NDP a significant political force

[idealisttotheend]

For:

Legitimized 'socialism' as a political force

Medicare from Saskatchewan

Minority goverment of 72 -- set the agenda

Influetial in 1980-84 parliament

Liberals take policies from platfrom to stay in good with people on the left of the spectrum

Tend not to vacilate between centerist positions as Liberals and PCs.

Against:

May have allowed Mulroney to pass FTA in 88 by splitting vote

Never get many seats

Not seen as being able to win

People like Tredeau, though ideologically inclined to the NDP join the Liberals instead (Tredeau didn't want to "spend life as a preacher.")

[Kliege]

Jack Layton blasted Paul Martin yesterday, saying that he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of homeless people in Toronto and across Canada as a result of cuts he made while he was the Minister of Finance.

"I believe that when Paul cancelled affordable housing across this country it produced a dramatic rise in homelessness and death due to homelessness. I've always said I hold him responsible for that."

I was shocked when I heard about it last night, but it looked like the national media were going to let it pass. I guess not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not shocked that Layton believes that. I'm shocked that he said it.

There's no doubt in my mind that Layton really feels that way. It's not a remark that's going to win him any votes--in fact it's certain to cost him some. There's no tactical benefit to saying something that inflammatory. This certainly fits Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe as being "when a politician accidentally tells the truth".

[maplesyrup]

Isn't it shocking to hear a politician tell the truth?

We just are not used to it.

[Black Dog]

Layton's bang on. In 1993, Martin cancelled federal funding for social housing,a nd then, in his 1995 federal budget, he cut $7.4-billion in social transfers to the provinces and social spending and devolved responsibility for social housing to the provinces. These cuts, when compounded with cuts to social programs like healthcare and employment training programs, were devestaing.

Martin will have a hard time defending himself on this, especially when, as official Opposition critic for Housing and Urban Affairs, he co-chaired a Liberal task force on housing.

"The housing crisis is growing at an alarming rate and the government sits there and does nothing; it refuses to apply the urgent measures that are required to reverse this deteriorating situation... The lack of affordable housing contributes to and accelerates the cycle of poverty, which is reprehensible in a society as rich as ours."- Paul Martin May 14, 1990

Another shining example of the Liberal's penchant for talking like social democrats and walking like neoliberals. As for the Cons? Well, they would starve government of revenue that could be used for housing and other social programs and direct more to pet projects like the military.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Actaully I blame the death on homeless people not on the government but on society. I get sick of people always asking the government to do all the charity work for them. Why don't you guys volunteer your time at a homeless shelter, or even better let the homeless live with you.

[BigGunner]

Actaully I blame the death on homeless people not on the government but on society. I get sick of people always asking the government to do all the charity work for them. Why don't you guys volunteer your time at a homeless shelter, or even better let the homeless live with you.

With the gap between rich and poor at its biggest in recorded history and the tax loopholes that millionaire PM Paul Martin installed in the budget laws, there are far more people in dire need of charity and social programs than ever before.

Paul Martin's own company is registered offshore and does not pay taxes in Canada.

Perhaps you can lead by example AF...let a homeless person live with you.

[August1991]

It's not a remark that's going to win him any votes--in fact it's certain to cost him some.

Wait and see. Layton's point - like Harper's about helicopters - is that politicians' decisions have effects in the "real" world. There are "real" people out here - individuals - who think and make decisions. We cope and manage.

The Liberal Party is being criticised right now on this very point: it has tended to assume that the 20 some odd million people are a blank mass that can be easily manipulated.

In the same sense, homeless people are not a blank mass that can be shunted here or there; or given housing or not.

As individuals, they are ultimately responsible for their own situation. For a variety of reasons, they have made a choice to live the way they do. Blaming Martin or the government for their situation smugly belittles them.

[August1991]

With the gap between rich and poor at its biggest in recorded history

What evidence do you have of that?

A part from any "gap", by historical standards, the poorest in Canada today have never been richer. If you want non-statistical evidence, peruse some old family photos or photos from the 1920s. All four of my grandparents were born into houses without running water nor electricity. None finished high school. One was barely literate. Two died young; one for lack of decent medical care. For the period, their lives were quite typical. Compared to their neighbours, they would have considered themselves "average" to "well off".

There is no comparison between poverty today and poverty in the past.

[maplesyrup]

The middle class is shrinking, a few are getting richer, but most are getting poorer, which is what is causing this gap between the rich and poor.

It is pretty common knowledge that the government has shifted to the right quite a bit, being pushed by the right wing official opposition; and a lot of Canadians want the pendelum to swing back the other way for awhile.

I don't think any of the political parties has a corner on all the answers, they all have something positive to contribute.

[BigGunner]

With the gap between rich and poor at its biggest in recorded history

What evidence do you have of that?

A part from any "gap", by historical standards, the poorest in Canada today have never been richer. If you want non-statistical evidence, peruse some old family photos or photos from the 1920s. All four of my grandparents were born into houses without running water nor electricity. None finished high school. One was barely literate. Two died young; one for lack of decent medical care. For the period, their lives were quite typical. Compared to their neighbours, they would have considered themselves "average" to "well off".

There is no comparison between poverty today and poverty in the past.

No, there is no direct comparison from 1920's poverty to 2004 poverty...but you can certainly thank the progressive left politics of every era that has pushed for, and largely been successful in creating the conditions for this better society we now live in.

It was J.S. Woodsworth that was largely responsible for the CPP that we now enjoy. It was pressure from the CCF and its growing popularity that created public healthcare so that no one would be without affordable and accessable care, unlike generations ago...

If anyone thinks that these are permanent programs, all you need to do is look at the external pressures today and even some of the rants of some of the more outspoken anti-left people on this forum, and you could understand that everything that has been gained can be lost too.

AF even suggested that the poor and homeless rely on charity rather than gov't programs. The pressure to scrap the Canada Health Act is stonger than ever, and with NAFTA, once its gone, we will never get it back.

You can thank the left and progressive over generations for the improvements in society...public education, public healthcare, a national pension program, unemployment insurance...all of which have taken a pounding at the hands of conservative Liberal PM, Paul Martin, and former PC PM Brian Mulroney.

[August1991]

The following article shows that the solution to homeless is much more complicated than merely allocating money for shelters (or whatever Layton accused PM PM of not funding).

I have a suspicion that some homeless are tired of NDP dogooder types bothering them with various application forms for government programmes.

A city outreach worker visited the bridge daily, starting May 5, to try to persuade nearly 25 squatters to accept an offer by the city to help them find somewhere to live. While all have since left the bridge at Bathurst and Lake Shore Blvd., only 10 accepted the city's offer.

Toronto Star on Homeless

[Black Dog]

In the same sense, homeless people are not a blank mass that can be shunted here or there; or given housing or not.

As individuals, they are ultimately responsible for their own situation. For a variety of reasons, they have made a choice to live the way they do. Blaming Martin or the government for their situation smugly belittles them.

I thought/hoped this Dickensian crap went out of fashion along time ago. Alas.

Funny how you are able, in one breath, to describe the homeless as a non-homogenous group, yet are bale in teh very next sentence to account for their situation as a result of individual choice. Homelessness, for the vast majrity, is not a choice nor a consequense. If that were the case, we wouldn't have such phenomenons as the working homeless, a growing trend whereby people with jobs and livings are simply unable to find affordable housing.

The homeless situation is the very tangible result of policies implemented by Paul Martin and the Liberals.

[August1991]

I thought/hoped this Dickensian crap went out of fashion along time ago.

And Dickensian poverty disappeared a long time ago too. You can find such poverty abroad but not in Canada.

Homelessness, for the vast majrity, is not a choice nor a consequense.

BD, did you read the Toronto Star article quoted above? 25 is a good enough sample size for me. Only 10 accepted the government subsidized housing. How would Charles Dickens describe the other 15?

And BD, read the article through. The couple will get about $1000 on welfare, leaving some $390 after rent is paid. But he smokes. And they have two dogs to feed. WTF?

I will point out one additional detail. If either of these two finds a part-time job, they will be taxed at a higher rate than the wealthiest in Canada. Anyone on welfare loses benefits dollar for dollar. That's a 100% tax rate.

The NDP should propose changing that aspect of the tax system before any other.

[takeanumber]

I support a negative income tax on economic grounds. But I have yet to find a conservative that is with me on this issue. I guess fiscal conservatism is only skin deep.

Anyway, to hit this issue:

And BD, read the article through. The couple will get about $1000 on welfare, leaving some $390 after rent is paid. But he smokes. And they have two dogs to feed. WTF?

Well, he should quit smoking, no doubt. But let's not forget that even peopleon welfare are people, and still have addictions that are tough to kick, especially smoking. But true, I don't like the idea of 1.17 of tax money going out to a corporation for profit and 6 bucks worth of tax comming on back to the government.

When it comes to the two dogs, the Conservative answer is very clear: He should kill his two dogs and eat them.

Now that's Dickens.

[idealisttotheend]

There is no comparison between poverty today and poverty in the past.

I think this is true, the question is who (and in what proportion) will get the benefits of the more productive technologies now and in the future.

When it comes to the two dogs, the Conservative answer is very clear: He should kill his two dogs and eat them.

That would give them the most free market value now wouldn't it?