Voter's Fears

Look to Alberta quizzical, the hospital emergency wards have NOT been flooded by patients struck by falling pieces of the sky. Indeed, while a few more federal ridings may now be in play (particularly in Edmonton) the importance of the Alberta election result is not that those few ridings may send MPs from a different party, but that there can be a transition to an NDP government without the earth splitting wide and spewing a sulfurous odor. Given the low average age here, the majority of the population had never seen a non-Conservative provincial government... and yet, apart from the die-hard partisans, there is a real willingness to give the new kids a chance. We certainly didn't suddenly convert the entire province to being democratic socialists, but we aren't so scary anymore either.

I'm much more worried the NDP won't do enough. In the end, we're talking about a party run by someone from the Quebec Liberal Party. I am fully aware that it's a Federalist coalition from left-to-right, and Mulcair comes from a left tradition against a right-wing Charest. But I'm worried the best we can hope for is a Federal Government that basically copies the progressive policies of Quebec at a Federal level (e.g.: daycare). 

Funny enough, these worries are exactly the things that will help make the NDP more palattable to other voters.

My worry is that if the NDP gets into power (or stays this close to power) for 10 years, it won't be long before the oportunistic types show up. I like that the NDP's chances of winning were uphill, and it meant that the candidates they got were genuinely committed to the cause, even more than just trying to win. But when that's gone, it could end up looking a lot like the Liberal Party. That's my worry.

This is a once in a generation, historic chance to make a real change. I worry we might never have that chance again. So I'm making the most of it.

mark_alfred wrote:

Layton was well aware of these fears and dealt with them directly ("hope is better than fear", "don't let them tell you it can't be done"). 

I think now these reassurances are not necessary, and would almost seem out of place.  I think this because the NDP has proven itself to be a very competent Official Opposition (the government in waiting) and so they are correct to campaign on this record and to promote their ideas for change (including the big ticket fixed cost item of $15/day childcare, which is significantly different from anything the other two parties are offering).  Hopefully the population is ready. 

Jack Layton was OK, but if the NDP could explicitly revive the traditional approach of Tommy Douglas it might have some long-term prospects. Especially if it could develop some relevant ideas for organizing production and employment, as well as consumption, in a system of diffused ownership and control of the means of production.

Assuming a victory in October, the NDP has within its grasp a means of changing (not completely but very usefully) the structure and process of politics, in proportional representation with voter choice (a good open list component in an MMP system would be almost as good as PR-STV). Then if it could reform political financing it would have gone a long way toward placing political power in the hands of the people.

Reviving the per-vote subsidy would be helpful, but it's after-the-fact and reinforces existing parties. I like the idea of letting every tax filer direct $1 or $2 of government money to the party of her choice and providing that the money allocated for anyone who doesn't indicate her wishes be directed according to the average of everone who does  indicate a preference. I think that would give the corps and the rich some effective competition and make it very hard for them to keep control.

Then too, survival items like climate change and maintaining the health of wild nature need some attention.

Subsidized child care would be nice, but the settler community has survived without it for 400 years now. I regret to have to say that we have more important things on our plate.

A shift to social and environmental priorities are not going to show up on the economic balance sheet for a while. Some economic costs have been reduced to next to zero. Investing in social programs for the elderly and people with children, and moving to a zero-carbon economy, will not produce economic booms and busts such as you find with hydrocarbon exploitation. But they will provide a lot of jobs.

The tar sands is really getting screwed on the oil price. The oil winds up in storage tanks in the middle of the continental US, and no one will buy it for more than $50 off the world price. Now getting barely $10 a barrel net, the oil sands producers are firing up production to extract every last dollar they can get out of the market.  We saw this with fur trappers and the grain farmers in previous centuries.

There is going to be a lot of cheap hydrocarbon fuel, because they are desperate to sell it. Both the investor and consumer markets want to turn away from carbon. So do our international trading partners. The Conservatives are economically wrong on this. Exxon Mobil is just one interest, not the whole story.

There is a mindset that carbon extraction means economic growth and vice versa. There are even people in the NDP who are stuck on this mindset. If hydrocarbons are this cheap, why are we not booming? Instead, Canada is in recession with an economic contraction in the first quarter. 3% of our economy was collecting almost $100 a barrel (when it was trading at $147), and now that has dipped to $10. It is only because we have a floating dollar we have been able to take this hit.

Renewables and energy efficiency bring ownership local. Globally, the economic shift to sustainability is a much larger force than a puny Canadian political party. In a booming stock market, the coal index (KOL) is at a 12-month low. You can burn gas at less than 1 cent per kWh and sell it to Hydro 1 for 2 cents and still make a nice profit.

The NDP does not have to promise an economic boom. Instead it can move to sustainability which even the British Tories have bought into at least nominally. There is more economic opportunity in cutting power consumption and renewables than fossil fuels.

The economic insanity is with the carbon-supporting Liberals and Tories. As a consumer and in my other roles in life it is no longer in my interest to support the carbon industry. Of the 3 major parties only the NDP have a reasonable position on climate change, which is why I will stick with them at least for this cycle.

Hydrocarbon shills are going to be making a lot of spurious political arguments based on falsehoods, and we should keep an eye out for that.

I think the fear is like being in a karaoke bar or open mike and saying, "yikes, that singer is awful -- if I was up there, you'd see the difference," and then suddenly you're handed the mike and shoved up on stage. 

"Those cats are terrible," and then suddenly we learn that us mice got elected and we'll now be running things.  Exhilarating, but how well will it work?

. Somebody has to heave Steve.....

to replace Steve with a near carbon copy? That´s your answer!

No what has to heave Steve is the People, to get off their ass, look at reality and participate to change the system...

so it´s not about which party can heave Steve, it´s about how to provoke the people in to finally taking their responsibilities to act as adults!
And leave off their addictions to spectacles, sports and big money consumption...so what is the best scenario to do this, is the more appropriate question!

or do we prefer to replace a Bush with another Obama...which seems to be the major theme in these threads, something whichj I consider also to be irresponsible!! 

I envision the NDP governing like the LIberals did in the 70's. HUGE improvement to what we got but not a bonafide 'leftist' alternative.

I think the NDP are centrists,I can only hope that with power they will finally give something for progressives to celebrate.

quizzical wrote:

i don't think "you need our help' is the way to go at all.

i was thinking more along the lines of: 'let your money (tax dollars) work for you, vote to use your money on healthcare, dentalcare, national daycare, and the environment, instead of it working to ensure banks and corporations make record profits each quarter'

it's a true statement. it steals corporate messaging and turns it on them.

Word. Yes. Good!

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i don't think "you need our help' is the way to go at all.

i was thinking more along the lines of: 'let your money (tax dollars) work for you, vote to use your money on healthcare, dentalcare, national daycare, and the environment, instead of it working to ensure banks and corporations make record profits each quarter'

it's a true statement. it steals corporate messaging and turns it on them.

Word. Yes. Good!

Agreed but here I'll point out how the conversation has circled back to the necessity of universal programs. If these are all means-tested then you can't make this case effectively. You need universal programs for this to work.

Yes. Correct. All human necessities should (ultimately) be provided to all humans by human society, free of charge, irrespective of income.

That means we need to collectively identify what are necessities (e.g. quizzical emphasizes dental care - of course! how could there be any question about this) - pharmacare, child care, hygiene products, post-secondary education, retirement income security, housing, food, clothing, transportation...

Not all at once, but that must be the aim. And where will the money come from? From people who have far more money than they need, to those who have far less.