babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Charles Taylor steals the words from my mouth.
Deathly serious. Of is that deafly serious?
Re: Blair, the Third Way and the NDP. It's true that Blair lost all respect from almost all social democrats after he backed the Iraq war. Let's not forget, however, that the question of the Third Way came up during Alexa McDonough's leadership when there was talk about emulating the Third Way to break out of the party's electoral doldrums. Remember that at the time the vast majority of EU countries had social democratic governments, many influenced by the Third Way. There was quite a negative reaction to that among many party activists, and the leadership retreated.
Josh is also right to point to the pattern of what "renewal" and "modernization" has meant in social democratic parties elsewhere.
If there is a Third Way, what was the First Way and the Second Way?
...Are you favourably comparing the NDP under Alexa McDonough to social democratic parties that successfully formed government?
This may be a cautionary tale, but I don't think the moral is quite what you intended.
I just checked to see if Mulcair had released anything on his tax plan, and he still hasn't. However, there is a new plan for protecting consumers.
Regarding taxes, has Mulcair promised to keep the NDP's past commitment of raising corporate taxes if he becomes leader? Or is this also something that can only be proclaimed after "seeing the books"? Is he planning to solely use cap and trade revenues?
I believe every other candidate has committed to raising corporate taxes. I searched his site, and found an article entitled, "Mulcair proposes sustainable path to revitalized economy", which says absolutely nothing -- in fact, corporate taxes aren't even mentioned here. The only place where corporate taxes are mentioned on his site is some article by the Globe's Lawrence Martin, which in terms of policy pronouncements by Mulcair is meaningless.
Traditionally, social democracy was a "third way" between capitalism and Soviet-style socialism. Today's Third Way is a "third way" between classical social democracy and neoliberalism. Or neoliberalism with a human face, basically.
Have you ever read Giddens?
It was a reference to "triangulation" between the right and left.
You don't have to vote/tack right or left, there is a third way...
Curious about this so I ran the numbers myself.
B.C. Leadership Contest 2011. Total members voting = 20,037 Voting in advance = 18,184 (91%) Members voting day of convention = 1854 (9%) Voting at convention =~800 (4%), voting remotely during convention ~1000 (5%).
Ontario Leadership Contest 2009. Total members voting = ??? Voting in advance = 11,150 Members voting day of convention = ??? Voting at convention =~1000, voting remotely during convention ???.
One caveat, slightly different voting scheme for each contest, B.C. allowed members to vote in advance by telephone but not by mail, Ontario allowed all three. Ontario was still using the union carve out at the time so it makes it difficult to suss out how many actual members were voting. If I could fill in one of those "???"s I could probably figure out the other two and a percentage breakdown. There were only 23,908 members eligible to vote at the time so at a bare minimum at least half the votes were cast in advance. Realistically I'd say it was more like 85%.
Four candidate emails today! From Ashton, Dewar, Topp, and Mulcair. Topp's campaign sent me the Doris Layton endorsement - but no financial appeal. Mulcair's Charles Taylor letter just asked me to sign up one new member. Ashton and Dewar asked for financial help. I liked the email from the Ashton campaign (Youth For Ashton) best of the four. The Charles Taylor email was probably the smartest of the bunch - if I knew more people interested in politics, I'd love to sign up a new member for him.
My thinking - alright, hope - is that Mulcair's "renewal" will eventually be vetted by the membership and if it smacks of Third Wayism it will be rejected. And he will respect the will of the party. (And I don't believe Mulcair is the only contender who would be at risk of Blairism. Topp is a stealth triangulator with a Romanow pedigree, and he's always been pushing for more than the members have been ready to concede.)
And really, "Third Way" is an idea that was always wrong and is 20 years late. If anything, the crisis of capitalism calls for an entirely different kind of renewal.
Anyone as old as me will know what an impressive endorsement is Charles Taylor's. And an eloquent one as well.
I'm confused, on the one hand people describe Alexa MacDonough is being an old-style New Democrat with the implication that Peggy Nash would be a move back to the "old-fashioned" standard NDP message that MacDonough championed. On the other hand, we are told the MacDonough was in the vanguard of trying to import the Third Way into the NDP. Which was it?
Indeed.
The debate over the Third Way occurred under her leadership, but whatever attempted transformation or modernization there was...didn't get very far. My feeling, for what it's worth, is that Alexa was more of an "old-style New Democrat" but was looking to the Third Way successes strategically. There were others (like Nelson Riis, for example) who wanted to go further and embrace the business community more, distance the party from unions, etc. NDProgress was founded during this time, and they had a largely Third Way orientation.
In 2003, it seems to me that the "Third Way" candidate was Lorne Nystrom. He didn't do very well. Blaikie was probably the most "traditional" candidate (prairie populism, ties to organized labor, etc.) and Layton had the support of urban progressives and the new social movements (I'm somewhat simplifying the picture here, obviously there are nuances, as Layton had support from all sorts of quarters - the party establishment, modernizers, trade unionists, etc. - or else he wouldn't have won).
Nash vs. Mulcair seems to best embody the left/right (or "fundo"/"realo") debate. Nash is unapologetically proud of her trade union background and is more tied to social movements etc. Mulcair presents himself as the modernizer. Topp is running to the left (but many find it suspect given his party establishment background), Dewar is now stressing his commitment to traditional social demcocratic principles, and Ashton seems to be running on these core values as well. Cullen seems to be another "pragmatist"/"modernizer", blurring the lines between liberalism and social democracy in an attempt to unite "progressives."*
[*Yes, the picture is somewhat more nuanced, and I'm sure we can find revolutionary socialists who support Mulcair as the exception to the rule. But the question of ideology vs. electoralism seems very prevalent in this race, and people's candidate preferences seem largely based on their extent they embrace either criteria.]
Count me as another person who believes the "third way" was a bad idea for a lot of the parties who embraced it, and is now 20 years too late.
There are some people who give Bob Rae props for austerity, and effectively inventing the third way before there was a third way. Funny how the Ontario NDP is only starting to recover from that.
Layton showed there's a (fourth?) way to build up a social democratic movement. It's less about left/right and more about incrementalism/immediatism. Staying true to our roots while advancing the policy debate wherever we can.
If Mulcair wins, you'll have a former Liberal the head of the NDP, and a former NDPer the head of the Liberals. Makes you wonder, what's the point of having two parties?
Interesting thought. It would be helpful if Mulcair would stop deferring his feelings on tax policy. He only seems capable of saying it is impossible to say until we "see the books". I think we all realize that tax and service cuts have been going on for some time, so this idea of social democracy in the closet (aka "move the centre to the left") as a winning strategy is bunk.
Exactly, mark. Well said.
The only thing that sucks more than business thriving is business not thriving. It's pretty essential. Note, this doesn't mean doing everything corporate managers say - in fact, it's required that we don't. Those guys are looking out for their own individual businesses, not the success of the economy as a whole.
And he was wrong, in my opinion.
First, Cardy is not saying anything new or controversial. Even Gerry Caplan (certainly no "Third-wayer") agrees.
http://ww3.tvo.org/video/164736/ndp-governs-ontario
(6:10)
Second, for the "nth" time, Mulcair was a member of the PLQ, which has no relationship w/ the federal liberals. Quite different from Bob Rae. If you hold that against him, you are essentially saying that no one who has ever been involved in QC politics is welcome in the NDP. (A former PQiste would be a separatist and a former provicinal liberal would be a centrist) A Mulcair victory would not remove the need for two separate parties, esp. if the Liberals shift to the right, which they now seem to be doing, (ironically) under Rae. (witness their fudging on the Northern Gateway)