A Few Lugubrious Thoughts for Friday Afternoon. . . .

- I would like to thank and congratulate the NDP caucus for their opposition to the back to work legislation concerning the Postal Workers. It is an important, if symbolic, gesture of solidarity which reminds us that there is someone opposing the corporate agenda of the Harper government.

-I hope that CUPW is inclined to challenge this legislation in court because in my reading of events this is a clear violation of the SCC decision concerning HEU vs the Government of British Columbia. It is, therefore, legislation that violates the constitution. Of course this government has made it clear that they possess nothing but contempt for the constitution and human rights in general. The fools and rogues that have supported this government will only realize that their rights have been taken from them when it is too late, just as many Germans only realized too late what a real threat the NAZI party really represented.

-I heard today that the Government of Italy said that they didn't have the monetary wherewithal to foot the $35 million bill to make the necessary renovations to the Coliseum in Rome. It seems that the 2000 year old building is showing its age and needs some TLC in order to avoid longterm damage so they managed to get an up-market shoe company to pay for the repairs in exchange for, what? Supposedly just for positive public notoriety. Really?! I am sure, given the level of corruption in Italy there is something else going on. And even if it is all on the up and up, what does that say about the government in Italy. As I understand it the Coliseum is the number one tourist attraction in Italy. And the government of one of the wealthiest nations in the world is not willing to spend the money to restore one of the most important architectural symbols in the world. Scary if you ask me.

-Today I sat by the Rideau River at a quiet spot where I used to take my dad when he was still around. It made me sad and happy at the same time. I read from one of my favorite books, Our Village by Mary Russell Mitford. It is a series of sketches of the English countryside that appeared in five volumes between 1824 and 1832. The pieces are so charming and written with such skill and affection that it made Mary Mitford nearly a household name for some years in the Victorian Era. I hope some day to write a book about dear Mary Mitford because there is just something so interesting and appealing about her and she, along with a number of other women writers of the early 19th century like Elizabeth Inchbald, deserves more notoriety. If you have never read any of Our Village, I highly recommend it and you can read some of it here. If you have only a moment read the chapter entitled The Cowslip-ball, it will give you a warm feeling.

-In the 1920s André Breton, the so-called Pope of the Surrealists, asked his contemporaries whether suicide as a legitimate course of action. Breton lost more than one friend to suicide and was always interested in this difficult question. Antonin Artaud, one of the most interesting of the Surrealist artists and one of the most interesting men of the entire century famously replied that he had already "been suicided by society." This phrase was from his now renowned essay "Van Gogh, the Man Suicided by Society." In it Artaud had written that "Van Gogh did not commit suicide in a fit of madness, in dread of not succeeding, on the contrary, he had just succeeded, and discovered what he was an who he was, when the collective consciousness of society, to punish him for escaping from its clutches, suicided him." I must admit that few days have passed since I was 18 years of age that I have not thought about suicide. Thus far I have never taken the plunge, so to speak. But I have certainly been suicided by society!

The NDP and the Gun Registry . . . . .

I have to take a few moments out of my birthday to make a few remarks about the NDP and the gun registry because I just cannot stand listening to NDP party hacks who are defending the NDP MPs who have previously voted, and are again going to vote, to kill the gun registry. A number of critics and bloggers have been defending Jack Layton for allowing a free vote on the gun registry because it is a tradition to allow such free votes on so-called private members' bills. In fact some people have even gone so far as to claim that Layton is adhering to 'principle' because to do otherwise would be to abandon the tradition simply because the bill contravenes the policies and spirit of the party. Now this argument seems fairly lame to me simply because while this bill may be a 'private members' bill' de jure, it is de facto a government bill and everyone knows it.

But let us accept, for the moment, that argument and say this is a private members' bill and tradition demands that we have a free vote on this issue. We could then absolve Mr. Layton of any ill effects of the death of the gun registry and say that he, at least, acted in an appropriate manner. The problem is that this still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it simply shifts the unprincipled behavior from the leader of the party to the individual MPs who vote to kill the registry. Because what possible 'principle' could these MPs be adhering to? There are only two possible principles that they could argue. One is that they don't believe "in principle" in the gun registry. This argument surely stretches the limits of credibility. Given the history of the party to which they belong and the fact that we live in a country where, in most municipalities, you have to register your dog, I find it incredible that a member of the NDP would object to registering a gun. The argument just won't do. On the other hand, one might argue that these MPs are adhering to some populist principle that suggests that MPs are morally bound to vote the way their constituents want them to vote. Now the NDP is not a populist party and we have a representative form of government rather than a direct democracy. I don't think the NDP MPs who are voting to kill the registry would vote to outlaw, say, interracial marriage or vote to eliminate all corporate taxes just because a majority of their constituents wanted them to. Thus, I think it is very clear that this argument also fails to convince.

There is, of course, one rather convoluted argument that these MPs and their supporters might appeal to in defense of their vote to kill the long-gun registry. The argument goes like this; if those MPs voted to maintain the long-gun registry in certain rural ridings, they would surely lose their seats in the next election, thus allowing Liberals and/or Conservatives to win more seats, weakening the NDP's presence in the House and, in the long run, undermining the overall influence and impact of the party and its concerns. This argument is, of course, not 'principled' but it is, rather, pragmatic. The argument depends on the idea that the negative impact of killing the registry is less important that the over all impact of having fewer NDP Representatives in the House. Though I am sometimes sympathetic to this kind of political pragmatism, I am not particularly sympathetic to the argument in this case. I find this kind of argument particularly distasteful because no one ever admits it. MPs don't talk to the media or their constituents and say "I don't agree with this bill but I am going to vote for it because I am being pragmatic and strategic." Thus the whole project seems disingenuous.

If one is going to argue against the long-gun registry 'on principle' then one has to have a fairly strong libertarian streak and would therefore be opposed to many, if not most, government registry programs. You could also oppose it based upon a principle concerning the potential oppressive nature of militarist governments but I don't think there are many making this argument. Thus I admit that while there are principled reasons to oppose the gun-registry, most people who actually oppose it are hypocrites because they are not actually libertarians and don't actually oppose many government powers and intrusions. On the other hand there are fairly strong 'principled' arguments, from the NDP point of view, to be found for supporting the long-gun registry. The registry allows us to keep much better track of the guns in society, most of the country's police forces suggest that it helps 'fight crime,' a majority of gun crimes involve long-guns, many of which are stolen and a registry allows us to know their origin etc. Furthermore, the registry in no way undermines anyone's rights, at least more than already existing registry programs for, say, pets or motor-vehicles, or numerous other things we possess.

The fact is that even if we are to absolve Mr. Layton of responsibility here, there are no credible 'principles' on which NDP MPs can hang their political hat if they are going to vote to kill the registry. And since they are not appealing to the 'pragmatic' argument, at least not publicly, I am compelled to believe that the only real motivation for NDP MPs voting to kill the registry is a self-interested one. These MPs are looking after their own political skins and saving their pensions rather than acting on some principle. And bloggers who are making vague attempts to defend the principles of these MPs are barking up the wrong tree and sounding rather pathetic if you ask me.

If certain NDP members are integral to the death of the long-gun registry, you don't have to blame Jack Layton. You can blame the individual members for being wrong headed and unprincipled. But more fittingly, I think we can blame the party as a whole which, this whole affair suggests, has lost its way and its moral compass. If the NDP is unable to stand up for something as relatively minor as the long-gun registry then this party has had its day.

Is the House really supreme or not??

I must admit that I am somewhat amazed by what is going on in the House of Commons these days. The opposition parties stand up every day now and demand public inquiry knowing full-well that the Government will simply ignore the request. How long can this go on? A week? Two maybe? Eventually the opposition parties will have to piss or get off the pot, as they say. Not one of the opposition leaders has the courage to do anything! Quite frankly I am most surprised by Mr. Duceppe's recalcitrance. The Bloc really has nothing to lose here they could even force an election and probably still win a couple seats. 

My message to the opposition leaders is, if you do this for much longer you will look foolish and strengthen the Conservative supporters claim that you are just playing 'gotcha' politics. You must bring forward a motion to hold the Government in contempt, or something substantial to back up your claims that the Government is doing something wrong by not complying with the demands of the House. Otherwise your claim that the House is supreme is hollow and empty because your own actions will have proved that you don't believe this to be true. Only powerful actions on the part of the opposition will properly iterate the claim that the House is supreme. 

Bluster, Once again. . . . all bluster and nothing else.

Well, folks as expected it looks like the Liberals are going to fold once again and let the Con-men set the terms of debate. They continue to bluster on about allegations of impropriety on the part of the government concerning their failure to follow the constitution and hand over the documents as ordered by the House. But what are they actually going to do?? Absolutely nothing. They love to make noise but not sign of a motion of contempt or a request for a ruling from the SCC. 

Bluster is as much as they have. 

And this goes for the other opposition parties as well. No courage. No genuine political will. Nothing. The Prime Minister can wipe his ass with the Constitution and the opposition might as well do the wiping for him. 

A few thoughts on reform. .

I think one of the primary political problems facing our country is fairly straightforward, albeit difficult to solve. It can be expressed this way: we live in a society in which compromise and coalition building is becoming ever more necessary but our political institutions continue to exist in the traditional paradigm of excessive centralization of power which not only doesn’t foster compromise but actually exerts pressure in the other direction. The problems of our society are increasingly complex and require greater input from more people and a greater willingness on the part of our politicians to listen carefully to a multitude of opinions and act with greater concern for the various forces and elements of society. However, the traditional power-centered system of our politics is fostering individuals who have very little interest in compromise and simply crave power.

Given this problem, the first question we need to ask concerning any potential political reform is; to what degree will this change promote the kinds of positive changes which will promote a new politics and undermine the old politics?

It follows therefore that this is the question we need to ask with regard to any potential Senate reform in Canada. I am not particularly in favor of Senate reform at the present time because there is no clear vision of significant reforms that will promote a new compromise politics. On the other hand, I also don’t support the NDP policy of simply eliminating the Senate because such a move will just further the concentration of power in the PMO which is the most pressingl example of the problem with the present political paradigm.

The Conservative party has made a lot of noise about reforming the Senate but since we know, a priori, that they have no interest in creating a new compromise oriented political paradigm, we also know that their reforms would not score high on the above question to which we must subject our potential reforms.

Most models of an elected Senate would do little to change the prevailing political circumstances in the country. Let’s say that we have an equal Senate along the lines of the US Senate. Since we would have to have fewer Senators than MPs (because an upper house of 300 plus Senators would simply be too unwieldy), we could guess that we might have, let’s say, ten Senators from each Province and Territory. That would give us 130 Senators. However, since the electoral boundaries would have to be, in most cases, smaller than those for MPs, third parties would be even less represented than they are in the House of Commons and the vast majority of Senators would be Liberals and Conservatives. If votes in this Senate were whipped, party votes then the situation would be largely the same as it is now. The only cases in which it would be different would be when the majority party in the Senate was different than that in the House. This could happen, and if the elections were staggered it could happen on a regular basis. This is the only case in which this type of Senate might promote more compromise because it would generate a situation in which governments would be faced with getting little or nothing done unless they learned to compromise. But there would certainly be nothing built into this institutional structure that would guarantee that this would happen.

We desperately need political reforms in this country; reforms that decentralize power and promote more varied inputs and greater representation. We should absolutely resist any reforms to the Senate which fail to create institutions which embrace and represent these reforms. So far the reforms that have been talked about would simply further entrench powers in negative ways. And I don’t think eliminating the Senate does us any favors either since at the very minimum it does occasionally undermine the arbitrary power of the executive and it creates a group of representatives who are not subject to the continuous whims of electoral politics. As things stand now Ontario and Quebec are resisting any Conservative reforms to the Senate largely because they stand to lose power in a Senate which has equal representation from all the provinces and territories. And attempt to push through reforms without the consent of the provinces risks a serious constitutional crisis. This is the simple fact that the Conservatives overlooked when they campaigned on reforming the Senate. It was foolhardy of Harper to say he would not appoint Senators and going to reform the Senate when any such reforms would require all provinces consent. It was the same foolhardy and politically meaningless promise that the Mayor of Ottawa made when he said he would ensure a zero tax increase when he knew that such a move would require the majority of the city councilors. But Mayor O’Brian is much like Stephen Harper; they both exist in the traditional paradigm of power centered politics and have a pathological need to wield absolute power.

Any significant reforms to the Senate should include an entire package of reforms that lessons the power of the executive branch of government and which extends the ideal principles of democracy. The Conservative have absolutely no interested in the extension of democratic principles so nothing they say about Senate reform should be of interest to true democrats. I am still waiting for a party to have some actual vision on this issue. 

Politicians and the letters we've sent

I have consistently criticized the Harper government for their corruption, lack of ethics, and total disregard for the people of this country. I do this even when many of the voters don't seem to care that they the government is acting consistently against the interest of the vast majority of the people. 

However, regardless of my politics, I will not indulge the perception that the other parties are somehow more concerned with average voters. 

Over the past seven years I have sent no less than twenty letters and countless emails to politicians of all political stripes. I have sent at least six of those to Jack Layton, two to Dion, two to Ignatieff, and one to Harper. And of course I have sent many to MPs of all parties. But here is the sad fact. I have never received a single reply from anyone except my local (Tory) MP, the dreaded racist Pierre Poilievre. Even though my politics, although non-partisan, would be closer to the NDP than any other party, no one in the NDP has ever bothered to reply to my letters or concerns. My letters to Jack Layton were clear and articulated my concerns about the course of the party and the country but he didn't bother reply to any of them. 

If you want to know why so many people are sick of politics and politicians you only have to look as far as your mailbox. These people just don't care, period.

Principle or no Principle . . . . that is the question. . .

Political principle is pretty easy in most cases and not hard to distinguish from. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem for Mr. Layton is that it is very difficult to spend years claiming to stand on a principle on an issue and then suddenly shift to a pragmatic position and still maintain political legitimacy. No matter how you spin it, it comes off appearing as opportunism. And here is one of problems with modern politics and its partisanship. Every party wants to claim both grounds; principle and pragmatism. And when a party taking the supposedly principled ground it spends all its time accusing the other parties of not being principled. And then when it takes a pragmatic stance, all the other parties suggest that all their principle was just spin and opportunism. Here's an idea, why don't all the parties just admit that they are pragmatically pursuing their own interest and then when other parties are acting in a pragmatic way not bother accusing them of some kind of political heresy. This would put an end to all the political crap that we put up constantly with the parties and leaders. 

Or even better, why doesn't one politician start acting on actual principle? If you don't have confidence in a government, don't vote that you do. Period. 

But if you want to be a pragmatist, fair enough, be a pragmatist. But then don't spend any time accusing other people of being bad for doing exactly what you would do. This is the whole problem with politics. Every party says "look what this other party has done, isn't it terrible!" Even when they would do something exactly the same or very similar.

People don't vote because politicians are just consistently and nauseatingly hypocritical. But unlike some patterns of behavior which are motivated by fear or addiction, this kind of behavior is easy for one to stop doing, just be principled about your pragmatism. . 

Open letter to Jack Layton

[I post this letter here because I have learned through experience that Layton does not answer letter sent to his office so I have given up trying for a personal response]

Dear Mr. Layton;

For months now I have been defending the NDP while Liberal bloggers have subject it to constant excoriation. Many have said that once Jack Layton thought it was to his advantage to support Harper and his cronies his so-called principles against the Torys would suddenly evaporate. They said that your criticisms of the Liberals for supporting Harper were just empty political games because under pressure you would stand up with some lame excuse to support the Tory government. And though I have never been one of your most outspoken supporters, I foolishly rejected this contention. I assured people that though you are not politically perfect, you would never stoop so low as to keep the worst, most dangerous Prime Minister in Canadian history in office. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I learned that all your talk about Harper being untrustworthy was just political rhetoric? I was doubly shocked to see that you are willing to sell out the people of this country for bogus EI legislation that will do nothing for the vast majority of workers.

If you think average NDP supporters are going to see this as anything less than crass political opportunism you are surely wrong. And all of this begs the question, if you were going to be willing to support the Harper government on something as empty as this EI reform, why did you spend so long criticizing the Liberal Party for doing exactly what you are doing now? Is it just outrageous political incompetence that would drive you to such a public reversal? Are you just so surrounded by yes-men and fools that you can’t see what your actions really mean out here in the world to average people?

What you are doing now Mr. Layton is the very reason that democracy is in crisis. Politicians constantly say one thing and do another. They play political games with constant harsh rhetoric which is suddenly contradicted by their actions. You don’t have to ask yourself why voter turn-out is so low, you need only look in the mirror. People are turned off by this opportunism and hypocrisy.

It is very sad that we now have no real alternative to look to in Ottawa because you are all playing the same game.

Kirbycairo

Let's respond Leftist bloggers. . .

The NDP bloggers on New Democrat Online have, for a long time now, taken every opportunity to deride and excoriate the Liberal Party of Canada for continually voting with the Harper Conservatives. They have, however, been ominously silent in recent days about their own leader’s overtures to Harper and his cronies, rationalizing the potential agreement as a genuine effort of the NDP to get some concessions that will help working (or no-longer working) people.

Anyone who has looked at these so-called concessions knows that they don’t even fulfill the Liberal demands let alone the demands of the NDP. Now I know that no vote has yet taken place (and the NDP may not support Harper) but come on Leftist bloggers, let’s see some indignation at the very idea that the NDP would keep the Harper government alive so that Jack Layton and Peggy Nash know how we feel out here!  

 

NDP hypocrisy, how sad. . ..

Today Paul Dewer, NDP MP for Ottawa Centre, talked to the media directly after the Tories presented their EI reforms. Mr. Dewer told us that it would be “irresponsible” for the NDP not to closely examine the proposals before making a decision on whether to support the government or not. This is nothing short of complete political hypocrisy and opportunism! They didn’t need to read the previous budget, and instead the NDP told Canadians that because Harper and his government simply couldn’t be trusted it didn’t really matter what the budget said. Now, suddenly when they cannot blame the Liberals for propping up Harper, the NDP is into political responsibility. How disappointing! I agreed with the original NDP position, to wit; this government cannot be trusted, period! But it is disappointing to learn that they didn’t really mean it and it was just political posturing. Mr. Layton has now proven himself to be just like any other political leader in this Parliament; an opportunist who is more concerned with his own pension than real principles. (I have, of course, seen this before in Mr. Layton who failed repeatedly to condemn the invasion of Afghanistan until the political wind shifted and he saw the condemnation of Canada’s role as politically expedient. )

If you cannot stand on principles Jack, why are you the leader of the NDP? You need to resign now. . . . (And while you are at it Mr. Dewer, you need to resign also.)

Ignatieff, the NDP and Election Scenarios. . . .

It took me a few days to  realize what the Liberals must have been thinking when they decided to finally attempt to bring down Harper and his government. I guess I am a little slow this week. Ignatieff and his inner circle are surely thinking that even though they are not particularly high in the poles, with the economy slowly improving (at least by the traditional numbers) this is their best time to go to the poles. But they are not trying to force an election because they are thinking they must win. On the contrary, all they have to do is have a strong showing. If the Liberal Party were to win a minority they figure they can govern for a couple of years with only moderate cooperation from the NDP and the Bloc. But if Harper  wins a small minority (and I am sure that this is the best he can expect) he will once again find himself in a untenable position, unable to govern in part because of his epic ego and partisanship and in part because it will be his forth election and it will be clear at that point even with his own party that he cannot win a majority. So I figure Ignatieff is thinking if Harper wins a minority and tries to govern they can vote down the Thrown Speech and then go to the governor general and ask for their own chance to form the government. Such a request will be almost impossible to deny and the Liberals will find themselves in government by default. Then all Ignatieff  has to do is to make the Parliament function better than Harper was able to do (which should be easy) to maintain his government for a good while. At this point the Liberals can take credit for any recovery that may take place as well as for having smarter government and improving the tone of politics and they would have a good chance at a majority. 

Now given the reasonableness of this scenario, the only thing I can't figure is why the NDP changed their tune so suddenly. If this scenario panned out they would surely benefit and all the polling indications suggest that they could actually gain seats in an election. The only thing I can figure is that they actually want the election but don't want to appear that the want the election. Seeing Anne Magrath on CBC last night suggesting that the Liberals are being irresponsible by edging toward an election and running advertising at a time of economic uncertainty must be an attempt to position themselves as a sober and cautious alternative to the Liberals. Now this is probably a stupid and hypocritical game on the part of the NDP, unless it is specifically designed, with the blessing of Ignatieff, to distance the NDP from the Liberals during an election campaign in order to undercut any talk of a coalition by the Tories who want to continue to milk that cow because it is one of the only weapons they have left. 

By the way, wasn't that a bizarre news conference held by Mr. Kenney in which he unveiled a strange and inexplicable tape of what they say was Ignatieff saying nothing significant? It was sort of sadly pathetic. Of course if they realize the scenario outlined above, and they surely must,  they must be in a state of utter panic. If the only way they can continue to govern is to win a majority they have to know they are really in trouble. 

The NDP shows its Hypocritical side . . .

As promised I will be among the first to call the NDP hypocritical when circumstances demand it. The NDP has, of course, not supported the government, nor will they, I believe, when the time comes to actually vote in the House of Commons. But Brad Lavigne is being deeply hypocritical recently by suggesting that the NDP will take events on a “case by case” basis and could support Harper if he is willing to do something about EI, credit card fees, etc. Well I presume that parties always take it on a case by case basis, however only last spring the NDP said they would not vote for Harper’s budget even before they read it because it didn’t really matter what was in the budget because Harper could not be trusted, period. I happen to agree with that position. However, what has changed Mr. Lavigne? Has Mr. Harper suddenly become more trustworthy? Why suddenly is it possible for you work with the government now? Hypocrisy, pure and simple. 

Partisanship past and future . . . Clarifications

My recent post on partisanship elicited a number of strong comments, a couple reasonable and justified and a couple of offensive wing-nuts who actually think a group of Jewish trade-unionists run the world. (These comments were justifiably rejected)

As a point of clarification I want to say that the quote that I used to suggest a troubling trend in political discourse on Liberal blogs was in a blog that subsequently contained a number of reasonable points concerning the recent NDP convention. I didn’t name the blog simply because I found the unfortunate words at the beginning of the blog to largely nullify any reasonable discourse because such poison language can hardly be the foundation of a real political debate. It is hardly reasonable to say to someone “you are a no-good, dishonest, lying, stupid, weasel” and then say “but here are some of your good points.”

Though the blogger from whom I took the quote had a number of cogent points later in his post, not only was the possibility for meaningful discourse poisoned,  but it was never my intention to get into a wider debate about specific policies of the NDP some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. My blog is very seldom about policy issues. Though I have attacked specific policies of the Conservative Government, usually when I address politics I am talking in wider terms about political philosophy and the various paradigms in which we operate. One of the reasons that I seldom engage in policy debates is that the people with whom I disagree are working in a different paradigm to the one in which I operate and for policy debates to be meaningful it would require far more space and time than a blog offers.

I have been accused of actually misrepresenting myself as non-partisan because my blog appears on a NDP blog site. First of all, I was completely unaware that I appeared on any NDP related site and have never seen this for myself, but given the nature of the Web I guess it is possible. Second of all, I say to the one or two readers out there who actually read my blog that I have never been a member of the NDP, I would never shy away from criticizing the Party if such criticisms seem warranted to me, and If my blog does appear on an NDP related blog site this should not be interpreted as evidence of some kind of party affiliation.

Finally, my recent post was intended only to address what I see as a growing trend of poisoned discourse in relation to partisanship in Canadian politics. I am certain that I have also been guilty of this at times, and for this I express my regrets. I have always reserved my harshest words for the Conservatives because I think that beyond simply matters of policy the party in its present manifestation represents a serious threat to human rights and democracy in Canada.

Yours in the struggle.

Kirby

Partisanship past and future . . . Continued

Here is a good example of the outrageous, deeply ignorant, ad homonym, and for the most part completely wrong, criticism of the NDP coming out of Liberal blogs. 

The New Democrat Party are sanctimonious, arrogant, pious, inflexible, uncooperative, self-serving, beholden to union interests, trapped in the 1960s, white, cowardly, anti-business, and anti-fiscal responsibility.

Now this stuff could just as easily have been written by a Conservative blogger and when it comes to this kind of ignorant and abusive behavior I really think it is below comment or contempt. (I won't even point out the glaring grammatical error but I will let you find it for yourself). I think the 'trapped in the 1960s' comment is quite amusing, particularly given the slow death that Capitalism is suffering as we speak. 

But most significantly this little snippet reminds me of the similarity of many Liberals to the Conservatives not only in content but in style. And that, my friends, is the real rub. It reminds me of someone I know who hates her mother and has slowly become exactly like her. The Liberals are growing ever closer to the Conservative party and it almost seems as they strike out against the NDP as a kind of veiled self-loathing as a result of their own failures both in terms of their image and in terms of substantive political discourse. For years now the Liberals have been telling us that the Conservatives don't play well with others and yet this blog abuse of the NDP has become endemic. The Liberal Party was once an important and vital political institution in Canada but alas, no longer. 

As I have said many times, I belong to no party, and will criticize any political policy, strategy, or style with which I disagree. But in the age in which people have been slowly blinded by a huge lie of (so-called) market ideology, there are many cases in which the NDP has been the only party that has stood up and talked about the various failures of this market. And many Liberals have shown incredible hypocrisy by defending universal healthcare in light of the debate in the US while at the same time excoriating the NDP which is the party of universality in this country. So it goes . . . 

Partisanship past and future....

The degree of partisanship in Canadian politics continues to amaze me. And this partisanship is increasingly coming from the Liberals directed at the NDP. And I am not talking about genuine political discourse here, I am referring to sophomoric, offensive, personal abuse as one recent relatively high-profile blogger making remarks about the size of Jack Layton’s penis. Of course, not everyone is engaging in such effrontery but it is becoming disturbingly common, and sadly widespread from a party that has, in recent years, seen the political atmosphere poisoned by the ultra-partisan Harper government. And even when the more rabid partisans are not making ridiculous criticisms of Layton, or some other NDP Member of Parliament, I find it amazing that so many Liberals are continuing to belittle the NDP as a party of crazy left-wing quacks. This really is getting wearisome, particularly in light of recent global events.

First of all, the NDP is not really very left-wing: Oh that it were! Second of all, how much more evidence do we need that Western Capitalism is not, in its present model, anywhere near as effective as its adherents would have us believe?  Most members of NDP are actually pretty middle of the road social democrats who just believe that a regulated market economy can be fairly effective in various ways but that so-called market forces are not effective and don’t belong in certain other areas such as healthcare and education. Many NDP supporters also understand that there is a pretty strong, hardly secretive, coalition of banks, big-business, arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies etc, who have for a long time now and continue to promote a certain ideology in their interests and continually attempt to undermine the promotion of social solutions, as they are at present in the US debate over healthcare. Now, given the fact that Capitalism has demonstrated its feet of clay so spectacularly in recent years, many of the policies of the NDP have never been so relevant and important. It is very amusing that so many of the social policies that most people find essential to our society were promoted by parties like the NDP but people continue to berate such policies when they are perceived as new ideas. The vast majority of the Canadians today support a universal medical system, universal  basic education, the right to collective bargaining, legislation to ensure safe working conditions, etc etc. Yet there was a time not that long ago when all of these policies were berated by many as crazy left-wing ideas that were communistic in nature and not practical.

The continual attack by many Liberals on the NDP portraying them as a bunch of wing-nuts who have no idea about realistic politics just make the Liberals look more like the self-righteous, bullying,  hyper-partisan Conservatives. And the funniest part of the whole thing is that where the NDP now stands on the political spectrum is very close to where the Liberals stood 35 years ago. So when the Liberals criticism the NDP of today they are, in a very real sense, insulting the former generation of Liberals. Now don’t get me wrong, the NDP continue themselves to be far too partisan for my tastes. It is remarkable that during this weekend’s convention the NDP has talked a lot about the need to build on the political strategies of Obama. Yet many of them don’t seem to understand that Obama’s primary strength is that he almost never sounds partisan, even when he is pushing a partisan agenda. Jack Layton, on the other hand, sounds partisan almost every time he opens his mouth.

In the early 19^th century Percy Shelley laid out what was at the time considered a dangerously radical agenda. He called for universal suffrage (including women), the elimination of hereditary privilege, the right for people to form trade unions, a just and fair legal system, etc. Today almost everything Shelley fought for is considered to be essential to a modern democracy. But in his day Shelley was berated as a crazy radical who was evil and dangerous. So it goes.

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you-

Ye are many they are few.

                                                                Shelley

 

Thank you Shelley! We vow to continue your struggle and pass it on to our children! And we will never abandon our future to the petty, little soulless people who seek to enchain the human spirit and reduce our lives to nothing but money and profit. 

Time for change

Well the Tories economic statement has made it clear that Harper’s government is completely unfit to rule and the opposition parties must, by any means necessary, stop this fiasco. Here are the highlights (or should I say lowlights?) – 1. The elimination of public funding for political parties. This is another in a long line of deeply anti-democratic moves. All major democracies have some form of public support for parties in order to ensure that smaller parties, particularly ones that represent the working-class and minority groups have a voice in the political process. This is just another mean-spirited and partisan effort on the part of the government to undermine opposition in all its forms. 2. The elimination of the right to strike for public sector workers. This is just a typically fascist move that strikes at the very heart of basic human rights. 3. The multi-billion dollar sell off of government assets to avoid a deficit that a. won’t be avoided anyway, and b. would not have been a threat if Harper’s government had not given away the store in tax breaks to the rich. Selling off government assets now while the market is at a low point is a shameless effort of the government to practically give away what belongs to the people and put it in the hands of the rich. And all of this while the government denied during the election that there was any serious economic problem and still seems to be ignoring the depth of the situation.

It is time for real solutions. Serious investment in infrastructure, a huge commitment in alternative energy, a commitment to national childcare, the return of the Kelowna accord, serious electoral reform, a real commitment to transparency and freedom of information.

It is time for the opposition parties to work together in a coalition for the sake of these vital policies and reforms! The NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc should make at least a one year commitment to a government of national unity – treating the situation like a national emergency. After these reforms are set in place it will be clear to Canadians just how incompetent the Harper government is and how bankrupt the conservative ideology has become.

Harper on the NDP

Stephen Harper, in a speech to the Council for National Policy, said that ‘the NDP is a kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the lives of men.’ (Now, despite Mr. Harper’s obvious sexism, I will give him the benifit of the doubt that he also thinks that the devil interferes in the lives of women) Anyway, let’s look at what this statement really means. Mr. Harper believes that the New Democratic Party is a demonic organization, the policies of which are inspired by Beelzebub. Of course, the statement does not make it clear in what capacity or to what degree Lucifer has guided the workings of the NDP. After all, many levels of interference are possible. Mr. Harper might simply think that the devil is responsible for Jack Layton’s mustache, or might assume that the entire leadership of the Party are agents of Satan. Or perhaps he believes that Jack Layton is the himself the Prince of Darkness, spreading his message of evil through environmental policies and the guarantee of universal childcare. I guess it’s a stretch but I can see it. It’s like this; the federal Government makes childcare available to any family that wants it. This means that the financial burden on parents is greatly alleviated and suddenly a lot more women go out and pursue greater levels of education and career opportunities. Not only do these women quickly realize that their husbands are a bunch of beer-swilling bums who spend most of their time watching sports but they are faced with the fact that men get paid significantly more for the same work. These realizations leads women to band together in groups which, naturally, leads women en masse to choose to turn to lesbianism as a ‘life-style.’ In turn, the traditional family begins to disappear and the general morality of society breaks down, creating perfect conditions for the Prince of Darkness to swoop in and capture the souls of Canada’s unsuspecting population. Thus we can establish that there is a direct causal link between NDP policy and Satan’s reign on earth. If affordable childcare can have this devastating effect on society, imagine what could happen if we had guaranteed income for seniors, insured that anyone who needed medication could get it, demanded that corporations be more responsible for their actions, created more stringent environmental regulations, and finally ensured that the people of the First Nations had clean drinking water! Satan would have a field-day!