"Now, Mr. Lewenza said, the governments and GM Canada are seeking deeper cuts than what the union agreed to give Chrysler.
If the governments were not involved, an agreement could have been reached by yesterday, union sources said."
The scathing words for the federal Conservative government are not surprising, but the inclusion of the Ontario Liberal government in the broadside raises some questions about the union's political strategy, not least regarding the CAW's recent history of support for anti-Conservative strategic voting.
The disaffiliation of the CAW from the NDP in favour of support for strategic voting has been a measure of the sense of frustration of many in Canadian organized labour with both the NDP's limited electoral success and the willingness of some NDP governments to pander to anti-union sentiment when the going gets rough.
Federally the loss of CAW support has arguably had limited impact under the new funding laws. Provincially, the loss of both cash and activist secondment during elections has been a nasty blow to some NDP ridings.
So has the crisis in the auto and manufacturing sectors shone a light on a need for an activist union presence in a democratic socialist NDP? I think so. I also believe that Andrea Horwath's election as Ontario leader may turn out to be the bridge that had to be put in place to make it happen.
Admittedly, I have no clear sense of where the current CAW leadership sees their political strategy leading. From the outside looking in, it sure seems like somebody has to be wondering whether supporting Liberals really adds up to a strategy for anything but betrayal. Anybody with some insight into this care to weigh in?
Your premise is mistaken. The CAW was preaching strategic voting, first in Ontario and then federally, long before they disaffiliated. The disaffiliation was a response to the expulsion of Buzz Hargrove by the ONDP. The CAW, both nationally and locally, both federally and provincially, has continued to support NDP candidates where their policy deems those constituencies winnable - and that includes high-profile CAW members running for and winning elections under the NDP banner. The CAW, in my observation, had stopped giving blanket support to the NDP long before - certainly in Ontario, but later federally.
The CAW never adopted any "support Liberals" policy, as mentioned above. As for Quebec, they uniformly supported the Bloc. In the last provincial election here, the CAW supported the PQ (unfortunately IMO), and blasted the FTQ for remaining officially neutral.
As for a strategy for "betrayal", perhaps you didn't notice the strategy adopted by Dion, Layton, and Duceppe last December - if that wasn't "strategic voting" raised to a pinnacle, I have no idea what else it might have been.
I can't speak for Ontario, but here, CAW members and local reps would be shocked to hear that they are "supporting Liberals" - even those who supported last year's coalition, which is virtually all of them (and many non-CAWers too).
I think I heard Brad Lavigne say on Politics a couple of weeks ago that the federal party was enjoying a very good working relationship with the CAW under the leadership of Ken Lewenza. I suspect Peggy Nash's return to the union's staff is helping in that regard too.
The CAW started to back away from the NDP about the time of the social contract. They did support some federal candidates in 1997, particularly if the candidates came out of the CAW. I can't speak in depth to the details of what happened since then, but I've had the impression that the CAW retirees were much more supportive than the union executive under the previous President.
The CAW's policy may not have been one of supporting Liberals, but when the visual on TV is Buzz Hargrove appearing with Paul Martin and giving him a CAW jacket, you have to admit that the details of the policy kind of get lost to most casual observers.
Oh, and I completely disagree that a negotiated coalition post-election is the same as strategic voting push during an election. They are two different approaches, albeit designed to try and accomplish somewhat similar outcomes.
I never said they were "the same" - didn't mean to leave that impression - just wanted to dampen Peter3's blanket statements a bit. For example, I supported the coalition attempt, but not the CAW's "strategic voting" notion. Aside from that, I generally agree with all your observations.
This is off topic, but I really worry about many CAW retiree's. Despite all the anti-union rhetoric they never made big bucks and if they loose penisons - they will be in a hard place.
In my experience some of the most positive forces for progressive change are CAW retirees. They deserve more than the worry they are getting
The trajectory of events is well documented and unambiguous. The CAW advocated a policy of so-called strategic voting that gave support to candidates best situated to defeat Ontario Conservatives. This involved advocating a vote for Liberals and against NDP candidates in many ridings. It was ignored for a while, but when Buzz Hargrove put a CAW jacket on Paul Martin's shoulders in front of the national news media, the Ontario party invoked its constitutional requirement that members not work against the party and turfed him. The union then disaffiliated. The precipitating issue was always strategic voting.
This article from a Sudbury publication gives a reasonable summary.
The CAW has publicly advocated a federal vote for Liberal candidates where they can defeat Conservatives. In Ontario Buzz Hargrove was as effusive in his praise of Dalton McGuinty as he was of Paul Martin. One has to parse those facts pretty arbitrarily to see them as not advocating support for Liberals. In places where the Liberals are the de facto conservative party (like BC and Quebec) I imagine things roll out differently, but the sub-head on the linked news story is "Union accuses Ottawa, Ontario of interfering in negotiations with GM". In those places the equation is as I described it.
I think betrayal accurately describes the current conduct of the Ontario government toward autoworkers. The question I posed is whether the CAW electoral strategy makes sense given the role of the Ontario Liberal government, and whether a rethink that might bring a rapprochement with the NDP is likely.
Look, this issue was discussed here endlessly before you joined, and I don't want to go back there because life has changed. Your statement is misleading and erroneous, and it doesn't give credit to the many CAW delegates that voted for this (IMO erroneous) policy. The stated policy was to support NDP candidates [b]except[/b] in ridings where they had no reasonable chances of winning - in which case, the policy was to support whoever had the best chance of defeating the Conservatives. In many ridings, that meant supporting Liberals. In Québec, it meant opposing Liberals. And Buzz Hargrove's personal antics were not identical to the CAW's policy.
Why... what position has the ONDP taken on the current situation facing auto workers?
[url=http://www.lindamcquaig.com/Columns/ViewColumn.cfm?REF=99]Corporations blame unions for economic meltdown[/url]
70 some-odd confidence votes for the ReformaTories later... If auto workers voted Liberal or Tory, they have nothing to complain about.
I'm not sure about the ONDP, but I know Jack Layton, speaking before the Toronto Board of Trade, said that workers need to have the "courage" to "take a pay cut"
Courageous pay cuts?
Maybe this is what we should be supporting:
Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed...
Do you have a direct quote for that? Because here [url=http://www.northpeel.com/news/article/69193]Jack says:[/url]
A lot of them voted Liberal and Tory and voted strategically, too. And look where it's gotten them.
Can't rewrite history though. I was at the NDP rally when jack was here. Buzz was busy at that very moment in the same riding handing our a jacket to prodigal son Martin on his visit in windsor where the cons have until last election always been 3rd or worse. This is in complete opposition to the stated policy as the NDP was leading in the polls.
Buzz and paul blow in to town for a photo op telling windsorites to vote liberal. Luckily most of us have a hard time decided who is worse basil or paul.
I cant imagine what it must be like being a toady to a washed up vicious toady.
I agree with Unionist that this has been MUCH discussed before, and that in the main 'life has moved on'. It would be hard to see anything productive in those earlier discussions.
I will offer a summary comment that i think might bridge a lot of the differences in what people are saying.
First of all its a mistake to ascribe any consistent position to what the CAW did. Resolutions passed were only part of it. Facts on the ground, there were moves in a variety of directions- and I'm talking from the national leadership, let alone that locals went their own ways.
And as pointed out, in practice, Buzz absolutely pushed a support the Liberals line. He never failed to parrot the offial strategic voting line when asked, but what Buzz Hargrove did in his last few years was unfailingly support Liberals, and he offered himself specifically as a tool for the Liberals against the NDP. Little wonder he was expelled.
Even at the time it was going on, there was never any evidence that Buzz acted on behalf of anyone but himself. And the unfolding of events since, confirms that. That said, I also don't see any evidence that their was general displeasure with Buzz's choice of blanket support for Liberals.
Much as Lewenza was Buzz's choice to succeed him- he takes a pretty different approach to leadership. And I say that knowing nothing about what steps he has taken in electoral politics that OO referred to. Yes, Peggy Nash returing might have a lot to do with some warmer relations with the NDP. But I'm guessing its mostly that Buzz is gone, and that Ken Lewenza is Ken Lewenza.
The NSNDP has always by the way had strong relations with the national CAW. That did not change during Buzz being expelled, etc.
The CAW is just a more complex animal than other unions. Its more complex in its internal politics. Big surprise that makes the way it relates to the NDP harder to read. Its a hurly burly place, and you never know whats going to come out of the end of the pipe.
We shall see, but my hunch is that "strategic voting" has exhausted itself in the CAW- if not in general.
And I don't think Iggy is the kind of figure to give it any life. Thats not a comment on his ideological inclinations. Paul Martin was a classic all things to all people panderer. Claim the mantle of 'progressive' and of deficit killer. Iggy's specific kind of pandering doesn't leave anything for strategic voting dupes to glom onto.
But I don't think the setting of 'strategic voting' within the CAW clears the deck or sets the stage for anything else.
Its the same old unanswered questions.
I was wondering what became of McGuinty's tripartite commission thingie for Ontario manufacturing.
Buzz was so enthusiastic for it that Jim Stanford was warming a Co-chair seat on it until after Buzz was out of office.
Never heard anything about it. events overwhelm it?
For that matter haven't heard what Buzz is actually doing.
The tripartite commission thingie likely has fizzled for larger reasons, but the betrayal that Buzz should have expected leaves that as a non-starter for him.
Anyway, good riddance to the distraction of the stillborn thingie [if it is dead].
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/575944
My question was, what position has the ONDP taken on the situation facing auto workers? Anyone know?
I just noticed this.
Those 2 things are more accurately seen as overlapping; and related, but with no simple causal relationship.
Dissafiliation with the NDP is the expression of the larger and longer time trend with many roots.
That could sound like a niggling point. But I saw it as an opportunity to come at points I already made.
To answer Unionist's question: I don't know, but would be surprised if the ONDP has done any more than express regrets and sympathy.
To be fair- everyone is reeling on this. As soon as you think you might be making some sense of ordering ones general thoughts on it [let alone grappling with what could be done], things get even worse and stranger than you could have ever guessed they would.
I'm hoping that Peggy Nash being back at the CAW, and if she is left time to work on such a 'luxury,' might ultimately lead to some interesting proposals from the federal NDP. But neither the union or the NDP wants to come out with half baked concrete proposals. And lord knows when people can catch their breath enough.
I know nothing about the workings of the ONDP caucus. But they just don't have the research chops of the federal caucus. Though it would seem there is an opportunity there with Andrea's leadership if the CAW was willing to second Peggy Nash. Aside from the fact such a possibility is pure blue skying... I can see that the CAW would be gun shy about stirring the hornets nest by doing something like that. They need more than ever to get whatever is possible out of the provincial government- whatever they think of them. Working with the federal NDP would not have those risks.
Here's the quote as full as the Star gave it:
It's that kind of courage workers will need "to take a pay cut so your friends at the plant can keep their job," Layton says in the 20-minute address..
That was said in January. While many here would question the wisdom of ever saying it [and I personally would not say it], you heard then the same sort of thing from union leaders and rank and file when they were agreeing to cuts.
But it was said in January- not in the current context of unions agreeing to murderous contexts. You would not find any of the same people expressing the sentiment that way now- Jack included.
Fair enough.
From the ONDP website over the last 2 months:
March 19 release
March 30 release
April 18 release
April 18 release
May 14 release
"
Jack Layton wrote:
Victoria Day honours Queen Victoria, first sovereign of confederated Canada, and celebrates the birthday of Canada’s current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe. Above all, it is a reminder of history and the tragedies and triumphs that were a part of forging our nation.
Many Canadians will be taking the opportunity of a long weekend to take a break from busy lives, see family or spend time away from home. On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I offer my very best wishes for Victoria Day.
Well, at least it will resonate with Aboriginal people, Quebeckers, immigrants, the poor, the unemployed..."
So, what's your point? In a month it will be St. Jean Baptiste Day, and you can be sure that the NDP will put out a press release celebrating that day and what it means for Quebec and for canadians of French descent - and I suppose that it will not "resonate" with most Ontario WASPs - tough. I've seen NDP press releases on Christmas (which exclude non-Christians), Passover, Eid, Diwali (which exclude all kinds of other people).
Thanks, Peter3.
Not one single word about the blackmail of the auto workers by Clement and McGuinty. Not one comment on the demands for wage, benefit, and pension cuts. Not one voice raised to oppose the mass frenzy that the problems of GM and Chrysler stem from union greed.
Here's what Paul Miller said:
Yeah, Paul Miller is an NDP MPP, not a Liberal. And yeah, that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals are doing. They're demanding that Chrysler and GM reduce workers' conditions even more before Ontario kicks in one more dime.
So, are there some more press releases that Peter3 missed, where the ONDP sticks up for workers (and no, I don't just mean, saving future jobs at any cost - that's what Clement and Harper and Obama and the companies are doing)?
From an auto worker's viewpoint, what exactly is the difference between McGuinty and Horwath?
Since the issue is being rehashed here, perhaps someone would care to comment on the complete and utter failure of the CAW's strategic voting efforts, which resulted in Conservative sweeps both provincially and federally in Oakville and Oshawa.
Fidel pointed out the irony of this elsewhere, earlier in the week.
That's rather disingenuous, unionist.
Job guarantees is at the top of the list of things Miller was 'demanding'
What Miller demanded mirrors what the CAW was publically pushing the govt use its clout for.
To be more precise than what I just posted: Clement, Harper, GM and Chrysler are talking generally about "sacrifices [autoworkers] to save future jobs"... no commitment of course. The CAW is asking the same thing as is the ONDP- guarantees about employment levels in return for aid.
From an e-mail that I received
This week, Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP Leader pushed the McGuinty Liberals on the need for caps on executive compensation, following the introduction of her Private Member's Bill on the issue.
Read Andrea Horwath's questions from this week's Question Period here, or the full hansard below:
May 14, to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L151-34.html#BeginOfTitle
May 13, to Premier Dalton McGuinty - http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/39-1/L150-33.html#BeginOfTitle
Read Andrea Horwath's Bill 180, Capping Executive Compensation Act, 2009, here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2190
For more information, please e-mail: [email protected]
---
Ontario Hansard - 14-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Premier made crystal clear his opposition to my bill calling for a cap on executive compensation. This morning, we may be finding out why he was so opposed. It may have something to do with the company he keeps.
My question is simple: Has the government sought advice on the issue of capping executive compensation, and if so, from whom?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing that our government is intent on doing is protecting the footprint of the auto industry in Ontario. The member opposite wants to pretend that there's an easy way out of this. The member opposite wants to pretend that there haven't been more jobs lost in Michigan, Indiana and Indianapolis.
In terms of executive compensation, a number of parts of the arrangements in the Chrysler situation-and the General Motors deal, if we're able to come to one-will address those kinds of questions as well.
But let's all understand the enormous difficulty that this major employer and major contributor to our GDP is going through. Let's all resolve to work together to get a deal with GM, to protect the jobs and pensions of the workers here in Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this morning's Globe and Mail paints a picture of how this government comes up with its economic policy. It would appear that the person really calling the shots at the finance ministry doesn't even sit in this House. No, he works at TD Bank, and he reports directly to a CEO who raked in more than $22 million in pay over the last two years.
Why is this government putting the interests of corporate executives ahead of the interests of everyone else?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a group of 12 economists who regularly provide advice to the government, including Jim Stanford from the CAW, who has provided a lot of very good advice to me individually, and with whom I communicate regularly.
Unlike New Democrats, I don't have all the answers. We reach for advice from all kinds of people, from CAW economists to bank economists, from the director of the food bank to the directors of some of our largest companies.
To the member opposite, I'll continue to seek their advice, and I will continue to seek the advice-
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.
Ms. Andrea Horwath: We shouldn't be surprised by any of this. Executives responsible for the poor decisions that have left large companies on the brink will continue to be handsomely compensated through the public purse while hard-working Ontarians are left to worry about the everyday essentials, worry about disappearing pensions, worry about getting slapped with an 8% tax increase that's going to cost them more every single day, all because well-heeled executives say so.
What will it take before this government finally says no to self-serving corporate executives and yes to the other 99% of Ontarians?
Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is sad. Let me say this: I don't believe Don Drummond is self-serving. I think Don Drummond provides good advice, some of which we take and some of which we don't.
We offered that member a full briefing from our ministry on the state of the economy prior to the budget, and she said no. She refused to take it. To the leader of the third party, I will continue to take advice from Mr. Drummond. By the way, the Canadian banks are not losing money; in fact, they're a symbol of success at a time when world banks are collapsing.
I ask our members in Toronto-more than 300,000 new jobs have been created in financial services in the last five years. No, no, to the leader of the NDP-
---
Ontario Hansard - 13-May2009
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question's to the Premier. As this government asks auto workers to make unprecedented sacrifices to keep companies like GM and Chrysler alive, as this government asks taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned tax dollars to prop up some of the world's largest corporations, New Democrats believe that the senior executives at these corporations must be required to make some sacrifices as well. That's why I introduced yesterday the Capping Executive Compensation Act, a bill that would place a ceiling of $400,000 on compensation packages for senior executives at large corporations receiving government bailouts. My question is a simple one: Will this government support my bill?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the effort made by my honourable colleague and the sentiment that informs the bill that she's presented. But, no, I can't support it, and I'll tell you why. I think, ultimately, our responsibility is to find ways to enter into partnerships with businesses that serve the public interest-a partnership that serves the public interest. What we want to do is find ways, through these partnerships, to strengthen the economy and create jobs. If we are achieving that aim, if our partnerships strengthen the economy, if it creates more jobs, then we are satisfied. I'm not looking for a kind of incidental or collateral benefit, so to speak, to reach in and interfere with salaries awarded to executives.
Again, our objective is to achieve more jobs in a stronger economy, and if the partnerships achieve that, I think that's what the public wants us to do.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm trying to understand the choices that this Premier is making. He introduces legislation that removes its obligation to the pension benefits guarantee fund, he forces auto workers to reopen their collective agreements as a condition of their employers receiving provincial aid, and he asks taxpayers to fork over billions of dollars to some of the world's largest corporations. When will he realize that high-flying executives at corporations on the public dole also have a role to play, and it starts with a limitation on their pay and on their perks?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I do agree that executives have a responsibility to lead by example, but I don't enthusiastically, on the part of our government, embrace interference in the private sector through our partnerships. What I do embrace and what I sense the responsibility to do is to find ways to enter into partnerships that serve the public interest. Again, that's all about creating jobs. It's about finding ways to strengthen the economy. It's about giving our families more reasons to be hopeful for themselves and their children. Those are the criteria that we apply, and I think that's what families want us to continue to do, and that's what we will do.
The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?
Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public interest is served when everyone shares in the pain, I would submit to this Premier. In fact, President Obama recognized that with his financial services bailout, where he capped corporations' executive salaries at $500,000. It's something this Premier could do as well. Plain and simple, it's about fairness. Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and the pensions of tens of thousands more are in danger. These workers and pensioners are making tremendous sacrifices. Corporate executives must start making sacrifices too, with a cap on their pay and with a cap on their perks. Why doesn't this Premier agree?
Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we will do what is necessary to ensure that when we do enter into these partnerships, they serve the public interest, create jobs, strengthen the economy, give our families reason to be hopeful.
There will be some cases where it's appropriate for us to introduce the kind of capping that my honourable colleague talks about. In fact, we did that in the Chrysler deal. There is a cap in place on executive pay. In some cases, it will be appropriate and it will be possible; in others, it will not. But we will not be motivated by a sense of some kind of class warfare that sometimes inspires my colleagues opposite in the New Democratic Party. We will try to be fair to people on all sides, regardless of their income levels.
Not my call, really, which is why I asked what I asked.
I do think that this quote from Andrea Horwath on the day she won the leadership is generally relevant to the question of how she differs from a Liberal:
"The middle class is disappearing and the working class is largely unemployed. We could accept this and adjust, that's what the other parties say, but adjust to what - growing unemployment lines and growing food bank lines, adjust to this growing discrepancy? Adjust so that those who stole our money can get more of it? We refuse to adjust."
In an interview earlier this month she said, in the context of the auto sector's troubles, "I don't think we should always be saying that it's the worker that has to take the hit, or it's the woman or man on the shop floor that's the one who has to scale back." and went on to talk about capping executive salaries.
Whether any of that matters from an auto worker's perspective would be something you would be better positioned to answer.
Not being an auto worker, I don't understand your comment. So let's get back to basics, shall we?
You opened this thread, indeed, you named it. Your opening post quoted Lewenza condemning both the federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals for "seeking deeper cuts" from GM auto workers than they gave to Chrysler.
You then asked whether this calls into question "anti-Conservative strategic voting".
So I asked whether the ONDP is any different [b]ON THIS VERY ISSUE[/b] from the other two parties. Because if not, then the auto crisis would not impact on anyone's vote, would it?
So far, we have seen Layton praising workers' courage for taking wage cuts so that others can keep their jobs, and we have heard Paul Miller warning McGuinty to squeeze GM and Chrysler harder before giving them a single taxpayers' dollar.
And so, I ask once more - is the ONDP's position on stripping auto workers' hard-won rights any different from McGuinty and Clement? The silence here is rather overwhelming.
No.
Yes.
Whatever.
So, Peter3, I see you get very weary when people ask questions in response to the discussion you opened. Superiority must be such a dreadful burden. But if you happen to notice any comments by the NDP on the current attack on the CAW and GM and Chrysler workers, maybe have one of your people just post a little something here.
Thanks for your time.
Cheers.
You are badgering Unionist.
Peter3 posed some questions. You asked him some questions that are really a point made, and demanded replies.
He didn't feel in a position.
Let alone that is a prerogative prople had, you got answers to your questions from me.
That counts for nothing?
Ken, LTJ, and everyone else:
I am not talking about "job guarantees".
I'm talking about pressuring the CAW and its members to give the 3rd round of concessions in one year.
I'm talking about what is happening right now, at the bargaining table, where Lewenza is condemning McGuinty and Clement, [b]NOT[/b] for failing to get job guarantees, but for pushing the workers to give deeper concessions.
Is that clear?? That's all I'm talking about. And I'd like to know where (if anywhere) the ONDP stands on that issue. [b]NOT[/b] demanding jobs (however important that may be) - but about blaming autoworkers' compensation levels as being the touchstone of survivability of GM and Chrysler.
Sorry if I hadn't made myself clear earlier, but perhaps this repetitious post will do the trick.
My point, Stockholm, is this horrendous statement:
Just thought I'd highlight that in case you still don't get it.
The two very similar old line parties at both levels gave taxpayer funded handouts without any strings attached to the car companies for years. And this is how theyre repaid.
[url=http://ontariondp.com/node/2399]Horwath fights for auto jobs as Oshawa plant closes[/url]
One of the things that is interesting is despite the turmoil in Oshawa in recent years, the riding has stayed Conservative.
Now since the last election in October when the Conservatives got re-elected in Oshawa again, things have deteriorated even further.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the riding in the next election, but I think if the NDP can't win it back after all this, it may mean that it will never recover that ground.
Ontario was politically conservative for 50 years! There will be pockets of greying resistance for a few years yet.
Meanwhile, this is the Liberals showing what they can do. And God help us.
But Ed Broadbent was able to hold Oshawa for 20 years - from the late 60's to the late 80's. His successor briefly held onto it and then it went Liberal during the Chretien years and then went Conservative in the last several elections.
Why is it so difficult to knock Colin Carrie out of there?
I think that part of the reason Oshawa has stayed Conservative is that there is a pretty large NDP and and large Liberal vote - so this is one place where the Tories tend to win on a split opposition vote. Then you had the problem in '04 and '06 where the NDP candidate was Sid Ryan - who is a double edged sword - he may be very popular with a certain core element, but he is not the kind of New Democrat who can attract suburban commuters that live in Oshawa - he can only appeal to the "old labour" crowd - which is a shrinking part of the riding. Sid Ryan can get 35% of the votre - never higher than that. In 2008, the NDP had a really good candidate, but Tory support went way up across Ontario between the 06 and 08 elections , so it was not a good time to try to knock off a Tory incumbent and the collapse of the auto industry handn't hit home yet at that point.
In the next election, it SHOULD be a perfect storm for the NDP in that riding since tory support will be sinking like a stone. The main obstacle might be that so many jobs in the auto industry will have been lost that a large part of the NDP base in Oshawa simply won't be there anymore.
"Today reminds us of Canada’s place in the Commonwealth and our roots in Europe."
Yeah, so what. Canada does have roots in Europe. We were a French and then British colony for much of our history and we still have the Queen of England as our head of state. If you don't like - start a republican movement.
Just a couple suggestions/ thoughts:
First off, I think this is a perfect example of Activism and Unions going a little far as to out right say that they are affiliated with any one political party with the idea that there is no implication. The point being, Canada's system of democracy and any one political party having the chance to take over, that when the CAW is in support to the NDP. The Conservatives get elected and this isn't in the best interest of the CAW in regards to negotiations. Lets face it, these parties have one interest... Not the communities in which they are elected to serve, yet companies that will get them that vote and that seat in the next coming election. I need to point out that do you think if the NDP got elected, don't you think with CAW's support with the whole crisis would be resolved in a different way... Maybe an outright bailout package? Maybe they can internally push one party but not right out support one party over another.
Secondly, why hasn't the CAW ever pointed the finger at anyone else who has piggy backed off of the auto industry? Where do you start? The Government mandating to have insurance yet call two different insurance brokers and see thousands of dollars difference! I thought I am contributing to my surrounding community by being employed to the public sector, yet I am supposed to work a broker's job on finding where I can get the cheapest insurance? Everything, even grocery stores, two stores, same product, different prices... then you have the gas companies racking in billions in profit each year.... What about the managers that drive the company into the ground and that rakes in money not to mention take off with it before they file for bankruptcy? Yet those people who's pensions that they were differing for all those years of labour.. Now there take home salary with hope that one day they will be able to not have to work and enjoy life with grandchildren, provide help to their families. Who is thinking of the children, who would want to spend time with there grandparents to get to know them before it's too late? There are many implications that are making Canada seem as if we have lost our democratic liberties and that we are voting on which political party should set us up into our next communist ways... (I'm a little frustrated to say the least!)
We have salary caps in our sports where these people are suppose to be actually fit, not allowed alcohol or drugs or to make bad decisions with the implications that there life career could be scrutinized and the public eye have any right to speak freely of them. Yet they are capped with a salary, no matter how good or valuable they could be to the success to that team, that you are... So, why isn't there salary caps to CEO's of companies? Are they actually producing anything or just pushing papers, putting money back into our society? our communities? Or just giving Canada's bailout action plan to European countries? Buying Porshe's? ferrari's? Audi's...
When the people we vote for are telling us that they are trying to help us, yet are giving the bail out's to the banks and insurance company's where all of the problems started in the first place back in the early 80's... What is the government doing for us? Shouldn't they be working for the people? Why are they able to raise there own salary but no one else's? Why are they forcing youth to have to take multiple part time jobs in order to pay off loans and debt? With un-unionized work with old structural systemic problems of oppressions and silence... Or a "living wage" that actually kept up with the rate of inflation. Or immigrants able to utilize there skills? Get employed in what they specialize in? Let them earn the same as any other "Canadian"... The reality is that they want to live here and put their money into our economy... Why isn't our government letting them??? Economic crisis????
Or just a way for government to silently oppress our communities and society's with keeping everyone so caught up in the North American way of a lifestyle of materialistic goods and an individualistic approach? That's what the television is used for isn't it? To brain wash people into thinking that they deserve all the materialistic materials that they can imagine...Imagine...Wouldn't it be great if we had some politicians that came from having to work for the money they earned rather then setting policies and agendas now having no realistic idea about what implications they are creating on the future?!?!!!
[url=http://http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/gindin150706.html]Sam Gindin on the CAW-NDP split[/url]
I dont understand unionized workers voting against themselves by voting Liberal. Theyve made their bed, and now they should lie in it and quit grumbling about the Liberal-fascists now working hand in glove with North American corporations to downsize wages and walk away from pension obligations. hargrove and the Liberals/Tories have corporate shit all over their moustaches now.
Quote:
"In short, the possibility of a new politics cannot be raised without rethinking the place of unions within today's local and global struggle against neoliberalism. And rethinking that also means addressing (a) how unions think about their members and their members' role in the organization and (b) the adequacy of unions' structures -- including structures for democratic debate and participation -- to the challenges currently confronting unions and working people."
I cannot agree anymore with this entire article, and feel something needs to come from the people! To give a choice/voice that is fair for all with dignity and respect!!!
Barak Obama has started to show people that change is possible... Hopefully more Canadians will start thinking out side the capitalist box that so many feel stuck with in...
To quote Barack Obama:
"One voice can change a room, and if one voice can change a room, then it can change a city, and if it can change a city, it can change a state, and if it change a state, it can change a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Your voice can change the world." -Barack Obama
I expect the CAW to continue to support the oxymoronic "strategic voting" policy, though you won't see this leader endorse a Liberal leader like Buzz did with Paul "the E.I. Thief" Martin.
The big stupidity in all this is that everyone has the cart before the horse. Everyone acts like the CAW has within it's grasp a meaningfull block of votes, and there's no evidence to support that. Or, if they do have influence, it's to give a rational to those (inside and outside the CAW) who waver between the NDP and Liberals to vote Liberal.
I note that through all the strategic voting debate that the CAW and others "on the left" who expouse "strategic voting" never have the plain honesty to tell people that when they vote, they vote to put a dollar something into the pockets of the party they voted for.
Buzz, and all other advocates of "strategic voting" are actually Liberal Party fundraisers.
Getting back to the cart and the horse, if the CAW was interested in actually have a block of votes they could influence, they'd first be concerned with just getting their members to vote.
You think it's appropriate to say "[b]our[/b] roots" as if the leader of the NDP isn't also speaking for the Indigenous people and the vast numbers of Canadians with roots in Asia, Africa, and Latin America?
Can you see Layton saying, "our ancestors had their lands stolen by the European colonizers"?
Why am I bothering explaining this to you?
Pages