ONT NDP Leader Andrea Horwath will become Premier of Ontario 2

826 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

From a truly unbiased source. Who's on a take down mission because his candidate didn't win the nomination.

onlinediscountanvils

Skinny Dipper wrote:
She is no friend of workers or the unions.

And she's no friend of poor people either.

NorthReport

Bye, bye Liberals!

I like Andrea's approach - give the Liberals an offer they can't accept. unless of course, being Liberals they lie about it. Smile 

NDP want corporate tax 'roll back' to fund transit 

http://www.wiartonecho.com/2014/04/23/ndp-want-corporate-tax-roll-back-t...

Aristotleded24

So Horwath on one hand advocated for a wealth tax in Ontario, and the Globe and Mail suggests that she is not open to raising corporate tax rates, and yet she sends a letter to Premier Wynne asking her to raise corporate tax rates specifically to fund public transit.

What is Andrea up to? I guess the next shoe to drop will be when the provincial election is called and she puts together her platform.

NorthReport

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!!!

Raise corporate taxes to fund Toronto subway, Horwath says

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hike-corporate-taxes-to-pay...

NorthReport

What's the poor Toronto Star going to do now? 

Aristotleded24

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

Why yes, the NDP has always advocated public health care, and since it has never been elected federally or in 5 provinces, I guess we'll just have to wait to see it.

Oh wait....

NorthReport

A24

Sounds like you would prefer to always be an opposition party than have the courage to fight to be government and all that that entails. Jeesh!

 

--------

Ontario Liberal insiders paid millions in publicly funded deals

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-caucus-funds/articl...

 

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
A24

Sounds like you would prefer to always be an opposition party than have the courage to fight to be government and all that that entails. Jeesh!

Get lost! I currently live in a province goverened by the NDP, and I can assure you that this has made very little difference in the lives of people living in poverty or who are underemployed or without work.

My point was that the NDP was able to get universal health care without being elected to government, and that the primary focus in getting an idea implemented was to get public support for that idea without relying on a particular political party to come to the rescue.

NorthReport

Revisionist history but carry on with the nonsense.  Smile

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
As a whole, the NDP is the better option, regardless of whether they're less than perfect.

The fallacy in your whole convoluted metaphor is that people have no role to play in society except to choose one or another set of dictators, using their microscope to select the lesser of evils.

Some of us believe that we should choose ourselves, and bring about real change from below. The only way, incidentally, that real change has ever happened anywhere anytime.

And if Horwath and her hired hands decide that the way to power is to lick the boots of wealthy and powerful, then at least allow us the simple human right of saying so out loud, and of calling on people to try to get the NDP to be a little nicer to the powerless of the land.

I don't buy the disempowering and desperate line that exposing a crime of the NDP equates to choosing the Liberals or Conservatives. People are not sheep to be herded around and bullied. We will tell the NDP what to do, and if they won't, we will destroy them and build something different. Likewise with Liberals and Conservatives and every other wannabe dictator posing as elected representatives.

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
In summary, I look forward to those who advocate specific little battles against the NDP dissecting my post (and indirectly encouraging Liberal or Conservative meat consumption).  As a whole, the NDP is the better option, regardless of whether they're less than perfect.  As is for me vegetarianism.  No gastropubs for me.  And no need for perfect elixirs either.  Just the best option, kept simple.  Which for me is the NDP.

Please show me where I or anyone else who have criticized the NDP have advocated voting for the Liberals and Conservatives. As the NDP adjusts its policies to water down the differences between these parties (for example, on corporate taxation, which now I'm confused about because one Globe and Mail article suggests that Andrea won't touch them, while another suggests she might raise them to fund transit, so nobody knows what she's planning on) people will conclude that there is no point in voting and will just give up. Hey, if we get the same policies no matter who is in office, why bother? As for the unions you mentioned? Unfortunately, many of the working class, those in poverty and unemployed see unions as just another self-interested interest group and they ignore what unions have to say about things.

Here's a metaphor for you. If you were to be mugged in the street, would you rather be punched in the head or kicked in the stomach or have your shoulder dislocated? You'd probably tell me that you would rather not be mugged at all, but that wasn't the option I gave you in this question. For many people, this is exactly how it feels to have to vote.

Rokossovsky

DP

Rokossovsky

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Please show me where I or anyone else who have criticized the NDP have advocated voting for the Liberals and Conservatives. As the NDP adjusts its policies to water down the differences between these parties (for example, on corporate taxation, which now I'm confused about because one Globe and Mail article suggests that Andrea won't touch them, while another suggests she might raise them to fund transit, so nobody knows what she's planning on) people will conclude that there is no point in voting and will just give up. Hey, if we get the same policies no matter who is in office, why bother? As for the unions you mentioned?

You have are rightly confused because you have been lied to. Simply put, Andrea Horwath went to the CD Howe institute to talk to some business people and tell them she was going to raise taxes, but not too much. The precise thing she is reported to have said is that she will not roll them back to the level they were at before the Liberals took over, which was 14%.

This was then spun as moving to the center and cozying up to "big business" in the Globe and Mail.

In reality, the Liberals stepped down corporate taxation from 14% to 11.5%, where it is now.

Yes, Horwath has declared she will be raising corporate taxes to fund transit, just not to 2003 levels. This gives her a good 2% possible increase in corporate taxes before she hits the 14% ceiling she has proposed, which will certainly generate about 1.25 billion a year minimum.

This makes the NDP the only party to be proposing new revenue generation at all.

Wynne for her part has is throwing around big numbers for transit and other social programs, only saying that she will "dedicate" a certain porition of funds from HST and gas tax to fund transit. She has not, at this time, proposed any new revenue sources, which begs the question: "If Wynne is going to redirect, rather than generate revenue, what precisely is she going to cut in order to spend 3 billion a year on transit"?

There is no Liberal plan to expand the tax base, as yet. They are free to throw around large figures for funding on transit and social programs, without proposing how to pay for them, because everyone knows the budget is going down, and proposing spending a lot on transit sounds "progressive" and not proposing tax increases make everyone happy.

Horwath has now challenged Wynne to put her ante in on the corporate tax issue, and in so doing put increased corporate taxation on the agenda, without naming precise figure. Thus Horwarth has put corporate taxation on the table. Wynne can name a figure or not, and Horwath can then up her ante, after she collapses the government, as part of her campaign drive.

However, for some reason. The Liberal plan to stay on track for a promised future 0.5% corporate tax break (something the Libeals don't talk about so much these days) is being pitched as progressive, while the NDP stated desire to raise them is not.

Hello! Any tax on capital is progressive by definition.

In fact, the Liberal no tax increase position, might as well be a copy of the Conservative no tax increase position. The NDP is the only one proposing a tax increase, and it is against corporations.

NorthReport

Keep doing what you are doing Andrea, and don't concern yourself too much with the purists.

If Jesus himself was running, I'm sure he wouldn't get much more than 75% support.  Laughing 

Your job is to first get elected, and many applaud your efforts in that direction.

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

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.

Rokossovsky

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.

So you mean that rejecting the NDP on principle is a good strategy because their minimum wage proposal sucks as hard as the Liberal proposal, even if that means foregoing raiding the corporate vaults to pay for transit that supports all low income people, the undermployed, minimum wage workers, welfare recipeints and people on ODSP?

Personally, I encourage government to tax capital and use the revenue to support low income people.

It would be better, I suppose from your point of view to let Wynne shuffle tax money around from one project to another, for example further restricting education funding in order to pay for expansion of transit?

Unionist

Rokossovsky wrote:

So you mean that rejecting the NDP on principle ...

OMG.

Rejecting the NDP "on principle" (who did that??) is as pathetic as supporting the NDP "on principle".

What kind of principles are those?

Here's a novel idea: If a party's policies go against your fundamental principles, then criticize them, try to change them, make sure they never achieve power... But that presupposes something. That you have some fundamental principles.

 

mark_alfred

To digress for a second, I recall when vegetarianism was a big thing, with studies showing that vegetarians lived longer and it was better for the environment.  Many trendy new places opened up catering to vegetarianism, with mock meat dishes, veggie options, etc.  Then, the subtle war on it began:  encouragement to strive for purity making it more difficult (IE, organic, etc.), and focus battles not on vegetarianism as a whole but on specific little battles (soy, wheat gluten, vitamin B12, omega 3, wheat, grains, potatoes, carbohydrates, etc.)  Also, elevate health expectations to unrealistic levels, then show these to be false (ignoring that both environmentally and health wise it's still a better option than meat consumption).  The result now is that many of the new trendy places opening are "gastropubs" (primarily meat) or, if vegetarian, are extremely specialized featuring fancy raw foods and elixirs and such -- all outta my price range.  I myself am a vegetarian, and feel no need to worry too much about purity or being specialized (IE, I'm not buying algae elixirs).  For me, it's a simple option that's the best.  No need to complicate that with various worries.

Same for the NDP.  People go on about purity, and then they state, "not 100% pure, so may as well eat Liberal meat" (or something to that effect).  McGuinty Liberals campaigned against Harris by promising to raise corporate taxes when they were elected, and then did the exact opposite.  And, well, many other things.  NDP doesn't directly advocate raising corporate taxes -- they phrase it as "keeping taxes competitive" with surrounding jurisdictions, but say in the same breath that there is room to raise corporate taxes given what the corporate tax rates are in surrounding jurisdictions.  That isn't pure enough for some, so they advocate choosing Liberal or Conservative meat.  The minimum wage is another one.  Some groups that I suspect were part of the Liberal friendly Working Families coalition declared that an immediate raise in the minimum wage of 36% was necessary (knowing it would never happen, but seeing an opportunity to paint the NDP as impure).  I have sat on union negotiating committees, and such demands on wages are unheard of (in my experience, anyway).  The Liberals promised to index it to inflation (the CPI) back to when they last froze it, and continue thereafter (current CPI being 2%, I think).  The NDP had been advocating that it be raised and indexed to inflation, and promised not only to do as the Liberals are but also for two years to raise it by over twice the rate of inflation (4.4%, I think) before settling in to indexing it to inflation.  So, far better than the Liberals or Conservatives (IE, those on minimum wage would see more than a grand added to their salaries each year), yet people say "What?  Not 36% now!  I'm gonna eat Liberal or Conservative meat then!").  Also, the idea that user fees and flat taxes and unregulated auto insurance companies milking people is somehow good for us and the NDP being against this and promoting progressive taxation is bad for us is just surreal, I feel (but, if it's not public auto insurance, then we must eat Liberal meat).

In summary, I look forward to those who advocate specific little battles against the NDP dissecting my post (and indirectly encouraging Liberal or Conservative meat consumption).  As a whole, the NDP is the better option, regardless of whether they're less than perfect.  As is for me vegetarianism.  No gastropubs for me.  And no need for perfect elixirs either.  Just the best option, kept simple.  Which for me is the NDP.

mark_alfred

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Here's a metaphor for you. If you were to be mugged in the street, would you rather be punched in the head or kicked in the stomach or have your shoulder dislocated? You'd probably tell me that you would rather not be mugged at all, but that wasn't the option I gave you in this question. For many people, this is exactly how it feels to have to vote.

And that's the problem -- people not seeing which party is the best option for them and the resultant apathy and not voting.  Compare this to the right (using Harper's Cons as an example).  People interested in low taxes and less government and/or social conservatism may not be satisfied or happy with the Cons, but they still get out and vote and donate to them in larger numbers.  Consider that the Cons taxed income trusts, intervened in the economy to save it with stimulus spending (rather than downloading and/or cutting transfer payments like the Libs before them), have not made abortion illegal, and left gay marriage alone (even though they now have a majority).  Yet, even though from the perspective of right-wingers these actions would deem the Cons imperfect, right-wingers realize that they are their best option, and vote and donate in higher numbers.

Left wingers, on the other hand, fret about imperfection, and become apathetic and don't vote.  And the country (and province) slides more right.  Alleged progressives here who spend an inordinate amount of time throwing darts at the NDP are only trying to feed that apathy.  Won't work with me, I'm happy to report.  The Ontario NDP are clearly the better option than the Liberals or the Conservatives.

onlinediscountanvils

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

 

mark_alfred wrote:
And the country (and province) slides more right.  Alleged progressives here who spend an inordinate amount of time throwing darts at the NDP are only trying to feed that apathy.

Bullshit. When NDP policies are designed with the intention of appealing to Liberal and Conservative voters, is it any wonder why we're sliding to the right? And who here is promoting apathy? No one that I've seen.

Skinny Dipper

I don't expect the Ontario NDP to be some pure social democratic party in that we all have different interpretations of "social democratic."  I would hope that Andrea Horwath could express what kind of Ontario she wants and how she intends to get us the best way there.  Unfortunately, I don't know what she wants for Ontario other than lower auto insurance rates and some accountabilty office.  She has not presented a clear vision of what she wants for Ontario.  On issues such as the minimum wage and labour rights, a key word that pops up is "silent."  Andrea is silent on many issues because she would rather sell her NDP as a mish-mash of a new Liberal-Conservative party rather than promote her vision of social democracy to middle income/middle class Ontarians.  I don't know if she becomes the next premier, if she will get tough with the public service unions in order to please the business community.  Will she support a huge expansion of public transit or just offer a few crumbs to the cities of Ontario for transit services?  I don't expect Ms. Horwath to promise a $14 hour minimum wage right away.  It would be nice if this target (plus inflation protection) can be reach by the end of the first term of an NDP government.  No, her current minimum wage proposal will keep many working Ontarians in poverty.

Ms. Horwath is the wildcard candidate.  If she becomes the next premier, I will not know what to expect from her.  Will she lead a social democratic government or become Hudak-lite?  I don't know.

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

So you mean: "Yes, I will vote NDP because I support increased taxation on capital to fund social programs and infrastructure that supports low income people, because Kathleen Wynne has yet to explain what social programs she intends to cut when she redirects gas taxes and HST into a 3 billion dollar a year transit infrastructure investment, instead of OW or ODSP?"

Where will Wynne cut to fund transit expansion in the GTA?

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

So you mean that rejecting the NDP on principle ...

OMG.

Rejecting the NDP "on principle" (who did that??) is as pathetic as supporting the NDP "on principle".

What kind of principles are those?

Here's a novel idea: If a party's policies go against your fundamental principles, then criticize them, try to change them, make sure they never achieve power... But that presupposes something. That you have some fundamental principles.

I knew it must have something to do with "principles" because it certainly has nothing to do with the economics of delivering financial support to low income earners.

Rokossovsky

Skinny Dipper wrote:

I don't expect the Ontario NDP to be some pure social democratic party in that we all have different interpretations of "social democratic."  I would hope that Andrea Horwath could express what kind of Ontario she wants and how she intends to get us the best way there.  Unfortunately, I don't know what she wants for Ontario other than lower auto insurance rates and some accountabilty office.  She has not presented a clear vision of what she wants for Ontario.  On issues such as the minimum wage and labour rights, a key word that pops up is "silent."  Andrea is silent on many issues because she would rather sell her NDP as a mish-mash of a new Liberal-Conservative party rather than promote her vision of social democracy to middle income/middle class Ontarians.  I don't know if she becomes the next premier, if she will get tough with the public service unions in order to please the business community.  Will she support a huge expansion of public transit or just offer a few crumbs to the cities of Ontario for transit services?  I don't expect Ms. Horwath to promise a $14 hour minimum wage right away.  It would be nice if this target (plus inflation protection) can be reach by the end of the first term of an NDP government.  No, her current minimum wage proposal will keep many working Ontarians in poverty.

Ms. Horwath is the wildcard candidate.  If she becomes the next premier, I will not know what to expect from her.  Will she lead a social democratic government or become Hudak-lite?  I don't know.

I don't see any mention in here of her commitment to raise corporate taxes? Why? She is the only candidate to express a desire to add any new revenue to the government chest.

In fact, the Liberals and the Conservative seem lock step in their averstion to raising ANY taxes.

With all the rhetoric of opposing austerity, promising a roll back of tax cuts to corporations, makes the NDP the only party to actually oppose the last 10 years of neo-liberal reform in Ontario.

Is there any other party in all of Canada, actually arguing for an increase taxes on capital?

Seems to me that the Liberal stooges in the upper echelons of the labour movement, who have wed their personal political careers to the success of failure of the Liberal party are making a big deal of Horwath's lassitude on minimum wage, in order to confuse the progressive left by suggesting that there is no substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne, as yet another argument in support of "strategic voting".

There are clear differences.

Is Horwath supporting further privatization of Ontario Hydro?
Is Horwath proposing maintaing corporate taxation at today's rate or lower?
Is Horwath proposing even more "public-private" partnerships to deliver service?

No. No. And no.

However, the Liberals are arguing for all three.

Unionist

Rokossovsky wrote:

Seems to me that the Liberal stooges in the upper echelons of the labour movement, who have wed their personal political careers to the success of failure of the Liberal party are making a big deal of Horwath's lassitude on minimum wage, in order to confuse the progressive left by suggesting that there is no substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne, as yet another argument in support of "strategic voting".

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.

 

 

Gee, I guess she's appealing to poor and low-income folks.

She should definitely check out one-way tickets to B.C.

 

Rokossovsky

Ken Coran, president of OSSTF ran for the Liberals in a by-election right on the heals of surrendering his union to the Liberals at the end of the last negotiation, after they applied Bill 115. Don't talk to me about unions defending "workers". Tough talk. All bullshit. What a joke.

NorthReport

No wonder the right-wing win most elections and control our society the way the left eat their own. We're famous for that aren't we. We must be the right-wing's biggest asset. 

This thread is a good example.  Wink

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it was under an ndp regime in bc that the government got caught kicking people off welfare. seems that they had been at it for a while. on the same day i watched the minister responsible deny to the public that any such thing even going on. while every wed am, on coop radio, some of those who had received the boot told their stories. we were presented with tales of deceit, outright trickery and lots of threats and bullying. so we learned that the ndp knows best and can make the really hard decisions when they have to. moral of the story don't trust political parties. you may end up voting for them but you don’t have to buy into their point of view. learn from the pipeline struggle that change comes from the ground up and that it is possible to have some victories.

last edit :)

Rokossovsky

epaulo13 wrote:

..it was under an ndp regime in bc that the government got caught kicking people off welfare. seems that they had been at it for a while. on the same day i watched the minister responsible deny to the public that any such thing even going on. while every wed am, on coop radio, some of those who had received the boot told their stories. we were presented with tales of deceit, outright trickery and lots of threats and bullying. so we learned that the ndp knows best and can make the really hard decisions when they have to. moral of the story don't trust political parties. you may end up voting for them but you don’t have to buy their bullshit. look at the pipeline struggle. change comes from the ground up.

 

 

Of course you don't have to buy any bullshit. But we are looking at clearly distinct platforms. Whether or not the parties act on these platforms is another thing, and there is no reason anyone should trust the NDP for any particular reason.

But the idea that there is no substantive "platform" distinction between the NDP and the Liberals, or that the NDP platform is less "progressive" than the Liberals is outright liberal spin, and unfactual, when we consider the platform's in their raw form. There are clearly points where the NDP platform still cleaves to social democratic traditions, one example of which is the direct pledge to fund needed transit infrastructure using funds from a tax on corporate capital.

We will see what actually happens, and it is doubtful that the NDP will ever manage to surmount the (justifiable) cynicism of the electorate, or the Liberal spin and fear mongering about the right which is all designed to get people to vote against their own interests and vote for a party platform that is still pledged to further corporate tax cuts, increased privatization, institutionalization of P3 service delivery and now "redirecting" taxes that are already committed to other programs so that it can make outlandish and unrealistic campaign promises offering to spend phantom billions on progressive sounding initiatives.

If the sole issue is avoiding the "Hudak" conundrum by voting anybody but Hudak, there is an alternative that neither endorses years of Liberals mispending and waste and corruption on privatized gas plants, Eheath, ORNGE privatization scandals, nor a campaign platform that basically promises more of the same, and that is the NDP.

For what its worth.

Lets not get sucked in by the Liberal bullshit either.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Seems to me that the Liberal stooges in the upper echelons of the labour movement, who have wed their personal political careers to the success of failure of the Liberal party are making a big deal of Horwath's lassitude on minimum wage, in order to confuse the progressive left by suggesting that there is no substantive difference between Horwath and Wynne, as yet another argument in support of "strategic voting".

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. THey are not "defending" anything.

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.

 

Gee, I guess she's appealing to poor and low-income folks.

She should definitely check out one-way tickets to B.C.

 

So? That is stupid. What do pictures of Horwath in a business suit with stupid slogans have to do with nuts and bolts of delivering services to low income earners? You have yet to make one argument on point.

Where is Wynne's pledge to fund social programs through increase corporate taxation? Her failure to do so makes Wynne more progressive than Horwath, when Horwath has specifically pledged to do so?

And as for the sold out Ontario union leadership. They are. End of story. I have watched this pandering to the Liberals for years. Wynne is their pick and they are sold on it. McGuinty was their guy too. The leadership is stuck so far up the Liberal ass that the ETFO and OSSTF actually supported destruction of local bargaining rights in Bill 122, in favour of so called "bargaining units" of 50,000+ members."

Why because it favours the power of the top union brass, Imagine if they turned the CLC into a bargaining unit. Think about it.

Yeah right. 5 negotiators not directly elected by the membership, the minister and two liberal lawyers get to have secret meetings and then tell the members that "they could do no better", and then hand the membership a yes/no ratification vote on two weeks notice, with no local polling.

You knew they were shilling for the Liberals when the demoblized an Ontario wide strike action, because the OLRB threatened them with a $30,000 fine.

That works out to 50 cents a member, for the one day planned strike action. What?

Absolutely shameless pandering.

onlinediscountanvils

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

So you mean[...]

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1436406#comment-1436406]no[/url]

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Rokossovsky wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..it was under an ndp regime in bc that the government got caught kicking people off welfare. seems that they had been at it for a while. on the same day i watched the minister responsible deny to the public that any such thing even going on. while every wed am, on coop radio, some of those who had received the boot told their stories. we were presented with tales of deceit, outright trickery and lots of threats and bullying. so we learned that the ndp knows best and can make the really hard decisions when they have to. moral of the story don't trust political parties. you may end up voting for them but you don’t have to buy their bullshit. look at the pipeline struggle. change comes from the ground up.

Of course you don't have to buy any bullshit. But we are looking at clearly distinct platforms. Whether or not the parties act on these platforms is another thing, and there is no reason anyone should trust the NDP for any particular reason.

But the idea that there is no substantive "platform" distinction between the NDP and the Liberals, or that the NDP platform is less "progressive" than the Liberals is outright liberal spin, and unfactual, when we consider the platform's in their raw form. There are clearly points where the NDP platform still cleaves to social democratic traditions, one example of which is the direct pledge to fund needed transit infrastructure using funds from a tax on corporate capital.

We will see what actually happens, and it is doubtful that the NDP will ever manage to surmount the (justifiable) cynicism of the electorate, or the Liberal spin and fear mongering about the right which is all designed to get people to vote against their own interests and vote for a party platform that is still pledged to further corporate tax cuts, increased privatization, institutionalization of P3 service delivery and now "redirecting" taxes that are already committed to other programs so that it can make outlandish and unrealistic campaign promises offering to spend phantom billions on progressive sounding initiatives.

If the sole issue is avoiding the "Hudak" conundrum by voting anybody but Hudak, there is an alternative that neither endorses years of Liberals mispending and waste and corruption on privatized gas plants, Eheath, ORNGE privatization scandals, nor a campaign platform that basically promises more of the same, and that is the NDP.

For what its worth.

Lets not get sucked in by the Liberal bullshit either.

..the world over is desperately looking for change not just a different platform. the ndp are not the ones to take us to a different place. and while we try and figure that one out we need to protect ourselves from the ravages of austerity, damages environment and much much more. again i point to the pipeline struggles and say victories are posible. here's a small one that also holds promise.

quote:

Sensing an epic disaster in the making, the normally pro-tar-sands Vancouver Sun just penned an editorial titled: "It’s time for sober second thought on megaproject." It is a plea for Harper to delay the decision:

"Northern Gateway, regardless of its strategic economic importance to Canada, simply does not have the social licence necessary to proceed, at least, not for now. Forcing the project through would only be a provocation, triggering legal action and possibly blockades and civil disobedience along the pipeline route."

... But why must the matter be decided by June?

... Better to delay than reject. Better to delay than confront.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/keystone-xl-delay...

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

So you mean[...]

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1436406#comment-1436406]no[/url]

So you are just bellyaching and don't really care one way or the other whether or not anyone is acting to support low income earners, and this stuff about minimum wage, OW, and ODSP are just talking points to sharpen your axe with.

Good to know. For a second there I thought you might actually care that people in minumum wage jobs, or on welfare or on ODSP, have good quality cheap transit to improve their quality of life, bankrolled through corporate profits, as opposed to having future transit expansion bankrolled by gutting other social services that they may depend on, since that is what the Liberals really mean when they talk about "dedicating" existing taxes to transit expansion, or has Wynne figured out a way to spend the same money twice?

Good question for you; If Wynne is not proposing any new revenue tools to cover transit costs, yet plans to spend 3 billion a year expanding transit over the next ten years, what services, programs, or government worker wages does she intend to cut in order to cover the costs?

Rokossovsky

epaulo13 wrote:

..the world over is desperately looking for change not just a different platform. the ndp are not the ones to take us to a different place. and while we try and figure that one out we need to protect ourselves from the ravages of austerity, damages environment and much much more. again i point to the pipeline struggles and say victories are posible. here's a small one that also holds promise.

quote:

Sensing an epic disaster in the making, the normally pro-tar-sands Vancouver Sun just penned an editorial titled: "It’s time for sober second thought on megaproject." It is a plea for Harper to delay the decision:

"Northern Gateway, regardless of its strategic economic importance to Canada, simply does not have the social licence necessary to proceed, at least, not for now. Forcing the project through would only be a provocation, triggering legal action and possibly blockades and civil disobedience along the pipeline route."

... But why must the matter be decided by June?

... Better to delay than reject. Better to delay than confront.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/keystone-xl-delay...

That is great. The present topic of discussion is the electoral political scene involving the mainstream parties.

Here we finally have a mainstream political party actually talking about rolling back austerity by cancelling out tax breaks to the corporate sector. That is the NDP. That is a good thing. I support increased taxes on capital.

onlinediscountanvils

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

So you mean[...]

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1436406#comment-1436406]no[/url]

So[...]

no (you're not very good at this mind-reading, are you?)

Rokossovsky wrote:
Good question for you; If Wynne is not proposing any new revenue tools to cover transit costs, yet plans to spend 3 billion a year expanding transit over the next ten years, what services, programs, or government worker wages does she intend to cut in order to cover the costs?

That seems like more of a question for Wynne. I'm not her.

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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.

So you mean[...]

no

So you mean[...]

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1436406#comment-1436406]no[/url]

So[...]

no (you're not very good at this mind-reading, are you?)

Rokossovsky wrote:
Good question for you; If Wynne is not proposing any new revenue tools to cover transit costs, yet plans to spend 3 billion a year expanding transit over the next ten years, what services, programs, or government worker wages does she intend to cut in order to cover the costs?

That seems like more of a question for Wynne. I'm not her.

Nope. Not good at reading minds or tea leaves, but I know bullshit when I see it.

Rokossovsky

epaulo13 wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

That is great. The present topic of discussion is the electoral political scene involving the mainstream parties.

Here we finally have a mainstream political party actually talking about rolling back austerity by cancelling out tax breaks to the corporate sector. That is the NDP. That is a good thing. I support increased taxes on capital.

..austerity is part and parcel of a neoliberal agenda. you can't role it back because you have zero control over it. it's embedded in your trade and other global deals as well as financial structures. it's enforced by bankers, corporations, the us and europe. govs implement this austerity onto their populations with some taking more pleasure at it than others. none oppose enough to make it into a fight.

That is probably the techincal reality. However, much can be gained from shfiting the frame and the direction of that discourse, and if, for example, the Ontario electorate vote to stick it to the corporations, you are actually talking about shifting the paradigm and setting the agenda against austerity.

The next step is to move the momentum toward default on the debt.

But simply saying that "its impossible" is defeatist.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Rokossovsky wrote:

That is great. The present topic of discussion is the electoral political scene involving the mainstream parties.

Here we finally have a mainstream political party actually talking about rolling back austerity by cancelling out tax breaks to the corporate sector. That is the NDP. That is a good thing. I support increased taxes on capital.

..austerity is part and parcel of a neoliberal agenda. you can't role it back because you have zero control over it. it's embedded in your trade and other global agreements as well as your financial structures. it's enforced by global organizations as well as by bankers, corporations, the us and europe. govs implement this austerity onto their populations with some taking more pleasure at it than others. none oppose it enough to make it into a fight. and then one day there is a crisis and someone or something else goes to the chopping block. the more the ndp moves towards a middle class the less they become relevant to the real struggle against the economic and political dominance of corporations and banks. i used to look forward  watching john rodriguez member from the nickle belt tear stripes off corporations in the house of commons. long speeches that exposed their ugliness and cruelty. that guy was on my side i used to think. there was no doubt about that. edit

NorthReport

Great work Andrea - now let's have an election and throw the bums out.

Ontario budget preview: The politics Liberals giving NDP cake — and then they’ll eat it, too

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Ontario+budget+preview+politics/9775494/sto...

mark_alfred

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
And the country (and province) slides more right.  Alleged progressives here who spend an inordinate amount of time throwing darts at the NDP are only trying to feed that apathy.

Bullshit. When NDP policies are designed with the intention of appealing to Liberal and Conservative voters, is it any wonder why we're sliding to the right? And who here is promoting apathy? No one that I've seen.

I think you are missing the main point of my argument, which was that right wingers are more open to imperfection within their parties (either Lib or Con) and will support them regardless.  They will support them even though they (the Libs and Cons) are not perfectly right-wing (IE, not perfectly libertarian or perfectly social-conservative).  This loyalty of right-wingers to their two best (though not perfect) options (Libs and Cons) has led to Canada and Ontario becoming more right wing.  So, conversely, left wingers being hyper critical of the NDP has not helped to advance progressive causes, whereas right wingers not being hyper critical of the Conservatives or Liberals has helped regressive causes. 

Rokossovsky

Not too long ago it was a great big victory to get the Liberals to implement a $10 minimum wage hike that added 10% to the payroll costs of all business in Ontario. Back then this was still a "poverty" wage, but it was argued that "something is better than nothing", and "progress is progress", even if small, and no where near enough to lift minimum wage workers off the floor. Then as now, $15 and hour is the bottom floor for a livable wage.

But in 2011, victory was declared by the labour movement in the wake of the paltry 10% increase in the minimum wage. The Liberals are "good," progressive folks who can be made to do the right thing, when they can.

$10 an hour. Yay!

Now adding 40% to the payroll costs of Ontario business is a "must have".

Now it is argued that 10% increase in the payroll costs of all companies in Ontario is simply not good enough. "Something is better than nothing" is no longer acceptable, and "progress is progress" no matter how small is not a big "victory" but is a shameless sell out.

The NDP are "bad" people who always betray their principles, even when proposing a 20% increase.

$12 an hour. Boo!

NorthReport

Pull the plug Andrea, there is never a perfect time, but comparing you to the other 2, and you are gonna do just fine .

Andrea Horwath: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/andrea-horwath-between-rock-a...

mark_alfred

I do wonder at the disproportionate negativity being cast by some toward Andrea Horwath here.  While there's some that's directed at Mulcair and the federal NDP, there seems far more that's directed toward Horwath.  Is it because she's a woman?  Because besides that, there's very little difference in policies between the federal NDP and the Ontario NDP.  Both are against user fees and increased consumption taxes (viewing these as flat taxes).  Both are for raising corporate taxes when there is room to do so (IE, each have the proviso that corporate taxes can be raised as long as the tax rate is competitive with surrounding jurisdictions -- which means nearby States).  The only significant policy difference is that the Ontario NDP are open to increasing taxes on the very wealthy, whereas the federal NDP have shut the door on this.  So, arguably the Ontario NDP is even more progressive than the federal NDP.  Yet, some here seem compelled to attack Andrea.  Strange.

onlinediscountanvils

mark_alfred wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
And the country (and province) slides more right.  Alleged progressives here who spend an inordinate amount of time throwing darts at the NDP are only trying to feed that apathy.

Bullshit. When NDP policies are designed with the intention of appealing to Liberal and Conservative voters, is it any wonder why we're sliding to the right? And who here is promoting apathy? No one that I've seen.

I think you are missing the main point of my argument, which was that right wingers are more open to imperfection within their parties (either Lib or Con) and will support them regardless.  They will support them even though they (the Libs and Cons) are not perfectly right-wing (IE, not perfectly libertarian or perfectly social-conservative).  This loyalty of right-wingers to their two best (though not perfect) options (Libs and Cons) has led to Canada and Ontario becoming more right wing.  So, conversely, left wingers being hyper critical of the NDP has not helped to advance progressive causes, whereas right wingers not being hyper critical of the Conservatives or Liberals has helped regressive causes.

No, I got that. I just disagree that an unquestioning loyalty to the NDP advances progressive politics - especially when that party seems more interested in courting the voters to their right than to their left.

And the ongoing suggestions from various babblers that left-wing critics of the NDP expect 'purity' is a bit of a strawperson and is getting kinda old. Never once have I been presented with the option of voting for a candidate or party whose politics were a perfect match for my own, and yet I've still seen reason to vote in at least a dozen elections since turning 18. I vote when I feel it's strategic to vote, and abstain when I feel it's strategic to abstain. I don't know what I'll do in the next provinical election, but if it were held today, I certainly wouldn't be voting NDP.

onlinediscountanvils

mark_alfred wrote:
I do wonder at the disproportionate negativity being cast by some toward Andrea Horwath here.  While there's some that's directed at Mulcair and the federal NDP, there seems far more that's directed toward Horwath.

Mark, this simply isn't true, as anyone who spends time reading the national and international threads can plainly see.

And while I don't think your comment is generally true of babble, I'm more outspoken about politics on the provincial and local levels because that's where the bulk of my organizing is aimed, and that's where the policies that have the greatest impact on my life are decided.

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
And the country (and province) slides more right.  Alleged progressives here who spend an inordinate amount of time throwing darts at the NDP are only trying to feed that apathy.

Bullshit. When NDP policies are designed with the intention of appealing to Liberal and Conservative voters, is it any wonder why we're sliding to the right? And who here is promoting apathy? No one that I've seen.

I think you are missing the main point of my argument, which was that right wingers are more open to imperfection within their parties (either Lib or Con) and will support them regardless.  They will support them even though they (the Libs and Cons) are not perfectly right-wing (IE, not perfectly libertarian or perfectly social-conservative).  This loyalty of right-wingers to their two best (though not perfect) options (Libs and Cons) has led to Canada and Ontario becoming more right wing.  So, conversely, left wingers being hyper critical of the NDP has not helped to advance progressive causes, whereas right wingers not being hyper critical of the Conservatives or Liberals has helped regressive causes.

No, I got that. I just disagree that an unquestioning loyalty to the NDP advances progressive politics - especially when that party seems more interested in courting the voters to their right than to their left.

 

Yeah I know. Opposing privatiziation of Ontario Hydro, expansion of P3 programs and being for increase corporate taxes just screams "Mike Harris".

Whereas, Wynne's, plan to cancel Peter's "special needs education" program to pay for Pauls bus ride, privatize more of Ontario Hydro, institute even more P3 programs through Metrolinx, and someday "finally" follow through on another 0.5% reduction in corporate taxes reads like Karl Marx.

As long as tis not Hudak doing the cutting... its ok.

What is important of course is the optics of a few silly posters with silly blurbs on them.

josh

Quote:

 

 

Gee, I guess she's appealing to poor and low-income folks.

She should definitely check out one-way tickets to B.C.

 

Wow, she makes Mulcair look like the second coming of Tommy Douglas.

Rokossovsky

Jesus.

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.

What is apparently important is her visual "appeal".

That is pretty sad guys.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

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.

Pages

Topic locked