DrGreenthumb Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 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! Posts like this make me wish the forums had a "like" or "thumbs up" button! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 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? Plan? I don't have any plans anymore, Jack. I used to but I came to realize that having a plan was rather unCanadian! Much more typical to just say no to virtually any and all plans that OTHER people dream up! Most people always have some reason to shoot someone else's plan down. Since they never offer one of their own that might work better the Canadian way is just to stumble along, never properly recognizing a problem, never actually doing anything positive about it. Look at our health care budgets, for example. Everyone knows they're a train wreck barreling down the fiscal track but every time some government tries to get a handle on costs all the nay-sayers shoot it down. If I really had to come up with something it would be along the lines of recognizing a problem for what it is and not some caricature of "the last war". Also, it would be long range, if necessary. As far as the economy I would have suggested we cut paper work burdens on business, eliminate all corporate welfare, and treat all citizens the same as far as EI (no 'special' regions and no subsidies for union workers unless private sector workers could get the same! The practice of giving layoffs to the guys with the MOST seniority as a freebie holiday would be outlawed!). I would suggest tax breaks for startup businesses for the first few years, to help them get rolling. I would lower the amount of allowed overtime, to encourage businesses to hire an extra worker or two instead of flogging their existing employees to death. I would not have governments involved in any way with collective bargaining, especially by banning any government bailout or subsidy! Unions would quickly learn not to "kill the golden goose". Those that do will prosper. Those that don't will be "Darwinized". If you prevent people from making mistakes then they will never learn from them. Besides, it's THEIR risk! Sometimes they may be right when you think they're wrong. I would have reviews of all our trade agreements with other countries, to examine if they have played fair and if we have seen the benefits we expected. I would institute mandatory "green tariffs", so that if one of our industries had to pay for some more "green" method of manufacturing or have to do or use something more expensive because we banned some ingredient then all IMPORTS would have to have had the exact same "green" costs or face a tariff equal to those costs. There's nothing wrong with showing leadership in being "green" but if it puts our companies at a competitive disadvantage while China or whoever dirties up the environment while stealing our business then that's just not fair! Our companies get penalized and lay off workers or even go bankrupt, while other countries just laugh at us! "Green" tariffs could go a long way to keeping jobs at home. Might even bring a few back! I might even take this idea on step further. If companies like France persist in huge agricultural subsidies for their farmers then we should have equivalent duties and tariffs on all their products entering our borders. If they don't like it then too bad! Let them eat seal meat! Finally, I would ban all hip hop and techo dance music! It rots the brains of our youth, making them into less capable workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 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! Doesn't answer my question in the least. A politician runs based on a platform that he'll cut your earning power, so you vote for him because he keeps his promises ? 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. Ontario is a province of the mushy middle. I can easily believe that they lost the stomach for Common Sense Revolting after the bodies started coming up in Walkerton. When Harris stupidly showed up in the town to blame Bob Rae, his political simple-mindedness became clear to many. 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. Doesn't address my question, which I'm now asking again in my 3rd post on the topic: Why did they vote for a politician who was dead set against unions, when such organizations clearly protected them from earning market wages for their work ? 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! You're projecting your own views on the province, though. The ad men know what will sell and what won't sell and they build their strategy on that. 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. Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you're using an example that goes against your point: Manning never gained a foothold in the east and Harper did. 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. Key word "seems to be"... so, let's recap here: YOU think that a Harris-like candidate would be popular, and you think that they don't offer that choice because so many people want it ? Strange, very strange. More likely that such a candidate isn't so popular, and is hard to keep in power, which is why Harris' name is akin to plague in popular appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Posts like this make me wish the forums had a "like" or "thumbs up" button! Thanks, I appreciate that. Maybe the forum administrators will add something like that in the future. But, I got to say, that too many of these little popularity and ranking add-ons can be deceptive, since the largest clique within the forum will try to control the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 I might even take this idea on step further. If companies like France persist in huge agricultural subsidies for their farmers then we should have equivalent duties and tariffs on all their products entering our borders. If they don't like it then too bad! Let them eat seal meat! If agricultural subsidies are at issue, then we've got a far, far, far bigger trading partner with whom to take issue over this matter. France is irrelevant in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 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. I appreciated Harris for some things, like lowering taxes; they had been drifting too high after successive increases by Tory, Liberal and finally an NDP Government. His Cabinet was abysmal; but that could largely be blamed on the fact that most of the experienced Provincial MPP's lost hope in being part of a governing majority again, and went on to other things. And, I just want to briefly mention, since the subject of why the unions would allow Bob Rae's NDP Government to collapse and be replaced by Mike Harris, you have to consider the demoralizing effect that Rae's "Social Contract" had on the large part of the NDP that are members of the public service unions. And, for the only period of my voting life, I was a member and even worked for them when Harris first ran, and also when he was re-elected....mainly because a friend of mine ran for MPP down in Niagara Falls (where I was living at the time). Now, if you're wondering why your beloved Conservatives have turned "pink" as you would call it, and moving away from Harris's libertarianism and started copying the American right's strategy of co-opting the fundamentalists -- it's because libertarians, and fiscal conservatives who pay little attention to social policy issues, do not sign up on mass to work the phones, hammer in lawn signs, or drive people to the polls on election day. When Harris won re-election, we knew that Niagara Falls would stay P.C., even though it has a history of voting Liberal; but if you took a drive around the city, you would have thought the election was between the Libs and the NDP, because you could hardly find a blue sign anywhere. We had to ask a lot of people who wanted a Bart Maves lawn sign if they could come down to the campaign office to pick them up, because we were so far behind getting signs up. And even though Maves was easily re-elected, the message was clear -- the P.C.'s did not have an activist grassroots base equivalent to the NDP or the Liberals which is necessary to win close elections..... and that's probably a big reason why Harris decided not to run for a third term when he was falling behind in the polls....and it's also why the present day Conservatives are going after the God vote, and following the Republican strategy of getting all of the church people to work at the grassroots level running the campaigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 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. I know the area and have worked on both Blaikie and Maloway campaigns in the past. My vote going to the Green won't matter and Maloway knows it. The Conservatives don't have a hope in hell of getting in this constituency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Doesn't answer my question in the least. A politician runs based on a platform that he'll cut your earning power, so you vote for him because he keeps his promises ? Ontario is a province of the mushy middle. I can easily believe that they lost the stomach for Common Sense Revolting after the bodies started coming up in Walkerton. When Harris stupidly showed up in the town to blame Bob Rae, his political simple-mindedness became clear to many. Doesn't address my question, which I'm now asking again in my 3rd post on the topic: Why did they vote for a politician who was dead set against unions, when such organizations clearly protected them from earning market wages for their work ? You're projecting your own views on the province, though. The ad men know what will sell and what won't sell and they build their strategy on that. Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you're using an example that goes against your point: Manning never gained a foothold in the east and Harper did. Key word "seems to be"... so, let's recap here: YOU think that a Harris-like candidate would be popular, and you think that they don't offer that choice because so many people want it ? Strange, very strange. More likely that such a candidate isn't so popular, and is hard to keep in power, which is why Harris' name is akin to plague in popular appeal. I don't know where to start, Michael. You have so many untruths and halftruths in your reply! First, I said they respected him for keeping promises. YOU say that he intended to reduce union workers incomes! YOU say he was against unions!I don't believe that was ever the case. Certainly, he said he intended to reduce TAXES, or at least stop their advance. Particularly at that time there was a widespread perception that we were being taxed to death. Lowering taxes means more disposable income. I would agree that he had a problem with government and the teachers union. A LOT of people did and still do! As I said, the idea that factory workers, particularly because they are in the private sector, feel an automatic kinship with their public sector counterparts is not substantiated. Some do, some don't. It's a mix just like any other folks. I know that with my father and my steel worker friends there was much antipathy against the teachers and CUPE. In many cases those members were paid much better than steelworkers and were NOT perceived as working just as hard! Rather, they were often seen as the agents of higher and higher taxes! A leader like Harris could only capitalize on such resentment. Are you still going on about Walkerton? For Pete's Sake, Harris DID NOT HIRE THE KOEBELS! Stan and Frank were hired by the Town of Walkerton themselves and had 3 decades of on-the-job experience before they screwed up so badly! All Harris had done was to cut back some funding. Even if he had left it alone, the Koebels would STILL have caused the water to be poisoned! And it STILL would not have been reported in time because Stan and Frank LIED on their reports! What did you expect? An inspector watching an inspector watching an inspector watching an inspector? How far does it go? If you want to blame someone first blame Stan and then Frank. They committed the sin. Then blame the Walkerton Council. They hired Stan with no training and let him hire his relation and never checked up on him until it was too late. The only reason people are blaming Harris is because McGuinty successfully heaped enough dirt upon him! I swear some people think that Harris put a gun to Stan's head personally and forced him to poison the wells! To this day I NEVER hear ANY blame put on Stan and Frank! It's ALL on Harris! That's just not logical. It's all ad hominem, partisan crap! Me, I would have HUNG both Koebels! Babies died directly because of them! As for Manning, you really should google up how many votes Manning was getting in Ontario by the time he lost the leadership. To say Reform never got a foothold is just plain wrong. For the short time they had been at it the numbers clearly show that in another election or two they might have been there! As for not offering the people the choice they want, what's new about that? Remember, there are power brokers in every party who have their own vision of what the party values should be. They want to win but NOT at the expense of what they believe the party should stand for! So they fool themselves into thinking that they can win with their own 'personal' type of leader. For proof I submit the NDP! They could win far more seats if they only changed some of their values. They have never even won power in Ottawa, let alone winning majorities like Mulroney, Trudeau or Harris did. Surely in the past few decades there have been NDP leadership candidates who were more like Tony Blair but they never got the chance to change anything about their party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 For proof I submit the NDP! They could win far more seats if they only changed some of their values. They have never even won power in Ottawa, let alone winning majorities like Mulroney, Trudeau or Harris did. They won a majority just before Harris! (And have won majorities in many other provinces as well.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberguy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 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. Bush-Chaney's onto something. Administrator: I also think we need a thumbs-up or down meter! Thumbs up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Agreed.....as long as the Conservative Party changes its name to the Conservative Corporate Party. Except that they aren't corporate. They are still by far the most grassroots party we have in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Interesting piece here with some good points. If the NDP didn't exist, would most of their supporters gravitate to the Liberals, thus giving them a majority? http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/473070--the-ndp-no-longer-has-a-reason-to-exist The NDP no longer has a reason to existThe NDP has been a long time dying. It was founded in 1961 after its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was almost wiped out in the Diefenbaker landslide of 1958. It achieved modest success in its early years. Its progress was limited by an internal conflict about its role in Canadian politics. Some in the new party wanted it to hold to its left wing principles and not hunger after what one left-wing politician called the bitch goddess Success. Others, especially those in the affiliate trade unions hoped for modest, though concrete, gains. As long as people vote for them they have a right to exist. I think Battletoads has the better of the argument.First of all, in 1988 the NDP came close to passing the Liberals as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Second of all, the right question in my mind is if the Liberal Party has a reason to exist. In England, when Labour, roughly the best analog to the NDP formed, the Liberal Party's lifetime as a real factor (other than as a minority government or coalition partner) was short indeed. The Liberal Party of Canada is, in many peoples' view, more a non-ideological "brokerage party" (link to editorial article describing them, excerpts below) than a modern political party. The NDP and CPC fall closer to the model of modern, belief-centered parties. Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain's Labor Party, Canada's Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India's Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government. As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It's an exchange that is long past due. Thus, it's the Liberal Party that, in my opinion, needs to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Thus, it's the Liberal Party that, in my opinion, needs to die. Nonsense. It's all political parties that need to die, and we should have a taxation regime that helps them die, by taxing the living hell out of revenue from donations and ending tax credits for political donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 What makes the Liberals (or the Indian National Congress) more of a brokerage party than the Democrats or Labour? All of these parties include a fairly wide range of opinion (especially the Democrats!) but they still seem to occupy a particular centrist (in the first three cases) place on the spectrum to me with clear stances on many issues. Their positions have changed over time but so have the Conservatives' and Republicans'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Interesting piece here with some good points. If the NDP didn't exist, would most of their supporters gravitate to the Liberals, thus giving them a majority? http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/473070--the-ndp-no-longer-has-a-reason-to-exist The NDP no longer has a reason to exist Sure they do it's to attack the Liberals thereby keeping Harper in power by stealing Liberal votes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Sure they do it's to attack the Liberals thereby keeping Harper in power by stealing Liberal votes... The other side of the coin is that if the Liberals stopped acting like Conservatives with a smile,they might be able to steal those votes on the left back and get those Trudeauesque majorities again??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Question - What's a "neoliberal"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Question - What's a "neoliberal"? A believer in free market "liberalized" international trade...Von Hayek/Friedmanlike in political and economic outlook... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 The other side of the coin is that if the Liberals stopped acting like Conservatives with a smile,they might be able to steal those votes on the left back and get those Trudeauesque majorities again??? Naaaa, not much point in attacking the NDP, their TRUE base aren't smart enough to understand it anyway... With a different NDP leader like Broadbend was maybe, but with a dolt like Layton, why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 A believer in free market "liberalized" international trade...Von Hayek/Friedmanlike in political and economic outlook... Can you put that into the Queen's English? (gotta run, TTYL) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Can you put that into the Queen's English? (gotta run, TTYL) neoliberal economists feel that regulation is bad and deregulation is good...The market should be free of impediments to it's growth...Government should stay out of most monetary and economic policy.. Most follow the teachings of Adam Smith,Milton Friedman (Chicago School of Business),and,Friedrich Von Hayek... Capitalism as unfettered as possible...I would suggest completely unfettered,if possible... For example,General Augusto Pinochet was a HUGE fan of Uncle Milty and his boys from Chicago... The opposite would the Keynsian model that allowed for the economic growth period post WW2 to around 1979/1980... That would be the beginning of the Reagan/Thatcher Freidmanite era... Edited February 22, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 The other side of the coin is that if the Liberals stopped acting like Conservatives with a smile,they might be able to steal those votes on the left back and get those Trudeauesque majorities again??? Like the one he garnered in the 1972 or 1979 elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Like the one he garnered in the 1972 or 1979 elections? '68... And.. "Welcome to the 1980's!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (1974 too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 (1974 too) Ah yes.. The "Zap!!!!You're frozen!!", campaign against Stanfield... Then he did "it" anyway... Not one of PET's better moments...Stuff like that made Joe Clark seem viable... It should be noted that even Nixon implemented a form of wage and price controls... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.