ONT NDP Leader Andrea Horwath will become Premier of Ontario 2

826 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rokossovsky

So the 2014 NDP is further to the right of the 1990, NDP of Bob Rae? Is that what I am hearing. There has beensome substantive move rightward?

They are privatizing hydro, promising tax cuts and increasing P3s?

[Cue picture of woman in business suit followed by pejorative comment.]

onlinediscountanvils

OnTheLeft wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea is a 21st century politician, and is a step ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately some have just not clued into that. 

No one is perfect but one does have to have some trust in your NDP leaders, that perhaps they do know what they are talking about.

They realize any of the NDP lofty goals will never ever see the lite of day without getting elected first. 

Sorry that she is just not pure enough for some of you.

Personally, I say Go Andrea Go - You doing good!!!

Sure, because moving to the right worked so well for Dix and Dexter.

It's instructive to go back and look at the 'Adrian Dix WILL be next Premier' and 'Christy Clark is toast' threads and see just who was doing the loudest cheerleadering. Careful whose advice you listen to, Andrea.

Rokossovsky

Meanwhile in the real world: Ontario Liberals look to raise money from public assets

Quote:
The Progressive Conservatives said the ideas Sousa talked about Friday are exactly what they proposed in 2012, which the Liberals made fun of at the time.

"They not only rebuffed it, they mocked us for it," said PC finance critic Vic Fedeli.

NorthReport

Gotta love all these arm-chair quarterbacks who just love taking potshots from the sidelines but haven't got the antlers to do anything themselves.

Cherry-picking again.

The BC NDP had the election in the bag, but almost no one forecast that Dix and his gang would be such a bunch of fuck-ups as they turned out to be during the BC election. 

Dix and his crew have done so much damage the BC NDP may never ever recover.

Interesting though that you left out last federal election and who forecast how well the NDP would do.

What has the polling been for the ONT NDP before and after Andrea has taken over as Leader.

It's quite obvious Andrea is ther best thing that has happened to the Ont NDP since the Rae mess.

Go back to sleep.

quote=onlinediscountanvils]

OnTheLeft wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea is a 21st century politician, and is a step ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately some have just not clued into that. 

No one is perfect but one does have to have some trust in your NDP leaders, that perhaps they do know what they are talking about.

They realize any of the NDP lofty goals will never ever see the lite of day without getting elected first. 

Sorry that she is just not pure enough for some of you.

Personally, I say Go Andrea Go - You doing good!!!

Sure, because moving to the right worked so well for Dix and Dexter.

It's instructive to go back and look at the 'Adrian Dix WILL be next Premier' and 'Christy Clark is toast' threads and see just who was doing the loudest cheerleadering. Careful whose advice you listen to, Andrea.

Unionist

Rokossovsky wrote:

For the second time in 24 hours, someone posts pictures of the leader of the ONDP as part of an political attack, apparently as s device to avoid substantive debate on what she does or not stand for, and reflecting on her image. 

Actually, it was Horwath and her party that wasted progressive people's hard-earned money designing, printing, and posting these disgusting pictures. Or did you think babblers dreamed them up?

Furthermore, I know they're a bit blurry, but they do contain text (you know, stuff that's meant to be read) which seems to proclaim "what she does or does not stand for". Let me spell it out a bit better for you:

Knows "business" isn't a four-letter word.

Can balance a budget. In heels.

Not your grandfather's NDP.

So, you want some "substantive debate" about those business-pandering, "I'm not a lefty"-bootlicking, and borderline misogynist messaging?

You're the only one who seems to have noticed her "image" to the exclusion of her offensive messages.

Go ahead. Defend what she stands for. I'm listening.

scott16

Has Andrea Horwath and the ONDP said they are privatizing Ontario Hydro?

 

Not to offend anyone but I have gotten confused by this thread

Unionist

scott16 wrote:

Has Andrea Horwath and the ONDP said they are privatizing Ontario Hydro?

Not to offend anyone but I have gotten confused by this thread

Ummm, not that I've noticed. Why, did someone in this thread suggest that? I believe I issued a sort of challenge to her to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ont-ndp-leader-andrea-horwath-will-becom... that it should be a single public utility[/url]. Which it isn't now. If she has a clear stand on privatization, please refer me to it. No offence intended. Thanks.

 

Rokossovsky

But lets be clear, it's important for progressive people to show they can succeed where the right fails. And if Wynne can manage to privatize Ontario Hydro where Mike Harris failed its a great victory for the left, no doubt!

There is nothing that the Tories can do that the Liberals can't do better, and with more balloons, whistles and great big smiles.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Has Andrea Horwath and the ONDP said they are privatizing Ontario Hydro?

Not to offend anyone but I have gotten confused by this thread

Ummm, not that I've noticed. Why, did someone in this thread suggest that? I believe I issued a sort of challenge to her to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ont-ndp-leader-andrea-horwath-will-becom... that it should be a single public utility[/url]. Which it isn't now. If she has a clear stand on privatization, please refer me to it. No offence intended. Thanks.

Quote:
"All I can say is we aren't supporting privatization," said Tabuns. "Whatever the minister says, he's talking about moving forward to sell some of the key assets in this province. It's a mistake."

onlinediscountanvils

NorthReport wrote:
Gotta love all these arm-chair quarterbacks who just love taking potshots from the sidelines but haven't got the antlers to do anything themselves.

Cherry-picking again.

You mix a hell of a metaphor, I'll give you that, NR. [True story: cherry-pickin'potshot-takin'no-antler-havin'armchairquarterback was my first choice for babble screen name, but it got rejected for having too many characters.]

Being critical of the ONDP doesn't mean that one is on "the sidelines". Some of us are just playing a different game. I'll leave it to others to play "Let's Elect Andrea".

 

NorthReport wrote:
The BC NDP had the election in the bag, but almost no one forecast that Dix and his gang would be such a bunch of fuck-ups as they turned out to be during the BC election.

So why are you so dismissive of anyone who suggests that Horwath and her gang might not be on the right track? Sounds like the BC NDP could have benefitted from listening to some critcal dissent.

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Gotta love all these arm-chair quarterbacks who just love taking potshots from the sidelines but haven't got the antlers to do anything themselves.

Cherry-picking again.

You mix a hell of a metaphor, I'll give you that, NR. [True story: cherry-pickin'potshot-takin'no-antler-havin'armchairquarterback was my first choice for babble screen name, but it got rejected for having too many characters.]

Being critical of the ONDP doesn't mean that one is on "the sidelines". Some of us are just playing a different game. I'll leave it to others to play "Let's Elect Andrea".

Critical dissent is different from obtuse rejection.

Apparently sacking Ontario Hydro, in order to pay for the corporate tax cuts the Liberals imposed, is just fine until the NDP promises what the Liberals promised back in 2003, which was a reversal of the Mike Harris era policies. That was your basic demand, was it not? Funnily enough 10 years later the Liberals are poised to enact the one flag ship policy Mike Harris couldn't implement, but that's ok, as long as Hudak doesn't have his hand on the tiller.

Did I mix my metaphors? "Flag ship" "Tiller". Looks good. You got anything?

You still have yet to explain how Andrea's NDP has "shifted" right of Bob Rae's NDP, the master on poop way back in those glory days you are pining for before Mike Harris put the whole damn thing on the rocks.

Raising corporate taxes? You sure its not "your grandfather's NDP"? That sounds more like Tommy Douglas than Kathleen (I hear you but there is no more money) Wynne -- she is very empathetic and likes running, doncha know.

onlinediscountanvils

Rokossovsky wrote:
a reversal of the Mike Harris era policies. That was your basic demand, was it not?

no

mark_alfred

Rokossovsky wrote:

Unionist wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Has Andrea Horwath and the ONDP said they are privatizing Ontario Hydro?

Not to offend anyone but I have gotten confused by this thread

Ummm, not that I've noticed. Why, did someone in this thread suggest that? I believe I issued a sort of challenge to her to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ont-ndp-leader-andrea-horwath-will-becom... that it should be a single public utility[/url]. Which it isn't now. If she has a clear stand on privatization, please refer me to it. No offence intended. Thanks.

Quote:
"All I can say is we aren't supporting privatization," said Tabuns. "Whatever the minister says, he's talking about moving forward to sell some of the key assets in this province. It's a mistake."

Further to this is the statement from here, which states

NDP wrote:

  • Cap executive pay and cut down on waste and duplication by merging Ontario’s hydro agencies
  • Stop private power giveaways and have Ontario’s Auditor conduct an immediate review of all private power contracts in the wake of the $1-billion gas plant scandal

So it's clear they intend to move toward it being a single public utility.

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
a reversal of the Mike Harris era policies. That was your basic demand, was it not?

no

The truth comes out, You actually don't give a damn about "restoring OW and ODSP to their (sic) pre-Harris levels," let alone stopping the Liberals from completing the "common sense" revolution by selling off Ontario Hydro, or restoring the corporate tax funding model so that we can afford to support low income earners with diverse programs and transit infrastructure.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Oh, is Andrea reading this thread?

Hi, Andrea. As someone who actually lives in Ontario; you can either commit to a $14/hour minimum wage and restoring OW and ODSP to their pre-Harris levels, or you can fuck off to B.C. where at least one person appears eager to vote for you.

That was just a talking point to cover for obtuse rejectionism, dressed up as righteous critique, in the name of the poor.

NorthReport

Bye, bye Liberals,

Ontario deficit to increase for 2nd year in a row.

onlinediscountanvils

Rokossovsky wrote:
That was [....]

no

Aristotleded24

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea is a 21st century politician, and is a step ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately some have just not clued into that. 

No one is perfect but one does have to have some trust in your NDP leaders, that perhaps they do know what they are talking about.

They realize any of the NDP lofty goals will never ever see the lite of day without getting elected first. 

Sorry that she is just not pure enough for some of you.

Personally, I say Go Andrea Go - You doing good!!!

Sure, because moving to the right worked so well for Dix and Dexter.

It's instructive to go back and look at the 'Adrian Dix WILL be next Premier' and 'Christy Clark is toast' threads and see just who was doing the loudest cheerleadering. Careful whose advice you listen to, Andrea.

He also predicted that Judy Wasylicia-Leis would win the Winnipeg mayoral election in 2010.

NorthReport

And I also forecast, which you conveniently left out, that the federal NDP would do quite well in the last election long before it became fasihonable.

And where were you my friend?

Probably sitting in some dark corner somewhere, musing about how the NDP was not every single thing to every single person on the planet.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea is a 21st century politician, and is a step ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately some have just not clued into that. 

No one is perfect but one does have to have some trust in your NDP leaders, that perhaps they do know what they are talking about.

They realize any of the NDP lofty goals will never ever see the lite of day without getting elected first. 

Sorry that she is just not pure enough for some of you.

Personally, I say Go Andrea Go - You doing good!!!

Sure, because moving to the right worked so well for Dix and Dexter.

It's instructive to go back and look at the 'Adrian Dix WILL be next Premier' and 'Christy Clark is toast' threads and see just who was doing the loudest cheerleadering. Careful whose advice you listen to, Andrea.

He also predicted that Judy Wasylicia-Leis would win the Winnipeg mayoral election in 2010.

onlinediscountanvils

NorthReport wrote:

And I also forecast, which you conveniently left out, that the federal NDP would do quite well in the last election long before it became fasihonable.

And where were you my friend?

Probably sitting in some dark corner somewhere, musing about how the NDP was not every single thing to every single person on the planet.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea is a 21st century politician, and is a step ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately some have just not clued into that. 

No one is perfect but one does have to have some trust in your NDP leaders, that perhaps they do know what they are talking about.

They realize any of the NDP lofty goals will never ever see the lite of day without getting elected first. 

Sorry that she is just not pure enough for some of you.

Personally, I say Go Andrea Go - You doing good!!!

Sure, because moving to the right worked so well for Dix and Dexter.

It's instructive to go back and look at the 'Adrian Dix WILL be next Premier' and 'Christy Clark is toast' threads and see just who was doing the loudest cheerleadering. Careful whose advice you listen to, Andrea.

He also predicted that Judy Wasylicia-Leis would win the Winnipeg mayoral election in 2010.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:
NDP: 110 (+74)
 http://live.rabble.ca/comment/1248360#comment-1248360

NorthReport wrote:
NDP - 126 seats
 http://live.rabble.ca/comment/1248367#comment-1248367

Actual number of seats won by NDP: 103

Who was closest?

NorthReport

What's this I'm hearing about a girder safety coverup?

mark_alfred

Seems the Liberals knew about but ignored concerns about substandard girders on the Herb Gray Parkway in Windsor for months until a byelection was on the corner.  Wynne must answer for girder safety cover-up: NDP.

mark_alfred

Statement by Andrea on Day of Mourning for Injured Workers.  No statement on the Lib or Con sites or on Twitter from either Wynne or Hudak yet.

mark_alfred

Here's Andrea's transit letter that NR's post #453 referred to.  Good stuff.

Rokossovsky

Second Coming of Mike Harris.

NorthReport

Andrea will become Premier, just not sure if it will be this election, or the next one.

But this author below thinks it may be this election. Who knows, eh! 

 

Quote:
It’s a complicated set of political variables in the mix as Ontarians seem destined for a trip to the polls this spring. Of course, Liberal lies and coverup form the pretext of this election, but will that ultimately become the ballot question? Both opposition parties have to make sure it does but must also convince voters that they are the answer. In both of the previous two provincial elections, the Liberals were poised to be defeated, but when push came to shove, Ontarians opted to stick with the devil they knew. Some may argue that this time it’s different [and ponder] “the Liberals have gone too far.”

Perhaps …

Both Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats have a job to do. For Hudak I think it’s to reassure Ontarians he is moderate and for Horwath it’s that the party is moderate. Polling data has shown the PCs have been on top for a while now but Hudak is the least liked leader of his two main competitors. The NDP, though within striking distance, are third in the party horse race but have Ontario’s most popular leader in Andrea Horwath.

The Liberals may perhaps have the most daunting challenge of all — to convince a very angry electorate that they aren’t who they’ve demonstrated (repeatedly) they are.

The campaign will matter — a lot. This is why I think we’re headed for an NDP minority.

Leadership evaluations are central considerations in the vote choice matrix in elections and Horwath has a clear advantage over Hudak, who will appeal to a greater number of the “throw the bums out” constituency. [/quote}

 

http://urbanitenews.com/2014/04/22/rose-city-politics-2014-provincial-el...

Rokossovsky

At what point did the "progressive left", drink so much neo-liberal Kool-aid, that they actually came to believe that refusing to increase tolls, fees and consumptions taxes to the public at large, and advocating for greater taxes on wealth and corporations, as opposed to privatizing assets, and stealing funds from one program to pay for another is a right wing position?

Yet, amazingly there is some letter from a someone in the ONDP practicing "critical dissent", who is pretty much saying that Andrea's "populist" opposition to regressive taxation is merely and attempt to mimic "Time Hudak's" "no more taxes" rhetoric, and indicates that the NDP moving to "the right".

Not at all, opposition to regressive "flat taxes" and support for taxes on capital and wealth is a bedrock "left/social democractic" position.

In their confusion over their self-identified political roles as "leftists" and all around "progressive" nice people, they actually have confused themselves into thinking that enabling the neo-liberal austerity agenda by making up for government revenue shortfalls caused by corporate tax giveaways by socking it to Joe and Jane proletariat by increasing consumption taxes and road tolls is the progressive thing to do.

In fact, the reason that the right and people like Rob Ford and Tim Hudak are so easily able to exploit the natural opposition of ordinary folks to regressive taxation is because it is a strategic position of "principle" abandoned by the left political organizations. Over the last 20 years "the left" has been so sucked into the neo-liberal vortex when they were busy playing ball with Bay Street, in order to make themselves seem "reasonable" that they seem to have forgotten that the point is to redistribute capital in order to pay for needed programs, not boostrap the programs from the shrinking wallets of those who the programs are supposed to serve.

This does not appear to be the case with today's ONDP, at all. Indeed, it is the NDP, and only the NDP of the three mainstream political parties that is advocating for any expansion of the tax base, and moreover, directly targeting wealth and capital.

It may not be much, but it is clearly in the vain of traditional "left" principles, of which the Liberals, for example, have none.

mark_alfred

Rokossovsky wrote:

At what point did the "progressive left", drink so much neo-liberal Kool-aid, that they actually came to believe that refusing to increase tolls, fees and consumptions taxes to the public at large, and advocating for greater taxes on wealth and corporations, as opposed to privatizing assets, and stealing funds from one program to pay for another is a right wing position?

Yet, amazingly there is some letter from a someone in the ONDP practicing "critical dissent", who is pretty much saying that Andrea's "populist" opposition to regressive taxation is merely and attempt to mimic "Time Hudak's" "no more taxes" rhetoric, and indicates that the NDP moving to "the right".

Not at all, opposition to regressive "flat taxes" and support for taxes on capital and wealth is a bedrock "left/social democractic" position.

In their confusion over their self-identified political roles as "leftists" and all around "progressive" nice people, they actually have confused themselves into thinking that enabling the neo-liberal austerity agenda by making up for government revenue shortfalls caused by corporate tax giveaways by socking it to Joe and Jane proletariat by increasing consumption taxes and road tolls is the progressive thing to do.

In fact, the reason that the right and people like Rob Ford and Tim Hudak are so easily able to exploit the natural opposition of ordinary folks to regressive taxation is because it is a strategic position of "principle" abandoned by the left political organizations. Over the last 20 years "the left" has been so sucked into the neo-liberal vortex when they were busy playing ball with Bay Street, in order to make themselves seem "reasonable" that they seem to have forgotten that the point is to redistribute capital in order to pay for needed programs, not boostrap the programs from the shrinking wallets of those who the programs are supposed to serve.

This does not appear to be the case with today's ONDP, at all. Indeed, it is the NDP, and only the NDP of the three mainstream political parties that is advocating for any expansion of the tax base, and moreover, directly targeting wealth and capital.

It may not be much, but it is clearly in the vain of traditional "left" principles, of which the Liberals, for example, have none.

I agree 100% over the importance of distinguishing progressive revenue tools from regressive revenue tools (aka flat taxes).  This debate gets expecially heated over stuff like road tolls and gas taxes, where it's felt by some that hitting regular Joes and Janes will help the environment. 

Rokossovsky

mark_alfred wrote:

I agree 100% over the importance of distinguishing progressive revenue tools from regressive revenue tools (aka flat taxes).  This debate gets expecially heated over stuff like road tolls and gas taxes, where it's felt by some that hitting regular Joes and Janes will help the environment. 

That is fine. These kind of fine points are debatable within a progressive context. However, it remains a "progressive" context, and the ONDP remains comparatively a progressive force, in comparison to any other mainstream party. They don't suddenly become right wing if they don't buy into neo-liberal models of environmental activism.

Opposition to regressive "flat taxes" and support for taxes on capital and wealth is a bedrock "left/social democractic" position.

There has been no shift to the right, and I defy anyone to argue that this itteration of the ONDP is for example, to the right of Bob Rae's NDP. So, if there has been a shift to the right, it isn't a new thing, and it has nothing to do with Andrea Horwath.

On the issue of the environment, there is a serious issue with using flat taxes as environmental control, without modifying those taxes so that they are progressively applied throughout all strata of society. Otherewise, look at this, it is again ordinary people who are taking the hit for supporting the lavish carbon intensive lifestyles of the rich.

In fact, this is the origin of a lot of undue resistance to the popularity of environmental reform.

This point requires some thinking.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Andrea will become Premier, just not sure if it will be this election, or the next one.

But this author below thinks it may be this election. Who knows, eh! 

 

Quote:
It’s a complicated set of political variables in the mix as Ontarians seem destined for a trip to the polls this spring. Of course, Liberal lies and coverup form the pretext of this election, but will that ultimately become the ballot question? Both opposition parties have to make sure it does but must also convince voters that they are the answer. In both of the previous two provincial elections, the Liberals were poised to be defeated, but when push came to shove, Ontarians opted to stick with the devil they knew. Some may argue that this time it’s different [and ponder] “the Liberals have gone too far.”

Perhaps …

Both Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats have a job to do. For Hudak I think it’s to reassure Ontarians he is moderate and for Horwath it’s that the party is moderate. Polling data has shown the PCs have been on top for a while now but Hudak is the least liked leader of his two main competitors. The NDP, though within striking distance, are third in the party horse race but have Ontario’s most popular leader in Andrea Horwath.

The Liberals may perhaps have the most daunting challenge of all — to convince a very angry electorate that they aren’t who they’ve demonstrated (repeatedly) they are.

The campaign will matter — a lot. This is why I think we’re headed for an NDP minority.

Leadership evaluations are central considerations in the vote choice matrix in elections and Horwath has a clear advantage over Hudak, who will appeal to a greater number of the “throw the bums out” constituency. [/quote}

 

http://urbanitenews.com/2014/04/22/rose-city-politics-2014-provincial-el...

Well, that would be nice, but as Dexter, Rae, Doer and Romanow proved, just "electing an NDP government", in and of itself, isn't anything.  It matters what that government stands for, and it matters what constraints the party agrees to to get into government.  Believing that those things matter is not the same thing as not wanting to win.  It goes without saying that we ALL want the ONDPto win...but some of us disagree with you on the way to go about it.

It's not as if Ontario is permanently right-of-center and that no party can win unless that party sounds right of center as well.  Have some faith in the voters and don't assume that the only way to get an ONDP government is for the leader to use rhetoric that essentially says "to hell with the left".

Horwath doesn't need to sound like Tony Freaking Blair to get the ONDP into power.  She just needs to sound like she's got a program that can work and like a leader who isn't ashamed of the party's traditional values(that "not your grandfather's NDP" line is pretty much pointless and unforgiveable...people who hate social democratic values would never vote for the ONDP no matter how "moderate" it sounded.  They just wouldn't.  So there's no reason to pander to voters the party has no chance of getting.

If you hate taxes and unions, and if you see the poor as scroungers, you are NOT even a possible ONDP voter.  Why on earth would you be?

 

NorthReport

Chill Ken, I am no fan of Tony Blair, nor is Andrea I'm sure. Andrea is however a progressive and  smart NDPer with both feet firmly planted on the ground.

Unfortunately though Ken your approach is why the left-of centre parties lose elections the vast majority of the times.

 

 

Rokossovsky

It is just shocking how well the Liberal spin machine has created the impression that Horwath is "anti-tax".

She is the only party in the entire group that is advocating for a tax increase.

Understand, it is a traditional left-wing positin to sock it to the corporations and not implement flat taxes. It is more "Tony Benn", than "Tony Blair". Nor is their anything "Blairish" opposing cuts to health care in order to fund transit. Nor is their anything Blairish about opposing privatization of public utilities.

Yikes.

You want more substance, less rhetoric, less aesthetics. Really? This entire line is the triumph of shallow aesthetics over substance.

Quote:
Have some faith in the voters and don't assume that the only way to get an ONDP government is for the leader to use rhetoric that essentially says "to hell with the left".

If a great number of those progressive people on this board are not able to "get" substantive policy distinctions, nor even aquaint themselves with the facts, or even discuss the issues, and can only obsess about aesthetics and rhetoric, why should the NDP have any faith that Joe or Jane Average, is going to catch on to substance over marketing?

Unionist

Rokossovsky wrote:
... Joe or Jane Average ...

Interesting perspective.

NorthReport

It is not only right-wing Liberals, the real ones, and the faux NDPers, the lying right-wing Liberals who come here under the guise of being NDPers (Unionist by-the-way, is their biggest fan); it is also the dumb-ass lefties who haven't got a clue about winning elections. If their pet issue, out of the 100,000 of issues facing the party is not immediately asddressed, and front and centre in all discussions, they want to take their ball and go home.

What do you say to people like that? Laughing

NorthReport

This is a good example Rokossovsky, as if there is something wrong with average.

Let the mind games begin!  Laughing

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
... Joe or Jane Average ...

Interesting perspective.

Rokossovsky

Sad really.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
... Joe or Jane Average ...

Interesting perspective.

Yeah, as opposed to bunch of obsessive compulsive "leftie" politicos hanging out on line and repeatedly posting a 4 year old marketing poster for the NDP, that as far as I know didn't make it out of beta-testing. When they could be talking about the pros-and cons of taxing the rich, not selling assets bought and paid for by the people, and implementing a transit infrastructure plan to support low income people.

You know, Joe and Jane Average... people with lives.

Unionist

Very revealing - explains the right-ward shift of the NDP, which thinks that the "average" "middle class" needs to hear about jobs and balancing budgets, and not about:

child care, pharmacare, green economy, free education, public auto insurance (oh that's so 1990s...), ending Joe and Jane's support for Catholic schools, $14 minimum wage, anti-scab legislation, easing unionization rules, lifting the poor out of poverty...

Yeah, Joe and Jane are just sheep being herded by the Liberals and Conservatives. They'll never reach our enlightened level of leftishness. So we had better descend down to their level and pretend to be the bootlickers of the bankers. That'll trick the idiots into voting for us. And then... SOCIALISM!!!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Chill Ken, I am no fan of Tony Blair, nor is Andrea I'm sure. Andrea is however a progressive and  smart NDPer with both feet firmly planted on the ground.

Unfortunately though Ken your approach is why the left-of centre parties lose elections the vast majority of the times.

 

 

My "approach" is the idea that left-of-centre parties should actually try to persuade people that their principles and their policies are actually the best choices, and to work under the assumption that it's actually possible to win the argument.  No left-of-centre party in the English-speaking world has tried to do that in decades now.  Since they don't use my "approach", those parties should, by your analysis, be sweeping the board...yet they've mainly been losing...they've been losing by trying to "out-right the right"...by being more obsessed with balancing the budget than the centre and right, by treating labour and the poor like lepers, by making nearly as many(and sometimes AS many or even more)cuts in the social wage as the center and right parties did or would do, and by basically giving up on the idea of using political power to change anything for the better for most of those who voted for them.

Rather than acknowledge that, you response to these developments, in the posts I've read, has been to blast people on the Left for sticking up for their principles, to mock any notion that it's possible to change popular consciousness and build genunine majority support for a program of change, and to cheer on anything, in this case, Ms. Horwath does, apparently,  simply because what she does tends to appall a lot of people on the left.   Are you saying that the progressives should have no role in what the ONDP does other than unquestioningly cheerleading for whatever the leader proposes?  If that's what you feel(and I hope I'm wrong)why do you feel that?  What do you blame them for?  How can silence before an election ever really lead to meaningful change after it?

I'd really like to understand where you're coming from here.  It feels like you're not only selling leftists short, but selling the voters of Ontario short too...that you've taken an essentially defeatist view of what a left-of-centre party has to do to get elected

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Oh, and Rossokowsky, I wasn't attacking the proposals to(minutely) raise taxes on corporations...it was the other parts of the program and the rhetoric.

The ONDP is only going to get votes from people who don't feel like they're "winning" in the current economy.  Everyone who has any stake in preserving the status quo is going to vote PC or Liberal, as is anyone who still thinks Mike Harris was on the right track.

What the ONDP needs to realize is that most people DON'T feel like winners, and most of those who don't really are open to change.

The "aspirationals", however, will never vote for a party that is left-of-centre on anything.   That's what I'm trying to argue here.   Therefore, it's pointless to try to appeal to them.  If you're trying to get rich, you're gonna be reactionary.

Rokossovsky

Ken Burch wrote:

Oh, and Rossokowsky, I wasn't attacking the proposals to(minutely) raise taxes on corporations...it was the other parts of the program and the rhetoric.

That is intersting. What othere parts of the program are you talking about?

Refusal sell of 10 billion dollars worth of public power generations so as to abort chaining this and the next generation to complete rip off energy pricing under the control of a private monopoly?

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

child care, pharmacare, green economy, free education, public auto insurance (oh that's so 1990s...), ending Joe and Jane's support for Catholic schools, $14 minimum wage, anti-scab legislation, easing unionization rules, lifting the poor out of poverty...

Sounds nice!

So toward that objective as a declared Wynne advocate you support; no child care policy, other than the recently announced increase in the student to ECE worker ratio, so that private delivery companies can lower labour costs at the expense of child safety; complete surrrender on the "green economy"; reduced education funding, forced sale of schools and school facilities, increased class sizes, EQAO testing to advance performance pay and privatization objectives against the interests of parents, children and unionized education workers; P3 healthcare and transit solutions and further privatization; Catholic Schools; an 11 dollar minimum wage; back to work legislation (Bill 115), and destruction of local bargaining rights for Teachers Union locals (Bill 122); and sacking programs that support the poor, such as health care and education in order to cover the costs of transit expansion.

And of course sacking publically owned assets in order to fund the banks through deficit financing, made necessary by Liberal tax cut policies, in order to ensure that this generation and the next are enslaved to the predatory pricing practicies of private energy monopolies.

On the road to "socialism", or did you just loose your eyeglasses when googling the definition?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist is not "a declared Wynne supporter".  You can't just call anybody who questions Horwath's "strategy" a tool of the Liberals.

Skinny Dipper

Rokossovsky wrote:

Unionist wrote:

child care, pharmacare, green economy, free education, public auto insurance (oh that's so 1990s...), ending Joe and Jane's support for Catholic schools, $14 minimum wage, anti-scab legislation, easing unionization rules, lifting the poor out of poverty...

Sounds nice!

So toward that objective as a declared Wynne advocate you support; [...] destruction of local bargaining rights for Teachers Union locals (Bill 122); [...]

Let us remember that Andrea Horwath's NDP supported Bill 122 which helps to destroy local gargaining rights for teachers' union locals.

Skinny Dipper

I think it is fine for the Ontario NDP to target "middle class" voters rather than the "working class" as our society is changing.  We don't have the big union jobs in the auto sector and other manufacturing places like we used to.  "Lower class" voters are a small group of people who are less likely to vote than middle or upper income people.  The NDP does need to change its target groups before and during any election campaign.  That is now a necessity for the provincial party.  However, the framing of the message of social democracy to the middle class should indicate how social democracy will benefit voters in the middle class.  For example, a well-funded and well-planned public transit will help move people to and from work more easily and economically in the long run.  More people can take public transit.  This will also help free up the roads for those still needing to use their own personal vehicles.  The point is that Andrea Horwath needs to express how social democracy benefits Ontarians rather than watering down the social democracy message that she is currently doing.

Skinny Dipper

For commenters who state that those who criticize Andrea Horwath are just Liberal supporters, I will disagree.  It is true that I will not be supporting Andrea Horwath in the next election.  However, I will also not be supporting any of the other parties.  I do not care which party will form the next government.  That includes Tim Hudak's Conservatives.  Through Andrew Horwath's messaging (or silence in messaging), if she becomes the next premier, I don't know if she will become a Tim Hudak-lite leader by going on the attack against public service unions as indicated in a recent Globe and Mail article.

Rokossovsky

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist is not "a declared Wynne supporter".  You can't just call anybody who questions Horwath's "strategy" a tool of the Liberals.

He isn't?

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, fucking unions, defending workers instead of slavering and drooling over the NDP. They've already forgotten all the favours the last ONDP government did for them. Ungrateful Liberal stooges.

Horwath and Wynne are liberals. Wynne admits it. There's a substantive difference.

But there is certainly one other substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne. Wynne is lesbian, and out. She doesn't do high-heel ads. If it came down to it, I'd vote for Wynne for that reason alone. Count yourself lucky I don't vote in Ontario.

Emphasis mine. A pretty clear declaration.

 

Aristotleded24

Rokossovsky, I really appreciate the efforts you have made to speak to specific issues regarding what the Ontario NDP is or is not doing right, even if we do not agree on all the details.

Rokossovsky

Skinny Dipper wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Unionist wrote:

child care, pharmacare, green economy, free education, public auto insurance (oh that's so 1990s...), ending Joe and Jane's support for Catholic schools, $14 minimum wage, anti-scab legislation, easing unionization rules, lifting the poor out of poverty...

Sounds nice!

So toward that objective as a declared Wynne advocate you support; [...] destruction of local bargaining rights for Teachers Union locals (Bill 122); [...]

Let us remember that Andrea Horwath's NDP supported Bill 122 which helps to destroy local gargaining rights for teachers' union locals.

That is true. On the advice of the Liberal stooges in the Executive of the large teacher's federation, who made obsequious sounding depositions, and have taken a position generally supportive of Bill 122, blaming the "confusion" of the last round of negotiations on the existing "process", not on the decision of Dalton McGuinty and Liz Broten to impose a contract, through Bill 115.

Huh?

So, lets make this clear. The leaders of ETFO and OSSTF said that the problem with the last round of negotiations was not the imposed contract or the back to work law, it was the process of previous negotiations, which included local bargaining power. The fact that the old process has been used repeatedly without a single workstoppage since 2003, notwithstanding.

Does the bill politically advantage those people who advised the NDP to support the Bill because it centralizes even more power in their hands? Yes! These are the people who told the NDP to support Bill 122.

How could the NDP take a position of "solidarity" with the unions and at the same time oppose the stated desires of its lead provincial reps to pass the law with a few amendments? It can't can it? The howling about being "anti-union" would be even worse, if they opposed the Liberal legislation that was supported by the Liberal union brass.

The problem there, is one of political positioning and communication, not ideological distinctions.

Aristotleded24

Rokossovsky wrote:

We are adding to dangerous confusion over policy when we start making up reasons to justify a position. For example, when we say on tax policy that aversion to consumption taxes, is essentially a right wing position, simply because the right is exploiting it. They are, and can exploit it, precisely because the left abandoned this position, and instead invoked "necessity" as a reason to impose flat taxes, fees and consumption taxes to support programs, because the traditional progressive tax forms of income tax and corporate tax were being erroded.

In so doing, the left became the handmaiden to austerity because replacing progressive tax forms as the primary source of government revenue with regressive forms of taxation is the essence of neo-liberalism.

It is because Left/progressives have surrendered the principled stand in favour of progressive taxation, over regressive taxation, if not in name, but in fact, that people like Tim Hudak and Rob Ford get elected.

Yup. I invite you to hop over one province west, where the NDP raised the PST after nearly a decade of cutting corporate and personal income taxes, and it's PC leader Brian Pallister who is benefitting politically from this move.

Rokossovsky

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Rokossovsky, I really appreciate the efforts you have made to speak to specific issues regarding what the Ontario NDP is or is not doing right, even if we do not agree on all the details.

It's possible to have criticial positions of the NDP, and not support the NDP, and not vote for them, because they are not "left-wing" enough.

Arguing that they are "the same", or to the right of the Liberals because of a picture, just indicates a serious deficiency of understanding of left-wing principles -- progressiveness has become mere aesthetics, as opposed to clear set of political and economic principles. I don't care if Andrea Horwath wears organge high heals. It may be shallow, but it is just as shallow to spend endless hours rehashing the "meta" discourse the high heals represent. That is my point.

We are adding to dangerous confusion over policy when we start making up reasons to justify a position. For example, when we say on tax policy that aversion to consumption taxes, is essentially a right wing position, simply because the right is exploiting it. They are, and can exploit it, precisely because the left abandoned this position, and instead invoked "necessity" as a reason to impose flat taxes, fees and consumption taxes to support programs, because the traditional progressive tax forms of income tax and corporate tax were being erroded.

In so doing, the left became the handmaiden to austerity because replacing progressive tax forms as the primary source of government revenue with regressive forms of taxation is the essence of neo-liberalism.

It is because Left/progressives have surrendered the principled stand in favour of progressive taxation, over regressive taxation, if not in name, but in fact, that people like Tim Hudak and Rob Ford get elected.

At least the ONDP position recognizes this deficiency, by focussing on taxes that redistribute wealth.

Pages

Topic locked