I worked at NDP head office in Toronto and out in Hamilton during the election. The people were fantastic and everyone worked their asses off for seven straight weeks. But I think that the party leadership could have been far more aggressive in confronting economic inequality, unemployment, and corporate power and generating a long-term, social democratic vision for the future.

The idea that the NDP is too "radical" or "left-wing" is laughable. Gas prices, the growing gap between the rich and everyone else, the big banks and drug companies were completely ignored by Layton (although some local candidates thankfully mentioned them).

If the NDP communications personel spent as much time discussing the importance of progressive taxation, the creation of good-paying jobs and economic democracy as they did in attacking the Liberals, more working-class and modest income Canadians would have shown up to vote (namely, for us). Does campaigning on "no taxes increases" mean that we accept the gigantic levels of inequality or social spending gaps that exist in today's economy? I would certainly hope not.

Likewise, the benefits that unions play in creating those good-paying jobs, superior working conditions and a more equitable ownership of wealth weren't discussed by the NDP leadership. We need to start discussing publicly, once and for all, how unions benefit Canada. Compare this to how Conservatives, for example, mention tax cuts (even CORPORATE tax cuts) as a "benefit" to "ordinary" Canadians.

We've got to start talking about that scary thing we socialists call ECONOMICS, and that includes fair trade and social ownership of some of the largest corporations in Canada. In Fall 2005, a poll showed that 46% of Canadians believed that oil companies should be taken under public ownership. What the hell are we waiting for? (The answer: a trade aggreement that will allow us to do so).

Layton did talk about "working families" a lot, a term used by virtually everyone (including Stephen Harper) that is completely void of any class consciousness and is UTTERLY useless. It should never be spouted by a New Democrat again. "Wage earners" is a term that no other party could possibly co-opt and should be drilled into the vocabulary of the NDP.

As for electoral posturing, and I'm not joking about this, can we f**cking PLEASE start campaigning on winning government next time, and not just "electing more NDP MPs." People want to elect a winner, and we better start acting like one if we want to get anywhere close to power. If you want a foot, you've got to ask for a mile.

Jack Layton's first press conference after the writ is dropped in 2008 should be front and centre in the foyer of the House of Commons, discussing what an NDP government would do for young people, women, seniors, the environment, the unemployed and wage-earners.

Finally, and I hope this doesn't seem like a rip on Jack, but the whole "nice guy professor from next door who can be trusted look" isn't working. It's just downright BORING. He needs to take some angry pills and aim his crosshairs at the liars and criminals of corporate Canada and the two old-line parties to really differentiate them from us.

Sorry for such a long post. Here's to 2008!

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

Right on the money especially about the importance of not being so vague. Frequently when Jack was asked to comment on some issue his responses were very general and lacking in specifics, which lacks the necessary sound bite that help people remember what the NDP represents.

If BC's Glen Clark wasn't enough to convince you of the dangers of socialist cronyism and interference then try North Korea. Look, most Canadians don't believe in the NDP's ability to manage the economy and don't want to waste a generation going down your road to socialist heaven. The election results show they believe left of centre govts serve their best interests of an acceptable social welfare system and sound economic policy.

quote:

---

Although such things have not been made public, things such as nationalization of companies, no free trade, and "transfers of wealth" by classes are what worry people. Does anyone really want to go to a government owned bank to pay their bills?

---

can you please cite what page number in the NDP platform called for any of these things? Or in what campaign speech Jack Layton called for any of these things???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

can you please cite what page number in the NDP platform called for any of these things? Or in what campaign speech Jack Layton called for any of these things???

This is pure fiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
If BC's Glen Clark wasn't enough to convince you of the dangers of socialist cronyism

---

quote:

---

things such as nationalization of companies, no free trade, and "transfers of wealth" by classes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
You guys have boxed yourself into a modern day socialist paradox that you can only shake if you adopt the ultimate solution. Layton and any other Federal NDP candidate will never form a govt if they articulate current NDP economic policies- because it would be perceived as a disaster by voters. He's vague because he's trying to prevent the NDP from being marginalized as left wing nuts who want Canada to isolate itself from the rest of the world and return to the stone ages. Seceding from NAFTA and heavily regulating free trade will cost alot of "working" (whatever you want to call us) Canadians their jobs. Railing against corporations- Canadian or otherwise- and threatening nationalisation insults and threatens lots of Canadian voters who work for them. You can't convince Canadians that faceless NDP bureaucrats can do a competent job micromanaging your economic vision of state owned companies and prevent the country from the excesses of Petrocan, National Energy Policy and other woeful plans.

If BC's Glen Clark wasn't enough to convince you of the dangers of socialist cronyism and interference then try North Korea. Look, most Canadians don't believe in the NDP's ability to manage the economy and don't want to waste a generation going down your road to socialist heaven. The election results show they believe left of centre govts serve their best interests of an acceptable social welfare system and sound economic policy.

The reason Layton doesn't want to discuss NDP economic policy in detail is that Canadians don't want to hear what you are saying on this board. The NDP needs economic policies that are relevant and sensible to voters even if it means tossing out its principles. The NDP needs to move to the middle by forcing out it's radical supporters. That's the awful truth. Shouting out your message louder won't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Suaros:
Medicare needs an overhaul, and I would like to see it where everyone has a common public insurance plan, and this is used to pay for services delivered by private clinics/operating centres. This ensures market efficiencies with the public still paying for it.

---

Well, then, you're going against the data. There are no market efficiencies. Markets in health care produce inefficiencies--they make paperwork such as transferral of records more onerous, in general they increase rather than decrease the bureaucratic burden, they borrow at higher interest rates, and they extract profits. Any cost-cutting tends to go straight to the profits, and is generally less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of corner-cutting, shoddy practices which lead to worse outcomes--we're seeing increases in infection problems due to poor cleanliness in BC ever since the Liberals privatized the hospital cleaners.

As to nationalizing--I don't remember people being all that upset about PetroCan. Except maybe Albertans, and not even them, really--unlike the NEP it didn't really impact them; local-economy-wise, who cares if the corp doing the exploring and drilling is a Crown or private? And I seem to remember both rail and air transport being by and large better when Air Canada was public and there was more public involvement in the rail system. Really, I don't think public enterprise is the bugaboo it's sometimes suggested. But in any case, while that's *my* opinion I really don't see the NDP finding the spine to go for it, so I don't know where the derailers are getting this stuff.

I really liked that first post. Meanwhile, for you right-wingers in the thread--yes, I know you'd like all political parties in Canada to be identical, and specifically for them all to be the Conservatives. Sorry, you'll have to live for a while longer with the idea that democracy involves choices and that by definition a choice has to be between things that are different. The slogan of the modern right: "We believe firmly in the marketplace of idea!"

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Layton and any other Federal NDP candidate will never form a govt if they articulate current NDP economic policies- because it would be perceived as a disaster by voters. He's vague because he's trying to prevent the NDP from being marginalized as left wing nuts who want Canada to isolate itself from the rest of the world and return to the stone ages.

---

Wrong. Many voters don't trust us on the economic question because we have utterly failed to convince them that fair trade, social ownership, strong unions, a reduction of the workweek, a balanced monetary policy at the Bank of Canada, progressive taxation, full employment, and a high-wage, high-value added economy would be a benefit to a vast majority of Canadians and the economy as a whole.

quote:

---

You can't convince Canadians that faceless NDP bureaucrats can do a competent job micromanaging your economic vision of state owned companies and prevent the country from the excesses of Petrocan, National Energy Policy and other woeful plans.[/QB]

---

Are nurses, doctors, teachers, welfare workers and child care workers also "faceless NDP bureaucrats," or are they people who provide vital public services in a way that the private sector can't, not even in Monte Solberg's wildest neo-liberal dreams? Social ownership is about workers and consumers having greater direct control over the largest institutions of our economy, leading to greater efficiency and equality.

quote:

---

If BC's Glen Clark wasn't enough to convince you of the dangers of socialist cronyism and interference then try North Korea.[/QB]

---

Economic democracy, workers' control and public ownership of our health and education system, the oil and pharmacutical industries, and insurance are not a road to Stalinism. They are a pathway to greater economic security, equality and social justice. I advise that you put down your copy of Scare Word Socialism Monthly and start reading something about real alternatives to the failures of corporate capitalism.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Many voters don't trust us on the economic question because we have utterly failed to convince them that fair trade, social ownership, strong unions, a reduction of the workweek, a balanced monetary policy at the Bank of Canada, progressive taxation, full employment, and a high-wage, high-value added economy would be a benefit to a vast majority of Canadians and the economy as a whole.

---

Could you try convincing the economists first?

The NDP made a significant move towards economic credibility this election. Unfortunately, it was buried in a platform that was released late, and received little attention. They're not all the way there yet, but I'm encouraged by the difference between 2004 and 2006.

quote:

---

Could you try convincing the economists first?

---

Yeah, sure economists first. Voters second. "Well, we got buried in the election, but at least we convinced the economists."

quote:

---

Harper earned the support of recalcitrant Canadians by presenting a platform that appealed to a broad base. While the Liberals trotted out “insider” economists to trash his GST reduction promise, it hit a populist nerve with tax-weary Canadians. It did not matter how many experts the Liberals lined up to prove otherwise. In their gut, Canadians knew a GST reduction would benefit them directly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Yeah, yeah, bad economics is popular; it's our cross to bear.

---

Bad economics is popular indeed, Stephen:

1 - Taxation policies that tax actual work more than wealth.

2 - Trade policies that ship good-paying jobs out of the country, and that destroy agreements that create employment, such as the Auto Pact.

3 - Monetary policies that artificially raise interest rates, unemployment and debt to benefit shareholders, as opposed to a balanced policy that takes into consideration both inflation and unemployment.

4 - Income policies that have left real wages stagnant for the better part of the last twenty five years, that continue to increase child poverty.

5 - Ownership policies that continue to increase the already stunning levels of inequality in Canada and around the world, that allow drug and oil companies to increase their profits at the expense of the needs of people.

6 - Work policies that leave millions overworked and underpaid, and hundreds of thousands of others without any work at all.

7 - Organizational policies which leave millions of workers in Canada disempowered and disconnected from their work, with no control over what they do or how they do it.

You're right, Stephen. For far too long, we've been listening to shoddy economists with little understanding of the real world outside their own regression analysis, equilibrium points and false income accounting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I don't see how the the policies you want to implement will actually produce the outcomes you want to achieve.

---

What makes you say that? How else would you create greater economic democracy, more secure jobs and a more egalitarian ownership of wealth and power in Canada?

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

heavily regulating free trade

---

Interesting... two oxymorons in one sentence.

quote:

---

NAFTA is not primarily a trade agreement, it is an investment agreement which cripples Canadian sovereignty.

---

Or a commerce agreement. "Free Trade" is one of the most successful public relations exercises in history (right next to "Greenland"). What it is essentially de-regulated international commerce, with the assumption that any regulation is bad unless it cripples the ability of governments to make laws for the common good.

quote:

---

the current system is structured no larger amounts of money will fix the problem

---

1. Have a Vision. Not just a banged-together hodgepodge of reasonable policy, but a theme that binds & resonates for an insipiring future. We've had passable managers for generations, but what Canadians really want is to follow a leader.

2. Get serious about Québec. Nobody, no group or leader, can be politically very successful in Canada without it. Our francophone aspect occupies a large part of the national psyche even in the farthest parts of the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Sean Cain, the plans you stated in your threads would result in way too much dislocation and upheaval in the economy and society. Alot of people are going to lose jobs if you nationalize segments of the economy or restrict or manage trade.

---

Too late, Wedding. The past twenty years of corporate trade, privitization, deregulation, wage stagnation and massive spending cuts have already destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs. As for "dislocation and upheaval," this is the same nonsense that the NDP heard in Saskatchewan when trying to socialize health care in the province. I wish the NDP still had the same courage that Douglas did forty years ago.

quote:

---

What's the NDP going to say to them? Go on welfare and wait for "green" jobs? Everyone wants high value added, high paying jobs, but unionization and protectionism is not what the voters believe in.[/QB]

---

Nothing has created more unemployment recently than free trade and the zero inflation policy of the Bank of Canada. Fair trade policies and decent paying jobs are a way or protecting employment, not destroying it. Businesses don't create jobs when they have billions of dollars in their bank accounts. They create jobs when they HAVE CUSTOMERS AT THEIR FRONT DOOR, and it's difficult to keep customers coming back when their wages and living standards are taking a beating.

quote:

---

You think if you say the same old, tired socialist message over and over again, with a twist or maybe louder Canadians will see things your way.[/QB]

---

Sorry about this. I guess I'm sick of the same old, tired policy failures of neo-liberal economists who have promised heaven and given wage earners and the unemployed hell. If you have any better ideas than those I've written earlier, I'd love to hear them.

quote:

---

Sure, we may have more right wing fuming about religion and morality, but that's not as bad as some of the economic bloodletting you have proposed on this site. Those policies simply scare the hell out of voters. [/QB]

---

Could you please tell me what's so scary about full employment, greater economic equality and workplace democracy, lower gas prices and auto insurance rates, more secure social programs, fair trade agreements that allow for some regulation of our economy, and less poverty? This all may sound scary to right-wing economists, but I have a hard time believing that most working Canadians would oppose these ideals.

Once again, socialized medicine originally scared the hell out of a lot of people in Saskatchewan. But that's when the NDP, the trade union movement and their allies went to work - hard - to convince people we were right and the opposition was wrong.

Jesus, is there a 1-800 number I can call to order some backbone?

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Cain:
How else would you create greater economic democracy, more secure jobs and a more egalitarian ownership of wealth and power in Canada?

---

It's up to the person making the proposal to demonstrate how and why a given policy will work.

And this

quote:

---

Nothing has created more unemployment recently than free trade and the zero inflation policy of the Bank of Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Letitbleed, is that you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Sean Cain, Canadian voters want improved social welfare and a better life, but don't want to achieve it with the NDP's method or the way you described. Why? Because the plans you stated in your threads would result in way too much dislocation and upheaval in the economy and society. Alot of people are going to lose jobs if you nationalize segments of the economy or restrict or manage trade. What's the NDP going to say to them? Go on welfare and wait for "green" jobs? Everyone wants high value added, high paying jobs, but unionization and protectionism is not what the voters believe in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:
Moving towards the centre and jettisoning some of the policies you mentioned causes the same spiritual pain as flinging Holy water on a vampire. The diehard, hard left here refuses to accept that most Canadians will never countenance some of the NDP's more extreme policies. Most Canadians want to hear more pro-business, investor friendly policies from the NDP. Most Canadians accept that globalization is a permanent condition and would rather elect govts who can make Canada benefit from it rather than a govt that wants to tear up NAFTA and other trade agreements. The tumult of withdrawing from intl trade and erecting barriers is far more awful than adapting to free trade.

---

(November 11, 2005 11:39 PM)

quote:

---

Originally posted by letitbleed:
You can explain the NDP's policies and your aspirations until you are blue in the face, but unless they make sense to the public it is unlikely middle class Canadians- and most Canadians consider themselves middleclass, will trust the NDP in Federal power. I've been explaining the wholesale changes the NDP must make in its policies but the hard left of the policy screams heresy each time. You can always depend on the hard left preferring to be protesters than governors.
National medicare- no matter what you say most Canadians want some element of private sector introduced. Indeed, most doctors voted in favour of allowing some private care into the system at a recent medical conference. Of course, the hard left of the NDP will denounce this as being an uneducated opinion.

And the hard left has to stop this uneducated, unconstructive ignorant bashing of multinationals as they employ many Canadians. They are not stealing Canadian resources. They are buying them in the free and open market and they are the best buyers as they buy in size at the best price.

---

November 7, 2005 9:04 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by tommie:
Attacking the Conservatives, not the Liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

"Nothing has created more unemployment recently than free trade and the zero inflation policy of the Bank of Canada." is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Nothing has created more unemployment recently than free trade and the zero inflation policy of the Bank of Canada.

---

The early 1990's is not my idea of "recently". Current unemployment is the lowest it has been for decades.

Canada currently enjoys a large trade surplus with the US. Toyota recently decided to locate a new auto plant in Canada because of the better quality workforce, and Medicare.

A lot of well-paid union jobs depend on exports to the US. If the NDP wants to tear up the free trade agreement, the onus is on the party to prove that those jobs will not be lost.

Don't misunderstand me, I support many of the NDP's economic positions. But economic isolationism is just not going to sell with a lot of people.

I know too many people of all ages who have to hold down a couple of part-time minimum-wage jobs just to pay the rent and buy food for the kids. Wages aren't keeping up with inflation and fixed incomes have become a very sad joke.

"Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure" and this claim that there are jobs going begging in B.C. is very close to cow cack. And cow cack is often indistinguishable from bull shit. There may be SOME jobs in SOME places and they may do SOME begging, but too many people are being trapped in go-nowhere minimum wage jobs with as few benefits as possible. Unions are scrabbling just to stay alive. Those shivering people who are "homeless", "street people" aren't anywhere in the employment stats and there are more and more of them all the time. If employment is truly so high why are all the food banks begging for more, more, more to feed increasing numbers of desperate people?

Out here on the coast the marijuana crop brings more cash to the "economy" than mining and forestry and the pornography industry brings in more than mining, logging, and fishing...and that isn't "progress". Something like one quarter of the clients at food banks are children. "Child poverty" is on the rise. Social services to children have been slashed.

We are being fed a pack of LIES. Our "social safety net" has become a tattered little wisp being shredded more every day. And it is the poor, the young, the old, in short ALL of us who are taking the kicks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
Canada currently enjoys a large trade surplus with the US. Toyota recently decided to locate a new auto plant in Canada because of the better quality workforce, and Medicare.

A lot of well-paid union jobs depend on exports to the US. If the NDP wants to tear up the free trade agreement, the onus is on the party to prove that those jobs will not be lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
A lot of well-paid union jobs depend on exports to the US. If the NDP wants to tear up the free trade agreement, the onus is on the party to prove that those jobs will not be lost.

---

Brookmere, a lot of well-paid union jobs depended on exports to the United States BEFORE the free trade agreement was signed. No one can deny that with the death of the Auto Pact and the (very moderate) tariff policies we had in the post-war era, we are now losing a NET number of good-paying jobs to corporate globalization (although your Toyota point is valid). If you don't believe me, speak to my friends who work at the Ford plant here in Oakville or the Steel industry in Hamilton.

quote:

---

Don't misunderstand me, I support many of the NDP's economic positions. But economic isolationism is just not going to sell with a lot of people.[/QB]

---

1) Divide the population into two categories:

- Insiders: Those who work in sectors that enjoy the Grace and Favour of the Party.

- Outsiders: Those who work in sectors that have not the Grace and Favour of the Party.

2) Impose an Outsider Tax on Outsiders.

3) Use the revenue from the Outsider Tax to finance cheques written to the order of Insiders.

4) Impose a Deadweight Loss Tax on everyone.

quote:

---

After two hundred years of theory and evidence in favour of the case for free trade

---

quote:

---

In scholarly discourse, it is a normal courtesy to give one's debating opponents the benefit of the doubt. If they say something that seems confused, one tries to find a charitable interpretation -- although it may seem that they are saying X, which is patently wrong, perhaps they are merely badly expressing their belief in Y, which could be right in principle (although it is inconsistent with the data).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I don't think you understand.

---

Could you articulate an actual position that you're prepared to defend? Something that doesn't involve me?

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
After two hundred years of theory and evidence in favour of the case for free trade, I think the burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise.

---

Ireland enjoyed free trade as pork and corn were exported to "the market" from umpteen Irish sea ports during Black '47.

In the 13.25 years before FTA, Canada produced over 3 million full-time payroll jobs (Exports of raw materials to U.S. fewer)

In the 13.25 years after FTA, Canada produced 1, 380, 000 FTPJ's. (Exports to U.S greater, population and number of new workers enter workforce every month greater)

Canada's Unemployment Rates for the last half of the 20th Century
1950s 4.2 percent
1960s 5.0 percent
1970s 6.7 percent
1980s 9.3 percent
1990s 9.5 percent

Average Annual GDP Growth Rates during last 4 decades

1960s 5.11 percent (when corporations paid taxes)
1970s 4.43 percent
1980s 2.95 percent
1990s 2.28 percent

quote:

---

The United Nations Human Development Report measures annual growth rates. Between 1990 and 2001, Canada ranked sixty-fifth in the GDP-per-capita annual growth rates. All told, growth in Canada since FTA went into effect has been terrible. If population growth and inflation are considered, real GDP per person increases averaged an awful 1.1 percent per year.

---

According to Pierre Fortin,

quote:

---

During the 1990's, Canada's aggregate economic performance has been the worst since the Great Depression, and very nearly the worst among all developed countries. Industry Canada, Micro, vol.2, no.7, summer 2000

---

[ 03 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The Canadian auto industry started up because of the AutoPact deal,

---

This just isn't true, and I'm amazed that anyone would say this.

The Canadian auto industry started in the early 20th century. Some of it was originally Canadian owned, like MacLaughlin. Eventually all was taken over by the US big 4 (as there then were). Because of Canadian and US tariffs, the industry produced many of the same models in both the US and Canada, with higher production costs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
The 2000s...at least so far, have been an improvement on that. Unemployment's been at an average of 7.2% and annual nominal GDP growth an an average of 5.6%, or 3% in real terms. There's no question that for a variety of reasons, the disaster that was the 1990s has been reversed - but only in some ways. Growth or no growth, inequality is still increasing.

---

quote:

---

It is commonly assumed that low-wage workers tend to be teenagers working for ‘pocket money,’ high school dropouts, or supplementary family earners. While this is to some extent true, a large number of low-wage workers do not fit those moulds, something which becomes evident when young people under the age of 25 are taken out of the picture. Moreover, a recent study by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce found that three quarters of all new full time jobs created in Canada over the past year paid less than the average wage, primarily in the retail and other service sectors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Canada's Unemployment Rates for the last half of the 20th Century
1950s 4.2 percent
1960s 5.0 percent
1970s 6.7 percent
1980s 9.3 percent
1990s 9.5 percent

---

Instead, the NDP ought to focus on leadership, credibility (especially economic) and image issues. This class warfare mentality that pervades the NDP ranks is counterproductive in today's Canada. Today's voters are conservative in some ways, but progressive in others. Yelling about the rich and middle class is ludicrous when so many union members live middle class lives- just ask your Canadian auto worker. An inordinate focus on welfare issues hurts the perception of the NDP as voters think it is a one interest, special interest party incapable of running a country. Or only capable of running it into the ground. Whether or not oil companies should be nationalized or NAFTA should be scrapped or renegotiated or intensively managed- all of your ideas scare voters who believe it will overturn their lives. The transition to your social democratic vision appears (I emphasize "appears") far too costly and risky. Voters would rather work within the existing system. Maybe some of the posters here have little or nothing to lose if NAFTA is tossed, but others do.

The solution is to attract candidates with economic and business credibility to the NDP who can outline policies- policies with which you can win elections- that work within NDP principles. Or toss out some of the NDP's cast iron principles. Or a combination of both. Otherwise, you'll be hear ten years from now whining about why voters don't understand your wisdom. The NDP has to dump its far left contingent and become a UK new labour party- if it is serious about winning govt. The Liberals will regroup and try to retake the middle with opportunistic forays into the middle-left. The Conservatives have come back and proven that Canadians are willing to take a chance with a party that is slightly right, but governs from the middle. A huge opportunity exists for the NDP to execute a UK new labour strategy and seize the middle.

quote:

---

Everyone wants to listen to their own version of the truth.

---

In fact, I would venture that your recently "coalesced" version of rightwing media and political power is the reason why both estates are being viewed as more and more disreputable with every passing month....

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

quote:

---

As a a political party, the only truth that should matter is the standings in the polls.

---

edited to add -

Perhaps that was too trite. I'd argue that our problems in electioneering were primarily of our own creation; and too often, the result of listening to those such as yourself. A tidal wave of 'good advice' from people 'sympathetic to the party' (matched, I'm certain, by similar asides in the corridors of power) told us to lay off of the conservatives, and to make certain they were not painted as scary, as we had the Liberals pinned down.

Terrible, awful strategy. If even Jack Layton (the most personally respected of the three leaders) says he can work with Stephen Harper - whom he has had dealings with - then Harper can't be that bad, can he?

Further, timid souls within the party refused to take strong stands, because they wouldn't want to 'offend' the likes of you - who call us 'left wing nuts' every time we announce a policy.

But Canadians are sick to death of politicians without policy. We've seen the success of the Liberal Red Book, and the hard-right Bolshevism in the "common sense revolution" pamphlets.

So you're right about the NDP campaign having been far less than impressive, but your prescription is far more likely to kill the patient than to cure her.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

Of course, I am assuming those who run the NDP really want to go through the changes necessary to win the trust of Canadian voters. Wrapping and rewrapping NDP policies and avoiding economic policies that the middle class want won't make much difference to the NDP's fortunes. Looking at the results, voters distrust the NDP's ability to run a govt and successfully run the Canadian economy in a world of globaliztion and free trade. And they don't want to hear the left wing protests against globalization and remedies to isoltate Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Have you ever voted NDP in your entire life?

---

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
avoiding economic policies that the middle class want won't make much difference to the NDP's fortunes.

---

Lets be honest here - on balance, do the great unwashed understand any economic policy, let alone NDP policy?

(hint: answer is no)

Nope. In general they have some vague notion that economics is about "supply and demand" and that the "market will solve all problems".

They've been told that all deficits are bad, surplusses are good. A recent nuance is that large surplusses are bad; small surplusses will be good.

They've been told that small government will be better; that less government "interference" in their lives will be better. A decade ago they were told that spending on social programs was bad bad bad; recently they've been told we can spend spend spend.

Why do they have any notions about economics and economic theory? Not because they've studied it, no its because the basic buzz words have been repeated over and over again for many years.

Do the average Jack and Jill feel comfortable with these notions? Not fully, but in the absence of an alternative, credibly explained and promoted by a party they can trust, they trust the devils they know.

The problem the NDP face is not so much that their policies have no value (frankly hard to determine in the modern age unless one tries) but that people don't understand the status quo nor the alternatives and its hard, over the course of an election, to illustrate the differences. Away from an election, few care to boot.

I don't see the NDP surmounting this, at least not using the strategies they've employed during my entire adult life.

Perhaps an ultra conservative government (Harper's) taking econmic policy even further down the neoliberal road will see economic consequences that hurt the middle class; that would provide the NDP an opportunity to state their case. They of course ought to be stating their case clearly and consistently all the time in preparation.

quote:

---

Of course, I am assuming those who run the NDP really want to go through the changes necessary to win the trust of Canadian voters. Wrapping and rewrapping NDP policies and avoiding economic policies that the middle class want won't make much difference to the NDP's fortunes.

---

I don't think you have actually read anything about NDP policies in the last 20 years. You sound like you are caught in some time warp from the 1930s and the Regina Manifesto. In this past election campaign, the NDP promised no new taxes, a balanced budget and no change to the Clarity Act. In fact the NDP platform was almost identical to the Liberal platform - except that the NDP really means it while the Liberals just mutter a bunch of fluff to get elected. I don't recall anything in the NDP platform calling for a ny total abrogation of trade agreements, I don't recall anything about nationalizing heavy industry, i don't recall anything about any new taxes etc...

I think that the NDP is already very close to the centre and i can't think of single NDP policy that could be considered "radical" and out of the mainstream - unless you think that more money for public transit and cities is the first step towards a Bolshevik revolution.

To the extent that the NDP is stuck at the 18% mark, its NOT because of the public disagreeing with any particular policies as much as it is a self-fulfilling propehecy of people not voting NDP because they think the NDP can't win and of course the NDP can't win because not enough people vote for it.

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats are similarly stalled at about 18% despite being a centrist party that is to the right of the Labour Party - people just don't see them as a major contender.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
You guys are missing the point by arguing economic stats and whether or not Canada needs more or less socialism. It's as if you can wage a convincing presentation in front of voters. You can't.

---

Yes, we can. And we must if we want to get anywhere close to power. This means fighting - hard - for policies like higher wages, fair trade, more progressive taxation, reduction of the workweek and how they would benefit wage earners in Canada.

quote:

---

This class warfare mentality that pervades the NDP ranks is counterproductive in today's Canada. [/QB]

---

Class inequality is not an idea or a theory, it is a fact of life in contemporary capitalism and should be an issue front and centre for any political party that considers itself social-democratic.

quote:

---

The solution is to attract candidates with economic and business credibility to the NDP who can outline policies- policies with which you can win elections- that work within NDP principles.

---

You're absolutely correct. The NDP should develop clear economic policies based on equality, democracy and social justice that will specifically help wage-earners as a means of increasing our share of the vote from poor and working class Canadians.

quote:

---

The NDP has to dump its far left contingent and become a UK new labour party- if it is serious about winning govt.

---

What "far left contingent" are you talking about? The one that wants to deal with things like poverty, unemployment, corporate power and inequality? NDP efforts to become a type of UK Labour Party would be utterly useless (and entirely undesirable, if you ask me), namely because we already have a powerful liberal party in this country that already controls the centre which the UK doesn't have.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

But, the NDP and it's hard left cabal just won't get real and do what it takes to convince voters that it can rule from the middle. Voters have said it again and again- they don't want the NDP in power if it is governing from the far left. Perception is everything and the NDP is badly perceived by voters.

---

As I stated in my original post, the party's leadership managed during an entire election campaign to virtually ignore issues like rising oil prices (and profits), the growing gap between the rich and everyone else, wage stagnation, trade agreements that benefit corporations over the will of workers and citizens, rising drug prices (and profits), unemployment and the increase of part-time, contingent work, media ownership, and rising insurance premiums (and profits).

I could only wish that these issues were brought up. We might actually get more working class Canadians to maybe even vote for us in the next election, and we may convince unemployed and modest-income Canadians that we're actually on their side.

Wedding, I've been very clear of the kind of policies we should fight for to increase our level of support. The only thing you've said is that it would "freighten Canadians" (in the same way that the Canada Pension Plan, universal health care and public housing freightened people, I'm sure). What specific changes would you make to an NDP campaign, and what policies do you think we should run on?

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Are my observations and suggestions that heretical and blasphemous?

---

Sean, the Liberal party's claim to the middle is ripe for the taking. Voters are disillusioned with them and a reinvigorated, reconstituted NDP can shove them off the left-of-middle throne. Sean, you talk about "working class", but the very definition of working class has changed and most socialists fail to come to grips with that. Alot more people see themselves as middle class; the proliferation of knowledge workers defies your traditional working class definitions. Much of today's "working class" is non-union and is threatened by the NDP's pro-union ties. Many of the working class, let's say, work for Wal-Mart and know that a union drive will cost them their jobs. Easy for those socialists who get to keep their jobs; not so good for those who lose their jobs at Wal Mart. It may not be a well paying job, but it is a job. Canadian voters won't move as far left as you'd ever like.

I think mentally it resonated, and re-triggered the idea that the NDP wasn't a "main" or "popular" choice, since it wasn't the first or second. It was kind of like "By the way, in case you haven't heard..."

Also, and he was better in this election than in 2004, but he needed to spend more time attacking the Liberals, then the Conservatives.

Everytime Layton warned the country about the potential disaster a Conservative government would pose, he lost more and more votes.

They shouldn't be happy with their result, considering the only other federalist "left-wing" party was completely scandal-ridden with mediocre leadership.

Going toe-to-toe with the CPC will help the NDP get/keep about 3-5 seats in the prairies and BC each election, while the Liberals will smile approvingly as they've taken the rest of the NDP's support to win about 75%+ of Ontario's seats, with enough in Quebec and Atlantic Canada to form government.

If all they can focus on is the CPC, they'll be lucky to break 40 seats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
[qb]Sean, you talk about "working class", but the very definition of working class has changed and most socialists fail to come to grips with that.

---

There is no question that the definition of working class has changed over the past 150 years, but that doesn't mean that it is any less relevant than it was in the mid-19th century. The working class in Canada (both in the industrial and service sectors) still make up an enormous percentage of the workforce.

quote:

---

Many of the working class, let's say, work for Wal-Mart and know that a union drive will cost them their jobs. Easy for those socialists who get to keep their jobs; not so good for those who lose their jobs at Wal Mart.

---

Wedding, the point here is to pass labour laws that will make it illegal for Walmart or any other large corporation to close shop because of a union drive. Jesus, whose side are you on here? Do you actually believe in ANY government regulation of business, or do you think they should just run the show and slash wages and living standards all they want?

quote:

---

At some point, the NDP membership will be ripe for purging of its hard left element, which will pave the way to stronger candidates.

---

Wedding, seriously brother, I've asked you this about four times already, but what the hell are these so-called "hard left elements" in the party? Are they people, policies, practices, ideas, all four? And I thought that the NDP was a democratic party. Are you planning to expel thousands of members en masse?

quote:

---

You see politics as a battle of fixed ideas; I see it as a totally fluid arena. Because nothing really matters unless you can get into office.

---

That's right, and we're not going to get into office if we fail to convince modest-income and working Canadians that our economic policies will benefit them, and not Big Business. Running to the centre will only alienate these constituents even more so. We already have a Liberal party in Canada. We don't need two of them.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

Of course, I feel bad for Walmart workers. A quick calculation of the Forbes 400 shows the combined Walton families' wealth far exceeds Bill Gate's wealth and they did it on the back of low wages and failing to provide health care to workers. However, legislating higher wages or preventing Walmart or any other company from pulling out because it disagrees with unions or labour practices is equally unfair. If a better standard of living for everyone was as simple as legislating high wages then there'd be no economic problems. Most Canadian voters don't buy that kind of NDP policy because they sense it is a prelude to more regulation and mandates from an NDP govt. Even though it is well meaning, it only drives business away and hurts the economy as other countries, like our American neighbour, would compete away our jobs. Alot of NDP economic policy is isolationist and many voters are worried they would lose jobs. You must address this rather than make assumptions as to their unalloyed righteousness. Like it or not our current economic system is in place, warts and all, but voters aren't going to let you dismantle it unless you can convince them the pain is worth the gain.

Let's roll up the page and examine one idea- scrapping or renegotiating NAFTA. Whether you say it's flawed or doesn't work Canadian voters aren't convinced enough to let the NDP assume power and threaten all the jobs that depend directly or indirectly on NAFTA. That kind of talk is just too scary and presages all sorts of NDP forays into nationalization of oil companies which we've tried before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Let's roll up the page and examine one idea- scrapping or renegotiating NAFTA. Whether you say it's flawed or doesn't work Canadian voters aren't convinced enough to let the NDP assume power and threaten all the jobs that depend directly or indirectly on NAFTA. That kind of talk is just too scary and presages all sorts of NDP forays into nationalization of oil companies which we've tried before.

---

Jobs depend on NAFTA? Which ones? How? NAFTA is a bad trade agreement that needs to be, at the very least, re-examined. The position that NAFTA is a bad agreement is held by none other than Gordon Ritchie, who played a key role in negotiating Canada's free trade agreements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't know what you're talking about. The NDP has been a ever so slightly left of centre party since about the early 1970s. In this election, the NDP campaigned on no new taxes, a balanced budget.

---

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
[QB]Sean, even using the broadest definition of the Canadian working class you'll find that they do not uniformly support the NDP or think the NDP's policies make sense or are relevant to their lives.

---

Yes, Wedding. This is the point that I've been trying to make for the past week. Many wage earners vote Conservative because they think tax cuts are more of a benefit to them than wage increases, a national child care program, environmental sustainability, and so on. The NDP needs to differentiate itself from the two business parties once and for all and stand for policies like full employment and economic democracy that will garner more support from modest-income and working class Canadians.

quote:

---

Of course, I feel bad for Walmart workers. However, legislating higher wages or preventing Walmart or any other company from pulling out because it disagrees with unions or labour practices is equally unfair.

---

Really? And you think statements like this are going to get more working class Canadians to vote NDP? Remind me to never ask you to watch my house when I'm away. Beyond "feeling bad" for them, what would you do to protect their jobs, Wedding, or would you do anything?

quote:

---

If a better standard of living for everyone was as simple as legislating high wages then there'd be no economic problems. Most Canadian voters don't buy that kind of NDP policy because they sense it is a prelude to more regulation and mandates from an NDP govt. Even though it is well meaning, it only drives business away and hurts the economy as other countries, like our American neighbour, would compete away our jobs.

---

Well then, when are you going to take a pay cut? Or are you doing to continue to make a decent wage and cause more unemployment due to capital flight? By this argument, ANY form of regulation, whether it's through health and safety, better wages or working conditions, more secure pensions, are a threat to competitiveness.

Having said this, because to free trade and corporate globalization, capital flight is a reality. But this is just another reason why public ownership is so vital if we are serious about keeping jobs in Canada and maintaining our standard of living.

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Perhaps the NDP should tone down the class warfare and victimization rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Now here's a crazy election strategy for you - start listening to people who haven't voted for you in the past, and find out what their concerns are.

---

Both turned me off frankly, and I was waiting the whole campaign for the real Jack Layton to please stand up. A lot of people I know almost didn't vote as they were so disappointed in the NDP campaign for making such a hard right turn.

The NDP didn't have a positive message in this election, instead it chose to constantly Harp against Liberal corruption. As I said before, this strengthened the Conservatives much more than it did the NDP, and moved the entire political spectrum rightwards. Layton's also sounded like an echo chamber for Harper, rather forthrightly putting forward NDP ideas of cooperation and sharing. Ironically, I think Layton needs some prairie social gospel going, rather than the well-toned, well-groomed urban professional sophisticate that turns off his prospective vote base.

The NDP also has to get out of the union box. A lot of Canadians who aren't terribly well off dislike unions or view them with suspicion. The same for the growing informal sector which has no representation, and resent the constant pandering to union workers who are already quite privileged minority of workers.

HOWEVER, this means the NDP has to make the case for unionization of all workers, so that all can enjoy the benefits of membership equally. This means expanding popular social programs such as nutritious school meals, universal day care, deeply discounted public transit and rail travel and other such things that resonate with the day-to-day struggles of citizens.

Most of all, the NDP has to align itself with the resurgent left in the rest of the Hemisphere. Its foreign policy plank has been completely absent during the election and its distance really gives the impression that it is more interested in maintaining ties with the moribund social democratic movements of Europe than with the non-white world.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Most working Canadians perceive or realize that union members are not working folk, but as well off as middle class Canadians.

---

Define "most".

Define "working Canadians".

Define "union members", and how they are not "working folk".

quote:

---

Watch it Ceti, attacking the NDP's ironclad ties to unions may get you kicked off this site.

---

However, that can't be the only plank - we can't make the mistake that we've made in recent elections of ignoring economic issues - there has to be more in the way of explaining what Social Democracy is, and how it would benefit - in real, understandable examples - ordinary citizens. Not 'working families', just Canadians.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
I think integrity and reform have pretty much been destroyed as campaign planks. Stephen Harper has made the very idea a bad joke and if the NDP campaigns stressing them, they simply won't be believed.

---

Well, that was my point - both the others have tried it and they've embarassed themselves. I think the appetite for change remains, and we are the only party left with the potential integrity to pull it off.

You may be right of course, there may well be integrity fatigue, but that's what I'd suggest.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]

I believe a theoretical NDP government would not live down to the standards of Stephen Harper... but it would not be honest enough to have grounds to hold itself up as exemplary either.

quote:

---

Watch it Ceti, attacking the NDP's ironclad ties to unions may get you kicked off this site.

---

The NDP's exclusive moral claim to protecting working Canadians rings hollow with working and the broad middle class Canadians. The Liberals and the Conservatives claim the same thing and all the NDP can do is rail against the corporations or whatever usual drivel they repeat. Except, the NDP's broad concept of public ownership as a solution to Canada's woes simply scares the hell out of the middle class. Voters are wary of having their livelihoods turned upside down in the inevitable adjustment this will entail. Alot of people have alot to lose under an NDP administration. Your attitudes and remarks demonstrate a severe case of denial and arrogance. Just saying trust the NDP isn't enough. Voters want to know you'll govern from the middle and work within the capitalist system; they are far more practical than you ideologues.

quote:

---

And when you don't explain your economic policies your opponents will explain them to the voters for you or the voters will come up with their own ideas.

---

During the past couple of election campaigns, the other parties have spent almost zero time attacking NDP policies substantively. Conservatives ignore the NDP and the Liberal line is essentially "The NDP is just like the Liberals except that they cannot win".

Paul Martin sounded like a slobbier, uglier version of Fidel Castro with his leftist, anti-American rhetoric.

The NDP's problem is thus perhaps that it is not left-wing and nationalistic enough...

quote:

---

Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
As Screaming Lord Byron said above the NDP did a poor job explaining it's economic policies and what social democracy would mean to average Canadians.

---

Maybe the NDP should introduce more Canadians to countries like Norway and Sweden that have strong economies and strong social programs.