As much as I would have supported a coalition, Iggy was savvy to distance himself from it. As for Layton... well... what a different party that would be right now if they had chosen Blakie for leader. For Layton to come out in support of a "Buy Canadian" stance is beyond foolish.

Iggy is doing well, however, I'm not sure about the second part around the Buy Canadian Policy Cate. I admit I don't like Layton, but I'm a bit of economic Nationalist myself.  The buy America push in the USA that is spilling across the border is in response to all of the little manufacturing towns watching their jobs be exported to China.  We can't continue to be a country that makes nothing; it is bad for the environment and it doesn't allow people to suppor their families.

When Obama was running for office, he said that America needed to look at NAFTA, I agree, I think that NAFTA has a been a disaster.

Good to see the Green Party picking up support.

yeah, i'm totally in support of a 'buy canadian' angle, myself.

i'm not sure why that is such a bad thing, cate... can you expand on that??

 what thread were we discussing that in?  (minor thread derailment)

There are 2 distinct important sides to the issue (though I'm being very basic here) - Buy Canadian would mean that our local economies & our neighbours would have business, it also means that items have to travel less to get where they are going.

The flip side is that we need to break down political & cultural barriers, protectionism so that people stop fighting over mine/yours, and start sharing better.  Also, some resources will always have to travel a long distance.  We should be supporting 3rd world countries and encouraging better green practices all over the world, and I believe that someday our economy will be truly global.  Sooner the better, except that it is a rough bitter road to get there.

I think I was more eloquent in the other thread.

+++++

Back to the thread - I'm thrilled that the Greens are gaining a bit, but I'm still sure that Ignatieff is swinging the Libs to the right which is picking up jaded conservatives (mad at harper).  So the growth in the Liberal numbers doesn't make me feel like we might have a kinder greener Canada, which worries me.

It's all in the interpretation of what we mean when we say "Buy Canadian". The off-the-hip comments from Layton were foolish, because they supported the launch of a protectionist postion from Canada, specifically as an "oh yeah, well if you do it we will too" response to the US. That's not good fiscal or foreign policy. It's short sighted and uninformed.

I agree the NAFTA needs to be reconsidered, but with cool heads, not in a reactionary recessionary and politically unstable environment. Knee jerk nationalistic reactions will hurt the economy, not help it. Escalating international disputes almost never works in Canada's favour, when we are up against the US.

If we mean legislating the use of only Canadian materials, that's a mistake. We make more money exporting, so pissing off our trading partners is not the solution, because they will simply close their borders to us or slap tariffs and trade barriers on us and we will lose jobs. We don't have the population here, compared to our massive geographical size, to support that kind of protectionism. The United States does, to much larger extent.

If we mean consumers should start looking locally for their purchases, that's a different matter.

Whether we like it or not our economy is now interwoven with the global economy. There are wise ways to begin to unravel some of that, in a way that brings parts of our economy closer to a local level, but what Layton did was NOT an example of that. It was a backlash - a knee jerk outburst designed to grab a few headlines and rally some grassroots support among union hardliners.  

Fixing this complex mess of a global economy, which includes our own, will take a lot more analysis, discussion, and mindful debate, than an easy bumper sticker slogan like "Buy Canadian".

I don't see why anybody should be surprised that liberals and conservatives are tied. Of course. Both parties have essentially the same policies.

As for the debate over protectionism vs. free trade, it's not the simple case it appears to be. Yes, there are faults in protectionism. However....

Both Canada and the US built their economies on protectionism for well over a hundred years. If it weren't for protectionism, there would be no royal bank or TD or Scotiabank or CPR or Canada packers, no auto industry in Canada, and the list goes on. Same in the US. To dismiss protectionism is simplistic.

And there are downsides to free trade. Under free trade (or, at least, freer trade) we are losing industries to places that are cheaper due to poor living standards and lack of social protections. Yes, it can help some areas. It can also destroy others. We need a far more sophisticated approach to free trade. Just waving one banner or the other in a mindless way doesn't work.

Both liberals and conservatives are waving a magic wand at the economy. This is not 1929. It is quite a different sort of problem. We are not simply restoring what was a fundamentally sound economy. It is not, for example, simply a matter of stimulating a temporarily weak auto industry. it is an industry in terminal decline so far as north america is concerned. What is happening is not a temporary cooling. What is happening is a reversal of over 500  years of history as economic power shifts eastward.

As well,  we have to remember that free trade is also a device which enables business to operate outside the restrictions of any national laws and policies which attempt to ensure that business is operating in the greater interest rather than just for itself.

While I cannot pretend to have an answer to the problem, I suspect we shall have to make very great adjustments in our thinking, moving beyond the sort of capitalism we have known, and moving beyond thinking in terms of simply national governments.

Meanwhile, liberals and conservatives are tied because both are living back somewhere with the illusions of the world of a decade and more ago.

graeme

I echo Cate, Canada is simply too small population wise to maintain an isolationistic trade policy.  It is in our own interest to widen our export markets and to do so means a reciprocal arrangement with our trading partners.

Personally I found NAFTA too restrictive not to mention complicated - I could go into a long convoluted explanation of how some products are exempted while others are not, but having left that world behind I would rather not be reminded of that particular nightmare from another lifetime

As for the poll, I have always found the Canadian poll respondents to be rather fickle in their loyalties.  They love whatever party is in power when the economy is boiling but switch allegiance when it cools, never quite grasping that this situation happens every time they hit the on/off button.

LB - searching for the simmer setting

The main lesson [of NAFTA] is that a free trade agreement is not a substitute for a development strategy.    World Bank Report on NAFTA

 birthstone: That was pretty eloquent 

I don't get why Ignatieff is responsible for such a phenomenal rise in support.  I read an interview with him in Maclean's and he was dodging questions at least as much as Stéphane Dion (although, to be fair, the Maclean's interviewer seemed a little obsessed with "when's the election gonna be???? tellmetellmetellmeplease!!").

Dion, on the other hand, had way better ideas and way better principles.  Everyone's talking about 'who's gonna be Canada's Barack Obama' - Stéphane Dion, I am not kidding you, should have been that, not because of speaking skills but because he's smart and he's an idealist.  I am still so sad about the way the media, the Tories, and the politics of 'manliness' wrecked his career - he was the best, and I will defend this statement to the bitter end.

In other news, 9% for the Greens?  W007!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 It's not legislating the use of ONLY Canadian materials. Last I read the proposal flyng around was about a percentage and 'effort'.

 Which is what is being proposed...a mindful debate taking into consideration the need to look at our own economy and the 'true costs' of where business goes.  Laytons comments have actually kicked off that discussion, in spades.   Would you be participating in it now if those 'knee jerk' comments weren't made? Would it have even crossed your mind as something to think about?   Those comments were far from 'kneejerk' and Layton talking off the top of his head. That was  political move on his part to bring such a disscussion into the broader public realm. It's already been happening but quietly somewhere in the background.  The fact is though I agree with most of your comments about trade integration and Canada's position the US is instigating policies as we speak that will affect us. Harper has already stated in public his 'concern' about some of the policies contravening our trade agreements.  Yet he is proposing no public answers and is all wishy washy.  Whatever they're talking about as per usual is hidden away somewhere.  By bringing this 'discussion' into the public realm it forces at least some accountability of our government to actually 'talk about it' and lay out where they stand on the issues regarding the consequences of the current US policy proposals.  

Well, our government should be primarily looking after our interests, whatever the topic on the table, rather than looking after the interests of the corporate sector. That may mean carving out agreements of various types in our international context but it doesn't mean that we should just open up our doors and let ourselves be used as the resource-base for corporations who have no interest in our well-being.

How is "buy Canadian" much different than some of the concepts floating around that seem so romantic and trendy such as the "100 mile diet"?

It allows us to support our compatriots and each other in our communities. I've personally tried to "buy Canadian" as long as I remember. In doing so, I support Canadian companies, Canadian employment standards (which are better than those of many other countries but could be improved), Canadian standards (such as environmental standards, which again are still better than those of many other countries but won't be for long as long as Harper is PM) as well as numerous other facets of our country. It also means lower transportation costs than shipping our goods from China and Korea.

There's nothing wrong with Jack Layton standing up for a procurement policy in which we support each other in our government endeavours. It's time someone did, in my opinion.

ShermanWolf - another Dion fan?   That makes two of us.  I was so disappointed when the media turned on him (watching the debate I thought he was the clear winner - obviously the most sincere and intelligent).  I was more disappointed when his own party turned on him - and really disgusted when they failed to support the collition.  I had switched from NDP to Liberal because of Dion.  Now I'm lost.  I'm afraid that Iggy's Liberals don't differ much from Harper's Conservatives.  Convince me that I'm wrong.

To answer your questions: yes I would be participating in this discussion regardless of layton's comments - protectionist theories automatically spring into the public realm of discussion in a recession - with or without Layton's help. Yes, it absolutely would have crossed my mind as something to think about, since NAFTA has pretty much been on my mind since it was introduced when I was in grade 10.

I understand what you're saying in terms of him spurring debate - but my point is that there are FAR more intelligent and cool-headed ways to spur a discussion on trade and the economy, than the manner in which Layton did. He came off sounding like a blow horn without a brain.

I am a card-carrying member of the NDP. Which is why I pointed out that the discussion would have taken a much different - more mature and intelligent path - if Blakie had  been the one starting it. You would never have heard him as the leader spewing that kind of rhetoric because rhetoric is not his game. Layton on the other hand, absolutely FEEDS off it. It is part of why he has come to have what many see as a 'used car salesman' image. That is not good for those of us who are left-of-centre and are trying to convince Canadians to take us seriously and stop brushing us off as lefty lunatics.

It's also to me not an either or debate.  Saying that 'buy Canadian' is outright protectionist to the extreme and on the opposite end that 'free and completely unfettered trade' is the only answer is just wrong.  Most if not all countries Canada trades with do have some sort of 'buy national policies' when it comes to government procurment yet they all trade and are part of the integrated global trade system.  Canada has nothing apparently.  It's also smart economics to at least look at the state of our national industries and resources and the 'true cost' of where and how we do business, especially in light of whats going on economically and environmentally.   

 Ah okay I get more what your saying now. Thanks this makes it more clear.  I think. So it's not so much the idea  or talking about it that your opposed too but how it was presented? 

Mo5, I don't disagree with your philosophy. The problem is that "looking after our interests" right now means NOT implementing a widespread "buy Canadian" foreign and fiscal policy. It is different from the "100 mile diet" because it would be implemented on a widespread national scale on an industrial level. Unless you eat steel and pulp and paper, this is not the same as the 100 mile diet. As I explained, to suddenly shift to a protectionist approach right now, would result in massive job losses for Canada. Our geography and population do not afford us the luxury of such immediate protectionist policies.

We are interwoven with the global economy and it took well over a decade to get us this way. We can't undo that kind of complex global market integration with a catchy slogan. It takes time, intelligent debate and discussion, and cool heads - internationally. Layton's comments did not come across as endorsing ANY of those principles. They came across as reactionary. We have had little to none of those principles - time, intelligent discussion, or cool heads - because of the wacky "sky is falling" environment in which economies and governments are currently operating.

My point is that for a federal party leader, he did not come out sounding like he has a true understanding of the complexities of economic and foreign policy. He sounded like someone desperate to create a bandwagon for his own political purposes - in fact, it reminded me of something Sarah Palin would have done in the States. Clearly, that's not in Canada's best interest.

I believe that is what I have been endorsing as well. That's why I said in my original post that there are smart ways of bringing our economy to a more local level while still maintaining the international aspects that our country requires in order to survive.

Precisely. The way in which a discussion is started, can have a tremendous impact on where it goes and who participates in it - and who does not participate in it. That is why I expect more intellegent sound bites from federal leaders during an economic crisis than what I have heard from Layton so far. To be honest, I just don't think he "gets" this stuff. As an NDP'er, that bothers me tremendously.

Well, cate, remember that what you hear from Layton is what the media decides that you will hear. You have not been and will not be presented with his comments in the context in which they are offered. I would be wary of buying the mainstream media framing of this as I am on many issues.

I don't understand how a "Buy Canadian" approach means that there will be massive job losses. There have already been massive job losses over many years as manufacturing jobs have gone off-shore to places where there is little in terms of environmental protection and where workers are basically slaves. US markets for many of our products have dried up  -- what's wrong with creating those markets within our own country? We have lots of infrastructure to build and repair. Why not buy Canadian and thus, have our own resources made into useable items for our own purposes, putting Canadians to work for our own well-being? Why can't our military vehicles be made here? What happened to our shoe factories, our clothing manufacturing industry and our value-added wood industry?

Did you know that most of our wood leaves this country as logs, gets made into something by workers who get little money and no work-site protection and then is imported back? We have tens of thousands of unemployed forest workers who could use the work of manufacturing that wood into products that we already use. It's insanity to allow our collective resources (forests, minerals, and our people) to be used so shamefully for the well-being of corporate profits.

This article from the Council of Canadians points to exactly what was meant by Layton's call to "Buy Canadian" -- from it:

I agree with you about the media Mo5, but Layton came out with (intentionally) sound bites about "Buy Canadian" and specifically identified them as a reaction to the US's "Buy American" position in the draft 'bailout' bill. The American version would hurt Canada, so he came across sounding like a little kid that punches back when they get punched. That's called reactionary no matter which way you cut it. At the very least it left the NDP wide open to Harper's "you'll start a trade war - really smart in a recession" comeback. Again, my issue is with how Layton conducts himself and how he comes across.

As a policy analyst for the federal government, I am well aware of the manner in which raw materials like lumber are shipped out of Canada and processed by underpaid workers, only to be returned here. This applies also to some agricultural commodities. I don't agree with the extent to which this process has become entrenched in the Canadian economy but the fact is, it has. Reversing that process will take time and intellegent discussion - not reactionary political posturing. Harper loves political posturing, I don't want it in the NDP.

That process of shipping out and in, occurs because it is cheaper for corporations. Unfortunately, cheaper for corporations means they'll do business here. If we prevent them - without first having a back up plan - from doing cheaper business, they will leave.

That's how jobs get lost.

I do not agree with this situation but it is a reality. It needs serious strategizing to correct. It also has a significant impact on the environment - moving unfathomable quantities of goods all over the globe, and back again. Personally, I believe the real future of strong economies lies in environmental innovation. There are jobs to be had there - but it needs money to create that innovation before the jobs start growing. But this is where the NDP has perhaps its greatest challenge - as a party purporting to be "green" and simultaneously union friendly - those two elements will increasingly become polarized. The NDP will have some serious difficulty maintaining their position on both sides.

But Cate, the NDP has supported a "Buy Canadian" policy for a long time. It may appear to be reactionary but, given that it was included in the party platform during the last election, it would seem to be an obvious response to Obama's "Buy American" direction.

Some may see the NDP having a challenge with the labour and environmental elements of the party finding harmony but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to find ways to include both points of view. After all, both are losing out in a major way, under this government. When one can relate to another's position of oppression, it goes a long way to reduce the risk of polarization.

I agree that the issue of lost jobs and government policy need good strategies to countermand what's going on now. It isn't happening and won't happen for a long time. Layton didn't say it would be simple -- he said it was time to move in that direction. It is long past time, in my view. Yet, somehow when Layton says it, he is demonized and/or ridiculed by the media and most of us swallow that portrayal.

But the last election predates Obama's "buy american" clause in the bailout bill... so how could it have been a response to it? I don't disagree with the full platform, but Layton spoke to it using sound bites he KNEW would be clipped with a reactionary "buy canadian" spin for the media - and he did so in the House during a discussion of the US bailout bill and the buy american clause specifically. It was clearly reactionary, and I believe was intended that way to a large extent by Layton, to satisfy the hard line unionists who form a core support for the NDP.

Like you, I don't believe reconciling the environmental and union roots of the NDP is impossible. I just said it would be one of their greatest challenges, and I stand by that statement. It will take a visionary leader to craft that kind of reconcilliation. Layton is not it.

Yes, that's my point. To respond to Obama's plan with a statement from nowhere about buying Canadian would be reactionary, in my view. To respond to the plan (as all the party leaders did) with an existing part of the platform is not, as I see it.

I'm not sure how that can be seen as pandering to the "unionists", particularly (as is being suggested?) in opposition to the environmental movement within the party. How is a "Buy Canadian" policy pitting one against the other? I don't see that unless it's to mean that some would consider that it's better for us environmentally when manufacturing takes place outside of our borders and the negative by-products of that manufacturing stay there. Then, we can import what we need and let someone else deal with the clean-up or not, as is more likely.

I'm sorry Mo5, I don't think I connected the buy canadian policy to any concept of intentionally pitting the environmental vs the union roots of the party. If it somehow came across that way, it was not intentional.

I guess we disagree about how Layton decided to roll out his "buy canadian" comments in the House. I still firmly believe he intended them to come across as a reaction to the US bill, to satisfy the unions. I fully respect that that is nothing more than my interpretation, and may not be an accurate one. It was however my perception and the perception of many others.

My point about the poles in the party is that moving forward, the NDP will face a huge challenge in satisfying the immediate needs of both of those positions because in the current economy, they are polarized. If we are to move toward a truly green economy, the industrial unions may very well suffer huge losses in the short term. There may be a transition period during which one generation of dirty-industry workers is left behind - left out of the economy, while the new generation who has been educated and trained in environmentally sustainable jobs, moves in.

The NDP (and the Liberals for that matter) need to start seriously thinking about how they are going to handle that kind of transition. And we need a government strong and smart enough to start moving funds into the development of an environmentally sustainable economy. Harper's party cannot offer that. I believe the NDP should be able to, but I don't know that they can as long as Layton is at the helm.

I agree, and the 2008 election platform has extensive material in it related to this very subject. And, many of those same union workers are without jobs now - this would be a crucial time to move to green endeavours and is what Jack proposed.

In my view, the reality is that the power brokers in our country will never, ever allow an NDP government to happen. They want a government that they can manoevre into developing policies that benefit them and their corporations and both the Liberals and the Conservatives fit the bill. Even the increased numbers of seats that the NDP has experienced is threatening to those interests so it's no surprise to me to witness a fight-back campaign against Layton (not Duceppe, even though he has similar policies, since he's no threat on a national scale) in terms of manipulating his public perception.

No other leader has been treated with the kind of disdain and dripping sarcasm as has Layton. Kathleen Petty of the CBC Radio One program was openly antagonistic with him a few weeks ago (both interviews can be heard at the link) while Mr. Ignatieff, the following week, was asked questions in a respectful manner. This is not unbiased reporting and it shapes public opinion. CTV and Global are many times worse. So, it's no surprise to me to hear that Canadians express their dislike for Jack Layton even when they are NDPers and support the platform since we've all been on the receiving end of propaganda and manipulation.

I never disputed that the NDP have addressed the issues at hand in their platform. I just identified that it is going to be one of their biggest challenges. And to me the connection to the way Layton rolled out his "buy canadian" comments in the House, is that it appeared to be designed to rally support in the unions on a protectionist level (and sure enough the big unions came out behind him right away with press conferences), and that worries me because I see that kind of approach as incompatible with moving forward in a green economy. The big unions right now know perfectly well that a green economy means trouble for them, at least in the short term - and unions by their nature have to operate in the short term as far as protecting the interests of their members goes. Unions must protect the short term interests of people's jobs, while environmentalists must protect the long term interests of the natural environment's health.

I also, like you, suspect the NDP will be in the position of an opposition party for the foreseeable future, possibly forever. But they have an important role to play there, and with the right kind of inspirational leadership, they could move mountains without being the party in power.

I still see Layton as a man of rhetoric and sound bites and at some point, the rhetoric about unions is going to collide with the rhetoric about the environment. The party platform was not written by Layton, it was written by analysts and strategists. I see a chasm between the depth of the platform and the shallowness of Layton's publicity. I saw this during the election as well. This could be a misperception on my part, but that's just how I see it.

I completely agree that the media conducts interviews with broadly divergent levels of respect, and a broad range in terms of the difficulty and depth of questions that are posed to them (that's one of my biggest peeves - the absence of hard-hitting journalism). But do you really see Layton as a strong, competent leader who inspires? When you compare him to Blakie? To me, that was the single biggest mistake the NDP made. Layton is all sheen.

I would also disagree that he is the most derided leader - I think Dion takes that one. And there's one guy who I believe really did have the depth of understanding necessary to inspire real change... he was just lacking the PR side which is an absolute necessity in politics. I agree Layton takes a lot of flack (but not as much as Dion did)... but a big part of me thinks it's inevitable because of that used car salesman glint.  Blakie exuded statesmanlike professionalism, he was above the kind of criticism that Layton magnetically attracts.

Anyhow, I need to get over my Blakie woes, and stop derailing sigh's liberal thread with my NDP rants

please, derail away!!  i'm enjoying the discussion!!

That may or may not be true, cate, however, Layton was the winner in the leadership race, not Blaikie. So, the challenge is how to best promote the platform/agenda of the NDP which, in my view, out of the three main parties in English Canada, has a plan that's about the well-being of Canadians, as opposed to the corporate sector. No-one can be a good leader without support, especially when under such attack from the outside.

How can those of us who support an NDP agenda provide him with the support (which includes providing feedback) he needs to put forward that agenda? Whether it be EI reform (desperately needed), development of green industries (also desperately needed), compliance with the law of the land around negotiated agreements with labour unions, women's issues, agriculture and food security, health care, education, post-secondary, seniors' issues, the war in Afghanistan and so on, as leader, he can't do it alone. This is especially true when faced with the antagonism of the mainstream media (msm) -- they show him, time and time again, as capable of doing nothing right and maligning his motives.

Have you ever noticed how scathing the msm are around the coalition idea? Over and over, he was condemned for "seeking power", as if, in politics, that's a bad thing. What do they think the other party leaders are there for? One seeks power in politics in order to put forward a specific agenda -- that's what it's about. But, Layton is somehow a pariah for getting involved in a plan to form government so that certain government programs could be enacted to help Canadians yet, Harper and Ignatieff are somehow naturally entitled to do the same thing without condemnation.  I urge anyone who's reading this to pay attention and just be aware of how much the msm is shaping public opinion around Layton's efforts to promote NDP programs and policies, which are reflective of a desire to provide humane and useful government programs for many, as opposed to what we've had from the Liberals and Conservatives for many years.

I was referring to present leaders when I made that comment. I agree that Dion was treated abominably by some in his party and definitely by the msm. It was and is still, sickening, and I find it shameful. My heart goes out to him and his family.

After seeing what the Liberal party did to Dion, a fine and dedicated Canadian, and Ignatieff simply pushing his way into power, I was not impressed. Ignatieff has a very American based view on his Canadian politics and rightfully so, since he spent so many years living and working in the US.  He does not seem to be in touch with Canada as Canada, but rather, Canada as part of the North American landscape. That is just not acceptable. We need a Canada first way of thinking and dedication in Ottawa. The Liberals are still out of touch with that, and I am sad to say that.

The NDP stance of things for the people and workers and "taking the money from the boardroom tables and bringing it to the kitchen table" attitude is far from sound. Without the company being sound, the worker will have no place to be a worker. It is up to government to create an atmosphere for busines to thrive. When this happens, the workers will be secure. The union backing and promotion by the party is a bit of a sour point too, to many, including union members. When it is looked at in a real view, a union is no more than a hired representative. No different than hiring a Lawyer or an Accountant or a management firm. They are not a be all, end all that many believe them to be and certainly have absolutely no place in even suggesting how anyone should vote. (Just so you understand, I have nothing against unions and associations, but see them as hired help only, not the heart of the membership)

As much as I like the Green Party, one has to question the thoughts of their leader in running in a riding that virtually anyone could have told her she would certainly fail in. Elizabeth May may be a good person and have some good ideas, but this example during the election showed very poor thought and thus the shadow carries over the rest of the decisions and directions of the party. They have no real plan of action.

I dislike a lot of what the Conservatives have done, but they are the better choice in many ways and have a consistant operating policy and have done well.

The Bloc are their own entity. Mr. Duceppe is probably the most Honest and hard working politician in Canada. I do not like what he stands for, but he is completely honest and attempts to do everything he says he will do. He is very personable and very likable when in person and I can easily understand why he gets elected. He is exactly as you see him. I wish he would change his political stripes and become a mainstream politician interested in all of a unified Canada. He could then probably even get elected in Calgary. He is just that dedicated and likable and honest a person. But, I guess if he changed stripes, then he would not be who he is.

Ottawa needs a unified stance without games and posturing at this junction in time. But what we have is an ongoing power and position struggle. That just makes the opposition look very bad and very stupid. The last thing we need is an election again. I just hope the opposition actually knows that and how hated it would be by Canadians.

Politically, I don't see a whole lot going for any of the parties. Nor could there be because Canadians in general have not begun to face reality.

1. The can be no Canadian recovery in the current context until there is an American recovery. And an American recovery to anthing like the good days seems unlikely.

2. There can be no recovery anywhere without a radical restructuring of capitalism. But capitalists are scarcely going to lead the way in restructuring. And the Canadian people are getting no leadership from any party in exactly what sort of restructuring is needed. The same, in spades, is true in the US.

3. The economic future does not lie with the US, but is far more varied. In that respect, NAFTA may be a greater hindrance than help.

(BTW, let's drop this worship of free trade as thought it's always good. No major economy that i can think of has developed out of free trade. Canada and the US both developed on the basis of massive protective tariffs. They shifted to free trade only when it suited them to do so. Even Britain did not adopt free trade until the time came when its exports were far better and cheaper than any others.)

We need to radically rethink out position in the world and our economic future as well as the modifications to capitalism that are necessary if we are to survive.  In both Canada and the US, that debate has not yet even begun - and I have  yet to see any sign it will.

In the meantime, we are governed by a party that calls itself conservative but whose principles are essentially liberal principles of the last quarter of the nineteenth century - and even the Liberals abandoned them in the 1890s.

Nothing wonderful is happening in any of the parties. But the Conservatives are stinkers by any standards. They stand precisely for the policies that caused this mess in the first place.

Above all, Canadians have to get serious about what we are facing, and shake off old ideas for deep consideration of where we go from here, and how. Get used to one thing - the world we grew up in is gone. We need to start almost from scratch.

graeme

I am more convinced than ever that the World Economy and indeed the Canadian and US economy will not move forward until we embrace the principals of Democratic Socialism. 

damn,  holden. good to hear from you. And great to hear you in a passion.

graeme

Can one be re-radicalized, I think I may have been...

It is spring Holden, and as the days grow longer, the sun glows brighter, a young man's mind turns rebellious....

LB

It's spring fever.  That is what the name of it is.  And when you've got it, you want - oh, you don't quite know what it is you do want, but it just fairly makes your heart ache, you want it so!      Mark Twain