[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

quote:

---

you know some of us don't have families

---

---------------

I picked up on the working families thing. I should have made some notes, but here is what I recall finding less effective about Layton last night:

- "working families" - he needs to just say All Canadians and stop using rhetoric code words. Even among his potential constiuency there are a lot more than working families out there. What about the non-working? students? retirees? rich but lefty singles (they exist, believe me)?

- asked for the vote far too many times. Yes, ask for the vote - at the start and end and perhaps somewhere else key and relevant but not on (seemingly) every other question!

- I thought the moderator did a very smart thing when he asked Layton why he isn't running for Prime Minister. Layton stumbled through is answer and was visibly uncomfortable for a moment before he recovered. Elections are frequently lost when the public realizes that a candidate doesn't know why he is running. Jack may only be running to increase seat count, strategically that's the best to be hoped for, but in this campaign when the Liberals are abandoning their own party, they want to find a Leader with a capital L and expressing confidence is not a bad idea.

I think my last comment underscores a hidden fear that keeps people from giving the NDP more seats; if the NDP leader himself can't be confident in himself and his team's ability to form a government, it reinforces that fear many Canadians have - that the NDP can't be given *too much* power because they can't be trusted to actually run a govt (strong perception by many).

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]

quote:

---

I thought the moderator did a very smart thing when he asked Layton why he isn't running for Prime Minister. Layton stumbled through is answer and was visibly uncomfortable for a moment before he recovered.

---

quote:

---

What about the non-working? students?

---

Um, as a student, I worked. Both on my courses (its not a 9 to 5 job, but education is work), and at the jobs that allowed me to pay my tuition, and at times my living expenses (retail and waitressing in undergrad, teaching assistant and grad student representative in my MA). I can think of very, very few students who don't work, whether year round or in summers.

quote:

---

"working families" - he needs to just say All Canadians and stop using rhetoric code words

---

Yeesh. The policies and priorities of "working families" are not the same as those of "all Canadians." Martin is a Canadian. So is Stronach, and other wealthy elite. Their needs are NOT the same as mine, my parents, etc. Why try to pretend that everyone is the same?

And, thank you Jack for being the only leader to mention women (I don't count Martin's "me too!" after Jack brought it up). I was at a local all candidates debate last week, and got angrier and angrier to hear no one ever even acknowledge that there are gendered aspects of society or policy, or even, hell, that women exist in this country.

"working families" over and over again sounds a bit like union code words. Doesn't matter whether that's an accurate impression or not... all I am suggesting is that Layton / the NDP need to broaden their horizons if they want to get more seats.

There are plenty of lefty middle class and upper middle class singles/families whatever that could vote NDP, but some of these people got to where they got by using their own drive and economic smarts, not on the back of a union or a 9-5 job. Jack is limiting the appeal of the NDP by using such phrases so often.

The real issue is that voters hold a wide spread perception that the NDP can't be trusted to run an economy, certainly not the federal economy, and until the Federal NDP addresses this perception head on, there is a very real overhead limit to the number of seats that party can win.

quote:

---

but some of these people got to where they got by using their own drive and economic smarts

---

Most of us refer to this as "working". If you mean the NDP should reach out to the leisure/investor class, I assure you the other two parties have that tiny sector's best interests very much in mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
There are plenty of lefty middle class and upper middle class singles/families whatever that could vote NDP, but some of these people got to where they got by using their own drive and economic smarts, not on the back of a union or a 9-5 job.

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

quote:

---

are completely wrong on this and cannot see past their own self-satisfaction. You are members of a private club like those you deride.

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

quote:

---

Libby Davies is in my riding and I was going to vote for her, but people of swirrlygrrl
ronb and brebis ilk are making me think I should waste my vote with the greens or even the libs or cons at this point (though not cons, the candidate is a nightmare here).

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

So somehow, when Harper speaks about working families, he envisages upper middle-class missionary position loving law-abiding entrepreneurs and yet when Layton says it he sees depraved lazy union members.

Who gives a flying f? Anyone who hates labour that much will never vote NDP anyway.

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: ronb ]

Or the idea that socialist or social-democratic spokespersons should be taken to task for standing up for workers' interests against the corporate elite.

quote:

---

Libby Davies is in my riding and I was going to vote for her, but people of swirrlygrrl
ronb and brebis ilk are making me think I should waste my vote with the greens or even the libs or cons at this point

---

I think this is extremely childish.

I also live in the riding of Libby and I think she's a hard working MP who deserves my vote even though I am totally pissed off with the NDP sometimes. (I consider myuself to the "left" of them.)

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

I'm disabled, i.e. unable to work. I''m also single.

I felt excluded every time Jack used the term "working families".

"Ordinary Canadians" might have been fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
I find this comment mean and unnecessarily divisive. I hope it was unthinkingly so. It pits the teachers against the lawyers - lawyers work, ya know, while teachers - and nurses! - aren't smart and don't have drive.

---

Don't bother being mad at me - I'm just pointing out that the language is seen by some as exclusionary.

By reacting to me as you have, you've unwittingly proven my point. You (and a number of others) in fact DO see the words "working families" as a kind of code and so do people who do not fit comfortably within what you perceive as your constiuency.

Teachers (my best friends are teachers; my youngest sons best friend's parents are gay teachers, etc), self-employed (myself), unionized, nurses (my mother was a nurses union shop steward for gosh sake! i'm well acquainted with how HARD she worked!), etc ad nauseum - there are plenty of folks that inhabit the centre / centre-left that WOULD consider voting for NDP if it the party appealed to a broader spectrum.

Its no good always being a "protest" party - which is often where the NDP gets its votes from - if they are to make any real gains and break above the ceiling holding them back they have to appeal broadly AND be seen as good fiscal managers.

Since the NDP federally has never been in that position, its a tall order. The last parliament didn't do anything to reinforce good fiscal management, rather the impression left for non-supporters is that the NDP was able to use clout to get more spending on its own pet projects.

I'm not saying that's entirely accurate, but I do believe this is an accurate perception of those who may from time to time vote NDP in protest but have economic concerns.

faith: I am not pointing out my PERSONAL views but am trying to illustrate what other people think when they hear these words. Please do not shoot the messenger.

If you want the Federal NDP to ever rise above being a protest party, doomed to get a little glimpse at power once every 20 years via a minority Liberal government, then the party needs to appeal to more than just what has traditionally been its core support.

That is my message. Use language, and mean it, that is broader.

--

But if I may try again, referring to "big union code words" (that's MW, not MT as originally posted), then referring to getting somewhere on "the back of a union" (again, MW, not MT) gets my goat -- this sort of talk implies a division between workers and the organizations they belong to and direct (from what strikes me as a fairly conservative perspective), and that somehow belonging to a union gives a worker an unfair advantage.

MT, however, actually calls folks who would defend the use of the term "working families" as dinosaur bullies and then gets upset at being called names. Sheesh.

"Working people" would encompass families, couples and singles -- but might still scare a few folks with its implied "big labour" bullying (ok, there I conflated snippets from both Michaels). Heck, why not have a platform that eliminates any mention of unions and workers while we're at it?

(Previous disclaimer still applies: not a member of the NDP (federally or provincially) and not a big fan of smarmy, repetitive sloganeering in general, either. Just a bit touchy around labour issues.)

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: mersh ]

edit: and I am certainly not attacking labour at all; what I am doing is suggesting that Layton's extensive use of the term "working families" sounds like code for "organized labour" because many people - NDP supporters, the soft swing support who might sometimes vote for the NDP, and NDP opponents, are trained to read it as such.

All I'm suggesting is that Layton tone down the use of that language and use something broader.

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]

quote:

---

Sick of being sick.

Had a bout with the hacking forever-lasting cough that is going around, only I had to eat horse-pill-sized antibiotics to keep it from developing into a worse situation – my last experience with pneumonia was worse than this one. Finally rising above the waterline here slowly. #2 son is ahead of me and thankfully never got as bad.

---

Riveting stuff.

Does he have any pictures of his cat?

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: Yukoner ]

quote:

---

Its no good always being a "protest" party - which is often where the NDP gets its votes from - if they are to make any real gains and break above the ceiling holding them back they have to appeal broadly AND be seen as good fiscal managers.

---

Sorry, elitism is bad. It does NOT refer to striving for excellence or a scrupulous work ethic. I work as a translator and visual artist; you can be sure I take both of the latter to heart. No, elitism means only caring about the very few who play some kind of starring role and not the great numbers of people whose work and efforts are essential to life and society. My Concise Oxford defines elitism as advocacy or reliance on leadership or dominance of a select group. That is, the opposite of democracy.

may i take a moment to point out that most people have families, and those with small ones or estranged or out of town ones tend to make their circle of close friends "family".

I would also point out that in our society, that being one governed by neo-liberal economic process, everyone works. Everyone has someone to answer to, even the "leisure/investor" class. Whether it be a boss, supervisor, shareholder, or bank, everyone works.

Therefore "working families" is quite inclusive.

as for the "getting somewhere on the backs of unions" i will point out that people, aside from the actual staff members of unions, aren't employed by unions. they pay dues to recieve legal representation and the legally entitled ability to negotiate thier salary and working conditions with thier employer. If you don't belong to a union, you don't have this ability. The only way anyone gets anywhere in this current economy is by working and working hard. unions only ensure fair treatment and compensation for this hard work. Much like Securities Exchage oversight on the stockmarket, or an independant board of directors on a corporation.

Much the same as the NDP claiming the turf of oversight in the Commons of the Cons and the Libs, ensuring fair compensation for what we pay for with our taxes. Now in the NDP's case this compensation is social programs, not tax cuts, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
rich but lefty singles (they exist, believe me)?

---

Do tell! Inquiring BWAGAns want to know!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
"working families" over and over again sounds a bit like union code words.

---

The other day I heard him talking (or did I read it, who knows) along the lines of (paraphrasing here, but it's very close): "The NDP stands up for working Canadians with honest jobs who pay their union dues"

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
MW has a problem with "working families" and "getting somewhere on the backs of unions".

---

No, I don't. You are putting intent in my mouth when clearly my intent was to discuss how certain phrases are perceived by OTHERS.

Lets not rehash that; but if you are working on a campaign or endorse a sort of class-warfare approach in politics, you can be sure that a certain segment of the centre right/left that ordinarily might be receptive to the NDP message will shut you out.

Bottom line I'm saying be more inclusive and word and deed and pay particular attention to language, especially in a national televised leader's debate!

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
My favorite part of the debate was when Harper claimed to not be able to get anything done in 13 years of opposition because he didn't have "power", and Jack responded with we only had 18 members in this past minority and look what we got done! Touche! point Layton.

---

I'm glad you brought this up - I applauded Layton on this, it was a very good retort, even if it does serve to underscore that Layton is the leader of a small party, unlikely to any time soon truly have power.

In general Layton came off to me as a little tired sounding at the outset; a little repetitive throughout; and a few flashes of light such as the one above. I've seen him speak at other events during this campaign where he's been much better, much more solid.

I was hoping for my personal goals to see Layton be much more aggressive against Harper because I assumed that Martin would be, or the Liberal party in the next two weeks would be. I was disappointed that Layton didn't get really aggressive - more or less giving Harper a free ride through most of this election.

LIberal TV Ads - Recent Attack Ads

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

I remember several elections ago when Ed Broadbent was leader, he constantly used the term "ordinary Canadians." That was even worse than "average Canadians." "Average Canadian" is fine if used occasionally; the same with "ordinary Canadian." Now Stephen Harper uses it sometimes--I think on purpose.

The terminology Jack Layton uses to try and attract supports demonstrates that he is trying to reach a limited pool of Canadians. If someone is not a "working family" Canadian, why should he or she support Jack and the NDP?

I have worked in both union and non-union environments. Currently, I work in a union environment as an employee. Many of us union members live in decent homes in suburban neighbourhoods. Many of us are soccer moms and dads who live in ridings like Belinda Stronach's in Newmarket-Aurora. We take vacations to cottage country, Florida, California, Mexico, and the Carribean. Very few of us have read The New Internationalist or care about the history of Che Guevarra. Working families are union families, non-union families, employees, and employers. We are families, Canadian families.

I knew a month ago that Jack Layton was in trouble when he gave his usual infomercial tag line of needing "working families to vote NDP so they can 'get results'." There was no sense of desire for Jack Layton to govern. Why should voters and the media take him seriously? How many more times am I going to hear Jack say, "NDP budget?" It was a Liberal budget whether Jack liked it or not.

At least Jack is better than Alexa McDonough was when she was leader. All that could come out of her mouth was answering the following question:

"What should Canada do about the Middle-East situation?"

Alexa: "We should ensure that there is good health care."

[ 10 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

and as for soccer moms on stronach pitches, I'm guessing you all work and have families, therefore are "working families". why do you have to be poor to be working class? why do you have to read Che Gueverra to be a social democrat? why is it wrong for Jack to speak to those who need NDP representation? You think the Liberals care about any wage earning folks. Martin gutted UI in '95 and then put Belinda in charge of it in 2005! Magna is almost solely responsible for the outsourcing and temp work fiasco that is the auto industry these days!

One does not have to be poor to be working class. Then again, I don't perceive myself as being working class. I have a job. I get paid twice a month, but I don't feel like I am working class. When I go to work, sometimes I stop at Starbucks, Second Cup, Tim Horton's or Coffee Time. I shop at Zellers, Walmart, Sears, and the Bay. I sometimes recycle, but not all the time. I am a Canadian.

It is great that the NDP is trying to reach out to disadvantaged groups. Unfortunately, Canadians belonging to these groups form a minority of voters. That is why I have given "the soccer moms and dads living in Aurora" pitch. They are Canadian voters who need to have a reason to vote NDP. They do stand on the sidelines by the Stronach soccer pitches when their children play. They are union members and non-members, employees, employers, and a few are probably unemployed. Why should these people vote NDP?

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, i have heard Harper use the term "working families" a few times himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Tripper:
[QB]

oh wait I think I know - you lack the basic intelligence to write something that attracts others. You are tool for others, an empty vessel regurgitating propaganda, incapable of independent thought that does not agree with your preset parameters.]

---

The nerve you putz have to insult people like that after a full 20 posts!

Is that your level of intelligence?

Ordinary Canadians
Average Canadians
All Canadians
or even just "Canadians"

These don't sound like they would appeal to the average voter to me.

In the days of the CCF, early NDP, I remember hearing "working people." That, of course, would really turn some upwardly striving entrepreneur off. Combining "working" with "families" seems to soften the militant connotations of the first word. (Militant, to some, when Layton says it, anyway. When Harper says it, it sounds like just another Tory slam on welfare recipients.)

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

You started this post by criticizing Jack for saying that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Tripper:
but I will go to the greens this year because I want to aspire to greatness, I want the party leader I support to SAY they want to be Prime Minister.

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

I think it is clear that we have someone here whose only purpose is to harass and enrage babblers. We have better things to do, for the good of working people.

God, he's the one who talked of "class warfare":

quote:

---

Well here it is the class warfare thing - wealth bad, poverty good.....

---

We all love poverty, eh? Not being able to pay the hydro bill, eating shitty white bread and mouldy things on sale at the grocery!!!

quote:

---

faith I've demanded the adm of this site provide me with your real name so I may sue for slander if you do not edit the references to me as a torie/conservative plant.

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

2) I'm not in the slightest interested in such empty threats. Who the hell knows who you are, or if that is your real name? The only thing people are judging here is your boorish behaviour.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Tripper ]

Michael Tripper (real name? yeah sure!)
As a disinterested outsider, I can attest to the 'fact' that you are a total fake, and not a very good one at that.

Did you really expect anyone to believe that up until yesterday you were a committed NDPer, and that the earth-shaking event of Jack Layton referring to 'working families' flipped you SO much that you are going to vote against him? Your hatred for the NDP is as palpable as it is off-target.

You made several contradictions in you supposed life story; that's sloppy, you should write it down so that next time you'll come across as more authentic. I have come to the conclusion that you and Michael Watkins are one and the same. If you ain't got friends, just invent them!

I think people are questioning your honesty because your overreaction was so extreme: "Hey, three people didn't agree 100% with my points [and they were responding more to Michael Watkins' argument anyway], so I guess that Babble must be an echo chamber full of bullies, and I WAS going to vote for the NDP, but the comments of these three people on a message board that isn't affiliated with the party have convinced me to vote for someone else."

I'm not quite sure how you got to that conclusion, and as I've heard quite a few other people say something similar on equally little provocation here, I'm inclined to believe that you're being disingenuous rather than just misguided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Tripper:
swirrlygrrl
ronb
brebis

are completely wrong on this and cannot see past their own self-satisfaction. You are members of a private club like those you deride.

the idea that YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to define what "working" means just betrays your dark dinosaur bully heart - anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Listen just because you have a definition does not mean the rest of the world does.

You live in an echo chamber. If you got out of it you would see stufdents who are considering a career and not a job are turned off by this rhetoric. ...

Libby Davies is in my riding and I was going to vote for her, but people of swirrlygrrl
ronb and brebis ilk are making me think I should waste my vote with the greens or even the libs or cons at this point (though not cons, the candidate is a nightmare here).

---

But on the basis that even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day, there is one small point that MT made before having his hissy fit that I sort of agree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Michael Tripper (real name? yeah sure!)
As a disinterested outsider, I can attest to the 'fact' that you are a total fake, and not a very good one at that.

---

I don't know whether or not MT ever was a committed dipper, but a Michael Tripper did indeed have a commentary in the Globe and Mail the other day.

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Trailwalker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

I don't know whether or not MT ever was a committed dipper, but a Michael Tripper did indeed have a commentary in the Globe and Mail the other day.

http://tinyurl.com/dcnmd

---

anywhooo.....as a proud working person from a family who works, and isn't disadvantaged but volunteers with the NDP to effect positive change that will benefit the whole range of economically engaged people of our fine country, how did everyone feel about Jack's wording in the french debate tonight....

or should that be a new thread?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trailwalker:
Jack sounded like he was repeating slogans , very ineffective .

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Trailwalker ]

---

Harper does the same thing and they call it being very effective in sticking to his message.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
I was under the impression that moderators shut down hostile posters like the dual-michaels but I guess i was mistaken....

---

I most certainly have NOT been hostile to anyone here. Perhaps you've got that impression due to the flurry of different posts back and forth to and from folks named "Michael", but I think if you re-read what I have said you'll agree that I've not be hostile in my approach to the topic.

My initial post on the matter was misinterpreted by some and I took pains to explain, politely, how it was misinterpreted.

quote:

---

Stop it. Remove those references and I will leave quietly, otherwise I will sue.

---

That's so funny it's laughable.

Are you going to sue because babble hurt your feelings? Besmirched your good name by suggesting you're not a real NDP voter like you claim to be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

Harper does the same thing and they call it being very effective in sticking to his message.

---

Yabbut when Harper does it, we're not listening.

Seriously - when Jack speaks, I listen, so he does sound repetitive.

When Martin speaks, it's just as repetitive, but I'm listening for the "very, verys" and other verbal tics, so the content doesn't register.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
Gee I go away for awhile and come back to find I have been the catalyst for a legal action against myself and babble

---

quote:

---

Name: Michael Tripper
Hometown: Vancouver
Comments:
Quick notes to Pierce & Stupid via studly Eric:

[...] Stupid: What a great line and one I am experiencing up here in the so-called socialist dreamland of Canada - the interests of our poor are sometimes at odds with the interests of the world's poor. I am experiencing this prob first-hand here in Canada and believe me when you mention the topic, automatically you're labeled a racist. No question there is a horrible downward pressure on wages not just from exporting jobs but also from importing cheaper labour - screwing most us.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4399291/

---

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

To MT: You have established your bona fides as an "honorary American." All that's left is to get thee to the American consulate in Vancouver and start the paperwork. Your friends at MSNBC will welcome you with open arms.

If you did write that piece in the Grope (let us know, will ya, it was brilliant I say! ) let me point out a few things:

quote:

---

There are many things I could tell you, but I want you to know this: While the unfairness of poverty will sometimes lead to criminal behaviour, you should know, too, that if the laws are too easy on adolescents, then they will make their calculations of brutality. If the consequences are short and not too severe, the risks become irrelevant.

---

My head spins reading this. Let's say you actually wrote this (please tell us if you didn't). What you are saying is that you engaged in petty street crime because you were in some way, resentful of others because you were poor. But if only the government had clapped your arse into some brutal prisons early on, that "scared straight" mentality would have overrode your resentment of society, therefore terrorising you into life as a upright citizen.

I hate to say it, but that's a very American way of looking at things.

quote:

---

Courts must deal severely with any use of guns. Why not hear crimes involving firearms in a military court -- after all, if you use weapons of war against a civilian population, shouldn't you face military justice? More realistically, I'd like to see those who use guns in the act of committing crimes be excluded from the provisions of young offender laws;

---

Wow. Perhaps you're American friends can help with sending up the plans for 'military tribunals' for Canada! They come with their own blueprints for your very own Guantanamo Bay - perhaps on PEI. That and the desire to scrap the juvenile system for youthful gun offenders - right from the US Republican playbook. Somewhere Michael Savage applauds.

quote:

---

The federal government must look at the causes of poverty, such as our high immigration levels. Pouring desperate people into large cities isn't helping poverty, it's adding to it. We all know that there are many benefits from immigration. But despite Ottawa's wishful thinking, the vast majority of newcomers do not want to live in small-town or rural Canada. What is happening right now is that underemployed newcomers put a downward pressure on wages, while resources that could go to skills training and upgrading instead go to teaching English and soft skills. If you were born into poverty in this country, this seems monstrously unfair.

---

Two for two my good man! Why should the Americans be bothered to construct a wall on the US-Canadian border when there are Canadians like you willing to do it for them! And, of course, stringent immigration criteria would keep out all the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. You know: the wretched refuse of those teeming shores,
the homeless, tempest-tossed, etc. They're bad for cultural purity (English only! Or else!) and such a drag on the economy, right? Somewhere out there in Americaland Lou Dobbs and US Rep JD Hayworth are applauding you.

Deep integration phooey! You have America in your heart dear boy! That's all you need. Just close your eyes and repeat three times, "Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman" and poof! There you are in the land of laissez faire capitalism. Where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day.

As a lifelong American, I welcome you to the fold.

The address of the US Consulate in Vancouver is:

1095 W. Pender St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 2M6

Or you can access them through the web here

After you fill out the paperwork and get the proper approval, you get the following welcome kit:

This:

and this:

and this:

and of course this:

He thanks you:

That's too bad; babble ought to have, or implement, a feature that "freezes" posts after a period of time, or after you make one or two additional posts.

If you can't take the heat from notoriety, don't post...

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
That's pretty bizzare - Tripper has removed the content from the last 21 of his posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
People are going to hear whatever they want to hear. Watkins wants to believe that the NDP is by default the party of profligacy, in spite of the obviously dismal fiscal record of every Conservative govt. of the past 30 years - Mulroney, take an especially big bow!

---

No, that is not what I said.

Its disappointing that extreme partisans (any party - its the same anywhere) have a hard time seeing through their own personal prejudices and understand someone elses point of view.

The point I've been trying to express, with respect to fiscal management competancy, is that the Federal NDP never talks about this; never puts forward a strategy to explain to Canadians why they ought to trust them on fiscal matters.

Simply saying "the others have screwed up and we've yet to have our turn at trying" is not a winning strategy.

In other threads I've suggested giving economist and NDP candidate Paul Summerville more profile; I've suggested tackling the fiscal management issue head on.