What does the NDP need to change before the next election? x3

"I was responding to your post (we won't talk about war stuff, ok?)."

Heh, okay.

"I think he could talk to alot of what you are talking about. Are you involved at your riding level with the NDP?"

Yeah, I joined up this campaign. I've been invited to attend meetings and I fully intend to. Some mention was made of new blood being needed on the executive, to which I replied "We'll see..." but I do intend to be as active as my job and family will permit, and certainly I intend to bring up a lot of stuff from this thread, from others besides myself.

I'll check out the CLC link, thanks.

Regards new Canadians - a lot of new Canadians I work with aren't really that used to a social safety net, never mind fighting to keep it. They worry mostly about jobs, which since the 80's has been linked in the public mind to corp tax cuts. I remember when Harris or Eves (I forget which) said that dippers don't get it - without the 60 hour work week and cuts to corp taxes, corporations will just pick up and leave. I felt like screaming at the TV (but didn't because it would look funny) "THEN DON'T LET THEM SELL ANYTHING HERE!".

Between less profit or no revenues at all, what will a company choose?

Scandinavian countries did this, why can't we?

I've never heard that said on TV or radio.

Other point:

These days, almost all economists coming out of the US or Canada are Chicago school/Freidmanites. Harper himself is an MA in Eco from Alebrta, which is basically Chicago school north. This is not the only economic model around, but it's been de facto the main one allowed to graduate out of schools here, and certainly the only one to get any press exposure. Most people now associate economist with Friedmanite, although they don't know it.

So when you get some rubbish about Corp tax cuts ensuring jobs, even when events prove otherwise, there is a whole chorus of "experts" who agree.

Thus, when Howard Hampton got on global and angrily stated that studies show government run services provide better services than privatized ones, the guy on Global just smirked and nodded. He didn't even have to challenge him. He knew in 20 minutes they'd have a chorus of guys stating the opposite.

How, then, to battle this mania that's become conventional wisdom?

The answer to my mind is not to allude to studies, but to allude to facts.

Like the US privatized health industry is way better at making money, but way lousy at getting people healthy. Bring out the stats. Make the other guy work instead of smirk.

May was good at that in the debates, had Harper looking off balance quite often.

In a word, we need countering economist voices to provide deconstruction.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

In a word, we need countering economist voices to provide deconstruction.

---

Right on. But try to winkle out anything more than quotes from Harvard professors attached to politics on the ground around here.

(Just be careful about those "Scandinavian" references, however. Norway has its sovereign oil fund. Sweden has very low corporate tax rates but very high income tax rates, and then there's the world's best educated folks in little Finland...all small countries and doing nicely. The difficulty would be in turning around the great unwashed in this dinosaur of a resource-extractor that's just depended on bellying up to the U.S. for a half-century now.)

Is there any credible economic person within the NDP who knows how to manage the economy and the banking? my bf said that the NDP is not being taken seriously, because they are still an issues based party, there are not enough people with credentials who can prove to the country that they can take on fiancial matters and especially the banking crisis we are experienceing now.

unionist

As I mentioned previously, Harper has a Masters in economics. Agree with it or not, conventional wisdom says an advanced degree in economics gives one credentials to speak on economics and by extension, the economy.

Crap economics is what he advocates, but there you go.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b] my bf said that...[/b]

---

I'd recommend that you and your bf keep separate bank accounts just to be safe.

There are resons to be optimistic about the NDP's future. I think the NDP is now closer to the mainstream of canadian political sentiment than perhaps ever before. This fact is obscured by Harper's minority win based on a narrow acceptance by the electorate.

The NDP finished only 8% behind the Liberals which I believe is the closest spread in history.

There were various polls that showed second preferences throughout the camppaign. The NDP always registered fist in this category. The Conservatives always ran last.

For example a Harris Decima poll from Sept 30 showed these first and second peferences;

Con 36 + 14 = 50
Lib 27 + 26 = 53
NDP 19 + 30 = 49
GR 10 + 24 = 34

The NDP universe, those voters open to voting NDP, compares favourably to those of the two bigger parties.

Ekos final poll had broadly consistent numbers

Con 34.8 + 8.3 = 43.1
Lib 26.4 + 17 = 43.4
NDP 19.4 + 19.5 = 38.9
GR 9.8 + 17.6 = 27.4

Tactical voting has obviously depressed the NDP potential vote. I remember a poll from a couple elections ago when the question was asked regardless of how you intend to vote, which pary best represents your values. The NDP got 28%. I suspect the number would be higher now.

The challenge for the NDP is now to find a way to maximize its potential, particularly with a new Liberal leader. The NDP fiinshed ahead of the Liberals in all four western provinces and almost tied them in the Atlantic. It gained substantial seats in Ontario. As observed eleswhere it finished first or second in well over 100 ridings for the first time.

The ceiling for the NDP is a lot higher than many people think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Before I go looking for names in the NDP, please ask your bf to name one or two people in the CPC or LPC with "credentials who can prove to the country that they can take on fiancial matters", just so I have a basis for comparison.[/b]

---

he said Paul martin, now he voted NDP in this election, but he does not believe the NDP is ready to lead. Weird , isn't it? He also said that while it is easy to say one must pull out of afghanistian, it is another to actually carry out the withdrawl because of the NATO agreement we have committed to.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

The party desperately needs a Toronto-specific strategy targeting Liberal and "strategic" voters. The Liberals put out a lot of ant-NDP noise in the city in the final weeks, and I didn't hear anything that challenged it, let alone fired back. It's not a coincidence Toronto was the only place we lost a seat to the Liberals.

And if we take Toronto from them, what else do they have?

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]i can never understand why so many people in Toronto would vote for the Liberals election after election , for what?[/b]

---

Because it thinks it's Canada's Natural Governing City? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
[b]i can never understand why so many people in Toronto would vote for the Liberals election after election , for what?[/b]

---

About half of Toronto's population were born outside Canada. The Liberals are seen as the party of immigration and multiculturalism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]
The last week of the campaign, now thinking about Toronto, our polling went down. We need a better end game in that last 48 to last week, particularly in Toronto. As Torstar will do it again.[/b]

---

Yes, it's not like it can't be predicted. And without a major media outlet in the party's corner we have a lot to overcome.

There's a decent chance the next Liberal leader will be from Toronto, in which case this will be more important than ever.

Jan has made a good point about the increasing size of the NDP voter universe. This is important.

That said, we still receive the support of a smaller proportion of our voter universe when compared to the other serious parties.

Yes, some of this has to do with the fraudulent "strategic" voting.

But there is one other impportant - probably more important thing.

We see it referred to in babblerwannabe's reference to her bf.

A significant proportion of our voter universe believe we are right on the issues, but that we do not have the necessary competence to function as a government - as per wannabe's bf's comment about "not ready to lead."

An academic of my acquiantance (babblers who are Mounselanders will recognize this) refers to this as the NDP's hygiene issue. We cannot make a breakthrough unless and until we can put this thing to bed.

It helps, arguably, that the two poster boys for NDP incompetence (Ujjal Dossanjh and Bob Rae) are now sitting on the Liberal front bench. But the fact remains that the clusterf*** that was the Bob Rae government has completely overridden the reality of 80+ years of competent CCF-NDP governance in BC (Ujjal aside), YT, SK and MB.

After some comments on how the number of people seriously considering the NDP [the NDP "universe"] is increasing, George Victor said:

quote:

---

And nothing else is needed, having consulted the chicken entrails?

---

No one has argued that. And you are not getting here a reflection of what people do, and are willing to do, to discuss the content of what the NDP takes to Canadians.

There is no place where that is easy to do. The discussions do take place even if that are not as encouraged or supported as the should be. [For what it is worth, the party by comparison does not encourage ANY "discussion of entrails".]

So its not an easy discussion, except between a limited number of like minded individuals.

This is one place it COULD happen more. But one obstacle is that it is guaranteed that there will be at least one yapping poodle barking around, and with with no horse in the race except to 'illuminate' others that everything being discussed is inherently inadequate... or if it isn't, is guaranteed to turn to shit in the hands of the NDP.

Hard for people to aspire to a disciplined and productive process under such conditions. And since this isn't an NDP forum, that condition is to be expected.

So while I don't entirely give up on the possibility of having at least pieces of disciplined and productive political discussions here... it would not be accurate to judge that people are uninterested in such discussions because they do not get anywhere on these boards.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

That is your first-ever reply to an attempt to stir real discussion on major factors of party policy and position.

---

Not at all George.

I've replied to similar entreaties of yours before- twice previous, at least. And I've replied many more times to others.

This one is shorter so it is easy for you to see it as "nothing can be done". When I've put more words into it its clear that it is in the final analysis it amounts to: I'll make some attempt, but not into serious investment into what has proved many times on forums like this to be a lot of work invested into an exercise in futility.

My analysis- shared by many- is that what is lacking is commitment to an organized and disciplined PROCESS for policy development.

Many like yourself feel might well agree, but understandably feel talking out policy and direction here and now is better than nothing. I don't agree, even though I do give it a fling now and then... if for no other reason, the discussions can be interesting and/or sport in theri own right.

Since what I think is required is a healthy process, I'm much more motivated to now and again put in my two cents about process or lack thereof.

You get an honest answer to your entreaties because it is appreciated that you try.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

It takes time, work and discipline- yes.

Who said anything about kowtowing to some 'God process', whatever the hell that is. And who said or implied waiting on IT miracles, or on anything for that matter?

And the oblique references to GP of Ontario, 'openess' and freedom... I guess means you assume I'm talking about awaiting the New Jereusalem before it is worthy to have a discussion on serious topics.

Hardly.

Like many people I'm tired of what amounts to talk shops to determine the fate of the world: years of investing into discussions that have no effect on the rubber that hits the ground. In North America especially such endless talk shops have existed since decades before the internet and discussion forums like this. Forums like babble bring in some new twists [like the certainty that there will be at least one of those yapping poodles around every discussion about the direction of the NDP]... but the dynamic has changed little.

If it was just pointless, that would be fine. But most of us invest more if we participate in discussions like that, and dissapointment [again] leads to burnout.

'Discussing entrails' of the political process is easier to connect to what activists actually do. It may well be equally pointless, but at least its more connected to [i]something[/i] beyond the talk.

I don't just throw up my hands. No flies on the effort I've put, and continue to put, into having solid discussions.

So I object to your finger pointing. And intentional or not, it ends up looking sanctimonious.

Enemy of Capital: The NDP is not a socialist party, even if many of us wish it was; it is a social democratic party. That Jack comes off as a social democrat and not a socialist shouldn't be a surprise!

I was not being sanctimonious as a founding member of the Green Party of Ontario in early spring of 1983. As chair of the first chapter of the Solar Energy Society in Canada Inc., back in 1979, I was hopeful, not sanctimonious, although pointing out to the alternative energy crowd that solar insolation here ain't up to California's, might have got me that label from time to time.

Sanctimonious goes together with condescension, KenS, and that is your department.

Borrowing my post from a nearby thread, here's what we're up against on the hustings because you superior New Democrats refuse to come to grips with the economics of a welfare state that is now challenged by an environment in revolt against our depradations:

[QUOTE]

posted 20 October 2008 09:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At times like this I better understand the vulnerability of former New Democrats who have fled to the open arms of the Harris Greens.

Our speaker/motivators of the Green Party are NOT of the left, of course!

Here's what a columnist in the Waterloo Region Record, a recent immigrant from the U.S. and now chair of the history department at the University of Waterloo had to say about his thinking in considering which party to vote for:

"The New Democratic Party took noble stands on "pocketbook issues." But ultimately, the NDP seemed more like a reactionary oppositional party that was always sniping at other parties instead of forging a practical agenda that could translate into tangible political victories."(shades of Bob Rae, eh?)

"Ultimately, I joined the Green party, because it seemed to be a fitting place for an ex-Democrat with libertarian sensibilities."
(end quote)

He would have investigated the party throughly, and decided that its oh-no-neat, "market-solves-all" approach to halting climate change would have suited his own $125,000 plus income. I don't know how you could shoehorn a "left" libertarian into anything but a student occupation, really.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people who post here haven't the foggiest about the makeup of the Green Party. Is it sanctimony on my part to point this out?

"It takes time, work and discipline- yes" you say.

But just how much bloody time do you strategists think we have?

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

It all depends on what people's definition of nationalization is. We can have energy nationalism without having to do an Evo Morales of it. We can bargain with energy companies on oil revenues, but it would mean side-stepping NAFTA in the face of U.S. protectionism in other sectors. Weak and ineffective government for too long in Canada, that's the problem. It's not real impotence but the self-imposed variety in Ottawa and Calgary.

The undertow in this thread is that the NDP needas to change something but nothing worth changing is on the table. Tommy Douglas was not a Marxist. He never wanted to be one and I dont think I'd have wanted him to be one either, Tommy was Tommy and he is a hero of mine and many people in this party. Tommy had a few choice words for the world, thats right the world! not jsut our corner of it. Tommy ran in saskatchewan under "humanity first!" and once uttered the word "tis not to late for a better world". what happened to us? do we want to change the world or not? Tommy, Woodsworth and the rest wouldnt recognize the modern NDP. not because we adapted to the new capitalism with all its new contraditctions Tommy hadnt the oppurtunity to shrewdly observe and relay that wit and wisdom of his on us. but because we seem to think that trying to fundementally change anything in our country, in our time is akin to driving toward bolshivism. Forget nationalized oil thats my pet project. but please someone suggest a policy that challenges the norms and contradictions of the modern world. Give the country its NDP back. we need that voice of wisdom and hope in this world.

quote:

---

Everybody in the NDP - left, right and centre - likes to invoke the name of Tommy Douglas.

---

exactly now lets use that wisdom. I dont care if I like the proposal just someone propose something that changes the foundations in some way. Jack did his part with $7 per day daycare (it could go further but it fundementally changes the education of children, the equality for woman)

Here is one Suggestion that to an extent the NDP did do in the election, but must do much much more of.... I know people hate to bring up U.S politics as a shining light of an example BUT..... I mentioned this to Peter Tabuns, for Ontario Strategy and it should apply Federally. In the U.S the Dems, under Dean decided a few years ago to no longer focus all their resources on just the "swing states". (In Canada that would be NDP friendly, or 'contestable' ridings.) there it was called "the 50 state strategy"...and guess what, it paid off! The NDP IMO should follow that idea...as they have been at least during election time. It really was no accident Layton kicked off in the NDP Heart of Darkness - Calgary - because it made a very important statement to voters in Alberta...we're not writing you off because you are "un-winnable", same in Quebec. This must continue across Canada - and not just during elections. I know for a FACT that in the past many of party brain trust focused on the opposite. I think now they get it - or at least did this election. Hopefully the NDP will continue to try and make inroads everywhere.

[url=http://www.democrats.org/a/2004/06/a_50_state_stra.php]50 State Strategy Synopsis.[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
[b]We've sparred n this before Fidel. Nationalization means what it means. your talking about Jacks policy of regulating a unregulatable system as is Jack.[/b]

---

It works for Hugo Chavez, and it works for Norway. Even the Russians have used free market methods in dealing with multinational oil and gas company jackals.

The problem is that our two old line parties are only feigning impotence. It's not real. We need shrewd socialists to deal and negotiate on behalf of the people, like the Norwegians and Venezuelans have done. Canada's Liberals and Tories have been in the back pockets of energy companies for decades.

Anyway, nationalization Evo Morales style is not a valid argument in Canada. Our stoogeocrats haven't even tried to bargain freely for our energy. Therefore, your idea of wholesale seizure of the oil fields Iraqi style or Bolivian style before freely bargaining is even attempted is not a valid critique of the NDP. I am an NDP'er, and so I know that people will find NDP party leaders in absolute disagreement of putting the cart before the horse wrt this old world idea of nationalisation. Oil and gas is different situation than hydroelectric power and other utilities. Threatening wholesale nationalisation before all other options for energy nationalism are considered would be rejected by the NDP now in the near future.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The NDP knows all about full nationalisation.

It's just that it's not been necessary in very many situations around the world where oil and gas are concerned. Canada should have sovereign wealth fund on a scale of socialist Norway's at the very least, and Canada is a long-long way from that high water mark of energy nationalism.

And the NDP has always been in favour of publicly-owned hydroelectric power.