It's A Great Day For the West
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
And how would you compare the Manitoba NDP now and the one in Ontario when you were in Ontario?
"And how would you compare the Manitoba NDP now and the one in Ontario when you were in Ontario?"
In Ontario I had to deal with Bob Rea (the no more NDP turn coat) and all his acolytes. Jack Layton. Olivia Chow. These two lived in subsidised housing at their combined government provided salaries. Hypocrisy galore. Then there was the Africa lover Stephen Lewis, along with his papa, David, who lovingly supported the original destroyer of the notion that "the twentieth century belongs to Canada", Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Gary Doer is an NDP'er, that I as a lifelong Conservative could vote for.
In Ontario I had to deal with Bob Rea (the no more NDP turn coat) and all his acolytes. Jack Layton. Olivia Chow. These two lived in subsidised housing at their combined government provided salaries. Hypocrisy galore. Then there was the Africa lover Stephen Lewis, along with his papa, David, who lovingly supported the original destroyer of the notion that "the twentieth century belongs to Canada", Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Gary Doer is an NDP'er, that I as a lifelong Conservative could vote for.
Incompetence. The Dippers are batting 0 for 1000. What're the odds that they'd blow it every time they get in? Even the loser ex-mayor of Vancouver, Campbull, isn't that much of a loser.
It isn't a tendency with the Dippers here, it's a habit.
Last edited:
Over there, perhaps. Here if something happens to your vehicle and there's no way it could be your fault, it's your fault. Their decisions here are arbitrary. So maybe gov't vehicle insurance is ok over there, but it isn't a general application.
So waht is it? The Manitoba Dippers are just more rational than some of their other provincial and federal counterparts? Wouldn't surprise me. After all, a party comprises its members, and sinse it comprises different members in different jurisdictions and at different times, it's only natural that there could be wide variations across jurisdictions over time.
My car insurance dropped by 50% when I moved to Manitoba. It doubled when I came back to Ontario.
LG, not a single one of your complaints is related to socialism. They are related to incompetence. I've never lived in BC so I'll have to rely on your word about NDP problems in BC. Maybe something is wrong with the BC NDP party.
Tell me what you favor:
Publically funded education or private schools?
Universal medicare or private health care?
Do you believe in Old Age Security and the Canadian Pension Plan?
Do you believe in welfare for single moms and other people who can't work?
Do you believe going to university and college should be based on merit or ability to pay?
Manitoba's no fault government auto insurance is a socialist program.
Most people are socialists they just won't vote that way because they don't know they support socialist programs.
Tell me what you favor:
Publically funded education or private schools?
Universal medicare or private health care?
Do you believe in Old Age Security and the Canadian Pension Plan?
Do you believe in welfare for single moms and other people who can't work?
Do you believe going to university and college should be based on merit or ability to pay?
Manitoba's no fault government auto insurance is a socialist program.
Most people are socialists they just won't vote that way because they don't know they support socialist programs.
Here's proof most Canadians are socialists:
CBC.ca - The Greatest Canadian - Top Ten Greatest Canadians - Tommy Douglas
CBC.ca - The Greatest Canadian - Top Ten Greatest Canadians - Tommy Douglas
This got me thinking. Not only between Canadian provinces, but even between countries, how do socialist parties fare. In Sweden where the Social Democratic Party has had power for a long time, their public schools operate on a voucher system, and in other parts of Europe, where likewise socialism is generally stronger than in Canada, they generaly have a mixed medical system.
We find too that socialists in Latin America don't always see eye to eye with the NDP on the idea of tariffs against them, etc. and the Labour Party in the UK ha shifted right somewhat over the years, especially after Thatcher.
I'd be curious to know how a foreign socialist would react to the NDP? Would they find it too far left, loonie, principled, ideologues? Or would it just depend on the provicne or the candidate he'd have to vote for?
From my limited observations, the NDP is quite different from many other socialist parties abroad in that it sometimes get too bogged down in ideological purity, as in the case of one medical system for all, opposition to any kind of voucher system for schools, etc. It seems to take an all-or-nothing approach and is not so willing to borrow from the right. Though granted the Canadian right has become somewhat like that too.
We find too that socialists in Latin America don't always see eye to eye with the NDP on the idea of tariffs against them, etc. and the Labour Party in the UK ha shifted right somewhat over the years, especially after Thatcher.
I'd be curious to know how a foreign socialist would react to the NDP? Would they find it too far left, loonie, principled, ideologues? Or would it just depend on the provicne or the candidate he'd have to vote for?
From my limited observations, the NDP is quite different from many other socialist parties abroad in that it sometimes get too bogged down in ideological purity, as in the case of one medical system for all, opposition to any kind of voucher system for schools, etc. It seems to take an all-or-nothing approach and is not so willing to borrow from the right. Though granted the Canadian right has become somewhat like that too.
That's a matter of opinion. They are related to the socialists who displayed the incompetence.
It's googleable. I can provide you with this:
Dave Barrett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Barrett Ndp Government British Premier Lost Leadership
Mike Harcourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glen Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Private. Kids turn out better than they would in public school.
So far, I like the mix.
If I had to pay into it, I hope I get it back. If I didn't have to pay into it, my other pension would be bigger.
Some sort of cushion for those in difficult situations. Yup
Both
Same with ours. That means if something happens, it's both parties' faults. If you have a hit and run, even if you aren't in your vehicle, it's your fault.
No. Most people have some socialist views. That doesn't mean they are socialists.
Last edited:
I have to admit that if the NDP adopted a few ideas from Sweden, though I still wouldn't necessarily vote for an NDP candidate, the chances of that happening would still grow compared to now. Unlike the NDP which just seems to rehack the same old socialist rhetoric, the Swedes seem to be more open to experimentation.
Socialism is an economic thing, and unbridled socialism is just as bad as unbridled capitalism. There will be abusers in both.
Socialism taken to extreme would be communism. I believe communism works up to about 100 people. After that, the slackers become anonymous and motivation to be productive is lost. But under 100 people, people can see the effect of their individual efforts. People who contribute more than others are rewarded socially. People who don't contribute are shunned socially.
I've seen how this works when I lived in the Arctic. Traditional Inuit society based on "Ningiqtuq," or sharing is a form of communism. Not only does it work, it was probably the only way the Inuit could survive in such a harsh environment.
Another example would be Hutterite colonies.
Hutterite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Effectively they are a form of communism. Everything is owned by the colony or communally. When the colony gets too big, it splits off a daughter colony. Hutterite colonies are an example of how small scale communism leads to economic success. It has other problems, related to liberty and individual freedom, but poverty isn't a problem.
The fall of the USSR and most communist systems proves this style of government has serious problems when the number of people involved is too big. The slackers do as well as the contributers and the motivation to contribute is lost. Central planning and lack of a free market leads to poor decision making and inefficiency. Eventually this system collapses economically.
Extreme capitalism also doesn't work. The class structure becomes fixed and the difference between the classes become extreme. At the top are wealthy people who contribute little or nothing. At the bottom, the poor struggle for basic survival. Eventually this system colllapses in revolution and civil war.
Moderate socialism is a balance between the extremes. It has the free market benefits of capitalism and social benefits of communalism. A class structure exists. The poor aren't in survival mode and can work to improve themselves. The wealthy have an extravagant lifestyle. (After the first billion or so, what's the point? Name one thing you can't do for lack of wealth?) People are still motivated by ambition and a desire for a better life.
The government for the most part regulates the free market economy for longterm growth and stability, interfering as little as possible. Everyone's basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare) are met communally. Want a higher standard of living than the absolute minimum? Get a job... The more you earn, the more taxes you pay in order to help the poor rise out of poverty.
That's how I see socialism and why I consider myself a socialist.
I've seen how this works when I lived in the Arctic. Traditional Inuit society based on "Ningiqtuq," or sharing is a form of communism. Not only does it work, it was probably the only way the Inuit could survive in such a harsh environment.
Another example would be Hutterite colonies.
Hutterite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Effectively they are a form of communism. Everything is owned by the colony or communally. When the colony gets too big, it splits off a daughter colony. Hutterite colonies are an example of how small scale communism leads to economic success. It has other problems, related to liberty and individual freedom, but poverty isn't a problem.
The fall of the USSR and most communist systems proves this style of government has serious problems when the number of people involved is too big. The slackers do as well as the contributers and the motivation to contribute is lost. Central planning and lack of a free market leads to poor decision making and inefficiency. Eventually this system collapses economically.
Extreme capitalism also doesn't work. The class structure becomes fixed and the difference between the classes become extreme. At the top are wealthy people who contribute little or nothing. At the bottom, the poor struggle for basic survival. Eventually this system colllapses in revolution and civil war.
Moderate socialism is a balance between the extremes. It has the free market benefits of capitalism and social benefits of communalism. A class structure exists. The poor aren't in survival mode and can work to improve themselves. The wealthy have an extravagant lifestyle. (After the first billion or so, what's the point? Name one thing you can't do for lack of wealth?) People are still motivated by ambition and a desire for a better life.
The government for the most part regulates the free market economy for longterm growth and stability, interfering as little as possible. Everyone's basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare) are met communally. Want a higher standard of living than the absolute minimum? Get a job... The more you earn, the more taxes you pay in order to help the poor rise out of poverty.
That's how I see socialism and why I consider myself a socialist.
That proves nothing of the sort, other then Canadians recognizing him for his contributions to this country. Supporting some socialist policies does not make a person a dyed in wool socialist.
Tommy Douglas was a dyed in wool socialist.
Jesus's teachings are socialist. He lived a communal lifestyle. He was also a dyed in wool socialist.
I think people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism is a dirty word. Most of us can all see the value of many socialist ideas, yet label an idea socialist and suddenly its evil.
Jesus's teachings are socialist. He lived a communal lifestyle. He was also a dyed in wool socialist.
I think people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism is a dirty word. Most of us can all see the value of many socialist ideas, yet label an idea socialist and suddenly its evil.
The trick of the capitalist pig is to convince the dummies that they to will ride the lottery to the top of the social order by money alone. Hint---you can't get there from a bank--you're only value is in the eyes of your brothers and sisters