NDP policy not an instructional manual for party

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
takeitslowly
NDP policy not an instructional manual for party

.

Issues Pages: 
takeitslowly

“The policy document is an expression of the will of the delegates at our convention.” The party’s policy book was on the NDP’s main website until mid-July, when Lavigne said it was removed because a campaign was in the offing and the party wanted to put the focus on the election. “The policy document gives the average Canadian a sense of what our value systems are, what our belief systems are. But they’re not a prescription, per se, of what the next government would necessarily do. That’s in the platform.” Lavigne said the platform has been created with “input” from the party, caucus and leader, and added that affordability is one factor behind promises being made. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-pa...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sounds like the policy document is something of a "Mission Statement"

Mission Statement = vague, optimistic, lofty

Business Plan = actual stuff in concrete terms

NDPP

NDP Far-Left Could Attack Mulcair Anytime

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/08/29/ndp-far-left-could-attack-mulcair-...

"...The party's long-term base will be extremely unhappy if they arrive at the promised land of an NDP government only to find themselves governing from the centre for a four-year term.

It's total congitive dissidence to decline a tax for the rich while having Linda McQuaig, author of The Trouble with Billionaires...as a candidate.

The base's skepticism of Mr Mulcair's sincerity has no doubt increased..."

 

sherpa-finn

Needless to say the MSM tried to make the "disappearing" of the NDP policy manual a top story for a day, playing on the 'hidden agenda' angle.

FWIW, I went to the websites of both Libs and Cons to look for their manuals of member / convention resolutions. But predictably could find neither.

Much ado about nothing, once again. 

That said, I do wish that the parties would release actual consolidated 'Election Platforms' rather than this issue by issue, plan-by-plank, day by day 'strip-tease' style process they all do nowadays. But I suspect that the experience of the Liberal Red Book - which became such a weight around the party's neck after the election - has dissuaded everyone from that approach.

The closest thing electors will likely get is some form of summary (I really mean "vague") accounting of the financial implications of all the parties' promises and how they will be paid for (or not)..

brookmere

sherpa-finn wrote:
Needless to say the MSM tried to make the "disappearing" of the NDP policy manual a top story for a day, playing on the 'hidden agenda' angle.

FWIW, I went to the websites of both Libs and Cons to look for their manuals of member / convention resolutions. But predictably could find neither.

http://www.liberal.ca/documents/

Anyway, even if the NDP were just doing the same as the Liberals and Cons, is that any defense? Is there something shameful about the resolutions democratically passed at convention, that they have to be "disappeared" at election time? Once upon a time the party had the slogan "Democratic is our middle name".

 

 

Unionist

We already discussed this in the thread about the banning of Wheeldon, Natanine, Manly, and Ali as candidates. As part of deleting the Convention decisions, the NDP also deleted its policy on Israel-Palestine, including the statement about the illegal occupation. That led JKR in the other thread to quote a distorted policy position stated by Paul Dewar - I don't blame JKR, s/he couldn't find the real policy. And it enabled the party to turf these candidates or would-be candidates by falsely claiming that their old comments on Facebook or wherever were contrary to policy.

Luckily, some of us downloaded the policy book before it was disappeared.

No, Brother Mulcair. We have not always been at war with Eastasia.

 

sherpa-finn

Well spotted, brookmere! And full credit to the Libs.

As Unionist flags, many NDP members / interested parties will have downloaded the NDP document so its not exactly Top Secret material.

I presume the thinking on this was very much spin control (and generally ill-advised, I would add). 

The Liberal documents on their website are very clearly labelled as convention Resolutions, filed year by year. So no fear that any reasonable person would "mistake" them for a party platform.

The copy of the NDP Policy Manual I have in hand is a consolidation of resolutions over many years - effectively the members' best and most recent thinking on a whole range of issues. So it actually does look and read like a Party Platform. With some things in there that I suspect will not be in the 2015 Platform - if we ever see such a beast.

So I suspect some folks down at HQ just started to get the willies about 'mixed messages' and pulled it ....

On the topic of party platforms,- here's a personal flash from the past: many years back when I was actively involved in the Labour Party in the UK, - the internal selection of the party's "Platform Committee" was one of the most politically fraught processes within the Party (ie bringing the various political tendancies into outright conflict). But at the end of that process, you then had an agreed platform (called a Manifesto, in the day!) that was published and upon which the party would then run.

If you were fortunate to get elected to form gov't, - holding the Cabinet's feet to the fire on the pledges made in that Manifesto was what kept members busy / entertained for the ensuing years.

oldgoat

Out of laziness, I'll quote myself from the thread when I announced I'm moderating for a bit again...

 

"Just kidding of course, and to get things going, this week when I have time I'm sending the NDP a stern letter with my membership card attached, and I'm putting a stop payment on my fees.   As a citizen of Oshawa, I will give my enthusiastic support locally as always, and direct my donations to my riding association."

So yes, and I've actually been meaning to do it for a long time.  I think the party needs to get this message from people who believe along the same lines I do.  The reasons are more cumulative I suppose, perhaps starting from the convention when Mulcair rushed past me with his entourage and almost knocked me down an escelator.  He left it to a staffer behind him to apologise.  I guess the final straw stems from the issues unionist refers to above.  On the plus side, I have enjoyed watching Mulcair grill Harper in question period.  The man has skills if he'd properly apply them.

First of all, I would expect that any NDP government would end up disappointing on some levels.  That's just the way the world would work.  Mulcair however has taken the party and moved it pretty much completely away from where I am.

Something I could see coming from this, is an intra-party divide, if not outright schism.  I could see something like the Waffle movement, or the NPI coming to life with a renewed energy. 

 

Unionist

Thank you, oldgoat. Your stints here are breaths of fresh air. And I feel as badly about this as you do.

Pondering

oldgoat wrote:

 As a citizen of Oshawa, I will give my enthusiastic support locally as always, and direct my donations to my riding association."

That's a great idea. I usually vote based on who I want as PM but never Conservative. This year my riding is Outremont so Tom Mulcair is virtually guaranteed to win. Trudeau/Liberals are a very distant second. I'm not a party person so I won't be donating but I will take a closer look at my local candidates to see if one is particularly deserving of at least getting a vote of encouragement even if they can't win.

quizzical

lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

 As a citizen of Oshawa, I will give my enthusiastic support locally as always, and direct my donations to my riding association."

That's a great idea. I usually vote based on who I want as PM but never Conservative. This year my riding is Outremont so Tom Mulcair is virtually guaranteed to win. Trudeau/Liberals are a very distant second. I'm not a party person so I won't be donating but I will take a closer look at my local candidates to see if one is particularly deserving of at least getting a vote of encouragement even if they can't win.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I personally don't care how you vote. I'm more interested in the topic of this thread.

6079_Smith_W

oldgoat wrote:

First of all, I would expect that any NDP government would end up disappointing on some levels.

I would be outright shocked if it did not.

As for me, I am prepared to see Mulcair move the party away from me in some things (as he already has) so long as the victory as a whole can move the political reality of this country as a whole closer in my direction (and more importantly, something that will be functional). That at least will provide something to build on that we do not have at the federal level, given the climate of war built by Harper.

That is the only struggle I see for the next seven weeks.

Sending back the party card? Well considering that getting one in the first place was for me a compromise of principle done for practical necessity, giving it back on principle would be a bit of a contradiction. Also complicated because the federal and provincial memberships are one and the same.

That grassroots battle is ongoing IMO. As has been mentioned, it was here long before him; it is here in the provinces, and yes, it may indeed lead to another schism - or not.

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Pondering wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

 As a citizen of Oshawa, I will give my enthusiastic support locally as always, and direct my donations to my riding association."

That's a great idea. I usually vote based on who I want as PM but never Conservative. This year my riding is Outremont so Tom Mulcair is virtually guaranteed to win. Trudeau/Liberals are a very distant second. I'm not a party person so I won't be donating but I will take a closer look at my local candidates to see if one is particularly deserving of at least getting a vote of encouragement even if they can't win.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I personally don't care how you vote. I'm more interested in the topic of this thread.

How she votes is the same way the rest of us vote. It involves going into the polling booth, marking an X on the ballot beside the candidate of our choice, and putting the ballot in the box.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

lolol you already stated  long ago you were voting liberal.

I also said I vote strategically. I won't make my final decision until we are much closer to Oct. 19th because if by some wonder the Liberal candidate in Mulcair's riding looks like she might actually win, even by a long-shot, I will vote Liberal to vote for Trudeau. I have a sister who lives in a riding that will go Liberal barring something dramatic like a declaration of war. I think my mother is in a sure bet NDP riding but I am not certain. I haven't checked out my other relatives yet but we all vote strategically. None of us are committed to a party. We are the fickle disloyal voters Quebec is famous for.

I just thought Oldgoat's comment was interesting because he is still supporting the local NDP candidate even though he doesn't feel he can support the party as a whole.

Unionist

Anyone else want to feed this disruption of the thread... please?

I thought the topic offered a decent opportunity to discuss the interplay between inner-party democracy and the pragmatic need to win elections and who leads the leaders.

You'll recall Andrea Horwath's inner circle deleted the ONDP's policy book from their website on May 22, 2014 - you know, so as to make it harder to recall their position in favour of an Ontario pension plan, and restoring corporate taxes to pre-McGuinty levels, etc. Unimpressive.

I think it's a bad habit. Even if circumstances dictate an urgent need to ignore or modify party policy (not just some members' wishes - official policy as adopted and published after a convention) - I think people should be given enough credit for maturity and an ability to receive an explanation for the change.

Just deleting and dissembling appears worthy of Conservatives and Liberals, but not the NDP.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

oldgoat wrote:

Something I could see coming from this, is an intra-party divide, if not outright schism.  I could see something like the Waffle movement, or the NPI coming to life with a renewed energy.

 

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

Something I could see coming from this, is an intra-party divide, if not outright schism.  I could see something like the Waffle movement, or the NPI coming to life with a renewed energy.

If a Mulcair government keeps its promise, and implements MMPR, then I expect a new party of the left to arise before 2019. This federal party would be similar to Quebec Solidaire in organization and policy, and it would be the new home for the bulk of leftists in the NDP. It would be capable of getting 10% or more of the vote, and 35 or more seats in the House. I know I would never support this version of the NDP if I could vote instead for such a party.

I agree that MMR would lead to a split in the NDP. It would be very interesting to see how much support such a party could garner. I agree that the NDP has moved a bit too far right, but on the other hand moderation has made the NDP a leading contender. Would the fragmentation really help the left?

If the left left the NDP, the NDP would be even more Liberal like so the left Liberals and right NDP might join some how and become the most powerful party. I forget the numbers but I think it is something like 59% of Liberals choose the NDP as their second choice and 40 odd percent of NDP choose the Liberals as their second choice. I'd classify all these people as center-left.

The Conservatives are almost completely transformed into the Reform party. I am guessing we would get a stronger Libertarian party. I have no idea what former Progressive Conservatives would do, maybe restart the party?

It seems to me as if the Liberals/NDP combo would still be strengthened by MMP in Canada and likely end up leading coalitions indefinitely.

jjuares

This is such a nonsensical thread. The NDP almost certainly took down their policy manual so as not to get it confused with the platform and give their opponents targets. People who love a conspiracy think this is a big issue but voters concerned with the economy and the environment know better. I believe people who think this is an issue could spend their time more wisely by making sure their tinfoil hats are on securely. This thread is almost as goofy as the "Does Ed love Tom thread?" or whatever the hell it was called.

6079_Smith_W

I think it is hard to respond until we see what Mulcair's platform is, and how well the policy book is reflected in it.

On the issue, I don't think it is unreasonable that the campaign platform should be put front and centre in an election campaign. A policy manual is not the same thing.

And while I think policy set by the membership is important, and that any government should do its best to adhere to it, it isn't the party which runs the country, but rather parliament. Any responsible government of the day has to make policy that balances the wishes of all Canadians; restricting it to one party is not that much better than Harper's way of doing things.

Cross posted with you jjuares. Well said.

Also, I read the National Post version of the story above, and noted that they covered it pretty straight, and didn't use it as a way to make digs or get snarky about the NDP.

Maybe that means he has been bought and paid for already, eh? And perhaps they know which side their bread is buttered on. If I was more cynical than I am and wanted to read things into stuff, that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

brookmere

The platform is always front and centre in an election campaign. That's not the issue.

The platform always differs from convention policy. That's not the issue.

Elected NDP governments don't implement all of convention policy, or of the platform for that matter. That's not the issue.

The issue is that those at the top of the NDP made a clumsy attempt to hide the convention policy, which has had the predictable effect of drawing more attention to it and to differences between it and the platform.

Ciabatta2

Yeah, this is only a conspiracy for those wanting a conspiracy.  It makes sense to not have two documents floating around, it would be confusing and unprofessional.   There's a lot to criticize of the Mulcair NDP thus far, but this is just silly.

6079_Smith_W

How did they do that, brookmere?

Funny, I went back to February 2011, and didn't find a link to the policy book on the mainpage at all. At least that was on the site earlier this year, so it could be surreptitiously removed without telling us.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20110225092750/http://www.ndp.ca/

 

oldgoat

There are a couple of entries upthread that quote me, but add a sentence at the end that I did not make.  I removed them.  It wasn't especially offensive, but it suggested I was making political predictions which I am not makeing, and of which I have no idea. People post quotes within quotes within quotes.  Please be mindful of respecting what others have posted.

oldgoat

Having said all that, what's wrong with having your campaign platform reflect the stated policies which were endorsed by the grass roots of the party.  Perhaps I'm just naive'.

 

 

oldgoat

Ya know I also want to say, when Meg asked me to do this gig, like I said, I haven't looked in here in quite a while.  I was expecting a much huger shitstorm about Mulcair and where he's taking the party.  I think this thread is important and timely, especially on a forum which defines itself as progressive.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

oldgoat wrote:

There are a couple of entries upthread that quote me, but add a sentence at the end that I did not make.  I removed them.  It wasn't especially offensive, but it suggested I was making political predictions which I am not makeing, and of which I have no idea. People post quotes within quotes within quotes.  Please be mindful of respecting what others have posted.

I am very careful about quoting, and I did not add any sentence to your quotation in post 17. It now reads as if I had done so, but the actual post I made is in the quotation by Pondering, in post 18, at least for now. I don't know what is going on, but I quoted you accurately.

oldgoat

I understand these nuances, and respect your point. My own feeling is that he's wilfully abandoning the party policy and unilaterally taking my party somwhere else.

 

Edited to add, the party policy is watered down enough as it is.

6079_Smith_W

oldgoat wrote:

Having said all that, what's wrong with having your campaign platform reflect the stated policies which were endorsed by the grass roots of the party.  Perhaps I'm just naive'.

I think I said it SHOULD reflect it, and since we haven't seen the campaign platform that is going to be put up, we don't yet know to what degree it does or doesn't.

But they aren't the same document, most notably because a campaign platform is based on what a party plans to do during a specific mandate.

And it is often tempered by concerns not necessarily reflected in the policy manual (as, indeed a policy manual doesn't necessarily reflect the views of all members).

And I think it is important oldgoat. As I said in the other thread, I think it is good that the quote from 2001 is publicized. As for the timing of holding a navel-gazing session during an election campaign, I am not so sure, though I am certainly not telling anyone they shouldn't do so. It is just that I figured out how things balanced out for me and what my goal was before the writ was dropped.

 

oldgoat

To Michael.  I amended your post just a moment ago to delete part of what appeared as a quote from me.  It wasn't anything I might not have been thinking, and wasn't offended on that level, but as a moderator I've never seen these mistakes happening before. I'm sure there was nothing intentinal, but this is a new issue to me.  I'll talk to Meg and Michael to see if this has been happening lately.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Someone edited my post before you did, to add that sentence. Look at post 18 to see what I actually wrote.

6079_Smith_W

@ oldgoat

And to be clear, I do share some of those concerns. One difference is that I never saw the party as an absolute reflection of me in the first place, just the best option for positive change. Like some of us, I have been disappointed by, and in opposition to an NDP government.

I try not to let that perennial fact take my eye off the goal. And if a better option arises in what is sure to be a better climate, or if that party can be moved in a more progressive direction, good.

After all, we also have a trade union supporting development of nuclear power. Does that mean I can't support them in areas on which I agree, or that I don't in principle support trade unionism? I know it is a rhetorical question; my point is that we each need to sort out our support. Spinning around in circles about it during an election campaign is, in my opinion, not the best timing.

 

Pondering

This was written in 2006:

In the aftermath of the Conservative election victory, the left needs to revisit a question dating back to the founding of the ccf: the relationship between the party and progressive movements. From the beginning, tension has existed between those devoted to movement politics (trade unionists, farmers, and today, civil society groups) and those principally concerned with electoral politics; between those committed to building people’s institutions and transforming the political culture, and those who insist that winning votes, seats, and eventually power (at the provincial and federal levels) is all-important. When the ccf first won in Saskatchewan under Tommy Douglas in 1944, this tension was immediately evident. Many, imbued with a strong western Canadian belief in direct democracy, thought that the Douglas government should adhere exclusively to policies set at party conventions. But Douglas maintained that the government was responsible to all of Saskatchewan and that his cabinet was responsible to the provincial legislature. His view prevailed, and has been followed by social-democratic governments in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Yukon. The premier and Cabinet would rule, taking into consideration the will of the party convention as one voice among many in its formulation of policy.

With Harper in office, Maude Barlow thinks that “dialogue and healing need to take place” among progressives. For her, the road ahead should spring from an alliance of forces from inside and outside of Parliament, including New Democrats, some Liberals, and some members of the Bloc. “If Stephen Harper wins a majority in the next election,” she says, “we will lose decades in the social struggles we are involved in.”

Strategic co-operation is one thing. But Canada needs a progressive party willing to do battle in both the social and economic policy arenas. Today’s ndp is heir to a seven-decade social-democratic tradition; forsaking this legacy would kill an important part of what makes Canada distinctive. The ndp’s survival is threatened most by its move to the centre, which has led many to conclude that the country does not need two liberal parties. A critical outlook on capitalism and the need to champion the interests of the non-affluent majority were the reasons the party was founded. Those reasons remain compelling today. The ndp should fight to expand its influence—but this does not mean that its leaders should give in to the cynical politics of short-term electoral advantage, as they did in the recent federal election.

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

I found the entire article very informative but there is much disagreement with it on rabble.

6079_Smith_W

And if that is what they are doing, we hold them to account. But I do not see a productive and reasoned discussion happening on that during this campaign. And short of handing the election over to someone else, I don't see much in the way of options either... for those who consider this a perennial conflict in need of immediate remedy.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if that is what they are doing, we hold them to account. But I do not see a productive and reasoned discussion happening on that during this campaign. And short of handing the election over to someone else, I don't see much in the way of options either... for those who consider this a perennial conflict in need of immediate remedy.

Hold them to account how?  I don't think it will happen, but say what many want does occur, the Liberals are wiped out in this election and the Conservatives and the NDP become the two main options, both promising balanced budgets as their top priority. What has changed?

The Liberals are being clever by acknowledging they will be running a deficit, and it could increase from what they have predicted based on conditions when they take power. It's perfectly reasonable because we have been running a deficit for years and it's looking like we are back in recession. Promising a balanced budget year one is foolish and yet Mulcair is making that his central commitment.

Mulcair is doubling down on his message that the most irresponsible thing a government can do is run a deficit whereas some economists are saying that 10 billion in our economy is a rounding error.

It is important for people to understand that the deficit is not the be all and end all of running a responsible government. That is like telling people it's a bad idea to go into debt to buy a house. Debt wise Canada is in extremely good shape in comparision to other G7 countries. We are a wealthy country in resources. We can afford to invest in our country. It's not helpful to have the NDP denouncing deficits.

I have no doubt that the membership of the NDP is on average considerably more progressive than the Liberal membership but the NDP membership is not running the party. They were not permitted to vote on marijuana legalization, what else are they not permitted to vote on?

As a whole Liberal policy vis a vis Israel doesn't seem much different from the NDP's, but....

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/transcript-lpc-hopeful-andrew-...

(Andrewy) Leslie: So, every nation has the right to defend itself. Every nation has the right to defend its people. So keep that as a thought bubble.
Then there’s this little Chinese gentleman about 2,700 years ago who said, in Cantonese: ‘Never do what your enemy wants you to do.’ So, just keep that as a thought bubble . His name was Sun Tzu.
So what does Hamas – who’s actually guided and directed by [whos has] funding and the leadership provided mainly by Iran and Syria – what did they want Israel to do? They want Israel to, essentially, fall into the trap of igniting world opinion against them, by killing civilians.
So, if you know that — and the Israeli Army and the political system are quite astute, because they’ve had to live in that awful part of the world for quite some time, so they know what’s going on — don’t do what your enemy wants you to do.
So, Hamas launches rockets attacks. Up until the moment the Israeli ground forces launch their invasion there had been three fatalities after 2,700 rockets have been fired at Israel, because they have a system to knock them down.
So, tunnels [in Gaza] were not an issue at the time. They go in, they obviously get involved in the street fighting.
Hamas throws more and more resources at it and more casualties are caused by the Israelis using very heavy weapons systems, firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children.
You know what the body count is now. So Israel has actually lost this war.
Because it’s not… all warfare is a continuation of the political dialogue by other means. There’s a guy called Clausewitz…
So if I were advising the Israeli Prime Minister I would say ‘don’t send any ground troops until you really really need to. Because you are just going to do that what your enemy wants you to do.

The questioner was a Conservative plant.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/03/top-trudeau-adviser-under-fire-for-...

Speaking to reporters in Rimouski, Que., Trudeau stood by Leslie though not necessarily by his comments.

"Mr. Leslie can speak for himself," the Liberal leader said when pressed by reporters on his views of Leslie's remarks.

"I'm proud to have such a strong military commander with a deep record of service to Canada on my team."

Trudeau also repeated the Liberal policy he first enunciated earlier this summer, that Liberals stand for a two-state solution in the Middle East with Israelis and Palestinians living in peace beside each other.

......

On Wednesday, NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice declined to comment on the specifics of what Leslie had to say but did tell reporters that he believes Trudeau needs to have a discussion with his top defence and foreign affairs adviser.

I suppose Boulerice is one NDPer who thinks all reps should march in lockstep. It would have been better if Boulerice and the NDP had used it as an opportunity to promote greater balance.

I can't go so far as to say relieved, but I am conforted by the thought that Leslie expressed a somewhat nuanced view and that Trudeau did not denounce him for it or expel him from the party or rush to disclaim his views. This is a man who advises Trudeau so it matters to me that he was able to openly express his view without Trudeau having a fit.

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Hold them to account how?

Really?

Maybe Stephen Harper (and to a lesser degree Jean Chretien before him) HAVE been running the shop far too long, if you are asking that question honestly.

But I suppose if I am to be honest I should just say what I am thinking and call partisanship. You know there are ways in a properly functioning system for people within the party and without to have influence on government.

Hell, Margaret Thatcher's name has been tossed around here enough lately that people should surely remember THAT example. Those interested in remembering,anyway.

 

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

No question or statement from Pondering has ever been honest.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if that is what they are doing, we hold them to account. But I do not see a productive and reasoned discussion happening on that during this campaign. And short of handing the election over to someone else, I don't see much in the way of options either... for those who consider this a perennial conflict in need of immediate remedy.

Pondering wrote:
Hold them to account how?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Really?

Maybe Stephen Harper (and to a lesser degree Jean Chretien before him) HAVE been running the shop far too long, if you are asking that question honestly.

But I suppose if I am to be honest I should just say what I am thinking and call partisanship. You know there are ways in a properly functioning system for people within the party and without to have influence on government.

Hell, Margaret Thatcher's name has been tossed around here enough lately that people should surely remember THAT example. Those interested in remembering,anyway.

Okay, so are you going to hold them to account to their promise to balance the budget the first year even though Mulcair himself is saying we are in recession?  Mulcair has been very clear that it is unfair to future generations to have a deficit. It's his top priority.

6079_Smith_W

No Pondering, because whether they achieve that particular goal isn't really a deal breaker for me; I don't actually expect them to do it.

And I am not aware that it is a break with any party policy, though by coincidence it is something Justin Trudeau has expressed a great deal of interest in.

 

Jacob Two-Two

If the campaign platform contradicts the policy paper, then that's a problem, obviously. If it's merely an incomplete version of it, then I don't see the issue. That's perfectly normal. I also have no issue with the policy sheet being off the website for the duration of the election, as long as it's just the duration of the election. I can see how it might be confusing. Just because it's party policy doesn't mean that it's something that's being promised in the short run. Only so much can be done in a single term. Generally not much at all, regardless of the intentions of the party.

But it is part of a larger problem that the NDP is falling into since it took the lead, which is being timid. Concentrating your energy on dodging criticism and not presenting a target is a losing proposition. I'm not saying that's all the party is doing but it seems to be slipping into this mode more and more. Skipping debates, muzzling Israel critics, hiding the policy sheet. It all smacks of a party that wants to keep its head down and sneak into office. Bad idea. They should have learned a lesson from the Liberals shooting themselves in the foot over C-51, all for the purpose of avoiding attacks. They don't want to make that same mistake.

Jacob Two-Two

Personally, I don't believe that this is any sort of Herculean task. A competent administration with smarter priorities will not have a problem balancing the budget. Canada is a bit on the ropes, but it's still hugely wealthy and prosperous. If your top priority is balancing the budget, then you don't mind pissing off rich people to do it, by taking their money. If your top priority is kissing rich people's asses, like the Libs and the Cons, then you practice your sad face in the bathroom mirror and you come out and tell us a deficit is inevitable. Boo hoo.

What's the matter Justin? Stephen? Is Canada out of cash? No, no. The richest Canadians are richer than ever, but you have to understand that they are important and you aren't, so obviously we aren't going to get the money from them. You'll just have to suffer instead. No thank you. I think the rich can pay a lot more than they currently do, and making up that gap will easily balance the budget.

Why do people assume that if the NDP has to do something unexpected to balance the budget, that it would involve cutting services? Their whole political demographic is the segment that wants to protect services. That would be absurdly dumb. If they have to do something extreme that they didn't predict, it is much more likely to be raising more taxes. As much as they would be savaged for that, it wouldn't be half as catastrophic as betraying their base.

mark_alfred

oldgoat wrote:

Ya know I also want to say, when Meg asked me to do this gig, like I said, I haven't looked in here in quite a while.  I was expecting a much huger shitstorm about Mulcair and where he's taking the party.  I think this thread is important and timely, especially on a forum which defines itself as progressive.

I think you've been reading the Star too much.  I find this campaign is even more progressive than the last.  I don't recall establishing national universal child care as being a part of the last campaign, for instance. 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No Pondering, because whether they achieve that particular goal isn't really a deal breaker for me; I don't actually expect them to do it.

If you don't believe Mulcair, I wonder who will.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
...I think you've been reading the Star too much.  I find this campaign is even more progressive than the last.  I don't recall establishing national universal child care as being a part of the last campaign, for instance. 

 

[url=http://www.childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/02/08/... child care policy - Sept 16, 2000[/url]

Quote:
...THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP actively and publicly support a comprehensive family policy that includes universal, not for-profit, affordable, accessible, quality early childhood care and education services as the centrepiece of a National Children's Agenda that is adequately funded...

Only took 15 years to get from emergency resolution of the NDP Federal Council to the election platform...

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

If you don't believe Mulcair, I wonder who will.

You know Pondering, if you are going to play gotcha, it is a bit more effective if you use the actual point, rather than taking an offhand reference and twisting it into something else. Did I say I don't believe him, or that was why I don't expect it will happen?

And you might want to look at some polls if you think no one does. He seems to be doing better than some other party leaders.

Fact is I do believe Mulcair's intent on a number of core issues which I think are of high priority, like transfer funding. So given the news that that campaign promise might be delayed by a balanced budget (take note, Jacob TT) you might understand why a balanced budget is not a deal breaker for me.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

But I can also understand why he puts it forward as a priority in talking to those who might NOT trust the NDP on economic issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If you don't believe Mulcair, I wonder who will.

You know Pondering, if you are going to play gotcha, it is a bit more effective if you use the actual point, rather than taking an offhand reference and twisting it into something else. Did I say I don't believe him, or that was why I don't expect it will happen?

And you might want to look at some polls if you think no one does. He seems to be doing better than some other party leaders.

Fact is I do believe Mulcair's intent on a number of core issues which I think are of high priority, like transfer funding. So given the news that that campaign promise might be delayed by a balanced budget (take note, Jacob TT) you might understand why a balanced budget is not a deal breaker for me.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

But I can also understand why he puts it forward as a priority in talking to those who might NOT trust the NDP on economic issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-health-care-1.3206188

Yes you did say you don't believe him and you just said it again. He didn't just put it forth as a priority, he staked everything on it. He said he will balance his first budget and anything else is irresponsible and putting debt on future generations. That you believe him on some other points doesn't negate the fact that you don't believe on others. He has access to all the information you have. I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

Some times the social spending has to come first for savings to be realized over the long run. That is why deficit spending can represent investment, like buying a house, not irresponsibility. Harper has framed all social spending as expensive give-aways but housing first programs have been proven to save money. Mulcair may support social housing, but he too frames it as an expense not an investment.

Mulcair has been doing great and it is no flash in the pan either. He has had a steady rise over months that is now well-established. There are some hints of a turn-around for Trudeau but it is tentative. On the other hand the polls don't take into account the latest events and can't factor in the coming campaign which has barely begun.

In my not so modest opinion (not that anyone else's opinions here are modest) this was a clever move by Trudeau, telling the truth, we are going to have deficits. I think people are going to find that refreshing.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

So you are saying you DO believe him, and you think I don't? That's interesting.

Too bad as I already noted, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread - him allegedly tearing up the NDP policy book (which we will find out once the platform is reposted on the site).

 

mark_alfred

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

So you are saying you DO believe him, and you think I don't? That's interesting.

Too bad as I already noted, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread - him allegedly tearing up the NDP policy book (which we will find out once the platform is reposted on the site).

 

Even if every single policy from the policy book was addressed in this upcoming platform, there are those out there who would find some shortcoming, I'm sure.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I do believe he will put a balanced budget ahead of social spending.

So you are saying you DO believe him, and you think I don't? That's interesting.

Too bad as I already noted, it doesn't really have much to do with the topic of this thread - him allegedly tearing up the NDP policy book (which we will find out once the platform is reposted on the site).

Yes, I do believe him. He would put a balanced budget first because he would be hell-bent on proving the NDP is a responsible economic manager so worthy of re-election preferably with a majority. Social spending would have to wait.

The Liberals would put social spending first because they placed their bets on longer-term savings and growing the economy and they have the credibility to do it.

There is no denying that the NDP are riding high in the polls so in this moment they are the most likely to have the opportunity to prove themselves.

No matter who wins there will be plenty of room for everyone to say "I told you so".

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

No matter who wins there will be plenty of room for everyone to say "I told you so".

Well those who are inclined to do so, which isn't everyone.

 

 

Pages