The Critical NDP-Watch Thread 2

Not nearly enough but it's something. 

There is no big social program but in most western democracies, social programs start out relatively small and grow as the population sees the advantages in them. However, watch for the right-wing counter-attack to destroy these problems because of claims that we cannot afford them. 

..real climate action needs to be on the table. everything else seems to be a way to buy that off. 

..so divide and conquer. a game that is played by all parties.  

Rest In Peace, NDP (1961-2022)

In the long march toward the annihilation of the NDP, this week’s agreement with the Liberals will surely go down as a pivotal moment. There’s no turning back now; there’s nothing left of the party to save. 

The NDP has handed their opposition to the governing party. In doing so, they’ve killed their ability to challenge the government. They can’t seriously threaten, negotiate or bargain for the next three years. Nor will they vote against the government on spending or confidence bills, as long as the Liberals uphold the agreement between the two parties. In exchange, the NDP will avoid another awkward situation like that time they voted in favour of the Emergencies Act, even though it was an unnecessary Liberal power move. The only way the NDP could justify it was to avoid going to an election. 

The NDP needs the cover of this agreement, as they were too exposed when they supported the Act. With it, they can hold their nose and vote for whatever the Liberals throw at them, and claim that they’re doing so because they’re “delivering for Canadians now,” the 10 cent brand name they’ve given to this deal. 

Canada is about to enter a moment of crushing austerity to pay for social spending related to the pandemic. Now, on the cusp of the Liberals pledging to massively boosting Canada’s military spending to $32 billion over several years, and hell, maybe formally going to war, the NDP can shrug and apologize when they vote in favour of what is all but inevitable. 

What perhaps is so galling about this decision is how little the NDP was willing to sell its soul for. It isn’t like we’re getting electoral reform or universal pharmacare or a new week of paid vacation or even three new national holidays. No — they’ve sold out for almost nothing. It’s almost like they have a talent for selling out, but even that might be giving their backroom people too much credit. As one friend pointed out, the NDP couldn’t even guarantee more than four meetings per year with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau out of this deal.

The agreement starts by cementing the fact that we will never see a universal social program again in Canada, unless there’s some kind of revolutionary change. While this should be seen as a colossal failure, it’s actually being spun as a victory by NDP partisans...... 

..an important question what now? the union movement leadership in canada, for the most part, parallels the ndp leadership. i believe this piece is a direction. a bottom up direction. 

Class against class

Joe Burns’ latest book, Class Struggle Unionism (CSU), coincides with a new ferment among workers in the U.S. private sector. In the course of some of these conflicts, rank-and-file workers have been pitted against their own union leaders over the nature of tentative contract agreements and strike tactics.

We’ve seen divisions of this kind develop in unions such as the United Auto Workers, where the bargaining units at Volvo and John Deere conflicted with the officialdom over the substance of contract language. A similar situation developed within the Seattle Carpenters, which even went so far as the formation of an independent, rank-and-file organization.

Burns has written a book in plain, unpretentious language that accentuates and explains these divisions within unions, while making no bones about siding with the ranks in these struggles.

quote:

In order to “revive the labor movement,” Burns writes, we need to reject the models of unionism that have dominated for generations. “We need to revive class struggle unionism.”

quote:

The workplace is where ordinary people can harness extraordinary power; where the diversity of an often segregated community can be overcome, and where workers can bring the profit-generating machine of the ownership class crashing to a halt.

Capitalist society is based on the freedom to exploit, and CSU strikes at the very heart of this system. It does so, Burns writes, by tactically challenging private property rights; by setting itself up as a “parallel force in society”; by “directly challenging the process of capital accumulation” and the “basic structure of employment,” and destabilizing the notion that “we live in a classless society.”

CSU is informed by a class view of society, the antagonistic relations between labor and capital in the workplace, and the common battle between the contending classes for control of the value workers create.

CSU foregrounds a critique of the labor bureaucracy—something unfortunately absent from most contemporary labor analyses. This is the layer of officials and staffers that direct the major unions—who play a mediating role between the union membership and management. Because of their institutional function and social location outside the workplace—involving greater autonomy, higher wages, more satisfying work conditions, and social and political connections—the labor officialdom is naturally prone to conservatism.

quote:

Labor liberalism and its “organizing strategy” were born from the remnants of the 1960s-70s social movements. It “emerged as a third way, situated between the confrontational rank-and-file approach of the class struggle unionists and the conservative business unionists.”

Many in the ex-activist milieu entered university, and then drifted into “mid-level” positions of the labor bureaucracy, via the organizing and education departments of various unions. They brought with them the progressive thinking of the social movements, but they didn’t shed their middle-class sensibilities. This led to an orientation outside the workplace that involved workers as supporting actors in legislative and other stage-managed activities directed by staff.

These practices are still highly prevalent today in many unions, and are embodied in the thought and practice of Jane McAlevey, whose ideas are promoted by many who ironically declare support for a rank-and-file strategy in Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Yet, despite declarations otherwise, Burns writes that labor liberalism, and its left-wing, “social unionism,” doesn’t break with the labor bureaucracy, “lacks critical components of class struggle unionism” such as “shop floor militancy, rank-and-file democracy, and an overall opposition to capitalism.”....

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I don't think any of the usual posters on babble will consider this deal a good thing, and most will agree with Nora Loreto that the NDP as a party of the (slightly) left is essentially dead. The predictable exception is of course nicky, who has never seen a Liberal economic policy they didn't love, and perchance JKR, who seems to cling to the hope that social democracy will rise from the tomb somehow to save us from neoliberalism.

..and northreport. don't forget him. he's back. :)

..leah gazan has been been playing an excellent role in left forums. ie. independent jewish voices re: palistine. i just signed on to her newsletter a few days ago. so has niki ashton. nothing on their twitter pages about this deal. 

..they are in limbo now i am thinking. how can they stay in the party? how am i able to support them now?  

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I don't think any of the usual posters on babble will consider this deal a good thing, and most will agree with Nora Loreto that the NDP as a party of the (slightly) left is essentially dead. The predictable exception is of course nicky, who has never seen a Liberal economic policy they didn't love, and perchance JKR, who seems to cling to the hope that social democracy will rise from the tomb somehow to save us from neoliberalism.

Mea culpa. I am clinging to the hope that social democracy will lead us to the promised land envisioned by some of my heroes that include Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent, Rosa Luxemburg, Bernie Sanders, Karl Marx, and Groucho Marx.

I have mostly positive feelings about this deal. I think it’s a step in the right direction to improve our health care system by establishing Pharmacare, and public dental care and improving long term care. I think reducing fossil fuel subsidies is also a very important step in the right direction. Making it easier to vote also seems like a good step in the right direction too. I do wish these improvements were happening sooner and were more comprehensive but that wasn’t going to happen during this term anyway.

..still nothing from leah & niki. 

Why bother with two parties when there is little distance in platforms and the membership of the NDP clearly decides nothing.

JKR wrote:

Because many people who work for the NDP want to keep their jobs?

That makes as much sense as anything.

Far be it from me not to validate Michael Moriarty's presumptions:

new Abacus poll:

Do you think the Liberal-NDP agreement will ultimately be good or bad for Canada overall?

Very good/Good - 44%
Won't make a difference - 17%
Bad/Very bad - 25%
Unsure - 15%

I think it was a wise move for both parties. The Liberals will likley survive the next 5 years and the NDP can claim it helped secure some key social programs.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

Where does it say political parties or politicians have to work for citizens?

In the Chinese constitution.

We should probably put that in our constitution too. I can’t think of any downsides to doing that.

..energy mix doesn't allow anyone to copy their headline. 

Energy Mix 

quote:

The very existence of the agreement delivers “the promise of parliamentary stability at a critical time in policy development,” over a two- to three-year span when “a lot of new regulations must be drafted and finalized: zero-emission vehicle standards, clean electricity standard, methane regulations, oil and gas cap,” University of British Columbia political scientist Kathryn Harrison said in an email. “And budgets, now with NDP support, will need to reinforce Canada’s goals with spending on things like transition, consumer incentives, and building retrofits.”

But “I’m struck that climate appear in this CSA after pharmacare, dental care, long-term care, housing, child care,” she wrote in a series of tweets. “Yes, important too, but in 2021 600+ died alone in extreme heat, the West burned, B.C. flooded. IPCC delivered a “code red” for humanity. Nothing new on climate here.”

Harrison tweeted that it’s “disappointing that climate apparently wasn’t a higher priority for the NDP,” and “downright bizarre that CSA refers to ‘significant emissions reductions by 2030’ rather than Canada’s actual #ParisAgreement target of 40 to 45%. It’s baked into law anyway, so why is the target missing? This is strange and vaguely worrying. Did negotiators not know the number?”

Climate Emergency Unit Strategy Director Seth Klein agreed the climate provisions in the confidence and supply agreement “simply require that the Liberals do what they’d already promised”, during three years that will be “defining, make it or break it years for climate.” Having that time “to actually implement a climate plan is not to be scoffed at,” he said. “That’s worth something. But there’s nothing new here that actually presses them to do more, that forces them to do more than they purportedly were already planning to do.”

The experience with a similar agreement in British Columbia, between the provincial New Democrats and Greens, delivered two lessons, Klein added: that the language and details in an agreement have to be very specific, and the dominant party can break the deal if it feels it can win a majority government. “The dominant party will fully avail themselves of any wiggle room within the agreement,” he warned. And in this deal, “I don’t see a lot of specifics, especially on climate.”

And despite the two parties’ promises on dental care and pharmacare, there’s “not enough in this agreement on tackling inequality,” Klein said. “When you come to speak to the deep fears, some of which we saw expressed in this convoy, that the system is rigged, that the Liberals are elitist, I’m worried that there’s not enough here to push back against a right wing populist backlash.”

Caroline Brouillette, national policy manager at Climate Action Network-Canada, called it “a little underwhelming to see the text of the agreement just reiterate existing government promises and commit to speeding up their implementation.”

But she recalled that climate groups had run a “no more delays” campaign urging the federal parties to put aside their differences to address the climate emergency and embrace a just transition, so “in this divided political environment, it’s good to see the parties work together.”

The key question, Brouillette said, “is how the NDP is going to leverage its new seat closer to power to increase the speed and scale of government climate action and ambition.” She said she would have preferred to see a “big, flagship NDP addition” to the climate section of the agreement, adding tools to the climate action toolbox beyond the market mechanisms the Trudeau Liberals have emphasized up to now.

“With increasingly destructive climate impacts and a short and rapidly-closing window to set the world on track for a climate-safe future, business as usual is not enough,” she added in a release. “The adoption of this agreement shows that leaders can put partisanship aside and think outside the box—now, they must apply the same spirit to the climate crisis.”

..you're just lashing out nr.

..those sites i quoted are not right wing. those commenting are not right wing. klein in fact was part of ccpa for years and years. i'm sure you've quoted him in the past. if you post something from ccpa it had something to do with klein. 

The NDP is run by a consultant class geared toward capitulation

When news broke this week of the Liberal-NDP agreement, I thought immediately of a remark from last fall by Jennifer Howard, Jagmeet Singh’s chief-of-staff and one of the pact’s lead negotiators.

“It was not a campaign that, by and large, Canadians were interested in major change,” she said after the election in September, 2021. “That was maybe what voters felt the message should be. And we’re all going to take that message and do our best to work with it.”

“Not interested in major change”: that essentially is the working slogan of today’s New Democratic Party. Run by professional operatives whose outlook is closer to operatives in other parties than to Canadians outside the Ottawa bubble, bereft of any coherent opposition plan or a distinct political vision for the country, the party has settled for some abysmally vague concessions from the Liberal government in exchange for propping them up for three years.

Their unambitious reasoning goes something like this: if we can “get things done,” slightly improving policies Liberals might have implemented anyway, we can at least net some recognition for it from the electorate.

Never mind that, in purely electoral terms, junior partners in such governing arrangements never receive any credit when something of beneficial consequence happens, and receive all the blame when it doesn’t.

quote:

Never mind that polls consistently show that three out of four Canadians, having watched the pandemic expose “ugly truths” about social inequality, expect a “broad transformation of society”—suggesting many are indeed interested in major change, if only there were a political party advocating it to vote for.

And never mind that right-wing politicians like Pierre Poilievre are building political momentum by tapping into the anger and discontent with this status quo better than anyone. If this pact results in more of the usual progressive posturing from the Liberals, heel-dragging on policies, and little change to the daily realities that see half of Canadians struggling to pay their bills, it will be fuel for a faux-populist Conservative upsurge.

What could the NDP do if they wanted to meet this moment with audacity and ambition? They could relentlessly attack the Liberals as the political agents of a corporate elite standing in the way of taxes on the rich, major public spending, and a Green New Deal, policies backed by a super majority across the partisan spectrum. 

Attempting to realign Canadian voters with a bold, electrifying agenda could raise a boatload of money—as Bernie Sanders has proven is possible—so the party wouldn’t be afraid, as they are now, to force an election when necessary. And if Liberals were anxious about a visibly and genuinely progressive alternative, the NDP could extract more from them without signing away their leverage. When the winds of change blow from the left, the Liberals always offer far greater concessions.

Instead, the NDP has spent the past few years ideologically conceding ground to the Liberals, rather than opening up the distance between them. Just think of some of Jagmeet Singh’s favourite lines: “Justin Trudeau says the right things, but doesn’t follow through,” or the New Democrats will “get the job done for Canadians.” This has made them sound like they are trying merely to be more honest and effective practitioners of their opponents’ politics—a kind of Taskmaster Liberalism.

This NDP strategy is not being driven by rank-and-file members of the party, its many progressive parliamentarians, or even particularly by the leader. Its principal proponents are an advisor clique led by chief-of-staff Howard, a former Finance Minister in the Manitoba NDP government—the most consciously moderate and centrist among the provincial parties. Its success was based on “inoculating” itself from attacks from the right and the business sector by simply abandoning any traditional left-wing policies. Howard’s guiding lights are US Democrats of the Biden/Clinton current.

A paradox is that NDP’s recent platforms have, on paper, been the most progressive and social democratic in decades. But these have been pulled together not out of any overarching commitment and conviction, but based on advisors’ vague grasp of the growing popularity of insurgent democratic socialist politics elsewhere in the world. 

Actual advocacy of ideas has remained half-hearted, while promotion of the image of its leader has become increasingly vigorous. The party is stuck promoting a flashy personality, not far-reaching policies.....

..leah and niki still haven't said a word about the deal on social media. with good reason. 

..leah has this posted. you won't see this in let's make a deal.

..according to leah's twitter page she has partnered up with romeo. her position is strong with the grassroots. overall her position is very strong. stronger than niki's. the party will have great difficultly getting her to toe the line.  

https://abacusdata.ca/canadian-politics-liberal-ndp-deal/

Just because you reminded me of one of my favorite songs.

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