From Shock and Disbelief to Profound Sorrow

"Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere,
In action faithful, and in honour clear;
Who broke no promise, served no private end,
Who gained no title, and who lost no friend."
J.M. Coldwell of CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth

After last night's election results, most engaged Canadians experienced shock and disbelief. Today that is replaced with profound sorrow.

When strategic voting was abandoned for some illusive big orange wave, it threw the electorate into turmoil. Many left of centre joined the NDP bandwagon, while those in the centre or just right of it, went to the Conservatives.

And all the work done by so many, blew up in our face.

How did this happen? I'm sure we'll be asking ourselves that for many months.

At a time when our very democracy was on the line, and the removal of a tyrant necessary for our survival, Jack Layton chose to once again worry about his seat count, ignoring the impact of his strategy on our country.

He gambled with Canada and lost the hand.

In 2006, when Layton handed Stephen Harper a victory, NDP insider James Laxer wrote: Fake Left, Go Right: An insider’s take on Jack Layton’s game of chance

In it he spoke of the reason why Jack Layton had aligned himself with Stephen Harper. Their shared hatred for the Liberals and the desire to destroy them. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for, because the NDP may have destroyed their only allies.

In the Summer of 2008, Laxer again criticized the direction of the NDP under Layton: With its exclusive fixation on winning more seats, the NDP has sacrificed the opportunity to build a truly progressive movement. On the 75th anniversary of the CCF, James Laxer argues that to save the present, we need to remember the past.

The Party was in a celebratory mood last night, but I'm sure in the light of day they are probably no longer basking in the glow of being the opposition with a Harper majority.

Last night they said they were now in a position to hold the government to account. But as Rosemary Barton asked, how can they do that when the Conservatives control Parliament? The NDP are a top dog that's been neutered. They have less power now than they did before, when there were more bodies on their side of the room.

There were some victories last night. Elizabeth May won her seat, and my own riding was held by a Liberal. And of course, while I'll miss their input, we no longer have to be held ransom by the Bloc.

But Jack Layton has a very inexperienced caucus, dominated by Quebec. This could very well shift the real power in the party to Thomas Mulcair. I like Mulcair but we have to remember that when he decided to run for a federal seat, he first considered going to the Conservatives.

And he is perhaps more pro-Israel than Harper himself.

I once hoped that Libby Davies would take over as party leader when Layton stepped down, but that seems less likely now.

So what will this do to the progressive movement, clearly abandoned by the NDP?

What will it mean for climate change, labour groups, healthcare, a national childcare plan, women's rights, a housing strategy, poverty, seniors, veterans?

James Laxer is right. Jack Layton's gamble has erased decades of progress.

The Liberals were the only other party that had the backing of the corporate sector, and now all of that money will flow to one party. Does Layton really believe that he and his ragtag group can stop the Conservatives from doing anything?

Some people ask me what I intend to do now. I am going to continue to expose the Conservatives and fight for a progressive Canada.

Sadly, I now realize that that no longer includes the NDP.

J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, are not smiling down on their party today.

The NDP's Wounds are Self Inflicted. They Tried to Move to the Right

According to Eric Grenier, who I admit needs a history lesson if he's suggesting that a 7 point spread assures a victory:

The New Democrats have slipped to 15.5 per cent nationally, and are now projected to win only 21 seats, representing a loss of 15 for the party. The Bloc Québécois, with 10.1 per cent support nationally but 40 per cent in Quebec, would win 53 seats, while the Greens are up only slightly to 8.3 per cent.

These low numbers for the NDP suggest that they may once again back Stephen Harper, so they don't have to face the electorate. But instead they should look within the party and ask themselves what went wrong.

I think they started a downward spiral five years ago when Jack Layton allowed himself to be seduced by Stephen Harper. Since then the rocky relationship has Layton often acting as irrationally a jilted lover.

And in the process he has abandoned the party's core principles, and gambled away his integrity.

A Bit of History

Both the NDP (originally the CCF) and the Reform Party (now calling themselves the Conservative party of Canada), began as Western protest movements. The difference was that the Reform represented big business, while the NDP, under Tommy Douglas, represented the little guy, fighting for social justice.

When the Reform Party had their first electoral success in 1993, it has always been thought that they did it at the expense of the PC Party, when Brian Mulroney's coalition self-destructed. But that's not true. In the West, where both parties were born, it was more often at the expense of the NDP.

According to Laurence Putnam, who wrote a paper for the Fraser Institute on the subject:

The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time. (1)

Using BC as an example: Putnam says that in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.

So in many ways the Reform and NDP were the same, but with a different set of goals. And as a result the NDP was more palpable to central Canada, while the Reform had to hide their agenda if they wanted to make inroads.

And under greats like David Lewis and Ed Broadbent, the NDP remained focused. They would schmooze either side to get what they wanted, but the things they wanted, were for the betterment of Canadian society. It was comforting knowing they were there.

But Then it Changed

I think the first mistake that Jack Layton made was in 2004, when he agreed to join a coalition engineered by Stephen Harper, who had already garnered the full support of Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc. It failed, but only because then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson gave Paul Martin an opportunity to fix it (2).

Not by allowing him to prorogue to save his job, but by tweaking his throne speech, so that the opposing coalition no longer had any grievances.

The second sell out for Jack Layton and the NDP was when they agreed to take down Paul Martin on the very day that Kyoto was being ratified, because Stephen Harper convinced them that if the Liberals could get this done, they would look good to the Canadian public. For Harper the agenda was killing Kyoto, but for Layton it may have been the promise of an electoral truce. (3)

The two parties agreed not to attack each other, which didn't sit well with all candidates. When the "In and Out" was allowing ad buys in single ridings, some Conservatives complained that their biggest challenge came from the NDP, and yet the ads only went after the Liberals.

The 2005 deal left a viable childcare plan on the table and squashed any attempt at addressing climate change. So how can Jack Layton possibly criticize Stephen Harper over either one of those things? Or in fact for any of his destructive actions? He helped to put him on his throne.

And after posturing with how many times the Liberals voted with the government, when Michael Ignatieff finally said he was pulling the plug, Layton ran for cover and voted with the neocons.

The NDP have to decide where they're headed. If they are going to the right, as it would now appear, they should let their followers know. Otherwise, they should tap into their hidden Douglas, Lewis and Broadbent, and start acting like the NDP.

You won't beat Harper by being Harper. He's too good at it.

Sources:

1. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

2. Heart Matters: A Memoir, By Adrienne Clarkson, Viking Press, 2006, ISBN: 10-978-0-670-06546-3

3. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7

The Holy Grail Has Arrived. My Election Manual

After reading about former NDP leader David Lewis and The Committee for an Independent Canada, who had a huge impact on the 1972 election, by campaigning against Corporate Welfare Bums, I was on a mission.

I tracked down Mr. Lewis's book, that started it all. Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums, finding a copy on Ebay. It's four decades old but the problems then are the same as now. The loudest voices are the corporations, who refuse to even slide over an inch as they feed off the public trough. Once in a while if we're lucky, we can catch a few crumbs that fall out of their mouths, but don't let them see you, or you'll be tackled to the ground.

In Canada, as in the United States, this has reached catastrophic levels, and if we don't turn this around, taxpayers will never have any voice at all.

From the preface:

For many years, democratic socialists have recognized that despite Canada's enormous wealth and the native compassion of its people, gross inequities have continued to exist in our social and economic structure. We have laboured to make Canadians aware of these inequities. We have voiced them in Parliament; we have fought for legislation to correct them; we have knocked on doors to tell the people, and we have worked with other concerned organizations in the struggle to make our message understood, so that Canadians would take action to bring an end to these inequities.

Our message is not new. It is one of commitment to social and economic justice that others have shared for centuries. Perhaps the new element about our message is that we have found a way to help people understand. We have given them the information, the precise and irrefutable evidence they need to comprehend fully the extent of injustice in this great country.

It has been a difficult undertaking, but the rewards have been many. We know now that people are listening, becoming aware, judging. And this is the first step in the struggle to eliminate those injustices that no humane society will knowingly tolerate.

Months of research have gone into compiling the evidence on which we base our case against free-enterprise governments and their corporate allies. I cannot adequately express my gratitude to the many dedicated people who have contributed so much time and effort ...

DAVID LEWIS
Toronto September 24, 1972

I think Mr. Lewis would be quite surprised to learn that things in Canada are now worse than they were when he wrote those words. Our current government ascribes to the political-economic theory of Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Poor, whereby corporations get to keep all the profit, while taxpayers assume all the losses.

His book arrived today and I think it was a sign because it's the same day that I read John Ibbitson's column in the Globe: Corporate tax cuts could bring down government. Michael Ignatieff has already said that we cannot afford them, taking his message to the business community, and the NDP is on the fence.

But what makes me boiling mad about all of this, is the fact that the taxpayers, the us's were left out of the equation.

Harper and Flaherty claim that they have it on good advice (from the corporate sector) that more tax cuts for the rich will be good for us. But when in the hell did this government ever take advice from anyone? They were advised not to cut the GST and did it anyway. They were advised not to scrap the mandatory long-form census, and did it anyway. The list goes on.

The ones that they should be listening to is us dammit.

... polls have shown huge public opposition to the tax cuts. A Leger Marketing poll commissioned by QMI News reported Sunday that only one Canadian in 10 favoured lower corporate taxes, while four in 10 wanted to see those taxes go up.

And yet Ibbitson goes right to the political. He says that Harper is gambling that his supporters, who don't want the wealthy to be given more of our money, will still vote for him,

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

90% of Canadians DO NOT WANT MORE CORPORATE TAX CUTS!!!! Those are the only voices anyone should be listening to, because that money belongs to us.

I don't give a flying fig who is going to get political leverage with this, although If Layton goes along with these tax cuts, it will be the end of the NDP, and both David Lewis and Tommy Douglas will be turning in their graves.

Because it means that their "commitment to social and economic justice" will all have been for nothing.

That's What I'm Talking About Mr. Layton. David Lewis Would be Proud.

I had posted a while back, suggesting that Canadians needed to revive the Committee for an Independent Canada, a grassroots movement formed in the early seventies, who were afraid that the Liberal Party was moving to the right and was blind "to the sale of Canadian resources to foreigners".

NDP leader David Lewis campaigned against corporate greed, with the slogan "corporate welfare bums" in response to those who felt that Trudeau's increase in UI premiums was creating a sub-culture of "welfare bums".

And it worked. In 1972, the Liberal Party was reduced to a minority, with Lewis's NDP holding the balance of power. But the most important accomplishment was that they steered the Liberal Party to the left, moving us toward a Just Society.

From my keyboard to some deity's ears, I guess, because Jack Layton is now coming out against corporate tax cheats.

Jack Layton is demanding the Harper government crack down on sleazy millionaires who hide their fortunes in offshore tax havens. “Mr. Harper cannot keep standing by while the wealthy tax cheats and the biggest corporations ... essentially take tax dollars out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians,” the NDP Leader told reporters Tuesday. “It’s not right.”

Harper's new, so-called, tough on crime laws, only target this country's most vulnerable.

The Corporate Welfare bums and tax cheats, flaunt their "stolen goods", and no one arrests them.

This is what the progressives needs to do. Michael Ignatieff has already promised to stop the new corporate tax cuts (theft of taxpayers money), and now Jack Layton is promising to close up tax loopholes.

This could be the start of a movement to restore sanity to this country.

The term "Corporate Welfare Bums" needs to become part of our vernacular, and the centrepiece of the next election campaign. They have not kept up their part of the bargain. They caused the economic downturn, but we are the ones who have to pay for it.

I'm sick of reading "record profits" in the headlines. Enough is enough.

Toronto's new mayor, Rob Ford, did not put any "Lefties" in his government. Good. I would have kicked them out of my Karl Marx Chai Party.

I'm kidding. Don't tell Jason Kenney. He's likely to slip in his own spit. Have you seen him when he gets flustered?

This is not a socialist issue but a Canadian one. We need to turn this county around for the benefit of Canadians, and we need all parties from the centre and left to work in tandem.

Patriot Games and the Committee for an Independent Canada

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Something strange, nameless, and profound moves in Canada today. It cannot be seen or labeled, but it can be heard and felt - a kind of whisper from
far away, a rustle as of wind in prairie poplars, a distant river's voice, or the shuffle of footsteps in a midnight street. It is less a sound than a sense
of motion.

Something moves as it has never moved before in this land, moves dumbly in the deepest runnels of a collective mind, yet by sure direction toward
a known goal. Sometimes by thought, more often by intuition, the Canadian people are making the final discovery. They are discovering themselves. - Bruce Hutchinson

When Pierre Trudeau called an election in 1972, the country was undergoing a lot of changes. The Baby Boomers were growing up and the voting age had been reduced to 18.

Unemployment was at 6.2%, considered high for the time, and despite generous changes to Unemployment Insurance, the youth were worried.

Also worried were many Canadians seeing a growing American influence, not only in our popular culture, but in the very real U.S. takeover of our natural resources.

One of these was Liberal MP Eric Kierans, who had left Trudeau's' Cabinet in April of 1971, and was an outspoken critic of finance minister John Turner's 1972 budget, believing that the party was moving to the right and was blind "to the sale of Canadian resources to foreigners" (English 2009).

Kierans prefaced a book financed by the NDP called Louder Voices: Corporate Welfare Bums. The phrase "corporate welfare bums" was in response to those who felt that the increase in UI premiums was creating a sub-culture of "welfare bums".

The phrase caught on and NDP leader David Lewis thundered it from the podium, regaling against corporate privilege. And many former Trudeau supporters, joined Lewis, including high profile figures like Walter Gordon with the Toronto Star, Peter C. Newman, Claude Ryan, prominent Alberta Liberal, Jack McClelland and publisher Mel Hurtig.

This group created The Committee for an Independent Canada, and over 170,000 concerned Canadians would join their ranks. As a result Trudeau's Liberal Party was reduced to a minority, with Lewis's NDP holding the balance of power.

But CIC did not only help to influence the election, but they would also steer the Liberal Party to the left, and though Trudeau had at one time been opposed to the nationalization of industry, he allowed the creation of Petro-Canada. His government also began to take on a more nationalistic tone. (1)

The right was enraged, while corporate and business donations for the Liberals decreased substantially.

Harper's Bible Sees it Differently

Peter Brimelow's The Patriot Game lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of Pierre Trudeau, for the country's dramatic shift to the left, though he is not without disdain for the Committee for an Independent Canada.

A case can also be made for 1970. In that year, at a lunch "which is now mythologized in some branches of the movement as The Beginning," according to an account written by Christina McCall-Newman in 1972, three men decided to found a pressure group for their version of Canadian Nationalism: the Committee for an Independent Canada. They were Walter Gordon, the former leader of the Liberal Party's left wing, who as Finance Minister under Lester Pearson had introduced a controversial nationalist budget in 1965; Peter C. Newman, then Editor-in-Chief of the nationalist Toronto Star; and Abraham Rotstein, an academic economist from the University of Toronto. Their creation was something of a nine-day-wonder in the small world of the English-Canadian intelligentsia.

It attracted much joining, signing of petitions, attending of meetings and declarations of support. The Committee itself quickly became moribund, but it symbolized emotions that were coming to dominate Anglophone public debate, and it conveniently marks the moment when the Canadian Liberal elite finally acknowledged that it had reversed fronts and trained its guns on free market economics and on the U.S.A.

The weaknesses of Canadian Nationalism were already present at The Beginning. All three lunchers were Anglophones, all Torontonians, all prosperous members of the bourgeoisie. All, perhaps not coincidentally, represented professions that stood to benefit disproportionately from protectionism: Gordon as a scion of the preeminent Clarkson, Gordon and Company accounting firm, whose relationships with Canadian corporate clients were vulnerable to disruption from takeovers by U.S. firms equipped with their own auditors; Newman and Rotstein as examples of those "producers of Canadian culture" who, in the deadpan summary of a recent academic survey, "are more determined than consumers" to "keep Canadian cultural life Canadian." (2)

And this Canadian Nationalism was viewed as "anti-Americanism" in Alberta, where the U.S. oil industry prospered, and was added to the list of western grievances. This became even more profound when it became about "Toronto" and "elites" and "intervention".

Early Nationalist campaigns were to aim at reserving Canadian university appointments for Canadians and promoting Canadian periodicals through punitive taxation of their American competitors. Two were members of Canada's small Jewish minority, a group normally cautious about nationalism, and one was not even a Canadian by birth but a central European refugee, anomalies which, although not without parallel in other nationalist movements, may help account for the peculiar artificiality of this Canadian variation. They were also all good political progressives and, at least in the case of Gordon and Rotstein, conscious advocates of government intervention in the economy. (2)

Canada was moving toward a just society and the corporate sector saw this as injustice to the almighty dollar.

And like Ted Byfield, Brimelow also held contempt for Pierre Berton. Byfield, because he threatened religious fundamentalism, and Brimelow because he threatened Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

A significant description of the brave new Canada that Canadian Nationalists hope and claim to have discerned has been conveniently provided by Pierre Berton in his book Why We Act Like Canadians: A Personal Account of Our National Character. This deeply revealing essay on the Canadian national character and its fundamental differences from the American norm was one of the best-sellers of the 1982-83 season and has influenced several subsequent journalistic commentaries ... the inevitable landscape rhapsodies in Why We Act Like Canadians were quite bearable.

And yet Pierre Berton is still a household name, while most Canadians outside of the Reform/Conservative movement, have never heard of Peter Brimelow.

Sources:

1. Just Watch me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, By John English, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-676-97523-9, Pg. 130

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 131 -133