Is The NDP Is Ready For Its Battle Against Green Party?

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Is The NDP Is Ready For Its Battle Against Green Party?

NDP to unveil parts of climate plan in motion expected in House of Commons

The motion comes just one week after the Green Party earned a resounding victory in a Vancouver Island by-election which most political observers – Singh included – believe was a message from voters for politicians to start taking climate change more seriously.

Singh however insists today’s motion is not an attempt to beat back Green support, which would affect both NDP and Liberal fortunes in the fall.

In fact Singh insists whatever message voters were sending last week in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, it was to the governing Liberals, not the NDP, even though the NDP won the seat in 2015. The by-election was triggered when Sheila Malcolmson resigned after just three years as an MP to run provincially in British Columbia.

Speaking on his party's climate change motion, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is asked about the LNG Canada project, which the B.C. NDP govt supports: "I do not believe fracking is the future of Canada & I believe that fossil fuels are not the future energy source for Canada."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-to-unveil-parts-of-...

However as Chantal Hebert wrote in Toronto Star

On the day his party lost a B.C. seat to the Greens in a byelection this week, Jagmeet Singh took Justin Trudeau to task about climate change, an issue he raised again over the next two days.

It was a change of pace of sorts for the NDP leader.

But until this week, he had yet to make climate change the main focus of his first round of questions to the government. That may become a more regular occurrence going forward

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/10/greens-are...

Debater

This should probably be put in one of the already many existing NDP-Green threads.

pietro_bcc

Good, Singh has learned that vague values won't save his political career, only policies will.

Losing that by-election could be a blessing in disguise because he never would've gotten this message if the NDP received a slim victory, he still has 5 months to turn the ship around.

Pondering

I am delighted that under Singh the NDP is finally taking a bolder stand on climate change. I will look forward to seeing the concrete plans once the platform is revealed. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

They'll have no chance of holding any significant ground if they don't release the platform until the election.  There's no time, once the election has been called, to make any significant changes in anyone's minds.  The fight to recover has to start NOW if there's to be any chance to avoid another 1993.  

The NDP has to be out there being big and bold every day from now to election day.  No one's even going to listen if they delay releasing the platform until the writ is dropped.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Continuing to hold back would be like recreating the scene in BRAVEHEART where Wallace keeps telling his archers to "Hold!" until the English troops are inches away-only in the NDP version, Singh-as-Wallace would keep shouting "Hold!" after the English had breached their lines and his archers were all dead.

Debater
pietro_bcc

This loss seems to have lit a fire under Singh, now I'm glad the NDP lost the by-election.

Pondering

I don't care what did it I am just glad it happened. The NDP may not win this election but this is the issue of the present and future along with inequality. 

I disagree that the details have to come out now. The most important swing voters will not be paying attention until just before the election. It is important not to give the Liberals and Conservatives advance notice on the particulars. They pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with slick slogans which they have the money to have repeated endlessly in commercials and advertisments. For every statement the NDP has a chance to get out the Conservatives and Liberals will put out 20. 

That is why Trudeau kept his head down up until the election period was in full swing. At the time of the debates everyone still expected him to make a fool of himself. They had all convinced themselves that Trudeau had nothing to offer so would be easy to defeat. Heck they didn't even need to defeat him. All he had was a name and a pretty face and he was in third place in the polls. 

I don't know that Singh is going to come up with a great platform. Maybe it will be hardly different from Mulcair's. Maybe Singh will fail miserably. 

It does frustrate me, and has been for months, that we aren't getting any sense of what the platform will be like beyond the vaguest most obvious stuff. I hope that I am right and they are just holding their fire. 

jerrym

If Singh makes a full renewable energy program part of a Green New Deal that addresses social issues, housing affordability through social housing, income inequality and Indigenous problems, the wedge will be with the Liberals who cannot abandon the pipeline after buying it and promising to build it without looking like fools. If the Liberals propose a Green New Deal as part of the campaign, the inherent contradictions because of the pipelines and fossil fuel subsidies can be exploited, as well as the failure to address the other problems that they have failed to deal with in a major way during their four years in power. His proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half goes way beyond what the Liberals have proposed, and they way behind in even meeting that goal. 

Today Singh's parliamentary motion also asked the government to declare a climate change emergency, something the UK and Ireland have already done. During the debate Singh noted that the Liberals are using the same greenhouse gas emission targets that Harper ahead and are failing to meet them, which is exactly what happened with the Liberals and Conservatives under the 1997 Kyoto Accord goals. It's Groundhog Day all over again under the Liberals and Conservatives.

Last October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned drastic cuts to emissions are needed in the next decade to prevent global warming from becoming catastrophic. That report suggested Canada’s Paris climate change commitment, which would mean cutting annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 28 per cent compared to where they are now, is nowhere near enough.

The Liberal government’s climate plan, including the carbon tax, getting rid of coal as a source of electricity and subsidizing the purchase of electric cars, still leaves Canada nearly 90 million tonnes shy of hitting the existing goal.

To slash more deeply would require more drastic action in Canada’s energy sector. Oil and gas production and refining accounts for about one-quarter of all Canada’s emissions.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/05/13/news/ndp-unveils-parts-clima...

R.E.Wood

jerrym wrote:

If Singh makes a full renewable energy program part of a Green New Deal that addresses social issues, housing affordability through social housing, income inequality and Indigenous problems, the wedge will be with the Liberals who cannot abandon the pipeline after buying it and promising to build it without looking like fools.

Unfortunately, there is a clear avenue for the Liberals to do exactly that - abandon/cancel the pipeline expansion - and get away with it without looking like fools. That avenue is Alberta's new UCP/Kenney government. Depending how Kenney behaves (such as in regard to the carbon tax in the province, which Kenney has now announced will disappear May 30), the Liberals can claim that Alberta's new government has broken its side of the bargain, lost any right to social license, and therefore the Liberals must reverse course and protect the environment and cancel the pipeline expansion. It's very easy for Trudeau to take this route and come out looking like a shiny, rose-smelling champion of the environment, while bashing the conservatives at the same time not only in Alberta, but federally as well. It could be a strong election item for Trudeau.

Another thing the Liberals could do (and have been considering for quite a while) is to sell (or give) the pipeline to a consortium of Indiginous bands in BC and Alberta, who could then profit from it. Again, Trudeau could come out looking clean and shiny.

I wouldn't underestimate the Liberals ability to slither through these kinds of channels and end up running as mainstream environmental champions in the election. Kenney is handing Trudeau the exact cards he needs to do it.

But this thread is about the NDP, and whether they're ready to battle the Greens in the election... Well, just Google "Singh" and "fracking" and see what comes up: "Singh changes tune", "Singh grilled on BC LNG project", "Singh scrambles to boost his environment cred", "Internal trouble for Jagmeet Singh as Svend Robinson lashes out"... The optics are that the NDP is slipping in the polls, deeply worried about the Greens rising support and Manly's win, and scrambling to reposition themselves. These are not the optics of winning.

jerrym

R.E.Wood wrote:

jerrym wrote:

If Singh makes a full renewable energy program part of a Green New Deal that addresses social issues, housing affordability through social housing, income inequality and Indigenous problems, the wedge will be with the Liberals who cannot abandon the pipeline after buying it and promising to build it without looking like fools.

Unfortunately, there is a clear avenue for the Liberals to do exactly that - abandon/cancel the pipeline expansion - and get away with it without looking like fools. That avenue is Alberta's new UCP/Kenney government.

This thread was started by Mighty Middle, partly to divert attention from the Liberals own problems.  That won't work. They have already spent $4.5 billion buying the pipeline, overpaying in the process according to most experts, and promoted the hell out of the purchase,  especially in BC in the hopes of building support for it. They have also spent a considerable amount trying to get it approved. The purchase looks horrendous from any point of view, including the estimated construction costs rising from $7.4 to $9.3 billion (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-pipe...).

The Liberals are in tough on the pipeline. Even the Financial Post and Bloomberg Business News, hardly tree hugging environmentalists, admit that. 

The promise of shipping more Canadian crude to fast-growing importers like China and India — and relying less on the U.S. — drew Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government into shelling out US$3.5 billion for a pipeline project that was facing abandonment. Whether that gamble will pay off is anything but certain.

With U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade wars showing no sign of abating and pipeline bottlenecks damping prices for Canadian crude, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion may seem like a godsend for the northern nation. But lost in the debate over the government’s purchase from Kinder Morgan Inc. is the fact that very few of the 300,000 barrels of oil and refined fuels a day the existing Trans Mountain line ships from Alberta to Canada’s Pacific coast are making their way to Asia.

In the past year, only two of the 48 tankers that entered the Westridge Dock or Parkland Burnaby terminals have departed directly for Asia, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. One of those vessels left for South Korea in April, and the other departed for China earlier this month. Both were carrying an estimated 550,000 barrels of crude. The result is that essentially all of Canada’s crude oil exports for the first four months of the year have gone to the U.S., according to National Energy Board statistics. Some doubt that the Trans Mountain expansion will change that trend.

The idea that Trans Mountain will help Canadian producers get better prices in Asia is “fiction,” said Jeff Rubin, an independent economist who previously served as chief economist of CIBC World Markets. “The highest prices for heavy oil are in the U.S. Gulf, and that’s because that’s where the greatest amount of heavy-oil refinery capacity is.”

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/amid-trump-trade-w...

The Liberals are looking like terrible economic managers.

It was the Chretien-Martin Liberals who did away with a wide range of social programs, including on housing, that the Trudeau Liberals have failed to deal with. 

Not only did this mean that Canada became one of the few developed nations without a national housing strategy, but it also meant that many vulnerable people would be at risk of inadequate housing and homelessness.

http://www.cwp-csp.ca/2014/01/20-years-ago-canada-had-a-housing-plan/

And the Trudeau Liberals continue following this approach. Promising to do something worked in 2015 in terms of winning the election. What we get is a lot of fine sounding words. The problem this time is their track record says they are not going to deal effectively with either the staggering social or environmental problems facing this nation. 

"Ottawa has put not forth a housing strategy ... Yet the report mentions the middle class only twice. The document provides no assessment of Canada's housing system, what ... The word affordable is mentioned about 70 times, with nodefinition of affordable housing.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no...national-housing.../article37173057/

 At the same time that they have spent next nothing on social housing, something even the middle class now needs, especially in Toronto and Vancouver where prices have gone through the roof, they have failed to deal with the money laundering issue that has helped drive housing prices so high. This primarily rests on their and the Cons heads since they have jurisdiction over criminal law. It is only NDP BC Justice Minister David Eby's report on the situation that has forced Trudeau to admit that something (what?) needs to be done about it. 

Some $7.4 billion overall was laundered in B.C. in 2018, out of an estimated total of $47 billion in Canada, concluded the report by an expert panel led by former B.C. deputy attorney general Maureen Maloney.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/5-billion-laundered-through-b-c-real-estat...

Admitting throwing billions down the drain by now canceling Trans Mountain when there are so many other urgent problems that need attending, of which social housing and money laundering are only two, will open the Liberals up to criticism from both the left and the right. 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

Another thing the Liberals could do (and have been considering for quite a while) is to sell (or give) the pipeline to a consortium of Indiginous bands in BC and Alberta, who could then profit from it. Again, Trudeau could come out looking clean and shiny.

There is not going to be any profit to be had with this pipeline. They are indeed looking for corrupt Indian Act leaders to take on massive debt for a losing proposition. It is a cynical evil move not something that could possibly turn out well for the First Nations that would get involved.

Mighty Middle

jerrym wrote:

This thread was started by Mighty Middle, partly to divert attention from the Liberals own problems.  That won't work.

From another thread

R.E.Wood wrote:

Those numbers are all incredibly positive for the Greens and foreboding for the NDP: Singh trails May 3.5% as "Preferred Prime Minister", and by 10% on the issue of who has the "qualities of a good political leader". The Greens are only 2.5% behind the NDP for "Accessible Voters" nationwide (!), 0.9% behind the NDP in the "Party Power Index", and - of course - now only 3.7% behind the NDP in overall popular support. The NDP HQ & Singh must be shaking in their boots right now.

You should be focusing on Jagmeet Singh and the NDPs problems at the moment. This is about fighting off the Green Party. The Liberals are the least of the NDP worries right now. If you can't see that, you really can't read the writing on the wall. And writing an entire post just bashing what is wrong with the Liberals does nothing to fight off a challenge from the Green Party.

R.E.Wood

jerrym and kropotkin - I don't disagree with anything you've written above. But I'd point out that you're both far more enlightened than the average Canadian voter, and sadly I still think the Liberals will be able to pull the proverbial wool over many people's eyes.

Thanks Mighty Middle for sharing my post from the polling thread. Those numbers show the situation for the NDP and Greens right now. The NDP is falling, and the Greens are rising. And my perception is that the way the NDP is dealing with the situation is not helping - they're alternately in denial, or being reactionary. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

On VI we now have 5 NDP MP's and 2 Green. In 2011 there were 6 ridings and we had 2 Conservatives, 1 Green and 3 NDP.  If the Greens take votes from the NDP it will be the Conservatives who gain seats. The majority of VI voters believe that climate chaos is real and an emergency that needs to be dealt with by major radical changes. The NDP and Greens and Liberals have all put out decent policies for at least a decade. The recent by-election showed that voters believed Justin's lies about the environment but aren't likely to buy what he is selling a second time.

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 If the Greens take votes from the NDP it will be the Conservatives who gain seats.

And Elizabeth May is countering that message by using an old message the NDP used time and time again

"Don't vote out of fear"

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am not sure what you thought I meant. The problem is that myself and my neighbors are all wondering who to vote for in the next election. The NDP and Greens are both competitive on VI and if they split the vote we will have the majority of the voters who want action on the climate saddled with climate change denying Conservatives. In my riding we have Gord Johns who is a good hardworking NDP MP who is an environmentalist more than a socialist. Now if the NDP continues to support the BC NDP's right to destroy the planet I might consider voting Green but it will almost certainly guarantee that the Conservatives will win.

I think that our only hope is in the streets not in the voting booth. This is from my youth when YIPPIES helped end the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement made major progress. Elders like myself and other old folks on this board need to support the children who are taking to the streets as our first priority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs

 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not sure what you thought I meant. The problem is that myself and my neighbors are all wondering who to vote for in the next election. The NDP and Greens are both competitive on VI and if they split the vote we will have the majority of the voters who want action on the climate saddled with climate change denying Conservatives.

And Elizabeth May is countering that "vote-split" narrative on VI by digging up past quotes by the NDP (when they tried to ward off talk of "vote-splitting") by using the NDP own words of "Don't vote out of fear"

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not sure what you thought I meant. The problem is that myself and my neighbors are all wondering who to vote for in the next election. The NDP and Greens are both competitive on VI and if they split the vote we will have the majority of the voters who want action on the climate saddled with climate change denying Conservatives.

And Elizabeth May is countering that "vote-split" narrative on VI by digging up past quotes by the NDP (when they tried to ward off talk of "vote-splitting") by using the NDP own words of "Don't vote out of fear"

I am not talking about a vote split "narrative" I am talking about a real people who are not partisans trying to figure out what the fuck to do to stop Conservatives from regaining ridings on this Island. Neither the NDP not Green partisans on this Island play nice and they mostly really dislike the other side.

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Neither the NDP not Green partisans on this Island play nice and they mostly really dislike the other side.

Elizabeth May said on National TV in 2015 that the NDP were running a "fear" campaign against Green candidates. She also added that NDP candidates were pushing the "strategic voting" narrative on the doorsteps on VI.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What are you trying to say? May attacks the NDP just like I said above. There is no doubt that all parties have used "strategic voting" as an sword. The more they attack each other the better the oiligarchy likes it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

What are you trying to say? May attacks the NDP just like I said above. There is no doubt that all parties have used "strategic voting" as an sword. The more they attack each other the better the oiligarchy likes it.

Basically, MM is using that because MM still refuses to accept the reality that no amount of NDP "strategic voting" for the Liberals in 2004 or 2006 would ever have kept Harper out of power, or that the Martin government was doomed to lost the no-confidence motion in 2006 even if the NDP had voted for with Martin on that.

 

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Basically, MM is using that because MM still refuses to accept the reality that no amount of NDP "strategic voting" for the Liberals in 2004 or 2006 would ever have kept Harper out of power, or that the Martin government was doomed to lost the no-confidence motion in 2006 even if the NDP had voted for with Martin on that.

This thread is about NDP fighting off a challenge by the Green Party. Continuing to bring up the Liberals will do nothing to deal with the Green Heat nipping at the NDP heels. Again the Liberals are the least of the NDP problems at the moment.

mmphosis

NDP Is Ready For Its Battle Against Green Party

The real battle needs to be against the Red and Blue parties.  Battling between Green and NDP is silly and only benefits the Red and/or Blue parties.  I support the policies of the NDP and I support the environmental policies of the Green party.  The NDP makes mistakes like supporting fracking/LNG and rejecting NDP candidates.  The Greens make all kinds of mistakes on policies that don't have to do with the environment.  For the time being, an alliance of NDP and Green might be a more strategic.  Leave the "battle" to split the Red (L) and Blue (C, PC, and PPC) votes.

Debater

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not sure what you thought I meant. The problem is that myself and my neighbors are all wondering who to vote for in the next election. The NDP and Greens are both competitive on VI and if they split the vote we will have the majority of the voters who want action on the climate saddled with climate change denying Conservatives.

And Elizabeth May is countering that "vote-split" narrative on VI by digging up past quotes by the NDP (when they tried to ward off talk of "vote-splitting") by using the NDP own words of "Don't vote out of fear"

I am not talking about a vote split "narrative" I am talking about a real people who are not partisans trying to figure out what the fuck to do to stop Conservatives from regaining ridings on this Island. Neither the NDP not Green partisans on this Island play nice and they mostly really dislike the other side.

I think the point being made by Mighty Middle, Elizabeth May, Paul Manly, etc. is that voters on Vancouver Island and elsewhere shouldn't be told that they're not allowed to vote Green for fear of electing a Conservative.  Not all voters on Vancouver Island want to vote NDP -- some want to vote Green this time.

And the results in Nanaimo-Ladysmith (and in Saanich-Gulf Islands) and in other provincial ridings in B.C., Ontario, New Brunswick & PEI show that the Greens can win in certain places.  Some voters would like to see more Greens and are tired of all the old parties (eg. NDP, Liberal, Conservative).

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am not talking about a vote split "narrative" I am talking about a real people who are not partisans trying to figure out what the fuck to do to stop Conservatives from regaining ridings on this Island. Neither the NDP not Green partisans on this Island play nice and they mostly really dislike the other side.

They will figure it out in the week before the election. The debates and platforms matter. 

NDPP

If you're a member of the pro-Israel community in Canada - an increasingly powerful and influential little band out of all proportion to its diminutiveness -   and you perhaps fancy a change from the same old Lib/Con lickspittlers, and may even be considering your electoral walk with Israel on the pseudo-left/faux green wild side, it must be damned difficult choosing between the No Difference Party and the Green Slime Party as to which is likely to be the more sensitive and responsive to the continuing and boundless well being of  the Apartheid state of Israel, an interest which is after all as it should be of primary concern. What's a true friend of Israel to do?  Well for what it's worth, it seems to me, based on this, that Elizabeth may have it by a nose...

Elizabeth May Misleads Canadian Jewish News, Smears BDS

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1128393325533454337

"In light of Paul's history, it is all too predictable that the Zionist lobby began attacking Paul within days of his victory. 'We have nothing to do with BDS', May said. 'We repealed it.' We are not a party that condones BDS. We would never tolerate anybody in our party who violates our core values, who are anti-Semitic..."

Bravo Lizzie May. Jagmeet, we know you can crush a bds insurrection in Convention but that was then and this is now. Show us how much you love Israel. Can anyone go one better...?

Mighty Middle

Erin Weir tweets

I cannot support today’s federal #NDP “climate emergency” motion because it fails to address carbon pricing or propose any other mechanism to reduce emissions.

https://www.erinweir.com/climate_emergency

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Your thread title is misleading, MM.  You should consider editing it to say what it looks like you meant it to say, and to ask the question which is on the minds of a lot of people in BOTH of these parties:  "IS The NDP Ready For Its Battle Against The Green Party?"

swallow swallow's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Erin Weir tweets

I cannot support today’s federal #NDP “climate emergency” motion because it fails to address carbon pricing or propose any other mechanism to reduce emissions.

https://www.erinweir.com/climate_emergency

What a buffoon he is.

WWWTT

Just because the greens are climbing in support doesn’t mean that they won’t be taking votes away from the liberals and just the NDP. If anything I think kropotkin is right, the conservatives are the big winners. 

Now I still believe that the NDP will be hurt in all of this. But if the conservatives can’t get a 50%+ 1 majority of seats in the lower house, I can see a coalition toppling Scheer. This is probably Justin’s best hope of a second term as pm. 

Debater

The recent Abacus poll showed that the Greens take support away from the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives, too.

But yes, it hurts the Liberals & NDP more in the seat count, and ends up benefitting the Conservatives the most.

Mighty Middle

Ken Burch wrote:

Your thread title is misleading, MM.  You should consider editing it to say what it looks like you meant it to say, and to ask the question which is on the minds of a lot of people in BOTH of these parties:  "IS The NDP Ready For Its Battle Against The Green Party?"

Ken it has been changed.

cco

WWWTT wrote:

Now I still believe that the NDP will be hurt in all of this. But if the conservatives can’t get a 50%+ 1 majority of seats in the lower house, I can see a coalition toppling Scheer. This is probably Justin’s best hope of a second term as pm. 

That question was answered 10 years ago: The Liberals will always (except for Ontario in 1985) prop up Conservative governments rather than enter into any kind of coalition with the NDP.

Mighty Middle

cco wrote:

That question was answered 10 years ago: The Liberals will always (except for Ontario in 1985) prop up Conservative governments rather than enter into any kind of coalition with the NDP.

From 2009 - NDP to prop up Tories until EI money flows

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-to-prop-up-tories-unti...

swallow swallow's picture

So you’re saying: although Liberals almost always prop up Conservatives, the NDP once propped up a Conservative government for a reason?

Or are you saying: “I know you are, but what am I”?

JKR

Over the years there have been few conservative (small c) governments to prop up. Going back over the last 62 years, there have been only two minority conservative governments before Harper’s minority governments in 2006 and 2008. The Liberals didn’t prop up Joe Clark’s minority government in 1980 nor did they prop up John Diefenbaker’s in 1958.

JKR

On the other hand, the NDP have helped prop up a few Liberal governments during the last 58 years.

Debater

There are actually times when the Liberals have had arrangements with the NDP.

The Pierre Trudeau Minority in the early 1970's is the best example.

And the Paul Martin Minority worked with the NDP for a while.

JKR

Canada has benefitted immensely from NDP/Liberal cooperation! 

Pondering

Trudeau might prop a Conservative government but  I don't think so.The Liberal party powers that be didn't want Dion to make the deal with Layton so they betrayed him. After that the Liberals were in no shape to face another election so they supported the Conservatives. 

Times change. Now we have the example of the Greens and NDP working together in BC to overthrow the Liberals.  Trudeau is much more married to the progressive mantle. He would have to wear supporting the Conservatives. Granted it could still happen and it wouldn't be great but it would further establish that the Liberals and Conservatives are two sides of the same coin. 

That would improve NDP chances for 2023.

 

Policywonk

JKR wrote:

Over the years there have been few conservative (small c) governments to prop up. Going back over the last 62 years, there have been only two minority conservative governments before Harper’s minority governments in 2006 and 2008. The Liberals didn’t prop up Joe Clark’s minority government in 1980 nor did they prop up John Diefenbaker’s in 1958.

Three. Diefenbaker had two of them (1957-58 and 1962-63). 

JKR

Policywonk wrote:

JKR wrote:

Over the years there have been few conservative (small c) governments to prop up. Going back over the last 62 years, there have been only two minority conservative governments before Harper’s minority governments in 2006 and 2008. The Liberals didn’t prop up Joe Clark’s minority government in 1980 nor did they prop up John Diefenbaker’s in 1958.

Three. Diefenbaker had two of them (1957-58 and 1962-63). 

I forgot that one. The Liberals also didn’t prop up that one. I suspect if we do end up with a Conservative minority government that it will likely be short lived like Diefenbakers’s and Clark’s were.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Your thread title is misleading, MM.  You should consider editing it to say what it looks like you meant it to say, and to ask the question which is on the minds of a lot of people in BOTH of these parties:  "IS The NDP Ready For Its Battle Against The Green Party?"

Ken it has been changed.

Thanks.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

There are actually times when the Liberals have had arrangements with the NDP.

The Pierre Trudeau Minority in the early 1970's is the best example.

And the Paul Martin Minority worked with the NDP for a while.

The entire Pearson era, as well.

Mighty Middle

Progress Canada taking a shot at Elizabeth May questioning her position on abortion, sending this graphic out to ALL their supporters

Mighty Middle

In response to the graphic that was sent out Elizabeth May just tweeted

I am unequivocal in my support of a woman's right to a safe & legal abortion. In 2019 the only person who should be making decisions about what happens with a woman's body is that woman. The Canadian Greens have always stood for the right to choose and we will continue to do so.

https://twitter.com/ElizabethMay/status/1129481431959396353

NorthReport

Isn't May's background with Mulroney and the Conservatives?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

May is also vulnerable to attack as indifferent to unions, and by simple extension as indifferent to workers and the poor.  She also has a reputation for supporting "economic pragmatism", which is code for "if I'm prime minister, the rich won't notice I'm there".

WWWTT

Mighty Middle wrote:

Progress Canada taking a shot at Elizabeth May questioning her position on abortion, sending this graphic out to ALL their supporters

right on schedule!

And if the greens strengthen in the polls, expect the ICM to turn the heat up on May a few notches. 

Pages