Union of the English Canadian Left

[jdobbin]

To defeat Harper and the Conservatives, will the Liberals and NDP unite?

No. One party will disappear before that happens or simply be driven to a small corner of the House of Commons.

[jdobbin]

I still think that Canadian federal politics are primarily regional, even in English Canada. Nevertheless, I think Harper's Conservatives are going to provoke an ideological reaction from the Liberals.

And you think that is going to be a left wing reaction? So you think the party will dump its fiscal side?

In related fashion, IMV, Quebec is at a tipping point and ripe for a change. The PQ/PLQ divide is tiresome. This basic division in Quebec will always exist but it needs a new expression.

Think that was attempted by the ADQ, right? But their inexperience and erratic leadership has not served them well.

Smart investors dismiss claims of "new paradigms" but I think Canadian federal politics have changed in the past few years. Jean Charest's re-election is an indication of the change.

Indication of what?

[fellowtraveller]

If us dippers want the NDP to form the government we must stop voting for the NDP.

and if Liberals want to form the government they must stop voting Liberal

...doesn't apply to conservatives though.

What a load of bunk

No, if you want to form the government you don't have to stop voting for the NDP, you have to present policies and candidates that sufficient Canadians support so as top form the government. It is all quite symmetrical, I'm surprised you had not worked this through. The math is really quite simple, the NDP failure to grasp this reality is one of the things that turns people off. If you can't divide 308 by 2, then add one to reach a target number, how will you manage an economy?

Any comment on the abject failure of the NDP to increase their popular support with voters in the wake of Adscam, Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff. Isn't that both embarassing and revelatory?

[punked]

No, if you want to form the government you don't have to stop voting for the NDP, you have to present policies and candidates that sufficient Canadians support so as top form the government. It is all quite symmetrical, I'm surprised you had not worked this through. The math is really quite simple, the NDP failure to grasp this reality is one of the things that turns people off. If you can't divide 308 by 2, then add one to reach a target number, how will you manage an economy?

Any comment on the abject failure of the NDP to increase their popular support with voters in the wake of Adscam, Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff. Isn't that both embarassing and revelatory?

Really how many times has the new Conservative party divided 308 by two and added one? Never ohhh good to know you think them just as bad as the NDP.

[Pliny]

I like this idea. If it's not A, it has to be Z. Lets forget about the other 24 letters, because they don't count. I don't think there's a socialist/non socialist line. The world in reality doesn't exist in black and white the same way that it does in the heads of many on the right.

Although I would agree with hydraboss' opinion you are right that there is no socialist/non-socialist line. Socialism is a process and there are varying degrees of it in any social democracy. There is no black and white in socialism until it successfully achieves it's end - the totalitarian state- black as opposed to no state white. Neither are desirable but there is no tendency for government to strive for no government.It's tendency is to strive for the centralization of powers.

Gray does exist it is the position between black and white which form a dichotomy. Socialism is the gray between the black and white. I would prefer my government to be off-white and not near black.

[Peter F]

Any comment on the abject failure of the NDP to increase their popular support with voters in the wake of Adscam, Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff. Isn't that both embarassing and revelatory?

Thats not a failure of the NDP. It's not the NDP's fault if Liberal voters continue to vote Liberal. Those events would also, by your logic, imply that an explanation is necessary for why Liberals don't vote Conservative.

[kimmy]

Thats not a failure of the NDP. It's not the NDP's fault if Liberal voters continue to vote Liberal. Those events would also, by your logic, imply that an explanation is necessary for why Liberals don't vote Conservative.

Given the shift in opinion polls from that time to now, I think it's fair to suggest that a lot of former Liberals *do* vote Conservative. The NDP doesn't seem to have made comparable progress.

Perhaps left-leaning Liberals are not as willing to go NDP as right-leaning Liberals have been to support the Conservatives. Or, perhaps any increase in support the NDP has gained from the Liberals has been offset by the increased presence of the Greens.

-k

[Peter F]

Given the shift in opinion polls from that time to now, I think it's fair to suggest that a lot of former Liberals *do* vote Conservative. The NDP doesn't seem to have made comparable progress.

Perhaps left-leaning Liberals are not as willing to go NDP as right-leaning Liberals have been to support the Conservatives. Or, perhaps any increase in support the NDP has gained from the Liberals has been offset by the increased presence of the Greens.

-k

No dispute there, kimmy. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong that needs fixin. There's lots of people who hold their nose and vote Liberal or hold their nose and vote conservative but very few hold their nose and vote NDP.

[Wild Bill]

No dispute there, kimmy. But that doesn't mean there is something wrong that needs fixin. There's lots of people who hold their nose and vote Liberal or hold their nose and vote conservative but very few hold their nose and vote NDP.

It depends on your goal. If the NDP wishes to win enough votes to form a government to have the power to implement its values on the country then their approach DOES need fixing! It's been a failure!

If the goal is simply to forever be a small Opposition Party that at least is true to its ideology then perhaps you're right. If that's what you mean then you have to expect others to be asking "What's the point?"

[Hydraboss]

...very few hold their nose and vote NDP.

You hit that one directly on the head.

Even this would have been sufficient:

...very few hold their nose and vote NDP.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Hydraboss

[segnosaur]

As you grow up, you'll begin to understand that sometimes there are only two choices.

Either we should be in Afghanistan, or we shouldn't.

Either you murdered someone, or you didn't.

Either you should spend $500 million on project y or you shouldn't.

Either you want to increase taxes, or you don't.

There is no place for:

I think we should most likely be in Afghanistan.

I kinda murdered someone.

i think we should sort of spend $500 million on project y.

I believe we should partially increase taxes, but not really.

It's called taking a stand for what you believe in. Try it. It only hurts for a minute.

First of all, most of those issues you raised aren't really good examples of having only "2 choices".

For example, you could say you want to be in afghanistan, or completely withdraw from afghanistan, OR you could suggest we leave troops in place but only in a non-combat role (giving humanitarian relief, medical staff for other countries acting in combat roles.

And there are actually different 'types' of ways you could be involved in a 'murder'... active premeditation, felony murder, accidental/manslaughter. We have different categories for crime to recognize that fact.

And even if you DO assume that issues are all black-and-white, that doesn't necessarily mean you will be able to vote along with the issues in all cases. For example, you may be in favour of participation in Afghanistan (as the Conservatives are), but also believe that taxes should be increased.

[madmax]

Of course, we see the NDP opted to vote against it... even before seeing the actual budget itself. Without justification you continue to bring pay equity forward as some kind of principled NDP lever... is that why "Jack" voted down the budget (before even seeing it)?

Just so I am clear on this. The NDP didn't trust the Harper government, and went as far as to work with the LPC t create a coalition government. The Prime Minister postpones a budget vote, then prorogues parliment, appoints some partisan Senators against the principles of the Reform/Alliance within their party. Not trusting the manuevering of the CPC the NDP suggests that they will oppose the budget, even before reading it, and that is because they do not trust the actions of the CPC government. The LPC say they are smarter then the NDP and will read the budget.

Except they didn't and the "untrustworthy" (in the eyes of the NDP) CPC pulled a fast one as expected.

I do not see how any of this makes any of the political parties mentioned look good.

[madmax]

Yes, Canadian parties are all left of the most left US party. Simple fact.

To say that the NDP are the most fiscally responsible party is ridiculous.

NDP.... Sound fiscal management

New Democratic Party governments have the best fiscal track-record among all parties, balancing the books more than twice as often than Liberal governments, according to a federal finance department government report.

The report shows that NDP governments have balanced the books 46 per cent of the time. Manitoba’s NDP government has posed surpluses every year it has been in office and Saskatchewan’s NDP government posted 11 consecutive balanced budgets after ending a decade of Conservative mismanagement and corruption.

Despite frequent pronouncements on fiscal responsibility, Liberals have the worst fiscal record overall. Liberal federal, provincial and territorial governments have posted year-over-year budget deficits an astonishing 79 per cent of the time.

Conservative governments have only a slightly better record than the Liberals, logging deficits 65 per cent of the years in which they’ve been in power.

The report issued by the Martin Liberal government’s Department of Finance looks at federal, provincial and territorial accounts over the past 22 years.

Edited October 19, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

I like this idea. If it's not A, it has to be Z. Lets forget about the other 24 letters, because they don't count. I don't think there's a socialist/non socialist line. The world in reality doesn't exist in black and white the same way that it does in the heads of many on the right.

Agreed

[Peter F]

It depends on your goal. If the NDP wishes to win enough votes to form a government to have the power to implement its values on the country then their approach DOES need fixing! It's been a failure!

The failure, if you must label it such, is the voters failure - not the NDP's. Here's the party platform; vote for it or not as you will. I see no failure there.

If the goal is simply to forever be a small Opposition Party that at least is true to its ideology then perhaps you're right. If that's what you mean then you have to expect others to be asking "What's the point?"

The goal is to have thier policies put into effect. As government or pressure the governing party to do so.

I think they have pulled it off quite nicely over the years. Thats the point. I see failure of the conservatives and liberals. Someday, if you're lucky, so will you. Or not - such is the democratic system.

[madmax]

Any comment on the abject failure of the NDP to increase their popular support with voters in the wake of Adscam, Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff. Isn't that both embarassing and revelatory?

Neither.

[Dave_ON]

Heck of alot more dippers on MLW then I was aware of....

So, what part don't you understand.... stop voting NDP and vote Liberal....

I can see you guys cringing as if it was Saruman asking Gandalf to Join with them to defeat Sauron...

I'm not sure what makes me more sad. The fact that you used a LotR reference to make a point or the fact that I got the reference and kind of agree...

[fellowtraveller]

Manitoba’s NDP government has posed surpluses every year it has been in office and Saskatchewan’s NDP government posted 11 consecutive balanced budgets after ending a decade of Conservative mismanagement and corruption.

And without massive injections of equalization money to 'budgets' to both provinces, they would not have 'balanced' anything. To be fair, this is true of most provinces under a variety of party labels.

[fellowtraveller]

Neither.

If you are a Dipper and not concerned that the NDP has failed to take electoral advantage of the glorious opportunites presented by the meltdown of the Liberals in the last 5 years, you deserve what awaits.

There is a message there and a pretty clear one, ignore it at your peril.

[Dave_ON]

As you grow up, you'll begin to understand that sometimes there are only two choices.

It's called taking a stand for what you believe in. Try it. It only hurts for a minute.

Actually as most of grow up we become more pragmatic with shades of cynicism.

Sure it's all well and good to take a stand but if you're unwilling to bend and compromise you'll never truly get the support you require to bring your plans to fruition. This is something the CPC has learned quite well as is demonstrated by their success. You can't govern based on ideology, at least not for long.

Quid pro quo is the name of the game in Canadian politics. There will always be at least 3 choices. The dichotomous utopia you hope for will never materialize; there will always be another group that feels under represented. I know it may seem as simple as socialist or not socialists in your world but that fails to address the very nature of politics in Canada.

We are not like the US, we don't have a unifying national identity, we're a loosely knit confederation of regions. Two parties are simply not able to represent all the regions sufficiently, hence we have splinter parties. The Reform party was born out of western dissatisfaction with the LPC and the PC's. The Bloc was born out of a rising appetite for Quebec sovereignty.

There are far more issues at play in our country then socialism. Parties will rise and fall to address these issues, our country was founded with the Conservatives and the LPC as well as the anti-confederates, there have been at least 3 parties at play throughout our history and there will be for the foreseeable future.

[fellowtraveller]

Actually as most of grow up we become more pragmatic with shades of cynicism.

Sure it's all well and good to take a stand but if you're unwilling to bend and compromise you'll never truly get the support you require to bring your plans to fruition. This is something the CPC has learned quite well as is demonstrated by their success. You can't govern based on ideology, at least not for long.

Quid pro quo is the name of the game in Canadian politics. There will always be at least 3 choices. The dichotomous utopia you hope for will never materialize; there will always be another group that feels under represented. I know it may seem as simple as socialist or not socialists in your world but that fails to address the very nature of politics in Canada.

We are not like the US, we don't have a unifying national identity, we're a loosely knit confederation of regions. Two parties are simply not able to represent all the regions sufficiently, hence we have splinter parties. The Reform party was born out of western dissatisfaction with the LPC and the PC's. The Bloc was born out of a rising appetite for Quebec sovereignty.

There are far more issues at play in our country then socialism. Parties will rise and fall to address these issues, our country was founded with the Conservatives and the LPC as well as the anti-confederates, there have been at least 3 parties at play throughout our history and there will be for the foreseeable future.

Good post. I agree about the regions, but think the illness within our confederation is well advanced. The disparity in population per ridings and Senate representation, or lack of it, are a couple of examples of what contributes to the several solitudes that have been created. It isn't French vs English or East vs West anymore, it is 'grab what you can and screw the others'.

Example: we simply cannot get past inter-provincial trade barriers and work together for a common good. What is the alternative? It is what is happening: the money that drives our economy is north-south now. Quebec finds it much more expedient to deal with the USA than deal with BC. And vice versa.

I worry about our little confederation.

[madmax]

Back to Back good posts. Both those posts above tend to sum up my perspective as well.

[Guest Just Another Canadian]

There is a fairly fundamental difference between the social Social Democracy of the NDP and the Neoclassical Liberalism of the Liberal Party. Then again I'm only trying to get my first three posts in so I can start a topic.

[madmax]

There is a fairly fundamental difference between the social Social Democracy of the NDP and the Neoclassical Liberalism of the Liberal Party. Then again I'm only trying to get my first three posts in so I can start a topic.

Welcome to the forums..

[eyeball]

Good post. I agree about the regions, but think the illness within our confederation is well advanced. The disparity in population per ridings and Senate representation, or lack of it, are a couple of examples of what contributes to the several solitudes that have been created. It isn't French vs English or East vs West anymore, it is 'grab what you can and screw the others'.

Example: we simply cannot get past inter-provincial trade barriers and work together for a common good. What is the alternative? It is what is happening: the money that drives our economy is north-south now. Quebec finds it much more expedient to deal with the USA than deal with BC. And vice versa.

I worry about our little confederation.

I worry about it being forced apart as much as together.