Why is Michael Ignatieff letting Harper off the hook yet again?

[Ken Burch]

There was a proposal for all the opposition parties to show up in the Commons on January 25th, the day Parliament was supposed to go back into session, and bring the Harper government down. As he has done over and over and over again, Ignatieff announced that his party, the alleged Official Opposition. would once again refuse to BE the Opposition and would refuse to appear on the 25th.

How can Iggy keep doing this and STILL expect the voters to support him when the election is called? The man does realize his support among left-of-centre Canadians will collapse if he just goes on this way and lets Harper have a full term in a minority, doesn't he?

Clearly, if Harper is allowed to keep governing after this, it pretty much guarantees he'll get a majority next time. I'm beginning to wonder if Iggy doesn't secretly WANT that. After all, this is the same guy who called for the west to revive imperialism back in 2003 and the same alleged "Liberal" who pushed hard for the Iraq War for years and years.

[HeresyLives]

1. He isn't.

All Liberals will show up for work on the 25th.

Published On Tue Jan 5 2010

OTTAWA–Liberal MPs and senators will return to work as scheduled in the nation's capital later this month, even though Parliament has been suspended until early March.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff informed his caucus during a conference call Tuesday that he expects them to report for work on Jan. 25.
He told caucus members they can't let Prime Minister Stephen Harper get away with shutting down Parliament and stifling debate.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/746535--liberals-to-report-for-work-despite-shutdown-of-parliament?bn=1


Edited to add source.

[Ken Burch]

2. Will the Liberals do the logical thing then

And join the OTHER opposition parties in a coalition government?

If they did that, Harper would be out of office.

It's no more unreasonable to ask them to do that than it is for Liberal Party supporters to ask other parties to stand aside in favor of Liberal candidates in the name of "uniting the left".

[RedSock]

3. Ignatieff has says "never" to a coalition (eom)

[HeresyLives]

4. Canadians don't want a coalition govt.

Did you miss the uproar the last time this issue was raised??

[Ken Burch]

24. Than Harper should just introduce a non-confidence motion on the 25th

That would end the Harper craziness now. The voters would say it served Harper right for pulling another prorogue.

[HeresyLives]

37. I assume you mean Ignatieff, not Harper..

And you expect him to do this after plummeting in the polls in Sept when he moved non-confidence???

[Ken Burch]

39. I did mean Iggy. Although it would be weirdly funny if Harper got tanked and did it himself.

Then again, if you say that Iggy shouldn't introduce a nonconfidence motion because it might cost him seats means you'd have to also accept the NDP announcing at the same time that it wouldn't back a nonconfidence motion when an election might have cost THAT party seats. It's not like the one party should have to take risks and the other shouldn't.

[Spazito]

5. Actually, you would be much better off if you targeted the leader of the NDP....

instead of the leader of the Liberals. We had a chance of toppling the Harper government but Jack Layton kowtowed to the cabal and backed Harper instead. Harper's trashing of the Parliamentary democratic process is NOT going over well with the Canadian people so don't assume he will get a majority next time at all. He has been unable to achieve that in multiple tries.

[ardenv]

6. I wonder if Canadians will notice this..

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100107/national/harper_economist_critique

[HeresyLives]

7. It's being ferociously debated at Macleans right now.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/canada-run-by-a-bunch-of-gerald-fords/#idc-container

Conservatives are out in full force trying to trash The Economist.

[Spazito]

10. I find that quite hilarious and ironic...

typical of the rabid right, the Economist was their 'bible' until this. I once participated in MacLean's survey group and some of their questions were very biased in favor of the Cons, it was quite an eye-opener.

[HeresyLives]

14. It's also Harpers favourite magazine.

Macleans used to be very rightwing, but I notice they've modified it somewhat lately. As long as you avoid Steyn that is.

[Ken Burch]

23. The hard-right stance was mainly about increasing circulation

Traditionally, Maclean's had been fairly moderate(it could probably have been called "Red Tory" for much of its history), and only shifted to an extremist position(exemplified by its infamous 2006 election campaign cover that demanded the defeat of NDP candidate and former mp Svend Robinson, the first time in the magazine's history that it had actually used its own cover story to work against a single candidate)in the early 1990's.

I read it from time to time at the public library, and still find its current tone incredibly obnoxious. It's degenerated from being the Canadian equivalent of Time or Newsweek into the journalistic version of the flaming bag of shit somebody left on your doorstep.

[Spazito]

33. Your take on MacLean's magazine is right on point....

"It's degenerated from being the Canadian equivalent of Time or Newsweek into the journalistic version of the flaming bag of shit somebody left on your doorstep."

Perfectly stated. I, long ago, used to subscribe to it, enjoyed it but canceled it when it did it's rabid right turn.

[Ken Burch]

34. My favorite part was the Allen Fotheringham column on the back page

They now use that page for an extended obituary. I wonder if there's a metaphor in that editorial decision?

[Spazito]

36. I, too, loved Fotheringham's column....

by replacing him with 'an extended obituary' it certainly seems to be a choice that foreshadows it's own death as it relates to being in any way credible.

[ardenv]

11. ha

His supporters are getting uncomfortable.. I loved this reply "I really hate Macleans"

[ardenv]

8. or this

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15211862

[Spazito]

9. The editorials/columns across Canada have been scathing in their comments...

regarding Harper and his cabal's actions in shutting down Parliament. Canadians ARE noticing, the majority are NOT happy with this action.

Majority condemn Harper move, poll finds
Survey conducted for the Star finds little support for prorogation

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper was wrong to suspend Parliament for what many Canadians believe were selfish reasons, according to poll done for the Toronto Star.

The Angus Reid public opinion poll released Thursday found that 53 per cent of Canadians disagreed with Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament, despite the Prime Minister's insistence it was a routine constitutional matter.

Even more than half of the Conservative supporters surveyed said they opposed the decision, while 46 per cent agreed with it.

The poll results also show that 38 per cent of respondents believed Harper pulled the plug on Parliament to thwart a parliamentary committee's probe into the treatment of Afghan prisoners.


more

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/747532--majority-condemn-harper-move-poll-finds?bn=1

Link to tuvor's thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x28370

[ardenv]

12. yes

and I exepct even more people paying attention since the CBC interview with Mansbridge.

[HeresyLives]

13. Yes, the media seems to have turned on Harper,

and in Canada that's the best sign you can get on how an election will go.


Val Sears 1962
"Come, gentlemen, we have a government to overthrow."

Newspaperman Val Sears has written thousands of news stories and articles and millions of words, but what the public remembers is this single remark. He made it upon boarding a press ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-29022779.html

[Ken Burch]

15. The NDP only did it once. Iggy backed Harper over 50 times

And none of the stuff Iggy backed Harper on will be repealed.

The Liberals aren't doing what they need to to in this situation, which is to recognize that the other opposition parties need to be treated as the Liberal Party's equals. Instead, they're just demanding that the other parties, under the misleading "unite the left" line, simply surrender and reduce the next election to the meaningless Harper v. Iggy choice. Given that Iggy's the most right-wing leader the Liberals have had since the 19th Century, why SHOULD those other parties do this?

If the Liberals really wanted to "unite the left", they'd develop an actual left-of-center platform and agree to pass legislation as soon as the next parliament came in implementint proportional representation for federal elections in Canada. They are not in any position to demand that the NDP and the Greens simply defer to them.

[HeresyLives]

16. Well it wasn't any 50 times, don't exaggerate.

The Liberals aren't going to regard the NDP, Greens and Bloc as equals and you know that.

The country will reduce it to Harper vs Iggy, diehard Dippers notwithstanding.

No party is going to push for PR either, altho I'll agree the Libs need to go more left-of-centre.

[Spazito]

18. I agree re the Libs need to go more left-of-centre and, imo, they need a...

leader with an in-your-face, no holds barred attitude. Love them or hate them, Trudeau and Chretien both had that and lasted a very long time politically. To be honest, I don't see anyone in the current Lib crop that meets that need, unfortunately.

[HeresyLives]

19. Well they've often been noted for

campaigning from the left, and governing from the right...but they are currently too far right for the country. We don't need 'Harper-lite'.

Iggy has said a lot of things I like, but then he never mentions them again, and the voters forget. And that's assuming they heard it in the first place. Few people have the time to sit thru speeches.

Yeah, Iggy has to be more in-your-face, and he has to have 5 points tops that he repeats everywhere. Politics is a rough business unfortunately, and I think both Dion and Iggy have mistaken it for a place to ...you know...actually discuss ideas, and plan things and work together on problems.

I don't see anything much in the up-and-comers either. Bob Rae could be taken out with one phrase...'let Rae do for the country what he did for Ontario.' He'd be toast in less than 10 minutes. Martha Hall Findlay is female, and I doubt we're ready for that yet.

It's the French turn next, and the only possibility I see is Dominic LeBlanc, but I know nothing about him beyond official bios.

[Spazito]

21. I agree re Bob Rae, much as I like him....

his record in Ontario would sink him along with his party switch from the NDP to the Liberals. I don't know Dominic LeBlanc's positions or record but will do some homework on him given you have raised his name. Thanks for the info.

[Ken Burch]

28. One of the weirdest things is that a lot of union voters in Ontario

vote Liberal instead of NDP solely because they're still pissed off at what happened when Rae was premier. You'd think that at some point they'd realize that it doesn't make much sense to try to punish Bob Rae by voting for the party that Bob Rae JOINED.

[HeresyLives]

30. That's because Rae tossed two union leaders...

Hargrove and Ryan...out of his office.

I forgave Rae a LOT because of that action. :)

[Ken Burch]

40. Why are you GLAD Rae did that?

It's not very progressive to want the labor movement to be defeated on things.

Rae basically destroyed the ONDP by moving to the right on economics, and he wasn't even able to appease Bay Street by doing it.

Of course, a person could wonder if it wasn't Rae's secret intention to trash the ONDP, given that he's now ended up as one of the bigs and the wigs in the Liberal Party.

[HeresyLives]

41. When did 'progressive' come to mean

anything to do with unions?? Unions are the past, not the future.

The union leaders were demanding a concession, and Rae told them it would bankrupt Ontario.

The 2 responded...so let Ontario go bankrupt.

Rae then tossed them out of his office. And rightly so.

[Ken Burch]

42. Unions have always been part of progressive change

Without them, people who work have no protection from exploitation at all. History has proven that workers are powerless as disconnected individuals.

Countries where unions are weak are countries where little if anything progressive ever happens. Look at post-1980 American politics as an example. Or of the policies of the allegedly "Labour" government that Tony Blair led in the UK?

Weakened unions equal policies defined by inequality, austerity for the workers and the poor combined with greater privileges for the rich.

And nothing progressive came of Rae's decision to shift ONDP policy sharply to the right in response to the Bay Street created economic crisis. It didn't lead to gains for any non-union Ontarians other than the wealthy.

He destroyed the ONDP, and the Ontario Liberal Party that takes most left of center Ontario votes today has hardly done anything progressive. By the way, don't you find it at all...er, interesting that Rae is now a federal Liberal MP and has a good chance of winning that party's leadership in the next few years?

It's similar to how Dosanjh made sure the BCNDP did as badly as possible in the 2001 provincial election and was a federal Liberal cabinet minister within three years of that result?

[HeresyLives]

43. In the 1930s maybe.

The Industrial Age is over with...and along with it, unions.

We are now in the Knowledge Age, and the Knowledge Economy.

Rae has never been 'right' in his life. He just discovered he wasn't 'left' either.

So he changed parties. I've done the same. Once Ignatieff leave it's the French turn, so unless Liberals do something totally bizarre, Rae won't ever be leader.

[Ken Burch]

44. Knowledge workers are still workers

They can still be exploited, and very often are.

And bosses are still bosses...and are still determined to give as little as possible to the people who create the wealth.

We have not reached some new Golden Age where everybody can make it solely on their own.

One of the worst things about Rae is that he STILL backs "free trade"...which is an insane choice for any Canadian politician other than the American-owned Tories, since Canada got totally hosed by the FTA and by NAFTA.

[HeresyLives]

45. No, they aren't.

A PhD in Astrophysics is not the same as Joe Lunchpail on the factory floor.

I'm not into dated ideas about workers vs bosses....that's the Industrial Age, and the politics that went with it.

I'm sorry, but I'm a globalist, and I want more free trade, not less.

[Ken Burch]

46. Ok, you just outed yourself as a smug arrogant elitist.

You clearly see yourself, for some bizarre reason, as being inherently superior to most of the human race.

The fact is, the vast majority of people will NEVER be knowledge industry employees. For most of the planet, life will pretty much always be like things are in Mexico today. Therefore, unions will ALWAYS be necessary if those people are to have any chance to avoid being ground into the dirt.

And the knowledge industry still requires support staff...secretaries and the like...who are always going to be the slaves in the standard "master-slave relationship" that always defines capitalism.

The difference between us is that I believe the majority of the world's population have a right to NOT be disdained, not be discarded, not simply be seen as pawns in the game. I can't see them as simply collateral damage in the glorious battleground of the free market.
Those people are my brothers and sisters. They have the right to live and to be treated with dignity and respect. To you, they're just "deadwood".

You didn't actually say that, but that's the implication of what you posted.

The thing is, and this is what you don't realize for some reason, is that any given moment the wealthy could decide(and most likely will)that whatever skills YOU have are no longer needed, and YOU will be expendable too. You'll be struggling to survive just like "Joe Sixpack". Will you get it at that point that you're NOT entitled to your egotism?

[HeresyLives]

47. Oh puleeze....

:rofl:

C'mon Kenny boy, you've been around here long enough, judging by your post count, to know that 'elitist' isn't a dirty word.

All 'libruls' are by definition 'elitists'. It just means the best. The elite pilot you have flying your plane, the elite surgeon fixing your heart, and so on.

The fact is, we will all be in the knowledge economy... or in a depression. Take yer choice.

If you wanna waste your time on the industrial age and all it's politics, feel free, but the world has left it behind. Capitalism is also dying, so enough with the master/slave stuff.

And stop 'reading in' what isn't there while you're at it.

[Ken Burch]

48. Fine, we'll be in the knowledge economy.

But that economy can be built without having massive income disparity, and without deciding that some people are "deadwood". That economy can and must be built in a way that allows everyone the right to a real and important place within it, and to equal respect within it.

It needs to be inclusive. And it can only BE inclusive if working people(including knowledge workers)can stand as a group and protect themselves.

You will always need unions, because management will always be in it just for itself. And the natural inclination of management will always be to get as much out of the rest of us for as little compensation as possible. Management will even find ways to do it to astrophysicists.

We don't need a future where a few are haves and the many are expendable.

[HeresyLives]

50. After the UAW crash over GM & Chrysler,

I doubt anyone believes that anymore.

[Ken Burch]

52. You doubt anyone believes WHAT, exactly?

I'm not clear on which thing I said that you think people don't believe.

[HeresyLives]

53. Unions are the past, not the future.

They belong to the Industrial Age, and the factory floor.

And as the economy changes over, there will be fewer and fewer unions.

The UAW crash showed people unions are no protection whatever.

[Ken Burch]

55. The knowledge economy still occurs in buildings

those buildings still need to be built by human beings.

Those buildings still need to be cleaned by human beings.

The techno-elitists you identify with still arrive at those buildings by car, bicycle, bus, or train. All of which will always be built by human beings.

In those buildings, the knowledge workers will still need clerical assistance, will still need people to make their appointments, arrange their travel plans, make their coffee.

That still requires human beings who work.

And those "crouching, hooded gods of word and number" as Ewan Maccoll once called them, will still go to lunch in establishments where the food needs to be prepared cooked and served and the tables, floors and dinnerware needs to be cleaned-all done by human beings.

And those knowledge workers, even the tiny number who were lucky enough to get astrophysics degrees, will still work for management, and that management will still try to screw them in every way possible. Thus, they are human beings and they are workers.

As long as some people have power in the workplace over other people, we will need unions. Without them, working people, even knowledge workers, have no protection at all from things like sudden arbitrary pay cuts, sudden removal of benefits, and sudden and unjustified mass layoffs(which take place in "knowledge economy" firms as well).

And whatever you can say about the UAW, it goes without saying that the situation in Detroit would have been MUCH worse without it. You would have had a repeat of the early 1930's, where, for example, Henry Ford shut down the whole production process for two years, leaving his employees with NOTHING in the worst of the Depression, while he retooled at his leisure.

Even in the knowledge economy, the only power workers(this includes knowledge workers)have is the ability to band together and defend themselves, or band together and gain more of the wealth they create. The fact more people work at computer terminals and fewer on assembly lines(a state of affairs that is not the case in most of the world, btw)does not change the fact that management and labor (including information labor) have no common interests. The boss is the boss is the boss-in the end there's no real mental difference between John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates.

[HeresyLives]

56. Well since everything will carry on as it always has,

according to you, then this entire conversation is unnecessary.

Nothing will ever change...the world will remain as it was the day you were born, forever.

Progress...and history...have ended.

[Ken Burch]

57. No, history hasn't ended

History will take many twists and turns before it does, if it ever does.

Some aspects of life aren't likely to change, though.
\
Until we have some kind of radical democratic socialist transformation, we are not going to have a situation which people who work for a living can afford to act solely as disconnected individuals. Wanting unions to die out now is the same as calling on working people to commit unilateral economic disarmament and to make themselves helpless. Why on earth SHOULD they do something that's so dangerous to themselves?

Why are you so sure the knowledge economy will make management benign and magnanimous, in a way it has never been before?

What's going to make bosses stop ACTING like bosses?

It's NEVER going to be progressive for people who work for a living to give up collective organization and action. Those are the only things that have ever saved them from exploitation and immiseration. Look at Asia and Mexico and large parts of Africa to see what life is like for people without unions.

[HeresyLives]

58. It must have. You assume the Industrial Age

will go on forever, and yet it's already over.

1943 was the highwater mark for manufacturing...it's been going downhill ever since

It was 1956 when the number of white-collar workers first outnumbered blue-collar workers.

Management vs worker is also a construct of the industrial age...that won't exist anymore.

[Ken Burch]

59. Why do you assume that white color workers can't be mistreated or exploited?

Why would you assume white collar workers would never WANT union organization?

Why would you EVER think employees have common interests with management. Employees don't benefit from wage cuts, benefit cuts, and mass layoffs. Employees damn sure don't benefit from executive bonuses. Have you ever WORKED in an office? Have you ever at least watched "Office Space"?

I'll grant we're not in the Industrial Age, but that doesn't mean that the rich and the employers have suddenly turned into saints.

[HeresyLives]

60. I said 'workers vs management' won't exist.

Neither will these endless wars you want to fight with bosses and capitalism.

[Ken Burch]

61. Actually, those wars will go on.

Because the capitalists will keep FIGHTING THEM. They won't stop until the people they employ are back to 1905 wage scales and conditions or worse. There's been no sign at all, anywhere, of management types growing souls. The system simply won't let them, since it's tied(and now seemingly permanently)to short-term return on investment at the expense of everything else, and even at the expense of the long-term growth of the enterprise.

You can't point to much of any companies where management DOESN'T try to get as much as it can out of employees for as little compensation as possible. And even in those "cool" software companies where the programmers' office is like a college dorm or something, they STILL have a support staff section where the (almost universally female)employees get their asses chewed if they come in five minutes' late because they were up all night with a sick kid.

Whatever kind of economy you build, you will ALWAYS have to have something within it that forces management to NOT get in touch with their inner Pointy Haired Boss(from "Dilbert"). There's never going to be a libertarian utopia in which everybody gets treated decently just because those at the top feel like it.

[HeresyLives]

62. Again with the capitalism, and the current system.

Are you not aware that when we switched from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial one, everything changed?

None of the old rules, ways of doing things, or cultural assumptions remained. It was a whole new world.

We are doing the same thing again.

[Ken Burch]

63. Have you not NOTICED how the wealthy have been acting since 1980?

It's all been about the few taking more and more for themselves while excluding the rest. Why do you think that doesn't matter?

You can't honestly believe we're on the verge of some sort of technoutopia in which those in power suddenly stop acting against the rest of us. Why are you so unwilling to face the how ugly things have been in the last three decades?

It's all been about selfishness and arrogance...from the endless tax cuts for the rich to the endless wars for the rest of us.

Yes, life is in flux, but how can it possibly have a progressive result if we just leave it to the market forces like YOU want us to?

A market-driven cyberworld is going to be a world where social justice doesn't exist, where all creative forms exist solely as advertising, and where nothing other than making money is respected or valued. Why are you looking forward to that?

[HeresyLives]

64. We are moving to the Knowledge Age.

It has nothing to do with the 'wealthy' or how they act. Or the poor, and how they live. It has nothing to do with me as an individual. Or souls, or advertising, or social justice or capitalism or any of the other stuff that's been dragged into this.

It's simply the new level of economy we are now moving too. The one we've been told about since the 70s.

What is all this neo-luddism?

As always, I am baffled by the comments this perfectly natural progression elicits.

[Ken Burch]

65. The Knowledge Age will NOT be an age where greed and class don't exist

And I'm not a Luddite. If I were, I wouldn't be sitting at a computer having this exchange with you on a message board.

Simply repeating the phrase "We Are Moving to the Knowledge Age" is meaningless, and is not a rebuttal to anything I've said. The Knowledge Age will not make unions unnecessary, because it will not be an age without management and it will not be an age without people who are driven by short-term individual self-interest.

The Knowledge Age will not magically create a classless libertarian utopia.

[HeresyLives]

66. Okay, you have no idea what it means then.

And no interest in finding out.

So like I said ...probably ten posts ago...this conversation is pointless.

Have it your way.

The world will never change...after all, it never has. :eyes:

So carry on.

[Ken Burch]

67. Nothing I said equates to the belief that "the world will never change"

I've heard all about the information technology revolution and all that.

It's been happening for thirty years now and has done nothing to democratize the workplace.

You do realize that YOU sound like an old time Marxist in your apparently blind belief that the new order you champion will magically transform life, don't you?

If you actually have evidence that the Knowledge Age is eliminating class or making market values humane, please link to it.

There is nothing in the statement that "We are entering a Knowledge Age" that rebuts anything I've said or that will eliminate inequality or the obsession with short-term individual self-interest.

And your whole line of answers demonstrate that you have no empathy whatsoever with anyone who works for a living, or anyone who is not already ensconced in permanent upper-class comfort. To you, most of the human race is clearly just "deadwood", or perhaps just legitimate economic "collateral damage", to be sacrificed in the name of some vague "greater good" that only you who see yourselves as the technoelite can grasp.

You have no idea how reactionary and, frankly, dismissive your views sound to the majority of the human race.

[HeresyLives]

68. Everything you've said equates to that.

And I am not discussing dotcom nonsense, or secretaries using computers.... and certainly not Marxism. :rofl:

We are entering the knowledge age...that rebuts everything you've said.

Kindly leave out the personal nonsense since you know nothing about me, nor are you listening to what I've said.

You've gone as far as you can go on this, sad to say. Try some other topic.

It will come about whether you understand it or not.

[Ken Burch]

69. So to you, the phrase "we are entering the knowledge age" is really a mystical incantation

Kind of the 21st Century equivalent of "There's no place like home", or "Klaatu barada nikto", or "The Force Be With You".

Look...humor me...kindly explain why "the knowledge age" will magically remove all injustice and all inequality, all desire to exploit and all ability of the few to dominate the many...What is it about that phrase that seems to make critical thought utterly irrelevant, as you see it?

[HeresyLives]

70. It's a natural progression from where we are.

There is nothing 'mystical' or 'magical' about China becoming the worlds's factory, and the western world being left to find another way of making a living. Yet that is reality.

Could you have explained to a feudal serf how steam engines would change his life totally and permanently?

No, because the serf couldn't conceive of life being any other way than what he'd always known.

Same problem I'm having with you.

[Ken Burch]

71. I can conceive of life being different.

Life has changed in the forty-nine years I've lived. Life changes constantly. I embrace many of those changes.

What I can't conceive of(because its impossible)is how a switch to a knowledge economy, in and of itself, will deliver us from traditional workplace power relations and will deliver our economy from the curse of short-term individual self-interest. Those changes can come, but not from the switch to a knowledge economy in and of itself.

They will still require a great change in values-a change from working solely for one's own self-advancement to working with people in some way for the greater good.

You've said nothing to outline what will cause that to happen, or what will lead to all being included in this cyber-future, or of how we are finally to achieve a society in which the dignity of all is respected and all are considered to be worthy of a decent life.

The problem I'm having with YOU is in your assumption that the statement "we're moving into The Knowledge Age" answers any and all questions. It's silly to think that it does, and it's ludicrous to assume that it eliminates any concerns anyone might have about how the majority of the human race will fare in this new world you speak of in oh-so-vague terms.

[HeresyLives]

72. If you think it's 'impossible', then it is.

So did that serf.

But it happened anyway.

[Ken Burch]

73. Nothing you've said is actually an argument for any coherent position

Simply saying "the Knowledge Age is coming" doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING.

All you're doing is repeating a mantra.

And the serfs' successors in economic life were industrial workers, who had it just as bad as the serfs. Yes, they were living different lives, but the differences were not in any meaningful way an improvement.

Why should we just take it on faith that "The Knowledge Age" will simply wipe all injustice, exploitation and inequality away?

At heart, you're really just an 18th Century "magic of the market" type.

[HeresyLives]

74. I don't need one.

The Industrial Age was the greatest job-creator the world has ever seen. An enormous improvement over the feudal age of the serfs.

The Knowledge Age is light-years over and above the Industrial Age.

[Ken Burch]

75. ER...you can't JUST say "The Knowledge Age is light-years over and above the Industrial Age"

You have to actually provide some evidence of why that is and what that means. You've done nothing of the sort in this exchange.

The Industrial Age was an improvement for some, but it also led to massive social and economic dislocation for others and led to them being ground into the dirt of history in the transition. Most of those who were losers in this were not inherently unworthy of survival, it was just that someone above decided they were expendable.

People continued to be expendable throughout the Industrial Age, which is why the labor movement and the political Left grew throughout that time.

And people will continue to be labeled expendable in the Knowledge Age, which is there will continue to be a need, as that age develops, to protect people from simply being cast aside. This will require collective organization in some form.

You're view here is really extreme Utilitarianism. Unfortunately, the era we've been in since 1980(of which the Knowledge Age is an integral part)has actually produced a mutant form of Utilitarianism, one that would make Jeremy Bentham cringe. Utilitarianism at least USED to mean "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number". That is, while some would suffer, many, many more would prosper. Knowledge Age Utilitarianism means "The Greatest Good for the Few who have somehow grabbed dominance".

I'm all for human advancement, but it has to be done without deciding that some people should just be cast aside. At this point, the Knowledge Age, left to its own devices, is showing no signs of inclusiveness or of egalitarian values. I'd be happy to see it evolve such values, but there's nothing going on as of now that indicates that's going to happen.

There's something weirdly religious about how the "Knowledge Age" concept appears to resonate with you. For you, it seems to have erased all doubt and answered all possible questions. The thing is, it's never good to give ANY value system or any philosophy that kind of unquestioning mindless acceptance. The unexamined life can delete all your files, my friend.

[HeresyLives]

76. Yes I can. I just did in fact.

You simply continue to repeat the same thing, and until you stop dragging everything but the kitchen sink into it, you'll get nowhere.

It's not up to me to educate you about the Knowledge Age. You have a Google button. Use it.

Start with Alvin Toffler and 'Future Shock'. You have a massive case of it.

[arikara]

78. You don't make any sense

whatsoever.

[HeresyLives]

80. Standard response when people don't agree. LOL

[arikara]

81. Not really

If I disagreed I'd say so. As I can't figure out what you're on about I can't agree... or disagree.

[HeresyLives]

82. LOL oh c'mon.

'Knowledge economy' has been known since the 70s. So has 'future shock'.

But if you wanna discuss, we need a new thread.

[Spazito]

49. For you to put the finger of blame for the decimation on the B.C. NDP on Dosangh....

is appalling, imo. He had NOTHING to do with it, Glen Clark and his bunch of hypocrites are the reason the party was only able to win TWO seats. British Columbians of ALL stripes were completely disgusted by the behavior of the NDP and THAT is the reason for the poor showing.

[Ken Burch]

51. It didn't help, though,that Dosangh conceded halfway through the campaign

That basically took away any possible reason for anyone to vote FOR the NDP. And are you telling me you don't find it at all suspicious that, less than three years after his showing in that election, Dosangh was Federal Liberal candidate(and then a cabinet minister?)

I will grant that the major responsibility lies with Clark, though.

[Spazito]

54. I lived there at the time and the citizens of B.C. were angry and disgusted...

with the NDP party and it's governance. It would NOT have mattered who led the NDP in the 2001 election, the NDP were all but dead in the minds of B.C. voters of ALL stripes. Dosangh was actually one of the few who still could garner respect in a few quarters. I find it less 'suspicious' that Dosangh changed parties than I do Rae. Dosangh was one of the few voices in the Clark government and in the NDP hierarchy who actually voiced some differences with Clark and his hypocrites, little good it did, sadly.

[arikara]

79. They may or may not have won again

but the liberals would never have won so handily without assistance from the media and even the cops. Deckgate, fast ferries anyone? Its still happening, the NDP could never have got away with any of the crap the liberals have managed to get away with scot free.

[Dutch]

77. Progessivism has always been closely bound up with the union movement and workers rights.

What it's rarely had anything to do with is union-busting, anti-worker bile, smug elitism or absurdly ignorant and naive views about the nature of the modern workplace for ordinary people.

Ma.., er, HeresyLives, you keep howling about why NDPers and other actual progressives won't line up behind the Liberal party. Well it's because that party - or at least the appallingly reactionary strand of it embodied by you and Iggy - share the Harperites' stinking core of contempt for ordinary working people to the full.

[HeresyLives]

83. Pardon me?

Unions were progressive in the 30s. They are ancient history now.

So is your er...ah...um...philosophy.

I'm not a Liberal, sorry. And certainly not some antique Dipper.

Honest to gawd...the NAME-calling on here!

[Spazito]

32. You need only to look at the records of two NDP premiers to see...

why there is a sense of betrayal. Look at Glen Clark's 'reign' in B.C. and Rae's disastrous premiership and you will see both betrayed the principles of the NDP party so their party certainly should not be 'rewarded' for what happened.

The NDP along with the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party aka CRAP and the Liberals have relatively few actual party members. Most Canadians, approximately 60 % do not own a party membership and the alliances of those who do not belong to any party on the center-left/left often shift.

I made the grievous mistake in believing in the B.C. NDP, voted for them their first term, I had learned my lesson by the second term as had many, many former supporters and the party was decimated after Clark's second term. It is slowly inching it's way back even though the "Liberal" Party (in reality an amalgam of now defunct conservative parties) is atrocious.

[Ken Burch]

35. There were many reasons to feel betrayed by BOTH of those NDP governments

(especially if you were a union menber and, in B.C.'s case, REALLY especially if you were poor or an environmentalist, two groups that Glen Clark demonized, for some twisted reason).

But that makes the case for starting a "left of the left" party, like Quebec SOlidaire, not for voting Liberal(especially in Ontario, where the Liberal provincial government in the early 1930's used brute force to suppress the labor movement). Parties like QS, if a real effort was applied to building them could grow fairly quickly on the provincial level in Canada, since, with relatively small provincial ridings, even FPTP is not an insurmountable barrier. Such a party, even if it didn't actually win power on its own, would likely force the NDP further left out of a need to ensure its day-to-day survival.

[Spazito]

38. Canadians, for the most part, are pragmatists as opposed to idealists...

and lean toward the center, be it left or right, the definition of each being relative. A Quebec-based party will never grow into a national party to the extent it could challenge the NDP in a way that would force them further left and Canadians, with the exception of the 15% average support the NDP can count on, see the NDP as too left already which is why they will never win the governance of Canada.

The only time we have a minority government is when Canadians are in a pox-on-both-your-houses kind of mood. We then choose which of the two mainstream parties we are more pissed at and proceed to either vote for the other party or the NDP as a protest vote.

Edited to correct punctuation.

Edited to add: I have always found it useful to cite these two phrases to try and show the true cultural, philosophical differences between the United States and Canada and where I believe it shows Canadian's pragmatism vs passion. The two phrases are:

Peace, order and good government - the introductory phrase of section 91 of the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 - Canada

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - in the Declarion of Independence - United States

[Ken Burch]

22. Actually, all you'd need to stop Rae would be three words:

"Remember 'Rae Days'?"

That'd cost the Liberals EVERY SEAT in Ontario.

Even Basil Hargrove would finally stop campaigning for them.

As to anyone even vaguely francophone...what is the feeling about Trudeau, son of Trudeau?

I've heard that some folks think 'Lil Justin ain't the brightest bulb in the socket(that, and there's the fact that he's three/quarters Scottish in ancestry).

[Spazito]

17. Actually, Layton has backed the Harper cabal more than once...

he is a disgrace to his party's roots, imo. I get that you are supportive of the NDP and seemingly applaud the current NDP party's position of Harper over the Libs to the detriment of Canada's citizens but the NDP is NEVER going to form the government they average 15% of the vote and the Greens are and will remain a fringe party.

[glarius]

20. I agree with you completely........Layton's main interest is in himself.

He will do or say anything if he thinks it will gain him a few more seats and thus more power for himself. He is the one responsible for putting Harper in power in the first place!

[Ken Burch]

25. That's repeatedly been disproved.

Even if Layton HAD backed the Martin government in that vote, the Bloc was still certain to vote against it which means that the government was doomed to lose 153-151 anyway. It was NOT Layton's fault. And even if it had been, Layton WOULD have backed that government if only Martin had done what the NDP had asked, which really wasn't even asking that much.

And even if Martin had survived THAT nonconfidence motion, he'd committed himself to holding elections two months later anyway. Those last two months would have made no meaningful difference in how the election came out. Martin was already permanently discredited in the eyes of the voters due to the sponsorship scandal.

[HeresyLives]

26. The point is Layton voted against Martin.

And last time I looked, blackmail still wasn't a pretty thing.

We have no idea how things would have been two months down the road. Thanx to Layton we never got the chance to find out.

Martin had nothing to do with the scandal.

[Ken Burch]

27. Perhaps he didn't. Nonetheless, he was tied to it in the public's mind

The voters were never going to see past that with him, or at least not in the span of only two months.

[HeresyLives]

29. Only because of the Con campaign to do so.

Amazing what suckers voters can be sometimes.

[Ken Burch]

31. Given the last person MY state elected as governor, I can't argue with that.