Why we need to remember our support in our critical support of the NDP

N.Beltov wrote:

Fidel wrote:

You chastized me for flubbing a description of Neoliberal ideology in another thread. I think youve been guilty of waxing a little thin on the Canadian intracacies for it yourself, N.B. Remember what you said, that Neoliberalism is not a scandalous plot but simply the way capitalism works nowadays. Well, it's not working, and the NDP has nothing to do with what the Liberals did in 1995, or what Mulroney and Liberals did before that. The NDP opposed the Neoliberalization of Canada since Trudeau's time.

 

At least I understand that it is an ideology. It's not clear to me that you've understood this.

Granted, we can expect something new to come along, once this package of ideas loses its credibility. Personally, I expect a more barefaced Canadian imperialism. And we both know that some NDPers, having long forgotten stories of cats and mice,  will lap this up like a thirsty cat laps milk.

Of course, and they would be the federal NDP that has no federal record in power for you to make such a conclusion. If you understood anything of what you refer to loosely as neoliberal ideology, you would have to admit that this isn't the same Canada that existed in the days when Lester B had no choice but to implement Tommy's socialised medicine nationally, or watch from the sidelines as the next government did it for him. Times have changed. Canada's economy and social transfer and money creation do not work nearly the same as things did in the 1960s or first half of the 70's. You are out of touch with what's happened in Canada since the CCF ruled Saskatchewan and made it a far better place to live than when the Liberals ran roughshod there, friend. Here's why:

The truth is, N.B., the one which you will flee from by the end of this paragraph, is that social democrats have governed through this western world neoliberalisation of economies, and they have achieved far more on the social front while in federal power and strong opposition there in those countries than any provincial government has been able to in Canada since Mulroney and Chretien/Martin. Why is that? Well, we first have to examine how the unique neoliberalorama is setup in Canada at the federal level. Once we admit to certain truths about Bananada which has been Puerto Ricanized since the neoliberal trade deals/betrayals, you don't have much of an argument. And you will continue to be unable to present a valid and progressive alternative to the NDP with a snowball's chance of being elected to phony majority or even phony minority government with full of crap, right wing Liberals backing them up.

ETA: Here's a hint. Don't bother reading Marxist critiques of the neoliberal setup in Canada. Most of them I've read simply blame provincial NDP governments for being unable to create socialism in one province period end of story. They are very good at describing the negative effects of neoliberal ideology in Manyanada, but they will leave you lacking an understanding of how the neoliberalorama forces each province to rely largely on "free market forces" for jobs and revenue. And most babblers fall victim to the same conclusions that you make, which is that if provincial NDP governments are incapable of creating a decent social democracy, then their federal counterparts will be just as ineffective in federal government. And that's a false assumption with nothing to back it up.

Liberals suck. Might as well cash in your lefty membership, you're finished as a progressive before you even got started.

The point of the OP was that the NDP is the party of these constituencies. Irregardless of the fact that it is certain that the NDP did whip the vote and the Liberal party did not, it is in fact the case that the Liberals introduced the legislation (kicking and screaming as you say) and the entire cabinet voted for it, and indeed the party leader also led by example, stating in fact that he was against it but that it was the constitutionally correct thing to do.

The support may have be equivocal, but in fact, when it came down to a free vote, 67 percent (the great majority) of the Liberal party members voted for it, in a free vote. So, to a certain extent the fact that the NDP did not whip the vote goes against your case, since it is impossible to tell if the NDP would not have rung up similar numbers as the Liberals if the vote had not been whipped.

In fact, Liberal support was substantive and essential to getting the legislation passed. Under such circumstances you might be able to claim that the NDP had a superior position to the Liberal party, but I don't think you can claim that the NDP is THE party of LGBQ community. Support in both the NDP and the Liberal party is substantive on key issues.

This point is contained nicely in this statement from you:

bagkitty wrote:

I believe Unionist is fully correct when he asserts that the NDP (and by extension the other parties) owe something, and have responsibilities to, amongst others, the Gay community. With particular reference to the Gay community, the NDP has done more to address these responsibilities than any of the others.

Your summary quite clearly establishes that the LGBQ community has support to a greater or lesser extent in all parties, and in particular, in the Liberal party support is substantive and strong; In the vote I am pretty sure the cabinet, if not the backbench was whipped, and they introduced it with the intention of making it pass. I don't think the NDP has any right to claim a monopoly here at all, even if it may be "better".

To my mind the rise of equal rights for LGBQ community has to do with a tremendous social shift, engineered not by any party or political movement, but by LGBQ community itself. The impact of this social shift has been felt in all parts of the spectrum of the political sphere. The NDP may have been more receptive to that shift, but they were not the sole advocate of it. Not even close. It is not even a "left" wing bedrock issue, as we can see by the manifestation of homophobia in the left all over the world for many many generations.

Credit goes to LGBQ community, not the NDP, or even "the left".

Cueball:

When did "irregardless" become a word?

I, unlike the poster you are referring to, never described the NDP as the party of anything. I described the Liberals as cowardly and perfidious - particularly in reference to the vote on C-38. To be more precise, they are cowardly, perfidious opportunistic bastards who openly embraced the homophobes in their own party in the immediate aftermath of the vote. When you try to make the case that, on the question of party behaviour during the vote on C-38, the parties represented in parliament are all even roughly comparable, you are mistaken. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the NDP was the only party that imposed party discipline on this issue of basic human rights. This completely separated them from those parties who, and I recognize that the following description is interpretative, considered respect for basic human rights to be less important than concerns over party cohesion and therefore allowed their members to vote as they bloody well wanted. If you are looking for roughly comparable parties to compare on this particular issue, it is the BQ that is roughly comparable to the Liberals... both allowed "free votes" - and while the overwhelming majority of BQ MPs opted to do the decent thing, the party qua party failed to stand front and center in support of basic rights. They were significantly "better" than the Liberals, but as a party they were also essentially gutless. I am quite willing to acknowledge, as I did in my previous post, that there are decent individuals represented in all parties who were part of the debate of C-38 - there is, however, a distinction to be made between individual actions and collective actions. The NDP was the only grouping in parliament during the C-38 who demonstrated a party commitment to basic rights.

I usually consider most of the comments from the "the NDP is always under attack here" element to be little more than whinging... but when confronted with comments from someone trying to say that the actions of the Liberals and the NDP over the vote on C-38 are substantially similar, I begin to wonder if I should be taking the whinging a little more seriously.

[ETA: oh, and you might want to get a handle on this LGBQ acronym you have been using. The most common usage is LGBT, LGBTQ is more inclusive, and I have seen it taken as far as LGBTTQQTSIA... I would suggest you might want to check your usage - it is unfortunate but the designation itself is highly debatable... although normally the debate centers on whether it should be extended beyond the T, not dropping the T entirely and putting a Q in its place. Ah well, technical details]

bagkitty wrote:

Cueball:

When did "irregardless" become a word?

[ETC.]

You know, I never cared for the acronym much. And yeah, I drop the T because I don't really care that much. Some do. I don't. Call me old school. My entire line of thought on this issue comes from the OP, and its assertion that the NDP is the party of LGBQ community. I didn't think it up now just to make a debating point. I made my point about the OP, some others responded, then you responded to me, I have now clarified further my original point vis the OP in detail in response to your previous post to me.

So your previous post is a response to my views in the context of the OP.

I don't think the NDP is the party of LGBTQ community as stated in the OP. Those are the reasons why. Indeed, the great majority of Liberals were onside (67% is generally considered a large majority). They tabled it, ensured that it was properly vetted by the supreme court in order to ensure its success and more importantly rejected using the "notwithstanding clause"  as suggested by the CA in order, to squash it entirely. The Liberals (and in particular the "leadership" of the party) were an essential and active force in the evolution an enactement of the SSM bill. So in my opinion I don't think you can substantially say that the NDP has the monopoly on being the party of LGBTQ people, at least in this case.

Maybe we even substantivel agree... here?

You seem to be arguing the quality of that support in comparison to other parties. That is fine. My point stands in terms of the OP.

Irregardless of that. If you are going to try and trump people on grammar points it would be best if you chose to do so on a solid basis as opposed to an arguable one. Personally I like irregardless. Also, it is in the common vernacular. Also, it is even in some dictionaries. The one used by my web browser for example. Therefore, it is substantively a "word".

But why not quibble on this point of dictionary defined language and semantics? It seems apropos, since as I remember it the Canadian Alliance forwarded several private members bill aimed at invoking the notwithstanding clause on the grounds that the dictionary definition of "marriage" was a union of a "man and a woman". Some people argued that the definition could indeed be changed. Language could be reinvented, remodelled... was maleable... Why stand on ceremony.., eh?

The phrsaeology in an email from Brad Lavigne is better than that being used in NB NDP emails

Brad wrote: Jack Layton and your New Democrats head back to their constituencies with a clear record of results for middle-class families and hard-working Canadians.

Still falls short of where I believe the NDP should be but it does have an oblique reference to the working class.

"Cueball:

When did "irregardless" become a word?" -bagkitty

 Is this a hint to those who do not master the English language (and I am not talking about Cueball, here) to shape up or forever hold their peace? 

Revealing in full force the reality, which is that the definition of labour actionable here excludes most of the working class.

I didnt read Cues comment as anti-union. Unlikely.

And as I think Cue was saying, you were onto something about how unions are more braodly representative of the working class than might appear on the surface.

Ironic isn't it that you would say I was trying to bully you into silent subservience as you break the basic rule of this place by going after me with personal, perhaps sexist insults. I think you could do well to take a long look at your last post snd question who is trying to do what to whom. It won't be pretty but sometimes reflection isn't pretty.

There I speak of comments, you, failing to respond to them adequately, decide to come after me personally to call me names.

I was not trying to bully you. I spoke only of your last comment having had some respect for you (damaged as it is at this moment). I was arguing against losing the voices of those who disagree with individual things from the participation of the whole as I would like to see the party, and the union movement benefit from those voices who are needed, not to destroy it but to bring it closer to where it needs to be. I am trying to argue for more voices acting within not eliminating any. Naturally, I was arguing out of respect for democratic process, in the confidence that if people stayed the party could reflect a collective will

However, after your last comment, it cannot be for me to argue how a voice like yours could be missed since I do support the idea of respectful disagreement through the argument of ideas rather than personal attacks when the ideas run out.

Cueball, we can all be hypocritical and we can all be wrong at times. This is your turn to check yourself. You have useful things to say often enough. Here you do damage to them as well as yourself.

I presume that proportional representation would lead to a viable party to the left of where the NDP currently stands. Canada has a history of parties that were designed to move either further to the left or to the right on the political spectrum (ex. SC, UFA, Progressives, CCF, NDP, Comm PC). With FPP, the NDP seems to be at the moment the only viable option for people on the Left to elect candidates who hold in some part the same beliefs as they do.

An interesting issue is whether the NDP has become less of a vanguard over the years. By this I wonder, whether the positions it takes in 2010 are closer to "main-stream Canadian" beliefs than the positions it took in 1960 were to "mainstream" beliefs at that date. 

Long thread.