By Barry Weisleder

The parliamentary crisis, provoked by Stephen Harper's sheer arrogance and his utterly reactionary policies, plunged Canada into a political crisis – which was prolonged by the suspension of Parliament.  (For the background on how this mess occurred, please see the box below.) 

The Conservatives richly deserve defeat.  But one way of defeating Harper threatens to destroy the federal New Democratic Party as an independent political arm of the working class and its organizations.  Generations of gains are at risk.

Should the NDP vote against the Conservative budget on January 27?         Yes.

Should the NDP propose to the Liberals an accord to implement specific initiatives, to be enacted by a Liberal minority government – kept on a short, tight leash?  Yes, it’s worth a try.

Should the NDP enter a coalition government with the Liberal Party?  No, never.

Coalition with a bosses' party (remember, the Liberals have been the main party of capitalist class rule in Canada for the past 100 years) would be a bizarre and historic reversal of the positive direction taken by the latest NDP federal campaign, which explicitly fought for an NDP government.

Coalition with the Liberals, the wet dream of 'strategic voting' advocates, would spell the demise of the NDP as a political force which is accountable, to any degree, to the most conscious section of working class voters.  In a coalition government, the NDP would be bound by ‘cabinet solidarity’ to defend all government policies (including the war in Afghanistan, regressive taxes, inaction on the environment, etc.), not just the policies it may prefer.                              

That amounts to NDP subordination to the corporate establishment, on the road to merger with the Liberals.  It would be an historic regression to the dismal, cap-in-hand days of Lib-Lab local alliances that pre-dated the NDP and the CCF.  It would quicken the unravelling of medicare, public education, environmental safeguards, labour rights, civil liberties and consumer protection.

But some may ask:  Why shouldn't the NDP try to get credit for whatever good might be achieved by a coalition government with the Liberals?  Is there really any difference between an 'accord' and a 'coalition government'?

Well, we can all see the bait. But we really need to see the trap, and its potential victims.  In a coalition, the parties involved are responsible for the entire agenda of the government.  Not only must the partner parties vote for all the legislation the government presents.  They must advocate it, promote it, sell it, defend it against critics (like unions and social movements) and they will be held accountable for it forever.

An accord, on the other hand, keeps a minority capitalist government on a short lease. The labour-based NDP could support the elements of the agreement that are fulfilled, and could speak and vote against anything arising outside the accord that is adverse to the interests of working people.  The government stays in office only so long as it fulfills the accord.  The NDP and Labour thus retain complete autonomy.

The operating principle of a coalition government, ‘cabinet solidarity’, would silence the critics of the regime inside the NDP parliamentary caucus and beyond.  It would encourage NDP MPs to try to keep the party ranks quiet and in the dark, to limit criticism of the government for which the NDP would tragically be responsible. 

Let’s face it, even an accord is dangerous.  Remember what happened to the NDP after David Lewis' accord with Pierre Trudeau; a major loss of votes and seats.  It is essential to keep a distance from the treacherous Liberal machine.  Credit for PetroCanada, affordable housing and pension indexing was O.K.  But for other things that came later, like wage controls, massive social cuts and giant tax gifts to big corporations, not so much.

Layton and company may see a coalition as a career opportunity. Socialists see it as a trap to be avoided. The trap can be avoided via an accord.  An accord averts the taint of direct class collaboration in a capitalist government coalition, and it affords grass roots NDP and union members more say as the process unfolds.  It worked in Ontario in the mid-1980s.  Now, it’s true, the stakes are higher, so it will be more difficult.  But it is worth a try.  The question is:  where to start?

First of all, now is the time to get behind the NDP Socialist Caucus – to do our utmost to oppose coalition with the Liberals, and work to strengthen the NDP’s independence.  The clearest expression of that independence would be the fight for a Workers' Agenda, with public ownership under workers' control at the centre of it. The answer to the global capitalist crisis is not a labour love-in with the parties responsible for it. The answer is socialism.

Work to defeat the Conservatives by all available means -- by a non-confidence vote in the Commons, a cross-country general strike, whatever it takes.  Oppose all chauvinist appeals to Canadian nationalism and against Quebec self-determination.

Negotiate a time-limited and specific agenda to meet the immediate needs of working people.  Then hold a new minority government to it. 

Here’s the agenda we really need:

Put people before profits.

Nationalize the banks.

Create jobs through public investment, public ownership, democratic planning and workers’ control.

Convert industry, transportation, and homes to green, energy efficiency.

Repair disintegrating roads, bridges, railways and port facilities.

Make E.I. more generous and more accessible.

Raise the minimum wage to $16/hour, indexed to the cost of living.

Shorten the work week to 35 hours without loss of pay or benefits.

Abolish student debt.

Make post-secondary education free.

Protect pensions.

Fund health care and the arts.

No corporate bail-out.  Open the books.

Get public equity for every dollar of public investment, and exercise democratic control.

Tax the corporations, the speculators, and the rich.

Abolish the GST.

End the occupation of Afghanistan and Haiti.

Reduce the military to a disaster relief, search and rescue force.

Get Canada out of NATO now!

But no coalition with the Liberal Party, nor with any capitalist party. 

Not now.  Not ever.

Genesis of a crisis

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the G20 countries he favours an economic stimulus plan, even if it takes a deficit to do it.  But on November 27 his Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, presented to Parliament a fiscal update full of cuts to achieve a balanced budget.  Flaherty proposed to cut programme spending by $2 billion next year, to sell $2.3 billion worth of public assets, and to squeeze $600 million out of public service wages by suspending the right to strike for federal workers.  He also pledged to stop pay equity settlement payments to women, announced he would cut by $2.4 billion transfer payments to poorer provinces, and said he would scrap public subsidies to political parties based on the number of votes they get.

Needless to say, none of these measures would create or protect one job, or sustain one pension, or help one jobless or homeless person, as the country descends into economic quick sand.

The opposition Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois announced that they would vote to bring down the Conservative minority government.

Staring defeat in the face, the Tories postponed the vote on their fiscal report from December 1 to December 8.  In a vain attempt to stop the uproar, the Tories dropped their plan to cut party subsidies and ban strikes.  Flaherty promised a new budget for January 27 to include new spending.

On December 3, Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton announced the formation of a coalition based on an economic stimulus package (though no dollar figures were indicated), and an allocation of cabinet seats (18 to go to the Liberals, plus the PM, and 6 to the NDP).  BQ leader Gilles Duceppe agreed to support the coalition for 18 months.

To avoid defeat in the House on December 8, Harper asked Governor General Michaelle Jean to “prorogue” Parliament, that is, to suspend it until January 26.  The GG granted the rare and controversial request, just seven weeks following the latest federal election.  This buys time for the Tories. 

However, Liberal MPs, in the midst of a divisive leadership race to replace the ineffective Dion, already appear to be bolting from the coalition.  Ironically, Harper may have saved Jack Layton and the NDP brass from self-amputation by suspending Parliament and exploiting Liberal internal contradictions.

But Harper’s vicious attack on “separatists”, implying that the 1.3 million Quebecois who voted for the BQ are traitors and devils, has unleashed the dogs of racist chauvinism.  While Harper’s demagogy has hurt the Conservatives in Quebec, it also undermines solidarity and working class independence across the rest of the Canadian state.  The road ahead will be rocky indeed – but passable.  Socialists, democrats and progressives should press the NDP and Labour to fight for a programme wrapped in the workers’ flag, not the maple leaf.

Depressing conditions – before the Depression

The current market tailspin was preceded by a so-called ‘boom’ in which workers’ wages actually stagnated or declined, and social benefits shrank.  Studies and statistics about that period are now appearing.  They make it look more like a ‘bust’ than a ‘boom’ time.  And they cast frightening shadows across the future, so far as the vast majority is concerned.  Here is what we are learning about the early years of the new millennium.

*       The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a report, “Growing Unequal?”, that says Canada’s growing inequality and entrenched poverty rates are now higher than any other OECD country, except Germany.  The OECD noted that Canada spends less than most countries on cash transfers such as unemployment and family benefits.

*       Canadians are in debt as seldom before.  In 1984, at the peak of the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, Canadian households held 70 cents of debt for every dollar of income.  Today, households owe $1.27 for every dollar they bring home.  A new Environics poll shows four in 10 Canadians say they are one or two pay cheques away from being poor.

*       The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sees child poverty rising at an alarming rate across Toronto’s suburbs.  In areas such as Mississauga, Markham, Richmond Hill and Oakville, child poverty rates have soared since 1990, coming close to levels formerly known only in downtown Toronto, says the report, based on data from 2006.

*       While Toronto’s child poverty rate (before taxes) is the highest at 32 per cent, up from 24 per cent in 1990, the suburbs have seen more dramatic increases.

*       Toronto Public Health’s “The Unequal City”, found a clear link between poverty and poor health.  It reported that the top 20 per cent of male earners live 4.5 years longer than the bottom 20 per cent; females live 2.0 years longer.

*       The results are consistent with findings in other jurisdictions.  In fact, a landmark report by the Saskatoon Health Region in late November found a huge health gap between the poor and the rich in that Saskatchewan city.

*       More recently, a team of economists, bankers and food bank directors released a study about the cost of poverty which shows that poverty hurts both the health of those caught in its grip and hits the wallets of almost everyone in society.  The study found that Canadians could save $7.6 billion per year in health-care expenditures by elevating the health status of the bottom 20 per cent to that of the next-to-bottom 20 per cent on the income ladder.

The inescapable conclusion of both reports is that to improve overall health and reduce health costs, start by reducing poverty.  Unfortunately, that’s something that doesn’t happen in a recession or a depression.

*       Incidentally, the poorest areas also tend to be the most polluted. PollutionWatch, after a two-year research project, found that many of Toronto’s poorest residents live near industries that spew the highest levels of toxic chemicals and pollutants into the air.  The study discovered high pollutants in 17 neighbourhoods, from South Riverdale, to West Hill in the east, to York University Heights in the north and Alderwood in the southwest.  Air pollution contributes to almost 9,500 premature deaths each year in Ontario.

*       Speaking of food banks, across Canada over 700,000 people use them in an average month, says a federal charity called Food Banks Canada.  It found that 14.5 per cent of the users are considered “working poor”, up from 12 per cent in 2002.

There has been a 13 per cent jump since last Fall in the number of Ontario residents seeking food aid, according to a report on December 2 by the Ontario Association of Food Banks.  The increase in usage is particularly high in depressed auto, mining and forest industry centres, like Sudbury (up 34.4%), Thunder Bay (28.5%), St. Catharines (23.9%), Oshawa (15.3%) and Windsor (10%). 

If the trend continues, next year about 350,000 Ontarians will be lining up at food banks each month to get the basics they can’t afford to buy.  And as things get worse, it affects donors too.  Gail Nyberg, executive director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, said food and financial donations are down 15 per cent this year.

And this is only a glimpse of what’s to come.

Canadian employers slashed nearly 71,000 jobs in November, the worst single month drop in 26 years.  600,000 more jobs are expected to disappear.  According to BMO Capital Markets economist Doug Porter, unemployment will rise to 7.5 per cent by the end of 2009.  Is Porter even counting those who’ve totally given up looking for work, and the chronically under-employed?  Ten years of ‘economic boom’ delivered a 59 per cent increase in temporary and contract jobs.  Almost four in ten jobs are now impermanent and part-time forms of work

For all of this we have capitalism to thank – in ‘good times’, and current times.  As for the future, don’t we deserve something a heck of a lot better than this?

Doug Nesbitt on 10 Dec 2008 at 9:19 am #

It is not true that the IS finds merit in the coalition. There is no praise of the coalition in the Socialist Worker supplement or the articles published by Paul Kellogg on rabble and SV. Quite the opposite.

In short, the IS supports ousting Harper but argues that the only way we will any demands in the here and now is a mass movement advancing its own demands independently of any coalition government. This is made quite clear in the last sections of the SW supplement.

Richard Fidler on 10 Dec 2008 at 10:16 am #

Doug, I see no statement in the SW supplement that the Coalition is a step backwards for workers. When you oppose a “blank cheque” for the Coalition, the question is left hanging, What additions would you propose to make the Coalition acceptable? And that is exactly what SW says: “… the key question now is what demands we make on the Liberal-NDP Coalition, and how we mobilize to win them.” How does that answer Ignatieff’s “Coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition”, let alone Layton’s promises of all the fine things the Coalition will bring if we just stick together and fight?

The whole tone of the SW supplement is to greet the appearance of the Coalition. Harper’s government, we are told, is “on the brink of collapse”. (But which party came near to collapse, by the way?) “The Tories are in complete panic.” Really? They seem to have managed the crisis quite well, thanks in part to the Governor General (appointed by the Liberals, BTW). And there’s more….

“The crisis shows that we don’t have to wait for elections to change governments. And it shows that workers have a central role to play in fighting back against the concessions and attacks….” What central role, in fact what role period, did the workers play in all this, other than to be rallied as cheer-leaders by the union bureaucracy in support of the coalition with the Liberals? And how big, how representative of the working class, were those rallies? SW says it was “a huge surge of support” for the Coalition. “From coast to coast, people are rallying around the call to support such a coalition government.”

Well, it may have looked like that for a brief moment, especially if our eyes were glued to our email lists and computer screens. But I think we need to acknowledge, if only in retrospect, that such statements exaggerate the real scope of the enthusiasm. And I suspect that many of those who were responsive to the Coalition may be doing some rethinking about the wisdom of that strategy in light of subsequent events.

I look forward to debating you on this at your Thursday IS meeting.

In solidarity,
Richard

Barry Weisleder on 11 Dec 2008 at 4:20 am #

Richard Fidler’s survey of the radical left in English Canada, which records the ambiguities of the I.S., is rather incomplete. He neglects to mention that the Communist Party enthusiastically favours the ill-fated Liberal-NDP parliamentary coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois. Richard omits reference to the Socialist Project, to which he and SV co-writer John Riddell belong. The SP has taken no collective political position on the coalition question. Likewise, the New Socialist Group has abstained from taking a political stand for or against the bourgeois coalition.

Finally, Richard has overlooked, or has just not seen fit to report, that Socialist Action, which plays a leading role in the cross-country NDP Socialist Caucus, is campaigning publicly against the coalition. SA counterposes a defense of the NDP’s organizational independence from the parties of Capital, and a principled, time-limited, concrete ‘accord’ as the price for permitting a minority government to hold office.

Two other groups that have spoken out against the coalition are Fightback and the Socialist Equality Party. And there may be others.

Those interested in fostering unity in action for a Workers’ Agenda, in the present circumstances of economic crisis and bourgeois government instability, may wish to look for potential points of agreement amongst the existing forces of the left, particularly those who intervene in the actually existing workers’ movement.

But it is hard to imagine building any kind of substantial “anticapitalist coalition between grassroots activists in the two nations”, as Richard rightly proposes, without challenging NDP and Labour officials, and appealing directly to the NDP’s 100,000+ members, inside the party.

In solidarity,
Barry

Paul Kellogg on 11 Dec 2008 at 6:00 am #

Socialists need to learn that the key arena is activity, and the key to theory is how it plays out in the movements. There is a difference between a programmatic position (opposition to the coalition because it is a cross-class alliance — and of course the I.S. opposes the coalition on this basis — this is rather elementary) and the shaping of slogans to intervene into struggle. In this regard, the key issue is the war, and the key anti-war group is the Canadian Peace Alliance. The Canadian Peace Alliance took a wonderful position on the coalition, marching into the anti-Harper rally with the chant “Harper out of Ottawa, Canada out of Afghanistan”. The navigation of the discussion at the CPA towards this excellent conclusion was conducted by many fine activists and anti-war leaders, some of whom are in the the I.S.

The proof of all puddings is in the eating. To date the meal that has been served around this debate, is in the anti-war movement. To date, the anti-war movement has not only passed the test — the anti-war movement is showing the left how to respond to this crisis. For everyone’s information, the CPA voted to make ending the war in Afghanistan one of its two key planks for the next two years (the other being War Resisters), regardless of who is in office. The next mobilization will be in early April to coincide with the call for demonstrations on the 60th anniversary of the creation of NATO. The key test for all socialists will be putting their shoulders to the wheel of the movement, and making these demos as big as possible. I look forward to everyone’s enthusiastic and active participation in their local anti-war groups.

Richard Fidler on 11 Dec 2008 at 7:06 am #

I welcome Paul Kellogg’s statement that the IS “opposes the coalition”. Paul says this is “elementary”, but if so (and I agree) why did the IS comrades not make that point and then explain why and how they opposed the coalition? I look forward to future articles in SW that do this.

Barry Weisleder posted his comment above to an email discussion list and I have responded there with a couple of posts. In the first, I explained in part:

“I was not attempting to ’survey’ the radical left in that article. In that part of what was admittedly an awfully long article, I was deliberately citing a few sources to indicate a range of opinion on the coalition, not to comprehensively document all opinions.”

In my second post in response to Barry, I wrote, again in part:

Barry raises a good question. Narrowly put, I would phrase it this way, on this list: If you are in the NDP, what do you say to NDP members and supporters about the coalition tactic? Barry, his group Socialist Action, and the Socialist Caucus (and possibly others) say, it is wrong to participate in government with a capitalist party such as the Liberals. But it is not wrong for the NDP to lay out an agenda for action and to say that to the degree that the government (any government) acts to implement that agenda this party will not, at this point, vote to defeat it. That is normally what the NDP should do in Parliament, and if it chooses to put a clear working-class agenda in writing and sign to that effect — an Accord, if you wish — that is not only principled but could be an effective way of projecting an independent course for working people in this crisis.

I think Barry is right on this point. …

The parliamentary crisis gave the NDP an excellent opportunity to stake out an independent position, rather than opportunistically make a grab to join the ministerial ranks. (It was precisely the blatant opportunism in Layton’s manoeuvre that played a role in mobilizing opposition to the coalition among many working people, I suspect.) The NDP could have told the Liberals and the Bloc: We won’t enter a government. We want to replace you. But we are not strong enough to do so at this point. And an immediate election will not likely produce a radical change in the present configuration of forces. But here is our proposed legislative program for the crisis, based on consultations with our supporters in the unions and social movements. (Then some key demands, including of course immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, massive social infrastructure spending, etc.) If you act now on those lines we will not vote to defeat your government and precipitate an election at this time. On the other hand, if you do not do this, or you legislate against the interests of the workers, we will not hesitate to vote against you.

Like Barry, I start with the understanding that the NDP is part of the workers movement. Yes, a bourgeois party in its overall program. But a bourgeois party of a special type that operates primarily in the workers movement as a political expression of the trade unions in English Canada. Keep in mind that the program of the unions, as they exist today, is itself “bourgeois”, not anticapitalist.

For us, the line of principle should not be whether or not to belong to the NDP, or whether or not to place demands on the NDP. The principled question in this instance is, For or against the coalition with the Liberals? Within the anti-coalition camp, there is every reason to try to formulate an appropriate tactical line of march for the NDP, as Barry and a few others are attempting to do.

This is not only a tactic for use within the NDP, moreover. It is a tactic addressed to the working class and its social movement allies more generally. The unions, for example, need to be challenged to formulate an action program and place those demands on the NDP, fight for them within the NDP.

The debate in the left provoked by the parliamentary crisis has highlighted a major problem for many of us, and I realize that I have been affected by it too. Some of us have been attempting to “regroup the left” for some years now. Socialist Project in Ontario is a part of that process. But we have, consciously or unconsciously, made NDP membership or support in itself a question of principle, excluding it from consideration in elaborating socialist strategy. This is a huge error.

And to some degree it lies at the root of the “regrouping the left” movement. A seminal document was Sam Gindin’s essay in 2000, “The Party’s Over”. Sam called for building “a structured movement” to build an anticapitalist alternative, and most of the subsequent discussion centered on that proposal. But it is often forgotten that the first half of Sam’s article was an attempt to prove that the NDP was no longer a workers party and was fundamentally irrelevant to socialist strategy. At the time Sam was on the CAW staff, and it did not escape some of us that his political line was not inconsistent with the right-wing direction the CAW was beginning to take at that time around such issues as “strategic voting” for Liberals, etc. Since then of course Sam, now retired from the CAW, has been a strong critic of the CAW’s slide to the right.

It is no accident that [in some circles] the recent debate on the coalition has focused on how one characterizes the NDP, and the fault-lines in the debate are basically between those who consider the NDP to be a relevant factor in labour politics and those who don’t. And it is revealing to see how those who dismiss the NDP can easily fall into the trap of thinking the coalition is of no importance, and that somehow an independent course of action by labour can be staked out without confronting the issue of the coalition.

Other groups too are not immune to this problematic. It seems to me that the problem is also reflected in the IS comrades’ emphasis on “bottom-up fight-back” while ignoring how that fight-back is expressed in and around the NDP itself. Inside the NDP, you cannot ignore the question of principle posed by the coalition tactic. The IS sidesteps it because it is not in the NDP — or, if some of its members are in the NDP, they are silent on the coalition or indirectly supporting it by simply placing “demands” on it while not challenging its existence.

Hans M on 11 Dec 2008 at 10:09 am #

A propos regroupment, it’s a step forward to see Richard and Barry agree on the formulation: Accord Yes - Coalition No. That constitutes an agreement on principle–in my opinion, anyway. Hallelujiah.

Now, that Rae has tossed the towel, the coalition seems moribund, and Broadbent’s “Happy Days” moment was short lived indeed. The evolution of Bob Rae is indeed the best illustration of the fallacy and pitfalls of the coalition road. Layton who sat on the fence in the social contract crisis obviously has not learned that lesson.

But Bay Sreet doesn’t trust the agile svengali of class collaborationism. Perhaps they are saving him for another day? Shudder to think of the scenario: Bob Rae PM cum Layton as Labour Minister!

PS: I’m intrigued by RF’s formulation of the NDP as a “bourgeois party of a special type” Did I get that right, and if so why not include the BQ in that category, or the SPD, PSF etc?

David Camfield on 12 Dec 2008 at 4:55 pm #

I’d like to comment on one issue raised by the analysis in Richard’s article (with which I generally agree).

Richard wrote “the popular support of the coalition is a manifestation of how low expectations are among working people after close to three decades of neoliberal assault during which real wages (adjusted for inflation) have stagnated overall and even declined for many.” This is certainly true, and we could add greater insecurity, lower coverage for benefits and pensions, longer hours of paid and unpaid work, the intensification of work, greater employer power over workers in the workplace, less access to EI, workfare and more to a list of what the employers’ offensive of the last three decades has wrought.

Richard also argues that “Canadian labour has not been defeated in major industrial struggles. In a series of important confrontations in recent years, militants have demonstrated their willingness and capacity to resist attacks on their living standards and organizations.” Both claims are true, but to leave it there fails to take into account the overall impact of the neoliberal assault. The overall picture is that the level of union struggle in the last few years has been extremely low, despite the fact that official unemployment had fallen.

The percentage of estimated working time “lost” to strikes is in some ways the most useful measure of the scale of workplace struggle:

Jan-June 2008: 0.02
2007: 0.05
2006: 0.02

Although the historical data are less than fully reliable and comparable, if we use it we find that 2006-2008 have seen the lowest percentage of work time “lost” to strikes since the period 1938-1942 — a level similar to the period 1926-1932. Obviously 2006-2008 is quite different, in many respects (the economic situation is not as bad as the years after 1929, the percentage of workers covered by collective agreements is much higher than it was 80 years ago, the working-class movement is enormously different, etc.).

But it is significant that strikes sank to such a low level across the Canadian state _before_ the economic crisis broke, when unemployment was generally lower (although some sectors — such as manufacturing workers — were beginning to be hit). The low level of strike action is definitely not the whole picture, but it does tell us something about the cumulative impact of the neoliberal assault on the labour movement. This is one reason why my sense of “the mood in labour’s ranks” is different than what Richard briefly implies.

With not only lowered expectations but also little collective action happening in the workplace or on the streets, it’s little wonder that so many people responded positively to the Liberal-NDP coalition call (and that so far there has been so little push for extra-parliamentary mobilization by unions and community groups in response to the economic crisis). We need to recognize this as we do whatever we can to push for the “critical balance-sheet of the coalition episode” that Richard rightly calls for, as part of beginning to build an entirely different kind of response to the crisis.

***********************

In the comments below, Ernie Tate makes some important points
about the left's response to the Liberal-NDP coalition. Ernie's
post was private correspondence, which he has allowed me to
forward to this list. Edited slightly to remove references to
individual correspondents. -- Richard


I think this is a move to the right by the CLC leadership and the
NDP, and results from the impasse these organizations feel
themselves to be in due to the present economic crises in the
context of no fight-back in the ranks and a changing of the class
relationships in favour of the bosses.

The first response to the crises by many workers is to duck and
look around to see what's happening. The NDP I think have been
locked into a narrow band of popular support since the beginning
of the decade -- evident at the time of the NPI -- and Layton has
not been able to break out of it, and being the pot-hole fixing
politician that's in his DNA, he's always looking for some kind of
political combination to make a break-through. From the record,
it's obvious, he's been working on some deal with the Liberals for
some time and of course all those "on the left" who were deeply
into "lesser evil politics" are ecstatic. The CLC leadership, who
seem to have been holed up in a cave somewhere, and whose
statements on the crises have been totally Keynesian without an
ounce of class struggle in them, suddenly have a "project", the
Coalition, to point to, which will safely keep any pressure away
from them and is safely within the confines of support for the
Lib-Labour coalition. It will be a way to keep people off the
streets, if it works out.

We have to allow time for the discussion in the labour movement
about this. I'm hoping there may be some voices which will be
raised against the deal and some union leader may speak against
it. We should keep our ears open for this, and give them whatever
support we can. It may be severely weakened now, but there's a
long tradition of independent labour political action in Canada,
and it's hard to believe it can be extinguished so easily. We'll
see what happens in the run-up to the next election. Indeed, if
Layton continues with his current trajectory, he'll soon be in
discussion with Liberal operatives about not contesting each
other's seats. This would immensely suit the Liberals -- and the
ruling class generally - because it would remove one of the
historic obstacles which makes it difficult to get a majority and
get us to a two party system such as exists in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the way some on the Canadian left have been dealing
with the issue of the Coalition, is to start with tactics first,
e.g., "we cannot isolate ourselves", "everyone is supporting
this", "people see some kind of hope in this after being down for
so long", (I've heard them all!), then derive a some kind of
position, when the essential thing for Marxists is to state our
principled class analysis first and then work out, in the
circumstances, how to explain it to others on the left and working
people generally. The former method leads to all kinds of
problems, as we have so quickly seen.

But there may be an upside to all this: ironically enough, we may
be approaching a situation where some space may be created on the
left for some kind of electoral combination of the anti-capitalist
left to challenge such an arrangement and to try and give some
kind of representation to the workers, such as exists in Europe.
But it's hard to get to there from here if you start out
supporting the Coalition and have placed your socialist hopes in
it being a solution to the present economic crises.

Best regards,

Ernie

***************************