"Secret Mulroney Tapes" author says "VOTE NDP"

[err]

On why to vote NDP in the next federal election:

"If Paul Martin wins, as I expect he will if Harper's still there, that will be a monumental condemnation of the Canadian people. People should vote for the NDP just to keep the Liberals honest, if that's possible.

"I would like to see Layton get a real balance of power. Have enough seats that Martin would depend on him. That's what happened to Trudeau when David Lewis ran as head of the NDP.

I think that Newman has hit the nail on the head !!!

He's said a lot more than this though... See it at theTyee.ca - Peter Newman Tapes

[Riverwind]

"I would like to see Layton get a real balance of power. Have enough seats that Martin would depend on him. That's what happened to Trudeau when David Lewis ran as head of the NDP.

Such a scenario would be a disaster for the country. The NDP is too rigid in thinking regarding healthcare and seems to think that raising taxes is the solution to every problem.

[Canuck E Stan]

"I would like to see Layton get a real balance of power. Have enough seats that Martin would depend on him. That's what happened to Trudeau when David Lewis ran as head of the NDP.

Better go back to the history books dude....

Lewis was used by Trudeau then pitched,

NDPers will never learn,your "balance of power" only allows the Liberals to keep on tickin'.Nothing more .

Ask his NDP son Stephen Lewis about Mulroney and Mulroney's social conscience,

unlike Newman who

"while skippering his 50-foot sailboat on Lake Ontario, Newman saw gale winds rip away part of his bowsprit. "That was scary," he said, sipping a banana daiquiri in the safe confines of a swank hotel bar.

"

sounds like daiquiri Newman on his 50 foot sailboat is just a typical NDPer concerned about the plight of the Canadian public.

Yes, Newman just feels the pain for the NDP cause with every book that he sells.

[August1991]

The phone rang at an awkward moment, which turned embarrassing when my wife walked into our living room and declared, "It's the prime minister. He wants to speak to you."

Her announcement was met with jeers from our neighbours, gathered for a pre-Christmas tipple in 1986 at our seaside house, cantilevered over a cliff, facing Haro Strait on Canada's extreme western edge.

Peter Newman changed his family name. He immigrated to Canada before the war and became, literally, a new man.

He now is a millionaire several times over and lives in a beautiful house on Vancouver Island with his second or third wife. He must be close to 70 years old.

Americans call them limousine liberals - they infest NYC and LA - and Canada has many. Our new GG is about to become one. Then again, people who live well have the right to an opinion as we all do. And by world standards, all Canadians are rich.

----

Liberal minority government with NDP balance of power. Hmmm.

Last time that happened, we got Petro-Canada.

People are fearful of Paul Martin. He has not established his credentials. They want the NDP as watchdog. For others, they want to punish the Liberals - but they fear losing them. In either case, these voters want the government to provide security. The voters are afraid.

Fear is not a healthy basis for a democratic society.

Frankly though, the real fear is "Canadian Unity". If Ontario voters knew with certainty that Canada as they know it will not exist in 2025, they would not vote Liberal in the next election.

Many Ontarians vote Liberal because they think the Liberals will keep the country together.

[err]

The NDP is too rigid in thinking regarding healthcare and seems to think that raising taxes is the solution to every problem.

I've not seen a lot of quotes from Liberal or Conservative type posters on this forum who seem to think anything that our recent history (20 years) governments have done has improved medicare. Instead, all I hear is these types slagging our health care system... and the governments that have helped degrade it.

It is interesting to note that these (Liberal and Conservative) governments (and the sheep that follow them) have always said that the NDP approach is no good. That is what the Liberals and Conservatives said about health care when the NDP (then CCF) was promoting the impementation of a universal health care system. The NDP got us the health care system, despite all of the resistance from the Liberals and Conservatives.

It would seem to me that if you kept vascillating between a GM garage and a Ford garage to fix your Porshche, and they kept just breaking it further, wouldn't it make sense to try the Porsche dealership. They might be a bit more expensive, but the are probably the people to go to to get your Porsche fixed....

I'll admit that there is something wrong with my analogy.... the part about them being a bit more expensive... I'd have to say, that that is only true if you are in the upper-middle to upper income families.... Because the NDP is one of the only parties whose policies focus on the lower and middle-income families... the majority of Canadians...

[Guest eureka]

The average Ontario voter, August, does not know whi Dingwall is. The average Ontario voter could care less about Quebec and Unity: just like those on this forum who constantly repeat that Quebec should go.

The NDP does not favour a more expensive system for health care. It favours what has been shown to be less expensive, to be fairer, and to be more efficient; that is, a public system properly managed and without the bureaucratic expense of private care.

[Riverwind]

The NDP is too rigid in thinking regarding healthcare and seems to think that raising taxes is the solution to every problem.

I've not seen a lot of quotes from Liberal or Conservative type posters on this forum who seem to think anything that our recent history (20 years) governments have done has improved medicare. Instead, all I hear is these types slagging our health care system... and the governments that have helped degrade it.

The system needs reform but the NDP are fixated with a model where the gov't pays for 100% of a medical expenses that are incurred in a hospital but 0% of services outside of a hospital. Every other non-US system I have looked at pays for less in hospital services but covers a much broader range of services outside a hospital (i.e. dental care).

I'd have to say, that that is only true if you are in the upper-middle to upper income families....  Because the NDP is one of the only parties whose policies focus on the lower and  middle-income families... the majority of Canadians...

All parties are concerned about middle and low income families. The difference is The Liberals and Conservatives understand that taking a hostile 'rich are evil' attitude hurts the poor in the long run. Balancing the need to encourage the private creation of wealth with the need to ensure the poor have their basic needs met is a complicated task. The NDP does not understand this.

[Argus]

The NDP is too rigid in thinking regarding healthcare and seems to think that raising taxes is the solution to every problem.

I've not seen a lot of quotes from Liberal or Conservative type posters on this forum who seem to think anything that our recent history (20 years) governments have done has improved medicare. Instead, all I hear is these types slagging our health care system... and the governments that have helped degrade it.

The NDP has expressed its opinion on health care repeatedly. And it has not changed in the last thirty years. "Spend lots more money" is the entirety of their policy differences with the Liberals. We already spend lots. I'm looking for a party with ideas, not dogma.

[err]

The NDP is too rigid in thinking regarding healthcare and seems to think that raising taxes is the solution to every problem.

I've not seen a lot of quotes from Liberal or Conservative type posters on this forum who seem to think anything that our recent history (20 years) governments have done has improved medicare. Instead, all I hear is these types slagging our health care system... and the governments that have helped degrade it.

The system needs reform but the NDP are fixated with a model where the gov't pays for 100% of a medical expenses that are incurred in a hospital but 0% of services outside of a hospital. Every other non-US system I have looked at pays for less in hospital services but covers a much broader range of services outside a hospital (i.e. dental care).

I think you mean that the government pays 100% of publicly funded health care and 0% of private health care ??? I agree with that assessment, and direction. If private companies wish to compete with the public system, let them, but no public money should go to pay for them....

(I do like your idea of publicly provided dental care though...)

I'd have to say, that that is only true if you are in the upper-middle to upper income families....  Because the NDP is one of the only parties whose policies focus on the lower and  middle-income families... the majority of Canadians...

All parties are concerned about middle and low income families. The difference is The Liberals and Conservatives understand that taking a hostile 'rich are evil' attitude hurts the poor in the long run. Balancing the need to encourage the private creation of wealth with the need to ensure the poor have their basic needs met is a complicated task. The NDP does not understand this.

I don't think the NDP has a 'rich are evil' attitude at all. I think the NDP is more about being fair to all people. If that means removing some tax shelters from Corporate Canada or the wealthy class so that our tax system really is progressive, and it benefits the majority of Canadians, then I think it is good policy. The NDP stands for the MAJORITY of Canadians, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who favour the wealthier classes.

I see a problem wherein the NDP's attempts to improve the lot of the lower and middle-income Canadians (the MAJORITY of Canadians) is perceived as, or rather, painted as an 'attack on the rich', and 'hatred of the rich'.... It is in the interests of the rich and Corporate Canada to keep the incredible benefits given to them by the Liberal and Conservative governments... ... "Lose a tax loophole where I can hide my income so that some lazy person doesn't have to work as hard."... Of course they will be against the NDP... and put their money where there mouth is.... They'll scream blue murder.... They can afford a massive advertising campaign to try to stop the NDP (and promote Liberals and Conservatives) ... because the NDP might try to end their unfair advantages....

If you need examples of how the Liberals and Conservatives favour corporate Canada and the wealthier classes, just let me know... I'll respond in volumes.... But you probably already know about it... don't you....

[Argus]

I don't think the NDP has a 'rich are evil' attitude at all. 

Oh of course they do. Not only are the rich evil, but they are the source of all evil.

I think the NDP is more about being fair to all people.

Except for White, Heterosexual middle-class working people.

If that means removing some tax shelters from Corporate Canada or the wealthy class

Translation: If that means taking almost all the money away from the most productive, hard-working people in the country and giving it to lazy, shiftless, uneducated bums, losers and drug and alcohol abusers...

so that our tax system really is progressive, and it benefits the majority of Canadians,

Whether they are black lesbian albinos, disabled aboriginals, transexual Eretrian immigrants....

The NDP stands for the MAJORITY of Canadians,

As along as they aren't White and straight, that is. Or Jewish. Or employed in non-union jobs.

unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who favour the wealthier classes. 

Translation of "wealthier classes" Anyone who can afford their own TV without government assistance.

there mouth is.... They'll scream blue murder....  They can afford a massive advertising campaign to try to stop the NDP (and promote Liberals and Conservatives) ... because the NDP might try to end their unfair advantages....

Those "unfair advantages" being things like, a strong work ethic, entrepeurship, risk taking... intelligence, having gotten an education instead of smoking dope, dropping out and having a baby on welfare...

[err]

Except for White, Heterosexual middle-class working people.

Translation: If that means taking almost all the money away from the most productive, hard-working people in the country and giving it to lazy, shiftless, uneducated bums, losers and drug and alcohol abusers...

Whether they are black lesbian albinos, disabled aboriginals, transexual Eretrian immigrants....

As along as they aren't White and straight, that is. Or Jewish. Or employed in non-union jobs.

Translation of "wealthier classes" Anyone who can afford their own TV without government assistance.

Those "unfair advantages" being things like, a strong work ethic, entrepeurship, risk taking... intelligence, having gotten an education instead of smoking dope, dropping out and having a baby on welfare...

Wow.... step aside Ernst Zundell.... Mr. Open-minded is coming through, and you won't want any of the stuff coming out of his mouth to get stuck on your suit.. or the bottom of your shoes....

It would appear to me that, based on your open-minded expressions of your perceptions, that you haven't spent much time in higher education, or in educating yourself by reading much more than "The Sun".... It is interesting that you so vehemently defend a class that you obviously don't belong to.... could it be the result of brainwashing ???

[cybercoma]

the bureaucratic expense of private care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this line. Cracks me right up.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Cybercoma, if you look at the analyses of US health spending, you will find that a large proportion of the higher costs of the private system comes from its inherent bureaucratic system, I have forgotten the amount but it is at least 15% more than in any public system.

That is at least and I think it was much higher.

[err]

the bureaucratic expense of private care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love this line. Cracks me right up.

Eureka,

Take a look at this older post that talks about comparisons of efficiency/bureaucracy... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...ic=3577&hl=blue cross&st=15#

PS. I doubt Cybercoma will bother to look at it in case it contains offensive truths...

[Argus]

Translation of "wealthier classes" Anyone who can afford their own TV without government assistance.

Those "unfair advantages" being things like, a strong work ethic, entrepeurship, risk taking... intelligence, having gotten an education instead of smoking dope, dropping out and having a baby on welfare...

Wow.... step aside Ernst Zundell.... Mr. Open-minded is coming through, and you won't want any of the stuff coming out of his mouth to get stuck on your suit.. or the bottom of your shoes....

Ah, the facism of the Canadian left. This is one of the reasons I have little more than contempt for them. Their ideology is almost Stalinist in its rigid application. There are no shades of gray. Either you're 100% supportive of every single one of their beliefs, or you're a Nazi fit only for hmm, perhaps "reeducation camps"?

The fact is that this mentality, the mentality of the hate-filled fanatic, infests the NDP, and is one of the reasons why Canadians will never trust them enough to put them into power federally. Canadians don't like raving fanatics, and the NDP has all-too many of them in its ranks. Fiscal incompetence combined with a raging hate for anyone who disagrees with them do not make for a pretty combination in a political party.

[Guest eureka]

I do not wholeheartedly support the NDP, Argus: I do not because they have become far too pragmatic and not so interested in social justice as they should be. They are far from what you accuse them of being.

My position is taken from arguments with some of their leading lights.

The NDP, pre-Broadbent, was far too idealistic; the Waffle group and so on. Broadbent led them into pragmatism. However, the party has gone too far and I have let both Broadbent and Layton know my opinions on that.

[kimmy]

I think the fact that Peter C Newman still thinks that hat is cool in 2005 should tell you all you need to know about the man's judgment.

-k

[err]

Ah, the facism of the Canadian left. This is one of the reasons I have little more than contempt for them. Their ideology is almost Stalinist in its rigid application. There are no shades of gray. Either you're 100% supportive of every single one of their beliefs, or you're a Nazi fit only for hmm, perhaps "reeducation camps"?

Facism, by definition is "state controlled capitalism" or "state run capitalism". What the NDP (and the majority of Canadians) want is "state run healthcare". Your attempts to equate the NDP's position with facism demonstrates either ignorance or a malicious attempt to distort the facts.

If I am correct, what you stand for is private enterprise being paid to provide healthcare.... In other words you are for "STATE FUNDED CAPTIALISM" which is a lot closer to the definition of "facism" than non-profit state-run healthcare that the NDP (and majority of Canadians) want.

The fact is that this mentality, the mentality of the hate-filled fanatic, infests the NDP, and is one of the reasons why Canadians will never trust them enough to put them into power federally. Canadians don't like raving fanatics, and the NDP has all-too many of them in its ranks. Fiscal incompetence combined with a raging hate for anyone who disagrees with them do not make for a pretty combination in a political party.

Gee... if an unsuspecting reader were to read the above quote, I think they'd question where the "hate and rant" was eminating from. It would seem to be coming from those who want to oppress the NDP, and compare them to "facists", when their own position is clearly closer to facism than what the left supports.......

[Argus]

I do not wholeheartedly support the NDP, Argus: I do not because they have become far too pragmatic and not so interested in social justice as they should be. They are far from what you accuse them of being.

What exacty is wrong with pragmatism? You prefer people with little grasp on reality?

And just what issues of social justice do you believe a pragmatist would ignore - and why?

[Argus]

Ah, the facism of the Canadian left. This is one of the reasons I have little more than contempt for them. Their ideology is almost Stalinist in its rigid application. There are no shades of gray. Either you're 100% supportive of every single one of their beliefs, or you're a Nazi fit only for hmm, perhaps "reeducation camps"?

Facism, by definition is "state controlled capitalism" or "state run capitalism". What the NDP (and the majority of Canadians) want is "state run healthcare". Your attempts to equate the NDP's position with facism demonstrates either ignorance or a malicious attempt to distort the facts.

Facism may or may not have anything to do with private enterprise or capitalism. But in essence, fascism involves state control of all aspects of life, dictatorship, and intollerence of different viewpoints. What I see in the verbal outbursts and intolerence of those like you is a fascist or neofascist mentality in that you want the state to control almost all aspects of life. You approve of social engineering and public 'education" projects to propogandize your beliefs, and laws which control behaviour and words beyond our traditional control of what is harmful to others.

You also show a strident dislike and intollerance of opposing viewpoints, and a determination to demonize those who do not share your beliefs. Thus I mock the NDP for being a party which represents only minorities, and you respond by shrilly accusing me of being Ernst Zundel. It really is not very far from your position to mandatory re-education camps, were people like you to take power federally.

Fiscal incompetence combined with a raging hate for anyone who disagrees with them do not make for a pretty combination in a political party.

Gee... if an unsuspecting reader were to read the above quote, I think they'd question where the "hate and rant" was eminating from. It would seem to be coming from those who want to oppress the NDP, and compare them to "facists", when their own position is clearly closer to facism than what the left supports.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks again for providing a textbook example. Because I mock the NDP I'm not only classified as an Ernst Zundel type, but I am clearly "oppressing" the NDP. How? Why, by disagreeing with its policies. So my expression of my opinion becomes "oppression", which is an action, and actions can be controlled, and should be controlled, right? Like, by laws to ban such "oppression"

Like I said, people with that kind of mentality are too dangerous to ever allow into power.

[err]

Ah, the facism of the Canadian left. This is one of the reasons I have little more than contempt for them. Their ideology is almost Stalinist in its rigid application. There are no shades of gray. Either you're 100% supportive of every single one of their beliefs, or you're a Nazi fit only for hmm, perhaps "reeducation camps"?

Facism, by definition is "state controlled capitalism" or "state run capitalism". What the NDP (and the majority of Canadians) want is "state run healthcare". Your attempts to equate the NDP's position with facism demonstrates either ignorance or a malicious attempt to distort the facts.

Facism may or may not have anything to do with private enterprise or capitalism. But in essence, fascism involves state control of all aspects of life, dictatorship, and intollerence of different viewpoints. What I see in the verbal outbursts and intolerence of those like you is a fascist or neofascist mentality in that you want the state to control almost all aspects of life. You approve of social engineering and public 'education" projects to propogandize your beliefs, and laws which control behaviour and words beyond our traditional control of what is harmful to others.

Argus,

Because you use the term facism so flippantly (and obviously don't know what it means), I thought I'd help you so that you have a better idea what the term means, and maybe won't look so foolish next time you use it. I have provided a list of the 14 key points common to facist governments, taken from www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/facism.htm

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need."

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media.

Argus,

This sounds a lot more like the Conservatives than the NDP. (Actually, it sounds very like another un-named country just south of us).

You'll note that (refer to point number 9) in a facist state, the government helps its "friends" capatilist ventures... such as the type of health-care that you promote.

You'll also note that from point 10, facist states are against organized labour and labour unions. The NDP party could never be accused of this.

(You'll note that you've got several posts that link you to point number 5. So do I take it that the political position of the party(ies) that you would support are similar.)

[Argus]

Facism may or may not have anything to do with private enterprise or capitalism. But in essence, fascism involves state control of all aspects of life, dictatorship, and intollerence of different viewpoints. What I see in the verbal outbursts and intolerence of those like you is a fascist or neofascist mentality in that you want the state to control almost all aspects of life. You approve of social engineering and public 'education" projects to propogandize your beliefs, and laws which control behaviour and words beyond our traditional control of what is harmful to others.

Argus,

Because you use the term facism so flippantly (and obviously don't know what it means), I thought I'd help you so that you have a better idea what the term means, and maybe won't look so foolish next time you use it. I have provided a list of the 14 key points common to facist governments, taken from www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/facism.htm

Oh yes, it's always nice when you can so neatly define something, especially something unpleasant, in terms which distances you from it. No doubt that is why a web site run by people of that sort would seek definitions which they feel are sufficiently demonic - and remote from themselves. And no doubt that is why "doctor" Lawrence Britt (who is not a doctor, btw nor a political scientist) identified those fourteen terms. However, your "terms" are hardly all-encompassing in their definition of fascism. Fascism is a political concept, and that concept is sufficiently broad to envelope some of those terms, all of those terms, or none of them.

Facism is, at heart, massive state control and dictatorship. And it involves a rabid intollerance of dissenting opinions.

This sounds a lot more like the Conservatives than the NDP.  (Actually, it sounds very like another un-named country just south of us). 

Actually it sounds like neither the Tories nor the NDP, nor the US. Though the NDP comes closer than the others in its almost unqualified belief in the superiority of state control and its determination to meddle in the lives and beliefs of people - for their own good.

You, however, appear to be from a more rabid stream of socialism than the NDP.

Your belief in the merits of state control appears stronger, and your apparent anger at those who disagree stronger still.

[err]

You also show a strident dislike and intollerance of opposing viewpoints, and a determination to demonize those who do not share your beliefs.

I'll have to admit, that I find your viewpoints a little hard to take. I don't think I've done anything to demonize you that you haven't done very effectively yourself...

Thus I mock the NDP for being a party which represents only minorities, and you respond by shrilly accusing me of being Ernst Zundel.

Except for White, Heterosexual middle-class working people.

Translation: If that means taking almost all the money away from the most productive, hard-working people in the country and giving it to lazy, shiftless, uneducated bums, losers and drug and alcohol abusers...

Whether they are black lesbian albinos, disabled aboriginals, transexual Eretrian immigrants....

As along as they aren't White and straight, that is. Or Jewish. Or employed in non-union jobs.

Translation of "wealthier classes" Anyone who can afford their own TV without government assistance.

Those "unfair advantages" being things like, a strong work ethic, entrepeurship, risk taking... intelligence, having gotten an education instead of smoking dope, dropping out and having a baby on welfare...

And you don't think a lot of people would see you as an ignorant red-neck ???

Fiscal incompetence combined with a raging hate for anyone who disagrees with them do not make for a pretty combination in a political party.

So it counts as HATE when we disagree with your viewpoints, but you don't demonstrate any hate or redneck attitude when you talk about black lesbians, albinos... homosexuals and disabled aboriginals... transexuals, and immigrants... as people our government should not support ....

[Argus]

Fiscal incompetence combined with a raging hate for anyone who disagrees with them do not make for a pretty combination in a political party.

So it counts as HATE when we disagree with your viewpoints,

When you compare me to Ernst Zundel and talk about my trying to "oppress" the NDP, yeah.

but you don't demonstrate any hate or redneck attitude when you talk about black lesbians, albinos... homosexuals and disabled aboriginals... transexuals, and immigrants...  as people our government should not support ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never said they shouldn't be "supported". I merely mocked the NDP for being the champion of every conceivable minority at the expense of the majority. Especially since you're claiming the NDP is the representative of 'the common man". There's nothing wrong with being champion of the underdog. But you can't then make a sweeping declaration that you are the representatives of most Canadians - you know, other than those evil Ernst Zundel conservatives.

[Guest eureka]

Britt is not something from that website, Argus. He is a famed political philosopher who wrote something in which he isolated those fourteen points. Umberto Eco also identified fourteen points which, though not the same as Britt's have a similar scope.

"If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.

Franklin Roosevelt said the above of the US and I think it can be applies to several countries today - chief of these is the USA.

What is wrong with pragmatism when it loses sights of the purpose of the NDP is that is competing with the Liberals for the broad middle ground. Once Fabian and ineffective, it followed the slogan of that society: "Educate' Agitate, Organize and was quite as feeble politically until it did become more pragmatic.

It has swung too far in that direction and now pays insufficient attention to its roots in the underclasses of society. It also, like the Liberals, and in anarea that you are well aware of, uses Quebec's nationalism and the dogma of bil-linguilaism as a tool. The latter is not too productive at the present since the ground is occupied by Quebec political parties.