How can the Liberals be taking votes from the NDP when their new leader is more right wing than their last one?

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
thanks

To 'It's Me D',

you don't understand.  it's not red-baiting. 

as Duncan Cameron has said today in a rabble article, a Marxist critique is needed.  But this will not be heard unless Marxists, socialists, and others promoting the content are clear that those who called themselves Marxists, socialists and communists in the past (like Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and others who continued to support and use methods of obscene oppression), exhibited behaviour which should be denounced. 

Look at the big picture.  Imagine if the socialists in this country, if the IS, say, even Chavez, all the other good organizers, came up with a statement that clearly denounced the bad behaviour of 20th century totalitarians who called themselves Marxists, socialists, and communists.  That denounced the Holodomor and the abuses of the secret police.  That denounced the deportation of peoples, and all the rest.  This would go a long way in clearing the air so that perhaps the views of contemporary Marxists, socialists, and communists could actually get a hearing. 

I think it does have an impact on the question of the thread title, which is why i brought it up here. 

And, to be perfectly honest, it's getting tiresome reading the left continue to bewail a failure to capture more support, when they've got this log sitting in their own eye.  Any casual reader of this website can see it.  Yet there are no clear statements to the contrary on the socialist sites promoted- Why doesn't the Socialist Bullet/ Project put up a clear statement regarding the Holodomor or other 'soviet' abuses on its site?  i looked before, couldn't find anything.  Same with the IS site. 

 I just don't get it.  it is such a basic human rights issue and could make a tremendous difference to the way socialism is interpreted, not just in this country, but globally.   

 

It's Me D

I'd like to see every capitalist organization list the crimes of capitalism on their webpages. Unfortunately we have to do that for them. And you know what? Capitalism is awfully popular.  So I'm not sure that you have a point here.

If you want to further discuss the "crimes of communism" you can start another thread. I'd advise you to start it in another forum though; its a very old canard and I'm afraid its rotten and starting to stink.

thanks

re #52. 

avoidance, deflection, rationalization.  how far has that got the left in recent decades, It's Me D? 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

 'thanks", I've called "the left" on it's past reluctance to address the history.  The thing is, that isn't what the situation in Canada is about.  Nobody there is still pissed about Stalin.  That was fifty-five years ago.

And in all liklyhood, if "the left" were to make the type of statement you're demanding here,you'd say "not good enough...they have to apologize for not backing the cold war and not cheering when the Yanks carpetbombed Hanoi and not doing high-fives when Reagan invented the Contras".

The Holodomor was terrible, but it wasn't worse than what the U.S. did in Vietnam or the British did to Ireland and India and Africa and...etc...

And nobody on "the left" today is responsible for anything Stalin did.  The world already knows that WE wouldn't do anything like that.

It's the tone of people like you that probably KEEPS "the left" from addressing the history you speak of.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

thanks

hi Ken Burch, thanks for trying to address the history.

I'm not sure who you mean by "nobody 'there'".

your second paragraph makes inaccurate assumptions about what i would or wouldn't say. 

your third paragraph is rationalizing and avoiding dealing with what those calling themselves Socialists and others perhaps do have some responsibility to clarify, if they are going to use that/those name/s.

and actually 'the world' doesn't know what what you particularly, or others when given power, are capable of, except what is evidenced by those who have used same names/sources in the past.

and can you be specific please about the aspects of my tone which disturb you. i've tried to be clear but not pandering. perhaps it's just that you don't agree with me, and there's another thread at present elsewhere which is on that subject.

i am trying to discuss this in a useful way.

Cueball Cueball's picture

thanks wrote:

re #52. 

avoidance, deflection, rationalization.  how far has that got the left in recent decades, It's Me D? 

Hardly. All of these things have been discussed to death on threads directly relating to those issues, over and over and over again. Your point is a strawman, or worse, a stray dog. If you want to raise those issues, start a thread.

 Really what you are proposing is some kind of weird neo-Stalanist loyalty test, or Maoist self criticism session, where individuals must take the blame for things they had nothing to do with, simply, on the principle of guilt by association. As if Stephen Harper should personally appologize for the massacre of 4 million Vietnamese by the USA at the begining of each budget speech, simply because he is a confirmed free-market capitalist.

 

Fidel

We dont even need to look back 76 years ago for crimes and insults to humanity

100 million+ skeletons alone produced under democratic capitalism in India, 1947 to 1979. And tens of millions since

Anywhere from four to thirteen million children die of the capitalist economic long run each and every year like clockwork. It's an annual holocaust.

960,000,000 chronically hungry people around the democratic capitalist thirdworld. 25 years ago, there were only half a billion.

When will democratic types recognize this planned and enforced genocide in modern times?

Capitalism is a monumental failure

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

thanks wrote:

i am trying to discuss this in a useful way.

No, you're not.

Please stop deliberately derailing this thread with your ignorant bullshit. 

Tommy_Paine

"So, Tommy in other words...."

Nice straw man, Stockholm, shooting for a job with Faux News?

If the NDP would have not looked for the coalition, the Liberals would have been forced to either suport the economic statement, not unlikely, or vote against it with the Block and NDP, and go back to the electorate with Dion leading the charge. Either way, complete disaster for the Liberals.

Now, it could be that if an election had been called, Harper, if he did not once again snatch a minority from the jaws of a majority, might have been returned with a majority.  

Something like he has now with the nominally Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews as his sidekick-- courtesyof the NDP strategists.

The attempt at coalition has resulted in a rejuvinated Liberal Party, which will now allow Harper to do what he wants, while they bide their time and fund raise.   

This has been an unmitigated disaster for the NDP.   It has shown that they never intend to govern-- but always rescue the Liberals because they can't face thier fear of the Conservatives.

Jesus Christ in a hand cart!   

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The last thing that needs to be said to "thanks" is that no one OUTSIDE of the Mid 20th Century era Communist Party of the Soviet Union was EVER responsible for the Ukrainian famine, and especially not "Trotskyites", since Trotsky had already been in exile for five years at the time of that event.

Let alone those who were NEVER part of the Leninist wing of the left in any form(a group which includes virtually anybody in the present that identifies with "the left").

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

thanks

"Really what you are proposing is some kind of weird neo-Stalanist loyalty test, or Maoist self criticism session, where individuals must take the blame for things they had nothing to do with, simply, on the principle of guilt by association. "

no, i was simply suggesting that the websites of socialist groups post a simple statement of clarification.  i am sure that people associated with those sites can have a dialogue and come up with a few lines that would be useful in dealing with standard concerns.  currently there is nothing along these lines at these sites, in terms of a 'About us' statement that addresses these concerns.  this is a very simple task.   then when the issue is raised at babble, or wherever, people can just say 'well here is  a socialist group which believes the Holodomor was a crime against humanity, and that further grave human rights abuses were conducted by leaders of the USSR.'   

and it's not useful to have to keep rehashing these basic issues.  i don't enjoy doing it, but there has yet to be even a simple statement put on any socialist/Marxist/communist website in this country that I've seen.

please prove me wrong.

until that time, feel free to get back to the other aspects of the 'shift to the right' that you like to discuss, but perhaps when you've exhausted these avenues you'll consider at some point in future that there may be a need to put something in more coherent fashion on the sites of those with whom activists, people at rabble, and others are affiliated.

you can continue to vent here, directed at me i suppose because i'm the  one raising it at present, but i won't be responding in future on this thread.  i'm letting this go.  it's in your hands.  best wishes.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ok, I denounce Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Anyone else you would like me to denounce? Can we get on with the thread now.

Ken Burch is right on here. You are asking a Trostkyiest organization like the IS, (who by the way are not my favourite people) to denouce Stalin and stalinism. The entire organization, and indeed all Trotskyiest are fundamentally anti-Stalinist. Have you actually ever been to one of their web sites?

They are entirely chock full of denounciations of Stalin. It's all they are about basically.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Quote:
Internationalism
 The struggle for socialism is part of a worldwide struggle. We campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from other countries. We support all genuine national liberation movements.
 The 1917 revolution in Russia was an inspiration for the oppressed everywhere. But it was defeated when workers' revolution elsewhere were defeated. A Stalinist counter-revolution which killed millions created a new form of capitalist exploitation based on state ownership and control. In Eastern Europe, China and other countries a similar system was later established by Stalinist, no socialist parties. We support the struggle of workers in these countries against both private and state capitalism.

From the web site of the International Socialist (canada) "About Us", web page.

If you are going to make serious critcism of left organizations, please do your research first.

Stockholm

"If the NDP would have not looked for the coalition, the Liberals would have been forced to either suport the economic statement, not unlikely, or vote against it with the Block and NDP, and go back to the electorate with Dion leading the charge. Either way, complete disaster for the Liberals.

Now, it could be that if an election had been called, Harper, if he did not once again snatch a minority from the jaws of a majority, might have been returned with a majority.  "

We will just have to agree to disagree here. If the NDP and Liberals had not tried to form a coalition, Harper would have stuck to his guns and one of two things would have happened:

Scenario A: The Liberals would have abstained and let the economic statement pass including the elimination of party funding and the Liberals, BQ, Greens AND the NDP would all have spent the last three months in bankruptcy court seeking protection from creditors while Harper would be arrogantly doing as he pleased with everyone seeing him as a master strategist...and by the way Ignatieff would still have become Liberal leader in May and the media would have still given us endless hosannas about how he was soooo much less bad than Dion.

Scenario B: The opposition would have voted down the statement and Michaelle Jean would maybe have tried to see if Dion was willing to try to form a minority government and if he wasn't, we would have had an election six weeks after the last one during an economic crisis and that was seen as having been caused by the opposition not wanting to give up their funding. The Tories had plenty of money leftover from the election, the opposition parties were all flat broke. I would say with certainty that the result would have been a Mulroney 1984 style Tory landslide majority government - and if you think the current chastened Tory minority gov't is bad - with the threat of an election hanging over it at all times - don't even imagine what a rightwing fiesta we would be undergoing for the next four years under that masive Harper majority.

 As much as it might be nice to see the Liberals reduced from 77 to 45 seats, the NDP would probably have been reduced to about 15 seats in that scenario. Not worth it.

I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Michelle

Wow, this is a weird diversion.  How about let's talk about communist parties in some other thread?  This one's about the NDP and the Liberals, not the left.

(Ha, did you see what I did there?)

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Yes, you just disassociated the NDP from the left. Don't worry, successive NDP executives have been doing that since the 60s.

remind remind's picture

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

:)

remind remind's picture

Actually not grrring at your comments, was a grrr  reaction to thanks blamming "socialists" for Holodomor, and expecting us to apologize for something we had nothing to do with, and would have had no part in. Plus lumping us together with Stalinists and Leninists. I had made a whole long comment then decided to just say grrrrr.

Thanks needs to start a topic on this.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Well you know, some people must categorize other people into neat, tidy boxes built with the materials of prejudice and stereotypes, and then hammered together with false assumptions. I mean, you and I are both on "the left" but you and I disagree constantly. I wonder if thanks would put us in the same box, and I wonder which box it would be?

remind remind's picture

Well, that is just the sexual tension from the anticipated "torrid affair". ;)

Cueball Cueball's picture

remind wrote:

Actually not grrring at your comments, was a grrr  reaction to thanks blamming "socialists" for Holodomor, and expecting us to apologize for something we had nothing to do with, and would have had no part in. Plus lumping us together with Stalinists and Leninists. I had made a whole long comment then decided to just say grrrrr.

Thanks needs to start a topic on this.

Thanks point is very silly indeed in regard to the CCF/NDP. The CCF/NDP formulation embedded in a non-Communist tradition that was not only anti-Stalanist, and anti-Leninist, right at the time these issue were current. In other words, except for the pro-Stalanist parties, of which the NDP was definitely not one, this whole debate about Bolshevism was had in the mid 30's, and the CCF founde in the 40's, predicated on a left rejection of Tim Buck's CPC spearheaded by Tommy Douglas.

If, "thanks" wants information on this historical debate and the position of the various political parties and personalities and left labour organizations, he/she merely has to review the historical source material from the period for the answers.

In other words this debate was had 70 years ago, and the position on Stalin was made very clear at the time. It is no longer current enough to plaster the results on every single web page of any organization that appeals to the social humanist tradition.

In fact, if the rejection of Stalin was not explicit, there would be no IS and no NDP either, in all probability.

Coyote

We all know there's a "soft" NDP vote that will gravitate to the Libs when they think it will mean a defeat to the Conservatives. That's something the NDP has always confronted. The Greens are crowding some of that space now, too (the "soft" NDP/Lib swing).

I would argue there's a base 15% of the voting public that can be counted on to vote NDP - something the party has battled to create. Now it is a matter of building that base, and convincing that "soft" vote that it is the NDP that can defeat the Conservatives in their immediate situation.

 It's a big hill.

Bookish Agrarian

I like hockey, by thanks' logic that must mean I am responsible for soccer hooliganism.  In the future I will remember to say sorry for what happens at some English soccer games whenever I am discussing hockey.

thorin_bane

Don't forget brawls at baseball and basketball games :)

BA what is your team. My habs finally pulled their heads out of their collective asses and won...sorry more thread drift, what was this thread about?

Maybe we should start a new one. Perhaps more coherant.

londoninium

Coyote wrote:

I would argue there's a base 15% of the voting public that can be counted on to vote NDP - something the party has battled to create. Now it is a matter of building that base, and convincing that "soft" vote that it is the NDP that can defeat the Conservatives in their immediate situation.

 It's a big hill.

 

15%?! You've got to be kidding. 15% is closer to the NDP's record high than it is to its floor. The past three elections have seen the NDP's numbers inflated because of dissatisfaction with the Liberals, but before that they could barely get out of single digits. I would say there's about 8% of the voting public that can be called 'reliably NDP', possibly less now that the Greens have sapped some of the NDP's environmentalist base. I wouldn't be surprised if the NDP percentage of the vote drops to about 12% in the next election; maybe less if the Liberals falter.  

Tommy_Paine

"Scenario B: The opposition would have voted down the statement and Michaelle Jean would maybe have tried to see if Dion was willing to try to form a minority government and if he wasn't, we would have had an election six weeks after the last one during an economic crisis and that was seen as having been caused by the opposition not wanting to give up their funding. The Tories had plenty of money leftover from the election, the opposition parties were all flat broke. I would say with certainty that the result would have been a Mulroney 1984 style Tory landslide majority government - and if you think the current chastened Tory minority gov't is bad - with the threat of an election hanging over it at all times - don't even imagine what a rightwing fiesta we would be undergoing for the next four years under that masive Harper majority.

 As much as it might be nice to see the Liberals reduced from 77 to 45 seats, the NDP would probably have been reduced to about 15 seats in that scenario. Not worth it."

It's tradition in Canada for Canadians to be concerned about who brought down a government and why for about the first three to five days of the election campaign.   Other issues always make it fade away.

Even if Harper broke with tradition and didn't commit some subconscious self defeating faux paux,  A tory majority wouldn't be such a bad thing right now.  They could be squarely identified with the mushrooming maelstrom-- and as we see from the political fallout from The Great Depression, it would have taken the Conservatives a generation or more to recover politically.

Now, one may argue, successfully, that many of us would suffer more under Conservative economic totalitarianism.   But, many of us already are. 

Or will be.

Meanwhile, a moribund Liberal Party might be fading out of the political mainstream, like the Liberal Party in Great Britain has.   While the rabid excesses of the Conservatives serve to energize and consolidate left wing opposition in the streets, and finding political expression behind the NDP.

Yes, the Conservatives have lots of money.  From a fundraising standpoint, a war chest that's too good to be true.  In fact the little sceptical hairs are standing up on the back of my neck thinking about it.  I suspect that if the people with the right investigatory skills were to take a good look at Conservative fundraising, there may be some irregularities here.  We have already seen a few hints in this direction.

Does anyone really think Conservatives could resist the temptation to cheat?

If I can be critisized, and I can be, it must be on the score of the Liberals fading into obscurity.  I might be too optimistic on that account.  However, I do know that this is the closest we have come to this since the days of the CCF. 

And it should not have been an opportunity to pass up.

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

June 2008:   Taxpayers pick up Tory tab

 excerpt:

The federal Conservatives – elected on promises to be squeaky clean – are using government resources to help fill their election war chest.

The Star easily found 25 examples of Tory ministers mixing fundraising and department business, each trip typically costing taxpayers several thousand dollars, though complete costs are not disclosed.

excerpt:

The fundraising events are usually advertised a month in advance, but ministers maintain key government business was the reason for each journey. None provided proof of this, but some said the political events were just a happy coincidence. Besides, spokespeople say, this is the way it has always been done and the Liberals did it too.

Stockholm

"15%?! You've got to be kidding. 15% is closer to the NDP's record high than it is to its floor. The past three elections have seen the NDP's numbers inflated because of dissatisfaction with the Liberals, but before that they could barely get out of single digits."

You're dead wrong about that. Since the NDP was created in 1961, its popular vote in each election has been as follows: 14% (1962), 13% (1963), 18% (1965), 17% (1968), 18% (1972), 15% (1974), 18% (1979), 19% (1980), 19% (1984), 20% (1988), 7% (1993), 11% (1997), 9% (2000), 15% (2004), 17% (2006), 18% (2008).

Any birdbrain can see that the three elections of the 90s when the NDP was saddled with the awful legacies of Bob Rae and Joe Clark and had weak leadership were the outliers and that in every other election - high teens has been the norm.

Stockholm

"A tory majority wouldn't be such a bad thing right now.  They could be squarely identified with the mushrooming maelstrom-- and as we see from the political fallout from The Great Depression, it would have taken the Conservatives a generation or more to recover politically.

Now, one may argue, successfully, that many of us would suffer more under Conservative economic totalitarianism.   But, many of us already are."

If the Tories had won a majority in a January 2009 snap election, they would not have to go to the polls again until 2013 and by that time for all we know the recession might be ancient history - meanwhile they would be like a wrecking crew destroying everything they can get their hands on. The Harper gov't now is walking on eggshells compared to what they would do if they had a sweeping majority. and don't count on the Liberals being wiped out so quickly, they were reduced to 40 seats in 1984 and they came back. They were reduced to 49 seats in 1958 and they came back.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Tories hit another fundraising record

excerpt:

OTTAWA - The governing Conservatives raised a record $21.2 million in donations in 2008, while the opposition Liberals made modest progress in their efforts to rebuild their fundraising machine, newly released figures from Elections Canada show.

The Conservatives easily beat the other political parties with their annual fundraising total, which also surpassed the $17 million the party raised in 2007. The party’s previous record for annual donations was $18.7 million in 2006, according to figures compiled by punditsguide.ca - a website that tracks Canadian political statistics.

Same story, different reporting:

Tories almost quadruple rivals in 2008 fundraising

excerpt:

The $21.2 million raked in by the new Tories in 2008 was their highest total ever and was the most raised by any party since the introduction of stricter fundraising laws.

Their total easily outpaced the $5.9 million in donations to the Liberals, the $5.45 million raised by the NDP, $1.6 million by the Green party, and $713,000 by the Bloc Quebecois.

The cash-stuffed Conservative treasury has allowed for more staff, larger offices, more TV ads, and a campaign war room that operates year-round, even between elections.

Moral: money speaks Money mouth

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:
The Harper gov't now is walking on eggshells compared to what they would do if they had a sweeping majority.

 

I totally agree. Giving these bastards a majority in the last election (or the next) would have been an umitigated disaster, even far worse than what we have now. We might never have recovered.

Tommy_Paine

"If the Tories had won a majority in a January 2009 snap election, they would not have to go to the polls again until 2013 and by that time for all we know the recession might be ancient history - meanwhile they would be like a wrecking crew destroying everything they can get their hands on. The Harper gov't now is walking on eggshells compared to what they would do if they had a sweeping majority. and don't count on the Liberals being wiped out so quickly, they were reduced to 40 seats in 1984 and they came back. They were reduced to 49 seats in 1958 and they came back."

I do expect the economy to be better in 2013.  But it will not be "back to normal" because the "normal" we were used to was based on bullshit.   Add to that the fact that with or without the sometimes Canadian Iggy Thumbscrews help, the Conservatives will exascerbate the resession by adhereing to their economic dogma.  They may have in fact stayed in power until 2013-- but they would have left as the most hated government in history.   And,  that's saying something after Mulroney.

Harper has already said that Canada is poised to recover quickly, but as this malaize lingers on longer in Canada than it will in the States (this is inevitable),  we can hang those words around Harper's neck.

The coalition attempt has had the net effect of allowing Harper to side step much of the blame for whatever parts of this economic meltdown can be attributed to Conservative policy in the past, and in the coming years.

And yes, the Liberals came back in '58 and '84.   

But, they had money then.

 

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
The coalition attempt has had the net effect of allowing Harper to side step much of the blame for whatever parts of this economic meltdown can be attributed to Conservative policy in the past, and in the coming years.

How so? 

Tommy_Paine

 

As things have turned out,  Harper can always point to his minority status as not allowing him to take all the measures necessary to combat the recession/depression.  It plays well to the public and gives him an excuse with his base.   If Harper is smart, he'll keep his coalition with Iggy going for as long as he can through this-- until the Liberals start to eat into his support instead of ours.   However, I do think his quest for a majority will over ride this consideration.

If the coalition between the Liberals and NDP would have come to fruition, then we'd have garnered the blame for the inevitable, and the Conservatives would have emerged from the other side as Canada's Natural Ruling Part-- as the Liberals did after Bennet was identified with the Great Depression.

The coalition gambit by Layton is perfectly anologous to the "suicide squeeze" play in baseball.

Worse than being called out at home plate-- we were picked off by the pitcher back at third base.

 

Stockholm

I'm sorry, but even if there might be a remote chance of annhilating the Liberals in 2013 - I don't feel like putting the Canadian people through a four year hell of a majority harper government. Its NOT worth it!

Chester Drawers

$21.2 million  at an average of $126 ($2.54 or one small Latte a week) per donation = 168,253 donors.  Membership I believe is aprox. 161,000.  After the tax credit it only cost the donor $32.   Pretty sweet deal to get what you want.

What are the NDP membership numbers?  What's one small Latte a week worth?  Instant gratification or more elected seats?  Money does talk and it is up to every party member to buck or two up and support your dreams and get what you want.

Tommy_Paine

"I'm sorry, but even if there might be a remote chance of annhilating the Liberals in 2013 - I don't feel like putting the Canadian people through a four year hell of a majority harper government. Its NOT worth it!"

I wouldn't expect the Liberals to have been annhilated by 2013,  but firmly on the downward spiral to political obscurity-- with the NDP emerging from that basement. Like in Britain,  there will always be a Liberal Party.   Just not as a factor anymore.

And, think about it.  To adopt your thinking on this-- which I agree is the popular one-- we keep the Conservatives out by keeping Conservative light in power forever.   I'm not sure just what kind of strategy this is-- wait a minute, yes, it's what Sun Tzu identified as a "losing strategy".Laughing

 Thing is, sooner or later the Conservatives will get into power.   It's inevitable.  It's democracy.   If we would put aside the relatively short term pain for some progress in the long run,  it would be worth it. 

Because from time to time, we'd get our turn.

 

You know,  I think you and I had this very same discussion when the coalition was first floated.  Sooooooo........

How'd the coalition thing end up.......?

 

 

 

thorin_bane

Most of us don't drink lattes you red bainting asshole. Most of us can hardly make rent nevermind giving up money and waiting for tax time to recoup the cost. Why aren't you banned yet?

Brian White

I agree with Stockholm. 4 years of majority harper would be disaster for everyday canadians.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

And why do you think an Ignasty government would be any different? Can you name a significant policy difference between Harper and Ignasty? They agree on everything. That's why Ignasty had no difficulty passing the budget and stimulus plan with no strings attached despite weilding the club of a coalition he dropped like a cheap hood with a heater when confronted by a cop.

Brian White

Without the coalition being on offer, Iggie could not have dropped it.

Dropping coalition has defined him. We owe a debt to Jack and dion for that.

Iggie had to show his right wing teeth early. It will make it much harder for the Liberals to get a majority.  

Stockholm

"And why do you think an Ignasty government would be any different?"

My argument is that a Harper-led majority government with fours years ahead of it could do a lot more damage than the current minority government whose lifespan can be counted in months is likely to do.

In the hypothetical situation where we were comparing a Tory or a Liberal majority government, there are probably two differences. 1. Harper is a lifelong neo-con/libertarian ideologue who wants more than anything else to have one majority term so he can lay waste to the Canadian state - I don't think he cares if he gets re-elected after that - he wants to do to Canada what Harris did to Ontario and bring in such drastic change in a short period of time that it would take a generation to ever undo what he will have done. My impression of Ignatieff is that he is a totally craven opportunist who likes the sound of his own voice and who doesn't really "believe" in anything when it comes to domestic policy (which is about 99% of what a Canadian PM deals with). He just wants power for his own sake and he will just follow the path of least resistence if he gets it. So on that front, he would be somewhat less dangerous than Harper. 2. The Conservative party represents constituencies that have to be placated by a Harper government (ie: gun enthusiasts, social conservatives, libertarians) and the Conservative caucus is full of rightwing crackpots whose views have to be taken into consideration. The Liberals have more of a base in urban Canada and among New Canadians - so the kind of pressures that they would be under from their base would be very different. 

Cueball Cueball's picture

See: Liberal stoogeocrat.

Stockholm

Do you want to discuss the issues or engage in juvenile name-calling?

When people are at the end of the line and have no rebuttal to an argument they stomp out of the sandbox and call people names. sad.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, I can't decide what is more of an issue for me, liberal stoogeocrats running the NDP and pretending it is a left wing organization, or genuine leftists trying to pretend the NDP is not a right wing organization.

Stockholm

well then go form you own party and leave everyone else alone. You obviously having nothing constructive to offer beyond juevnile name calling.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am making an effort to answer the question raised by the title of the thread. Here it is once again:

"How can the Liberals be taking votes from the NDP when their new leader is more right wing than their last one?"

I am sorry you don't like my answer.

brookmere

Frustrated Mess wrote:
And why do you think an Ignasty government would be any different? Can you name a significant policy difference between Harper and Ignasty? They agree on everything

Will same sex marriage do? That's pretty significant to gays and lesbians at least.

The fact is that the Cons are a bunch of social conservative nutcases and the Liberals aren't. That's a real difference, and the voters know it.

You also cannot conclude that just beause a Con minority government has not shown a lot of difference from the previous Liberal majority, that the parties stand for the same thing. Harper is not able to get what he really wants as long as he only has  a minority. You saw only a few months ago how he tried to cut off party funding and couldn't get away with it. You have to compare majority against majority, and I hope to God we never have the chance to do so.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

That doesn't really hit the nail on the head, since the question is one of strategy vs. tactic.

 You might say, tactically the Liberals would not renege on the issue of gay marriage (Are you so sure? Paul Martin was a bit of a waffler on this don't forget and it was not a matter of high principle for them, it would seem judging by their caucus) in the short run, but for this short term object one forsakes the strategic picture which includes your short term object, as well as other objects, which are not achieved by maintaining the status quo in power.

And then for this one object you have sacrificed a wealth of other objects you desire.

I am really not sure why there is the sudden impulse to make arguements for strategic voting. That was a definite no-no a while back.

Pages

Topic locked