Layton nixes cutting NDP ties to labour

cranky

Time Out
Apr 17, 2011
1,312
0
36
What labour ties? The fed NDP doesn't even come close to representing the working man.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Is this surprising?

It's like the conservatives pretending to be multicultural.

Mind you, a socially democratic state would still take the side of unions rather than corporations.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
It would be like ditching the Progressive (Socialist) part of Conservative and going with the leftie flow and calling leftie govt spending Stimulus Spending instead of Socialist Spending.

English is flexible like that.

It even translates to Chinglish.



Is that bear bile?



YouTube - ‪Harper F***ed the Kids (Frank Turner cover w/ Explicit Lyrics...duh)‬‏

 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Soon the labour movement is going to recognize that the NDP does not represent them and hasn't for some time. Except for the government unions which is not in the best interests of anyone that pays income tax. Their fantasy land view of economics will simply kill jobs for their supporters. Too bad really because we need representation that can counter the far right without being polar opposite or being a bunch of crooks.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Is this surprising?

It's like the conservatives pretending to be multicultural.

Mind you, a socially democratic state would still take the side of unions rather than corporations.

Not necessarily. Just look at Germany and Sweden, which chose instead to turn to co-determination so as to encourage more unity between labour and management rather than constant confrontation.

Not all socialists are the same.

Soon the labour movement is going to recognize that the NDP does not represent them and hasn't for some time. Except for the government unions which is not in the best interests of anyone that pays income tax. Their fantasy land view of economics will simply kill jobs for their supporters. Too bad really because we need representation that can counter the far right without being polar opposite or being a bunch of crooks.

I think one reason social democrats proved more successful in Sweden is that they're more social-corporatist than they are labour-socialist, preferring labour-management unity over labour-management confrontation.

I wonder if she also does a unique version of kumbaya?

And she's a university student? Seriously, I'm sure she could have come up with someting more intelligent than that.

Anyway, I was watching a little bit of the NDP convention on CPAC last night, and I have to say what I thought would happen seems to have happened to a small degree. There is a mild rift between those who want to pull the party more towards the centre and those who want to keep the party as it is or even bring it back to before.

Surely, this is not sustainable in the long run, and the NDP will be forced to make some hard choices, having to make a decision between alienating their core voters to seek out new ones, or keep with the core voters and possibly go back to their previous position.

Well, in the end, it's up to them of course, yet I'm not totally surprised that the NDP's success lately has caused such a rift.

Honestly though, when I was watching the Conservative convention, I'd noticed a similar mild rift between the old Reformers and the old Progressive Concervatives.

I guess the lesson is, it's easy to hold fringe ideas when you're a fringe party. The moment you become a major player, suddenly you're forced to make some tough choices, shifting to the centre to maintain your advantage, or keeping with the old principles and possibly fall back to where you were before.

It will be interesting to see how these two parties deal with these currenly minor rifts.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
And she's a university student? Seriously, I'm sure she could have come up with someting more intelligent than that.

That's what I thought as well.... I always get a kick out of the naive that found their reality on an academic version of life's realities rather than how things really work.

Surely, this is not sustainable in the long run, and the NDP will be forced to make some hard choices, having to make a decision between alienating their core voters to seek out new ones, or keep with the core voters and possibly go back to their previous position.

The NDP's only choice will be to decide if they represent Quebec or their traditional party supporters.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
That's what I thought as well.... I always get a kick out of the naive that found their reality on an academic version of life's realities rather than how things really work.



The NDP's only choice will be to decide if they represent Quebec or their traditional party supporters.

Actually, Quebec was not talked about that much over at the convention.

I watched the part on the resolution on the language policy question, and they simply deferred it, which would suggest it's a pretty contentious issue within the NDP itself. After all, they tradituonally support official bilingualism, yet Layton supported Quebec's jurisdictional authority over federal institutions in Quebec. You can't have it both ways: either language policy is mainly provincial jurisdiction or federal.

A tough decision will have to be made here, and I'm curious to see how the NDP resolves that one, if at all (it could end up simply not adopting an official party policy at all, thus essentially leaving it up to each member to decide for himself, though granted that could work too, just leaving it up to a free vote within the party caucus).

Actually, if the NDP is smart, seeing how contentious this language policy issue is, it might in fact be a very wise move on its part to in fact have no policy on the matter, leaving it up to each member to decide for himself. This would mean that Quebec NDP MPs would be entirely free to support provincial jurisdiction, while non-Quebec MPs could support Federal official bilingualism.

This could lead to an ironic situation whereby the Quebec branch of the NDP Caucus and some more libertarian-leaning members of the Conservative Party could coalesce around provincial jurisdiction, whereas non-Quebec Dippers, old progressive conservatives, and Liberals coalesce around federally-mandated official bilingualism. It's hard to say where the May would go.

But I must admit it would be interesting to see such a showdown where all the party lines would get really, really blurred, except maybe the Liberal position which would be wall to wall support for federal official bilingualism.