Could Social Credit have worked?

God forbid!! Except for the credit unions (love mine), all their ideas were totally wacked-out. Could right-wing communism really be any better than the left-wing variety? I think it says enough that the only place where the Créditistes had any real power was in Alberta, and that most of them had become Réformistes <spit> by the 70s and 80s. Ernest Manning... Preston Manning... <gag>

Oh, and by the way, since Bobby Jindal is my governor, the thought of him on a national ticket makes my skin crawl. I worked for LSU when he was secretary of Health and Hospitals, and after having watched him nearly destroy the Charity hospital system that had been in place since colonial times, now I get to watch him destroy the whole state while it tries to recover from 2 of the worst disasters that have struck in modern times. He's now involved in a major imbroglio over legislative pay raises, with a recall effort underway, so the Bayou wunderkind the GOP have been creaming over lately is quickly proving to be a dud. :D Perhaps there is a God...
 
I'd concur, as a co-op social democrat I view them in the same way I view Marxist-Leninism or Fascist corporatism, with a shudder.

Credit Unions are a-okay but flipping the entire 'point' of the economy on its side, it would have been a disaster
 
God forbid!! Except for the credit unions (love mine), all their ideas were totally wacked-out. Could right-wing communism really be any better than the left-wing variety? I think it says enough that the only place where the Créditistes had any real power was in Alberta, and that most of them had become Réformistes <spit> by the 70s and 80s. Ernest Manning... Preston Manning... <gag>

Social Credit held power in another province too. In British Columbia they held power for 30 years from 1952 to 1972, and again from 1975 to 1992, alternating only with the NDP. In fact the Social Credit government led by Bill Vander Zalm was the last Socred government in Canada, being defeated in 1992. Their legacy lives on in the form of the BC Liberals, who are the current governing party.

The Alberta Socreds lost the 1972 election, performed poorly as an opposition party (they had been the provincial government from 1935, and before then hadn't contested and election) and were completely gone in ten years. The Progressive Conservatives (who would be happy to drop "progressive" from their name) have held power since, with only the 1992 election bringing them close to defeat.

Incidentally, The Reform Party was not a direct successor to the Socreds, (there are about 3 or 4 minor parties which are, but they attract few votes), despite having been led by Preston Manning, the son of Ernest Manning, the Socred premier of Alberta. The Reform party was a right-wing populist party that successfully competed with the PC party for votes in most of Canada, and thus proved to be the cause of the Tory implosion in 1993. Both parties are now united as the Conservative Party of Canada, which is the currnet government, and hopefully shall remain as such for quite some time.
 
It did come to power. Alberta, in the thirties. Didn't work, of course, and the Supreme Court called the whole thing unconstitutional. I don't suspect anyone else could have manged much better.

Which is why most of the insane stuff got ditched in the early 1940's, and the party became a conventional right wing populist party. (By most I mean they kept the silly liquor laws, (airlines were not allowed to serve drinks while the plane was flying over Alberta), the evangelicalism, (the first Socred Premier was a Baptist minister), some of the eugenics, (which was disturbingly popular prior to and during WWII, and no one would admit to supporting afterwards...), and little else.)
 

HueyLong

Banned
The prosperity certificates are interesting...... they could be a good way to spur spending without causing inflation. Don't know how the concept would work fully, but there's never been an example.

As I understand it, person A gets $1PC. Keeps it for one week, making it, to him, $.99PC. But he then buys something from person B, for the price of $1. The PC value is $1 to person B until a week passes.

Going up the ladder of purchases, it wouldn't lose value (except to its current owner), would spur immediate spending rather than savings and provide the government with a cheap source of revenue. Every week a PC is in someone else's hands, the government gets another cent.

Certainly interesting and unorthodox. Doubt it is workable in RL, not until we get into an electronic system.
 
The prosperity certificates are interesting...... they could be a good way to spur spending without causing inflation. Don't know how the concept would work fully, but there's never been an example.

As I understand it, person A gets $1PC. Keeps it for one week, making it, to him, $.99PC. But he then buys something from person B, for the price of $1. The PC value is $1 to person B until a week passes.

Going up the ladder of purchases, it wouldn't lose value (except to its current owner), would spur immediate spending rather than savings and provide the government with a cheap source of revenue. Every week a PC is in someone else's hands, the government gets another cent.

Certainly interesting and unorthodox. Doubt it is workable in RL, not until we get into an electronic system.

If the Canadian Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional at the time, can you imagine the idea spreading any further??!! They're freaks out there in the Prairies, and thankfully the eastern Provinces will always outweigh them. The Créditistes had some strength in Québec, but never enough to ever hope to form a government. Their message there was supplanted by the social-democratic PQ, and their nationalist sensibility has been taken over by the ADQ.
 
If the Canadian Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional at the time, can you imagine the idea spreading any further??!! They're freaks out there in the Prairies, and thankfully the eastern Provinces will always outweigh them. The Créditistes had some strength in Québec, but never enough to ever hope to form a government. Their message there was supplanted by the social-democratic PQ, and their nationalist sensibility has been taken over by the ADQ.

It was ruled unconstitutional because the provincial government was attempting to interfere in federal jurisdiction. Had the idea come from Ottawa, it would have been perfectly legal, though perhaps insane, as banking and monetary policy are federal responsibilities. Had the court ruled differently, we would have gotten to see whether or not the idea could really work, or if it was absolutely insane.

As to the crack about westerners being freaks and eastern provinces always outweighing (and silencing) the west, you and yours should remember that separation is perfectly legal according to the Canadian Constitution, and attitudes like yours encourage people out here to consider independence as a viable course of action.
 
It was ruled unconstitutional because the provincial government was attempting to interfere in federal jurisdiction. Had the idea come from Ottawa, it would have been perfectly legal, though perhaps insane, as banking and monetary policy are federal responsibilities. Had the court ruled differently, we would have gotten to see whether or not the idea could really work, or if it was absolutely insane.

As to the crack about westerners being freaks and eastern provinces always outweighing (and silencing) the west, you and yours should remember that separation is perfectly legal according to the Canadian Constitution, and attitudes like yours encourage people out here to consider independence as a viable course of action.

My comments were meant to be more tongue-in-cheek, not insulting, and I meant no offense. The Créditistes had a significant level of support in Québec, and much of its populist message survives in the ADQ, who came within a couple of seats of ousting the Charest government in the last election. Who says Frogs can't be freaks too??!!

However, having grown up in MTL, and being a Péquiste, "You can go your own way, go your own way..." as Fleetwood Mac sang :D. I could never deny the right of Sovereignty to the West whilst supporting it for la Belle Province.
 
My comments were meant to be more tongue-in-cheek, not insulting, and I meant no offense. The Créditistes had a significant level of support in Québec, and much of its populist message survives in the ADQ, who came within a couple of seats of ousting the Charest government in the last election. Who says Frogs can't be freaks too??!!

However, having grown up in MTL, and being a Péquiste, "You can go your own way, go your own way..." as Fleetwood Mac sang :D. I could never deny the right of Sovereignty to the West whilst supporting it for la Belle Province.

It is kind of hard to tell when you are reading text.:eek: Anyways I saw it as being something other than tongue in cheek, and what I saw really pissed me off. I from out west but had to live in Ontario for three years, and what you wrote is the for real attitude of too many people out there.:mad: God, I was glad when I got to move back to Alberta.

Populism isn't a bad thing, as it can lead to real reforms in the government, even if you don't necessarily agree with the ideology of the political party in question. The modern NDP, like Social Credit before and the Reform Party later, first came to power in the west (Saskatchewan) as the CCF. I don't like or trust them, but I cannot deny their influence, and I do agree with some of what they have to say.

As for sovereignty, I don't oppose the right to choose, even though I'd prefer Canada to remain united, though not at any cost. (If Alberta were to go, I'd go with them. If things got that bad, I'd probably vote for independence.) That said, I am certain that the borders of any new nation (ie. an independent Quebec) would have be dictated by either Ottawa (or whoever has the more powerful military, the CF might split or even mutiny if ordered to attack their own), by force if it came to that. I am also certain that if either of the referendums in Quebec had gone the other way, either Chretien or Trudeau would have sent in the army and destroyed the PQ and their supporters. At the very least, they would have insured that the CF kept all of it's equipment, and that a "Republique de Quebec" would have found all of the military facilities and whatever else that could not be carried off destroyed.
 
The Social Credit party was the ruling party in BC for decades, so they've had some success. Thing is, I'm not sure if the BC version went as far as the ideology told them to. Canadian socialism is quite interesting, as many of the NDPers, CCFers, and Socreds were Christian in origin, rather than taking a humanist/atheist bent.
 
It is kind of hard to tell when you are reading text.:eek: Anyways I saw it as being something other than tongue in cheek, and what I saw really pissed me off. I from out west but had to live in Ontario for three years, and what you wrote is the for real attitude of too many people out there.:mad: God, I was glad when I got to move back to Alberta.

Populism isn't a bad thing, as it can lead to real reforms in the government, even if you don't necessarily agree with the ideology of the political party in question. The modern NDP, like Social Credit before and the Reform Party later, first came to power in the west (Saskatchewan) as the CCF. I don't like or trust them, but I cannot deny their influence, and I do agree with some of what they have to say.

As for sovereignty, I don't oppose the right to choose, even though I'd prefer Canada to remain united, though not at any cost. (If Alberta were to go, I'd go with them. If things got that bad, I'd probably vote for independence.) That said, I am certain that the borders of any new nation (ie. an independent Quebec) would have be dictated by either Ottawa (or whoever has the more powerful military, the CF might split or even mutiny if ordered to attack their own), by force if it came to that. I am also certain that if either of the referendums in Quebec had gone the other way, either Chretien or Trudeau would have sent in the army and destroyed the PQ and their supporters. At the very least, they would have insured that the CF kept all of it's equipment, and that a "Republique de Quebec" would have found all of the military facilities and whatever else that could not be carried off destroyed.

Sorry about that, I forgot to put an winky emoticon after my first sentence about the SC, an institution I don't hold in very high regard. Besides, I don't have a very high opinion of Ontario myself, so I feel for you and am happy for that you could go back home.

If Québec had voted OUI either time, I doubt it would have come to all that. Only the most radical really wanted independence. I was an active participant in the campaign, but all I wanted out of the vote was full autonomy in provincial affairs. For me, and for the vast majority of people who voted OUI, it was a protest statement. Do you think a Québécois feels any more welcome in Ontario than you did? The French have been shat upon by the English for more than two centuries now; is it hard to imagine they might want to try a different route?
 
Sorry about that, I forgot to put an winky emoticon after my first sentence about the SC, an institution I don't hold in very high regard. Besides, I don't have a very high opinion of Ontario myself, so I feel for you and am happy for that you could go back home.

If Québec had voted OUI either time, I doubt it would have come to all that. Only the most radical really wanted independence. I was an active participant in the campaign, but all I wanted out of the vote was full autonomy in provincial affairs. For me, and for the vast majority of people who voted OUI, it was a protest statement. Do you think a Québécois feels any more welcome in Ontario than you did? The French have been shat upon by the English for more than two centuries now; is it hard to imagine they might want to try a different route?

Full autonomy in provincial affairs... You know you may not agree with most of the righ-wing ideology that is popular out here, but all we want is just that, not to be dictated to by Ottawa or Toronto. Though there are many out here who think that if Quebec votes "Oui" in the next go-around, they should get just that, to be their own nation, with everything, good or bad that comes with it.

About the supreme court... You too? Though probably reasons that differ from why I don't have much use for them.;)

Quebekers may (ironically) feel more welcome in parts of Alberta. The area I live in was originally settled by French-Canadians, and most of the towns in the region have French names, and there are still a large number of francaphones in the area, not to mention all the Quebecois CF personnel who live in the area around the base. Many of them seem to like Cold Lake more than postings in Quebec or New Brunswick. I don't know why. There must be something in the water...

As for Trudeau or Chretien going off the deep end if a referendum went the wrong way, (for them), it would likely be about them trying to keep power, as well as their vision of a centralized state), as they were from Quebec, and the people they represented would be widely seen as no longer being part of Canada, thus they would lack the legitimacy to keep the positions, and would be in great danger of being replaced by someone from Ontario or elsewhere. (Most likely Joe Clark (1980) or Preston Manning (1995), the main opposition leaders at the time of each referendum) It is most likely that if the Armed Forces were used, that the Quebecois units would not fire on their own people, nor would the rest of the military be willing to attack either the civilians or their own comrades. (Members of the Armed Forces are taught to think of all the other members of the CF, of whatever branch or rank, as their brothers (and sisters) and would be very reluctant to turn on them, for whatever reason. They are also sworn to serve the Queen (represented by the Governor-General), not the elected Government (these people fall under the category of lawful superiors, and their orders, like those of superior officers and NCMs (Corporals, Master Corporals, Sergeants, Warrant Officers, MWOs and CWOs), can be ignored if they are blatantly illegal) A mutiny, (ignoring the orders, even if they are illegal, would be considered to be a mutiny, and whether or not the actions were justifiable would be determined when the soldier in question is court-martialed), carried out by the officers in charge would be the most likely result. (So no civil war unless someone has gone and built a rebel army under the nose of all of the authorities)
 
Top