The Green Democrats?

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pogo Pogo's picture

The beauty of the Liberal takeover was that there always was a rump like the Liberal Democrats in England who talked about a sacred middle consensus (even though when legislation in on the table it is the same as whoever is to their right).  By taking over the Liberal and turning them into an unashamed party of business, they were able to leave little room for a brake-off party to germinate.  Their only existential enemy is their own greed.  If the BC Liberals had won re-election they would have likely had followed the path of Grant Devine - letting their hubris and greed loose until they had destroyed the brand.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Unfortunately under FPTP in most federal ridings a vote for the PPC will likely turn out to be a vote for the Liberals and unfortunately under FPTP in the past votes for the Greens or NDP have usually turned out to be votes for the Conservatives.

No, a vote for the PPC is a vote for the PPC. A vote for the NDP is a vote for the NDP. A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens.

JKR wrote:
This is one reason why many people support electoral reform.

Not if recent votes on the issue are indicative of anything.

The right seems to have figured out how the 2-party FPTP system works. Unlike the left, the right are willing to merge parties to win FPTP elections. The merger between the PC’s and Reform have given us Conservative governments. Scheer is now favoured to become PM in October with a little over 1/3rd of the votes. The merger between the Alberta PC’s and Wildrose has given us the UCP government. The merger between the BC Socreds into the BC Liberals gave us right wing government for 16 years here in BC. The Saskatchewan PC’s merging into The Saskatchewan Party looks like continued right-wing government in Saskatchewan for the foreseeable future. If FPTP is here to stay. maybe the left should get into the two-party FPTP game?

Couldn't be worth doing.  It would mean the non-Conservative parties merging into a bland, amorphous, nothing-ever-even-minesculy-to-the-left-of-the Liberals kind of arrangement, and it would mean nothing to elect such a beast, since it clearly wouldn't disagree with the Cons on any meaningful issues.

Why reduce politics to nothing but TWO right-of-center parties of permanent austerity and permanent war?  

BTW, in Alberta, the place which started your endless push for the creation of non-party like that, the UCP took 55% in the last election in returning to power.  Clearly, merging the NDP, the Alberta Party and the Liberals would have made no difference at all in the outcome of that contest.

Winning an election, by itself, isn't anything.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

brookmere wrote:

JKR wrote:
The merger between the BC Socreds into the BC Liberals gave us right wing government for 16 years here in BC.
It ought to be noted that there was no merger between the BC Socreds and BC Liberals. After Gordon Campbell deposed Gordon Wilson, he recruited MLAs who had been elected as Socreds and the latter party eventually withered away.

When the business community decides who its horse is going to be the other right wing parties starve to death. The BC Conservatives were not even in the last race. If they gain ground on the BC Liberals next election we will get a new Howe Street party. All it takes is the bosses to tell their underlings in management who the "personal" donations should be sent to, after all their "bonuses" are a nod and a wink away. Hierarchy is a great method of accelerating a switch to a new party to maintain the oligarchies control.

FPTP plurality voting is made to order for the business community.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I think one of the biggest obstacles to the idea of a Green-NDP merger is that a lot of higher-echelon Greens essentially see NDP supporters as lower-class riffraff.  Until Elizabeth May's deathgrip on the leadership is broken and until the party is open to an egalitarian and democratic notion of change-and I say this noting that there are a lot of good, progressive, egalitarian people at the lower ranks of the GPC and among its grassroots supporters-that problem will not be overcome.

Furthermore, I doubt May and Co. even want a merger.  If they did, they wouldn't keep parroting the Liberal Party lie that the Martin government fell because the NDP voted against it on the no-confidence motion, when everyone knows that motion would have passed even if the NDP had voted for the government, because the Conservatives and the Bloc between them had more votes in the House than the NDP and the Liberals.

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

I think one of the biggest obstacles to the idea of a Green-NDP merger is that a lot of higher-echelon Greens essentially see NDP supporters as lower-class riffraff.  Until Elizabeth May's deathgrip on the leadership is broken and until the party is open to an egalitarian and democratic notion of change-and I say this noting that there are a lot of good, progressive, egalitarian people at the lower ranks of the GPC and among its grassroots supporters-that problem will not be overcome.

Furthermore, I doubt May and Co. even want a merger.  If they did, they wouldn't keep parroting the Liberal Party lie that the Martin government fell because the NDP voted against it on the no-confidence motion, when everyone knows that motion would have passed even if the NDP had voted for the government, because the Conservatives and the Bloc between them had more votes in the House than the NDP and the Liberals.

Got one name for you, Manly!

 I never really thought a green NDP merger will happen. But if it ever did, last nights bi election result would probably have something to do with it. 

Policywonk

Pondering wrote:

Pretty much in agreement with everything you said except I would say the NDP is not known for environmental protection. The NDP, or my perception of it, is that it puts jobs first which is short-sighted. For that reason, and trying to appear centrist, they have failed to oppose new pipelines. Mulcair went to the US to promote Energy East as an alternative to Keystone XL to keep the jobs in Canada. 

The NDP should not be the workers party it should be the party of the 99%. What is good for workers goes way beyond jobs.  I do think the NDP under Singh is making a move to priorize the environment. 

As to PR I think what is needed is a rethink that goes deeper in reflection on why it can't seem to achieve majority support. The problems within MMP and the concerns of voters are not being acknowledged.

In Quebec if it goes through it will be because political parties want it not because the people want it. 

There would be plenty of jobs in the transition to a clean economy.

Policywonk

Ken Burch wrote:

I think one of the biggest obstacles to the idea of a Green-NDP merger is that a lot of higher-echelon Greens essentially see NDP supporters as lower-class riffraff.  Until Elizabeth May's deathgrip on the leadership is broken and until the party is open to an egalitarian and democratic notion of change-and I say this noting that there are a lot of good, progressive, egalitarian people at the lower ranks of the GPC and among its grassroots supporters-that problem will not be overcome.

Furthermore, I doubt May and Co. even want a merger.  If they did, they wouldn't keep parroting the Liberal Party lie that the Martin government fell because the NDP voted against it on the no-confidence motion, when everyone knows that motion would have passed even if the NDP had voted for the government, because the Conservatives and the Bloc between them had more votes in the House than the NDP and the Liberals.

The Greens are happy to have former NDP and Liberal supporters. The fall of the Martin government was 13 years ago and any affinity the Greens had for the Liberals has long since evaporated. The obstacle to a merger is the difference in party culture and governance, particularly with respect to the role of organized labour. What is more likely is a realignment such as in PEI or New Brunswick, where the NDP is eclipsed by the Greens (whether it will be permanent is unclear, but in PEI the Liberals have also been eclipsed). 

JKR

With the threat of vote-splitting handing a false FPTP majority government to the Conservatives; the NDP, Greens, and Liberals should each specify what electoral system they each support and pledge to establish it without a referendum if one of them forms the next government in October.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I think one of the biggest obstacles to the idea of a Green-NDP merger is that a lot of higher-echelon Greens essentially see NDP supporters as lower-class riffraff.  Until Elizabeth May's deathgrip on the leadership is broken and until the party is open to an egalitarian and democratic notion of change-and I say this noting that there are a lot of good, progressive, egalitarian people at the lower ranks of the GPC and among its grassroots supporters-that problem will not be overcome.

Furthermore, I doubt May and Co. even want a merger.  If they did, they wouldn't keep parroting the Liberal Party lie that the Martin government fell because the NDP voted against it on the no-confidence motion, when everyone knows that motion would have passed even if the NDP had voted for the government, because the Conservatives and the Bloc between them had more votes in the House than the NDP and the Liberals.

Got one name for you, Manly!

 I never really thought a green NDP merger will happen. But if it ever did, last nights bi election result would probably have something to do with it. 

Agreed that if Manly replaced May as leader that the dynamic I described above would change.  It makes no sense that May has remained so deeply entrenched as leader through all the years, prior to the PEI result, in which she lead her party to failure after failure after failure at the polls, winning and holding her own seat but no one else's.

May has been the epitome of the "PC with recycling baskets" GPC-and, since it turns out that the PC-with-recyling-basket voters doesn't seem to actually exist, you have to wonder why the party has stayed with that model so rigidly.  Manly's breakthrough demonstrates two things:

1) What the Greens could do if they committed to fighting for a real alternative to the status quo;

2) What the NDP could have done and could still do if it committed to the same thing and made amends with all the people it drove away in the past as part of its bloody-minded obsession with appealing to what we now know is an imaginary "center".

Pondering

I posted this in a different thread.

https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-as-2015-liberal-coalition-splinters/

When we ask which party they might support if switched their preferences (their second choice in other words), we find:

• Disaffected Liberals would be more likely to vote NDP than Conservative, with the Green Party also seeing a lift.
• Disaffected New Democrats would tend to help the Liberals, but the Greens would also benefit.
• Disaffected Greens would be more likely to vote NDP than Liberal
• Disaffected Conservatives would, remarkably, be more likely to vote NDP than Liberal.

Numbers look good to me for a merger.

Pages