Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Good2Golf]

30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia

Ummmm, these people understand that Morales' and Chavez's regimes maintain amongst the world's worst disparities of wealth between the elite rich and the poor?  ???

According to UN data (tabulated through Wikipedia), Bolivia has the worst distribution of wealth, where the top 10% of the rich friends of Morales have 168 times more wealth than the least wealthy 10% of Bolivians.  The top 10% richest Venezuelans have 48 times greater wealth than the poorest 10% of Venezuelans.  As a reference point, Canada's top 10% rich have only 9.4 times greater wealth (five times more equitable than Venezuela) than the poorest 10%.

Not that there aren't issues with a large number of policy elements within their platform, but is the NDP endorsing that Canada move towards a dictatorial socialist regime that on the surface espouses 'equality' yet actually supports greater inequality to the benefit of the country's richest?

Seriously?  People should be ashamed for actually thinking that there is something right about that!

 

[Gimpy]

With respect to your list of radical solutions -

Do I really need to go point by point to find governments that:

29. (Show) Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez's Venezula and Morale's Bolivia

or governments that are:

8. Out of NATO
9. Out of Haiti

Definitely not, these were the parts of their platform I believe the majority of people will find radical (not to mention stupid), myself included.

25. Share the work and shorten the work week is French Government policy and has been since the late 1990s

Right and they dropped in by only four hours so in retrospect I'd remove that from what I consider radical because from my readings I haven't seen any blatant problems that arose from the shortening of the work week. Not to mention that recent French laws have also increased the number of overtime hours.

20. Out of NAFTA - hard to get an outside example as there are only three members - but other SI governments have withdrawn from equivalent organizations like EFTA.

On this point, when I said NAFTA, etc. I meant all of the other parties listed in their platform point. Sorry for the confusion, but I would like to know about the ones that pulled out of EFTA because the only reason I'm seeing for the leaving of several members was because they joined the EEC and eventually the EU.

4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands - equally hard to find an external reference as this is obviously an internal resource.  However I would argue that the Europeans, French and German, who fought three wars over possession of the coal fields of the lower Rhine, did the equivalent by, in the terms of the Northern Ireland peace agreement, putting their coal reserves "beyond use" thereby precipitating their current energy crises.

I agree with you on this point, and that is why I believe it is radical.

On the whole I don't necessarily agree with all their economic platform points, but overall I don't find them inherently radical. Overall I'm just trying to grasp why some people believe that socialism is evil and will destroy the world when there are many countries governed by said socialists that haven't succumbed to a Bolshevik Revolution.

Not that there aren't issues with a large number of policy elements within their platform, but is the NDP endorsing that Canada move towards a dictatorial socialist regime that on the surface espouses 'equality' yet actually supports greater inequality to the benefit of the country's richest?

No, the NDP are not endorsing these policies. One party within the NDP's caucus supports these policies. Whether or not the majority of the NDP supports them is yet to be seen, but my hunch would be that the NDP will not be publicly or even privately supporting the majority of those points. And like I said earlier the points on IR, which the Chavez and Morales points fall under, will not even be heard because they are ridiculous.

I've been trying to find the number of members in this party as well, but haven't had much luck so far. For all we know they could be a very small fringe party within the caucus and have very little pull. Or they could have many members and be influential in policy making. Given the lack of information on their website it is hard to discern the level of sway they have within the NDP.

 

[Kirkhill]

...I've been trying to find the number of members in this party as well, but haven't had much luck so far. For all we know they could be a very small fringe party within the caucus and have very little pull. Or they could have many members and be influential in policy making. Given the lack of information on their website it is hard to discern the level of sway they have within the NDP.

And, in point of fact Gimpy, that is the real problem here, as far as I am concerned.  For a democratic party that espouses transparency there is a decided lack of transparency (and for that matter democracy) when it comes to internal party matters -  starting with the lack of a published constitution and statement of principles.  It gives me pause when I consider that this mindset might one day carry over into government (I lived in BC for a number of years as well).

You brought up the "Bolsheviks" - need I remind you that the "Bolsheviks" or "Majority" - were actually the minority and lost the only election they competed in?  They declared themselves to be representatives of the Majority and took over the government at gun point.  Not that I expect Jack to be that well organized.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Right and they dropped in by only four hours so in retrospect I'd remove that from what I consider radical because from my readings I haven't seen any blatant problems that arose from the shortening of the work week. Not to mention that recent French laws have also increased the number of overtime hours.

The "share the work" initiative was absolutely disastrous and did not have the intended effect at all. By shortening the working week, the government wanted too create an hour deficit that companies would have to compensate for by hiring extra employees, therefore stimulating employment levels. The problem is that the governement insisted that wokers keep the same wages for "La semaine de 35 heures" as they had for the 39 hour week, therefore, businesses had to pay their employees more for less hours.

The effect of that second part was that instead of hiring more, businesses did not plug in the missing hours and compensated by trying to enhance productivity.

The overall effect of that policy was to make businesses less competitive, and to actually discourage the hiring of new workers. It was simply a governement enforced salary hike disguised as a social program. It was diastrous for prices and productivity and contributed a lot to France's "lazy workers" stereotype.

 

[a_majoor]

Point 25 should also be recognizable to Ontario residents as "Rae Days", an involuntary work sharing program...

 

[Kirkhill]

And here is where things could be come interesting:

When the Left can't win within the rules it may seek to change the rules.  If it can't win on the conventional battlefield (the House of Commons) it may seek to launch an assymetric assault on the Government by "taking it to the streets".

I predict an uptick in protest marches and civil disobedience.

Murray Dobbins, Judy Rebick and Svend Robinson seem to be counselling just such an approach as appropriate. 

i would argue that that move is decidedly dangerous.  It is precisely the reason we have parliaments and elections - to confine, contain and control animus.  To ensure civil debates and stability. 

Taking it to the streets does the exact opposite.

Can the Left accept the results of an election they didn't win?

Source.

Will the NDP become the new Liberal Party?
By Murray Dobbin 8 May 2011 COMMENTS(0) Vancouver Sun Community of Interest
Filed under: NDP, NPI, Green party, New Politics Initiative, extraparliamentary politics, official opposition, CCF, Labouriberal Party, Jack Layto, civil society
Almost since he was elected NDP leader in 2003, Jack Layton has mused about replacing the Liberal Party as the official opposition. He was roundly ridiculed for this fantasy and can now, if he chooses, tell us all that he told us so. But for the NDP and the country it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. Just what does it mean for Canadian politics for the NDP to replace the Liberals?

It could be easily argued that to replace the Liberals you have to, more or less, become the Liberals. That is, if the NDP ever has a hope of governing – and even with the perverse first-past-the-post system that means 40% of the popular vote – they will have to moderate their policies to get that extra 15%. Indeed, it is more like an extra 20% outside Quebec. The NDP, after years of moderating its policies under Layton, was still, going into the election, hovering between 16 and 19%.

If the NDP wants to govern – or share governing power – as a social democratic party then its current situation presents a dilemma. Given the media in this country and the perception of the NDP that it relentlessly creates and recreates, it has two choices. It can either hope to build on Jack Layton’s evident popularity over the next four years and tie trust in him to trust in social democratic policies. Or it can take the easy road and gradually moderate its policies, acquiescing to the inevitable media onslaught against any policies that Bay Street finds offensive – a very long list.

The prospects for a centre-left government are not encouraging as we look out at the current configuration. A divided “left” with a severely weakened Liberal Party could well mean a very long dominance of the Conservative Party with Stephen Harper governing for as long as chooses to.

The prospect for a merger between the Liberals and the NDP is virtually zero. Neither party will ever put the country ahead of their own narrow interests. This is simply the perverse nature of party politics. Their entire reason for being is to get as many seats as possible: full stop. They are constitutionally and culturally incapable of any other goal. Efforts before the 2008 election to get the Greens and the NDP to co-operate by strategically withdrawing from some ridings to help defeat Conservatives got absolutely nowhere. Layton’s triumphalism, on election night – speaking to a country (not only his own party) facing the most destructive government in its history – just reinforced the point.

The Liberals and the NDP will do what parties do – they will keep trying to score the most points, oblivious to what it means for the country. We can moan and complain all we like, as presently constituted that is what they will do.

That being the case, what do progressive Canadians, labour, social movements and civil society groups do? We have no control whatever over what the Liberal Party does – it is dominated by business Liberals and they will decide its future course.

Extra-parliamentary groups are at their weakest state in twenty years and rebuilding them will be a long term project. Should progressives individually join the NDP and try to keep it on the straight and narrow social democratic path? If the party remains an electoral machine with no presence in communities there seems little point. It would not change the political culture and the parliamentary caucus is, in any case, not bound by resolutions passed at party conventions.

Should those outside the party focus on keeping the pressure on the NDP to be true to its philosophy and Canadian values – doing what we can to counter the inevitable fire-storm of criticism the party as the official opposition, will face from the media? This is not really an option – it is a necessity. When Bob Rae won unexpectedly in Ontario, the left there – inexperienced with NDP governments – decided to implement a sort of honeymoon period during which time they did not criticize the government.

It was a fatal mistake. The media and business groups launched a merciless attack. What Bob Rae needed was thousands of unionists, anti-poverty activists, women and youth in the streets demanding progressive change – a force he could point to, to justify keeping his promises. But there was no one. While not wishing to give Rae a pass on his policy failures (backing away from public auto insurance being the biggest), the left helped drive him to the right by failing to demand he keep to the left. The honeymoon ended in divorce.

Before Jack Layton was elected leader there was a unique political effort that suggests a third direction for social and environmental activists. It was called the New Politics Initiative (NPI) and its aim was to bridge the gap between civil society movements and the NDP. Founded by activist Judy Rebick and NDP MP Svend Robinson, it was also intended to recreate the NDP in the image of its predecessor, the CCF – a party/movement that would transform the NDP from an electoral machine dominated by its parliamentary caucus, into a party as movement. That is, the NDP would be active between elections in communities across the country, wherever it could, building on Canadians’ progressive values to create a progressive political culture – working on an equal basis with civil society groups of all kinds.

The NPI was disbanded after the 2003 NDP leadership convention where its proposal for radical changes in the party received (if memory serves) the support of about 40% of the delegates. It was felt that Jack Layton was sympathetic to the notion of bridging the gap between party politics and social movement politics. He was and he made genuine efforts in that direction. But it turned out, in hindsight, that disbanding the NPI was probably a mistake. The forces perpetuating the NDP’s machine culture needed a powerful and permanent counterpoint if there was to be any hope of it changing.

Conditions have changed in ten years, but maybe we should consider reconstituting the NPI. Its role might be even more important now.

 

[Redeye]

When the Left can't win within the rules it may seek to change the rules. 

And that's different from "the Right" how exactly?

 

[Kirkhill]

It may not be.... but the Right has a tradition of making rules and abiding by them.  The Left has a tradition of complaining about the rules that the Right abides by and then fighting to change the rules to suit them.  And thus Progress.......

Also the Left is based on an activist tradition and it is important to maintain that activist base by keeping them engaged pursuing Progress. 

One of the Right's problems is that a significant portion of their base actively seeks to disengage and not Progress.

 

[ModlrMike]

It may be more accurate to say that the right seeks to effect change from within, where the left seeks to effect change from without.

 

[Redeye]

It may be more accurate to say that the right seeks to effect change from within, where the left seeks to effect change from within and without.

That's probably a fairer assessment. - or rather - it would be with the modification that I've made.

 

[GR66]

Further to the NDP, its constitution and internal party tensions:

Resolutions of the New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
To be tabled at the New Democratic Party Convention in Vancouver June 17-19, 2011

1. Enhance the Canada Pension Plan
2. Out of Libya
3. Nationalize U.S. Steel
4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands
5. Institute Proportional Representation Within the NDP
6. Make Mother Earth a Legal Entity
7. Legalize Cannabis
8. Out of NATO and Out of Afghanistan
9. Out of Haiti
10. Boycott Israel
11. Nationalize the Auto Industry
12. Nationalize Big Banks and Insurance Companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
14. No Coalition with Liberals, BQ or Greens (or any other Business oriented party)
15. More policy discussions at conventions
16. Enforcement of NDP policies on NDP governments
17. End One Member One Vote decision making
18. Nationalize Telecommunications
19. Stop enforcing immigration laws
20. Out of NAFTA, FTAA, FTA, GATS and WTO
21. Excuse Student Debt
22. Raise the Minimum Wage to $17/hr
23. Build Social Housing
24. Repeal the Clarity Act
25. Share the work and shorten the work week to 32 hours
26. Extend the Right to Strike
27. Strengthen Affiliations of NDP with Unions
28. 25% of Public Funding to go to Ridings to support grassroots activity
29. Solidarity with Cuba
30. Defend Chavez’s Venezuela and Morales’s Bolivia
31. Focus on Food Safety to justify government activity
32. Social ownership (Nationalization) of banking, manufacturing, communications, energy, health
care, insurance, medical drugs, natural resources, and mass transportation
33. Social ownership (Nationalization) of primary industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing
34. Incorporate Gender Identity in the Human Rights Act.


Should be a fascinating Convention - assuming the press is invited.

Whose side are you on Jack?

Many years ago in my youth I had the opportunity to attended a couple of meetings and conventions for both the Liberal Party of Canada and the (then) Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.  There were always a number of equally "idealistic" but ill-conceived policy resolutions put forward at these events (usually by the youth wing delegates).  These resolutions received the attention they were due and had no impact on the actual policies put forward by the party.

While the vast majority of us might roll our eyes at some (many?) of the suggestions we see put forward at policy conventions (of any party) we shouldn't get too bent out of shape over them.  Policy conventions are a great opportunity for rank and file members to actually get together and talk about issues and ideals with many people with different backgrounds, experiences and ideas.  Democracy in action.

Political parties however are like any other large organization and usually change direction pretty slowly and incrementally.  The most radical ideas get weeded out and even the good ones get watered down to the happy medium of the collective opinion of the whole group.  Jack Layton's about as likely to steer the NDP to the far left as Steven Harper is to steer the Conservatives hard to the Right.  The larger a party gets and the more public support they attract, the more "moderate" they will become.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

"The prospect for a merger between the Liberals and the NDP is virtually zero. Neither party will ever put the country ahead of their own narrow interests. This is simply the perverse nature of party politics. Their entire reason for being is to get as many seats as possible: full stop. They are constitutionally and culturally incapable of any other goal. Efforts before the 2008 election to get the Greens and the NDP to co-operate by strategically withdrawing from some ridings to help defeat Conservatives got absolutely nowhere. Layton’s triumphalism, on election night – speaking to a country (not only his own party) facing the most destructive government in its history – just reinforced the point."

My question for the author is how exactly going to a proportional representation system would change the nature of party politics.  I would think it would make it worse.  Under our current system, MPs are at least tied to their ridings and held responsible by those who elected them for implementing laws or policies which harm them.  For example, look at all the MPs who faced the wrath of their electorate for implementing the long arm registry.  Under proportional, there would be no accountability to anyone but the party for those elected.  IMHO, this would just lead to more regionalism in the country, and would further alienate people from regions without as much influence as others (see Alberta or Quebec).

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree entirely BG45 ..... and so, apparently do the ex MPs ....

Some of the greatest frustrations these MPs faced during their political careers came from their own parties. MPs repeatedly spoke of how decisions from their leadership were opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional, and how their party's demands often ran counter to the MPs' desires to practise politics constructively.

It would be easy to dismiss these as words of a few bitter partisans, but that would be inaccurate. Almost without exception, these former Parliamentarians spoke with reverence at the opportunity to serve in Parliament, and looked back on their experience as time well spent. In fact, they consistently said that the work of Parliament was critical to the way Canadians live together.

Source


Why on earth would we entrust more power to organizations that their own lead members declare to be "opaque, arbitrary and unprofessional"? 

PR enshrines control by unelected, unaccountable, "arbitrary and unprofessional" apparatchiks that never have to see the light of day, much less justify their actions.

 

[Redeye]

That is the biggest problem with most PR systems, because the redistribution of seats impedes regional representation that seems so key.  At the same time, given that party discipline is such that it's rare that any elected MP actually really does anything specifically to fight for their riding, especially against their party, I don't know how big a problem it really is either.  In theory our MPs are supposed to represent us in Ottawa, but it really seems to work the other way around in practice.

I've been looking at the AV system the UK just voted on (but didn't accept), it's an interesting concept which doesn't have the regional representation problem.

 

[Infanteer]

In theory our MPs are supposed to represent us in Ottawa, but it really seems to work the other way around in practice.

Ahh...are they supposed to represent us in Parliament, or be our Representatives in Parliament.  The difference is slight, but important.

One of my favorite statements from Edmund Burke
“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”

Parties are an organizational appendage of our electoral system, not the raison d'etre itself of the system.  The fact that X percent voted this party or that is irrelevant as all a person votes for is a representative in his riding.  This is a fact the PR crowd seems to forget; each similiarly sized group of people (and we've discussed the issues with this) gets an equal say in the House - that say is decided by a plurality of the vote.  The only way I could see majorities being achieved and this principal remaining intact was run-off elections; this would generally result in second elections for most ridings.

As for regional representation, that would be best served by a triple-E Senate as Australia has done.  The only trick is how do we define a region?  The default is by province, and this may be applicable to smaller provinces such as PEI or New Brunswick, but there are great differences between the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and its interior.

 

[a_majoor]

Triple E Senates that represent "regions" would have to be modeled after the pre 1913 US Senate. Prior to the 17th amendment in 1913, Senators were elected by the State legislature and reported to the Statehouse, not the population of the State in question.

Direct election of Senators under a Triple E or other system would have most of the pitfalls of any other direct election system, but magnified since there would be far fewer Senators in the upper house. The main advantage to a Triple E senate is each Province would have the same amount of "clout" since each province would have the same number of Senators. This situation obtains in the United States since there are only two senators per State, Texas has the same amount of votes in the upper house as Delaware so smaller States are not at the mercy of larger ones.

 

[Infanteer]

Although probably better off in the Electoral Reform thread, the 17th amendment was a good amendment.  I am opposed to provincial government selection of Senators on two reasons:

1.  A popular vote is better than a provincial executive decision at deciding whom the electorate of a region wish to represent them in the upper house.  I may not have voted for my NDP government in my Province, but I sure as hell will vote for my Senator(s) (as I voted for my MP).

2.  Allowing the Provincial Governments to appoint Senators gives the province a claw in Federal government which, to me at least, seems to violate the principles of federalism in Canada.  Picture how the provinces would feel if the Federal government decided who could be in a provincial cabinet?

Giving provinces equal "clout" is, as stated, the purpose of a triple E upper house.  However, my reason for proposing (in another thread) that major cities be considered regions separate from their provinces is that the major cities have too much "clout" within provinces.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the inner workings of the NDP. Even I, as a political junkie, am surprised at some of this stuff. Imagine how the severely normal people who don't follow politics would react once they get past the "HOAG' image of Jack Layton and see what he really stands for:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/05/ndps-greatest-threat-reality-and-common.html

NDP's Greatest Threat: Reality And Common Sense

The NDP are full voting members of Socialist International (SI): a global organization with members in over 160 countries.

The very purpose of SI: " is to strengthen relations between the affiliated parties and to coordinate their political attitudes and activities by consent."

SI's objective is to create a fairer world through democratic socialism.

A crucial and very telling connection is that the NDP party is strategically aligned with this organization.  NDP has voting rights, speaking rights and pays dues to be a full member (3.1).

Logically, what is the expression of these "strengthened and affiliated parties" where they can "coordinate their political attitudes?"  The New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus clearly answers this.  By overturning capitalism with socialism.  It's in her manifesto.  Please take 15 minutes to marvel at the incredible agenda that they strategically have.  Here are just a few quips that should cause you to wish their ideas were on the "endangered species list" not running hysterically through a 100 member caucus.

-The global capitalist system is today in the throes of a massive economic, political, environmental and social crisis. If the capitalist system continues to exist, growing poverty, violence, war and repression and environmental degradation will be the fate of working people across Canada and around the world. The Socialist Caucus of the NDP does not believe that it is possible for working people anywhere to achieve significant and permanent social and political progress without transcending the limits of capitalism. A prerequisite is the establishment of Socialist governments all across the country, federally and provincially.

-Probably the most basic democratic right ever conceived is that those who create the wealth of society should own and control it. It is to the realization of this right that the NDP Socialist Caucus commits itself. (Interpolation: they are parroting the labour theory of value here; the investors and creators of business, not the workers, are of course the real owners and creators of wealth and already have their rights enshrined by law)

-By a socialist system we mean the replacement of the private ownership of the major means of production, distribution, banking and exchange with social ownership under workers' self-management and democratic government. A socialist NDP government would as a first order of priority institute a system of economic planning with the objective of satisfying human needs rather than private profit.

-A socialist NDP also means a more democratic NDP, where the leadership, especially when in government, implements the policies adopted via the democratic structures of the party.

And by the way,

The Socialist Caucus is open to all members of the NDP. Those who wish to participate in the work of the Caucus but are not members of the NDP will be able to join the party at meetings of the Caucus.

On SI's homepage they congratulate the NDP party on their historic results citing: "The unprecedented surge of support for the New Democrats comes on the back of a strong manifesto committing to major restructuring of Canada’s pension plan...(etc)."

Where do we see a connection between their SI and NDP manifesto, and a practical strategic "coordination of political attitudes"?  Very clearly, in a list of resolutions they have developed to advance the NDP party.

If your meal is still down, I mean no ill will to bring it up by citing a list of their resolutions.  I am simply trying to advise the (hidden) agenda of the NDP party and drawing clear connections for your benefit.

A couple of the big ones:

3. Nationalize U.S. Steel
4. Close the Alberta Tar Sands
12. Nationalize the Big Banks and Insurance companies
13. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
18. Democratic Control of the Telecommunications Industry
22. Raise the Minimum Wage (uh, to $17 Canadian dollars per hour.)
25. Share the Work, Shorten the Work Week (to a less oppressive duration of 32 hours)
33. Social Ownership of Primary Industries (translation: you make money, jump ship)

Before you say, "uh, that's not the NDP party, that's the SI giving suggestions to the NDP so it's different"
then I respond with:

If the NDP are not socialists at the core, then why are they members of a socialist organization?
If the NDP are not 'generally' in line with these suggestions, why do they become members of a group that says it's thier purpose to further advance the NDP's socialistic cause?
Why then can only NDP members be a part of the Socialist Cacus (which further highlights the closeness of strategic relationships?)

Hmm....thought so...no logical answer except for:

Socialist International has the NDP party as a member.  They are of 'kindered spirits' even if they do not agree on every point.  Their own manifesto says, "

"There are of coarse many New Democrats who, while believing in Socialism, do not agree with all of our ideas. But they too must reject the Third Way. Together, we may not agree on exactly how to get there, but we all want a path to a socialist Canada, in a socialist world. We need simply to agree that all our efforts should aim to advance the socialist project! We must therefore reject the Third Way. There are only two ways -- socialism or capitalism."

They are one in mind and purpose despite petty differences. Do not let the NDP point to petty disagreements to create the illusion of independence.

No NDP member will be able to evade the above logic.  (Despite how emotional and recklessly accusatory they become.  Logic is still Logic. A is not B...it is A: that kind of logic).

NDP are socialists looking to overturn Canada's evil capitalist society.  They are linked with an overarching group: SI to achieve this.  No amount of spin and accusations can deny this reality.  With 100 seats in Parliament, we must take the following 3 action items:

1. Press the NDP party with the following questions:
a) Why did you not let your voters know you were members of the SI organization whereby they indicate their purpose is to work with you to create a socialist Canada?
b)If you do not 'generally agree' with the socialist caucus agenda, then how can you be members? Or, if you 'generally agree' then why did you not tell Canadians of all the socialistic themes you are advocating and working towards?
c) how can you accuse others of hidden agenda's yet not present these facts to Canadian voters?

2.  Keep your eyes peeled for my 'in defense of capitialism' encouragement video and reflect on it.

3.  Think about your life and freedoms. We Canadians are experts in the area of being passive.  Lets decide enough is enough and voice our ideas about protecting the free market.  Brag about your generous attitude and how you invest in others serving and giving!  Our way of life may depend on it.

 

[Gimpy]

More on the inner workings of the NDP. Even I, as a political junkie, am surprised at some of this stuff. Imagine how the severely normal people who don't follow politics would react once they get past the "HOAG' image of Jack Layton and see what he really stands for:

That is a terrible blog post. The writer is clearly implying that all members of the NDP caucus are part of the New Democract Party Socialist Caucus. Anyways, we've gone over this point earlier on and in no way does the Socialist faction within the NDP caucus hold as much (or any) sway as these fear-mongers are saying (in the last leadership election their candidate won a whopping 1.1% of the vote). Honestly, you make some good points on some issues, but you really lower the level of discourse when you post utterly ridiculous blogs. Not to mention how obviously biased this particular blogger is. The writer makes zero attempt at any kind of integrity by invoking the possible loss of "freedoms". That is the hallmark of a fear-monger.

Furthermore, how can you even label this "the inner workings of the NDP"? Does this blogger have insider access to the NDP caucus? How can he or anyone else possibly understand what occurs in the caucus through looking at a fringe groups website? Because from what I've been reading this guy sounds like he would have a heart attack/vomit uncontrollably if he was anywhere near a congregation of "socialists".

 

[Infanteer]

The slant of that blog seems in line with all the people speaking of Harper's "hidden agenda" and how he was going to steer the Conservative Party and Canada into the right.  People trying to make the most out of the fringe of his parties caucus.

It goes in the lame fearmongering pile.