The progressive case for voting Liberal no longer exists.

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NorthReport

The Quebec Government (read: Bourassa) panicked, after all Laporte was Deputy Premier, and Bourassa requested military aid from Ottawa. Let the revisionist history stop as there is no confusion about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

PET had to act because Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec at the time, froze under the pressure, and asked for federal government intervention

Regardless this has to be about the dumbest thread ever started here at babble and should be shut down

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Laporte

He may have had to act...but he never had to extend his actions to a general roundup of leftists.  It was ridiculous to hold every a radical in Quebec responsible for the FLQ's decision to kidnap Cross and LaPorte.  The Left didn't KNOW the FLQ was going to resort to kidnappings and had no power to do anything either to get Cross released earlier or prevented LaPorte's accidental death.

And to clarify, I don't hold Justin responsible for what PET did during the October Crisis-he wasn't even born when that happened-my point in referencing that was that there's been a continual pattern of federal and provincial Liberal governments, the party that supposedly represents the progressive wing of capitalism, the party that claims to be the party of civil liberties, choosing excessive and undemocratic methods to "restore order".  

They're not exactly like the Cons...what they are is a party, a party whose name literally means "freedom" that shows a deeply disturbing tendency to choose illiberal, unfree methods, to privilege "order"(whatever that means to the vast majority of us who are not bazillionaires) over all other values.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
or prevented LaPorte's accidental death.

Sorry if this is more thread drift, but if you say it was "accidental", how was it "accidental"?  Wasn't he found in the trunk of a car, strangled?

NorthReport

Yes a few innocent people got rounded up for a few hours, or days, which was indeed unfortunate, but the main thing is the kidnappings and killing were stopped. PET was the Prime Minister of Canada, the Quebec Premier had lost control, and PET was left with no choice but to act.

NorthReport

Yea, he walked into a strangling wire or rope. Laporte was so careless.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
or prevented LaPorte's accidental death.

Sorry if this is more thread drift, but if you say it was "accidental", how was it "accidental"?  Wasn't he found in the trunk of a car, strangled?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
or prevented LaPorte's accidental death.

Sorry if this is more thread drift, but if you say it was "accidental", how was it "accidental"?  Wasn't he found in the trunk of a car, strangled?

The version of it that I'd heard was that they were about to release him but he didn't realize that and tried to escape, with the strangulation accidentally occurring in the process.

I'm not defending the FLQ...they should never have resorted to kidnappings or other "armed struggle" tactics...just saying that LaPorte's death seems to have been a screw-up rather than an intentional act.  

Pondering

Since 1963, the FLQ had been involved in over 200 bombings in Quebec. Now the self-described revolutionary movement was changing tactics.

The kidnappers threatened to kill Cross unless the government released 23 prison inmates charged with crimes committed in the name of the Front. ....

"We have had enough of promises of work and prosperity," the manifesto read. "When in fact we will always be the diligent servants and bootlickers of the big shots ... we will be slaves until Quebecers, all of us, have used every means, including dynamite and guns, to drive out these big bosses of the economy and of politics, who will stoop to any action, however base, the better to screw us ..."

Despite some government concessions, the crisis escalated. Five days after the Cross kidnapping, the FLQ struck again kidnapping Pierre Laporte, the Quebec minister of labour and the government's senior Cabinet minister.

The news sent ripples of panic through the public and gave the impression that the FLQ was a large, powerful organization. The kidnapping put tremendous pressure on the young premier who turned to Ottawa for help.

The federal government sent in the army to protect politicians and important buildings. ....

As the country watched, events continued to unfold in Quebec. On October 15, three thousand people gathered at Paul Sauvé Arena to show support for the FLQ's separatist ideas. The FLQ's lawyer, Robert Lemieux, fired them up.

"We're going to organize, choose our ground, and WE WILL VANQUISH."

All signs indicated that the FLQ was a powerful force in Quebec. Bourassa and Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau urged Ottawa to invoke the War Measures Act.

"What else can I do?" Bourassa reportedly told a colleague. "I personally know a great number of the people who will be arrested ... I know that my political career is over. The economic recovery, the foreign investment, the 100,000 new jobs, all that has just gone up in smoke."....

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html

The FLQ declared war on Quebecers and everyone thought the organization was much larger than it turned out to be. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time the majority of Canadians and Quebecers wanted the military in Quebec and the FLQ wiped out. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/40-years-later-security-an...

The steps taken under the aegis of the War Measures Act - overwhelmingly supported by both French- and English-speaking Canadians - remain a symbol of the country's fragile attachment to civil liberties and human rights, with echoes along the road from anti-terror legislation in the wake of 9/11 and the policing of the streets of Toronto during the G20 summit.

Despite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being cherished as a symbol of national identity, it is the mantra of Canada's first Constitution of 1867 - "peace, order and good government" - that appears to trump all other mythologies of the country that Canadians want.

"They like peace and they like order," says Ramsay Cook, one of Canada's greatest historians. "I don't think this has ever been a country that had an enormous interest in civil rights."

I lived through it. The leftists objected to the War Measures Act, the majority of Canadians wanted it. At the time we weren't accustomed to terrorism.

I have zero respect for the Black Bloc. They should be arrested. They use politics as an excuse for violence. They are worse than La Meute. 

The War Measures Act is no longer needed to suspend civil liberties. We have the Terrorism Act for that now. 

If any organized group starts setting off bombs and kidnapping politicians you will find that the grand majority of or Canadians including Quebecers will again support the suspension of civil liberties to root them out. 

I'm not saying that is what I support. I'm saying that is what the majority will want and did want during the October Crisis. It was not all Trudeau. Bourassa and Drapeau wanted the military to step in. That the Liberal party has a history of authoritarianism or whatever in immaterial. In this case Trudeau was doing the bidding of Bourassa and Drapeau. Bourassa did get re-elected as well. A clear indication that he had the public's support. Quebecers and Canadians overwhelmingly supported Trudeau, Bourassa, and Drapeau. 

Ironically the FLQ may well be responsible for the failure of the independence movement just as the Black Bloc is increasing support for La Meute. 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
or prevented LaPorte's accidental death.

Sorry if this is more thread drift, but if you say it was "accidental", how was it "accidental"?  Wasn't he found in the trunk of a car, strangled?

The version of it that I'd heard was that they were about to release him but he didn't realize that and tried to escape, with the strangulation accidentally occurring in the process.

I'm not defending the FLQ...they should never have resorted to kidnappings or other "armed struggle" tactics...just saying that LaPorte's death seems to have been a screw-up rather than an intentional act.  

It was an intentional act. 

On October 17, seven days after he went missing, Laporte's body was found. His kidnappers were subsequently captured and sentenced for his murder, and served terms ranging from 20 years to life.[9] Laporte was buried in the Cimetière Notre-Dame-des-Neiges in Montreal, Quebec.

In 2010, journalist Guy Gendron produced a documentary series for Radio-Canada, in which he asserted that the killing of Pierre Laporte was unintentional – "Il a été étouffé dans un moment de panique [He was strangled in a moment of panic]".[10][11]

The people holding him panicked and murdered him. That is still intentional even if the decision was made in a so-called "panic". It takes determination to strangle someone watching them struggle for life. No accident there. It was cold-blooded murder motivated by selfishness and entitlement. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

How does the October Crisis have anything to do with this thread?

That was in 19fucking70. The WMA was put in place by Robert Bourassa's relentless requests.

The FLQ's popularity was a growing movemt and the FLQ blew it by murdering Laporte. They were no longer seen as a viable movement. The PQ filled that void very quickly.

And whether it was 1970,2018 or 2030. Kidnapping an MNA or an MP would cause a knee jerk reaction and that's why a simple policce work (The MUC and  the QPP) would have sufficed.

I really don't know why Trudeau allowed passage to Cuba for 5 members. Francis Simard was convicted of murder in 1971. He was out in 1982. If I remember correctly,Simard wanted to get into politics but the PQ stayed away from him. I THINK,I may be wrong.

In shorrt,Bourassa instigated the War Measure Act,he's a forgotten main player in successfully convincing the Liberals to start the WMA.

Now..can we move on from what happened in 1963 through 1970? It's a black eye in the history of Québec and Canada but we're talking about 55 years ago and 48 years ago.

I don't see that this is a case for not voting Liberal. Most of the suspects and heads of govenment are all dead.

Stop living in the past,man. All 3 of the federal party leaders weren't born back then. Especially Scheer and Singh who were born at the end of the 70's and beginning of the 80's respectively.

The case of killing of any party would be the Cons. The Liberals have not kept a lot of their promises but they have done things like repealing some anti-union laws and seem to be determined to keep their promise concerning cannabis and have announced they plan to implement a National Housing Act which is long overdue for our cities like Montréal,Toronto and Vancouver (3 cities with exaggerated housing prices)

They move slower than a snail but they are doing some positive things. And if you think you'll get better with the Conservatives,you're a deluded fool. Not only would they not pass any progressive policies,don't look for them to start PR. And my disdain for Scheer and the Conservatives is valid. Even on Rabble.

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/03/conservative-a...

I'm far from out of my mind. My points are valid whether you like them or not.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The version of it that I'd heard was that they were about to release him but he didn't realize that and tried to escape, with the strangulation accidentally occurring in the process.

If they were releasing him -- no matter whether he realized it or not -- how did they accidentally strangle him (while releasing him)?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The version of it that I'd heard was that they were about to release him but he didn't realize that and tried to escape, with the strangulation accidentally occurring in the process.

If they were releasing him -- no matter whether he realized it or not -- how did they accidentally strangle him (while releasing him)?

I'm not clear on the details on that and not comfortable with speculating.

And I truly didn't mean to make this into an extended discussion of the October Crisis.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Apart from the interesting drifts this thread attracts the overly partisan messaging that is defeating on all sides.

The Liberal Party and the NDP need to take responsibility for their own failures. To their credit at least the NDP is in favour of electoral reform. For Liberals to use increased NDP support as a threat is the height of hypocrisy. Each party ought to attract the most voters. Any who want to discuss strategic dynamics with supporters of other parties should first come out here overwhelmingly for electoral reform or STFU.

No, the NDP does not have to learn to take votes from Conservatives. The Liberals are closer to them and have the main responsibility to do that if such responsibility exists at all. It is a fact that Conservative people will consider the Liberals before the NDP -- this is not the fault or responsibility of the NDP. The NDP is not and cannot be a stalking horse for the Liberal party. Liberals should internalize this.

The NDP has to stop blaming the Liberals for their existence but learn to beat them instead. They also have to fire any communications people who blame the media. They know what the media is -- not just mainstream but alternate and social media: figure out how to make your case in it. If you think there needs to be more left media, create some. Usually the NDP blames the media whan it has done something that got bad press: stop doing crap that gets bad press. There is enough history to see this coming.

The Liberals remain a bait and switch party. They are not worse than the Conservatives or as bad in the moment but the dishonesty gets many on the left pissed. Liberals -- accept this or be less prone to exagerate your plans during elections. I think that all parties do this but for Liberals it is an art form that they brag about (govern from right run from left).

The NDP has to cobble together a program that speaks to the people and refrain from this self -marginalizing that the party often does. If you consistently show a serious desire to govern, you may be less likely to be accused of splitting the vote without any real value.

The NDP does not need to run candidates -- since it opts to, it needs to make a committment to seriously vie for power as that is the point. That does not mean running to the centre or anywhere but applying lessons to run quality campaigns with good communications.

No, the Liberals are not done and no you cannot say that it is not legitimate for a progressive to vote for them: voting is an individual act and people can vote negatively as well as positively. Respecting democracy means really understanding this.

There is a big central Canadian bias in this post. In many places, the Liberal Party is dead, and will never be resurrected. In other places, it is a tiny centrist rump. West of Ontario, the decision is often between the Conservative thingy whatever it calls itself and the NDP.

Conservatives may not swing to the NDP in your part of Canada, but that is not true in other parts.

 

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Apart from the interesting drifts this thread attracts the overly partisan messaging that is defeating on all sides.

The Liberal Party and the NDP need to take responsibility for their own failures. To their credit at least the NDP is in favour of electoral reform. For Liberals to use increased NDP support as a threat is the height of hypocrisy. Each party ought to attract the most voters. Any who want to discuss strategic dynamics with supporters of other parties should first come out here overwhelmingly for electoral reform or STFU.

No, the NDP does not have to learn to take votes from Conservatives. The Liberals are closer to them and have the main responsibility to do that if such responsibility exists at all. It is a fact that Conservative people will consider the Liberals before the NDP -- this is not the fault or responsibility of the NDP. The NDP is not and cannot be a stalking horse for the Liberal party. Liberals should internalize this.

The NDP has to stop blaming the Liberals for their existence but learn to beat them instead. They also have to fire any communications people who blame the media. They know what the media is -- not just mainstream but alternate and social media: figure out how to make your case in it. If you think there needs to be more left media, create some. Usually the NDP blames the media whan it has done something that got bad press: stop doing crap that gets bad press. There is enough history to see this coming.

The Liberals remain a bait and switch party. They are not worse than the Conservatives or as bad in the moment but the dishonesty gets many on the left pissed. Liberals -- accept this or be less prone to exagerate your plans during elections. I think that all parties do this but for Liberals it is an art form that they brag about (govern from right run from left).

The NDP has to cobble together a program that speaks to the people and refrain from this self -marginalizing that the party often does. If you consistently show a serious desire to govern, you may be less likely to be accused of splitting the vote without any real value.

The NDP does not need to run candidates -- since it opts to, it needs to make a committment to seriously vie for power as that is the point. That does not mean running to the centre or anywhere but applying lessons to run quality campaigns with good communications.

No, the Liberals are not done and no you cannot say that it is not legitimate for a progressive to vote for them: voting is an individual act and people can vote negatively as well as positively. Respecting democracy means really understanding this.

There is a big central Canadian bias in this post. In many places, the Liberal Party is dead, and will never be resurrected. In other places, it is a tiny centrist rump. West of Ontario, the decision is often between the Conservative thingy whatever it calls itself and the NDP.

Conservatives may not swing to the NDP in your part of Canada, but that is not true in other parts.

 

May I point out that this is in the Canadian politics thread and the forum and the focus of this forum tends to be federal given that there are provincial threads.

Also, when you consider each region there are more regions where the Liberal party is alive than dead.

Finally for the purpose of this thread (which I did nbot create but responded to) why on earth would we be discussing the purpose of voting Liberal as an issue in areas where theat party is already dead? Why the hell aren't you going after the thread itself?

I think you are overly wrapped up limiting to your region and specific to provincial politiics and that it is you who is biased here. Clearly the point of this thread is about the areas where the Liberal Party is not dead focussing on a federal jurisdiction.

More than half the provinces have a Liberal Party  that is far from dead provincially and most have a federal party that is far from dead. You going after my post for biased seems quite silly given the premise in thread and the number of places it applies to at least one jurisdiction if not both.

The fact that I included my city name in my handle is low hanging fruit for lazy dismissal that avoids the point or the substance of either my post or the entire conversation. sure you can point to the Provinces where the Liberal party is dead provincially:

Alberta

BC (name taken by an alliance that is Conservative)

Manitoba

Saskatchewan

Now when it comes to Federal politics the Liberals ran in first place in two out of those four,   second in one, and third in one in the last federal election.

Now let's discuss your bias. Atlantic Canada is still part of Canada and it is not Central Canada. Please explain how the party that took every seat in the last election is dead there or how your geography places 4 Atlantic provinces at the centre.

Nowhere did I say there were no cases of Liberal parties being dead or near dead in parts of the country at the provincial level. And nowhere does that change the issues I rasied in response to a general issue that has national meaning.

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 No, the NDP does not have to learn to take votes from Conservatives. The Liberals are closer to them and have the main responsibility to do that if such responsibility exists at all. It is a fact that Conservative people will consider the Liberals before the NDP -- this is not the fault or responsibility of the NDP. The NDP is not and cannot be a stalking horse for the Liberal party. Liberals should internalize this.

There is a big central Canadian bias in this post. In many places, the Liberal Party is dead, and will never be resurrected. In other places, it is a tiny centrist rump. West of Ontario, the decision is often between the Conservative thingy whatever it calls itself and the NDP.

Conservatives may not swing to the NDP in your part of Canada, but that is not true in other parts.

The population of Canada is about 35 million. Of that about 21.5 million live in Ontario and Quebec.  4.5 live in BC.  The Prairies have about 6.5. 

While it may be true some people in the Prairies consider only the Conservatives and NDP the population is low so there are not a lot of seats to win. Even so I think a focus on inequality can cross partisan barriers. 

lagatta4

I mentioned all three of the pols responsible for the mise en oeuvre of the WMA.  The terrorists were captured by normal police work. Many historians now believe the killing was an accident - I need a lawyer here, but I belive a killing, even accidental, in the course of a kidnapping, which is a grave crime against a person or persons, is considered murder. And I sure as hell am not supporting the FLQ. The PQ and the FRAP paid a heavy price for that stupid violent behaviour.

I am supporting my friends who were jailed for political reasons, as the Spanish state is doing now to peaceful advocates of independence.  Their memories of the time were very different. So were mine, though I was a teenager at the time. Having the army roll in was even scarier than the FLQ.

No, of course I don't blame Justin, who wasn't even born at the time, for his dad's authoritarian actions (and certainly not for those of Bourassa or Drapeau).

Tommy Douglas was the real hero here:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/october/do...

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

"Wealth inequality" is not as sexy as "criminal big money". There are several problems with focusing on "Wealth Inequality".

1. While the number of billionaires has grown, the number of people rising from abject garbage-picking poverty to some kind of job has grown by tens of millions. One could argue that wealth inequality has been the best thing to raise the living standards of hundreds of millions of people. It is a serious argument being made by those on the fiscal right, from objectivists to Cato Institute right-wingers. More rich people means fewer poor people.

2. China is still a Communist Party-ruled state. It now has more billionaires than the US. If wealth inequality did not work for China, you can bet they would cancel it: and they have the power to do so.

3. Anyone with a bit of money is going to say "I'm all right, Jack", and definitely not sing the Internationale. Here we have Liberals and self-interested Conservatives with some actual money and some actual brains. This ranges from anyone who can live comfortably on their after-tax wages to those who are making a lot more. You want to tax me more so your bureaucracy can spend 80% of the money and give 20% to the poor? I'll get way more bang for my charitable buck if I just give it to the Old Brewery Mission myself.

4. Then you have the millions of Canadian denizens who consider themselves to be "embarrassed millionaires", and who buy into all the crap which they see on TV, which presents a $5,000,000 mansion as a "normal house". This is a primary sector of Ford Nation. Fighting wealth inequality is Communist, which is probably why China doesn't do it.

30 years ago, the Canadian GDP was about $25,000 per person and the Chinese was $2,000 or a ratio of 12.5:1. Now, the Canadian GDP is about $43,000 per person, and the Chinese is about $7,500, or a ratio of 5.7:1. WRT Canada, China has narrowed the gap by more than half (or double, depending on which way you want to look at it) For at least between over a billion people in China and the 30 million in Canada, wealth inequality (if you want to call it that) has been declining. In Canada, the current ratio between someone on $200,000 a year (the beginning of the 1-2%) and someone on a subsistence income of $15,000, is 13.3:1.

The crimes which are being committed in the name of The Big Money include tax evasion, organized crime including human trafficking, official corruption, and white-collar crime such as pump-and-dump, which is a particular problem in Ontario, where it is legal if you pay lawyers enough money.

Our problem is that money is being drawn out of circulation by those with offshore bank accounts. As a result the Canadian currency in circulation as stated by the Bank of Canada has risen from about $55 billion to $85 billion since 2008, with very little corresponding increase in economic activity. What this means is the number of economic transactions a single dollar experiences in the national economy has declined considerably. When $1 flies offshore, it stops circulating in Canada, and hence could cut GDP by an astounding $25 a year at current GDP/currency rates.

Railing on at rich people because of "Wealth Inequality" is just going to get you branded as a Godless Communist who wants to kill economic growth for all. Saying you want to legally crack down on "Big Money Elites" who are "gaming the system" and "screwing the rest of us" is going to give you a lot more of the political spectrum than the talk about "Wealth Inequality".

A Keynsian approach would correct the crimes caused in the name of the Big Money, and repatriate a bunch of cash and improve the Canadian National Balance Sheet considerably. Then we would have all the dough we need for our political agenda. Each $1 billion we recover could mean an astounding $25 billion in increased Canadian GDP.

Pondering

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

I mentioned all three of the pols responsible for the mise en oeuvre of the WMA.  The terrorists were captured by normal police work. Many historians now believe the killing was an accident - I need a lawyer here, but I belive a killing, even accidental, in the course of a kidnapping, which is a grave crime against a person or persons, is considered murder. And I sure as hell am not supporting the FLQ. The PQ and the FRAP paid a heavy price for that stupid violent behaviour.

I am supporting my friends who were jailed for political reasons, as the Spanish state is doing now to peaceful advocates of independence.  Their memories of the time were very different. So were mine, though I was a teenager at the time. Having the army roll in was even scarier than the FLQ.

No, of course I don't blame Justin, who wasn't even born at the time, for his dad's authoritarian actions (and certainly not for those of Bourassa or Drapeau).

Tommy Douglas was the real hero here:

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/docs/october/do...

 

I'd like to associate myself with lagatta's views here.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Kind of raises the question...would the NDP have had a breakthrough in Quebec in the 1972 election if Tommy had led it one more time, rather than the Quebec-hating David Lewis.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Isn't he supposed advocate for policies approved by the membership of the NDP?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Isn't he supposed advocate for policies approved by the membership of the NDP?

The leaders of the NDP haven't done that for decades. Why should Singh when it would hurt the party? Mulcair took the policy book off the NDP website. The only person who had a problem with that was Unionist. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Isn't he supposed to advocate for policies approved by the membership of the NDP?

The leaders of the NDP haven't done that for decades. Why should Singh when it would hurt the party? Mulcair took the policy book off the NDP website. The only person who had a problem with that was Unionist. 

I think the NDP's past election platforms have not contradicted the policies established at NDP conventions, although they have omitted some NDP policies. I would be surprised if Singh came up with policies that contradicted the NDP's established policies. I think like the NDP's previous leaders, Singh is on the same page as the party.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

 

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Isn't he supposed advocate for policies approved by the membership of the NDP?

The leaders of the NDP haven't done that for decades. Why should Singh when it would hurt the party? Mulcair took the policy book off the NDP website. The only person who had a problem with that was Unionist. 

So you're ok with denying the membership any real say in policy?  That's what taking the policy book offline and disregarding it in election campaigns means.  It never gains the party vote for the leader in any election to disregard the policy book and run to the right of what it says(running to the right of the policy book being the ONLY reason any leader would ever try to hide it). 

Every thing that Mulcair did that went to the right of the policy book-such as his "election platform" position on Israel/Palestine that didn't even mention a two-state solution and pretended that the whole conflict was caused by Palestinian antisemitism-ended up driving the vote down.

History proves that it doesn't help the NDP for it's leader to ignore the members and water the policies down.  And if you take any say in policy away from the paid party members, you destroy any reason for anyone to BE a paid party member.  You can't just expect people to hand over money for the privilege of  having the party insiders tell them what to do and what they party will stand for.  None of the party bureaucracy want the NDP to stand for anything at all.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And there's no way to make precarious employment and economic inequality into issues WITHOUT proposing policies to address them, OR for a party in third place to gain votes without telling voters early and often what it stands for.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What he could say was "I will listen to what my party's core supporters. and those battling poverty and unemployment int their own lives, and the ideas of the social and economic justice movement activists who worked to help the poor and the currently powerless organize to change their conditions , and will offer policies based on the best ideas they, as people who know these issues better than anyone else,  can suggest".

That would read as creativity and leadership.  What's not to like?

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

That is Singh's focus. He speaks of precarious employment and tax havens as causes of wealth inequality. Do you seriously expect him to put out his platform now? 

Precarious employment: In that labour law in this country is a provincial responsibility, it's difficult to see how the federal NDP can have much of an impact in that area.

Tax havens: Tax havens are not a cause of inequality, they are a symptom of it.

Revealing the NDP platform now, as opposed to closer to the election: There's no particular need to reveal the platform, even during the election. As was famously said by Kim Campbell, 'elections are no time to discuss policy' (my paraphrase).

On the other hand, there's no reason not to reveal the platform now. If it was a principle based platform, with progressive planks in it, how could it hurt the party to let people know what's coming? What I suspect is that despite the talk of inequality and tax havens, they have no answers as to how to deal with those issues. 

In other words, they don't have anything to reveal.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Also...how do you win people over WITHOUT saying what you're going to do? The "magnetic personality" thing has been neutralized now.

Pondering

Specific policy comes at platform time. Mulcair tried early release of five items and it fell flat. Can you even remember all five? All I can remember was daycare and minimum wage. The minimum wage thing came off as bait and switch when people realized it wasn't minimum wage for everyone, just for federal jobs. 

Ken Burch wrote:
What he could say was "I will listen to what my party's core supporters. and those battling poverty and unemployment int their own lives, and the ideas of the social and economic justice movement activists who worked to help the poor and the currently powerless organize to change their conditions , and will offer policies based on the best ideas they, as people who know these issues better than anyone else,  can suggest".

That would read as creativity and leadership.  What's not to like?

The Liberals would love it. It would reduce the NDP to 15% or less assuring Trudeau another majority if the NDP chooses to be a protest party.

If he reveals specifics now the Liberals will use it against him. 

If you want to guarantee the largest possible loss of support that could work. Heck that could bring the NDP down to 10% support. 

Also...how do you win people over WITHOUT saying what you're going to do? The "magnetic personality" thing has been neutralized now.

Really, Trudeau still tops the charts by a lot as preferred political leader. Harper got away with being disliked because he was viewed as an economic policy wonk/nerd that would give the country stability. He still has a reputation of having been a solid economic leader. 

If the NDP does as you suggest then it will become nothing but a protest party. It will no longer be considered a serious contender for actual power. They will go back to being the conscience of parliament that gets listened to when it is time to make some charitable contributions but in no way trustworthy to actually run the country. 

Mobo2000

Really appreciated this from post 68:

Railing on at rich people because of "Wealth Inequality" is just going to get you branded as a Godless Communist who wants to kill economic growth for all. Saying you want to legally crack down on "Big Money Elites" who are "gaming the system" and "screwing the rest of us" is going to give you a lot more of the political spectrum than the talk about "Wealth Inequality".

I'll add that this approach has the advantage of allowing for "merit" or individual responsibility or productivity to be part of the discussion of why people are poor, which is a particular concern of the conservative-minded.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I was referring to Jagmeet with the "magnetic personality" thing.  We now know that his personal charisma has been totally neutralized.

And it remains the case that it's not possible to win additional voters over to your party without saying what you're going to do.  Nobody switches their votes solely due to the repetition of slogans and phrases.  "Fighting income inequality" doesn't mean anything.  Neither does "addressing 'precarious employment'".

What is it about the thought of the NDP being a real party of ideas, a party where decisions are made differently than in other parties, a party where being a paid member actually MEANS something(it means nothing at the moment)that so terrifies you, Pondering?

And if the country was as unchangeably right wing as you seem to assume it is, why even bother having a left-of-center party at all?  What's the point of having a party like that if the only way it could ever win was blurring the differences and acting as if the rest of the country is right to look down at its supporters and sneer what most of them want?  Why even bother if it's the way you say it is?  

There clearly isn't much growth potential for the NDP if the only chance it has is to be a shame-based party, as you seem to wish it to be. 

​The NDP has had a top-down, leader-centric operating structure since 1961.  There's nothing good to show for the party running itself that way.  

And an NDP government couldn't do anything significantly different than a Liberal or Conservative government if it followed your lead, assumed its ideas had already permanently lost the argument and settled for constantly repeating what we already know is an futile strategy:  saying nothing, standing for nothing and just trying to win by default somehow.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And it's not as though being specific equates to "being a protest party".  You can be specific in the service of trying to win, of trying to win in the only worthwhile way of winning-winning by winning the argument, by inspiring actual enthusiasm and hope, by persuading the electorate that things don't HAVE to be like this.

Finally, with the party still at 21% in the polls, it's not as though there could actually be that many voters who are only giving their support to the NDP because Singh isn't revealing specifics.

The way of devising policy that I suggested could attract a lot of energy and enthusiasm to the party-it's always good to have more people coming in and thinking that there are more and more possibilities.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Saying you want to legally crack down on "Big Money Elites" who are "gaming the system" and "screwing the rest of us" is going to give you a lot more of the political spectrum than the talk about "Wealth Inequality".

Is "Stop the Gravy Train" copyrighted, or could we borrow that?

Personally, I think a plan veers off into being a daydream once it involves shadowy figures like "the elites" or "the deep state" or "moneyed interests".  It's short form for "I haven't done any homework and can't point to anyone in particular, but my gut's never wrong about these things".

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

The minimum wage thing came off as bait and switch when people realized it wasn't minimum wage for everyone, just for federal jobs. 

I will just point out that the 'precarious employment' thing is exactly the same. The federal government only has jurisdiction over federal employees. All others are subject to provincial law.

From Mr. Magoo:

Is "Stop the Gravy Train" copyrighted, or could we borrow that?

How about 'Corporate Welfare Bums'? Oh, right...

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

Also...how do you win people over WITHOUT saying what you're going to do? The "magnetic personality" thing has been neutralized now.

Also if the NDP tells voters well ahead of an election what the NDP'S electoral policies are, It makes it more difficult for the Liberals to get so much credit for putting the NDP's policies on the Liberal election platform.

Pages