its aftermath. Let me refresh your memory. In the 2008 election, Jack Layton started the campaign in Stephen Harper's own riding and announced that he was running for PM. For the following 35 days of the campaign the NDP message (when it wasn't saying positive things ablout itself) was EXCLUSIVELY composed of attacking the Conservatives. The NDP barely mentioned the Liberals at all during the entire campaign and the whole strategy was to ignore the Liberals and to only attack the Tories. Since that time, the only cases where the NDP has attacked the Liberals has been in cases where the Liberals have chosen to prop up Harper - like after they walked away from the coalition or this past week when the Liberals refused to join with the NDP in making the Tories remove the environment destroying aqdd-ons to the budget bill.
Similarly, if you look at NDP press releases, policy statements, speeches etc... for the past year its all 100% Tory-bashing and with barely a word said about the Liberals.
If you have evidence to support the "myth of the Liberal blogosphere" that the NDP attacks the Liberals and ignores the Conservatives - show it to me now or retract your absurd post.
mahmud:"Canada is at the eve of a significant ethno-demographic shift. The NDP is the least diverse Party, in power it is no friend of non-whites.
Mahmud:"I said the NDP paved the way for Harris and that is a well known and documented fact. Since you brought in Harris, I may add that to a certain segment of society, the difference between Harris' COns and Rae's NDP is very insigniificant. Bringing in Employment Equity for white women and exclusing the non-white segment of society would have been flagrant. Thus, just let them have a ride ! "
How, oh mod of the world, does one get "constructive" in the face of this. And if the NDP record on POCs is not 100 per cent, in your estimation, don't leave us hanging... what is it in your memory (without going into 'history)that allows Mahmud to say these things with mod support and no comment otherwise? Just anything that comes to mind, will do. I really need to know if I've been supporting a white supremacist party all this time. Is it a party less likely to adapt easily to a POC majority over time? I, too, would like to see the discussion of this obviously painful subject (the silence hangs heavy), but I'll be damned if someone putting forward the above quoted statements is going to, themselves, get off scot free because it's a troubling subject area.
Or are you really inviting debate on this subject, Catchfire, by calling it "an interesting issue"?
Should there be another thread for this subject to be discussed?
I thought this thread was supposed to be ablout the stunning poll showing that Jacl Layton can beat Stephen Harper while Ignatieff cannot.
Why doesn't someone start a separate thread about the record of the 1990-1995 Rae government on issues affecting people of colour - because quite frankly it has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread and it is degenerating into an utterly boring "certs is a breathmint, no certs is a candymint"-style debate.
Put a little more nicely to No Yards [though I think that Stocks approach is largely deserved]:
You shouldn't mistake what Dippers talk about around here with what NDP strategy is. But even what is talked about here- you'll find plenty of going after the Conservatives substantively, and discussions ot taking seats from them [where even strictly pragmatically- there are as many pickings as they are from the Libs].
And most babblers that are Dippers discuss how to increase the chances of some kind of Lib-NDP governing after the next election.
Like Stock said, where's the evidence that the main NDP strategy is taking seats from the Liberals? [There would be a guaranteed glass ceiling for you.]
You would let those statements slide, Stock? Clearly Jack would have a tough time becoming PM if the statements represent a widely held belief. It is MY belief that, in fact, such lies are being used in typical Conservative fashion as a whisper campaign (they invented the device) across the land.
No, I think it has to be dealt with - wherever it raises it's really nasty head. Knocked on the head, as it were. And if you are "bored" now, it might be best not to restrict it to a debate about 1990-95. :)
Catchfire, the flack mahmud got was not for the general statements about NDP and POC. It was for specific accusations, the refutations of which he never responded to, and which were at best only tangentially related to POC and the NDP in the first place.
But I really thought the whole thing had run its course.
ETA: Mind you, some of the language was pretty vile.
"Like Stock said, where's the evidence that the main NDP strategy is taking seats from the Liberals?"
Which seats we target is a whole different issue from whether the NDP "messaging" is attacking the Liberals or the Conservatives. I live in a riding that is a NDP/Liberal marginal and where the Tories are behind the Green party. The local NDP messaging here tends to be "vote NDP because we will do a better job of opposing the Harper agenda than will the weak directionless Liberals" - makes sense to me.
The fact is that the NDP has already taken most of the low hanging fruit from the Liberals and in the next election I suspect that most of the NDP targets will be Tory held seats in the west and the odd one in Ontario (ie: Oshawa) and Nova Scotia
Mahmoud, let me make myself perfectly clear, I don't think you came on this board to mislead, I think you are lying through your fucking teeth.
I tend to agree, as the long article where he linked/misdirected us did not support any one of his contentions. If I were a moderator, he would be warned away from this thread, and told that such behaviour would never be tolerated again.
...but I'm not a moderator, and there may be a reason.
Agree with your observations about whispering campaigns George, and also would note, the same applies trivializing and diminishing thought terminating cliches...especially new ones coming along like; "suicide activists".
Catchfire, the flack mahmud got was for the general statements about NDP and POC. It was for specific accusations, the refutations of which he never responded to, and which are at best only tangentially related to POC and the NDP in the first place.
But I really thought the whole thing had run its course.
ETA: Mind you, some of the language was pretty vile.
KenS,
(TaliDippers here refers to fundamentalist, blindly partisan NDPers.)
I quit discussing or refuting or failing to refute when one of your fellow the NPP Talibans whose "religion" was criticized chose to rather attack me personally (when I was criticizing, a structure, a Party, not individuals). But I gather you agree that I deserved to be accused of coming here to deliberately lie.
You want me to tell you and your fellow TaliDippers where I was born so you could fetch a flag of that country, stomp on it and burn it while you are foaming from the mouth. Apparently it is OK with you and your ilk that your comrade engages in reading and spelling out people's intentions ("to specifically mislead").
Great. Now that we're all clear, back to the topic at hand, eh? Jack Layton, the people's PM...
ETA: Oh ferdryin' out loud. "TaliDippers"? mahmud, that is inflammatory language and probably racist. Knock it off.
OK mahmud, we'll agree its inflamatory to say you came here to deliberately lie. At the very best, its an accustaion that cannot be substantiated.
Before that you made specific accusations about the snitch line, and the NDPs role in that. BA made a very detailed refutation of that. After which you got called a liar after that. You chose to answer the inflammatory remarks tit for tat, and to not make any kind of substantive rebuttal of BA at all, even when you were asked politely by me if you were going to.
Hey everyone, I don't really have the background knowledge about this whole scenario, but it would be a whole lot more productive and constructive if we didn't accuse other babblers of "deliberately" misleading or "lying through their fucking teeth." I think that the NDP's historical treatment of POCs is an interesting issue and, like the other major parties, they don't have a 100% record. So let's try to keep that in mind without invalidating someone's lived experience, even if your experience differs.
AND
ETA: Oh ferdryin' out loud. "TaliDippers"? mahmud, that is inflammatory language and probably racist. Knock it off.
Seriously? Are you kidding me? Knock it off is all that those kinds of comments are worthy off. You don't think maybe they are deeping insulting personal attacks on specific babblers?
Did you even bother to read the thread or any of the comments before you started pontificating. First off the allegations being responded to had ZERO to do with the NDP and POC. Nothing, nada, zip and this is what you focus in on excusing all other behaviours and going after me and others. Here's how little it does have to do with POC issues and the NDP. During the Free Trade Recession the statistically average social assistance recipient in Ontario was a 45 plus man with less than a grade 10 education who had worked most of their lives in the same factory, had been on UI for the entire portion of their eligibility. So even on the face of it your excuses for such action don't match reality.
Very specific allegations were made about social assistance in Ontario. They were made in a way in a thread that was a good news story for the NDP in a manner that seems to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead and distract from the actual topic of the thread. And the behaviour after these allegations were refuted seems to bear this out. I provided a clear and rational refutation based on a lot of personal experience and expertise. I also noted that with the knowledge claimed to have been possessed by the other poster the comments leave one suspicious as to motive. I even provided the specific comments. But all I said was that the motives seemed suspicious - and you know what they still do because they have never been answered.
As someone who claims to have been working at a social service agency during those times this poster had to know, or should have known that the comments were incorrect. That he persisted and presented 'evidence' that actually did not support his claim only speaks to the real agenda at play and supports the contention it was a deliberate act.
babble has gone so far down hill you can no longer see the top of the other side from the deep valley. Apparently any falsehood, behaviour and clear attempts to disrail are a-okay as long as they are directed at the NDP and/or NDP identified babblers, or part of the club. If this is the kind of 'balance' one can expect in the babble echo chamber feel free to count me out. Ban me, delete my account, do whatever, babble has become so irrelevant in the struggle for real progressive values and change it is becoming worthless. The only recent time it has served some purpose was with the posting of information on the attack on the peace flotilla. But honestly that is not enough when people can behave like mahmud did, or be here clearly for subterranean partisan reasons and others are called on the carpet. Moderation has finally jumped the shark.
[...]
(It was an NDP government who first created the welfare police and the welfare snitch line and thus prepared the ground for Mike Harris to cut the allowances of th epoorest of the poor).
Just wanted to respond to this little bit of revisionism. I believe you will find that the "welfare police" were actually a creation of Bourassa's Liberals in Quebec. They were typically referred to as the "Boubou Macoutes". But don't let accuracy get in the way of a good smear. Typical Ontario behaviour, seizing the credit for someone else's idea... however bad the idea was in the first place.
I would settle for an answer from the moderator on the questions directed to him in post #62. If it's not asking too much, mind you.
It may be a "talking point", but when it comes to an actual election the NDP's strategy is to basically ignore the cons and go after the Liberals as much as possible.
I guess you must have been out ofr the country for the last two years and didn't observe the 2008 election campaign and its aftermath. Let me refresh your memory. In the 2008 election, Jack Layton started the campaign in Stephen Harper's own riding and announced that he was running for PM. For the following 35 days of the campaign the NDP message (when it wasn't saying positive things ablout itself) was EXCLUSIVELY composed of attacking the Conservatives. The NDP barely mentioned the Liberals at all during the entire campaign and the whole strategy was to ignore the Liberals and to only attack the Tories. Since that time, the only cases where the NDP has attacked the Liberals has been in cases where the Liberals have chosen to prop up Harper - like after they walked away from the coalition or this past week when the Liberals refused to join with the NDP in making the Tories remove the environment destroying aqdd-ons to the budget bill.
Similarly, if you look at NDP press releases, policy statements, speeches etc... for the past year its all 100% Tory-bashing and with barely a word said about the Liberals.
If you have evidence to support the "myth of the Liberal blogosphere" that the NDP attacks the Liberals and ignores the Conservatives - show it to me now or retract your absurd post.
Yes, yes, you are correct ... ever since their strategy of attacking the Liberals backfired (or rather "worked as one might expect) and put the CPC into power -- which led to great Liberal leaders such as Dion and Iggy gaining sway over the Liberal party "leadership" - the courageous NDP have indeed concentrated on going after the Conservatives - with nice progressive policies like "tough on crime bills", support for forcing a couple of dozen Muslim women to show their face while voting, pushing Afghanistan on the back burner, pushing Palestinians and human rights on the back burner ... AKA Liberal V2.
So yes, you are right ... the days of the NDP helping the CPC indirectly actually turn out to be "the good old days" ... these days now that the Liberals are weakened, the NDP are simply moving to the right.
Where's the 'rolling eyes' emoticon when you need it?
My point is that the NDP went from being a progressive party to throwing some decent progressive policies under the bus in favour of using an exclusive "attack te Liberals" strategy .. nothing wrong with attacking the Liberals, except that it got them exactly nowhere in the end, where actually making an effort to stick with and explain their policies might have been a much better strategy in the end.
Now that the Liberals are not a "useful" target, the new NDP plan is to move their policies to the right.
That's why I no longer consider them a progressive party ... sure, maybe on the scale of BQ <-> Liberals <-> Green <-> CPC they may rank on the progressive end of the spectrum, but that's not much better than being the most progressive MP in the CPC party.
Yes, yes, you are correct ... ever since their strategy of attacking the Liberals backfired (or rather "worked as one might expect) and put the CPC into power --
Right, where's that rolly eye's.
It was just as much BS about the NDP's alleged strategy when it was talking about the 2006 election. People just gave up kicking that one around here at least 3 years ago.
The only change was that the Liberals were the government before that election. Does make a difference in the campaign. You spend more time attacking the Libs then, duh.
Now that the Liberals are not a "useful" target, the new NDP plan is to move their policies to the right.
You don't like the NDP because it moved to the right- long ago. Everything else you have said is just made up to have sticks in hand.
No shit LTJ.
can we vote for some new smilie icons, puking and rolling eyes and sarcastic would do
You don't like the NDP because it moved to the right- long ago.
That would be correct.
But I also don't like the NDP because it throws perfectly good policy and principles under the bus in blatant, but misguided power grabs.
Attacking the Liberals/Cons is the only strategy they've had since Layton took over, other than incrementally bowing to the "populist" but wrongheaded right wing policies.
Layton's first kick at the can started off good, but as soon as there was any questioning at all of his policies (some good progressive ones I might add) he dropped them like hot potatoes to concentrate on an exclusive policy of attacking Liberals ... so big fucking deal, now he's exclusively attacking the CPC ... all the while moving NDP policies further and further to the right, and showing all signs that given power he would have no compunction about abandoning progressive policies if they ever became a hindrance to power.
Layton is another Obama ... or vise versa ... both are fine actors, but not much in the line of actual principles ... I guess that's what makes them politicians.
No shit LTJ.
can we vote for some new smilie icons, puking and rolling eyes and sarcastic would do
Why don't you and LTJ try debating the issue?
I don't see anything in LTJ's or your comments that address either side of the argument.
Maybe a new thread on the need for smilies would be a better way to express your desires?
There is no other side to your arguement, No Yards, to argue, IMV, as there is no substance, it is all empty accusations, and short sighted viewing, with a good dose of impatience, that is unwarranted given the general populace presumptions, and perceptions.
Plus an evidenced inability to accurately judge character and intent, or understanding of the politics of people and what needs to be done and achieved.
had your words indicated anything close to such, perhaps it would have been worthwhile even exhibiting the error in, or of, stated perceptions.
But I also don't like the NDP because it throws perfectly good policy and principles under the bus in blatant, but misguided power grabs.
.....
Layton is another Obama ... or vise versa ... both are fine actors, but not much in the line of actual principles ... I guess that's what makes them politicians.
Fine. If thats what you said, unlikely I'd take issue with you. Because its endless matters of opinion. Those can be backed up or refuted with substance, but still inherently endless. Especially around here.
But thats not what you started out saying. I took issue, and Stock took issue, with attribution of NDP strategies you made up.
But I also don't like the NDP because it throws perfectly good policy and principles under the bus in blatant, but misguided power grabs.
You keep repeating this ad naseum like it is some kind of truism. Howzabout you actually name some of those policies apparently thrown under the bus. Universal Health Care -ooops nope not that. Fair penions - ooops not that either. How about protecting the environment and climate change - drats another negative. So let's hear it.
Very sad to see you finally give up in frustration BA- your voice of reason and knowledge on rural/farm/food issues will be sorely missed with babble already lacking much on those topics.
I just wanted to express my support for the moderators here, acting in difficult circumstances, where certain individuals are absolutely determined to see personal attacks (or launch personal attacks) where none are intended or needed. It is astounding to me, despite decades of observation, that progressive people can work themselves into a rage on the basis of which team they're on. Anyone who can't tolerate criticism of the NDP - or praise of the NDP when they do the right thing (as they often do) - will have a hard time in life. They probably already have.
Having said that, can I please re-express my enthusiasm for the prospect of an anti-Harper coalition led by Layton? Whether or not such a prospect has the slimmest likelihood of being realized, does anyone here actually see anything negative about it?
You are such a phony. You just couldn't resist showing up and spouting off because you saw BA has left and he has consistently called you on your nonsense. You are one of the biggest whiners on all of babble and you have the gall to write a post like that? Unbelievable.
By any standard that I'm aware of, clearly annunciating anti-colonialist credentials isn't too much to ask from a progressive movement. On Afghanistan, the NDP continues to insist that western nations, specifically Canada, who have waged destructive war against the citizens of that nation, somehow have a role to play in this latest colonial project which was undertaken in conjunction with the USian military juggernaut, and the USian installed puppet regime of Hamid Karzi. On the matter of the occupied territories in Palestine, the NDP chooses to issue toothless statements that first and foremost are crafted to avoid offending the murderous oppressors. In cowardly fashion, they continue to insist on a 'balanced' approach when it comes to accounting for the crimes against humanity undertaken by the State of Israel against the defenceless. On the other hand, Canada's own role in supporting the aggressive American led colonialist agenda as it pertains to Haiti, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, the entire hemisphere for that matter, is greeted largely by silence from the NDP. Here in Canada, people who believe that police brutality and the weight of the corporatist legal system are excessive responses to wield against those who enjoy a little cannabis from time to time, or who use it to relieve suffering, have indeed been thrown under a bus driven by the leader of the NDP. The NDP stands ready to join in a coalition, shoulder to shoulder, hand in hand, with the leader of a party who endorsed torture as an instrument of government, and who supported the American massacres in Iraq, and the Israeli massacre in Gaza last year. Only people who desire their own share of cowardice could continue to support an entity such as this.
It will have slid headlong on that slope if they allow you and others to turn this board into a mirror of the NDP website. So far, they have shown fortitude in standing against your attempts to render illegal all political debate which doesn't meet the NDP sniff test. Let us hope that they continue to hold up against these relentless assaults against free political speech.
What is it about NDP supporters that makes criticism of them forbidden? Have they become sacred and holy, to the extent that criticism=blasphemy? Meanwhile, no such tender mercy is spared for Libs, Cons, Greens, etc, and their supporters, and rightly so.
Ok. I seem to have gotten people riled up.
One of my blind spots that I confessed whie being interviewed for this position was my lack of involvement with partisan politics. I usually vote NDP and used to be a card-carrying member who donated monthly, but I left the party for one reason or another a while ago, and through my own activist work have become disenchanted with electoral politics in general. That said, I have great respect for those who dedicate themeselves to effecting change through the party system--I'm thinking particularly of the amazing work on the ground done by the Edmonton Strathcona riding.
I tried to enter that thread with these shortcomings in mind, admitting that I wouldn't be able to parse the particularities of the issue at hand, but that in my broad view the NDP's inclusion of POCs hasn't been perfect, and as such I tried to encourage taking mahmud's concerns seriously. Perhaps those more familiar with the inner workings and specifics of partisan politics felt that this wasn't an adequate appraoch, and that mahmud was being disingenuous. I have no way of knowing this. I do know that accusing a poster of such an unprovable offense is not constructive and likely insulting to that babbler. So that's why I tried to steer conversation back to the original topic and encourage babblers to continue to address the substance of the criticism at question rather than speculation about a babbler's M.O.
My only imperative in this thread was to tell mahmud to refrain from vaguely racist personal attacks. Otherwise, I only made general observations and requests. Perhaps this didn't sate the appetite for prosecution of some, but I maintain it was appropriate and proportionate. Some may disagree, of course. My job isn't to punish, but to moderate.
So let me end by saying that I admit a blind spot when it comes to electoral politics and I respect rabble's historic and long-term role in partisanship and building a left-wing political establishment. I'm trying to manage discussion, but I can't censure people for getting their facts wrong, for disrespecting the NDP, or even for lying. I can only work with what I've got. What I'm trying to say is that I admire and will try to acknowledge some babblers' deep-seated connection with the NDP while trying to ensure that those critical of some policies can do so without getting attacked. The key word here is "try"--and if I'm not doing a good enough job in your opinion, at least believe that I'm acting in good faith and respond in kind. I appreciate, for example, Ken's intervention up thread.
Now since this thread is largely off the rails, I'm going to close it. If you'd like to start a new one about Jack Layton leading a coalition, or about the foibles of the Bob Rae government, or about how much the moderating sucks, please, by all means, go ahead!