We are in great danger from Harper

As Mike Rivero said in introduction to the story below:"Translation: Israel has used up America and is getting ready to send Canada's children out to die in their wars!"

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada
Prime minister says Conservatives will bring back controversial anti-terrorism laws

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html

Obviously, the key is to stop borrowing money

and instead create it just as the Bank of Canada did from 1938-1972. That's why Canada was able to supply Britain with $10 Billion worth of goods during WW2. It is what enabled the Federal government to pick up half the tab for our medical care.
Don't tell me none of you had heard of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsdJuAM3k48

Now, we have a Goldman Sachs man in charge of the BoC...pretty outrageous.

Socialism vs Capitalism is another con game

We now know Banksters control both sides with funding whether by government or foundations. "The best way to win an argument is to control both sides of it".

While you gaze back into the last century, the police state is back!
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+plans+bring+back+extraordinary+anti+terror+powers+police/5361176/story.html

Zalm

I am continually amazed at how often you people on the far left are prepared to made outrageous statements about subjects you're not familiar with. You got on to banks again as though they're these evil monsters with absolutely no allegiance to anyone and wrote:

"Given that the fees charged in banking
function exactly like a tax on services (except collected privately by corporations who owe no return to those who pay the fees except the small amount of dividends paid to stockholders),........"

If you bothered to attempt to know what you're taking about you would find that banks pay a considerable percentage of their annual cash flow as dividends to their owners. (mostly pension funds) Royal Bank, 2010 it's about 75%. (the 25% left for growth)

Quite frankly, your whole paragraph is bizarre.

john corman

...the fact that you entail the poster 'Zalm' within the realm of those 'standing on the far left' leads one to immediately discredit anything you might further have to say as your understanding is clearly lacking.

Despite that, I carried on. However, immediately I found your attack on Greece as some sort of ' socialist haven' ludicrous. Greece was accepted into the European Union on the back of the fraudulent banking cartels and their BS accounting practices which we are all (well, most of us anyhow) abundantly aware of as being highly self-serving, blatantly unethical, and downright criminal.

As for 'socialism', whatever that may be in your mind, you might want to try defining it first. As it stands today, uttering it is meaningless at best, and downright scapegoating in order to find a illusory enemy at worst.

Bizarre.

GWest, Greasing History?

You know that the Greek tragedy is a bit more nuanced than that.

"In May 2004, the European Commission harshly accused Greece of "imprudent" and "sloppy" fiscal policies, pointing out that since Greek economic growth had been an annual 4% in 2000–2003, a declining fiscal position could only be the result of government mismanagement, including concerns by the EU regarding the 103% public debt to GDP ratio which Karamanlis inherited from the previous PASOK regime. "

Mr Alogoskoufis says it was all the socialists' fault.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3733391.stm

Should the bankers not have lent Greece and the other high-debt countries the money?

igbymac

quoting you:
"Greece was accepted into the European Union on the back of the fraudulent banking cartels and their BS accounting practices which we are all (well, most of us anyhow) abundantly aware of as being highly self-serving, blatantly unethical, and downright criminal."

From elsewhere:
"In early 2010, it was revealed that successive Greek governments had been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines. This had enabled Greek governments to spend beyond their means, while hiding the actual deficit from the EU overseers. In May 2010, the Greek government deficit was again revised and estimated to be 13.6% which was one of the highest in the world relative to GDP and public debt was forecast, according to some estimates, to hit 120% of GDP during 2010, one of the highest rates in the world."

The implementation of the massive loans that Greece has recently received, in attempts to stabilize their finances, are being monitored by the European Central Bank and the IMF. Which criminal banking cartels are you speaking of and where has this been reported?

Educating Corman

"...banks pay a considerable percentage of their annual cash flow as dividends to their owners...."

You're wrong. TD bank, the most profitable one after the crash, made net earnings of $5.6 billion in 2009 on revenue of $19.5 billion. Of that, approximately $240 million were reserved for taxes, (on which they actually paid $0.00 in 2009) while dividends paid that year to common and preferreds (just under 1 billion shares in total with varying dividend rates) totalled $1.9 billion. Meanwhile, 1.3 billion was reserved for bonuses. (3.2 billion had already been paid in salaries to everyone)

The rest? It went to help increase retained earnings by nearly $4 billion, and on payments on a variety of other charges. (numbers don't match due to other recoveries totalling $1.5 billion. You've got to read the Annual Report to understand this stuff.)

The results? Of $5.6 billion in "gross profits", TD bank gave the several million shareholders through our pension funds and private investments about 35%; paid nothing in tax; kept about 42% for future business...
...and gave roughly 4500 employees the other 23%, averaging $29,000, but starting at $11 million for the CEO and working on down.

Nice work for coming in last in the class at UBC.

____________

So just in case you didn't get all that, banks keep most of their gross profits as retained earnings, pay about a quarter in bonuses, nearly nothing in taxes, and about a third in dividends. All the rest is distracting bumph for the financial pages and the social media websites.

The banker is too fat, and Warren Buffett says so. Your uninformed opinion counts for squat.

Ummmm.... r'man....

"Which criminal banking cartels are you speaking of and where has this been reported?"

Uh... in The Economist? Not even a month ago?

http://www.economist.com/node/21525912

In case you didn't renew your subscription (because it's behind the paywall), the key passages are:

"The original conception of Europe’s monetary union saw no need for such integration. The Maastricht treaty of 1992 proscribed bail-outs of improvident member nations, which was meant to avoid such issues ever arising. The tension between such a rule and the admission of countries with poor public finances, such as heavily indebted Italy and Greece, was brushed aside. Fiscal discipline was supposed to come from budget-deficit limits in the stability and growth pact, but this buckled early on when Germany and France breached the thresholds but wriggled out of sanctions.

Once Europe decided to ditch the no-bail-out rule in May 2010, when it rescued Greece, a new mechanism of fiscal underpinning was clearly needed. There would have to be much tighter constraints on countries to prevent them from running unsustainable public finances in the future. And Europe would need to create a shared fiscal capacity to support countries that ran into trouble."

Turns out Greece only did what all the other Euro economies did earlier - Germany and France first, then Belgium, Italy, and eventually Ireland, Spain, Portugal and yes, Greece. And actually, they've said this a lot. Some economists are griping about the fact that the banks in Greece had too-close relationships with both governments (PASOK and Conservatives) and deliberately continued lending on government bonds in contravention of their own lending rules; but this was a relatively small proportion of Greece's total (unserviceable) debt. t of their debt was due to the collapse of their asset bubble after their Olympics.

Nobody's questioning that the government made too many promises to the people. What you're not acknowledging is that the primary and largest beneficiaries of these promises are not the people with their pensions at 58 (not 53 as was earlier reported except in a few cases of police and railway), but rather the banks that lent money when they had no business doing so, relying first on inflation, then asset bubbles, and last on the government to bail them out if things went sour - and are not paying more than a modest fraction of the cost of their malfeasance. After all, excessive interest rates on bonds are still paid by the folks who have to pay banks their mortgage payments and chequing fees in the first place.

I don't want to sound like a fishwife, but I can't resist...you guys on the right are so fond of saying that corporations don't pay taxes - they only pass them on to customers. Well, corporations don't pay for bailouts either - only customers do, with higher prices and interest rates, no matter how good a risk they are.

zalm

Chicken or the egg?

The article, and you, say continual lending (and borrowing, of course) went on. But when igbymac calls the bankers "criminal" and a "cartel", it seems that it was the politicians that ordered the cash flows, the bankers didn't follow guide lines but neither did they force feed their money.

From your article:

"The big issues of America’s stagnant economy and Europe’s debt crisis remain in the hands of elected politicians who still seem inadequate to the task."

Also:
"The Bank of Canada pioneered the use of “conditional commitments” when it said in 2009 that it expected to keep its rate target at 0.25% until July 2010 (it actually tightened sooner, because economic conditions had changed)."

No wonder Canada has a AAA rating and, (as the accompanying chart shows) along with Germany, is expected to have a lower debt to GDP ratio by 2015.

As the article says, the European and the Euro problem seems only solvable by greater integration and closer oversight by the ECB of the politicians recklessly issuing bonds as they continue to spend, ignoring the rules.

realisticman

"it seems that it was the politicians that ordered the cash flows,"

Conservative politicians included.

As for the banks you seem to be suggesting they're too incompetent to ever be held responsible for their losses? You want a nanny-state for the bankers?

John

After losing every discussion you've ever had with me I understand your reluctance to ever engage with me again.

Chin up buttercup, keep trying and maybe one day you'll win one.

the blame game

Layton helps Harper get a majority government
while media sells Canadians on the
idea voting for any other government but the Conservatives is risky business. IMF praises Harper government in the media and its economy and makes predictions that go down the tubes.
Did Jack set out to help Harper?
Not Jack, he was there to help the people. It was what Layton was all about. Harper on the under handed is only into helping out himself. It would not surprise me to find out there is a foreign bank acct out there gathering interest as we speak with a little help from the Harper's rich friends driving their Mercedes-Benz.
However pointing fingers and shifting blame is what politics is all about along with the press to help wash all the hogwash down leaving people wondering what it is all about.

Frank

"You want a nanny-state for the bankers?"

No. Do you want the bankers deciding whether governments can borrow money?

realisticman

If you don't want bankers to operate under nanny-like conditions then you should be opposing their being bailed out at government expense.

As for governments borrowing money I believe they should do so only from their central bank.

Canadians will not be getting by

And Harper will be a lonely, lonely man
looking for a little love in all the right places as the costs of war in Libya mount up.
Government costs? Frank it will not cost government except in popularity because governments come and go and it is the people who are responsible for their government's spending and debt.
Libby is okay I guess but when it comes to the country it is best Libby continue run in the poorest riding in the country where an NDP victory is a sure thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt2Qp0H9G8

Frank

I wouldn't want to suggest that you are being a bit too smug ...John won that discussion, if you absolutely must pick a winner.

"In early 2010, it was revealed that successive Greek governments had been found to have consistently and deliberately misreported the country's official economic statistics to keep within the monetary union guidelines."

Successive, Frank. It was both the parties in Greece that consistently and deliberately misreported. Your team was not lily white.

realisticman

"John won that discussion"

Really? What discussion was that then pray tell? We've had lots.

"Successive, Frank. It was both the parties in Greece that consistently and deliberately misreported. Your team was not lily white."

You're not reading my posts very well. I said "Conservative politicians included.`

Its you who claim that only Conservatives can be trusted with a nation`s finances. Something the record here in Canada and abroad doesn`t back up.

And it was John who claimed Greece`s troubles were the fault of `my team`. And you didn`t correct him which led me to believe you didn`t know.

Now I Know

You spent your summer vacation at Spin School.

realisticman

Not my fault if you and John can`t even follow your own arguments, let alone someone else`s.

I accept your surrender.

reply to j corman & realisticman

re: the banking cartel.

It isn't that hard to follow - follow the money.

Give one enough rope and an opportunity to make some easy money and they will probably hang themselves in the end - whether a single local bank, a national bank, or the EU and its conflation of banks for a single sovereign currency, it does not matter.

"Greek liabilities (and assets) were fudged from the get go for entry into the EU."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-admits-deficit-figures-were-fudged-to-secure-euro-entry-533389.html

"...the fear that any sovereign debt restructuring anywhere in the eurozone will shine a bright light on the German banks’ books. And that, under this light, their zombie state will become apparent. It is this unintended consequence of a Greek debt restructure which threatens German banks with a degree of transparency that makes them recoil in horror. The mechanism by which a Greek restructure will reveal awful truths about Germany’s banking system is easy to foreshadow:..."

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2011/04/26/greek-debt-restructuring-why-germanys-banks-are-relaying-it/#more-646

"EU politicians in Brussels turned a blind eye and gave Greece a fairly clean bill of health, even as the reality of economics suggested the Euro was in danger. Investors assumed they were implicitly lending to a strong Berlin when they bought eurobonds from weaker Athens - as Dynastic politics rewarding social groupings increased the economy’s corruption and dysfunction. Historic enmity to Turkey led to high defense spending, and fuelled public deficits – financed primarily by German and French banks"

http://greecesodiousdebt.anthempressblog.com/

(con't)

If you believe that

If you believe that governments should only borrow money from their central bank. Then who should be making decisions regarding money supply and exchange rates in a central bank? The head of the central bank or the government? Should the central bank hold gold reserves or anything to back their currency, or should they be able to print currency?

(con't from above)

"...the Crisis spread to the sovereign debt realm and then returned more viciously to where it had started: the banks. The result is that Europe’s zombiefied banks are now great black holes that absorb much of Europe’s economic energy (from the surpluses produced in countries like Germany to the loans taken out by struggling minnows, like Greece and Portugal). Quite remarkably, while the insolvent states are visited upon by stern IMF and EU officials, are constantly reviled by the ‘serious’ press for their ‘profligacy’ and ‘wayward’ fiscal stance, the banks go on receiving ECB liquidity and state funding (plus guarantees) with no strings attached. No memoranda, no conditionalities, nothing. ..."

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2011/04/16/its-the-german-banks-stupid/

The IMF orders the EU and Germany to bailout Greece a second time. Ever wonder why? Appreciate that the IMF and World Bank work in conjunction with, and receive directives from, the BIS forming an international cartel. If history serves us well, its purpose can be said to be to bankrupt nations in order to ultimately secure for itself direct control over all international banking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/16/imf-forced-germany-to-guarantee-greek-bailout.

Also read a litlle of Joseph Stiglitz for some insight into the entire affair:

http://www.josephstiglitz.com

And a point of interest I just discovered, as for the BIS, its interesting to note that the BIS mail servers are hosted by Message Labs (search www.robtex.com). And part owner of Message Labs? (see here: http://www.electrum.co.uk/case-studies/others/ML-Virus-Centre.htm). That would be the Rothschilds. Mere coincidence, of course.

igbymac

Thank you for confirming what I wrote. In the Independent article you cite it again states "The conservative government in Athens has placed the blame on its Socialist predecessors.

Athens is already in the dock for breaking the central rule for eurozone nations: that their budget deficits should be below 3 per cent of GDP."

Once again there is absolutely nothing here condemning any bank, banker or banking cartel. I do not intend to defend any bank or banker, and I acknowledge that certain banking practices are plainly wrong, but the debt was run up by the politicians overspending - not by the banks force-feeding anyone.

igbymac

Again. The IMF and the ECB goes in after the damage has been done.

If a political leader instructs their finance ministry to find funds for expenditures and programmes they go into their holdings or the financial market and secure those funds, paying an interest on their past history record. Maybe even Zimbabwe can get money somewhere, but they're not going to get it at 2%. Greece just went to 46%.

EURO GOVT-Collateral wrangle hits Greek debt
Aug 25, 2011 Reuters

* Greek two-year yield sets new record high above 46 percent

reply to realisticman

Really? That is what you gleamed from my entire post: "Thank you for confirming what I wrote"?

I think you might want to reconsider why you pinpoint your analysis at the Greek government level of debt/spending, rather than at the opportunistic international banking structure in its entirety.

QUOTE: "I do not intend to defend any bank or banker, and I acknowledge that certain banking practices are plainly wrong, but the debt was run up by the politicians overspending - not by the banks force-feeding anyone."

In canned form, the predatory banking fraud starts at the top with the cartel (IMF, World Bank and BIS). But it is always the same game: the rich (read Banks) always work to take advantage of the less well off (nations, corporations, individuals) through debt, particularly as the times get tough. Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head to borrow or spend, per se -- until they can.

Point in fact, look at the IMF now insisting Germany et al bail out the Greeks once again. Do it or else and to avoid the humiliation of being found up to its own ears in fraudulent schemes, the German banks are complying.

The cartel has the most influence over the banking practices around the globe. And one by one, the nations around the world are falling, becoming the cartel's debt slaves.

The cartel has been at this game for 80-odd years. They are in obviously in no rush for they control the board. They know greed, the illusion of easy money, ambition and status will get most everyone and every nation to play a suckers bet at some time. They are banking on it. ;)

Cheers.

Libby Davies

From my own personal experience with her in the political realm for some 25-odd years, Ms Davies is very much the sort of sane, thoughtful, humanitarian person that we need, and who should be, in higher public office.

For these reasons, as well as petty ones we need not address, she will likely not make the cut.

Shame on us.

Greece

Of course it's more complicated

However, if you'd taken the time to actually read what had been written by the person to whom I was responding, you might be a little less confused.

THIS, is what John Corman wrote:

"As are most of the European countries out of necessity because they are starting to realize that socialism has destroyed their countries."

And this:
"Before you get too excited just calm down and let's look at Greece. A country, the first in a string of them, that is probably going to have to declare bankruptcy. Now, why are they in such a mess? Hint. The government has borrowed too much money to pay people not to work. This has nothing to do with capitalism as much as you would like to put the blame there. The reason countries have moved so far to the right is purely self defense"

I simply pointed out to him that he was, simply, wrong and the it was a conservative government (and highly capitalistic policies) that were typical of the penultimate situation which obtained in GREECE before the election of the current 'socialist' government.

You guys NEVER let the facts get in the road of a good myth, do you?

You need to read a little more carefully

PS: quick questions to the editors: Why have you done away with HTML quick tags formatting?

Frank

What is your point Frank?
Are you trying to imply that the difficulties facing Greece are not as a result of its government spending too much money on social programs?

Zalm

Bank to your original bizarre post regarding banks.

You have strange perception of how a bank, or any corporation functions. You seem to think that a corporation tries to give as little as possible to its owners. (shareholders) In fact the opposite is true.
The directors, as appointed by the owners, are there to provide as much income/wealth to the owners as they can.
Any opposing argument is really quite silly.

I don't now why you'd pick fiscal 2009 operating results for the TD Bank as being representative since that period included the financial meltdown. But, have it your way, but at least read the report. Most of your numbers are not even close to the results as posted on pages 90 & 92 of its 2009 report.

Greece's problems

In fact, during those early (socialist) years Greece was a country of rapid growth and development in the first post-war decades.

Competitiveness increased as the country turned from a poor agricultural state to a rapidly modernising manufacturing economy.

This situation reversed after the first (1970s) oil crisis and labour relations, the public service, education and health services deteriorated and were put in a downward spiral. The average Greek who fulfilled his or her tax and social security obligations were increasingly seen as dupes and fools while corporate kleptocrats of the first order ignored THEIR obligations.

The lack of sanctions and a slow justice system amplified this tendency. This theft from the top - the exact same thing that is enervating both the US and the Canadian economy inevitably led to the competitiveness deficit and the problems we see today.

It has little or nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with the avoidance of shared burdens and tax irresponsibility.

John Corman:
For once you're half right - corporations will bend over backwards to increase the pay-off to their shareholders - which is why one of the only sensible things I can credit the Harper government for doing was the cancellation of the expansion of Income Trusts.

Had Pee Wee not done that, economic problems in Canada today would be immeasurably worse than they are today.

John

"What is your point Frank?
Are you trying to imply that the difficulties facing Greece are not as a result of its government spending too much money on social programs?"

Not at all. What I'm saying is that your solution, "more right-wing governments", is not a solution. In fact its calling for more of the same problems as the right-wing government record in Greece demonstrates.

Conservative ideology has come to mean that people can have it all for free. Retire at 55, lots of social programs and low taxes.

Well it doesn't work. Social programs require taxation. Healthy countries have progressive taxation which reduces inequality and funds a good safety net.

That's the key, there's no free lunch.

r'man

You may want to look into the origins of the Bank of Canada for the answer to what you think are insurmountable problems.

"Then who should be making decisions regarding money supply and exchange rates in a central bank? The head of the central bank or the government?"

Who do you think makes them now? Santa Claus? Are you under some sort of illusion that no one is making those decisions?

"Should the central bank hold gold reserves or anything to back their currency, or should they be able to print currency?"

The bank could and would be able to buy government debt and print currency and lend money. In other words it would be a bank.

Frank

I don't think there are problems Frank, neither did I suggest it. To answer a question with another doesn't really go anywhere. The discussion was about Greece. Someone suggested that bankers in France and Germany had forced them to take on debt, "Here, take this money even though we know you can't pay it back". Crazy, isn't it. It was also implied that the banks shouldn't have lent them money. Would they really want to cede the power of borrowing to bankers?

Nevertheless, we don't have to worry about Canada. As GWest said, the situation would be immeasurably worse here had Stephen Harper not made some very good decisions.

Getting back to the subject; I suppose it's a welcome move that the NDP has made by finally excluding the unions from the leadership vote? Haven't yet heard what Libby thinks, nor read any local commentary. Is the provincial NDP here in agreement? Is it time to boot the unions from the NDP?

Pardon me?

"some" decisions?

I don't think that accurately reflects what I wrote realisticman.

Harper made ONE good decision with respect to reducing the negative impact of corporate tendencies to increase the throughput of profits by utilizing a vehicle called 'income trusts'...these things still exist in the real property field and have helped contribute significantly to problems with respect to increasingly unaffordable housing in this country (and especially here in the lower mainland).

In fact, Harper has had the luxury (thanks to fact that Canada has the good fortune to have a ready supply of filthy oil from the Tar Sands) to make significant mistakes and waste huge amounts of money without having to suffer the consequences.

As for the final denouement and what kind of a mess the country will be in shortly, we'll have to wait and see.

My impression is that we're getting very close to a housing bust that will rival the proportions of the one our American neighbours have been living through.

As for your suggestion that international banks are NOT culpable - that is simply too ridiculous to even respond to.

Cheers.

As for the question of unions and political support

I'm all in favour of making political donations from unions to ANY political party verboten.

I have only ONE simple condition - that the same prohibition be enforced upon corporate donations to ANY political party too.

How about it r/man?

r'man

Yes, the NDP does make excellent decisions, glad to see you're on board with their policies.

But the subjects were the Bank of Canada and the history of "conservatives" running up huge debts (see BC, Saskatchewan, Canada, the USA, Greece, et al) by promising people could have it all plus low taxes. And of course when people point out the obvious problems in the math they're accused of "fear-mongering".

Well, the chickens have come home to roost and "conservative" policies have produced bankruptcy, as all thinking people knew would eventually happen.

And it warms my heart to know you agree.

West

I'll second that notion.
But how does that address the issue of the NDP giving unions a gauranteed 25% voting rights?
THATS what they are kciking around, not donations
C

I'll let Ken Georgetti answer your question happy:

Canadian Labour Congress Ken Georgetti, ...issued a press release on Friday morning claiming it had never been up for discussion.

“I want to set the record straight,” Georgetti said in the statement emailed to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. “The NDP’s constitution stipulates a one-member-one-vote process for choosing the leader and that vote is no way weighted in favour of union members.”

Georgetti added that the CLC co-chaired a committee to examine the effect that the new political party financing legislation would have on the weighted vote system and concluded that it would cause the NDP to violate the law.

“The committee recommended that the party amend its constitution to that effect and that was done,” said Georgetti.

'Nuff' said.

Let me know when Miss Christy tells business they can't pay the piper and call the shots at the BC Liberal headquarters.

Deal?

Well thats a lie

Not the 25% voting gaurantee...but the statement that "it had never been up for discussion"

It most certainly has been up for discussion. Heres one link of dozens:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1051354--unions-to-play-smaller-role-in-ndp-leadership-vote?bn=1

Are you a Topp man? Heres what he says a couple days ago

"likely leadership candidate Brian Topp said Wednesday he remained open to changing the weighted-vote system so long as the labour movement, which he called “a foundational partner,” was on board"

BTW. Thats the third time now in about a year you've warned of the "imminent" US style housing collapse that would see thousands of homeowners foreclosed on. When I asked about 3 or 4 months ago when it was going to start you said we were already deep into it. Now we're "very close"

Let me know when Mr Dix tells the BC Fed they can't pay the piper and call the shots at the BC NDP headquarters.

(And we can play this stupid game all day so I think I'll just bow out now and leave the playground)

Cheers!

Frank???

Where did this come from?
"Conservative ideology has come to mean that people can have it all for free. Retire at 55, lots of social programs and low taxes."

Conservative/capitalist ideology has contributed to Greek hairdressers getting a state pension in their early fifties because they've dealt with "Hazardous products" during their working life?

That doesn't sound like a conservative/capitalist initiative to me.

@happy

I don't think there's anything in Georgetti's statement that makes your claim accurate.

I don't set policy - I told you what I believe - let's leave it at that. Frankly, I think organized labour has been a far more effective tool for good than business has ever been or ever will be - and I'm not a union member (in fact I only belonged to one union during one summer job a very long time ago).

On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to point out the disproportionate weight of corporate/business support for the BC Liberal party to someone who's a paragon of equity and fairness like yourself.

I think, in terms of reform, that the right wing is in far more need of house cleaning than the left.

Mind you, Campbell and his minions have been, as it were, IN THE TROUGH, for the past 10+ years.

Perhaps THIS will be more convincing

From the Globe and Mail:

The NDP is moving away from Canada’s biggest unions, rejecting a push by insiders to provide a privileged role to the labour movement in the selection of the next party leader.

The ruling, quietly made by the party’s executive this week, puts an end to a brewing battle between the perceived front-runners in the race to replace the late Jack Layton.

The decision is a victory for NDP House Leader Thomas Mulcair, who had argued against the plan to set aside a portion of the vote for unions at next year’s leadership convention. Mr. Mulcair said he encouraged union members to participate in the leadership contest, but that all progressives, such as members of the environmental movement, had to be treated equally.

On the other hand, NDP president Brian Topp, who currently leads ACTRA in Toronto, had argued for a continued role for unions in the leadership contest. Mr. Topp called the labour movement “a foundational partner” of the NDP and said ties to unions were part of the party’s DNA.

In the 2003 leadership race that saw Mr. Layton take the party’s helm, the NDP set aside 25 per cent of the vote for union members. The party decided in 2006 to go with a system of one member/one vote, but a number of party officials argued in recent weeks that a portion of the vote could still be awarded to unions by the NDP federal council.

However, interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel told reporters that a final decision was made ahead of Friday’s federal council meeting, which will set the final rules of the leadership convention.

Ms. Turmel acknowledged there had been confusion surrounding the issue since Mr. Layton’s death last month, but that the matter was now resolved.

“Our constitution is clear, it’s one member/one vote,” she said at a news conference, adding that the issue is no longer on the table.

Cheers!

Thet Had To

Because the Québec unions were not part of the old arrangement and there was no way possible to do anything other than drop them all.

We shall see if this now applies to the provincial NDP.

happy

"Let me know when Mr Dix tells the BC Fed they can't pay the piper and call the shots at the BC NDP headquarters."

Why? You wouldn't care one way or the other. People upset at the NDP getting less than a third of its money from unions are the same ones that don't care that business contributes more than two thirds of BC Liberal monies.

News for GWest

Your wish has already been enacted and made law by Stephen Harper. Just as you want.

"The Federal Accountability Act (April 11, 2006) is the cornerstone of the Conservative government's promise to clean up government after the political and administrative scandals of the previous Liberal government. The omnibus bill includes a wide range of measures to help make the Canadian federal government more accountable and to increase transparency and oversight in government operations.

Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups may not make political contributions. ..."

Wow, that's two things that Harper and you agree on in just a few minutes.

John

"Where did this come from?
...
That doesn't sound like a conservative/capitalist initiative to me.

The proof is in the pudding John. Conservatives keep telling people they can have the same society as liberals or socialists but with less taxes.

Go to any website during an election (including this one) and you will find conservatives telling you that there will be no cuts, that anyone saying otherwise is fear-mongering. But they will also tell you there will be tax cuts. They say we can have it all.

As one jurisdiction's history after another demonstrates, conservatives bankrupt their economies. You can't have a good social safety net, a caring society, a just society and low taxes. Conservatives are the only ones saying you can.

Libby Davies

Libby Davies as leader of the NDP. Seriously? The NDP would be guaranteed all of two seats.

If it was any other party making the decision, Thomas Mulcair would win hands down. He is the only one of the prospective candidates that would be able to deal effectively with Harper. Too bad the NDP has a penchant for making bad choices.

WC Skeptic

Ya, because our last choice, Jack Layton was a real bad one eh? He only increased the party's support in every subsequent general election.

please please gentlemen

C'mon fellas...is it no wonder few women post or provide their views...the noise is deafening here.

I do however want to comment on the phrase "Conservative values" used earlier in the comments.

Usually this phrase would have a small "c" rather than a large "C" attached. A small "c" may find some common ground between both so-called left and right ideologies.

David Korten, a conservative writer, has listed several common values as a starting point in working together to making things better. Korten's conservative values - things like family, community, peace, justice, and nature, I think differ immensely from "Conservative" values of the 21st century. Those values can be best summed up as "Corporate" values and more resemble the days of privateers and buccaneers of the 17th century.

Korten's background as a Harvard Business School professor to a Ford Foundation project manager in SE Asia has led him to write the following books, "When Corporations Rule the World", "The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community", and "Agenda for a New Economy".

What those defining themselves as having "Conservative values" may want to do is perhaps read a bit of what conservatism is and what common values it provides for both the right and the left besides noise.

I think Libby would be a good candidate for the leadership as she does exemplify the conservative values of the CCF. She may not attract Conservative voters who have a hard time dealing with their own contradictions. But perhaps that's not whats needed to bring Canadians together. Until big C Conservatives find out for themselves whether love or hate guides their values there is not much reason to engage in dialogue to find common values.

Dobbins article

To get back on track...the creation of party leaders has become as intense as US political focus on leaders rather than policies and actions.

A guy in a sweater who can play the piano gives me nothing to digest nor does a smiling man with a cane. All image making which unfortunately does resonate for many voters.

What Dobbin is advocating I believe is active engagement by citizens to develop a nation that reflects something more than sending troops to battle or building prisons. These poor public policies prey on fear rather than more positive values and lead us down the path of impoverishment (in more than one way).

I have heard Libby engaged in a discussion on the radio and found her to be honest and forthcoming, frank and personable. Not having a great grasp of French or at least the Quebecois dialect is an unfortunate liability. Harper's inability to attract Quebec voters, even conservative voters, was his lack of good French language skills.

I think Layton chose a great deputy who could help the party engage active citizens in the process.

I think she should run for leader only to show the country her warmth and caring and how those values are neither left or right but Canadian.

R/man

You mean the act that the Conmen immediately decided to ignore?

And then got savaged because they got caught.

Guess you missed the Joan Bryden story at the time....here, I'll leave you with a quotation:
… "the {Elections Canada) report indicates the Conservative party then discovered three delegates - including Prime Minister Stephen Harper - had exceeded their $5,400 annual limit for political contributions. As a result, the party refunded $456 each to Harper and the other two delegates."

The only FAIR way to finance political parties is the per vote levy - y'know, the one Stevie is going to ditch.

That method is egalitarian, democratic and DOESN'T put political power in the hands of those who have more money. Which is how we got into these messes in the first place.

So don't suggest I agree with that little wrinkle from Pee Wee - he's a disaster and he's a disaster for this country.

@GWest

You really are scraping the barrel over a-disputed-$5000 bucks!

The fact of the matter is Stephen Harper did exactly what you say you want, he eliminated corporate donations to political parties. And he made it the law. Your wish was his command. Now you are trying to say what?

libby davies

Libby Davies? Bless her heart the #1 poverty pimp in Canada,consistantly tells her riding that she will will make things better for them and wouldn't you Know it they are still the poorest in Canada .

Frank

Where did this statement of yours come from?
"The proof is in the pudding John. Conservatives keep telling people they can have the same society as liberals or socialists but with less taxes."

I've never once heard a conservative suggest that, as in Greece, a person will get a state pension in their early fifties/late forties if they've been a hairdresser.

Have you noticed that there has not been one significant social program initiated by the Canadian Conservatives. There's good reason for that. We are going to have great difficulty paying for the programs in place.

The NDP would have created an unbearable burden of social programs had they been in power for five years.

John

Your example of the Greek hairdresser was going on during a conservative Greek government. A lot of that Greek borrowing was by a Greek conservative government.

"I've never once heard a conservative suggest that"

You've never once heard someone say its fear-mongering to suggest conservatives will make cuts to balance their budget? Not once eh? Do you have any media available to you?

"Have you noticed that there has not been one significant social program initiated by the Canadian Conservatives."

Noticed it? Very much so. Tell r'man, he won't believe you. At least he never believes me.

"We are going to have great difficulty paying for the programs in place."

But the conservatives don't say they will get rid of those social programs on the campaign trail do they? Instead you promise no program cuts, only tax cuts. As I keep saying, you tell people they can have it all.

Well obviously that will lead to financial problems as we see demonstrated in Greece and here.

"The NDP would have created an unbearable burden of social programs had they been in power for five years."

Nope, as in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC they would run up less debt and make sure any social programs were funded with taxes. They also wouldn't call for irresponsible tax cuts while at the same time saying they will maintain current funding.

Libby Davies - leadership qualities?

Policy and ideology aside, this is the same Libby Davies who presented a petition in Parliament promoting the nonsense that 9/11 was an inside job. This alone disqualifies her from leadership. (and to all you "truthers" who now wish to attack me personally : please don't bother - I already know what you think... )

Hardly

It was Pee Wee scraping the bottom of the barrel r/man.

IT's hardly the only example I could have used to illustrate Harper's contempt for democracy and the rules - just happened to fit the bill at the moment.

I believe in public financing for political parties - not leaving it in the hands of self-centered greedy sons of bitches who couldn't care less about society and those less well off than themselves.

The Liberals and the Conservatives have always tried to run the country solely for their financial supporters - which is why labour unions have tended to support the other party.

In fact, unions and labour organizers (and especially the CCF and the NDP) are the only reason this country isn't a hell of a lot worse place than it is now.

In fact, NDP governments ALSO have a better fiscal record and fewer deficits than your gang.

Time to wake up r/man - there may still be hope for you.

Isaac

Are you asserting that the official version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks is the end of the story? That the 9/11 Commission Report is all that needs to be said?

Of course you know everything you think you need to know; and of course you know what I think. But to be clear and since you brought it up, I think you are delusional and unable to see what is right before your face: The 9/11 rendition we are fed is fiction and manipulative.

Love Libby As She Is

Let's be pragmatic -- I live in Libby's riding, I vote for her in every election. She's one of the NDP's top MPs, we love her to death here in our riding, but she is not fit for the task at hand.

We need someone who is bilingual. We need someone who can lead, and speak to, the entire nation. Anyone who's watched Harper sputter through the French debates can tell you why the Conservatives have no foothold in PQ.

We also need someone who a majority of Canadians could see as leader. I can't see Canadians voting for a Prime Minister who has an English accent. Sorry.

My two cents: we need a fighter, a very strong personality. I've never met the man, but this B.C. voice is hoping Thomas Mulclair wins. I used to say the same about Jack Layton before he became leader, much to the chagrin of fellow BC NDPers, who would dismiss him based on callous media rumours. Look how good he turned out to be!