NDP- Ready to govern?

[SamStranger]

Are the NDP ready to govern Canada? My answer is short and simple- NO. Why? Many reasons. First off, far left social democrats have proven to be disasters in power. You cant have a socialist party in charge, its like giving Hitler the Tora to "take care of". Reason 2, their foreign policy. The last thing we need is to make enemies with Big Brother America, who is taking care of us at the moment- if we were attacked whos gonna help us? His view on Afghanistan- I quote: "We need to look for peace through negotiations with all sides including the taliban"- CPAC RESPONDS: "SO we should negotiate with terrorists?" JACK LAYTON ANSWERS: "I didn't say that"....

So the Taliban are not terrorists? Al quadea are freedome fighters u say???

Bull!!!!

I would rather see a (God forgive me) Liberal majority then an NDP minority! Obviously im a Tory (U all know by now ) so I would like to give Stephen Harper a majority.

What do you guys think about the NDP running Canada?

[Wilber]

My brain usually crawls into a little dark place and hides when the subject comes up. It won't allow itself to dwell on it. But now that you bring it up if the NDP did somehow form a minority, it would have to grow up in a hell of a hurry or only last until the next vote in Parliament. Now an NDP majority. that is a truly frightening thought.

[Remiel]

I would have to say that the NDP in not ready to govern, but I think that you sabotage your own argument because at the end you make it sound like more right wing propaganda. They aren't ready to govern because they have some opposed views to your? Absurd.

One of the problems that the NDP will likely always have is that everyone to the right of them jumps on all of their failings as examples of gross incompetence. By the same logic, neither Liberals nor Conservatives should be allowed to take power, because they have made some terrible decisions in the past.

Also, your comparison of giving Hitler the Torah is completely wrong. Canada is a liberal country, and socialists by definition accept some forms of capitalism. Your analogy would only fit if you were contending handing a fascist country over to communists, or a communist country over to fascists.

I don't think Canada needs parties that stray too far left or right. As I said before, Canada is a liberal country (that doesn't mean it is a Liberal country, Liberals just happen to conform most to being liberal of all the parties, that is a problem with naming parties after the terms for their original ideologies), as in middle of the road. The NDP could use tighter fiscal management, but their goals aren't inherently bad.

That being said, this whole thing with the tangent Layton has being going lately, is kind of making me nervous. While true that I think we have all suffered from the severe deceptions, misinformation and propaganda of the U.S. rather horrendous use of the English language, you still have to be careful what you are saying when you are ignoring their lies. As the leader of a federal party, Layton should learn to read the air a little better before advocating that kind of extemely unpopular position.

Lastly, I am a little confused as to whether you are equating the Taliban to Al-Qaeda. They may both be symptoms of a single problem, but they are not the same, any more than the Fenians are the Irgun, or the Australians are the Spanish. They may might for the same reasons, or against the same people, or use the same tactics, but they are still two seperate groups.

[M.Dancer]

Also, your comparison of giving Hitler the Torah is completely wrong

I thought he said tora..i was trying to figure out what the japanese tiger had to do with anything......

I can't believe we are discussing this....the bloc has a greater chance of forming a gov't than the NDP....although you can say one thing about that improbability, if the Bloc ever formed a gov't, they would be more loyal than Layton

[Remiel]

More loyal than Layton? Maybe more realistic, but loyal is not the operative word when it comes to the Bloc. At least, being loyal to Canada.

There was a somewhat interesting segment showing a university or college class in Montreal speaking about Quebec sovereignty on CPAC, either yesterday or the day before. While I find the notion of breaking up Canada to be misguided and repugnant, it presented some good food for thought on the role of a nation. Specifically, they mentioned that there are about 3000 nations in the world, and obviously the vast majority of them are not independant countries.

[M.Dancer]

More loyal than Layton? Maybe more realistic, but loyal is not the operative word when it comes to the Bloc. At least, being loyal to Canada.

No loyal...the bloc quebecois, in representing Quebec, have a vested interst in a healthy, strong and vibrant Canada.....

The NDP have no intrest in those things because they need poverty and chaos to make their message sound right.....

[Remiel]

I never accused the Bloc of wanting people to suffer, but your implication that that is what the NDP wants is disgusting, wrong, and oh so typical of the right.

[M.Dancer]

I never accused the Bloc of wanting people to suffer, but your implication that that is what the NDP wants is disgusting, wrong, and oh so typical of the right.

But essentially true.....not that they want people to suffer, they are fundamentally incapable of letting people prosper....not in their make up......no one votes socilaist when their is abundant prosperity,,if the NDP were in gov't at a time of prosperity, they would tax us till we were poor again.

It the natural law of socialists

[daddyhominum]

Are the NDP ready to govern Canada? My answer is short and simple- NO. Why? Many reasons. First off, far left social democrats have proven to be disasters in power. You cant have a socialist party in charge, its like giving Hitler the Tora to "take care of". Reason 2, their foreign policy. The last thing we need is to make enemies with Big Brother America, who is taking care of us at the moment- if we were attacked whos gonna help us? His view on Afghanistan- I quote: "We need to look for peace through negotiations with all sides including the taliban"- CPAC RESPONDS: "SO we should negotiate with terrorists?" JACK LAYTON ANSWERS: "I didn't say that"....

So the Taliban are not terrorists? Al quadea are freedome fighters u say???

Bull!!!!

I would rather see a (God forgive me) Liberal majority then an NDP minority! Obviously im a Tory (U all know by now ) so I would like to give Stephen Harper a majority.

What do you guys think about the NDP running Canada?

There is a difference of opinion on what kind of political program the NDP is presenting to the Canadian voter. You agree that the platform is characterized best as 'social democrat' rather the 'communist' , for example.

Assuming you agree with the description of social democracy as described in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy that states;

<Begin quote>Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system with equality of outcome as a goal. However, social democratic parties intially included democratic socialists.

The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) – the worldwide organisation of social democratic and democratic socialist parties – defines social democracy as an ideal form of liberal democracy, that may solve the problems found in unregulated capitalism. The SI emphasizes the following principles: Firstly, freedom – not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice – not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity – unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.<end quote>

Many nations have adopted the goals of the social democratic philosophy as outlined above into the general platform of every political party. The differences arise between modern parties only with respect to the means by which the first principle is best achieved.

The early approach to social democracy was to achieve the goals through state ownership of all the 'means of production' which, it turns out, means everything, including workers private homes. After world war 2, Europeans, particularly Sweden, tried to reach the goals by reducing state ownership to the natural monopolies, like electricity, and to the health and welfare service: all of which paid for through taxation of the earnings from a free market in everything else.

The first approach has failed miserably as you have stated. Complete ownership of the economy by the state destroys productivity by removing initiative and self-responsibility.

The second approach is still in the gun sight of every platform of nearly every party. The arguments left are about the best balance between taxation and state Vs private services.

A local example is the provision of daycare services in Canada. The Conservative Party has chosen to give a direct subsidy to consumers of childcare for a portion of the costs along with added support to low-incomes while the other three parties favored complete provision of daycare services to all consumers regardless of income and relying on taxation classifications to reduce the subsidy to those who didn't needed. In both cases the provision of daycare is directly supported by the government and varies only in degree and method.

It appears that the method used to obtain revenue to support a social democratic government is significant. The USA, which by and large provides far more services to the needy then does Canada or the European social democracies, has experienced economic growth and productivity growth in spite of high cost social programs and extremely high cost military programs. The argument that is made is that lower taxes result in higher productivity which provides more revenue to fund government services visualized by social democracies. The Conservative platform was based on changing the Canadian financing of social democracy to that methodology.

There is very little argument left that getting the correct balance between taxation and government services is the key to a successful economy. That is how Bob Rae is able to justify his swing to the Liberals. He no longer believes the NDP model of ownership and taxation being the key to achievement of a social democratic nation but feels he can establish a better balance then the Harper government.

To sum up, I believe all developed and most developing nations have accepted the principles of social democracy and that only political parties supporting those principles can win elections. All Canadian parties accept the principles of social democracy. Canadian parties differ in the methodology they propound for achieving social democracy. I believe that current economic research and observed economies favor the freest markets and lowest taxation possible to provide the state services required by the principles of social democracy.

[Remiel]

What is prosperity?

Most people have such a skewed view of what tax is supposed to be. All you can see is how much money the government is " taking away " . Nevermind that that money is still essentially yours, used by the government to buy in bulk the same services that would be need to be paid for out of their own pockets.

If there is a problem with money disappearing, it is not the fault of the system, it is the fault of the people using the system. If the money is being used efficiently, and effectively to service the needs of the people, then all is as it should be.

If I paid a million dollars in taxes ever year, I would still have a million dollars left. If I had a million dollars in income, and taxes were 90%, I would still have a six figure salary. Are you saying that it is impossible to meet your needs, and even most of your reasonable wants, on $100,000 a year? And if the money was being spent with half a brain, and was making a lot of peoples lives better, then so what?

Your definition of being poor relies solely on whether you can buy yourself a nice Mercedes-Benz, Aston Martin, Porsche or one of each with your money. It doesn't take into account whether you live in a country where everyone has a clean house, and a safe neighbourhood and universal health care, and universal access to post-secondary eduction for those who earn the grades, and so on and so on. It id your ideology allows for people to be paid $95 million dollars a year, which would take the average worker in that persons company 4,279 years to match. And every penny of that is at the expense of the people under them.

If socialism is the practice of taking away what people have earned, then conservatism is the practice of never giving it to them in the first place.

[M.Dancer]

If I paid a million dollars in taxes ever year, I would still have a million dollars left.

If you were my accountant, with that attitude, you would be fired.

[Remiel]

I am not speaking as your accountant. I am speaking as my accountant. People are blinded to how much money they have left by how much was taken away. And isn't it the new age types in business who are trying to push for always looking at the glass as half full instead of half empty?

And thank you for that post, daddyhominum. I think the conclusion needs some more context and examples, but the definition and history was good.

[Yaro]

The NDP or whatever they are calling themselves in 20 years(about the same time I expect those same people who call me a commie now will start calling me a fascist I suspect) will probably be one of the parties of note in Canada, when that old pendulum starts to swing far to the other end after the collapse of the current system. Are they ready to govern now? About as ready as anyone is to govern, however the fact that they are politically out of step with most of the world currently "sometimes viewed as naivety by the ignorant" does have significant consequences.

The fact of the matter is that most ideologies associated with the left tend to have more far reaching implications and most people are rather short sighted. If you were to go into great detail and explain why trade with china in its current form is bad for Canada, someone might understand right up until they went to walmart and saw that without that trade the toaster they wanted costs 40% more.

[Wilber]

If I paid a million dollars in taxes ever year, I would still have a million dollars left.

I think you would have whatever someone else chose to give you.

[scribblet]

The thought of the NDP in power gives me the willies, my hair stands on end. All you have to do is read the convention proposals, and you get a pretty good idea of what they have in mind for us.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, they've been in power almost seven years in Manitoba and the wall across the borders is almost finished.

Oh wait, no, we just have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country and property values going through the roof.

[Yaro]

It appears that the method used to obtain revenue to support a social democratic government is significant. The USA, which by and large provides far more services to the needy then does Canada or the European social democracies, has experienced economic growth and productivity growth in spite of high cost social programs and extremely high cost military programs. The argument that is made is that lower taxes result in higher productivity which provides more revenue to fund government services visualized by social democracies. The Conservative platform was based on changing the Canadian financing of social democracy to that methodology.

Oh and I should comment on this steaming pile. While I am one of the few Canadians that realizes that the US provides a roughly equivalent amount of support to there poor the statement that that they provide significantly more is nothing short of the work of a psychotic. In a similar vein the notion that the US economy is "healthier" then the Canadian one is so ridiculous that I doubt you would find a FOX anchor willing to claim it.

And before you attempt a rebuttal understand this, I am a doctored economist and if you force this conversation you will lose badly. Do some research and then come back to me if you must.

[watching&waiting]

My plans for retirement were to sell of everything I own and buy a small place in Alberta at the foothills of the rockies (to me the most beautiful place in Canada, and have another home some where in South America or the Mediterrean, which ever has the more stable place at my time to retire. That way I can aleviate the chills of the cold winters with sunny warms of the Mediterrean or South American home. But if the NDP were to ever gain power I think I would have to rethink the rockies, as even though I love them dearly, I am not sure just what damage the NDP would do that would affect me even on my pensions. I figure they would tax me to the point, that my planning for retirement that is outside the governments plans would be considered as excess and then I would lose the government pensions etc.

I have no faith in the NDP ever doing anything good for the people of Canada that have worlked hard to get ahead. Then lean more towards those who coast by with out much effort on their part. But a last, I can pretty much have faith that no where in the forseeable future or in my lifetime will I ever see then get more seats then they have already. I take what comfort I can find in that.

[August1991]

If I paid a million dollars in taxes ever year, I would still have a million dollars left. If I had a million dollars in income, and taxes were 90%, I would still have a six figure salary. Are you saying that it is impossible to meet your needs, and even most of your reasonable wants, on $100,000 a year?

Do you have any idea what effort is required to generate an income of $1 million/year?

If 90% of it is taxed, do you not think the person would decide not to furnish such effort? I mean, why bother? It'd be better to work as a senior civil servant at $50,000 after tax rather than sweat bricks to earn $100,000 after tax.

Or more likely, the $1 million a year guy would simply find a way to earn the income beyond the reach of the tax agency.

Remiel, how do you explain your naivety? Is it idealism or lack of experience?

Most people have such a skewed view of what tax is supposed to be. All you can see is how much money the government is " taking away " . Nevermind that that money is still essentially yours, used by the government to buy in bulk the same services that would be need to be paid for out of their own pockets.

Ah right. Government bureaucrats wisely spend our money for the things we really want.

Remiel, please tell me the last time you got a Christmas or birthday gft you really wanted. Now, tell me how many times you politely accepted a gift you didn't want. How many unworn sweaters do you have in your drawers?

[B. Max]

Are the NDP ready to govern Canada? My answer is short and simple- NO. Why? Many reasons. First off, far left social democrats have proven to be disasters in power. You cant have a socialist party in charge, its like giving Hitler the Tora to "take care of". Reason 2, their foreign policy. The last thing we need is to make enemies with Big Brother America, who is taking care of us at the moment- if we were attacked whos gonna help us? His view on Afghanistan- I quote: "We need to look for peace through negotiations with all sides including the taliban"- CPAC RESPONDS: "SO we should negotiate with terrorists?" JACK LAYTON ANSWERS: "I didn't say that"....

So the Taliban are not terrorists? Al quadea are freedome fighters u say???

Bull!!!!

I would rather see a (God forgive me) Liberal majority then an NDP minority! Obviously im a Tory (U all know by now ) so I would like to give Stephen Harper a majority.

What do you guys think about the NDP running Canada?

I think it would very positive. For Alberta secession.

[Yaro]

Do you have any idea what effort is required to generate an income of $1 million/year?

I don't know, I guess I work about 5-8 hours a week now.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why talk about a party being ready to govern when they haven't polled above third place since the election and are averaging popular support in the high teens?

[Who's Doing What?]

NDP- Ready to govern?

I sure hope not.

[SamStranger]

I think the scariest thing about an NDP governement would be the drastic changes. From tax policy to foreign policy, everything would be changed (for the worst )

[Remiel]

If such an inhuman effort is required to make that kind of money, why is golf so popular? Where could they possibly find the time?

I seem to recall that I didn't say the NDP right now is was ready to govern. Last time I checked, we did have a Prime Minister from CCF, and despite what conservatives might want you to believe, the country hasn't fallen apart.

The kind of left-leaning party we need in my opinion is the kind that has their heart in the left and their brain in the middle.