The Lambda Fifth Columns: Part 1 (of 4), Fall 1971

This is the first part of a new series of Fifth Columns featuring my columns from 1971 to 1973 in the Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda, that inspired me to write the Fifth Column many years later. They will be presented here in four parts.

The original print copies have been run through an Optical Character Reader to present them in full text (rather than images) here. 

 

The First Column (VOL 10#08 1971-11-02)

Richard W. Woodley

This column is dedicated to the proposition that Canada (and indeed the world) is in a crisis situation and that fundamental social change is required to remedy this situation.

This week week will look at an attempt to cause fundamental social change in Ontario, an attempt that failed with the return to power of the Conservative government.

The election of the Conservative government, with an even greater majority than before, was an event unexpected even by the Conservatives themselves, who saw the possibility of their being put in a minority government position. It was seen as an impossibility by the NDP, who near the end of the campaign were beginning to see themselves as possibly forming the government.

What went wrong ? Why did the attempt to gain fundamental social change through “participatory democracy’’ fail ? The NDP campaign had all the attributes of the campaign of a people’s party - it was a campaign fought on issues important to the people and conducted by the people, thousands of unpaid workers throughout the province. That this kind of campaign can succeed was seen clearly in the Sudbury area, where the hard work of hundreds of workers visiting every home in the area three times before the election and one or more times on election day won three seats for the party. In Sudbury Riding the NDP won despite the massive advertising campaign of the Conservative candidate (said to have cost over $25,000) who came last. The people of the Sudbury area were convinced that the NDP cared about them.

Certainly the provincial government’s lack of concern for the north may have been a factor in the NDP sweep of the Sudbury area. But then why did the NDP not sweep all of Northern Ontario, as expected, and why did the Conservatives win seats in Northern Ontario ? And especially why Sudbury, which though it has its problems (e.g. housing, roads, hospitals) is one of the most prosperous areas of the province with a high employment rate, and why did areas like Oshawa, (illegible original print text) which is undoubtedly expecting layoffs in the near future, elect Conservatives.

Undoubtedly the ‘blue machine” had more effect than expected and though the people did not approve of the Conservatives’ advertising campaign, they bought the product - no change.

The question is why did they buy the product. the product was sold as toothpaste is sold and undoubtedly every move was calculated to take advantage of human psychology (one may be tempted to call this brainwashing). This linked with the insurance industry’s advertisements, strategically brought forth at the end of the campaign with little chance for their refutation, was critical. So the people bought Bill Davis and his no change policy.

It seems that the campaign had its effect at the last minute - it was a culmination of psychological influences that formed the voters’ decisions at the end. Thus there was a high percentage of undecided votes right up until the election itself. Thus as the Conservative support was not acquired till the end of the campaign, the NDP support appeared artificially high till it reached a point where the NDP appeared to be able to elect the government.

At this point the ‘blue machine’ had its final effect. And with this came a reaction against change. And in fear of an NDP victory the people voted against the NDP and for the government, the result being the re-election of the reactionary Conservative government.

The only way the ‘blue machine’s’ psychological manipulation can be fought is by winning support early and holding it - not allowing undecided voters to be psychologically manipulated by the ‘blue machine’. This is what happened in the Sudbury basin - and it was only because of hard work by people dedicated to social change.

What will happen with the re-election of the Conservative government is uncertain. But the fight for social change must continue, Pressure must be put on the government continuously. It will be harder with a reactionary government than with one dedicated to social change - but the battle must continue.

 

The Second Column (VOL 10#09 1971-11-09)

By Richard W. Woodley

In volume two of ‘‘attempts at social reform that failed’’ we return to Laurentian University and our own Students’ General Association.

For most students attending Laurentian the top priority is academics, i.e. their courses. This is obvious as that is what they pay their $490 for. Though other aspects may contribute as much to their education, it is to take courses that they come to Laurentian.

Therefore academics should be the SGA’s top priority and the SGA’s aim should be to ensure that students get the highest quality courses possible.

The SGA took the first step towards this with its orientation program this year, which hoped to provide comprehensive academic counselling for students, especially new students, This was a limited success due to its being an initial experiment - but many things were learned from it. Hopefully next year’s program will start earlier and be more comprehensive.

However two things are vital to a good orientation and counselling program. They are a good student handbook and a good counter calendar., We had a good student handbook (ORCA) this year and will hopefully have a better one next year. This year we did not have a counter calendar and it appears that we won’t have one next year.

A counter calendar provides an evaluation of all professors and all courses taught in a school. It is based on questionnaires distributed to all students in all courses. It is an invaluable aid in the selection of courses by students.

From a counter calendar students can learn what courses were successful (from other students’ point of view) and what courses were not. They can see what students from the previous year felt about the courses and professors, This gives a student at least a basis for deciding what courses and what professors to choose.

A counter calendar can indicate professors who can’t or don’t bother to teach, It can indicate individual professors particular teaching methods. It can indicate where courses differ from the official calendar description and provide descriptions of what the courses were actually about,

A counter calendar used with student counselling provides an excellent basis for deciding what courses to take. Counselling without such a calendar is almost impossible unless you have counsellors who took every course available and then you only get one person’s opinion, while a counter calendar provides a summary of a whole classes’ opinions, When you have few counsellors, as we had this year, a counter calendar is an absolute necessity.

Besides aiding students in course selection a counter calendar can be an aid in deciding on the hiring and promoting of professors. Even if the administration doesn’t adopt its recommendations the student members of the hiring and promotions committees can use the counter calendar as a guide in their decisions.

However, the SGA, in its wisdom, has decided that Laurentian shall not have a counter calendar this year. This decision was taken when a viable proposal for a counter calendar exists.

The proposal was put forward by former SGA president Jim Stark, representing a non-profit company EDUCORP which specializes in producing counter calendars and doing other computer work for student unions,

The counter calendar EDUCORP proposes is based on a questionnaire which has been pre-tested and used across Canada and the United States. It will be used by Cambrian College in Sudbury this year. EDUCORP will provide the questionnaires, analyze them, and print the counter calendar for $2,140, The SGA will be responsible for distributing and collecting the questionnaire as well as preparing a summary of the comments on each professor. (The questionnaire contains pre-coded questions as well as space for longer comments,) -

The two basic criticisms of the proposal was that it was developed outside Laurentian and that it would be costly and difficult to administer.

The first criticism is unfounded as the nature of such a questionnaire is general and the same questions are relevant to all campuses. What students at Laurentian want to know about professors and courses is the same as what students anywhere want to know about professors and courses. What is more important is that the questionnaire has already been pre-tested and proven effective and relevant to what students want to know. As well a Laurentian developed questionnaire would be much more costly, approaching $6,000,

As far as the problem of cost is concerned all of the SGA’s responsibilities could be carried out on a voluntary basis, All it would require is organization. A well organized program working through each department would spread the work among several students in each department - each having a relatively small amount to do. The problem of student apathy would not be great in this case as students would see the personal value of a counter calendar. and would gladly help with its implementation as it is something that is a direct help to them in their studies. Thus the cost would be $2,140 for the production of the counter calendar, and there would be no great problem in its implementation.

As far as the time factor is concerned, it is far from too late, as the questionnaire should not be filled out till the students have at least one semester to base their evaluation on.

Thus if an agreement with EDUCORP was entered into soon a counter calendar could be available during the summer so that students could use it as a guide prior to registration.

The SGA is responsible to the student body as a whole and must respond to mass student pressure. The counter calendar will aid every student, It is up to every student to make his views known. But it must be done immediately.

 

The Third Column (VOL 10#10 1971-11-16)

By Richard W, Woodley

Well the SGA has done it again. You may remember that when the decision to open the pub in the cafe robot area was made, students were promised that the area would be available as a lounge when it wasn’t being used as a pub. We have had numerous inquiries from “lounge starved’’ students as to when it would be opened as a lounge. Well we have news - the SGA Council, in its wisdom, has decreed that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS and shall not be able to use this area as a lounge lest they do thousands of dollars of damage to the furniture (which they paid for). Of course it is understood that STUDENTS ARE VANDALS only in the day when they wish to use the area as a lounge but not during the evening when they go there to drink,

What else is there to say except that you have a chance overrule your representatives as the question will be put to you during the up-coming student Senate by elections. If you want the area as a lounge and don’t want to be “shit on’’ anymore this is your last chance,

Meanwhile the area remains locked!

Another SGA decision will be up for re- viewing at the next Council meeting (Wednesday, November 24, 7:00 pm. Room L207). Jim Stark, former SGA President and representative of the company proposing the latest counter calendar proposal, will be present at the meeting to explain the proposal to Council members who will be able to reconsider their previous decision not to accept the proposal.

A decision on SGA policy regarding incidental fees will also be made at that meeting,

At the same meeting a proposal will be put forward to make the council more representative of the students most important interest - his learning experience.

At present council members are elected according to Colleges which are simply social agencies. A much more relevant basis for election will be proposed. It will be proposed that the SGA Council representatives be elected according to the student’s academic fields. In this manner the SGA’s highest body will be representative of the students’ most important interests. Your representatives will be elected from amongst those who are in your same faculty - students who you will probably know better and whose qualifications you will be better able to judge.

As academic matters should be foremost in the priorities of the SGA, then the Council should be representative of the students academic interests.

Students are urged to attend this council meeting to present their views - otherwise you may be “shit on’’ again.

 

The Fourth Column (VOL 10#11 1971-11-23)

By Richard W. Woodley

The question of incidental fees is one that has been avoided and evaded by both the Students’ General Association and the Senate. The SGA tabled the matter until the specific motion that was tabled was forgotten about. However they have been collecting information on the situation in other universities and a decision on the matter should be forthcoming at tomorrow’s Council meeting.

Senate has referred the matter, in Senate tradition, to a number of committees, of which at least one does not exist. If it gets back to Senate, before the deadline for payment of the second instalment of student fees is due, all will be amazed.

This is a question which is of much importance to all students as it involves what they pay to this institution as student fees. However, of more importance is the affect that a decision on the matter will have on student services.

Compulsory fees guarantee that the service they provide will be available. With non-compulsory fees year to year planning in these fields is difficult as the number of students wishing to pay the fees each year is unknown.

However the other question is one of principle. Should a student pay a fee for services he does not receive and does not wish to receive, In this area the fees can be divided into two categories. One category is that of services which the student may not wish to take advantage of and does not get the advantage of. The Athletic Fee is an example of this - students not wishing to take part in athletics do not get the advantage of the fee. The College Fee is the same for students not taking part in college social activities. The Health Services Fee is of the same category for students who have a family doctor in Sudbury and do not take advantage of the Health Services.

The SGA is of a different sort as students who would opt out of the SGA fee would undoubtedly still benefit from its services.

Another category can also be added - that is one of essential services. ‘Health Services is an essential service for those that need it and as such the subsidization of such a fee by those who do not use it can be justified. However because of its special essential character it should be logically included in tuition (provided compulsory insurance is removed).

The SGA is also an essential service - for all students. For without a student union future progress of this university, as far as making it a more humane place to learn, would be slowed down immensely. As well past student gains could be eroded without its presence. It assures student representation on important bodies and committees and provides a ‘‘unity’’ that is necessary to prevent the student from being ‘‘screwed’’, The existence of an independent student newspaper is a very important way that students’ rights are protected. This is not taking into account the necessity of a student organization to provide services such as the Pub and La Boutede - and in the future the administration of a campus centre.

The differences in the services suggests that their fees be treated in different manners.

The Athletic and College Fees should be optional as they are non-essential services which should be provided for those who want them only.

The Health Services, a special case as explained, should be paid for out of tuition costs.

The SGA Fee should be treated in a special manner. As all students necessarily benefit from it, and in reality all would want to, it should be compulsory. The compulsory fee would prevent students from benefiting from the SGA at the expense of their fellow students.

However to ensure that the SGA is providing the students with what they want, and to ensure that it is providing it adequately, the compulsory fee could be contingent on its receiving fifty per cent support from the student body in a referendum held each year (to apply to the collection of the next year’s fees).

This would ensure that the SGA was relevant to the student body as a whole as well as preventing individual students from ‘‘freeloading’’ on the rest of the students,

The existence of a students’ union is essential to the students of the university. It is up to them to make sure that it serves them.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#12 1971-11-30)

By Richard W. Woodley.

What Senate needs is a new chairman,

The present chairman’s obsession with efficiency has gone too far. The chairman’s attempt at using dictatorial methods at last Thursday evening’s Senate meeting was not the first occasion he has acted in such a manner. He has shown his contempt for the members of Senate on numerous occasions.

It is not just that he attempts to move Senate business along quickly but he disregards Senate’s right to decide how its meetings will be carried on.

At Thursday evening’s meeting he put forth a ten o’clock deadline which was extended by Senate. After the extension was passed Professor Barry, an observer at the meeting, repeatedly attempted to be recognized. Finally he addressed the chair and was told he would not be recognized immediately. He waited patiently until the chairman called for a vote. Upon this, Professor Wagner, a Senate member, reminded the chair that Professor Barry wished to speak. The chair said it would not allow him to speak (in the interests of expediency). (A number of observers had previously been allowed to speak.)

Professor Wagner immediately challenged the chair’s decision. The chair said that it would not accept the challenge. This was too much for student Senate candidate Ike Lindenburger, who protested and finally told the chairman to “go to hell”. At this point the chairman told Mr. Lindenburger to leave or the meeting would not continue. Mr, Lindenburger refused and the chair recessed the meeting for ten minutes. During this time a number of faculty members on Senate managed to convince Mr. Lindenburger to leave, on the understanding that the chair would be challenged when the meeting resumed.

The meeting was resumed and in a matter of minutes was recessed. The challenge was not put and Professor Barry did not speak. Though Senate’s business was resolved satisfactorily, the question of the chair’s ruling was not - and in this the members of Senate share the blame with the chair.

The point is that, though the chair has the right to decide if an observer may speak, Senate itself has the final decision.

“An appeal may be made from any decision of the chair (except when another appeal is pending), but it can be made only at the time the ruling is made. It is in order when another member has the floors’’ (Roberts Rules of Order)

The chair, according to the rules, must recognize a challenge. Not to allow Senate the final decision is to show contempt for the Senate., This is not the first time the chairman has said that he would not recognize a challenge. On previous occasions the Senate has had to force the chair to take a vote on challenges and usually the chair’s decision has been defeated.

If the chair has no respect for the rights of Senate, then the chair should be replaced.

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#13 1971-12-07)

What is the purpose of Laurentian University? Perhaps this question gets to the root of all our problems. Trying to be a university like all the others is obviously leading to problems. So then, we should be “unique”.

The most common suggestion for achieving this uniqueness, is to exploit our regionality. It is said that we are a regional university and should concentrate on regional studies. In this way we can compete with southern universities by not competing in the same fields.

This is logical but does not provide a real alternative. The field of studies would be different, but that’s about all. We would still be the same type of university.

That type of university is the graduate-research oriented university where everything is geared towards the graduate level. The undergraduate level is simply a preparatory level for the ‘‘real thing”.

Today’s students are frustrated. From grade school to high school they are continually being prepared and looking forward to the next step. They do not consider the stage they are at as being useful but just as preparation for something greater. When they reach university they think they have finally “arrived” only to be told ‘‘you really should plan on graduate studies”.

Of course, what is a BA worth, Nothing? It is said that it is no longer a job ticket, This could be the best thing that ever happened to universities - if it is reacted to properly.

Universities in the past pretended to ‘‘educate” - while attempting to provide job training at the same time. Of course they failed.

Now is the time for polarization. What we need is a complete split of the two functions with job training and education provided by separate institutions. One need not choose. In our society today we do not need a large labour force. People can afford to spend more time in school - they can attend both types of institutions - and society can afford to support them while they are there.

What are the implications of this for Laurentian? Laurentian has the opportunity to be a leader, as an education oriented university.

I propose that Laurentian become a purely undergraduate university (a graduate university is only a job training school for professors). It is not too late for this as Laurentian has not yet become a completely graduate oriented university,

Graduate schools provide more individualized education. We should do this on the undergraduate level.

With this will come a certain freedom., Freedom from *‘standards’’. We should not gear our programs to ‘‘standards” of industry or graduate schools. Let other universities do that.

The main point here is that students are realizing that university does not guarantee employment, Increasingly those people who come to university will be coming strictly for an education. If we can do this better than anyone else we can attract the real “best’’ students.

The major criticism of the elimination of graduate studies is that it won’t attract the best staff, as they wish to have research facilities. But we will attract staff that want, first of all, to work with people. And that is what education is all about. We will attract people from all over who never had this type of university to work in.

What this would do for Laurentian would be to open it up for all sorts of rewarding innovations in education, simply by the elimination of outside ‘‘standards’’. Evaluation, examination, and grading could be eliminated.

It would not be the same institution it is now and would not attract the same students, But why should it? CHANGE!

 

The Fifth Column (VOL 10#14 1971-12-14)

By Richard W. Woodley

What is love? ;

What is this world all about. Are people really happy. Do people know what they really want out of life or are they simply goal oriented towards goals that they are artificially socialized into seeking. Is the pursuit of “happiness’’ the pursuit of love,

Love is portrayed as a saviour; but what is love. Love is seen as the solution of the world’s problems and indeed it is. But how many people know what it really is and how many people really feel it. How can everyone in the world learn to love everyone else if few people can even learn to love someone else.

Is love happiness. And are too many people too busy worrying about happiness to love or be loved.

Is love relevant.

Happiness, unfortunately, is defined socially - society defines happiness and, as one has little control over one’s society, one has little control over one’s happiness or indeed over what one learns to consider as happiness.

Though love should be social in the sense that it is for others - it is not by my definition social. It is not socially defined for it is not definable. It is inner, it is a feeling, not exactly contentment but just a feeling of... love. It may not be exactly “bells ringing’’ but maybe more of a quiet reassuring, even in the midst of desperation, “humming’’.

What is this all about anyway - a personal plea or a solution for humanity. Perhaps neither, perhaps both, perhaps nothing perhaps everything,

But there must be more to life than socially defined happiness - and socially defined love would be even worse and unreal - love is not socially definable.

What is love, Love is personal and interpersonal. Can love be mass - can one love the world, Love is ‘‘a complete giving of oneself” so can one completely give oneself to the world.

Let us start at the beginning. If everyone is to love everyone, then first of all everyone must love someone. But if love is “a complete giving of oneself” can one completely give oneself to another. And, in defence of individualism, is this desirable. But is this really, literally, what love is or is love just a feeling.

Love is an inner commitment. Not necessarily a commitment to another, but a commitment to yourself to another.

But why love. If love is not ‘‘happiness’’ and it may not always be so, if love is painful, why seek it. But is love painful, or does it just appear that way when compared to “social happiness’’.

I began by saying that love is portrayed as a saviour - but is it love that is portrayed or some form of “socialized love’’. Perhaps in it’s very nature love cannot be portrayed or described or talked about, but only felt. Then is this relevant, Is this talking about love or talking about ‘‘talking about love’’,

Have I been artificially socialized into falling for an artificial image of love. The closest I could come to describing “love”, with the tools of language available, would be similar to the “self-sacrificial image of it’’, but it is not that and it is much more than that.

Perhaps it has a depth that society has socialized people out of being able to conceive.

Why love, especially if love is painful, why love. Society and the socialization process has defined man’s society, man’s goals, even man’s happiness. It cannot define his love. It cannot prevent his loving. It can make it difficult and make it painful but it cannot destroy it or distort it.

Love is personal and as such is that which makes man human. It may be all that man has left in today’s socialized technological world. It is inside and thus the outside cannot distort it or destroy it. It is humanity. It is life!

Merry Christmas Love

 

For more from Lambda see Laurentian University student newspaper Lambda - Internet Archive

Why I am not Rejoining the New Democratic Party (NDP)

I decided to put more thought into rejoining the party to be able to vote for the new federal leader after receiving an invitation to join from the Avi Lewis campaign and noticing him following me on mastodon.

Back in my university days, and for quite a few years after that, I was very active in the Ontario NDP (which at that time included federal party membership), actively working on campaigns, both provincial and federal, serving on constituency association executives in both Sudbury and Kanata, and attending provincial council meetings and conventions. As well I was an Ontario Waffle supporter and Left Caucus member.

I left the party partly due to disillusionment, due to it’s move away from social democratic ideology towards left wing populism, and partly in order to be freer as a blogger to criticize the party without feeling disloyal.

I have consistently voted NDP both provincially and federally except for two occasions. Once I voted CPC(M-L) as a protest vote after Stephen Lewis tried to force the Waffle out of the Ontario NDP. The other was a strategic vote against the Mike Harris government, when I voted for Marianne Wilkinson, who I had supported municipally in Kanata and who had left the Ontario Conservatives to run as a Liberal due to Mike Harris’s policies, and who might have actually had a chance to defeat the Conservative candidate.

However I have no desire to become active in party politics at this time and I have always felt leaders should be chosen by party activists (even if they are only active during election campaigns) and I have been quite critical of the recent practice of political parties using leadership campaigns as recruiting tools.

Back in my day, when I was politically active, political parties were run by party activists, the ones who attended meetings, canvassed during elections, called voters and put up signs. These were the people that voted for the parties policies, chose the candidates and elected the leaders.

Nowadays political parties have decided that it is expedient to use nomination meetings and leadership votes as a way to recruit new members. Whoever can recruit the most new members tends to win nomination votes and leadership candidates that can sign up the most new members tend to win leadership contests. It is no longer long term members choosing party candidates and leaders but new members that tend to make the difference when it comes to these decisions. And during election campaigns the policy is not taken from the party policy book but dictated by the leader.

(Source: THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Democracy)

So, despite the temptation, I have decided to remain an independent voter and commentator.

The Next Four Years: An Opportunity for the New Democratic Party

The last election may have been an electoral disaster for the NDP but it is also an opportunity that should not be passed by.

Indeed the NDP should not be rushing into a leadership campaign but rather let the Parliamentary leader act as party leader until the party has a chance to rebuild itself.

The parliamentary party’s role for the next four years should be to, not play games, but support the government in it’s war on Trump’s tariffs and annexation talk and Maple MAGA’s efforts to Americanize Canada.

Meanwhile the broader party should start a process (preferably in collaboration with the Green Party and Canada’s social movements) similar to the 1961 founding of the New Party, which became The New Democratic Party, to build a true Social Democratic Party of Canada. It needs to abandon it’s experiment with left wing populism and build a party built on principles and philosophy. Some would call this ideology but the NDP is at it’s best when it is ideological. It is time for an NDP rebirth.

I would propose a two year time frame to do this purposefully and carefully including the election of a party leader for the new Social Democratic Party of Canada at the end.

This should be followed by two years to rebuild the membership and solidify links with Canada’s social movements and for the parliamentary caucus of the new Social Democratic Party of Canada to press for democratic reforms and in particular electoral reform, either through a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) or  Ranked Ballot Voting system so that Canadians can elect a truly representative government in the next election without the possibility of the least desired party having one hundred percent of the power in the House of Commons.

Hopefully during this time the true conservatives in the Conservative Party will see the error of throwing their lot in with the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party and rebuild the former Progressive Conservative Party and exile the extremists to the right wing fringe so-called Peoples Party.

Canada Needs a Red-Orange-Green National Unity Government

At a time when the country that has been our best friend, ally, and international partner for longer than we have been a country has decided that we are now the enemy (and the country that was our and our NATO allies’ historical enemy is now their best fiend) we need to be united.

This time in our history is not the time for a snap election, a change of leadership, or for a Prime Minister to be distracted by an election campaign, especially when Justin Trudeau has just proven himself to be the leader we need.

At this time, facing this existential threat, we can certainly not depend on Pierre Poilievre and his MAGA and freedumb convoy sympathetic Conservatives to lead us against the attacks of the Trump regime to the south.

There is however a solution. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Green Party must come together to form a coalition National Unity Government. Justin Trudeau can continue as Prime Minister until after the fall election without the political distraction of having to seek re-election.

In the next election the three progressive parties must pledge to not run against each other, with the candidate from the party with the most votes in the last election in each constituency being the National Unity Government candidate. The new Liberal Party leader will lead the Liberal Party campaign leaving Prime Minister Trudeau free to lead the country in this battle for our existence until a new government is elected.

This war will be continuing and I would propose the continuing National Unity Government (if the voters so choose) appoint Justin Trudeau as a special envoy to deal with the Trump regime.

The National Unity Government should also bring in electoral reform in it’s first term after re-election. Ranked Ballot Voting which essentially keeps our single member constituency system, effectively only changing the way ballots are counted, will probably be the easiest to find a consensus for. 

What’s With Jagmeet Singh

New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh is receiving a great deal of criticism for saying the NDP will vote non-confidence in the Liberal government in the New Year and that this will bring on a Poilievre Conservative government. Of course it is the voters who will decide who forms the next government and the only thing the NDP voting against the Liberals can do is bring on that legally required election six months sooner.

But that six months is very important for the Liberals who, now in a leadership crisis, need that six months to resolve it and select a new leader. In fact that six months is probably important enough for the Liberals to make the NDP an offer they cannot refuse.

That offer could be electoral reform, and although bringing in a Proportional Representation system before the next election may be impossible, implementing Ranked Ballot Voting may well be within Elections Canada’s capability, followed by the next Parliament implementing Proportional Representation.

Or it could be fast tracking a complete universal Pharmacare program for Canada or some other significant gain for the Canadian people that the Liberal government has shown they were not prepared to do so far.

The next move is the Liberal Party’s.

Five Point Plan to Save Canada from the Cons

1. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as Prime Minister to the Liberal caucus and the Liberal caucus appoints an interim leader.

2. Justin Trudeau resigns as Prime Minister and asks the Governor General to select the interim Liberal leader as Prime Minister of a National Unity Government with Jagmeet Singh as Deputy Prime Minister and Elizabeth May in the Cabinet (in order to allow assured confidence and time for a new Liberal leader to be selected before the next federal election).

3. The Liberal, New Democratic, and Green parties announce they will not compete against each other in the next election, agreeing that whichever party (of the three) won the most votes in each constituency in the last election will not be challenged by the other two.

4. After the next election, if successful, the National Unity government will strike a special Parliamentary committee with expert researchers to consider expert and public testimony on electoral reform, followed by a report and legislation, with implementation of a new electoral system by Elections Canada.

5. The National Unity Government will be dissolved and a new election held under the new electoral system and a truly representative government that reflects the votes of the Canadian people will be elected.

Is It Time For The NDP To Rebirth Itself

The North American right wing has been overtaken by a vile hateful Donald Trump inspired populist MAGA movement that has spawned the Freedumb Convoy types and infected the Canadian Conservative Party and what was once a principled conservative tradition in Canada, although you have to go back awhile to the former Progressive Conservative Party to find it.

Canada has long had a form of populism of it’s own within the Liberal Party but a much more benign form. Intent on maintaining it’s position as the “natural governing party” the Liberals focused their policies on what would be popular with voters, tending to “campaign from the left and govern from the right” with policies just progressive enough to get them elected without upsetting the financial powers that be that actually run the country.

The New Democratic Party has often been criticized for being too ideological but in truth that was it’s strength, being a party of social democratic principles. But it seems that it is now embracing a populism of sorts. Instead of pursuing a comprehensive social democratic platform it seems to be taking a series easy unfocused pot shots at the both the Liberals and Conservatives. At the same time it tries to convince the Liberals to adopt what it sees as popular polices and take credit for them, leaving them open to the description “Liberals in a hurry”, long decried by those of us on the left.

What is the solution. It has been over 60 years since the NDP was founded in 1961 by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and over 90 years since The CCF was founded in 1932 by a number of socialist, agrarian, co-operative, and labour groups and the League for Social Reconstruction. Is it time for a rebirth.

Social democracy may be at the heart of the NDP but Canada’s social movements have been it’s soul. Is it time for Canada’s social movements (labour, environmental, indigenous rights, anti-poverty, fair taxation, public health care, women’s liberation, pro choice, LBGTQ+, anti war, etc.) to come together to birth a new Social Democratic Party for Canada, that will fight a principled fight for a better Canada for all.

What will this party stand for. That will of course be up to the party but I do have some ideas for some founding priorities.

The first priority must be electoral reform because if democracy is not working neither is anything else. We need an electoral system that provides for local representation as well as a House of Commons membership that reflects the philosophical positions of the voters as expressed in the total votes for each party. There are several variations of Proportional Representation that do this. My personal preference is Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

The next priority must be tax reform, with a progressive income tax system where the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share. Without fair and adequate taxation government cannot fulfill its responsibilities to the people including public health care, the social safety net, and addressing income and wealth inequality.

The new party must also commit to completing the public health care system to include pharmacare, mental health care, dental and vision care, and long term care. This must include returning to 50% federal funding as the only way to ensure the provinces live up the the Canada Health Act is the federal spending power. Tax points that can be used to subsidize the oil and gas industry, provide benefits to land developers or bribes to voters will not save our health care system.

The last on my last, but far from the last of the policies the Social Democratic Party must adopt, is an industrial strategy designed to provide for sustainable development and fight climate change by creating good paying long term unionized jobs.

Indeed it is time for a rebirth.

Another Way of Looking at Political Parties in Canada

With Pierre Poilievre as the Tory leadership front runner I anticipate the Conservative and People’s parties fighting for the right wing fringe vote and collectively becoming the Party of the Deplorables.

Wishful thinking sees the New Democratic Party returning to it’s ideological roots as a party of principles fighting for progressive change reclaiming it’s role as the Party of the Idealists.

Leaving the Liberals as a party focused on getting elected by promoting policies that appear just progressive enough to win votes without upsetting the powers to be that actually control the country as the Party of the Opportunists.

 

Federal Election 2019 Reflections

The big surprise of the election has to be the Bloc Québécois resurgence, although I am sure they probably saw it coming even if the rest of us didn't. This certainly makes leader Yves-François Blanchet's position secure.

The other surprise was the late campaign resurgence of the New Democratic Party under leader Jagmeet Singh. I am sure many New Democrats are thinking if only they had another week of the campaign as his popularity surge does not seem to have peaked yet. If before the election there was uncertainty over whether they had made the right choice he has proven himself and his leadership is certainly secure now.

The Green Party under Elizabeth May is a different matter altogether. This was the election they were supposed to make a breakthrough and it proved not to be. While Elizabeth May may be a saint to many Greens, others have questioned her “leadership style”, to put it politely. To many the Green Party is Elizabeth May and that may be a problem in itself. The question for the future of the party may be is there a Green Party beyond Elizabeth May.

As for the upstart People’s Party of Canada (aka the “Mad Max party” or the “I'll get you Andrew Scheer party”), it went down in flames with even leader Maxime Bernier losing the seat he won as a Conservative in the last election. There will be no leadership change here as you cannot have anyone else but Max Bernier lead the Max Bernier party. What we will likely see is brave statements about this being their first election and they will be better organized next time, followed by the party slowly fading away.

This was supposed to be the election the Conservative Party under Andrew Scheer formed government, considering Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau's recent SNC-Lavalin and brown face scandals, to name just two. But that was not to be, leaving Max Bernier with at least something to celebrate. The knives were already out for Andrew Scheer during the last week of the campaign as many Conservatives foresaw what was coming. But it is not only leadership the Conservatives have to change, they need to find a way to move beyond their social conservative base that just scares away other voters.

As for the apparent winner, Liberal Party leader, and Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, the big question is going to be did he win a minority or lose a majority. To many observers this is the election where more people voted against the Conservatives than voted against the Liberals. It may indeed have been an election where the Liberals won despite, not because of, Justin Trudeau. I see it as similar to the last election Kathleen Wynne's Liberals won in Ontario. Discontent with her leadership of the province was only going to grow and she did not see it was time to step down and let the Liberals re-brand under a new leader if they hoped to win the next election. Will Justin Trudeau see this, or more importantly, will the Liberal Party.

So how many party leadership campaigns will we be seeing in the next few years.

Postscript - What if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had kept his promise and this election was not held under the First Past The Post system but under a system where every vote counted.

On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

No doubt many raised in our capitalist society, where inequality rules and excessive incomes and wealth are seen as a right (and where even the NDP only proposes a measly 1% tax on excessive wealth), will consider this proposal to be radical but it is actually quite a modest proposal.

So what is excessive income and wealth. There are many ways to measure that, many statistical, but I propose a simpler definition – the amount of wealth and income where increases have no discernible effect on ones way of life or standard of living, where the increase is simply not noticeable in one's day to day life. Let's be generous to the wealthy in determining such levels. I propose an annual income of $1 million dollars and total assets of $100 million as the level that triggers “excessive income and wealth”. Above that no one notices without reading their financial statements.

The thing about excessive wealth is that it makes minuscule difference to the recipients but could make all the world of difference to the poor and underprivileged and to society as a whole if used for the common good. I will not even attempt to list what all that excessive wealth could do if devoted to the common good of society .

But there is another side to excessive income and wealth – it is highly undemocratic. The rich do not cling to their excessive wealth because it makes a difference to their daily lives. They cling to it because it gives them economic and political power. It is not just a matter of economic inequality, is a matter of political inequality.

Democracy is based on equality, one person one vote. Economic power is political power. Excessive wealth skews political power so that the wealthy have more of it. Excessive wealth is inherently undemocratic.

So what do we do with this excessive wealth so that it benefits society. We tax it away so that it can be used for the common good.

This sounds radical at first. But what do the wealthy lose in this proposal. Their standard of living and quality of life does not change. They only thing they lose is their excessive economic and political power, power that undermines our democracy.

Postscript

In taxing away excessive wealth we cannot just require it's conversion to cash to be paid as taxes. That would obviously be very disruptive to the economic system. Society (through the government) will take ownership of these resources in kind and in many cases maintain them while applying revenues from them to the common good. In some cases they may need to change the policies of entities that are not acting in the public interest or divest ownership of entities where that serves the public interest.

Also this proposal does not address all the problems with our tax system. For it to be truly progressive we need to raise the income level that triggers the payment of taxes and increase the higher marginal tax rates, including adding marginal tax rates at higher income levels (between $200,000 and $1 million).

Realigning Canada's Political Spectrum

Canadians have traditionally held social democratic values while supporting centrist political parties. Canadians support universal single payer public health insurance, public pensions and a social safety net, all of which, at the federal level, have been proposed by leftist political parties but legislated by centrists political parties. These parties traditionally were the Liberal Party, slightly to the left of centre, and the Progressive Conservative Party, slightly to the right of centre.

The new extreme right wing federal Conservative Party of Stephen Harper (and Ontario PC Party of Harris and Hudak) are historical anomalies.

But the rise of the New Democratic Party in the recent election, and the rapid decline of the Liberal Party are signs that a change may be underway.

Some are suggesting a move to a two party left/right alignment with a merger of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, but I do not see that happening.

What I see happening is a realignment closer to the traditional Canadian model.

I see the demise of the Liberal Party with it's right wing moving to the Conservatives and it's left wing moving to the New Democrats. I see the right wing Liberals joining with the former progressive wing of the Conservatives to move that party closer to it's former position slightly right of centre, while the New Democratic Party fills the position formerly held by the Liberals but somewhat further left of centre.

This would mean that the centre of Canadian politics would move to the left leading to more progressive future governments.

But I also see a further possibility of a New Democratic Party government bringing in proportional representation so that a true left wing party could emerge, with political representation equivalent to it's public support, along with a similar right wing party. The Greens would also get representation equivalent to their public support.

Their would be the potential for a more democratic system that made majority governments unlikely and co-operative (rather than confrontational) politics not only possible, but a necessity.

A Manifesto For Social Democracy

Jack Layton - In His Own Words

August 20, 2011
Toronto, Ontario

Dear Friends,

Tens of thousands of Canadians have written to me in recent weeks to wish me well. I want to thank each and every one of you for your thoughtful, inspiring and often beautiful notes, cards and gifts. Your spirit and love have lit up my home, my spirit, and my determination.

Unfortunately my treatment has not worked out as I hoped. So I am giving this letter to my partner Olivia to share with you in the circumstance in which I cannot continue.

I recommend that Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel continue her work as our interim leader until a permanent successor is elected.

I recommend the party hold a leadership vote as early as possible in the New Year, on approximately the same timelines as in 2003, so that our new leader has ample time to reconsolidate our team, renew our party and our program, and move forward towards the next election.

A few additional thoughts:

To other Canadians who are on journeys to defeat cancer and to live their lives, I say this: please don’t be discouraged that my own journey hasn’t gone as well as I had hoped. You must not lose your own hope. Treatments and therapies have never been better in the face of this disease. You have every reason to be optimistic, determined, and focused on the future. My only other advice is to cherish every moment with those you love at every stage of your journey, as I have done this summer.

To the members of my party: we’ve done remarkable things together in the past eight years. It has been a privilege to lead the New Democratic Party and I am most grateful for your confidence, your support, and the endless hours of volunteer commitment you have devoted to our cause. There will be those who will try to persuade you to give up our cause. But that cause is much bigger than any one leader. Answer them by recommitting with energy and determination to our work. Remember our proud history of social justice, universal health care, public pensions and making sure no one is left behind. Let’s continue to move forward. Let’s demonstrate in everything we do in the four years before us that we are ready to serve our beloved Canada as its next government.

To the members of our parliamentary caucus: I have been privileged to work with each and every one of you. Our caucus meetings were always the highlight of my week. It has been my role to ask a great deal from you. And now I am going to do so again. Canadians will be closely watching you in the months to come. Colleagues, I know you will make the tens of thousands of members of our party proud of you by demonstrating the same seamless teamwork and solidarity that has earned us the confidence of millions of Canadians in the recent election.

To my fellow Quebecers: On May 2nd, you made an historic decision. You decided that the way to replace Canada’s Conservative federal government with something better was by working together in partnership with progressive-minded Canadians across the country. You made the right decision then; it is still the right decision today; and it will be the right decision right through to the next election, when we will succeed, together. You have elected a superb team of New Democrats to Parliament. They are going to be doing remarkable things in the years to come to make this country better for us all.

To young Canadians: All my life I have worked to make things better. Hope and optimism have defined my political career, and I continue to be hopeful and optimistic about Canada. Young people have been a great source of inspiration for me. I have met and talked with so many of you about your dreams, your frustrations, and your ideas for change. More and more, you are engaging in politics because you want to change things for the better. Many of you have placed your trust in our party. As my time in political life draws to a close I want to share with you my belief in your power to change this country and this world. There are great challenges before you, from the overwhelming nature of climate change to the unfairness of an economy that excludes so many from our collective wealth, and the changes necessary to build a more inclusive and generous Canada. I believe in you. Your energy, your vision, your passion for justice are exactly what this country needs today. You need to be at the heart of our economy, our political life, and our plans for the present and the future.

And finally, to all Canadians: Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one – a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world’s environment. We can restore our good name in the world. We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change. In the months and years to come, New Democrats will put a compelling new alternative to you. My colleagues in our party are an impressive, committed team. Give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives; and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

All my very best,

Jack Layton


Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/22/pol-layton-last-letter.html

The NDP, The Quebec Question and 50% + 1

Much has been made of Jack Layton's "controversial" comments on a possible Quebec sovereignty referendum.

The fact is that it is a very rational and defensible position. Based on the closest precedent, the entry of Newfoundland into Confederation, Quebec has followed the same rules, keep on holding referendums hoping to get the result you want with 50% + 1 required for passage. After all, otherwise we have a minority deciding Quebec's constitutional status.

That position, however, has it's problems. Other constitutional precedents require greater than 50% + 1 to make constitutional changes. As well, if support is that close the results of a referendum can vary from day to day.

That is why I tend to support requiring something like 60% support for such changes in constitutional arrangements, to ensure that the new constitutional arrangement will have continuing support. However that position also has it's flaws because in the case of, for example, a clear and continuous 55% support for sovereignty, the minority that opposes the change in status would effectively decide the fate of Quebec.

That is why the real focus needs to be on maintaining strong support for federalism in Quebec, support that has just recently been very effectively expressed by the people of Quebec in choosing a federalist social democratic party over a sovereignist one. We need to work on building and strengthening a strong federalist consensus in Quebec.

This will not be done by "giving Quebec whatever it wants" but by giving Quebec respect and building a strong Canadian community. This starts with recognizing Quebec's nationhood and it's right to decide it's own fate. Can we have a country within a country. It seems to work well enough for England, Scotland and Wales, within a unitary state. When have you ever heard Scots refer to themselves as "United Kingdomers" but their loyalty to both their country of Scotland and their nation state of the United Kingdom does not seem to be in conflict.

We have the best opportunity ever to set aside separatism in Quebec and build a strong Canada that includes Quebec. Quebec has spoken in the election and chosen federalism. All we have to do is work with the Quebecois to build a strong united Canada with them.

Go Canada Go

A Message to Canadian Voters from Tommy Douglas

Historical Background

Mouseland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tommy Douglas and the NDP | CBC Archives

It's Time

You don't have to choose between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber

What is Progressive About the Liberal Party

Well, nothing, actually.

The Liberal Party has always been a centrist (and opportunistic) party, slightly to the left of the Progressive Conservative Party. The fact that the latest incarnation of the Conservative Party has moved to the right does not make the Liberals progressive. Indeed, if anything, the Liberals under Iggy have moved to the right into (and past) the spot held by the old Progressive Conservatives.

As for the Greens, they are simply a recognition that broader support for environmentalism has created a spot for a right wing environmental party that recognizes that without an environment there can be no profits and that there are profits to be made from environmentalism. But their solutions are clearly capitalistic and not progressive.

The fact is that Canada has only one mainstream progressive political party. It is the party that has always been the political wing of the progressive movements, including the environmental movement. And, of course, that party, with it's own inherent problems from time to time, is the New Democratic Party.

Don't Do It – NDP Name Change

If the NDP (New Democratic Party) changes it's name to the Democratic Party it will be the final formalization of the repudiation of the Regina Manifesto and the abandonment of not just socialism, but of social democracy by the NDP.

It will be the acceptance of a political shift of power in Canada to the right in the name of hopefull electoral success. What else could be the desired result than the NDP replacing the Liberals on the centre left, and the Ignatieff Liberals taking the place of the former Progressive Conservatives on the centre right, with the Conservatives becoming the third party and pushing the Liberals to the right, rather than the NDP pushing them to the left.

The NDP has a proud record of accomplishments from Medicare to public pension and Canada's social safety net. Becoming a Liberal Party with Liberal policies may get it elected, but we will never see the party having the type of social and economic impact on Canada in the future, that it has had in the past, if it goes down that road.

If the NDP feels a name change is required to define itself to the Canadian people I would suggest calling themselves the Social Democratic Party of Canada. After all they do belong to the Socialist International along with the European Social Democratic parties. Indeed a name change to Social Democrats would give the NDP a perfect opportunity to explain social democracy to Canadians and it would identify the NDP with western european political parties that have sucessfully governed their countries.

Or, if they fear that name and they really feel a name change is necessary, keep the identity of the NDP and call themselves the New Democracy Party to put emphasis on their policies for electoral and democratic reforms, such as proportional representation.

Even the Working Peoples Party of Canada or Ordinary Canadians Party would be better than the Democratic Party which most Canadians identify with the wishy washy liberalism of the American Democratic Party. You would only do that if you wanted to be identified as Liberals because you believed electoral success was more important than principles.

Congratulations to the People of Nova Scotia

Read All About It