jdobbin Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 From NDPer Gerald Caplan http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1194850/ The NDP will hold a big national convention where the only faux-excitement will be an elite-led attempt to change the name to the Democratic Party. To this fine state has the party of Tommy Douglas and David Lewis descended, at a time of multiple crises with the democratic left virtually moribund. No new public policy ideas will be introduced.Bereft of both cash and ideas, like social democrats everywhere, the NDP is in big trouble. Firing some senior staff would be a good start for a party whose relevance is increasingly marginal. Sad times. A fairly harsh indictment of all parties but a big jab at the NDP from a guy who knows the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I agree with the quotation, except for the last point "Sad times". I'd say the decay and increasing marginalization of a socialist party like the NDP is cause for happiness, if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Right, as though we see whole hosts, loads and volumes of "ideas", coming from the other ends. Anybody, hi-iii? We're growing old, tired, dripping sand from our pants, afraid of any miniscule step away from the bitten track, unwilling to make slightest mental effort (seeing those recycling bins filled with trash what really gets me; I mean sorting out this from that is there anything easier... looks like de-evolution has started, in earnest). No I don't think it's just NDP, it's the first signs of the old age of democracy itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 No I don't think it's just NDP, it's the first signs of the old age of democracy itself. Why just democracy? As I heard one person say yesterday. I live in a crappy city in a crappy province in a crappy country on a crappy continent on a crappy planet in a crappy solar system in a crappy galaxy in a crappy universe. I think that about covers it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 A fairly harsh indictment of all parties but a big jab at the NDP from a guy who knows the party. I have heard that the NDP once upon a time mattered, that they represented the views of blue collar workers and farmers and common-sense, ordinary Canadians who just wanted somebody in parliament to ask "WTF?" to the banks and big business on their behalf.. I have heard that these blue collar workers and farmers and common-sense ordinary Canadians who used to support the NDP would no longer recognize this party of "new energy" and political correctness and Quixotic left-wing ivory towerism. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Last poll I saw had the NDP at 18% nationally and up in Ontario big. I think we will be ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I have heard that the NDP once upon a time mattered, that they represented the views of blue collar workers and farmers and common-sense, ordinary Canadians who just wanted somebody in parliament to ask "WTF?" to the banks and big business on their behalf.. There are certainly a generation of NDP supporters who are having problems with the party. One imagines that some of it has to be a result of who they have as leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Last poll I saw had the NDP at 18% nationally and up in Ontario big. I think we will be ok. And you are happy with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 And you are happy with that? Well we are up from 11% a few months ago as people get to know Iggy he bleeds the left right into the NDP. He can have all the Conservative votes he can steal if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Why just democracy? As I heard one person say yesterday. I live in a crappy city in a crappy province in a crappy country on a crappy continent on a crappy planet in a crappy solar system in a crappy galaxy in a crappy universe.I think that about covers it. Maybe depending on the point of view, and yet the total and absolute deficit of ideas has been characteristic of most parties here (excluding maybe Greens who tried to experiment but were very quickly and predictably reduced into obscurity), including and especially those that actually have the potential, ability to do something, and yet nothing has happened here (on the federal level) in a long long time so I don't really see how it's any of the NDP's fault? I mean folks! You got the system that's rigged so that only you ("Iggy") and your arch nemesis ("Harper") can ever theoretically, or practically govern, and now it (the lack of ideas) is somehow the fault of NDP? Be hankful that NDP just exists, giving this duopoly an appearance of a resemblance of a proximity to "democracy", what would you do without it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Be thankful that NDP just exists, giving this duopoly an appearance of a resemblance of a proximity to "democracy", what would you do without it? Continue the way we always have...Liberal>Conservative>Liberal>Conservative>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NDP is completely and utterly irrelevant. The two (main) party system works in the US and it (kind of) works in Canada. When was the last time we had more than two contenders to lead the country? Personally, I would like to see Taliban Jack get around 25% of the vote. You know he won't steal it from the right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Maybe depending on the point of view, and yet the total and absolute deficit of ideas has been characteristic of most parties here (excluding maybe Greens who tried to experiment but were very quickly and predictably reduced into obscurity), I think the Greens have done reasonably well as a new movement federally but would probably benefit from electing people at other levels of government to see how they perform. including and especially those that actually have the potential, ability to do something, and yet nothing has happened here (on the federal level) in a long long time so I don't really see how it's any of the NDP's fault? The NDP and Bloc haven't done anything to improve the situation. Their solution seems to be an election immediately after another election. I mean folks! You got the system that's rigged so that only you ("Iggy") and your arch nemesis ("Harper") can ever theoretically, or practically govern, and now it (the lack of ideas) is somehow the fault of NDP? Be hankful that NDP just exists, giving this duopoly an appearance of a resemblance of a proximity to "democracy", what would you do without it? Well, the NDP wants PR but won't pressure its provincial counterparts to do the same. What's good for the goose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Continue the way we always have...Liberal>Conservative>Liberal>Conservative>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The NDP is completely and utterly irrelevant. The two (main) party system works in the US and it (kind of) works in Canada. When was the last time we had more than two contenders to lead the country? Personally, I would like to see Taliban Jack get around 25% of the vote. You know he won't steal it from the right... Yah public health care, Canadian bill of rights, old age pensions. Hydraboss thinks all of these things just appeared with out a push from the left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Well we are up from 11% a few months ago as people get to know Iggy he bleeds the left right into the NDP. He can have all the Conservative votes he can steal if you ask me. There was no 11% a few months ago. There has been one 18% in recent one poll but the NDP has been running about 2% below its election result for months now. I don't find anything at 11% since 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Yah public health care, Canadian bill of rights, old age pensions. Hydraboss thinks all of these things just appeared with out a push from the left. This is Canada. There is Left (Cons), Really Left (Libs), and Looney Tunes Left (NDP). Doesn't matter that public health care is a disaster of a proposition, or the Canadian Bill of Rights would have existed anyway in one form or another. Dippers will always claim that "this" wouldn't exist, and "that" was brought in under pressure of a party that has no application in these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) This is Canada. There is Left (Cons), Really Left (Libs), and Looney Tunes Left (NDP). Doesn't matter that public health care is a disaster of a proposition, or the Canadian Bill of Rights would have existed anyway in one form or another. Dippers will always claim that "this" wouldn't exist, and "that" was brought in under pressure of a party that has no application in these years. Yah just forget the NDP are the one who did it. Convent. As long as we are playing that game the Cons always claim Canada is better off when they run the country but if they didn't exist we would all eat rainbows and be millionaires. See I can make crazy claims too. Edited June 25, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Don't misunderstand me. The Cons are just as big of meatheads as Happy Jack's Club Members. Difference is, they have the ability to represent some of the country (a portion that actually matters). The NDP throws a party when they think "Oh my (or our) non-denominational, possibly omnipotent (unless that's offensive), multicolored being that has nothing to do with creationism.....we might actually get through this election with close to 18% of the 60% who decided to vote!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Don't misunderstand me. The Cons are just as big of meatheads as Happy Jack's Club Members. Difference is, they have the ability to represent some of the country (a portion that actually matters). The NDP throws a party when they think "Oh my (or our) non-denominational, possibly omnipotent (unless that's offensive), multicolored being that has nothing to do with creationism.....we might actually get through this election with close to 18% of the 60% who decided to vote!" Clearly their vote means more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I think the Greens have done reasonably well as a new movement federally but would probably benefit from electing people at other levels of government to see how they perform. Right, right,... democratic Conservative-Liberal panel has unanimously decided that with near 10% of popular vote, they weren't yet worthy, deserving of having one representative in the House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The NDP numbers will start to climb again now that Iggy has exposed himself as just another right wing asshole who doesn't give two shits about individual liberty. Voting for c-15 will hurt the liberals numbers. The dumb fearful cattle who vote conservative will never vote liberal, but the liberals could have gotten a majority by taking back some of the votes they lost to the ndp. I know many people who were considering supporting Iggy but now will never vote for him. He is just Harper with a red tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Right, right,... democratic Conservative-Liberal panel has unanimously decided that with near 10% of popular vote, they weren't yet worthy, deserving of having one representative in the House. No, the present system decided that. You propose a constitutional change. I don't know that it would get through. We have seen two provinces reject it. We have seen provinces with a form of PR in the past drop it. I realize you find it unsatisfactory but it hasn't been like the public has not decided the issue a couple of times on the provincial front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 No, the present system decided that. The system they themselves created awhile back giving them a sort of (distinct) advantage? And now they can't really do anything about, only innocentry raise hands in a geniune (but likeable) disbelief: "Really?! Well... it's just too bad... guess that's the way I (we) are...". I realize you find it unsatisfactory but it hasn't been like the public has not decided the issue a couple of times on the provincial front. And it certainly didn't look like anybody was particulartly keen on the projects, not enough anyways to actively support and promote it (e.g. by explaining to the public all details). But you may have a point. We maybe in the race against time with aging population, and ever increasing apathy, so the change may never come indeed before we all go to sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The system they themselves created awhile back giving them a sort of (distinct) advantage? And now they can't really do anything about, only innocentry raise hands in a geniune (but likeable) disbelief: "Really?! Well... it's just too bad... guess that's the way I (we) are...". Oh, they left a way to do something about. And the NDP was part of the process again in the 1980s. The system is open to change even now but like all dramatic change, it requires a large degree of support federally and provincially. If you have a problem with the present system, you are free to challenge it. You have a constitutional right to challenge it. And it certainly didn't look like anybody was particulartly keen on the projects, not enough anyways to actively support and promote it (e.g. by explaining to the public all details). But you may have a point. We maybe in the race against time with aging population, and ever increasing apathy, so the change may never come indeed before we all go to sleep. From Manitoba's perspective, the experiment with STV from the 1920s and 1950s was an inherently unfair system for cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 If you have a problem with the present system, you are free to challenge it. You have a constitutional right to challenge it. Thanks, but it's not like I've anything to do with discovering this problem, it's been known for decades. It's that nobody seems to be paying any attention; noticing that it even exists... ask e.g. Mr Ignatieff. From Manitoba's perspective, the experiment with STV from the 1920s and 1950s was an inherently unfair system for cities. Because it was some other twisted and convoluted way to distill votes into representation? How could a PR be unfair? A vote for a party is a certain percent of representation in the House. Every vote counts. You find this "unfair", please explain why, and how the system where many many vote wouldn't count at all, should be any fairer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Thanks, but it's not like I've anything to do with discovering this problem, it's been known for decades. It's that nobody seems to be paying any attention; noticing that it even exists... ask e.g. Mr Ignatieff. Perhaps, as I mentioned, they don't see it as a problem as you do. Because it was some other twisted and convoluted way to distill votes into representation? How could a PR be unfair? A vote for a party is a certain percent of representation in the House. Every vote counts. You find this "unfair", please explain why, and how the system where many many vote wouldn't count at all, should be any fairer? I said the system as it applied to Manitoba was unfair. You said that you thought a form of PR might be good. Well, that was a form of PR and it wasn't good. If you want a pure form of PR then look at Israel. You think that is a great system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.