Mind you, at least a few changes to the current preamble wouldn't strike me as particularly controversial. While most of the passage cited by Ivison seems fairly unobjectionable, it's probably fair to say that "control" is a stronger term than most New Democrats would want to apply to the government's role in handling the economy as a whole. And likewise, while I'd expect most within the party to retain serious concerns about an undue focus on corporate profits over other priorities, I can't imagine there would be much argument about eliminating a categorical statement that "the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed...not to the making of profit".
That said, it's worth keeping an eye on what gets developed in place of the current preamble. And it's there that the the combination of the language being removed and that being discussed in its place raises some reason for concern:
“This is not the wild, wooly 1970s, when we had to own everything,” said the senior NDP strategist. “We know we need to create wealth and growth in order to allow the Treasury to intervene when it’s prudent and responsible.”Once again, at least part of the change (favouring wealth and growth) is fairly unobjectionable on its face. But there's reason to wonder why economic development is being presented in opposition to the concept of social ownership, particularly when the existing wording already favours public ownership only "where necessary". And if the new constitutional wording reflects a desire to cut public ownership out of the picture to be replaced by a presumption that the corporate sector should generally be allowed to do as it pleases, then I'd expect that to make for a serious debate at next year's convention.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
No comments:
Post a Comment