It's the paradigm

"Six billion could provide the start of a national child care program, but divided between thousands of corporations, it's not that much."
What I would like from you Murray Dobbin, is a concrete figure on how much we are sending out of this country each and every year in the form of foreign interest payments. It's one thing to wear socialist feathers as a means to make a living, but quite another to question the hundreds of billions wasted paying interest to foreign banks.
And the above link is one every Canadian should follow to find at least some of the truth about how totally screwed by foreign banks we all are. My question is why are we scrabbling for a few billion when we have a national bank (which originally funded Medicare before the con artists got power) just sitting there wasting away. We won't be the first, as there are now several American states which are going to institute state banks, but I hope we won't be the last either. It is depressing to think that change only comes as the wealthy in power run out of lies to maintain the status quo. Now, I'm sure you know all about the national debt, Murray, and can probably chalk it up to 'Canadian banks, trust companies, and Canadian pensions' or whatever you think will turn my crank; but I'm asking about the HUNDREDS of BILLIONS which have been wasted to foreign capitalists, my friend. I'm asking why a small state like North Dakota can have their own bank and be one of the three or four states in the union which are not in debt, while a very rich country like Canada is enslaved by a ball and chain of debt to foreign carpet baggers? Or do you think working Canadians want to spend half their working lives just working to pay taxes in one form or another? Was it my imagination or were we not all just charged another 3% of our incomes in taxes by the Harper government?

"Here is the opening the NDP could use to take on the issue those close to the party know they want to lead on: the need for tax increases to meet the revenue needs for all the things Canadians say they want."
You break me up, Murray. 'Tax increases for the things we want?' Let me break it down for you:
1. This is probably the richest country in the world.
2. If we weren't governed and enslaved by foreign bankers and 'capitalists' (read greedy no-names) in a system of 'democracy' which is rapidly being seen as a joke by the entire world, we would tax corporations instead of wage slaves.
3. In case it has escaped your attention, China has created a whole new paradigm of private/public profit wherein what doesn't benefit the state and the people who live there is rejected outright. We DON'T need NAFTA or anything else. We need local ownership.

My precious!

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, and people know it."
Please Murray, you have me rolling on the floor! Let me offer a gentle correction:
'Outrageous taxes are the price we pay for allowing ourselves to be governed by a sleek and feted few who are themselves governed by fear and self interest.' Not to mention controlled in their policies by the media and corporate money which elects them. How did you stray so far from the truth?
I'm an old guy, and I remember fighting the election back in '97 when figures were still available on the internet (not so much today, unless they favour the status quo) and even way back then, Canada owed 300 billion in foreign debt. We have a national bank, we have the resources to borrow against, we could easily have our bank financing our own debt for ZERO foreign interest, but we have a bunch of gutless clucks in Ottawa who prefer to sell us into slavery just so they can get the financing to be re-elected - exactly like the American Senate. (I didn't actually believe this until I saw Paul Martin dodging and bullying in this film and the current finance minister just blowing smoke.) If we don't change our current form of 'government' for democracy (aka direct votes on all issues of importance) we shall fare much like America; the middle class will become indistinguishable from the poor class and the monied class will become the only tiny portion of the population to prosper. It is clearly happening already and it is obviously the result of the rich controlling the elections with their money and their media. People don't vote because, as you say, they don't believe they can change a damn thing. Let's look at the insanity of sending Canadian children to die in an unwinnable war started by a draft-dodger senator's son; the majority of Canadians are against it and although Harper says he is going to get out he keeps extending the date of engagement. So a 'bold new idea' from the NDP could be just to say, 'If we get elected, we are going to end Canada's involvment in an unjust war which supports a corrupt drug running government.' If Jack Layton said that I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

"For the Liberals, it is simply a matter of strategy and tactics. ... It has no soul, only a craving to be in power once again." (Gollum: My ring! My precious! We wants it, yes, we wants it!)

Can't disagree with that, I remember Jean Chretien and his 'renegotiate or abrogate' promise about NAFTA. He got elected and quietly signed the agreement a few months later without making one change.

The NDP needs to offer 'bold new ideas'. Like giving the people who live here a say in their government by means of a direct vote on the issues of importance. Both federally and provincially, or no one is going to believe in change. We've had 'democracy'; now we want real democracy without the middlemen of corruption. It's the way of the future.

Layton gets my vote. He is

Layton gets my vote. He is the best of the bunch. Too bad he was not BC NDP leader..lol

Me too

Murray puts his finger on it, the NDP needs to stay true to its roots and quit trying to be a better liberal party.
I saw Layton in a CBC feature where he worked for two days at a hospital, assisting nurses and doctors.
Maybe that kind of exposure will help the average voter to realize that he is a caring human being with a passion to better the system?

A few points that stood out for me...

"one national party is led by Stephen Harper, who is obsessed with dismantling everything decent ever done by government."

Wonderfully stated. As is this encapsulation of public sentiment:

I repeat: Canadians know the value of government as it could be and should be. They hunger for someone with the guts to take a risk and engage them honestly about what is possible and what the price of that possibility is. The first party to be bold and take a risk, say what they mean and mean what they say will make the breakthrough in the next election.

Suspiciously the narrative ends there [though Dobbin does repeat the sentiment once more with "A handful of carefully chosen, bold new policies (or even some of the old ones) could be used to engage people ..."].

So why doesn't Dobbin be bold and take a risk and pose some bold new policies (or old ones) he thinks will lead a Party to the oasis? Or are policy changes all that public discourse is permitted?

The problem, from my view, is that we need a change in principle far, far more than in policy. The political machinery is deplorably unresponsive to the needs of the people.

Now I'm not so naive as to think politics has ever made the electorate's desires paramount. But the erosion of social democracy has been steadily worsening, particularly over the last 30 years. I hope we have reached the end, but it is just hope. Today we live in a plutocratic corporate-democracy. And one day this will end.

Thankfully the social democratic principle is deeply entrenched in our society. We learn it in our school texts, we have a national holiday honouring the soldiers who 'fought and died for our way of life', and the essence of our political thinking is democratic.

This is why the first notable candidate to return us to our roots, the first to be heard widely and honestly championing representative democracy for the people, will satiate our collective hunger for someone with the guts to take a risk and engage them honestly about what is possible and what the price of that possibility is.

Again, the ideal of true democracy lives on (in large part, because of the propagandized rhetoric). We widely believe this ideal to be just, noble and right. And though Dobbin touches on this truth saying, Canadians know the value of government as it could be and should be, he mysteriously never returns to it. So I will.

The politician who earnestly returns the people to this hallowed ground, who makes this democratic ideal come to life for us once more, will sweep the election.

Which election that will be is anyone's guess. As of this moment, Jack Layton is in the best position to do it, as he waves the social democrat banner which brings its historic goodwill. But will the goodwill hold until he decides to be a true social democrat?

A lot of good points Driftwood

... and I wonder just how many folks are even aware of how the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted by Canada on January 1 this year has opened our nation up to being swindled by faux corporate audits.

This is a quote from a short 9-minute video clip on the RealNewsNetwork:

...Al Rosen, one of Canada's leading forensic and investigative accountants, wrote in his book Swindlers the following: "Under the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards)"--which Canada just adopted on January 1--according to Rosen, "corporate managers will have even more freedom to distort and manipulate their financial reports to make themselves look better than they really are," Rosen writes further, "... because of a complete disinterest from lawmakers and a lack of recognition by investors that auditors have no interest in upholding their needs." And he says auditors do this mostly for the money.

So who has heard Layton or May or Ignatieff or any other politician speaking out about this?

Public servants my ass.

I'm afraid, Layton is a limp

I'm afraid, Layton is a limp noodle. I couldn't make it to town when he came around, years ago, seeking the leadership of the NDP, so, I've asked a friend to ask him a question on the NAFTA.

His reply was:"A lot of people are having jobs from it". The fraudulent "free trade" racket, that has nothing to do with trade, but with the free movement of capital, taking control of the world, is destroying Canada, already destroyed Mexico, and all Layton could think about were a few jobs, of highly questionable benefit.

He may be a good university lecturer, but no debater. The way Harper ran circles around him during the TV debate, before the last elections, with a sarcastic smile on his face, was pitiful to watch, missing all the openings Harper gave him.

The NDP's parliamentary growth wasn't achieved by Jack, but by the daily growing fascism of the so called "conservatives" and the incompetence of Ignatieff.

If Harper gets a majority, we can kiss Canada goodbye, with the opposition just wringing their hands, crying crocodile tears, offering band-aids for compound fractures.

Ed Deak.

The NDP campaign needs to

The NDP campaign needs to boldly sucker punch the other parties with their ads. In the past, the party has often made its campaigning too gentle and/or complex for the average voter. Imo, the party should hire a completely different brand of communications experts to help them with this:

1. They could list, for example, the billions to be spent on Defense & helicopters, or lost corporation taxes or waste, throw that dollar number in big red numbers up on the screen, and break it down into maximum of 4 or 5 areas where the NDP would spend that money instead.

2. Use the kind of KISS simple language the public understands -- no sophisticated academic rhetoric nor even nice little explanations - just newly coined hard-punch working-class language.
ie. "Where would YOU rather your billions of tax dollars be spent? On X fancy, million dollar helicopters or basic employment insurance for longer than X months if you lose your job?"... kind of message.

3. Use a confidence-inspiring announcer to read the lines, not Jack himself.

4. End the ads with a nasty but well-deserved kicker against both Harper and Igantieff's records on these ideas (highlight one or two for different ads).

4. Enough of Layton as Mr. Nice, Family Guy who cares about you and your family. Sell Jack as a guy with guts who has "had enough," as has the public.

4. Rinse and repeat (with only minor variations).

5. Do not veer from the message.

alda....You have my vote on

alda....You have my vote on your points!

I've been crying of the NDP's communications incompetence for ever.

Ed Deak.

May....

Murray, did the poll cue for Elizabeth May? Probably not, because the status quo is in the interests of the political elite in Canada, and that includes the NDP resting on the laurels of its movement of 50 years ago. By omitting to mention May yourself, you too demonstrate the mentality of Jack Layton when last election he did not want E. May in the TV debates and had to reverse due to public backlash.

I think if May was cued she might be right up there as one of the most popular if not THE most popular leader, because she is exposing the cynical political game in Canada and trying to play a more open, democratic card. That cynicism is what you are missing Murray, probably because you are so long part of the partisan establishment NDP that you prefer the Greens would just climb in a hole and disappear.

What you should be calling for is a combined effort by Greens, NDP, and all left-leaning Liberals to form a single party, with electoral reform, national energy, national day care, and national Aboriginal strategies at their core. The "save Canada" party would win, initiate electoral reform, and could then redivide according to new lines, with each party receiving some measure of proportionality for their votes.

Otherwise, your marginalization of the Greens shows you are not so interested in the 1 million Green voters, and growing. Hence, democracy is an afterthought for you too, and you lose your moral authority to speak as its champion.

I agree with Olamim's logic,

I agree with Olamim's logic, too:

"What you should be calling for is a combined effort by Greens, NDP, and all left-leaning Liberals to form a single party."

A single party?

The NDP already is a single party, if Greens and Liberals want to join, they're welcome to.

If however its NDP policies that prevent that then let us know what policies the NDP will have to get rid of. After all, whether its the NDP or a different political vehicle a merger of any kind will mean the NDP giving up something.

The above assumes of course that the model is the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance merging to become the Conservatives? Where the Alliance got everything it wanted.

Asking these parties to

Asking these parties to unite is like asking Mubarak to resign, or Harper to accept that capitalism and the stockmarkets don't necessarily represent "God's Will" and "Divine Order"

Ed Deak.

Goodbye Iggy

Perhaps voting NDP is a good way to get rid of the incapable Iggy and truely modernize the centre the next time around. 'cause I don't believe in this left-vs-right thing. It's more like special interest groups against others IMO.

Enough of Only Taxes

I am tired of the dichotomy between taxes/social programs. It is time for the governments (Federal/Provincial/Municipal/Community) to participate in the market of profitability. Specifically within regards to core extraction industries (i.e. nationalize them). Imagine if Saskatchewan actually owned Potash Corp. instead of getting the meagre scraps from the corporate aristocracy's table? What if BC Government promoted and participated in local community ownership of mining/forestry operations? What BC needs to do is set up a provincially owned investment bank with three appointed board members and 4 publicly elected members whose purpose would be to participate in the world market of profitability (corporate acquisitions and investments) and promote/fund local community ownership of core extraction industries; additionally providing low interest loans to innovative refinement of LOCAL resources, like, for instance, Passivhaus innovations. But no, all we hear are either raise/lower taxes or increase/decrease social programs. Never talk about the people's representative (supposedly government) itself participating in the market of profitability. That would limit greedy private investment bankers from hoarding and obesely multiplying their wealth. You will be labelled a communist, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, a Saddam by the media/corporate establishment.

I do believe in some level of a market economy (not the "free" market) and I don't believe in centralization of the economy. But I do believe that rather than having our RRSPs "invest" in the market, communities themselves should compete in the market to the benefit of the whole and not just those with excess capital to invest in a dividend return private market. A public/private market place.

As a step towards sanity in

As a step towards sanity in this politically divisive country, the mere fact of progressives "asking" for their parties or similarly-minded members of said parties to "unite" makes it clear to their executive and leaders that pragmatic progressives believe there should be -- at the very least -- European-style, strategic cooperation between their parties.

In my view, it will come to that sooner or later; why not sooner?

talking points in a box

Fiat lux ~ alda....You have my vote on your points

alda, you'd have mine, too, except no Party is capable of such conduct. It does not fit the political Party-Corporate driven paradigm we live. At best it could be seized by a Party to move into the seat of power but, once there, it will be scrapped. Remember NAFTA and the Liberals?

alda's excellent suggestions are no more viable than the Austrian School of Economics (ie., von Mises-Peter Schiff-Ayn Rand et al). Austrian economics is great on paper but for one fatal, over-looked fact: taxation. The government is rooted in market interference.

I am saddened, but certainly not surprised, that the majority still credulously accept and champion Party politics. Just how many crimes must we endure before we demand some transparency, accountability and representative democracy? Contemporary Parties are now incapable of both surviving and offering true democracy for the people. Knowing the advancement of democracy is not on any Party's radar, why do they still merit any support by the people?

Olamim ~ I think if May was cued she might be right up there as one of the most popular if not THE most popular leader, because she is exposing the cynical political game in Canada and trying to play a more open, democratic card.

BS. One of the biggest crimes going on is the mortgaging (literally 'death-pledge') of the owned/registered population's (and future population's) future work in the form of debt; a huge portion going to service said debt in compounded interest. May knows this, but when the issue arises in public debate she goes mute. See for yourself where she stands when real opportunity arises (see 36-54 min mark). And May is not alone; they all play stupid in public.

LINK

[This is a great video to give context to the political thinking of the fraudsters/trust-breachers/criminals we put into office behind their protective Party.]

With even a rudimentary understanding of the limited liability, and thus accountability, of anyone acting behind the shield of corporation, it becomes clear the detriments far outweigh the benefits in a democracy.

If we cannot collectively come to understand that Canada is a corporate-democracy with preferred voting shares -- and this paradigm is because of a beneficial, symbiotic relationship between government (Party) and corporations -- we don't stand a chance.

The Makeup Box...

"I think we should all take off the first week in May and go to our respective parliaments and stone them." Driftwood.

Now, there's a man/woman who gets it . :-) And many good points.

"The problem, from my view, is that we need a change in principle far, far more than in policy. The political machinery is deplorably unresponsive to the needs of the people." samuidave.

I agree. The only particular twist I would add to this comment of samuidave is, that there is a pas de deux that goes on between politics and economics, or the economy here. And in the highly stylized dance, those who control the economy call the tune and lead politics about the floor like a limp rag doll. (The common misconception is, that it is politics, and those who pirouette there, that leads in the dance. Not so. Not so.)

A political change alone here, of faces, manners, dress... even the music, in and of themselves, Harper, the prat Iggy, or the however well intentioned Layton, is going to change nothing. And this is so because the Desmarais and others of the ruling class ilk to which Driftwood refers, who command the dance floor, always wind up twirling, pivoting and dizzying to distraction, the political corp de dance. They are great and "in power" only in their own bafflegab pretencions.

It's economics that rule and call the shots on politics, to which all, however well intended, in the end bend and curtsy.. Not the other way around. And until we kitchen staff others in society, about the floor observing all the finery and finessing moves, limp wrists and hoisted pinkies, get this, that economics leads the dance, we will continue to do naught but step on our own and each other's feet in our mimicry.

It's only when theres is democracy, entrenched as a consequence of changed class power relationships there in the economy, that there will be any significant change of note in both economic and political policies, or any political democracy seriously worthy of the claim. Until then, there will be ever only this, claims and promises of pretenders and charlatans who will ever be unable to deliver to the people what they need. Because they have not real power.

Which the people must secure for themselves, or be forever without. For other than the ruling class who control the economy and determine the tune and play the lead at the dance, the only other dance troupe with the potential to really lead ALL the others... is the people.

As for the politicians all, they will be forever disappointing dance partners or lovers... because you see, they cannot really lead, any of them, and only really know how to follow. (Though they do know how to talk a good dance, and to dance around words. It's part of their makeup box.)

Is greed good?

In case you missed it, who, lat week, finally countered Kevin O'Leary's mantra, "Greed is Good"........... Jack Layton. O'Leary, the ego-infested little snot of a man has been spouting his credo for months, and this is the first time I have ever heard anyone refute him.
How about thousands of emails or a YouTube entry or a petition to show the creep that we, the people of Canada, do not agree with his selfish attitude.
Thanks, Jack, you give me hope.

The 3 forks of power, intermingled, Jerry Munro.....

Money, Propaganda (the message), and Force.

At this point in time, I agree entirely, we have allowed the fiat money fiction to become dominant, thereby directing all three (the 'dance').

Meanwhile, the social movement is erupting around the globe, but not in our Canadian sanctuary. How long now before they 'knock on our own door' and we accept what the fuss has been about despite the alarms?

My worry, living in the times of collapsing Empire, is that Obama's 'Army of Citizens' in Canada and America will make life hell for those speaking the truth. It will culminate with this 'Army' snitching out their fellow comrades far and wide, mostly out of fear of doing what is right.

The system needs not try to control all of us directly, as history shows it only has to play the introduction. We will, among ourselves, begin to voraciously feed on each other. This is the sickening power of Force - our own fears that arise.

I can sense this happening now, even here on what is known as a progressive board. I've been called 'dangerous' for speaking up on behalf of the people, yet I suspect few took notice, and I suspect some even agreed. We are beginning to eat our own tail, and it is critical that we wake up for our own sake.

Huzzah

Well put greengreen - O'Leary is the human equivalent of a noxious weed. Every time I see his stupid ad on TV I feel nauseous. Sorry I missed Jack taking him down.

Why this Canadian version of Gordon Gecko has a spot on CBC TV is inexplicable.

Let me know if you can find the clip on YouTube.

Layton and his poularity.

Regretably (maybe when he was ill) Jack allowed the party to be taken over by a Harper clone who is anxious to use slogans rather than substance to promote the NDP cause.
I doubt if Brad LaVigne is actually a hired Conservative plant, but they certainly couldn't have hired a better one.
Lavigne has virtually single- handedly dismantled the federal party and taken control of both tactic and policy.
Dobbin wants Jack to present policy.
Lavigne wants Jack to present slogans.
He even wants to use OBama's slogans.
"Chance you can step in" isn't going to do thisd for the NDP. For a while Layton actually was progressing, but, he and the party have slipped badly since he turned the reins over to Lavigne. Given the quality of the other 2 choices, that is a travesty.
Time to elect a few Greens to shake things up. Jack is following Lavigne to the center -right.

Federal NDP moving to the Right?

The policies they continue to espouse show no sign of a party moving to the Right.

The Greens on the other hand with their love of consumption taxes over incomes and corporate taxes..., well that's another matter.

How Far Right The NDP?

And the "business friendly" NDP, federally only marginally less obvious than it was in Carole's BC, couldn't in fact be much further right than it is. Not without drawing closer to the Conservatives than prat Iggy's Liberals.

As it is now, all these three parties are in a kind of unspoken of menage a trois... with the Greens wanting in to make it a foursome.

If you can comfortably support Jack Layton, Frank, that tells me a great deal about where his politics are... centre-right at least. How much further right in practise, only their being elected to government would reveal.

I think I will refrain from giving them the opportunity to demonstrate that to us all. We've got enough problems with the Right we know.

"My worry, living in the times of collapsing Empire, is that Obama's 'Army of Citizens' in Canada and America will make life hell for those speaking the truth. It will culminate with this 'Army' snitching out their fellow comrades far and wide, mostly out of fear of doing what is right." expressed samuidave.

Of which there is indeed good reason to fear, brother. Extricating our national head from Amerika's butt will indeed be a risky enterprise for "the people". (There's no current politician or party to the Canadian State that's going to do it. That's been amply demonstrated.) And how our "Amerikanized-Canadian Armed Forces" would line up is likewise of legitimate concern.

Alda Nails It

Good Points, lets hope that Jack reads this article!

Murray Dobbin back home in BC

The Globe and Mail's loss, our gain. Thanks to the Tyee for giving a venue for his thoughts.

Murray wrote:

"There are, so far, no civil society voices engaging the public on the subject and legitimizing it, a fact that will go down in history as the social and labour movements' biggest failure of the era."

The last BC Fed gathering saw no one willing to stand for President, leaving Sinclair in charge. Jim may be a nice guy but his relevancy needs to be questioned and so does the entire union executive population that have done nothing to encourage discourse and discussion amongst their workers/members other than during contract negotiations (for self-interest purposes only).

There are a few unions these days that still discuss issues that are societal in nature. Sometimes issues like the coastal fisheries and forestry industries go beyond self interest and become issues for the entire population to ponder. Workers need to be at the vanguard of society's issues, alternatives in hand and electing those within their greater communities who embrace solutions that benefit us all.