The Church of the NDP is Closed...

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:
..so i ask in all sincerity what are we to do? 

My position is well known here, that with Harper leading the Conservatives, the best the Opposition can hope for is the NDP and Liberals to gain enough seats so as together be able to overthrow Harper. That means the NDP has to remain strong, but also that the Liberals have to rebuild and become relevant again.

..with all due respect harper isn't the problem it's harper's masters that need taken care of. there needs to be a much broader coalition to to take that on.

 

 

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:
"The reason the NDP isn't pushing very hard for higher corporate tax rates is because it's chicken feed." Actually, it's futile. Harper can govern contrary to anything the NDP proposes, because they have an ironclad majority. As someone wrote recently, Layton has less influence now than when Harper was in a minority.

That's true, they can try to build on their 24% of the eligible vote by really settling down and taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It's their choice. 

But if Harper does do that ,he will do it in spite of the fact that his previous effective majority of 220 seats(Tories and Tory-friendly Liberals combined) is now reduced to a grand total of 201.

This reduction of Bay Street representatives in the House of Commons has been a general trend since Jack became leader of the NDP. Jack's NDP now has more seats of any opposition party in the history of phony majority governments in Canada.

Yes Harper could act just as arrogantly as Brian Mulroney did as PM, or as arrogantly as the Liberals during their twelve year reign in power. The question is, will he?

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Inch by inch it's a cinch. But mile by mile, it's a pile. Steady as she goes there, Sparky. lol!

Neoliberalism has a head start in this race, and they're much faster.  We'll eventually have to punt those turtles across the finish line to stand any chance at all of closing the widening gap.  And my how time flies when disaster capitalism has us all heading over a cliff.

 

Neoliberalism is failing. Three recessions in three decades. They have nothing to boast about. We haven't heard them talk about deregulation and privatization much since 2008. Which means if they revert to the same old same old, and it still does nothing to help the economy as before, then that's on their record for 2015. Neoliberalism has bankrupted the US and other economies. I'm wondering if Steve will be dumb enough to still believe in neoliberalism. Because if he does, I think it bodes well for the NDP next election.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Fidel wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Inch by inch it's a cinch. But mile by mile, it's a pile. Steady as she goes there, Sparky. lol!

Neoliberalism has a head start in this race, and they're much faster.  We'll eventually have to punt those turtles across the finish line to stand any chance at all of closing the widening gap.  And my how time flies when disaster capitalism has us all heading over a cliff.

 

Neoliberalism is failing. Three recessions in three decades. They have nothing to boast about. We haven't heard them talk about deregulation and privatization much since 2008. Which means if they revert to the same old same old, and it still does nothing to help the economy as before, then that's on their record for 2015. Neoliberalism has bankrupted the US and other economies. I'm wondering if Steve will be dumb enough to still believe in neoliberalism. Because if he does, I think it bodes well for the NDP next election.

..harper may be the prime minister but he’s not really in charge. it’s the imf, wto, its the g6 and  g8, it’s the us corporate military state  etc. and that’s who’s in charge no matter what party is in power. do you disagree?

 

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Neoliberalism is failing. Three recessions in three decades. They have nothing to boast about. We haven't heard them talk about deregulation and privatization much since 2008. Which means if they revert to the same old same old, and it still does nothing to help the economy as before, then that's on their record for 2015. Neoliberalism has bankrupted the US and other economies. I'm wondering if Steve will be dumb enough to still believe in neoliberalism. Because if he does, I think it bodes well for the NDP next election.

Neoliberalism can fail us all it wants Fidel.  It enjoys the support of 24/7 propaganda bureaus endlessly singing its praises, while heaping scorn on those human organizations that still dares to offer tangible resistance.  And where flat screen mass conditioning doesn't convince, there's always the truncheons and jails of the security apparatus, along with the mercies of its judicial system to fall back on.  Opposition to neoliberalism, such that it is, is failing us miserably as well.  It proves itself on a daily basis as being woefully unequal to the task of even identifying it to the population, let alone doing anything about it.  I happen to believe that the more we travel down the road toward the next election and beyond, the more we'll see people like epaulo reaching similar conclusions.  The future is not as far off as we might imagine it to be, when supposed social democratic organizations begin to openly declare which side they're on by getting rid of malcontents and troublemakers within their ranks, at the precise moment in time when they're needed the most.

remind remind's picture

Boom Boom wrote:
“In the euphoria of the moment, one can interpret Mr. Layton as having seemed like he won the election, when in fact he lost and he’s in a worse position to influence Parliament than he was prior to the last election,” said Goldy Hyder, a Tory lobbyist and general manager of Hill & Knowlton’s Ottawa office.

Wow, the lies as truth people are really pushing the bounds of their lies.

Quote:
“That is bound to be the source of some tension as the relationship evolves.” A former Harper adviser made this prediction: “Layton will be much more confrontational than (Michael) Ignatieff, since he’s freed from the responsibility of forcing an early election. He can go over the top whenever he wants.”

Yet it has been consistently the Cons who have gone over the top since their latest incarnation. And given that Iggy wanted to vote with Harper the majority of the time why would he crticize the government he was voting with?

Seems like they are trying to get people to believe that the Opposition should not oppose....

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, remind, tell us exactly how Layton will have influence with a 102 member caucus against a 167 member majority. I don't see it happening, which is why I posted that quote. When Harper had a minority, he was under constant threat of an election being called - or he would have been, if the Liberals had been led by anyone but Ignatieff.

Caissa

I suppose this all boils down to how one defines "influence."

remind remind's picture

your last sentence is the operative one, eh....

Caissa

Mine or boom boom's?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Good catch, remind! Laughing

 

Actually, I agree with you in a sense. With those 102 MPs, Layton will likely not have any bearing whatsoever on Conservative legislation, but if he is as wise as he seems to be, he can grow those 102 MPs into a real election fighting force by 2015, and pick off Conservatives here and there, moving closer to either leading a minority coalition, or government outright. So I'm not giving up on him entirely.Smile

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

Mine or boom boom's?

 

Mine, obviously.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
Neoliberalism can fail us all it wants Fidel.  It enjoys the support of 24/7 propaganda bureaus endlessly singing its praises, while heaping scorn on those human organizations that still dares to offer tangible resistance.

I think that a large percentage of Canadians demonstrated May 2nd that their patience for the economic voodoo is at an end.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Malcolm wrote:

Many of us have maintained for years that the NDP was held back by a significant cadre of party activists who actually viewed electoral success as undesirable and who think that sniping from the sidelines is good enough.

Is this a generalized slur that is applicable to all provincial wings of the party equally?  Would you care to share which ridings you think the NDP has lost in the past due to this terrible cabal? 

 

Slumberjack

What else do you expect?  By his estimation, we're liberals.

janfromthebruce

Wow- I sure missed this thread. Anyhow, after reading the article by Dave, I think his intent was to provoke a discussion/debate on the left/progressive side and it worked!

 

In my view, it's a false argument that one has to sell out principles in order to be electorially successful - a la Douglas who did not sell out but most definitely took his time with a plan in place. And that the NDP is what it is and so far nobody is selling out anything and from what I have seen, compromise as long as one does not violate foundational principles is normal in the process of negotiations.

And the only way to making progressive gains and implement progressive policies is electorial success. And having these debates is also a good thing!

 

Unclefred Unclefred's picture

We also have to take into consideration that currently ANY party in power will find themselves under economic influence.  The wealthy elite have gained so much power that they can now tell nations what to do.  The NDP, to which I belong, just voted with the Cons. to continue aggression in Libya.  WTF.  It made no impact on the outcome, but what were they doing?  OK I'm rambling a little.

The NDP can have some influence because now they are being talked about in the news and people can see them on CPAC.  They get much more floor time and voters will become more familiar with them and their policies.  That's a plus.  I maintained that the NDP could do organisational things that didn't require a vote in parliament.  They could act through their offices to organise exchange trips,say, between Quebec and the rest of Canada.  That would help to build national solidarity, because when people start talking to each other, they learn to like and sympathize with one another.  I think open communications between Quebec and the rest of the country would be good for the NDP, especially if it were openly facilitated by the NDP.  We need a dialogue and we need to break down the barriers that separate the two solitudes.

But even under a fascist majority, the NDP can still be a pain in the Cons. butts through things like the way they prolonged the back to work legislation with a filibuster.  (That's someone who tames young female horses, right? Wink )  Sorry!  Couldn't resist.  Anyway,... yeah, there are things that can be done, but defeating the governemnt is no longer a weapon unless there are some serious divisions in the CRAParty, (Conservative Reforn Alliance Party).

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Shit wouldn't you know it, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were right all along.  How naive was I too oppose them.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

I like the direction the NDP has taken.  You have to create wealth before you can share it.  A balance of socialism and capitalism is required to increase the quality of life for all Canadians.

 

a couple of points:

 

Increasing your wealth beyond a certain amount, doesn't increase your quality of life.  Having a billion dollar dollars and living openly in a safe stable society is a better quality of life than having 2 billion dollars and risking getting knifed by desperate people looking for pocket change every time you leave your gated community to join massive traffic jams on crappy highways.

Multinational corporation can move wealth out of Canada without paying any taxes.  All they have to do is set up a subsidary in a country which has low to no taxes.  That subsidiary then sells products to the parent company at an exhorbitant mark up.  sell nuts and bolts for $1M each.  Each nut and bold bought by the company's subsidiary in Canada from the subsidiary in the other country is a tax free transfer of $1M wealth.  So corporate tax rates only affect small, national business (little people like me) and doesn't impact multi-national corporations.

So I agree with the NDP becoming more corporate savy.  That doesn't mean that the NDP has to get in bed with large corporations.  We just need to convince wealthy people that increasing their quality of life is more important than increasing their wealth.  That way they will gladly pay their taxes.

The main beef most taxpayers should have with the elected government is how they spend our taxes.  Conservatives will get caught lining their pockets, just like the Liberals did.  Corruption is inevitable.  As long as the NDP presents themselves as being more fisally responsible and convinces people that quality of life is more important than wealth, then people will vote NDP.  A minimum living standard means fewer desperate people and less crime.  Affordable universities mean that people become doctors and engineers based on merit rather than having wealthy parents.  Who would you rather perform your open heart surgery?  Everyone paying their fair share of taxes means the government can reduce traffic jams with increased public transportation and better roads and highways.  The more money you have, the more taxes you can pay.  People should be bragging about how much taxes they paid, not how much they avoided with loopholes.  In fact, wealthy people should be making suggestions to the government to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

The NDP doesn't have to water down their core values.  What they have to do is shift the debate from quantity of wealth to quality of life.

 

Aristotleded24

earth_as_one wrote:
I like the direction the NDP has taken.  You have to create wealth before you can share it.  A balance of  socialism and capitalism is required to increase the quality of life for all Canadians.

What is "wealth," and how do you "create wealth?"

earth_as_one wrote:
So I agree with the NDP becoming more corporate savy.  That doesn't mean that the NDP has to get in bed with large corporations.  We just need to convince wealthy people that increasing their quality of life is more important than increasing their wealth.  That way they will gladly pay their taxes.

The wealthy have enough money to pay for their health and security services out of their own pockets. Things like private health insurance and gated communities mean that the problems are solved from their ends. Besides, the rich are not going to ever going to vote for the NDP because there are other parties already looking out for their interests anyways. Much better to mobilize the people who aren't rich.

earth_as_one earth_as_one's picture

A gated community doesn't just mean the riff raff are locked out.  It also means the elite are locked in.  Walls wills not stop creative desperate people or large angry mobs.  The few must cross paths with the many.

History is a continuous cycle of the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer followed by violent upheaval and wealth redistribution.  The basic concept is that as the level of wealth disparity and concentration increases, so does the level of instability.   A desperately poor majority with nothing to loose in the status quo is one ingredient in the recipe for revolution.

The upper class's best security is a non-existent lower class and a content, passive and distracted middle class.

But if you really think that money is everything, and directly improves your quality of life... then please tell me what a someone with $2B can do to improve their quality of life, than someone with $1B can't???  If you aren't happy with $1B, then its unlikely you will be better off with $50B.  Wealth accumulation eventually becomes meaningless beyond a point.

Pages