Is it only because of brand name loyalty and the lingering Trudeau mystique among some? Or because they're still widely seen as 'progressive', hearing so little in the media of what they're actually up to Re SSP and the like? Or perhaps there's still philosophical differences with the scarey NDP 'socialists' who might seize all our hard earned property? Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available? Or is there some other subtle intangible I'm missing. I'm curious, living on the West coast where they're only one of three contenders federally and coopted by ex-Socreds provincially. Opinions?

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Why does Charlie Brown keep going to kick the ball when Lucy pulls it away?

They keep changing leaders and people keep wanting to trust the new person with the new line even though the pattern remains the same.

Maybe the saying you can fool some people all the time and you can fool all people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time is not true.

I hear from some of these people that they want to vote for a party that can govern and will once in a while do good things rather than a party that they believe can't get elected. (I don't buy it but this is what they say.)

[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

There are many reasons.

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

2) The NDP are horribly disorganized and those that work with the NDP soon lose hope of them ever winning anything.

3) The NDP has a lot of special interests groups that don't always play so nicely together.

4) The NDP really hasn't shown that it understands economics and occasionally comes out with some pretty wild and implausible ideas on changing the economy. This coupled with constantly painting corporations as evil, does little to instill confidence that they know how to run a country.

5) Rick Smith.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

7) The NDP is not very accomodating of people that are not deemed to be progressive enough. There are as many intolerant people on the left as on the right, and the NDP seems to have a monopoly.

8) Some people don't look good in orange.

9) The NDP treats their volunteers like garbage.

quote:

---

1) Some believe that in a FPTP system, it's really a battle between Liberal and Conservative. Once the NDP win or even come second, that might change.

6) If I hear the phrase 'working family' one more time, I'm going to scream.

10) They really aren't coming up with a lot of new ideas. Of course, the other parties aren't either, but generally if you're in third place, the pressure is on you to show why we need change.

---

With number 6, I don't think the problem is 'working families' but just the growing tendency of the NDP to sound scripted and repetitive. It insults the intelligence of the voter, makes the party sound stale and unoriginal and it turns a lot of people off. The Greens are doing a better job of coming off as a fresh alternative and it isn't just because of their name. At a time when voter malaise with the mainstream parties is at an all time high, the NDP should be trying to sound fresh and looking at how to tap into the current mood.

In BC, I think the provincial parties are having an effect on the national polling numbers. The provincial greens have quite a good progressive platform on justice and education, and are more credible than the NDP when it comes to electoral reform(as it benefits them more).

Personally, I'm so sick of helicopters and American funded teched out police squads every summer being used to hunt down hippies in my neighbourhood for growing pot plants that I'm attracted to the Green's clear statement on the subject.

Combined with the pandering to the right of Farnsworth and the less than clear messages of James on PR, I know a lot of people who traditionally have voted NDP but are considering the Greens in the next provincial election. This has the danger of spreading to the Federal election. So I think the NDP is crazy to be so concerned with trying to peel off Liberals who clearly will vote for any sad sack wearing red instead of the growing Green threat.

[ 24 April 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

quote:

---

The answer is in the definition of "progressive," which is usually so broad and vague that it can easily encompass large swaths of Liberal Party supporters.

---

There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

quote:

---

So, I guess it's a perception problem - people still think of the Liberals as 'left' when we know they're not really. What do we do to change people's perceptions not only about Liberal's but also about the NDP (who are perceived to be TOO left and economically naive and untrustworthy)?

---

Either you did not understand my point [immediately above] or you are ignoring it.

Take the quote marks away from "progressive". Operationalize it as people who are pretty left wing on some kind of substantive measuring [where you place something like 6-7% of the population]. Then ask them who they vote for- and you will find a very high proportion vote for the Liberals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

---

quote:

---

I challenge your assertion that the "leftmost" 6 or 7 percent of the population, in its majority, consistently votes Liberal.

---

Those are your words, not mine. I said a high proportion vote Liberal.

I don't know about you- but even 20-30% who are identified as left voting Liberal tells us something... even if we don't know exactly what to chalk it up to.

Voter behaviour is much more complex than the models partisan junkies carry in their heads.

But it really isn't that hard to see why it would be true. A lot of left identified folks [and remember we're not just talking activists here] are pretty totally disengaged from electoral politics. When and if those folks vote its a pretty short term instrumentalist act.

And even those who have some degree of engagement often see the Liberal party as the best available vehicle for seeing something like what they want to happen move towards reality. IE, they aren't just voting for candidates more likley to win, they are giving their support to the Lberal Party, as institution, as the best vehicle for [eventually] seeing something happen they idenify with.

We're talking about what happens, not whether or how 'deluded' people are.

I'm not a political scientist or an academic, so I don't file away voter behaviour studies I have seen. I think I have a good track record for remembering and relaying. I remember the general thrust of studies. I don't remember how high a proportion of left identifieds usually vote Liberal. But even 50% of the general population [not just activists in circulation and who talk in discussion forums] would not surprise me.

They aren't really progressives, but they want people to THINK they are. So they want a party which talks a good progressive game, but sells out to the vested interests when they get into government.

It's why they vote Democrat in the States and NuLabour in the UK, as well.

One is that the term 'progressive' is soft or boundless, or that people just want to look progressive, etc.

The other as I have argued is to define leftist / progressive by however rigorous you want, and you will find that in Canada a substantial number of those people consistently vote for the Liberal Party.

I haven't given any evidence that people can check. But even if it is counter-intuitive, do people really find it so unlikely? If so, why?

During the latter Nineties the large and recurring voter behaviour studies found that nationally people who identified themselves as closest to the NDP, were more likely to vote Liberal than NDP. While in BC the NDP-identifiers voted for the NDP second after Reform. [And the long term strength of that voter identification is behind the post-merger erosion of the Conservative vote in BC, expecially in hinterlands.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
A Liberal Progressive is a person who drives their ethanol-burning SUV to buy fair-trade coffee beans.

"Look at me I'm wonderful, shoobie-doobie wah"

---

Are you implying that NDP supporters are different? Real environmentalists? I remember the last local NDP meeting I went to about 5 years ago - at least 90% of the vehicles were SUVs and pickup trucks. Don't know about the coffee beans though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Are you implying that NDP supporters are different? Real environmentalists? I remember the last local NDP meeting I went to about 5 years ago - at least 90% of the vehicles were SUVs and pickup trucks. Don't know about the coffee beans though.

There seems to be one great consistency that I have found among many NDP and Green Party supporters. The tendency to blame Liberal support on the ignorance of Liberal voters. I disagree. Many Liberal voters I have talked to are repulsed by the strong fringe elements found among many supporters in both parties - they don't mind the party platform, but the supporters drive them crazy. Just as I can be certain that if I talk to couple Conservative supporters at least one of them will go off about the evils of socialized education, health care, legal abortions and the liberal media conspiracy etc, it seems that if I talk to a couple NDP supporters or green supporters at least one of them will go off about some crazy conspiracy theory which will be an absolute certainty in their mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Aided, of course, by a few pretendy progressives who present themselves as leader while shamelessly attacking any truly progressive alternative. Basil Hargrove. Maude Barlow. Elizabeth May.

---

That's not a complete answer of course. What about little things like principles and integrity, and personal loyalty [with Ujjal at least]?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Or is it mostly the scarey Harper scenario now, where they're still seen as the only other realistic but non-scarey alternative available?

---

Provincially John Tory was doing so well with his Bill Davis imitation last year -- right up until he went off on his faith-based schools flyer -- that he was no scarier than Dalton McGuinty, and might well have won a minority government with a good contingent of New Democrats holding the balance of power. One of history's might-have-beens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
There have been studies where academics studying voting behaviour ask detailed questions to place people on something like a left/right political spectrum.

There are still a significant number of people clearly left who consistently vote for the Liberals. And that isn't all explained by 'strategic voting' [them voting for the candidate with the chance of winning for a particular election].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JKR:
Why didn't Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanj join the federal NDP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

I don't think Maude Barlow deserves to be lumped in with those two and i don't think it's fair to call her a pretendy progressive.

---

Then let her withdraw from the "Don't Think - Vote Liberal" coalition. Until then, she is just another unprincipled pretendy progressive apologist for a right wing political party.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]

In the US, the right wing Republicans were in decline and the leadership of the Republican Party was in the hands of Rockefeller Republican moderates. The Dixiecrats were increasingly marginalized in the Democratic Party. The right was marginalized and hit their nadir with the crushing defeat of Barry ("extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice") Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential election.

So the right set out to move themselves out of the margins and change people's minds. They used political and non-political movements to advance their agenda. They built up their own right wing alternatives to the establishment media.

The left could do that. The left should do that. The left must do that.

But every time it is suggested (including on babble), the usual suspects come along to poo-poo the idea.

In no small part, this is a symptom of a cultural dysfunction among Canadian leftists who prefer the perverse comfort of marginalization.

But with her leadership on water rights and fighting the SPP i think that Maude Barlow's progressive credentials are beyond reproach. She is doing a lot more to promote awareness of these issues than the NDP.

As a dipper i want a strong and bold NDP, and i think if we the NDP were stronger and bolder then we would appeal more to people like Barlow. Say whatever you like about May and Hargrove, but attacking bona fide progressives--especially those like Barlow who have mass followings--will not get us where we want to be.

[ 25 April 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

In fact, I believe it should start with the word "progressive" as it is a label that is available again in the Canadian political arena and we should utilize it.

Like:

Progressive Coalition Party of Canada. PCPC

Progressive Democratic Party of Canada. PDPC

or just

Progressive Democratic Party. PDP

----------------------------
On anpother note:

Progressive Green Democratic Party of Canada PGDP

Or

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
The left can learn a lot from the North American right in the 1950s - 1980s.

In the US, the right wing Republicans were in decline and the leadership of the Republican Party was in the hands of Rockefeller Republican moderates. The Dixiecrats were increasingly marginalized in the Democratic Party. The right was marginalized and hit their nadir with the crushing defeat of Barry ("extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice") Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential election.

So the right set out to move themselves out of the margins and change people's minds. They used political and non-political movements to advance their agenda. They built up their own right wing alternatives to the establishment media.

The left could do that. The left should do that. The left must do that.

But every time it is suggested (including on babble), the usual suspects come along to poo-poo the idea.

In no small part, this is a symptom of a cultural dysfunction among Canadian leftists who prefer the perverse comfort of marginalization.

After all, if we built a truly viable progressive political movement in Canada, it would take work. So much easier to sit on the sidelines, self-righteously sniping and sipping steamed soymilk.

---

Great post.

Has anyone else read "Rescuing Canada's Right"? It's a book by a couple of young Canadian righties lamenting the fact that conservatism has been marginalized in Canada (now perhaps a bit dated with the advent of the Harper government, but on the other hand these people would probably dismiss him as not a 'true' conservative).

Although it's obviously from the opposite perspective, it's an interesting prescription for how a political movement can build itself into a real force and effect fundamental change. No surprise that it's modelled heavily on the success of the American 'movement conservatives' that Malcolm refers to above , who not only succeeded in getting their messiah Ronald Reagan elected President, but fundamentally shifted American political discourse to the right for the foreseeable future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Something with the word "citizen" in it would be good too IMO. And I always liked the coalition word. But I digress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:

Great post.

Has anyone else read "Rescuing Canada's Right"? ....
Maybe someone needs to write "Rescuing Canada's Left".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
My perspective is that she has been actively undermining the NDP for at least 20 years now.

If it walks like an unprincipled Liberal apologist and it talks like an unprincipled Liberal apologist . . .

---

quote:

---

Canadian activist Maude Barlow has been appointed as the United Nation's first senior adviser on water issues, a role she hopes to use to establish water as a human right and to convince Canada to "change its shameful position" on the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Redburn:
Reading some comments here lately reminds me of something I've been wondering about. Why do so many progressive voters remain loyal to the federal Liberals (not saying the NDP's the only other option here) even when they don't even stand for popular measures like public health care or sovereignty from the States anymore?

---

The broadest reason for why most middle class voters go with the Liberals over the NDP is the one expressed by MacLean's Magazine and Vaughn Palmer on seperate occasions recently: the NDP seems to think that corporations are either cash cows or evil entities that can be bashed or taxed without consequences. Most people work for corporations of various sizes (or work for small businesses that get most of their business from corporations) and simply don't believe that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
... the NDP seems to think that corporations are either cash cows or evil entities that can be bashed or taxed without consequences. Most people work for corporations of various sizes (or work for small businesses that get most of their business from corporations) and simply don't believe that.

---

I know little about taxation (as the rest of this post will amply demonstrate!), but maybe you have a point. I've never understood why we "tax" the means of creation of wealth - seems counterproductive.

What would you think of this modest proposal - just talking federal for a moment:

1. Abolish all corporate income tax (which I think is about 17% of total federal tax revenue);

2. Make up the shortfall by increasing personal tax income (on a heavily progressive basis, of course) - which currently accounts for about 55% of federal tax revenue;

3. Eliminate current tax exemptions and/or credits on dividend and capital gains income;

4. Apply strict controls on any capital outflows abroad, including earnings on foreign capital invested in Canada.

There may be more elements, and none of this may make sense, but surely business will have much more resources available to grow and create jobs. Every penny reinvested in the business would be tax free.

What do you think?

If you like the idea (subject to some fine-tuning), I will personally commit to getting the NDP on board. It's tiresome to hear them talk, decade after decade, about wealthy corporations - when the real problem is wealthy individuals on one side and poor and struggling individuals on the other.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

That's a relevant point and grist for the mill, but it has an easy answer from those who would say that the problem there is with who is called "progressive".

I'll just toss back in the point I made in a few posts early in the thread: that even if you operationalize some standard of progressive [be that ending up with 5% of the population or 2%], you will find that a significant proportion of those people not only vote Liberal, but choose the Liberal party as the best 'vehicle' of those available.

The famous cases of this that we know of are a very small tip of the iceberg.

I'll agree that if you braoden the operationalized definition of 'progressive' yo will end up a higher proportion of those folks who support the Liberal Party.

Unionist is trying to muddy the waters with substantive issues.

I've also never liked the use of corporate tax as a whipping boy. Would prefer that we programatically and message wise talk about taxing wealth.

But given that corporations screwing us over is a narative that is understood- and that it is not like it is innacurate- I can live with the less than perfect politics. For me and many others, bigger deficiencies to moan about.

I'm guessing that once unionists's proposal was operationalized, AdamT would still find it too oriented to treating wealth as a cash cow that is to be squeezed for every undeserved dollar... not in keeping with the more moderated Liberal approach.

[I'm not up to continuing the substantive discussion though, let alone it hasn't much to do with the thread topic.]

And getting back to my point that substantial numbers of even 'bona fide progressives' [by any measure] prefer the Liberal party. Suppose the NDP came up with a stronger and clearer proposal for taxing wealth that appealed to such bona fide progressives. The ones that prefer the Liberal party would just see that as an initiative that will never have traction until the Liberal party proposes it.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I'm going to summarize AdamT's offering as "the NDP is too anti-corporation" or too anti-capitalist.

---

He said too anti-corporation. He didn't say too anti-capitalist.

I'm anti-capitalist, but I'm not anti-corporation. I just don't think corporations that control the main levers of the economy should be owned and controlled by individual investors.

Maybe we need to understand people's opinions better. That's why I challenged Adam T with an amateurish tax proposal that would hit millionaires and billionaires hard, but would provide a huge boost to businesses. That may help us understand what problem he sees with the NDP.

quote:

---

I know little about taxation (as the rest of this post will amply demonstrate!), but maybe you have a point. I've never understood why we "tax" the means of creation of wealth - seems counterproductive.

What would you think of this modest proposal - just talking federal for a moment:

1. Abolish all corporate income tax (which I think is about 17% of total federal tax revenue);

2. Make up the shortfall by increasing personal tax income (on a heavily progressive basis, of course) - which currently accounts for about 55% of federal tax revenue;

3. Eliminate current tax exemptions and/or credits on dividend and capital gains income;

4. Apply strict controls on any capital outflows abroad, including earnings on foreign capital invested in Canada.

There may be more elements, and none of this may make sense, but surely business will have much more resources available to grow and create jobs. Every penny reinvested in the business would be tax free.

What do you think?

If you like the idea (subject to some fine-tuning), I will personally commit to getting the NDP on board. It's tiresome to hear them talk, decade after decade, about wealthy corporations - when the real problem is wealthy individuals on one side and poor and struggling individuals on the other.

---

Unionist, as an honours economics student, I think you know taxation perfectly fine.

I've argued in favor of the exact thing you just posted in points 1-3. Eliminate corporate income tax and tax the profit in the form of taxes on dividends at the same rate as income taxes. Combined with green tax shifting these measures should really boost productivity. As you said, all profits reinvested would be income tax free which would substantially boost the incentive to reinvest.

My guess, of course, is that you are far more likely to get Liberals interested in your plan than the NDP. That's not certain, of course, social democratic parties in Europe and Australasia have done interesting things with taxes.

Point 4 is not practical, however. First, it's probably not allowed under free trade rules and secondly it would greatly discourage investment.

I also don't think it's needed. Dividends are a minor reason for people to invest in companies and I don't think most investors would sell shares in Canadian companies just because the tax on their dividends would go up if the income taxes were to go down.

Having ventured forth in both the NDP and the Liberal Party in the past, I thought the NDP felt clannish and suspicious of "outsiders". I think you see exactly that sort of culture here on babble too sometimes in the political threads.

You don't get that attitude when you join the Liberal Party. You get welcomed with open arms, invited to everything, people go out of their way to include you in everything at a riding level, and encourage you to get involved in meaningful ways. You don't get that feeling like you have to have lived in the same small town for 5 generations before you stop being an "outsider". (This might also have something to do with why the Liberal Party also attracts more new Canadians than the NDP does.)

quote:

---

I'll agree that if you broaden the operationalized definition of 'progressive' yo will end up a higher proportion of those folks who support the Liberal Party.

But that isn't the only thing going on. Because tighten up the operationalized substantive standards of who is a progressive so that the group includes a half or a fourth as many people, and you will still have a significant chunk of people who prefer the Liberal party.

---

I don't think you need to play with these definitional games. Smarter people than me have noted that in many countries (though not all) the combined center-left vote and the combined center-right vote have tended to both be roughly 50/50 in aggregate averaged over a number of elections.

Some people have explained this psychologically that apparently 50% of people are born with right leaning tendencies and 50% are born with left leaning tendencies. I tend to agree with a different theory though: political parties are savvy enough to go for the center while keeping their base and they both combine enough of each to split the vote roughly in half. I disagree with the psychologists because the median center is different even in similar countries (obviously it's further left in Canada than in the U.S).

So, based on all this, if we classify the NDP and the Liberals (and now the Greens) as the 'center left' parties (or progressive to use your terminology), clearly approximately 50% of the voters would be grouped together around there. In the past however many elections, the Liberals have received around 60% of this vote. So clearly, the majority of voters who consider themselves 'progressive' or would be considered 'progressive' vote Liberal.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

My guess, of course, is that you are far more likely to get Liberals interested in your plan than the NDP.

---

Self-comforting delusion.

I know very well that the proposal would face tough sledding in the NDP.

But one thing that keeps progressives- however rigorously you want to define them- in or around the Liberal Party is the comforting hope that anything is possible within the Liberal Party.

But if AdamT meant that you are far more likely to get some sector of Liberals interested versus some sector of the NDP... then he is wrong; but more relevant, the point is meaningless anyway.

Of course, the Liberals are now likely to back off of it, which is unfortunate.

I agree that it would probably be difficult for either party to propose.

1.The Liberals because it involves big, possibly risky changes that might cost them votes.

2.The NDP because it can be obviously seen as pro corporation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

I know very well that the proposal would face tough sledding in the NDP.

---

Seriously though, KenS, I've heard from Adam T - but what do you think of my tax proposal?

Has the NDP been unfairly tarred as "anti-business" all these years, when really it could redefine itself as "pro-economy" but anti-gap-between-rich-and-poor?

Tax the wealthy, not Canada's enterprises!

What say you?

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Unionist is going where a lot of the advanced social democrat countries have gone. Not surprisingly - Quebec is further down this path than any other province. I assume he knows this.

New Democrats haven't gone as far as the PQ. Generally, I think, they have been reluctant to talk about taxes in campaigns and, as a populist measure, have hidden behind taxes that aren't on "people".

There's good political reasons for this. Running on even mild tax increases for the extremely rich (ie. the federal NDP's 2004 inheritance tax for people with estates worth more than $1 million; the Ontario NDP's 2003 plan to create a new tax bracket on incomes over $150,000) caused a Liberal/Conservative-led backlash against "raising taxes". Even the Ontario NDP's attempt to scrap the extremely regressive health tax and repace it with progressive taxes on high income earners died on the runway. People got lost in the details, didn't buy it, or didn't care.

All that noted, NDP attempts to score political points by taking on corporate taxes have had mixed results. In the most recent campaign the NDP ran on an utterly unremarkable commitment - to keep tax rates the same and cancel scheduled cuts. And even here, in a nominally "progressive" space, people howled that this was "raising taxes" and "attacking business".

Globally, and in Canada, the move has been to replace business taxes with consumer and other regressive taxes. Hence the GST, the health tax and (I'd argue) the carbon tax.

Could an NDP leader argue that cutting business taxes and replacing them with income taxes was sound policy? Maybe. But it's politically risky. The track record of politicians arguing for "tax shifts" isn't great(yikes!). However, the political climate is changing so rapidly. Last week's "political suicide" is this week's obvious answer.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: 1948 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I know little about taxation (as the rest of this post will amply demonstrate!), but maybe you have a point. I've never understood why we "tax" the means of creation of wealth - seems counterproductive.

What would you think of this modest proposal - just talking federal for a moment:

1. Abolish all corporate income tax (which I think is about 17% of total federal tax revenue);

2. Make up the shortfall by increasing personal tax income (on a heavily progressive basis, of course) - which currently accounts for about 55% of federal tax revenue;

3. Eliminate current tax exemptions and/or credits on dividend and capital gains income;

4. Apply strict controls on any capital outflows abroad, including earnings on foreign capital invested in Canada.

There may be more elements, and none of this may make sense, but surely business will have much more resources available to grow and create jobs. Every penny reinvested in the business would be tax free.

What do you think?

If you like the idea (subject to some fine-tuning), I will personally commit to getting the NDP on board. It's tiresome to hear them talk, decade after decade, about wealthy corporations - when the real problem is wealthy individuals on one side and poor and struggling individuals on the other.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

Sorry Unionist, this is exactly (minus more progressive individual taxation) the right would LOVE you to like. This would equate to nothing more than to accelerate the (already happening) "race to the bottom". Over the past 20 years we have consistently shifted the tax base from corporate to individual...result: erosion of the middle class, huge gains for the very rich and a massive increase in working poor. Furthermore, for that model to work, you are assuming a larger than real number of uberweathly individuals in Canada... They could not cover the costs of government alone. It's been proven OVER AND OVER again that corporate taxation has little or nothing to do with productivity, or for that matter corporate profit. That said, I think a more progressive personal tax system IS in order (+ no more tax breaks and loopholes for the rich) and that most large corporations do just fine thank you very much....that said TARGETED investment (and yes, tax breaks/credits etc) in critical sectors of our economy are not a bad thing at all. Especially if we can tie them to job creation, R&D, incubation of new green and high tech opportunities and the like to name a few things of the top of my head. Outside of a many a Banana republic, cooperate taxes are PART of a healthy economy. Someone mentioned that Scandinavian countries do interesting things with taxes...but if you look at the over all tax structure of 90% of the flourishing ones (Iceland started following Bushnomics in the late 90's and look where that got them), you will find higher than the median Canadian corporate tax rate, combined with far more progressive income tax scales, combined with a HUGE investment (1/3rd give or take) of their GDP plowed into substantive social programs. Result: Much larger and more stable middle class. Greater proportional productivity and GDP. Not to mention much lower poverty rates, increased gender equality (paid 1 year Mat leave for males or females in Sweden I think), better education, less crime etc etc etc.

It would be tough sledding within the NDP for the reasons that were just outlined [not my post].

The NDP is eternally gun shy about rocking the boat around economic issues. Having low credibility to work with is something you cannot jsut wave away. No single economic proposal can fix that. Worse, in the short term, most good ones will have the effect of making matters worse if they are not 'nested' into a long term communications strategy.

That requires a lot of internal discussion, which is difficult within the NDP because of how dear all the different sacred cows are. And in my opinion, because the discussion is hard work. Imside the NDP is just like Babble: people would rather just blow out their opinions, and then scramble over where the cards fall.

Hence my statement that it would be tough sledding. If I thought it was unlikely to ever happen I wouldn't waste my breath.

In the Liberal Party you can have safe little discussions in corners so waht. And I wouldn't be holding up the 'Green Shift' as an example. Thats just the kind of posturing crap that IS what will see the light of day from the Liberal party, at its in practice 'best' at that.

A programatic shift from corporate taxes to increases on the higher brackets of income taxes has a chance within the NDP. Many of us insist that until the NDP can put muscle behind such a proposal it will NEVER break through the glass ceiling. The fact it is hard to get there means we need to get started. If we cannot go straight into a proposal similar to unionists, then lets talk about what we do to get there.

I think some of many reasons there are people who would be considered "progressives" (putting the debate about the meaning aside for now)..is pure nostalgia & and Lib propaganda expanding on that, as helped by the MSM. (where oh where is the NDP's "Obermann")

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:
Just wanted to also post on the actual topic of the tread.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:

Sorry Unionist, this is exactly (minus more progressive individual taxation) the right would LOVE you to like.

---

Huh?

I said (in essence), "tax the wealthy instead of taxing businesses", and you reply (in essence), "that's exactly what the right would LOVE you to do except for the part about taxing the wealthy"!?

Sure, if you cut out 1/2 of my proposal, it doesn't sound all that great...

And then you say that it's the shift to personal income tax which has eroded the "middle class" (whatever that is) and led to a "massive increase in working poor"!?

I guess the answer to that would be to lower personal income taxes, and wow do I disagree with that one.

Anyone, I apologize for the thread drift, but this obviously requires more discussion. Please continue the taxation discussion here.

ETA:

OUCH!

1948 had the idea same time as me (maybe before?) I'll go delete my new thread and we'll stick with his instead...

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

I already said I liked the proposal unionist, and have never been personally wild about attacking corporate taxes because it is convenient to do so.

---

The NDP used to be very different from the Liberals. They proposed nationalizing a number of corporations and they proposed much higher spending than Liberal governments (probably not much higher spending than Liberals in opposition proposed though). Since the 1960s however:

1.The NDP has moved away from proposing nationalizing industries.

2.Since the Liberals balanced the budget in the 1990s (yes on the backs of all sorts of groups), the NDP has also come around to favoring balanced budgets. So, they can no longer propose spending that just piles up the debt.

So, while the NDP and the Liberals certainly differ in other areas, most notably foreign policy, on the issue people are most concerned about, economics, there isn't a lot of difference.

So, to create a wedge between the Liberals and the NDP and to find a way to pay for more spending, Layton et al support higher taxes on corporations than the Liberals support (not saying Layton doesn't also sincerely believe in his policies).

So, where does this analysis lead? To me it suggests that the NDP moving to a position of eliminating taxes on corporations is, to them, a political non starter. How could they be seen as different from the Liberals?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

but surely business will have much more resources available to grow and create jobs. Every penny reinvested in the business would be tax free.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

Uggg.... you bought straight into Wall Street's propaganda. Corporations - they're not like you and me because they're corporations. That means they don't give a monkey's bum about the betterment of communities or the progress of society because they only care about profit. So what do corporations do - convince people like you and me that not only should they not pay taxes, but get this... we should give them money and free resources. And how do they do this? They promise us job creation which they say magically produces better communities and a progressive society. And we get so giddy from all the helium in the corporate dream bubble that we forget to ask questions. Like, has trickle down theory (developed by corporate sponsored research institutes) ever worked? NO - and when it has the returns have been very marginal compared to the investment. Does corporate tax breaks act as incentives to create jobs? NO. We end up setting a lower industry standard so that other provinces and countries have to lower their taxes just to keep the jobs they have. So really it's not creating jobs but stealing them from others - but at a lower rate. In some situations these people get called scabs.

So should we get NDP on board with corporate tax cuts that don't work and steal other people's jobs? I say no. Coodos to the NDP for not kissing corporate ass for no good reason. And coodos to the NDP for being a strong leader and realizing that the best way to create jobs and to build solid communities is to directly invest in communities. Believe it or not, investing in social services and infrastructure actually creates good paying jobs enabling Canadians to go out and purchase meaningless crap so that big corporations can prevail. Corporations don't need tax breaks - they need us to invest in the public sector so that we can afford their crap - that's the only way they can grow and actually create more jobs.

Hear hear!!!!!! Exactly dead spot on. Well said sir/madam! (p.s jump over to the other thread for a continued discussion)

The NDP gets these diamonds in the rough come out of the blue all of a sudden and then leaves them to languish because no one has ever won there before. That doesn't stop Liberals, they build that person to become a winner and local people come to identify with them.

It's easier for a party that doesn't believe anything or have any values or principles to be such a welcoming, open tent, and maybe that's part of why progressives easily find themselves able to justify their politics fitting into said tent. It's harder when ideology and core beliefs are at play so much; it makes for more peevish encounters and a tribal, "I'm more pure than thee" quality that can be a turn off.

Plus there's the fact that progressives, like everyone else, can be seduced by the lure of power and the Libs are better able to offer it.

I think a good thing for provincial offices to do is send congrats notes. At least they know you exist beyond asking you for money. Another thing is that the local riding association can send out notes to folks, no matter their affiliation and in respect to municipal elections. That's a good way to build the base.

Now I have been elected as vice chair for region for the public school board association. The party should send me a congrats!

Just to let you know, last year I did receive a congrats note from a Hamilton NDP MPP, about an elected position is a progressive trustees network. I received it at the board office - that was pure class. Has he guaranteed that I will work on his campaign in the next prov election - damn tooting!

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

F.R. Scott, “W.L.M.K.”

How shall we speak of Canada,
Mackenzie King dead?
The Mother's boy in the lonely room
With his dog, his medium and his ruins?

He blunted us.

We had no shape
Because he never took sides,
And no sides
Because he never allowed them to take shape.

He skilfully avoided what was wrong
Without saying what was right,
And never let his on the one hand
Know what his on the other hand was doing.

The height of his ambition
Was to pile a Parliamentary Committee on a Royal Commission,
To have "conscription if necessary
But not necessarily conscription,"
To let Parliament decide--
Later.

Postpone, postpone, abstain.
Only one thread was certain:
After World War I
Business as usual,
After World War II
Oderly decontrol.
Always he led us back to where we were before.

He seemed to be in the centre
Because we had no centre,
No vision
To pierce the smoke-screen of his politics.

Truly he will be remembered
Wherever men honour ingenuity,
Ambiguity, inactivity, and political longevity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

the NDP has also come around to favoring balanced budgets.

---

Which is, of course, a nice Liberal way of suggesting the NDP have a history of fiscal profligacy.

In other words, utter bullshit.

quote:

---

The Liberal party of Canada fulfills many of the roles of a small "l" "liberal' party in appealing to "progressives".

---

Sure, the appeal is there, as this blog post shows, but what is the record?

Should progressives find the appeal persuasive?

Let's review the recent past.

Writes the blogger,

However, Bob Rae yesterday used the far better term “progressive centre”; methinks we should use that term in future for the LPC.

To which I respond,

Why?

The last federal Liberal budget dedicated more than twice as many dollars to a 5-year boost in military spending as it did to a belated 5-year plan to fix broken Liberal promises to improve child care.

This warped Liberal choice was made at a time when Canada faced a last-place showing among OECD nations in terms of the proportion of national wealth dedicated to early childhood education and child care.

Is this the record of a progressive party?

And what of the record over the most recent parliament?

Under Stephane Dion's direction, Liberals voted with Harper to defeat pro-labour anti-scab legislation.

They voted with Harper to extend and escalate the war in Afghanistan.

They signed off on Conservative fiscal and economic policies that weakened the federal government's ability to intervene positively in the economy, calling them 'watered down' Liberal policies.

And near the end of the last election campaign, when their leader was asked which priorities might have to go on the back burner, given the economic turmoil, 'progressive' Liberals effectively gave the answer we've come to expect from this party of the 'centre': "Child care and health care might have to wait."

No such delay was contemplated for the next round of Liberal-Conservative corporate tax cuts, of course.

And the mere suggestion by the NDP of a shift toward more progressive fiscal priorities was enough to elicit the cry of 'socialist job-killer' from the throat of Stephane Dion, the alleged progressive who shamed himself by echoing Stephen Harper's denunciation of Kyoto as a 'socialist scheme.'

No part of this Liberal record remotely approaches a progressive agenda.

People who think the federal Liberals are progressive are either ignoring history or kidding themselves.

[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
The NDP gets these diamonds in the rough come out of the blue all of a sudden and then leaves them to languish because no one has ever won there before. That doesn't stop Liberals, they build that person to become a winner and local people come to identify with them.

End result Liberals look like potential winners (or used to) and so people stick with them.

---

The NDP has developed a bit of a reputation for candidate building and most of the current MPs are people who ran twice or more before winning: Olivia Chow, Chris Charlton, John Rafferty, Bruce Heyer, Carol Hughes, Claude Gravelle, Linda Duncan, Alex Atamanenko, Denis Bevington, Joe Comartin, Irene Matthysen. All ran, lost and ran again with increased support.

The Liberals, by contrast, have developed a rep for parachuting in "star" candidates over the wishes of the local teams. Witness Ignatieff in Etobicoke Lakeshore, or the professor who lost to Mulcair in Outrement.

Here's an interesting study in contrasts. In Etobicoke North the Liberals parachuted in a UofT prof with no experience and no links to the community. The NDP ran hard with Ali Naqvi, again. He recieved a lot of support. Layton even went to the riding. He came third. The Lib won big.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
People who think the federal Liberals are progressive are either ignoring history or kidding themselves.[ 02 November 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

---

After the election I heard many people express similar opinions of the electorate. It's true - most voters are not thinking about the political past of parties, in fact I'm not sure if they even remember it. And many people falsely believe that Lib.s are an alternative to the scary-hairy Con.s - a myth that Lib.s started. There's no doubt in my mind that Con.s are not good for Canadians.... but even NDPers has fallen pray to the Lib. spin because the Lib. record proves that they have been far worse for Canada!

Con.s are not to be feared - it's the Liberal fear factory that needs to be feared.

Fear is a huge motivator and Lib.s have successfully capitalized on it by claiming the Con.s are a scary-hairy-beast.