What are your defining Issues

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture
What are your defining Issues

Free Rocket Richard from the depths of time.  Just checking the spam filters.

Real post to follow

Issues Pages: 
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The question for me this election is who to vote for given the way the NDP abandoned its anti-war, out of NATO policy.  While I know that for most people that is not a defining issue but it is for me.  My question to the partisans on this board is there any policy of the party you have supported in the past that if abandoned would make you reconsider your vote?  

If the NDP had done like it normally does and merely said little or nothing I could have accepted that but they did the unspeakable and demanded air strikes on Libya.  I mean WTF were they thinking and where did such a policy come from certainly not the membership or convention.  

If they went sideways on a major woman's rights issue would that do it for you or maybe on a LGBT issue would that make you reconsider your vote?  I now have a moral dilemma because I live in a NDP seat and the main challenger last time was a Con.  I don't think it will teach anyone a lesson to spoil my ballot so I don't consider that an option.  I will likely vote for the fringe candidate who best represents my views once nominations end and hope like hell the election result is not determined by one vote.  

To add to the insult the NDP after calling for war in Libya sent me a fundraiser that listed "important voter information" about "who can you trust to put your family first?"  The first important information listed in my package was "voted to bring troops home from Afghanistan now."   

So somewhere in back rooms in Ottawa the brain trust was determining that getting on the anti-Gaddafi bandwagon and beating the drums of war would win them a few liberal votes and at the same time they could appeal to me to send them money because they are the anti-war party. 

Am I the only political junkie that has defining issues that no party can go against and retain their support?  

 

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Am I the only political junkie that has defining issues that no party can go against and retain their support?  

 

 

I rarely vote for parties, because all of them violate some "defining issues" or other - and I mean big ones, not little ones.

Example: Religious homophobes are allowed by law to conduct marriages that are legally recognized, even if they refuse to marry people of the same sex. To me, that's like allowing judges to say, "sorry, no Jewish or Muslim lawyers in my court", and still recognizing their rulings. Don't you agree? Yet not one of these scummy parties has demanded that that law be amended, because they're all scared of losing one or two votes.

So just on that basis, my answer to your question is "no". There can't be any single issue in absolute terms which defines my vote or anything else.

I often vote for individuals. I often vote against the most dangerous individual or party at a particular time (some people oddly call that "strategic voting" - like, when someone is invading your home and you call the cops, that's "strategic policing"). I occasionally in the past have not voted, because the whole scene was too ugly, and there was no pressing positive gain to be made or negative eventuality to avert.

And, being active all my life in the trade union movement, the peace movement, and various community causes, I find it hard to apply absolute conditions in electoral matters which I could never apply when it comes to uniting, in the real world, with a wide disparity of individuals and beliefs in the struggle for some common goal(s).

That's why I find ultra-loyal partisan politics to be so repugnant. It's asking people to divide and fight each other over someone's phony promises and chequered hypocritical record, and to apply virtually unquestioning fidelity to a person or a brand, instead of finding ways to unite them for a greater good.

6079_Smith_W

@ Northern Shoveler

In theory I suppose you have a point.

But I can't imagine approaching that question in any way other than a case-by-case basis, in the context of everything that is going on around it.

So I'd have to say no. without knowing all the facts, I'm not willing to declare a deal-breaker up front.

 

6079_Smith_W

But as for defining issues, I 'd say I put issues of fairness and honesty even above most policy issues.

That is to say, if someone puts forward a right wing platform, fair enough. I am far more offended and  by the deception, lies, and personal attacks that subvert people making a clear choice on those policies.

...and I know all parties go over the line to some degree. But there are some - the Harpercult in particular - who base their entire campaign on it.

thanks

healthcare: full commitment to the Canada Health Act and Health and Social Transfers.

here's the Green Party policy on healthcare: http://greenparty.ca/node/13358 including,

"The Greens fully support the Canada Health Act (CHA) and all of its principles. We oppose any level of privatized, for-profit health care. The five criteria of the CHA guiding the provincial public health insurance plans, which we believe to be non-negotiable, are:

  1. Public Administration: The public health insurance plan must be managed in a public, not-for-profit fashion.
  2. Comprehensiveness: All residents must be covered for “medically necessary” health services.
  3. Universality: All residents must be covered by the public insurance plan on uniform terms and conditions.
  4. Portability: All residents must be covered by their public plan, wherever they are treated in Canada.
  5. Accessibility: All residents must have access to insured health care services on uniform terms and conditions without direct or indirect financial charges, or discrimination based on age, health status or financial circumstances.

The threat of a NAFTA challenge from the American for-profit health care industry cannot be over-estimated. Allowing for-profit health care would be the “thin end of the wedge” that jeopardizes our entire health system."

NDP:

“When it comes to strengthening health care, I won’t stop until the job’s done.” http://www.ndp.ca/press/layton-s-plan-will-mean-thousands-more-doctors-n...

Libs:

http://www.liberal.ca/issues/health-home-care/

"For Liberals, the promise of universal, publicly funded health care is at the core of what it means to be a Canadian. We will never waver from that commitment." However, instead of publicly funded homecare, Liberals are only providing a 'family care tax benefit' and a six month EI benefit for workers to take time off work to care for elderly themselves.  Um, most elderly need more than six months of care at home, and the privatization of seniors' care was a huge expensive mistake that has caused untold suffering for older people and their families and caregivers.

To be fair, Liberals say "Liberals are committed to our public health care system and will work to enhance its quality and financial sustainability. This begins with investments in health promotion and in homecare" and go on to describe the tax credits as 'immediate steps'. More clarity and commitment is needed though to reverse privatizations and cuts.

Apparently Harper's Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe privatizes healthcare through constrained provincial procurement with investors' rights taking priority in disputes. 

Any party committed to healthcare will need to reject CETA.

We already know what Harper intends, through his recent budget and his earlier statements rejecting the Canada Health Act.

 

trippie

integrity of Socialism. The replacing of Capitalism with Socialism.

Maysie Maysie's picture

N.Beltov wrote:
 Foreign policy is near and dead to me,

That's quite the Freudian slip, N.

To the topic.

As a political hard ass, I put a LOT of my politics aside when it comes to the electoral system. I do this in order to actually be able to vote without hurling. So really, my defining issues, by the time I get to the electoral government level, have been watered down supremely.

The NDP has always been the party that best represents my politics, even as they go further to the center and beyond, the reasons of which completely escape me. I've lived in Toronto all my adult voting life, and in all the neighbourhoods I've lived in Toronto, I've never had anyone other than a Liberal or an NDP as my MP. I think.

I recognize that not all people can say that in these Reform Alliance far-right times we've been living in.

That said, if the NDP reneged on social issues that, at least on paper, separates them from the Libs/Cons? Honestly, I don't know what I would do in terms of who to vote for.

Since the Liberals are now taking the space the former Progressive Conservatives held, and the NDP in practice/actuality are moving further and further to the right, I'm greatly concerned that the political landscape of Canada is changed forever, with everyone vying for "Who can move the furthest right?". It's sickening.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Clearly the defining issues would start with the terms under which the election was called. For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth countries, a government was found in contempt of Parliament. This is also a government that previously banned a sitting member of a sister Parliament (UK) from visiting Canada for narrow and partisan political reasons. Conservative members of the Senate may go to jail. And all this from a government that campagned on and took advantage of public disgust with Liberal crookedness.

Foreign policy is near and dear to me, as it includes what I would call solidarity or internationalism (or the lack thereof), but this Harper regime has some special and odious qualities attached to it. They merit underlining.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

lol. Ok, it's fixed.

trippie

The wealth stolen from the working class by the Capitalist rightly returned and the Capitalist put on trial.

jas

Since you asked for defining issues (and not deal breakers) I kind of went to town on this idea. I wonder who I would vote for to see:

 

- foreign policy that emphasizes diplomatic relations, helping nations in trouble, but otherwise minding our own business, and independence in foreign policy matters.

- increasing corporate taxes and environmental responsibility, and generally increasing corporate contributions to the public purse.

- strict environmental regulations, redesigning infrastructure to facilitate ethical consumer lifestyles, and high taxation of both corporate and consumer pollution and waste.

- regulating humane livestock and hunting practices nationally and banning or discouraging the import of animal products produced under lower standards.

- developing regionalism and friendly trade and exchange of goods, services and people with the U.S.. But also protectionism where necessary. (I understand this is contradictory.)

- public ownership of water and energy utilities and high environmental standards (including in agriculture)

- negotiating new, sustainable agreements with First Nations and phasing out the reserve system.

- universal health care for the basics, but also private medicine for specialized services.

- making business easy for small and medium-sized Canadian businesses.

- reducing sales taxes and eliminating the GST

- guaranteed minimum income for everyone 19 years of age and over, through reverse income taxation.

- affordable education and encouraging as much as possible universal access to post-secondary education.

absentia

Most of my issues have been covered, but there may be a few deal-breakers:

Union-busting

Making abortion and/or SSM and/or DNR and/or political protest illegal

Eating other political parties; trying to de-fund rival political parties

Further deregulation of banking, commerce and industry; any more money-shovelling to banks, commerce or industry; any more selling off of public assets to private enterprise

Huge spending on armaments for either military or police forces

Sometimes - not often - i have crossed out my ballot because no candidate was acceptable.

 

takeitslowly

Jobs

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist I have with rare exceptions voted NDP.  But I have been privileged for the last couple of decades to have first Svend and then Bill speak on my behalf in the House.  I never had to worry because especially with Bill I knew he not only shared my views on peace and NATO, I also knew I could get no better advocate.  At the same time as I was reeling from Bill's retirement from politics I get hit with the NDP demanding we bomb a foreign country.  So if the NDP goes all the way into  the zionist appeasers camp with the liberals will you still be comfortable enough to vote for them?  

It seems, even at babble, Canada actively bombing another country that has never attacked or threatened us is a minor irritant. However I find it unbelievable that we are at war in a situation that is akin to the first days of our Afghanistan mission ten years ago and it is not an election issue.  

How can Canadians hope to have social justice for themselves when we are bombing and murdering civilians in a war that is none of our F'ing business?  

West Coast Greeny

1) Climate Change (Not addressed, holy s**t)

2) Energy (Addressed by Layton, at least, w.r.t. the oil sands)

3) Poverty (Indirectly addressed by Layton and to some extent, Ignatieff)

4) The Deficit (Mostly addressed just by Harper. Ignatieff seems to almost be saying f**k deficits)

5) Democracy, Accountability (Actually a main narrative of the whole campaign)

 

Although we managed to at least move away from the insanely stupid back and forth over coalitions, which almost made me want to launch a coup, I'm not really thrilled with the election so far. 

trippie

people living their senior years in dignity never, I mean never, having to worry about money and health care. Never ever never ever...

trippie

housing, food, and clothing as a human right.

trippie

Hungry children in an advanced Capitalist country. Very very unacceptable.

 

 

trippie

The joining of the North American Working class as one.

trippie

So, which party should I vote for?

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:
So if the NDP goes all the way into  the zionist appeasers camp with the liberals will you still be comfortable enough to vote for them?

See, I don't think voting in an election will take take Canada out of the imperialist camp. Also, you'll have to tell me when, exactly, the NDP took a consistent stand on invading other countries or on appeasing Israel. You voted NDP in the January 2006 election, yet Jack Layton took no position - whatsoever - on Canadian troops who were occupying Afghanistan, murdering people, handing over prisoners for torture, etc. His "position" was that Parliament should debate the issue. Finally in September, in order to forestall disaster at the convention, he supported the massive cry of the rank and file to call for withdrawal. So if you voted for him in January 2006, I'm not sure what would stop you now... unless you're just sick and tired of the hypocrisy and betrayal. I know I am. But I have low expectations from elections.

So, having seen what Harper is capable of doing on the issue of Israel (to take just that one example) - CPCCA, Kairos, Rights and Democracy, Durban II, funding for the Palestinian authority, Gaza... - I have no qualms about voting against Harper on the off chance that Canada will return to a less brutally murderous position on the issue. Whom should I vote for then? Less important. They're all pretty bad. But at least the Bloc withdrew from the CPCCA in opposition to its bias against Arab groups. So, you gotta take what you can get. However, my vote won't be determined by that alone.

Quote:
How can Canadians hope to have social justice for themselves when we are bombing and murdering civilians in a war that is none of our F'ing business?  

We can't. But this isn't new. Remember Afghanistan? or Serbia? Wait a minute, how about the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s? You were luckier than most. Svend first supported the NATO bombing, then he listened to many voices (including mine, I'm proud to say), and changed his stand - and got Alexa McDonough to change hers as well, somewhat. So if there were a Svend around now, I'd vote for him, no matter what party he was registered with.

Elections won't change Canada - not on their own, in any event. No party is going to take a stand against the imperialist intervention in Libya if we can't even get a few demonstrations together, or a few organizations to take a stand. This is a very bad time. There are even babblers, normally progressive, who have been sucked into supporting "no fly zones". We're going to have to take it slow and easy.

Meanwhile, I'm casting my vote to avoid the worst, not to elect the best. There ain't no best out there yet.

Boze

Monetary reform and electoral reform.

I agree with the points trippie is making and also the sentiment expressed by unionist earlier.  I would say that, for me, any party that promised to look into nationalizing the banks or the money supply ("social credit"), or even just using the Bank of Canada to spend money into existence rather than allowing the private banking system to create money as debt owed to the bank, with interest, and/or setting up an unconditional basic monthly income guarantee to all Canadians ("national dividend"), would almost certainly have my vote.  I see these issues as absolutely critical to the survival of the human species and don't see any party addressing them as they are practically untouchable subjects in Canadian politics, although I've found individual Greens to be most likely to be sympathetic.  It's about abolishing wage slavery, maximizing real personal freedom and choice, and removing the perverse growth incentive built into the economy.

Any party or candidate waffling at all on abortion rights could never earn my vote.  I would like to say the same thing about calling for war but I guess I can't because I'll be voting NDP.

Searosia

My primary issue is electoral reform...but thats an ideal fantasy I'm afraid.   in reality...well, it sucks being in calgary during election time...if we get some support from the Federal dippers, I'll be voting NDP...otherwise I'll likely join the green protest vote, or perhaps a write-in vote for Obama to give some vote counter a chuckle.  Sad that the latter is most probable

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
So just on that basis, my answer to your question is "no". There can't be any single issue in absolute terms which defines my vote or anything else.

And, being active all my life in the trade union movement, the peace movement, and various community causes, I find it hard to apply absolute conditions in electoral matters....which I could never apply when it comes to uniting...in the real world...with a wide disparity of individuals...

That's why I find ultra-loyal partisan politics to be so repugnant.... It's asking people to divide and fight each other over someone's phony promises and chequered hypocritical record...and to apply virtually unquestioning fidelity to a person or a brand, instead of finding ways to unite them for a greater good.

You find it difficult to apply absolute conditions do you?  What about solidarity with basic standards, such as opposition in the context of the religious homophobe scenario you described, or outrage in respect to the Canadian led "collateral" slaughter taking place in Libya.  There's no 'greater good' to be gained out of them if they're not already convinced.  Finding the ultra-loyal partisans repugant is beside the point.  Take a number in fact.  But what you've described anectodally sounds quite similar to what they reveal to us every day, to the appearance that no issue, cause or demographic is safe from being thrown overboard for the sake of exigency.  Who exactly does one unite with if they're easily upset by a stand on these conditions?  And who's real world are you referring to?

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:
But what you've described anectodally sounds quite similar to what they reveal to us every day, to the appearance that no issue, cause or demographic is safe from being thrown overboard for the sake of exigency.  Who exactly does one unite with if they're easily upset by a stand on these conditions?  And who's real world are you referring to?

Sorry SJ, I'm living in the real world. My parents were liberated from the Nazis by Stalin's troops, who benefited from Churchill and Roosevelt's funding and weaponry. My soul was sold long ago.

You can be pure. Go home and wait for enlightenment to dawn. Or, you can compromise. I'm all for compromise. Otherwise, I would have ended it long ago.

 

Slumberjack

And so everyone should continue to exist in their own traumatized silo.  They couldn't have planned it any better.

Unionist

I'm not traumatized, SJ. I apply exactly the same disgusting collaborationist capitulationist policies in my daily like. I shamelessly sit in union meetings with racists, sexists, homophobes, U.S.-lovers - you name it - and plot strategy against the employers. What do you think of that?

Know why I do it? Because the enemy of my enemy can be, temporarily and for specific purposes, my ally. Because people (including you and me) have all kinds of toxic shit circulating through our brains and occasionally spewing out of our mouths. Because the cause of destroying Harper is (in my view) so important that I will even go to the lengths of donating money, time, and a vote to people who support the bombing of Libya, who support Israel, etc. - within limits. I.e., the Bloc and the NDP.

The dangerous ones are those who support the NDP, or the Bloc, or the Liberals, or the Cons, regardless of the situation or the problem. They are my enemies. But, I work with them too. How about that?

 

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
... What do you think of that? How about that? 

I think you're simply incorrigible.  I knew admirals, generals and colonels that had epiphanies in the months after 9/11, bailing in disbelief at the new paradigm they were expected to organize.

I suppose I shouldn't complain to loudly.  It took until 2007 before I'd had enough.

Unionist

You want me to be corrigible? Ok, I'll give 'er a whirl.

 

6079_Smith_W

*puts on a hard hat and makes some popcorn* 

Yay.... dinner theatre!

50 to win on Unionist!

 

Slumberjack

We're not interested in enabling your habit this evening.  He's already explained that he continues to prefer compromise.  No expense is too much.  But I understand where he is coming from.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

We're not interested in enabling your habit this evening.  He's already explained that continues to prefer compromise.  No expense is too much.

Hmmm... easy to say when you get to pick and choose your hard lines. As near as I see it our entire society is built on compromise, overconsumption and the misery of others.

Funny to not want to dirty your hands when it comes to one of the few acts which can have a major effect on some of the imbalances we create.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Hmmm... easy to say when you get to pick and choose your hard lines. As near as I see it our entire society is built on compromise, overconsumption and the misery of others.  Funny to not want to dirty your hands when it comes to one of the few acts which can have a major effect on some of the imbalances we create. 

I don't pick and choose amongst what is presented.  It simply is irregardless.  What little i can do involves the big obvious ones.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I think I live in the same world as unionist. Slumberjack's world seems imaginary to me.

Hurtin Albertan

Most of my defining issues have been monopolized by the Conservatives.  I'm not ready to vote for them just because they happen to agree with me on some of my pet issues.  What's a guy to do?

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ

Sure. I'm not under any illusion that I will radically change anything by voting, but I see some clear choices for least damage, undoing damage, as well as some potential for positive change. Of course it's not perfect, and as I said there have been policy issues and decisions made by the party I expect to vote for which I do not agree with. It is a compromise.

You may see things differently, but I have to ask (as an exercise, I'm not challenging or trying to put you on the spot) why you are taking such a hard line with respect to politics when I expect most of the other things in your life - your food, the clothes you wear, your housing, your work, and even the relatively comfy society around you are all built on deep imbalances and inequities, and overconsumption. I'd venture to say there are probably one or two things we use, eat, or otherwise encounter most days that someone has been killed or otherwise harmed so we can have the pleasure of using it.

So being as we are already up to our necks in kharmic shit (as I see it anyway) it seems a bit odd to get squeamish about grabbing a plunger to try and do a little bit about it.

 

thanks

Defining issues:

Immigrants should not be jailed.  Particularly women and children who just survived onslaught by bombs, maiming, and other assaults by their government (Sri Lanka) for months while Canada did nothing to help.

 

Noah_Scape

Environment.... and there it is, in the GloBan yesterday [March 31] - the Tar Sands pipeline and tanker route through BC issue!!

Quote: "Yesterday, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel gave a speech at the Empire Club in Toronto pressuring politicians to support his company's tarsands pipeline." > http://tinyurl.com/4xqaft8

   Apparently, the Libs have allready said no to the tanker route, but Daniels continues to pressure Iffy to support the Tar Sands route through BC.

Tom Flannagan comments on CEO Daniel's strategy [same article]:
    Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said he is puzzled by Mr. Daniel's lobbying strategy during an election campaign. "Conventional lobbying strategy would be approach a party once it has won an election, when they have space to manoeuvre," Prof. Flanagan said.

    "Mr. Ignatieff made a public pledge [against] tankers off the coast of British Columbia - that the Liberals wouldn't allow that. What's [Mr. Ignatieff] going to do in a campaign? Is he going to say: ‘I was lying' or ‘I changed my mind - the companies convinced me'? A campaign is a hard time for him to climb down from a position like that."

Will Iffy flip on this if he becomes PM? I would not doubt it.

And so what about Jack? He won't change his mind on this, will he? And not the Greens.... so if you want the Tar Sands to move bitument through BC, I guess you have to vote for the CPC. I wonder how many of those who are CPC supporters, but against the Tar Sands route through BC, will still vote Conservative? Is it a defining issue?

 

 

/

Noah_Scape

Noah_Scape wrote:

Environment.... and there it is, in the GloBan yesterday [March 31] - the Tar Sands pipeline and tanker route through BC issue!!

Quote: "Yesterday, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel gave a speech at the Empire Club in Toronto pressuring politicians to support his company's tarsands pipeline." > http://tinyurl.com/4xqaft8

   Apparently, the Libs have allready said no to the tanker route, but Daniels continues to pressure Iffy to support the Tar Sands route through BC.

Tom Flannagan comments on CEO Daniel's strategy [same article]:
    Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, said he is puzzled by Mr. Daniel's lobbying strategy during an election campaign. "Conventional lobbying strategy would be approach a party once it has won an election, when they have space to manoeuvre," Prof. Flanagan said.

    "Mr. Ignatieff made a public pledge [against] tankers off the coast of British Columbia - that the Liberals wouldn't allow that. What's [Mr. Ignatieff] going to do in a campaign? Is he going to say: ‘I was lying' or ‘I changed my mind - the companies convinced me'? A campaign is a hard time for him to climb down from a position like that."

Will Iffy flip on this if he becomes PM? I would not doubt it.

And so what about Jack? He won't change his mind on this, will he? And not the Greens.... so if you want the Tar Sands to move bitument through BC, I guess you have to vote for the CPC. I wonder how many of those who are CPC supporters, but against the Tar Sands route through BC, will still vote Conservative? Is it a defining issue?

 

Related GloBan article on Enbridge, Tar Sands, and the federal election > http://tinyurl.com/3zn3va4

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

The dangerous ones are those who support the NDP, or the Bloc, or the Liberals, or the Cons, regardless of the situation or the problem. They are my enemies. But, I work with them too. How about that?

I thought I was saying the same thing.  In your lecture about who I voted for in the last election and Jack's back pedalling on peace and anti-imperialism you must have missed the part of my post where I said that I had an MP worth supporting.  I worked my ass off to send someone to the NDP caucus that would speak for those views.  That is how I play my politics and I am sorry that does not meet your standard.  I know that it certainly does not disqualify my voice as you seem to be bent on doing.

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I thought I was saying the same thing.

You were. But this is not the first time you have detected antagonism where what is being offered is support.

Quote:
In your lecture about who I voted for in the last election and Jack's back pedalling on peace and anti-imperialism you must have missed the part of my post where I said that I had an MP worth supporting.

Hahaha. You missed my part about how I would have supported Svend regardless of what party he stood for. And had you read my last few years of posts, you would have noticed my profound support for Bill Siksay - my praise of him when he stood alone against the dictatorship of Layton, who disciplined him for being the sole MP to break ranks and vote against Harper's filthy omnibus crime bill - Bill's upholding of the torch passed by Svend - anyway, maybe you're just looking for disagreement where there is none. I've been that way myself on occasion. :)

Quote:
I worked my ass off to send someone to the NDP caucus that would speak for those views.  That is how I play my politics and I am sorry that does not meet your standard.  I know that it certainly does not disqualify my voice as you seem to be bent on doing.

You know what? Chill down, cool off, and stop feeling so defensive when no one is attacking you. You must be used to coming under attack for your principled views. This place is different. Stop looking for enemies. Ok?

 

thanks

Farming is a main occupation in our area.  Dairy and crops.

The National Farmers' Union says of Harper's deal with Europe, "In the draft text supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are to be dealt with in a later chapter. It is likely due to the hostility of the European Commission that
these measures will be attacked and jeopardized. They are also captured in the general text about
removing all forms of domestic support and export support."

All the dairy farmers in Conservative ridings won't like getting their supply system cut.

wage zombie

Great posts Unionist.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Quote:
 

See, I don't think voting in an election will take take Canada out of the imperialist camp. Also, you'll have to tell me when, exactly, the NDP took a consistent stand on invading other countries or on appeasing Israel. You voted NDP in the January 2006 election, yet Jack Layton took no position -whatsoever - on Canadian troops who were occupying Afghanistan, murdering people, handing over prisoners for torture, etc. His "position" was that Parliament should debate the issue. Finally in September, in order to forestall disaster at the convention, he supported the massive cry of the rank and file to call for withdrawal.

After rereading your post I realize I got about this far in and stopped really reading anything else closely.  I for the life of me don't know why I felt under attack. 

6079_Smith_W

thanks wrote:

All the dairy farmers in Conservative ridings won't like getting their supply system cut.

Outside of Alberta there are plenty of farmers who support the wheat board (enough to keep it alive despite all Harper's efforts to kill it). Yet Saskatchewan is still a sea of blue. Who can figure that out?

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You may see things differently, but I have to ask...why you are taking such a hard line with respect to politics when I expect most of the other things in your life - your food, the clothes you wear, your housing, your work, and even the relatively comfy society around you are all built on deep imbalances and inequities, and overconsumption. ....So being as we are already up to our necks in kharmic shit (as I see it anyway) it seems a bit odd to get squeamish about grabbing a plunger to try and do a little bit about it. 

It's not a hard line at all. If you and others want to gloss over the fact that the three main federal parties in this country support the NATO no fly zone over Libya in order to continue supporting them in good conscience, you can't expect that everyone will be as distracted by accounts of their many other 'merits.' We were born into societies where imbalances and inequities constitute the daily existence of many people, where everything and everyone is considered a commodity for exploitation. No other way is being seriously advocated when you consider the horrors of the past 20 years of no fly zones in relation to the current level of support across the political landscape for more of it. These are line in the sand issues that have application at home and abroad. It speaks to which side people are willing to stand, because there is no middle ground when it comes to innocent civilians once again being blasted to shreds, no matter how they may try to pretend that there is. You can't make fatal policy mistakes of this nature and expect that no one will notice or care. When you're up to your neck in DIY plumbing emergencies, sometimes you have no other choice but to call in competent professionals. It certainly can be a woeful state of affairs indeed to realize that there are none listed in the phone book.

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:
Am I the only political junkie that has defining issues that no party can go against and retain their support? 
 

The way our deeply flawed electoral system works, or rather doesn't work very well,  is that you automatically support whatever bad foreign policy the government is directly responsible for if you don't vote against them and the official phony opposition party rubberstamping the bad foreign policy by way of successive confidence votes for the weak minority government. And there is a long list of vicious toadying and collaborationist policies directly attributable to both Tory and Liberal parties when either has formed the government or phony opposition to the other wing of the party and vice versa.

IOWs, you can vote against a long list of actual policies for vicious toadying to Uncle Sam by voting NDP.

In which case you would have to overlook the NDP's token support for a no-fly zone over Libya at this particularly opportune time of election campaigning. And that's odd for the NDP since they are on record as having opposed most all of the vicous, vicious toadying done by our two old line parties in Ottawa.

So all you can do, really, is choose as wisely as you are able to given our dud electoral system.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Troops out of Afghanistan immediately.

Cancel the purchase of the fighter jets,spend the money on improving our health care system.

Cancel the construction of 'super prisons',spend the money on social and affordable housing.

Scrap the Senate.

Cut MP pensions by 50%..Cut salaries by 20%.

No more corporate welfare..Instead increase Corporate taxes by 1.25% (that's me being conservative)

Legalize cannabis,raise the legal age to purchase cannabis,alcohol,tobacco and lotteries to 21 yrs and over,impose a 100% tax on cannabis,licence legal grow ups and coffee shops.

Keep post secondary education tuition fees at a MINIMUM and affordable for everybody....Invest in free trade training.

Raise the minimum wage to a LIVABLE wage.

Introduce proportional representation,scrap the current election system,ban corporate sponorship from political parties and governments.

Just to name a few...

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
And, being active all my life in the trade union movement, the peace movement, and various community causes, I find it hard to apply absolute conditions in electoral matters which I could never apply when it comes to uniting, in the real world, with a wide disparity of individuals and beliefs in the struggle for some common goal(s).

That's why I find ultra-loyal partisan politics to be so repugnant. It's asking people to divide and fight each other over someone's phony promises and chequered hypocritical record, and to apply virtually unquestioning fidelity to a person or a brand, instead of finding ways to unite them for a greater good.

 

It is possible to support individual candidates for their individual policies on various issues. But if you vote for a political candidate whose party  supports all of the vicious toadying done by Ottawa over the last 10 years, then you necessarily can not claim to have voted against any of the long, long list of bad foreign policies you claim to oppose. In Canadian politics, there is a high likelihood that a given candidate belongs to a party with a pre-defined election platform comprised of policy planks. And your vote is then cast for a candidate whose party has a written policy stand on foreign affairs along with an established record for voting in Canada's Parliament. That candidate and his party's record in Ottawa come as a package deal.

IOWs by not casting a vote against those two oldest political parties collaborating on ALL of the bad foreign policies in Ottawa time and time again, it's the same as if you rubberstamped the import of a container ship of flowers coming to Canada from a country where they murder more union leaders than any other country in the world annually. And it's the same as if you signed off on an order to bomb innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Because you will have committed those crimes in your heart by contributing, in numerical first past the postian terms, to the bad foreign policies in Ottawa opposed 99% of the time according to the actual Parliamentary record,  by an effective opposition party. Your vote is counted on election day. Whether or not it is effectively cancelled by a bad electoral system is another story. But then again,  the NDP supports reform of the bad electoral system, too.

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ #46

Yup. I think I am aware of all that. And to be clear, in another thread I did say that I respect that if someone in cannot in good conscience vote for any party - though I think if you looked hard enough at all the parties other than the main ones you might actually find one, It is writing off the entire process that I think amounts to doing nothing out of an ignorant sense of pride.

But on the question of deal-breakers and defining issues, yes, I have some of my own issues on which I disagree with all the main parties.

THe difference is that for me those issues are outweighed by the remaining differences. Given that I don't have a choice on some issues I am going to vote to make a difference on issues where I can.

I'm going to vote for a party that doesn't believe in letting women and children die overseas for a lack of reproductive medical care.

I'm going to vote for a party that doesn't let its immigration minister completely ignore the rules. 

I'm going to vote for a party that believes in harm reduction rather than letting people catch blood-borne diseases and die.

I'm going to vote for a party that believes in the wheat board, firearms registration, supporting court challenges, public broadcasting, national daycare,  womens' groups, GLBT events, the arts.

I'm going to vote for a party that doesn't try to override the judtice system with mandatory sentences, building a mega (partly private) prison system when all the evidence says none is needed. 

Just a few of the things that make me think it is worth getting my hands dirty and working with this system, even if it is largely broken.

 

Besides, even if you disagree with all parties on some issues, I would suggest that not all of these parties are equally solid on them.  I would suggest that all parties can be influenced by public lobbying and engagement - some more than others. Look at how the NDP responded to the long gun registry question last fall. But to have that influence you have to get up off your ass and engage.

As Edmund Burke said,  the good people doing nothing have just as much responsibility as the those who commit evil acts.

(edit)

And on the issue of international intervention, I am at least going to support a party which doesn't deny funding, criminalize and take tools out of the hands of groups which are fighting imperialism

Pages

Topic locked