babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
This seems like a rversal of expected positions, but I'm not into doing what is going to give the NDP the most seats.
But its no coincidence that I also beleive the most seats lies in speaking to people about what matters to them most. [Albeit, we may have to stretch what they feel concretely in terms of programs and policies that meets up with what they/we value the most.]
As to what that would be. For me, sustainability. Because it builds on broadly held values about matters to us all. And because doing anything about it is going to require the taking of deliberate steps... the kind of evaluation that we currently do almost none of in civil society.
But for me, thats the cart before the horse. First we come to sufficient agreement about where we want to go and how- whether that happens in the NDP [for me]- or elsewherere. "How we get there" is going to quickly lead to the questions of which issues. So which issues would be best, is in principle yet to be determined.
[That last paragraph by the way would be an operating principle, or a 'place,' where Cueball and I are very similar.]
- well, I see we're not at all on the same page. good luck
hang on. I'm bringing something else in that at least might have something to agree or disagree about.
Traction does not come by magic -- nor does it come simply from content. In part it comes from credibility.
the NDP ought to produce some clear economic priorities-- stick to them over time rather than remaking a platform from scratch each time.
Having a sseries of imediate proposals for current situations is one thing but long term policies like taxation policy and a jobs policy ought to be more consistent and built over time.
also I find the amount of effort the NDP puts to trivial issues designed clearly to get votes rather than change lives is a distraction.
I do support the NDP as the best thing in town but I also wish it would be more coherent with left of centre economic policy options and stop running away from proposals when they get heat or creating half-assed proposals. Examples: the inheritence tax option should have been kept and explained; the proposal to take eveyone under 20k off the income tax roles without regard to their existing credits was stupid (it effectively would ahve erased seniors and handicaped benefits for low income people when a smarter move would have been just to bring up the basic exemption and leave the other credits in place).
You don't need half-assed policies if you keep the well-thought out stuff over time instead of runnign from it when the first media hit comes out negative.
I admit the NDP has been somewhat better at this in the last couple years but I'd like to see a longer track record of consistency on pocket book issues that matter and not just smaller issues like bank fees which are a nuisance to be sure but not life-changers.
Taking out the conflicting uses of 'thinking' was easy. But that mixing on my part is probably related to the fundamental prblems with the larger part I struck out and to which you responded. The strikeout function shows up in the edit box, but not when I post it. Its the part within the brackets [ ] .
I agree with that. And I strck out the part of my text that you were responding because it was hopeless. And part of the reason it might be hopeless....
Its not a question of people not being able to 'plan'- as much as we need or is appropriate. Its more like the depth of enquiry that goes into the plan or the framing.
The current example of this being people thinking that the right wing shifting the debate about taxes is a model we should look to that.
That they decided to do it, yes. But thats the easy part. How to do it, even the most basic general elements, its not a model available to us.
I think this comes down to a profound lack of discipline. Emphasis on that word 'think'. So park that as a side point only possibly useful- even as something to disagree with.
If mistakes in enquiry such as thinking the Right on shifting thinking on taxes is a model for us- model even of 'just' the basic 'hows'.... then what is there to say about what that is built on?
Re KenS @ 31:
I am profoundly more pessimistic than you are about progress on any substantive issue without first having a voting system which produces more representative results than FPTP. In fact, I think this is the main difference between you and most of your antagonists in this subject. You believe that progress can be made with the system we have. I think the chances of that are similar to the chances of winning a lottery.
I'll add however that this speech is at least partly on the right track:
http://www.ndp.ca/toward-economic-vision
It is silent on specifics about how to implement key issues it raises like tax policy and jobs policies but it is a good start and those specifics would not be expected to be here-- they should be part of a proper campaign platform.
I would hope that the party produce those specifics then as well as the glitzy ads that we can afford more of now than previously.
This is not a condemnation of the aprty but a direction of what we need more of.
@MM:
Well here is where the 'movement thinker' comes in. If people want something, you can sell them on it, even if at the outset they dont understand excatly what you are trying to sell them on.
So if there is traction on an issue, you can sell them. And I think there is on 'sustainability' and what surrounds it.
I do also think that people could be sold on really caring about democratic reform that would include PR. But I think its harder with something that does not already have enough existing 'handles' in enough peoples values. And I'm just not willing to take the indirect route that others see as a utilitarian pre-requisite.
There is a difference there about seeing PR as a pre-requisite to getting anything else. On that we'll have to agree to disagree. But I sure hope people will stop the unspoken running together of that feeling that it is a [utilitarian] pre-requisite, with notions that there is some broad appetite for it.
The CCF got medicare in Saskatchewan. With FPTP, and with citizens not being ready at the start for what they ended up with. [And they did it with a gradual discussion, moving the bar in steps.]
That's true, and maybe I'm being too pessimistic. However, I'm 63, and nothing that has happened in Federal politics in my lifetime has hinted at a possibility of breaking the monopoly of the Liberal and Conservative parties on government. In fact, the only reason we have had minorities in the last decade, rather than more false majorities, is the anomalous existence and success of the BQ. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I just don't see how things change with the current electoral system. It may well be that nothing much will change with a better electoral system either, but at least there seems to me a possibility.
Yes, apparently the NDP is supposed to campaign as if the electoral dynamic is that of PR. And it's a formula for disaster. It wouldn't matter if Jesus was leader of the party and we had the stone tablets as platform planks. Canadians who do vote tend to vote for the sake of tradition. Meanwhile millions of Canadians' who do vote are frustrated by wasted votes, and the other 40% of Canadians not voting are just jaded altogether.
With FPP, several dollars equals one vote not one person equals one vote. The problem is that money + politics does not equal democracy. The red chamber has no place in a modern democracy either. These are tight times right now politically, and I think the Liberals are keeping low profile because the banks have instructed them to continue propping-up the Harpers. Their hands are tied by big money Bay Street interests, and so are the Harpers. The NDP is the only party of the four that doesn't owe favours to Bay Street or the American fossil fuel industry helping Canadians by taking the oil and gas and massive amounts of electric power off our hands for a song and a bottle. Actually, they need at least a few NDP MPs in Ottawa to make the whole setup appear legit while robbing us blind.
With the BQ and the Liberals inability to govern now an opportunity to get PR-- if the BQ were to fail that window would fail as both the Cons and the Liberlas would see no purpose and together they have enough power in preventing it. At least now the Liberals might see a purpose and at least not block it...
Interestingly the BQ seems to have no trouble with PR in spite of the obvious cost to them of it.
Its worth noting that if the tone shifts to "if the NDP did more about democratic reform and PR specifically we would get something out of it", rather than "if the NDP really cared ,or its suspicious that the NDP....."
Then I would no longer have an interest in arguing that you categorically have no idea how hard it is to get some movement. And when I make that argument its not because I want to defend the NDP. Rather, because as I think should be apparent here, I see the thinking that it is a tap turned on [or not] to be a fundamental obstacle in us making progress.
Ken, I think this is where some of us differ. I think that the NDP screws up or disappoints often enough but do not question the intent and therefore continue to support the NDP.
Others, have drawn other conclusions. These are both legitimate points of view and there is little to convince the other since these are judgments of trust more than actual facts on the ground. As well they are questions of priority and value-- I don't agree with everything the party does but acknowledge that they do enough to justify my support.
I can acknowledge the possibility that my judgment could be wrong but based on what I know it is the best conclusion I can make. I think in most cases there are few differences about the facts and a lot more about speculation about motives.
Of course there are others who think the NDP can do no wrong and they are also unreachable and not useful to the party as they cannot prompt any progress and positive change if they always pronounce satisfaction.
In the end those supporters who believe the party needs to change but believe it worthy of support are not as different from those who believe it needs to change but do not deem it worthy of support. Beating each other up for this difference is hardly worth it-- I would encourage those who feel the party is not worthy of support to do what they are doing, mostly, do other non-partisan things and re-evaluate if we can get the changes we want. I'd prefer that they stayed in the party and helped that change happen but I can't change the judgment they have made since it is based on more than facts-- it is a conclusion, no better and no worse than my conclusion. And interestingly both conclusions are based on very similar facts and ought to be respected on both sides.
You should specify whether you are referring to what has been said about PR, or about taking that and what the NDP does to a much more general scale.
For what its worth, while I think I have good grounds for saying there is not as much existing traction on PR as a lot of people seem to think... I know thats an arguable point.
I only strenuously argue against notions that there is some kind of tap that the NDP just isnt interested in flipping over.
Which is related to the discussion around what people think Reform achieved- an admittedly bigger issue. And one that is not just about the NDP. And on that one I think I'm on really solid ground: that Reform did not do what people think it did, which the NDP could also do.
Sorry Ken-- I did mean the more general.
When it comes to PR, the NDP can respond but cannot lead this alone because the reaction has always been you will do anything that gets you more seats. Put another way the Federal NDP cannot promote it too much if the provincial NDP governments won't as they have less to gain other than democratic principles because they have won power without it. Looks too self-serving.
I think that from comfortable armchairs it is easy to say the NDP should or should not. I try to think about what the party could realistically achieve that it is not already. I can think of some things but PR, as much as I like the idea, is not one of them. As well, PR should come as a non-partisan democratic reform with a fiar bit of traction before a single party can adopt it as policy-- I agree we are not there-- unfortunately.
Above, I was speakign about the pro-anti-NDP arguments that seem to be hinging on that slight bit of difference in terms of trust or priorities more than concrete factual differences. This is why, while I am a solid NDP supporter, I can understand and respect most of the strong-voiced NDP critics here at least when things are reasonably civil. And when they are not the problem is often on both sides. In the things that matter we are allies so I was just commenting on this given all the blood-letting in many threads.
There is a general axiom for discerning how supportive parties are of PR and how hard they work to enact it. Their support varies inversely with the probability of victory under first past the post. As long as the federal party must function as a coalition of provincial parties including the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC NDP, its support for PR will be tepid and short-term. Layton's interest in vigorously promoting the system lasted one electoral cycle.
The problem is that the very moments when the federal party is sufficiently influential to get PR through are when there is a political crisis in Canada and it looks like the party could make a breakthrough under FPTP, case in point, Dion's coalition. Ultimately, whether in 1972, 2005 or 2008 the "this is our shot at a false majority and a European-style realignment," thinking overwhelms historical perspective and principle.
Link? The PQ has made noise about PR in the past but have never followed through.
I think that what SiamDave, HSFreethinkers, myself and others are trying to say is being over-complicated by KenS and others who are defending inaction and elevating it to some kind of strategic choice. I have said numerous times on babble that it would be great if the NDP added some resources to its website that would educate the party's membership and perhaps non-supporters who come to the website. I would have no problem if electoral reform was part of larger set of resources that includes other democratic deficit issues. All it requires is a researcher, writer and someone to post to the website. I have also acknowledged many times that the NDP cannot succeed in reforming the voting system on its own but that's no reason not to do the legwork. I think that the party may be underestimating the public's desire for some profound improvements to Canada's (and the provinces) democracy.
Not doing the education groundwork (even if it takes years) will lead to a lot of confusion (including in the NDP base) when the time comes for a real discussion on the national level. People need to understand that the Alternative Vote (run-off voting) is not a proportional system and not the solution that we need (with all due respect to Stockholm).
My earlier comment about Harper getting traction on the census was a bit muddled but what I was trying to say was that Harper was able to round up about 27% of support in no time at all. Not a majority, but also not an insignificant number. Obviously the opposition, media and others were also able to get traction on an issue which no one ever thought about before.
Sorry I don't have time to go back and find it but I do remember the BQ as being clear about support for PR if there was ever an opportunity.
The rest of your post I can agree with mostly-- especially the part about making resources available. It is also possible to create a report using international data on the subject.
I totally agree with the complaint that the NDP gets a platform and for some reason wants an entirely new one each election. It makes it difficult to see what the party stands for and leads to the impression that the answer is not much.
There needs to be a core program and that can include a series of democratic and accountability reforms and there is no reason why the party has to remake them each election.
Part of the problem is the misconception that you have to make news with your platform each time. You don't and there are many other ways to make news. The idea that each party has to eek out a platform piece by piece and all has to be original and secret before the campaign leads to very poor public policy and poor political choice.
Overcomplication was mentioned. Only tossed in my direction.
This in particular is not something that we have run into. So you are saying that the NDP shys away from PR, because the inconsistency of the NDP provincial governments is going to show up and be a drag? Whether or not you mean it as the main reason for not wanting to pursue it.
Where would we find evidence of this, or to refute it? Even indirect evidence.
Intuitively, it doesnt make sense to me. Plausible? Yes, of course. But I dont see it as likely.
I think that if the NDP could get traction enough on PR that people were paying close attention, it wouldnt come up in any big way. The federal NDP is out of synch with what the sections and governments do on a regular basis. It does make fodder for those taking whatver position opposes what the federal NDP wants to do, but it doesnt stop the federal NDP from talking up the issue.
I just dont see this as a potential problem. And if it isnt, its not going to inhibit the federal party pursuing PR.
If that were true then the federal NDP is supportive because no one expects it to win under FPTP.
The only way that the NDP is a combination of its sections is on the level of on the ground organizing- that no one outside the party even sees, and a lot inside the NDP dont really notice it either. The federal NDP and its sections routinely are on different policy paths. I already said dont think this would be a problem. Maybe someone would explain to me how it would be or some kind of evidence based on more than people's suspicions.
And I actually dont think the NDP has ever vigorously promoted PR. As long as Ed was around and pursuing it, he talked about it. And thats the extent of it, hardly vigorous promotion, or even close. My guess is that with Ed gone there is no deference to putting time into it because Ed wants to, and/or because there is Eds credibility to get it some notice. At any rate, without Ed it gets down to a harder calculation of is this going anywhere?
This is outright pure specuation. And not even good speculation.
"Dion's coalition"- which probably came more from Layton- came after an election. Where was the "breakthrough possibility" under FPTP? And the possibility was over in under 60 days, so where is/was this phantom influence?
And shots at a false majority in 1972, 2005 or 2008- who knew?
All you are looking for is something between 25 and 50% of policy staffing resources. Reallocated from where? what issues?
But your last point about the possible underestimating of potential is still valid, even if your guess of what could be put in is way off. Ed Broadbent would by no means not be the only one who would agree with you. Would include some MPs, no idea how many or what proportion. But then there's people like me, who think the limited resources would best be used elsewhere. [And dont worry, the resources arent wasted on fluff like developing communications around initiatives for lower ATM fees. It shouldnt surprise anyone that sort of thing does not take any policy staff time, and little communications time.]
Liberal Party leaders must take up the cause for ER or we're doomed as far as advancing the case for democracy goes. No one working under the NDP banner will be successful in convincing very many LPC supporters of the need for ER. Democracy is an idea that has to come from within that party itself. At that point we add their numbers to our's, and then we can ice a decent team. Remember, it's all about democracy and not what the NDP can force onto voters supporting other parties. Attempting to coerce them on ER at this point will only antagonize 'em. They have to conjure up the force within.
Summon the force, Liberals. Want it! Ask and you shall receive. ER is an issue not so unlike the gun registry or SSM. ER is a no-brainer.
Earlier in the discussion people have put out statistics from polling of how many people support PR.
Counter-arguments were made about why this cant be counted as support the NDP can be built on. I didnt pay attention to how far that went because its a discussion that requires some difficult approximations of weighing of apples versus oranges. Not a question we could resolve here.
I also expect it is something that has been queried by NDP Caucus staff- and didnt look promising enough to warrant it being more than one among other things the NDP promotes.
But then I'm very confident that the NDP Caucus universally wants PR. Its just too much in the interest of the federal NDP. It even dovetails with the party's limited incrementalist approach to politics... being the shorter road to some kind of greater power. Screw what the provincial sections might want or not- they dont say anything, and wont be in the way. Even their bad example wont be substantially in the way.
I'm surprised that it isnt just the habitual strong critics of NDP positions who think the Caucus is just too conflicted to want to pursue PR. So I'm not sure what to make of that, or that I see it so differently. [And while it might not look like it here, I'm not exactly known within the NDP as someone who goes along with groupthink.]
The NDP championing ER as a single issue election campaign would be like trying to wage war on two fronts in Europe. It doesn't work. Look what happened with FTA debate from 1988 to 1993. We would need an alliance with at least one other major political party and for them not bail on voters once they are elected.
I think Seans right that a weakened Liberal Party might open up enough. Even if there is a new minority government after the next election and the Liberals do nothing more than give it lip service then... presuming they come out of that government still not back to being the LPC of old.
But thats not the point in this discussion. The discussion has been about what the NDP does or doesnt do in the here and now, with even openess from the LPC being not on the horizon.
I think the NDP is doing what it needs to do considering the dynamics of FPP campaigns and elections. We alone are not going to incite millions of non-voters to suddenly start voting. Those jaded Canadians have attended one too many shitty house parties thrown by the other two that they won't be coming back. That leaves the NDP to appeal to the narrow 59% who are bothering to vote. We put forward fiscal responsibility Tommy Douglas style, and we keep doing the little things really well, like reducing ATM fees and bank charges in general, green policies for the economy, and supporting the troops in our own way. Yes we will.
Remember, FPP rewards those parties that do the little things really well. Harper has the most well funded campaign war chest of all three parties, and they've tanked! ReformaTories are dead-even with the Liberals still after plying Canaidans with such tantalizing enticements as more vicious toadying in Afghanistan and census forms shananigans. We just go hard. Keep plugging away. Talk the talk where and whenever we can. And pound the pavement come election time. And remember to be really polite even if they slam the door on us or talk nonsense in the face of reason. Courteous and polite will win the day.
As am I. I also feel very confident that Jack personally wants PR every bit as much as Ed Broadbent, if not more. Ed was never able to bring the party along with him. But the same convention that elected Jack passed a resolution supporting PR, and not just a quick rubber-stamp, but a major debate on a report from a committee that had worked for two years, with a floor debate on an amendment (an unofficial minority report) to add a reference to a 5% threshold, which carried. In short, the party willingly made PR a priority in 2003.
The question is, will the federal party take any action to help move the issue forward? It can't be done by one party alone. But silence makes it look like a Green Party issue. The Alberta and Quebec Liberals, who need PR both provincially and federally, cannot be expected to stick their noses out too far when they look to be voices in Elizabeth May's wilderness. Every poll, even the botched referendums, showed PR more popular than the NDP. There's just no downside, except in the minds of the odd strategists who think medicare is our only signature issue and can't imagine Jack being "the Tommy Douglas of Democracy." But whenever Jack is in a scrum and PR comes up, he is passionate and eloquent. Unleash Jack!!!
The BQ is the key but not for that reason.
True, they know PR is democratic. Duceppe has personally been a PR advocate as long as Jack. But the PQ is conflicted, because Charest's caucus came out with a poor PR model that would have helped no one but the Liberal Party, so many in the PQ started saying "PR yes, but after independence." The Bloc used to support PR, but it is gone from their website. In 2006 when Ed got a parliamentary committee to start the PR ball rolling, the Bloc wrote a perfectly accurate comment:
An exact prediction of what Harper did when he got the anti-PR Frontier Centre for Public Policy to conduct a fake consultation.
No, the Bloc is the key to the Liberals, because the Bloc benefits from FPTP even more than the Alberta and Saskatchewan Conservatives. The majority of Canadians voted Liberal, NDP or Green in 2008. The Bloc would not have won the balance of power in 2008, nor in 2006, nor in 2004, under PR. The Liberals may finally wake up to this. For comparison, the federal PCs were the worst victims of FPTP in 1993, 1997, and 2000, and they finally woke up and supported PR at their Edmonton convention in 2002. (But then they were conned into "unite-the-right" instead.) They were somewhat slow learners. But the western Liberals have needed PR since 1979. After the Quebec Liberals needing it for three elections, the Party may have learned. As Chantal Hebert recently wrote: "If the Liberals are serious about restoring their status as a national institution, it is time for them to abandon their faith in short-term electoral short cuts and rethink their approach to a more proportional voting system." There will be Liberals who agree - let's give them a reason to come forward.
Polls showed most voters in B.C. and Ontario support a system based on proportional representation, they just didn't like the systems on offer in those referendums. The UK's Jenkins Commission gave a colourful explanation that accurately predicted why closed province-wide lists would be rejected in Canada: additional members locally anchored are "more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions."
Okay-okay, Jack and the NDP could do more. But again, I think the choice to support ER has to come from within each of us as well as within each political party. I've changed my mind now and believe that ALL THREE or four political party leaders must support ER in order that enough people take notice. We need a federal level public information campaign over some reasonable period of time. But there has to be all-part support for ER, which is critical to the very essence of democracy itself. But we will not be successful in any attempt to impose our will on others, and those millions of Canadians will not take instruction from just the NDP on the issue.
Our anachronistic single-member plurality electoral system has created a situation whereby Canada now has the least democratic government in the developed world!
Now that Australia and the UK have coalition governments, Canada has the most illegitimate government in the developed world.
Is it too much to ask that Canada's governments represent somewhere near half of the voters?
Post of the thread #58!