From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Hurtig Sells Out (was Re: National Party
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:53:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.002138.1494@galaxy.gov.bc.ca> ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.021656.14257@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>> I disagree with their economic nationalism, but they are for significant
>> democratic reform...and they at least provide an alternative to voting
>> Liberal or NDP for those who feel unable to vote Tory or Reform.
>
>I was (and still am) a Council of Canadianer from the very
>begining and feel that Mr. Hurtig has not exactly been honest
>with us. 
>

Perhaps Hurtig became disenchanted with the NDP and big labour
because they intimidated the COC and the Action Canada Network
into silence on the referendum on the consitution...the issue
which most affected the future of Canada.  Perhaps Hurtig became
disenchanted with the NDP because he sees the Ontario NDP,
which is the provincial party most reflective of the national
party, has proven to be a party of big labour, for big labour,
and of big labour, and not a party of the people.

>All along the CoC was a non-partisan organisation which fought 
>for a Canada which maintained its own identity in the world. 
>Obviously, much of this effort focused on the Bilateral Free 
>Trade Agreement (BFTA) and the North American Free Trade 
>Agreement (NAFTA). In the 1988 election Hurtig called for tactical 
>voting - i.e., support the non-BFTA candidate in your riding that 
>was most likely to defeat the pro-BFTA (Conservative) candidate.
>

You mean to say that Hurtig dictatorially ran the COC...are you
saying that the COC is composed of such weak-minded people, that
they blindly did what Hurtig told them to do...and that the
when the COC took a position, they didn't canvas their members for
a concensus, but just asked Mel...

>As an NDPer who always considered Liberals were ones that 
>iterated promises out of the left side of their mouths but spoke 
>about government policy out of the right side of their mouths, 
>this was a difficult concept for me to endorse. But endorse it I 
>did: I remain a CoC supporter. (Note that the CoC is not 
>restricted to the free trade debates, they have spoken out about 
>Canadian culture, the CBC, the GST, etc.).
>

The COC was intimidated into silence by the NDP on the constitution...
  
>In recent months it has become very clear that *only* the NDP will
>abrogate the BFTA and NFTA (and the GST...). The Liberals will
>not. Logical response? Mr. Hurtig should endorse CoC supporters
>et al., to vote NDP. What does he do? He forms his own political
>party whose policies, apparently, by and large reflect those of
>the NDP. 
>

Perhaps Hurtig saw the true stripes of the NDP in the referendum
campaign...the National Party is designed to hurt the Liberals,
not the NDP anyway...any vote that the National Party takes
away from the Liberals in Ontario helps the NDP in Ontario.
Hurtig, even though I disagree, with his economics, is trying to
do the same thing I want to do...deny Chretien a majority, because
that is the worst possible outcome of the next election.  If you
can't see that his attack is really aimed at the Liberals, then
you really are blind.

>
>In effect, Mel Hurtig *does not* provide a policy alternative to 
>the NDP in terms of policy. It appears that Mr. Hurtig, who once 
>ran for the Liberal Party, was really just a dissaffected Liberal 
>all this time - not the non-partisan nationalist he pretended to 
>be.
>

Hurtig at least knows what he is talking about, even though I disagree
with him...Audrey McLaughlin and Jean Chretien are basically clueless.
If I'm going to have to endure government from the left, I would it
at least be by someone who knows their stuff...competent leftist
government is infinitely preferable to incompetent leftest government.

The difference between the National Party and the Liberals and the NDP,
is that like the Reform Party, it is for significant democratic reforms,
and recognize the need for democratic reform as almost the highest 
priority...and that is why if one cannot bring oneself to vote Tory,
that a vote for Reform or the National Party is a much better vote
than a vote for the Liberals or the NDP.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics