Unite the Left?

[CrazeeEddie]

Many years ago, the right side of the equation realized that, as seperate entities, they could not defeat the Liberals in Canada.

Is it conceivable, in today's Canada, that the left could do the same?

Is it time for the many to become one?

Also, do you think there is a leader out there that could accomplish this, our lead such a party?

[kengs333]

Many years ago, the right side of the equation realized that, as seperate entities, they could not defeat the Liberals in Canada.

Is it conceivable, in today's Canada, that the left could do the same?

Is it time for the many to become one?

Also, do you think there is a leader out there that could accomplish this, our lead such a party?

Get real. If the Liberals pull themselves together, people might shift support back to them. But as it stands, there are three parties with distinct political ideologies on the "left" (Greens are centrists in my opinion) and we just have to live with it.

[Riverwind]

Is it conceivable, in today's Canada, that the left could do the same?

No. The reform party and the PCs were two factions in the original PC party. Uniting them made sense. The NDP has been a stand alone party for decades with strong provincial wings. It could never "merge" with the Liberals.

[CrazeeEddie]

No. The reform party and the PCs were two factions in the original PC party. Uniting them made sense. The NDP has been a stand alone party for decades with strong provincial wings. It could never "merge" with the Liberals.

I understand that the NDP never split from the Liberals, however, they are basically a protest party on the left side of the spectrum. In it's infancy, the Reform Party was in essence, a protest party.

While I agree that the Green, and the Liberals, are centrist parties, before the merger, the PC was also centrist.

Perhaps it is time for a truly left leaning national party in Canada to rival the right leaning governing party?

[drewski]

I just can't see the Liberals wanting to join with the NDP and vice versa. The center of the NDP is far left of the center of the Liberals. A joining would bleed off a lot of the more right leaning Liberals essentially negating any benefit from the increased support from NDP'ers

If anybody is going to unite, they will have to meet in the center, ie red tories, liberals & some of the greens, because Canada for all intents and purposes is a centrist nation.

Fiscally they've moved away from the center, which has cost them dearly, and the center is where the Liberals have to get back to if they want to win.

[CrazeeEddie]

I just can't see the Liberals wanting to join with the NDP and vice versa. The center of the NDP is far left of the center of the Liberals. A joining would bleed off a lot of the more right leaning Liberals essentially negating any benefit from the increased support from NDP'ers

If anybody is going to unite, they will have to meet in the center, ie red tories, liberals & some of the greens, because Canada for all intents and purposes is a centrist nation.

Fiscally they've moved away from the center, which has cost them dearly, and the center is where the Liberals have to get back to if they want to win.

Thank you for that well thought out response. However, I still do not see how this negates the possibility.

The PC Party was also fairly centrist was it not? The Reform, not so much. Yet they found common good.

Although it is very unlikely, could the NDP not see that this merger may actually get them the voice they need in parliament? Could the Liberals not benefit from the added support of those on the far left? After all, this would be their chance to heard, right?

[Mad_Michael]

The only reason the "left" looks weak is because of Dion.

If the Liberals have a good leader, then this issue disappears.

Ultimately, the Greens will start to pick off Liberal strongholds in the big urban centers (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver). When that happens, that will push the Liberals to adopt a green platform and that will suck the wind out of the Greens.

But as Dion's ill-fated "Green Shift" plan shows, right now is not the right time for aggressive leftwing green policy games.

If anything, the Liberals need to return to the center they held under Chretien-Martin. The Dion-left shift has been disasterous for the party.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Mad_Michael

[cybercoma]

The Liberals dominated parliament for the entire 20th century. They have so much national support because they govern from the center. The NDP and Green Party are too ideological for the Liberals to even consider a merger. Jack Layton, prime minister in waiting, would be smart to temper his party's ideologies when it comes to taxation and international trade, much like Tony Blair and other social/labour parties around the world. I think if Layton would finally do this, he could conceivably beat the numbers the NDP seen in '88. So, there's no point for them to join the Liberals when they could possibly do very well on their own. The Green Party is not even worth discussing, since they can't even get a seat in an election. It simply makes no sense for a merger to happen. The parties simply need to re-evaluate their message and in the Liberal's case, also the delivery.

[cybercoma]

double post.

Edited October 15, 2008 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

I'd rather try PR and other electoral reforms but I'll bite.

I think it will take the Liberal Party a lot longer to get over itself than it took the old Tories. I guess the new party could try to placate the old die-hard traditionalists by using their old nickname like the new Tories do. But a real break from the past would be a lot more refreshing and convincing.

The 37% or so ceiling that seems to consistently hang over the Conservatives certainly indicates what isn't Canada's natural governing ideology, not by a long-shot. This ceiling is in fact probably a lot lower and more like the 21% of eligible voters whose real numbers are all the Conservatives can truly muster. Conservative supporters are believed to be more likely to get out and vote than any other group of Canadians. I think the Conservatives have a lot of reason to fear these numbers in the face of something like mandatory voting.

So what do we call this new counter-conservative party? the Natural Democratic Party of Canada comes to mind. NDPC...naw. Perhaps the Canadian Natural Democratic Party. CNDP, that works better. It probably doesn't matter what its called however because the Conservatives will still think its a scary leftist, Trotskyist, communist, socialist, environmentalist, world-wide plot and label it as such. That's the one thing that will remain constant no matter what happens.

I'd like to see a younger leader. Perhaps Justin Trudeau could lead this new party and if he could slay the old Liberal Party in the process and send it to its grave I think he'd gain a lot of lasting credibility.

[drewski]

Thank you for that well thought out response. However, I still do not see how this negates the possibility.

The PC Party was also fairly centrist was it not? The Reform, not so much. Yet they found common good.

Although it is very unlikely, could the NDP not see that this merger may actually get them the voice they need in parliament? Could the Liberals not benefit from the added support of those on the far left? After all, this would be their chance to heard, right?

Going by history, I feel that NDP'ers are very principled in their beliefs, which can be shown from continued support even though they don't have a chance of winning, instead of bleeding off to the Liberals and trying to push their views inside a "winning" party.

While I don't negate the possibility of some kind of merger, I think there are enough principled NDP'ers to make a merger improbable because they would see that they'd be outnumbered in the new party and their impact would be minimal.

If there was to be some kind of unity shown between the NDP and Liberals, I think at best it would manifest itself in the form of a coalition (if they had enough seats, which they don't this time around).

As for voice in parliament, they've got it now with what I believe to be their second best showing ever. If the Liberals or Bloc want to get anything past Harper, NDP is an absolute must.

[Mad_Michael]

I'd rather try PR and other electoral reforms but I'll bite.

PR looks good on the surface - especially in light of recent electoral trends in Canada.

However, one only has to survey those nations that have used PR for a long time to see how they get stuck in the opposite pattern to the one we have now. That is to say, the Legislature gets held to ransom by a plethora of tiny parties.

On the whole, I'd rather that our legislatures were held to ransom by large big-tent parties with 35% of the vote rather than tiny little ones with 5%.

Israel and Italy are not exactly models that Canada should consider copying.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Then look at the Swiss model. Direct Democracy is about a light year ahead of what we now have.

[cybercoma]

I'd like to see a younger leader. Perhaps Justin Trudeau could lead this new party and if he could slay the old Liberal Party in the process and send it to its grave I think he'd gain a lot of lasting credibility.

Too soon. I think it'll be at least a decade and two more leaders before we see him up there even contending. People are going to try to push him to the forefront because of his name alone, but apparently he's making quite a few youthful blunders at the moment. When age tempers him, he might be an ideal leader, but until then we'll have to go through Ignatieff (whom I think can sway a lot of uncommitted Conservative voters) and whoever the next francophone leader will be.

Who knows, perhaps Jean Charest will leave provincial politics and become the leader of the federal Liberals, making the change from PC, after Ignatieff crashes and burns because of the baggage he's carrying. Charest is a French Canadian that Quebec can get behind and being formerly conservative, he can appeal to those swing voters. Mind you, that's not even remotely likely... but I think it's interesting to consider him.

Edited October 15, 2008 by cybercoma

[Mad_Michael]

Too soon. I think it'll be at least a decade and two more leaders before we see him up there even contending. People are going to try to push him to the forefront because of his name alone, but apparently he's making quite a few youthful blunders at the moment. When age tempers him, he might be an ideal leader, but until then we'll have to go through Ignatieff (whom I think can sway a lot of uncommitted Conservative voters) and whoever the next francophone leader will be. Who knows, perhaps Jean Charest will leave provincial politics and become the leader of the federal Liberals, making the change from PC, after Ignatieff crashes and burns because of the baggage he's carrying. Charest is a French Canadian that Quebec can get behind and being formerly conservative, he can appeal to those swing voters. Mind you, that's not even remotely likely... but I think it's interesting to consider him.

Agreed. Justin Trudeau is a handsome and charming young man with a bright future. However, he's a decade at least away from any serious leadership possibilities.

As for Charest, his profile in English Canada is roughly ZERO and his Premiership in Quebec has been underwhelming.

And being closely affiliated with the Mulroney era is not a benefit.

I honestly hope we don't have Gerard Kennedy. I consider him the most leftwing of the whole Liberal Party caucus and that's not what the Liberals need right now.

[drewski]

PR looks good on the surface - especially in light of recent electoral trends in Canada.

However, one only has to survey those nations that have used PR for a long time to see how they get stuck in the opposite pattern to the one we have now. That is to say, the Legislature gets held to ransom by a plethora of tiny parties.

On the whole, I'd rather that our legislatures were held to ransom by large big-tent parties with 35% of the vote rather than tiny little ones with 5%.

Israel and Italy are not exactly models that Canada should consider copying.

how many parties get 5% of the vote? not many. and given the general adicalness of those parties, I don't any would garner enough support to reach that mark.

in this past election, the next biggest party, by popular vote, after the greens, the Canadian Heritage Party, would have needed over 660,000 people to switch their votes yesterday to reach the 5% mark (250,000 to reach 2%)

[myata]

PR looks good on the surface - especially in light of recent electoral trends in Canada.

However, one only has to survey those nations that have used PR for a long time to see how they get stuck in the opposite pattern to the one we have now. That is to say, the Legislature gets held to ransom by a plethora of tiny parties.

On the whole, I'd rather that our legislatures were held to ransom by large big-tent parties with 35% of the vote rather than tiny little ones with 5%.

Israel and Italy are not exactly models that Canada should consider copying.

Certainly there may be undesirable consequences in a "pure" PR system (i.e. proportion of seats = part of popular vote by the party). That's why it would make sense to start with some kind of a mixed system, e.g. half of the House by majoritary vote, the other - by party's take of the popular vote.

Everybody must understand that majoritary system may provide strong government and consistency, but it just isn't made to give us the variety of choice. The only choice it gives is binary: Conservate/Liberal, everything else is pretty much a throw away.

If in this time we want more variety in our choices than #1 or #2, the electoral system simply has to be reformed.

[drewski]

As for Charest, his profile in English Canada is roughly ZERO and his Premiership in Quebec has been underwhelming.

And being closely affiliated with the Mulroney era is not a benefit.

sadly I think you're right

[Riverwind]

how many parties get 5% of the vote? not many. and given the general adicalness of those parties, I don't any would garner enough support to reach that mark.

You can't compare since most people dismiss minor parties because they have no chance. A PR system that have these kinds of parties a chance would also allow them to attract a larger portion of the vote.

[Mad_Michael]

how many parties get 5% of the vote? not many. and given the general adicalness of those parties, I don't any would garner enough support to reach that mark.

in this past election, the next biggest party, by popular vote, after the greens, the Canadian Heritage Party, would have needed over 660,000 people to switch their votes yesterday to reach the 5% mark (250,000 to reach 2%)

Please review the number parties that sit in the Israeli or Italian legislature.

Once you have PR, no 'big-tent' party can get over 25% of the vote - ever.

[drewski]

Certainly there may be undesirable consequences in a "pure" PR system (i.e. proportion of seats = part of popular vote by the party). That's why it would make sense to start with some kind of a mixed system, e.g. half of the House by majoritary vote, the other - by party's take of the popular vote.

Everybody must understand that majoritary system may provide strong government and consistency, but it just isn't made to give us the variety of choice. The only choice it gives is binary: Conservate/Liberal, everything else is pretty much a throw away.

If in this time we want more variety in our choices than #1 or #2, the electoral system simply has to be reformed.

I think the system suggested here in Ontario, an MMP system that keeps riding based candidates and "tops" up seats from a party list is the best way. It keeps riding based accountability while ensuring parliamentary makeup matches the popular vote

[drewski]

Please review the number parties that sit in the Israeli or Italian legislature.

Once you have PR, no 'big-tent' party can get over 25% of the vote - ever.

in New Zealand where they use MMP, the top 2 big tent parties got 41% and 39% of the vote in the last election.

Going back through all the elections with MMP (every 3 years back to 1996), the top 2 parties garnered about 60% of the popular vote & the top 3 got around 75%

[independent]

Too soon. I think it'll be at least a decade and two more leaders before we see him up there even contending. People are going to try to push him to the forefront because of his name alone, but apparently he's making quite a few youthful blunders at the moment. When age tempers him, he might be an ideal leader, but until then we'll have to go through Ignatieff (whom I think can sway a lot of uncommitted Conservative voters) and whoever the next francophone leader will be.

Who knows, perhaps Jean Charest will leave provincial politics and become the leader of the federal Liberals, making the change from PC, after Ignatieff crashes and burns because of the baggage he's carrying. Charest is a French Canadian that Quebec can get behind and being formerly conservative, he can appeal to those swing voters. Mind you, that's not even remotely likely... but I think it's interesting to consider him.

It is important that the Liberals distance themselves from the NDP. The Liberals have expressed it is a bad idea too raise corporate taxes. They have expressed the importance of not running a deficit and the importance of paying off the debt. They have not shackled themselves too unions. If anything I believe a lot of Liberals are concerned they have moved too far too the left. A change in leadership too the right would be a smart thing too do.

[Riverwind]

If in this time we want more variety in our choices than #1 or #2, the electoral system simply has to be reformed.

Democracy does not mean every should expect to have every one of their policy desires catered to. People should be looking at the issues and setting priorities. Big tent political parties ecourage people to do that. PR systems filled with small parties give people the illusion that the don't have to compromise but will end up being disappointed when these small parties are forced to compromise or accept meaningless face saving gesters in order to participate in a coalition.

[cybercoma]

As for Charest, his profile in English Canada is roughly ZERO and his Premiership in Quebec has been underwhelming.

And being closely affiliated with the Mulroney era is not a benefit.

His premiership in Quebec is intentionally underwhelming. Jean Chretien put him there to try and thwart the separatists and that is exactly what his premiership has done. He has been a stabilizing force in Quebec, so by his very purpose he is meant to be underwhelming until you realize why he is there.

Although it may seem as though being affiliated with Mulroney may not be a benefit, Mulroney was the only conservative in the 20th century to be elected to two majorities. Charest could sway current Conservative voters that identify more with the more central Progressive Conservative Party of old and hold onto those PC voters that went Liberal during the merger but may have voted for Harper in this election. I think Jean Charest has the potential to be one of the best leaders the Liberals have had and he could be an incredible unifying force for all of Canada, as he already is in his current position.