NDP #15

1097 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

The link below has an interesting discussion with Nathan Cullen (a video) regarding Trudeau, and regarding the NDP Convention.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/15/pol-trudeau-first-day-as-...

theleftyinvestor

kropotkin1951 wrote:
By the way under PR the NDP would have a lower percentage of the House's seats since our FPTP system helped the party last election.

Nonetheless, under PR the NDP would have had a more evenly distribution of seats across regions in 2011. Not to mention more actual power, as the Conservatives would have been held back to a minority, and the sum of LIB+NDP+GRN seats would have been able to rule by majority without the Bloc's help.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Absolutely and it is those kind of effects that I look forward to if there ever is a change to our system. Also with a 5% threshold it would mean that an anti war, anti austerity and anti NAFTA party would stand a chance at getting MP's elected.  I personally have never had to much problem with the idea of cooperating with the BQ since they for many years were a social democratic voice in the House.

wage zombie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't want the NDP to do badly despite thinking they are going to do just that. I am hard on them because they are sitting astride the left of the political spectrum and refusing to discuss any left wing issues, preferring to try and win middle class votes rather than trying change our society and the politcal discourse.

Do you think it's possible to change our society and the political discourse without winning middle class votes?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't think that our current electoral process will either change society or the political discourse. Those changes are coming from groups like Idle No More and the various No Tankers No Pipelines organizations. Of course some of those campaigners are from the middle class but they are not marching for middle class issues but mostly environmental reasons. If the political system changes to PR then there is a possibility of some of that happening in the House.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I will say this, you NEVER here Libs talk with that kind of insite and sounding that informed on the issues. Our team has always been miles ahead. But what they have to do is make an issue of the lack of detail that the Libs always offer. They also have to smoke the Libs out. They are going to try the old switcheroo and we need to be ready for them. I say you do that by getting out ahead and making Justins lack of detail they issue. The Libs have a very long history of talk, and no action. We need to point that out and nail them on it over and over.

janfromthebruce

mark_alfred wrote:

The link below has an interesting discussion with Nathan Cullen (a video) regarding Trudeau, and regarding the NDP Convention.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/15/pol-trudeau-first-day-as-...

I thought Cullen was great in presenting the NDP in a positive light - he was genuine, warm, articulate, thoughtful, and stuck with facts about Trudeau rather than get dirty. He also was able to reframe the conversation to the NDP talking points, and position.

I liked how he brought in the Chinese Nexxon deal and who would you want across an negotiating table: Trudeau or Mulcair (who comes with wealth of experience and knowledge) or Harper who has been aweful. I thought it quite persuasive.

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I would consider voting for them in the next election if they campaign on a firm commitment to changing the FPTP system to a PR system in their first term of government. No discussions, no referendums just a change to the system the party has outlined in the campaign literature.  For me that would preferably be MMP but there are other systems like STV that I would support as well.

Well, seems a resolution to get either MMP or some other unspecified electoral reform (maybe STV or something) with "No discussions, no referendums just a change to the system" did not pass.  The following, which no doubt you don't support, did pass:

Quote:
5-02-13 Resolution on Electoral Reform
Submitted by Toronto-Danforth

WHEREAS the current federal electoral system contains major shortcomings generating a significant democratic deficit;

WHEREAS the decline in voter turnout in federal elections in the last twenty years in Canada is worrying;

WHEREAS any electoral reform process must include the study of all relevant experience with an electoral system that includes both proportional representation and MPs directly elected in ridings;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal New Democratic Party reaffirm its desire to reform Canada’s electoral system by way of a system that combines proportional representation and direct election of Members of Parliament from constituencies, that is to say, through a version of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation that is adapted to Canada.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NDP reaffirms its longstanding electoral commitment to such reform and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the federal NDP’s Critic and Deputy Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform should consult widely in communities across Canada before the next federal election.

So, feel free to declare that you shall not be voting for the NDP come next election.  Also feel free to declare that you shall be not be posting in the NDP Babble thread (nothing better than a boycott, sometimes).  Feel free to announce that the NDP is dead to you.  Feel free to start a new thread about the political party that does best align with your ideals and that you are considering voting for.  Good luck.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Feel free to try to silence all discourse and restrict the debate to cheer leading. Go right ahead but good luck with that on babble. Some tasks are far harder than others aren't they?

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Feel free to try to silence all discourse and restrict the debate to cheer leading. Go right ahead but good luck with that on babble. Some tasks are far harder than others aren't they?

Discourse and personal messages publicly aired are two different things*.  Anyway, the debate can be some cheerleading, and some hopes for improvement, and some sharing of knowledge, and some criticism.  But certainly if I were to draw a line in the sand under which I could no longer vote for the NDP, as you did, I'd appreciate it if someone let me know that that line had been crossed so I wouldn't waste any more of my time.  That's not the case with me personally, but does from your post seem to be the case with you.  Fair enough.

*I'm embarassed to say that I'm now engaging in the latter, rather than the former.  But the negativity here makes my head explode sometimes.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I would consider voting for them in the next election if they campaign on a firm commitment to changing the FPTP system to a PR system in their first term of government. No discussions, no referendums just a change to the system the party has outlined in the campaign literature.  For me that would preferably be MMP but there are other systems like STV that I would support as well.

Well, seems a resolution to get either MMP or some other unspecified electoral reform (maybe STV or something) with "No discussions, no referendums just a change to the system" did not pass.  The following, which no doubt you don't support, did pass:

Quote:
5-02-13 Resolution on Electoral Reform
Submitted by Toronto-Danforth

WHEREAS the current federal electoral system contains major shortcomings generating a significant democratic deficit;

WHEREAS the decline in voter turnout in federal elections in the last twenty years in Canada is worrying;

WHEREAS any electoral reform process must include the study of all relevant experience with an electoral system that includes both proportional representation and MPs directly elected in ridings;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the federal New Democratic Party reaffirm its desire to reform Canada’s electoral system by way of a system that combines proportional representation and direct election of Members of Parliament from constituencies, that is to say, through a version of mixed member proportional (MMP) representation that is adapted to Canada.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the NDP reaffirms its longstanding electoral commitment to such reform and its firmly held belief that Canadian voters must approve such reform.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the federal NDP’s Critic and Deputy Critic for Democratic and Parliamentary Reform should consult widely in communities across Canada before the next federal election.

The resolution passed does not state that a referendum is required to establish MMP. It seems to me that the people voting for the resolution simply thought they were supporting the idea that the NDP should support MMP by going into communities across Canada and consulting with people about electoral reform well before the next election. If the NDP includes the establishment of MMP on its 2015 election platform it will have the mandate to establish MMP without a referendum. Extensive consultation with the public would be enough to determine whether the voters approve of such electoral reform.

NDP'ers who believe that the establishment of electoral reform requires a referendum should explicitly submit a resolution at the next convention explicitly stating that a referendum is required for electoral change. My guess is that such a resolution would not pass.

mark_alfred

Thanks JKR, good to know.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:

NDP'ers who believe that the establishment of electoral reform requires a referendum should explicitly submit a resolution at the next convention explicitly stating that a referendum is required for electoral change. My guess is that such a resolution would not pass.

I believe they did. I suspect that it never made it past the resolutions committee to be debated.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Also I don't think that the flip side of that kind of resolution ever made it too the floor either.

North Star

wage zombie wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't want the NDP to do badly despite thinking they are going to do just that. I am hard on them because they are sitting astride the left of the political spectrum and refusing to discuss any left wing issues, preferring to try and win middle class votes rather than trying change our society and the politcal discourse.

Do you think it's possible to change our society and the political discourse without winning middle class votes?

The middle class that we know, that we've all seen since the end of World War II is on it's way out. It was very much a product of the post war settlement. Social democratic parties, heck all political parties don't seem to realize this fact nor do they offer up much that could reverse this trend to any major degree. They've carried out policies that have led to its decline. Given the crappy job prospects today, high home prices and high levels of student debt, do you really think in 20-30 years people living in the 905 for example are goind to be as conservative as they are now?

wage zombie

I missed the Saturday morning resolutions including the resolution about proportional representation.  I did see Wilf Day later on Saturday and when I asked him about how things went he seemed pleased.

Here is what he posted to the New Democrats for Fair Voting facebook group:

The NDP is starting a dialogue with Canadians about proportional representation culminating with the 2015 federal election.

New Democrats for Fair Voting were very pleased when the party's convention in Montreal voted overwhemingly Saturday to confirm its longstanding commitment to reform Canada's electoral system by way of the mixed member proportional (MMP) system.

The convention resolution approved a sweeping tour by Toronto MP Craig Scott, NDP Critic for Democratic Reform, to consult widely in communities across Canada. Along with Quebec City MP Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP Deputy Critic, they will consult Canadians on a version of MMP adapted to Canada, combining proportional representation and direct election of MPs from constituencies.

At Friday morning's convention session New Democrats for Fair Voting congratulated NDP leader Tom Mulcair for his commitment during the leadership campaign that a mixed-member proportional system "will be a fundamental plank of our next election platform." They sought, and Craig Scott gave, confirmation of this commitment.

On Saturday Scott told the convention his Democratic Reform Tour, which starts this month, will continue until the next federal election. Fair Vote Canada member Kelly Carmichael, a Peterborough Ontario delegate, told the convention this head-start on promoting the MMP system was essential. "We learned in Ontario you can't sell MMP in six weeks."

The first stop on the tour by Scott and Latendresse comes April 26 at a campus in the Montreal suburb of Longueuil.

Fair Vote Canada will ask its local Action Teams and Chapters across Canada to propose stops on the NDP Democratic Reform Tour for this spring and fall.

During the 2012 campaign for the leadership of Canada's New Democratic Party, Tom Mulcair said "Coming from Quebec, where we used to see the Bloc Quebecois win twice as many seats as their share of the vote would suggest, I've seen the problems with first-past-the-post up close and personal. We're committed to a fair, proportional voting systenm. We're not going to abandon that commitment simply because we now benefit from first-past-the-post overselves. Canadians are well aware of the pitfalls of our electoral system. They agree with us that change is needed. When we get elected, we will get elected with a strong mandate to address these shortcomings."

An Environics poll conducted March 18 to 24 showed 70% of Canadians support moving towards a system of proportional representation, while only 18% are opposed. Another 6% said it depends, while 6% did not know.

I am sure Wilf will be back on babble some time at which point people can ask him further questions.

socialdemocrati...

Debate? What passes for debate here is misquoting each other, ignoring every statement and evidence of a progressive difference between the NDP and other parties, then selectively using editorials from the national post to show that the NDP has a hard-on for Tony Blair. I'd LOVE to see a leftward criticism of the NDP. I was looking for one since the start of the leadership race. What passes for leftward criticism of the NDP is so embarassingly inane in most (not all) cases, you don't have to wonder very hard why these people seem constantly depressed at their lack of effectiveness.

wage zombie

wage zombie wrote:

Do you think it's possible to change our society and the political discourse without winning middle class votes?

North Star wrote:

The middle class that we know, that we've all seen since the end of World War II is on it's way out. It was very much a product of the post war settlement. Social democratic parties, heck all political parties don't seem to realize this fact nor do they offer up much that could reverse this trend to any major degree. They've carried out policies that have led to its decline. Given the crappy job prospects today, high home prices and high levels of student debt, do you really think in 20-30 years people living in the 905 for example are goind to be as conservative as they are now?

No, I don't.  I largely agree with your analysis.  The middle class is shrinking.  And as both automation and outsourcing continue, it's questionable what kinds of jobs will still even exist 20-30 years from now.  Absent a collapse, self driving cars could be widespread in 5 years, making taxi & truck drivers obsolete.  Nobody has worked as a scribe since the printing press became common, and we'll be seeing lots more of that.

The point I am making is that I don't see how we can make progress on our goals, either short term or long term, either via electoral politics or popular movements, without getting support from the middle class.  I'm responding to the idea that trying to get the middle class on board is a waste of time, because I don't understand how we get anywhere without support from the middle class.

wage zombie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't think that our current electoral process will either change society or the political discourse. Those changes are coming from groups like Idle No More and the various No Tankers No Pipelines organizations. Of course some of those campaigners are from the middle class but they are not marching for middle class issues but mostly environmental reasons. If the political system changes to PR then there is a possibility of some of that happening in the House.

Do you think our electoral system can be changed to PR without winning middle class votes?

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Also I don't think that the flip side of that kind of resolution ever made it too the floor either.

Only one resolution on electoral reform made it to the floor. That's not significant since relatively few resolutions made it to the floor. My guess is that there are people in the party who are worried the Conservatives and Liberals are going to accuse the NDP of planning to rig the electoral system in its favour by establishing it without the consent of the people. Their fear is that the Conservatives and Liberals will tell Canadians that an NDP government would subvert our democratic system. By establishing a policy that requires the consent of the voters, this resolution seems to be a way to blunt such an attack against the party.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Part of the problem is the definition of middle class.  How do you define the middles class? Is it anyone who is not starving and not in the 1%. Of course the broader the definition you use the more it means that any party must have those voters.

I am waiting for some party to run on it before I worry about what class of voters they will attract.  In BC we won one referendum but since it failed the rigged super, super majority that was imbedded in the process we still have the same system in place.

Jacob Two-Two

And that STV system was the best I'd ever seen. What a lost opportunity that was. It actually bugs me a lot more than the Liberals winning two terms.

Every party talks about the middle class for precisely the reason you point out: The term is so meaningless that everyone thinks they are part of it. It says nothing about a party's real agenda. I really think the party needs to step back a bit from the blanket PR campaigns (which are also necessary) and focus more on strategically thinking about what will win these voters in this riding, case by case. Specifically, I think a little door-knocking and personal contact needs to be done in targetted areas to bring around ridings that were close calls last time. The head librarian at my worksite today mentioned that she was visited at home by a Conservative candidate for the upcoming provincial election. She was so impressed that an actual person came to her house to talk about her issues, she told me she was seriously considering voting for her. That kind of stuff counts with people.

NorthReport

Justin Trudeau has shifted the Canadian political landscape: Tim HarperIn 2015, Stephen Harper will face a charismatic young Liberal and a New Democrat dealing from unprecedented strength — if he sticks around that long.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/15/justin_trudeau_has_shifted...

Brian Glennie

mark_alfred wrote:

The link below has an interesting discussion with Nathan Cullen (a video) regarding Trudeau, and regarding the NDP Convention.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/15/pol-trudeau-first-day-as-...

 

Sour Grapes Alert!

 

The Liberals dodged a bullet when the NDP passed on Nathan.

1. He's from Toronto.

2. He's whipped the Tories five times in his rural, BC riding.

3. He's telegenic, thoughtful, youthful and funny. Fluently bilingual, too.

4. He and his wife are raising little kids.

I could go on but who cares. Tom will do fine vrs. Trudeau in 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

janfromthebruce

It's great to have so much strength in the NDP front bench which Nathan is a part of. The NDP is not a one man show which shows the strength of the Official Opposition.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Debate? What passes for debate here is misquoting each other, ignoring every statement and evidence of a progressive difference between the NDP and other parties, then selectively using editorials from the national post to show that the NDP has a hard-on for Tony Blair. I'd LOVE to see a leftward criticism of the NDP. I was looking for one since the start of the leadership race. What passes for leftward criticism of the NDP is so embarassingly inane in most (not all) cases, you don't have to wonder very hard why these people seem constantly depressed at their lack of effectiveness.

 

Well said.

janfromthebruce

which to add here, and let this voice to speak to us to add some contextualization to the conversation:

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4 4h

# 1 objective of Globe and National Post right now is that #NDP not become ensconced as government in waiting. That is all

And as further suggested by a good friend, the number #1 objective of the corporate media.

Goal is three pronge - 1) ignore or misrepresent the NDP in the media (eg. preamble is a good example), 2) go to bat for the liberals or give them a free ride 3) create devision within the progressive ranks, particularly supporters of the NDP

outcome - as Norman Spector states.

Appears to be working well as I can see even on babble. So carry on.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What did you expect from the MSM? When have they not been biased? I gather you believe that since the MSM is biased all progressive people should just toe the party line. 

I doubt if any of the people on this board who are critical of the NDP from a left wing analysis have had their opinions molded by right wing shills. Frankly I find that suggestion rather condescending.

North Star

The perils of the NDP's support for cap & trade over a simple carbon tax: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-collapse-could...

socialdemocrati...

As much as I thought Nathan Cullen was wrong about pre-election cooperation (and may have made post-election cooperation toxic as all the other candidates saw an easy way to look more pro-NDP)... I think he was an excellent messenger for the party, and continues to be. Hope he keeps a high profile and works on his French.

theleftyinvestor

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

As much as I thought Nathan Cullen was wrong about pre-election cooperation (and may have made post-election cooperation toxic as all the other candidates saw an easy way to look more pro-NDP)... I think he was an excellent messenger for the party, and continues to be. Hope he keeps a high profile and works on his French.

Nathan Cullen is basically a superhero when it comes to communication. He can make anything sound good. 

clambake

Love Cullen. Will make a great leader/PM someday

clambake

Though i hate to say it, I have to agree with what Justin said about the Boston bombings (i.e. finding the root causes). This is something I could have seen Layton and most Dippers saying. Too bad the NDP MP on PnP (forget which) joined in with Harper's attack line. But of course it's been blown up for more than it is on Twitter. As if the the CPC and NDP are in collusion over the remarks. Ridiclous.

Brachina

Truth be told the NDP is more pissed about the Charter cheap shot. Although I too agree to some degree with Justin's statement the timing was horrible, I have some sensitivity the wound is fresh and guess what the people of Boston are hurting right now and don't want to hear it right now, most probably already know. At least wait awhile to suggest something like that and for all that is unholy phrase it better, so it doesn't come off like your making excuses for who ever did this.

This is a very sensitive topic and people of Boston are hurting and one has to be careful how and when to broach certain topics so it doesn't come off as victim blaming or excusing the killer/s. Although one person on twitter was worse, attacking thecountering with Obama's drone campaign, as if the horrible shit Obama does justifies killing these innocent people, who hadd nothing to do with them. It was cheap. Thankfully that was merely one of Justin's supporters and not Justin himself.

felixr

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

As much as I thought Nathan Cullen was wrong about pre-election cooperation (and may have made post-election cooperation toxic as all the other candidates saw an easy way to look more pro-NDP)... I think he was an excellent messenger for the party, and continues to be. Hope he keeps a high profile and works on his French.

He was weak on policy generally. His Obama Southern preacher style speeches (where he paced the stage and spoke in platitudinous non sequiturs) near the end of the campaign were also rather bizarre and disenchanting.

knownothing knownothing's picture
knownothing knownothing's picture

"While he’d love to see his party get behind him on this, for now he’s just grateful NDP brass let him champion it as a private member.

Unlike backbencher Conservatives, eight of whom have complained about muzzling in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on contentious subjects like abortion, Martin said New Democrats are still allowed to “follow our own hobby horses without having to beg for permission.

“The only thing (NDP Leader) Tom (Mulcair) directly intervened with me, is he asked me to stop swearing at people, which I’ve tried to do to the best of my ability,” said Martin, who’s been known to run off at the mouth."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Martin+wants+drop+Queen+from+citizenship+oath/8256473/story.html#ixzz2Qp132sQw

socialdemocrati...

I'm so glad I was born here. If I had to swear an oath to the queen and her "heirs", I would probably throw up. Abolishing the monarchy can't happen fast enough, even small steps. (Not exactly the highest priority though.)

North Star
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This t-shirt says it all about the NDP. The voters of Canada will be given a marketing choice between Harper and two "hopey changey" parties. 

The new NDP less socialism and more love, hope and optimism. 

 

North Star

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This t-shirt says it all about the NDP. The voters of Canada will be given a marketing choice between Harper and two "hopey changey" parties. 

The new NDP less socialism and more love, hope and optimism. 

 

Those words aren't necessarily a bad thing given the circumstances they arose from. But yeah it has been totally appropriated by the Party's Comms team and simply made part of the party's "brand."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Having abandoned the very word "socialism", is it even going to be possible to stand for anything even remotely like what the word represents?  Won't all the efforts the party will put into proving that it's "NOT 'socialist'" automatically cancel out anything the party DOES stand for?

You can't be vague AND still meaningful.

And an NDP that isn't CLEARLY and MARKEDLY to the left of the Liberals has no reason to exist.  Being a "potential party of government", by itself, isn't anything.

Hoping I'm wrong...hoping you'll still be able to TELL that it's an NDP government.

But it's hard to see how you can make real change WITHOUT taking the risk of sounding controversial.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I didn't attend the convention and I don't find the NDP web site that informative but before I dismiss the party for chucking the socialist label as if it were some huge albatross, I would like to know where they stand on the following:

Progressive tax regimes (we now have lower corporate taxes than even the US)

Public Private Partnerships (lots of the private get rich while the public pays the bills)

Foreign investment and entry into the domestic market (so far, more jobs lost than gained when these deals go through)

Trade agreements and market protections

Employment Insurance and CPP

Respect and promotion of unionized labour

That's my list for now on the economic front.

Brachina

laine lowe wrote:

I didn't attend the convention and I don't find the NDP web site that informative but before I dismiss the party for chucking the socialist label as if it were some huge albatross, I would like to know where they stand on the following:

Progressive tax regimes (we now have lower corporate taxes than even the US)

A: Mulcair wants to raise corporate taxes

Public Private Partnerships (lots of the private get rich while the public pays the bills)

A: The NDP opposes 3p healthcare and seems disinclined to other uses. Not sure what the official party position is.

Foreign investment and entry into the domestic market (so far, more jobs lost than gained when these deals go through)

 A: Wants clear and proper rules on proving net benifit. Opposes Nexen deal.

 

Trade agreements and market protections

 

 

A:  Wants certain things off the table, prefers fair trade. Opposes treaties that will leave future governments trapped in a Treaty with no way out ans Mulcair has said he

 

 

may  dump one treaty like that.

 

 

Employment Insurance and CPP The NDP want to reverse Tory changes and to give an extention to people running out of time. Also want to see EI stol being pillaged. CPP needs to be boosted to help lift senors out of poverty.

Respect and promotion of unionized labour

That's my list for now on the economic front.

PrairieDemocrat15

laine lowe wrote:

I didn't attend the convention and I don't find the NDP web site that informative but before I dismiss the party for chucking the socialist label as if it were some huge albatross, I would like to know where they stand on the following:

Progressive tax regimes (we now have lower corporate taxes than even the US)

Public Private Partnerships (lots of the private get rich while the public pays the bills)

Foreign investment and entry into the domestic market (so far, more jobs lost than gained when these deals go through)

Trade agreements and market protections

Employment Insurance and CPP

Respect and promotion of unionized labour

That's my list for now on the economic front.

 

According to the party's policy book ( http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/Montreal2013/Mtl2013_PolicyBook_E.pdf ), New Democrats believe in:

Progressive tax regimes (we now have lower corporate taxes than even the US)

"A progressive tax system." (Sec. 1.7)

"Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages." (Sec. 1.7)

"Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes." (Sec. 1.7)

"Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor." (Sec. 1.7)

"Establishing tax fairness and revenue supports for persons with disabilities." (Sec. 6.3)

Public Private Partnerships (lots of the private get rich while the public pays the bills)

"Protecting crown corporations against privatization." (Sec. 1.10)

"Improving the public sector’s role as a wealth creator and a major provider of jobs." (Sec. 1.10)

"Halting public private partnerships (PPP) which are wasteful and inefficient models for delivering public services." (Sec. 1.10) 

"Opposing all forms of privatization and in supporting the delivery of all public services by public sector workers." (Sec. 1.10)

Foreign investment and entry into the domestic market (so far, more jobs lost than gained when these deals go through)

"Establishing “Buy Canadian” procurement policies and fostering Canadian ownership and control of our major sectors." (Sec. 1.1)

"Strengthening the Investment Canada Act and ensuring that foreign investment delivers and maintains quality jobs in Canada." (Sec. 1.1)

"Defending Canadians’ economic interests, particularly in terms of foreign investment and takeovers." (Sec. 4.5)

Trade agreements and market protections

"Restoring the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk marketer for wheat and barley." (Sec. 1.9)

"Improving grain transportation through the Canadian Wheat Board with the involvement of prairie farmers." (Sec. 1.9)

"Supporting supply management for commodity sectors." (Sec. 1.9)

"Defending Canadians’ economic interests, particularly in terms of foreign investment and takeovers." (Sec. 4.5)

"Proomoting trade agreements that include enforceable standards for human, workers’ and women’s rights and environmental sustainability, and that protect public services." (Sec. 4.5)

"Subjecting all proposed international trade agree-ments and international treaties to a Parliamentary vote and ratification through the legislative process." (Sec. 4.5)

"Demanding more accountability and transparency in international trade organizations, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)." (Sec. 4.5)

"Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security." (Sec. 4.5)

Employment Insurance and CPP

"Improving and increasing the scope and effec-tiveness of federal government employment and social programs to keep pace with the changing realities of employment in Canada, including allowing self-employed and temporary contract workers to contribute to and draw benefits from the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance." (Sec. 1.1)

"Employment Insurance provisions that provide workers with necessary benefits and training." (Sec. 1.12)

"Improving access and eligibility for small business owners and the self-employed to social supports, such as Employment Insurance, re-training and skills development." (Sec. 1.14)

"Increasing EI benefits and flexibility for caregivers to allow family members to take leave of employ-ment for up to six months in order to care for loved ones nearing the end of their life." (Sec. 3.6)

"Making EI benefits more flexible and generous to allow families to take time off to care for dying parents at home. (Sec. 3.6)

"Guaranteeing that parents who have taken maternity or parental leave are not penalized in terms of their EI benefits when they return to work.d Extending EI stimulus measures until the unem-ployment rate returns to pre-recession levels. (Sec. 3.6)

"Restoring the integrity of the EI program by amending the Employment Insurance Act with the following concrete measures:

  • Eliminate the two-week waiting period;
  • Bring the eligibility threshold back to a minimum of 360 working hours, regardless of the unemployment rate in the applicant’s area;
  • Increase the benefit rate to 60% and calculate benefits based on the best 12 weeks in the reference period; and
  • Improve the quality and monitoring of training and reorientation programs." (Sec. 3.6)

"Of fering employers a one year reduction on Canada Pension Plan and EI contributions for each new employee hired. (Sec. 3.6)

"Reviewing EI eligibility criteria to ensure that those who receive parental leave benefits remain subject to the same eligibility criteria for regular EI benefits. (Sec. 3.6)

"Improving access and eligibility to support programs like EI, re-training and skills development for small business owners and self-employed individuals. (Sec. 3.6)

"Boosting EI benefits in case of illness or injury." (Sec. 3.6)

"Mandating the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investment Board to invest a portion of their assets in developing Canadian businesses and in socially responsible enterprise." (Sec. 3.7)

"Working with the provinces and territories to bring about increases to the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan benefit." (Sec. 3.7)

"Working with the provinces and territories to allow the flexibility for Canadians and their employers to make voluntary contributions to individual public pension accounts." (Sec. 3.7)

"Simplifying access to disability benefits within the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and support organizations helping eligible people in their request or appeals." (Sec. 6.3))

Respect and promotion of unionized labour

"Potecting workers’ rights to join a union and bargain collectively, work safely and be free from harassment at work, receive fair wages and benefits, be treated with dignity at work, and have fair and equal opportunities for training and promotion." (Sec. 1.2)

"Ensuring that temporary foreign workers including those working under the SAWP are covered by all applicable employment legislation of the respec-tive province in which they are employed including the right to join a union and collective bargaining." (Sec. 4.3)

"Promoting women’s economic equality by ensuring pay equity, encouraging unionization, improving access to EI, and setting a minimum salary for employees under federal jurisdiction." (Sec. 6.1)

socialdemocrati...

PrairieDemocrat, that's not fair. You're using actual evidence to support your argument. Shouldn't we rely on gut feelings and argue about code words for a hidden neoliberal agenda?

PrairieDemocrat15

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

PrairieDemocrat, that's not fair. You're using actual evidence to support your argument. Shouldn't we rely on gut feelings and argue about code words for a hidden neoliberal agenda?

That's why I don't get hung up on the removal of "socialism." Look at the policy book, look at the 2011 platform. The NDP is a left-of-centre, social-demoratic party. Almost all of those things I listed above would not be supported by the other parties.

Is everything in the policy book, and every resolution adopted in Montreal going to be enacted by an NDP gov't? No. But look at the stuff they are proposing. The kind of people who make-up/support the NDP, the things they talk about, are different from the other parties.

Also, Mulcair has criticized, several times in the House, the "neoconservative" mindset of Harper and the Cretien/Martin Liberals, so I doubt he's a full-bore neolib.

North Star

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

PrairieDemocrat, that's not fair. You're using actual evidence to support your argument. Shouldn't we rely on gut feelings and argue about code words for a hidden neoliberal agenda?

That's why I don't get hung up on the removal of "socialism." Look at the policy book, look at the 2011 platform. The NDP is a left-of-centre, social-demoratic party. Almost all of those things I listed above would not be supported by the other parties.

Is everything in the policy book, and every resolution adopted in Montreal going to be enacted by an NDP gov't? No. But look at the stuff they are proposing. The kind of people who make-up/support the NDP, the things they talk about, are different from the other parties.

Also, Mulcair has criticized, several times in the House, the "neoconservative" mindset of Harper and the Cretien/Martin Liberals, so I doubt he's a full-bore neolib.

There are 2 kinds of social democrats today. There are the Blairites who love to claim that they are finding market solutions to tradition social democratic goals. There are the more traditional Keynesian types who rely on the actual existing welfare state, but when economic crisis comes calling the quickly fall into neoliberal orthodoxy. See: Francois Mitterand & George Papandreou. When there is a lack of a left, particularly a extra-parliamentary one, there nothing to keep social democrats from drifting rightwards in an economic crisis, because the media and elite intellectuals will be telling them to cut cut cut.

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

PrairieDemocrat, that's not fair. You're using actual evidence to support your argument. Shouldn't we rely on gut feelings and argue about code words for a hidden neoliberal agenda?

LMAO. +2

mark_alfred

Weird.  Seems some of the caucus members' sites are not working.  Many either are not found, or redirect to the main ndp.ca site.  

Pages

Topic locked