Are the NDP "too nice"

45 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2011-04-10 20:29

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Ok, I see we are two weeks into the campaign now, and a piece of common-wisdon is taking hold. That is, that the Libs are kind hearted, progressives, who represent the only viable alternative to keeping the Tories from a Majority.

So, I am wondering if this is at least due in part to the fact that the NDP is being "too-nice"; that is, the old meme of the party that we need to be postive, and communicate a message in that way so people will hear us as that and vote for us and not pay attention to the snake oil the Libs are trying to sell Canadians.

I live in a riding, Winnipeg North, where our MP, Kevin Lamoureux, has somehow duped people into thinking he is the nicest guy in the world. This is notwithstanding his past anti-union comments, and his most recent vote against a women's right to choose in the house. I have been trying to convince those who decide such things, of the need to in some way to go after that part of his record. It is working very well for him, and I honeslty think this is a serious startegic error on the part of those who make decisions here in my riding.

Let me state clearly that I am speaking for no one at all but myself; this is exculsively my personal opinion, and probably explains why I have never been seen as much more valuable then a resource with legs for dropping phamphlets, a wallet from which to take money, and a willing body to inside scurtineer on election day. I guess this is self-inflicted, to some considerable degree, and I have no one to blame but myself. However, I just can't understand why the New Dems are not making "more hay" of this.

I will admit that I listened to the "I am Rex Murphy and am much smarter then you could ever imagine to be" show again today. He had on a guest who said the problem was that the NDP platform was too much like the Libs. Listen to that framing again, "the NDP platform was too much like the Libs". That is a big problem. We have discussed the squeeze of the NDP on other threads by the Libs moving in on what is really NDP territory. Here it was again on full display. How can this still be such a problem? I say it is because the NDP is simply acting naively. The New Dems are being "too nice".

I can't for the life of me understand where the fight is on this. Why won't the New Dems take this on? I say it is because at the very basic level, New Dems, and the leadership are simply too nice; they think somehow by appealing to people's better nature, you can win them over. Ok, I accept that in a fight, you try to reason with your attacker; but in the end, if it doesn't work, you at least give them a bloody nose, even if you don't win the fight. That is how I survived my least favorite time of life, high school. I don't see how this very basic lesson of the need to stand up for yourself is any less applicable now to this very election fight we are having.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Sun, 2011-04-10 20:36

NorthReport

That's why after the election my hunch is that the NDP will work an arrangement with the Cons and cut the Libs right out.

Sun, 2011-04-10 20:42

Life, the unive...

I'd call this a little bit of push back

http://youtu.be/zUhyGqElgjk

Sun, 2011-04-10 22:37

Hunky_Monkey

One of my main beefs... we don't punch back and if we do, it isn't hard enough. It's a common beef with lots of other party members here in Nova Scotia... including some sitting MLA's I may add. The NS NDP government takes hit after hit and hardly responds. And it seems that all a majority of voters know about this NDP government is that they've raised the HST. That's it.

Toot your own horn over accomplishments... time after time after time... until it sinks in with voters. And fight back everytime an attack comes in.

Are you listening, Premier Dexter?

Sun, 2011-04-10 22:42

Fidel

I think Rex Murphy is too much like Rex Murphy. If he was any more biased against the NDP, there'd have to be two of him.

Mon, 2011-04-11 07:06

JeffWells

I don't know that it's a matter of being naive or too nice. I think the problem is strategic timidity. Maybe that was sound a couple of elections ago, but now Layton's brand is established and he's a well-liked national figure, the times call for some righteous anger and thunder on the left. I think it's a terrible shame we're not seeing it, because I believe enough Canadians are ready to see it that it could make a significant difference.

Mon, 2011-04-11 08:01

KenS

In a 3 party national field, there are always hazards for the NDP going after one of the two. Doing it isn't simply a matter of being "tough minded". You have to do it well, or you dont do it. And you have to consider the possibility there is no good way to do it.

After a lot of failures, the NDP has got effective at going after the Cons and Harper. And there the contrast is a no brainer even in the eyes of the disengaged voters who have to be your primary target. Also, there are at least twice as many 2 way races with the Cons as there are with Liberals.

Layton and the NDP are already frequently pointing out how the Liberals cannot be trusted, are not a real opposition, etc. Going after them more than that would require among other things, making such messages the central focus of a set of some ads... in much the same manner of the pointy contrasts with Harper. And doing that with the Liberals is a lot more prone to getting blowback and/or a harmfull deflection of focus. Doing it is not as simple as 'having resolution' or 'applying yourself'.

What would be good is some local/regional focused campaigning strategies that could be trained on the two way races with the Liberals. Those would not be easy either, but at least wouldnt have such huge downside hazards as a national attack on the Liberals.

My hunch is that the best strategy for fighting against the Liberal and media-assisted turning of the race into one between them and Harper, would be one that does not overtly and directly confront that. Because the hazard there is the same as the one with fighting back directly against negative advertising by arguing against it. That just solidifies the effect.

Maybe the best insulation against the Liberals marginalize/ignore the NDP move is exactly what Layton and the national campaign is doing. Just because the national strategy did not blow the Liberal strategy out of the water does not mean it isnt doing a good job.

Because expecting in the short term to blow the Liberals out of the water is just a stupid standard to have; and because its still early days.... all we know so far is that the media is eating up the Liberals portrayal of themselves. Well duh, that is something you could have safely bet the farm on.

Mon, 2011-04-11 08:09

KenS

The NSNDP is a different animal. They got into government by several years of flying under the radar. I was among the minority, including 'insiders,' who said this will never work. Truth is the only thing that was certain is that we didnt want it, period. As to 'won't work'- we were proved wrong before 2006... let alone by the 2009 majority win.

Anyway- they got in by flying under the radar. Big surprise that is their 'strategy' for staying in.

Flying under the radar has never been an option for the federal party. The federal party may not be doing the right and smarest things, but they are not trying to fly under the radar.

Mon, 2011-04-11 08:11

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Are you listening, Premier Dexter?

The inner sanctum hears. But they are not listening.

Mon, 2011-04-11 08:30

#10

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

No the problem is we have two liberal parties running in this election. One that is running to be government and one is running to be opposition. But they both have almost identical platforms. I personally never believe the Liberal because their history for a hundred years has been run from the left and rule from the right. Now voters are expected to take a leap of faith and believe that Jack although running from the same place as the Liberals if elected will govern from the left.

By jumping on the Bomb Libya bandwagon the NDP has lost any chance of standing out as a party of different principles. It used to be the party that called for Canada removing itself from that alliance. Now that NATO in the last decade has embraced D2P they have suddenly become another Ready Aye Ready do help in our part to ensure western hegemony.

Mark my words Libya is going to cost the NDP in votes because it was a betrayal off one of their core principles on the eve of an election. When your main message is vote for me because the Liberals while promising mostly the same things can't be trusted it seems to me going backwards on long standing party policy for short term political advantage leaves previous Liberal voters no reason to switch and voters with peace and anti-war policy as main issues with no party speaking to their views.

Imagine if Jack talked about peace and how Canada is going to war with NATO to take sides in a civil war. Nothing in the NDP for peace activists these days except a liberal like promise that they will be nicer than Harper. They couldn't resist trying to score cheap political points calling for death and destruction to rain down on Libyans for their own good.

Mon, 2011-04-11 09:26

#11

KenS

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Mark my words Libya is going to cost the NDP in votes because it was a betrayal off one of their core principles on the eve of an election.

How many votes are we talking about?

1.] The votes [maybe] of some people around Babble and similar 'places'?

or...

2.] As is generally understood in a statement like that- cost enough votes that after it is all over there is a broad understanding "the NDP's stand on Libya cost it a lot of votes and was a crucial part in the tide turning against them"?

Mon, 2011-04-11 09:45

#12

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I will say as a retired military man that I wish the NDP hadn't jumped on the "Bomb Libya Bandwagon". It is an unnecessary conflict; Khadaffi was pretty much neturalized.

I still know people in the service who are directly affected by this decision, including a couple of very good friends of mine, who I can tell you are very unhappy about this as it is impacting on their lives in real time.

Nope, don't l ike it at all.

Mon, 2011-04-11 10:01

#13

KenS

NS was not making just a statement that he doesnt like the NDP's stand.

Mon, 2011-04-11 17:18

#14

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

KenS am I allowed an opinion? I am glad that I do not share your hive mind. I think the NDP strategy of becoming the liberal party is a betrayal of its soul and will not gain it more new votes than it loses. Nobody but a political junkie could tell the difference in the platforms. The OLD New Democrat policy on NATO was a significant difference and was abandoned at the very moment Canadians needed some sanity from at least one political party. If the NDP can be herded into advocating for war against its own policy then tell me again what message that sends to potential first time NDP voters. Why should they believe "liberal lite" promises over "liberal" promises?

Mon, 2011-04-11 18:25

#15

Doug

Try doing well in an election campaign where you're being accused of supporting a dictator who shoots civilians. That would have been a disaster.

Mon, 2011-04-11 18:55

#16

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Doug wrote:

Try doing well in an election campaign where you're being accused of supporting a dictator who shoots civilians. That would have been a disaster.

We have troops supporting Karzai already and Harper is running on it so I guess you have a point. Your concern tells me you believe Canadians no longer care about peace and accept their rightful place at the right hand of the emperor. Ready Aye Ready

So if getting out of NATO is no longer policy and some version of D2P has become the party policy then lets have the list of potential countries that the NDP thinks NATO has the right to bomb. If there was reason enough to bomb Libya then who else fits in that category. It cannot only be Libya because while there is no doubt it was a dictatorship there is also no doubt that it was not the most brutal or murderous on the globe. Since peace is no longer an issue for it, the NDP, should be calling on NATO to bomb Iran next. There is a real consensus in the MSM they are evil and that was the rationale for calling for the bombing of Libya.

I would have had no problem with the expediency of keeping their mouths shut on the issue but they called for bombs as a solution. Don't you get it, they had no idea except to parrot the MSM on a life and death issue. Cheer leading for death and destruction is a long way from what used to be NDP foreign policy so you'll have to excuse me if I am taking awhile to come to terms with the reality that there is no anti-war party in the House. I've gone to a lot of peace marches and many times there where NDP MP's both marching and speaking against our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen NDP members march with their riding banners proudly held up proclaiming the parties anti-war stance.

Ready Aye Ready Are you willing to send your kids off to fight a NATO war in Libya? How about a draft would that be acceptable if we get bogged down in the liberation?

Mon, 2011-04-11 19:04

#17

JeffWells

Doug wrote:

Try doing well in an election campaign where you're being accused of supporting a dictator who shoots civilians. That would have been a disaster.

That kind of calculation would have led to the support of the War Measures Act. And because the party braintrust engages in that kind of calculation, the party is losing its distinctiveness, and attractiveness in a time of systemic crisis.

Also, the longer the Libya adventure goes on, the more it looks like it would have been the right decision to have said no to it.

Mon, 2011-04-11 19:35

#18

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I am old fashioned and believe that voters like people of integrity and will vote for them even if sometimes on some issues they disagree. I also think that there is room in the political discourse for a party that has integrity and consistency on sensitive, complex issues. I have been following politics since the Cuban missile crisis and it despairs me to hear that the NDP cannot speak clearly on this kind of issue. Its recent tradition has been in opposing Iraq and withdrawal from Afghanistan and then it went to a definitive pro-D2P and NATO intervention policy. I might add that there is not a hope in hell that a pro-D2P resolution would ever have passed any NDP convention I attended and I doubt if it would today.

When my MP stood alone against the Conservatives criminalizing gay sex between teens I heard the same defeatist bullshit. Funny thing was that although that was the Conservatives main local attack point they didn't win the seat. When Svend was the first gay politician to openly come out the same wisdom was heard that this would hurt him at the polls . Funny thing is he had his best election the next time.

News flash to brain trust if your trying to sell a bland product based mostly on trust it is best of have some integrity.

Mon, 2011-04-11 19:43

#19

KenS

The NDP has never spoken clearly about foreign policy even when it was not concerned about votes. It has always been pillar to post- Svend included at times.

Mon, 2011-04-11 19:53

#20

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

KenS wrote:

The NDP has never spoken clearly about foreign policy even when it was not concerned about votes. It has always been pillar to post- Svend included at times.

I agree and that is why I am so pissed that the clearest stance they have taken in years was to call for bombs to rain down on Libyan cities. They should have just STFU like normal.

Mon, 2011-04-11 21:25

#21

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:

No the problem is we have two liberal parties running in this election.

And one of them has a well established record for campaigning on the left and then governing on the right immediately after being elected to phony majority government. The Liberals know what appeals to Canadians when lying to us. LPC are prolific liars as the historical record proves.

The NDP did not rubberstamp the Tory's NAFTA in 1994 - that was a Liberal government.

The NDP did not promise to reverse Mulroney's GST - that was a Liberal government.

The NDP opposed all kinds of neoliberal policies dating back to the 1970s when the banks began their little coup d'etat in Ottawa. The Liberals went right along with it all and did nothing to actually oppose it when they were able to, and they did nothing to reverse the neoliberal agenda when ruling in federal government.

No party handed more confidence votes to the ReformaTories since 2006 than the other wing of the conservative party, the infamous Liberals and even Libranos of Ottawa.

The federal NDP's record is squeaky clean by comparison. Yes, we can't judge the NDP by the Liberals' record in power, but we can judge the Liberals by the Liberals' record in government. The fruit never falls far from that tree.

And, once again, the Liberal Party is making promises to Canadians for the long term, over several years etc as per usual. Meanwhile the NDP are making election promises that deliver the goods immediately. I think the NDP's election promises were better planned and thought out than those ones which are vague and constrained by no real time frame typical of a party that plans to break them. The Liberals are prolific heartbreakers when it comes to their flimsy election promises.

The Liberals are so embarrassed by their record for breaking election promises that we aren't seeing the infamous red book bandied about this time. The red book would make a great prop in an attack ad for any other party wanting to take part in attack style electioneering, which is not the NDP's style. The NDP is being a lot more positive in this campaign than the two same-same Bay Steet parties. The NDP is the only real alternative to the stoogeaucratic old line party duo in Ottawa.

Tue, 2011-04-12 11:29

#22

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Fidel I take it then you agree that as for platforms the main difference between the federal liberals and NDP is that the NDP has never been elected so they should be trusted. Unfortunately for people who don't share your faith in Jack that leaves little significant difference.

Quite frankly the NDP better hope the Conservative attack ads work on Iggy because the whole pitch this time is Jack not Michael. If the voters don't buy the destruction of the liberal leader and are turned off by the Tory attack ads it will leave the NDP dangling in the wind with a message that has no traction.

If the NDP is afraid to be left wing before the election explain why any non-partisan would believe in their commitment to left wing ideals if they formed government. As for me personally I have always said that I will consider voting Liberal in the election after they form government and they have implemented the best parts of the Red Book. I have never had to vote liberal and I have been saying that for decades. But I follow politics all the time and am not a non-partisan. I just am disgusted that the NDP moves to the right before they even get elected and then runs on a platform that says don't trust the liberals they move to the right when elected. DOH

Sun, 2012-07-22 17:39

#23

Fidel

Retro thoughts on the NDP and NATO

Northern Shoveler wrote:
The OLD New Democrat policy on NATO was a significant difference and was abandoned at the very moment Canadians needed some sanity from at least one political party. If the NDP can be herded into advocating for war against its own policy then tell me again what message that sends to potential first time NDP voters. Why should they believe "liberal lite" promises over "liberal" promises?

I don't like the NDP's new policy on NATO to be sure. But obviously we are now in a cold war situation again and still stuck with the bad electoral system.

But what if the NDP or any other party some day manages to break the two old line parties 145 year-long grip on federal power? What if a future government decides it wants to nationalise energy, raw materials, telecommunications etc in Canada? We know what happens to countries with national agendas for owning their own resources and industries. First come the vicious sanctions and medieval siege lasting for years. Then they get terrorized and bombed eventually.

In that case would it not be a good idea to belong to NATO if NATO countries are not allowed to attack each other? A nationalist government in Ottawa might at least be able to vote against attacking itself. And we might even pursuade other NATO members to vote against NATO-on-NATO military attack, like France for instance. But we can do nothing to influence NATO from the outside. We could never counter NATO from within while on the outside.

Sun, 2012-07-22 18:35

#24

kropotkin1951

I agree Fidel that no matter who gets elected to Ottawa it will not change the global situation. I however don't want to support a party that cheer leads for naked imperialism and regime change every time NATO says "nasty dictator."

The NDP threw and/or pushed the Waffle out of the party four decades ago so I am not really expecting them to be running on a platform that includes nationalizing anything. Are you really suggesting that they would go in that direction? Interesting!!

Sun, 2012-07-22 19:44

#25

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The NDP threw and/or pushed the Waffle out of the party four decades ago so I am not really expecting them to be running on a platform that includes nationalizing anything. Are you really suggesting that they would go in that direction? Interesting!!

Social democratic governments in Scandinavia have done something called energy nationalism for a while now. I think we could expect the NDP to raise taxes and royalties on energy companies similarly.

But if you ever did elect an old style nationalist government, how would you pay for wholesale nationalisations? Much of what was pawned-off to corproate America at firesale prices in the last few decades was financed by our own banks as well as offshore. Stock values of those formerly valuable Canadian crowns and assets have since been inflated in price. And our two oldest political parties have since bankrupted the country. There is nothing in the kitty to pay for nationalisations.

And you've said nothing of what happens to non-NATO member countries that kick American and British corporations out of their countries. You can't finance the nationalisations, and you have no army to defend against fascist military attacks. Do you really think Canadians would agree to challenging capital in such a way? Why not just vote NDP and do energy nationalism and raise federal tax revenues as every sovereign government is able to do by free market mechanisms? I don't see how old style nationalisations can work without becoming a target for sanctions and worse. Lots of room for raising federal tax revenues to just the OECD capitalist average, though. Bags of room.

Sun, 2012-07-22 19:59

#26

autoworker autoworker's picture

My guess is that most Canadians are comfortable within NATO, but not necessarily with Canada's recent and future, uncharacteristically offensive, 'ready aye ready' posture; a role that is, stealthily, both expensive and expansive (F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, for example) and for which senior officials have lobbied, and, no doubt, continue to lobby for. What DND procures today, and in the near future, will determine Canada's future military capability and its role in future missions. In other words: our procurements are shaping present and future policy.

Sun, 2012-07-22 20:14

#27

Fidel

<a href="http://jackharris.ndp.ca/post/question-period-may-15-2012">Jack Harris</a> wrote:
Mr. Speaker, the last time we asked this question the Prime Minister thought it was a good time to talk about Hitler so I suppose that is some kind of an improvement.

The Conservatives will not give us a straight answer but they have left the door wide open to extending the military mission past 2014. The United States has asked and NATO has asked.

Last time the Conservatives extended the military mission to Afghanistan they acted without a vote and refused to put it to a motion in the House. Will they bring this latest military extension to this House for a vote, yes or no?

We need to have democratic debates and votes in the House when it comes to old line party toadying to U.S. Military occupations in Afghanistan and other sovereign countries. We need electoral reform, and we need to vote NDP if we don't appreciate phony majority dictatorships in Ottawa deciding to go to war at the beck and call of Warshington. We need transparency and accountability on torture not more cover-ups and toadying to vicious empire central. Things will definitely not improve if old line party rule continues unabated in Ottawa.

Sun, 2012-07-22 20:59

#28

jerrym

Fidel]</p> <p>[quote=kropotkin1951 wrote:
And you've said nothing of what happens to non-NATO member countries that kick American and British corporations out of their countries. You can't finance the nationalisations, and you have no army to defend against fascist military attacks. Do you really think Canadians would agree to challenging capital in such a way? Why not just vote NDP and do energy nationalism and raise federal tax revenues as every sovereign government is able to do by free market mechanisms? I don't see how old style nationalisations can work without becoming a target for sanctions and worse. Lots of room for raising federal tax revenues to just the OECD capitalist average, though. Bags of room.

I agree unfortunately that nationalizations are unlikely to succeed in the long-term given the long-term circumstances. When Barrett tried to reform many things that I agreed with it in BC from 1972 to 1975, it led to 16 years in opposition and to many of these reforms being watered down or eliminated. IMO, it is better to take incremental but significant steps over several terms in order to establish changes that are more likely last. Raising tax rates, as Fidel points out, can provide the means to introduce such reforms.

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:03

#29

kropotkin1951

Fidel wrote:

But if you ever did elect an old style nationalist government, how would you pay for wholesale nationalisations? Much of what was pawned-off to corproate America at firesale prices in the last few decades was financed by our own banks as well as offshore. Stock values of those formerly valuable Canadian crowns and assets have since been inflated in price. And our two oldest political parties have since bankrupted the country. There is nothing in the kitty to pay for nationalisations.

And you've said nothing of what happens to non-NATO member countries that kick American and British corporations out of their countries. You can't finance the nationalisations, and you have no army to defend against fascist military attacks. Do you really think Canadians would agree to challenging capital in such a way? Why not just vote NDP and do energy nationalism and raise federal tax revenues as every sovereign government is able to do by free market mechanisms? I don't see how old style nationalisations can work without becoming a target for sanctions and worse. Lots of room for raising federal tax revenues to just the OECD capitalist average, though. Bags of room.

I am not the person advocating electing such a government. Go ahead kick the straw out of that argument.

I agree the NDP will not do anything that would upset the capitalist and imperialist elite in Canada because they are afraid to. That is why they are not worth supporting. At best they will tinker around the edges of a system that is destroying the country and the globe.

I am not certain who will limit the power of the military security complex that rules our lives but I know for certain it is not the NDP or any other party that engages in our political spectacle that some insist on calling democracy.

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:25

#30

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I am not the person advocating electing such a government. Go ahead kick the straw out of that argument.

I agree the NDP will not do anything that would upset the capitalist and imperialist elite in Canada because they are afraid to. That is why they are not worth supporting. At best they will tinker around the edges of a system that is destroying the country and the globe.

And neither do I expect the NDP to promise to undo in one four-year term what took decades to destroy and for the two oldest parties to deliver unto the corporatocracy on a silver platter.

More and more Canadians are realizing that Canada is not the best country in the world WRT to so many social measures.

What is Canada's world rank for voter turnout? 109th.

Number of physicians per 100,000 population? 54th.

How does Canada rank in reducing pollution? 126th out of 146 countries.

Kropotkin you'll find that Canada ranks poorly against so many other OECD capitalist countries when it comes to social spending and many other important measures. We know some people here want the impossible, or what would surely take the same amount of time to fix as it took in breaking beyond recognition. Some of us think that rolling back neoliberal ideology in Canada to even just 1990's levels would represent a significant achievement for the NDP inside one or two terms in federal government. What can we say other than we are realists?

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I am not certain who will limit the power of the military security complex that rules our lives but I know for certain it is not the NDP or any other party that engages in our political spectacle that some insist on calling democracy.

Right now you don't have a choice. Most Canadians voted against this phony majority dictatorship. And if you don't like the current situation, you should vote NDP. Inch by inch it's cynch. But mile by mile and year after year, decade after decade of old line party decay and rot in Ottawa will tend to make the job larger than it needs to be. They say some people dream of castles. Problems start when they move in, though. There is no instant pre-fab castle of democracy - we have to build it ourselves. I'm sure you know this is true. Marx said to win the battle for democracy.

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:26

#31

kropotkin1951

jerrym wrote:

I agree unfortunately that nationalizations are unlikely to succeed in the long-term given the long-term circumstances. When Barrett tried to reform many things that I agreed with it in BC from 1972 to 1975, it led to 16 years in opposition and to many of these reforms being watered down or eliminated. IMO, it is better to take incremental but significant steps over several terms in order to establish changes that are more likely last. Raising tax rates, as Fidel points out, can provide the means to introduce such reforms.

I never advocated electing any such government so please if you want to beat the crap out of one of Fidel's strawmen just leave me out of it.

Your comments on Barrett are interesting. However in my view the electoral history does not support the theory that Barrett's reforms lost him votes

In 1976 the NDP received 505,396 votes for 39.2% and 18 of 55 seats. He won in 1972 with 448,260 for 39.6% and won 38 of 55 seats. The merger on the right defeated him not any of his policies.

http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/resource-centre/statistics-and-surv...

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:29

#32

kropotkin1951

As well the only Premier in BC history to "provincialize" capitalist enterprises was W.A.C. Bennett and he never lost votes for making Crown corps at BC Hydro, BC Ferries and BC Telephone.

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:44

#33

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As well the only Premier in BC history to "provincialize" capitalist enterprises was W.A.C. Bennett and he never lost votes for making Crown corps at BC Hydro, BC Ferries and BC Telephone.

Wasn't that the guy who gave away a billion dollar power deal to corporate America while Dave Barrett and the NDP stood alone against it? It's no wonder Socreds were tossed. Because once it's pawned-off to rich friends of the party, it's very costly to return to public ownership.

We might follow the pre-Chavez Venezuelan socialists on how to re-nationalise assets inflated on stock markets. Tax them before jumping on the nationalisation bandwagon. Raise their taxes incrementally over time. And one day when socialist federal government asks them to assess their gross worth, they will expect yet another tax grab by the feds. Then we strike. Then we nationalise once they've low-balled themselves. But promising to do seize assets right off the bat is asking for confrontation and trouble. And the financing end of things is somewhat sabotaged by too many centuries in a row worth of old line party rule in Ottawa. We will have to have federal power in order to pave the way for modern democracy in this country.

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:52

#34

kropotkin1951

Fidel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As well the only Premier in BC history to "provincialize" capitalist enterprises was W.A.C. Bennett and he never lost votes for making Crown corps at BC Hydro, BC Ferries and BC Telephone.

Wasn't that the guy who gave away a billion dollar power deal to corporate America while Dave Barrett and the NDP stood alone against it? It's no wonder Socreds were tossed. Because once it's pawned-off to rich friends of the party, it's very costly to return to public ownership.

We might follow the pre-Chavez Venezuelan socialists on how to re-nationalise assets inflated on stock markets. Tax them before jumping on the nationalisation bandwagon. Raise their taxes incrementally over time. And one day when socialist federal government asks them to assess their gross worth, they will expect yet another tax grab by the feds. Then we strike. Then we nationalise once they've low-balled themselves. But promising to do a Stalin of things right off the bat is asking for confrontation and trouble.

You are arguing with yourself I never proposed any such Stalinist approach to government.

By the way Barrett was elected leader long after the Columbia River Treaty was signed in 1964 and the voters gave Bennett their confidence after it was signed. The Barret lose had zilch to do with signing the Columbia River Treaty.

Fidel the Cuban government has long offered to pay all outstanding American claims based on those kinds of tax numbers. They are still under siege more than 50 years after making the offer so I don't quite get your point.

Sun, 2012-07-22 22:02

#35

jerrym

I did not say Barrett tried to nationalize industries, although he introduced government auto insurance, but that by introducing too many major reforms at once he helped bring about the unification of the right in order to defeat him even though the NDP voting % rose.

Sun, 2012-07-22 23:58

#36

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
You are arguing with yourself I never proposed any such Stalinist approach to government.

By the way Barrett was elected leader long after the Columbia River Treaty was signed in 1964 and the voters gave Bennett their confidence after it was signed. The Barret lose had zilch to do with signing the Columbia River Treaty.

I said my bit on SocCreds some time ago.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Fidel the Cuban government has long offered to pay all outstanding American claims based on those kinds of tax numbers. They are still under siege more than 50 years after making the offer so I don't quite get your point.

You are making my point. Thank you that is very generous of you, and you're a real socialist.

Exactly. The judicial branch of U.S. Government decided in 1964 with the Banco Nacional de Cuba v Sabbatino case that U.S. courts cannot review the legality of Cuban nationalizations of U.S.-owned property under international law.

And since then a number of countries have been sanctioned, threatened with nuclear incineration and even bombed and invaded for the crime of denying multinational corporations access to raw materials and cheap labour. They never word it quite like that, and it matters not whether governments of those countries were socialists or plain old nationalists.

But Cuba doesn't have the money to pay for those nationalisations today, and neither does Canada. I think what you are suggesting is that the NDP should promise to throw the country into even more indebtedness with private Canadian and offshore banks in order to finance nationalisations of three dozen key sectors of the economy and what are 14,418+ foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and valuable assets since just 1985.

All I'm saying is, I don't think that's very realistic. It would be political suicide. And again, what happens to nationalist governments of countries which also happen to be on the outside of NATO looking in?

Raising taxes on resource exports is entirely within the range of free market mechanisms available to all countries. We could use those tens of billions of dollars to spend on social programs and begin to address the whopping $100 billion dollar infrastructure deficit and the results of bad central planning in Ottawa since 1984. That is what I can reasonably expect from a federal NDP government without throwing the country even further down a national debt hole than we already are. NDP is the pro democracy party. We want electoral reform and paving the way for other parties in order to unite the left in Canada. A united democratic front on the left is what we are striving for among other things. Marx said to win the battle for democracy.

Wed, 2012-07-25 00:41

#37

kropotkin1951

Fidel wrote:

I think what you are suggesting

Stop guessing at what you think I think and just read my posts. I never advocated any of the things you are using as a strawman just leave me out of it.

You are being rude so please stop.

Wed, 2012-07-25 02:25

#38

Fidel

I'm asking how would you finance nationalisations of thousands of majority foreign-owned and controlled corporations and former Canadian assets? How is that being rude?

Wed, 2012-07-25 16:17

#39

kropotkin1951

Because I have never advocated that and you keep wanting me to explain a policy I am not advocating. Go away and find someone who is advocating that policy and debate them. I don't want to engage in your stupid debate so please stop trying to imply I ever advocated that policy and thus should be able to defend it.

How much clearer do I have to be.

Wed, 2012-07-25 16:38

#40

Fidel

I don't believe reminiscing about how a bunch of conservatives under W.A.C. Bennett gave away a billion dollar power deal to corporate America is going to solve anything. Remembering fondly on kick-back and graft artists of yesteryear won't solve anything in the here and now. And I won't be goaded into calling you names in kind. Word of advice: Personal attacks will get you nowhere in a real debate.

Wed, 2012-07-25 17:04

#41

kropotkin1951

Fidel go away I have made no personal attack against you only a plea to leave me alone. So once again please stop. I have no desire to engage you in debate and I am tired of you reading things into my posts and then demanding I talk about your imagination. You are trolling me as far as I am concerned. You are not trying to engage in a debate you are trying to start a fight.

Please if I have called you names report it to the moderators because as far as I am concerned your saying I engaged in a personal attack by calling you names is a scurrilous misrepresentation of the truth.

Wed, 2012-07-25 21:11

#42

Fidel

jerrym wrote:

I did not say Barrett tried to nationalize industries, although he introduced government auto insurance, but that by introducing too many major reforms at once he helped bring about the unification of the right in order to defeat him even though the NDP voting % rose.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Barrett#Political_legacy">wikipedia</a> wrote:

The Barrett government substantially reformed the welfare system, initiated a number of reforms such as establishing the province's Labour Relations Board, and expanded the public sector. The NDP also introduced more democracy into the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia through the introduction of question period and full Hansard transcripts of legislative proceedings in the province.[1] The NDP also brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to protect the small supply of farm land in BC. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) was formed to provide government car insurance. Both the ALR and ICBC are still functioning.

On social policy, in 1973, B.C. banned spanking in all schools.

The NDP passed a new law on average every three days while in power. The pace of change was enough to scare the centre and centre-right into uniting together under the Social Credit banner to oppose the NDP. Social Credit gained Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Barrett's NDP was too democratic and hard-working apparently.

Thu, 2012-07-26 13:34

#43

kropotkin1951

The Barrett government was a great government if short lived. I often give him his due when I drive through South Burnaby and Delta and Richmond. Without the ALR all the farmland in those three cities would have been paved by now and covered by ugly ticky tacky houses that all look just the same. I also like ICBC even if the Liberals have made it worse than it should be.

His big mistake in the election he lost was one that he made hand in hand with the construction unions. A few days before the election he had a photo op with the BC&Y Building Trades accepting an oversized cheque for a lot of money. As a member of the UBCJ I was floored at the utter stupidity of that photo op. My view was hell yes give them money but don't announce it just do it. That photo op, for decades, helped feed the myth of the NDP being controlled by unions.

Sat, 2012-07-28 07:14

#44

knownothing knownothing's picture

Peter Mansbridge interrogates Jack Layton (just the questions)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCMjXSfoaWE

Sat, 2012-07-28 09:56

#45

felixr

Yes, the NDP is too nice and that is part of the reason why Mulcair got elected party leader. He is one of the party's top pit bulls. It is also why Nathan Cullen did so well. He is well known for his witty barbs and was one of the most caustic towards Stephen Harper during the NDP leadership race. It is also partly why Charlie Angus gets top billing in QP and the press. Megan Leslie is a brilliant example of an NDPer who is very effective when she is not mean- she's just damn clever.

So yes, the NDP is becoming a harder nosed party. It leapt into second because Canadians that didn't want Harper needed a champion and the Liberals couldn't do it.