CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[notyoueither]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-ndps-missing-constitution.html

The NDP's missing constitution

* April 27, 2011 6:00 PM |
* By Leslie MacKinnon

Where in the world is the federal NDP's constitution? It's not on the NDP's website, unlike any of the other national mainstream parties running in this election.

Now that the NDP is within shouting distance - maybe- of forming government, a lot of people might want to take a closer look at the party, at its founding goals and principles.

Questions to the NDP's media hotline yield the response that the NDP constitution is "an internal document", available to members only, and that the NDP is running on its platform, not on its constitution. And yet, anyone who wants to join the NDP has to first agree to abide by its constitution, presumably without getting a chance to read it.

The NDP's constitution is hard to ferret out, but there are copies to be found on the internet, dating from 2001 and 2003, and of course there's no way of telling if the ideas expressed in them still represent the NDP's thinking.

But, crucially, there are fundamental and seminal ideals expressed, and they are potentially explosive. The principles of "democratic socialism" are laid out, and they might prove troublesome for the party as it heads towards what may be the official Opposition or even more.

The preamble to the constitution says:

"The principles of democratic socialism can be defined briefly as: That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership;"

These principles, if they are in fact still part of the NDP's constitution, raise some rather large questions. Does the NDP have a problem with the making of profits? Does social ownership mean the nationalization of certain industries? And does the NDP still deeply believe in these precepts, or has it repudiated them?

The answer won't come until this summer when the NDP holds its biennial convention in Vancouver, just as it celebrates its 50th birthday. There, members will vote on a resolution passed at its last convention in Halifax in 2009:

-01-09 Resolutions Submitted by Constitutional Committee Motion 1- Drafting of Updated Constitution Preamble for Presentation at Next Convention BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Executive be directed to draft a new preamble for the Party's constitution to be submitted for debate to the next Convention

So a modernized and perhaps quite different statement of basic principles will finally be made known to the public in August, well after the NDP may be much closer to government than it's ever been before in its 50-year history.

[notyoueither]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/29/terence-corcoran-jack-layton%E2%80%99s-hidden-agenda/

Terence Corcoran: Jack Layton’s hidden agenda

Terence Corcoran Apr 29, 2011 – 8:28 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 29, 2011 8:35 PM ET

NDP’s hidden constitution opposes profits, backs ‘social ownership’

With the NDP’s public election platform already packed with more than 200 extreme, unworkable, radical and mostly undesirable promises, it might surprise some to learn that Jack Layton’s current power trip packs at lot more baggage under the floorboards.

How much more can there be? They’ve got plans for what amounts to a 10¢-a-litre cap-and-trade tax on gasoline, doubled pension plan contributions, corporate tax increases, plus a long list of plans and schemes to newly regulate pharmaceuticals, banking, oil, food, telecom, railways and many other industries. As for monetary policy, not mentioned in the platform but recently the subject of comment, Mr. Layton says that he wants to maintain an “arm’s length” relationship with the Bank of Canada, although he apparently at the same time intends to jawbone the bank over interest rates and the value of the dollar.

This is all bad enough, but now let’s have a rummage through the baggage rack and under the floorboards. We’re looking for plans Mr. Layton didn’t mention in the platform, long-standing NDP agenda items, ideological positions they don’t talk much about but which underlie everything the party does. Does the NDP have any “hidden agendas”?

The CBC’s Leslie MacKinnon recently reported on the NDP’s official constitution, a 2003 document that specifies why the NDP exists. It turns out the NDP constitution is itself a hidden agenda.

First, here’s a core statement from the preamble outlining the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party:

* That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;
* To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….
* The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

The above NDP constitutional extract is unfortunately not available on the NDP website. Ms MacKinnon asked about this omission and was told that the party’s constitution is an “internal” document that is only available to members, not to voters who might be interested in NDP principles. Other questions raised appropriately by Ms. MacKinnon: “Does the NDP have a problem with the making of profits? Does social ownership mean the nationalization of certain industries? And does the NDP still deeply believe in these precepts, or has it repudiated them?”

Or does the NDP have a hidden agenda well beyond the fat agenda in the election platform?

That the NDP has larger ideological and political aspirations can be found in the party’s busy legislative effort under Mr. Layton. Most of these bills, not mentioned in the platform, are part of the NDP’s active policy agenda. This is stuff they would do, even if not part of the official election campaign.

Bill C-311 A pet project through the last session of Parliament, and long a part of the NDP agenda. It’s an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing “dangerous” climate change under United Nations agreements. The word “dangerous” is code for a UN trigger clause that would jumpstart massive global government regulation. Mr. Layton personally backed C-311, a bill loaded with regulatory process and expanded government control over all carbon-generating economic activity. In essence, it would formally lock Canada into following UN-based dictates, even if those dictates were contrary to Canadian interests and even contrary to common sense.

Bill C-502 An act to block oil tankers from entering waters off the British Columbia coast, a move that would prevent the export of oil and gas.

Bill C-337 A union crowd-pleaser that aims to prevent federally regulated industries from hiring replacement workers in the event of a strike. Sounds innocuous, although it would do little more than give unions at airlines, railways and other firms more power and make it more difficult for companies to compete and make profits (see constitution above).

Bill C-469 An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights would, in practice, bog businesses down in legal and regulatory thickets every time they are seen to be doing some “harm” to the environment.

Other bills make up the hidden agenda list: C-518 would shut down aquaculture; C-474 would move to subject agricultural seeds to review for “potential harm” before “any new genetically modified seed is permitted;” C-298 would impose “corporate social responsibility” on Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

That last bill is also known as the bill to encourage mining companies to set up head offices in other countries — composed, as such companies are, of profit-seeking enterprises currently outside the grasp of NDP “social ownership.”

All the above failed to become law. But the NDP is full of many more such ideas fashioned out of the socialist ideology that’s at the official core of the party’s constitutional agenda, a hidden agenda that it seems voters are not supposed to know about.

[joncha]

The NDP constitution is hidden because they have no intention of following through on it, not because they secretly want to impliment it.

The only reason it still exists at all is to keep the activists on the left of the party from complaining too much. The causus itself is more embarrassed by it than anything else. The same dynamic was at play in the British Labour party when Blair's New Labour took hold.

[joncha]

As for a prediction, I think it's really too close to call, but I'll go with a (reduced) Conservative minority, NDP opposition with a Liberal rump large enough to put the two over 155, the BQ holding on to official party status but not much more, and no Greens or Ind. elected.

I think Harper is unlikely to get a majority at this point, but he could still get close.

In the end, though, there are just too many variables this time around to have confidence in any prediction.

[notyoueither]

I'm not overly concerned about it. Anything too radical would get stomped on by the provinces and in the courts, most likely. And the Senate does have a purpose, afterall.

However, I note that some of those radicals would be put into positions where they influence decisions in commerce and trade.

How would an NDP government handle the need for pipelines from Alberta to markets in the US and Asia? I guess we see, partially, in their position on tankers off the BC coast.

What will they do when softwood flares up again? Would they follow through with trade negotiations with the EU, and will they have the knowledge and instincts to shape a good deal? We saw what happened when a starry-eyed government went to negotiations with no clue about Canadian interests at Kyoto.

[notyoueither]

Don't normally see much useful press published after midnight on the day of the polls. It's different this time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/election-campaign-had-sleepy-start-rousing-finish/article2006322/

Election campaign had sleepy start, rousing finish
PATRICK BRETHOUR
VANCOUVER— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, May. 02, 2011 2:45AM EDT
Last updated Monday, May. 02, 2011 3:05AM EDT


The federal campaign of 2011 began as a tedious replay of the last election, with the major parties frozen in place, unable to excite a weary and wary electorate.

But as Canada’s 41st general election ends, it is anything but a replay. This campaign has shaken the assumptions of federal politics, though the outcome of Monday’s vote is still impossible to predict.

The apparent dramatic rise in support for the NDP has created a three-way national race, and a four-way contest in Quebec, making it difficult to assess how any party’s popular appeal will translate into riding-by-riding wins. This election, unwanted by most Canadians, could end up fundamentally recasting the terms of federal politics, the most dramatic possibility being Quebeckers embracing a federalist party after two decades of voting for a sovereigntist option.

One of the biggest questions is whether Conservative Leader Stephen Harper can, on his fourth attempt, secure a majority government. In the closing days of the campaign, the Conservatives have targeted the NDP as the main barrier to that goal, a concrete indication of the extent of the New Democrats’ surge. The Liberals, too, have blasted Jack Layton and his party; Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s last-minute campaign dash is aimed at wooing the progressive voters needed to keep the party competitive.

The Bloc Québécois, which has always won a majority of Quebec seats since the 1993 election, was under intense pressure in this campaign, bringing out hard-line separatists in an attempt to elicit the core sovereigntist vote.

But the biggest surprise of the campaign, and a big question on election night, is the NDP.

Pollsters have identified the NDP surge, but the final result could be anything from vote splitting that leads to a Conservative majority to a diminished minority for Stephen Harper. Whatever the outcome, the surge in NDP support that was sparked in Quebec has turned a dreary election into one that has the possibility of reshaping the political landscape.

There was little sign of that possibility on the day the writ was dropped; Mr. Harper sought to harness the prevailing mood of exasperation with his criticism of an “unnecessary election.”

For the first half of the campaign, it looked as if events would bear out Mr. Harper’s point, and Monday’s vote would return a carbon-copy Parliament. “Canadians were sleepwalking through this election,” said Nik Nanos, president and chief executive officer of Nanos Research.

Then came the debates, the pivot points of many an election, appropriately enough in the precise middle of this campaign. Canadians had been expecting a showdown between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff – indeed, at the start of the campaign, the Liberal Leader had challenged his Conservative rival to a one-on-one showdown.

Instead, it was Mr. Layton’s performance that proved critical, particularly in his faceoffs with Mr. Ignatieff, in the English debate, and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe the following night in French.

In the closest this campaign came to a knock-out blow, the NDP Leader undercut Mr. Ignatieff’s rousing defence of parliamentary democracy by pointing out he had the worst attendance record of any MP. “If you want to be prime minister, you better learn how to be a member of Parliament first,” Mr. Layton said. “You know, most Canadians, if they don’t show up for work, they don’t get a promotion.”

The next night, Mr. Layton’s smiling promise of constitutional accommodation stood in sharp contrast to Mr. Duceppe’s recitation of three decades of fruitless constitutional conflict, the Bloc Leader’s tired rhetoric a reflection of a tired campaign.

That week, Mr. Layton’s leadership numbers began to shoot upward, as Quebeckers tagged him with the nickname “un bon Jack” – a good guy. The NDP’s poll numbers shortly began to rise in Quebec, leapfrogging past the other two federalist parties and then displacing the Bloc, including as the first choice of French Quebeckers. Days after that, the NDP surge began in English Canada, closing the gap with the Liberals – and then in the final week of the campaign, leaving the Liberals in a distant third place.

The most recent poll from Nanos shows the Tories with a narrow lead over the NDP nationally, the Liberals far back and the Bloc headed for its worst performance in its existence.

But Mr. Nanos makes a critical point. There is a world of difference between poll numbers, or even popular vote, and the real measure of victory in Canadian politics – riding-by-riding wins. Two big questions hang over the Monday vote: efficiency and effectiveness.

Voting efficiency, or the ability to win the maximum number of seats with the minimum number of votes, is a particularly pressing concern for the NDP, and for the Liberals. The NDP needs to worry about its rise in the polls being frittered by second-place finishes in a large number of ridings. For the Liberals, the worry is more grim – the grimmest being a repeat of the Progressive Conservatives’ electoral debacle of 1993, when 16 per cent of the vote delivered just two seats. Four-way vote splits in Quebec, and three-way races in Ontario and British Columbia, further complicate the picture.

Effectiveness, or the ground game of getting supporters to the polls, is the other great unknown. The Conservatives have the edge; the Liberals say it may be their salvation. The NDP, in much of the country, will have to largely depend on their newly arrived supporters – many of them young, and statistically the least likely to cast a ballot – making their own way to voting booths.

Whatever the outcome of the 2011 election, this much is certain: the sleepwalk is over.

[giblets]

I have to say thanks to Stephen Harper for agreeing to spend billions on unnecessary American fighter jets. I encourage Canadians to go out and vote for American interests

[notyoueither]

@jessehirsh
Jesse Hirsh
Is this the greatest amount of interest that Americans have shown in Canadian politics since 1812? #tweettheresults #elxn41

[Krill]

Any exit polls?

[notyoueither]

Nobody does them. I don't think Elections Canada would allow them to be published or broadcast.

[Krill]

What's it looking like? Con minority or possible NDP/Lib coalition government, right?

[notyoueither]

Ermmm. My cousin from Newfoundland just called.

The Conservatives look to have picked up 3 seats in Atlantic Canada, and the NDP a bunch. The Liberals lose.

If accurate, my quatloos go on the Conservative majority line.

[notyoueither]

Heh. I think someone at CBC was lending a hand against EC. Newsworld was just broadcasting in my area. I don't think they were supposed to.

[notyoueither]

What's it looking like? Con minority or possible NDP/Lib coalition government, right?

BTW, I imagine you could stream from cbc.ca if you wish to.

[Flubber]

BTW, I imagine you could stream from cbc.ca if you wish to.

I will try but last time i thought something prevented me