well then what policies do you suggest the NDP adopt that relate to the real world of struggling families and that are not easily co-opted by the other parties?
Layton Says Canada NDP ‘Least Likely’ to Back Harper
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:37
#52
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:38
#53
And the issue is too easily co-opted by the governing party. If the government snaps that platform plank and eliminates those fees, what next for the NDP?
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:40
#54
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Not sure how that "forcing" would happen, but I gather you believe that campaigning against bank service charges is a good idea?
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:44
#55
unionist wrote:
I deal with real people all the time. Some of them tell me they're fed up with immigrants coming and using social services. Some tell me they're fed up with paying taxes. Some of them say bad things about same-sex marriage and queer folks. Some tell me they like the Calgary Stampede. Some say how proud they are of their neighbour's kid who is doing a tour in Afghanistan. Some, yes, whine and gripe about bank service charges, even though it is the tiniest of the problems affecting their family income.
These are fellow workers and union members. I treat all these real people with respect and engage them in discussion on these matters, knowing that in the big picture we have many important questions where we will be united despite such opinions.
But when self-styled progressive people seriously suggest that we should pander to the lowest common denominator in order to "corner" some part of the political marketplace, and that we should feature some opportunistic slogan so as to lure the great unwashed, that's when my respectful feelings fade. Working people need a party, need champions, to show them the way forward, not to suck them in by playing to ignorance.
Bang on, unionist. People gripe and complain about a bunch of things, including bank charges, but to think that Layton is going to make some huge breakthrough by talking about micro-issues like that when we're in a huge economic crisis with thousands of job losses, with whole sectors like autos, forestry and local media outlets being wiped out; when poverty, homelessness and drug addiciton are at record levels; when Canada has been engaging in an immoral and criminal war effort in Afghanistan which the public strongly opposed; when the planet is on the verge of irreversible climate change that will cause millions of deaths and threaten the future of humanity...it would be a complete travesty and won't win votes.
Yes, we won a few more seats in 2008 and went up a tad in popular vote, but the bigger story is declining turnout across the board and increasing disengagement from politics - we should have won 50+ seats given how weak Dion was and Harper's flailing on the economy.
I agree we have to speak in plain and clear terms and keep our points concise and focused, but if we want to run for national leadership, Layton needs to express a national vision and put forward bold yet practical ideas to turn our country around. Bank charges and ATM fees are good for our NDP critic in those areas, petitions, etc, but they are not the focus of our party or our campaign. Layton clearly understands this as he hasn't raised this issue at all since the 2008 campaign.
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:50
#56
"Layton needs to express a national vision and put forward bold yet practical ideas to turn our country around."
Such as? I have my pen and paper ready to start making a list.
Sun, 2009-07-26 14:55
#57
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Not sure how that "forcing" would happen, but I gather you believe that campaigning against bank service charges is a good idea?
No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough.
Sun, 2009-07-26 19:43
#58
In the world of international finance, banks everywhere today are finding it difficult to meet demands for credit and thus meet the needs of a recovering economy. Their paper holdings aren't worth what they thought. They very badly needed to maintain interest levels on their lines of credit, for instance - and other real cash cows.
This is all needed to keep investors, including your pension funds - happily investing in the banks, maintaining finance capital in their portfolios.
So you can only get so much mileage out of pointing out bank charges. Yet it seems that we need to be able to make capital work for Canadians' future. And if mention of capital only brings visions of revolution, there will naturally be a dearth of ideas about a "national vision" on how to "turn our country around."
Example. The remnants of Nortel, a Canadian corporation that was born as Northern Electric to manufacture telephones soon after Bell invented the new means of communication, has just been sold out to other countries. The inventions important to development of new technologies went with them.
The thread offering posted here, to discuss Harper's laissez faire position on this (as opposed to vote-rich automobiles in Ontario) went nowhere. And has anyone heard a peep from our convention-focused leadership? Something about saving Canadian corporations because we are going to need their earnings and jobs down the road?
I stand to be corrected, perhaps someone has heard all these things and I mised them. But at this point, it would seem not many would realize the opportunity for "big picture" political positions if they fell on them.
Sun, 2009-07-26 20:22
#59
From Friday's big Rally in Sudbury....
George, this is a bit of a cross post from another thread......
"Layton had some more words for Clement."
“He's now saying (his “valley of death” comment) was a boneheaded remark, that's the first time I've agreed with him in months. I'll tell you what was boneheaded... These boneheaded conservatives signed an agreement that allowed companies to come in and do damage to this part of the country and do damage to this community.”
Gerard said earlier, “I think 'boneheaded' is a kind thing to say. I think he owes the community an apology, I think he owes the workers an apology.”
Layton called on all Canadians to use Sudbury as an example.
“I say to all Canadians, 'pay attention to what is happening in Sudbury,'” Layton said. “We've seen time and time again, a little too often, these foreign-multinationals some in with permission from the government, buy up Canadian companies and resources and then begin to throw people out of work. They did it with the softwood industry, you can go to any number of mills where people have been thrown out of work, having worked there their whole lives.”
Video Coverage: LINK
Sun, 2009-07-26 21:09
#60
Just a thought about when the next election may occur!
Harper stacked the Senate with Conservative appointees last year when there was the coalition threat (Senator Elizabeth May? Be afraid...be very afraid!).
The current standings in the Senate are:
Liberals 55, Conservatives 37, Independent 3, P.C. 2, Other 1, Vacant 7.
Between now and January 2nd, 2010, 5 more Liberals and one Independent will be forced to retire when they reach age 75.
On January 3rd, 2010, Harper can stack the Senate once again with 13 more Conservatives, evening the count with the Liberals.
My guess is that Harper wants to wait until 2010 before facing the electorate again.
Sun, 2009-07-26 21:27
#61
No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough.
If they called for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (not "negotiations") and a slightly independent and more progressive foreign policy, free universal publicly delivered childcare, pharmacare, denticare, elder care, and home care; government subsidies and friendly laws to groups of workers wishing to unionize; national standards and transfers to provinces with respect to free tuition and support for student living expenses; an end to private insurance of basic medical care using the "notwithstanding" clause if necessary to overcome Chaoulli; justice for Aboriginal peoples; enforceable equity for women in pay, the workplace, and society; and a few similar policies, I'd be happy to hold my nose while they promise to do something about bank service charges (although, if you're going to antagonize the banks, might as well make it worthwhile).
Until they do, I'll be encouraging them to emphasize bread over circuses.
ETA: And Stockholm, if the Libs or Cons want to "co-opt" those policies, I will support them! Then we can have a Grand Coalition with no need for any more elections for a long time.
Sun, 2009-07-26 21:38
#62
You should try talking to real live 3d people then. In a world that is increasingly making people feel powerless something as tangible and in your face as bank gouging is very real.
I deal with real people all the time. Some of them tell me they're fed up with immigrants coming and using social services. Some tell me they're fed up with paying taxes. Some of them say bad things about same-sex marriage and queer folks. Some tell me they like the Calgary Stampede. Some say how proud they are of their neighbour's kid who is doing a tour in Afghanistan. Some, yes, whine and gripe about bank service charges, even though it is the tiniest of the problems affecting their family income.
These are fellow workers and union members. I treat all these real people with respect and engage them in discussion on these matters, knowing that in the big picture we have many important questions where we will be united despite such opinions.
But when self-styled progressive people seriously suggest that we should pander to the lowest common denominator in order to "corner" some part of the political marketplace, and that we should feature some opportunistic slogan so as to lure the great unwashed, that's when my respectful feelings fade. Working people need a party, need champions, to show them the way forward, not to suck them in by playing to ignorance.
Oh Unionist you are so cute sometimes. Your penchant for characterizing other posts with absolute horsecrap that they did not say is breathtaking sometimes it seems so skillful.
I have repeatedly said that you have to open the conversation with people with things they can relate to in their everyday world. Stuff they experience in their daily lives. I love how you just completely glossed over all the other issues I mentioned to come back to your pet peeve. From there you can talk about the bigger issues. Its a bit like discovering a new musical group. You might hear one song and think 'hey that's kind of interesting'. So then you might go out and buy the whole album and find out 'wow I really dig those gals". Soon you look around and you have the whole CD collection.
If your posting history wasn't such a broken record all the time it might be worth responding to, however how many times can you say you don't like Jack Layton and the NDP. We get it. Its okay - it's your right. But please stop pretending you have the corner on understanding what issues are truly important and the rest of us are faux progressives.
I would love for you to lay out an electoral platform for a party. The whole thing, including the messaging, that would work towards electoral success. You know the stuff that you can get across in a 15 second sound bite, because in today's media market that's about all you get - if that. So you have to explain things quick and fast. Or try the doorstep where you might get 30 second to start the conversation and if it doesn't go well in those few seconds the moment is lost. Please let us know how you accomplish all that without simplifying things to start the conversation. Please remember to include issues that cut across a bunch of divides so that you are talking to people not just about a few issues in a particular area, or demographic, or what have you.
Oh right you are just expecting the glorious revolution to occur without ever having to sully your hands in the dirty garden of real life.
It is like none of the last 20 elections have occurred. They have all been about defining a single or a very few issues and then campaigning on them while having a comphrehenisive platform backing it up. What have you missed about the winning campaigns in all the elections you have witnessed. The difference about the NDP is that it actually has policies beyond those conversation starters unlike the Conservatives and Liberals.
Sun, 2009-07-26 21:48
#63
Just like in football with the Alouettes, the Lions, or the Eskies, etc., the NDP always has more than enough armchair quarterbacks to go round 
Sun, 2009-07-26 22:02
#64
NR:
"No unionist I think the NDP should run on a platform of encouraging the banks to charge even more for their services charges, as their billion dollar profits, or whatever they are, are not enough."
Accuracy can be expected from even "armchair quarterbacks" in the big game of politics, NR. It's far more important than football.
Sun, 2009-07-26 23:27
#65
Oh Unionist you are so cute sometimes. Your penchant for characterizing other posts with absolute horsecrap that they did not say is breathtaking sometimes it seems so skillful. [...]
I love how you just completely glossed over all the other issues I mentioned to come back to your pet peeve. [...]
If your posting history wasn't such a broken record all the time it might be worth responding to, however how many times can you say you don't like Jack Layton and the NDP. We get it. Its okay - it's your right. But please stop pretending you have the corner on understanding what issues are truly important and the rest of us are faux progressives. [...]
Oh right you are just expecting the glorious revolution to occur without ever having to sully your hands in the dirty garden of real life.
How do you work up enough emotion to speak so cynically and disrespectfully to someone on this board who does not call you names or insult you personally? And you are giving lectures on how to do doorknocking and media sound bytes? Of course you don't talk to people that way in real life, now do you? And what do you think we do over decades in the union movement - where we deal not only with members whose opinions range from extreme to extreme, but send our troops into election campaigns as well?
I would love for you to lay out an electoral platform for a party.
I laid one out for you at post #59 - sorry, I only spent about 60 seconds on it - I know it's a bit Bolshevik Communist Radical, but you didn't comment on it. I guess it would cause cardiac arrest when you knocked on people's doors. They'd pull out their pitchforks. They'd conceal their nubile children. They'd burn crosses in your lawn. You really have an elevated view of the ignorant unwashed out there. They won't listen to you for more than 30 seconds? Physician, heal thyself. Maybe it's you!?
Here, just in case you were to angry to read my Revolutionary Marxist Platform:
If they called for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (not "negotiations") and a slightly independent and more progressive foreign policy, free universal publicly delivered childcare, pharmacare, denticare, elder care, and home care; government subsidies and friendly laws to groups of workers wishing to unionize; national standards and transfers to provinces with respect to free tuition and support for student living expenses; an end to private insurance of basic medical care using the "notwithstanding" clause if necessary to overcome Chaoulli; justice for Aboriginal peoples; enforceable equity for women in pay, the workplace, and society; ...
Sun, 2009-07-26 23:58
#66
I like it unionist, so I'm voting for you.
Unfortunatly the right-wing would crucify the NDP even more than presently, by asking how all this will be paid for. And I know it is basically just a redistribution of the tax system, but if we tried that, the US would proably invade Canada, if we cut into their profits like that.
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:13
#67
Oh Unionist you are still so cute. I treat you no differently than you treat everyone else, so why you should think it would be insulting is beyond me. You constantly make up your own paraphrases of what others post that have no relation to what they actually posted. If it bothers you having that pointed out I am truly sorry, but maybe you should reflect on why having it pointed out bothers you so much - guilty conscious maybe.
I read what you wrote. All you did was pass on a laundry list of issues. It is fairly good list, but making a list is pretty darn easy. What I specifically asked was how you would get the conversation going with voters to the point they would actually vote for your program. As it is now if you pass people a laundry list like that they would roll their eyes and guffaw after successive years of Liberal and Conservative broken promises. (And yes in Ontario some of the record of Mr Rae) So tell us - how would you open the door with them to even look your way?
Let me guess - you would start with a few more universal issues that can appeal to a broad cross section of people.
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:25
#68
I like it unionist, so I'm voting for you.
Unfortunatly the right-wing would crucify the NDP even more than presently, by asking how all this will be paid for.
It would be paid for (in large part) by expropriating a healthy chunk of the billions of dollars of bank profits you mentioned above.
Unless you think the U.S. would invade us if we did that to our own banks?
Or unless you weren't really seriously concerned when you mentioned their billions in profits?
So tell us - how would you open the door with them to even look your way?
Simple. I'd take a leaf from Layton's litany:
"Good afternoon, I'm with the NDP - if you have just one minute, here's something you've probably already thought of, but we'd like your help to make it happen. You know the billions the banks and credit card companies make in profit - and it's never enough, so they keep adding service charges and jacking up interest rates? Well, if you vote for __________ on [date], she'd like to take enough of that money back to fund the first new social services for Canadians in decades - drugs, dental, eyeglasses, elder care, childcare, jobs training, help for students and women, and others. It's your money, and an NDP government will make sure it goes to you, not bonuses to billionaires. What do you think?"
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:27
#69
Unfortunately Unionist, your shopping list - while being laudable - is also so expensive that even if the Government of Canada expropriated all the chartered banks and pocketed every penny of their profits - it wouldn't pay for even 10% of that stuff.
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:31
#70
Unfortunately Unionist, your shopping list - while being laudable - is also so expensive that even if the Government of Canada expropriated all the chartered banks and pocketed every penny of their profits - it wouldn't pay for even 10% of that stuff.
Thanks, Tommy Douglas, for your optimistic view that a better world is possible. You are so opposed to anything inspiring, anything visionary, that you don't even grasp that [b]Québec already has $7 daycare and universal pharmacare[/b], and they haven't touched the banks yet. So let me repeat my doorknocking script, and tell me who will slam the door:
"Good afternoon, I'm with the NDP - if you have just one minute, here's something you've probably already thought of, but we'd like your help to make it happen. You know the billions the banks and credit card companies make in profit - and it's never enough, so they keep adding service charges and jacking up interest rates? Well, if you vote for __________ on [date], she'd like to take enough of that money back to fund the first new social services for Canadians in decades - drugs, dental, eyeglasses, elder care, childcare, jobs training, help for students and women, and others. It's your money, and an NDP government will make sure it goes to you, not bonuses to billionaires. What do you think?"
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:36
#71
I would say - explain to me how you plan to completely liquidate all bank profits in Canada and have us left with a functional banking system at all?
To a certain extent, what you are proposing sounds a lot like the NDP campaign last year where the consistent message was to reverse the corporate tax cuts that Harper and Martin brought in and use the money to pay for blah-blah-blah
PS: How would you campaign in the US where the banks are all LOSING money so there is no profit to confiscate?
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:37
#72
Well there is always the oil companies, no slouches either when it comes to profits, and the inheritance tax, say a measly 10%. That should just about cover it. Oh, and the elimination of all those executive bonuses of course.
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:42
#73
Personally, taking on Bay Street seems to have ignited lots of support especially if these commenters are any indicator of supressed feelings and thoughts floating out there - indicates that ordinary main street folk - the little guy - is some pissed at corporate CEOs and their political/media in bed together cabals.
Check out comments in this article - hmm - beginning of a revolution???
Time for CEOs to pay the piper
egs.
Pure greed
I work in a corporate environment and my experience is that the little guys work the most. The higher you are on the management scale, the less real work you do (but bs more and have longer lunches). If these bonuses are paid not for the perfomance, but to attract "the best" in the market, I admit they've done a damn good job - in screwing all of us. We do not seem to learn anything from the past. This greed will destroy north-American economies.
I agree
Damn right! Only the conservatives and flip flopping liberals support corporate CEO's and self-payment of bonuses.
My Own Experience
Personally, I have worked for three CEOs. I have also lost over $40,000 on Nortel stocks. Most CEOs and executives behave as corporate politicians definitely not worth the compensation money they are getting. I don't understand how a court could approve millions of dollars to pay "useless" people while letting productive employees be hung out to dry. Didn't the judge know the reality with private corporations?
Mon, 2009-07-27 00:45
#74
I haven't even [b]begun[/b] to save money which will pay for social services and create jobs.
You ain't seen [b]nuthin[/b] yet.
Even the [url=http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=2028][color=blue]official understated figures[/color][/url] of the costs of the Afghanistan war show that it exceeded $1 billion last year - and the government will no longer release the figures, because they're too embarrassing. Tally that up in my column once we retreat from Afghanistan.
Likewise, the only reason I mentioned the bank profits (in case it was too deep) was in response to the nonsensical tripe about bank charges. I tried to turn that little sound byte into something meaningful - somehow suspecting that some of its advocates would run away screaming the moment that happened. That's only the knock on the door. Once somehow says, "well, would taxing bank profits at 80% be enough to pay for all that?", the answer would be:
"Frankly - no. But it's a start, isn't it? And then there are two steps forward: 1) Tell us your social spending priorities, because we can't do everything at once; and 2) it's not just the banks. It's big corporations and wealthy taxpayers. They'll have to start paying some taxes for a change. We'll be making lots of changes, and we'll be doing lots of listening before we do."
Send that person to my door.
PS: How would you campaign in the US where the banks are all LOSING money so there is no profit to confiscate?
I wouldn't. Nor should Jack Layton. The U.S. is fucked.
Mon, 2009-07-27 05:07
#75
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
Mon, 2009-07-27 09:34
#76
Well there is always the oil companies, no slouches either when it comes to profits, and the inheritance tax, say a measly 10%. That should just about cover it. Oh, and the elimination of all those executive bonuses of course.
I'm all for eliminating executive bonuses - but that doesn't create revenue for the government, it just reduces the overhead of the companies those executives work for.
Mon, 2009-07-27 09:39
#77
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
~ sound of applause ~
Tue, 2009-08-18 11:21
#78
And the issue is too easily co-opted by the governing party. If the government snaps that platform plank and eliminates those fees, what next for the NDP?
Um, to take credit for forcing the gov't to do it.
Exactly! Please, steal ALL the NDP's ideas! Implement them all! The more, the better!
Tue, 2009-08-18 11:52
#79
As Henny Youngman would have said "take my wife...PLEASE"
Tue, 2009-08-18 12:11
#80
If they called for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan (not "negotiations") and a slightly independent and more progressive foreign policy, free universal publicly delivered childcare, pharmacare, denticare, elder care, and home care; government subsidies and friendly laws to groups of workers wishing to unionize; national standards and transfers to provinces with respect to free tuition and support for student living expenses; an end to private insurance of basic medical care using the "notwithstanding" clause if necessary to overcome Chaoulli; justice for Aboriginal peoples; enforceable equity for women in pay, the workplace, and society; and a few similar policies, I'd be happy to hold my nose...
I would love for you to lay out an electoral platform for a party.
Understandably, visual cues become unrecognizable and are easily bypassed when trying to absorb information in bulk, but did you even hear the whoosh sound?
Tue, 2009-08-18 14:34
#81
A bit too abstract for this old plodder to see what you mean, Jack. I need visual clues that are recognizable. Something about the unfortunate absence of a voice in that debate? Heck, BA and I were on the same wave length, and I'm still waiting for someone to respond negatively to my postings in this thread. Anything substantive to offer?
Tue, 2009-08-18 15:11
#82
I wouldn't waste the effort George, only to observe yet another fly by, other than to inquire about the status of the enhanced 'ignore' function that I've seen being discussed, and how quickly we might expect it to be rolled out.
Tue, 2009-08-18 15:59
#83
.3)There's no way the NDP could back the Tories now and then still ask people to vote for them AGAINST the Tories during the next election.
I can see it all now with Iggy shouting at Jack in parliament for mowing the Liberals grass for them. "You stole our jobs and our lawnmowers, and now Liberal MP's are lining up for UI-EI-O!" Happy 79th, Liberals
Tue, 2009-08-18 18:15
#84
Thought this might be a bit too substantive for a rational back and forth, Jack
George Victor wrote:
And you would explain to the average Canadian who hopes to retire in some sort of security with his/her Canada Pension (few have a company pension now and their numbers continue to decline) how CPP investments (and many others) are in danger of suddenly becoming worth diddly squat, as well as those of the more affluent who actually play the market through mutual funds and other investmets?
Since the disappearance of one third of the equity in Quebec's public pension plan last year, some thought has been given to the necessity of a means of paying for it all. If you remember the film, Rene Levesque had to be concerned about finding the capital in New York with which to nationalize Quebec hydro.
Capital. Awful(ly) important word where you have to play ball with investors internationally. Particularly if your electorate is scared shitless by "political" people who haven't the foggiest thoughts on how to they will be housed, fed and clothed in their "Golden Years", let alone able to afford junkets to the other side of the world.
But nationalists are to be found even in the ranks of Canadian business (see the fullpage Globe ad by Tom Caldwell of Caldwell investments a year or so back on the sellout of Canadian industry, the hollowing out of Canada's economy) and that is why the NDP was terribly wrong in dismissing the Waffle. I suspect even the remnants of labour outside the public sector recognize that now. You have to be able to talk about capital in realixtic terms - and be upfront about it, politically, when speaking to people about their jobs and their future. Mel Watkins could do that.
A third of a century later, everyone has become a market watcher - on CBC, not just the business pages of the Globe or National Post. It's time to update the discussions about party language and policy. And get real on the subject of capital.
Tue, 2009-08-18 18:19
#85
I think that until Layton lays out an alternative scheme for the folks to be able to rely on a pension worth the powder to blow it to hell, others may continue to get more votes.
No matter who backs whomever, this fall.
Mon, 2009-09-14 22:57
#86
From the OP:
"Probably [b]the least likely party in the House of Commons to be supporting the Conservatives would be the New Democrats[/b]," Layton told Bloomberg News in Toronto, adding [b]his party has consistently voted against the government[/b]. "They have a very different view of how to run an economy."
Layton consistently voted against the government - until the very day the Liberals, after 79 pro-Harper votes, said they would be voting against the government too. Then everything changed.
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:33
#87
Boom Boom
I'm a little disgusted by the possibility of the NDP actually voting with Harper on Friday. Harper has wrecked this country, and giving a bit on EI will not change that reality. Furthermore, the longer Harper stays in power, the more he can do to really f*ck this country up. Layton should remain consistent and vote NO on Friday.
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:34
#88
From the OP:
"Probably [b]the least likely party in the House of Commons to be supporting the Conservatives would be the New Democrats[/b]," Layton told Bloomberg News in Toronto, adding [b]his party has consistently voted against the government[/b]. "They have a very different view of how to run an economy."Layton consistently voted against the government - until the very day the Liberals, after 79 pro-Harper votes, said they would be voting against the government too. Then everything changed
So what do you think changed other than the Liberals handing the Tories a blank cheque since 2006?
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-by-jack-layton-regarding-proposed-ei-c... by Jack Layton regarding proposed EI changes[/url]
There are now 1.6 million unemployed in Canada.And unfortunately throughout this coming winter many more Canadians will lose their jobs.
Most economists agree that the job losses will continue until at least next spring. Those people need help.
I spent the summer visiting ridings across the country. I met many people who had lost their jobs. I heard their stories about how badly they need help.
Many of them are coming to the end of their benefits and are going to end up on welfare. Those people are counting on us.
The announcement today appears to be a step in the right direction.
There is much more to be done. And many workers are left out.
Our preference remains fighting for the unemployed - not fighting a second election within the year.
Liberals want a stooge-off with Harper. The NDP wants to fill in the Liberals' blank cheque to the Tories with guarantees for help to unemployed Canadians. Jack wants to get to work for Canadians while Liberals want to spend millions on another election
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:37
#89
you know Boom boom I would be with you here, if it wasn't the 5 election in 4 years, and that the results of the election would be actually different. In my mind's eye - right now if either Harper cons or Iggy libs got a minority - nothing would change for working people.
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:37
#90
I think the NDP should look at the proposed changes and then decide if and for how long they might support the Harpers. Liberals took all the time in the world to oppose the other wing of the party. So why shouldnt the NDP decide themselves whether Harper is offering anything positive to unemployed Canadians and their families in desperate need?
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:42
#91
In reality, the NDP (and the other parties) has voted with the Conservatives on lots of specific measures. The NDP voted for the residential schools apology, the NDP voted to recognize Quebec as a "nation", the NDP voted for the Accountability Act and probably a number of other things. They have always voted for bills that they agree with. The only difference this time is that since the Liberals have decided to vote against everything without even reading it - suddenly whether the NDP votes for a bill means whether or not parliament is dissolved instantly.
I think that you have to pay some attention to the substance of what is being voted on.
Right now, Ignatieff looks so bad that I think that the Liberals are praying that the NDP or the BQ saves them from an snap election because while the Liberals could form a minority government if they gained some ground and the Liberal+NDP seat count was greater than the Tories. I think that if the Tories came back with a minority that was just as string as what they have now - it would give Harper another lease on life for a few years.
I'd rather wait until early 2010, let the Tories get roasted in the house for a few months, let the green shoots of economuic recovery turn out to be a mirage and then go for the kill on the budget that is likely to have a lot of controversial and unpopular stuff in it.
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:48
#92
MUN Prof.
I'm sick of Harper myself, but I'm already sick of this iteration of the Liberal Party.
I'm solidly behind the person who said "There's no shame in not being goaded into an election we don't want".
Mon, 2009-09-14 23:57
#93
Thanks, Tommy Douglas, for your optimistic view that a better world is possible. You are so opposed to anything inspiring, anything visionary, that you don't even grasp that [b]Québec already has $7 daycare and universal pharmacare[/b], and they haven't touched the banks yet. So let me repeat my doorknocking script, and tell me who will slam the door
And don't forget to tell the man or woman of the household that Quebec's piecemeal daycare [url=http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/06/on_the_e... horizontal and vertical equity tests[/url] and no thanks to the NDP. What we need are some guarantees from the feds not to open up daycare to private enterprise big box companies waiting offshore for a slice of the daycare pie.
Tue, 2009-09-15 00:05
#94
So, Fidel and Stephen Gordon have contempt for Québec's $7 per day public daycare. Why am I unsurprised? It's not a "good first step" - like Harper's gambit on EI. No, it's only worthy of scorn.
Anyway, instead of looking for feeble excuses to slam Québec, you might recall that this thread is about Jack Layton's statement that the NDP is the "least likely" party to back Harper.
[size=15]Remember that?[/size]
Here's a post from August 18:
.3)There's no way the NDP could back the Tories now and then still ask people to vote for them AGAINST the Tories during the next election.
I can see it all now with Iggy shouting at Jack in parliament for mowing the Liberals grass for them. "You stole our jobs and our lawnmowers, and now Liberal MP's are lining up for UI-EI-O!" Happy 79th, Liberals
Of course, that was before Harper capitulated to Jack's demand for a wholesale revamping of Employment Insurance.
Tue, 2009-09-15 00:21
#95
M. Spector
Speaking of old posts, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-brass-treads-water-hal... this?[/url]
Tue, 2009-09-15 00:31
#96
I'm a little disgusted by the possibility of the NDP actually voting with Harper on Friday. Harper has wrecked this country, and giving a bit on EI will not change that reality. Furthermore, the longer Harper stays in power, the more he can do to really f*ck this country up. Layton should remain consistent and vote NO on Friday.
Harper has wrecked the country just like Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin did - it's all the same agenda, Boom Boom. The NDP voted with Martin on the 2005 budget deal even though Martin was (and still is, I would argue) the most extreme right-wing finance minister/PM we have ever had - the Libs completely gutted the social safety net under Martin's budget and allowed the Klein and Harris agenda to dominate provincial governments from 1993-2005. Despite that, Layton used his leverage in 2005 with 19 seats and got the biggest investment in public transit, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid in a very long time with the 2005 budget deal.
The current issue with Harper is, can we get something meaningful on EI, pensions, green economy, consumer protection? If Harper brings in changes that are very similar to NDP motions on these issues, do we oppose them just because the Conservatives are finally agreeing with our approach? That wouldn't make sense. We are not proposing to back Harper on the budget, only to support him temporarily IF we get real progress on these issues. It's the exact same thing that Stephen Lewis did with Bill Davis in minority governments in Ontario in the 70's on rent control and other files.
Boom Boom, your post above suggests we should elect the Liberals no matter what - we tried that in 1993 when we booted out Kim Campbell and the Conservatives, and the Libs were just as bad and likely worse on the cuts to social programs and transfers to provinces.
Tue, 2009-09-15 01:35
#97
Interesting thread title now. 
Tue, 2009-09-15 03:14
#98
So, Fidel and Stephen Gordon have contempt for Québec's $7 per day public daycare. Why am I unsurprised? It's not a "good first step" - like Harper's gambit on EI. No, it's only worthy of scorn.
So why were you not advocating for $7 dollar a day PSE [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/896896/Re-College-Tuition-III]here[/url] with Stephen Gordon? Apparently only universally accessible PSE was good enough for the sake of your argument then.
Why not also support the NDP's proposal for a national level and regulated daycare program with federal funding?
Or is it because certain political parties refuse to create a publicly funded national level daycare and shutting out would-be big box daycare service providers in the US and Australia waiting offshore for our FTA-NAFTA abiding stooges to allow them to horn-in on the public purse and further undermining any chance for a nationalised daycare in Canada? Hmmm?
It's like trying to nail jello to moth-eaten curtains.
Tue, 2009-09-15 03:56
#99
Layton consistently voted against the government - until the very day the Liberals, after 79 pro-Harper votes, said they would be voting against the government too. Then everything changed.
Nothing has changed yet.
There are 2 possibilities. One is that Layton is going to settle for smaller changes to EI than were expected.
The other possibility is that Layton and the NDP are playing for maximum effect: saying that it looks worth considering, we want Parliamnet to work [which is what the even the vast majority of the NDP's 'universe' wants to hear], and then voting against it if the offer is not sweetened.
We don't know which possibility it is going to be.
[And there's a variant of the second option, where the NDP votes for the Friday supply motion more or less as is- 'Its a sincere start and Canadians want Parliament to work'... but publicaly presses for substantially more and plans to vote with the Liberals on the confidence motion if that is not forthcoming. Different vote on Friday, but same narrative and final effect.]
This whoe thing- not just the NDP- is getting so staged now, that it is silly to simply follow the words themselves of what any party says.
And think about the NDP's strategic position and needs if they know [or are pretty sure] that they are not going to be stopping an election... which means they have to plan as if its inevitable. If they know there is going to be an election and continue to say just what they have said before- and the only thing that would make people here happy- then from this moment forward they will be absolutely ignored in public discussion... which is a fatal position for the NDP to be in going into an election.
Tue, 2009-09-15 04:20
#100
And don't forget that its very likely that all the opposition parties will vote for the Friday motion.
Because that motion is not decisive as to whether the government stands or falls. So allthe parties look to it as a stand alone: what message do they want to impart? A
And specifically, if it has good things in it and we can vote the government down in a month, why vote against it? With the additional specific angle for the NDP that they will continue being ignored in what will be the medias narrative of Harper versus Iggnaieff, unless they do something to stir it up.
Tue, 2009-09-15 08:16
#101
that's right Ken.