THE TRUE FACE OF THE NDP

The NDP likes to stake out a distinct position as an alternative to the "corporate agenda". But what is this "corporate agenda"? Fundamentally, it is no different today than it was in 1886 when my great grandfather established himself in this country on Vancouver Island. Robber baron Robert Dunsmuir attempted to weaken the bargaining position of the mine workers near Nanaimo by great numbers of cheap foreign labour. Growing the labour pool and creating more consumers is the formula for more profits. And the environment is collateral damage for which no one, until recently, gave a toss.

Until the early seventies, the labour movement across the anglophone world realized that labour markets must be controlled according to national and not globalist interests. Since then, mysteriously, it has bought into the globalist vision. So while the labour pool has grown 13% since 1990 , the wages of educated workers fell by 7%, according to the Stats Can report of May 2007, yet the NDP's answer is only make immigrant workers more aware of their rights. Instead of fighting for a tight labour market, the unions are fighting for a chance of recruiting more dues-paying members and the NDP is fighting for a chance to win more ethnic supporters. No thought is given to the ecological costs of more people in this country. The following is a compendium of articles already found here but grouped together in one theme: the fraud that is the NDP and its claim that it is in any sense an environmentally aware party.

THE CORE BELIEF OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATS, SOCIALISTS AND GREENS
“A commitment to the welfare of human beings takes precedence over a
general devotion to the well being of the earth.”
Kevin Schmiesing, 2005
Economist
Center for Academic Research, Acton Institute

TWO KINDS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATS, TWO DIFFERENT CONTINENTS
Remember Jack Layton, the “Green” city councilor from Toronto? The one who favours windmills and solar panels and retrofits and meeting Kyoto goals and all those good things? The man who leads the party with the “Green Agenda”? Well then you know his wife, Olivia Chow.

After Ottawa had increased its annual immigration target to the highest level in 25 years, and hopes to accept 265,000 immigrants this year, Chow, also an NDP MP, says the target should even be higher. That makes sense. The NDP is on record calling for an immigration rate of 1% of the current population “plus”. Currently that would be 330,000!

Revealing both her economic and environmental IQ she is quoted as parroting, in “Karas and Associates”, the same clichés as the traditional parties use:


“We need more immigrants because of our aging population. We need families and young people for productivity and economic growth.”


Ms. Chow would do well to consult left-wing economist Phil Mullin and his book “The Imaginary Time Bomb”. Immigration will not relieve the aging of our population whom we can support with very modest economic growth of 1%. And the productivity of the older experienced workforce is quite OK thank you very much. The CD Howe Institute will corroborate Mullan’s findings. Immigration would have increase 28 times its present level to maintain the present age structure. Clearly environmentally unsustainable.


Ms. Chow, and her consort, Mr. Layton, are captive of a national myth. That Canada is a vast country with lots of room for lots of people. A huge treasure trove of resources waiting to be opened up without ecological consequence if only there were the human resources available to do so. Therefore our immigration and refugee policy must, to use an NDP phrase, be “welcoming”.


Australia also shares that same myth. But with a difference. Their environmental superstars---Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe---and some politicians have exposed that myth for what it is, a dangerous suicidal fallacy which threatens to bring about a massive die-off of much of the population.


One of these politicians is a social democrat like Olivia Chow and Jack Layton. His name is Bob Carr, recent Labor premier of Australia’s largest state of New South Wales. This is what Carr has to say about the nature of economic growth, population and limits:


“Let’s throw away for all time the notion that Australia is an empty space, just waiting to be filled up. Our rivers, our soils, our vegetation won’t allow that to happen without an enormous cost to us and those who come after us.


We can depend on economic growth that comes in an easy fashion driven by population growth…On the other hand, we can sustain jobs and economic security by using our brains, by being a smart economy, by adding value to the products we produce here—the food and the fibre and the mineral products we produce here. By elaborating transforming manufacturing—we’re beginning to prove as a people that we’re good at that. By promoting our health innovations to the world, by promoting excellence in education to the world, by selling these services. That’s a smart Australia. Giving security to its people by thinking intelligently. It’s not a lazy Australia, that depends on job growth simply by driving up population numbers and depending on the growth you get by building houses and shopping malls.”

Carr went on to say that not to choose to have a population policy was in fact choosing not to have a population policy. In other words, we are then making a decision to continue with the present directionless policy “heading for limitless growth”.

Carr, and fellow retired Labor parliamentarian Barry Cohen is among several Australian politicians who know that unlimited growth in a finite country is impossible. They know that population growth thwarts GHG emission reductions, threatens biodiversity and farmland. Pity that their Canadian counterparts do not share this realization.


Tim Murray.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GREEN AND A NEW DEMOCRAT?
Greens favour over 1% population growth for Canada. Their leader talks of bringing in 330,000 immigrants annually to support Canada's "great" Multicultural Project.
The NDP favours "1% plus" population growth for Canada and an immigration rate that will serve that end. They want a dramatic expansion of the definition of family class immigrants.

Greens favour open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees
The NDP favours open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees. Neither party grasps the meaning of "carrying capacity".

Greens favour tough hate speech laws and diversity awareness programs for public and private employees.
The NDP favours tough hate speech laws and diversity awareness programs for public and private employees.
Both parties believe Canadians should adapt to the customs and values of immigrants and not the other way around, or that immigrants should attend workshops to made aware of Canadians' sensitivities.

Greens look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.
The NDP look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.

Greens advocate greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change
The NDP advocates greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change

Greens ignore immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.
The NDP ignores immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.

Greens supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation, now they are retroactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.
The NDP supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation , now they are retroactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.

Greens opposed the Taliban because of the horrid way they treated women and because people who practiced such a patriarchal culture in their own country should be overthrown
The NDP opposed the Taliban because of the way they treated women and because people who practiced such a patriarchal culture in their own country should be overthrown.

Greens encourage Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity".
The NDP encourages Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity"

Greens say they stand for "social and economic justice".
The NDP says it has a "Green Agenda".

They look very much like the Bobsy Twins to me. Yet they are always fighting, always claiming they are so different from one another. Freud had the answer. "The Narcissism of Small Differences". When two tribes have so very much in common ----hypocrisy, self-delusion, self-righteousness, schizophrenia, myopia----they highlight their tiny differences and inflate them.

Maybe we should be grateful the two parties don't merge under the transexual leadership of Elizabeth Layton or Jack May wearing big black hiking boots and a green dress

LETTER TO MANITOBA NDP CAUCUS
"We want Manitoba to be a place that promotes SUSTAINABLE GROWTH and a place that recognizes our lakes, rivers, and forests as our greatest assets." "Sustainable growth", what the hell is that? On a finite planet, in a finite nation, how can growth ever be sustained? I see that the NDP has adopted all the public relations cant designed to make us feel better about an agenda that more or less amounts to the same thing.

"Sustainable", "smart", "managed", "deflected", or "steered", growth is still growth and you can't cloak that with one of Lorne Calvert's "Green Strategy" or Jack Layton's "Green Agenda" labels. And BTW, you say you want Matitoba to be a place that recognizes "lakes, rivers and forests as our greatest natural assets." My Collins dictionary defines an asset as "anything valuable or useful". The question is, useful to whom? To logging, mining and hydro-electric companies and property developers? Or to people who value them for themselves, who believe that Canada's natural endowments don't necessarily have to have a human utility?

It is apparent that Canadians live in a one-party state. From coast to coast, all political parties, including the Greens and the NDP, are committed to the ideology of Economic Growth. Attaching a green agenda to that ideology is an exercise in futility, contradiction and hypocrisy. The only issue that divides you is how equitably the economic "pie" is to be divided. All of you want to grow it. You are going to keep shoveling fuel into that runaway train until it runs right off the track.

Tim Murray

GROWTH IS OK IF IT IS SHARED
NDP Premier Lorne Calvert, in calling an election for November 7, declared that growth was a good thing, so long as it was “shared”.

This fascinating concept is meant to stake out a distinctive position for social democrats on the ideological spectrum.

Whereas the Saskatchewan Party and the Liberals---the “right”---follow the old formula that growth of any kind is to be promoted because of an alleged “trickle-down”effect whereby even the poorest citizens feel its benefits, the New Democrats are so much more enlightened. While their opponents are campaigning from a 1925 policy book, the NDP is way ahead of them waving their 1961 ideas.

Some choice. 1925 or 1961, as environmental Armageddon looms on the horizon.

Calvert’s thesis evokes interesting logic. His manifesto would read:

It’s OK to rob a bank so long as the proceeds of the robbery are shared among the fashionably oppressed constituency of the NDP. The ‘working people’ (Businessmen don’t work). First Nations. The handicapped. Seniors. Single Moms. Transexual Dwarfs, whatever.

It’s OK to clear-cut old growth forests if timber revenues are equitably shared.

It’s OK to develop farmland if the sale of homes in new subdivisions reaps sales tax revenues for the provincial treasury and they are equitably shared.

It’s OK to generate radioactive waste if the nuclear plant provides power for low-income people.

It’s OK to wipe out an endangered species if the housing built on its habitat provides affordable options for low-income people.


Growth is OK so long as it is shared.


And if you still feel uneasy about it, go to the NDP website for Saskatchewan or Manitoba , and you will find that growth becomes “sustainable”. Sustainable growth? Virgin birth!


Whether these snake oil salesmen represent the left or the right, or the environmental movement, they can’t make growth palatable to discerning taste by sugar-coating it with these oxymoronic neologisms that attempt to cloak the fact that economic expansion in a finite environment cannot be sustained. Calling it “shared”, “sustainable”, “managed” or “smart” will not rescue it from this ironclad law.

Get real Calvert.

Tim Murray,

PREMIER CALVERT’S BIG LIE
The autopsy on the 17 year reign of Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert must conclude the he lived and died his political life a liar. Like his colleagues across Canada, he promised us that we could have our cake and eat it too. After seeing his province’s greenhouse gas emissions grow more than 60% since 1990, he still had the cheek in 2006 to promise his audience that “while continuing to grow the Saskatchewan economy, we will stabilize the absolute level of green house gas emissions by 2010.” It is doubtful that even Houdini could accomplish that feat, as no jurisdiction in the world has contained or reduced GHG emissions while experiencing population and/or economic growth simultaneously.


Like so many politicians today, Calvert was master of oxymoronic dualities. A “Green Strategy” in tandem with the “Saskatchewan Action Plan for The Economy”. A “healthy” environment that can coexist and indeed proceed through our economy. Calvert was like the quack doctor of a fast buck diet centre that promises you that you can lose 50 pounds a month and still enjoy a litre of ice cream every day. But then, it’s a proven marketing recipe these days, isn’t it? Who doesn’t promise an economic boom with a Green agenda? A “clean” environment with a “robust” economy?


Two solitudes. Matter and anti-matter, can come together in wedded bliss. All it takes is green Newspeak and spin.


Lorne wasn’t shy about his promises. He said that thanks to his initiatives Saskatchewan would reduce GHG 80% by 2050, by various conservation and efficiency measures from industry, business and homeowners. Trouble with efficiencies though, is that they tend to get wiped out by the very growth that Lorne promoted. During the time that the efficiency of air conditioners improved by 17%, for example, the number of air conditioners grew by 36%. It’s called Jevon’s paradox, or if you prefer, the Khazoom-Brooke postulate.

Then he promised more natural carbon sinks from Saskatchewan’s boreal forests. Too bad he presided over the logging of so much it so that he could reap the royalties of the growth is craved so much. Calvert made similar promises about eradicating child poverty. When he was ejected from office in November, Saskatchewan still had the third worst child poverty rate in the country, 2.4% above the national average. Second worst was the neighbouring fellow NDP province of Manitoba, at 4.1% above the national average, where 49% of residents of the capital city of Winnipeg in a recent poll complained that their growthist, social-democratic government also failed to solve poverty.



It is as Dr. Peter Victor of the University of York observed, growth is not particularly effective at eliminating poverty, creating full employment, or safe-guarding the environment. Since 1976, as both the GDP and the greenhouse gas emissions have gone up consistently, levels of unemployment and poverty have bounced around.


Lorne Calvert believed in social and environmental alchemy. He believed that population and economic growth could be sequestered from ecological consequences, and even if it couldn’t, he was on record as saying that it was acceptable as long as its benefits were equitably distributed. A social democrat of the 1960s vintage, he’s now been relegated to the dustbin of history. But lamentably, his place has been quickly taken up by ten equally myopic and deceptive premiers and a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who just took the John Howard award for Global Miscreant in Germany by postponing our Kyoto target 13 precious years. Taking the classic cake-and-eat it approach, Harper is proposing a so-called “intensity-based” reduction plan which would allow countries like China and India to join in climate change efforts “without having to sacrifice their economies.” Go on a diet, but keep eating your ice cream.


Harper et al obviously haven’t been apprised of the latest terrifying research. It appears that Chanceller Merkel’s prescriptions or that of the IPCC’s are far too moderate. A paper in Geophysical Research Letters finds that even a 90% global cut in emissions by 2050 will see the fatal 2 degree temperature rise threshold broken. We need a 100% cut. The total decarbonization of the economy.



But the news is even more shattering than that. Professor Rod Smith of the Royal Academy of Engineering reveals that each period of economic growth that it takes the economy to double causes the economy to consume as many resources as all previous doubling periods combined. Says journalist George Monbiot, “in other words, if our economy grows at 3% between now and 2040, we will consume in that period economic resources equivalent to all those we have consumed since humans first stood on two legs.” Translation: we must halt growth.


Using these guidelines, if Canada continues to grow at 3.6% annually as it has since 1990, its economy will double in a mere 20 years. It would stretch credulity to the extreme for Canadian politicians to perpetuate the pretence that this kind of economic growth can happily coexist with an effective climate change strategy, or that a nation that grew its population by 19% since the Kyoto base line year could expect to meet a 6% GHG reduction target by 2008. Little wonder Harper backed out of his commitment. Reducing immigration, of course, is an option outside Ottawa’s imagination.


It ‘s time for politicians to stop telling us The Big Lie. The lie that there is no correlation between economic and population growth and environmental degradation. It is no accident that in the United States, between 1970 and 2004, both GHG emissions and the population rose by 43%, and that between 1990 and 2006 the increase in GHG emissions in Australia almost exactly matched that of population. Population levels coupled with per capita consumption, produces economic growth.


The imminent ecological crisis makes it clear. It is showdown time in the OK Corral. It’s us facing Growth. Our own Frankenstein. We won’t walk out of the corral together.

Tim Murray


FOR SOCIALISTS GROWTH IS STILL OK, SO LONG AS IT IS SHARED

I suppose it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Canada’s social democrats have not experienced an ideological epiphany in the past seven months. One might recall that NDP premier Lorne Calvert in calling an election for November 7th declared that growth was a good thing so long as its “benefits” were shared.

This revolutionary statement was made to distinguish social democrats from the growthists on the right who simply promised that growth’s benefits would “trickle down” to the less fortunate without state intervention. But between them was complete unanimity that growth should proceed. The boreal forest would continue to be clear cut no matter how timber royalties were spent, potential farmland would be sold for housing, wetlands would be cleared for development and uranium mined.

In a speech given May 22/2008 to the Shepherds of Good Hope, NDP leader Jack Layton revealed that his party had not changed its attitude to growth:

“As a country, we have a responsibility to ensure that no member of our society is denied the essentials of life. But today, we are seeing a very disturbing trend in Canada: the growing gap between the rich and everyone else. More wealth (sic) is being generated than ever before—but that does not mean that everyone is better off. In fact, the opposite is true. The reason is pretty clear---the benefits of economic growth (sic) are not being shared equally among all Canadians.”

Oh Jack. So that’s what’s wrong with economic growth. Just that its benefits are not being shared equally among all Canadians. Well they certainly weren’t shared equally in NDP British Columbia, NDP Saskatchewan and NDP Manitoba. All three provinces recorded the worst child poverty rates in the country. And homeless people were out on the street in force in the latter half of the nineties in BC too, during the NDP reign. The growing gap between top and bottom income levels also rose during their tenure. Analysts even on the left also report that the gap between social classes or at least regionally between north and south actually grew under Tony Blair’s centre-left government. Clearly there is a gap between the rhetoric of social equality and its delivery. And just as clearly, economic growth is not the mechanism of that delivery.

But I thought what was wrong with economic growth was what it did while it was “growing”. Eating into natural capital and destroying real wealth in creating the “wealth” that Mr. Layton defines as such. For what is “wealth”? Is it the toys we accumulate with all this economic activity? The consumer goods, the cars, the furniture, the sparkling new housing units? What is it? Seldom factored in as wealth are the 33 trillion dollars worth of biodiversity services that the planet provides free of charge to support human life. Services which are daily being destroyed by relentless economic growth. Clean water, unpolluted air, healthy vibrant fish stocks in our lakes and streams, viable microorganisms----these constitute the real wealth of the nation that are not to be “shared” and parceled out like tax rebates to Jack Layton’s low income constituency or offered to the developers’ greed. When are we going to a measuring stick that reflects this fact and replaces GDP and the statistics politicians are using to test reality?

To seal the deal Layton was asked by veteran parliamentary reporter Mike Duffy if his plan to tax the worst corporate polluters might impede economic growth. Layton quickly reassured him, “Oh, no, look at Germany. The government forced penalties on the car manufacturers and revenue went to the development to wind turbines. There is more economic growth now than before.” Layton’s plan is in opposition to the Liberal-Green plan to introduce carbon taxes. He apparently has not heard the news that the Royal Academy of Sciences concluded that ALL economic growth must end if we are to stop short of raising global temperatures by that critical 2 degree tipping point. Tim Murray June 1/08

COMMENTS ON “GROWTH IS STILL OK SO LONG AS IT IS SHARED”

This is a good point to hammer home. Both "Left/Socialists" and "Right/Conservatives" wingers are all growthists. I hate those polarized general terms anyway. They are way overused.

One of the reasons why economic growth has not made people better off is because in addition to ruining people's environment, we are talking about GDP growth, not GDP per capita growth; despite sacrificing more of Canada's resources, each person earns less than before because there are now more people to divide up the GDP among.

So Layton made it clear that his goal is economic growth and the more the better. But while economic growth IS GDP growth, it is NOT GDP per capita growth! Population growth causes GDP growth, but for GDP per capita growth you need population decline. A rapid population decline could facilitate GDP per capita growth at the same time as negative GDP growth.

When the news talks about how well-off/wealthy we are, they always use GDP growth as the yardstick even though GDP per capita is in decline, and even if GDP per capita increased along with the GDP, we'd still be worse off due to unsustainable resource harvesting and worsened environment including loss of species and endangered ecosystems.

GDP is a fuzzy thing. It is money, which changes in value from inflation and resource scarcity. Money has no real value. You can't buy things that nature can no longer produce.

This is why I don't like talking in terms of GDP and other economic concepts.

Brishen Hoff
________________________________________


Dear Tim,
As far as I can see, the ideology of the socialists only differs from that of the capitalists as regards distribution.
Their politics are 'human improved' capital based just like those of the industrialists.
They have no ken of biological underlay of the economy.
Ideologues cannot adjust to reality and circumstances; they just keep churning out the catechism - like the Catholics.
I ran into the same thing with the Georgists: Henry George's 19th century solutions must fit without change to 21century ecological problems.
That is ideology.

And politicians can smell power underwater, so they will never go against the dominant power-holders.

The originators of the political dialectics were thinkers, but their followers refuse to see that the problems have changed. We have used up half of our capital in petroleum and most other fossil fuels
and the water and land is creaking under the strain.

Sheila Newman


Jack Layton chooses Wall Street over Main Street

So Jack Layton ran down to the convention floor in Denver like a teenage groupie and proclaimed that “the Democrats are talking about the same kind of change we’re talking about in Canada…there is a real desire here to put the concern of the kitchen table ahead of the board room table.”

That must be news to Wall Street. Sure the Democrats talk like Robespierre, they always have. But they govern like Louis XIV. Forget the rhetoric and follow the money trail. Check out www.opensecrets.org Bluntly put, the big banks, the financial firms, the corporate law firms and the private equity companies on Wall Street pay the pipers of both parties. But Jack Layton’s friends, the Democrats, are their clear favourites, as these examples will show.

The Financial/Insurance/Real Estate Industry gave 51% of their $51 million in 2008 to the Democrats.

The Information Technology sector gave 67% of its $27 million in contributions to the Democrats in 2008.

This year the Democrats have received almost $24 million from Agribusiness, representing 41% of their influence peddling.

This is interesting. Wall Street law firms have sent 75% of their over $140 million to politician contributions to the two-faced Democrats.

Listen to this. The Defense Industry gave 52% of its $8 million in donations to Jack Layton’s allies, the Democrats, in 2008. As Canadians know, Layton has been a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq. I suppose if the Defense Industry had given its money to the Republicans it would have been referred to as the “Military Industry Complex” as it once was. The electronics sector of the Defense Industry gave 55% to the Democrats.

Wall Street promotes the candidates who serve its interests and the Democrats have delivered for them since their November 2006 victory. Democratic leaders buried a proposal to tax the massive incomes of hedge fund operators at normal rates, allowing billionaires to claim most of their income as capital gains taxed at a far lower rate. Obama also refused action on the subprime meltdown that would have threatened big financial interests.

Barack Obama took in $102.1 million for all of 2007 and by February 22, 2008 had raised $138 million, including a million form private equity firms and $9 million from corporate law firms. And hold on to your seat belt. By August 28/08 Barack Obama had raised $389,423,102 . This kind of money did not come from cab drivers, hair dressers, carpenters, supermarket clerks gardeners or the working families sitting at the kitchen table that Jack Layton’s rhetoric conjures up. It came from ordinary down-to-earth corporate goliaths like AT+T who gave $168,613 to Obama this year. And City Group who gave him $389,989 this year. And Microsoft who gave him $274,375 this year.

Now why would Microsoft give a candidate like Obama a political donation? Their donation is explicable by an Obama policy statement that maintains support for “improvements in our visa programs, including the H-1B programs, to attract some of the world’s most talented people to America.” But the most talented people in the world are already in abundant supply in America. The only problem is, Obama’s corporate benefactors don’t want to pay them the salaries they command. Better to flood the market with Asian visa workers who can be paid at 60% of that rate. Buying a pliable President and Congress for even $1billion in political contributions would be a bargain for the IT industry. Ditto for agribusiness and corporate America in general.

Upon reviewing their take, one must say that for a so-called progressive party of the down-trodden (albeit led by patricians) the Democratic Party has done pretty well for itself, as has Mr. Obama, holding out a tin cup on Wall Street and doing their panhandler act. You have to love their act. “Please Mister, can you spare me a million, I promise if I am elected, I will open up the floodgates to more cheap labour, destroy another 5 million middle class jobs, depress the wages of the jobs that remain, expand the visa programs and with the population boom cancel out any climate change strategy.” And Obama is sincere. Just three days after Hilary Clinton pulled out of the race, he declared to CNBC, “Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.”

Organized labour in America throws what little money it has toward Obama as well, 91% of it. But since 1993, it too has shared the corporate agenda of open borders, in the belief that it can broader its dues-paying membership base by signing up migrant workers. It hasn’t worked out that way. As Labour economist Vernon Briggs has demonstrated, the percentage of foreign born workers and union members in America is inversely proportional. American union workers have simply lost their jobs.

As the Democratic Socialist Senator of Vermont, Bernie Sanders put it, “If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into the country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now.”

Obviously, Bernie Sanders is not Jack Layton’s kind of socialist. Nor was J. S. Woodsworth, who knew that a tight labour market was a worker’s best friend and favoured restrictive immigration policies throughout his tenure as CCF leader.

So, if Democrats are talking about the same kind of change as New Democrats are, as Jack Layton maintains, then, certainly, they are all about the same kind of change.
Immigrant-fed runaway population growth that will pauperize and decimate the working class, despoil environment and accelerate greenhouse gas emissions. All cloaked in green progressive rhetoric.


JACK LAYTON’S PHONE CALL

At 9pm on Tuesday evening (Sept 8/08) the phone rang. I instantly recognized the automated voice of NDP leader Jack Layton. He spent about 15 seconds telling me that it was time for a change. He used what is becoming a hackneyed phrase. A phrase dreamed up by a speech-writer describing how different Obama’s Democrats were from the Republicans, despite the fact that Wall Street gave more campaign money to the Democrats. The phrase was “listening to the concerns of the kitchen table rather than the board room table.”

But the board room table wants lots of immigration and that is what Jack wants too. The people that Jack claims to be fighting for, the ordinary working people though, don’t want that. But they’re not running the unions that send campaign workers and money to the NDP. Seeing that Harper, Dion, May and Layton are all pulling in the same direction, it seems senseless for them to waste so much money on campaign spending.

Why not have all the parties campaign together under one banner with this slogan: “MORE PEOPLE, MORE GROWTH” That way they can pool their resources and run a cost effective campaign, and clear up this confusion, this charade that there exists some fundamental difference between left, right and centre in this country.

Tim Murray


Left-wing challenge: Read this essay: “Is it reactionary to oppose immigration?” Learn about how socialist, social democratic and trade union leaders in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century in North America and Australia have dealt with this issue. It will open your politically correct eyes and steel-trap mind. http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240)

Read also what CCF leader J.S.Woodsworth’s attitude to immigration was in the Labour day issue of www.immmigrationwatchcanada.org bulletin
More effective than any union, is a tight labour market.