New Democratic Parties Across Canada

[Newfoundlander]

While all the New Democratic Parties in Canada are affiliated, unlike the Liberal and Conservative Parties, it seems to me that there are some big differences in the parties from province to province and federally. I don't know a whole lot about the different parties but it seems as though the more successful parties in the west have moved closer to the centre, and under some premiers have even governed like Liberals. In Newfoundland and Labrador our NDP are hoping for a major breakthrough to become the Official Opposition in October, it seems to me though the party is much more left-wing then the other parties throughout the country.

The Party still has their 2007 platform on their website, I'm not sure if they plan on just tweaking it for October or not, which is quite unprofessional and lacks detail. Among the things they advocated for were higher taxes for the wealthy, higher taxes on luxury cars, expensive gems and furs, and increase our already high corporate taxes on large out-of-province corporations. As well they support free post-secondary education, even though we have the lowest tuition fees in Canada.

I'm not sure about some of the specifics but I know that there arn't any provinces with free education eventhough the NDP currently govern in two provinces and have in three others. They also only talk about increasing taxes, eventhough in Manitoba they got rid of the small business tax.

Overall I guess they have a similar phiosophy but does anyone else notice any big differences in their province's New Democrats compared to other provinces or the federal NDP? Do their policies just depend on the leader of the time or is it the party overall?

With anywhere from 5 to 7 New Democratic Parties going to the polls this Fall it will be eaiser to see the contrast in platforms from each other and the federal NDP.

[Tilter]

General NDP plan is to decrease personal taxes & increase services, business taxes and hugely---- deficits.

For some reason the NDP seems to think that all provinces have the ability to decrease taxes & apply the "today" services to the "Tomorrow" prosperity---- which mostly never comes.

Want to see the finances of yopur province go into (or deeper into) the deficit hole --- vote the NDP in.

[Evening Star]

You know that doesn't actually describe the reality of most provincial NDP governments, right? Just checking.

[TwoDucks]

General NDP plan is to decrease personal taxes & increase services, business taxes and hugely---- deficits.

For some reason the NDP seems to think that all provinces have the ability to decrease taxes & apply the "today" services to the "Tomorrow" prosperity---- which mostly never comes.

Want to see the finances of yopur province go into (or deeper into) the deficit hole --- vote the NDP in.

Your last point, today's services using tomorrow's money, can be said of many left and right leaning governments. Thanks for playing, but try again.

[Newfoundlander]

Our NDP leader often says that our money should be used for today and not put away for tomorrow.

[Evening Star]

It's clearly not a fair description of Doer/Selinger, Romanow, or Dexter though. Or Douglas, for that matter.

[RNG]

It's clearly not a fair description of Doer/Selinger, Romanow, or Dexter though. Or Douglas, for that matter.

Interestingly enough, there is an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun today saying that T.C. Douglas was actually against giving welfare to able bodied people.

Their website isn't working right now so I can't give you the link.

[Evening Star]

I found it here: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/longer+party+Douglas/5039961/story.html

I knew most of that stuff already. I wonder if Crowley would be as eager for the current NDP to adopt Douglas' more classically Fabian socialist beliefs as well or whether he just wants them to embrace the views that he likes. (How do you think he would have put the able-bodied unemployed to work?)

Whatever the core principles were that drove Douglas, the point was just that he did expand the social welfare state and introduce some collective measures while keeping the budget balanced. (As far as I know, he didn't actually implement any socialist workfare schemes.) And, again, it is unfair for Crowley to focus on Rae - a Liberal now - and ignore other NDP premiers.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Evening Star

[Tilter]

Our NDP leader often says that our money should be used for today and not put away for tomorrow.

If the province spends deficit money it is spending the next generation,s money.

[Tilter]

You know that doesn't actually describe the reality of most provincial NDP governments, right? Just checking.

Oh, I guess Bob Rae,s proposed 19,000,000 dollar deficit for his swansong dive into debt, that was all in my imagination?

In MB & SK there have been too many deficit budgets in prosporous times to ignore.Prosperity, high prices for their natural resources & generous BOPs mostly on the shoulders of BC, AB & ON ave made balanced budgets easier for them lately

[Molly]

(As far as I know, he didn't actually implement any socialist workfare schemes.)

When he was premier, social assistance was municipal, not provincial government business. 'Workfare' would have been a huge project to take on, just to get through the groundwork.

Anecdote alert: My dad was on municipal council for decades, and there were no restaurants in our little town, so my mother catered council meetings, serving a hearty lunch to them all at our kitchen table a block from council chambers. It was not unusual for discussion to continue through lunch as though we weren't there to hear it.

I vividly recall an animated conversation about a fellow- a drunk with a dozen or more dependent children- who had dared write a letter saying he was going on holiday (he, not his family) and so requested that his assistance cheque be sent to him in Florida for a few months. The councillors were incensed. The most sensible suggestion was that the check be sent instead to his wife (so I think that's what they decided to do), but the most popular was ...um... better left unspoken.

[Evening Star]

Oh, I guess Bob Rae,s proposed 19,000,000 dollar deficit for his swansong dive into debt, that was all in my imagination?

I said "most". We could easily pull out individual examples of deficits under Liberal or (Progressive) Conservative governments.

In MB & SK there have been too many deficit budgets in prosporous times to ignore.Prosperity, high prices for their natural resources & generous BOPs mostly on the shoulders of BC, AB & ON ave made balanced budgets easier for them lately

Everyone has circumstances to deal with, good or bad. Balancing a budget in Ontario is probably easier than balancing a budget in Bangladesh. With the circumstances they were given, the NDP governments in MB and SK were able to keep expenditures below revenues such that they were not spending the "next generation's money". That was your concern, right? According to the Fraser Institute (not exactly notorious for favouring the NDP), Doer maintained an average budget surplus and reduced the province's debt over the course of his term.

(Having said this, there are times when I think deficit spending is justified.)

(Thanks for the info about social assistance, Molly.)

Edited July 3, 2011 by Evening Star

[fellowtraveller]

While all the New Democratic Parties in Canada are affiliated, unlike the Liberal and Conservative Parties, it seems to me that there are some big differences in the parties from province to province

Affiliated, but they don't seem to share the same principles.

Case in point, a few years ago I checked every provincial NDP website available to research their position on proportional representation.

Every provincial NDP group had proprep as a policy itme except two: Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Upon further enquiry it turns out those were the only two NDP govts in Canada at the the time, and a little analysis revealed that neither would form a govt if they had used their mandate as majority govts to implement proprep before the previous election in each province.

One possible conclusion from this interesting policy decision is that the NDP are the same grasping opportunists as the rest of the parties.

hth.

[Newfoundlander]

If the province spends deficit money it is spending the next generation,s money.

The finance minister announced about a month or so ago that our surplus would be $150 million higher this year and that it'd be put on the debt, she didn't agree and thought it should be spent.

[punked]

If the province spends deficit money it is spending the next generation,s money.

Considering the NDP has run deficits LESS then both the Liberals and Conservatives as a % of time in power you must be the newest member of the party. No wait you like you make blanket statements that aren't backed up by fact and make you seem stupid. You must be a Conservative.

[bloodyminded]

One possible conclusion from this interesting policy decision is that the NDP are the same grasping opportunists as the rest of the parties.

hth.

That doesn't like a terribly wild-eyed hypothesis.

[Evening Star]

That doesn't like a terribly wild-eyed hypothesis.

Not at all. They are politicians.

[bloodyminded]

Not at all. They are politicians.

Yeah, but I'd put it in far broader terms than that. Attaining, and (even moreso) retaining Power tends to lead in some mighty bad directions. This applies to wealth (uncontroversially a form of terrific power), and to personal relationships as well.

On the personal front, most of us expect one another to reign in the worst excesses of power abuse, and to a greater or lesser degree, the attenuation can be relatively successful. Not so much in the realms of big money and politics, which (in part through their synchronistic relationship), the bad tendencies are institutionalized, and aided in no small part through the worship of Power by those who don't have as much of it.

Edited July 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Newfoundlander]

Considering the NDP has run deficits LESS then both the Liberals and Conservatives as a % of time in power you must be the newest member of the party. No wait you like you make blanket statements that aren't backed up by fact and make you seem stupid. You must be a Conservative.

They just made a general statement, it's not fair to call the person stupid or stereotype all Conservatives as stupid. There was nothing said about the NDP in that post, I think you should either apologize to Tilter or stop Trolling this particular thread.

[Evening Star]

They just made a general statement, it's not fair to call the person stupid or stereotype all Conservatives as stupid. There was nothing said about the NDP in that post, I think you should either apologize to Tilter or stop Trolling this particular thread.

Tilter's previous post was about the NDP though:

General NDP plan is to decrease personal taxes & increase services, business taxes and hugely---- deficits.

For some reason the NDP seems to think that all provinces have the ability to decrease taxes & apply the "today" services to the "Tomorrow" prosperity---- which mostly never comes.

Want to see the finances of yopur province go into (or deeper into) the deficit hole --- vote the NDP in.

I do agree that it's not fair to stereotype Conservatives.

[cybercoma]

Your last point, today's services using tomorrow's money, can be said of many left and right leaning governments. Thanks for playing, but try again.

Yeah. It's called campaign promises.

[cybercoma]

Interestingly enough, there is an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun today saying that T.C. Douglas was actually against giving welfare to able bodied people.

Their website isn't working right now so I can't give you the link.

There's a long history of differentiating and discriminating deserving vs undeserving poor in Western societies. It's part of the reason we have such a highly invasive means test for social assistance and also why we provide so little that it makes it unappealing to be on it.

[cybercoma]

I found it here: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/longer+party+Douglas/5039961/story.html

I knew most of that stuff already. I wonder if Crowley would be as eager for the current NDP to adopt Douglas' more classically Fabian socialist beliefs as well or whether he just wants them to embrace the views that he likes. (How do you think he would have put the able-bodied unemployed to work?)

Whatever the core principles were that drove Douglas, the point was just that he did expand the social welfare state and introduce some collective measures while keeping the budget balanced. (As far as I know, he didn't actually implement any socialist workfare schemes.) And, again, it is unfair for Crowley to focus on Rae - a Liberal now - and ignore other NDP premiers.

I believe Rae was unsuccessful as a Liberal before he went to the provincial NDP as well. Perhaps his interlude with the NDP was merely a matter of opportunity.

I don't know a whole lot about Bob Rae. Would people characterize him as an opportunist?

[RNG]

There's a long history of differentiating and discriminating deserving vs undeserving poor in Western societies. It's part of the reason we have such a highly invasive means test for social assistance and also why we provide so little that it makes it unappealing to be on it.

From my admittedly limited exposure to those receiving it, it doesn't appear to be unappealing to a fairly significant segment of our society.

But this is a great point. In the days of my youth, and even as a young adult, it was a shameful thing to be on welfare, and the recipients worked like hell to get off it. That attitude is long lost now.

[cybercoma]

Considering the NDP has run deficits LESS then both the Liberals and Conservatives as a % of time in power you must be the newest member of the party. No wait you like you make blanket statements that aren't backed up by fact and make you seem stupid. You must be a Conservative.

That's an interesting statistic. I would like to see where that's outlined if you have a link or a source I could reference. I'm not about to figure it all out myself.