News   Dec 23, 2025
Happy Holidays From the UrbanToronto Team!
 243     2 
News   Dec 23, 2025
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2025, presented by Diverso Energy
 518     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
City Council December, 2025 Zoning Settlements: Large-Scale Housing, City-Wide Policy
 1.1K     0 

PM Mark Carney's Canada

Admiral Beez said:
The post-Layton federal NDP reminds me of the United Church. The latter become the United Church of Everything, which (among many reasons) led to parishioners abandoning the organization. When you stand for everything, you stand out for nothing. That's where the Roman Catholics have a firm grip, they have doctrine and clear communication of what they stand for, and take the position that if you like our ways, come join us, but outside of glacial like movements on some topics, don't expect us to change to suit you.

Below is the verbatim opening section of the 1961 New Party Declaration, adopted at the founding convention of the New Democratic Party of Canada in Ottawa (August 1961).

“The New Democratic Party believes that the purpose of society is the fulfillment of the individual, and that this fulfillment can be achieved only in a society based on cooperation, democracy, equality, and social justice. The New Democratic Party is formed to unite farmers, labour, professional people and other Canadians who believe in these principles, and who desire to achieve them by democratic means. The New Democratic Party believes that the political and economic institutions of Canada must be democratized in order to serve the needs of the people. It seeks to replace the concentration of power and privilege with a society in which economic opportunity is available to all, in which individual freedom is combined with social responsibility, and in which the public good takes precedence over private profit.”

So, yes social justice, as it was understood in the early 1960s is mentioned, but it's not the core of the NDP's purpose. If they'd stuck to these goals, heck I might have joined. I proudly voted for Layton's NDP in 2011 (my local candidate lost to Liberal Bob Rae, ironically former NDP premier of ON).
Click to expand...

Yep! Social Justice took a hard left in the early 2000s when it became a catch all for every alphabet and equality issue out there. In the 1960s, social justice was more about socialism than it was activism.

When Tom Mulcair came into the fray, they removed Socialism from the constitution and went a bit more to the centre. They tried to be a voice for the voiceless but turned into an activist party.

Being known for something is why the BQ, UCP and former Reform Party do so well. They all focused on one area of concern and made it their raison d'etre.

Unfortunately, the NDP is now full of talking heads who are always angry about something the government did but never focus on one thing like they did 20 years ago. If they focused on the environment and making life better for Canadians they would do well but they haven't.

As I said before, the NDP needs to merge with the LPC if they want to survive. The LPC for all it's faults has a purpose and knows what it wants to be. They may have a caucus full of airheads and talking points but at least Canadians know what they stand for.
 
lenaitch said:
Click to expand...
Thanks. Much more useful than whatever Chatham Asset Management LLC wants to spew out. I don't expect asylum claims from Indian nationals to get too far. Send them home to face justice in India's courts, or to the US if their crimes were committed there.

And I'm glad these criminals have applied for refugee status. It brings into the public eye a problem that Carney's government may now look into.
 
Richard White said:
Yep! Social Justice took a hard left in the early 2000s when it became a catch all for every alphabet and equality issue out there. In the 1960s, social justice was more about socialism than it was activism.

When Tom Mulcair came into the fray, they removed Socialism from the constitution and went a bit more to the centre. They tried to be a voice for the voiceless but turned into an activist party.

Being known for something is why the BQ, UCP and former Reform Party do so well. They all focused on one area of concern and made it their raison d'etre.

Unfortunately, the NDP is now full of talking heads who are always angry about something the government did but never focus on one thing like they did 20 years ago. If they focused on the environment and making life better for Canadians they would do well but they haven't.

As I said before, the NDP needs to merge with the LPC if they want to survive. The LPC for all it's faults has a purpose and knows what it wants to be. They may have a caucus full of airheads and talking points but at least Canadians know what they stand for.
Click to expand...

Honestly, not much of a path for the NDP back. Take an average tradesman and a student activist. Put them in a room. Just imagine what they will find common ground on. And what they will clash on. I suspect there's more they will clash on than agree on.
 
kEiThZ said:
Honestly, not much of a path for the NDP back. Take an average tradesman and a student activist. Put them in a room. Just imagine what they will find common ground on. And what they will clash on. I suspect there's more they will clash on than agree on.
Click to expand...

Yep.

The tradesman will want to make sure he has health coverage when he gets injured at work and a pension when he retires. He could not care less that carbon emissions go up because he drives a Ford F-350 to the jobsite.

Activists on the other hand will complain about the truck not being eco-friendly and how the cost of living is too high to afford new taxes (to pay for pensions and healthcare).

As the saying goes, the LPC is the party NDP members go to when they get older. Once people mature, have kids and start their lives the activism no longer has a place in their daily lives.
 
Richard White said:
As the saying goes, the LPC is the party NDP members go to when they get older. Once people mature, have kids and start their lives the activism no longer has a place in their daily lives.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself.

There’s a lot of strawmanning going on here.

It wasn’t that long ago the party was the official opposition.
 
zang said:
Speak for yourself.

There’s a lot of strawmanning going on here.

It wasn’t that long ago the party was the official opposition.
Click to expand...

Yes because Jack was at the helm and everyone knew what the party stood for.

I was a member of the NDP for many years and left when Tom Mulcair took over due to the party going in another direction. I saw many friends lose the election in 2015 because of it.

When I joined the NDP it was the party of Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent that appealed to the working class trying to get ahead. When they became the Official Opposition they moved towards the centre and cut socialism from the party constitution.

I knew Jack personally and he genuinely cared about average Canadians. Tom Mulcair came in and only cared about keeping power which later cost them.

As I said, when they became the official opposition their head swelled and they thought they were the new LPC. The ONDP did the same thing in Ontario and look how it is playing out for them.
 
Admiral Beez said:
The post-Layton federal NDP reminds me of the United Church. The latter become the United Church of Everything, which (among many reasons) led to parishioners abandoning the organization. When you stand for everything, you stand out for nothing. That's where the Roman Catholics have a firm grip, they have doctrine and clear communication of what they stand for, and take the position that if you like our ways, come join us, but outside of glacial like movements on some topics, don't expect us to change to suit you.

Below is the verbatim opening section of the 1961 New Party Declaration, adopted at the founding convention of the New Democratic Party of Canada in Ottawa (August 1961).

“The New Democratic Party believes that the purpose of society is the fulfillment of the individual, and that this fulfillment can be achieved only in a society based on cooperation, democracy, equality, and social justice. The New Democratic Party is formed to unite farmers, labour, professional people and other Canadians who believe in these principles, and who desire to achieve them by democratic means. The New Democratic Party believes that the political and economic institutions of Canada must be democratized in order to serve the needs of the people. It seeks to replace the concentration of power and privilege with a society in which economic opportunity is available to all, in which individual freedom is combined with social responsibility, and in which the public good takes precedence over private profit.”

So, yes social justice, as it was understood in the early 1960s is mentioned, but it's not the core of the NDP's purpose. If they'd stuck to these goals, heck I might have joined. I proudly voted for Layton's NDP in 2011 (my local candidate lost to Liberal Bob Rae, ironically former NDP premier of ON).
Click to expand...
Re the United Church: it might also say something about the role of "religiosity" in today's culture--plus the fact that the most "thriving" United congregations are the likes of Cheri DiNovo's Trinity-St Paul's. But by and large, those who abandoned the United Church were those who "went secular"; and while fewer people at large may be attending church, those who are tend to be more "devout", for better or worse--and maybe a lot of them tend to bristle at the notion of being devout in a secular society (that is, to "look beyond their faith"). Maybe it's the Trinity-St Paul's-style "United progressives" which are guilty of looking-beyond-their-faith to a fault...
 
Admiral Beez said:
The post-Layton federal NDP reminds me of the United Church. The latter become the United Church of Everything, which (among many reasons) led to parishioners abandoning the organization. When you stand for everything, you stand out for nothing. That's where the Roman Catholics have a firm grip, they have doctrine and clear communication of what they stand for, and take the position that if you like our ways, come join us, but outside of glacial like movements on some topics, don't expect us to change to suit you.

Below is the verbatim opening section of the 1961 New Party Declaration, adopted at the founding convention of the New Democratic Party of Canada in Ottawa (August 1961).

“The New Democratic Party believes that the purpose of society is the fulfillment of the individual, and that this fulfillment can be achieved only in a society based on cooperation, democracy, equality, and social justice. The New Democratic Party is formed to unite farmers, labour, professional people and other Canadians who believe in these principles, and who desire to achieve them by democratic means. The New Democratic Party believes that the political and economic institutions of Canada must be democratized in order to serve the needs of the people. It seeks to replace the concentration of power and privilege with a society in which economic opportunity is available to all, in which individual freedom is combined with social responsibility, and in which the public good takes precedence over private profit.”

So, yes social justice, as it was understood in the early 1960s is mentioned, but it's not the core of the NDP's purpose. If they'd stuck to these goals, heck I might have joined. I proudly voted for Layton's NDP in 2011 (my local candidate lost to Liberal Bob Rae, ironically former NDP premier of ON).
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that easy. The working class isn't progressive anymore. And hasn't been for at least a decade. And that's why it's hard to square the circle for the NDP. They only win city centre urban ridings these days. And a handful of Prairie riding where the NDP brand is still seen as the main leftist alternative (and that is changing).

There's also the fundamental contradiction between professed progressive values these days and working class economic interests. Just look at immigration. Some progressives in Canada are starting to adopt the immigration culture wars of the US, complete with the language change ("undocumented"). Meanwhile, the working class getting crushed by wage and housing competition is becoming more and more right wing on this issue. If you force the average Dipper to choose, I suspect they'd go with the standard progressive view than the working class. Or at least this is what the working class voters think.
 
kEiThZ said:
I don't think it's that easy. The working class isn't progressive anymore. And hasn't been for at least a decade. And that's why it's hard to square the circle for the NDP. They only win city centre urban ridings these days. And a handful of Prairie riding where the NDP brand is still seen as the main leftist alternative (and that is changing).

There's also the fundamental contradiction between professed progressive values these days and working class economic interests. Just look at immigration. Some progressives in Canada are starting to adopt the immigration culture wars of the US, complete with the language change ("undocumented"). Meanwhile, the working class getting crushed by wage and housing competition is becoming more and more right wing on this issue. If you force the average Dipper to choose, I suspect they'd go with the standard progressive view than the working class. Or at least this is what the working class voters think.
Click to expand...
I imagine the Liberals' shift to the right will leave more room on the left for NDP fortunes to rise a bit

(Edit: And I don't mean hard turn, just the retreat from some of the progressive policies of recent years)
 
PL1 said:
I imagine the Liberals' shift to the right will leave more room on the left for NDP fortunes to rise a bit

(Edit: And I don't mean hard turn, just the retreat from some of the progressive policies of recent years)
Click to expand...

Again though. Who's the customer who will buy what they are trying to sell? They might get some disaffected Liberals. But that's not the working class voter they used to get and that is necessary to actually get them power.

Also, young people are starting to go right too. That's not a turn that is good for the NDP either. Turns out that only talking about rental housing doesn't jive with people that actually want to own their homes. Like I said, there's a disconnect between their values and those of the voters they want to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top