- Give Harper the Boot - What Better Way to Promote Canada's Future - I Wonder If Anyone Suggested that At the Thinkers Conference
Posted in 2 parts: 3/29/2010 1:12:42 PM & 3/29/2010 1:52:44 PM
The Globe and Mail
What political courage is for, Brian Topp, March 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/ Tab 2
Slamming the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives then Stephen Harper and his Con's while at the same time suggesting that Tommy Douglas was responsible for everything that is good on our society today - how do you know Brian Topp is an NDP 'poobah' albiet not the grand, yet anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Tommy Douglas did not bring in Health Care. The Liberals did. It may has been supported by Douglas and his party at the time. But that is the point, they supported it they did not bring it in. This is a very important distinction, one that every NDPer today must consider. The NDP is an ideologically based party. As such they cater to approximately 15% of the population. As an Ideological Party they will never run this country. Jack Layton has this grandiose pipe-dream that he will lead the NDP to supplanting the Liberals as the opposition and presumably the government. That's his problem.
However, Layton will never lead the NDP to side with the Liberals in the fashion that Tommy Douglas did. And this is no matter if it allows Harper and the Con's into government and run this country into ruin cutting these "sinews of Canada" and hamstringing our nation. The only alternative is for the Liberals to firmly take hold of the middle-left and offer those who would otherwise vote NDP a real opportunity to rid Canada of Harper and his Con's.
The first two thirds of what Topp has to say is pretty much incoherent, NDP rhetoric. However, at the end he makes a good point. To oust Harper and the Con's from power will only likely be done by a direct toe-to-toe, knock-em-down-drag-em-out confrontation. Not the least of which will be sustaining the viscous attacks emanating from the greatest propaganda machines put together by any Western Democracy in recent history. It will be that hard since Harper and the Con's have about 33% of die-hard supporters, sourced in Alberta with apparently limitless funds and total disregard for the good and future of Canada as a nation. This by itself in the current political polarization almost ensures Harper a minority government and if he can convert a few isolated groups her and there, possible majority.
That will take political courage. However, Topp is absolutely correct, the secret is "you have to want it", so badly you are willing to fight for it and not simply expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter - just ask Jean Chrétien.
[. . . Continued]
'Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was asked Saturday what he remembers as the best idea to emerge from that event.
"I had to make sure we won the election," he quipped.'
(Retirement a top concern at 'thinkers' conference, CBC News, March 27, 2010)
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
Telltales signs of this process are things like 'they are out-of-touch'; what they propose "does not resonate" with the people; they do not have a plan, strategy, policies; he/she is "not a leader".
If the Liberal Party is experiencing this phenomenon Michael Ignatieff has a huge advantage of not being part of this calcification, but representing new and fresh approach with a open slate, willing to learn.
Ignatieff's background is also ideal for this type of developmental process.
The question is, does he want it so bad he is willing to fight and do what it takes to win, as did Chretien, Trudeau and so may others before him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Globe and Mail
What political courage is for, Brian Topp, March 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/ Tab 2
Slamming the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives then Stephen Harper and his Con's while at the same time suggesting that Tommy Douglas was responsible for everything that is good on our society today - how do you know Brian Topp is an NDP 'poobah' albiet not the grand, yet anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Tommy Douglas did not bring in Health Care. The Liberals did. It may has been supported by Douglas and his party at the time. But that is the point, they supported it they did not bring it in. This is a very important distinction, one that every NDPer today must consider. The NDP is an ideologically based party. As such they cater to approximately 15% of the population. As an Ideological Party they will never run this country. Jack Layton has this grandiose pipe-dream that he will lead the NDP to supplanting the Liberals as the opposition and presumably the government. That's his problem.
However, Layton will never lead the NDP to side with the Liberals in the fashion that Tommy Douglas did. And this is no matter if it allows Harper and the Con's into government and run this country into ruin cutting these "sinews of Canada" and hamstringing our nation. The only alternative is for the Liberals to firmly take hold of the middle-left and offer those who would otherwise vote NDP a real opportunity to rid Canada of Harper and his Con's.
The first two thirds of what Topp has to say is pretty much incoherent, NDP rhetoric. However, at the end he makes a good point. To oust Harper and the Con's from power will only likely be done by a direct toe-to-toe, knock-em-down-drag-em-out confrontation. Not the least of which will be sustaining the viscous attacks emanating from the greatest propaganda machines put together by any Western Democracy in recent history. It will be that hard since Harper and the Con's have about 33% of die-hard supporters, sourced in Alberta with apparently limitless funds and total disregard for the good and future of Canada as a nation. This by itself in the current political polarization almost ensures Harper a minority government and if he can convert a few isolated groups her and there, possible majority.
That will take political courage. However, Topp is absolutely correct, the secret is "you have to want it", so badly you are willing to fight for it and not simply expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter - just ask Jean Chrétien.
[. . . Continued]
'Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was asked Saturday what he remembers as the best idea to emerge from that event.
"I had to make sure we won the election," he quipped.'
(Retirement a top concern at 'thinkers' conference, CBC News, March 27, 2010)
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
Telltales signs of this process are things like 'they are out-of-touch'; what they propose "does not resonate" with the people; they do not have a plan, strategy, policies; he/she is "not a leader".
If the Liberal Party is experiencing this phenomenon Michael Ignatieff has a huge advantage of not being part of this calcification, but representing new and fresh approach with a open slate, willing to learn.
Ignatieff's background is also ideal for this type of developmental process.
The question is, does he want it so bad he is willing to fight and do what it takes to win, as did Chretien, Trudeau and so may others before him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
11:00 AM
<< Home