Liberals contemplate uniting the left

[scribblet]

Is this the beginning, will the NDP go for it, somehow I doubt it, but who knows, we never thought the right would unite either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

"Certainly Chrétien had a concern that between [then-finance-minister Paul Martin] and [then-deputy-prime-minister John Manley] . . . that you had more of the heavy hitters . . . to the right than to the left," a Liberal insider said, noting that then-justice-minister Anne McLelland was also considered right-of-centre.

Three of the four premiers declined Mr. Chrétien's offer. Brian Tobin ran, was elected and was appointed industry minister. Two years later, he dropped out of federal politics, abandoning a run at the leadership against Paul Martin.

"You could argue that the period from 1997 to 2000 and maybe a little beyond, Chrétien's administration did look much more Liberal," said Frank Graves, president of the EKOS Research polling firm, referring to Canada's support for the Kyoto accord cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and the refusal to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Liberals are once again debating their position on the political spectrum as they recover from their defeat in the Jan. 23 election and seek a leader to succeed Mr. Martin.

Many Liberals feel the party drifted too far to the right, and that cost them votes in the last election, where they lost seats to the NDP.

"The Tories have the right flank," a senior Liberal said. "We need to take centre and not lose anything on the left."

Others say that if party moves to the left, Liberals could harm their reputation as good fiscal managers.

"We have got to plant our standard firmly on the centre-left of Canadian politics," leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff told Alberta Liberals last weekend.

[Nocrap]

Is this the beginning, will the NDP go for it, somehow I doubt it, but who knows, we never thought the right would unite either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

"Certainly Chrétien had a concern that between [then-finance-minister Paul Martin] and [then-deputy-prime-minister John Manley] . . . that you had more of the heavy hitters . . . to the right than to the left," a Liberal insider said, noting that then-justice-minister Anne McLelland was also considered right-of-centre.

Three of the four premiers declined Mr. Chrétien's offer. Brian Tobin ran, was elected and was appointed industry minister. Two years later, he dropped out of federal politics, abandoning a run at the leadership against Paul Martin.

"You could argue that the period from 1997 to 2000 and maybe a little beyond, Chrétien's administration did look much more Liberal," said Frank Graves, president of the EKOS Research polling firm, referring to Canada's support for the Kyoto accord cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and the refusal to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Liberals are once again debating their position on the political spectrum as they recover from their defeat in the Jan. 23 election and seek a leader to succeed Mr. Martin.

Many Liberals feel the party drifted too far to the right, and that cost them votes in the last election, where they lost seats to the NDP.

"The Tories have the right flank," a senior Liberal said. "We need to take centre and not lose anything on the left."

Others say that if party moves to the left, Liberals could harm their reputation as good fiscal managers.

"We have got to plant our standard firmly on the centre-left of Canadian politics," leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff told Alberta Liberals last weekend.

[Nocrap]

Is this the beginning, will the NDP go for it, somehow I doubt it, but who knows, we never thought the right would unite either.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

"Certainly Chrétien had a concern that between [then-finance-minister Paul Martin] and [then-deputy-prime-minister John Manley] . . . that you had more of the heavy hitters . . . to the right than to the left," a Liberal insider said, noting that then-justice-minister Anne McLelland was also considered right-of-centre.

Three of the four premiers declined Mr. Chrétien's offer. Brian Tobin ran, was elected and was appointed industry minister. Two years later, he dropped out of federal politics, abandoning a run at the leadership against Paul Martin.

"You could argue that the period from 1997 to 2000 and maybe a little beyond, Chrétien's administration did look much more Liberal," said Frank Graves, president of the EKOS Research polling firm, referring to Canada's support for the Kyoto accord cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and the refusal to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Liberals are once again debating their position on the political spectrum as they recover from their defeat in the Jan. 23 election and seek a leader to succeed Mr. Martin.

Many Liberals feel the party drifted too far to the right, and that cost them votes in the last election, where they lost seats to the NDP.

"The Tories have the right flank," a senior Liberal said. "We need to take centre and not lose anything on the left."

Others say that if party moves to the left, Liberals could harm their reputation as good fiscal managers.

"We have got to plant our standard firmly on the centre-left of Canadian politics," leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff told Alberta Liberals last weekend.

Oops. I hit the button before typing my message. I had never thought of the Liberals uniting with the NDP, but it is an interesting concept. They are closer in their views than either is to the CPC. Unite the Left. I say go for it. That way I won't have to decide whether to vote Liberal or NDP.

[BubberMiley]

If you look at the percentage of popular vote the NDP and Liberals get, combined they would be a juggernaut that would never have to give up majority rule.

[Riverwind]

If you look at the percentage of popular vote the NDP and Liberals get, combined they would be a juggernaut that would never have to give up majority rule.

It won't happen. Any combined entity would have to be mainly centrist which would lose the support of the radical left wing. These people would likely not vote or start voting for another left wing party (the Greens are a likely choice).

[August1991]

If you look at the percentage of popular vote the NDP and Liberals get, combined they would be a juggernaut that would never have to give up majority rule.

You fail to make the distinction between people who vote for a party and people who join a party and become active party members.

There is no way the NDP and Liberal could unite. If it ever happened, most NDP activists would quit and create a new party.

And adding vote totals together doesn't make sense either as the PCs and Alliance realized.

----

In my view, this article is a Liberal Party internal memo publicly distributed. It is an attempt to have a policy convention while the party is having a leadership race. Others have ventured in on this too.

Former prime minister John Turner says his party is making a mistake by rushing into its leadership race.

....

"My view has been: let's get a new generation in first. Let's get a policy convention as to what the party stands for second, and then let's go get some candidates. I think we're doing it in reverse at the moment."

CBC

Ottawa – The Liberal Party of Canada has created a groundbreaking Renewal Commission that will engage grassroots Liberals from across the country in an unprecedented party renewal process, said Liberal Party President Michael Eizenga.

Liberal Party

Tom Axworthy, a professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., who served as a top aide to Pierre Trudeau, has been assigned by the Liberals to come up with a blueprint for party renewal.

Toronto Star

----

All the discussion in the G & M link above about Left and Right made me laugh. The Liberals are not truly discussing policies, they are discussing public perception of the Liberal Party. The Liberals want power, and they are pre-occupied with finding a leader who will get them power. The idea that that they can have a policy discussion at the same time is absurd.

This quote is more accurate:

Stephen Clarkson, a political economy professor at the University of Toronto, said it's not about ideology for the Liberals; it's about policy and figuring out how to win in Quebec.

"Where they are is in current terms left-centre just because the right is in power, so they don't have to move very much," he said. "But they have to persuade the public that they are still a candidate to be the national governing party and they've lost that status with their disaster in Quebec."

It's not about ideology, and it's not about policy. Get us power and we'll work the details later.

[lost&outofcontrol]

There is no way the NDP and Liberal could unite. If it ever happened, most NDP activists would quit and create a new party.

And adding vote totals together doesn't make sense either as the PCs and Alliance realized.

The man speaks the truth. The NDP's founding ideology is not compatible with the liberals.

[Canuck E Stan]

The man speaks the truth. The NDP's founding ideology is not compatible with the liberals.

Although I don't disagree,one has to wonder about Bob Rae's NDP/Liberal thinking and even the CAW's Buzz Hargrove's.

Maybe a lot of NDPers think as they do.

I believe such an alliance could work not in joining forces as a single political party but as an announced joint coalition between the two before the next election.With Harper's popularity on the rise, Canadians will see less and less of the "scary-scary" promised by the Liberals. The Conservatives will be hard to beat next go round.

[geoffrey]

Much of the liberal core is right-wing businessmen, and they will not be part of a pro-union labourist agenda.

Chances are, they'd jump ship to the CPC as they have moderated. An NDP/Liberal united party would have no real support other than labour union employees and various privledged minorities.

[scribblet]

There is no way the NDP and Liberal could unite. If it ever happened, most NDP activists would quit and create a new party.

And adding vote totals together doesn't make sense either as the PCs and Alliance realized.

The man speaks the truth. The NDP's founding ideology is not compatible with the liberals.

There is a thread here on this, note the post which compares the communist manifesto with the NDP manifesto. I don't think the centre or centre right liberals would accept that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...communist&st=30

NDP:

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;

... The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

[Nocrap]

There is no way the NDP and Liberal could unite. If it ever happened, most NDP activists would quit and create a new party.

And adding vote totals together doesn't make sense either as the PCs and Alliance realized.

The man speaks the truth. The NDP's founding ideology is not compatible with the liberals.

There is a thread here on this, note the post which compares the communist manifesto with the NDP manifesto. I don't think the centre or centre right liberals would accept that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...communist&st=30

NDP:

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;

... The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

Any combined entity would have to be mainly centrist which would lose the support of the radical left wing.

I disagree. I think the Liberals and NDP are closer than you think. Look at all the arguments about 'Uniting the Right'. It was believed than the just 'right of centre' would never join the Radical Right. It happened. There are still those that oppose and many, like Flora MacDonald are now voting NDP. I think it would be a force to be reckoned with.

[lost&outofcontrol]

There is a thread here on this, note the post which compares the communist manifesto with the NDP manifesto. I don't think the centre or centre right liberals would accept that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...communist&st=30

NDP:

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;

... The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

I agree with you that the end goals of both parties are mostly the same but they have different means of getting there. It's my opinion that socialism which isn't associated with a revolution cannot succeed in the end. (I won't get into why I believe this as to not change the subject of this thread anymore than it already has )

There is a massive difference between the NDP and the communist parties. The NDP advocates moving slowly towards the left (redistribution of wealth & resources) by working within the framework currently establish. The communist party advocates moving towards the left by means of revolution. Now whether this "revolution" is through a Leninist way which is lead by a small group of professional revolutionary (think the soviet union until Lenin's death) or through a Marxist revolution whereby we have a democratic (I bolded democratic since a Marxist revolution cannot happen without the majority of the population) non-violent takeover by the proletariat, that is all up to it's members.

That thread you posted was just terrible, it was started by someone who did not understand the differences between Communism and socialism. You cannot build a house on a foundation of mud.

[Freshinit]

It won't happen. Any combined entity would have to be mainly centrist which would lose the support of the radical left wing. These people would likely not vote or start voting for another left wing party (the Greens are a likely choice).

I wouldn't be so quick to assume the Green party are radical left wing. Sure they prioritize environmental fiscal policy but their views on crime are very much on par with that of the conservatives. Also they lack structure in their fiscal spending, with no clear plan for healthcare, education or other neccesities.

[Naci Sey]

If you look at the percentage of popular vote the NDP and Liberals get, combined they would be a juggernaut that would never have to give up majority rule.

It won't happen. Any combined entity would have to be mainly centrist which would lose the support of the radical left wing. These people would likely not vote or start voting for another left wing party (the Greens are a likely choice).

The Greens are not left wing. They draw from all over the political map. It has been proposed by some in both parties that the NDP and Greens unite, yet serious discussion of it never goes far; there are far more 'nays' than 'yays'. That alone should indicate some substantial divides.

As to uniting the Liberals and NDP, isn't it difficult to say, while the Libs are still trying to define who they are?

[Teddy Ballgame]

- Of course the Liberals are considering an effort to unite the left as a means of returning to power. The Liberals will consider and profess and do absolutely anything to seek, achieve and retain power. The only thing that has held the Liberals together since the departure of Trudeau has been a thirst for power and its perks and priveleges. Their only true philosophy has been "say anything to gain power, do anything to keep power."

- Indeed, the party is so bankrupt in terms of ethics, principles, vision, values, policy, finances and leadership that they have now formed no less than 34 task forces to review every aspect of the party and the result will be that they will sieze upon uniting the left or absolutely anything and anybody else that they believe will enable them to once again plant their noses deeply into the public trough.

- However, as an earlier poster astutely noted, it is not realistic to expect that all or even most NDP supporters would be interested in being the victims of a hostile take over-merger under the Liberal banner. The left wing opportunists and careerists already are Liberals just as Trudeau made the switch from NDP to Liberal in 1965 when he decided to go for the power. But most NDPers are a little more principled and ethical than this.

- Reminds me of the old saw "What happens when you cross a pig with a stockbroker? Nothing! There are some things even pigs won't do." This is an analogy with the NDPers as pigs and the Liberals as brokers. In any case, what would happen is that at least 2/3 of the former NDP vote would do anything - form another left wing party, support the Green or other existing left wing party, sit on their hands, slash their wrists - to avoid voting for the Liberals merged or unmerged.

[Nocrap]

- Of course the Liberals are considering an effort to unite the left as a means of returning to power. The Liberals will consider and profess and do absolutely anything to seek, achieve and retain power. The only thing that has held the Liberals together since the departure of Trudeau has been a thirst for power and its perks and priveleges. Their only true philosophy has been "say anything to gain power, do anything to keep power."

- Indeed, the party is so bankrupt in terms of ethics, principles, vision, values, policy, finances and leadership that they have now formed no less than 34 task forces to review every aspect of the party and the result will be that they will sieze upon uniting the left or absolutely anything and anybody else that they believe will enable them to once again plant their noses deeply into the public trough.

- However, as an earlier poster astutely noted, it is not realistic to expect that all or even most NDP supporters would be interested in being the victims of a hostile take over-merger under the Liberal banner. The left wing opportunists and careerists already are Liberals just as Trudeau made the switch from NDP to Liberal in 1965 when he decided to go for the power. But most NDPers are a little more principled and ethical than this.

- Reminds me of the old saw "What happens when you cross a pig with a stockbroker? Nothing! There are some things even pigs won't do." This is an analogy with the NDPers as pigs and the Liberals as brokers. In any case, what would happen is that at least 2/3 of the former NDP vote would do anything - form another left wing party, support the Green or other existing left wing party, sit on their hands, slash their wrists - to avoid voting for the Liberals merged or unmerged.

- Of course the Liberals are considering an effort to unite the left as a means of returning to power. The Liberals will consider and profess and do absolutely anything to seek, achieve and retain power.

Isn't that what the Reform and Alliance parties did? At the time of the merger there were 66 Reform/Alliance MP's and 12 PC's (many of whom resigned). With the balance of power clearly Reform/Alliance, why did they abandon the green and white for Tory blue, and then drop any reference to the Reform/Alliance from their name?

I'd call that doing anything to seek, achieve and retain power.

A Liberal/NDP/Green Party merger would be no different.

[scribblet]

- Of

- Reminds me of the old saw "What happens when you cross a pig with a stockbroker? Nothing! There are some things even pigs won't do." This is an analogy with the NDPers as pigs and the Liberals as brokers. In any case, what would happen is that at least 2/3 of the former NDP vote would do anything - form another left wing party, support the Green or other existing left wing party, sit on their hands, slash their wrists - to avoid voting for the Liberals merged or unmerged.

Guess they won't, Jacko says now way , the libeals'a aren't left wing enough, so there you have it.

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060415/n041537A.html

MONTREAL (CP) - The federal Liberals are wasting their time trying to persuade the New Democrats to form an alliance of so-called left-wing forces in an attempt to take power back from Stephen Harper's Conservatives, says NDP Leader Jack Layton.

In an interview with a Montreal newspaper, Layton said the Liberals are far from a left-wing party and that the sponsorship scandal has tarnished the party's image for a long time to come, especially in Quebec.

[geoffrey]

Like the NDP will ever have Quebec success.

[shoop]

The NDP can dream about success in Quebec.

Obstinance on their part is better for the Conservatives.

[betsy]

MDuffy today, it was discussed that La Presse journalist had an interview with Layton. Jack sez there won't be any merging with the Liberals.

[geoffrey]

Even Jack is too principled.