So much misinformation here I'm not sure where to start. Although I'm very ambivalent about this coalition, the NDP and the Liberals listed the issues that they can and will work on together. Issues that they cannot agree on, such as the war, are not part of the list.
To suggest that this makes the NDP a 'pro-war' party is absurd. There is nothing stopping them from continuing to push for withdrawal. Sometimes the fearmongering on the left is just as destructive as it is on the right.
What they have never been clear about in any interview that I've seen, is what they will actually do, change the mission, remove all troops from Afghanistan, send money to the NGOs operating there or anything substantive that can be nailed down as their exact policy.And if I didn't have a clue as to current events or what political games are played by our two old line parties bending to every whim in Warshington, then what you wrote above might make sense.
Well, it might make a little more sense if you considered the political games of the third old line party, yes the NDP, in conjunction with the others. On the most vital matter of immediate life and death for innocent foreign citizens of another country, and of Canadian citizens, they've chosen to "put aside" any differences they might have out of political expediency, because of what they've said is more important...economics. Does that make any more sense?
[On the most vital matter of immediate life and death for innocent foreign citizens of another country, and of Canadian citizens, they've chosen to "put aside" any differences they might have out of political expediency, because of what they've said is more important...economics. Does that make any more sense?
1. The Liberals and Conservatives are in tune with following orders from Warshington as far as phony war on terror in the stan goes.
(1.a) which leads all of me and the NDP and Bloc and supporters to realize, the troops arent coming home before 2011, or whenever our two stoogeocratic old line parties receive different marching orders from Warshington
2. Yes the economy is of paramount importance, and especially to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who've lost good paying jobs over the last six years and tens of thousands more losing jobs still - every other G7 country is taking aggressive measures to cushion the blow of what is already proving to be another massive failure of laissez-faire capitalism made new again with neoliberal voodoo lasting almost as long as it did the first time thru the the test lab, from 1900 to 1929.
Yes the economy is of paramount importance...
A little out of context from your post perhaps, but hilarious nonetheless.
A convincing argument against the Coalition
http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2008/12/harper-out-of-ottawa-canada-out-o...
Actually he resigned, did he not? And Siskay took over. Then the NDP tried to reinvigorate him in Vancouver center, since he is a popular figure despite his stupide moment,
Moreover, that is irrelevant to what happened before he did something stupid. In fact, I think it was the vicious attack of the right wing of the party, and the vicious charges of anti-semestism leveled at him for being so naive as to actually believe that he could raise Arab Palestinian issues in the context of the NDP, which is likely to have created the stress that caused him to start doing stupid things. But that is just conjeture.
What I do know is that in Vancouver Center the only NDP MP (in fact the only MP) to raise the issue of Omar Khadr in the house of commons, prior to 2007, was replaced as a candidate by Beyers whose instinct is to have Canadian law changed so that it is line with the US national security aparatus, so that Omar Khadr could be put on trial here, instead of Guantanamo Bay.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
Regardless of why Svend decided to leave, the fact is he was replaced by a neo-liberal. That is my point.
Further, I see this whole chain of events, both personal and political as being directly linked to the highly personal attack, loss of status within the NDP, including his brush with the law, his resingation and replacement in Burnaby by his (former right hand man), hid decision to run in Vancouver Center, and his failure there, and his decision not to run and to move to France. Ultimately this series of events also leads to the promotion of a Candidate in Vancouver Center who is the complete ideological opposite of Robinson.
Again, you are attempting to portray me a stupid, and or manipulative, because I did not point out trivial details, such as the fact Siksay was a long time associate of Robinson, and mistyping his name. Your attack is completely personal, prejudiced and stupid.
A convincing argument against the Coalition
http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2008/12/harper-out-of-ottawa-canada-out-o...
Sorry to disagree, LP, but this article is quite stupid for three reasons:
1. It portrays the NDP as the "anti-war party", seemingly forgetting that it didn't even call for withdrawal before September 2006 - and has been ambiguous and inconsistent ever since.
2. It states:
All that would be accomplished would be the burying
of the independent voice of Canadian labour – the voice of the NDP –
behind the pro-corporate voices of Michael Ignatieff and his colleagues.
That's just plain stupid. Who voted the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour"!!!??? This is the party that breaks strikes and legislates workers back to work and how long a list would you like every time it is actually elected to power. It's actually just an embarrassingly foolish description.
3. Why single out the war in Afghanistan as the "deal-breaker" here? How about withdrawal from NATO and NORAD? Remember that?
This is the kind of article by the kind of person who wants to sit back and whine while history moves on.
Anyone who can't recognize that something has changed in Canadian politics since two weeks ago - and can't see that the progressive movements need to find a way to profit from this change - is doomed to write boring articles.
So the NDP is a steaming pile of pro-war, anti-labour crap, you say.
What is it about a Liberal-NDP coalition that is so attractive? Does teaming up with the Liberals (another steaming pile) produce a coalition that is anything other than a steaming pile of crap?
And we're supposed to go to rallies and cheer for them?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
And the NDP can't solve world hunger and establish world peace, so we might as well stick with herr Harper. He's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch!!
So the NDP is a steaming pile of pro-war, anti-labour crap, you say.
Not at all. I just find it repugnant/hilarious when someone creates overblown illusions about the NDP [b][i]as a pretext to stop the NDP from doing anything to move the situation forward[/i][/b]. Canadians have an actual opportunity to defeat Harper through an extra-parliamentary mass movement using a temporary coalition as one of its tools. Millions of people are actually enthusiastic about this prospect. We can assist this movement without creating illusions about its nature and how much it can accomplish. Or, we can find excuses to sit back and do nothing, like the kindly Professor Kellogg who wrote this article and uses "definitions" to scupper the movement.
What is it about a Liberal-NDP coalition that is so attractive?
Nothing - except its extra-electoral nature, its anti-Harper content, its nonpartisan combining of the interests of three parties that never cooperate on anything concrete, and its potential for capturing some popular imagination. This is about defeating Harper and making people feel good about it, letting them flex their muscles. Any attempt to infuse it with more profound content than that is as delusional as portraying the NDP as the salvation of humanity and paragon of socialist thought.
And we're supposed to go to rallies and cheer for them?
Absolutely. And while doing that, you're supposed to push them to go further - Afghanistan, NATO, Aboriginal rights, workers' rights, etc. Or, stay at home with your books and proclaim "a pox on both your houses".
Obamania has spilled over the border.
(Just as the US "progressive left intellectuals" are starting to realize what a steaming pile of crap they've been sold.)
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
New Democrats will stop opposing Canada's war in Afghanistan while the party is in league with the Liberals, the NDP's deputy leader declared Wednesday [Dec. 3].[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5je2McpeesIO..., it's not The Onion, it's [u]Canadian Press[/u][/url]It's a significant concession for a party that has been the standard-bearer for the peace movement in Canada.
"The NDP is putting aside its differences that have existed historically with the Liberals on such issues as Afghanistan," said Thomas Mulcair, the party's only MP in Quebec.
"Because we understand, in the interest of the Canadian population, the overarching principle is that we act on the economy and in the interest of Canadian families."
In order to seal its coalition with the Liberals on Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton gave up the party's demand for a reversal of planned corporate tax cuts, but made no mention of the war.
Asked this week whether their position on Afghanistan had changed, several New Democrat MPs laughed nervously and ducked the question.
Political observers have said the fourth-place party, long-known as the conscience of Parliament, has to make key compromises to keep the coalition together.
Mulcair declined to respond when asked whether the party's election campaign promise to impose a moratorium on further oil sands development in Alberta was also being shelved.
Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said the gravity of the economic crisis and the unravelling political situation has had a sobering effect on both coalition partners, as well as the Bloc Quebecois.
"All three parties recognize the seriousness and as such we are putting aside our differences to focus on common ground," he said Wednesday.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Obamania has spilled over the border.
(Just as the US "progressive left intellectuals" are starting to realize what a steaming pile of crap they've been sold.)
That's an imperfect analogy. People are now supporting the Canadian coalition who would never have agreed to support the Liberal party as the lesser of evils, or "strategically", etc.
This is about defeating Harper [b]after[/b] he has been elected, and [b]after[/b] he has arrogantly declared a series of previously-unannounced draconian measures attacking the other parties, workers, women, etc.
This is about empowering the people at a moment of potential change rather than telling them to wait for the NDP to (1) earn the title of "party of the working class"; and (2) win a majority of seats.
If McCain had been elected, and a mass movement presented opportunities for such governmental change, it would be folly not to consider it.
The issue is to march at the head of the movement, and seize the moment, without ever failing to proclaim one's principles.
If the coalition-bound NDP says we should be quiet about Afghanistan for the next few years, they ought to be condemned for that, as they have been in the past for their vacillation. But that can't be the deciding factor in whether or not we support a coalition to stop Harper. If it is, only Harper and the warmongers themselves will benefit - including the warmongers of the Liberal party and those in the NDP and BQ ranks.
Of all the compromises that might happen to keep a coalition alive, by far the most troubling is the one that is brewing on the war in Afghanistan. As news of the coalition began to surface in the last week of November, the Globe and Mail reported that "a senior NDP official said that no policy issues are considered deal breakers" including that of the war in Afghanistan.[url=http://rabble.ca/news/harper-out-ottawa-canada-out-afghanistan][u]Rabble...This above all else has to be a "deal breaker." The NDP has been the one major party that has been committed to ending the war in Afghanistan. As this is being written, news came across the wires that three Canadian soldiers have been killed, taking the military death toll past 100. We don't know how many Afghanis have been killed in the war - there is no official attempt to keep track.
No compromise is possible on war. You are either for it or against it. The Liberals began this war. The Liberals voted to extend it to 2011. We all know that it is an unwinnable war, fought for corporate profits and geopolitical power, not for democracy and human rights.
An anti-war party cannot stay anti-war and enter a cabinet with a pro-war party. Layton and the NDP leadership have to face up to the fact, that were the coalition to take office, the war in Afghanistan would become their war, and the deaths and injuries suffered in that conflict would be their responsibility.
Some will say that were the NDP to insist on this point, then the coalition would not be possible. That is probably true. But a coalition that includes "compromise" on Canada's military adventure in Afghanistan is not a coalition worth having.
Canada is engaged in an imperialist adventure in Central Asia - part of the long slow re-militarization of Canada begun by the Liberals and continuing under the Tories. Opposition to this war is a matter of principle, not one of political expediency. Were Layton and the NDP leadership to compromise on this issue, it would do immeasurable damage to the anti-war movement in Canada - and ultimately to the NDP itself.
There is fear among millions in the face of an unfolding economic crisis. There is anger at the arrogance of a Tory minority that is pushing full steam ahead with neoliberalism at home and militarism abroad.
But it is no solution to replace Harper with a coalition government led by the other party of corporate power and of militarism - the Liberal Party of Canada. All that would be accomplished would be the burying of the independent voice of Canadian labour - the voice of the NDP - behind the pro-corporate voices of Michael Ignatieff and his colleagues.
If the coalition does not take office, we know the way forward. We need to build social movements against war in Afghanistan, against the militarization of Canadian society, against sending off working class men and women to die for corporate profits.
We need to build inside the workers' movements, unions with the muscle to challenge the agenda of the corporations. Don't bail out the auto companies - nationalize them and convert the jobs to green jobs, building public transit, building the infrastructure of a sustainable green economy. If the coalition does take office - the way forward is exactly the same.
We will be told that raising Afghanistan is divisive. So be it. We will demand that the coalition withdraw the troops immediately, even if that means the Liberals abandoning the coalition and the government falling. The only lasting basis for gains for working people and the poor is in building social movements that do not rely on manoeuvres at the top of the system.
The Liberals will say "but we are a party of peace, we didn't go to war in Iraq." We will remind them that they were going full speed ahead to war in Iraq in 2003, until 400,000 people took to the streets - including two massive, beautiful demonstrations in Montreal - demanding that Canada stay out of that conflict. The Liberals reluctantly stayed out of the Iraq war because it would have been political suicide for them to join the Coalition of the Killing.
That is the way we will win progress whether it be a Harper government, or a Liberal/NDP government - by mobilizing on the streets and in the workplaces, whether the Prime Minister is Stephen Harper, or Stéphane Dion, or Bob Rae, or Michael Ignatieff.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
M. Spector, is there a reason why this article has to be referenced a second time in the same thread?
There certainly are four very good reasons:
1. It is an excellent article.
2. Most babblers are too lazy to click on a link and read it.
3. Now that rabble has received permission to reproduce it, I wanted to make it available in full for the click-challenged.
4. Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Okay, only three good reasons.
I think Obama is not a bad analogy in that both the coalition and Obama will probably be better on domestic matters and for the citizens of their respective countries while continuing the aggressive foreign policies of the Republicans and the Conservatives.
Of course it would be great to see Harper replaced and our parliament actually reflect how people voted but the way the NDP seems to be sliding away from their position on Afghanistan is worrying and I think will hurt their credibility a lot in the long run. I don´t see why they aren´t taking this more seriously, it was a key reason why people voted for them. They should be providing a clear explanation of how the coalition will affect their position on Afghanistan.
Of course it would be great to see Harper replaced and our parliament actually reflect how people voted but the way the NDP seems to be sliding away from their position on Afghanistan is worrying and I think will hurt their credibility a lot in the long run. I don´t see why they aren´t taking this more seriously, it was a key reason why people voted for them. They should be providing a clear explanation of how the coalition will affect their position on Afghanistan.
I agree 100%. The NDP joining this coalition doesn't make me feel one bit warmer and fuzzier about their policies than I was before. Nor does it diminish in the slightest the need for popular movements to push for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to push for all four parties in the House to move in that direction.
But is that a reason not to support a coalition to overthrow Harper?
Is that a reason to say that the NDP should not be part of such a coalition?
Would it be better if the NDP stayed out of the coalition, but signed an agreement similar to the Bloc not to vote down the Liberal government?
I have to agree that this Coalition movement and Obama and unionist's comment that those who oppose from the left "sit back and whine while history moves on" sounds quite similar to comments made by "lefties for Obama" who said this was a mass movement for change that could push US politics to the left and how opposing the Obama movement was missing out on an important historical development, etc. I haven't actually taken a stance on the Coalition at all and even attended the Toronto rally for the Coalition (where there were chants of "Yes We Can" BTW), mainly to express my disgust with Harper. Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be) and as I've said before this I don't think much of this idea that "the NDP is just another capitalist party so who cares" line.
I personally think an accord is a better idea than a coalition.
Would it be better if the NDP stayed out of the coalition, but signed an agreement similar to the Bloc not to vote down the Liberal government?
I for one think so. Only without the 18-month commitment not to move or support non-confidence motions.
I'd love to see the Liberals have to come cap-in-hand to Jack Layton every time they wanted to introduce a new bill in the House.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be) and as I've said before this I don't think much of this idea that "the NDP is just another capitalist party so who cares" line.
I personally think an accord is a better idea than a coalition.
Well said, M'lud!
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be)
Then why not oppose the NDP's sellout on Afghanistan? I've been doing that vociferously from the day I started posting here - I hailed the NDP's policy shift in September 2006 - and I've been condemning the Dawn Black line ever since. I have no plan to stop now. So, the emphasis has to be on that, not on opposing the coalition. Because if we oppose the coalition, it will not drive the NDP to the left, nor assist the anti-war movement, nor make Harper unhappy.
... and as I've said before this I don't think much of this idea that "the NDP is just another capitalist party so who cares" line.
No one said that. What I found bizarre was Kellogg's crowning the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour" (I still cringe when typing those words) and describing the NDP as an "anti-war party". That doesn't mean we should stop pushing the NDP to oppose the war. We should do the same with the Liberals and the Bloc, both of which have caved rather spectacularly on this point.
I personally think an accord is a better idea than a coalition.
That means you think a Liberal government is better than a Liberal-NDP government. You may have a point, but I'd need a lot more convincing. The only argument I've heard in favour of that is to maintain the "purity" of the NDP, which (as I've stated) I find it hard to detect.
I think we can't ignore the fact that the most vociferous opposition to coalition is coming from Harper and Manley - both of whom teamed up to terrify Dion and company into supporting extending Canadian involvement until 2011 last year. How do you explain that even on the issue of Afghanistan, it is the prime warmongers who fear a coalition?
Harper doesn't like the coalition, so therefore it must be good for the NDP? Great logic.
I think a Liberal-NDP government, where NDP support on some issues, and criminal silence on others, is guaranteed, is far worse than a Liberal government where NDP independence and freedom of speech and voting is assured - especially at a time when the Liberals are deathly afraid of having another election, for financial and political reasons.
I also think that perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
No one said that. What I found bizarre was Kellogg's crowning the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour" (I still cringe when typing those words) and describing the NDP as an "anti-war party".
From the Coalition activism thread:
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP
were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the
sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't."
"We already have this problem, except it is with the labour
bureaucracy's tendency to hop in bed with the NDP rather than mobilize
the members to... what you said.
I don't see how a coalition changes this reality for better or worse."
The Sweater PM will sweeten the budget enough that the Liberals will choose to support it. At that point I would be demanding and expecting that the NDP /Liberal deal would die as well.
Is the NDP anti-war enough? Absolutely not!! The pacifists like Woodsworth were a minority then and still are. Most people from all political stripes believe in the concept of justifiable war. My personal believe is that all wars are equally as evil because it is the act of war itself that is the evil. So as someone who believes that we should never go to war my choice is to either abandon the field of electoral politics (because I will never convince a majority of people that all war is always wrong) or help elect an MP who will speak his conscience.
I think that this thread is premature. It is true that if the coalition were to become government the only thing the agreement talks about is economic affairs. I hope that this is good sign because traditionally it is only economic affairs that are the subject of confidence votes and my preference would be a coalition that will be able to bring their own party motions to the House where the NDP's policy on Afghanistan will unfortunately be defeated by the Libs and Cons. That is ideally how I would hope this coalition would act.
I do know that when one is trying to negotiate and settle agreements between disparate parties the only way to settlement is by looking to items of agreement and putting aside items of contention. I don't think the coaliton will ever form government but if they do I hope the NDP will bring its own agenda outside of the box of agreed items to the House and they would not be confidence motions but they would allow for a full debate in the House.
It's not premature, because whether or not the Kanadian Koalition ever forms a government, we have seen how far the NDP is willing to sacrifice principle in return for a little bit of power. This teaches us important things about the party.
It reminds me of the old joke that ends in the punchline, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating the price." So now we know the NDP's price.
ETA: And BTW your namesake was no pacifist himself.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Oh my god the NDP is not left wing enough. I am so surprised by that view. I am astounded that a person like yourself would claim to have only recently come to that conclusion.It's not premature, because whether or not the Kanadian Koalition ever forms a government, we have seen how far the NDP is willing to sacrifice principle in return for a little bit of power. This teaches us important things about the party.
It reminds me of the old joke that ends in the punchline, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating the price." So now we know the NDP's price.
ETA: And BTW your namesake was no pacifist himself.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Its interesting your comment about Kropotkin. You see some of us are not prone to absolute believe in any one persons political views. However I think that his concepts on mutual aid are ones of great incite. I also think that state control of economies is as bad as capitalist control. So I ideally would like to see a syndicalist economy developed where the ownership was in the hands of the workers themselves. I don't expect the NDP to demand that the government not bail out the corporations and immediately fund syndicate based businesses. Although I think that issue to be every bit as pressing as putting an end to war.
But then who is under the illusion that the NDP is some sort of revolutionary party, certainly not me.
___________________________________________________________________________________________From North of Manifest Destiny
No one said that. What I found bizarre was Kellogg's crowning the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour" (I still cringe when typing those words) and describing the NDP as an "anti-war party".From the Coalition activism thread:
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP
were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the
sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't.""We already have this problem, except it is with the labour
bureaucracy's tendency to hop in bed with the NDP rather than mobilize
the members to... what you said.I don't see how a coalition changes this reality for better or worse."
You're right. I don't believe that saying "the NDP is a pro-capitalist party" covers all sins and justifies everything.
However, I'm still interested in hearing your answer to my question: Would you prefer a Liberal government with NDP-BQ guaranteed support for (say) 18 months, based on an agreed minimal platform and freedom of speech on all other issues?
I believe that's what M. Spector said above that he would prefer.
I'm prepared to be convinced. I guess the real question is, what does the coalition do for the movement besides besides 6 NDP cabinet seats? If the answer is "nothing", then maybe an accord is better - if that's still achievable.
Perhaps we need a new thread for a proper "Accord or Coalition?" discussion. I also want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting M. Spector's position here.
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't." '
The NDP is not a Marxist party calling for the end of capitalism and dawning of socialism in one fell swoop. Of course they are "a capitalist" party in the sense that a futuristic system based on communism exists only in the minds of intellectuals and scientists and ordinary people around the world. An economist posited a theory of dominant revenue, and what we have today is marauding capital undermining the sovereign powers of democratically elected governments around the world. Capitalism isn't what it once was in the 1960's or even 70's. Capitalists don't profit by pouring foundations for factories any more - they "put money to work" for them and live off compound interest. The NDP and a few visionary parties on the left are the only ones calling for Keynes' financial disarmament and are very anti-capitalist ni this regard. Meanwhile organized labour could only stood by and watch as the productive labour economy was reorganized and sent chasing lower and lower wages around the world over the last 28 years as capitalists sought higher profit margins with the new financial capitalism.
Opposition to labour isnt Bethlehem steel or the Bronfmans or Fords so much anymore as it is the newer financial oligarchs around the world taking possession of the physical economy from old world industrial capitalists. JK Galbraith said that New Deal socialism was a solution to prop up capitalism in a bygone era. What workers need today is a global agreement for workers' rights, a kind of NAFTA for workers negotiated at the highest levels of international government. This is where the good fight is, imo.
Oh my god the NDP is not left wing enough. I am so surprised by that view. I am astounded that a person like yourself would claim to have only recently come to that conclusion.
I am astounded that a person like yourself would claim that I have claimed to have only recently come to that conclusion, whereas I'm pretty sure I came to it long before you did.
I'm also astounded that you would so misread my posts as to think that the main thrust of them was to complain that the NDP is "not left wing enough". To paraphrase: We already know that the NDP is prepared to sell out to the right-wing capitalist parties; now we are getting an idea of their price (6 cabinet seats).
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
I'm also astounded that you would so misread my posts as to think that the main thrust of them was to complain that the NDP is "not left wing enough". To paraphrase: We already know that the NDP is prepared to sell out to the right-wing capitalist parties; now we are getting an idea of their price (6 cabinet seats).
Yes it's obvious by now that the NDP is on the receiving end of money and backing from Bay Street, Canadian Clubbers, Emil Kirdorf and Prescott Bushler types, and an undisclosed list of wealthy donors. And I'm sure you'll finger that list for us some day soon. But is this your only reason why we are better off with the blue sweaters we know? I'm not convinced by your proxy support for the Harpers that goes without saying, or that the NDP is there to support anything more than extract a list of concessions from Liberals on social supports for laid off workers and poor, important investments in energy conservation and efficiency, and corporate welfare handouts which with at least a few strings attached.
Is there away to find out donor lists for political parties?
Perhaps we need a new thread for a proper "Accord or Coalition?" discussion. I also want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting M. Spector's position here.
I think that's a great idea.
Is there away to find out donor lists for political parties?
Yes, follow the money. And read the "Liberal" news media to find out which two parties are favoured by big business and banksters in this country and that one draining Canada of natural wealth for a song and maybe a crate of whiskey or two. And I think people would be surprised with how little it actually takes to bribe our hirelings and colonial administrators in Ottawa. In Warshington, I think Hillary was bought off for a few hundred thou by big insurance companies and HMO's. Canada has Washington style lobbying since Brian Baloney's glorious time in the sun.
Yes it's obvious by now that the NDP is on the receiving end of money and backing from Bay Street, Canadian Clubbers, Emil Kirdorf and Prescott Bushler types, and an undisclosed list of wealthy donors. And I'm sure you'll finger that list for us some day soon.
Ironically, your sarcasm has hit upon the crux of why it is wrong to characterize the NDP as a "capitalist party" - because the capitalists don't support it, either politically or financially. That's why it's worth stopping the NDP from carrying out a suicide pact with the Liberals.
I've already indicated that the NDP's selling-out price doesn't involve funding from Bay Street, but merely six measly minor cabinet seats out of 24. They are selling out real cheap.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
I've already indicated that the NDP's selling-out price doesn't involve funding from Bay Street, but merely six measly minor cabinet seats out of 24. They are selling out real cheap.
I think I know what what your underlying message is: let it fall apart this time and pave the way for real change. Like it was with communist and socialist parties in 1920's-30's Germany mulling over whether or not to save it or scrap kapitalism altogether. But in a way, the NDP realizes they wont be in a position to re-regulate money markets and nationalise industries and energy. What they are looking for is an introduction to Canadians as part of the government. Inch by inch it's a cinch. The Liberals already have no idea what they might encounter with the global economy becoming increasingly unstable. Let them accept full responsibility for mismanaging that end of things. The accord, the accord. It's there in writing for laid off workers and a population which will no doubt suffer increasing desperation as time goes on. And it would be unnecessary and meaningless suffering, imo. The time will come for an imperfect revolution.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Solidarnosc! And look how well that turned out for Lech and workers.
Well Fidel, it looks like the revolution will not happen under the watch of the NDP.
Well Fidel, it looks like the revolution will not happen under the watch of the NDP.
In the last 140 years in a row, the NDP has never been in government or played a minor role inside of government. That could change in the next several weeks. That would be revolutionary for Canada.
Fidel, when the NDP fails to accomplishes nothing more than building their own ego for a short amount of time will you still speak proudly of them?
This is not a revolution, it is a power grab to fill the needs of the senior leadership of NDP.
It is the selling out of principals in order to gain some terms objectives, that will be lost in less than 4 years.
Fidel, when the NDP fails to accomplishes nothing more than building their own ego for a short amount of time will you still speak proudly of them?
Until we can win advanced democracy in Canada, it's always going to be about ego and politicking. You can't fault the NDP for playing dirty. They've learned from the best over the years. In fact, the NDP are playing by the rules. If you dont appreciate our obsolete system, then click your ruby slippers together like the rest of us and wish hard for the wind of change to blow over Ottawa. Scorpions did a nice high energy rendition of wind of change and was played over and over at the end of the cold war.
This is not a revolution, it is a power grab to fill the needs of the senior leadership of NDP.It is the selling out of principals in order to gain some terms objectives, that will be lost in less than 4 years.
I'm not sure school principals have anything to do with it, but I get your drift. Think wind of change. It's blowing gently over my greying coif now. Don't go wind, don't leave us. Pick it up some, old woman.
Perhaps a way the NDP could move on the Afghan war would be to push to remove Canadians troops from their search and destroy mission and re-deploy them to peace keeping assignments. There can be no issue with using the Canadian forces to stop people from killing people but we should never have become the killers.
The Conservative position that killing people makes good foreign policy is completely insane.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
Is that right? Our troops are their to hunt down and engage the Taliban, not?
That is correct, there are no mission verbs or tasks that imply search and destroy missions in Canadian Army doctrine.
You are using terms from old US Army manuals, dating back to the Vietnam era.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
I thought someone said Canadians were at top of the list for deaths by IED's and odd stray bullets? Are the IED's going off between mess tent and latrines, or are our boys out sight seeing when such things occur?
Fidel, what does your last post have to do with the topic at hand.
Fidel, what does your last post have to do with the topic at hand? What do you think they are doing?
You can say that again.
In answer to your questions, webgear:
1. I dont know, you brought it up
2. U.S. style aggressive combat ie. seek and destroy in someone else's country. Fascists tend to be physically and geographically situated in sovereign countries other than their own when seeking out "the enemy" in order to murder them.
Now, back to my game of MS chess in another window. I'm losing damnit! It seems that team black doesnt appreciate it when I move my pieces to its side of the board. Everyone leave the room except Day, Mackay, and Baird, I can feel an episode coming on.
peskyfly1 made the initial comment about search and destroy missions, I was make a response to his comment.
I hope you do well in your game.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
I thought someone said Canadians were at top of the list for deaths by IED's and odd stray bullets? Are the IED's going off between mess tent and latrines, or are our boys out sight seeing when such things occur?
What about transfering supplies between base's.
Mentoring the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police (The last 3 soldiers who died were a part of the mentoring team were they not?)
Providing humanitarian aid.
Providing presence patrols to the area.
He idea that calling someone a peacekeeper makes things better is silly.
Peacekeepers are intended to keep the peace. You're trying to say there is peace in Afghanistan??
If you think the Canadians in their armored vehicles are on top of the list ou should see the Afghan army that's riding in pickup trucks.
