Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist

[scribblet]

Interesting piece here with some good points. If the NDP didn't exist, would most of their supporters gravitate to the Liberals, thus giving them a majority?

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/473070--the-ndp-no-longer-has-a-reason-to-exist

The NDP no longer has a reason to exist

The NDP has been a long time dying. It was founded in 1961 after its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was almost wiped out in the Diefenbaker landslide of 1958.

It achieved modest success in its early years. Its progress was limited by an internal conflict about its role in Canadian politics. Some in the new party wanted it to hold to its left wing principles and not hunger after what one left-wing politician called the bitch goddess Success. Others, especially those in the affiliate trade unions hoped for modest, though concrete, gains.

[Battletoads]

As long as people vote for them they have a right to exist.

[segnosaur]

Interesting piece here with some good points. If the NDP didn't exist, would most of their supporters gravitate to the Liberals, thus giving them a majority?

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/473070--the-ndp-no-longer-has-a-reason-to-exist

The NDP no longer has a reason to exist

It has a reason to exist as long as it has a set of policies its supporters prefer over those of the Liberals (or other parties).

And assuming that just because the NDP are gone that people would "gravitate to the Liberals" is probably incorrect. A large influx of far-left voters would probably cause the Liberal party to become further "left of center" than it already is, and any voters who were in the political center (who would also have been Liberal supporters) may decide to shift their vote to the conservatives.

Frankly, the conservatives would probably love for the NDP to vanish; a 2-horse race would probably mean they'd gain power roughly half the time (rather than finding voters electing who they think is "right in the middle" most of the time.)

[Evening Star]

Why would it not? Because it is unlikely to win an election?? Minority governments seem quite likely for a while, allowing the NDP to potentially wield influence.

This makes no sense to me. The NDP is the party in English Canada that is advocating policies that are distinctly different from those of the government, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan but also when it comes to the environment and economics. It would make more sense to ask if the Liberals have a reason to exist. (And I would still answer "Yes. Just with a new leader.")

[wyly]

I recall the conservatives being down to two seats do they have a reason to exist?

Many times I see little or no difference between liberals and conservatives maybe the liberals have no reason to exist...

[Keepitsimple]

On Power and Politics today, Evan Solomon asked Martin Goldfarb (I think that's who it was - the Liberal Pollster for 20 years) if he thought it was a good idea for the Liberals and NDP to merge. He quickly answered that it would give Harper a majority and devastate the Liberals and that many of them would just go to the Conservatives. He didn't mince words.

[August1991]

As long as people vote for them they have a right to exist.

I have to agree but merely having voters is not enough to exist. The Bloc gets half the votes of the NDP but gets about twice as many seats. The Greens get half teh votes of the NDP but gets no seats.

So BT, let me turn your question around: if the NDP were to get no seats (like the Greens), would it continue as a party?

I recall the conservatives being down to two seats do they have a reason to exist?

But what was their popular vote in 1993? The Liberals in 1984 were down to about 40 seats. But again, what was their popular vote?

On Power and Politics today, Evan Solomon asked Martin Goldfarb (I think that's who it was - the Liberal Pollster for 20 years) if he thought it was a good idea for the Liberals and NDP to merge.

IMV, this is the hidden hypothetical question lurking beneath the article in the OP.

Why don't the Liberals and NDP merge? Why don't the Greens also merge with both? (Let's be honest: the Greens are watermelons - green on the outside, but red inside. And let's be further honest: the Liberals are leftist, or pragmatic leftists. Old adage: "The NDP are Liberals in a hurry.")

So why don't the NDP merge with the Liberals? Why don't the Greens merge with both?

Simple answer: Leftists can never agree. Leftists always argue with one another. They disagree, form splinter groups and often violently refuse to compromise with fellow Leftists. It is a source of irony to me that leftist leaders talk about solidarity but in fact they don't practice it. From Stalin/Trotsky to Pelosi/Obama, from Laxer/Lewis to Mitterand/Marchais, they can't agree.

Oh, the irony. A movement that aspires to fostering collective sharing splits into various warring sects. (At least the Catholic Church stayed largely united.)

The NDP and the Liberals, as separate parties, are evidence of this truism of Leftism.

They believe in social solidarity but don't practice it.

Edited January 15, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

The Liberals and NDP advocate markedly different policies in many significant areas. They come from different philosophical stances and have different bases of funding/support. Just because they both seem broadly 'left' to you (along with Stalin and Trotsky or Obama and Pelosi) doesn't mean that they need to or should be expected to agree on everything. (And they do agree on some things. The two parties have co-operated in the past, just as the Liberals and Conservatives co-operate on many things now.) Nor do their disagreements in and of themselves prove some kind of failure of 'left-wing' ideology. From the point of view of a right-wing Republican, Stephen Harper's government might seem left-wing as well. I didn't think any of this would be hard to understand for someone who votes for Duceppe's BQ, whom even I consider a genuinely left-wing party.

[August1991]

The Liberals and NDP advocate markedly different policies in many significant areas.

And yet they both argue for social solidarity.

Evening Star, do you see the irony?

[Evening Star]

When has the Liberal Party advocated 'social solidarity', especially of the sort that would preclude other groups from adopting different stances on issues? They have always primarily advocated, at least in principle, for individual freedoms. Classical liberals and social liberals took different views on how to best provide for individual freedom. Even the current party's page on "What We Stand For" ( http://www.liberal.ca/issues/ ) states:

Liberals believe that individual freedom is only possible in a just society.

and does not mention anything about solidarity.

For that matter, even the NDP states ( http://www.ndp.ca/vision/social-policy ) that:

New Democrats strive to build a society in which every one of its members can reach their full potential. Such progress is judged by how society cares for and supports one another. That means protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that every citizen has access to high quality social programs.

Individual fulfillment, not 'social solidarity', is seen as the ultimate goal. They do advocate a society where people support and protect each other - which is a kind of 'solidarity', yes. That does not mean a society where two parties with some common goals cannot disagree about other issues. If anything, the ability to advocate for different perspectives would seem to be part and parcel of "every member reaching their full potential".

Edited January 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[M.Dancer]

As long as transgendered security gaurds need collective bargaining rights, the NDP will exist...as Long as Jack is unemployable in the private sector, the NDP will exist....

and why should they? Aren't they entititled to the $2 a vote? Jack's don't come cheap.

[Wild Bill]

So why don't the NDP merge with the Liberals? Why don't the Greens merge with both?

Simple answer: Leftists can never agree. Leftists always argue with one another. They disagree, form splinter groups and often violently refuse to compromise with fellow Leftists. It is a source of irony to me that leftist leaders talk about solidarity but in fact they don't practice it. From Stalin/Trotsky to Pelosi/Obama, from Laxer/Lewis to Mitterand/Marchais, they can't agree.

You're exactly right, August! Although to be fair, look what it took to get the Alliance and the PCs to merge! No party wants to disappear.

I think we should carry your point a step further, however. What's really going on is that all the opposition parties would dearly love to inherit the voters from the other parties but in any merger they would also want to end up as the head segment! That's the downside of any 'coalition' merger - that you might end up a minor, insignificant partner.

No, we're never going to see such mergers as are being talked about today, for that strong and basic reason.

Just being the biggest would be no guarantee, as the Liberals seem to understand. Look at the present CPC. At the time of the merger the Alliance totally swamped the PCs in numbers, yet I defy anyone to find much of anything left of the old Reform/Alliance planks in the present CPC platform. For all intents and purposes, the new CPC IS the old PC party!

All the opposition parties witnessed this happen and know that as J-Roc rapped in Trailer Park Boys: "If it could happen to me it could happen to you!"

[pinko]

Interesting piece here with some good points. If the NDP didn't exist, would most of their supporters gravitate to the Liberals, thus giving them a majority?

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/columns/article/473070--the-ndp-no-longer-has-a-reason-to-exist

The NDP no longer has a reason to exist

I take it you are referring to the current circumstances federally. History shows the NDP(CCF) has played a signifigant role in shaping public policy here in Canada. While I certainly have some issues with the position my local MP (Jim Maloway) took on the long gun registry I do, on balance, normally support the NDP federally. Given the stance Jim Maloway took on the long gun registry my vote will go to the Green Party in the next election.

The current leader of the Liberals is too conservative for my liking and as such I wouldn't even consider a vote for that party until it demonstrates that it presents policy consistent with my social democratic views. I have never voted conservative and it is highly unlikely I ever would vote for such a party.

Edited January 15, 2011 by pinko

[scribblet]

I disagree that the CPC would love it, IMO the NDP split the vote, the Tories could lose if no NDP.

It will be interesting to see what happens to them (and the Liberals) if the CPC does manage to do away with the political welfare subsidies, although the Liberals will be the most damaged.

[Topaz]

Just think for a moment. If Duceppe leaves to run for leadership in Quebec, I think the Bloc is done. So lets say the Bloc are gone from Federal politics. That puts the NDP between the two other parties and has more power than the other two in a minority government. Canadian voters must keep at least three parties available or we'll not ended up like the US with the Cons and the Libs taking turns back and forth and Canadians not getting what they want out of the government.

[Keepitsimple]

I disagree that the CPC would love it, IMO the NDP split the vote, the Tories could lose if no NDP.

It will be interesting to see what happens to them (and the Liberals) if the CPC does manage to do away with the political welfare subsidies, although the Liberals will be the most damaged.

Although the media casts this as a major attack on the Liberals, they are completely off base. It's an attack on the Bloc. Harper - and all Federalist voters - can't stand the idea of taxpayer money going to fund a separatist party. If the subsidy disappeared, the Bloc would have to fight the PQ and the Federalist parties for dollars.....they'd actually have to go out and fund raise. Today, they don't do that for the most part - they just live off the subsidy largesse. As for the NDP and Liberals, they'd had 6 years to get their act together. The NDP have done fairly well. If the Liberals can't raise funds or people don't want to donate, whose fault is that?

[Evening Star]

I disagree that the CPC would love it, IMO the NDP split the vote, the Tories could lose if no NDP.

But how do you see this playing out in the long term? Endless Liberal majorities and nothing but? Seems more likely that people would switch back and forth if we had a two-party system, doesn't it? As the centrist party in the postwar three-party/multi-party system, the Liberals were able to benefit most often, both by positioning themselves to voters as the centre and by virtue of the fact that the left-wing party was more likely to back them in a minority Parliament.

And the NDP aren't splitting the vote! They are a distinct party with a distinct platform! Even otherwise, I have not seen much evidence (although I don't have numbers on me) that there are that many CPC ridings at all where the CPC candidate would have lost if the Liberal and NDP vote was united behind one candidate. (And you can not assume that every NDP voter would become a Liberal voter, especially in rural or Western ridings.)

[WIP]

Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist why should it?

If the only alternative is to either vote Liberal or Conservative, damn right they have a reason to exist! Look at the way the two party - duopoly in the U.S. has frozen out the interests of working class people on free trade, taxes, deregulation etc. etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If the only alternative is to either vote Liberal or Conservative, damn right they have a reason to exist! Look at the way the two party - duopoly in the U.S. has frozen out the interests of working class people on free trade, taxes, deregulation etc. etc.

The US has more commies and parties than in Canada...but American voters don't give them a majority (or minority).

Edited January 15, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

We need more choices not less. The last thing we need is for mergers to keep happening until theres two parties with ideological monopolies.

Id like to see an end to policial parties completely, and have a government of independants, that form temporary coalitions on an issue by issue basis.

[Saipan]

Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist why should it?

Absolutely. In free country any party that qualify. So that include even the Greens. I don't agree with either but their existence is the evidence of our freedom.

[Wild Bill]

But how do you see this playing out in the long term? Endless Liberal majorities and nothing but? Seems more likely that people would switch back and forth if we had a two-party system, doesn't it?

Star, I have some friends in B.C. that explained this very scenario to me. Apparently, switching back and forth between two parties is the west coast norm!

The explanation they gave is that one spends the money and then the next party has to pay for it...

[Esq]

This is largely identity.

NDP does not = left

NDP = NDP

LIBERAL does not = left

LIZBERAL = LIBERAL

http://www.liberal.ca/issues/

CONSERVATIVES does not = left

CONSERVATIVE.

http://www.conservative.ca/policy/

etc..

The fact is that it is more demographically aligend on class basis.

NDP = WORKING CLASS BLUE COLLAR (UNIONIST/LABOUR/ SOCIAL DEMOCRATS)

(http://www.ndp.ca/vision/social-policy)

LIBERAL = WORKING CLASS WHITE COLLAR (MIXED PUBLIC / PRIVATE / STATISTS)

CONSERVATIVE = CORPORATE (LARGELY CORPORATIST / FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAST / ALBERTANS/ DISESTABLISHMENT)

The left right axis is difficult to really place except on some issues. It is difficult to lay down an issue and say the right or left side of it. There are different groups even within the parties on issues. Catholic liberals still may not support medicare to support abortion while other liberals might. The same is true of Conservatives, some corporatist conserviates might see raising a mentally deficient child as a tax burden, or uneconomical if it didn't suit their industry, as it might create a tax burden, and so abortion of medically defective children might be acceptable, while religious extremists, (even though the first born child used to be sacrificed until the refusal), might say abortion is killing, and even though killing in government sanctioned things like capital punishement and war are ok, still government sanctioned murder of a child may not, for whatever reason, even though it isn't explicitly stated as a law of God as to differentiate the different acts, in English. The whole Jewish issue is another matter, as God sanctioned the genocide of the edomites, including children..

The bottom line is that there are people with different opinions under the overall banner.

So this left right issue is totally irrelevant, as it is more or less - a policy position basis - and what one would actually do, not just what they say they will do.

[Esq]

Forgot the NDP

http://www.ndp.ca/vision/social-policy

[Saipan]

LIBERAL = WORKING CLASS WHITE COLLAR (MIXED PUBLIC / PRIVATE / STATISTS)

CONSERVATIVE = CORPORATE (LARGELY CORPORATIST / FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAST / ALBERTANS/ DISESTABLISHMENT)

So why did banks, corporations and law firms etc. supported Liberals.

While Reform was supported by grassroots only.