2015 Canadian Federal Election

[ChangeAndChance]

Well, it's that time again and the propaganda machines of each Canadian political party are about to start working overtime. That's right: it's meaningless bourgeois election time in Canada! My question to my fellow leftists hailing from the GWN are a. Will you be voting and, if so, who will you we voting for?, b. Who will win?, and c. Majority or minority goverment?

This will be my first election and I'll probably vote NDP or Green just to steal a vote away from Harper.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It's too early for this shit...in more ways than one. I'm meant to be getting up in 1 1/2 hours. Also, the election isn't until October, damn it! Since you mentioned it now, though, I had to be first :o....

I will not vote. This election is a (stale) joke. Harper is...Harper. Trudeau is an opportunist with a megalomaniacal streak. The NDP were right to remove the word "socialism" from their party constitution, and have been working hard to demonstrate this as they gain "viability" in proportion to their rightward shift. The Greens have a snowball's chance in hell of forming a government or even a significant position in a coalition, and are ultimately bourgeois at any rate. With special thanks to first-past-the-post, though honestly even without it, "stealing a vote from Harper" by voting for a third- or fourth-place party in no way hurts Harper or the Conservatives electorally. All it does is contribute to legitimizing a farce that around 40% of eligible voters in Canada already don't see fit to partake in.

The only "strategic" option is not a vote, it's an uncompromising rejection of the status quo through other channels. Even if your vote "counted", voting for parties which are opportunistically shifting to the right in order to better fit the limited spectrum of mainstream politics can only send the wrong message to them about that "strategic" manoeuvre, in any case.

I'm expecting a Liberal resurgence but probably another Conservative minority. The NDP may be shifting rightward, but the Liberals are still the "devil we know" for bourgeois interests. The Conservatives have stepped on a lot of toes (even friendly ones), but remain unwavering in their support of the oil industry, defunding of public health care, and military actions, to name a few of their projects. They've also certainly made use of their majority to make changes that secure their position further.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I was going to post this somewhere else, but it felt more appropriate to bump this thread.

An acquaintance of mine (who's own positions are ambiguous except that she opposes Harper) shared this article on Facebook about voter turnout in Canada. I was tempted to respond, but I've gotten into that argument in the past with some mutual friends who are staunch liberals and it went nowhere.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/dear-young-people-cant-be-bothered-to-vote-no-one-cares/article24101272/?click=sf_globefb


Much has been made of the fact that the new federal budget is craftily geared by the Harper government to appeal to specific segments of the voting population. Seniors are getting all kinds of goodies, some designed specifically for their age group and others that are available to all, but which will (nudge nudge wink wink) benefit them the most. Two-income couples with children under 18 are big winners, too, as are small-business owners. Left off the gravy train are young people. Why? Because they are way less likely to cast a vote than older people are, and they don’t make up as large a share of the population as they used to. By being disengaged, they have now become conveniently ignorable, not just by the government but by the opposition parties, too.
In fact, it is arguable that, to some extent, all the federal parties are strategically relying on young voters to continue their apathetic ways. Everything is seniors this, middle-class hard-working families that. Very few policies are being directed at young, unmarried, new-to-the-work-force voters, and none of the parties seems particularly interested in harnessing the energy of new, social-media-savvy voters the way Barack Obama did when he won office in 2008.
In Canada, the steady decline in youth voter participation over the past generation has now become a vicious circle, in which the less youth vote, the less the parties reach out to them, and the more disengaged they become.
This is nothing less than a crisis for a democratic country. A 2013 Parliament of Canada study concluded that more young voters than ever are dropping out of electoral participation at all levels of government. Worse still, their apathy is permanent. They don’t start voting as they get older, which is one of the key reasons the average participation rate in Canada is dropping. A country where, a generation ago, more than 75 per cent of the population routinely voted in major elections is now lucky to have a 61 per cent turnout.
Instead of doing something about this dilemma, the current political discourse is designed to exacerbate it.
Canadians aged 18-34 have always been less likely to vote than people 35 and up. This isn’t new.
But two things have happened. First, the gap between the participation rate of voters aged 18-34 and the overall participation rate in any given election has steadily widened since the 1980s, according to Elections Canada. Before 1980, you could expect the youth participation rate to be about 10 percentage points lower than the overall turnout. In the 1970s, it wasn’t unusual to have a total participation rate of around 80 per cent, and a youth participation rate of 70 per cent.
That started to erode in the 1980s and hasn’t stopped since. In the 2011 federal election, the overall turnout was 61.1 per cent, but only 38.8 per cent of voters aged 18-24 cast a ballot. The gap between the two rates was more than 22 percentage points.
Older voters, meanwhile, remain about as likely as ever to cast a ballot. In 2011, the participation rate for people aged 58 and up was over 70 per cent. The decrease in the average turnout of the past 35 years is almost entirely due to the drop in the youth vote.
The second thing that has happened is that Canada’s population has gotten older. All those youthful boomer voters of the 1970s are now getting close to retirement, if they aren’t already there. In the meantime, Canada’s birth rate has fallen. Back in the 80s, people over 65 made up 10 per cent of the population. Today, they make up 16 per cent – one in six.
And, for the first time, there are now more Canadians aged 55-64 than there are aged 15-24. Thirty years ago, the younger cohort was twice the size of the older one.
So put yourself in the shoes of a battle-hardened Conservative, Liberal or NDP strategist. You can dedicate part of your election campaign energies toward a shrinking group of voters who have, at best, a 40 per cent chance of casting a ballot. Or you can ignore them and precision-target a much larger and growing group that will reliably vote at a rate of around 75 per cent. Which would you choose?
In the 2011 federal election, all three major parties focused on the middle class and on families. They made few direct references to youth. When they did, it was more often about “youth crime” or “at-risk youth” than it was about youth unemployment or university tuition. The parties are doing the same in this election, all led by the Harper government’s pro-senior, pro-family budget.
The terrible downside to this precision campaigning is that it is training young people not to participate in democracy. We know from the data that young Canadians who don’t vote now probably won’t vote later in life, and yet the message the under-25 crowd is getting in this election is, Your ballot is not needed.
Young people are smart – they understand the data as well as anyone. They know where they stand. They undoubtedly suspect that their well-documented apathy has been factored into strategists’ planning, which only deepens their disengagement.
What they want is a leader who speaks to their desire to change the world for the better and to rise above partisan politics. The late Jack Layton caught the imagination of many younger voters in 2011, but that’s not something that his successor, Thomas Mulcair, has going for him. Stephen Harper knows better than to even try. Justin Trudeau is the youngest of the bunch, but he never stops talking about middle-class Canadian families. His battle-lines are clear.
Is there a way to get young Canadians back in the game? Not in this election, unfortunately. The apathy of young voters has caused politicians to tune out. Politicians tuning them out has made young voters more apathetic. The vicious circle goes round and round. And we’re losing a generation of voters.


This article is reflective of the typical "get out and vote" narrative from the media and from what I've heard on university campuses. The trendy line is to reduce the declining voter turnout simply to a demographic shift, as though liberal politicians would truly represent the interests of this conveniently obscured group of "young voters" if only they would vote. The treatment of "young voters" as some uniform demographic is ridiculous. A 20-something business major from a relatively wealthy family and a working-class teenager from a poorer family that might, say, rely on a food bank just don't have the same prospects and therefore cannot be appealed to through some catch-all rhetoric and promises that benefit only a segment of youth. When attempts at such sweeping appeals based on caricatures gradually resonate less and less, this is not a reason to scream angrily at "the younger generation" to "get out and vote and make your voices heard!" It's just something to be expected. The fact that politicians don't (at least, many or most don't) proactively address disengagement as a problem of democratic legitimacy, but rather operate implicitly as if a "democracy" can function effectively as such with a significant part of the population disengaged from and neglected in politics shows just how hollow the claim of "representative democracy" is. Not only do they not proactively address it as a problem, but they instead integrate it into their electoral strategy. Why? Because their concern is not being democratic, but merely presenting the facade of democracy. They can continue to represent capitalist interests regardless of who among the youth votes. Notice also that voter turnout first significantly declined in tandem with the neoliberal shift of the 1980s. Coincidence? Doubtful. Capitalists have attacked the gains made by workers through long struggles, and have done so with the backing of politicians. Canadian workers are far from being revolutionary proletariat, but they don't have to be in order to feel screwed over by politicians.


In short: Politicians don't represent workers' interests, young or old, voters or non-voters. "If only young people voted"...whatever you think would happen, the interests of young workers or aspiring workers still wouldn't be represented as this article and the broader narrative it reflects suggests. This is not a "crisis for a democratic country", but a crisis for the Canadian state's ability to present a veneer of democracy. Of course, none of that matters if your goals stop at "get rid of Harper!".

[Onecom]

I always vote despite all the crap.

Harper is going to cheat like he always does,as long as the vermin(PC) are out of power.i don't give a crap who wins anymore.

If harper stays in power the only way we are getting rid of him is armed rebellion.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Why vote at all? This isn't proportional representation, so it doesn't work like that. Regardless, it only serves to legitimize bourgeois democracy.

[ChangeAndChance]

As shit as the liberal democracies like Canada may be, boycotting the system really doesn't do anything to end it. Can't we work towards revolution and vote to attempt to avoid a worse Conservative political calamity simultaneously?

[Lensky]

Will not vote until a leftist alternative presents itself, in the sense of a political party that is willing to challenge the interests of capital.

[Pancakes Rühle]

As shit as the liberal democracies like Canada may be, boycotting the system really doesn't do anything to end it. Can't we work towards revolution and vote to attempt to avoid a worse Conservative political calamity simultaneously?

No, voting will change absolutely nothing. Lesser evilism is a liberal tactic which does nothing to serve the working class. Vote NDP? Watch them move rightward and become New Labour.

Spoil your ballot if you must, your single vote will mean nothing. Nothing will change until the class itself revokes it's labour and forces a change.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I feel like "not voting" in of itself isn't really effective for delegitimizing parliamentary capitalism. Which is only to say that organized abstention is maybe something to consider.

I've heard Max Haiven (http://maxhaiven.com/) is planning on organizing some sort of campaign of getting folk to say they won't vote unless a party agrees to endorse some specific reforms (I don't know what they are in particular - knowing Max, likely mass debt forgiveness/Jubilee). Which, you know, is a somewhat novel approach.

I tend to vote for the CPC(M-L), since I'm usually on friendly terms with their candidates, and, not really seeing voting as relevant one way or the other, it seems like a nice gesture of friendship and non-sectarianism, haha.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, NDP majority in Alberta, eh? Think that'll mean something for Fall?

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, NDP majority in Alberta, eh? Think that'll mean something for Fall?

No, and if I have to read one more article proclaiming that everything's different now and the right is on its way out because social democrats were elected in Alberta with 41% of the popular vote, I'm gonna snap.

In any case, it bears mentioning that a vote for Notley is not necessarily a vote for Mulcair.

[VCrakeV]

I think everyone should just be more relaxed about the election. It's clear that Harper is doing us no good, and although there is a lot of skepticism amongst the leftist community over the other two candidates, it's worth giving one of them a try. It's best to take a look at all options given any scenario. There's no point in moping that no candidate will start a revolution.

[The Intransigent Faction]

There's no point in moping that no candidate will start a revolution.

That's not moping. That's stating a fact. They won't.

[Vogel]

So 40% of Canadians didn't vote? Just under 2/3's of Americans didn't vote either in midterms. It occurs to me, hasn't anyone thought of messaging to these people? We have half, or a 1/3 of the country('s) potentially able to really change things.

More than half in some countries!

Of course how are you going to make a party to work for those 40%? I leave that up to all of you and your dedication to try something.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So 40% of Canadians didn't vote? Just under 2/3's of Americans didn't vote either in midterms. It occurs to me, hasn't anyone thought of messaging to these people? We have half, or a 1/3 of the country('s) potentially able to really change things.

More than half in some countries!

Of course how are you going to make a party to work for those 40%? I leave that up to all of you and your dedication to try something.

I think the first step to making a "party" that works for that 40% is taking the time to really listen to what they're saying. My guess would be that a bit of social research would reveal that much of that 40%: a) Thinks all political parties and politicians are the same, b) That voting is a waste of time and effort, and/or c) That they're so estranged from the political process that they neither know nor care what's happening with it. Now, to be perfectly honest, I haven't put my nose to the grindstone and gone door to door - this is just a bit of what I read from my interactions in various work places full of young working class people (ie - those who tend to not vote).

I honestly expect something of a larger voter turn-out this around because of popular ABC (Anyone But the Conservatives) sentiment among young folk . . . but this really doesn't get us any closer to building organizations that reflect the aspirations or needs of the mass of non-voters.

[blake 3:17]

I think I'm going Anything But Conservative -- which probably translates into voting Liberal in my riding. And the Liberal will most likely be a slime ball. Harper's gotta go.

[VCrakeV]

That's not moping. That's stating a fact. They won't.



It's still moping, even if it's true. Like, moping over a rejection. You have no chance with someone who rejected you, but you can still move on. We have no chance at a revolution with any political party, but can still vote for whoever is in our best interest. Like everyone is saying, ABC is popular because Harper needs to get out. Maybe you're retired, or in the middle working class, in which case you may benefit from Trudeau's plans. I haven't heard much from Muclair(?), but perhaps the NDP has something of benefit. Hell, it's cool that Trudeau *appears* to have some social tendency, but if I vote for him, it'll mostly be for cannabis. Just vote for someone who you see even the slightest benefit in.

[Art Vandelay]

No, and if I have to read one more article proclaiming that everything's different now and the right is on its way out because social democrats were elected in Alberta with 41% of the popular vote, I'm gonna snap.

I'm getting close to snapping myself. The community I live in during the summers is like hippie/social democrat central. It's almost worse than being surrounded folks with torry sympathies all the time - which is what I'm more used to. I can't even count the amount of "this is so great" and "such a big step" conversations I've been subjected to since the election. I've just been keeping my mouth shut, since I know whatever I say will just be interpreted as a torrent of cynicsm.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm getting close to snapping myself. The community I live in during the summers is like hippie/social democrat central. It's almost worse than being surrounded folks with torry sympathies all the time - which is what I'm more used to. I can't even count the amount of "this is so great" and "such a big step" conversations I've been subjected to since the election. I've just been keeping my mouth shut, since I know whatever I say will just be interpreted as a torrent of cynicsm.

I understand completely. There's also the matter of Bill C-51. As awful as the bill itself is, the "We've traded freedom for security" narrative is pretty damn annoying. When you rely on legislation for freedom, of course the logical course of action is to rely on galvanizing support for social democrats in order to reverse the course currently set by the Conservatives.

[VCrakeV]

I understand completely. There's also the matter of Bill C-51. As awful as the bill itself is, the "We've traded freedom for security" narrative is pretty damn annoying. When you rely on legislation for freedom, of course the logical course of action is to rely on galvanizing support for social democrats in order to reverse the course currently set by the Conservatives.



How do you think the outcome of the election could affect Bill C-51? Do you think we could ever get rid of the bill? If not, I hope the government pushes everyone to revolution with more bills. This stuff is just really pissing me off. It seems like my only hope to live in a decent country is to move.

[The Intransigent Faction]

How do you think the outcome of the election could affect Bill C-51? Do you think we could ever get rid of the bill? If not, I hope the government pushes everyone to revolution with more bills. This stuff is just really pissing me off. It seems like my only hope to live in a decent country is to move.

Nothing short of an NDP majority, or (less likely) an NDP minority with support from a substantial number of Green Party MPs, stands a chance of possibly going through with a repeal of Bill C-51. Even that only addresses the symptom of the problem, however, even from a 'mainstream' liberal perspective.

The fetishism of law itself is a problem, but let's leave that aside for a moment. Legal and other experts have criticized not only the powers this bill grants CSIS and other agencies, but the lack of any serious legislative or 'independent' oversight. Granted, that lack of oversight is in no small part due to its dismantlement by the Conservatives. Even without that dismantlement, however, any agencies tasked with oversight of secretive, extralegal police and intelligence practices will necessarily be limited in their effectiveness. The very nature of those practices means any popular resistance cannot be confined to trying to influence parliament. As has been pointed out, these laws in Canada and elsewhere merely codify much of what would take place irrespective of laws.

Of course, the only way to deal with Bill C-51, the lack of oversight that makes it especially dangerous, and the problem of legal fetishism altogether, is popular resistance that recognizes and addresses the source of the law's power in capitalist society.

[steve folk]

true

[The Intransigent Faction]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/elizabeth-may-very-apologetic-about-speech/ar-BBjzwq3?ocid=ASUDHP

She shouldn't have apologized, but the media reaction in spite of the apology is really fucking irritating. "How dare she have a political sense of humor that doesn't conform to the proper standards of passivity!" :rolleyes:

UpOE59SinhE

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I made the mistake of going to a CLC event last night, complete with tears shed over Jack Layton, an expression of hope that we could have an NDP government and therefore never need to strike, and "politicians who will keep their promises". On the last one I couldn't help but let fly my one heckle of the night, "Just like Dexter?"

Funny enough, it earned me a pat on the back and a "right on!" from one of the former members of the CLM's Marxist-Leninist Caucus. Who would've guessed that one?

[lutraphile]

NDP is really surging post- local elections. Basically a three way tie now.

Hopefully if they are able to form a coalition, it will be the NDP on top and not the Liberals.

[The Modern Prometheus]

As much as i hate the wimpy so called left in Canada (the NDP) i would much rather see them come out on top then the Liberals. I really don't like Trudeau at all as he seems like a proper sleveen just like his dad Mr.War measures act himself was.

But i as most people from my province will be quite happy just to see Harper go. It irritates me to no end that a neanderthal like Harper is running Canada into the ground and making us look very bad on the international stage. I mean since when did Canada become more Conservative then the US? Not to mention since the federal Conservatives can't even buy a vote here they are even less concerned with doing anything good for us. Not that he hides his hatred for east coasters mind you.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Peter MacKay has announced that he will resign this fall. That leaves Jason Kenney as the most likely successor if Harper were to resign following a loss in the next election.
Of course, it had to be the biggest douche of the bunch. Some of his notable achievements include:

-Cutting health care benefits for refugees and then circulating a petition thanking himself for it.

-Declaring "bogus" refugee claims from so-called "safe countries".

-Banning George Galloway from Canada in order to prevent him from speaking to an anti-war rally, due to Galloway's opposition to Zionism.

-This exchange with Romeo Dallaire in which he (Kenney) defended the then-ongoing refusal to repatriate Omar Khadr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-00a9MMACCM

More to the point, MacKay helped orchestrate the merge and represents the link between the former Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. With Kenney as leader, the Cons will likely veer further to the right and drag so-called "progressive" opportunists, as well the spectrum of "acceptable" discourse, along with them.

[blake 3:17]

Well folks it's coming up! Probably gonna be called this weekend. The reason to call it earlier (it doesn't affect the election date) is that campaign expenses can be increased and the Conservatives have the most cash on hand.

Anyways, the odd development is that the NDP are leading in the polls and it might well be the first time we have an NDPer as Prime Minister. They've announced they're open to forming a coalition with the Liberals, who are trailing in third place.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well folks it's coming up! Probably gonna be called this weekend. The reason to call it earlier (it doesn't affect the election date) is that campaign expenses can be increased and the Conservatives have the most cash on hand.

Anyways, the odd development is that the NDP are leading in the polls and it might well be the first time we have an NDPer as Prime Minister. They've announced they're open to forming a coalition with the Liberals, who are trailing in third place.

Yet another party of social democrats has been shifting to the right and put its opportunism on full display. There's absolutely nothing odd about that. Clearly the Liberal brand has lost its appeal, though. You either love or hate the Tories, so nobody wants Tory-Lite. Meanwhile the Tories have shown signs of shifting ridiculously to the right to the point of seemingly alienating many potential supporters.

MOST of the media continues its trend of style-over-substance coverage that focuses on sports analogies and whether or not Candidate A's verbal sparring was in better form than Candidate B's. There's a lack of any real in-depth discussion of what the election's socioeconomic implications are even from a liberal perspective. It's almost at the point that we're in a Fahrenheit-451esque world where debate consists of whether or not Justin Trudeau is attractive enough to woo people into voting for him. I don't give a flying fuck about who is "leading in the polls" or who has the "most hard-hitting attack ads". That's just a circus.

[blake 3:17]

:rolleyes:
Communist parties battle for few Marxist votes: No will to unite Canada’s far left


Tristin Hopper | August 10, 2015 | Last Updated: Aug 11 1:30 PM ET
More from Tristin Hopper | @TristinHopper

It has been this way for nearly 40 years. In a country whose Communist movement largely fizzled out two generations ago, Canada has two rival parties vying for the handful of Marxist votes left.

“They (the Marxist-Leninists) are not high on the list of who we want to form coalitions with; there’s a past history where more of their hostility appeared to be directed towards us than towards the capitalists,” said Naomi Rankin, a longtime candidate for the Communist Party based in Edmonton.

The Communist Party of Canada, founded in 1921 and based in Toronto, is the country’s historic far-left party.

The second party, the Montreal-based Marxist-Leninists, cropped up in the 1960s. While the Communist Party was loyal to the former Soviet Union, the Marxist-Leninists sided with China and rebelled against the “revisionism” of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Officially, the party’s title is “Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist,” but Elections Canada made it pick the current name to avoid ballot confusion.

Both parties insist there is no “rift” between them, and the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have done much to bring them together.

“At this time we emphasize the ways in which we co-operate to democratize the political process,” wrote Marxist-Leninist Leader Anna Di Carlo in an email.

With the occasional exception, parties generally try to avoid running against each other in the same riding. And, lately, they’ve even taken to issuing joint press releases.

Full article: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/communist-parties-battle-for-few-marxist-votes-no-will-to-unite-canadas-far-left

[Counterculturalist]

The article is bad enough... but my god those fucking comments.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I love how the overall tone of the article seems to contradict the headline. In any case, there's a reason I didn't mention those parties above and haven't paid serious attention to them: They lack a genuinely Marxist/communist program, but without the slight yet non-redemptive benefit of greater electoral viability seen from explicitly social-democratic parties.

They may as well form a front with the RCP, because the likelihood of genuine revolution from a victory by these parties is about the same as the likelihood of a protracted 'people's war' under a Maoist banner breaking out on the streets of Canada in the near future.

As for the comments, I didn't read them, but if comments on similar past articles are any indication of general public opinion rather than that of small groups of trolls, then the gulags are going to be operating well over capacity.

Also, this is incredibly ironic:


Officially, the party’s title is “Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist,” but Elections Canada made it pick the current name to avoid ballot confusion.

You know what's confusing (for potential voters, at least)? What's confusing is forcing a name change which obscures just how serious the problem of sectarianism and splits is or was. What's confusing is insisting on a name which still further marginalizes non-Leninists, as if by virtue of a group being called "Communist", it's a given that its goal is simply to emulate the former Soviet Union because it's either that or capitalism.

There's more, but I don't need to preach here about the lousiness of the article itself as a portrayal of what communism could actually represent for Canada.

[blake 3:17]

I mostly thought it was funny although it does have some okay background. One of my pals who was a CPer in 80s posted on FB, that's how even knew about it. I ended up reading the comments (I usually take a pass. Ick.)

Here's a good piece by Yves Engler on the NDP and their support for trade deals with the EU and Jordan (!?!): http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yves-engler/ndp-neoliberal_b_4166887.html

I'm going anything but Conservative this time, but we gotta be ready to fight.

[Art Vandelay]

If you think that the NDP, let alone the liberals, are worthy of even the most critical of support in this election, then just drop the charade already and come out openly as a social-democrat. No Marxist, on the other hand, would uphold such a suicidal strategy. If you espouse an ABC line when in contact with fellow workers Blake, then I'm sorry to say, but you're part of the problem. I'm used to hearing such nonsense when talking politics with friends, but not on an ostensibly revolutionary forum. You're actively playing a role in the further fracturing of any hope for proletarian political independence and are feeding into the pressure placed on the working class which binds them politically to the labor lieutenants of capital. When I hear people espouse this ABC line I can't help but be a bit frustrated, but to hear you uphold it is just sad, cause you should know better.

[blake 3:17]

If you think that the NDP, let alone the liberals, are worthy of even the most critical of support in this election, then just drop the charade already and come out openly as a social-democrat. No Marxist, on the other hand, would uphold such a suicidal strategy. If you espouse an ABC line when in contact with fellow workers Blake, then I'm sorry to say, but you're part of the problem. I'm used to hearing such nonsense when talking politics with friends, but not on an ostensibly revolutionary forum. You're actively playing a role in the further fracturing of any hope for proletarian political independence and are feeding into the pressure placed on the working class which binds them politically to the labor lieutenants of capital. When I hear people espouse this ABC line I can't help but be a bit frustrated, but to hear you uphold it is just sad, cause you should know better.

Funnily enough I was thinking of Mulcair as proving Daniel DeLeon right! He is a class enemy and his politics are pretty much in line with old Progressive Conservative politics. I'm in favour of a break with the NDP but given that we have 60 days or so until the election, that's not realistic. For now get rid of Harper with no illusions on the replacement.


Thomas Mulcair is Cracking Down on Pro-Palestinian Sentiment in the NDP
August 13, 2015
by James Wilt

If there's one thing the ostensibly progressive federal NDP just won't put up with from its candidates, it's the slightest criticism of Israel.

At least, that's what the past few days of electioneering has indicated. On Sunday, Morgan Wheeldon—candidate for Kings-Hants in Nova Scotia—was forced to resign after the Conservatives published old comments he made on Facebook: "One could argue that Israel's intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region—there are direct quotations proving this to be the case," he wrote. "Guess we just sweep that under the rug." A day later, Jerry Natanine—who was vying for the riding of Nunavut—told CBC he was cut from the contest due to his historic support for Palestine.

Such moves are a "major step back" and force many in the Palestinian-Canadian community to re-evaluate their support of the NDP, says Hammam Farah, member of Students Against Israeli Apartheid at York University: "I do want Harper out of office, but it puts me in a very difficult and disappointing and disconcerting position. I feel awful that if I want Harper out of office I may have to vote for a party that isn't really interested in my history and human rights of Palestinians."

The NDP have a lengthy history of supporting Israel: while J.S. Woodsworth (founder of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the NDP's precursor) opposed its formation, subsequent leaders including M.J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas backed it. Thomas Mulcair has historically taken a much firmer stance on the issue: in 2010, he led the crusade to punish deputy leader Libby Davies for expressing support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. She's not running for re-election this year.

"To say that you're personally in favour of boycott, divestment and sanctions for the only democracy in the Middle East is, as far as I'm concerned, grossly unacceptable," Mulcair said at the time. That followed on the heels of a 2008 statement saying, "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."

In 2014, Paul Manly—son of former NDP MP James Manly—was disqualified as candidate in Nanaimo-Ladysmith; he asserted it because his views on the issue and for petitioning the Conservatives and NDP in 2012 to work harder for the release of his father, who was confined by Israeli officials for participating in efforts to breach a blockade in the Gaza. Manly is now running for the Green Party in the same riding.

Since becoming NDP leader, Mulcair has "all but silenced the pro-Palestinian hysterics within his party," according to the Globe & Mail's Konrad Yakabuski, who tied the efforts to a push for more mainstream appeal.

Farah—whose group is now working on pressuring the York board of governors to divest from companies that are selling weapons to countries like Israel—concluded: "The NDP needs to get in line with this. It's contradictory and very disappointing the NDP would come out supporting some form of social justice, but then when it comes to Palestine it gets scared. Canadians can see the NDP gets scared. Completely removing candidates from running in the election is a cowardly move.

Full article: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/thomas-mulcair-is-cracking-down-on-pro-palestinian-sentiment-in-the-ndp

[Art Vandelay]

I'm in favour of a break with the NDP but given that we have 60 days or so until the election, that's not realistic. For now get rid of Harper with no illusions on the replacement.

The issue, as far as I see it, is that you view the lot of the working class in Canada as something that is decided up on parliament hill, as being based on decisions made by benevolent or hand wringing politicians, not by the contradiction which arises between working class militancy and the realities of global capital.

Harper represents a faction of the bourgoeisie, other factions are represented by Trudeau, Mulcair, and May. If you think any one of these individuals, or their party's, have anything at all to offer the proletariat, then I'm afraid you've crossed some very clear class lines. I personally don't vote, but at the same time don't derride friends who cast a tactical ballot; but as a Marxist, if you advocate and whip up support for one of those parties, then in response, the only recourse is to paraphrase Engels: either you are hopelessly confused, or betray the movement of the proletariat, either way, you serve the reaction.

[Counterculturalist]

Oooof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcfhE3BPhf8

Good fucking Christ. :rolleyes:

Or perhaps you'd prefer to have the election 'Murcasplained by liberals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPUDtA7tWw

If I cringe any harder I'll have to call an ambulance.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Oooof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcfhE3BPhf8

Good fucking Christ. :rolleyes:

Or perhaps you'd prefer to have the election 'Murcasplained by liberals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPUDtA7tWw

If I cringe any harder I'll have to call an ambulance.

What the...

I don't want this thread to turn into an Unruhe hatefest, and I don't want to irritate the mods by contributing to that. However, I do have to say that I've admittedly seen several of his videos over several years, and that sounds like a rather strange position for a self-proclaimed Third-Worldist. I may sit through it Clockwork Orange-style just to see how he reaches that position.

The parties themselves are of course taking the typically petty approach for the sake of distraction.

EDIT: Oh, shit. The debate already happened? I don't know if I can take sitting through that, but I may have to try. If they're taking questions from the internet, I doubt any of mine would get past the screening process. Heh.

[Counterculturalist]

Just to comment on that particular video in case anyone can't bring themselves to watch it: he recommends voting "strategically" for the candidates who will "end wars"... And which candidates would those be, exactly? It's just really dumb.

And the highlight of the Young Turks video is one of those guys proclaiming that Harper is some kind of lefty social democrat because "it's Canada, they're so liberal there compared to us, even their conservatives are liberal" and then getting all exited about "Tim Mulcair and his National Democrats." :lol:

[The Intransigent Faction]

I 'brought myself' to sit through the entire Leaders' Debate, and somehow resisted the urge to punch the next person I saw square in the face.

Mulcair tried to justify his position against a more progressive income tax, among other things. Justin Trudeau said, WORD-FOR-WORD about an NDP proposal: "His plan to hike corporate taxes is simply pandering to the people who like to hate corporations". He repeatedly tried to portray the Liberals as the "rational moderates" between two knee-jerk "extremes". Every party experienced "middle-class syndrome" (repeated, obsessive use of that term along with a relative absence of references to the two central contending classes in capitalism). Harper, of course, did everything you'd expect Harper to do (if I have to hear the phrase "Let's be clear" ONE more time...).

May made some points that made her seem genuinely agreeable, before she went off about the Conservatives' lack of action on 'barriers' to interprovincial trade. For a brief, fleeting moment, to her credit, she mentioned the suffering of the homeless---though apparently the only aspect of that worthy of mentioning was how the Fair Elections Act would make it even harder for them to ever vote. She stated that her party's rise in support was due to her encouragement of people to vote. This of course would mean that the Green Party is an effective tool for luring otherwise justifiably cynical non-voters toward a false alternative that, if actually put in power, would only reinforce cynicism with its ineffectiveness.

Anywho, it was an unbelievably irritating 90 minutes long, so I could probably say far more, but I'm tired.

[Counterculturalist]

I decided not to watch the debate. Since your description of it already has my blood boiling, I think I made a good choice. Enough stress in my life as it is. :mad:

[blake 3:17]

@Brad -- I've been quite intrigued on the question of inter-provincial trade agreements since I came across your mention of that in your post. Easing them is in the Green Party platform. It actually makes sense in that they call for a potential withdrawal from NAFTA ie they would give and start negotiations to remove the most egregious elements.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/vision-green/world/trade-sovereignty

I can't stand the debates -- the only party leader I do like at all Elizabeth May, maybe because she's a bit nuts.

The latest news overall is the NDP is calling for more cops and decriminalizing marijuana. They shoulda been doing the latter a long time ago, but whatevs.

[blake 3:17]

When Stephen Harper refers to “barbaric culture,” he means Islam — an anti-Muslim alarm that’s ugly and effective because it gets votes: Edward Keenan
When Team Harper refers to “barbaric culture” it means Islam. And it’s an excuse to talk about Muslims as barbarians in a press conference.

By: Edward Keenan Columnist, Published on Mon Oct 05 2015
It seems quaint now that in mid-September, there was a debate about whether Stephen Harper’s off-hand use of the term “old-stock Canadians” was an example of him blowing a racial “dog-whistle.” Two weeks later, any imperceptibly high-pitched whistles the Conservatives might be using have been drowned out by the cacophony of their constant cranking of the barking dog siren. It’s an ugly sound, an anti-Muslim alarm. And it’s all the uglier because of its apparent effectiveness.
Consider Friday’s announcement of an RCMP tip line to report “Barbaric Cultural Practices Against Women and Girls.” If you think for a moment they are talking about taking action on the many hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada that organizations, including Amnesty International, have been reporting on this year, or perhaps the vulnerability of rural Canadian women to sexual violence highlighted at last month’s premier’s Roundtable on Violence Against Women, then you haven’t been paying attention.
But if you have been paying attention, it’s obvious enough that when Team Harper refers to “barbaric culture” it means Islam.
And so this new election initiative is intended to respond to some imagined Canadian epidemic of “child and forced marriage,” “sexual slavery and so-called ‘honour killings’ ” and “female genital mutilation.” These things, of course, are horrific and are already illegal. And while they do not appear to be particularly common here compared to other crimes (even compared to other crimes against women), there is already an established national reporting mechanism for those encountering them: dial 911. So nothing about this announcement actually makes women any safer. Instead it’s an excuse to talk about Muslims as barbarians in a press conference. It’s a transparently BS announcement to drum up hate and fear, for their own sake.
Or, rather, for the sake of getting votes. It’s a strategy the Conservatives have already been employing, with some success, since mid-September.
Harper’s equating of Syrian refugees with terrorists, his government’s illegal and basically pointless ban on wearing the niqab during the citizenship oath, his pledge to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism: what they have in common is that they a) immediately apply to and vilify some Muslim Canadians, and b) are almost purely symbolic, with no discernable practical effect on the lives of most Canadians whatsoever.
As they’ve unveiled these items, the Conservatives have gone from third to first in many polls. Is it a coincidence? There’s reason to think not.
A government poll showed 82 per cent of Canadians support the niqab ban, for instance. Moreover, eight per cent of voters told Leger marketing that the niqab ban was the main issue determining their vote. Considering that the Conservatives’ recent swing into the lead has been an increase of only about six points in their support in most polls, it’s not crazy to conclude this anti-Islam posturing has made much of the difference for them.
This brings us face to face with a pretty harsh truth about Canada, a country in which people like me frequently refer to tolerance of diversity, proud pluralism and respect for individual freedom as defining values, and a country in which 93 per cent of people rank the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the most important national symbol. We may think those things about ourselves. But we’re also a country where it appears an election may be won by blatantly disregarding the Charter and promoting intolerance for no discernable reason other than to stick our thumbs in the eye of a minority whose cultural and religious practices we find off-putting.
In defence of his policies, Stephen Harper often points out that a majority of Canadians agree with him on these issues — as if the Charter didn’t exist specifically to protect against the bigoted whims of the majority, and as if somehow popularity itself is a coherent justification for prejudice.

Full story: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/10/05/when-stephen-harper-refers-to-barbaric-culture-he-means-islam-an-anti-muslim-alarm-thats-ugly-and-effective-because-it-gets-votes-edward-keenan.html

[Comrade Jacob]

I'd have to agree with Jason Unruhe here; "If the conservatives get re-elected knowing all the things they've done then Canadians may as well be part of the USA" or something to that extent.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'd have to agree with Jason Unruhe here;

Heh. I'm pretty sure you lost 99% of this board right there.

Entryism by self-decribed Marxists is bad enough, but when so many people's idea of pragmatism is "Vote Liberal to get rid of the Conservatives" and the Green Party becomes the standard for "change" and "progress" and "challenging the status quo", there's no way that silently waiting for people to come to communist conclusions on their own is going to get the left anywhere. For all I care, the CPC-ML can start occupying polling stations and yelling at people if it just breaks the monotony.

[Comrade Jacob]

Heh. I'm pretty sure you lost 99% of this board right there.

Entryism by self-decribed Marxists is bad enough, but when so many people's idea of pragmatism is "Vote Liberal to get rid of the Conservatives" and the Green Party becomes the standard for "change" and "progress" and "challenging the status quo", there's no way that silently waiting for people to come to communist conclusions on their own is going to get the left anywhere. For all I care, the CPC-ML can start occupying polling stations and yelling at people if it just breaks the monotony.

I don't partake in the shit-slinging at Jason.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't partake in the shit-slinging at Jason.

I don't think it's especially productive, either, but "Harper behaves like an American" sounds too much like something I'd hear from chauvinistic Liberals who buy into all the national myths about Canada being oh so progressive and friendly. He's not just trying to "Americanize" Canada...English Canada in particular has already been flooded with American media and the like. He represents capitalist interests that sometimes match the U.S., but also reveal Canada's own bourgeois politics.

I don't have any real grudge or vendetta against him, but I just find his analysis on the election kind of lacking this time around (even the PCR/RCP takes a position of active antipathy toward electoral politics, last I checked).

[Counterculturalist]

Unruhe occasionally makes preposterous appeals to Canadian national chauvinism. I'm not singling him out; he's hardly alone in this habit. The Canadian left has a long history of nationalism and patriotism, which still rears its head from time to time. Its time we stamped it out. It does us no favors. Besides being contrary to the principles of internationalism, it's not even like we're particularly progressive. Just look at the history and continued oppression of our native people, or the current xenophobic fervor about Muslims. Its time for us to stop patting ourselves on the fucking back.

[Art Vandelay]

Darkest night of the year. As people chant their idiotic abc mantra, it looks like Canada is on its way to electing the son of the man responsible for not only taking a knife to the throat of Quebec separatism, but also the worst civil liberties abuse in Canadian history. I need a drink.

[ChangeAndChance]

And so it had come to pass that Justin, Son of Pierre the Manipulator ascended the throne of the Canadian Empire and took the title His Right and Honorable Holy Progressiveness the Emperor Justin of Canada, Defender of the Petite-Bourgeoisie, Legislator of Oppression and Destroyer of Civil Liberties. His rival, Stephen of the Prairies, was given mercy and simply exiled to the Houses of Parliament for eternity. The foolish people celebrated their victory over Evil King Stephen, running out into the streets and singing songs of their Savior. Little did they know this peasant revolt was to end with precisely the opposite of what Justin had promised: no real change. Ever.

[lutraphile]

Honestly, this may be the best case scenario. Harper is gone. And Mulcair likely is as well, because, what do you know, making the NDP seem like a less honest version of the Liberals just made people vote for the Liberals.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Darkest night of the year. As people chant their idiotic abc mantra, it looks like Canada is on its way to electing the son of the man responsible for not only taking a knife to the throat of Quebec separatism, but also the worst civil liberties abuse in Canadian history. I need a drink.

I was covering a Liberal and an NDP event for an assignment and I could have had alcohol, but I didn't want to do that before interviewing anyone.

Big fucking mistake.

Seriously, the result was distressingly predictable more than anything else. Aside from the TPP and Bill C-51, and an inexplicable effectiveness of doublespeak, the fact that the "get out and vote" machine commands so much respect after all is disheartening. Even if you believe that voting can be a useful tactic, the reasoning generally used was chauvinistic. People were shamed into engaging in "their civic duty" that "people died for".

As per usual, the changing of masks will just lull people into thinking that a "progressive" is in office and things will take better care of themselves.

[Counterculturalist]

Interestingly, every [non-leftist] acquaintance of mine claimed to be voting NDP. Even people with conservative views (which says a lot about how "left wing" the NDP actually is these days.) If I'd have listened to people talk, I would have expected a resounding NDP majority. I should have known the whole "get rid of Harper" momentum would terrify people into voting liberal - except for the bigots who fell for the niqab controversy.

I should have seen it coming when my dad - an NDP supporter as far back as I can remember - started talking about how Justin has "really stepped up to the plate."

Anyway, this all amounts to business as usual, and would have no matter who won. I abstained from voting. There's just something so disheartening about seeing people excited about a liberal majority. Might as well have just called off the election and asked Harper to wear a giant smiley-face mask.

[Comrade Jacob]

Anyone know how many votes the communist parties got?

[VCrakeV]

Anyone know how many votes the communist parties got?

Probably less than 1% in whatever ridings they're in, like last time.

On a different topic, how did the NDP come across as dishonest? The Liberals came off as shiftier to me. :p

[The Intransigent Faction]

Probably less than 1% in whatever ridings they're in, like last time.


The CPC-ML gave up on my riding this time. I don't know why they bothered in, of all places, an area that swings back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.

[blake 3:17]

The CPC-ML gave up on my riding this time. I don't know why they bothered in, of all places, an area that swings back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.

The CP and the CPC-ML run largely for propaganda purposes, especially to take part in all candidates debates. I believe only one CPer has ever been elected to the House of Commons and I think my father played golf with him but I could be wrong on that. Can't ask pops, he's long gone too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rose_(politician)

Excellent piece on the NDP fuck up:

Mulcair Shrugged: How NDP Strategists Failed the Left
Party insiders played a chess game and let Trudeau echo Layton.
By Charles Demers, Today, TheTyee.ca

Almost invariably, there is nobody less politically minded than somebody who gushes, "I'm a total political junkie!"

What they usually mean is that they are thrilled by the horse-race aspects of politics, the wheeling and dealing; they can't get enough of the panel shows that parse strategy and tactics without ever really getting into who will be affected by a particular set of policies, or how, or in whose interest they're being advanced. In this West Wing view of the world, triangulation and chess-playing are everything; the possibility of genuine political feeling among people who aren't already players is precluded.

The big, unprecedented federal breakthroughs for the NDP came in 2008 and 2011 -- two years of cataclysmic financial crisis and worldwide popular turmoil. 2008 was the year of the crash, the biggest crisis in world capitalism since the Depression, which happened to have been the crucible for the NDP's predecessor, the CCF; it was the year of candidate, then president-elect Obama, and the seemingly unprecedented mobilization of formerly-alienated voters who raised him up.

Slavoj Zizek called 2011 "the year of dreaming dangerously," for Occupy, Tahrir Square, and other massive street uprisings around the globe.

Despite itself -- despite taking Jack Layton, a leader from the party's genuine left, to the tepid centre -- the NDP benefited from the Canadian franchise of what was clearly a global desire for change in both years. In 2015 -- the year of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, the election and re-election of Syriza in Greece -- they were well-positioned to get lucky one more time.

But the people who run the NDP are political junkies. The clutch of strategists who steer the party, incapable of thinking politically or historically, were convinced that the breakthroughs in 2008 and 2011 owed to the fact that they'd suddenly gotten better at sending emails, were suddenly running more efficient campaigns. They favoured what was not only a purely national explanation for what was clearly at least partially an international phenomenon, but one that even more specifically rested on the story of their own personal genius.

'35 seats' fail

The election of a federal social democratic government (whatever's the NDP's vast shortcomings) would have been an historical blow to the country's age-old electoral framework. Instead, the NDP rushed to make the prospect seem like the most modest thing in the world. Strategist Brad Lavigne spoke in an online video about how daunting and impossible Justin Trudeau's path to victory would be, how many more seats he had to win, compared to the tiny hop, skip and jump it was to an NDP majority -- this despite the excitement of 2011's "Orange Wave," of which Lavigne had been an architect, and which had completely upended the electoral map, especially in Québec, making a mockery of early polls or the seat count at the time the writ was dropped.

At some point, late into the summer, Justin Trudeau's team figured out that Thomas Mulcair wasn't going to run as the Jack Layton of 2011. So he could.

There are two explanations for what briefly catapulted the NDP into the lead over the summer: the election of Rachel Notley in Alberta, and the party's initially unpopular but principled position on Bill C-51. Each instance obviously played a role, but which one a person decided was the more important almost always reflected their values: political junkies universally saw Notley's election, the proof that the NDP were responsible and ready for prime time, as the fount of the party's polling successes. For those world-weary apolitical chess players, who like pundits wear their cynicism on their sleeves as a matter of pride and tribal belonging, the alternative -- which relied on genuine, semi-sophisticated political feelings on the part of a large swathe of the general public -- was silly. It is to Trudeau and his team's great credit that they were willing to give the public the benefit of the doubt: Trudeau was wrong on C-51, and Mulcair was right, and only the former learned the proper lesson from the experience.

By the time it came down to deficits versus balanced budgets, Mulcair had already painted himself into a corner, not only fiscally but temperamentally. He had kicked off the campaign by shit-canning a handful of candidates for their statements on Palestine (reminding many of us of the time he hounded Libby Davies; for some of us in the West and in the left our introduction to Mr. Mulcair), and then, when video emerged of him praising the political economy of Thatcherism, he shrugged. Candidate Obama would have taken the opportunity to deliver a defining, inspiring speech about the way we change as individuals and societies, what the left could learn from the right; Candidate Trudeau would have said something vapid and sappy and vaguely evasive. Mulcair shrugged.

Canadians have elected a Liberal majority that, as many observers have suggested, looks strikingly like something out of the 1990s -- the decade when the federal Liberals invented Canadian homelessness, gutted the CBC, and devastated federal transfer payments for health care.

A historical opportunity for Canada's parliamentary left has been squandered, and the parliamentary caucus has been so decimated that even some of the bright young lights that could possibly have been part of finding us a way out of the darkness, like Halifax's Megan Leslie, no longer have the job. The NDP will be in the wilderness for the next several years at least.

Oh well, that's politics.

source: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/22/NDP-Strategists-Failed-the-Left/

[Emmett Till]

Probably less than 1% in whatever ridings they're in, like last time.

On a different topic, how did the NDP come across as dishonest? The Liberals came off as shiftier to me. :p

Well, basically the NDP came off as no different from the Liberals, in fact I've seen claims that on some issues, Trudeau Jr. was actually to the left of the NDP. So I'd say the NDP was actually awfully honest, admitting where it really stood unlike the past.

But that's why the NDP failed. Why vote for the NDP if the old traditional Liberal party is no different and maybe even better?

The crashing defeat of the Labour Party in England in the spring resulted in the
Corbyn renovation. Is there any possibility of a similar worker revolt vs. the degenerate state of the NDP, with whatzsisname the current NDP standard bearer becoming the NDP's Tony Blair? I doubt it, the NDP is just too worthless a party. More than likely the NDP is going to start fading to oblivion, having so totally blown its one great chance for political success.

[blake 3:17]

Alexa McDonough's leadership of the NDP in 1997 tried to steer into Blairism and then's when Blairism was popular and new! It didn't really take hold. Progressive centrism was the domain of the Liberal Party and it still is.

Jack Layton's leadership of the party was very much tied to a popularity for his anti-war stance. And he was great on a whole lot of other issues. He appointed both Mulcair and Davies as deputy leaders, the former representing the right of the party, the former the left. The right wing and party bureaucrats have inherited the party. The left keeps getting pushed out. There's a good number of people who'd like to make some kind of left alternative, but under the present voting system it's near impossible.