Jagmeet Singh has proven to be a wicked-good campaigner

NorthReport wrote:

Search for sick killer whale J50 officially called off

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/search-for-sick-killer-whale-j5...

And this has to do with Jagmeet Singh...how?

New Democrats lost amid special interests

What’s infuriating about Singh, who is rapidly becoming the figurehead for a whole industry of special interest groups and aggressively aggrieved minorities, is that the party he leads should actually be representing ordinary working women and men in this country.

But it no longer does, which is why polls show support for the federal NDP dropping like the proverbial stone alongside a dramatic decline in proceeds from party fundraising. Throw in bitter rows with fellow NDPers in both Alberta and Saskatchewan and that’s a witches’ brew foretelling future electoral disaster.

The current pipeline fiasco is a perfect case in point. Granted Singh is hoping to finally get a seat in the House of Commons via a byelection in Surrey, B.C., so in that locale, such opposition to the project is more or less required.

Yet, who are the people involved in constructing such a pipeline and who are those folk working hard in extracting oil in the first place or then shipping it from West Coast terminals? Yes, they would be those regular Joes and Janes who should be the lifeblood of this country’s New Democratic Party.

The problem with super-glueing your party to minority issues is those subsequent minority votes don’t get you near a seat at the table of power, or in keeping it if chance finds a way in the first place.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley learned that the hard way and, while it’s likely too late to stave off electoral defeat next spring, she’s at least challenging her federal NDP buddies on the direction they’re taking the party.

After Singh bizarrely wondered out loud where we might get future oil to supplant any curtailing of supplies from the Saudis following a diplomatic spat with those Sheiks of enlightenment, Notley was withering in her summation; psst Jagmeet, it could have come from the Energy East pipeline project that was nixed, much to your delight.

“To throw workers under the bus as collateral damage in pursuit of some other high-level policy objective is a recipe for failure, and it’s also very elitist,” was how Alberta’s premier put it.

Strange: my dad, a coal miner for 49 years and a socialist to his very core, might have said the same. Well, perhaps a tad more bluntly.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/new-democrats-lost-amid-spe...

A pretty damning piece, on both Singh and Mulcair:

The NDP faces disaster if Jagmeet Singh’s ‘reset’ doesn’t take hold very quickly

Quotes: 

Jagmeet Singh has recently been sitting through sessions with experts in key areas of federal policy. The sessions are aimed at making him more authoritative on subjects the national leader of a left-of-centre party should be authoritative about.

New Democrats had best hope that the erstwhile provincial politician is exiting the policy “boot camp,” as one participant described it, in vastly improved shape – able to compellingly make the case for a national pharmacare program and other affordability measures likely to be central to the NDP’s platform, and confidently beat back concerns about his competence.

As next year’s election draws near, they don’t just need Mr. Singh to be decent. They need him to be enough of a force to reverse the NDP’s precipitous organizational decline, and save it from the electoral disaster that was in the making even before he took its helm.

... The erosion began right after the party’s 2011 surge to Official Opposition, when Jack Layton died and was replaced by Thomas Mulcair, who was well-regarded in Ottawa but ill-suited to maintaining a strong national organization. But the period leading up to the 2015 election – when the NDP’s proximity to government helped draw in many of its best organizers and strategists – looks like the glory days when compared to what came after it fell back to being the third party.

Whether or not the NDP was right to dump Mr. Mulcair in its 2016 leadership review, it blundered horribly by waiting a year and a half to choose his replacement, and letting Mr. Mulcair stay on in the meanwhile. An interim leader might have maintained a decent energy level; Mr. Mulcair apparently checked out.

By multiple accounts, the NDP wasn’t even calling through its existing donor list to avoid backers dropping off or payments lost to expired credit cards. And there are plenty of similar stories of political malpractice in matters such as digital outreach and volunteer engagement.

By the time Mr. Singh took over, there wasn’t a moment to spare before kicking election preparations into gear. But he proceeded to squander about eight months, apparently convinced his momentum from the leadership campaign would carry over. Fundraising, candidate recruitment, training, research and policy development kept languishing.

Mr. Singh’s inexperience layered on additional problems. ...

More at the link:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-jagmeet-singh-heads-to-fe...

R.E.Wood wrote:

A pretty damning piece, on both Singh and Mulcair:

The NDP faces disaster if Jagmeet Singh’s ‘reset’ doesn’t take hold very quickly

Quotes: 

Jagmeet Singh has recently been sitting through sessions with experts in key areas of federal policy. The sessions are aimed at making him more authoritative on subjects the national leader of a left-of-centre party should be authoritative about.

New Democrats had best hope that the erstwhile provincial politician is exiting the policy “boot camp,” as one participant described it, in vastly improved shape – able to compellingly make the case for a national pharmacare program and other affordability measures likely to be central to the NDP’s platform, and confidently beat back concerns about his competence.

As next year’s election draws near, they don’t just need Mr. Singh to be decent. They need him to be enough of a force to reverse the NDP’s precipitous organizational decline, and save it from the electoral disaster that was in the making even before he took its helm.

... The erosion began right after the party’s 2011 surge to Official Opposition, when Jack Layton died and was replaced by Thomas Mulcair, who was well-regarded in Ottawa but ill-suited to maintaining a strong national organization. But the period leading up to the 2015 election – when the NDP’s proximity to government helped draw in many of its best organizers and strategists – looks like the glory days when compared to what came after it fell back to being the third party.

Whether or not the NDP was right to dump Mr. Mulcair in its 2016 leadership review, it blundered horribly by waiting a year and a half to choose his replacement, and letting Mr. Mulcair stay on in the meanwhile. An interim leader might have maintained a decent energy level; Mr. Mulcair apparently checked out.

By multiple accounts, the NDP wasn’t even calling through its existing donor list to avoid backers dropping off or payments lost to expired credit cards. And there are plenty of similar stories of political malpractice in matters such as digital outreach and volunteer engagement.

By the time Mr. Singh took over, there wasn’t a moment to spare before kicking election preparations into gear. But he proceeded to squander about eight months, apparently convinced his momentum from the leadership campaign would carry over. Fundraising, candidate recruitment, training, research and policy development kept languishing.

Mr. Singh’s inexperience layered on additional problems. ...

More at the link:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-jagmeet-singh-heads-to-fe...

At least that’s better than the right-wing spiel you posted from the Calgsry Herald.

josh wrote:

At least that’s better than the right-wing spiel you posted from the Calgsry Herald.

[/quote]

Sorry you didn't like that post I shared, josh - I think we usually agree on things here, but obviously no two people will agree on everything. I didn't necessarily post it because I agree with everything it said, but because it's media coverage of Singh, and this is a thread on that topic, and I thought in that case it was particularly worthwhile bacause it was a writer from a self-proclaimed family history of strongly supporting socialism...  If the NDP doesn't care about the working person anymore, then the point of the party is getting pretty darn nebulous. As I've mentioned to someone in a thread here not long ago, I'd be happy to post some positive stories about Singh and the NDP, but they don't seem to exist. 

In any case, I can remember that during the leadership race, there were so many people who insisted that Singh was the only candidate who should lead the NDP, and that everyone else would be a disaster. Man, I wish we had listened to them and voted for Singh, but we didn't. I mean, look at the mess that Niki Ashton has made of everything!

Oh, my mistake, we didn't elect Niki. Charlie Angus won the leadership. Look at how he is running the party into the ground!

Wait, I seem to be confused. Can someone please help clarify things for me?

Ken Burch wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Coldwell wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I guess my question for you would be "what is it you think the Nazis were fighting for that has merit?"

I don't think your answer could be "Aryan independence".

But I wonder what you think of Palestinian independence.  Do you see a need for them to be free, or do you see only the rocket attacks?

Also, do you believe it is incumbent on all NDP candidates to start their candidacy by firmly and clearly denouncing communism wherever it has been attempted?  Or else what would make that unnecessary, while Singh denouncing Sikh independence is necessary?  Do any white guys have shit they need to own, Coldwell?

I don't see the relevance of any of your questions based on what I actually wrote. They strike me as a series of non sequiturs. I can see that the danger of replying to them is to invite more of the same.

No wonder the democratic left is in such dire straits. The ordinary people from whom the left needs to win support can only look askance at such rhetorical contortions. 

 

Another evasion of a craftily disguised rabbithole, Magoo. You need to up your game - the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Wait...the rabbithole was disguised by the low-hanging fruit?

Wouldn't rabbits prefer low-hanging carrots, which I believe are vegetables, not fruit?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

First off, the fact that there are no positive stories of Singh and the NDP in the media doesn't surprise me, and I don't think that would be any different if someone else had won the leadership. The fact is, the media is controlled by people with large amounts of money. They will do whatever they can to marginalize a nominally socialist party like the NDP. Even Jack Layton was portrayed for years as a car salesman and in the 2011 election campaign there was talk about how "tired" he looked duirng his rallies. It was only after his popularity surged to the point that the media couldn't ignore him that the media finally took the NDP seriously. Rather than taking our cues from the media we should be actively framing discussion on our terms and bringing the public to us. That is why Rob Ford became Toronto mayor after the media practically announced that George Smitherman would take it easily. That is why Donald Trump became president after the media dismissed, mocked, ridiculed, and attacked him and is supporters. That is why Bernie Sanders went from being an old Jewish socialist from Vermont who nobody ever heard of to the most popular politician in the United States. That is why the 2017 British election, which should have resulted in a massive Tory majority, ended with a hung Parliament.

As for the issue of appealing to "working people?" The Calgary Herald piece talks about pipelines. Working people outside of Alberta, particularly in Quebec and BC, have made it clear that they don't want pipelines in their own back yard. As for undermining the electability of the NDP in Alberta, the only person to blame for that is Rachel Notley. Rather than showing off what she is doing to increase renewable energy in Alberta, she has adopted the oil industry's ideas about ramming pipelines through. (See my above point about control of the media. The big oil companies give lots of money, so it's no surprise that the perspective about building pipelines is seen as correct while any criticism is dismissed out of hand.) It is also true that people who work in the industry are concerned about their livelihood and this is legitimate. However, framing the interests of "workers" against "minority interests" is a tactic that the right uses to keep people divided and keep the money flowing. That article could easily have been written by Jason Kenney. That said, I do agree that Singh did miss the moment, in that after the Saudi Arabia issue, he should have said, "this is why we need to move away from oil, this is my plan for a renewable economy, and this is how it is going to benefit workers in Alberta." (Please also note that during the leadership race the candidates went out of their way to praise Notley's government for her advancement of renewable energy while criticizing Trudeau for not supporting this initiative.) I know this is may be a bit off topic, but I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this topic. I know you said you disagreed with part of the article and I think that's a great conversation to have.

Hi Aristotleded - I'm afraid I disagree with your premise. First off, that the evil media is necessarily to blame for the bad coverage of Singh & the NDP. I seem to recall that they heaped glowing coverage on Singh during the leadership campaign. He made for good headlines and optics for stories. He sucked up most of the media oxygen from the other candidates. But the reasons he was successful then at charming the media didn't translate to his actual performance as leader. I can't help but believe that if he had done a better job this past year that the coverage of him now would also be better than it is. When the media critique a list of his faults and mistakes he's made they're stating the truth (perhaps gleefully, because the media always loves a story that bleeds), not necessarily acting out of some grand anti-socialist conspiracy from on high. You blame the media. I blame Singh.

Second, I think your statement that "Working people outside of Alberta, particularly in Quebec and BC, have made it clear that they don't want pipelines in their own back yard" is faulty. I think you should take a look at Saskatchewan. Or the Maritimes. And also BC, where polls show the majority of people do support the expansion of the Trans-Mountain pipeline. Your perception is accurate in certain urban areas like Vancouver/Burnaby and Montreal, but I don't believe that it is true when you look outside areas like those to the broad population in the rest of the country, where most people would accept shorter-term pragmatism as a necessary step (alongside investment, development, and expansion of alternative energy sources) on the road to longer-term full transition away from fossil fuels. 

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Coldwell wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I guess my question for you would be "what is it you think the Nazis were fighting for that has merit?"

I don't think your answer could be "Aryan independence".

But I wonder what you think of Palestinian independence.  Do you see a need for them to be free, or do you see only the rocket attacks?

Also, do you believe it is incumbent on all NDP candidates to start their candidacy by firmly and clearly denouncing communism wherever it has been attempted?  Or else what would make that unnecessary, while Singh denouncing Sikh independence is necessary?  Do any white guys have shit they need to own, Coldwell?

I don't see the relevance of any of your questions based on what I actually wrote. They strike me as a series of non sequiturs. I can see that the danger of replying to them is to invite more of the same.

No wonder the democratic left is in such dire straits. The ordinary people from whom the left needs to win support can only look askance at such rhetorical contortions. 

 

Another evasion of a craftily disguised rabbithole, Magoo. You need to up your game - the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Wait...the rabbithole was disguised by the low-hanging fruit?

Wouldn't rabbits prefer low-hanging carrots, which I believe are vegetables, not fruit?

Yes, but Elmer Fudd always likes a fresh apple or two when he's chasing his wabbits.

Coldwell wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It doesn't matter why or how Singh was elected.  What matters is what he has done since what he intends on doing, and whether he should stay in the position he currently holds.  Also, it was a cheap shot to post an article dredging up, yet again, the non-issue of his views on what happened on an Air India flight WHEN HE WAS A CHILD.

If you want to help avoid an NDP disaster, then let's talk about that.  If you have issues with Singh due to his being a Sikh, you are not on the left or even the center-left and to my mind it might fairly be asked whether the hell you should be posting on a progressive board.

It's sadly indicative of the state of the NDP that thousands of long-time members who are deeply worried by the direction the Party has taken in the past 18 months should stand accused of pedalling right-wing conspiracy theories and anti-Sikh racism.  Alas, that is what comes of putting identity politics ahead of class and of showing a willful blindness toward the emergence of diaspora politics in Canada. These concerns have been voiced by respected analysts of Canadian politics, including Phil Resnick of UBC.  We ignore them at our peril.  After all, tens of thousands of members and supporters have stopped making financial contributions to the Federal NDP and are unwilling to vote for NDP candidates--hence the precipitous decline in NDP support in recent federal by-elections.  

It is no "paranoid conspiracy" to rccognize that a relatively unknown candidate, but one who was best known in his own community as an outspoken critic of the Indian government and its attitude toward Sikh separatists in India and abroad, won a stunning first-ballot victory after having signed up tens of thousands of new members through Sikh temples in Brampton, Mississauga, and Surrey. 

There's no need to rehash Singh's mishandling of the Air India questions he faced after having addressed rallies of pro-Khalistan activisits that featured images of Talwinder Singh Parmar, who masterminded the Air India bombing.  Singh's prolonged refusal to acknowledge Parmar's role in this atrocity did irreparable damage to him in the eyes of many ordinary citizens--as can be seen by the number of reader comments posted on mainstream news sites that rue the day the NDP elected such an unsuitable leader.  Yes, there are clearly racists among them but it is folly to paint all or most of them with that brush. 

To say that Singh had no obligation to address the issue on the grounds that "he was child" in 1985 is sheer nonsense.  I wasn't even born during the Second World War but I unreservedly condemn Naziism;  what's more, I would certainly expect to be questioned about it if I had attended and spoken at rallies organized by neo-Nazis in recent years.   

If it's an offence against the values of the Left to be troubled by these matters then the NDP is in need of a massive purge of its membership rolls.  But that may not be necessary as untold numbers have already chosen to sit on their hands if not exit the Party.  I'm not among them, though.  A member and active supporter since the early 1970s, I'm not going anywhere. In an era of unbridled corporate power that is literally taking humankind to the brink of extinction, the need for a democratic socialist party in Canada has never been more urgent. Getting the NDP back on track is an admittedly tall order and it certainly goes well beyond the shortcomings of the current leader. But Singh is unquestionably an unhelpful distraction. 

What would you suggest?  Barring Sikhs from NDP membership?  Making the party all-white?
Look, I agree that the NDP, like the rest of the Left, needs to get back to addressing class-but that doesn't have to mean telling people whose left-of-center politican involvement that the Left is going to start pretending that everybody is generic, that identity and culture are of no importance, and that any efforts to address group oppression will have to wait "until after the revolution" or something.  If you make this about people supposedly getting signed up in large numbers in the Sikh temples, you're going to drive every Asian-Canadian voter away from the party and no one will come in to replace them.

I myself would have preferred someone else be leader.  Singh has horrible flaws as leader.  I'd still argue that he has an obligation to immediately resign if the Liberals take Outremont in a by-election.

But the point should solely be about his personal flaws as a leader, not who elected him.  If anyone else had been able to present themselves as a credible alternative to Singh, that person would have won.  Unfortunately, none of the others managed to do that.  

What Niki Ashton was saying is that we need to address class AND identity-to recognize that the economic system oppresses the majority, but that adjustments in the response to that oppression have to be made to acknowledge that, if your identity is something other than that of straight white male, you're always going to have it a bit worse than the straight white males.   

That's all "identity politics" actually has to be: an acceptance that, while class is a major form of oppression, it isn't the ONLY one.

BTW, it's beyond disgusting that you'd ever compare the Sikh independence cause to Nazism.  Sikhs want independence because India has(and will have for many years to come, if not forever), a Hindu nationalist government, in which all of the values of inclusion and democracy the Indian independence movement stood for have been abandoned.  If any group in India today is comparable to the Nazis, it's the supporters of the governing coalition led by Narendra Modi.  It's the bloc of people who want India to be a country for Hindus and Hindus only, who want all non-Hindu communities and faiths subjugated(and will probably end with wanting them exterminated), who are using brutal repression against the left.  The Sikhs simply want a place where they'll be spared from that.  

And it's bullshit to act as though the entire Canadian Sikh community is responsible for the Air India bombing.  The only ones responsible for it are those who committed the act.  

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW, it's beyond disgusting that you'd ever compare the Sikh independence cause to Nazism.  Sikhs want independence because India has(and will have for many years to come, if not forever), a Hindu nationalist government, in which all of the values of inclusion and democracy the Indian independence movement stood for have been abandoned.  If any group in India today is comparable to the Nazis, it's the supporters of the governing coalition led by Narendra Modi.  It's the bloc of people who want India to be a country for Hindus and Hindus only, who want all non-Hindu communities and faiths subjugated(and will probably end with wanting them exterminated), who are using brutal repression against the left.  The Sikhs simply want a place where they'll be spared from that.  

And it's bullshit to act as though the entire Canadian Sikh community is responsible for the Air India bombing.  The only ones responsible for it are those who committed the act.  

 

You sir, are very well informed.

One small addition to this..

Majority of the Sikhs dont even want independence, they just want to be treated as equals and not be lumped as a small part of larger Hindu society. There is a vocal minority who want independence and they have every right to demand it. 

Every word in the rest of your post is accurate. About the extermination part, the muslims in India are threatened of extermination on a regular basis. They are constantly asked to either to live like second class citizens or move to Pakistan. Sikh diaspora is regularily called as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Trudeau and Singh are reviled because they speak of rights of minorities. Trudeau once joked that he had more Sikh cabinet ministers than the Modi govt. and it did not go down well with the hindu fundamentalists. That was the reason that Trudeau was shunned and mocked by the Indian establishment on his visit. And Sneer will get the treatment of a head of a state. After all the BJP and the Cons are both members of the group headed by the slime Harper.

How is possible the ndp has claim to left, the left talks abouts class.  This whole about pipeline is real bluffing to me.  

I went to my local food bank once in 2017 I remember, this was my exerpeince.  I stoodthere and took a measure of moment, people talked about lack dental care, and the main concern was if there anything was left at after the long wait.  Not pipelines.  There was a time when food banks did not exist, not even questioned by the NDP.  We live in society where people can meet not calories or cheapfood guarette diabistos.  The NDP let me down, and every individual that stood in that line.  How supposed party does not talk class, how can claim to party of centre left and not even superifical conservation about class.  This thread about fighting over pipelines is so where dispointing, people are suffering  quietly and we ignore them let them down.  Where the NDP going and if no time or interest to talking about those individuals that every week in stand in front of the food bank.  

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

How is possible the ndp has claim to left, the left talks abouts class.  This whole about pipeline is real bluffing to me.  

I went to my local food bank once in 2017 I remember, this was my exerpeince.  I stoodthere and took a measure of moment, people talked about lack dental care, and the main concern was if there anything was left at after the long wait.  Not pipelines.  There was a time when food banks did not exist, not even questioned by the NDP.  We live in society where people can meet not calories or cheapfood guarette diabistos.  The NDP let me down, and every individual that stood in that line.  How supposed party does not talk class, how can claim to party of centre left and not even superifical conservation about class.  This thread about fighting over pipelines is so where dispointing, people are suffering  quietly and we ignore them let them down.  Where the NDP going and if no time or interest to talking about those individuals that every week in stand in front of the food bank.  

Climate change threatens us all and threatens the poor and dispossessed most of all. The oceans are dying. They are an important part of the food chain. The cod industry on the east coast was wiped out. Humans may not become extinct but our numbers will be dramatically culled. It is the weak who will die first from heatstroke and natural disasters they can't escape from. The strongest will survive to serve the wealthiest who will move around the earth based on season to maintain their comfort and safety from extreme weather events. 

There is no more important issue facing all of mankind regardless of class than climate change. The technology today exists for massive transformation that would generate as much economic activity as war. The economy of scale is key. Laws forced us to use florescent lights bringing them down in price as the economy of scale kicked in. the US forced the switch to digital TV by law because not enough people were buying digital tvs to justify digital transmission. They even gave free boxes out. 

When the energy to heat, light, cook, and travel, becomes virtually free the poor, the working class and the middle class are the first to benefit. Rather than dividing the interests of the 99% into classes we need to illustrate that these classes do not need to take from one another. High quality public education also benefits the 99%. 

From a retorical perspective separating people by class isn't well-recieved at the moment.  It benefits the 1% not the poor. 

Pondering wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

How is possible the ndp has claim to left, the left talks abouts class.  This whole about pipeline is real bluffing to me.  

I went to my local food bank once in 2017 I remember, this was my exerpeince.  I stoodthere and took a measure of moment, people talked about lack dental care, and the main concern was if there anything was left at after the long wait.  Not pipelines.  There was a time when food banks did not exist, not even questioned by the NDP.  We live in society where people can meet not calories or cheapfood guarette diabistos.  The NDP let me down, and every individual that stood in that line.  How supposed party does not talk class, how can claim to party of centre left and not even superifical conservation about class.  This thread about fighting over pipelines is so where dispointing, people are suffering  quietly and we ignore them let them down.  Where the NDP going and if no time or interest to talking about those individuals that every week in stand in front of the food bank.  

Climate change threatens us all and threatens the poor and dispossessed most of all. The oceans are dying. They are an important part of the food chain. The cod industry on the east coast was wiped out. Humans may not become extinct but our numbers will be dramatically culled. It is the weak who will die first from heatstroke and natural disasters they can't escape from. The strongest will survive to serve the wealthiest who will move around the earth based on season to maintain their comfort and safety from extreme weather events. 

There is no more important issue facing all of mankind regardless of class than climate change. The technology today exists for massive transformation that would generate as much economic activity as war. The economy of scale is key. Laws forced us to use florescent lights bringing them down in price as the economy of scale kicked in. the US forced the switch to digital TV by law because not enough people were buying digital tvs to justify digital transmission. They even gave free boxes out. 

When the energy to heat, light, cook, and travel, becomes virtually free the poor, the working class and the middle class are the first to benefit. Rather than dividing the interests of the 99% into classes we need to illustrate that these classes do not need to take from one another. High quality public education also benefits the 99%. 

From a retorical perspective separating people by class isn't well-recieved at the moment.  It benefits the 1% not the poor. 

This real treat for me pondering.  If this the prevailing info/thought in "New" NDP and leadership of the party, well your faction are run the party into the ground.  I suggest 2 or 3 more elections and NDP will crushed into political dusk.  No doubt irony will be socialist like (and i only speak for one socailist my self) will be blaimed for stubborn resistance to get with flow and "crazy" ideas like talking about class in other society. But I have always thought in long term, I leave you to it, I be looking on from bleachers seating.  You have the car and keys do as you wish.

Now lets move to the meat of the subject i read your post very carefully missed the part were the you will address current poverty.  Like highlight in my post.  Just saying.

"Climate change threatens us all and threatens the poor and dispossessed most of all. The oceans are dying. They are an important part of the food chain. The cod industry on the east coast was wiped out. Humans may not become extinct but our numbers will be dramatically culled. It is the weak who will die first from heatstroke and natural disasters they can't escape from. The strongest will survive to serve the wealthiest who will move around the earth based on season to maintain their comfort and safety from extreme weather events. "

Nice thank you sharing.  From this point on I will have disagree.

Break this paragraph up.

The technology today exists for massive transformation that would generate as much economic activity as war. The economy of scale is key. Laws forced us to use florescent lights bringing them down in price as the economy of scale kicked in. the US forced the switch to digital TV by law because not enough people were buying digital tvs to justify digital transmission. They even gave free boxes out."  Lets put this aside.  I consider my self an above educated person in the realm the economy and markets.  Unforunately I have no idea what point your trying make here.  I suggest I dont see how will affect need of in poverty with their dental needs.  I am morethan happy to talk about this part of the post and engage you on it.

Now 

There is no more important issue facing all of mankind regardless of class than climate change

I am sorry since dawn capitalism and Marx arrival I on the bieleve that class struggle be primary to over our society.  But lest move on.

Here is my favorite of the post 

When the energy to heat, light, cook, and travel, becomes virtually free the poor, the working class and the middle class are the first to benefit. Rather than dividing the interests of the 99% into classes we need to illustrate that these classes do not need to take from one another. High quality public education also benefits the 99%.

For does that may not that Marx held a grim view orgazined religion.  If I not mistaken that religion was the opium of masses.  Whathe meant was the churches role was barrier to class struggle.  They said your suffering in your moral life will earn a spot in haven, in a sense suffer now but the big payout is the future heaven.  Marx saw of this as barrier because we should live today, and consume and be happy on earth without the promised heaven.

Now lets do a thought experiment , and environmentalism replace religon, and heaven with let me quote "When the energy to heat, light, cook, and travel, becomes virtually free the poor, the working class and the middle class are the first to benefit" your utopia that is around the corner.

Now to 

Rather than dividing the interests of the 99% into classes we need to illustrate that these classes do not need to take from one another. High quality public education also benefits the 99%. 

Let me just say that capitlistist are not greedy and immoral folks that they many seem to think.  Capitalist must maximize profit at the expense of the worker this nothing to morality.  Even good captialist that wants to maintain wages will sooner driven out business because other capitalists will take his business.  Capitalism based maximum profit not because poeple are greedy, but without the mamimization of profit fall apart.  Its the system that produces the inequality and moral out look of the capitalist definelty secondary.

From a retorical perspective separating people by class isn't well-recieved at the moment.  It benefits the 1% not the poor. 

I have said enough but I have never heard a class argument that supports the rich, maybe class something else to you than me.

I on the bieleve that class struggle be primary to over our society.  But lest move on.

..this is the ndp party line. that doesn't make it so.

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..what pondering is saying re climate change is correct in that it affects us all. but this struggle is not only about climate change. much of the pipeline struggle is about control. specifically community control. and who gets to determine what happens there. nowhere on that short list were communities. until the recent court decision.  

The courts made those decisions based on laws passed by governments we elected. Without government the people would  have no power at all to halt pipelines and uncontrolled development of all kinds. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..this struggle is also about colonization. a form of control. the colonization of indigenous folk. also the colonization of people by capital. the colonization by capital via governments. we have been seeing this everywhere for a long time. in the face of this how we see class struggle had to be redefined. for those who struggle texbook definitions don't apply. we began to see this change with the square occupations introducing the 99% vs 1%. the square occupations were about making decisions from the bottom up. 

This is why, while making a huge impact on conversation, occupy led to no major change and has melted away, hopefully temporarily. Occupy stopped being about Wall/Bay Street and became a vehicle to promote bottom up decision-making. In so doing they lost the interest of the general population. Most people don't want to decide which company to hire for road work or determine consumer laws or get personally involved in negotiating NAFTA. While I haven't taken a poll I am very comfortable making that claim. 

I also don't want activists or whomever is interested to be making those decisions on my behalf. I want that person to be my elected representative. I want that person to be more answerable to me than to a political party or ideology. 

The environmental movement has succeeded because it has focused on the environment alone, not on indigenous peoples and not on anti-capitalism and certainly not on anarchism nor feminism. It has  single-mindedly been about the environment. Because of  indigenous land rights they have been at the forefront of the pipeline battle but they are not being supported because people support indigenous rights. They are being supported because groups and individuals are against the pipeline and by our great good fortune indigenous peoples have rights that can be used to stop pipelines. Martin does have a point that there are indigenous communities that support pipelines. 

The grand majority of people are strongly pro capitalism within the framework of social democracy. From a pragmatic perspective I don't see any other system that will provide us with cell phones. Capitalism is people being allowed to create their own businesses. Capitalism is Mary trading the furniture she made with the helpers she hired for the vegetables Joe grew with the helpers he hired. You might as well try to convince people to go live on communes. Realistically, on what timeframe do you foresee the end of capitalism? It hasn't ended in Greece. The Great Depression didn't end capitalism. There is no reason a worldwide financial collapse would end capitalism. Money doesn't even exist in any real sense anymore. It's worth what everyone agrees it is worth. Financial collapse would be enormously painful for almost everyone but the uber-wealthy would negotiate to maintain their wealth and continue building it on the backs of labour. 

There are all kinds of models of community organization but I have yet to hear of any working anarchistic system larger than a single small community. People may not be happy with the politicians and system that we have but most want to tweak it not abolish it. I don't want to make decisions on where highways should go and I don't want it to be made by fellow citizens. I want it to be made by someone I have elected that is answerable to me. In my view it is the answerable part we are having trouble with, not the entire structure. There are ways to address that without resorting to anarchism. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  1% is the notion pondering draws on in a limited way. without the bottom up decision making. 

You say "bottom up" but you don't want Ford Nation to be making the decisions. That would be even worse than having Ford in charge. Without government creating laws indigenous peoples  would be even worse off. Minorities never do well in the hands of the  majority. Without the laws written by our politicians Canadians could easily be convinced that the best thing for indigeous peoples is to dissolve reservations and integrate them, to end segregation. 

Chavez tried to do bottom up and failed which isn't to say he didn't do a lot of good or wasn't sabotaged.  He was unable to wipe out corruption and the country is in chaos. Greece and the UK, the EU in general, are also instructive. No matter how bad things get people still aren't in revolt. They still choose government. 

"The poor" have been successfully framed as a drain on the middle-class as though they are the ones causing the middle class to struggle. That leaves people thinking I care, but I can't afford more taxes. Speaking in terms of class is too general. People are strongly motivated by self-interest (or what they think is in their self-interest). Short term reward also takes precedence over long term. People can be altruistic too, but generally after their own needs are met. The pipeline battle is an ideal example. The farther away you get from ground zero the more support there is for the pipeline based on perceived financial benefit to the country. We tolerate pollution for economic reward. Young people are much more supportive of protecting the environment because they will suffer the consequences of global warming and they know it. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..and this is the part of the pipeline struggle pondering doesn't talk about. the politics of control is at the center. those politics determine all on how we move forward including enviroment. 

I agree, which is why activists must find a way to influence the majority of people. In my opinion FPTP versus PR versus direct democracy is just moving the chairs around on the Titanic. The problem is not so much the politicians as it is their bosses, the people, becoming complacent and abdicating their responsibility to watch over our employees, the politicians. 

When the people demand, when the people hold government to account, the people win (within a democracy). Even though it would have been illegal, without the protesters and the people bringing the cases to court the pipeline would be built by now. Government can be forced to bow to the will of the people if enough people care enough about a particular issue and there is a straightforward practical solution that they can demand. 

The environmental movement is a perfect example. Environmentalists didn't convince government to act. They convinced people that we are being harmed leading us to favor governments that take action on the environment. Governments try to get away with paying lip service. By focusing on specific projects the environmental movement builds local opposition. The people most readily motivated are those who will suffer the most direct negative consequence. 

Circling back to Greece; even with all the mass suffering and suicides they still haven't revolted against the EU. Isn't Greece the cradle of democracy? The country has been sold out to save the bankers who were robbing them in the first place. Still they choose the devil they know to the fear of anarchy. 

Most Canadians are not at all interested in transformative change and don't want to participate directly in the decisions of or running of government. Electing a government is akin to hiring a management company. You hire them to do the managing. 

People can be mobilized on specific issues, like the pipeline, that they perceive to have a direct impact on them. The larger the group of people impacted the more likely success is. 

The notion of universality is predicated on the notion that if everyone is part of the program they are more likely to support it. The more people you can unify on a single issue the more success is likely. The Conservative's rallying cry is lower taxes smaller government. That is how they managed to attract both libertarians and social conservatives who should be natural enemies. They stay as far away as possible from issues that divide libertarians and social conservatives. 

Right now the left is framed as wanting to pick the pockets of the middle class on behalf of the poor. The NDP works double time to broadcast that it will do no such thing. Oil brings in good middle class jobs. That is what the working class identifies as now. The middle class. Even if they are out of work. 

Corbyn didn't rise because he was so inspiring he rose because he tapped into an existing resentment against the status quo in the UK, dropping benefits and rising poverty. 

I do believe the tide can be turned quite dramatically but it will take thinking outside the box and tapping into the power of social media to gather public support. Then political parties can be preasured to answer the call. 

All just my opinion of course

Pondering wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..what pondering is saying re climate change is correct in that it affects us all. but this struggle is not only about climate change. much of the pipeline struggle is about control. specifically community control. and who gets to determine what happens there. nowhere on that short list were communities. until the recent court decision.  

The courts made those decisions based on laws passed by governments we elected. Without government the people would  have no power at all to halt pipelines and uncontrolled development of all kinds. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..this struggle is also about colonization. a form of control. the colonization of indigenous folk. also the colonization of people by capital. the colonization by capital via governments. we have been seeing this everywhere for a long time. in the face of this how we see class struggle had to be redefined. for those who struggle texbook definitions don't apply. we began to see this change with the square occupations introducing the 99% vs 1%. the square occupations were about making decisions from the bottom up. 

This is why, while making a huge impact on conversation, occupy led to no major change and has melted away, hopefully temporarily. Occupy stopped being about Wall/Bay Street and became a vehicle to promote bottom up decision-making. In so doing they lost the interest of the general population. Most people don't want to decide which company to hire for road work or determine consumer laws or get personally involved in negotiating NAFTA. While I haven't taken a poll I am very comfortable making that claim. 

I also don't want activists or whomever is interested to be making those decisions on my behalf. I want that person to be my elected representative. I want that person to be more answerable to me than to a political party or ideology. 

The environmental movement has succeeded because it has focused on the environment alone, not on indigenous peoples and not on anti-capitalism and certainly not on anarchism nor feminism. It has  single-mindedly been about the environment. Because of  indigenous land rights they have been at the forefront of the pipeline battle but they are not being supported because people support indigenous rights. They are being supported because groups and individuals are against the pipeline and by our great good fortune indigenous peoples have rights that can be used to stop pipelines. Martin does have a point that there are indigenous communities that support pipelines. 

The grand majority of people are strongly pro capitalism within the framework of social democracy. From a pragmatic perspective I don't see any other system that will provide us with cell phones. Capitalism is people being allowed to create their own businesses. Capitalism is Mary trading the furniture she made with the helpers she hired for the vegetables Joe grew with the helpers he hired. You might as well try to convince people to go live on communes. Realistically, on what timeframe do you foresee the end of capitalism? It hasn't ended in Greece. The Great Depression didn't end capitalism. There is no reason a worldwide financial collapse would end capitalism. Money doesn't even exist in any real sense anymore. It's worth what everyone agrees it is worth. Financial collapse would be enormously painful for almost everyone but the uber-wealthy would negotiate to maintain their wealth and continue building it on the backs of labour. 

There are all kinds of models of community organization but I have yet to hear of any working anarchistic system larger than a single small community. People may not be happy with the politicians and system that we have but most want to tweak it not abolish it. I don't want to make decisions on where highways should go and I don't want it to be made by fellow citizens. I want it to be made by someone I have elected that is answerable to me. In my view it is the answerable part we are having trouble with, not the entire structure. There are ways to address that without resorting to anarchism. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  1% is the notion pondering draws on in a limited way. without the bottom up decision making. 

You say "bottom up" but you don't want Ford Nation to be making the decisions. That would be even worse than having Ford in charge. Without government creating laws indigenous peoples  would be even worse off. Minorities never do well in the hands of the  majority. Without the laws written by our politicians Canadians could easily be convinced that the best thing for indigeous peoples is to dissolve reservations and integrate them, to end segregation. 

Chavez tried to do bottom up and failed which isn't to say he didn't do a lot of good or wasn't sabotaged.  He was unable to wipe out corruption and the country is in chaos. Greece and the UK, the EU in general, are also instructive. No matter how bad things get people still aren't in revolt. They still choose government. 

"The poor" have been successfully framed as a drain on the middle-class as though they are the ones causing the middle class to struggle. That leaves people thinking I care, but I can't afford more taxes. Speaking in terms of class is too general. People are strongly motivated by self-interest (or what they think is in their self-interest). Short term reward also takes precedence over long term. People can be altruistic too, but generally after their own needs are met. The pipeline battle is an ideal example. The farther away you get from ground zero the more support there is for the pipeline based on perceived financial benefit to the country. We tolerate pollution for economic reward. Young people are much more supportive of protecting the environment because they will suffer the consequences of global warming and they know it. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..and this is the part of the pipeline struggle pondering doesn't talk about. the politics of control is at the center. those politics determine all on how we move forward including enviroment. 

I agree, which is why activists must find a way to influence the majority of people. In my opinion FPTP versus PR versus direct democracy is just moving the chairs around on the Titanic. The problem is not so much the politicians as it is their bosses, the people, becoming complacent and abdicating their responsibility to watch over our employees, the politicians. 

When the people demand, when the people hold government to account, the people win (within a democracy). Even though it would have been illegal, without the protesters and the people bringing the cases to court the pipeline would be built by now. Government can be forced to bow to the will of the people if enough people care enough about a particular issue and there is a straightforward practical solution that they can demand. 

The environmental movement is a perfect example. Environmentalists didn't convince government to act. They convinced people that we are being harmed leading us to favor governments that take action on the environment. Governments try to get away with paying lip service. By focusing on specific projects the environmental movement builds local opposition. The people most readily motivated are those who will suffer the most direct negative consequence. 

Circling back to Greece; even with all the mass suffering and suicides they still haven't revolted against the EU. Isn't Greece the cradle of democracy? The country has been sold out to save the bankers who were robbing them in the first place. Still they choose the devil they know to the fear of anarchy. 

Most Canadians are not at all interested in transformative change and don't want to participate directly in the decisions of or running of government. Electing a government is akin to hiring a management company. You hire them to do the managing. 

People can be mobilized on specific issues, like the pipeline, that they perceive to have a direct impact on them. The larger the group of people impacted the more likely success is. 

The notion of universality is predicated on the notion that if everyone is part of the program they are more likely to support it. The more people you can unify on a single issue the more success is likely. The Conservative's rallying cry is lower taxes smaller government. That is how they managed to attract both libertarians and social conservatives who should be natural enemies. They stay as far away as possible from issues that divide libertarians and social conservatives. 

Right now the left is framed as wanting to pick the pockets of the middle class on behalf of the poor. The NDP works double time to broadcast that it will do no such thing. Oil brings in good middle class jobs. That is what the working class identifies as now. The middle class. Even if they are out of work. 

Corbyn didn't rise because he was so inspiring he rose because he tapped into an existing resentment against the status quo in the UK, dropping benefits and rising poverty. 

I do believe the tide can be turned quite dramatically but it will take thinking outside the box and tapping into the power of social media to gather public support. Then political parties can be preasured to answer the call. 

All just my opinion of course

Actually, Occupy largely died out because 1) An "Occupy party" didn't emerge, and no one managed to find a way around restrictions on internal party democracy in North America to get the NDP(in Canada) or the Democratic Party(in the U.S.) to embrace Occupy values.  The Sanders campaign was in many respects an Occupy-centered campaign, and came closer to winning the U.S. Democrats to an Occupy program than anyone expected.  Had Bernie's campaign not been effectively smeared as not caring about racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice and the need to defend choice(in reality, the Sanders positions were just as strong on those issues as Hillary's and in some cases stronger), it likely would have prevailed; an

2) The use of severe police violence to clear out the Occupy camps-Break heads and you can break a movement-it worked in the Sixties, it worked again in 2011-12.

You seem extremely confident that you can speak for what "ordinary" people want-and, by implication, that you can dismiss everyone to your left as "out of touch".  Why are you so sure of yourself on that?

The fact is, the NDP is handling things exactly on the lines you prescribe-continuing to suspend internal democracy and keep policy-making in the hands of a few dismissive, cynical insiders.  given that this has the party at a level of support virtually guaranteed to cause a massive loss in seats in 2019.  Why DO you keep doubling-down on an approach that has so far brought nothing but failure?  

And how do you KNOW that ordinary people don't want a real say in the major decisions that affect their lives?  There's a massive increase in the number of worker cooperatives being formed throughout North America and the rest of the world.  Isn't that a sign, in fact, that people are sick of powerlessness, are sick of the way bland, mundane representative government continually disregards them?  Isn't that a sign that people DON'T want to just leave everything to "the experts"?

Pondering]</p> <p>[quote=epaulo13 wrote:

 ..what pondering is saying re climate change is correct in that it affects us all. but this struggle is not only about climate change. much of the pipeline struggle is about control. specifically community control. and who gets to determine what happens there. nowhere on that short list were communities. until the recent court decision.  

The courts made those decisions based on laws passed by governments we elected. Without government the people would  have no power at all to halt pipelines and uncontrolled development of all kinds. 

..i have a different view of history. before governments the rulers ruled. uprisings caused the rulers to give up some power. rulers created governments that gave the impression that now there was democracy when there wasn't. while uprisings from below continued to gain rights through struggle rulers continue to rule by controling governments. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..this struggle is also about colonization. a form of control. the colonization of indigenous folk. also the colonization of people by capital. the colonization by capital via governments. we have been seeing this everywhere for a long time. in the face of this how we see class struggle had to be redefined. for those who struggle texbook definitions don't apply. we began to see this change with the square occupations introducing the 99% vs 1%. the square occupations were about making decisions from the bottom up. 

This is why, while making a huge impact on conversation, occupy led to no major change and has melted away, hopefully temporarily. Occupy stopped being about Wall/Bay Street and became a vehicle to promote bottom up decision-making. In so doing they lost the interest of the general population. Most people don't want to decide which company to hire for road work or determine consumer laws or get personally involved in negotiating NAFTA. While I haven't taken a poll I am very comfortable making that claim. 

..not so. square occupations impacted the globe. it brought a new struggle forward where before progressives where at an impass on which way to go. even so called progress governments were bowing to neoliberalism. these occupations were led by young folks who had a different vision of how to move forward. those that occupied could not take on the police state so went into the communities where they contiue to this organizing. bacelona is a perfect example where that vision led to control of the city.   

I also don't want activists or whomever is interested to be making those decisions on my behalf. I want that person to be my elected representative. I want that person to be more answerable to me than to a political party or ideology. 

..you don't have control over governments. you may believe you do but you don't. so those that struggle do so to defend their communities..their rights..not make decisions for you. you don't like that then oppose them. but they are at the table like it or not. 

The environmental movement has succeeded because it has focused on the environment alone, not on indigenous peoples and not on anti-capitalism and certainly not on anarchism nor feminism. It has  single-mindedly been about the environment. Because of  indigenous land rights they have been at the forefront of the pipeline battle but they are not being supported because people support indigenous rights. They are being supported because groups and individuals are against the pipeline and by our great good fortune indigenous peoples have rights that can be used to stop pipelines. Martin does have a point that there are indigenous communities that support pipelines. 

..without indigenous movements leading the struggle against the km pipeline you would have that pipeline. there was no other way to stop it. that is reality. what it took was broad colaboration under indigenous leadership. this is what the struggle looks like on the ground.

The grand majority of people are strongly pro capitalism within the framework of social democracy. From a pragmatic perspective I don't see any other system that will provide us with cell phones. Capitalism is people being allowed to create their own businesses. Capitalism is Mary trading the furniture she made with the helpers she hired for the vegetables Joe grew with the helpers he hired. You might as well try to convince people to go live on communes. Realistically, on what timeframe do you foresee the end of capitalism? It hasn't ended in Greece. The Great Depression didn't end capitalism. There is no reason a worldwide financial collapse would end capitalism. Money doesn't even exist in any real sense anymore. It's worth what everyone agrees it is worth. Financial collapse would be enormously painful for almost everyone but the uber-wealthy would negotiate to maintain their wealth and continue building it on the backs of labour. 

..people are very aware of what control corporations have over governments. that is capitalism. not the barbershop down the street. people are not pro capitalism. 

There are all kinds of models of community organization but I have yet to hear of any working anarchistic system larger than a single small community. People may not be happy with the politicians and system that we have but most want to tweak it not abolish it. I don't want to make decisions on where highways should go and I don't want it to be made by fellow citizens. I want it to be made by someone I have elected that is answerable to me. In my view it is the answerable part we are having trouble with, not the entire structure. There are ways to address that without resorting to anarchism. 

..i agree that there are many forms of community organization. and that's up to communities to decide which way to go. right now you control adds up to putting an x once every 4 or 5 years on a piece of paper. to the rest of what you say i offer barcelona as an example. pariticipitory budgets that are developed vis assemblies by different sections of the city. policy direction that begin via assemblies. also an online program where that is citizen intitiate. projects get voted on. of course you already know this because you've been to the thread where i've posted all this. you may disagree but you do know alternatives are there. just know pondering i will not continue to repeat conversations we have already had.      

epaulo13 wrote:

  1% is the notion pondering draws on in a limited way. without the bottom up decision making. 

You say "bottom up" but you don't want Ford Nation to be making the decisions. That would be even worse than having Ford in charge. Without government creating laws indigenous peoples  would be even worse off. Minorities never do well in the hands of the  majority. Without the laws written by our politicians Canadians could easily be convinced that the best thing for indigeous peoples is to dissolve reservations and integrate them, to end segregation. 

..this is an argument used by those who don't want change. i've heard it many many times. i call bullshit.

Chavez tried to do bottom up and failed which isn't to say he didn't do a lot of good or wasn't sabotaged.  He was unable to wipe out corruption and the country is in chaos. Greece and the UK, the EU in general, are also instructive. No matter how bad things get people still aren't in revolt. They still choose government. 

..this is my point about governments. chavez passed many appropriate measures to decentralize the government. only some of those measure made it to the people. many ended up being sabotaged by the bueaucracy and other mps some of which were from his own party. but people are in revolt just not the way you expect them to be. state power has the guns people aren't stupid.   

"The poor" have been successfully framed as a drain on the middle-class as though they are the ones causing the middle class to struggle. That leaves people thinking I care, but I can't afford more taxes. Speaking in terms of class is too general. People are strongly motivated by self-interest (or what they think is in their self-interest). Short term reward also takes precedence over long term. People can be altruistic too, but generally after their own needs are met. The pipeline battle is an ideal example. The farther away you get from ground zero the more support there is for the pipeline based on perceived financial benefit to the country. We tolerate pollution for economic reward. Young people are much more supportive of protecting the environment because they will suffer the consequences of global warming and they know it. 

..i talk class because others raised it in this thread. most of my posts are an exploration of the movements that are producing change. i think you know this pondering. 

epaulo13 wrote:

  ..and this is the part of the pipeline struggle pondering doesn't talk about. the politics of control is at the center. those politics determine all on how we move forward including enviroment. 

I agree, which is why activists must find a way to influence the majority of people. In my opinion FPTP versus PR versus direct democracy is just moving the chairs around on the Titanic. The problem is not so much the politicians as it is their bosses, the people, becoming complacent and abdicating their responsibility to watch over our employees, the politicians. 

..you don't get to define what activists do. you participate or you don't. this is not a chess board where you move pieces around to suit your point of view.

When the people demand, when the people hold government to account, the people win (within a democracy). Even though it would have been illegal, without the protesters and the people bringing the cases to court the pipeline would be built by now. Government can be forced to bow to the will of the people if enough people care enough about a particular issue and there is a straightforward practical solution that they can demand. 

The environmental movement is a perfect example. Environmentalists didn't convince government to act. They convinced people that we are being harmed leading us to favor governments that take action on the environment. Governments try to get away with paying lip service. By focusing on specific projects the environmental movement builds local opposition. The people most readily motivated are those who will suffer the most direct negative consequence. 

Circling back to Greece; even with all the mass suffering and suicides they still haven't revolted against the EU. Isn't Greece the cradle of democracy? The country has been sold out to save the bankers who were robbing them in the first place. Still they choose the devil they know to the fear of anarchy. 

Most Canadians are not at all interested in transformative change and don't want to participate directly in the decisions of or running of government. Electing a government is akin to hiring a management company. You hire them to do the managing. 

People can be mobilized on specific issues, like the pipeline, that they perceive to have a direct impact on them. The larger the group of people impacted the more likely success is. 

The notion of universality is predicated on the notion that if everyone is part of the program they are more likely to support it. The more people you can unify on a single issue the more success is likely. The Conservative's rallying cry is lower taxes smaller government. That is how they managed to attract both libertarians and social conservatives who should be natural enemies. They stay as far away as possible from issues that divide libertarians and social conservatives. 

Right now the left is framed as wanting to pick the pockets of the middle class on behalf of the poor. The NDP works double time to broadcast that it will do no such thing. Oil brings in good middle class jobs. That is what the working class identifies as now. The middle class. Even if they are out of work. 

Corbyn didn't rise because he was so inspiring he rose because he tapped into an existing resentment against the status quo in the UK, dropping benefits and rising poverty. 

..corbyn rose because young folk and communities rose up to support him. there was no way for a party to tap into that and get those results. this is the work of movements.

I do believe the tide can be turned quite dramatically but it will take thinking outside the box and tapping into the power of social media to gather public support. Then political parties can be preasured to answer the call. 

All just my opinion of course

..to the rest i think i've answered above. 

To Ken, Lagatta and I are no longer permitted to address each other directly. I would prefer to have the same arrangement with you. 

Ken Burch wrote:

The fact is, the NDP is handling things exactly on the lines you prescribe-continuing to suspend internal democracy and keep policy-making in the hands of a few dismissive, cynical insiders.  given that this has the party at a level of support virtually guaranteed to cause a massive loss in seats in 2019.  Why DO you keep doubling-down on an approach that has so far brought nothing but failure?   

You are too ignorant to say anything about my views. Stick to expressing your own. 

Ken Burch wrote:

You seem extremely confident that you can speak for what "ordinary" people want-and, by implication, that you can dismiss everyone to your left as "out of touch".  Why are you so sure of yourself on that? 

I made it clear that I was expressing my opinion. The left has been on an extremely long losing streak in comparison to the right who has been scooping up the very people who should be embracing the left. Then the left expresses bewilderment that people are voting against their own self-interest. The left has had some minor successes but the Overton window has shifted dramatically right. 

There are very few people farther left than myself. 

Ken Burch wrote:

And how do you KNOW that ordinary people don't want a real say in the major decisions that affect their lives?  There's a massive increase in the number of worker cooperatives being formed throughout North America and the rest of the world.  Isn't that a sign, in fact, that people are sick of powerlessness, are sick of the way bland, mundane representative government continually disregards them?  Isn't that a sign that people DON'T want to just leave everything to "the experts"? 

Again you illustrate your ignorance in imposing views I don't hold on me. People absolutely want to participate in MAJOR decisions affecting their lives directly. Here in the Plateau residents are regularly asked where we want a certain amount of the city budget to go. As a percentage of the population very few people attend. If people  wanted to be making those decisions more directly they would be there. 

Worker co-ops are great and I think when any company closes employees should have first dibs on taking over and if they want to and the company is viable they should have government support to do it. That is not the same thing as running the government and voting on every zoning change. 

In my opinion you are out of touch with the average swing voter that tunes into elections in the last week or two. I am a swing voter both federally and provincially but I am not the average or typical. I pay more attention to politics than most. Even so I just tuned into the Quebec election this week and not by much. I've read a few articles, less than ten. The longest stretch of time I have spent on it was listening to Masse's youtube video with Cloutier. I didn't watch either debate. Amir Khadir will win my riding. I would have voted for him but he doesn't need my vote so I may choose to send a message by voting either NDP or Liberal to show my displeasure over Masse embracing CAQ over the Liberals. Or maybe a pox on all their houses and vote Nul. 

Low information voters are my tribe and I am sympathetic to them. Keeping it personal as you choose to do, in my opinion, you are not capable of understanding or respecting as an equal the woman who said she would have voted for Trudeau after seeing his children wearing t-shirts on election night. 

People don't want to leave everything to the experts but most don't want to micro-manage day to day government either. That doesn't mean we can't have more control over government through radically improved transparency and other means. 

Pondering wrote:

Amir Khadir will win my riding.

Given he's not running, that would truly be an impressive feat.

Pondering wrote:

Oops.

R.E.Wood wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I did not think it was that bad on the two people. Funny I guess I read it differently. I thought it was harsher on the party and actually understanding on the people. I think it is likley quite fair.

I thought it was damning in the sense that Mulcair let the party infrastructure go to hell and was an absentee paycheque-cashing do-nothing so-called "leader" who checked out and wasn't even phoning it in for his last year & a half in his job, and Singh did nothing to try to fix it for 8 months, thinking his Love & Courage, like magic pixi-dust, would carry the party to miraculous resurgence just because he had been annointed leader.

I also think it's damning on the party for allowing either of them to behave as they did in their positions as leader.

I guess I thought that both conclusions were obvious and that the article actually excuses them to some degree. I cannot see how Mulcair could have done anything else -- he was a long time lame duck. I felt sorry for the humiliation of it for him. I do not think that he is to blame for the last year. As for Singh he was an inexperienced leader who come into a party with no machine.

This is correctly on the party. They caused both failures with the same long-lame-duck period.