What are your defining Issues

@ Northern Shoveler

In theory I suppose you have a point.

But I can't imagine approaching that question in any way other than a case-by-case basis, in the context of everything that is going on around it.

So I'd have to say no. without knowing all the facts, I'm not willing to declare a deal-breaker up front.

healthcare: full commitment to the Canada Health Act and Health and Social Transfers.

here's the Green Party policy on healthcare: http://greenparty.ca/node/13358 including,

"The Greens fully support the Canada Health Act (CHA) and all of its principles. We oppose any level of privatized, for-profit health care. The five criteria of the CHA guiding the provincial public health insurance plans, which we believe to be non-negotiable, are:

1. Public Administration: The public health insurance plan must be managed in a public, not-for-profit fashion.
2. Comprehensiveness: All residents must be covered for “medically necessary” health services.
3. Universality: All residents must be covered by the public insurance plan on uniform terms and conditions.
4. Portability: All residents must be covered by their public plan, wherever they are treated in Canada.
5. Accessibility: All residents must have access to insured health care services on uniform terms and conditions without direct or indirect financial charges, or discrimination based on age, health status or financial circumstances.

The threat of a NAFTA challenge from the American for-profit health care industry cannot be over-estimated. Allowing for-profit health care would be the “thin end of the wedge” that jeopardizes our entire health system."

NDP:

“When it comes to strengthening health care, I won’t stop until the job’s done.” http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-s-plan-will-mean-thousands-more-doctors-n...

Libs:

http://www.liberal.ca/issues/health-home-care/

"For Liberals, the promise of universal, publicly funded health care is at the core of what it means to be a Canadian. We will never waver from that commitment." However, instead of publicly funded homecare, Liberals are only providing a 'family care tax benefit' and a six month EI benefit for workers to take time off work to care for elderly themselves.  Um, most elderly need more than six months of care at home, and the privatization of seniors' care was a huge expensive mistake that has caused untold suffering for older people and their families and caregivers.

To be fair, Liberals say "Liberals are committed to our public health care system and will work to enhance its quality and financial sustainability. This begins with investments in health promotion and in homecare" and go on to describe the tax credits as 'immediate steps'. More clarity and commitment is needed though to reverse privatizations and cuts.

Apparently Harper's Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe privatizes healthcare through constrained provincial procurement with investors' rights taking priority in disputes. 

Any party committed to healthcare will need to reject CETA.

We already know what Harper intends, through his recent budget and his earlier statements rejecting the Canada Health Act.

N.Beltov wrote:

 Foreign policy is near and dead to me,

That's quite the Freudian slip, N.

To the topic.

As a political hard ass, I put a LOT of my politics aside when it comes to the electoral system. I do this in order to actually be able to vote without hurling. So really, my defining issues, by the time I get to the electoral government level, have been watered down supremely.

The NDP has always been the party that best represents my politics, even as they go further to the center and beyond, the reasons of which completely escape me. I've lived in Toronto all my adult voting life, and in all the neighbourhoods I've lived in Toronto, I've never had anyone other than a Liberal or an NDP as my MP. I think.

I recognize that not all people can say that in these Reform Alliance far-right times we've been living in.

That said, if the NDP reneged on social issues that, at least on paper, separates them from the Libs/Cons? Honestly, I don't know what I would do in terms of who to vote for.

Since the Liberals are now taking the space the former Progressive Conservatives held, and the NDP in practice/actuality are moving further and further to the right, I'm greatly concerned that the political landscape of Canada is changed forever, with everyone vying for "Who can move the furthest right?". It's sickening.

lol. Ok, it's fixed.

Since you asked for defining issues (and not deal breakers) I kind of went to town on this idea. I wonder who I would vote for to see:

- foreign policy that emphasizes diplomatic relations, helping nations in trouble, but otherwise minding our own business, and independence in foreign policy matters.

- increasing corporate taxes and environmental responsibility, and generally increasing corporate contributions to the public purse.

- strict environmental regulations, redesigning infrastructure to facilitate ethical consumer lifestyles, and high taxation of both corporate and consumer pollution and waste.

- regulating humane livestock and hunting practices nationally and banning or discouraging the import of animal products produced under lower standards.

- developing regionalism and friendly trade and exchange of goods, services and people with the U.S.. But also protectionism where necessary. (I understand this is contradictory.)

- public ownership of water and energy utilities and high environmental standards (including in agriculture)

- negotiating new, sustainable agreements with First Nations and phasing out the reserve system.

- universal health care for the basics, but also private medicine for specialized services.

- making business easy for small and medium-sized Canadian businesses.

- reducing sales taxes and eliminating the GST

- guaranteed minimum income for everyone 19 years of age and over, through reverse income taxation.

- affordable education and encouraging as much as possible universal access to post-secondary education.

Jobs

1) Climate Change (Not addressed, holy s**t)

2) Energy (Addressed by Layton, at least, w.r.t. the oil sands)

3) Poverty (Indirectly addressed by Layton and to some extent, Ignatieff)

4) The Deficit (Mostly addressed just by Harper. Ignatieff seems to almost be saying f**k deficits)

5) Democracy, Accountability (Actually a main narrative of the whole campaign)

Although we managed to at least move away from the insanely stupid back and forth over coalitions, which almost made me want to launch a coup, I'm not really thrilled with the election so far. 

housing, food, and clothing as a human right.

The joining of the North American Working class as one.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

So if the NDP goes all the way into  the zionist appeasers camp with the liberals will you still be comfortable enough to vote for them?

See, I don't think voting in an election will take take Canada out of the imperialist camp. Also, you'll have to tell me when, exactly, the NDP took a consistent stand on invading other countries or on appeasing Israel. You voted NDP in the January 2006 election, yet Jack Layton took no position - [b]whatsoever[/b] - on Canadian troops who were occupying Afghanistan, murdering people, handing over prisoners for torture, etc. His "position" was that Parliament should debate the issue. Finally in September, in order to forestall disaster at the convention, he supported the massive cry of the rank and file to call for withdrawal. So if you voted for him in January 2006, I'm not sure what would stop you now... unless you're just sick and tired of the hypocrisy and betrayal. I know I am. But I have low expectations from elections.

So, having seen what Harper is capable of doing on the issue of Israel (to take just that one example) - CPCCA, Kairos, Rights and Democracy, Durban II, funding for the Palestinian authority, Gaza... - I have no qualms about voting against Harper on the off chance that Canada will return to a less brutally murderous position on the issue. Whom should I vote [b]for[/b] then? Less important. They're all pretty bad. But at least the Bloc withdrew from the CPCCA in opposition to its bias against Arab groups. So, you gotta take what you can get. However, my vote won't be determined by that alone.

Quote:

How can Canadians hope to have social justice for themselves when we are bombing and murdering civilians in a war that is none of our F'ing business?  

We can't. But this isn't new. Remember Afghanistan? or Serbia? Wait a minute, how about the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s? You were luckier than most. Svend first supported the NATO bombing, then he listened to many voices (including mine, I'm proud to say), and changed his stand - and got Alexa McDonough to change hers as well, somewhat. So if there were a Svend around now, I'd vote for him, no matter what party he was registered with.

Elections won't change Canada - not on their own, in any event. No party is going to take a stand against the imperialist intervention in Libya if we can't even get a few demonstrations together, or a few organizations to take a stand. This is a very bad time. There are even babblers, normally progressive, who have been sucked into supporting "no fly zones". We're going to have to take it slow and easy.

Meanwhile, I'm casting my vote to avoid the worst, not to elect the best. There ain't no best out there yet.

My primary issue is electoral reform...but thats an ideal fantasy I'm afraid.   in reality...well, it sucks being in calgary during election time...if we get some support from the Federal dippers, I'll be voting NDP...otherwise I'll likely join the green protest vote, or perhaps a write-in vote for Obama to give some vote counter a chuckle.  Sad that the latter is most probable

Slumberjack wrote:

But what you've described anectodally sounds quite similar to what they reveal to us every day, to the appearance that no issue, cause or demographic is safe from being thrown overboard for the sake of exigency.  Who exactly does one unite with if they're easily upset by a stand on these conditions?  And who's real world are you referring to?

Sorry SJ, I'm living in the real world. My parents were liberated from the Nazis by Stalin's troops, who benefited from Churchill and Roosevelt's funding and weaponry. My soul was sold long ago.

You can be pure. Go home and wait for enlightenment to dawn. Or, you can compromise. I'm all for compromise. Otherwise, I would have ended it long ago.

I'm not traumatized, SJ. I apply exactly the same disgusting collaborationist capitulationist policies in my daily like. I shamelessly sit in union meetings with racists, sexists, homophobes, U.S.-lovers - you name it - and plot strategy against the employers. What do you think of that?

Know why I do it? Because the enemy of my enemy can be, temporarily and for specific purposes, my ally. Because people (including you and me) have all kinds of toxic shit circulating through our brains and occasionally spewing out of our mouths. Because the cause of destroying Harper is (in my view) so important that I will even go to the lengths of donating money, time, and a vote to people who support the bombing of Libya, who support Israel, etc. - within limits. I.e., the Bloc and the NDP.

The dangerous ones are those who support the NDP, or the Bloc, or the Liberals, or the Cons, regardless of the situation or the problem. They are my enemies. But, I work with them too. How about that?

You want me to be corrigible? Ok, I'll give 'er a whirl.

We're not interested in enabling your habit this evening.  He's already explained that he continues to prefer compromise.  No expense is too much.  But I understand where he is coming from.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hmmm... easy to say when you get to pick and choose your hard lines. As near as I see it our entire society is built on compromise, overconsumption and the misery of others.  Funny to not want to dirty your hands when it comes to one of the few acts which can have a major effect on some of the imbalances we create. 

I don't pick and choose amongst what is presented.  It simply is irregardless.  What little i can do involves the big obvious ones.

Most of my defining issues have been monopolized by the Conservatives.  I'm not ready to vote for them just because they happen to agree with me on some of my pet issues.  What's a guy to do?

Defining issues:

Immigrants should not be jailed.  Particularly women and children who just survived onslaught by bombs, maiming, and other assaults by their government (Sri Lanka) for months while Canada did nothing to help.

[quote=Noah_Scape]

Environment.... and there it is, in the GloBan yesterday [March 31] - the Tar Sands pipeline and tanker route through BC issue!!

Quote: "Yesterday, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel gave a speech at the Empire Club in Toronto pressuring politicians to support his company's tarsands pipeline." > http://tinyurl.com/4xqaft8

   Apparently, the Libs have allready said no to the tanker route, but Daniels continues to pressure Iffy to support the Tar Sands route through BC.

Tom Flannagan comments on CEO Daniel's strategy [same article]:
    Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said he is puzzled by Mr. Daniel's lobbying strategy during an election campaign. "Conventional lobbying strategy would be approach a party once it has won an election, when they have space to manoeuvre," Prof. Flanagan said.

    "Mr. Ignatieff made a public pledge [against] tankers off the coast of British Columbia - that the Liberals wouldn't allow that. What's [Mr. Ignatieff] going to do in a campaign? Is he going to say: ‘I was lying' or ‘I changed my mind - the companies convinced me'? A campaign is a hard time for him to climb down from a position like that."

Will Iffy flip on this if he becomes PM? I would not doubt it.

And so what about Jack? He won't change his mind on this, will he? And not the Greens.... so if you want the Tar Sands to move bitument through BC, I guess you have to vote for the CPC. I wonder how many of those who are CPC supporters, but against the Tar Sands route through BC, will still vote Conservative? Is it a defining issue?

Related GloBan article on Enbridge, Tar Sands, and the federal election > http://tinyurl.com/3zn3va4

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I thought I was saying the same thing.

You were. But this is not the first time you have detected antagonism where what is being offered is support.

Quote:

In your lecture about who I voted for in the last election and Jack's back pedalling on peace and anti-imperialism you must have missed the part of my post where I said that I had an MP worth supporting.

Hahaha. You missed my part about how I would have supported Svend regardless of what party he stood for. And had you read my last few years of posts, you would have noticed my profound support for Bill Siksay - my praise of him when he stood alone against the dictatorship of Layton, who disciplined him for being the sole MP to break ranks and vote against Harper's filthy omnibus crime bill - Bill's upholding of the torch passed by Svend - anyway, maybe you're just looking for disagreement where there is none. I've been that way myself on occasion. :)

Quote:

I worked my ass off to send someone to the NDP caucus that would speak for those views.  That is how I play my politics and I am sorry that does not meet your standard.  I know that it certainly does not disqualify my voice as you seem to be bent on doing.

You know what? Chill down, cool off, and stop feeling so defensive when no one is attacking you. You must be used to coming under attack for your principled views. This place is different. Stop looking for enemies. Ok?

Great posts Unionist.

thanks wrote:

All the dairy farmers in Conservative ridings won't like getting their supply system cut.

Outside of Alberta there are plenty of farmers who support the wheat board (enough to keep it alive despite all Harper's efforts to kill it). Yet Saskatchewan is still a sea of blue. Who can figure that out?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Am I the only political junkie that has defining issues that no party can go against and retain their support? 

The way our deeply flawed electoral system works, or rather doesn't work very well,  is that you automatically support whatever bad foreign policy the government is directly responsible for if you don't vote against them and the official phony opposition party rubberstamping the bad foreign policy by way of successive confidence votes for the weak minority government. And there is a long list of vicious toadying and collaborationist policies directly attributable to both Tory and Liberal parties when either has formed the government or phony opposition to the other wing of the party and vice versa.

IOWs, you can vote against a long list of actual policies for vicious toadying to Uncle Sam by voting NDP.

In which case you would have to overlook the NDP's token support for a no-fly zone over Libya at this particularly opportune time of election campaigning. And that's odd for the NDP since they are on record as having opposed most all of the vicous, vicious toadying done by our two old line parties in Ottawa.

So all you can do, really, is choose as wisely as you are able to given our dud electoral system.

Unionist wrote:

And, being active all my life in the trade union movement, the peace movement, and various community causes, I find it hard to apply absolute conditions in electoral matters which I could never apply when it comes to uniting, in the real world, with a wide disparity of individuals and beliefs in the struggle for some common goal(s).

That's why I find ultra-loyal partisan politics to be so repugnant. It's asking people to divide and fight each other over someone's phony promises and chequered hypocritical record, and to apply virtually unquestioning fidelity to a person or a brand, instead of finding ways to unite them for a greater good.

It is possible to support individual candidates for their individual policies on various issues. But if you vote for a political candidate whose party  supports all of the vicious toadying done by Ottawa over the last 10 years, then you necessarily can not claim to have voted against any of the long, long list of bad foreign policies you claim to oppose. In Canadian politics, there is a high likelihood that a given candidate belongs to a party with a pre-defined election platform comprised of policy planks. And your vote is then cast for a candidate whose party has a written policy stand on foreign affairs along with an established record for voting in Canada's Parliament. That candidate and his party's record in Ottawa come as a package deal.

IOWs by not casting a vote against those two oldest political parties collaborating on ALL of the bad foreign policies in Ottawa time and time again, it's the same as if you rubberstamped the import of a container ship of flowers coming to Canada from a country where they murder more union leaders than any other country in the world annually. And it's the same as if you signed off on an order to bomb innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Because you will have committed those crimes in your heart by contributing, in numerical first past the postian terms, to the bad foreign policies in Ottawa opposed 99% of the time according to the actual Parliamentary record,  by an effective opposition party. Your vote is counted on election day. Whether or not it is effectively cancelled by a bad electoral system is another story. But then again,  the NDP supports reform of the bad electoral system, too.