Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist

[Wild Bill]

So why did banks, corporations and law firms etc. supported Liberals.

While Reform was supported by grassroots only.

Exactly, Saipan! These easy categories are not pulled from a text book but from some comic book! Esq gave us nothing but low brow, shallow stereotypes.

When I was active in Reform I was constantly meeting other members from both sides of the political spectrum and all points in between. Lots of "disenfranchised conservatives" who found Mulroney's party to be run by elitists (like all the others!). There were Liberals who didn't like the Liberal leadership and LOTS of NDP! There were even a smattering of enviromentalists - pre-Green, I guess.

The biggest factor in common that bound them all together was the streak of populism in the Party. Most people understand basic economics - that you have to live within your means or you will go broke. You don't have to be a "corporatist" to grasp that concept. Ask any single mother who has to try to feed and clothe her kids on a welfare cheque. Working people understand that government services cost lots of money. They're the ones who are taxed most to pay for it!

My father and many of my friends were steel workers. The popular stereotype was that they were all NDP, something the NDP always tried to pretend was true, even to this day. Every election the posters would go up in the factory washrooms saying "Your Union Supports the NDP and So Do You!" The stewards would try to chat up the men and sway them to the party line.

It never worked and actually offended most of the members. The posters tended to grow mustaches and graffiti. The stewards learned quickly not to be too pushy or they could expect to get roughed up in a backlash. Union members were union members not because they all believed the same way but simply because the factories were closed shops. You had to join the union or you couldn't work there! Afterwards, the idea that the Union could expect you to toe the line and vote as you were told was a bit much for most rough and ready steelworkers to accept! They tended to be individualists who resented being told how to vote.

People with common sense exist in all parties. They tend to support different political philosophies because they see one or another as a better agent of change to achieve their goals. Reform offered something never seen before or since - a party dedicated to more direct democracy, where Party platform was created by the grassroots and Party policy was dictated by the wishes of each Member's constituents and not the PMO.

I thoroughly enjoyed talking with people who formerly supported different parties. I spent many happy hours in debate over a few beer and learned a LOT about how stereotypes are almost always WRONG!

It was such a shame that Harper chose to put a stake through the Reform/Alliance idea of voter populism and bury it six feet down. I really think it would have been good for the country. Certainly it would have given many folks a reason to get active to the point where voting percentages would likely rise. More people would have felt that their vote actually meant something.

[Michael Hardner]

Wild Bill,

If they didn't vote for NDP, were they voting for the Liberals ? It always struck me as stupid that union people would vote for the Harris Conservatives, who were actively working against them.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill,

If they didn't vote for NDP, were they voting for the Liberals ? It always struck me as stupid that union people would vote for the Harris Conservatives, who were actively working against them.

You forget what a geezer I am, Michael! I'm talking back into the 60's, long before Harris!

However, even in the Harris days there were lots of steel workers who supported him. Where did you think the votes came from? Harris had TWO of the biggest majorities Ontario had ever seen! No Liberal party has ever taken even close to the popular vote percentage of Harris'. Those numbers would have been impossible to achieve without there being many union votes in the mix.

WHY? Because the big appeal of Harris was that he was perceived as a politician who would "do what he said and say what he'd do!" Working men respect that. Few other politicians have been perceived the same way. Certainly not McGuinty or Petersen!

You also have to remember that steelworkers are NOT generally less educated or intelligent than other demographics! This is a dangerous and even patronizing stereotype! In the past few decades the average education has risen to levels never seen before in history. Also, lots of young guys didn't have the money, inclination or opportunity to go on to university. They were more than intelligent enough! They just wanted to start making some good money and start their lives. Many of them were more self-educated than you might have expected. Actually reading books seemed more popular back then. Certainly the breadth and depth of the typical magazine rack far outshone what we see today.

As I said, these workers joined the union because it was part of getting the job. They had NO choice about it! Meanwhile, they came from as varied a background as any other demographic of society. It's not surprising that they were also just as varied in their political choices.

Another factor is that more union workers than you might think are perfectly aware that their union cares ONLY about the union's interests! Sometimes the actual workers come second. The workers are often just as cynical about their leadership as they are to any other politician. Moreover, many workers are also objective enough to see that their union rarely gives a damn about their city, province or country. Unions tend to fixate solely and only on union interests. If a worker has different values about how his public governments should run then he is not going to listen to how his union tells him to vote.

Did you really think that only those guys who grew up reading 'Das Kapital' worked in steel mills, Michael?

[Pliny]

Wild Bill,

If they didn't vote for NDP, were they voting for the Liberals ? It always struck me as stupid that union people would vote for the Harris Conservatives, who were actively working against them.

When I was the member of a Union I really didn't care for Union politics. Their interest in government is Union interests not individual interests. They are in essence a special interest that seeks privilege for itself and galvanizes labour for it's causes.

Does it adequately represent labour? Not when it is adversorial and confrontational to a company and it's management even when they treat their employees fairly.

In the long run their bullying tactics make most ventures economic failures. So in the short term they limit jobs and in the long term they destroy them. If their objective is all about jobs. In the short term, some people benefit over others and in the long term no one benefits.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

The US has more commies and parties than in Canada...but American voters don't give them a majority (or minority).

And they are irrelevant to the electoral process, because the Democrats and Republicans seem to be capable of bipartisanship when it comes to fixing the system to shut out third parties. We are headed in that same direction in Canada! We too will soon have a rightwing party that unabashedly serves corporate interests, and when the unwashed masses get restless, our only alternative will be the Liberals -- who also serve corporate interests, but more covertly by extracting a few minor compromises from them. And ofcourse we will have the same talkingheads in Ottawa, just like the talkingheads in Washington, who pretend that the politicos they curry the favour of, are really representing the interests of the majority.

[Pliny]

Replying to Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist.

The NDP shouldn't try and confuse people with their name, that's the first indication of deceit.

It should be called the National Democratic Socialist Party. The NDSP.

It is basically the hideout for the far-left socialist since the far-left socialist would be almost completely disenfranchised if he openly showed his face and some do. Contrary to what WIP thinks there are representatives of the Communist party and the Marxist-Leninist party in our elections as well as other socialist options.

If the NDP dissolved, those members concerned with social justice would probably gravitate to the Liberals. Liberals were always considered "progressive". The Conservative party even took on a "progressive" image by calling themselves the Progressive Conservative Party in order to look more like the Liberals and perhaps win elections with swing votes. The extreme leftists would go to the Green Party.

The far left are the more determined socialist and IMO they don't differ much from the far right. The interest is control of the centralized power of the State. The far left and the far right are where the most desperate hunger for seizing power at any means reside. They use deceit, trickery or propaganda to gain power. It is the reason, as August points out, that those at the top can't can't agree among themselves and there is always a desperate struggle between them. The appearance is it a difference of policy but it is really a difference of who should be on top of the dog pile. At the upper echolons of power it gets very mean.

Although Fascism is a socialist ideology, it's popularity was attempted to be killed by alienating it from socialist circles and painting it as some sort of capitalist corporatism, as though corporations are the ultimate authority in governance and make legislation while government is it's lap dog.

August mentioned that "the NDP are Liberals in a hurry". But that doesn't explain where they are in a hurry to. Obviously it is greater centralization of power by running social programs and basically taking over from the individual his input to society, essentially making us lonely in a crowd and looking to the seat of power for our sustenance, keeping the individual weak unless, of course he can secure favour by promoting political objectives.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Pliny

[Evening Star]

There's no deceit involved at all. The NDP openly identifies as social democratic on their party website, in Layton's writings, campaign literature, speeches, ...: http://www.ndp.ca/vision/economy

If anything, provincial NDP governments have probably been less social democratic in practice than the party's literature tends to suggest.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Evening Star

[pinko]

There's no deceit involved at all. The NDP openly identifies as social democratic on their party website, in Layton's writings, campaign literature, speeches, ...: http://www.ndp.ca/vision/economy

If anything, provincial NDP governments have probably been less social democratic in practice than the party's literature tends to suggest.

Manitoba is a perfect exmaple. Doer was(is) something other than social democratic in his views.

[WIP]

Exactly, Saipan! These easy categories are not pulled from a text book but from some comic book! Esq gave us nothing but low brow, shallow stereotypes.

When I was active in Reform I was constantly meeting other members from both sides of the political spectrum and all points in between. Lots of "disenfranchised conservatives" who found Mulroney's party to be run by elitists (like all the others!). There were Liberals who didn't like the Liberal leadership and LOTS of NDP! There were even a smattering of enviromentalists - pre-Green, I guess.

I joined the Reform Party when it first started organizing in Ontario 20 years ago. It was grassroots in the sense that every crackpot group from fundamentalists and anti-abortion crusaders, anti-immigration neo-nazi-types were moving in on mass and trying to take over riding associations. Within a short time, the Alberta leadership had to start establishing more command and control, and move away from the grassroots populist BS. After it morphed into Canadian Alliance, and then absorbed most of the former P.C. Party, Stephen Harper started bringing in his U.S. advisers and turning it into the Canadian Republican Party.

The biggest factor in common that bound them all together was the streak of populism in the Party. Most people understand basic economics - that you have to live within your means or you will go broke. You don't have to be a "corporatist" to grasp that concept. Ask any single mother who has to try to feed and clothe her kids on a welfare cheque. Working people understand that government services cost lots of money. They're the ones who are taxed most to pay for it!

Makes sense to me; now explain how cutting corporate taxes and tax breaks for the wealthy are living within our means?

My father and many of my friends were steel workers. The popular stereotype was that they were all NDP, something the NDP always tried to pretend was true, even to this day. Every election the posters would go up in the factory washrooms saying "Your Union Supports the NDP and So Do You!" The stewards would try to chat up the men and sway them to the party line.

My father came of age during the Great Depression -- before unions became commonplace. Back in those days, most people were back working for less than a dollar a day if they could find jobs, and that's why factories and other workplaces became unionized. Your father, and you and your friends grew up during a time when they could take the five day work week, the eight hour day, Workmen's Compensation, and better wages all for granted. Now that we are in a time when unions are being busted, and wages are falling, I'm surprised how many of the floundering middle class can't figure out which side their bread is buttered on. For all of the complaints and whining about unions, if you're an average person, you wouldn't be earning what you get now,if it hadn't been for the unions.....and that includes all of you who have never been part of a union. You've benefited from the presence of unions, because employers (like the old Dofasco Steel Co. here in Hamilton) that did not want an organized workforce, had to offer their workers equivalent wages and working conditions.

You had to join the union or you couldn't work there! Afterwards, the idea that the Union could expect you to toe the line and vote as you were told was a bit much for most rough and ready steelworkers to accept! They tended to be individualists who resented being told how to vote.

And if we had the so called "right to work laws" that Reagan and many state governments introduced in the U.S., that would have allowed workers who would not support the union, to enjoy the same benefits. The end result is no union, and everybody working for near minimum wages.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Stephen Harper started bringing in his U.S. advisers and turning it into the Canadian Republican Party.

....And if we had the so called "right to work laws" that Reagan and many state governments introduced in the U.S

But US based GM, Ford, and Chrysler auto and parts supplier plants are A-OK!

[WIP]

Replying to Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist.

The NDP shouldn't try and confuse people with their name, that's the first indication of deceit.

It should be called the National Democratic Socialist Party. The NDSP.

Agreed.....as long as the Conservative Party changes its name to the Conservative Corporate Party.

It is basically the hideout for the far-left socialist since the far-left socialist would be almost completely disenfranchised if he openly showed his face and some do. Contrary to what WIP thinks there are representatives of the Communist party and the Marxist-Leninist party in our elections as well as other socialist options.

I don't recall any elections where the Communists or the Marxist-Leninist Party won more than about 100 votes, and until an honest attempt is made to extend proportional representation, third parties will become increasingly irrelevant.

If the NDP dissolved, those members concerned with social justice would probably gravitate to the Liberals. Liberals were always considered "progressive". The Conservative party even took on a "progressive" image by calling themselves the Progressive Conservative Party in order to look more like the Liberals and perhaps win elections with swing votes. The extreme leftists would go to the Green Party.

The Liberals are all over the map! Is Iggy any less a servant of the rich and powerful than Harper is? There would only be minor improvements....like preventing the theocons and other social conservatives from advancing their agendas any further.

The far left are the more determined socialist and IMO they don't differ much from the far right. The interest is control of the centralized power of the State.

Although Fascism is a socialist ideology, it's popularity was attempted to be killed by alienating it from socialist circles and painting it as some sort of capitalist corporatism, as though corporations are the ultimate authority in governance and make legislation while government is it's lap dog.

And that's where the similarities end. Fascism is not socialism! The far left may abolish private property and private ownership for collectivization or state control. But, the far right fascist centralizes state power in the interests of the aristocracy. Under classic fascism, the political leader(s) have ultimate power; but under the present system we have now, we have neither fascism nor real democracy, but instead a state where the world's largest corporations are able to exert necessary control over nation states through GATT and other "free trade" agreements, financing through the World Bank and IMF, and when all else fails -- regime change courtesy of America's oversized military. The best definition for this kind of existence I've seen is "Inverted Totalitarianism.".

[Jack Weber]

Makes sense to me; now explain how cutting corporate taxes and tax breaks for the wealthy are living within our means?

My father came of age during the Great Depression -- before unions became commonplace. Back in those days, most people were back working for less than a dollar a day if they could find jobs, and that's why factories and other workplaces became unionized. Your father, and you and your friends grew up during a time when they could take the five day work week, the eight hour day, Workmen's Compensation, and better wages all for granted. Now that we are in a time when unions are being busted, and wages are falling, I'm surprised how many of the floundering middle class can't figure out which side their bread is buttered on. For all of the complaints and whining about unions, if you're an average person, you wouldn't be earning what you get now,if it hadn't been for the unions.....and that includes all of you who have never been part of a union. You've benefited from the presence of unions, because employers (like the old Dofasco Steel Co. here in Hamilton) that did not want an organized workforce, had to offer their workers equivalent wages and working conditions.

And if we had the so called "right to work laws" that Reagan and many state governments introduced in the U.S., that would have allowed workers who would not support the union, to enjoy the same benefits. The end result is no union, and everybody working for near minimum wages.

Spot on!!!

Bullseye!!!

[Wild Bill]

My father came of age during the Great Depression -- before unions became commonplace. Back in those days, most people were back working for less than a dollar a day if they could find jobs, and that's why factories and other workplaces became unionized. Your father, and you and your friends grew up during a time when they could take the five day work week, the eight hour day, Workmen's Compensation, and better wages all for granted. Now that we are in a time when unions are being busted, and wages are falling, I'm surprised how many of the floundering middle class can't figure out which side their bread is buttered on. For all of the complaints and whining about unions, if you're an average person, you wouldn't be earning what you get now,if it hadn't been for the unions.....and that includes all of you who have never been part of a union. You've benefited from the presence of unions, because employers (like the old Dofasco Steel Co. here in Hamilton) that did not want an organized workforce, had to offer their workers equivalent wages and working conditions.

The problem with your argument is that times HAVE changed! The times you describe were over 70 years ago! Workers could unionize because they were dealing with companies that faced no international competition. The world was essentially that of workers and a company in the same town.

Today, a union can strike for higher wages and benefits but they are not dealing just with their local company. They are dealing with global competition. Most times, if they win too much from their company that company will not be able to compete against some Chinese outfit and all you are left with is a bankrupt business and no jobs. Worse yet, it often seems that the unions are still run by 1960's versions of Buzz Hargrove and don't even realize that the world has changed. When the company goes bankrupt these characters are actually surprised!

Just another case of generals all ready to fight the LAST war, I guess!

[Michael Hardner]

Did you really think that only those guys who grew up reading 'Das Kapital' worked in steel mills, Michael?

You entirely missed my point. Why did they vote for a party that would, if it could, delist their unions and cut their wages to world prices ?

[WIP]

Spot on!!!

Bullseye!!!

Thanks. Glad to be of service.

[bloodyminded]

All the opposition parties witnessed this happen and know that as J-Roc rapped in Trailer Park Boys: "If it could happen to me it could happen to you!"

Ha!

This is a good analogy, Wild Bill, as I think (since we're talking about politics) that it works, humorously, on another level as well. (Remember what J-Roc was rapping about, after all.)

[bloodyminded]

There's no deceit involved at all. The NDP openly identifies as social democratic on their party website, in Layton's writings, campaign literature, speeches, ...: http://www.ndp.ca/vision/economy

If anything, provincial NDP governments have probably been less social democratic in practice than the party's literature tends to suggest.

Absolutely, and probably without exception. Anyone who thinks of them as wishing to usher in a Communist state simply isn't paying attention.

[WIP]

The problem with your argument is that times HAVE changed! The times you describe were over 70 years ago! Workers could unionize because they were dealing with companies that faced no international competition. The world was essentially that of workers and a company in the same town.

Today, a union can strike for higher wages and benefits but they are not dealing just with their local company. They are dealing with global competition.

Exactly. But why should we be dealing with global competition in the first place? Labour can't just pick up and leave if wages and working conditions degrade; but money knows no boundaries these days, thanks to deregulation and free trade agreements. Why should we be competing with millions of displaced farmers in China....not to mention their prison labourers? The corporate and advertiser-run media doesn't allow for any revisiting of the promises that were made when these agreements were signed by the P.C.'s, or the promises of the Liberals to scrap them. It's like Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Europe, and pretty much the whole world was caught by this tsunami of inevitable free trade agreements, that promised prosperity for all....before they shipped the factories and the IT jobs off to China and India.

And now that the workers face the threat of having their factory closed down for a new one opening in China or elsewhere that pays 50c an hour, the unions have been in a state of steady retreat....so what do anti-union activists want now? The complete subjugation of the working class, and the extinction of the middle class!

[Jack Weber]

The problem with your argument is that times HAVE changed! The times you describe were over 70 years ago! Workers could unionize because they were dealing with companies that faced no international competition. The world was essentially that of workers and a company in the same town.

Today, a union can strike for higher wages and benefits but they are not dealing just with their local company. They are dealing with global competition. Most times, if they win too much from their company that company will not be able to compete against some Chinese outfit and all you are left with is a bankrupt business and no jobs. Worse yet, it often seems that the unions are still run by 1960's versions of Buzz Hargrove and don't even realize that the world has changed. When the company goes bankrupt these characters are actually surprised!

Just another case of generals all ready to fight the LAST war, I guess!

So...

You're a fan of this slow spiral into poverty that neoliberal economics has us all caught in?

Edited January 16, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Wild Bill]

You entirely missed my point. Why did they vote for a party that would, if it could, delist their unions and cut their wages to world prices ?

Well, perhaps because I've never believed that they were " a party that would, if it could, delist their unions and cut their wages to world prices"!

You're entitled to your beliefs Michael but when they are such an extreme caricature you really shouldn't expect everyone else to know what you're talking about!

You sound like a leftwing Rush Limbaugh with that premise!

My impression is that the Tories couldn't care less one way or the other about collective bargaining, except possibly with the closed shop laws, which any libertarian has deep moral misgivings about.

Personally, if unions want to drive companies here into closures or even bankruptcy, sending all their jobs to countries like China, I say "Let them!" That's freedom! Sometimes we need to make mistakes in order to learn. Some lessons really have to be learned the hard way. Other companies will hopefully pick up the slack before our economy is hurt too badly.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, perhaps because I've never believed that they were " a party that would, if it could, delist their unions and cut their wages to world prices"!

You're entitled to your beliefs Michael but when they are such an extreme caricature you really shouldn't expect everyone else to know what you're talking about!

You sound like a leftwing Rush Limbaugh with that premise!

My impression is that the Tories couldn't care less one way or the other about collective bargaining, except possibly with the closed shop laws, which any libertarian has deep moral misgivings about.

Personally, if unions want to drive companies here into closures or even bankruptcy, sending all their jobs to countries like China, I say "Let them!" That's freedom! Sometimes we need to make mistakes in order to learn. Some lessons really have to be learned the hard way. Other companies will hopefully pick up the slack before our economy is hurt too badly.

Except for closed shop laws... that's a pretty big exception there WB, on the heels of an accusation that I don't know what I'm talking about. So, again, why did people vote for the Harris Tories ?

[Wild Bill]

So...

You're a fan of this slow spiral into poverty that neoliberal economics has us all caught in?

Not at all! I'm just NOT a fan of dumb and blind ways to try to fight it!

Remember, I'm a 'Utilitarian'. If an idea won't work then it's just a useless pipedream.

[Wild Bill]

Except for closed shop laws... that's a pretty big exception there WB, on the heels of an accusation that I don't know what I'm talking about. So, again, why did people vote for the Harris Tories ?

Did I not already answer that? The sheer numbers make it obvious that they DID vote for him! The main reason is that people respected him as someone who would keep his word! This is indeed a unique thing for any politician!

People at the time also had a great deal of disrespect for the leadership of the other parties. There was a feeling that governments looked after themselves first and us a distant second.

I have never believed that the province turned against Harris like his opponents have almost rabidly painted it since he stepped down. I can understand turning away from Ernie Ives. He was a very bland choice. Not much difference between him and McGuinty's Liberals. After Harris we've never had the choice of someone like him again so the premise has never been tested.

You also have to understand that the provincial Tory party has always had a blue/red split. Many powerful Tory insiders never wanted Harris to be the leader. In fact, it was only because the party at the time was so far down in the polls that they didn't oppose it happening! When Harris won those massive majorities they were as surprised as anyone but NOT happy! Philosophically they were more of the 'Joe Clark/progressive conservative' stripe.

So Harris went and the Tories went back to their 'pink Tory' ways. Look at how successful that was!

I'm convinced that Hudak could win a majority if he was more like Harris in his appeal. I think voters are thoroughly sick of 'beige, brown suit and shoes' type candidates, fighting to edge each other out of the middle of the road. People are hungry for leadership and that's NOT it!

Look at the type of person who historically has won large majorities. Trudeau, Mulroney, Harris, Klein...these were people that voters WANTED to vote for! The other choices we've had have frankly been rather boring! Compare the inspirational appeal of a Preston Manning with the 'accountant' personality of Stephan Harper.

I truly believe that the 'progressive' element within the provincial Tory party has helped ensure that whether the Liberals or the Tories win in Ontario both choices will govern in a very similar, kinda left of centre manner. Voters are rarely given a choice like Harris. It's a specious argument to claim that voters don't want one when there seems to be so much effort expended to ensure such a choice will never be offered.

[Jack Weber]

Not at all! I'm just NOT a fan of dumb and blind ways to try to fight it!

Remember, I'm a 'Utilitarian'. If an idea won't work then it's just a useless pipedream.

What's your plan to fight the downward spiral our standard of living is traveling on due to global neoliberal economics?

If you're suggesting that the labour movement needs to fight these globalists on their terms,and truly become "international",then I agree...

If not,I'd like to hear your ideas?

[DrGreenthumb]

I take it you are referring to the current circumstances federally. History shows the NDP(CCF) has played a signifigant role in shaping public policy here in Canada. While I certainly have some issues with the position my local MP (Jim Maloway) took on the long gun registry I do, on balance, normally support the NDP federally. Given the stance Jim Maloway took on the long gun registry my vote will go to the Green Party in the next election.

The current leader of the Liberals is too conservative for my liking and as such I wouldn't even consider a vote for that party until it demonstrates that it presents policy consistent with my social democratic views. I have never voted conservative and it is highly unlikely I ever would vote for such a party.

If Malloway had supported the gun registry it would have damaged the NDP brand throughout MB. If you want a Conservative MP go ahead and vote Green, otherwise do your part to ensure that the NDP keeps the seat. There is more at stake than the gun registry here.