Who is Hampton?
Kelly Dyson
To begin with, this isn't written by a reform member or supporter. In
fact, I've been around at least three years and was a card carrying
member. It goes back to when Dan SEamen started running the club. Let me
say this..................the left has no representation. NDP has gone
from almost adequate to a complete embarassment. How times change. No
matter where people stand on the issue of big business, I respect them
more than a party that does a 180 because they are whores at the mercy of
the latest spin-doctors. They search to no avail, wondering why support
has dryed up. If the reasons for the aggregate are similar to my own it's
because of three reasons. 1. No resolve-lack of vision with no
conviction-eg-switching policy on big business 2.Want the party to
maintain clear direction in terms of labour-marxist approach with class
conflict being central importance, instead has become the "protectorate of
the minorities" party. 3. Fuckheads like Howard Hampton that preach the
gospel of the lefts financial restrain followed by the largest personal
expense account.
from now on the marxist-leninist party gets my vote. They'll never win
a seat in my riding but at least they have a backbone, that includes not
compromising on key principles and not losing sight of who they are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Dyson
Chief Nihilist of Carleton University
Email address: kdy...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clement Ng
> from now on the marxist-leninist party gets my vote. They'll never win
> a seat in my riding but at least they have a backbone, that includes not
> compromising on key principles and not losing sight of who they are.
I don't know what this fuss is about. Unlike the CCF, the NDP has
never embraced the tenets of socialist development and any hopes of driving
the party further to the left were dashed when the party establishment
purged the Waffle from its ranks. Watkins, Panitch, and Laxer (now
political science professors at York and Toronto) all disparaged the
party's slide towards the centre... *over twenty years ago*. The NDP are
at best a pragmatic, reformist liberal party, notwithstanding those few
elements that remain dedicated to social democracy, in this era of rampant
globalization.
(Neo)-Marxist analyses of class anatgonisms were never compatabile
with the NDP's cultivated brand of Canadian nationalism. I'm sorry,
but anyone who contemplates a deeper shift to the left should have jumped
overboard a *long time* ago; Svend Robinson will never lead the party.
<><><><><><><><>--------------------> <--------------------<><><><><><><><>
Clement Ng aka "chigger" (not Clementine...)
4th Year Integrated Science, Faculty of Science, Carleton University
E-mail: cn...@chat.carleton.ca
____ __ ______
/ __\ / | / / \ "War cannot be avoided, only postponed to the
/ / / || / / O \ advantages of others."
__ \ \__/_/||/ /\____ /
/ /__\_____/_|__/_____/ / - Niccoli Machiavelli in *The Prince*
/_______________________/
<><><><><><><><>--------------------> <--------------------<><><><><><><><>
Eric Miller
I'd suggest you visit the party's website and read the releases that relate
to business . . you will not find "switching policy on big business"
anywhere. You won't find any discussion on big business period. You will,
however, find information about small and medium size business, and how the
NDP recognizes the important role that they play in the economy. Say what
you will about the party, but when your examples are not true, then your
convictions don't seem as convincing.
- Eric
From the Fed-NDP site:
----
Canadians don’t accept that 1.4 million of their fellow citizens are
unemployed.
“The NDP believes government must play an active role in economic growth and
job creation. But government, alone, cannot produce the jobs Canadians
desperately need. We acknowledge the extent to which business plays a
crucial role in economic growth and job creation”, said the NDP Leader.
She indicated a new resolve on the part of the NDP caucus to reach out to
the business community, appointing a business critic.
“We must build partnerships with Canadians to make sure there are jobs today
and for the future. As a nation, we must encourage small and medium sized
business to grow and expand,” Ms. McDonough continued. “Working in
partnership with business, workers and non-profit organizations, we can make
this happen. In particular, we must work to maximize jobs and jobs
opportunities for youth by ensuring that every young Canadian is provided
with the opportunity to accept one of four options: secure a job, get
further education, work experience or work training.
----
Erinn Cunningham
does represent a shift away from the NDP's traditional role as a labour
party.
Looking at Tony Blair's New Labour in Britain, it is easy to see that
the NDP is beginning to try something along these lines. I remember way
back when the NDP used to called fiscal restraint a form of hysteria.
Upo until the early 1990s, the NDP refused to acknowledge the deficit
was a crisis. But when Alexa McDonough was elected leader, she talked
about how the right had messed up our finances, and the left had to come
in and clean up! Sounds like an endorsement of the neo-liberal agenda
to me! When the Ontario NDP votes for back-to-work legislation for
Teachers and calls for links with small and medium-sized business
(which, as I recall, the NDP generally defines as up to 500 employees!),
it is merely another step away from social democratic politics, and into
the realm of the big business parties. There is nothing inevitable
about this, but that is the trajectory.
Kelly Dyson
> Hi Kelly,
> I'd suggest you visit the party's website and read the releases that relate
> to business . . you will not find "switching policy on big business"
> anywhere. You won't find any discussion on big business period. You will,
> however, find information about small and medium size business, and how the
> NDP recognizes the important role that they play in the economy. Say what
> you will about the party, but when your examples are not true, then your
> convictions don't seem as convincing.
> - Eric
Eric,
You are framing your response based on information out of the party
web-site. I was commenting on a recent NDP press conference aired by CPAC.
Eric Miller
Labour" and other parties whose platforms seem far from "social democratic"
(then again, what does that mean these days anyways. . ) From what I've
heard with Blair's government, there is little for a cause of celebration,
other than the Conservatives were destroyed because of it.
About economic matters, you said
>was a crisis. But when Alexa McDonough was elected leader, she talked
>about how the right had messed up our finances, and the left had to come
>in and clean up! Sounds like an endorsement of the neo-liberal agenda
>to me!
There is nothing quite "neo-liberal" about aiming to "clean up" public
finances. The big question is *how* - That is where the NDP stands apart
from the other parties. Other than the Canada Action Party, it was the only
party to acknowledge the necessity to eliminate the deficit by the
employment route. Moving to full employment (at most ~ 5% unempl.), the
deficit would vanish. This is not just the calculation of "lefty" and
conservative
economists, but even a New York brokerage house. The NDP's
platform was killing two birds with one stone: reducing unemployment and the
deficit through interest rate reductions and making the Bank of Canada
finance more of the debt. Calculations have shown that this would have
reduced the deficit in about the same amount of time as the Liberals did,
but more employment and larger surpluses would result.
Unfortunately, Martin appreciate the Bank of Canada maintaining it's theory
of the NAIRU, the so-called "natural level" of unemployment that must be
made, through a tight money policy (& high interest rates) above 8%.
Luckily for him, interest rates were lower for a while and that helped
achieve his goal.
The problem seems to be that the NDP is *very* bad at explaining their
intentions - the question of *how* to all that they want to achieve. I'm
not sure NDP supporters would appreciate their party speaking strictly about
economic matters (and many candidates I'm sure do not appreciate it either).
So instead it is accused of flip-flopping on issues, saying how important
properly funded health, education, environmental policies are, when saying
about how the deficit should be eliminated and debt should be decreased.
For most people, they would see this as being a shift all over the political
spectrum. Given this, it's no wonder we don't have a federal NDP
government.
>When the Ontario NDP votes for back-to-work legislation for
>Teachers and calls for links with small and medium-sized business
>(which, as I recall, the NDP generally defines as up to 500 employees!),
>it is merely another step away from social democratic politics, and into
>the realm of the big business parties. There is nothing inevitable
>about this, but that is the trajectory.
Yes, the problem as I see it is that the NDP has lost a lot of its
grassroots who now organize Council of Canadians meetings, environmental
groups and the like (and to the Reform party out west). Instead, the NDP's
new members are disenchanted Liberals who were more easily able to
influence the party given its shrunken grassroots. Read Kelly's arguments
in
a previous post - she's no longer a member that can influence the party.
That's sad - so instead the NDP is left appealing to its Liberal base.
By ditching the NDP, one has lost a chance to take part in an influential
political party. We can't expect to have the future we want if we ditch an
easily-influenceable major political force. Whatever you think of the NDP's
role to
business issues, it should be a call for all socially-minded democrats to
become
active in the NDP to ensure that it is as we want it. Otherwise, it remains
"inevitable" that our future will reamain shafted by neo-cons/libs and
powerful corporate forces.
- Eric