Why the NDP Has to Move Left... (within reason)

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

George Victor wrote:
But the corporations must succeed or our pensions, workers and small business owners, academics and speculators, are kaput,  remember, remind.WinkWhat a helluva situation for we who would bring about social change, eh?

Well I most certainly am not in favour of absolute public ownership of everything. Nor of corporate hegemony.

In fact, I see no equality under those types of regimes.

Gary Shaul Gary Shaul's picture

Quote:
The favouring of corporations, by some, over small businesses is very weird
Did anyone on this thread argue that? Being critical of more tax breaks for small business does not equate to favouring big corporations.

George Victor

Yeah. We've been locked into this uncomfortable situation since the discovery by Naomi's "Boys from Chicago" in the early 70s that investment capital (our growing investments, big and small, capitalist and worker) will find the most returns, even if it has to leave a country, never to return. (Although the socialist party of Norway is now saying it will demand (from ruling labour party) that Statoil drop its invesment ($2.2 billion) in the Tar Patch. We should be so fortunate as to have a state fund of that size (? $200 billion) for our state to make use of in future.  The other areas of Statoil invesment are unknown to me.  But they are investments in corporations.

Not just co-incidentally, the real earnings of labour stopped increasing at that point across America, and cridit grew like Topsy. Go figure.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Gary Shaul wrote:

Quote:
The favouring of corporations, by some, over small businesses is very weird
Did anyone on this thread argue that?

Of course not, but never mind. That's just standard straw-man operating procedure.

The next step is to accuse all who oppose tax breaks for small business of defending white male patriarchal privilege.

remind remind's picture

I would state that touting the line that corporations pay better wages etc, etc, is advocating for status quo. Who has advantage of those union jobs, why men do.

Moroever, when you consider the profit margins of corporations and what they pay their top staff, the working man is enabling those huge profit margins, and destruction of the environment.

 

George Victor

That happens when you stick your jaw out, MS.

janfromthebruce

Unionist wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:
But it would appear that we ensure large corporations get corporate welfare because workers' pension $ is tied in there.

What utter nonsense.

ETA: Excuse me, I've recovered sufficiently to elaborate:

What utter anti-worker, anti-union stereotypical crap. I expect to read crap like that in a "comment" attached to some MSM article. You should be ashamed of yourself. Harper and Flaherty are protecting rich workers' pensions, right? Next we'll hear similar comments about funding of... which other group of society?

It's always amazing to me that classism isn't treated with the same hostility on this board as other forms of contempt for the marginalized of this society.

 

Hi Unionist - you know you would catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

Take note and I repeat what I also said in my post:

"I don't know enough about pension stuff to be able to put forth comment for debate or contemplation here.... but I am out of my depth here."

It always amazes me in the hostility in your posts towards some of us - sometimes - who perhaps don't have the same knowledge or insight. Did was moment for a softer touch and provided/sharing some knowledge rather than "put down" and dismissal.

So instead of using persuasion you appeared to act superior. I found it turned me off rather than engaging and educating. Too bad, it was a missed opportunity and could have been classier.

Unionist

remind wrote:

I would state that touting the line that corporations pay better wages etc, etc, is advocating for status quo. Who has advantage of those union jobs, why men do.

You think that by framing anti-worker, anti-union crap in male-female terms, it makes it sweet and nice? You should be ashamed of yourself.

These comments from remind and jan are indicative of a problem in the NDP. We heard the same kind of stuff in 2006, when some babblers expressed satisfaction that the NDP was going to loosen its ties with the unions. If these are the voices the NDP listens to, it will suffer one of two fates:

1. Death through irrelevance; or

2. Merger with the Liberal party (or maybe a new "Progressive" Conservative party risen from the ashes).

Good luck with both those fates.

M. Spector wrote:
The next step is to accuse all who oppose tax breaks for small business of defending white male patriarchal privilege.

It took only 21 minutes for your prediction to come true.

 

janfromthebruce

Actually mybabble, Layton didn't - Layton and the NDP has always been about making parliament work.

Layton actually said that on March 24, 2006. He hasn't changed his tune nor is grandstanding unless one thinks that being consistent is a bad thing. I like that "grandstand position":

"Layton said his party, unlike the Liberals, is determined to make Parliament work and will not oppose the government for the sake of opposing. He refused to get drawn into threats about defeating the government if Harper ignores opposition priorities, preferring to wait and see."

mybabble

Destruction of the environment, as Canada is digging the biggest blackest hole out there while many are hugely rewarded for the destruction of the earth's atmosphere.  Go figure. 

And when it comes to coporations and big profits you have spin doctors everywhere while the little guy goes unheard as Harper closes the doors on the working stiffs representatives.   Laid back Layton  signals Harper he is ready to talk for the people of Canada to avert an election.  Talk about grandstanding.  This is after the "Insenstive and Out of Touch" Harper as Layton calls him says I've got nothing to say to Layton nor will I be making any deals with the leader. 

I realize children don't vote but maybe just maybe someone could stick up for them, as I realize its the working man's party not the little girl's party as 8 years olds are working kiddie stroll in Vancouver as Vancouver is the hot spot for child explotation as Canada's children given no option as forced to streets to survive as Canadian children in BC are left for not.   You will not believe the number of children on the stroll and the young ages as it sex with children as left to the whims of police as rumor is authorities are also abusers.  Which makes me wonder about the cop who was accussed of sexual assault and then quit so police department said would not investigate as only 19 complaints of over 600 are given any merit. 

 

mybabble

janfromthebruce wrote:

Actually mybabble, Layton didn't - Layton and the NDP has always been about making parliament work.

Layton actually said that on March 24, 2006. He hasn't changed his tune nor is grandstanding unless one thinks that being consistent is a bad thing. I like that "grandstand position":

"Layton said his party, unlike the Liberals, is determined to make Parliament work and will not oppose the government for the sake of opposing. He refused to get drawn into threats about defeating the government if Harper ignores opposition priorities, preferring to wait and see."

What Layton says and what Layton does are two different things.  And the very least the Opposition could be saying is we told you so, but not Layton as Harper gives him the finger he stretches out his hand. The economy is a great deal worst and unemployment continues to climb while unemploymed Canadians are finding there way to our streets.

So what is there to talk about like I said Harper said no deals. So what is Layton going on about?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/10/08/layto...

 

George Victor

Layton is talking about strategy and tactics in a duimbed down world whose enlightenment comes only from a right-wing press and whose "citizenry" (taxpayers and shoppers) does not want another election.  But, of course, the ideologues've  got it easy, eh? Straight ahead, damn the torpedoes.  Must be nice to live in such a simple little world

George Victor

-

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Apparently some of us are comfortable with increasing ownership and control of the means of production and resources by the superrich and powerful and of that which rightfully belongs to Canadians. But I couldnt be more disagreeable with that laissez-faire attitude.

Apparently some of us would like to reverse that trend - not by public ownership - but by subsidizing "small" business owners.

Have fun trying to turn the wheel of history back to feudalism.

And some of us believe that a worker can't work unless some business owner "gives" her a job.

I hope Catherine Swift and Tom D'Aquino aren't reading this thread. They'll be shaking hands and gloating - "Mission Accomplished!"

What a moran! And if Tom D'Aquino's fat-cat corporate friends were creating any jobs right now, Basel and the boys might have some business with certifying new workers. I think we only lost 10,000 jobs in August. It's a good thing Canadians have taken all those risky assets off Canadian banksters hands, or else our stooges would be viewed as falling down on the job. I think it only cost us $75 billion in corporate welfare handouts this time. Could be more down the road and up to $200 billion if the shit assets pawned off on the taxpayers turn sour. Anything to help out profitable banks. Because as we know, our banksters have our old line party leaders dangling as to when the stooge-off will be.

Polunatic2

Quote:
I would state that touting the line that corporations pay better wages etc, etc, is advocating for status quo. Who has advantage of those union jobs, why men do.
A few stats from Statscan

  1. Overall union density in the private sector is only 17% (2006). So 5 out of 6 jobs in the private sector are non-union. 12.8% of woman are unionized compared to 21.4% of men. So while it is true that men have an advantage, we're talking about a very small (and shrinking) segment of the workforce. 
  2. Union density in the public sector is higher among women (72.5%) than men (68.7%).
  3. Overall union density in Canada was higher for women (29.9%) than men - (29.7%) (2005)

 

Michelle

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked