One Last Kick at the Liberals

[Evening Star]

OK, that makes sense. I guess that then I see no reason why our politics should tend to vacillate between just the centre party and the right party.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not referencing them as being 'crazy out there', but just that they are decidedly not the middle. Would even describe themselves as not occupying the centre.

It does not make so much sense to me that the one in the middle should be the smallest/weakest of the three when the human opinion being represented and described is truly more a bell curve. While we all have our tendencies of perspective (and certainly our partisanships) we are not really so ideologically driven as all that. We cluster at that peak, and overall have differences that are really only nuance....

The problem with the "centrist" model is that it depends on well defined Right Wing and Left Wing parties in order to create a reasonable amount of space in the middle. The Conservatives have moderated their governance over the past 5 years to the extent that they are clearly a centrist party that simply leans a bit to the right. The NDP is further "Left" but they will now have an opportunity to moderate themselves if they wish to "cash in" on their official opposition status. If they can do so in the next 4 years, that would leave precious little roon for the wishy-washy, go-which-way-the-wind-blows center.

[CPCFTW]

OK, that makes sense. I guess that then I see no reason why our politics should tend to vacillate between just the centre party and the right party.

Because they don't. The libs are a slightly left party, while the cons are a slightly right party. Libs tried to move FAR left into NDP territory in the hopes of retaining their core while cannibalizing the NDP vote.

That failed for several reasons:

1. The liberal core was much more open to the cpc and resistant to far left ideologies than the liberal party thought.

2. Layton was viewed as a much better leader than Ignatieff.

The libs brilliant strategy was to fabricate a scandal that would make it unpalatable for Canadian centrists to vote for the CPC, then to simultaneously steal the NDP vote by moving to the far left and having their charismatic academic leader win over the hearts and minds of the people. It backfired spectacularly and Canada will be a better place for it.

Edited May 29, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Evening Star]

Because they don't. The libs are a slightly left party, while the cons are a slightly right party.

In that case, there's no reason why the NDP can't take over the 'centre-left' role. They've been progressively moving towards the centre for a while. Unlike the Liberals, they actually have a support base among the labour movement, community activists, and the urban poor. They don't have the same baggage in either Quebec (obv) or the West.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Evening Star

[RNG]

In that case, there's no reason why the NDP can't take over the 'centre-left' role. They've been progressively moving towards the centre for a while. Unlike the Liberals, they actually have a support base among the labour movement, community activists, and the urban poor. They don't have the same baggage in either Quebec (obv) or the West.

I'm not sure of this whole recent Quebec orange tsunami, but the NDP have been historically a big bit more left than "slightly left".

[CPCFTW]

In that case, there's no reason why the NDP can't take over the 'centre-left' role. They've been progressively moving towards the centre for a while. Unlike the Liberals, they actually have a support base among the labour movement, community activists, and the urban poor. They don't have the same baggage in either Quebec (obv) or the West.

I'm not sure they'll be able to get much funding from those groups once the voter subsidies are gone. And I doubt they move very close to the centre-left while Layton is their leader.

I don't think it will be difficult to dismantle NDP support now that Jack is in the spotlight. Much of the NDP support is based on the idea that Layton would be a good leader. Just have to find some dirt on Layton and his far left ideologies and run ads about it all over TV. Even if the NDP tries to paint itself as centre-left, Layton has already espoused enough borderline communist ideals to scare centrists away from voting NDP. I doubt the support in Quebec is long lasting either. The NDP had a perfect storm this election and will be relegated to 3rd party again next election.

If the NDP moves to a centrist federal party, then there is enough previous communist propaganda and pandering for Quebec votes to scare centrists out of voting NDP, and they will lose the Quebec vote for moving towards federalism.

If the NDP stays as is, it will lose support among ROC voters once the pandering to Quebec nationalism is exposed during an election campaign. The NDP will then become the new Bloc (irrelevant outside of Quebec).

The only party that could challenge the cons would be a new liberal party that paints itself as slightly to the left of the cons. The majority of Canada believes in fiscal conservatism with some socialism sprinkled in. The liberal party thought it could move out of that position into far left territory to take the NDP vote while retaining its centrist voters.

Was I the only one shocked by how far left the liberals had moved when their platform was unveiled? I knew from the moment the platform was released that the conservatives had won. The majority of Canadians aren't communists. Look at the vote numbers outside of Quebec: 2.9mil NDP, 2.2mil Lib, 5.2mil CPC. When Quebec is excluded, the Cons got more votes than the Libs and NDP combined (ie. over 50% of the vote) immediately after the hugely publicized "scandal" of being held in contempt of parliament! How amazing is that? Not only that, but they has to lead the country with a minority government through the worst recession since the great depression. Coming out of a recession, the CPC would have to really fuck up to lose their support at this point. Four years from now the economy will be soaring and we'll likely be running huge surpluses. We're in for an 8-12 year Conservative dictatorship. All hail King Harper!

Edited May 29, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Evening Star]

RNG and CPCFTW, you are both significantly right of centre. Layton has a long record that one can look at. He has moved the NDP much closer to the centre than they were under Broadbent or McLaughlin. (Look at the 1993 NDP platform for the sake of comparison.) The party's proposals are not radical or "borderline communist", especially for a country that was ruled by Pierre Trudeau for 15 years.

Btw, this wasn't the worst recession since the Great Depression in Canada. Even the early-80s and early-90s recessions were worse by a number of indicators, according to some prominent economists. At least from what I've read.

(And you can't just exclude Quebec!)

Edited May 29, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Seriously, the idea that a 15% corporate tax is a sensible centre-right policy but a 19% corporate tax is borderline communism seems almost comedic.

[CPCFTW]

Seriously, the idea that a 15% corporate tax is a sensible centre-right policy but a 19% corporate tax is borderline communism seems almost comedic.

Nice red herring.

Cons just have to run ads about the NDP constitution at the next election:

"That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership."

That alone is enough to send most Canadians running to the Libs or Cons. And yes, those are borderline communist beliefs.

[Saipan]

The only party that could challenge the cons would be a new liberal party that paints itself as slightly to the left of the cons. The majority of Canada believes in fiscal conservatism with some socialism sprinkled in.

But not a police state. So if the Liberals mention long gun registration ever again they have snowball's chance in a hell.

[punked]

Nice red herring.

Cons just have to run ads about the NDP constitution at the next election:

"That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit; To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership."

That alone is enough to send most Canadians running to the Libs or Cons. And yes, those are borderline communist beliefs.

You know there is a party vote in 18 days to change the pre amble right? Of course you don't.

[CPCFTW]

You know there is a party vote in 18 days to change the pre amble right? Of course you don't.

I do but if you followed my argument you would understand that that is irrelevant. I already mentioned that the Cons only need to point to the previous constitution to scare Canadians. You do know what previous means right? Of course you don't. Whether or not the NDP has subsequently changed it is irrelevant to my point that it is enough to scare most Canadians into voting Con or Libs.

Also the libs will likely be attacking the NDP next election in an effort to regain official opposition status. Next election, the NDP are going to be getting attacked from the Cons, Libs, the media which has always pointed out the holes in Jack's crazy ideas, and even the BQ if it still exists. Who knows how much crazy socialist utopia talk they can dig up.

Edited May 29, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Evening Star]

Nice red herring.

Red herring? That was one of their central platform planks. The preamble to the party constitution wasn't written by Layton or anything.

How well did scaremongering about the Conservatives' hidden agenda work for the Liberals? Most Canadians looked at their actions in government, realized they weren't as extreme as their earlier rhetoric suggested, and moved on. This will also happen when people consider the NDP's actions and actual advocacy as opposed to some dated rhetoric.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Evening Star

[CPCFTW]

Red herring? That was one of their central platform planks. The preamble to the party constitution wasn't written by Layton or anything.

You were implying that the only difference between the two parties was 4% more corporate tax.

[CPCFTW]

How well did scaremongering about the Conservatives' hidden agenda work for the Liberals? Most Canadians looked at their actions in government, realized they weren't as extreme as their earlier rhetoric suggested, and moved on. This will also happen when people consider the NDP's actions and actual advocacy as opposed to some dated rhetoric.

Doubt it. The 50% of the population who voted CPC outside of Quebec won't swing to NDP. The parties are too far apart ideologically.

Centrist voters were already presented with the false dichotomy of scary radical right wing policies, or scary radical left wing policies, and overwhelmingly supported the CPC despite being them being the target of all other parties, having been held in contempt of parliament, and governing during a horrible recession. It's hard to imagine any worse scenario for the CPC to face in 4 years.

And Quebec is irrelevant because the NDP has already basically peaked in Quebec (won 58/75 seats).

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[punked]

I do but if you followed my argument you would understand that that is irrelevant. I already mentioned that the Cons only need to point to the previous constitution to scare Canadians. You do know what previous means right? Of course you don't. Whether or not the NDP has subsequently changed it is irrelevant to my point that it is enough to scare most Canadians into voting Con or Libs.

Also the libs will likely be attacking the NDP next election in an effort to regain official opposition status. Next election, the NDP are going to be getting attacked from the Cons, Libs, the media which has always pointed out the holes in Jack's crazy ideas, and even the BQ if it still exists. Who knows how much crazy socialist utopia talk they can dig up.

They can point to anything they like red baiting went out of style with Trudeau only people stuck in the 50s where "A man is a man and we still called them Indians" like yourself care about that.

The NDP hasn't been crazy socialist for 60 years now.

[punked]

Doubt it. The 50% of the population who voted CPC outside of Quebec won't swing to NDP. The parties are too far apart ideologically.

Good thing Canada includes Quebec. What a stupid argument. Not only is it a stupid argument but I think it is a Lie. The Cons got over 50% in Three provinces all of which were at the bottom of list in voter turn out by population. Sorry just did the math and we get when we take Quebec out of the picture the Cons got 47% of the vote.

WELCOME TO LAIR VILLE population............you just got called on it.

Repeat that lie some more though so more people can call you on it please.

Edited May 30, 2011 by punked

[CPCFTW]

Good thing Canada includes Quebec. What a stupid argument. Not only is it a stupid argument but I think it is a Lie. The Cons got over 50% in Three provinces all of which were at the bottom of list in voter turn out by population. Sorry just did the math and we get when we take Quebec out of the picture the Cons got 47% of the vote.

WELCOME TO LAIR VILLE population............you just got called on it.

Repeat that lie some more though so more people can call you on it please.

I stated why Quebec was excluded. The NDP is unlikely to pick up any more seats there since they already have 58/75 seats.

I was also only talking about those who voted for one of the 3 main parties. About 4% of the vote went to the Green party or independents. It's just a little long winded to type "the 50% who voted CPC among the population of people outside of Quebec who voted for one of the 3 major parties". I already mentioned how I got to my 50% figure in an earlier post as well.

Try reading.

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[punked]

I stated why Quebec was excluded. The NDP is unlikely to pick up any more seats there since they already have 58/75 seats.

I was also only talking about those who voted for one of the 3 main parties. About 4% of the vote went to the Green party or independents. It's just a little long winded to type "the 50% who voted CPC among the population of people outside of Quebec who voted for one of the 3 major parties". I already mentioned how I got to my 50% figure in an earlier post as well.

Try reading.

Still don't get your point at all?

Got it you got called on your stupid statement that outside Quebec the CPC won more then 50% of the vote so you moved the goal posts to discount the votes of other people. Next time it will be "The CPC won 100% of the votes of people of Canada as long as we throw out the votes of NDP, Green, Liberals, Christan heritage.....etc." That is what you really want isn't it? It shows because you refuse to count the votes that were cast for the greens and other parties because it is doesn't fit into a stupid narrative.

How about this Narrative. The CPC only got 39.62% of the vote of all Canada. It doesn't get more simple then that.

[CPCFTW]

Still don't get your point at all?

Got it you got called on your stupid statement that outside Quebec the CPC won more then 50% of the vote so you moved the goal posts to discount the votes of other people. Next time it will be "The CPC won 100% of the votes of people of Canada as long as we throw out the votes of NDP, Green, Liberals, Christan heritage.....etc." That is what you really want isn't it? It shows because you refuse to count the votes that were cast for the greens and other parties because it is doesn't fit into a stupid narrative.

How about this Narrative. The CPC only got 39.62% of the vote of all Canada. It doesn't get more simple then that.

It's a pretty simple concept to understand. The NDP won't be picking up many more seats in Quebec, and with the CPC getting close to 50% of the vote outside of Quebec, it's unlikely that those 50% of voters swing to the NDP next election. I know you have a strange proclivity to nitpick on numbers, but it has no relevance to my point.

[punked]

It's a pretty simple concept to understand. The NDP won't be picking up many more seats in Quebec, and with the CPC getting close to 50% of the vote outside of Quebec, it's unlikely that those 50% of voters swing to the NDP next election. I know you have a strange proclivity to nitpick on numbers, but it has no relevance to my point.

That isn't how numbers work sorry. Try this Cons 39.62% NDP 30.63% Libs 18.91% Bloc 6.04% Greens 3.91%.

That means the NDP needs a swing of 5% from the Cons or to pick up 9% from all the other parties to have a chance at forming government. It aint that hard to understand. Here is something else that isn't hard to understand todays electorate isn't going to be the same one 4 years from now. Just ask the 1988 PC party who went from 43% and 169 seats to 16% and 2 seats.

Anyone talking about 4 years from now, anyone ignoring Quebec is a part of Canada, and anyone who thinks the NDP doesn't have a chance is digging their parties grave.

[Saipan]

Here is something else that isn't hard to understand todays electorate isn't going to be the same one 4 years from now.

Just ask the 1988 PC party who went from 43% and 169 seats to 16% and 2 seats.

Exactly. Jack's fortune can evaporate just like that.

[punked]

Exactly. Jack's fortune can evaporate just like that.

It very well could. 4 years is a crazy long time anyone talking 4 years out is a crazy person. I think if the NDP do a good job of presenting an alternative they have just as good as any at running this country.

[CPCFTW]

That isn't how numbers work sorry. Try this Cons 39.62% NDP 30.63% Libs 18.91% Bloc 6.04% Greens 3.91%.

That means the NDP needs a swing of 5% from the Cons or to pick up 9% from all the other parties to have a chance at forming government. It aint that hard to understand. Here is something else that isn't hard to understand todays electorate isn't going to be the same one 4 years from now. Just ask the 1988 PC party who went from 43% and 169 seats to 16% and 2 seats.

Anyone talking about 4 years from now, anyone ignoring Quebec is a part of Canada, and anyone who thinks the NDP doesn't have a chance is digging their parties grave.

I see you couldn't comprehend the simple concept. I'll try one more time.

Hypothetical:

Next election Quebec votes 100% NDP, they pick up 2.1m votes, or +14.5% of the vote. The rest of the country votes the same way.

End result:

NDP 6.6m votes, 45% of the vote, 119 seats

Cons 5.2m votes, 35.6% of the vote, 161 seats

Conservative Majority.

Come on, you're a big boy, surely you can figure this one out now.

The NDP needs to gain popularity OUTSIDE of Quebec. With around 50% of voters choosing CPC, they are unlikely to swing to the NDP. That was my point.

Can you keep up yet?

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Equivalently, I wouldn't argue with the notion that Harper would need to gain popularity in Quebec to secure 200+ seats and that him taking the NDP/BQ vote in Quebec is unlikely, and therefore 200+ seats is unlikely.

Obviously anything could happen in 4 years, but my point was that it is unlikely for CPC voters in the ROC to swing to NDP, just like it is unlikely for NDP/BQ voters in Quebec to swing to CPC.