Jump to content

NDP and Liberals merger?


Topaz

Recommended Posts

The western separatist movement at that time was very strong and almost completely unknown by eastern pundits. They all took it for granted that western separation was a tiny fringe feeling and would never happen. They were all dead wrong!

If Manning had not got the party to expand nationally Canada might be very different and likely smaller today. Eastern people never understood that Alberta at least could easily afford to separate, which is quite a different "fish kettle" than Quebec. It is always easier for a giver to leave than a taker.

nonsense. You may have seen evidence within the early makeup of the Reform... call that the 'fringe of the fringe'. There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation.

The "fringe of the fringe", I believe, got more than 50 ridings in the 1993 election, the first election in which they ran as a party.

don't hesitate to bring forward any historical fact and/or anecdote that shows the 93 platform/candidates ran on a western separatist theme.

The Reform Party didn't. By that point the theme was "the West wants in". You called the "fringe of the fringe", not me.

yes, jbg... and that was in the context of the "early makeup of the Reform". I've bold emphasized it for you in the above quote stream. So... within that early makeup period's relative time of the 1988 election, we saw a Reform result of no seats & 2% of the popular vote; i.e., "fringe". Now, continuing on, the fringe of that fringe, would be the supposed element that Wild Bill claims had "some degree" of separatist bent. I'm certainly not clear why you would have presumed ahead to your 93 reference, other than, of course, it allows you to avoid the actual "early makeup of the Reform" and the 88 election... if you had the 93 numbers, you also had the 88 numbers; clearly, you were most selective. One wonders why a Connecticut NY Yankee in King Arthur's MLW Court would be so determined to make some point over this relatively obscure reference within Canadian political history... perhaps, if you know the story, you've taken a "blow to the head" (perhaps in the form of a few of your recent MLW posts where you've taken a sound rubbin!) :lol: Just sayin... and better luck next time, hey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One wonders why a Connecticut NY Yankee in King Arthur's MLW Court would be so determined to make some point over this relatively obscure reference within Canadian political history...

Nah...no more worth wondering about than Canadian wannabes opining about similar American political minutiae. What's good for the goose....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do your dreams also afford you the opportunity to translate that supposed "large segment" into a fully qualified number/percentage, particularly one hell bent on satisfying your apparent lust for separation?

Here we see another example of the typical Waldo approach to debate:

"You claim there is a large percentage that feels or felt that way?

NAME THEM! NAME THEM ALL!"

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that proof is required.

It's actually a basic tenet of science to provide proof or evidence. Artists use emotions to persuade.

I thought you were scientific?

ya, Wild Bill, I'm certainly not intent on piling on to your obvious difficulty, but, uhhh... how far of a reach-around are you making here? How do you parlay the expressed, the requested, "fully qualified number/percentage"... into, as you say, "NAME THEM! NAME THEM ALL!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nonsense. You may have seen evidence within the early makeup of the Reform... call that the 'fringe of the fringe'. There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation.
When Waldo says "There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation." I don't see how he makes such a strong assertation when a simple quick google gives pages and pages of sites! There are likely MILLIONS of Westerners still alive that vividly remember those times!

Perhaps he can explain this apparent contradiction.

apparently, your apparent assessment of your described apparent contradiction, is definitively and absolutely wrong:

- as to your first reference, I will certainly defer to Smallc's qualification on that highly debunked Western Standard poll... apparently, I've also expressed a few apparent assessments of that very poll previously on MLW... apparently, MLW search will afford you an avenue in that regard. Please advise if you'd like to pursue this further.

- as to your second reference, I will equally defer to Smallc... the article fails to cite the basis/foundation of it's most significant claim... notwithstanding one can't find anything out about the website/authors. Apparently, for now, I choose to hold your suggestion of apparent contradiction in a balanced holding position... waiting on you to, apparently, qualify further with an actual citation that can be examined for legitimacy and substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, jbg... and that was in the context of the "early makeup of the Reform". I've bold emphasized it for you in the above quote stream. So... within that early makeup period's relative time of the 1988 election, we saw a Reform result of no seats & 2% of the popular vote; i.e., "fringe".

Every new party starts out small, even the current U.S. Democratic party which started out as the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

apparently, your apparent assessment of your described apparent contradiction, is definitively and absolutely wrong:

- as to your first reference, I will certainly defer to Smallc's qualification on that highly debunked Western Standard poll... apparently, I've also expressed a few apparent assessments of that very poll previously on MLW... apparently, MLW search will afford you an avenue in that regard. Please advise if you'd like to pursue this further.

- as to your second reference, I will equally defer to Smallc... the article fails to cite the basis/foundation of it's most significant claim... notwithstanding one can't find anything out about the website/authors. Apparently, for now, I choose to hold your suggestion of apparent contradiction in a balanced holding position... waiting on you to, apparently, qualify further with an actual citation that can be examined for legitimacy and substance.

Again, despite the lack of cites detailed enough to meet YOUR standards, proving me wrong will take somewhat more. You will have to convince all those Westerners who DID feel alienation and considered separation that they never actually did so. Moreover, you will have to convince all those who feel that way today!

You simply dismiss them as not really existing! Like Scrooge, you turn up your nose, sniff and declare "You're nothing but an undigested bit of gruel! There's more of gravy than the grave about you!"

This is where the academic approach can fail. You can build an airtight, logical argument that in the real world is completely false.

Out of curiosity, how old were you in 1980? Did you directly experience those times or do you just dip into whatever history bits are convenient to your argument?

Deny it all you want Waldo. Eppur si muove!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nonsense. You may have seen evidence within the early makeup of the Reform... call that the 'fringe of the fringe'. There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation.

The "fringe of the fringe", I believe, got more than 50 ridings in the 1993 election, the first election in which they ran as a party.

don't hesitate to bring forward any historical fact and/or anecdote that shows the 93 platform/candidates ran on a western separatist theme.

The Reform Party didn't. By that point the theme was "the West wants in". You called the "fringe of the fringe", not me.

yes, jbg... and that was in the context of the "early makeup of the Reform". I've bold emphasized it for you in the above quote stream. So... within that early makeup period's relative time of the 1988 election, we saw a Reform result of no seats & 2% of the popular vote; i.e., "fringe". Now, continuing on, the fringe of that fringe, would be the supposed element that Wild Bill claims had "some degree" of separatist bent. I'm certainly not clear why you would have presumed ahead to your 93 reference, other than, of course, it allows you to avoid the actual "early makeup of the Reform" and the 88 election... if you had the 93 numbers, you also had the 88 numbers; clearly, you were most selective.

Every new party starts out small, even the current U.S. Democratic party which started out as the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson.

which has nothing to do with your attempt to challenge the legitimacy of me assigning the label, "the fringe of the fringe", to the degree of western separatism within the "early makeup of the Reform".....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Waldo says "There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation." I don't see how he makes such a strong assertation when a simple quick google gives pages and pages of sites! There are likely MILLIONS of Westerners still alive that vividly remember those times!

Perhaps he can explain this apparent contradiction.

- as to your first reference, I will certainly defer to Smallc's qualification on that highly debunked Western Standard poll... I've also expressed assessments of that very poll previously on MLW... MLW search will afford you an avenue in that regard. Please advise if you'd like to pursue this further.

- as to your second reference, I will equally defer to Smallc... the article fails to cite the basis/foundation of it's most significant claim... notwithstanding one can't find anything out about the website/authors. I choose to hold your suggestion of apparent contradiction in a balanced holding position... waiting on you to qualify further with an actual citation that can be examined for legitimacy and substance.

Again, despite the lack of cites detailed enough to meet YOUR standards, proving me wrong will take somewhat more.

this isn't a question of me proving you wrong. This was a matter of you asking for an explanation over something you deemed an apparent contradiction. Notwithstanding your expressed argument by, as you said, "pages and pages of Google sites", the two references you did offer are inadequate; one offers no substantiation cite whatsoever, the other has been soundly rebuked and has no credence.

This is where the academic approach can fail. You can build an airtight, logical argument that in the real world is completely false.

Deny it all you want Waldo. Eppur si muove!

point in fact is you're challenging... and denying, my assertion that, "There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation". Your attempt to legitimize your challenge and denial appears to be a work in progress. Now, I am intrigued by you comparing yourself to Galileo... in your assessment has this been an inquisition, one that's deemed your view on the degree of western separatism as heretical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this isn't a question of me proving you wrong. This was a matter of you asking for an explanation over something you deemed an apparent contradiction. Notwithstanding your expressed argument by, as you said, "pages and pages of Google sites", the two references you did offer are inadequate; one offers no substantiation cite whatsoever, the other has been soundly rebuked and has no credence.

point in fact is you're challenging... and denying, my assertion that, "There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation". Your attempt to legitimize your challenge and denial appears to be a work in progress. Now, I am intrigued by you comparing yourself to Galileo... in your assessment has this been an inquisition, one that's deemed your view on the degree of western separatism as heretical?

Interesting. It was YOUR premise that western separatism was either trivial and/or non-existent but somehow you've twisted it around that it is MY responsibility to disprove it!

You're good! You're actually better than the Witness who came to my door yesterday! He seemed to feel that it was MY responsibility to prove a challenge to HIS beliefs as well.

Apparently, you both have something in common. A strong faith! Since I am not and have never been a man of faith I'm afraid that's not enough for me.

However, as with the Witness I respect your right to hold that faith. I can never share it without completely negating the memories and experiences of decades of my life but nonetheless, I will respect it.

I notice you did NOT answer my question about your age! I do feel that is relevant to these kinds of arguments. You see, direct experience trumps debate every time! As FireSign Theater said "Take that! Mr. Monday morning quarterback! Mr. Armchair general!"

Your posts on various topics have proven time and time again that you are very adept at debate. Debate is a useful tool but far more accurate at explaining a truth than at predicting one.

Sometimes you remind me of the old joke about two hunters who find some tracks in the bush. One insists that they are bear tracks and the other is adamant they are wolf tracks. Each has an extremely well formulated argument but while they are debating the train ran right over them!

I submit that you love to win a debate more than you love to discover a truth, Waldo. I believe that you would ignore or dismiss anything that might contradict your argument. I cheerfully admit that your debating skills best my own! Still, as I said I just can't accept argument over direct experience. To jump from Galileo to Kepler, the finest arguments "prove" the planets travel in perfect circles but direct observation proved they do not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at this point a merger is inevitable.

NDP & Green - maybe.

I hate the idea of a united left and right

What do you mean united right? It was split just biefly - because of Mulroney. Now back as the usual one.

Edited by Saipan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I think at this point a merger is inevitable.

Its really unfortunate though. I hate the idea of a united left and right, and further aligning our political system around ideology.

Id like to have a FEW conservative parties and FEW liberal parties.

I doubt it will happen....As pointed out in John Ibbitson's piece, they are too different

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it will happen....As pointed out in John Ibbitson's piece, they are too different

Doesnt matter. Theyre not stupid. If the split results in a string of conservative governments then theyll have to make some compromises or risking being out in the cold for a long time, and having none of their ideas matter.

Like I said.. its pretty much inevitable. The longer we have a Conservative government the more pressure theres going to be to work something out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the split results in a string of conservative governments then theyll have to make some compromises or risking being out in the cold for a long time, and having none of their ideas matter.

You make it sound like liberals being out is a bad thing :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Harper winning at least one more term in the mean time though. I don't think they will join until after bother election without that doesn't bring a different government.

Yeah thats what I figure too. Might even take a couple of terms, but if theres a string of conservative governments its pretty much a forgone conclusion. Things could change though. A huge conservative scandal or mistake could rearrange the game... but so far the Conservatives seem relatively disciplined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Yeah thats what I figure too. Might even take a couple of terms, but if theres a string of conservative governments its pretty much a forgone conclusion. Things could change though. A huge conservative scandal or mistake could rearrange the game... but so far the Conservatives seem relatively disciplined.

As a large and small C Conservative, I’d think a merger would be both a good & bad thing for us…..On paper, it would end many vote splits between the parties translating it more seats and possibly power (Bad thing)…….Also, it in and of itself could alienate both “extreme” wings of both parties…….The far left Dippers could leave as could the Blue Liberals, and they’d be back where they started (Good thing)

Regardless, I’d think both parties would be crazy to merge now….as you mentioned, anything could happen between now and then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah thats what I figure too. Might even take a couple of terms, but if theres a string of conservative governments its pretty much a forgone conclusion.

Yeah, that's possible...I don't really see Harper retiring until he has to, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wish that the media would stop speculating about this, and for the debate to go away. it's ridiculous. canada works well with a multi-political party system on the one hand. and on the other, the liberals and the ndp are two different organizations with their respective places on the political spectrum, and it should stay that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hazard a guess that if they DID merge, another party would eventually form on the Left. The resulting party would likely be closer to the Center but still tilting Left....but not enough for the Unions and some of the Green "movement". I'd put money on a Labour Party being organized somewhere down the road and splitting the vote once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NDP won't unite with the Liberals history of pandering to big business and kickbacks. . Any Libs that want to join the NDP are free to. Not sure what the fuss is about. It's a no brainer!

100% agree!Well kind of.

From my experience 50% of people in politics are there for one reason-power!

Now that the NDP are in a position of forming some kind of government in the future,many good candidates will be attracted to join the ranks.And in turn some of these individuals won't be knocking on any red door soon.

I believe the NDPs success is due in part from a growing anti-corporate movement across all western nations.I do not believe the NDP would be dumb enough to throw away a big part of their vehicle to achievment.

Either way there will not be any rush to give Harper time to calculate his next moves.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the majority of Liberals have too much pride in their party to throw in the towel just yet.

Depending on how the Ontario election goes, it might be a much more likely scenario for the Liberals to try and absorb the Greens than merge with the NDP. That may be unlikely because the Greens too have pride in their international brand, but a compromise between Red and Green could pay dividends to real agendas of both parties: the Greens, the support of a much larger party to push environmentally friendly legislation, and the Liberals a forward looking policy area that they can " own " .

Depending on how the Ontario election goes, it might be a much more likely scenario for the Liberals to try and absorb the Greens than merge with the NDP

That should get them at least 1 more seat in the HOC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...