I'll assume this was directed at me. I'm relating the common perception here.

But, I also got some anecdotal evidence from my wife in the CAW. She started out reaching her salary cap, which is lower than where she left. It's not all bad - she gets paid for OT so they don't abuse her, she gets a pension, although they were trying to link it to the stock market (!) instead of leaving it as a defined benefit, and she doesn't have to take shit from anyone as far as doing stuff that's not in her job description. There is no super QA making a lot more than other QA's getting a raise or bonus based on performance (that would be her if there was one). Management dangles the carrot of a new non-management (so she can stay union) QA position, but that's all it's been.

Now, when some IT professionals banded together and confronted Harper about outsourcing and unpaid OT some years ago, his vague stuttering answer was they should form a "guild" or something. Of course I would expect nothing less from anti-labour, do-nothing-for-plebes Harper. It's his political philosophy, after all. But I would think an NDP government would have more to offer, and I think Layton could speak to that, and make some gains.

Christ, I was talking to this youngun in my department who thinks CPC is less oppressive than Libs because they lowered the GST 1 percent. He's not even thinking of the government as having a role in worker rights.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

Heh, okay.

"I think he could talk to alot of what you are talking about. Are you involved at your riding level with the NDP?"

Yeah, I joined up this campaign. I've been invited to attend meetings and I fully intend to. Some mention was made of new blood being needed on the executive, to which I replied "We'll see..." but I do intend to be as active as my job and family will permit, and certainly I intend to bring up a lot of stuff from this thread, from others besides myself.

I'll check out the CLC link, thanks.

Regards new Canadians - a lot of new Canadians I work with aren't really that used to a social safety net, never mind fighting to keep it. They worry mostly about jobs, which since the 80's has been linked in the public mind to corp tax cuts. I remember when Harris or Eves (I forget which) said that dippers don't get it - without the 60 hour work week and cuts to corp taxes, corporations will just pick up and leave. I felt like screaming at the TV (but didn't because it would look funny) "THEN DON'T LET THEM SELL ANYTHING HERE!".

Between less profit or no revenues at all, what will a company choose?

Scandinavian countries did this, why can't we?

I've never heard that said on TV or radio.

Other point:

These days, almost all economists coming out of the US or Canada are Chicago school/Freidmanites. Harper himself is an MA in Eco from Alebrta, which is basically Chicago school north. This is not the only economic model around, but it's been de facto the main one allowed to graduate out of schools here, and certainly the only one to get any press exposure. Most people now associate economist with Friedmanite, although they don't know it.

So when you get some rubbish about Corp tax cuts ensuring jobs, even when events prove otherwise, there is a whole chorus of "experts" who agree.

Thus, when Howard Hampton got on global and angrily stated that studies show government run services provide better services than privatized ones, the guy on Global just smirked and nodded. He didn't even have to challenge him. He knew in 20 minutes they'd have a chorus of guys stating the opposite.

How, then, to battle this mania that's become conventional wisdom?

The answer to my mind is not to allude to studies, but to allude to facts.

Like the US privatized health industry is way better at making money, but way lousy at getting people healthy. Bring out the stats. Make the other guy work instead of smirk.

May was good at that in the debates, had Harper looking off balance quite often.

In a word, we need countering economist voices to provide deconstruction.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Ahh another Armoured Fighting Vehicles of wwII thread. Goodie.

---

quote:

---

In a word, we need countering economist voices to provide deconstruction.

---

Right on. But try to winkle out anything more than quotes from Harvard professors attached to politics on the ground around here.

As I mentioned previously, Harper has a Masters in economics. Agree with it or not, conventional wisdom says an advanced degree in economics gives one credentials to speak on economics and by extension, the economy.

Crap economics is what he advocates, but there you go.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
my bf said that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I'd recommend that you and your bf keep separate bank accounts just to be safe.

---

The NDP finished only 8% behind the Liberals which I believe is the closest spread in history.

There were various polls that showed second preferences throughout the camppaign. The NDP always registered fist in this category. The Conservatives always ran last.

For example a Harris Decima poll from Sept 30 showed these first and second peferences;

Con 36 + 14 = 50
Lib 27 + 26 = 53
NDP 19 + 30 = 49
GR 10 + 24 = 34

The NDP universe, those voters open to voting NDP, compares favourably to those of the two bigger parties.

Ekos final poll had broadly consistent numbers

Con 34.8 + 8.3 = 43.1
Lib 26.4 + 17 = 43.4
NDP 19.4 + 19.5 = 38.9
GR 9.8 + 17.6 = 27.4

Tactical voting has obviously depressed the NDP potential vote. I remember a poll from a couple elections ago when the question was asked regardless of how you intend to vote, which pary best represents your values. The NDP got 28%. I suspect the number would be higher now.

The challenge for the NDP is now to find a way to maximize its potential, particularly with a new Liberal leader. The NDP fiinshed ahead of the Liberals in all four western provinces and almost tied them in the Atlantic. It gained substantial seats in Ontario. As observed eleswhere it finished first or second in well over 100 ridings for the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Before I go looking for names in the NDP, please ask your bf to name one or two people in the CPC or LPC with "credentials who can prove to the country that they can take on fiancial matters", just so I have a basis for comparison.

---

he said Paul martin, now he voted NDP in this election, but he does not believe the NDP is ready to lead. Weird , isn't it? He also said that while it is easy to say one must pull out of afghanistian, it is another to actually carry out the withdrawl because of the NATO agreement we have committed to.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
i can never understand why so many people in Toronto would vote for the Liberals election after election , for what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djelimon:
"I was responding to your post (we won't talk about war stuff, ok?)."

Heh, okay.

"I think he could talk to alot of what you are talking about. Are you involved at your riding level with the NDP?"

Yeah, I joined up this campaign. I've been invited to attend meetings and I fully intend to. Some mention was made of new blood being needed on the executive, to which I replied "We'll see..." but I do intend to be as active as my job and family will permit, and certainly I intend to bring up a lot of stuff from this thread, from others besides myself.

I'll check out the CLC link, thanks.

Regards new Canadians - a lot of new Canadians I work with aren't really that used to a social safety net, never mind fighting to keep it. They worry mostly about jobs, which since the 80's has been linked in the public mind to corp tax cuts. I remember when Harris or Eves (I forget which) said that dippers don't get it - without the 60 hour work week and cuts to corp taxes, corporations will just pick up and leave. I felt like screaming at the TV (but didn't because it would look funny) "THEN DON'T LET THEM SELL ANYTHING HERE!".

Between less profit or no revenues at all, what will a company choose?

Scandinavian countries did this, why can't we?

I've never heard that said on TV or radio.

Other point:

These days, almost all economists coming out of the US or Canada are Chicago school/Freidmanites. Harper himself is an MA in Eco from Alebrta, which is basically Chicago school north. This is not the only economic model around, but it's been de facto the main one allowed to graduate out of schools here, and certainly the only one to get any press exposure. Most people now associate economist with Friedmanite, although they don't know it.

So when you get some rubbish about Corp tax cuts ensuring jobs, even when events prove otherwise, there is a whole chorus of "experts" who agree.

Thus, when Howard Hampton got on global and angrily stated that studies show government run services provide better services than privatized ones, the guy on Global just smirked and nodded. He didn't even have to challenge him. He knew in 20 minutes they'd have a chorus of guys stating the opposite.

How, then, to battle this mania that's become conventional wisdom?

The answer to my mind is not to allude to studies, but to allude to facts.

Like the US privatized health industry is way better at making money, but way lousy at getting people healthy. Bring out the stats. Make the other guy work instead of smirk.

May was good at that in the debates, had Harper looking off balance quite often.

In a word, we need countering economist voices to provide deconstruction.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
i can never understand why so many people in Toronto would vote for the Liberals election after election , for what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by longtime lurker:

About half of Toronto's population were born outside Canada. The Liberals are seen as the party of immigration and multiculturalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffWells:
The party desperately needs a Toronto-specific strategy targeting Liberal and "strategic" voters. The Liberals put out a lot of ant-NDP noise in the city in the final weeks, and I didn't hear anything that challenged it, let alone fired back. It's not a coincidence Toronto was the only place we lost a seat to the Liberals.

And if we take Toronto from them, what else do they have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

I agree. We do need a Toronto specific strategy. My daughter worked in Marilyn Churley's office and felt that would have been helpful. It doesn't help having the TorStar doing liberal, liberal, liberal daily. That said, we need a way to broaden our base there. It is quite a progressive city in certain sectors.
The last week of the campaign, now thinking about Toronto, our polling went down. We need a better end game in that last 48 to last week, particularly in Toronto. As Torstar will do it again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

The last week of the campaign, now thinking about Toronto, our polling went down. We need a better end game in that last 48 to last week, particularly in Toronto. As Torstar will do it again.

---

Yes, it's not like it can't be predicted. And without a major media outlet in the party's corner we have a lot to overcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

yeah, well, both my mom and I don't. We have never voted Liberals, we came to Canada in 1994. Must be something wrong with us.

---

That said, we still receive the support of a smaller proportion of our voter universe when compared to the other serious parties.

Yes, some of this has to do with the fraudulent "strategic" voting.

But there is one other impportant - probably more important thing.

We see it referred to in babblerwannabe's reference to her bf.

A significant proportion of our voter universe believe we are right on the issues, but that we do not have the necessary competence to function as a government - as per wannabe's bf's comment about "not ready to lead."

An academic of my acquiantance (babblers who are Mounselanders will recognize this) refers to this as the NDP's hygiene issue. We cannot make a breakthrough unless and until we can put this thing to bed.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: longtime lurker ]

quote:

---

And nothing else is needed, having consulted the chicken entrails?

---

No one has argued that. And you are not getting here a reflection of what people do, and are willing to do, to discuss the content of what the NDP takes to Canadians.

There is no place where that is easy to do. The discussions do take place even if that are not as encouraged or supported as the should be. [For what it is worth, the party by comparison does not encourage ANY "discussion of entrails".]

So its not an easy discussion, except between a limited number of like minded individuals.

This is one place it COULD happen more. But one obstacle is that it is guaranteed that there will be at least one yapping poodle barking around, and with with no horse in the race except to 'illuminate' others that everything being discussed is inherently inadequate... or if it isn't, is guaranteed to turn to shit in the hands of the NDP.

Hard for people to aspire to a disciplined and productive process under such conditions. And since this isn't an NDP forum, that condition is to be expected.

So while I don't entirely give up on the possibility of having at least pieces of disciplined and productive political discussions here... it would not be accurate to judge that people are uninterested in such discussions because they do not get anywhere on these boards.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

That is your first-ever reply to an attempt to stir real discussion on major factors of party policy and position.

---

Not at all George.

I've replied to similar entreaties of yours before- twice previous, at least. And I've replied many more times to others.

This one is shorter so it is easy for you to see it as "nothing can be done". When I've put more words into it its clear that it is in the final analysis it amounts to: I'll make some attempt, but not into serious investment into what has proved many times on forums like this to be a lot of work invested into an exercise in futility.

My analysis- shared by many- is that what is lacking is commitment to an organized and disciplined PROCESS for policy development.

Many like yourself feel might well agree, but understandably feel talking out policy and direction here and now is better than nothing. I don't agree, even though I do give it a fling now and then... if for no other reason, the discussions can be interesting and/or sport in theri own right.

Since what I think is required is a healthy process, I'm much more motivated to now and again put in my two cents about process or lack thereof.

You get an honest answer to your entreaties because it is appreciated that you try.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

You get an honest answer to your entreaties because it is appreciated that you try.

---

Mighty kind, I'm sure. Mighty kind.

I'm still waiting for the IT world to produce all the miracles that have been predicted for it: a stirring of conscience, relevant, critical analysis of events and subjects, a clearing house of ideas stimulating action and real change leading to hope for the future of our children.

But then it all takes time, doesn't it. We mustn't be too anxious and go off on serious tangents while kowtowing to the God process - which, I take it, means openess, freedom, and all the good things available to those where structure is absent?

Who said anything about kowtowing to some 'God process', whatever the hell that is. And who said or implied waiting on IT miracles, or on anything for that matter?

And the oblique references to GP of Ontario, 'openess' and freedom... I guess means you assume I'm talking about awaiting the New Jereusalem before it is worthy to have a discussion on serious topics.

Hardly.

Like many people I'm tired of what amounts to talk shops to determine the fate of the world: years of investing into discussions that have no effect on the rubber that hits the ground. In North America especially such endless talk shops have existed since decades before the internet and discussion forums like this. Forums like babble bring in some new twists [like the certainty that there will be at least one of those yapping poodles around every discussion about the direction of the NDP]... but the dynamic has changed little.

If it was just pointless, that would be fine. But most of us invest more if we participate in discussions like that, and dissapointment [again] leads to burnout.

'Discussing entrails' of the political process is easier to connect to what activists actually do. It may well be equally pointless, but at least its more connected to something beyond the talk.

I don't just throw up my hands. No flies on the effort I've put, and continue to put, into having solid discussions.

The NDP, we are told had the same money as the other two big parties to spend. What happened? I did not notice a huge increase in ads-- and the other two, at least on CBC and CTV seemed to have much more-- did we not get a good price or did we spend much less?
The ads should anticipate the end game of the other parties-- for example:
we knew they were going to say tax and spend-- how come we did not come out with an ad saying that businesses that hire people in large numbers do not relocate for minor tax changes like the one we proposed. Business wants a stable work force, stable environment and efficient labour.

A pharmacare program would do more to take the pressure off employers who pay extended health benefits than lowering their taxes. the kind of money that moves based on taxes is not the kind of money that employs Canadians.

Sanctimonious goes together with condescension, KenS, and that is your department.

Borrowing my post from a nearby thread, here's what we're up against on the hustings because you superior New Democrats refuse to come to grips with the economics of a welfare state that is now challenged by an environment in revolt against our depradations:

[QUOTE]

posted 20 October 2008 09:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At times like this I better understand the vulnerability of former New Democrats who have fled to the open arms of the Harris Greens.

Our speaker/motivators of the Green Party are NOT of the left, of course!

Here's what a columnist in the Waterloo Region Record, a recent immigrant from the U.S. and now chair of the history department at the University of Waterloo had to say about his thinking in considering which party to vote for:

"The New Democratic Party took noble stands on "pocketbook issues." But ultimately, the NDP seemed more like a reactionary oppositional party that was always sniping at other parties instead of forging a practical agenda that could translate into tangible political victories."(shades of Bob Rae, eh?)

"Ultimately, I joined the Green party, because it seemed to be a fitting place for an ex-Democrat with libertarian sensibilities."
(end quote)

He would have investigated the party throughly, and decided that its oh-no-neat, "market-solves-all" approach to halting climate change would have suited his own $125,000 plus income. I don't know how you could shoehorn a "left" libertarian into anything but a student occupation, really.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people who post here haven't the foggiest about the makeup of the Green Party. Is it sanctimony on my part to point this out?

"It takes time, work and discipline- yes" you say.

But just how much bloody time do you strategists think we have?

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
I like to champion the idea of nationalized oil and gas. 49% of polled canadians agreed with this and jack stands behind a consumer advocate ministerial functionary, a useless beurocratic approach that will no more lower oil and gas prices than usher the NDP to an unprecedented NDP federal majority.

---

quote:

---

Enemy of Capital: The NDP is not a socialist party, even if many of us wish it was; it is a social democratic party. That Jack comes off as a social democrat and not a socialist shouldn't be a surprise!

---

I didnt say the NDP should become socialist I said it should turn left for policy ideas, in this instance, advocating nationalized oil. I'm not surpirsed and like layton as I said but think the rank and fiel aught to outstep mr.layton on this particular plank as it makes him look liberal light in a climate where that doesnt help.

quote:

---

It all depends on what people's definition of nationalization is. We can have energy nationalism without having to do an Evo Morales of it. We can bargain with energy companies on oil revenues, but it would mean side-stepping NAFTA in the face of U.S. protectionism in other sectors. Weak and ineffective government for too long in Canada, that's the problem. It's not real impotence but the self-imposed variety in Ottawa and Calgary.

---

We've sparred n this before Fidel. Nationalization means what it means. your talking about Jacks policy of regulating a unregulatable system as is Jack.

quote:

---

Completely aside from the merits of nationalized oil (and some problems, which are worth considering) there's a problem with a federal party advocating this in Canada. Provinces with oil (and that isn't just Alberta) will make the not unreasonable assumption that the federal government (and by extension Ontario/Quebec) is trying to make off with the natural resource wealth that constitutionally belongs to the provinces. In short, it's not going to happen.

---

quote:

---

Everybody in the NDP - left, right and centre - likes to invoke the name of Tommy Douglas.

---

How would provinces react? What about electricity/hydro which comes from natural sources? Should those be nationalized as well?

Programs that penalize or trivialize regions will not gain the NDP support. If you nationalize one industry then Quebecs/Manitobas/NFLDs/BCs Hydro should be also. Mining should also be as well. These are dangerous steps to tearing a country apart rather than building together.

JMO

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
We've sparred n this before Fidel. Nationalization means what it means. your talking about Jacks policy of regulating a unregulatable system as is Jack.

---

It works for Hugo Chavez, and it works for Norway. Even the Russians have used free market methods in dealing with multinational oil and gas company jackals.

The problem is that our two old line parties are only feigning impotence. It's not real. We need shrewd socialists to deal and negotiate on behalf of the people, like the Norwegians and Venezuelans have done. Canada's Liberals and Tories have been in the back pockets of energy companies for decades.

Anyway, nationalization Evo Morales style is not a valid argument in Canada. Our stoogeocrats haven't even tried to bargain freely for our energy. Therefore, your idea of wholesale seizure of the oil fields Iraqi style or Bolivian style before freely bargaining is even attempted is not a valid critique of the NDP. I am an NDP'er, and so I know that people will find NDP party leaders in absolute disagreement of putting the cart before the horse wrt this old world idea of nationalisation. Oil and gas is different situation than hydroelectric power and other utilities. Threatening wholesale nationalisation before all other options for energy nationalism are considered would be rejected by the NDP now in the near future.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Enemy of Capital. What is your idea of a nationalized petrolium industry? Something similar to the Liberal National Energy Program or a position where only oil produced in Canada is consumed and we do not import from the outside. What would the benefits be? What would the negatives be?
These are questions that need to be answered clearly not idealogical statements. Canadians have to be sold on the merits before ideas will be accepted. The Green Shift is a prime example, as there were more questions than the vague answers given.
How would provinces react? What about electricity/hydro which comes from natural sources? Should those be nationalized as well?

Programs that penalize or trivialize regions will not gain the NDP support. If you nationalize one industry then Quebecs/Manitobas/NFLDs/BCs Hydro should be also. Mining should also be as well. These are dangerous steps to tearing a country apart rather than building together.

JMO

Cheers

---

V.Jara:

quote:

---

The weakness of the NDP provincially in Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI, NFLD, and Alberta has long been a confounding factor.

The Federal NDP should work on doing some organising at the provincial level in those provinces and move towards pre-election targeting of seats (e.g. pick areas the NDP would like to win both federally and provincially and work at building capacity/running a low intensity long term campaign there).

---

Agreed... I'd also like to point out that there are alot of financial opportunities (in the form of personal donations) that the NDP is missing out on by ignoring these locations. Calgary is pretty much funding the Conservative efforts in Ontario... Much of the 'left' donations go untapped.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

It's just that it's not been necessary in very many situations around the world where oil and gas are concerned. Canada should have sovereign wealth fund on a scale of socialist Norway's at the very least, and Canada is a long-long way from that high water mark of energy nationalism.

quote:

---

And the NDP has always been in favour of publicly-owned hydroelectric power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by enemy_of_capital:
Jack did his part with $7 per day daycare (it could go further but it fundementally changes the education of children, the equality for woman)

---

I missed that - where did Jack propose that? We have had it in Québec since 1997 (started out as $5 per day), adopted by the PQ and maintained so far by the Liberals.

Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.

quote:

---

I missed that - where did Jack propose that? We have had it in Québec since 1997 (started out as $5 per day), adopted by the PQ and maintained so far by the Liberals.

Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.

Please send me your source for Layton proposing $7 child care. Never saw it, never heard it, it's not on the NDP website.

---

1. Immediately cancel the Harperite lump sums to all parents. This is regressive and rewards stay-at-home parents under the phony guise of child care.

2. Push for immediate implementation of the $7 plan as a transition to #3 below. Manitoba would be a nice place to showcase it. Then it would seem less insincere when promoted federally.

3. Use all the cash saved under #1, as well as other necessary revenues, to finance the infrastructure of publicly controlled and publicly delivered affordable (ultimately free) child care.

How do you compensate the millions of Canadians who own oil and gas shares through their pensions, RRSP's and open mutual funds? They would lose millions in future revenues and devaluations in their capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
Second, what is the difference between resource extraction (specifically oil) and hydroelectricity that makes it possibly to nationalize one but not the other?

---

Oil and gas companies were handed certain technologies for slant and horizontal drilling techniques by federally-funded(and owned) r&d in 1960s-70s North America. Drilling for oil and gas is now an area of expertise owned by the largest energy companies. This is not something we need to do anyway, if Canadians governments were to use free market mechanisms to nationalise oil and gas revenues, as socialist Norway and Venezuela have demonstrated already. Canada has no business being saddled with national debt and a shortage of doctors, a lack of money for new hospitals in provinces like Ontario and Alberta while massive amounts of energy are siphoned off to the States and profits shovelled out of the country by too many Liberal and Tory governments feigning impotence(they've been on the take. There's no other explanation for decades of bad government and dearth of revenues from oil and gas)

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Too bad no NDP province has seen fit to implement it.

---

Quebec's is not a bad plan - one in five are said to afford access to day care while it's one in eight nationally. I think it's actually 50% of children of day care age in Quebec are in day care programs. Daycare in Liberal Ontario is anywhere from $30 to $50 a day.

Bill C-303 NDP takes next step in affordable quality child care in Canada

quote:

---

OTTAWA – Victoria’s MP Denise Savoie took the next step to realize a national child care system by defending her private members’ bill – the NDP’s Early Learning and Child Care Act (Bill C-303) – at the start of parliamentary hearings on the legislation yesterday. If passed, Bill C-303 would ensure adequate, stable federal investment in childcare, so that affordable access to quality early learning opportunities is guaranteed. . . .

Savoie referred to the recent report by the Council for Early Child Development, which found a “chaotic mess” of early learning programs in Canada. The report also points out that Canada ranks lowest among 30 OECD countries in the amount of funding provided for early learning

---

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Bill C-303 NDP takes next step in affordable quality child care in Canada

---

I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.

The next step would be to implement some while in government.

Of course, one could say that B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba were not as wealthy as Québec in the 1990s, so they needed to focus on other priorities...

Action, please.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And the NDP has always been in favour of publicly-owned hydroelectric power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.

---

And I'm glad that Quebec has a piecemeal daycare system, I really am. It's just that the OECD says Canada ranks dead last wrt funding for childcare after 140 years' worth of old line party rule and firm grip on federal purse strings still in tight control of the two dirty old line parties.

quote:

---

The next step would be to implement some while in government..

---

I fully agree with you on this point. Ottawa needs new blood.

Provincial daycare rates 2005 Manitoba and Saskatchewan have some of the most affordable in the country by comparison. Still it's not enough.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

No matter how much they feign impotence on these issues, federal purse strings are still in Ottawa.
And Canada is one of the few rich countries without a national housing strategy, or a national dental officer, or a national drug plan. Canada is a rich country, but it's not so evident.

---

quote:

---

I like the housing plank of this. Why cant we guarentee 100% of all people who actively seek a home have one? eliminating homelessness seems pretty world changing to me

---

And a chicken in every pot while we're at it.
"We" might if "we" could somehow show the electorate the economics that would provide it (without selling out the resource sector completely, including water).

It's all pretty world changing all right. But you and unionist should not worry about details like what to sell to achieve your charitable goals. Around here, any attempt to discuss the economics ends with a warning that the revolutionaries will descend from the hills and make a joke of the discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffWells:

Yes, it's not like it can't be predicted. And without a major media outlet in the party's corner we have a lot to overcome.

There's a decent chance the next Liberal leader will be from Toronto, in which case this will be more important than ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Victor:

And a chicken in every pot while we're at it.
"We" might if "we" could somehow show the electorate the economics that would provide it (without selling out the resource sector completely, including water).

---

quote:

---

So what is to be done, you ask?

My answer is that we'll be thinking very carefully about that throughout the life of the new Parliament.

And that most everyone in our family is going to have a say in it - our Leader; our Caucus; our party elders and veterans; our Provincial and territorial leaders and elected officials; our elected party officials and delegates; our allies in the labour movement, in academia and throughout the broader democratic left.

We're going to need to take a look at how our successful sister parties in other countries moved forward. Possibly without copying their leaders' speeches.

We're going to need to carry forward a lot of what worked for us in this election into the new Parliament and the next campaign -- reasonable amounts of focus, discipline, and issue relevance. Seeking to avoid proposing anything that requires too complicated an explanation, learning from the mistakes of our colleagues in other parties.

So then to the issue of 'earning the public's trust'.

What we have done between 2004 and 2006 is to rebuild our connection to our base.

Most people who have voted for New Democrats in the past are doing so again.

Now we need to persuade people (something in the range of two million additional people) who have never voted for New Democrats to do so.

That means sounding sensible to them on the issues they care about.

Today that is the economy, health care, the environment. Other threshold issues in federal politics include foreign policy, First Nations issues, crime and justice.

In my view, we need to be sure we have done all of our homework on these issues. That we are current, interesting, perhaps a little provocative. And credible.

Visionary in goals; prudent, sensible and incremental in application.”

---

"What I like most about the campaign the New Democrats have just completed is that many party members aren't satisfied with it, or with the results."

I count myself among those within the NDP who are not satisfied with receiving honourable mentions. Yes, the NDP came second in scores of ridings, but we still only increased our share of the popular vogte by a measly 0.6%.

It is possible that the Liberal Party will continue its steady decline, especially as it seems incapable of evolving into a grassroots party as the Conservatives and NDP have managed to do.

However, in politics the past is no predicator of the future, and the NDP must seriously reavaluate its message, as well as its messengers.

quote:

---

The key to success lies in Quebec - win seats there and you'll start winning in the 905/416 belt. The fact is that the NDP lost a golden opportunity to win three more seats in Quebec. The NDP may only have one more chance - the next election - to make serious inroads into Quebec; it must now dispassionately examine how this will be achieved.

---

As a longtime Québec dipper, a witness to the 88 success story and the post '88 rapid decline (read debacle), a two-time candidate during the bleak 90s - when we were a few dozen active members and polling under 2% - and as an active participant in the rebuilding of the Québec section in these latter happer years, here are a few thoughts.

It is true that the NDP has officially been reborn in Québec, standing now at 12.2% with our first MP ever elected in a general election and our first incumbent ever to be re-elected. We came close (about 3% difference) in Gatineau and got respectable results in Westmount-Ville Marie (22%) and Hull Aylmer (almost 20%) to give but two examples.

In order to win ridings and keep the momentum going we've got one main thing to do: ORGANIZE!

The section doesn't have the membership yet to pull out its vote in multiple ridings, in some ridings we didn't even run a campaign and we got almost 14%. We can't benefit from the support and favourable image we have in Québec because of a lack of human capital. Don't get me wrong our membership has really grown but its not at a satisfactory level at which we can begin to get substantial results (i.e. win in ridings)

The NPD-QC must now build solid riding associations by intensive and relenteless membership drives.

We need 2 or 3 meet n greets a year just for new and ol' members to get to know each other. This will help identify the potential party activists as opposed to the the card-carrying members who want to support but no more. This will help build personal and political bonds which are necessary in a growing organization.

We need to re-start our succesful U-NPD/NDP-U courses. These were conferences on fundraising, communications, organzing, party structure as well as party history and the more advanced course on history of the international socialist movement (both of which were humbly taught by your truly). This will bring new and not so new members up to speed on all things NDP.

Another proposition is policy forums. These are free form (as opposed to the resolution pro and aganist type disucssions at party councils and conventions) debates/discussions/conferences on various policy areas that allow members (old and new) and potential members to deepen their understanding of policy alternatives as well as general vision.

We need greater links to civil society organizations and the labour movement.

We need vigorous fundraising.

In essence, we need people, money, outreach and structures of engaging and educating our people in order for us to be a living party and not an electoral machine.

Obviously the above can be applied to any provincial section of the party and nothing here is rocket science. I think though that for Québec (and I say this lightly since I am not deeply aware of things going on elsewhere in great detail)this type of grassroots organizing and educating can be potentially very successful given the amount of civil society initiatives in Québec that do basically the same things enumerated here except for contesting elections.

Vetting of candidates is another issue, and with all due respect to those who ran and had to withdraw because of their past, obviously concealed from the screening process, or even because of inappropriate behaviour during the campaign, the NDP needs a much better process in place to examine and evaluate prospective candidates, as obviously some folks just cannot be trusted to show enough good judgement on their own.

It was apparent that the Liberal and Conservative and Green supportive mainstream press went to town on some of what should not have been NDP candidates.

Next time could be different. There is intense speculation that Gilles Duceppe will soon retire and any of the people likely to succeed him are pretty lackluster.

I'd rather sieze the opportunity now.

quote:

---

Vetting of candidates is another issue, and with all due respect to those who ran and had to withdraw because of their past, obviously concealed from the screening process, or even because of inappropriate behaviour during the campaign, the NDP needs a much better process in place to examine and evaluate prospective candidates, as obviously some folks just cannot be trusted to show enough good judgement on their own.

---

As one of the four candidates to resign, I might have a unique perspective on this issue.

I have actually been approved as a potential candidate three times.

I sought the nomination in my riding when I joined the NDP in 2003, again in 2005 and then again in 2007. Each time I had to fill out the form which asks about criminal record, lawsuits, and any other controversial behaviour.

I have no criminal record and have never been arrested or charged with a crime. But every time I wrote down on the form that I had broken pretty much all of Canada's marijuana laws at some point, and that I wasn't ashamed of this. In 2007 I also mentioned that I helped run the Vancouver Seed Bank, which sold seeds for hundreds of plants, including marijuana seeds.

I always expected someone to call me and ask me to explain this, or to provide more details about my marijuana background and my work. But this never happened over three election cycles.

Frankly I don't think that my activist work, my current marijuana use, my past use of psychedelics, or my Pot-TV videos would be any reason for me to be disqualified from running as a candidate for the NDP. However, it was the timing and manner of my background being released to the national media that created the main problem.

In retrospect, we should have sent out a press release 18 months ago, when I first won the nomination in my riding. At that time, a press release which said "NDP candidate admits past LSD use" or whatever, would not have been a big deal. And then by the time of the election hopefully the issue would be dead. And if there had been a big problem, I could have withdrawn my nomination long before any election call. But nothing like this was done, leaving it to our opponents to release this information at the most damaging time and framed in the most damaging way to myself and the party.

For the record, the videos shown on the news were all 8 to 10 years old. There is one video which shows me driving an hour after taking DMT. This is a short-acting psychedelic substance which wears off entirely within 20 minutes. (DMT is the main psychedelic ingredient of the Amazon shamanic beverage Ayahuasca.) This same video also shows me saying that "I've got one rolled for the road." Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability, and I was certainly not impaired while driving on any video. However, even if I was impaired, this is a ten-year old video, and I don't think that is necessarily any reason to bar me from public office.

I certainly could have been even more forthright and detailed about some of the controversial parts of my work. But at the same time, as the former leader of the BC Marijuana Party, former editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, co-founder of the Vancouver Seed Bank and so on, it seemed to me that there should be no surprise that I have written and said some things that could seem controversial, especially when taken out of context.

quote:

---

It was apparent that the Liberal and Conservative and Green supportive mainstream press went to town on some of what should not have been NDP candidates.

---

I generally avoided the media deluge I got after my resignation. But the media that I did do was surprisingly supportive and friendly. For instance, when I appeared on the Mike Duffy show, he called me "a team player indeed" and said "I hope that young people will follow your example of getting involved in the process."

Actually I didn't see any serious attacks against either myself or the NDP over my resignation. Most of the commentary was lighthearted and humorous rather than attacking us.

If having used marijuana or psychedelics means you are forever forbidden from seeking political office, then we will be seeing an entire generation of Canadians excluded from the political process.

The worst part of this was actually what happened to Vancouver Quadra NDP candidate Kirk Tousaw. Unlike my fairly outrageous videos which showed me using psychedelics and apparently toking before driving, Kirk has a single video on Pot-TV which shows him sharing a bonghit with Marc Emery. For Kirk to step down as an NDP candidate, was not fair, and likely a strategic error.

Of course, I'm hardly the only politician from any party who has used marijuana and other drugs.

** Liberal icon Justin Trudeau has smoked marijuana with Marc Emery and other people I know on many occasions. His dad was a past marijuana user and his mom used to smoke pot at 24 Sussex Drive.

** Conservative Rahim Jaffer, who tried to use marijuana against the NDP in his riding and then lost to them, is a past and probably current pot smoker himself, according to a few people I know who were active in the Alliance and Conservative party.

** Ontario NDP MLA Cheri DiNovo used psychedelics and also smuggled LSD into Canada from the USA. "We used to import LSD from California - it was genuine Osley Acid in those days - and we did it in hollowed out bibles." The NDP stood by her, and she won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheri_DiNovo

** Current Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie was charged with two counts of trafficking heroin in 1975, and spent 17 months in a federal penitentiary serving his sentence. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2003/11/24/24nov03fentie.html

** Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory used marijuana as a high school and university student, and wrote articles calling for lighter sentences for pot dealers and explaining how he drove while stoned.

** Andre Boisclair became leader of the PQ despite admitting to having regularly used cocaine between 1996 and 2003 while serving as a member of the Quebec legislature.

** Prime Ministers who have smoked or used marijuana include Pierre Trudeau, Paul Martin and Kim Campbell.

** Gilles Duceppe and Jean Charest both admitted to having been pot smokers in the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
Frankly I don't think that my activist work,

---

Agree.

quote:

---

... my current marijuana use...

---

Agree.

quote:

---

... my past use of psychedelics ...

---

Agree.

quote:

---

... or my Pot-TV videos ...

---

DISAGREE.

quote:

---

... would be any reason for me to be disqualified from running as a candidate for the NDP.

---

Your appearing to smoke while driving, and the scene of your mouth full of a couple dozen or so joints, were enough to disqualify you - unless you had expressed some public sober second thought about the wisdom of the message. You didn't really do that. I hate to lecture, but it made you a non-candidate, and it meant you (like all of us) have some learning to do.

quote:

---

The worst part of this was actually what happened to Vancouver Quadra NDP candidate Kirk Tousaw.

---

AGREE! - as I said right away at the time. That was abusive and cowardly. Pressuring him to step down was a sign of clear hypocrisy on the party's part.

I do hope, however, that you agree that Julian West and (far more so) that lowlife McKeever had to go. The party can't be blamed in West's case IMHO, but in McKeever's, Layton has not, to this day, publicly condemned this creep's statements and actions. That is bad news for the party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Unionist, will you agree that John Tory should therefore be disqualified if what Dana has posted is true that Tory justified driving stoned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Your appearing to smoke while driving,

---

Also absent in your smear is any factual evidence of sobriety vs the many elected with actual evidence against them.

quote:

---

and the scene of your mouth full of a couple dozen or so joints, were enough to disqualify you

---

Judge much?

quote:

---

- unless you had expressed some public sober second thought about the wisdom of the message.

---

He did, although I didn't find it necessary.

quote:

---

You didn't really do that. I hate to lecture, but it made you a non-candidate, and it meant you (like all of us) have some learning to do.

---

You may be the only person here who actually sees no problem whatsoever with those videos.

I want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts good laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Gee, RP, if Dana had been filmed swilling whisky at the wheel, would you have said "there's no proof of impairment"?

You may be the only person here who actually sees no problem whatsoever with those videos.

I want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts good laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

However, you are entitled to vote for whatever kind of social role model you wish. Just don't get too upset when I say bluntly what everyone else (except I guess you) is thinking or has already said.

---

What I tried to imply and you conveniently ignore is that many elected representatives actually have convictions of impaired driving, which Dana does not.

I'm not playing mental gymnastics with your thing against drug policy reform. Just wanted to point out your inaccuracies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
What I tried to imply and you conveniently ignore is that many elected representatives actually have convictions of impaired driving, which Dana does not.

---

I don't care. I never accused Dana, whom I respect and support, of having committed a crime. You seem to be having trouble following this subject.

quote:

---

I'm not playing mental gymnastics with your thing against drug policy reform.

---

I fully support the legalization of marijuana, which if you took time out of attacking me at every possible occasion, you might have worked out by yourself.

quote:

---

Ignore the facts if you want.

---

That's a little amusing under the circumstances.

So, what about swilling from a whisky bottle while behind the wheel? Make a good NDP campaign video? With a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "I always stop when I hit 0.079 BAC"?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
So, what about swilling from a whisky bottle while behind the wheel? Make a good NDP campaign video?[

---

Nice propaganda. That video was 8 yrs old and a Liberal stunt and more an Ad for the Liberals.

But you knew that.

quote:

---

With a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "I always stop when I hit 0.079 BAC"?

---

Why can't you interact with my question of factually impaired versus your allegations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

Nonsense.

---

And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well, back to the thread topic. One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.

No one expects virtue from the Libs or Cons. Pointing to their lowlife types is not a very good excuse for tolerating our own.

---

quote:

---

I'm pleased to read that the NDP proposes good child care programs while in opposition.

The next step would be to implement some while in government.

Of course, one could say that B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba were not as wealthy as Québec in the 1990s, so they needed to focus on other priorities...

Action, please.

---

I'm in the rare and uncomfortable position of having to defend Ujjal Dosanjh here, but as BC NDP Premier in 2000 he did begin to create a Quebec-style universal child care program in BC. As described in this research paper :

quote:

---

In June 2000, the BC NDP introduced a publicly-funded after-school child care program for children from Grades 1 to the age of 12. This seven-dollar-a-day program was only the second publicly-funded child care program to be launched in North America and would cost the NDP $14 million the first year and $30 million for each successive year of operation. The program was not in place long enough to impact provincial expenditure levels and in 2001, it was cancelled by the newly-elected Liberal government.

---

Ironically, the provincial bureaucrat in charge of creating this program was none other than current BC NDP leader Carole James. It was truly tragic that the NDP started this program so late in their 2nd term, as if they had just had one more year in power, the BC child care program would have been the signature legacy of the 1991-2001 NDP mandate, just as ICBC and the ALR are still around today from the 1972-1975 Barrett government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

The NDP did not boot him out, he resigned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well, back to the thread topic. One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that.

---

quote:

---

As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

---

Well, this comment makes it obvious you do not really mean this:

quote:

---

..Dana, whom I respect and support

---

Nor does this one:

quote:

---

want a candidate to be a leader. Not a hedonistic exhibitionist who flouts good laws (like not using psychotropic substances while driving a motor vehicle).

---

Moreover, what do you mean "how real people think"? You know this type of comment really infuriates me, as well as labelling people hedonistic. There you sit in PQ telling us, out here in BC, that apparently we are not "real people" and really are impinging us all with your "hedonistic" labelling. Because you know what, there are more like Dana out here than not, and we have been doing quite fine on our own, without eastern interference and easterners tellings us basically we are hedonistic losers, and not real people.

And your comments states Dana is not a "real" person, and if he is not then 2million BCers aren't either. Some kind of wonderful respect you got going on there unionist. Pardon me while I call that hypocrisy, at best.

Frankly, I am way more pissed off and outraged that the NDP has someone in their caucus who supported the sale of bulk water as Mulclair has, than I am at Dana's videos of himself, from some isolated day 10 years ago. Moreover, I would not support any efforts towards Mulclair becoming leader of the NDP, for that fact alone. IMV, he cannot be trusted, as a national party leader who perhaps would one day become PM.

What else is for sale? And would he plunge ahead with bulk water sales anyway? And you know what?During the election campaign, you never heard a word of that criticism come out of my mouth. Nor my belief that he should not be a NDP caucus member. Why? It is your choice who you want for an MP, in your province, not mine from way out here in BC. If that is okay with you and other in your riding so beit.

quote:

---

And more outrage is needed about McKeever. Didn't hear much on this board.

---

quote:

---

No one expects virtue from the Libs or Cons. Pointing to their lowlife types is not a very good excuse for tolerating our own.

---

Incidentally, no candidate in Québec, of any party, would ever have been dumped just for being seen smoking a joint. Seems that happens rather frequently in your part of the world, and in your favourite party.

Check out what's happening at home before you cast stones afield.

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Yeah, good night remind, and thanks for the Liberal talking point about Mulcair. It was scorned here in Outremont, but maybe you'll get some mileage out of it wherever you live.

---

You may have scorned it in Outremount, but it certainly made an impact here in BC, and in this electoral district, where, unlike you in Outremount, we are facing strong challenges for bulk water sales, everyone wants that moutain spring water, you know. In fact, it might well have cost Crawford his seat, as well as other BC NDP candidates a seat. Moreover, it will be continued to be trotted out each and every election here. It played and it played well and it will be a gift that keeps on giving, as long as Mulclair is in the NDP caucus.

If you look back at the polls, the BC NDP numbers dropped after that little goodie was released. But did you hear us out here in BC carrying on making and the deal out of it, that it is? No! Nor did I connect the dots here at babble, about why BC NDP numbers declined suddenly, when people were wondering why, I stayed silent in the face of knowing. But by your standard of measure of outrage and outcry, I should have.

As we could have easily frothed up justified rage over it, but what good would it have done? It would have cost us more seats, than it did. And I say again, it is your choice out there to vote for whom you want.

So during the election period, when it was revealed, I privately decided to say nothing, but made a commitment to myself that Mulclair would NEVER be leader of the NDP. In fact, I said that to you the other day, when you suggested he should be. At that time, I was still reluctant to get into it publically, however, not anymore, when you can throw out the santimonious and urban geocentric tripe, such as you have.

Frankly, it was that anti-environment,"real" jobs first, mindset by some of the union members out here in BC, that prompted the rise of the BC GP, and the ultimate decay of the BC NDP. And I say that as a union member and I will also say that I have had more than my fill of that type of sentiment, for a life time. And should Mulclair ever become leader, I would imagine BC would be mostly, if not completely, lost to the NDP. I know I would park my vote with the GP for the duration, and so would a good many others I know.

Edited to add a comment as unionist changed his post while I was composing.

If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say. But it wasn't because people in BC pushed for it, of that you can be sure.

And I have looked in my back yard to see central Canadians, interfering in our politics here. Either directly or indirectly. Case in point is Mulclair's former desire to export bulk water impacted us, and the NDP chances out here. The choice to recuit him, ended up affecting us. Had he been out here in BC, he would never have been recruited nor elected as a candidate. Bulk water sale support is not a go here, whether it was in the past or not.

Moroever, you do not hesitate to butt into every other area of the country, with your opinions, judgements and attempted guilt trips, so your comment in that regard, towards me, rings a little hollow, at best. And remember you all dismissed Mulclair's actions, as being in the past, but yet you do NOT apply that same standard to Dana's circumstance. What does that say other than hypocrisy?

[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

So during the election period, when it was revealed, I privately decided to say nothing, but made a commitment to myself that Mulclair would NEVER be leader of the NDP. In fact, I said that to you the other day, when you suggested he should be. At that time, I was still reluctant to get into it publically, however, not anymore, when you can throw out the santimonious and urban geocentric tripe, such as you have.

Frankly, it was that anti-environment,"real" jobs first, mindset by some of the union members out here in BC, that prompted the rise of the BC GP, and the ultimate decay of the BC NDP. And I say that as a union member and I will also say that I have had more than my fill of that type of sentiment, for a life time. And should Mulclair ever become leader, I would imagine BC would be mostly, if not completely, lost to the NDP. I know I would park my vote with the GP for the duration, and so would a good many others I know.

---

I agree that bulk water sales are a big deal in BC but I wouldn't write Muclair off yet, I think people should be given a chance to change their minds. I haven't made up my mind yet on him, I think we'll get a better idea as time goes on whether he wants to move the party to the right or not. I'd be perfectly fine with an NDP leader from Quebec if I thought they understood the issues which are important to BC. I'm not convinced Muclair has less potential than Layton when it comes to this.

quote:

---

If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say. But it wasn't because people in BC pushed for it, of that you can be sure.

---

That's my belief as well.

And that he was demoted from the environment portfolio because his views were too green for the Liberal party.

And that he left that cabinet to join a party that had never elected a single member in a general election in Québec.

And he won his byelection, and his election - first in history.

And that Thomas Mulcair is the co-DEPUTY LEADER of the party.

Oh my God, what have I done - when remind's BC friends realize this, they will all leave the NDP, forever! Because they're scared the NDP will sell their water!

Sometimes reading these threads makes me nostalgic for Lewis Carroll.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

This "yapping poodle" still wonders, after all the fury of critical broadsides:

quote:

---

But just how much bloody time do you strategists think we have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
...And he's STILL premiere of BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, you should stop attacking me personally. I have never, not once, stooped to that level with you.

---

LMAO, trying to change the subject matter of Mulcair? And yes you did, in this very thread and in another one yesterday that I called you on too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
Here is one Suggestion that to an extent the NDP did do in the election, but must do much much more of.... I know people hate to bring up U.S politics as a shining light of an example BUT..... I mentioned this to Peter Tabuns, for Ontario Strategy and it should apply Federally. In the U.S the Dems, under Dean decided a few years ago to no longer focus all their resources on just the "swing states". (In Canada that would be NDP friendly, or 'contestable' ridings.) there it was called "the 50 state strategy"...and guess what, it paid off! The NDP IMO should follow that idea...as they have been at least during election time. It really was no accident Layton kicked off in the NDP Heart of Darkness - Calgary - because it made a very important statement to voters in Alberta...we're not writing you off because you are "un-winnable", same in Quebec. This must continue across Canada - and not just during elections. I know for a FACT that in the past many of party brain trust focused on the opposite. I think now they get it - or at least did this election. Hopefully the NDP will continue to try and make inroads everywhere.

50 State Strategy Synopsis.

---

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: V. Jara ]

But that is a big problem with federal NDP ground campaigns: depending on the sections.

Its NOT a centralization versus decent question. The regional campaigns could be even more decentralized.

The problem is assuming that the sections are going to determine pretty much on their own who runs the campaign and everything except a message and organizational outline from Ottawa.

quote:

---

The problem is assuming that the sections are going to determine pretty much on their own who runs the campaign and everything except a message and organizational outline from Ottawa.

These days, there is a lot more talent and discipline in the federal party than in any of the sections. The sections are moribund, and very nepotistic to boot.

---

Right on.

And a clearer, more focused economic platform, explaining just how workers from B.C. to Newfoundland could expect to benefit from a greened economy by way of continued employment along with fail-safe opportunities for investing in that economy would not help to bring about that direction, end the nepotism? Reference to creating means for enhanced opportunities to actually have savings at the end of their working life would not lift the discussion?

Look at what the above puerile exchange on marijuana and water managed to settle with reduction to personalities and speculation on those personalities winning a hearing from electorates in Rimouski or lotus land.

Or would reference to means by which the market can be made to work for workers be too great a concession to capitalism while we await the revolution?

quote:

---

Marijuana use does not significantly impair driving ability.

Nonsense.

---

I know this will result in major thread drift, but I had to respond to the comment above.

There are a myriad of studies which show that moderate doses of marijuana, in the amounts commonly used by most people, is not significantly impairing, and is certainly far less impairing than legal doses of alcohol, as well as less impairing than tiredness, using a phone, or sunlight glare. Marijuana use is not a statistically significant cause of accidents.

For example, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."
http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v00/n1161/a02.html

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/cannabisanddrivingareviewo ft4764

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/repfinalvol1p art4-e.htm

A 1992 study by the US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, titled 'The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers' found that "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. … While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.”
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450#Crash

You can find links to many more studies into the effects of cannabis on driving here: http://cannabisfacts.ca/druggeddriving.html

However, as with any psychoactive substance, dosage is as important as the specific substance. Eating a large quantity of pot food will be much more impairing than smoking a joint.

A final question that will need to be resolved about marijuana and driving is how to deal with the growing number of legal marijuana users. There are thousands of Canadians who are permitted to use marijuana for medicinal use. Are they all permanently banned from driving? Or does their medical status make the marijuana magically non-impairing for them only? This will become especially pertinent under "drugged driving" laws which use a bloodtest to determine if you have been using marijuana.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: Dana Larsen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
... perhaps an appropriate contrite comment from Dana about having used a bad tactic to advance a good cause or something like that.

---

quote:

---

One thing the NDP must change is not booting out candidates like Kirk Tousaw for using drugs. That's shameful, and I have yet to hear the outrage over that. As for Dana, his story here is like his original one. He did nothing wrong, and anyway it was long ago, and anyway look at all the others, etc. A little more connection with how real people think is required before he runs again.

---

I feel badly for Kirk, because I wonder if he would have resigned had I not been the first one to get attention. My video clips were a lot more extreme than his, and there were a lot of other confusing issues in my videos other than simple use of marijuana.

In terms of whether I did "something wrong" in the making of my Pot-TV videos and some of the other controversial things I have done or said, I have to say that I have not received one negative comment from anyone since I resigned my nomination. Not one person has emailed me to tell me I am a bad guy or that I should be ashamed. Not a single person has posted anything negative to my facebook pages.

When I searched the blogosphere for mentions of my name I found a few people who were mocking me, but nothing with any real animosity or attacking me. Most of the media coverage treated the whole situation as amusing instead of as a serious and immoral act on my part.

And even here on this thread, where certainly it would seem plausible that some NDPers would be mad at me for mucking up the federal campaign, there's no haters telling me off. I am actually surprised as I expected more anger to be directed towards me from somebody. All the feedback I have received has been sympathetic and positive.

My point in listing the many other politicians who have used pot or been involved in the illegal drug scene in some form was simply to point out that the voters don't seem averse to electing people who are pot smokers or alcohol drinkers, or who have broken the drug laws or behaved somewhat irresponsibly in the past.

Frankly, I think that if myself and the NDP campaign had been better prepared, we could have weathered the controversy over my videos, and it would not have harmed the party's vote. But I am not in charge of the national campaign, and under pressure from the BC Campaign Chair, and from some within my own campaign team, I felt it was best to step back.

quote:

---

And even here on this thread, where certainly it would seem plausible that some NDPers would be mad at me for mucking up the federal campaign, there's no haters telling me off. I am actually surprised as I expected more anger to be directed towards me from somebody. All the feedback I have received has been sympathetic and positive.

---

quote:

---

If you think anyone in BC wanted Dana or Kirk to step down, you are sorely mistaken, that decision was made by the Ontario brain trust and I suppose by the candidates themselves, so they say.

---

Nope. The only conversation I had was with Gerry Scott, BC Campaign Coordinator. He definitely wanted me to resign, and to my knowledge he expressly did not involve the national team or Layton in the decision.

However, ultimately the decision was mine. And despite my regrets and my personal desire to keep going, I think a resignation was necessary.

However, most people don't understand how it went down. I actually resigned before the videos came out on the news. I actually resigned because of calls from the Globe and Mail about coca plants being sold at the Vancouver Seed Bank, which I co-founded and still help out at.

This article is the most accurate about how it happened: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n877/a01.html

quote:

---

LARSEN RESIGNS AS NDP 'NOT CAMPAIGNING ON COCA PLANTS'

The co-founder of the B.C. Marijuana Party resigned yesterday as the federal NDP candidate for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast riding.

Dana Larsen, 37, resigned after questions about his involvement in the Vancouver Seed Bank and Tokers Lounge on East Hastings Street.

He used to manage the retail outlet, which sells seeds of rare and medicinal plants, including coca plants, the basis for cocaine.

He is no longer associated with the store and according to an employee coca seeds are not stocked anymore.

"We're not campaigning on coca plants," said Gerry Scott, B.C. campaign manager for the federal NDP. "It wasn't acceptable. It was a distraction and that's the end of it."

The party will select another candidate "as soon as possible," Scott said.

Larsen ran as a member of the Marijuana Party of Canada in 2000 and as a member of the B.C. Marijuana Party in 2001. He also wrote a book called Hairy Pothead and the Marijuana Stone and authored the Pot Puzzle Fun Book.

---

quote:

---

I agree with Unionist that driving while stoned is a complete loser for legalization advocates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:

My point in listing the many other politicians who have used pot or been involved in the illegal drug scene in some form was simply to point out that the voters don't seem averse to electing people who are pot smokers or alcohol drinkers, or who have broken the drug laws or behaved somewhat irresponsibly in the past.

---

That's correct. That's why no one who did any of those things needs to withdraw their candidacy. That's why it was outrageous that Kirk was pressured to withdraw (and I'm not impressed by those who claim that there was no pressure, that it was his own decision, etc.).

I admire your activism and I support it. But you still don't get that you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people. I read your posts carefully, and unfortunately, I still don't hear that recognition.

ETA: Whoops Dana, we cross-posted - and I just read that recognition in your last post. Good move.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people.

---

I don't understand what you are saying.

By "real people" do you mean the older, voting generation that has less knowledge and experience with marijuana and psychedelics than does the average person under 35?

I'm not actually sure that anyone has to connect with those videos in order for me to be a candidate.

However, there are millions of Canadians who have used marijuana and psychedelic substances. Many of them might be able to connect to me more readily than to other politicians who are not honest about their own past or present use of marijuana.

(I actually made two dozen video shows for Pot-TV. In all of them I am smoking pot and talking about marijuana and drug policy issues. Some of the shows are silly, some are serious. In one episode I took LSD, in another I smoked DMT. All of these videos are still available for viewing at Pot-TV.net but in an older Realplayer format.)

What specifically do you want me to say that I'm not saying? I'm not ashamed of making those videos, and for the most part I think they are pretty good and certainly groundbreaking in their own way.

So to bring this all back to the original thread topic, I think the NDP needs to reconcile their internal disconnect on the marijuana issue.

I believe that Layton is more friendly towards the marijuana movement than his advisors within the party. This has been evidenced many times. This disconnect makes the party's dealings with the marijuana activist community come out strained and causes confusion for everyone.

As cannabis activists we represent a growing and very politically aware demographic. It is frustrating for us how the NDP embraces our cause between elections, then tries to distance themselves from us during election campaigns. All we want to do is help, but the party can't seem to figure out what to do with us.

For instance, in 2003, Marc Emery printed up some flyers with Jack Layton's quote about the NDP supporting a legal environment for marijuana. Emery was distributing these flyers across the country to encourage the marijuana movement to vote for the NDP. Gerry Scott got into the media saying that he was going to sue Emery for printing these unauthorized flyers. Yet Layton would endorse and sign the flyers whenever people brought him one to ask his opinion on them. This kind of mixed-messaging is a blunder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
By "real people" do you mean the older, voting generation that has less knowledge and experience with marijuana and psychedelics than does the average person under 35?

---

No - I'm much older than that and I have knowledge and experience and some current usage of marijuana and psychedelics, definitely before you were born. And so does everyone I know who I grew up with. Where did you get that 35 figure from?

quote:

---

I'm not actually sure that anyone has to connect with those videos in order for me to be a candidate.

---

I didn't say that. Here's what I say: Probably 1/10 of 1% of the population would be left indifferent by a photo of a political candidate smoking marijuana while driving and stuffing 20 joints into his face. I know you don't get it. That's the problem, Dana.

quote:

---

What specifically do you want me to say that I'm not saying? I'm not ashamed of making those videos, and for the most part I think they are pretty good and certainly groundbreaking in their own way.

---

quote:

---

Well, what I want you to say is: "Those videos are childish, stupid, and irresponsible - that's not the way to effect political and social change." But I kinda get that I'm not going to hear that.

---

Let's keep in mind that what you saw on the news represented the most extreme 20 seconds taken from about 20 hours of video. And yes, the brief clips shown on the news did portray me as childish and irresponsible.

However, I am not going to disavow all of my Pot-TV videos, which include some silly stuff and also a lot of good information, because of 20 seconds of clips which make my shows look like something they are not.

I believe that educating people about the real effects of psychedelic drugs and other banned substances is a part of the way to effect political and social change.

So by taking LSD and showing its actual effects on a human, I think that I was serving to educate people about the actual effect of this substance. I didn't take LSD in a childish or irresponsible manner. My LSD video is the most popular one I made, and it's just me talking and walking around the Sunshine Coast with my video camera. For me, it is interesting precisely because I don't do anything crazy or irresponsible, I just talk and describe my internal state and the experience of being on psychedelics.

As for the clip which shows me apparently about to drive and toke, I will say that I don't advocate driving while using marijuana, and although I did sometimes toke and drive in the past, it's not something I do anymore. I would add that small doses of pot don't usually impair driving ability, but it is always best to err on the side of caution.

But overall my videos for the show, called The Weedy Wednesday Smokefest, are just me, at home with a video camera, smoking some pot and discussing marijuana news and events. I leave it to others to decide if that is childish, but it certainly isn't irresponsible.

quote:

---

Probably 1/10 of 1% of the population would be left indifferent by a photo of a political candidate smoking marijuana while driving and stuffing 20 joints into his face. I know you don't get it.

---

The ratio might be a bit off, but I do agree. Strategically the debate around marijuana and driving is a difficult one. And it is made much more difficult when trying to defend my apparently irresponsible personal behaviour instead of debating the theory of whether marijuana use is actually impairing enough to represent a social problem. That is part of the reason why my stepping back as a candidate was a good decision.

The story behind that big mouthful of joints is that we had been rolling up joints for a big party the next day. We were just goofing around when I picked up a bunch and pretended to light them. Of course we didn't actually light any, we were just pretending.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
Let's keep in mind that what you saw on the news represented the most extreme 20 seconds taken from about 20 hours of video. And yes, the brief clips shown on the news did portray me as childish and irresponsible.

---

Thank you for that. Your statement compares favourably with some of the extreme apologias that have appeared on this site.

quote:

---

However, I am not going to disavow all of my Pot-TV videos, which include some silly stuff and also a lot of good information, because of 20 seconds of clips which make my shows look like something they are not.

---

Nor should you "disavow" them. I personally have no problem with anything in those videos except for the two things I've mentioned from day one. Certainly nothing wrong with the LSD portions.

quote:

---

As for the clip which shows me apparently about to drive and toke, I will say that I don't advocate driving while using marijuana, and although I did sometimes toke and drive in the past, it's not something I do anymore.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.

---

My view: If you had made the above statement right away, there was no reason to resign.

He quit because there was a YouTube video of him spending about half an hour inhaling and rating the quality of various strains of pot. This played on the news - along with the footage of Dana - just about every night for a week.

I think it's pretty clear that both Dana and Kirk's ill-concieved videos were used by people who wanted to take the NDP down a peg and distract from the issues the NDP wanted to talk about.

And I think people in the NDP (and I include myself as someone out knocking on doors for my candidate) wanted to deprive opponents of their excuse to ignore the issues we cared about (which start with ending the war in Afghanistan, stopping corporate tax cuts, hiring doctors, creating a childcare space for my kid and way way way way down the list legalizing pot).

So if "outrageous actions" consist of sitting a candidate down and saying, "It's not fair but every day you stay on the ballot, you are destroying the chances of 300-odd other NDP candidates because you made a stupid video and we think you should step aside." then I'm in favour of them.

I think unionist is wrong when he says the NDP will not decriminalize marijuana if they're in a position to do so.

I do, however, think his definition of being "in a position to do so" is a little different than most people's. If Jack Layton had come out of that room with Paul Martin in 2006 and said, "The corporate tax cuts are going ahead. Schools and hospitals will still face cuts. But it's going to be a lot easier to enjoy quality bud in Canada from now on." I'd have torn up my membership. And screamed.

I think decriminalization is an idea the NDP will support - way down low on their priority list. I'm fine with that. If you want it higher (no pun intended) you can come to an NDP convention and argue about it or, probably more effectively, work with the Marijuana Party or work outside the party system entirely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.

---

Ultimately, riding associations select their candidates but - and I hate to say it because you seem like a nice and sincere guy Dana - I wouldn't support you in a nomination in my riding. I know your opponents would simply play that clip of you smoking a joint in your car over and over and over again.

Maybe if Dana turned himself over to police and asked to be charged.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
I think unionist is wrong when he says the NDP will not decriminalize marijuana if they're in a position to do so.

---

I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I still need a credible explanation as to why the NDP (including Libby Davies) hasn't put this demand in print seemingly since 2004. No room on the page?

quote:

---

If Jack Layton had come out of that room with Paul Martin in 2006 and said, "The corporate tax cuts are going ahead. Schools and hospitals will still face cuts. But it's going to be a lot easier to enjoy quality bud in Canada from now on." I'd have torn up my membership. And screamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm:
I'll say again that this stuff need not have sunk Dana'a candidacy (and kirk's) if properly handled. But properly means that we would have dealt with it pre-emptively, not reactively. The sketched out plan Dana outlined earlier was fundamentally sound.

---

I see merit in both arguments concerning
Dana's and Kirk's NDP candidancies, pre-emptively speaking. So both potential candidates would need to look at all their past videos and things they said in the press in the past and override some of those "negative messages".

quote:

---

there is absolutely NOTHING that will make the public okay with toking and driving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Well that's a bit odd, because Chrétien and Martin both promoted bills for decriminalization (although they didn't go far enough, as Libby pointed out). So why would this have been a difficult item to achieve as part of a Kelowna - Child Care - Workers' Rights package, when it was already a point in common?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

Come on Unionist, I think the optics of that would have been deriding. If they were going to add anything, democratic reform would have been my 4th add-on, and appealing across the wider political spectrum.

---

I was not suggesting what should have happened. I was responding to TCD's rather extreme stand that to support decrim, you have to sort of drop all other priorities. If the Liberals could push through same-sex marriage in face of the bishops threatening hellfire to Chrétien and Martin, the NDP could keep decrim on their to-do list of 715 items at least - but it seems to be gone.

quote:

---

I admire your activism and I support it. But you still don't get that you can't be a candidate until you express some understanding that those videos don't connect with real people. I read your posts carefully, and unfortunately, I still don't hear that recognition.

---

I still think it is vital to separate this from the case of Kirk Tousaw. Using marijuana, admitting it publicly, and advocating its legalization cannot be a pretext for pressuring a candidate to step down. I don't believe Tousaw did this on his own, and I think the NDP (whoever it was) has much to answer for here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well that's a bit odd, because Chrétien and Martin both promoted bills for decriminalization (although they didn't go far enough, as Libby pointed out). So why would this have been a difficult item to achieve as part of a Kelowna - Child Care - Workers' Rights package, when it was already a point in common?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I still think it is vital to separate this from the case of Kirk Tousaw. Using marijuana, admitting it publicly, and advocating its legalization cannot be a pretext for pressuring a candidate to step down. I don't believe Tousaw did this on his own, and I think the NDP (whoever it was) has much to answer for here.

---

It wasn't his position on marijuana that was the problem. Libby Davies has the exact same position but she didn't film herself holding a stone-a-thon.

quote:

---

I had already resigned by the time the videos became an issue. In terms of my personal political career, the question is will these videos mean that I can never again run for the NDP? Or was it simply the timing of their release which was the real problem during this election.

---

Yes you should run again, if the riding association doesnt approve you contact me for personal donations toward an independent candadacy. (this is a tad on the side of treason as an NDP'er as I'm "siding against the party") How you were pressured by the BC Campaign is rediculous and anti democratic as you were selected by your riding association by majority (usually hive consensus in my experience) vote and to even tell you personally that your activism and what you do on your personal time is unacceptable is in and of itself unnacceptable. next ime you run stick to your guns Dana, not only defend yourself against slander but attack those who wish to obscure the issues. Marijuana may not be priority 1 but does that mean we should not fight for it every bit as hard as anything else> and who decides what is priority one? Was any member of the NDP ever asked what the party should consider its flagship issue? I sure as hell wasnt.

quote:

---

Come on Unionist, I think the optics of that would have been deriding. If they were going to add anything, democratic reform would have been my 4th add-on, and appealing across the wider political spectrum.

---

Mods trying to set a record?

It has taken me a number of attempts over the course of probably 12 hours to get it to successfully load.

Ah, what the heck.

I'm going to open The NDP needs to change what before the next election? part IV , and hope this thread dissapears.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]