Would the Libs and NDP really join?

[Keepitsimple]

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties? How long could one walk with head firmly stuck in a 150 year old hole?

Why would we rush into changing things when the de-facto two party system has created the most stable countries in the world? The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have all been governed largely by only two parties. Except for the Scandinavian countries - where it's too cold to argue or fight, there are very few countries that have the long and successful histories of these two-party countries. It's instructive to see that when the Left of today opposes the government, their instincts are to change the rules of the game. Where were all these rule-changers when the Liberals were in power?

[bloodyminded]

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

Your use of this analogy proves you don't wish to have a serious discussion on this matter.

[madmax]

Where do you think they need to move further to the left?

I don't believe the NDP have a prayer of ever getting into power until they throw off their idiotic class warfare rhetoric and mentality. Hating the rich and middle class isn't going to get you into power in a country where the middle class makes up the vast majority of voters.

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

Dag gonnit Argus... you were doing so well. Then you went looney tunes.

[Jack Weber]

Dag gonnit Argus... you were doing so well. Then you went looney tunes.

I've got it....

Argus is Glenn Beck!!!!

[myata]

Why would we rush into changing things when the de-facto two party system has created the most stable countries in the world? The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have all been governed largely by only two parties. Except for the Scandinavian countries - where it's too cold to argue or fight, there are very few countries that have the long and successful histories of these two-party countries.

Well, noting the comment about scandinavian countries which actually did leave important marks in the history, 3/5 of these examples are scarcely populated colonies that only have started (if indeed) creating sovereign political systems of their own.

The other two are of course very special cases (UK being the origin of that political system, USA - long time colony of it)

I already commented that stability of our system comes at the cost of severe limitation of meaningful political choices. Guess it comes down to what matters to the populace most: choice and political freedom or stability. Can't have both at the same time. We can't pretend that giving zero representation to a party having support of 10% of voters is a fair principle. It's the tradeoff we're getting for stability. Stability that among other things means less choice, less responsibility, less ideas and less change.

It's instructive to see that when the Left of today opposes the government, their instincts are to change the rules of the game. Where were all these rule-changers when the Liberals were in power?

Putting aside the unasked for though still very honourable privilege to speak on behalf of the "Left of today", but I did comment multiple times that domination of political process by any party is counter productive to democracy and progress.

[g_bambino]

3/5 of these examples are scarcely populated colonies that only have started (if indeed) creating sovereign political systems of their own.

Er, you know that it's 2010, not 1610, right?

[The Dude]

No matter what the differences are between the "progressive" parties, there is something more at stake here. Whatever it takes, we gotta get rid of the regressive party that's creating a country I no longer recognize. Whether it's strategic voting, coalitions, or formal agreements, the parties have to forget their petty differences. Otherwise we will have the CRAP Coalition coming up the middle with minority rule. 2/3 of us are progressive. We need to take our country back before it's too late.

For those who may have not seen this, I took it from that Spectre guy. It was a google news thingy, so don't come after me. But this is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. Read to the Layton part...

"In one respect, the results of an Angus Reid poll to be released on Monday are not surprising — the Conservatives are at 35 per cent, the Liberals at 27 and the NDP are at 19 per cent; in Quebec, the Bloc leads with 37 per cent.

However, the poll also asked Canadians how they would vote if the Liberals and NDP went to the polls offering Canadians a coalition government, and here things get interesting.

According to the results published in Monday’s edition of La Presse, the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper would defeat a coalition led by Michael Ignatieff 40-34 per cent.

With Bob Rae as Liberal leader, the coalition and Conservatives would be tied.

However, if the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.

The reason: Jack Layton is well-liked by Quebecers but they don’t vote for the NDP because they see no chance of the party forming government; with the prospect of Mr. Layton in the prime minister’s office, 44 per cent of Quebecers would vote NDP — 10 per cent more than the Bloc.

The pollster says that the question was only theoretical, and was only asked because of the results of the British election and because of Jean Chrétien’s statement on CBC last week that if a coalition is doable they parties should do it. And it’s hard to believe that these numbers would last through a campaign, though it’s worth noting that the poll has Mr. Layton as the most popular of the federal leaders (30 per cent to Harper’s 29). But it sure would make for an interesting election, and, in the nearer term, it will be interesting to see how the Liberals deal with the results of the survey. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/prime-minister-layton/article1586238/

[myata]

Er, you know that it's 2010, not 1610, right?

Not by looking at those exemplified political systems.

[Argus]

Comparing WASP middle class votes for the NDP to Jews voting for the Nazi Party is a wee bit over the top don't you think?[

Admittedly. However, it does seem that to the NDP and their ilk, all the world's problems are my fault, and the solution is to screw me over any way they can. And I am very far from alone in that feeling. Which is why the NDP has made no progress in decades.

]Why would you - or someone like you - vote for a party that advocates primarily - according to you - for the poor and minorities? I dunno, because you care about the poor and minorities?

I do care about the poor. I don't see any evidence which leads me to believe minorities particularly need my care.

However, I care about me, first.

[Argus]

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties?

Evidence that a different system provides better government.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

I've got it....

Argus is Glenn Beck!!!!

If it makes you guys comfortable to think that my opposition represents a showman from the far right, then good on ya.

But I'm not very far right at all, and on many issues I'm on the left, which overall makes me pretty centrist.

And if you think I'm alone in feeling the way I do about the NDP do please explain it's stunning lack of progress in gaining higher popularity over the last forty odd years.

[Argus]

No matter what the differences are between the "progressive" parties, there is something more at stake here. Whatever it takes, we gotta get rid of the regressive party that's creating a country I no longer recognize.

Do please enlighten us, "dude" on the massive changes the current party in power has made in Canada which causes you to fear not being able to "recognize" the place.

[The Dude]

Do please enlighten us, "dude" on the massive changes the current party in power has made in Canada which causes you to fear not being able to "recognize" the place.

I'm so happy when people like you use the word "enlighten" as though my opinion is somehow not worthy of your level of intelligence. lol It's like using that word already negates what my answer will say. So I'll give a short list.

Let's see. A shift to the right to a wannabe republican party, anti-abortion, christian nationalism, no defense of our health care when the teabaggers were attacking it, a creationist in the treasury, a Minister of Science that denies evolution, the biggest deficit in history, attacking anyone that dares to disagree with Harper, etc etc etc

Feel enlightened yet? Or do I need to do the conservative thing and just do name calling?

[Jack Weber]

If it makes you guys comfortable to think that my opposition represents a showman from the far right, then good on ya.

But I'm not very far right at all, and on many issues I'm on the left, which overall makes me pretty centrist.

And if you think I'm alone in feeling the way I do about the NDP do please explain it's stunning lack of progress in gaining higher popularity over the last forty odd years.

I don't...I have many of the same problems with the NDP as you do...

Zeigler said that if you resort to NAZI references in an arguement,you've basically lost the arguement.

You Zig Zieglered yourself!

Edited May 31, 2010 by Jack Weber

[myata]

Evidence that a different system provides better government.

The number of high speed train lines set in operation.

The number of space research projects attempted and executed.

Total population of countries in the united economic zone.

Take all of the above that's happened in the last 25-30 years in some democracies in the world; and compare with what happened here in Canada; even in per capita calculation. BTW what actually did happen in Canada in the last 25-30 years?

We need that once in a lifetime event to start fixing cracks and potholes. Forget that raw sewage that goes by tons and volumes daily into our picture perfect streams, rivers and oceans. That's gonna take like, generations. And, actual reduction in greenhouse emissions? Sustainable development? Ecologically friendly technologies? For all that please head stright to the library, no need to bother looking around.

Seriously though, I never said anything about "better" government. The only thing that was mentioned is that it's about freedom and choice. Some value their choice in the hope that it'll provide them with a good government. While others put ahead stability of their government and hope that it'd give them some choices. It's just too bad that in the situation we find ourselves now, the leeway of actual choice we have is about 2mm each way.

[g_bambino]

Not by looking at those exemplified political systems.

For you, maybe; but, then, that's the point: you're seeing things nobody else is, or has for more than a century, at least.

[wyly]

The pollster says that the question was only theoretical, and was only asked because of the results of the British election and because of Jean Chrétien’s statement on CBC last week that if a coalition is doable they parties should do it. And it’s hard to believe that these numbers would last through a campaign, though it’s worth noting that the poll has Mr. Layton as the most popular of the federal leaders (30 per cent to Harper’s 29). But it sure would make for an interesting election, and, in the nearer term, it will be interesting to see how the Liberals deal with the results of the survey. "

I don't put much faith in these hypothetical what if questions as there is nothing to stop the people of Quebec from voting NDP right now...

doing so in the numbers suggested would give Quebec massive clout in Parliament and could see the end of the liberal party as the opposition and make the NDP a credible option elsewhere in Canada...

[Keepitsimple]

No matter what the differences are between the "progressive" parties, there is something more at stake here. Whatever it takes, we gotta get rid of the regressive party that's creating a country I no longer recognize. Whether it's strategic voting, coalitions, or formal agreements, the parties have to forget their petty differences. Otherwise we will have the CRAP Coalition coming up the middle with minority rule. 2/3 of us are progressive. We need to take our country back before it's too late.

For those who may have not seen this, I took it from that Spectre guy. It was a google news thingy, so don't come after me. But this is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. Read to the Layton part...

"In one respect, the results of an Angus Reid poll to be released on Monday are not surprising — the Conservatives are at 35 per cent, the Liberals at 27 and the NDP are at 19 per cent; in Quebec, the Bloc leads with 37 per cent.

However, the poll also asked Canadians how they would vote if the Liberals and NDP went to the polls offering Canadians a coalition government, and here things get interesting.

According to the results published in Monday’s edition of La Presse, the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper would defeat a coalition led by Michael Ignatieff 40-34 per cent.

With Bob Rae as Liberal leader, the coalition and Conservatives would be tied.

However, if the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.

Hypothetical, but indeed very interesting - in light of your comments "Whatever it takes, we gotta get rid of the regressive party that's creating a country I no longer recognize." and "2/3 of us are progressive. We need to take our country back before it's too late."

If you average out the three scenarios, you're looking at a deadlock of voters - right down the middle.......so it seems that your comments are completely at odds (if not out of touch) with at least half of all Canadians. Although not completely fair, we DO know that Quebec is always a special case due to the influence of sovereignty and their inherent dislike of Federalism. If you were to exclude Quebec from the equation, the results would further support the Conservatives - especially with Layton at the helm........to the extent that a large majority of Canadians outside Quebec - from coast to coast - support the Stephen Harper led Conservatives.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[madmax]

Admittedly. However, it does seem that to the NDP and their ilk, all the world's problems are my fault, and the solution is to screw me over any way they can. And I am very far from alone in that feeling. Which is why the NDP has made no progress in decades.

LOL

You are a public servant.... You make your money of the public purse. Go make your money in the private sector.. and the NDP hasn't screwed you the governing parties have and they are the Liberals and the Conservatives. Governments tend to stick it to the people and the force behind this is the lobbiests on the hill. As Hydraboss acknowledged..... Lobbiests have more influence on the government then the NDP.

I do care about the poor. I don't see any evidence which leads me to believe minorities particularly need my care.

However, I care about me, first.

Of course you do. Would you like to be the poster boy for our civil service?

"I care about me, first"

Poor you... Boo hoo!!!

Edited June 1, 2010 by madmax

[Bryan]

Admittedly. However, it does seem that to the NDP and their ilk, all the world's problems are my fault, and the solution is to screw me over any way they can. And I am very far from alone in that feeling. Which is why the NDP has made no progress in decades.

This is pretty much how I feel about the NDP as well. Their M.O. is mostly to do with cutting down people who work hard for what they have. There's nothing there for me to support. They have openly identified me as their enemy, laid the blame for the ills of the world at my feet, and threatened to take my hard earned dollars away to give to people who didn't earn it. I'm surprised they even get as much support as they do.

[Wild Bill]

This is pretty much how I feel about the NDP as well. Their M.O. is mostly to do with cutting down people who work hard for what they have. There's nothing there for me to support. They have openly identified me as their enemy, laid the blame for the ills of the world at my feet, and threatened to take my hard earned dollars away to give to people who didn't earn it. I'm surprised they even get as much support as they do.

Bryan, a man explained it best years and years ago:

"Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds."---P T Barnum

[Yesterday]

Where do you think they need to move further to the left?

I don't believe the NDP have a prayer of ever getting into power until they throw off their idiotic class warfare rhetoric and mentality. Hating the rich and middle class isn't going to get you into power in a country where the middle class makes up the vast majority of voters.

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

IMO because to try and take care of the public with borrowed fractionated, monster interest attached money get us no where. It is not so much the need to care for the people that is the NDP's problem. If it wasn't borrowed money no one would care(or tax dollars). Give me a party that is willing to fight monetary policy....please. Or at least remove enough of the money creating from the banks to allow enough to run social/health and educational costs of the country without incurring interest or fractional debt. I am not a Social Credit person, I do not see many of the long term benefits that the Michaeljournal's speak off and the dividend is not solid as it is based on GDP (which they want to lessen for environmental reasons). However, I do see the glaring problems with our current system, no political party with a much needed valid alternative approach.

Yes, instead of fighting hard working people, they should be creating monetary policies for the countries operational needs with solid cancellation policies separate from the banks. This would be a legit fight, but, give me a party that doesn't try and snowball the public with silly senseless distracting issues like middle class taxation instead of giving us the real fight to fight. Shame on all of them!

Edited June 4, 2010 by Yesterday

[Molly]

LOL

Go make your money in the private sector.. and the NDP hasn't screwed you the governing parties have and they are the Liberals and the Conservatives. Governments tend to stick it to the people and the force behind this is the lobbiests on the hill. As Hydraboss acknowledged..... Lobbiests have more influence on the government then the NDP.

The NDP has, through the governing of provinces, proved that they have no more claim to a higher democratic morality than any of the other parties. Liberal and Conservative governments have both proved to be mixed bags of cost and benefit for me, but NDP governments have seemed to make it a mission to screw me and mine.

[Wild Bill]

The NDP has, through the governing of provinces, proved that they have no more claim to a higher democratic morality than any of the other parties. Liberal and Conservative governments have both proved to be mixed bags of cost and benefit for me, but NDP governments have seemed to make it a mission to screw me and mine.

The NDP are just takers and fakers. They are all about wealth redistribution. They take wealth creation for granted and have no idea how it occurs, assuming that there are just people born who are genetically programmed to create wealth and will do so no matter how much you abuse them. They are just a source of taxation that will always be there.

In the children's story of the Little Red Hen, all the barnyard animals that demand bread while never having shared in the effort of making it are members of the NDP.

[madmax]

The NDP are just takers and fakers. They are all about wealth redistribution. They take wealth creation for granted and have no idea how it occurs, assuming that there are just people born who are genetically programmed to create wealth and will do so no matter how much you abuse them. They are just a source of taxation that will always be there.

In the children's story of the Little Red Hen, all the barnyard animals that demand bread while never having shared in the effort of making it are members of the NDP.

Thats funny WildBill. So much silly talk in this thread coming from all sides.

Any form of government is "Wealth Redistribution" as is any form of trade and commerce. Who benefits from the creation of laws, distribution and wealth is the focus of all political parties and it was the Socialists of the past who stabilized the excesses of rampant capitalism.

Those who support tax shifting have chosen a different form of distribution. The old model that made those who benefit the most from our resources pay a greater share of taxation has been changed to allow those who work more in society to pay the greater share of taxation.

This is not the NDP system of wealth redistribution but one supported by Conservatives and Liberals in back to back government.

There are some areas of our economy that are rigged. Possibly the last one to survive will be the Canadian Banking system. But eventually all the benefits many corporations had in this country came from the minds of Socialists. Corporatist and Global Corporatists wanted more influence and power within the Canadian economy and access to resources. Soon it will be the final nail in telecoms and maybe insurance will follow. And eventually the banks will be subject to globalization strategy.

Its not a new strategy its hundreds of years old. But has been resisted by smart governments in favour of local economies and having our country stand up and provide for itself.

The NDP would be the party that says we are more then the Hewers of wood.

The LPC and CPC freemarketers are of the mindset, just get the lumber out of Canadian yards an into foreign hands. And here is a subsidies (wealth redistribution) to make it happen.

Our trade laws are wealth redistribution.

The Bottom line is WHO PAYS!!!! and more and more WB with this LPC and CPC NeoLiberal economic policies.... It will be YOU footing the bill.

And you should be fine with that.

Enjoy and I look forward to the LPC /CPC merger.

Especially since Reform is DEAD and there is no difference in these parties economically or in terms of wealth redistribution.