NDP #15

1097 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Seriously Gloater, you are so immature.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Seriously Gloater, you are so immature. Why do you not include this:

There is no surprise in the motion's crushing defeat, but the Bloc succeeded in exposing divisions within the NDP — the BQ's arch-rivals in Quebec — and prompted New Democrat MP Claude Patry to defect to the Bloc last week.

The motion also provided fodder to federalist rivals to accuse the NDP of pandering to separatists with its proposed alternative to the Clarity Act.

We already know about Patry, and on top of that, others more schooled in Quebec politics spoke to this. You are obviously so desperate to make some kind of case against the NDP, that you will clutch at any straw.

Why do you not grow the hell up, kid.

ETA: The CP wrote an anti NDP article picked up by the Right Wing Rag, Winnipeg Free Press. As someone else wrote, and in other news. dark tonight, turning light tommorow.

 

Stockholm

Its nice of Canadian Press to editorialize on behalf of the Liberal and Conservative parties...I'm impressed that Mulcair managed to unify the NDP caucus and got virtually 100% of them (including all the QC MPs) to vote NO to the BQ trouble making motion to eliminate the Clarity Act and replace it with nothing.

Its so obvious that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the mainstream media are all united by one thing - TOTAL HYPOCRISY. They try to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag but in reality they are trying desperately to help the BQ resurrect itself. The Tories want the BQ back because they know that if the Quebec seats are off the table for the NDP - its makes it virtually impossible for a non-Tory govt to ever be formed...and the Liberals and their shills in the "Laurentian elite" want the BQ bcak so they can have a little costume party and play the Trudeau vs Levesque game they all enjoyed so much 30 years ago. Sad.

Stockholm

The verdict is as follows:

55 NDP MPs from Quebec demonstrated their loyalty to Canada and to their leader by voting against the BQ pyromania motion

1 joined the BQ - to no ones regret since he was by all accounts just about the dimmest bulb in the House of Commons

1 was out of the country at her mother's funeral

1 was sick

End of story

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That was not snark it was sincere but meant to be humorous at the same time.. That's the problem with this medium no eye and voice contact so the meaning of many things gets skewed. Thank you for your kind words however I am sure that while I might have a better education than you do it does not mean that you are not my intellectual equal because as far as I can tell you are.  I got my degrees too late in life to think that way.  I know lots of working people with keen intellects that never went to university or college. I have also met plenty of academics that sorely lacked in insight on issues outside of their own disciplines.  The reason I post here all the time is because I have been less than able bodied for a number of years and politics has always been my passion. When I went back to school to take political studies I discovered that while working camp jobs I had already read many of the books on the list of recommended readings.  Learning after all is a life long pursuit.

I am not unsymathetic to your concerns. However, if the NDP is not the vehicle for change ( as imperfect as it is) what else do we have? I don't think I will count on Trudeau the Lesser or Harper.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No I wouldn't either.  As an old man I can only hope for the next generation to take to the streets like they have in Quebec.  No party like the NDP is going to make the fundamental changes required to achieve social justice and stop the planetary degradation.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I am more and more convinced that Mulcair has turned the NDP into another Liberal party. And, probably not by himself. He likely had willing help from within the caucus.

Aristotleded24

Boom Boom wrote:
I am more and more convinced that Mulcair has turned the NDP into another Liberal party. And, probably not by himself. He likely had willing help from within the caucus.

Mulcair's Blairite leanings were quite evident for anyone who was paying attention, and many former Mulcair supporters are now coming to realize that. I hate to say "I told you so," but....

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

If the NDP governs and acts like Libs, and, I have posted this on these threads, I will simply stop voting. I have worked elections provincial and federal, one after another and donated money I didn't have as have most if not all of you. I have earned the right to my opinion. Am I partisan? Damn rights I am, and I'm not apologizing for it!

The fact that NDP members have to wonder what the NDP will do if it gets to govern, says a lot about the lack of safeguards within the NDP. NDP members should be able to feel confident that the resolutions passed by the members at conventions will be respected by the parties politicians. NDP members shouldn't be wondering if Mulcair will choose to follow the policies NDP members have decided to support at convention.

At a convention, have NDP members supported the concept of entering into more free trade deals? If not, why has Mulcair been able to unilaterally foist this position onto the NDP?

Arthur, are you happy with the NDP's record in Manitoba? From out here in BC, it seems to me that the Manitoba NDP seems closer to being a liberal party than a socialist one. But I could be wrong. A social worker from Manitoba has told me that Manitoba's social policies are the best in Canada. But unfortunately, poverty statistics from Manitoba are disheartening.

Because we have FPTP, it makes sense that the NDP runs to the middle and kowtows to the corporate media that sets the political agenda. But then why hasn't the Manitoba NDP not implemented proportional representation that would allow for socialist voices to have more power in the legislature?

FPTP insures that all the parties have to kowtow to the corporate agenda. The litmus test that I use to determine how socialistic a NDP politician is their position on proportional representation. Mulcair's initial weak position on proportional representation sure gave me pause while his subsequent support for PR alleviated my concerns somewhat.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR:

Short answer regarding the MB NDP, no. But it is what it is. That is why I have posted that if Tom wins and governs like Libs, I am done. The problem here is the MB Tories are the nastiest SOBs on the face of the planet; they would make Hudak look like Mother Theresa by comparison. Its a Hobson's choice.

North Star

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/07/canadaeu_trade_deal...

I know not everyone may be a Sid Ryan fan but he's right - we know most of what CETA entails and playing a wait & see approach is pointless as it will just end up going through anyway with less scrutiny.

mark_alfred

NDP caucus give a tribute to Stompin' Tom Connors.  

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, that was cool. Cool

The NDP definitely have some of the coolest MPs on the planet, but I wish they'd quit turning into another Liberal party.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Posted in wrong thread.

Brachina

The NDP is not turning into the next Liberal Party Boom Boom, stop exgagerating and Mulcair is not a Blairite, people are far too quick to toss that insult around that its become meaningless. Mulcair is slightly to the left of Jack Layton

He's at worst more of a Hawk then most people on these forums, well so am I. I support the mission in Libyia and yes in Syria probably too (not familiar enough with Mali to voice an opinion

I guess that automatically makes me a Liberal Perhaps I should have Blairite seared into my forehead and tarred and feathered.

This is nothing, but a witch hunt.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
I support the mission in Libyia and yes in Syria probably too (not familiar enough with Mali to voice an opinion I guess that automatically makes me a Liberal.

No worries, Brachina. Chrétien declined Washington's invitation to send troops to Iraq. You're no Liberal.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

Mulcair is slightly to the left of Jack Layton

Undecided

Quote:

I support the mission in Libyia and yes in Syria probably too (not familiar enough with Mali to voice an opinion I guess that automatically makes me a Liberal

It automatically makes you an imperialist apologist but you are right it says nothing about whether you also think that the bankers and financiers should run the global economy through corporate rights agreements.

What did the people of Libya, Syria and Mali do to you that leads you to support the destruction of their countries infrastructure like water and electricity and universities and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people just trying to live their live in peace. What possible moral authority could you draw on to claim that bombing them is for their own good?

Jacob Two-Two

I think people are romanticising Layton's NDP. Anyone care to tell me what the big differences are between today's party and the party of two years ago?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I think people are romanticising Layton's NDP. Anyone care to tell me what the big differences are between today's party and the party of two years ago?

That is a very fair question.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"Free" trade and the tar sands.  Anything else I can do for you?

Unionist

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I think people are romanticising Layton's NDP. Anyone care to tell me what the big differences are between today's party and the party of two years ago?

Other than abandoning the Sherbrooke Declaration (which they were always quite diffident about anyway), I can't think of a single difference.

knownothing knownothing's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"Free" trade and the tar sands.  Anything else I can do for you?

Mulcair has visited the oil sands and shown true leadership on that file. As for free trade, i hear him saying we should look at the deals and make sure we can still have public auto insurance companies and our environment isn't at risk of the polluters, among other things. He does have a good record on environment from his time in Quebec.

 

 

Unionist

Habemus Papam!

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
No worries, Brachina. Chrétien declined Washington's invitation to send troops to Iraq. You're no Liberal.

They only "declined" because our colonial troops were already committed to the U.S.-led military occupation in Afghanistan.

Chretien was another one voluntarily sucked in by the 9/11 fairy tale. The Shawinigan strangler sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan in 2002, and his successor would have sent troops to Iraq but the Libranos already had the army over extended in Afghanistan. And when Uncle Sam needed to free up U.S. troops in Kandahar to go murder Iraqis, the Liberals were there at the ready aye ready and obeyed Warshington's instructions for Canadians to relieve U.S. troops in Kandahar in 2005.

Besides having sold the environment to Exxon-Imperial and the fossil fuel industry, Canada's Liberals are totally subserviant to their imperialist bosses in Warshington. 

Even the so-called Chretien Liberals were not Liberals. No such thing as a Liberal just two wings of the same big business party.

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

Unionist wrote:
No worries, Brachina. Chrétien declined Washington's invitation to send troops to Iraq. You're no Liberal.

They only "declined" because our colonial troops were already committed to the U.S.-led military occupation in Afghanistan.

Even the so-called Chretien Liberals were not Liberals. No such thing as a Liberal just two wings of the same big business party.

Canada DID go to Iraq. Or did the NDP forget to tell you that?

http://rabble.ca/comment/876103#comment-876103

Fidel

NDPP wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Unionist wrote:
No worries, Brachina. Chrétien declined Washington's invitation to send troops to Iraq. You're no Liberal.

They only "declined" because our colonial troops were already committed to the U.S.-led military occupation in Afghanistan.

Even the so-called Chretien Liberals were not Liberals. No such thing as a Liberal just two wings of the same big business party.

Canada DID go to Iraq. Or did the NDP forget to tell you that?

http://rabble.ca/comment/876103#comment-876103

So when did the non-transparent and not very accountable Liberal Government of the day release that information to all of 19 effective opposition NDP MP's? Oh wait they didn't because the Liberals were just being the secretive vicious toadies that they are.

 

Richard Sanders wrote:
Freeing up U.S. Troops:
Canada's major role in the Afghan war has freed up many thousands of U.S. troops for deployment to Iraq.

I believe I mentioned that already. I did not know the full extent to which the Libranos cow-towed (including providing logistical support) to the U.S. Military invasion and occupation of Iraq, a sovereign country which had nothing to do with Elvis bin Laden's al CIA'da or 9/11 and possessed no WMD.

Aristotleded24

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I think people are romanticising Layton's NDP. Anyone care to tell me what the big differences are between today's party and the party of two years ago?

Under Jack, the NDP expressed concern about free trade deals like NAFTA and the continual integration of Canadian and American security policy. I haven't heard a thing about Deep Integration since Mulcair became leader, and his waffling about the impending free trade agreements (particularly CETA and the TPP) is unacceptable. The documents have been leaked, we know exactly what's on the table, we know that our trading partners are not going to negotiate the terms of thes agreements, so the NDP needs to come out against them and state its case to Canadians.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

These trade agreements aren't about trade as well all know, and it is causing me concern. But with guys like Pat Martin worrying about getting rid of the penny and the nickel, I am not holding my breath about getting anyone's attention on this.

Jacob Two-Two

Well, I guess I don't find the NDP waffling about trade deals to be any less or more likely if Jack were still around. I recall a fair amount of waffling over NAFTA. Basically this is the NDP's achilles heel. They're so terrified of being branded "anti-trade" that they'll agree to anything just to avoid the argument before it begins. It doesn't look any different from where I'm standing.

NDPP

Mulcair To Sidestep Keystone During Talks With Obama Administration

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcair-to-sidestep-keyston...

"NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair won't advocate for - or against-the Keystone XL pipeline, the most contentious issue in Canada-US relations, when he comes to Washington this week for talks with senior Obama administration officials..."

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

"Free" trade and the tar sands.  Anything else I can do for you?

I think Mulcair gets a bad rap on the oil sands.  If you look at his actual remarks to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, as opposed to the media coverage of it, you will find it's hardly different from what the party has said in the past.

The best description I can find of the speech came from a comment on Alice Funke's facebook page. I'm going to quote it rather than pass off the words as my own:

Quote:

I see:

1. A call for transparency around foreign investment policy development and clear rules so that decision making is understood.

2. Public consultation as well as stakeholder consultation (which is actually fair--you do need to include industry at the table, you just can't let them *run* the table).

3. Criticism of FIPA's threat to Canadian sovereignty and provinces' ability to make decisions regarding their resources.

4. Diversified, sustainable development (which is about the only thing that will sell out here--"shut it down" conversations mean that Alberta and probably Saskatchewan will continue to shut down the NDP).

5. Upgrading and refining product at home--this reflects the Alberta NDP position, and I'm pleased to see it here.

6. Making polluters pay.

7. A foreign investment policy that ensures that Canadians benefit from those investments. Considering the globalized nature of the economy, I think that's a reasonable stance--it's impossible to completely shut out foreign investment now, unless maybe we want to be North Korea.

8. A review process that requires consideration of social and environmental impacts of projects (I especially appreciate the inclusion of the human factor here--we don't do good public health assessments on these projects in Alberta, and the research evidence shows we should).

All of these points seem to clearly reflect current federal NDP policy with some nice nods to the work the provincial section has done relating to energy policy. I think you're right, Alice. A lot of people have read the media coverage without reading the actual content of the speech.

If you disagree with that approach, fair enough.  I just don't think it represents a departure from NDP policies of the past. 

I can also tell you that these policies are NOT what Alberta Conservatives (provincial, federal, PC or Wildrose) are advocating.  And in spite of the headlines, I highly doubt they are what the energy industry or the Calgary Chamber of Commerce are looking for.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"Mulcair To Sidestep Keystone During Talks With Obama Administration

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcair-to-sidestep-keyston...

"NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair won't advocate for - or against-the Keystone XL pipeline, the most contentious issue in Canada-US relations, when he comes to Washington this week for talks with senior Obama administration officials..."

So why exactly did I vote for this guy. He's got to learn to stop being afraid. I hate this.

As I wrote before, I guess moving the center to the NDP means becoming Liberals? Really, WTF?

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Mulcair To Sidestep Keystone During Talks With Obama Administration

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcair-to-sidestep-keyston...

"NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair won't advocate for - or against-the Keystone XL pipeline, the most contentious issue in Canada-US relations, when he comes to Washington this week for talks with senior Obama administration officials..."

So why exactly did I vote for this guy. He's got to learn to stop being afraid. I hate this.

As I wrote before, I guess moving the center to the NDP means becoming Liberals? Really, WTF?

 

What I got from the article is that he's looking to keep jobs in Canada rather than exporting them to the States, which to me seems in line with what the NDP should be about.  I'm pretty sure most of the leadership candidates had this view, not just Mulcair.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

5. Upgrading and refining product at home--this reflects the Alberta NDP position, and I'm pleased to see it here.

The biggest departure I have seen is his idea to ship the bitumen gunk to Eastern Canada.  I also support the idea that we need to refine and process in Alberta close to the tar sands.

The NDP used to be calling for a moratorium on new development until the environmental problems have been dealt with. I thought that was the compromise to saying shut the whole planet destroying project down.  That of course would mean no further expansion in the near future.  That no longer seems to be the policy. Given you live in Alberta I do not need to tell you that the environmental and health impacts of the current level of extraction are deadly to the people who live close to them and to the planet.  Seems to me that a new review process is window dressing until we deal with the impacts of the existing projects. 

socialdemocrati...

I made the same mistake on Mulcair's support for the Palestinean statehood bid.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair said his party supported the Palestinian Authority's request for enhanced status within the UN.

"We understand that if we want the peace process to move forward, we’ve got to start seeing concrete steps like this one," he said.

Note that the journalist said that Mulcair supported it, and not Mulcair himself. The only quote we have from Mulcair is a generic moving forward, which means he at least thinks the Palestineans are within their right. (Which I'll take as an improvement from "Israel in all circumstances".)

 

Same thing in this article.

Look for the ACTUAL quote from Mulcair. What does he talk about? Advocating for Canadian jobs. Which makes sense, considering that's something he can actually get to work on in 2015, and it's something he can actually advocate for as the leader of the official opposition.

There isn't a single American in a position of power who cares what Canada's official opposition has to say on oil policy. The only quote we have from Mulcair on U.S. oil policy is exactly that: Mulcair says the ball is in America's court. And that's a matter of fact. If America does build a pipeline to Alberta, which they problably will, then there's not much point in telling America that you're against them on something you have zero power to stop.

Everything else is just the journalist's opinion.

I do wish Mulcair would use a little less lawyer-professional speak though. Statements on vision and values do matter. Without them, the waters get muddier than they need to be.

Stockholm

Actually Mulcair gave a speech today in the U.S. where he gave a much stronger denunciation of Keystone than i expected!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/tom-mulcair-goes-to-washington-t...

The Mulcair-led NDP opposes the 1800-kilometre pipeline that will bring 830,000 barrels of Canadian bitumen a day to Texas refineries.

“According to object studies, Keystone represents the export of 40,000 jobs and we think that is a bad thing for Canada,” Mulcair said in an interview. “We have never taken care of our energy security. We tend to forget that a 10-year supply to the U.S. is a 100-year supply to Canada. We are still going to need the energy supply to heat our homes and run our factories, whether it comes from the oilsands or it comes in the from natural gas. Fossil fuels are always going to be part of the mix.”

He said he is telling the Americans that it is their decision on whether to approve Keystone. But he said he is also telling them not to believe Canadian government claims that Canada has a good record on the environment and climate change.

NorthReport

Say what?

Mulcair expresses misgivings about Keystone XL pipeline during U.S. visit

In a whirlwind visit to Washington this week, Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair is bearing an entirely different message from that brought by the parade of Conservative leaders who recently invaded the U.S. to sell the Keystone XL pipeline.

In meetings with U.S. lawmakers and business executives, Mulcair is telling Americans the Canadian government is “playing people for fools” by claiming that its environmental record is world class and that it cares about climate change.

Mulcair’s message is that the Canadian government’s environmental record is terrible, that it has “gutted” environmental assessments for energy projects and that climate change is not at all among its priorities.

“In the U.S. people know how to read,” he said. “They know that Canada is the only country that has withdrawn from Kyoto. They know that the Conservatives can’t possibly meet their Copenhagen targets (on greenhouse gas emissions) precisely because of the oilsands. They have to stop playing people for fools.”

The Mulcair-led NDP opposes the 1,800-kilometre pipeline that will bring 830,000 barrels of Canadian bitumen a day to Texas refineries.

“According to object studies, Keystone represents the export of 40,000 jobs and we think that is a bad thing for Canada,” Mulcair said in an interview. “We have never taken care of our energy security. We tend to forget that a 10-year supply to the U.S. is a 100-year supply to Canada. We are still going to need the energy supply to heat our homes and run our factories, whether it comes from the oilsands or it comes in the from natural gas. Fossil fuels are always going to be part of the mix.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Mulcair+expresses+misgivings+about+Keystone+south+border/8084746/story.html#ixzz2NMa3daHo

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Mulcair To Sidestep Keystone During Talks With Obama Administration

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcair-to-sidestep-keyston...

"NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair won't advocate for - or against-the Keystone XL pipeline, the most contentious issue in Canada-US relations, when he comes to Washington this week for talks with senior Obama administration officials..."

So why exactly did I vote for this guy. He's got to learn to stop being afraid. I hate this.

As I wrote before, I guess moving the center to the NDP means becoming Liberals? Really, WTF?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NR:

OK, OK, Uncle, Uncle! Well, I guess Tom read my grumbling (Tom, Tom...is that you)?Laughing

That is very encouraging. Now if he starts to get some attention in the MSM..............

See NR, I told you that you were smarter then me! Wink

NorthReport

 

NDP unveil star speaker list for upcoming convention

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/unveil+star+speaker+list+upco...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes indeed a Clinton economic adviser to lead the party to its neocon future and an Obama operative to show how to run a hopey changey campaign that will be devoid of substance.

Some days I have to try real hard to keep my tinfoil hat in the closet.  Wink

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Yes indeed a Clinton economic adviser to lead the party to its neocon future and an Obama operative to show how to run a hopey changey campaign that will be devoid of substance.

Some days I have to try real hard to keep my tinfoil hat in the closet.  Wink

Hasn't Stiglitz been speaking out against austerity?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, Stiglitz has been speaking out against austerity and demanding Obama spend money. He seems to be a genuine Keynsian. He may have advised Clinton, but so did Reich, and I don't think you could call Reich a neo-lib austerian either. As a matter of fact, Stiglitz has been very hard on the President and even called the idea of austerity madness.

North Star

Stiglitz, Krugman and Reich were all left neoliberals at one point who embraced globalization. To their credit they've shifted gears back to a more Keynesian stance after seeing what has happened. But I don't think we should forget Krugman has defended outsourcing and even called Singapore an economic twin of the USSR. It's progress I guess.

socialdemocrati...

This Joe Stiglitz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_Its_Discontents

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-neo-liberalism-

He's known to have done battle with Robert Rubin. That's the only kind of Clintonite I like.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Our "social democratic" opposition is now ankle humping the Democrats.  I guess I am really old school since I think they are worse than Canada's Liberal party. If the NDP wants to get its advise from liberals from the US then that is its right.  I just hope at this convention it also gets rid of the references in its Constitution to socialism.  A little honesty would be nice.

josh

Obama is as bad as Clinton when it comes to avoiding Keynesians.  Stiglitz should be Treasury Secretary, but didn't have a prayer of getting it.

socialdemocrati...

Having Stiglitz speak at the convention isn't just good for the perspective he brings. It's also what he represents: the splinter in the Democratic Party that is critical of austerity, globalization, and neoliberalism. If you can shine a light on that, you're also shining a light on why we need the NDP and not just the Liberals.

The Democratic Party in the US is terrible, but it doesn't mean that all Democrats are terrible. The real decision makers in the Democratic Party are neo-liberals.  And there are also social democrats working with the party who have a marginal influence. Especially voters who've begrudgingly accepted the two party dynamic. Bernie Sanders openly calls himself a socialist. Even though these social democrats are "inside the neoliberal party", the net effect they've had on politics is probably comparabie to the NDP's "third party alternative to the neoliberals".

Stiglitz went to battle with the neo-liberals and has the scars to prove it. It's bad for America that no one listens to his anti-liberal / alter-globalist perspective. But it's to his credit. He has all the right enemies.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Great commet SD!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Liberal Party in Canada is terrible, but it doesn't mean that all Liberals  are terrible. The real decision makers in the Liberal Party are neo-liberals.  And there are also social democrats working with the party who have a marginal influence. Especially voters who've begrudgingly accepted the two party dynamic.

Sounds about right to me.

socialdemocrati...

I know you're trying to make some sarcastic point, but everything there reads pretty accurately to me.

The only thing I'd add is that in Canada there's a viable third party that's been represented in parliament for the past 50 (or perhaps 80) years, and has actually helped pass social democratic legislation.

And now that third party is the official opposition. Whatever social democrats were voting Liberal before, there's a lot fewer of those now.

Pages

Topic locked