That isn't pedantic at all. However, the main point is that we have got to find a different way of doing politics, because the NDP is entirely bought into the system structurally. They are almost like a safety valve for dissent.
New Ontario poll
Thu, 2010-09-30 20:20
#52
Cueball
Thu, 2010-09-30 21:37
#53
But practically speaking, they'd have a better chance if (as in 1985) the Liberals and Tories were relatively close in seat tallies and share--if the Liberals fall too far behind, the optics of setting up a Dion-esque "coalition of losers" aren't that great...
Thu, 2010-09-30 21:47
#54
That's what I worry about, basically. I still think such a coalition would be legitimate but I'm not sure how it would play with the public.
Fri, 2010-10-01 00:44
#55
How it "plays" with the public is irrelevant. The Liberals are the incumbent party - unless there was a Tory majority in the next election, McGuinty would have every right to "test the house" and bring in a Throne speech and see if the NDP was going to vote it down and pave the way for Hudak (aka "the devil incarnate") to be Premier.
I can guarantee you one thing - its only "weak-kneed liberals" (in both the Liberal Party and the NDP and in the Democratic Party in the US) who waste a nano-second worrying about how it will "play with the public" when it is a life and death situation and they have a chance to either take power or lose it. Have you noticed that parties on the right (ie: Tories and the GOP) are totally ruthless and audacious in their pursuit oif power at all cost - and they tend to win the war more often than not as a result. Harper was apparently willing to go to the Queen to get her to overrule Michaelle Jean had he not gotten his way on prorogation. Do you think Harper (or Mike Harris or Tim Hudak) gives a shit about how anything he does "plays with the public" when the alternative is losing power???
Fri, 2010-10-01 01:04
#56
Have you noticed that parties on the right (ie: Tories and the GOP) are totally ruthless and audacious in their pursuit of power at all cost - and they tend to win the war more often than not as a result. Harper was apparently willing to go to the Queen to get her to overrule Michaelle Jean had he not gotten his way on prorogation.
There was one exception. In 1985 Frank Miller had four more seats than the Liberals, and when the NDP-Liberal Accord resulted in his defeat he complained loudly (and hypocritically, since he too had been bidding heavily for NDP support during those weeks). If he wanted another election he could have asked Brian Mulroney to instruct the Lieutenant-Governor to permit dissolution. (There were lots of times in the early years of Confederation when Ottawa gave comparable instructions, and it is still common today in India. Lieutenant-Governors serve at Ottawa's pleasure.) No, he resigned like a good democrat.
Fri, 2010-10-01 01:20
#57
Miller had no choice. He brought in a Throne Speech - larded it with progressive measures in a desperate attempt to get NDP support and survive, and the Liberals and NDP voted it down. He lost the confidence of the house and the Lieut. Gov. made it very clear that he would then invite Peterson to form a government. Asking for a new election was never going to be an option since all the post election polls showed momentum for the Liberals etc...
If the next Ontario election produces something like 50 Tories, 38 Liberals and 18 NDPers - all McGuinty has to do is negotiate a bit with Andrea Horvath and bring in a Throne Speech that would then pass 55-50 and then all Hudak can do is have a temper tantrum.
The only way the NDP would support a Hudak Throne Speech would be if Hudak was going to make Horwath Treasurer and Peter Kormos Labour Minister and agree to pass a law bringing in proportional representation immediately with no referendum!!
Fri, 2010-10-01 09:22
#58
In Australia in 1975 Governor General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government and called on the opposotion to form a government. I have read that Kerr spoke with the opposotion leader secretly because he was concerned that if Whitlam got wind of what might happen he could ask the Queen directly to dismiss Kerr.
This seems consistent with the Prime Minister prevailing onThe Governor Genreral to dismiss a Lt Governor. It is also consistent with the recent revelation that Harper contemplated asking the Queen to dismiss Jean.
Assuming this is constitutionally "valid" it would be extremely destructive of the political process.
Fri, 2010-10-01 09:31
#59
Cueball
I wouldn't worry about it too much the Tories are going to crush the NDP and Liberals in the next provincial election. They have the advantage of sticking to their ideological guns and keeping their base together by not straying too far into appeasing the center. Thus, they are seen as principled and trustworthy, whereas the NDP is the opposite. Having the appearance of being 'honest' counts for a lot more with people than policy, since very few have any clearly set ideological views.
Early left organizations had a similar appeal, since the leadership was seen as principled and trustworthy.
Fri, 2010-10-01 10:25
#60
In Australia in 1975 Governor General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government and called on the opposotion to form a government. I have read that Kerr spoke with the opposotion leader secretly because he was concerned that if Whitlam got wind of what might happen he could ask the Queen directly to dismiss Kerr.
What happened in Australia was even more outrageous because Whitlam actually led a MAJORITY government - though there was an impasse in getting a supply bill thorugh the opposition controlled Senate.
Fri, 2010-10-01 12:18
#61
Yeah, that is a little interesting to me how people like Bob Rae now talk up Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney.
If Rae is speaking approvingly of Lyin' Brian, that tells you a lot about Rae and Liberals in general.
Fri, 2010-10-01 12:19
#62
I wouldn't worry about it too much the Tories are going to crush the NDP and Liberals in the next provincial election. They have the advantage of sticking to their ideological guns and keeping their base together by not straying too far into appeasing the center. Thus, they are seen as principled and trustworthy, whereas the NDP is the opposite. Having the appearance of being 'honest' counts for a lot more with people than policy, since very few have any clearly set ideological views.
Early left organizations had a similar appeal, since the leadership was seen as principled and trustworthy.
What a load of barnyard manure. You obviously need to get out of your bubble more.
What propels people to the Conservatives are simplistic solutions to complex problems. Having trouble meeting the bills- that isn't because of corporate greed, a too low minimum wage or poor economic planning on the part of government- no it is because your taxes are too high.
Your contention is bs just on the face of it. A perception of honesty has nothing to do with Conservative appeal. It is all about the fear of economic hardship and the need to blame others. Urban elites by talking about the working class while looking down their nose at working people and their own feelings, thoughts and views is at the root of what drives these people to the Conservatives
Fri, 2010-10-01 12:37
#63
Maybe you should found a new party?
Fri, 2010-10-01 12:39
#64
Cueball
You mean one that does what it says it will do and act in the interests of the people who elected it?
Fri, 2010-10-01 12:43
#65
Cueball
"These people". Ok.
So you are alleging that there is no credibility gap between what the NDP is said to support, and what they actually do, whereas the Conservatives basically do what they say they are going to do: Attack unions, immigrants and so on?
Indeed my view is that people do not trust the NDP's solutions to the economic problems that need to be addressed because rather than taking the bull by the horns and doing things that they were expected to be doing, like defending the unions during Bob Rae's tenure in power in Ontario, they attacked them. As opposed to helping the unions grow, and expanding social services by implementing government auto insurance, they did the opposite. This not only undermined the relationship between those workers and the NDP, but also weakened the unions as institutions that would be able to support the NDP into the future.
The conservative strategy of appealing to their base, by actually doing what there base wants them to do, has long range benefits of nurturing their movement, even if they are temporarily out of power once and a while, while the NDP actively acts to attack the roots from which it comes and undermine its base, because it is trying to enter into some "never never land" where they appeal to everyone.
Fri, 2010-10-01 13:01
#66
I am not sure if you are aware of this but Bob Rae hasn't been the leader of the NDP for something like 15 years. From what I understand talking to New Democrats that lots of activists quit in those years and were quietly brought into the fold through the hard work of Howard Hampton and that many of the people around Horwath are people who worked against Rae and his followers, or simply left the party.
You have a hate on for something that no longer exists, except in the lying Liberal party.
Fri, 2010-10-01 13:30
#67
Cueball
What I am seeing (or not seeing) in the Toronto civic election, makes me think otherwise. McConnell is now backing Smitherman. Indeed half of this thread is about coming to some kind of comfortable compromise with the Ontario Liberals. On the one hand you show absolute contempt for the "lying Liberals" but the NDP caucus here, seems to have no problem sidling up to them in a minority parliament.
Oh joyous day! It would be "1985 all over again!!"
Please tell me this represents a position of principle.Ok, maybe the "lying Liberals" aren't so bad that one can't work with them in government. If so, perhaps you should be a little less florid in the contempt you show for them. I don't see how harkening back nostalgically to the wonder years of Bob Rae is an example of a sea change in the attitude of the party today. Indeed, its rather sad.
Fri, 2010-10-01 13:37
#68
I wasn't aware that Stockholm was an official party spokesperson, or even in the leadership of the NDP. I'll have to bow to your obviously much more sophisticated and in-depth knowledge.
Fri, 2010-10-01 13:42
#69
Cueball
The whole conversation revolves around that point.
Fri, 2010-10-01 13:49
#70
1985 was based on a public document with clearly defined outcomes. You are throwing in all kinds of extra stuff that nobody even said. That however is how you operate so why anyone would expect different is a good question. But again you seem to know who is officially speaking for the entire NDP and NDP members. That is a magic trick worthy of Doug Henning. You are as obvious though as Flip Wilson.
Fri, 2010-10-01 14:04
#71
Cueball
As I remember it, it was Rae who quit the NDP, not that Hampton forced him out.
You assertion is that there has been a sea change in the attitudes within the NDP since Bob Rae was in power. Why should I accept you (an anonymous poster on an internet chat forum) over Stockholm (another anonymous poster on an internet chat forum). You have given me no reason to believe your views, over that of Stockholm. Indeed, when I see prominent NDPr's like McConnell sidling up to McGuinty's personal emmissary to Toronto like Smitherman, and read nostaligic posts from prominent NDPr's on this board about the Rae years, in the midst of discussions about power sharing with the "lying liberals", I don't find a lot of support for your contention that things are a lot different, and that the NDP would behave differently today than it did then, when push came to shove.
You may think differently. But you are not the whole party, either.
Fri, 2010-10-01 14:23
#72
Never said I was speaking for the NDP- in fact I am not even a member and during the Rae years I was actively involved in building the Greens. But only Doug Henning and you could have tried to imply that one poster on a board like babble magically speaks for the NDP. You are the one who did that, not myself, not Stockholm. You.
Nor did I imply Hampton forced Rae out. I made no mention of the mechanics, although I suspect it was mutual. You are the one who made those words appear in my mouth, not me, you.
It is your silly games that are taking place, no one else's Flip.
Fri, 2010-10-01 15:01
#73
Cueball
I asked you to substantiate your claim that there has been a sea change in the attitudes in the NDP as you have alleged, and other than saying that Hampton has worked hard to win back core activists to the fold, you have not presented evidence to support the claim that this means there has been a real change in the party. That is just your assertion.
I didn't say that is was one poster on this board. That was just one observed fact, here that is clearly evident. I also pointed out to the fact that some prominent NDP affiliated politicians have gone as far as to back a mayoralty candidate who has clearly stated in his campaign literature that he wants to bust the city garbage workers union through privatization under no strike contracts.
At the end of the day, I don't see how the culture in the NDP has improved since 1990.
Fri, 2010-10-01 15:09
#74
You make assertions all the time based on nothing than your biases and hatreds. I simply pointed out what I have seen and heard. You want to live in the past it seems, and that is your business. I'm living in the here and now and the future and from what I see as a non-NDP babbler is a significant change in the NDP under Hampton in his later years and certainly under Horwath. If it is not enough for you, fine, go start your own party and see how much support you get from your armchair, but in the meantime quit the kind of baiting silliness you have been displaying, it is rather unbecoming.
Fri, 2010-10-01 15:28
#75
Cueball
Yeah. It's me alone who has these "biases and hatreds". They just appeared out of thin air. Abacadabra! Indeed, it is me alone who answers all the polls and accounts for the fact that 80% of the electorate will not vote for the NDP. Any attempt for me to articulate why that is, is just me covering up for my masterful omniscient powers of manipulating the polls, and the ballot box. Muhahahah!
Oh the power! Anyway, go back to your dreamland where everyone secretly loves the NDP, and has forgotten about Bob Rae, even though the term "Rae Days" has entered into the lexicon of public discourse regularly uttered with complete derrision.
Fri, 2010-10-01 15:31
#76
I think a few people here have wayyyy too much time on their hands and should "get a life" rather than flooding the internet with TOXIC manipulative posts.
Fri, 2010-10-01 15:43
#77
Cueball
It's just sad. Look at this thread. The discussion is not how the NDP can win power at Queens Park. For the most part its about finessing a couple couple of cabinet posts on the back of the "lying liberals". No grand agenda. No winning formula.
Surrender even before the game has begun. Except for this:
Tthe two polls showed a rejection of the MGuinty Liberals and possibly a parking of votes with Hudak, ours to win if we capture the change momentum, significant gains are possibl,. GO Andrea GO!!
Fri, 2010-10-01 16:29
#78
Maybe that is because it's a thread about a poll where others took it in a direction that interested them I am sure in the future we will remember to contact you first before anyone posts to make sure it is up to your standards. Get the heck over yourself already.
I was half convinced I should be sending a donation to Pantelone even though I don't live in Toronto, just because I get that what happens in that city effects the rest of us. Instead I believe I will make a donation to the Ontario NDP instead, since you clearly speak for all those supporting Pantelone and have convinced me they are mostly just Ford-like bullies. Thanks for the help with that. I'll make it on behalf of Cueball from babble.
Fri, 2010-10-01 17:06
#79
Cueball
You really are a childish prat.
Far be it from me to do something as foolish as point out that the Bob Rae attack upon the unions not only undermined the base of the NDP by attacking the very people who voted for it, and that the attack itself actually diminished the institutional strength of those institutions that the party relied on to support it. You have done nothing but insult me for saying so.
In contrast to that I pointed out that the conservative use every oppotunity they have to appeal to their base and appease it, and empower it.
Fri, 2010-10-01 17:30
#80
You really are a childish prat.
Takes one to know one!
Fri, 2010-10-01 18:08
#81
Cueball
I guess in some kind of alternate reality where children comment on the issues, and where adults insult them personally for doing so that might be true.
Fri, 2010-10-01 19:24
#82
I think the provinical NDP is hitting the right note, but once the Toreis start attacking them on their position on sex education for children, spending on welfare programs, it will hurt the NDP's number. The Conservative is not hitting the NDP right now because Andrea is taking votes away from the Liberals, which is helping Hudak.
There are too many religious fundamentalists and the current economic climate is hostile to NDP policies on social programs.
Fri, 2010-10-01 19:38
#83
quote: "Early left organizations had a similar appeal, since the leadership was seen as principled and trustworthy"
And of course the welfare state was being built on a growing export economy. "Early left organizatiions" were not facing a declining economy (like the one that brought big Mike to power) and a frightened electorate (like the one that voted to cut 21 per cent from welfare cheques) and an economy so dependent on credit buying that even the governor of the Bank of Canada has warned of economic breakdown, now that most folks are "maxed out."
Ahistorical "analysis" will miss such differences every time.
Fri, 2010-10-01 19:46
#84
Cueball
Edit
Fri, 2010-10-01 19:49
#85
exactly, the middle class is feeling squeezed, and any government in power now is not going to be popular, and the feeling i get from working and taling with poor to middle class people is that they are just looking after themselves and sick of anything that has to do with paying taxes. its unfortunate, but , i think a civil progressive society can only be built when people are feeling hopeful, you got to give people hopes. Cueball can be mad all he wants, and i respect and even support his views most of the time, but the polls do not lie, and the people of Toronto, Ontario or even Canada are really not in the mood of more taxes to fund a progressive society with strong social safety net, thats a bold statement, but i really believe it.
right now i think the most political thing i can do is try to have more empathy and live life in the present, and try to love as much as possible and keep a positive attitude..
Fri, 2010-10-01 19:59
#86
Cueball
You mean to say that the union movement made absolutely no progress during the great depression because the economy was bad, and that the New Deal was a result of the fact that the economy was in great shape, and not an effort to stabilize the economy and address the issue of unequal wealth distribution in the context of a terrible economy?
That said, I think the point you are making about people running scared is a good one. The problem is that people are no longer convinced that the left actually has a solution. This was not the case in the 30's.
And that is the issue that I tried to bring up when referring to the Rae period of governance.
Fri, 2010-10-01 20:52
#87
quote: "The problem is that people are no longer convinced that the left actually has a solution. This was not the case in the 30's."
Comparing the jungle of the Depression years with the safety nets established in the postwar years is meaningless. The sentiment out there now is based on fear of losing jobs and savings even as the public watches manufacturing firms folding for want of markets. International investment capital now carries the savings of people who are losing jobs because that capital has one objective...to find the greatest returns. Heck, even public sector pension fund hopefuls recognize that.
But of course, finance capital has sold us on easy credit...and that has come to the inevitable end. Jobs are needed to pay off debt.
Surely the fate of industrial unions over the past four decades suggests that comparisons with the hungry 30s are irrelevant. It is to be hoped that those unions remaining recognize what Hudak has in mind for public sector workers if he comes to power.
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:09
#88
The problem is that people are no longer convinced that the left actually has a solution. This was not the case in the 30's.
I hate to be pedantic, but that is totally wrong. Some turned to the left, as we are seeing now too, but like now many more- including the unemployed and dispossessed turned right- a very hard right. It would be hard to guess at numbers but based on the research I did in Uni on the time period I would guess for every person that turned left- two or more turned right. Fascism was not just a western European reaction to the times.
The Amercian movement is more well known with such figures as Huey Long, Father Coughlin being fairly well known, plus there was the America First movement (which attracted Charles Lindbergh) and many others. Those people drew huge followings and massive public rallies.
In Canada the 30s saw the birth of the Social Credit movement and its establishment as a party, with its chief figure being Bible Bill Aberhart although there were many other movements as well even further to the right.
So I while I understand the point you are trying to make you are using historically inaccurate reasoning to do so. There is also of course the de-industrialization occuring and the strange fact that historically people were more literate in some ways so discussion of economic theory was not out of character for line workers, farmers, miners and others.
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:11
#89
Cueball
Edit
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:25
#90
Cueball- so why do you think working people are stupid?
I don't think we are stupid. Why would you, unless you are only looking for a fight, even say that. There is nothing in my post that would even suggest that.
People, from all ranks, often look for simple solutions to their problems. The left's analysis, which is often not given to Tea Party like simplistic rants, is now competing with TV, the internet and all kinds of things pushing a rightwing message, or just trying to sell laundry detergent.
Historically groups of workers, farmers, miners and so on often got together at local halls, kitchen meetings and so on to talk economic policy. Can you imagine that today? Some still do, but not in the numbers they used to. That isn't suggesting people are stupid it is looking at the reality of the situation.
A case in point was when this recession hit, so clearly caused by the greed and unethical behaviour of the corporate elite, what did a lot of people do? Did they attack the banks or specualtors, no they attacked unions particularly the CAW and in the States the UAW as if they were to blame for the bad decisions the overlords made. It was depressing beyond belief, but predictable I guess.
So no I don't think working people are stupid. I simply recognize that the road the left has to travel is a much steeper and more difficult, often made so by ourselves, than what the right has to travel to get support.
ETA
I see you removed the remark, but not before I started writing this response. I think I will leave it as is.
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:29
#91
exactly, the middle class is feeling squeezed, and any government in power now is not going to be popular, and the feeling i get from working and taling with poor to middle class people is that they are just looking after themselves and sick of anything that has to do with paying taxes. its unfortunate, but , i think a civil progressive society can only be built when people are feeling hopeful, you got to give people hopes. Cueball can be mad all he wants, and i respect and even support his views most of the time, but the polls do not lie, and the people of Toronto, Ontario or even Canada are really not in the mood of more taxes to fund a progressive society with strong social safety net, thats a bold statement, but i really believe it.
I don't think this is too far from the truth. In theory, the left should do well in times of economic difficulties. What I sense, however, is a rising selfishness among the population in that they are fearful, they want to hang on to what they have, and are willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to that end regardless of who ends up hurt in the process.
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:35
#92
A case in point was when this recession hit, so clearly caused by the greed and unethical behaviour of the corporate elite, what did a lot of people do? Did they attack the banks or specualtors, no they attacked unions particularly the CAW and in the States the UAW as if they were to blame for the bad decisions the overlords made. It was depressing beyond belief, but predictable I guess.
Having heard people in casual conversation blame the unions for "living high on the hog," I can attest to this.
Fri, 2010-10-01 21:43
#93
Cueball
ETA
I see you removed the remark, but not before I started writing this response. I think I will leave it as is.
I hadn't properly read through what you were saying so I removed it.
Fri, 2010-10-01 22:14
#94
I also like to bring up another point, we have heard about the public reaction against the tamil refugees, and from my experience, it seems that many people are looking after "their own people" first when it comes to looking for jobs. I tried applying many times to the same place but i never heard anything back and i noticed only a certain ethnic group of workers working there, i am discouraged.
I am not mentioning if they were white or anything, i dont want to name names, but i just feel like racist / xenophobic feeling is on the rise.
Anyone who is not part of the mainstream society is furthered being marginalized and the society is becoming more unfair.
Fri, 2010-10-01 22:35
#95
Its false that people turned to the left during the Great Depression. It was the opposite. The CCF was founded in 1933 and then got a very low 7% of the vote in the 1935 election and did quite badly in all provincial election. They only started gaining ground in 1942-43 when there was all that "wartime prosperity". Similarly in the UK, the Depression hit and people promptly gave the Tories their biggest win ever and reduced the Labour Party to 35 seats out of 650!! The Labour party won in 1945 - right after the German surrender when there was a wave of optimism.
Sat, 2010-10-02 00:12
#96
Its false that people turned to the left during the Great Depression. It was the opposite. The CCF was founded in 1933 and then got a very low 7% of the vote in the 1935 election and did quite badly in all provincial election. They only started gaining ground in 1942-43 when there was all that "wartime prosperity".
I think what had happened is that once people had seen how much the government spent to go to war, people started disbelieving the idea that there wasn't much the government could do to help them so they demanded that the government step in for the benefit of the general public.
Anyways, not being from Ontario, what this poll tells me is that people don't like McGinty, and the PCs being the Opposition have currently benefitted from that. Things are still volatie, so the NDP (or even Greens, for that matter) have room to pick up.
GO ANDREA GO!!!!
Sat, 2010-10-02 02:02
#97
Yeah, that is a little interesting to me how people like Bob Rae now talk up Bill Davis and Brian Mulroney.
If Rae is speaking approvingly of Lyin' Brian, that tells you a lot about Rae and Liberals in general.
I was thinking specifically of this: http://bobrae.liberal.ca/journal/mulroney-vs-harper/
Ignatieff also gave Mulroney props for his anti-apartheid actions in the Liberal Global Network Strategy.
Not saying either of them are wrong about these specific points. It's just interesting.
Sat, 2010-10-02 02:03
#98
Like, in both cases, Mulroney was referenced favourably compared to Harper.
Sat, 2010-10-02 08:20
#99
I get the impression that on a purely personal level, Mulroney was way more charming than the utterly charmless Harper. On the other hand Mulroney was also very corrupt and he and half his cabinet seemed to be taking bribes etc...I am not aware of Harper personally stealing money to line his own pocket. In terms of substance Mulroney was responsible for calamities like Free Trade and the GST and for almost blowing the country apart with his stupid constitutional fiascos. Its hard to think of any concrete policy of Harper's that historians will say left a mark on Canada after he's gone.
Sat, 2010-10-02 17:12
#100
No, Harper is more of a Nixonian dirty trickster that's poisoning the Canadian body politic as opposed to coming up with X, Y or Z wide-raning policies in themselves that are harmful to this country or doing X, Y and Z things that are personally corrupt (then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Harper kept an enemies list and spied on his opponents). Whether or not he, personally, actually does anything that's directly related to corruption or leaves an actual right-wing legacy is irrelevant. He's essentially creating a political culture in this country that will be much more open to the impact of reactionary right-wingers. The Census for example is in itself not the biggest issue. The impacts of it will be wide ranging as it makes government less effective and helps make the right-wing philosophy self-fulfilling.
Sat, 2010-10-02 18:05
#101
Liberals = old PCs, NDP = Liberals a generation ago?