Should the left split from the NDP? Part 3 (The need to raise political demands)
Continued from: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/should-left-split-ndp-part-2
One thing that has puzzled me over these many months is the hyped claim that Canada is more "left-wing" than the US. While true (though I'm not sure about the economic side of things), that's only in regards to the "mainstream," politically correct, class-collaborationist left.
In the U$, you've got the SP-USA, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and perhaps the Peace and Freedom Party. Up here, all we've got are "official communist" parties, Trot sects, the utopian-socialist "Socialist Party of Canada," and the ever-content-as-think-tank "Socialist Project" - and maybe the Work Less Party.
Much of the rather lengthy discussion above revolved around the "practicality" of adapting to Canada's first-past-the-post system, "but every class struggle is a political struggle" (Communist Manifesto). There is a real need to raise participatory-democratic demands aimed at transforming and then abolishing parliamentary cretinism, demands which the NDP is incapable of raising. Thoughts?
Click here
...and here
And the NDP site should have a "What will Ignatieff help Harper do next?" version of the Dion one sooner than later
Those don't pertain to participatory democracy at all.
I know. But before that can happen, we would have to modernize our 19th century electoral system and ditch the red chamber. First things first.
Why the reformism? I know the DOTP isn't around the corner, but something like the replacement of judges with sovereign commoner juries would be more radical.
I think a perfect revolution is yet to occur. The English speaking countries are home to the last bastions of far right political conservatism and most concentrated wealth in the world. Canada is an important preserve of natural resource wealth and vast supplies of energy for vicious empire central. Oligarchs and their hirelings in government will cling to these Westminstrel institutions like their future depends on them and for some time to come. I find Trotskyist lefties tend to have no high regard for any and all revolutions except for that one which will never happen.
I'm not a Trotskyist by any stretch, though. My model is demarchy (mass assemblies, random sortition for civil administration and juries, and sovereign commoner juries instead of judges) but with republican lessons learned from the Paris Commune (no formal or factual wealth qualifications, average workers' wage, and immediate recallability in case of abuse of public office).
huh?
What's your specific question, again?
Thoughts?..
Yeah, you are a fucking moron! ..The political parties that you mention are not political parties. They cannot even be qualified as social movements. Hell, they number so few in numbers that they don't even qualify as fringe cults.
Spartacist is banned from posting on babble since he doesn't seem to be able to participate without making personal attacks.
The Left, for whatever reason, fines it much more difficult to unite and agree on a political agenda than does the Right.
The Left, for whatever reason, fines it much more difficult to unite and agree on a political agenda than does the Right.
The Left's power is its principles, and the Right's principle is power.
Judy Rebick recently described the New Politics Initiative as "too little, too soon." Is this the time, or is it already too late?
The left wing of the NDP needs to stay where it is until FPTP is abolished, and some sort of electoral reform can be brought in. The last thing they need is vote-splitting between the two NDP parties, to ensure that they never win any seats under FPTP,
No actually we on the left don't need to stay anywhere. If the right within the NDP want the party they can have it, and see where it gets them, but no where.
Regardless of whether they adopt the name, the party brass has adopted the Democratic Party's contempt for its core supporters - the where are they going to go? approach. And, truth is, the current alternatives (outside Quebec at any rate) are discouraging for socialists and social democrats, and only marginally better than in the United States. The Greens? Not under May and its red tory leadership. The CAP makes some progressive sounds, but besides its many other problems is sick with Larouchites.
Nevertheless, if the NDP/DP is intent on pursuing this project of Liberalization, then a better alternative is bound to arise, and take with it many of the party's most ablest activists and organizers. I'd still be surprised if Layton wants that to be his legacy, but less surprised than I would have been three years ago.
Some four or five years back, I read a little tome written by the authors of the U.S. neo-con revolution in communications, explaining exactly how they created the tightly-knit and organized revolution on the right. Only wish I could find it again. Perhaps someone with a better memory or google skills can find it...?
They, like their readership, were interested in power, not to improve conditions for the dispossessed and marginalized, but to support the legislation and war promotion that Bush happily delighted in carrying out, thanks to their success.
Layton's attempts at protecting public medicine here (like Obama's attempts to at lest provide coverage for all), or advancing social housing and a host of other measures seem to be trumped, hereabouts, by questions of a more ethereal nature.
While the right consolidates and fights on, has the left gone to pot, leaving social issues to the gentle folks around Steve and Iggy?
Layton's attempts at protecting public medicine here (like Obama's attempts to at lest provide coverage for all), or advancing social housing and a host of other measures seem to be trumped, hereabouts, by questions of a more ethereal nature.
No, it's not etherics or dogmatics. These are practical and policy-driven concerns. And it's dismay at the party's braintrust trumping the party by failing to seize the moment for the Left by jetisoning its socialist "baggage" to win the hearts of centrists.
David Goutor in today's Star:
...when it comes to the party's main policies, a mind-numbing blandness has set in. There are few instances where the NDP has boldly taken a controversial position on a key issue.
If you have visited the NDP's website frequently in the last couple of years, you were much more likely to read about credit card rates, bank fees, and insurance premiums than central economic, social, or foreign-policy questions.
A particularly deep part of the NDP's rut is that avoiding controversy has become to be seen as the "pragmatic" approach. Standing out on major issues, meanwhile, is viewed as the "radical" approach that will keep the NDP on the fringes. But if pragmatism means anything, it is paying attention to results. The results of the recent "pragmatic" approach are in, and they are dispiriting.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/680336
Yeah, for card-carrying Liberals like Goutor the repetion around people without housing, adequate food, jobs, etc. etc. , would seem dull indeed.
The NDP could "stand out" on those and other major issues if they had one damned media source that would quote them. (And your stalwart columnist would never state that fact - it being worth his job, and all).
Is there any proof that Goutor is a "card-carrying Liberal"? He is a labour historian and an assistant professor of labour studies, which isn't exactly the kind of background that you would expect from a card-carrying Liberal. Also, the perspective his article is being written from doesn't sound like that of a typical Liberal. Also, he's not listed as a regular columnist for the Star. I don't see how Goutor saying that the NDP has difficulty with getting media to quote them would get him fired as a professor.
I think this is actually a good article, and he is pretty dead on, especially when it comes to the NDP not being interested in upholding their position in the face of criticism even when it is a popular one. And I think it is a bit of a dead end strategy when it comes to both breaking out of the pack electorally and effecting change - people who want to vote for a 4th place clone of the Liberal party have the original, and if you're going to turn into the Liberals what's the point in winning, aside from delivering cushy jobs to hacks in orange ties as opposed to red ones?
I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the news lineage given over to NDP policy position as opposed to Liberal (or Conservative) in the Star (or any other newspaper or media source you'd care to mention). ANd how could the professor profess for labour if he's a Liberal?
Tommy Douglas complained bitterly in 1962 about the fact that the only newspaper supporting New Democrats in the land was the Windsor Star. It has only gotten worse.
But then New Democrats never habe been up to much anyway, right?
So if the NDP really has become exactly equal to the Liberal Party, then Liberal voters can vote NDP and feel good about it. I'll certainly tell that to all the borderline and iffy-sometimes Liberal voters I know.
It depends on what is meant by left, how narrow or broad a definition that is, and whether that left has any chance on its own or a better chance working within the NDP. If its communistic and revolutionary in orientation then outside might be better for everyone involved, but then most have probably been on the outside for sometime already. If its democratic socialist or social democratic left or more focused on feminism, environmentalism and other activist groups it might be better to try to reform party structures and get more progressive, more far seeing leaders and try to turn the old ship away from the rocks its drifting into. If they/it can't or won't then I guess some sort of broader socialist-left coalition would have to be created in its place, at least if any new left party hopes to get within reasonable range of electing anyone anywhere.
I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the news lineage given over to NDP policy position as opposed to Liberal (or Conservative) in the Star (or any other newspaper or media source you'd care to mention). ANd how could the professor profess for labour if he's a Liberal?
Tommy Douglas complained bitterly in 1962 about the fact that the only newspaper supporting New Democrats in the land was the Windsor Star. It has only gotten worse.
But then New Democrats never habe been up to much anyway, right?
Theres no shortage of progressives in academia or media who favour the Liberals, at least east of Saskatchewan. James Laxer is one well known example who seems to fit, at least if his articles blaming the NDP for electing Harper were anything to go by. I'm sure it's no longer personal with him though, I liked his last article on the name change debate. :)
For a "new" political party of the left to emerge, it would need to emerge out of the various social movements. It would need to be built on the principal of broad-based participatory democracy...not focus groups and image consultants.
It would have to be a party of activism...active on issues at all times of the year...not just at election time.
A new party of the left has to be capable of adapting to the realities of our FPTP electoral system. Although most of us don't like it, FPTP isn't going to go away any time soon.
So that would mean in the short term, that a new political party of the left would have to at first build several strong constituency organizations where the party has a reasonable "shot" at winning. It would be best to build these constituency organizations in areas where there is a) a history of social activism, and b) the NDP has traditionally done very poorly.
These are extraordinary times, and extraordinary things are happening in the social movements. It isn't inconceivable that some new party of the left could emerge.
In the US, the Republican Party has actually funded political parties like Nader's, Larouche etc in an attempt to strip Democrats of voter support. They vote strategically in the US, too. FPP should be put out to pasture along with the two old line parties themselves. One person one vote!
I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the news lineage given over to NDP policy position as opposed to Liberal (or Conservative) in the Star (or any other newspaper or media source you'd care to mention). ANd how could the professor profess for labour if he's a Liberal?
Tommy Douglas complained bitterly in 1962 about the fact that the only newspaper supporting New Democrats in the land was the Windsor Star. It has only gotten worse.
But then New Democrats never habe been up to much anyway, right?
Theres no shortage of progressives in academia or media who favour the Liberals, at least east of Saskatchewan. James Laxer is one well known example who seems to fit, at least if his articles blaming the NDP for electing Harper were anything to go by. I'm sure it's no longer personal with him though, I liked his last article on the name change debate. :)
I haven't seen any evidence that Goutor is one of them though. It seems extremely unlikely from his background and the content of the article - judging by that, it looks to me like it is more likely that he is a different kind of red. I've never met a professor of labour studies who was a card-carrying Liberal, and I've met more than one who is the good kind of red.
If the only "evidence" is that he got printed in what is a paper with Liberal biases, then there is literally no evidence. Even the most biased of papers occaisionally print articles from differing perspectives - I have a friend who is a Marxist who had an article he wrote printed in the Winnipeg Free Press, and the notion of the WFP as a Marxist paper is laughable.
And I recall accusations of Laxer being a Liberal on babble before, however if I remember correctly, his son posted on here to refute those. Although I suppose you can be critical of endorsements of strategic voting, however I think people like Laxer and Murray Dobbin who occasionally advocate it generally mean well - you can be critical of whether strategic voting delivers or whether it does more harm than good though. And I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of complete assclowns like Rod Bruinooge in Winnipeg South, a riding which is two-horse race.
It's funny - to most people, redbaiting is calling someone a Communist. To babblers, we think of a different kind of red when we want to redbait
David Goutor's McMaster faculty page
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/labourstudies/faculty_staff/goutor.html
I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the news lineage given over to NDP policy position as opposed to Liberal (or Conservative) in the Star (or any other newspaper or media source you'd care to mention). ANd how could the professor profess for labour if he's a Liberal?
Tommy Douglas complained bitterly in 1962 about the fact that the only newspaper supporting New Democrats in the land was the Windsor Star. It has only gotten worse.
But then New Democrats never habe been up to much anyway, right?
Theres no shortage of progressives in academia or media who favour the Liberals, at least east of Saskatchewan. James Laxer is one well known example who seems to fit, at least if his articles blaming the NDP for electing Harper were anything to go by. I'm sure it's no longer personal with him though, I liked his last article on the name change debate. :)
I haven't seen any evidence that Goutor is one of them though. It seems extremely unlikely from his background and the content of the article - judging by that, it looks to me like it is more likely that he is a different kind of red. I've never met a professor of labour studies who was a card-carrying Liberal, and I've met more than one who is the good kind of red.
If the only "evidence" is that he got printed in what is a paper with Liberal biases, then there is literally no evidence. Even the most biased of papers occaisionally print articles from differing perspectives - I have a friend who is a Marxist who had an article he wrote printed in the Winnipeg Free Press, and the notion of the WFP as a Marxist paper is laughable.
And I recall accusations of Laxer being a Liberal on babble before, however if I remember correctly, his son posted on here to refute those. Although I suppose you can be critical of endorsements of strategic voting, however I think people like Laxer and Murray Dobbin who occasionally advocate it generally mean well - you can be critical of whether strategic voting delivers or whether it does more harm than good though. And I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of complete assclowns like Rod Bruinooge in Winnipeg South, a riding which is two-horse race.
It's funny - to most people, redbaiting is calling someone a Communist. To babblers, we think of a different kind of red when we want to redbait
WTF are you on about? I only said the guy could very well be a Liberal, the only red there is in the logo.
Re strategic voting, thats up to every citizen but so far every offer I've heard only seems to involve the NDP offering seats up, the Liberal party has yet to recipocate to keep the Blue menace out in NDP-CPC races. Several more CPC candidates were actually elected as a result of this confusion among voters under Martin and the NDP at no point could have stopped the breakdown of their intial aliance with Martin, especially after ex-NDPer Dosanjh made it impossible to maintain when he/they refused to guarantee full funding for public healthcare federally. Trudeau admitted years later that he engineered the same sort trick to bring down their coalition, something they benefitted from and a lesson they obviouysly never forgot. The NDp has made some succesful alliances with Greens municipally that helped get a few elected, without losing otherwise, but that involves voting for multiple member slates. The Greens seem to have forgotten this too and sided only with the Liberals to keep the Cons out, since eMays arrival. An academic like Laxer should know all this, but whether it means he consciously supports the Liberals....well, its not in any political commentators interest to say one way or the other so others can only speculate on its Possibility. Support not necessarily meaning being a member of. Where he gets published may or may not be an indicator.
For a "new" political party of the left to emerge, it would need to emerge out of the various social movements. It would need to be built on the principal of broad-based participatory democracy...not focus groups and image consultants.
It would have to be a party of activism...active on issues at all times of the year...not just at election time.
A new party of the left has to be capable of adapting to the realities of our FPTP electoral system. Although most of us don't like it, FPTP isn't going to go away any time soon.
So that would mean in the short term, that a new political party of the left would have to at first build several strong constituency organizations where the party has a reasonable "shot" at winning. It would be best to build these constituency organizations in areas where there is a) a history of social activism, and b) the NDP has traditionally done very poorly.
These are extraordinary times, and extraordinary things are happening in the social movements. It isn't inconceivable that some new party of the left could emerge.
No it isn't. One day more than likely IMV, if the NDP's rightward drift isn't checked and reversed, and a more effective way of conecting with people found. I appreciate your added emphasis on coalitions between activist groups as well, and significant demographics who no longer feel well represented by anyone anymore. That doesn't mean that papers from the Star to the Post won't spin these trends to their own favoured parties advantage in the meantime, or that it isn't within the power of remaining leftists in or around the NDP, to turn things around by more effective/selective movements on their part. They still have more numbers than most other established political groupings. I personally prefer some attempt to save the party first, but some others obviously don't.
And I'm just saying that it is extremely unlikely. As in, "Charles Adler is a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)" unlikely. As in, we shouldn't even be saying "you know, he could be a Liberal" or "you know, there are lots of folks in academia who are Liberals" just because he got an article published that is critical of the NDP from the left. That article just plain doesn't scream "Liberal" to me. It sounds like the perspective of a left-wing New Democrat, disgruntled ex-dipper, or some sort of Marxist or radical leftist not affiliated with any party.
I've met a few too. My apologies if I overreacted then. We're both then speculating a little, looking at somewhat different angles, I believe thats still ok on most chat sites... :) And no, I agree that calling others "Liberals" based on little but gut reactions isn't any better than calling other communists based on being anywhere left of centre...or left of where we might be. That wasn't my intention there, just entertaining the possibility of it, based on I think a bit more than where he was published.
(And I also know communists who take a calmer approach to politics than some mainstream party members do, so as not offend any others who maybe viewing. I don't see their affilation with any party, or lack thereof, being an accurate indicator on their objectivity though)
ETA: I would appreciate it though if you yourself wouldn't make assumptions about my own status as a "disgruntled Dipper, leftwing social democrat.." or whatever, you don't know me well enough, if that is what youre implying. Disgruntled NDPers may be capable of making rational judgements too and hardly fall under one heading or the other either. NDPers who are staying on board despite these latest tempests may also see themselves as perfectly rational, no one has a unique gods eye view on whats "true" in politics or not, time alone tells.
Most communists and socialists I know dont spend all of their effort criticizing the NDP from politically liberal points of view. They encourage people to join Marxist and socialist parties and-or vote for local candidates who are.
Its a minor point Fidel, I think I can separate the Orange baiting here from the more genuine criticism and concerns as well. I'm only affiliated with what I think is best in the bigger picture, but I allow for the fact that others can judge for themselves as well. We all do anyhow. :)
I was talking about James Laxer. Who did you think I meant?
He still has a few good words for the NDP once in a while. He's not high on Count Iggy or the Liebrals at all by what I can tell
I think a motivated well organized party to the left of the NDP is well overdue. The Greens seem scared to take the mantle although at the moment they are the best option. For me, I think strategic intelligence is something to be valued. May's terrible decision to run as spoiler in McKay's riding really turned me off the Federal Greens. If you're coming from the outside and you don't show any competency at strategy then it really is a non-starter. I think a new Left party would do well to target a few key ridings and build from there. Pat Martin's riding seems like a natural-the guy is a war mongering imperial apologist and representing the second poorest riding in Canada. Vancouver Centre has turned into a low threshold riding with its fourway races and Byers leaves a lot to be desired for genuinely leftwing voters. Obviously there are more ridings which would be ideal but I think it is important that a new Left party recognizes its ideological allies who are in other parties. For this reason running against MPs like Davies and Siskay would be counterproductive. The manufactured need to run a full slate should be ignnored and battles should be picked solely on how they impact the advance of progessive politics.
Talking Laxer again are we Fidel? It can get so confusing here... =:) But yeah, I've seen the odd good word for the NDP from him and the odd critique of the Liberals. Generally I prefer guys like Murray Dobbin who stay closer to the nuts and bolts of neo-liberalism as a whole, bout all I can add to this small diversion.
So if the NDP really has become exactly equal to the Liberal Party, then Liberal voters can vote NDP and feel good about it. I'll certainly tell that to all the borderline and iffy-sometimes Liberal voters I know.
There you go. Name debate solved! Liberal Democrats is the choice.
Or, more accurately: the NLP.
A little more reason:
""Oh yeah," the NDP Leader said when asked if his party will make a pitch for the centre.
The plan, he said, is to portray New Democrats as being "reasonable and competent." Among the many policy items to be debated this week is a proposal to phase out small-business income tax, something Mr. Layton said he has favoured for a long time."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-man-in-the-middle/article1251300/
Maybe "Liberal Democrats" isn't so farfetched.
There is absolutely nothing unprogressive about phasing out small business income tax. Individual owners would still be required to pay taxes when they take an income out of the business. Right now we have shifted our tax burden away from large, often transnational businesses, onto individuals and small business. How the heck is that progressive. Right now small business has an incrediably high tax burden that others do not at a time when they are often least able to carry it.
In a world where we increasingly want to localize our economies and create greener jobs removing barriers to small businesses to grow and prosper in a globalized world controled by mega-opolies is about the smartest, most progressive thing we can do.
Trees
Forest
I was actually referring to Goutor, as that is the perspective that the article seems to be written from. Everything in the article seems in line with common critiques of the NDP from a non-anarchist left perspective, one which we see a lot in socialist publications or on babble, and nothing in there seems to be from the right or from a Liberal perspective. It's actually a fairly run of the mill left critique of the NDP - and I can't think of anything in the article that might indicate that he is a Liberal just because he is critiquing the NDP.
I just think that this is a little bit of an issue to confront because in the context of babble, "Liberal" is often a smear used to discredit someone and their ideas, not unlike "Communist" in the McCarthy era.
Also, I didn't mean anything negative by disgruntled, I just meant perhaps someone who used to be or maybe still is involved with the party and very supportive, but has become dissatisfied due to his experiences. I know a few people like that personally, and they are perfectly rational people.
Yeah, but I don't think there is any "orange-baiting" going on in this thread. So far, the only personal things are Spartacist1of7's (I find that a curious username for anyone who has ever had the misfortune of being in the same room as or has a passing familiarity with the Sparts) attack on Richter, and the Liberal-baiting against Goutor. No "orange-baiting" here, just fair comment on the NDP from a few different perspectives, some more critical than the others.
This convention gives the NDP a genuine opportunity to appeal to the average voter by ditching the strident identity politics of the extremists and embracing the middle ground.
The reason the NDP always hovers aroung the middle teens in voter support is that the majority of Canadians are just as leery of loony left policies as they are of the parochial village suspicions of the ruling CPC. Iggy is viewed as a dilettante and can't even pass the Dion smell test.
If the new ,improved, non-New, (fill in Blank) Democratic Party can restrain itself from saving the world with goofy social engineering policies that scare the crap out of the voter and stick to nuts-n-bolts policies that benefit the average Canadian, they will have a good shot at an electoral breakthrough.
Policies like pension reform; dismantling the EI boondoggle to create a 21 century model of education, training and workplace support and, taxation policies that encourage individual investment in the economy like lowering taxation on small business.
The scary thing is that the last post doesn't appear to be all that different from the views of some in the NDP.
The scary thing is that the last post doesn't appear to be all that different from the views of some in the NDP.
Some in the NDP? These days, it doesn't seem to be different from the views of the leadership!
How is it scary, though. If the party isn't relevant to more than 15% of the public, is it doing its job?
How is it scary, though. If the party isn't relevant to more than 15% of the public, is it doing its job?
So it is better to become less relevant to those 15%? This new 'Democrat' party is looking more and more like a vehicle for a merger with Iggy's party and fufilling the 'unite the "left"' fantasies of those who want to see Canadian politics rememble the USA. It's certainly not something I'm going to vote for again.
Perhaps because these right-wing policies which cause irrelevance by not speaking to the oppression that marginalized groups are feeling ensure that their voices go unheard? Because maybe the job of the NDP was to speak up and try to make positive change around these issues, and if they are dropped, they aren't even being talked about? Isn't that what a lot of dippers say the role of the NDP is - to be a voice for the working class and oppressed people and addressing their issues, not little consumerist policies of ATM fees (although this might be a problem for low-income people, it is hardly the worst), cutting business taxes, or Pat Martin's quest to eliminate the penny (not to mention a softening of their anti-war position and governing in a manner generally in line with a softer neoliberalism wherever they've won recently)? And I think the point of this thread is that if the NDP doesn't do this job, the working class and oppressed and marginalized people will have to either find someone else to do it, find a way to do it themselves, or retreat into total survival mode as the Big Three fight over a smaller and smaller pool of voters.
Or perhaps it is because they want to govern?
Or perhaps it is because they currently govern two provinces, and are the official opposition in at least two others?
Then perhaps the party should listen to what working-class people have to say rather than those who have been self-appointed to speak for them. It seems to me that John and Jane Q. Public want changes that are doable and sustainable rather than a self-indulgent wish list.
It seems to me that John and Jane Q. Public, inspite of all the propaganda about it being a civic duty and the relative ease of voting, aren't voting in general and aren't barging down the doors to the polling booth for Liberal lite.
And what is self-indulgent about radical, visionary policies? Do you think I want to see these policies materialize just because I get personal satisfaction out of it? Hell no, if I wanted personal satisfaction, I would say to hell with all these meetings and organizing and shit and sit on my ass and play video games all day. I want to see radical change because that is what this world needs, especially all the marginalized people who face poverty and oppression on a daily basis.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that given the economic crisis, growing masses of poor in the slums of the third world, and looming ecological crisis, the capitalist system in general and continuing on the present course is about as "doable and sustainable" as not changing lanes when a semi is coming at you head on. What exactly is so "sustainable" about the present system that says all we need are a couple tweaks to soften the blows? And if the only difference between the parties is how hard you're stepping on the gas pedal, then there is no sense in thinking that they will be responsible for the change we need.
Marx suggested socialism before leaping to people's communism. He didnt say that we should not vote for change, and right now the two old line parties represent more of the same old line party indecision and deferring to America for ideological instruction on our economy and important social and cultural issues. And the US is a basket case right now.
The scary thing is that the last post doesn't appear to be all that different from the views of some in the NDP.
Scary to whom?
if the NDP wishes to be the conscience of the nation and propose bold new policy that scares the bejeezus out of the ~85% of voters who want good governance but not radical change, then the Dippers should be content with ~15% of the vote because that is where they will stay.
This niche will be most comfortable to elected members and assorted party worthies who garner a publicly paid sinecure. It won't make much difference to the ideologues who will be happy wallowing in their irrelevance while trotting out bold, new schemes but it will not improve the lot of the majority of Canadians who do not prosper from either the dubious blessings of the present incumbents or the leavening of trickle-down economics.
Yeah, but I don't think there is any "orange-baiting" going on in this thread. So far, the only personal things are Spartacist1of7's (I find that a curious username for anyone who has ever had the misfortune of being in the same room as or has a passing familiarity with the Sparts) attack on Richter, and the Liberal-baiting against Goutor. No "orange-baiting" here, just fair comment on the NDP from a few different perspectives, some more critical than the others.
Not in this one no. And after another days thought (a few more minutes reflection anyhow) I should add that I wasn't disagreeing with what Goutor was arguing or the likelyhood that he is in fact a socialist in the truer sense of the word. My only real point of contention here was that its not always easy to tell a well-practiced liberal from a genuine lefty, from their academic interests or public pronouncements, and papers like Star (especially the Star) will always try to play these things both ways against the NDP -or any other party that poses even the slightest threat to the elite agenda. I'm actually starting to warm to the idea of the creation of "another" party to compete for the left-of vote, it might force Layton to at least look left occasionally while he's trying to fill that liberal "centre" between Chretien and Iggy. (Even Trudeau and Pearson would have found the new breed of liberalism hard to swallow)
There is already a party of the middle whom they vote for why do they need 2?
There is already a party of the middle whom they vote for why do they need 2?
And what party is that that is "of the middle"?
R: "There is already a party of the middle whom they vote for why do they need 2?"
Thats right, but tell that to the guys whispering in Laytons ear now or his scarcely hidden ambition.
Isn't that what a lot of dippers say the role of the NDP is - to be a voice for the working class and oppressed people and addressing their issues, not little consumerist policies of ATM fees (although this might be a problem for low-income people, it is hardly the worst), cutting business taxes, or Pat Martin's quest to eliminate the penny ...
Perhaps a majority of Dippers consider macro issues like saving the world and (as a CBC wag said) constructing an environmentally friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children more important than "little consumerist policies of ATM fees" but obviously, the majority of the 85% of voters who do not vote NDP disagree.
My progressive wish for the day is that internet concern trolls would stop using the term dippers. It also happens to be a racial slur.
Perhaps a majority of Dippers consider macro issues like saving the world and (as a CBC wag said) constructing an environmentally friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children more important than "little consumerist policies of ATM fees" but obviously, the majority of the 85% of voters disagree.
What about requiring the banks and credit card companies to give a free digital camera to every customer who maintains a certain minimum level of debt every month? It's a win/win/win:
1. The borrowed money will go into spending, thus hastening economic recovery.
2. The financiers get their pound of flesh - better than bailing them out with taxpayers' money, eh?
3. The 85% of voters get a free digital camera! Who doesn't want a free digital camera?
Until the NDP wakes up and starts adopting fresh ideas like this one, it will continue to attract the occasional social activist looking for political allies. And honestly, who the hell wants that?? These people just keep making demands which add up to unelectability.
VOTE LIBRANO!
Youll get more of the same old US style neoliberalorama guaranteed
VOTE LIBRANO!
Youll get more of the same old US style neoliberalorama guaranteed
You're confused, my friend. First of all, it's spelled "neoliberalobama". Secondly, it's the NDPianos, not the Libranos, who invited the US spin doctors to their convention. (The Libranos don't need it - they're already cut from the same cloth.) I'm afraid your party is abandoning its Canadian roots and looking to the southern masters for inspiration. Now that should demarcate them from the Libcons!
Liberal Party internet concern trolls:
It was your party of US stooges who sold us down the Mississippi with NAFTA and got us into this US-led phony baloney war on terror in the Stan
...and handed 15 year-old Torontonian Omar Khadr over to war criminals
It was the Liberals who sold Canada's natural gas off to Canadian and US corporationsin the 1950's, decades before the actual neoliberalorama became policy in the US, Chile and around the struggling western world today.
It was the Libranos who sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and friends in the 1990's and 2000's.
It was the Liberals who renegged on our Kyoto committments and subsidizing $2 dollars to fossil fuel industries for every $1 dollar to environmental concerns. That's two steps back for every one forward, you idiots!
Conclusion: I HATE THE FUCKING LIBERALS! And I dislike their internet concern trolls almost as much for being so stupid!
No "Liberal Party internet concern trolls" here, so I don't know who you're addressing.
C'mon, genstrike, wake up. They're everywhere.
C'mon, genstrike, wake up. They're everywhere.
Do they like to hang around with the reds under the bed?
Of course not. They would have neither the balls nor ovaries, or even the moxy to advocate for or defend that party on a progressive web forum. So they send out false flag, faux concern trolls instead. Liberal and Tory are dirty-filthy words around here that no one dares touch with a ten foot pole.
Look, on a serious note, this must be a difficult time for genuinely progressive Canadians who support the NDP, seeing it as a bulwark against the neoliberal onslaught and deep integration with the U.S. - when in Halifax, not only is a thin Liberal pablum being served up in the guise of policy, but the Amerikans have been invited to come up and show us how to win elections - and what the heck, maybe even what to re-name the party!
For many people, it may be difficult to come to terms with a situation that is more fraught with change than with hope.
My progressive wish for the day is that internet concern trolls would stop using the term dippers. It also happens to be a racial slur.
I know this isn't directed at me because it is directed at "internet concern trolls", something which I am not, but I am sorry, I was not aware that "dipper" was a racial slur.
And the Liberals let "carrot top" walk all over Canadians after dozens of their stupid lawyers negotiated the very neoliberal NAFTA trade deal on all our behalfs. Liberals signed the stupidest neoliberal trade deal in the history of the world.
Nobody does stupido like Libranos!
See what I mean?
By the way, a couple more phony polls like this one, and you won't hear the NDP dissing the banks any more:
Bank customers happy, survey suggests
See what I mean?
By the way, a couple more phony polls like this one, and you won't hear the NDP dissing the banks any more:
Bank customers happy, survey suggests
That'll be the day. The Tories bailed out our banks with $65 billion taxpayer dollars two weeks after the election, and with Liberals propping them up with 79 confidence votes since. They dont want to repeat that one to Canadian voters too many times.
Canada's national debt was $37 billion in 1975. And with Tories and Liberals, Liberals and Tories leading the way, national debt was $585 billion by 2000 and with Canada emerging from ten years worth of the lousiest economic performance of 35 industrialised nations.
Liberals are crappy on the economy and soft on the banksters with maintaining the debt based monetary system since Mulroney, and with Canadians somewhere over $2 trillion in debt to private banks and credit card companies.
Liberals are Tories and vice versa. Old line parties need cleaning out of Ottawa for the first time in 140 years.
Isn't that what a lot of dippers say the role of the NDP is - to be a voice for the working class and oppressed people and addressing their issues, not little consumerist policies of ATM fees (although this might be a problem for low-income people, it is hardly the worst), cutting business taxes, or Pat Martin's quest to eliminate the penny ...
Perhaps a majority of Dippers consider macro issues like saving the world and (as a CBC wag said) constructing an environmentally friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children more important than "little consumerist policies of ATM fees" but obviously, the majority of the 85% of voters who do not vote NDP disagree.
Gawd, the party is already being colonized by pod people, who must have learned all about us earthlings from stray signals of 1980 game shows. If youre the best the Obama crew can scare up youre already in trouble dude. At least the old NDP had slightly rumpled characters who at least sounded like genuine caring humans. Sorry if that tousles your air brushed hair.
If the CBC has any wags left they would be on the rear of the dog.
No offence to you Doug, youre sorely wrong here but I know were still walking on the same planet. The centre has to be moved to the left now, not visa versa. Easier said than done I know, but the only thing left when everything is crumbling around us and the best we hear is lowering ATM charges
If that's all youre hearing, youre not paying attention
Sometimes Fidel there is such a thing as too much loyalty. We're not leaving the party, the party is leaving us:
"Keeping NDP support from drifting to the Liberals is a major part of Mr. Layton's job. And that means keeping a firm grip where loyalties are softest.
“Oh yeah,” the NDP Leader said when asked if his party will make a pitch for the centre.
The plan, he said, is to portray New Democrats as being “reasonable and competent.”"
What he's proposing, if you look at the whole package and years old trajectory, is an abandonment of social democratic principles too, ones about more progressive taxation, public investment and regulation, being a peacekeeper not a peace 'maker' etc etc. Those 'loony' principles that just happened to work better in the real world than all the recycled bunk about feeding the rich to feed the poor. Or in the "New" Democrats case, feeding the moderately well off and short sighted. He might start finding that 'support is softest' at his base now.
Look, on a serious note, this must be a difficult time for genuinely progressive Canadians who support the NDP, seeing it as a bulwark against the neoliberal onslaught and deep integration with the U.S. - when in Halifax, not only is a thin Liberal pablum being served up in the guise of policy, but the Amerikans have been invited to come up and show us how to win elections - and what the heck, maybe even what to re-name the party!
For many people, it may be difficult to come to terms with a situation that is more fraught with change than with hope.
I saw this coming for miles too Unionist, but I don't welcome it. Noone's further ahead at this point, so try not to enjoy the moment tooo much. Still lots of Northern Democrats who'll find this acceptable too.
What he's proposing, if you look at the whole package and years old trajectory, is an abandonment of social democratic principles too, ones about more progressive taxation, public investment and regulation, being a peacekeeper not a peace 'maker' etc etc. Those 'loony' principles that just happened to work better in the real world than all the recycled bunk about feeding the rich to feed the poor. Or in the "New" Democrats case, feeding the moderately well off and short sighted. He might start finding that 'support is softest' at his base now.
And I see it terms of necessary policies that adapt to changing circumstances to the Canadian economy and country as a whole, the environment and our obligations to the rest of the world not addressed by the two right of centre parties(Liberals abandoned the political centre long ago for US-British neoliberalorama) It's not social democratic principles that have been abandoned by the NDP at all. Social dems in Sweden, for example, have adjusted everything from taxation models to macroeconomic approaches in the last 30 years. Theyve abandoned and made changes to the mechanical aspects of how to fund social democracy, but they are still funding social democracy with plowing a third of GDP back into social programs. We can do that here, and we dont have to carbon copy Swedish social democracy to do it. Canada is a huge country with much more potential for prosperous and green economy. The NDP's social democratic principles will always remain the same. The NDP stood by their principles with opposing the Harpers since 2006 unlike the right-rightist Liberals have done with 79 confidence votes. That's a pretty good indication for me that the two old line parties are still propped up by big business and banks, and the NDP is still the effective opposition standing up for their principles at the heart of social democracy.
Liberal Party internet concern trolls:
It was your party of US stooges who sold us down the Mississippi with NAFTA and got us into this US-led phony baloney war on terror in the Stan
...and handed 15 year-old Torontonian Omar Khadr over to war criminals
It was the Liberals who sold Canada's natural gas off to Canadian and US corporationsin the 1950's, decades before the actual neoliberalorama became policy in the US, Chile and around the struggling western world today.
It was the Libranos who sold Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial and friends in the 1990's and 2000's.
It was the Liberals who renegged on our Kyoto committments and subsidizing $2 dollars to fossil fuel industries for every $1 dollar to environmental concerns. That's two steps back for every one forward, you idiots!
Conclusion: I HATE THE FUCKING LIBERALS! And I dislike their internet concern trolls almost as much for being so stupid!
I don't know how to deal with this. Fidel is a long-time poster who often posts interesting stuff to babble, but no matter how many times he's suspended, and no matter how many times he's asked by moderators to quit posting these kind of personal attacks, he just can't seem to control himself, and I wake up to find a bunch of complaints about his posts overnight.
I'm going to suspend your account, Fidel. I'm not sure for how long - I have to talk to the other mods about it. But we can't just keep letting you post these attacks on other people here.
/drift
I respect and understand the mods' decision, but I just wanted to make it clear that I was not the author of any complaint against Fidel overnight, despite some of his outbursts being apparently directed at my posts. The reason I didn't complain was because we are allied in the same cause and because people react in all kinds of ways to feeling betrayed, so I think some accommodation is needed. I explained my views above in this post.
/end drift
I don't enjoy it in the slightest. My most fervent wish would be to see the party become what its honest and sincere supporters expect of it. Instead, we see not only a wholesale retreat, but draconian bureaucratic measures to stifle dissent. It's a travesty and a shame. Leaving the progressive movements without a well-established political voice and arm is no cause for rejoicing.
But it is ALL so damned unfair.
And that's it, eh?
Hey FM. You spoke of a need for passion in the UCC in defence of an idea! You didn't mention the rules you had to meet in the process. The need to be wary of people around you in the march to social justice, of sensitivity to others' unspoken needs, their vulnerability, in the pursuit of superior moral positioning.
As in the case of Tommy Douglas in his church, just not too much passion, right? Certainly not from those lesser skilled mortals.
Thats right, but tell that to the guys whispering in Laytons ear now or his scarcely hidden ambition.
Exactly!
You'd better tell it to the terrified, voting Great Unread. And it had better make sense, no revolutionary over or (under)tones.
Jobs (with international corporations) to pay off the mortgages (held by the finance capitalists that brought you the big bust and bailed out), get the kids more schooling that they will be able to afford with owing their souls to those same institutions, and re-direct growth so that it's not all going to end for the grandkids in Climate Wars.
And I'm sure everyone here knows exactly how Jack is going to propose all that and get more than 1 per cent of the vote.
It's just that it would be so nice to hear just the occasional hint of how 'midst the moralising.
It's just that it would be so nice to hear just the occasional hint of how 'midst the moralising.
How?
1. Staying consistent.
2. Keeping promises.
Canadians love that. They do not (contrary to nonstop NDP spin doctor propaganda) love Conservatives and Liberals as "managers" of the very economy which grinds people down. This Big Lie that people "don't trust" the NDP to manage the economy has to be stopped - otherwise, like all the best Big Lies, it becomes the truth. If the NDP wants to enjoy the "trust" they think people have in the other parties, they should just disband - really, really fast - and make way for someone who is honest and caring.
No, no, u.
I meant actual policies...you know, the economic answers for a new Canadian nationalism, etc. Stuff he can sell. The voters (those who turn out) aren't into moral platitudes at this point for the reasons I listed.
I hear that big lie about the NDP's inability to manage the economy fom conservative and liberal supporters all the time, while I never hear from NDP ones.
Perhaps if the brains trust here could say exactly how the change should be made without endangering those jobs, etc. That fear is certainly the central reason for the New Democrats attracting fewer votes than the others. But the critique here never gets past a superior moral tone, the stuff of baiting - with results like that above.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "I never hear from NDP ones", but if we had just one media outlet onside, we could hear more than what the followers of Tweedledee and Tweedledum have to say.
No, no, u.
I meant actual policies...you know, the economic answers for a new Canadian nationalism, etc. Stuff he can sell. The voters (those who turn out) aren't into moral platitudes at this point for the reasons I listed.
I think you're not understanding me. "Actual policies" are lies. They are campaign promises. They are the Liberal Red Book. They are Bob Rae's "actual policy" to nationalize auto insurance.
The NDP does not need some dimwitted focus group spin doctors to dream up any new "actual policies". That's where the ATM fees and floor-crossing legislation and other obscenities came from.
The NDP needs to show - bit by bit - that they are:
1. Consistent;
2. Honest.
Not opportunistic. Not ultra-partisan. Not greedy. Not power-hungry.
If they can do that, the "actual policies" that they have in theory (but never in practice) defended for decades will do just fine, thank you very much.
Perhaps a majority of Dippers consider macro issues like saving the world and (as a CBC wag said) constructing an environmentally friendly hovercraft powered by the laughter of children more important than "little consumerist policies of ATM fees" but obviously, the majority of the 85% of voters disagree.
What about requiring the banks and credit card companies to give a free digital camera to every customer who maintains a certain minimum level of debt every month? It's a win/win/win:
1. The borrowed money will go into spending, thus hastening economic recovery.
2. The financiers get their pound of flesh - better than bailing them out with taxpayers' money, eh?
3. The 85% of voters get a free digital camera! Who doesn't want a free digital camera?
Until the NDP wakes up and starts adopting fresh ideas like this one, it will continue to attract the occasional social activist looking for political allies. And honestly, who the hell wants that?? These people just keep making demands which add up to unelectability.
I find it quite interesting that while this site has stringent policies about attacking workers, poverty, challenged individuals etc, financially challenged individuals who are forced to rely upon predatory lending practices are either treated with contempt or ridiculed with imunity.
Its obvious that anyone who does not share the viewpoint of the reigning clique here and dares to suggest that resolution of micro issues, not grande schemes is subject to unrestrained scorn and ridicule on this site. I have little use for either the parochial suspicions of our socially-challenged incumbent or the smug self-ordained intentions of the Liberal challenger but the NDP's policies must be modest and realistic to attract my vote.
As an elderly person who does not have the luxury of generating income and faces an uncertain future, the predations of money mart lenders are necessary and humiliating. The small issues are incredibly important to me while grand social engineering schemes are not.
So, would the digital camera thing do it for you?
Sorry, I couldn't tell from your post that you were an elderly person. I certainly mean no disrespect to elderly persons. I do, however, have this tendency to judge people's posts by what they say, rather than who says them. If bank service charges are more important to you than "grand social engineering schemes" like Kyoto or government regulation of the economy or trade policy or Canadian occupation of Afghanistan, then go ahead and promote those views all you like. You will find plenty of sympathy for that here.
Just not from me.
I am not sure what you mean george by "the stuff of baiting'?
I meant; I never hear that the NDP cannot manage the economy from NDP supporters only from Cons and Libs supporters.
Always, the expectation, canuquetoo, is that New Democrats will overcome the paucity of communication vehicles to tell the Great Unread just what would work in a social democratic world.
And then fall back on a morally superior position - useless as it will be for worker and unemployed alike, but who will be forced to vote for one of those faithful to the capitalist line. Perverse reasoning , but there you are. Babble is a Brave New World of individualists.
Remind:
"I am not sure what you mean george by "the stuff of baiting'?
I meant; I never hear that the NDP cannot manage the economy from NDP supporters only from Cons and Libs supporters."
The stuff of baiting is not relevant to the sentence about managing the economy. And there, I think, perhaps we need to spell it out so the Libs and Con supporters could also become believers.
But's it's so damned costly to get out the word, eh? I mean, the per-second cost of radio, let alone paper lineage and TV spots. Jeez.
Here's how my letter appeared in print in the local paper last week, on the subject of unfair news coverage:
"Only thing missing (from the paper's editorial on the name change proposal and the party position)- an idea of how democratic socialism is to survive without a media friend to give it even news lineage proportional to its voting support.*
And I don't mean editorial opinion. Just plain lineage.
AS the Davey Commission said a half century back...the failure is one of omission as much as commission of bias and distortion.
It's hard to imagine in our marvelously multicultural world that in 1961, our nation was still too close to the immediate postwar period when "DP" was hurled at the newcomers, the Displaced Persons, who represented a threat, for some, to jobs and culture.
The NDP can name itself the Democratic Party, today, with not a chance of the acronym DP being used against it.
The more serious threat today, is of elections being conducted in an atmosphere of ignorant indifference. Newspapers must be the community vehicle by which that, too, is overcome."
(longer letters are printed if the importance of the medium is emphasized)
Sorry I still do not et it
get it not et it
gawd is my g not working, no apparently it is, just not my fingers
I think a motivated well organized party to the left of the NDP is well overdue. The Greens seem scared to take the mantle although at the moment they are the best option...I think a new Left party would do well to target a few key ridings and build from there. Pat Martin's riding seems like a natural-the guy is a war mongering imperial apologist and representing the second poorest riding in Canada.
I think Winnipeg Centre would probably be the riding that a Green Left or ecosocialist party that speaks to both the environment and poverty very well might stand the best chance in. It has a large contingent of environmentalists in Wolseley, and as you said, it's the 2nd poorest in the country. It would also be a big symbolic win, if you can win the riding of J. S. Woodsworth and Stanley Knowles.
Won't happen without a J.S.Woodsworth or a Stanley Knowles, and their type, as we all know, are just a mythical, psalm-singing bunch of know-nothing, social gospel Christians out of the past anyway, with nothing to say anymore to the unemployed, chronically unemployed, or just generally marginalized and disposessed.
George
Have to say it is fascinating to read your rather simple request go ignored and the dismissive tone towards someone who has had 'little' issues effect their lives directly. Telling really. And one of the reasons progressive voices are sadly falling on deaf ears with the vast number of Canadians.
Perhaps if some of these supporters of the working class in theory actually had to spend some time in the working class in fact it might be different. You know spend some time in jobs were they have to get their hands dirty and use their back to get through the day. Or if some of them had to actually run a small business where you know people are depending on you and your judgement for their living too. Then maybe they might realize that if you don't pay off the small bills eventually you have a huge social and economic debt on your hands.
Average people get this. Theorists never will.
While one might look to the idea of creating a party as a general future idea, a more productive approach would be look at creating mechanisms that bring social movements together. Not so much a party, but a forum and a network to establish communication and a framework for communication. Obviously the union movement is a good place to start, but there needs to be a more formal organization that brings together social activists from all spheres, without neccessarily binding them to a specific platform or mandate.
A "party" might be something that would naturally form out of something like that.
I for one would probably oppose a new electoral "party" at this time because it is the system itself that is failing, and I am very strong doubts about the usefulness of parlimentary politics as a means of effecting change, at least the way the system is set up here, in Canada today.
While one might look to the idea of creating a party as a general future idea, a more productive approach would be look at creating mechanisms that bring social movements together. Not so much a party, but a forum and a network to establish communication and a framework for communication. Obviously the union movement is a good place to start, but there needs to be a more formal organization that brings together social activists from all spheres, without neccessarily binding them to a specific platform or mandate.
A "party" might be something that would naturally form out of something like that.
I for one would probably oppose a new electoral "party" at this time because it is the system itself that is failing, and I am very strong doubts about the usefulness of parlimentary politics as a means of effecting change, at least the way the system is set up here, in Canada today.
I agree with you completely, but I think we just need to make sure that whatever we do, we are able to keep up the communication and try to find ways to actually work together - no point in having a big get-together to unite the left and then going home and forgetting about it. There's been a couple initiatives like this in Winnipeg recently, but it seems as though not much came out of it which lasted.
I fully agree with Cueball as well.
The theme of these threads - "should the left split from the NDP" - is a red herring. Some leftists are in the NDP, some are not. I left long ago for personal reasons, but I have never urged anyone else to leave and would not do so now, no more than I would urge them to leave the United Church. If there's the slightest room for a progressive voice there, let it happen. The danger is in being blackmailed by those to whom the party is more important than social progress, or by those (the same ones) who will happily split any struggle or movement on the basis of whether someone supports the NDP or not.
Perhaps the partisan illness afflicting the NDP, which makes it increasingly irrelevant to real live people's struggles, is an inherent characteristic of our party system. So going back to what Cueball said, let the focus be on the movements and strengthening contact and communication between them. I'd love to hear more about what your experience in Winnipeg, genstrike. The way politics works in Québec seems very different. There is a lot of cross-feeding between movements and organizations, although sectarianism is as rampant as elsewhere but manifests itself in different ways. One thing I love about the union movement - any worker in the midst of a struggle who started drawing lines of demarcation based on who supports NDP/Liberals/Greens/PQ/QS etc. would have their unworthy ass thrown out, if they weren't simply ignored. That's what happens in real life.
Well, there have been a couple of recent initiatives that I can think of.
Winnipeg Is Not For Sale was probably the best - we had a very broad coalition of people concerned with privatization of public services, except I think three things killed it: A lot of the deep cuts we were expecting didn't materialize, a rally in which we had very negative media coverage (as in, we were accused of anti-semitism by the mayor, the media, and B'nai Brith and a motion was passed unanimously by city council, even the progressives, denouncing us), and the upcoming formation of the Winnipeg Citizens Coalition (a sort of NDP-Liberal David Miller wannabe coalition) pulled off a lot of the more skilled and experienced people who would be interested in something like WINFS.
There was also a Rekindling the Spirit of 1919 conference held back in May, but while it did get people together, it doesn't seem like it left behind a lot of networks which are being used. And the President of the MFL didn't exactly endear herself to the crowd either...
I know a couple other groups in the city are planning things out for a future event, but those are in the very early stages.
I think there is a lot of cross-feeding between movements in Winnipeg, although there are some people who haven't been reached out to, and I think there is a political and generational gap between the old and young, although it can be bridged at times. But there can be a bit of sectarianism between groups at times, although it's not that horrible. And I think one other problem is that there are some people with feet in both camps - reluctant to be too harsh on the provincial government. I think the student organizations right now are the biggest mass membership organizations which are really taking the government to task, as the MFL brass is completely in the NDP's pocket (I actually have a funny story about that as well...)
Oh I see you edited your post george, since my missing g's, I get it now, I agree, and with you too BA.
In a world where we increasingly want to localize our economies and create greener jobs removing barriers to small businesses to grow and prosper in a globalized world controled by mega-opolies is about the smartest, most progressive thing we can do.
I disagree. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, the "voice of small business," is one of the most right-wing lobbying organisations around. Any change that's remotely progressive and CFIB is all over it. Look to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, places where NDP governments literally bent over backwards to accomodate the business community, for example in Saskatchewan the Calvert government caving on granting pro-rated benefits to part-time workers and in Manitoba where Doer won't implement anti-scab legislation because he made a promise to businesses, even though there's literally decades worth of NDP resolutions calling for as much. The business lobby is not going to support the NDP no matter what it does. I also grew up in a city where the "small business owners" took a great deal of pride in their status as "pillars of the community." They act as if everyone owes them a debt of gratitude for being the wonderful people they are creating all these jobs while using their power and influence for their own personal gain.
That's not to say I think running a small business is easy (I know it's not, I don't know exactly but I heard there's somewhere between an 80-90% failure rate for new businesses within 5 years) but the NDP trying to appeal to the business community is a waste of time, IMV.
Long thread.