Does The NDP Still Have A Reason To Exist

[GWiz]

does it have a reason to exist?

Ask the members of the party.

Last I heard it still had the registered membership to be an official federal party.

But will it have party status after the next election and is Layton willing to find out?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18039&view=findpost&p=627760

Edited February 24, 2011 by GWiz

[William Ashley]

But will it have party status after the next election and is Layton willing to find out?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18039&view=findpost&p=627760

What a stupid post.

Of course it will have status. What do you expect to happen the Harperites kill the membership of the NDP?

That is the only thing that would change the current game.

The NDP are too useful to Harper in spliting the vote of people who don't support the latent right wing fundamentalism of the conservative party that is coming out in illegal and unethical behaviours they are pulling off - even in absence of a majority they are breaking the law to get their way now. The NDP is one of those parties that aims to restrain corruption and prevent the putting of a greater burden on the backs of the working class. British Labour ran the UK for some time - Labour parties and Socialist International has a global presence I don't expect it to vanish as a response to an election.

I never thought I would say this but the NDP are appearing more like a Fiscal vote when contrast with the CPC, as I thought they would be irresponsible at first, but now I am of the impression they are more fiscally safe than the Conservative Party - who are completely irresponsible with public money.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/

Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley

[GWiz]

What a stupid post.

Of course it will have status. What do you expect to happen the Harperites kill the membership of the NDP?

That is the only thing that would change the current game.

The NDP are too useful to Harper in spliting the vote of people who don't support the latent right wing fundamentalism of the conservative party that is coming out in illegal and unethical behaviours they are pulling off - even in absence of a majority they are breaking the law to get their way now. The NDP is one of those parties that aims to restrain corruption and prevent the putting of a greater burden on the backs of the working class. British Labour ran the UK for some time - Labour parties and Socialist International has a global presence I don't expect it to vanish as a response to an election.

I never thought I would say this but the NDP are appearing more like a Fiscal vote when contrast with the CPC, as I thought they would be irresponsible at first, but now I am of the impression they are more fiscally safe than the Conservative Party - who are completely irresponsible with public money.

http://www.socialistinternational.org/

Maybe NOT so stupid, it's happened before -

- The NDP was routed in the 1993 election. It won only nine seats, three seats short of official party status in the House of Commons. Several factors contributed to this dramatic collapse just one election after winning a record number of seats and after being first in opinion polling at one point during the previous Parliament. One was the massive unpopularity of NDP provincial governments under Bob Rae in Ontario and Mike Harcourt in British Columbia. Not coincidentally, the NDP was routed in these provinces; it lost all 10 of its Ontario MPs and 17 of its 19 British Columbia MPs – more than half of its caucus. The Ontario NDP would be soundly defeated in 1995, while the British Columbia NDP recovered and won reelection in 1996. -

[William Ashley]

Maybe NOT so stupid, it's happened before -

- The NDP was routed in the 1993 election. It won only nine seats, three seats short of official party status in the House of Commons. Several factors contributed to this dramatic collapse just one election after winning a record number of seats and after being first in opinion polling at one point during the previous Parliament. One was the massive unpopularity of NDP provincial governments under Bob Rae in Ontario and Mike Harcourt in British Columbia. Not coincidentally, the NDP was routed in these provinces; it lost all 10 of its Ontario MPs and 17 of its 19 British Columbia MPs – more than half of its caucus. The Ontario NDP would be soundly defeated in 1995, while the British Columbia NDP recovered and won reelection in 1996. -

Yah and the Conservatives only had what 3.. what is your point?

Also the NDP is the strongest they have ever been, and have a very popular leader in terms of the array - more popular than everyone else. This discussion seems patently unfounded and inane.

Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley

[cybercoma]

Yah and the Conservatives only had what 3.. what is your point?

Also the NDP is the strongest they have ever been, and have a very popular leader in terms of the array - more popular than everyone else. This discussion seems patently unfounded and inane.

I think in terms of the way the thread was presented (does the NDP still have a reason to exist), you're right; that is, this discussion is unfounded and inane. The point that I think OP probably wanted to make and has been considered many times before is whether the NDP divides the left, making themselves and the Liberals weaker. Does their existence undermine the political left, making them redundant.

[GWiz]

I think in terms of the way the thread was presented (does the NDP still have a reason to exist), you're right; that is, this discussion is unfounded and inane. The point that I think OP probably wanted to make and has been considered many times before is whether the NDP divides the left, making themselves and the Liberals weaker. Does their existence undermine the political left, making them redundant.

Edited February 24, 2011 by GWiz

[GWiz]

Yah and the Conservatives only had what 3.. what is your point?

Also the NDP is the strongest they have ever been, and have a very popular leader in terms of the array - more popular than everyone else. This discussion seems patently unfounded and inane.

Really? Last poll I saw the NDP were barely ahead of the Greens... 14.5% to 13.9%

[William Ashley]

I think in terms of the way the thread was presented (does the NDP still have a reason to exist), you're right; that is, this discussion is unfounded and inane. The point that I think OP probably wanted to make and has been considered many times before is whether the NDP divides the left, making themselves and the Liberals weaker. Does their existence undermine the political left, making them redundant.

I don't support the left right maxim I think it is hogwash as a general moderate myself the divide between left and right is issue based. Some of the NDP's social positions are right winged.

Some issues they do split people on, that is why there are different parties. A lawful minority government (if people actually voted) would be a little more representative of a minority government ruling without democratic consent of parliament. - But I geuss there is no non confidence motion... I don't support first past the post as it isn't inclusive enough - that is why I support an advisory council to allow people to voice their concerns on public record - and give a popular vote to legislation - with every citizen having 1 vote.

You could say that the liberals divide the right.. where is the line?

It is about issues not nonsense.

Take a look at the parties policy platforms.. for what they "might do"

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

Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley

[GWiz]

I don't support the left right maxim I think it is hogwash as a general moderate myself the divide between left and right is issue based. Some of the NDP's social positions are right winged.

Some issues they do split people on, that is why there are different parties. A lawful minority government (if people actually voted) would be a little more representative of a minority government ruling without democratic consent of parliament. - But I geuss there is no non confidence motion... I don't support first past the post as it isn't inclusive enough - that is why I support an advisory council to allow people to voice their concerns on public record - and give a popular vote to legislation - with every citizen having 1 vote.

You could say that the liberals divide the right.. where is the line?

It is about issues not nonsense.

Take a look at the parties policy platforms.. for what they "might do"

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

Just for some balance...

http://www.liberal.ca/

[Evening Star]

Are you saying the two parties have very similar platforms? Because I don't think they do. I would tend to argue that Ignatieff's Liberals are closer to the Conservatives than to the NDP on many issues, or at least they have been until very recently.

[GWiz]

Are you saying the two parties have very similar platforms? Because I don't think they do. I would tend to argue that Ignatieff's Liberals are closer to the Conservatives than to the NDP on many issues, or at least they have been until very recently.

Read all three party websites... PLUS the websites of ministers and critics, they can be even more telling of party policy and position...

Being informed is never a bad thing...

[Evening Star]

I have read those, as well as policy documents.

[cybercoma]

For the record, I don't buy that the NDP and LPC are close in policies. I do, on the other hand, believe that the NDP does divide the left because practically speaking people view the parties in this way.

[Evening Star]

But how are you defining "the left"? Everyone to the left of the Conservatives? That's 65% of the population.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Evening Star

[Jack Weber]

Look..

The Liberals are ina weak position because of themselves..Those problems go back alot longer than the Sponsorship Scandal...

It's not the NDP fault that the Liberals don't resonate as much as they once did and that the NDP have syphoned off some of the Liberal's left wing...

[GWiz]

The Liberals are in a weak position because of themselves... Those problems go back a lot longer than the Sponsorship Scandal...

I was never a "Chretien Liberal" so I was certainly objective about the Chretien years and to some extent I agree... Then again I look at the overall balance sheet of achievements vs failures and the Chretien/Martin era was overall pretty good for Canada in that it turned the ship around economically during some extremely turbulent seas including the potential breakup of Canada itself...

Considering the Chretien Government followed a Government that "sold out" Canada to US interests via Free Trade/NAFTA; being able to bring Canada into balanced budgets, surplus trade and even paying down Canada's principal debt, PLUS establishing a "rainy day fund" for future needs was no small achievement...

Since I have never moved from my position as a centrist (somewhat right fiscally, meaning prudent and wise spending and NOT tax cuts) (slightly left socially meaning support for those in real need but not runnung any facets of free enterprise beyond that) whether the Liberal Party wobbles a little left or right really doesn't have much affect on whether the Liberals are closest to MY views...

For someone like me, and perhaps I'm more unique than I think I am, things like the Sponsorship Scandal where no one elected was directly involved and where in fact what happened was detrimental to the Governments efforts to keeping the country together to me is nothing but background noise involving a sum of money that every Government wastes every year in some form or another... I don't like it, and I say so loudly, but it's not going to make me vote one way or another...

One very important aspect I consider when looking at the party portion of the overall picture is historical values and after the performance of the Governments of Diefenbaker and Moroney I have long a go determined that the CONS (by any name) are not something I could ever support federally...

It's not the NDP fault that the Liberals don't resonate as much as they once did and that the NDP have syphoned off some of the Liberal's left wing...

In regards to the NDP I simply can't find any logical reason to support them on a federal level since they have no chance to implement anything I believe in because they will never be the Government...

Quite frankly taking credit for something implemented in parliament by either of the two parties who have been in Government I find rather irksome because it wasn't the NDP that passed said policy and have no right to take any credit for anything passed while chiding the party that actually implemented the policy with the next breath... In that Layton is the worst leader the NDP have ever had... A complete politico who would sell his own mother to gain an extra meaningless seat in parliament to make himself look good...

However should I ever find a local candidate running in my riding in the likes of an Ed Broadbend or even a Gary Doer if running against a less than stellar Liberal I would assess the possibility of casting my vote for them but only if I could be assured that they would vote in parliament based on princple and not party ideology as both Broadbend and Doer did on a number of occasions... BUT only if the NDP party had a good and pragmatic leader...

I've always found it quite interesting, especially under Layton, that the NDP spend about 70% of their TIME and money deriding another opposition party (the Liberals) rather than the Government (the CONS)... I wonder why that is?!?!

[Evening Star]

Considering the Chretien Government followed a Government that "sold out" Canada to US interests via Free Trade/NAFTA

You know that Chretien reneged on the promise of renegotiating (or even abrogating) NAFTA, right?

Also, by identifying yourself (a Liberal voter) as a centrist, you realize that you're undermining the argument that the NDP is 'splitting the left'?

[Evening Star]

And a party that can hold the balance of power in a minority parliament does have an influence on legislation. Even Martin's minority govt governed differently than the preceding Liberal majority govts.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Evening Star

[GWiz]

You know that Chretien reneged on the promise of renegotiating (or even abrogating) NAFTA, right?

Of course... Do YOU know WHY he did?

Also, by identifying yourself (a Liberal voter) as a centrist, you realize that you're undermining the argument that the NDP is 'splitting the left'?

No, I don't realize any such thing... Could you explain to me why you think it does?

[Evening Star]

Of course... Do YOU know WHY he did?

Tell me.

No, I don't realize any such thing... Could you explain to me why you think it does?

Because it suggests that the LPC isn't actually a leftist party. And thus the NDP is simply offering a leftist option that is otherwise unavailable rather than 'splitting the left vote'.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[GWiz]

And a party that can hold the balance of power in a minority parliament does have an influence on legislation. Even Martin's minority govt governed differently than the preceding Liberal majority govts.

Influencing is not implementing, and NOTHING that the party in power found truly "objectionable" has ever been implemented by a party in power... That would constitute blackmail by said opposition party on the party in power which is illegal... Especially if done for the sole purpose of keeping a Government in power...

Also, if all three or two of the opposition parties share a position on a policy that the Government implements how can one of the three or four parties involved take ALL of the credit for it?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18039&view=findpost&p=627793

[Evening Star]

I'm not saying that the NDP deserves "all the credit" for anything or that they have forced Liberal governments to do things that were anathema to the Liberals. I'm saying that there are logical reasons to vote NDP, that it can make some difference, even if it's just one of influence.

[GWiz]

Tell me.

The United States threatened to move it's entire automotive related commerce to Mexico, negating the Auto Pact, if NAFTA was reopened or cancelled...

- The implementation in 1965 of the Auto Pact, which established free trade in automobiles between Canada and the United States, served to promote the already strong economic ties between the two countries. The historic signing in 1989 of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which established tariff-free trade on a multi-sectoral basis, set the stage for an enormous increase in the amount of bilateral commerce between Canada and the United States. In 1994, the fundamental principles of trade liberalization established by the FTA were further expanded, both in terms of scope and coverage, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which added Mexico to the regime. These trade agreements have helped fuel unparalleled economic growth, with bilateral trade between Canada and the United States nearly tripling during the past twelve years. -

http://www.buyusa.gov/harrisburg/can_ustrade.html

Aren't you glad he made that decision NOT to reopen NAFTA even if it was heavily slanted in the US's favour?

Because it suggests that the LPC isn't actually a leftist party. And thus the NDP is simply offering a leftist option that is otherwise unavailable rather than 'splitting the left vote'.

Doesn't the center have BOTH a left and a right side component to it? It does... Therefore wouldn't the party in the center of politics be vulnerable from BOTH the left and the right in a multi party system like Canada's? A centrist party is thus vulnerable...

Since the Right of center in Canada has only one party (since the Reform and PCs merged) it can draw from the center (the Liberals) easier than the far left (the NDP)...

Since the Left of center in Canada has only one National Party (the NDP) it also draws from the center (the Liberals) easier than the far right (the CONS)...

Note: The Bloc, also on the left, draws primarily from the Liberals as well in Quebec...

Add to all that the FACT that the NDP knows it's unlikely to gain votes from the Right it TARGETS the Liberals to gain support through it's advertising etc., even when the Liberals are NOT the Government...

[GWiz]

I'm not saying that the NDP deserves "all the credit" for anything or that they have forced Liberal governments to do things that were anathema to the Liberals. I'm saying that there are logical reasons to vote NDP, that it can make some difference, even if it's just one of influence.

I didn't say it didn't... But don't tell Layton that, he thinks the party in power gives a damn what he thinks... When it's the CONS, they don't, and they know that throwing a single meaningless crumb Layton's way will keep Layton chirping and helping Harper keep the Liberals at bay...

The Liberals have always been friendlier to NDP social policies the NDP advocate than even the more moderate PCs... NOW the CONS have moved even further right under Harper...

However given the realities of our political system, to me, especially being a centrist, as I've said, it makes MORE sense to vote for a party that more closely reflects my values...

For an NDPer, or some left leaning Liberals, it's a choice of MAYBE having some influence in a minority Government or supporting an actual Government that shares some of there views and has the power to implement them even in a minority Government...

Just something to think about...

I'm truly saddened at how much the world's view of Canada has changed under Harper... Something Layton and the NDP chould be saddened by too...

[Evening Star]

Doesn't the center have BOTH a left and a right side component to it? It does... Therefore wouldn't the party in the center of politics be vulnerable from BOTH the left and the right in a multi party system like Canada's? A centrist party is thus vulnerable...

Since the Right of center in Canada has only one party (since the Reform and PCs merged) it can draw from the center (the Liberals) easier than the far left (the NDP)...

Since the Left of center in Canada has only one National Party (the NDP) it also draws from the center (the Liberals) easier than the far right (the CONS)...

Note: The Bloc, also on the left, draws primarily from the Liberals as well in Quebec...

I get what you're saying. Yes, a centrist party is vulnerable from both sides. I just quibble with the term "splitting the left" because it implies to me that there are two left-wing parties that are relatively similar in policy but are dividing the left-wing vote between them. This is different from having a centrist option and a distinct leftist option (especially when the latter is more likely to win your riding, as is the case in my riding). As your post suggests, one could just as easily say that the Conservatives (or the Liberals!) are "splitting the right". Or that the two parties are "splitting the federalist vote" in QC.

If the left-wing party were not there, it is possible that the centrist party would get more votes (and be popularly regarded as the 'left' party as is the case with the US Democrats) but it might also likely mean that our politics would just shift further to the right, without a party on the left to advocate and influence for change.

Add to all that the FACT that the NDP knows it's unlikely to gain votes from the Right it TARGETS the Liberals to gain support through it's advertising etc., even when the Liberals are NOT the Government...

I just don't agree that the NDP's advertising or campaigning targets the Liberals more than the Cons. The main campaign they were running recently had to do with attacking Stephen Harper for taxes on home heating.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Evening Star