Tuesday, December 04, 2012

Electoral cooperation on Canada's "left" or with "progressives" not possible when Liberal and Green parties fail test!


Unite? Liberals, Greens Are Not 'Progressive'

Nathan Nun cartoon - with thanks for permission
Why I'm not buying into an electoral cooperation pact with New Democrats in next federal election.

Bill Tieleman’s 24 hours/The Tyee column

Tuesday December 4, 2012

By Bill Tieleman 

"The reactionary is always willing to take a progressive attitude on any issue that is dead."
- U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt 1901-1909
"Unite the left! Have all progressive parties defeat Stephen Harper's evil Conservatives" is the rallying cry of a coalition of increasingly angry agitators.
But my reply is simple: Unite progressives my posterior!
The reality is that neither the federal Liberal nor Green parties are "left" or "progressive" -- and certainly not a merger match for the New Democratic Party.
And despite calls for lowest common denominator politics to defeat Harper, there's a fundamental problem even bigger than creating a cooperative voting coalition for just one election.
It's that the Anyone But Conservatives movement is based on removing voters' right to choose the party of their own liking.
This coercive and anti-democratic impulse is driven by the deluded desperation of Harper haters.
That's why it will never work.
But it hasn't stopped federal Liberal leadership contender Joyce Murray, the Vancouver-Quadra MP, from promoting the idea last week of joint nominations for just the 2015 election, followed by electoral system reform.
The concept behind it is also flawed, because believing that all social democratic NDP supporters would vote for a Liberal or Green candidate in their riding requires an ideological leap of logic.
Murray herself must be aware that many New Democrat voters wouldn't vote for her own candidacy, based on her past record as a Gordon Campbell cabinet minister responsible for cutting environmental protection in his first term as B.C. premier.
Splinters that splinter
And even if the three parties came to an agreement, it's likely some supporters would rebel and create other parties that matched their perspective. God forbid that the separatist Bloc Quebecois remnants have anything to do with it either.
In the case of the Liberals, we know that many of their voters would do exactly the opposite of the desired effect: they would vote for the Harper Conservatives rather than the NDP or Green candidate they were being asked to endorse.
Some Greens might do the same. After all, their previous national leader Jim Harris came from the Conservatives and current leader Elizabeth May once worked for the Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
Alice Funke of Pundits' Guide has outlined the faulty logic that was highlighted when recent NDP leadership candidate and B.C. MP Nathan Cullen proposed joint nomination meetings where members would "co-operate with progressives across the political spectrum" to choose anti-Conservative candidates.
Despite Cullen's energetic campaign and the promotion of his idea by online activist group Leadnow.ca and others, he finished third and did not receive the mandate he wanted to pursue the concept.
In fact, Leadnow.ca's new efforts to convince the Liberal Party to endorse cooperation as it heads to an April leadership vote has only garnered 17,000 supporters to date.
Adjusting to Justin
As for the Liberals' compatibility in even a temporary electoral coalition, just look at Liberal MP and dauphin Justin Trudeau's most recent pronouncements.
Trudeau supports the Chinese state-owned CNOOC oil company's proposed takeover of Calgary-based oil and gas producer Nexen because it's "good for Canada" -- without addressing the sell out of our resources or the issue of a Communist dictatorship increasingly owning big chunks of our economy.
Trudeau also now says that while he voted against the Conservatives' elimination of the long-gun registry, a Liberal government wouldn't even consider bringing back a valuable tool to prevent gun violence that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police wanted kept in place.
"The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that," Trudeau said. "There are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry which is, has been removed."
May's contradictions
Then there's Green Party leader Elizabeth May's constant contradictions on ecological and progressive issues.
How can any self-respecting Green look themselves in the environmental mirror after their calculating candidate in the Victoria by-election last month opposed a plant to treat the 130 million litres of raw sewage dumped into the Juan de Fuca Strait daily?
“Local scientists have cautioned us that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is a unique environment. Its special currents deal with the human waste naturally," Donald Galloway says on his website, adding that the plant is too expensive and doesn't deal with all contaminants.
The Greens were so sensitive to their flip-flop that when local celebrity sewage treatment activist James Skwarok -- who wears a brown costume to look like a giant piece of feces called Mr. Floatie -- showed up at a party event where David Suzuki appeared, Skwarok was flushed from the room.
"I was a bit bummed out," Skwarok told Canadian Press. "I was a bit shocked, actually, that they weren't in favour of Victoria's sewage treatment plan."
"I'm dismayed that so many candidates are against treatment," he said. "We spent the last five, six years carefully planning treatment for Victoria and we have the money now, so it's time to do it. It's 2012. It's not 1850."
(Skwarok, who retired his Mr. Floatie outfit after it appeared a treatment plant would finally be built, calls his new campaign a "second movement.")
Liberal candidate Paul Summerville also ran against the $783 million plant, saying: "There's no net environmental benefit to the plan that's being produced."
And Trudeau backed him up on that dubious deduction.
"I think we need to be worried about what the actual science says instead of what the ideology is," Trudeau told reporters.
Even Conservative candidate Dale Gann reversed himself, despite his own government offering to pay one-third of the costs, leaving only winning NDP candidate Murray Rankin to support a decades overdue decision to stop pumping untreated sewage via a long pipe out to sea -- something our American neighbours are furious about.
So much for the environmental commitment of Liberals and Greens.
Pro rep repelled
And what about the idea of a temporary cooperative coalition to vanquish the Tories and implement a new voting system with some form of proportional representation to ensure Harper's ilk can never again gain a majority?
Electoral system change from our current First Past the Post model has been rejected soundly in every province where a referendum has been held -- British Columbia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.
(Disclosure: I successfully opposed the Single Transferable Vote proposal in both the 2005 and 2009 provincial election referenda as president of NO BC STV.)
A proposal to reject FPTP was also trounced in a referendum in England in 2011.
So the goal of a "progressive" party cooperation pact to facilitate changing the electoral system is hardly likely to garner national support.
None of this is to say parties cannot cooperate on key issues.
For example, the NDP, Liberals and Greens have all opposed the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal, which is strongly backed by the Conservatives.
And if voters want to make their own decisions in each riding as to which anti-Conservative candidate has the best chance of defeating a sitting MP, go to it -- convince enough people and it will be successful.
We've seen several political organizations advocate, advertise and set up websites to advise voters on exactly that -- albeit the results have been very poor.
But do not let anyone call themselves either progressive or democratic if they are advocating a two-choice election in 2015 -- Conservative or their alternative ABC mix.
What's even worse than another Stephen Harper Conservative government is a country where high-minded elites deprive voters of a full range of political parties in the next election.

.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hate to agree. But how can you vote Green or Liberal and call yourself progressive. Maybe its possible with specific candidates or are sure to win anyway?

Anonymous said...

So what exactly is "progressive"?? it's not a label completely aligned with the NDP, or is it now used as a positive label for anything related to the NDP? The NDP in many ways has not been progressive either.

It's laughable that now the NDP seems to be using this alternative label "progressive" since the Conservatives have used it in the past for decades.

Seems to be along the same lines as the Religious Right trying to bury themselves in an alternative label as in "social conservatives", which originally meant being fiscally conservative yet socially responsible as in a hand up not a hand out and retaining the health and welfare programs although broken are still very much intact.

Also worth nothing is that Jack Layton had been advocating a joint agreement with the federal Liberals in an effort to bring a coalition in the House of Commons to try and form an alternative government.

It failed.

So "progressive" is another political marketing tool.

It simply won't work for many as they they know exactly who the federal Liberals, the NDP and the Greens are.

Call a spade a spade end the fakery in political labels.

The NDP are social democrats, not "progressive".

Anonymous said...

As one of BC's best known communicators, political commentators and strategists, you should know that Tielman is sexistr. A true progreessive would change it to Tielperson.

Bernard von Schulmann said...

Reducing choices on the ballot does not guarantee any specific result. If it did, Stephen Harper would have won a huge majority in 2004.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 5 December, 2012 10:30:00 AM objects to New Democrats calling themselves "progressive!" How silly can you be. The NDP are not trying to distance themselves from social democracy - not from "social" not from "democracy". Being social democrats means being "progressive".

The more centrist Conservatives called themselves, to their credit, called themselves "progressive" because they wanted to claim some of the center and to distance themselves from the lunatic "conservative" brand of giving welfare to the rich through tax breaks and other corporate benefits.

Unfortunately, they failed and the lunatic right wing took over. Harper, the guy who is leading the far right in Canada, for example had his roots in the Northern Foundation that was formed by pro-apatheid nutters and had other assorted neo-Nazis as key speakers.

The Reform Party, of course, had its own scandal with the 'revelation' that the Party was infiltrated by neo-Nazis as well.

When Harper had benefitted all that he could from the Nazis he, of course, distanced himself from the bunch, claiming to be confused or that they were too extreme even than himself.

But, of course, when you have an advisor like Flanagan, a professor at Calgary U., who later advocated the assassination of Assange, nothing is too extreme.

So let's try to stay calm and realize that "progressive" can mean different things depending where you stand on the political spectrum. I have no problem at all being called a socialist or a progressive or and ant-fascist. But for me, I see myself as a centrist -- a social democratic centrist with the Liberals and Greens to the right and way farther to the right are the "Conservatives" now the eno-cons.

Anonymous said...

Phuleez- social democrats does not mean being "progressive". The NDP was rarely a centralist party as were the Conservatives (before the Religious Right tried - and failed - to influence the majority of policies).

The Reform Party was not infiltrated by Nazis. Get your facts straight. The poster mentioned "revelation" which was not backed up by fact.

As for Assange, the guy is a hypocrite. He smoked out government and yet does not come transparent on his own actions.

A social democrat centralist would be pretty much a red Federal Liberal. If the poster was indeed centralist, that would place the Greens to the left, not the right.

His compass needs recalibration.

Anonymous said...

Anon said "Phuleez- social democrats does not mean being "progressive". The NDP was rarely a centralist party as were the Conservatives (before the Religious Right tried - and failed - to influence the majority of policies)."

That's how nuts the neo-cons are; they think that repeating something makes it true! Of course, the end time religious fundamentalists control Conservative Party of Canada policy. Do you really think that mid-East policy is made in Canada by centrists or "progressives". OMG, you think that people actually buy your nonsense?

And, yes, the Reform Party had some of the main Nazis in Canada in that time period -- Yep, members of the Heritage Front like Wolfgang Droege and the rest of the boys and girls. But worse, Harper was a founding member of the National Foundation which was a home for the pro-apartheid movement and hosted speakers like Paul Fromm - a school teacher fired for his neo-Nazid connections.

Yes, you can say its untrue. But you would be wrong again. The religious fanatics control the neo-Cons - read Marci MacDonlad for e.g..

The Greens have no left economic policy so they are not left. The NDP is not socialist by any means - they are centrist -- and anyone who says the Liberals are left have no clue about economy or class - they are to the right of center. The neo-cons are obviously right wing extremists preaching austerity.

But obviously, there is variation with Parties and Parties will position themselves to gain votes. We are talking about long term trends and where Party support is based. The Cons are backed by religious fundamentalists and play to that audience as well to big business. The Liberals play to big business and the right. The Greens are basically young educated people concerned about the environment but with no clue about the economy or class. The NDP is more centrist and is concerned with developing a modern economy based on added value - not just resource extraction at the expense of production - and protecting working rights - that makes them progressive in that sense and centrist.

QED - harper = proto fascist, Liberals, Greens and NDP pro-democracy and a modern economy -- so a little more centrist and a little more progressive.

Anonymous said...

Interesting revelations. Fromm did not at any time actually run for the |Reform Party as a Candidate, or does the previous poster wish to provide us with a cite that he actually did??

Sorry previous poster, the religious fanantics do NOT control the current Conservative Party. There have been attempts and they have been defeate each time. There is Hiebert and Warawa and others, but they do NOT reflect the majority of Conservative members.

It doesn't matter what this idiot Marci MacDonald thinks. The majority of Conservative members are focused on economic development, not following some idiotic relgious rhetoric that got the Republicans in the U.S. in alot of trouble with U.S. voters.

The NDP is not exactly centrist. How could they be with the heavy influence of Labour Unions? If they were centralist they would not allow unions to have their dedicated seats at conventions (the BC NDP does).

Also worth mentioning is that the NDP at one time or another has supported Hamas. Jack Layton was well known at one time to support the Taliban.

I am all for a Palestininan State, but those who govern such a state must allow Israel to exist as a sovereign nation in peace. Or is the previous poster not wanting that?

The Greens are a paradox. They say they are eco-friendly but still use cars and pickup trucks to get around, and one can only look in their campaign offices to see many things that are not eco-friendly.

Added value economy is a good thing, but Canada particularly the West does not have the resources yet to have an economy largely based on secondary and tertiary industry. Western Canada is still largely resourced based. From it come good paying union jobs.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 6 December, 2012 2:57:00 PM

Claims that Fromm did not run for the Reform Party. Who said he did? The claim is that Harper as a member of the National Foundation had Fromm and others who espoused apartheid speak at their functions. Once more for those slow at reading -- Harper's group regularly invited people like Paul From and other pro-apartheid speakers to their conferences!! Got that. Harper and racists. Now Harper attacks Muslims, claiming the problem in Canada is 'islamicization"!!

As for Reform, as I wrote already, was infiltrated by Nazis like Wolfgang et al of the Heritage Front - the most influential nazi group around -- and of course, Fromm was one of their main speakers as well.

Now for the nonsense that the fanatic Christian right does not control the Conservatives -- how do explain the anti-choice motions, the anti-gay stances, the connections between neo-Con MPs and Ezra who is being investigated under s. 319 as far as I know. The tax benefits for stay at home moms, etc. This is the same social conservatism that got Reagan, Nixon, Thatcher and Bush elected.

But the NDP is not socialist by any means - neither are the unions from what I can tell. Because unions have seats reserved does not make a Party socialist!!! That's just a stupid statement.

The Greens are not left by any means and neither are the Liberals. The NDP are clearly centrist, the Greens to the right and so with the Liberals. The PQ as far as I could tell are more center left. But who knows about that.

Anyway, google social democracy and you will find its very lukewarm -- in fact very democratic and centrist - supporting free enterprise with responsibility and workers rights. That's the center!! Tax cuts for the rich is right. Support for workers and helping build a strong economy with value added jobs is center -- Left is much different and everyone knows it. Your are just full of propaganda.

Now for a definition of "Progresssive". Google it and you will find that progressive conservative is a contradiction in terms. Conservatives by definition are conservative not progressive. Conservatives who want to appear to be centrists call themselves "progressive" to try to appeal to the center. The NDP calls itself "progressive" because it is a centrist party that favours progress in contrast to the neo-con agenda of apartheid and genocide in Canada and hopefully elsewhere.

We need a strong progressive government that recognizes that we need to protect the environment, stop climate change, build alternate economies based on healthy alternatives and help build strong unions -- not destory unions like Harper and the neo-cons are hell bent in doing.

By the way, christian support for Israel is based on the hope that the world will come to a fiery end and everyone who is not a Christian will go to hell when all Jews return to historic Israel -- there is nothing progressive about that.





Anonymous said...

Anon at 6 December, 2012 2:57:00 PM

Claims that Fromm did not run for the Reform Party. Who said he did? The claim is that Harper as a member of the National Foundation had Fromm and others who espoused apartheid speak at their functions. Once more for those slow at reading -- Harper's group regularly invited people like Paul From and other pro-apartheid speakers to their conferences!! Got that. Harper and racists. Now Harper attacks Muslims, claiming the problem in Canada is 'islamicization"!!

As for Reform, as I wrote already, was infiltrated by Nazis like Wolfgang et al of the Heritage Front - the most influential nazi group around -- and of course, Fromm was one of their main speakers as well.

Now for the nonsense that the fanatic Christian right does not control the Conservatives -- how do explain the anti-choice motions, the anti-gay stances, the connections between neo-Con MPs and Ezra who is being investigated under s. 319 as far as I know. The tax benefits for stay at home moms, etc. This is the same social conservatism that got Reagan, Nixon, Thatcher and Bush elected.

But the NDP is not socialist by any means - neither are the unions from what I can tell. Because unions have seats reserved does not make a Party socialist!!! That's just a stupid statement.

The Greens are not left by any means and neither are the Liberals. The NDP are clearly centrist, the Greens to the right and so with the Liberals. The PQ as far as I could tell are more center left. But who knows about that.

Anyway, google social democracy and you will find its very lukewarm -- in fact very democratic and centrist - supporting free enterprise with responsibility and workers rights. That's the center!! Tax cuts for the rich is right. Support for workers and helping build a strong economy with value added jobs is center -- Left is much different and everyone knows it. Your are just full of propaganda.

Now for a definition of "Progresssive". Google it and you will find that progressive conservative is a contradiction in terms. Conservatives by definition are conservative not progressive. Conservatives who want to appear to be centrists call themselves "progressive" to try to appeal to the center. The NDP calls itself "progressive" because it is a centrist party that favours progress in contrast to the neo-con agenda of apartheid and genocide in Canada and hopefully elsewhere.

We need a strong progressive government that recognizes that we need to protect the environment, stop climate change, build alternate economies based on healthy alternatives and help build strong unions -- not destory unions like Harper and the neo-cons are hell bent in doing.

By the way, christian support for Israel is based on the hope that the world will come to a fiery end and everyone who is not a Christian will go to hell when all Jews return to historic Israel -- there is nothing progressive about that.





Anonymous said...

The previous poster needs to relearn exactly what the NDP is in relation to socialism. He mentions

"But the NDP is not socialist by any means - neither are the unions from what I can tell. Because unions have seats reserved does not make a Party socialist!!!"

The federal NDP's constitution says

"The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be
assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of
public affairs.
The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as:
That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and
individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;
To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through
economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership"

The BCNDP's Constitution says:
(as it repeats that written into the federal one):

"The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress in Canada can only be
assured by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public
affairs.
The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as follows: a) the production and distribution
of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not for
profit, b) the modification and control of the operations of monopolistic productive and distributive
organizations through economic and social planning, towards these ends, and c) where necessary, the
extension of the principle of social ownership. "

So both are democratic socialist parties in other words a variation of socialism that exists within a democratic environment. It's written into both constitutions. No matter how it is interpreted, the NDP is democratic socialist and always has been. It is a left wing party that hasn't drifted to the centre. It is to the left of the federal Liberal Party and always has been.

Now then...

Taxing the rich up to a point is worthwhile but there are not the numbers of so-called rich people in Canada as there are in the United States.

His statement regarding Christians and support of Israel is pure bullshit. But he seems to want to represent all and everyone within the Christian faith in regards to positions regarding Israel. A try not even worth the effort on his part.

Would the previous poster like to inform us as to when Fromm was "one of Reform's Speakers" and at exactly what annual convention of the Reform Party was Fromm speaking?

The motions the previous poster referrs to can easily be explained as the freedom to present motions in the House of Commons which was done, and all of those were defeated. Harper did not vote in favour of any of them. Not one in fact he cast votes in the negative.

The previous poster should get his facts right. Harper was a member of the Northern Foundation in 1989, far removed from when he even was an MP.

With the Reform Party, he was policy chief, and did not have a say as to whom were members of the party or not. Having Fromm speak
was an error, but Dr. Walter Block from the Fraser Institute also spoke to the Foundation.

I suppose the previous poster didn't see those speakers as alternative viewpoints, not nessesarily accepted by the Reform Party as a whole.

Adrian Dix spoke at the Vancouver Board of Trade lunch. Does that mean that Vancouver Board of Trade members are now all NDP? Of course not.

The previous poster is full of propaganda.

The previous poster should also know that Jesus was born in Israel to a Jewish family.

So there.

We agree to disagree.

kootcoot said...

"Also worth mentioning is that the NDP at one time or another has supported Hamas. Jack Layton was well known at one time to support the Taliban."

As to support for Hamas, Hamas is the democratically elected government in Gaza......so one has to either recognize them or be in denial about the existence of just shy of two million Palestinians who essentially live in an outdoor prison camp with the IDF as wardens. This is as logical as the idea that China was an offshore island that was the accepted knowledge when I was a young lad. Those billion on the mainland didn't really exist.

As for other "democratically" elected governments in the Middle East, there is only the apartheid theocracy of Israel, which pretends to be democratic while withholding citizen ship and the franchise from those following the wrong faith. The rest like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Quatar et. al. not so much. But America the land of the free supports dictators who act in America's interests or under American orders. Egypt had elections, but the winner seems to now prefer to be a dictator and declare himself all powerful, temporarily, like Mubarak did temporarily for forty years or so.

Just because some fundie Con Reformatories in the House referred to Jack Layton as "Taliban Jack," because he thought Canada should be accountable for possible war crimes doesn't mean he "supported" the Taliban.

The most Taliban like group in Canada is that which is led by the Ayatollah Harper........

Anonymous said...

No-one will ever convince me, this country isn't a dictatorship.

Harper was Policy Chief for his Northern Foundation Party of 1989. What ever the hell is is now, doesn't matter, the results are the same as any dictator's.

Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all dictators. Fascists or Communists, what does it matter? All their objectives were the same. All of them, lied, deceived, were corrupt, thieves, controlled, paranoid, used dirty tactics, dirty politics, and all of them cheated to win. Sound familiar? It should.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster Koot shows his ignorance once again. Arab citizens
make up about 20% of the entire population in Israel, are afforded voting and other rights, and Arabic is one of three official languages in Israel. Same application to Christians that live in Israel too.

Hamas was democratically elected, but that still doesn't mean they are not a terrorist group, and doesn't reconcile the fact that Hamas does not want Israel to continue to be a sovererign state.

If Hamas was to act like a democratically elected government recognizing and perhaps working far more co-operatively then there would be a much better support level for its existence. But one can guess koot does want Israel erased so that his coveted Palestine State ruled by Hamas to exist. He is entitled to his opinion of course.

So does this mean that an NDP govermment led by Adrian Dix is a dictatorship? Does Bill here agree with that statement? Or is this dictatorship nonsense just apply to anyone except those within the NDP.

Anonymous said...

Who said that Harper was an MP when Paul Fromm, a noted speaker at Nazi events, was invited to speak at the Norther Foundation? Who said that Harper was an MP when Wolfgang Droege, a leader of the Nazi Haritage Front, was a member?

The answer no one. Its a red herring from a neo-con pro-harper troll.

Repeating lies doe not make it true that Harper did not know who was speaking at Norther Foundation events - the 'Foundation' was a pro-apartheid group with extremist goals and speakers. Harper was a key player in the Norther Foundation and decided to continue with it because it suited his interests.

As for voting on Christian extremist positions, my little neo-con troll, its Harper's party. He's the leader and he allows those members to make those motions. Harper has to sign nomination forms and he does so for the extremist elements because it suits his interest - just like it did in the Norther Foundation.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. If it advocates anti-choice policies, if it is against human rights, if it sis against women and for privatizing the womb, its probably Harper. if its against the environment, and for the tar sands, and funded by the oil lobby its probably Harper.

If its guilty of election fraud and vote suppression, its probably a member of the Con Party.

"Progressive" - Not! Pro-apartheid - Yes! Will Harper own up to it. No! He is afraid to speak his mind - he gets his minion to do it.

Where is Dean Del Mastro and his brother lately? Where are the boys from the election campaign hiding -- oh yeah, Kuwait.

Bring on the election and let's get rid of the extremist Christian lobby that is responsible for blocking peace in the middle east.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster obviously wasn't paying attention to the time line. The Fromm presentation was in the 1980s and few people other than him care.

In regards to Harper's Party, there are Christians that do make motions, but its quite something else to have those motions passed and set to policy. They have failed many times in doing that.

As far as the Middle East, goes, the previous poster also refuses to see an obvious solution. That is Hamas gets rid of its militancy and becomes a government working in co-operation with Israel and not the perpetual position that Hamas and the other militants want which is the obliteration of Israel. Israel then says Palestine can have the West Bank and Gaza.

Gaza then moves up from being a basketcase region run by militants
to one that has a centre of commerce, resorts, and a landing point for cargo going to Syria, the Arabian Penninsula, etc. So people have good well paying jobs and Gaza becomes a place to go to, not to run away from.

It's not the Christian lobby that is blocking peace in the Middle East, the Islamic militants are doing more than their share of doing that too.

To the previous poster. What exactly is the benifit of Hamas and the militants perpetually fighting amongst themselves and the Israelis?

I suppose the previous poster does indeed want Israel to be erased, but unfortunately for him, that isn't going to happen.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster has his head in the sand - or somewhere else. I'm too polite to say.

I'm just glad the troll is busy trying to refute the facts about Prime Minister Harpo -- election fraud and vote suppression is going to hang around his neck until he';s dead and gone.

The previous poster can claim that no one cares about Harpo and the neo-Nazis, but its a history that will be printed and analyzed for as long as their is a history of Canada.

The PM of Canada with the neo-Nazis. You see Harpo's affiliations and his policy of removing human rights all make sense. They are part of the same cloth.

Our little neo-con troll wants to re-define the issue because there is no way out. Harpo and the Nazis!

ANyway, let's keep the neo-con trolls buys on this site so they won't do damage anywhere else.

Hey, have a nice nite and try to tell everyone that having Nazis to dinner is perfectly OK because it was back a few years ago and, really, what neo-con cares about a few Nazis under the bed -- or in harpo's case - under the sheets -- get it? Under the white sheets on a warm summer night with the cross burning in the Alberta sky.

Anonymous said...

Jack Layton never supported the Taliban for goodness sakes Anon 6 Dec. He merely suggested that Canada should open some dialogue between us and them instead of voting on going to war with Afghanistan. It's called diplomacy and could have been another way to deal with real problems.
Try and keep history on track.

The Greens aren't progressive because their fiscal policies believe in the individual. The NDP is a community minded party and wants taxes to reflect that. You can use whatever words you want, the difference is there and needs to be defined in elections so voters know where to place their 'x'.

Anonymous said...

He did not support the Cdn Forces in Afghanistan and figured negotiations with them would resolve the crisis there. Only an idiot would negotiate with a group that didn't want to start such negotiations in the first place. Layton was very naive.

The NDP is community minded but only to its own support base, namely labour and the poverty industry.

Voters know where to place their "x". They don't need a lesson in political organizations from someone who is still locked into a Political Science 100 course with a mid term "C-"

Anonymous said...

Our neocon troll at 10 December, 2012 3:59:00 PM PST keeps maligning the NDP but can't explain or justify Harpo's Nazi and pro-apartheid connections or the undue influence of the fanatical Christian right on Harpo policy. I guess the troll will go completely nuts when we compare Harpo's strategies with Karl Rove - of the Bush debacle in the USA.

All our little troll can do is try to get the last word on the NDP, claiming that the NDP is a narrow interest group -- and get this -- unlike the Harpo fanatics who are no in court to defend 6 ridings against charges of vote suppression. The criminal charges against Party insiders will no doubt follow soon. Who's heard from their former spokes persons on the election fraud file?

I guess its like the F-35 debacle -- debacle for the center/left is sort of like - "let me be perfectly clear" for the Harpo gang and Nixon before them. How come they always say, "let me be clear" just before they lie. It gives away the lie before they start.

If they didn't say, "let me be clear." The slower listeners would actually have to pay attention so they could catch the lie. Now its easy, Just wait for "let me be clear" and you have it...

Now what will our little neocon troll say about this. I wonder how much neocons get paid?

Anonymous said...

Previous poster once again gets his facts way off base. There is no fanatical Christian influence on Conservative Policy. He thinks there is, but in actual fact, he's wrong.

The NDP is a narrow interest group, always bending over to labour and the poverty industry.

I've heard "let me be perfectly clear", or even better when Glen Clark said "and they said it couldn't be done. Well, here's the proof right here", pointing to the Fastcats which ultimately Joy McPhail finally said that project was a failure.

Interesting this troll hasn't mentioned the NDP skimmed off bingo money in Nanaimo and sent it to add to the campaign funds province wide.

and watch for the court action regarding the robocalls to lost by those who launched the action. The Council of Canadians, a left wing group.

If the previous poster wants to know how much neocons get paid, it's the same as many in the NDP.

Nothing.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster is an hilarious conservative troll hell-bent (so to speak) on defending the Harpo christian lobby group. He states over and over again that "There is no fanatical Christian influence on Conservative Policy. He thinks there is, but in actual fact, he's wrong." Prove it!

Every domestic and foreign policy decision is based on the christian lobby. Why? Its not rocket science - Because Harpo and the neo-cons depend on a few narrow interest groups to get elected and the christian lobby is concerned with Palestine, women's wombs, removing equal rights and getting the church back into government. That's creationism in schools and women at home -- that's the agenda.

To accomplish that, Harpo has to attack the opposition and that is done through election laws and convincing people not to vote -- that voting is a waste of time. For supporters of other parties, the tactics involve election fraud and out and out vote suppression -- just like the Repubs in the USA.

The neo-cons are cut from the same dirty cloth. Wars in the mid-east serve big oil and the Christian Brotherhood. Its not rocket science.

What part of the domestic and foreign Harpo agenda don't you understand?

But let's not forget Harpo's background with the National Foundation and Reform and all the pro-apartheid and neo-Nazis they collected.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster has no idea what he is talking about. What part of how the Conservatives work the party doesn't this previous poster understand? The Christian elements do not have a majority influence on where the Conservatives go in terms of governance. None.

This thing about the National Foundation is a joke. It's over 20 years old. Let it go. Everyone else has.

The previous poster is being chased by imaginary demons who have left the haunted house at least 22 years ago

Heck no one refers to the Waffle Manisfesto within the NDP anymore and COPE Vancouver has long since shed its Communist Party members (Bruce York, etc.) well except for that fool Tim Louis who still reveres Che Chevara.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster has no idea what he is talking about. What part of how the Conservatives work the party doesn't this previous poster understand? The Christian elements do not have a majority influence on where the Conservatives go in terms of governance. None.

This thing about the National Foundation is a joke. It's over 20 years old. Let it go. Everyone else has.

The previous poster is being chased by imaginary demons who have left the haunted house at least 22 years ago

Heck no one refers to the Waffle Manisfesto within the NDP anymore and COPE Vancouver has long since shed its Communist Party members (Bruce York, etc.) well except for that fool Tim Louis who still reveres Che Chevara.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster states that "...no one refers to the Waffle Manisfesto within the NDP anymore and COPE Vancouver has long since shed its Communist Party members (Bruce York, etc.) well except for that fool Tim Louis who still reveres Che Chevara [sic]."

That's because they weren't NAZIS. Harper and the Nazis is a different kettle of smelly fish than Tim Lewis.

And, yes. I still wear a Che Guevara t-shirt. Che stood for the principle of equality. Not so much the NAZIS.

And if your boss was a NAZI 20 years ago, it still speaks to his character. Look at this action plan now and compare it to what he stood for then. A NAZI is a NAZI - then and now.

There's no escaping it. Some want to ignore it because he serves their interests, but that's suicide.

Anonymous said...

Oh we see.. They weren't Nazis, but wanted to turn our country into something close to the collectivization that existed in the Soviet Union where just about anything that had an office door on it was owned by the government. Nice try.

Che Guevara was a Marxist Socialist revolutionary.

and just who do you know is my boss? From whom do I get paid (this is going to be interesting to see what his answer is).

The previous poster is still running screaming with his imaginary demons following close behind him.

Be sure to wash that Che Guevara T shirt.

Anonymous said...

The argument is totally wrong. If there were a Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark or Bill Davis in power federally it might make sense to argue that the other Opposition parties are "not progressive". But with Harper, well to the right of all Opposition parties, it makes none.

Merger is insensible for other good reasons but one-election cooperation is possible.

But these are both straw men, as is electoral reform. The only solution in sight is vote swaps http://voteswap.ca

because it does not cheat smaller parties, is a voter-to-voter not party-to-party pact, and need not rely on any one central analysis of winnability trusted by all vote traders.

NDP should like it because it will all but guarantee Mulcair as PM.

Greens should like it because it put a dozen MPs in the house like May (Canada's best MP, says Macleans).

Liberals refused the last coalition and so should be ignored. Appeal directly to their most anti-Harper voters.

It only takes a few thousand votes to shift in the right ridings to put Harper to pasture.

Faced with permanent balance of power in the hand of vote swappers, electoral reform will be suddenly advocated by all especially Liberals.

It's the only viable solution other than Quebec (and then eventually Atlantic) separation.

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't guarantee Mulcair as PM, simply because the federal Liberals would want Justin Trudeau as PM, not Mulcair.

The argument has no traction except in the usual artificial world of political science discussion at The Pit between classes.

Vote swap is a joke. That guarantee is just a basic nonsense agreement, there is no absolute guarantee that it would work (and spare the balance in vote count, the turnout would have to be equal 100% in orer to even figure that vote swap would work.

There's no way I would ever "trade" my vote with someone else's, I have no absolute guarantee that the someone else has voted to make the concept actually work to an agreeable conclusion.

Might as well throw the vote away
and watch the party you don't want elect another MP.