Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

“Junkyard Jack”

An open letter to Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen)

Dear Susan

I always enjoy your columns, but feel compelled to modestly take issue with yesterday’s highly critical piece on Layton and the NDP. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=380c76cc-f1cc-4aa8-84d7-4aadebd0ec1f

 

Yes, Layton is sometimes unduly macho combative and, yes, the frequent attacks on the Liberals do sometimes grate, especially if they allow Harper to get off the hook more easily. I’ll readily concede that Dion and most of his party tilt to the left of Harper (not a hard task), and that we need to achieve some common purpose among progressives to defeat Harper.

And yet, it  is hardly as if the Liberals are not fishing in the NDP voter pond by putting on their usual progressive pre election/opposition party face. More importantly, is Dion really as progressive as he wants progressives to think he is?

Leaving aside the not inconsiderable fact that the Liberals indeed did next to nothing about climate change in their full decade of power when this was supposedly top of the agenda, I am disturbed by the fact that Dion/McCallum have embraced virtually the entire Conservative tax cut agenda – notably the further deep cuts to corporate taxes, and the two point $12 Billion per year cut to the GST. When I went to the Finance Committee two weeks ago, McCallum was describing the Liberals as the “real tax cut party.”  In the absence of any proposals for progressive tax reform, where will they find the fiscal resources to fund the anti poverty agenda they talk so much about, especially in a slowing economy?

Also, I note that they have embraced much of the costly Conservative family benefit agenda, directed to middle and higher income families, rather than calling for a re-direction of resources to child care/early learning, and targeted benefits to low income children. Caledon, the architects of some progressive social policy under Chretien, have been quite critical, while a lot of anti poverty groups have failed to notice just how thin is the Liberal anti poverty plan is.

Regards

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: December 20, 2007, 3:11 pm

I agree that Riley’s attack on Layton does not make sense.

Both of her examples of “junkyard-dog tactics” – accusations by Mathyssen and by unnamed NDP officials – have almost nothing to do with him.

Both of her supposed parallels between the NDP and Conservative Party – rejecting candidates and studying Australian campaign tactics – relate to internal party administration as opposed to policy.

In fact, all political parties have always tried to emulate foreign election victories and removed candidates who stray too far from the party line. New Democrats criticize Harper not for “importing neoconservative strategies from abroad” but for importing neoconservative policies from abroad.

Riley’s claim that “policy seems secondary to strategy” in the NDP is slightly odd coming from someone who mainly writes about the political horse-race as opposed to policy. Her example is one in which the NDP put forward the correct policy, but was allegedly “slow to condemn the hysteria over veiled voters.” Of course, the Liberals, who Riley defends, contributed to this hysteria.

Regarding the notion of “a gang-up on the Liberals,” Layton’s main criticism of them has been for allowing the Conservatives to govern like a majority. It’s pretty hard to argue that whipped abstentions in Parliament are the way for progressives to pull together against Harper. If anything, the Liberals have ganged-up with the Conservatives, particularly on issues like corporate tax cuts.

It seems to me that the leader of the smallest party in Parliament needs to be fairly “muscular” and “combative” to get noticed. We would certainly not accept a pundit going after a female politician for being a woman in the same way that Riley goes after Layton for being male.

Comment from Erin Weir
Time: December 21, 2007, 3:21 pm

Although I thought that Riley’s December 19 column was off-base, I note that today’s column positively identifies Layton as one of the “articulate worriers” on climate change “outnumbered by the silent and the indifferent.” Clearly, her assessment of him is not totally one-sided.

Write a comment





Related articles