Seriously, what's the point of the NDP with their faux-edgy, revolutionary shill? More cool Che Guevara merch? The NDP are out of phase and quickly running out of time.
We're in the throes and designs of larger energies and entities in the world. Don't take my word for it, that seems to be the main thread of the writers on Substack. This ain't the quaint old Canada of Expo 67. We really never made any plans for greatness, so now we'll be part of somebody else's plan. Frankly, we've blown it. Orange Man Bad?
For me, the NDP lost the plot when they stopped focusing on the needs of Canadians and began listening to activists and academics. The method by which this occurred I would like to read because its fascinating. The NDP always had unions and public servants voting for them because they were focused on those issues. Them days is gone now methinks,
This: " Last month’s NDP leadership debate was less a clash of personalities than a 90‑minute group therapy session for a party that still hasn’t decided whether it wants to govern or bear moral witness."
For me that's basically the best interpretation of the NDP there is. I wonder how the party is going to address the antisemitism within?
One of the long-standing challenges for Canadian conservatives is that conservatives are a minority in Canada - they’ve almost always had to rely on a split in the popular vote between Liberals and NDP to allow them to win with a plurality. What’s less appreciated is that the real hard-core progressive part of the electorate is even smaller: just look at what happens to the NDP vote and seat count when the soft progressives move towards the Liberals.
The NDP even does the Liberals a favor by giving the hard left a place of their own: they don’t have to try to patch over that fissure in their base of support if they want to tilt towards the center, as they have with Chretien and now Carney. The Conservatives don’t do so well with that sort of split, with their populist wing creating the electoral problem of can’t win without their support for the coalition, and hard to win with them because their politics are off-putting to a lot of the electorate they need to win a general election election.
Historically the Conservatives have wanted a stronger NDP in order to split the vote. Maybe this time they should be hoping to see the NDP finally disappear so the Liberals get pulled left, opening up space for the center right.
I'm struck by the strategic issue shared by the NDP and the CP, in every jurisdiction, and also reminded of the shape of a bell curve, which reveals itself time and again in our existence.
On either side of the bell, winning is only possible when most of the party suppresses their gag reflex to embrace truly awful ideas, in the name of their religion. This problem is entrenched because the truly awful ideas attract lots of money, from a few.
And while I'm at it, the hate feels exactly the same. Shaming university students who want to read Shakespeare, Plato, whatever because of some ideological bullshit is no different than banning books that discuss gender fluidity: based in the religion. All of a piece and I'm sick of it.
I believe most Canadians want pragmatism, and things to work better, without the awkward avoidance of the truth of human nature, or the truth of human dignity, required to blindly follow either extreme.
If Canadians truly desire pragmatism and for things to actually improve, please take a moment to explain the electors having voted for woke, progressive policies in each of the last four elections.
Canadians want the benefits of FarLeft, progressive policies, without the consequences.
Those who were utterly convinced that Justin Trudeau was the right choice three times in a row, now refuse to acknowledge that they ever supported him, but are also utterly convinced they have it right this time with his successor.
He's done almost nothing to differentiate himself. The "reset" is a propaganda tactic pushed by captured media.
It's amazing what you can do when you aren't being held to account, and indeed every word and every narrative you want to push is actively helped by all of the mainstream media in unison.
I supported him in 2015. SNC ended that relationship. Andrew Scheer is a stupid idiot, the CPC turned on Erin, and Pierre is dumber than Andrew. Carney was the only option, as Pierre proves daily.
If you are not interested in a party's past, on what basis can you judge their campaign promises/threats? The past is a valid, nay essential, tool in understanding the present and the future.
The funniest part is how the true believers think they're the moral ones.
"When St. Peter completed his tour, the newbie asked, "what was behind those 3 doors marked 'DO NOT DISTURB'?" St. Peter replied, "that was the CPC/NDP/LIB lifers; they think they're the only ones here."
> Shaming university students who want to read Shakespeare, Plato, whatever because of some ideological bullshit is no different than banning books that discuss gender fluidity: based in the religion.
In Canada, there's a massive difference. (The US is their own thing and is losing their mind on free speech and we're Canadian so let's talk Canada.)
The difference is AGE. No one is trying to restrict university student's access to books on whatever new psychological "gender" is topical next week. No one is trying to prevent professors from teaching those things using whatever books they like. Where you do see attempts to restrict such materials, it's for **minors** in an education context.
There's a massive difference between blocking smut masquerading as sex-ed for young kids. "G is for glory hole" in a grade 9 classroom (reported by CBC) is very different from trying to prevent ADULTS from reading Plato. (Seriously, trying to prevent adults from reading the classics in a University education is so different from blocking the distribution of creepy fetish sex stuff to children below the age of consent that it's not even in the same galaxy.)
But to be fair to those who aren't Christians, I have to point out that most religions would see a significant difference between providing adults the opportunity to read globally significant philosophers for their education and providing minors with materials promoting the sexual fetish of urinating on someone for their "education". (Yes, that's as reported by the CBC, so yes, it's real.)
I mean... I'm not a Buddhist, but I think Buddhists are just like Christians in that they would see a massive difference between a university having a 20 year old read the teachings of the Buddha and having a 14 year old read about the "benefits" of anonymous oral sex through a hole in a door or a wall. (Yes, same CBC report)
To put it another way... I don't think it's fair to Buddhists, Jews, Shintoists or anyone else to imply that it's only Christians who see those two things as radically different and that restricting the second is eminently reasonable. Christians like me believe that, but we're not unique or special in that.
You can concoct whatever rules and hierarchies make sense to you!
The "religions" and "religious people" that I respect never tell people how to think or be. They offer teachings, guidance, choices, but they're too smart to believe they have some exclusive access to a "truth", or morality. That POV is obviously laughable.
They understand and strive for humility, so they don't judge. They especially never, ever tell people how to have sex with another consenting adult.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be off on a rabbit trail that I'm not going to follow you down.
At no point in this thread until your reply just now did anyone talk about "sex with another consenting adult". The issue was the similarity or difference between giving adults Plato to read versus providing **minors** with sexually explicit fetish materials. Religion only entered into it because you (presumably) looked at my profile and "noted" my religion and I strongly suggested that it was unfair to Buddhists and others to suggest even inadvertently that only Christians would object to providing minors with sexually explicit fetish materials and that others would be just fine with it.
TLDR, the Federal NDP will become relevant typically when everything is great and people have enough bandwidth for luxury beliefs (climate change, indigenous rights, LGBT rights, etc), or when shit hits the fan and the same people are looking for government handouts to survive.
The NDP is where it is right now. But think of the end of the year, if/when the unemployment rate is in double digits, our illustrious Prime Minister hasn't done jack (apart from racking up travel miles), cost of living is high, and people have nowhere to look to. Enter Avi Lewis and the NDP with promises of government support like no other to 'help people in need" and blaming Liberals for the mess they have caused. Then watch the polls rise in favor of the NDP.
I'd settle for an NDP willing to meaningfully criticize the Liberal government *at all* rather than encouraging its members to strategically vote to keep out the super scary Maple MAGA (TM) Conservatives.
An NDP that isn't willing to gain at the expense of the Liberals is an NDP that might as well not exist.
Functionally, the NDP is dead as a federal party. Provincially, they should merge with their Liberal counterparts. Effectively, that's what they've been doing since 2019.
Seriously, what's the point of the NDP with their faux-edgy, revolutionary shill? More cool Che Guevara merch? The NDP are out of phase and quickly running out of time.
We're in the throes and designs of larger energies and entities in the world. Don't take my word for it, that seems to be the main thread of the writers on Substack. This ain't the quaint old Canada of Expo 67. We really never made any plans for greatness, so now we'll be part of somebody else's plan. Frankly, we've blown it. Orange Man Bad?
How about Orange Party Mad?
For me, the NDP lost the plot when they stopped focusing on the needs of Canadians and began listening to activists and academics. The method by which this occurred I would like to read because its fascinating. The NDP always had unions and public servants voting for them because they were focused on those issues. Them days is gone now methinks,
Perfect. And more polite than I would be.
This: " Last month’s NDP leadership debate was less a clash of personalities than a 90‑minute group therapy session for a party that still hasn’t decided whether it wants to govern or bear moral witness."
For me that's basically the best interpretation of the NDP there is. I wonder how the party is going to address the antisemitism within?
They will address it by making an antisemite their leader.
Why no mention of Ms. McPherson being a rabid antisemite?
Or has that behaviour been normalized as well?
The far left wing of the Liberal Party??
One of the long-standing challenges for Canadian conservatives is that conservatives are a minority in Canada - they’ve almost always had to rely on a split in the popular vote between Liberals and NDP to allow them to win with a plurality. What’s less appreciated is that the real hard-core progressive part of the electorate is even smaller: just look at what happens to the NDP vote and seat count when the soft progressives move towards the Liberals.
The NDP even does the Liberals a favor by giving the hard left a place of their own: they don’t have to try to patch over that fissure in their base of support if they want to tilt towards the center, as they have with Chretien and now Carney. The Conservatives don’t do so well with that sort of split, with their populist wing creating the electoral problem of can’t win without their support for the coalition, and hard to win with them because their politics are off-putting to a lot of the electorate they need to win a general election election.
Historically the Conservatives have wanted a stronger NDP in order to split the vote. Maybe this time they should be hoping to see the NDP finally disappear so the Liberals get pulled left, opening up space for the center right.
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz…………..
Exactly. Heard it all before.
I'm struck by the strategic issue shared by the NDP and the CP, in every jurisdiction, and also reminded of the shape of a bell curve, which reveals itself time and again in our existence.
On either side of the bell, winning is only possible when most of the party suppresses their gag reflex to embrace truly awful ideas, in the name of their religion. This problem is entrenched because the truly awful ideas attract lots of money, from a few.
And while I'm at it, the hate feels exactly the same. Shaming university students who want to read Shakespeare, Plato, whatever because of some ideological bullshit is no different than banning books that discuss gender fluidity: based in the religion. All of a piece and I'm sick of it.
I believe most Canadians want pragmatism, and things to work better, without the awkward avoidance of the truth of human nature, or the truth of human dignity, required to blindly follow either extreme.
If Canadians truly desire pragmatism and for things to actually improve, please take a moment to explain the electors having voted for woke, progressive policies in each of the last four elections.
Canadians want the benefits of FarLeft, progressive policies, without the consequences.
We are not pragmatic; we are delusional.
Those who were utterly convinced that Justin Trudeau was the right choice three times in a row, now refuse to acknowledge that they ever supported him, but are also utterly convinced they have it right this time with his successor.
Some folks see pragmatism in being the most ideologically captured Government in the history of our Country.
What has Prime Minister Carney done to separate this Government from the actions of past Liberal Governments?
1) Climate alarmists.
2) Wasteful spending on dubious policies.
3) Announcements masquerading as action.
4) Spending announcements that “regurgitate” funds already allocated previously.
5) No projects facilitated or started that were not already underway.
He's done almost nothing to differentiate himself. The "reset" is a propaganda tactic pushed by captured media.
It's amazing what you can do when you aren't being held to account, and indeed every word and every narrative you want to push is actively helped by all of the mainstream media in unison.
I supported him in 2015. SNC ended that relationship. Andrew Scheer is a stupid idiot, the CPC turned on Erin, and Pierre is dumber than Andrew. Carney was the only option, as Pierre proves daily.
I'm not interested in obsessions with the past of any party. A waste of my time and energy, and also not offering free therapy.
If you are not interested in a party's past, on what basis can you judge their campaign promises/threats? The past is a valid, nay essential, tool in understanding the present and the future.
oh... politicians lie?
lol
The funniest part is how the true believers think they're the moral ones.
"When St. Peter completed his tour, the newbie asked, "what was behind those 3 doors marked 'DO NOT DISTURB'?" St. Peter replied, "that was the CPC/NDP/LIB lifers; they think they're the only ones here."
How convenient for you.
The rest of us are left with the consequences of your short memory, and nonsensical reasoning.
We're all left with the consequences aren't we?
Some of us just don't waste as much time as others, and we don't need therapy.
> Shaming university students who want to read Shakespeare, Plato, whatever because of some ideological bullshit is no different than banning books that discuss gender fluidity: based in the religion.
In Canada, there's a massive difference. (The US is their own thing and is losing their mind on free speech and we're Canadian so let's talk Canada.)
The difference is AGE. No one is trying to restrict university student's access to books on whatever new psychological "gender" is topical next week. No one is trying to prevent professors from teaching those things using whatever books they like. Where you do see attempts to restrict such materials, it's for **minors** in an education context.
There's a massive difference between blocking smut masquerading as sex-ed for young kids. "G is for glory hole" in a grade 9 classroom (reported by CBC) is very different from trying to prevent ADULTS from reading Plato. (Seriously, trying to prevent adults from reading the classics in a University education is so different from blocking the distribution of creepy fetish sex stuff to children below the age of consent that it's not even in the same galaxy.)
Your religion is noted.
That's good to hear.
But to be fair to those who aren't Christians, I have to point out that most religions would see a significant difference between providing adults the opportunity to read globally significant philosophers for their education and providing minors with materials promoting the sexual fetish of urinating on someone for their "education". (Yes, that's as reported by the CBC, so yes, it's real.)
I mean... I'm not a Buddhist, but I think Buddhists are just like Christians in that they would see a massive difference between a university having a 20 year old read the teachings of the Buddha and having a 14 year old read about the "benefits" of anonymous oral sex through a hole in a door or a wall. (Yes, same CBC report)
To put it another way... I don't think it's fair to Buddhists, Jews, Shintoists or anyone else to imply that it's only Christians who see those two things as radically different and that restricting the second is eminently reasonable. Christians like me believe that, but we're not unique or special in that.
You can concoct whatever rules and hierarchies make sense to you!
The "religions" and "religious people" that I respect never tell people how to think or be. They offer teachings, guidance, choices, but they're too smart to believe they have some exclusive access to a "truth", or morality. That POV is obviously laughable.
They understand and strive for humility, so they don't judge. They especially never, ever tell people how to have sex with another consenting adult.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be off on a rabbit trail that I'm not going to follow you down.
At no point in this thread until your reply just now did anyone talk about "sex with another consenting adult". The issue was the similarity or difference between giving adults Plato to read versus providing **minors** with sexually explicit fetish materials. Religion only entered into it because you (presumably) looked at my profile and "noted" my religion and I strongly suggested that it was unfair to Buddhists and others to suggest even inadvertently that only Christians would object to providing minors with sexually explicit fetish materials and that others would be just fine with it.
Have a nice day sir.
TLDR, the Federal NDP will become relevant typically when everything is great and people have enough bandwidth for luxury beliefs (climate change, indigenous rights, LGBT rights, etc), or when shit hits the fan and the same people are looking for government handouts to survive.
The NDP is where it is right now. But think of the end of the year, if/when the unemployment rate is in double digits, our illustrious Prime Minister hasn't done jack (apart from racking up travel miles), cost of living is high, and people have nowhere to look to. Enter Avi Lewis and the NDP with promises of government support like no other to 'help people in need" and blaming Liberals for the mess they have caused. Then watch the polls rise in favor of the NDP.
I'd settle for an NDP willing to meaningfully criticize the Liberal government *at all* rather than encouraging its members to strategically vote to keep out the super scary Maple MAGA (TM) Conservatives.
An NDP that isn't willing to gain at the expense of the Liberals is an NDP that might as well not exist.
Great article from one of the few journalists that really knows the NDP party.
Functionally, the NDP is dead as a federal party. Provincially, they should merge with their Liberal counterparts. Effectively, that's what they've been doing since 2019.