NDP / Dobbin: "Who will stop Stephen Harper?"

Wow...what a Liberal shilling that was....."who will stop Harper"....narrowing things down to "the NDP only wants to replace the Liberals", yap yap, yap..

obliquely admitting the NDP has some good things going on, but their vision is narrow....as they are apparently  fixated on  "only want to  replace the Liberals",  while stating Jack was running to be Prime Minister...which means replacing Harper too...is discontinuity at best..

so what if the NDP want to replace the Liberals? That is the whole point in Canadian politics to replace that which is fucking over  Canadians, eh!

making it sound as if it is a crime is TFF....and indeed I hope/pray/long for the day when they do replace the Liberals

the Liberals need to be replaced, as much as Harper needs to be gone too, the Liberals are no saviours of Canada... no more than Harper is.

I agree.

Just pointing out the Dobbin pot calling the NDP kettle for lack of vision.

The left- together and virtually all its parts- is blind to its hubris that it has a vision. As if poking holes in others' lack of vision somehow sketches out ones own vision.

May sound like an overstatement on my part. It isn't what people say after all. But the vision people think they have is in practice anchored in nothing more than critique.

I really can't stand it when alleged progressives criticize the NDP for wanting to replace the Liberals, without admitting that that would be a good thing. Repeatedly settling for the Liberals instead of supporting the more progressive alternative has done more damage to the progressive cause over the years than the Conservatives ever could.

The problem with the Liberals is that they just want to be another conservative party and yet not lose voter support when they, for example,  prop-up one of the most anemic Tory governments in recent history with 79 confidence votes, Tbey'll never win 22% of the registered vote by being double parked on the right with the Tories. Voters can't tell them apart nowadays. According to the leaked Raitt tape, Canada's big time banksters have both old line parties in a holding pattern for now.

I would not call it a communication problem because that word vastly underates what is required.

Like most people you are viewing the public disourse required as a didactic relationship. Figure out what it is you want to get across, write it up, people read it.

Thats what in your words "explaining the issues" is. And it is fundamentally limited in its reach. The CCPA and the CoC are not educating the public- they are educating a slice of it. A pretty small slice of it.

That is a fundamentally different- and hugely smaller- ambition and challenge than the NDP faces.

It is also why comprehensive manifestoes like the Green Vision are so useless [leaving aside content issues]. In practice, they are written for the choir, not for engaging the public.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

. It's not that the NDP is failing to capitalize on the perfect opportunity. It's that the continued illusion of Liberal progressiveness is blocking the NDP from capitalizing on it.

Yes, and Dobbin who is allegedly left wing is busily promoting that illusion, as are other "left" orgs.

Who and what are they really?

I think that if the federal NDP supplant the Liberals federally that will be the demise of all progressive vision in this country.  In every province with a history of the NDP supplanting the Liberals the NDP has morphed into a liberal lite party. In BC it refuses to discuss the issues from a socialist or social democratic framework and historical perspective and instead has morphed into an anti-tax party with Van Der Zalm as an ally.

Ujjal and Bob speak the same language as Moe and Bruce; "if you talk about fundamental socialist reforms to our economy and real social justice change you can't get elected."  But IMO when you abandon even talking about those issues from a left prospective you even give up the hope that people can finally be made to see that voting for white cats is the same as voting for black cats. Many of the provincial wings of the party have gone out and recruited a lot of white cats who all say that if one talks about issues from the perspective of mice then how can you ever hope to get elected.  They say its impossible since we know that mice don't vote as often as cats do so cats votes are always more important to chase.  However in BC we are going to run more female cats and more multi coloured cats because that is as progressive as one can afford to be in public.

Two party systems always result in a governing party and a party in waiting being groomed by the same elite that helped elect the government.  Without more than two parties in the race their appears to be no history of socialist ideas even being discussed.  So careful what you ask for when you seek the demise of the Liberals. Cats don't care who they vote for as long as it protects their CLASS.  

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

To paraphrase that old hamburger ad, "Where's the Money"? 

Been waiting, expectantly, for someone to observe the changes in available funding for new social programs, the area where NDP "creativity" has always shined brightly. Broadbent's "tax the rich" to look after the deprived kids could look after the kids, but now there's the need to promote job creation by providing more graduates from technical programs and stimulus funding for startups...in the much talked about and badly needed "green" industries. And jobs continue to go abroad. And the baby boomers just refuse to stop getting older and demanding the drugs - fastest growing area of still mushrooming medical costs - that will get them into tottering old age. And upon their reaching that venerable status, who will look after them now that private pension programs have gone belly up? One million Canadian now look after aging parents in their homes, and Long Term Care construction is at a near halt.

Is it really just strategic failure that prevents the NDP from stopping Steve from gaining a position of uncontested power? And would the great frightened mass of the populace really jump to support the really, really radical economic decisions that have to be made? Is there any evidence for hope in that regard?

 Isn't playing around, making tactical moves, playing for time until ALL parties are forced into accepting serious structural change...isn't that where it's at? And the evangelical element, blind to the historical, quantum changes around them (let's cut off the primary sources of opposition party funding while waiting for this periodic economic storm to abate, and ensure majority power) sings the old 80s refrain, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" to an audience that desperately just wants to sing and not be disturbed by the news of the day?

Dobbin's piece is well-argued and essentially correct on the lack of consistent vision from Layton's NDP - the NDP has now morphed into the "stop the HST" party with a separate website for this campaign.  It's a good issue and the NDP's position is progressive as far as it goes, but it's not linked to any positive alternative to inspire Canadians.  Jack has a ton of good ideas and they are articulated with vision and purpose - read "Speaking out Louder" sometime and it is all in there.  But too often, the NDP and Jack are just surfing on the latest headlines rather than speaking to Canadians about building a new green economy or eliminating homelessness and again, Jack has written books about these issues, so it's not like the vision ain't there - we just aren't expressing it consistently.

The headline of Dobbin's piece doesn't fully reflect his article - "stopping Stephen Harper" is the brain-dead Liberal frame where it's all about getting rid of Mulroney/Manning/Day/Harper and ignoring that Chrétien/Martin/Ignatieff espouse the same policies or worse in some cases.  Dobbin admits that in some passages in his article, though he does have an awful paragraph of wishful thinking about Iggy's vague musings on raising taxes (which he immediately withdrew, as Dobbin notes) and comparing the abysmal "We can do better" slogan to the World Social Forum  Surely Dobbin realizes that there is not a progressive bone in Ignatieff's body but he has to create the illusion of progressive Liberals because under FPTP, the Libs are the only party that can "stop Harper" in the sense of replacing the governing party.

But overall, Dobbin is correct and his challenge at the end of the piece is the right one- the way you stop Harper (or rather, stop the Harper/Iggy corporate agenda) is to articulate a visionary and credible alternative. I saw Jack on "Question Period" today and he did talk about the green economy and a real strategy to fight climate change; that's a good place to start.

A "green economy and a real strategy to fight climate change" would certainly be "visionary and a credible alternative" to the current mob, and the remnants of the old ruling party, eh Lefty>  And the capital for startups of that green industry will come from...?  I wonder if Jack, with his academic background in economics, could find his way clear to suggest bond issues with that in mind? Maybe even expansion of the CPP to investment there. Knock the socks off the Bay Street boobs who now have us all in thrall.

As someone who actually supports the NDP there's some problems I have with Dobbin's piece.

1) He contends the NDP will "never win" and should therefore, I presume, not care about winning. If that's his starting point he's lost me. If we're not trying to get a majority of people to agree with us then what the hell are we doing? Why would anyone bother with a political party that was uninterested in implementing it's ideas?

2) I think the NDP has a vision and a strategy - just not what Dobbin likes much. When Dobbin actually has to articulate what an NDP "vision" would look like he simply rattles off a handful of Harper initiatives the NDP didn't oppose. Doing the exact opposite of whatever the Tories are doing isn't a "vision". It's reactionary narrow-casting that appeals to a shrinking handful of shut-ins who think Stephen Harper is the devil incarnate. Most Canadians don't think that way. Layton's NDP is pursuing a populist social democratic vision for government and I think most of his initiatives fall within that frame.

3) Dobbin implies that attacking the Liberals is a betrayal of some sort. He doesn't explain why. It's - I guess - axiomatic that New Democrats are supposed to let Liberals win.

Sunday Hat wrote:

2) I think the NDP has a vision and a strategy - just not what Dobbin likes much. When Dobbin actually has to articulate what an NDP "vision" would look like he simply rattles off a handful of Harper initiatives the NDP didn't oppose. Doing the exact opposite of whatever the Tories are doing isn't a "vision". It's reactionary narrow-casting that appeals to a shrinking handful of shut-ins who think Stephen Harper is the devil incarnate. Most Canadians don't think that way. Layton's NDP is pursuing a populist social democratic vision for government and I think most of his initiatives fall within that frame.

3) Dobbin implies that attacking the Liberals is a betrayal of some sort. He doesn't explain why. It's - I guess - axiomatic that New Democrats are supposed to let Liberals win.

I'd just like to point out that its also possible to agree in the main with this- and that what Dobbin offers is even less like vision than what is required... but to still contend that the NDP's vision on offer is not sufficiently compelling to the audience aimed for, irregardless that is not the narrow one Dobbin wants to cater to.

If only the Governor General, instead of appeasing Harper, would invoke Article V of her letters patent, and remove Harper from office for "suffient cause" -- negligence --- she could bring down Harper

How long will Canadians be prepared for the sake of avoiding an election to allow an unethical government which has engaged in fraudulent practices, and evasive techniques, and unscrupulous actions, govern. How much longer will a compliant Governor General support such practices, techniques and actions? The Governor General erred twice in dissolving and proroguing Parliament, (under Article VI) of her Letters Patent. Now she must correctly use her residual powers under Article V - to remove Harper from office, and call upon the Opposition Parties to govern.

Under Article V she has the following residual powers:
V. "AND WE DO FURTHER AUTHORIZE AND EMPOWER OUR GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO FAR AS WE LAWFULLY MAY, UPON SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO HIM APPEARING, TO REMOVE FROM HIS OFFICE, OR TO SUSPEND FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE SAME, ANY PERSON EXERCISING ANY OFFICE WITHIN CANADA, UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF ANY COMMISSION OR WARRANT GRANTED, OR WHICH MAY BE GRANTED, BY US IN OUR NAME OR UNDER OUR AUTHORITY."

There is sufficient cause to remove Harper:. At COP 15, Harper ignored all the new emerging scientific evidence that was presented, by the IPCC, and by (WMO) about the consequences from climate change being increasingly more serious than anticipated in the 2007 IPPC report based on 2004 and 2005 data. Canada as the principal recipient of the fossil fuel award, was deemed to obstruct the process and ignore the plight of the developing states. A member of the African Caucus decried that while developed states were playing with numbers Africa was dying. Bangladesh pointed out that for developed states it was a matter of consumptive life style, but for Bangladesh it was a matter of survival and a right to live. By commiting to such a low emissions reduction of 3% below 1990 levels Canada was out of sync with the European Union that committed to 20 % below 1990 levels and up to 30% if other developed countries moved. As usual Canada had the dubious honour of receiving it usual "fossil award" . Canada appeared to embody the Antoinettian stance: Let them wear Rubber boots and buy bottled water.

Bill Rees pointed out in his piece; "Is Canada guilty of Climate Negligence" that "Canadian common law provides useful guidance. Environmental negligence suits focus on compensation for loss caused by unreasonable conduct that damages legally protected interests. Unreasonable conduct means doing something that a prudent or reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do. The plaintiff must establish certain key elements of the tort‹ cause in fact and proximate cause, damages, legal duty, and breach of the standard of care. Note that fault may be found even in the case of unintended harm if it stems from unreasonable conduct.
The Governor General erred again in appeasing Harper; now she must must correctly use her residual powers under Article V - to remove Harper from office, for negligence and call upon the Opposition Parties to govern.

At the moment, it doesn't look like any party will win more seats than the Conservatives, or otherwise prevent them from forming a government in a possible election, should they be brought down by their March budget-- unless the opposition parties use the next two months to negotiate and sell a coalition strategy (a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition), which remains unlikely.  With that in mind: what is to be done?

thanks: 

I admit that I'm being cheeky with regard to a coalition.  Besides, I believe it would come apart as soon as one party felt it had an advantage (thus rendering voters even more skeptical of partisan cynicism).  What is to be done?  Other than amalgamating the current opposition into a new entity of some kind, I haven't a clue.  Will democracy ever preside? Not anytime soon, m' thinks.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Harper had done us all a favour by removing the facade that MP's actually get elected to govern.  Who needs parliament when he has all the levers of power in the PMO.  Successive Liberal and Conservative PM's have made our system into a PMO dictatorship without the checks and balances of a republican system.  We have been operating like that for over a decade, Harper has merely pulled aside the curtain.  The idea that any party lead by Iggy is on the left side of the political spectrum is mind boggling.  As a serf he will only beat me twice a week not daily like Steve?

Yep, that's about it, but you also get to choose the stick that he beats you with!

Proportional Representation brings a greater diversity of voices to Parliament, which reflects voters preferences more closely than the current first past thepost system.

Some of those more diverse voices may be significant in shifting the content of what goes on in Parliament.  Most certainly they would be. 

If existing MPs don't have whatever it takes to get things done in Parliament that need doing, it may be a result of the skewed and dysfunctional system everyone has got used to, with apathy and hopelessness resulting.  Both constituents and MPs know the entire exercise is currently a circus. It's very difficult to break out of that.  Steps should be taken.

Research the bastard's background starting with the Walrus piece and let the world know:

The Dobbin school propose the oddest sort of political strategy:  That the way to move Canadian political discourse to the left is for the only party on the left to marginalize itself so that the right wing duopoly can continue in power unmolested.

Dobbin's "vision" is pure blindness.