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
- agree in spades
Agreed. But these different policy paths are not normally nearly as high-stakes. The NDP backing structural reforms federally that are both desperately needed and corrosive to its power provincially is a higher cost, more problematic action, than differing over something like the long gun registry.
I don't accept this reverse onus. Your "prove it!" standard is not one you are self-applying in this debate. How about offering us something better than "I don't think that's what's going on"? We're offering a reasoned theory; you're offering bald denial. So let me put this to you: why do you think that people who rely on FPTP provincially and advocate vigorously for that system at the provincial level would have no problem functioning as good faith PR supporters at the national level?
You're preaching to the choir, Ken.
Why not demonstrate rather than assert this then?
Under Dion's leadership, when we nearly came level with the Liberals in the polls, the same kind of discourse swirled around the NDP that I remember from the 1985-1988 period when it was speculated by New Democats that the country was about to undergo a European-style realignment whereby the Liberals were reduced to a rump and New Democrats finally became Canada's proper SDP. This, I imagine, had a lot to do with the policy agenda fronted by Dion and Layton not including any PR and the NDP appearing to make only the most minor efforts.
Trudeau offered Lewis PR and the NDP turned it down. That's pretty much an established fact. He did so in the wake of the 1972 campaign disaster "the Land is Strong," when New Democrats felt that looking like they had achieved economic results for people would be more likely to produce the magical realignment in '74.
So yes, I stand behind my claim that given a choice between a plausible fiction of imminent realignment and principled support for PR, the NDP consistently chooses the former.
I haven't heard that. Link?
I have heard claims that Trudeau offered Ed Broadbent PR in 1980, which I do not believe is true. He did offer Ed a coalition, with several NDP cabinet ministers, as a result of the Liberal wipe-out in the West, which Ed and the caucus turned down. But as for PR, Trudeau's 1980 Speech from the Throne promised a parliamentary committee on electoral reform, but then his own caucus shot down even a committee, so he could not have offered PR to Ed.
Oh, so stuart you are taking an example from 30+ years ago to bolster your nonsensical premise of the NDP consistently choosing FPTP and denying PR.
~
...it is becoming pretty damn sickening around here in respect to the fabrications, and distorations, in respect to the NDP and indeed the name calling, actually labelling would be more accurate, of those who are NDP partisans, in a real way, is actually verbal abuse.
Well I'm impressed to know that their supporters think as highly of PR enough to want to imagine that it happened. It's a good sign.
Only if you ignore the other examples from the past five years that I put in exactly the same post.
Here's my thoughts on PR, and I have a feeling they are going to be controversial:
I find it hard to care. It seems to me like it is promoted by people in the NDP simply because they want more seats. It seems to me like the NDP wants PR federally and for every province but BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia.
Some people think that if the NDP gets PR then it will get more seats (not just from PR itself, but they're convinced that there are a lot of people voting strategically, or who would switch if the NDP ever overtakes the Liberals just once) and lead to a new era of progressive social change. Fair enough on the "more seats" part, but it's a big mistake to assume that simply getting more increasingly Blairite NDPers elected will solve all your problems. It hasn't been working in provinces with NDP majority governments, and it sure as hell won't work to just bring the federal NDP caucus from 30-something to 60-something.
So, my opinion is electoral reform, sure (FPTP is a crappy system), but don't pretend it's something more than a new way to divide the spoils of electoral politics between black, white and orange cats.
Except the orange cats are really mice and not enjoying any cheese donations or influence pedaling by the fat-cats on Bay Street.
PR is about one mouse equaling one vote in mouseland, and nothing more complicated than that.
56. We should at least have had 56 seats in '08 if rep was proportional. Under an actual PR system, the seat counts would be different altogether.
One person one vote -that's all we want. FPTP is election fraud.
In my opinion, genstrike, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Many of the posters who have been most strongly in support of PR, including me, are not NDP members, and only vote for that party because we have an FPTP system. If we had a PR system, there is a good chance we might have a true left wing party that could get 5% or more of the vote, and thus 16 or more seats. In that case, I'd be putting my vote there, instead of with the NDP.
And, while I don't personally support the Green party, the million or more people who do support them also deserve to have their votes count. Same goes for right wing, even religious parties, which I abhor. Despite my opinion of them, if this is to be a democracy, they deserve representation in parliament as well.
Most importantly, the false majorities which have made almost all the important decisions in Canadian history would be a thing of the past. Maybe getting closer to actual democracy isn't of much importance to you, but it sure as hell is to me.
Just re-read your post again, and indeed saw no such thing.
Please do indicate what examples you gave....
So, we have Layton signing on to save the Martin government in 2005 with no PR in the deal. We have Layton agreeing on a multi-point policy agenda with Dion in 2008 with no PR in the deal. Is that sufficiently clear?
LOL
You know what I love about you, remind? The respect, precision and sophistication with which you engage with people who do not agree with you. If only our whole democratic socialist movement could be modeled on the high calibre of discourse that you model.
That's true but there are a lot of people outside of the NDP that support PR because they want to see an improvement of our archaic democracy. I'm surprised the only people you know who support PR are NDP partisans, that's certainly not the situation in BC.
That's also true and as it's been pointed out by others on here the NDP has blown it on this issue and has very little credibility left. There are clearly too many in the party's brass who take the Stockholm analysis of Canadians that they are stupid and oblivious to both the broken nature of our democracy and blatant hypocrisy.
This could have been a winner for the NDP but they would have had to step outside just trying to score short term partisan points and instead taken a long term strategy of pushing the issue and worked towards building a non-partisan alliance dedicated to electoral reform. There have been lots of opportunities for that but I don't see it happening anymore, that ship has sailed.Stuart on the history in the NDP. I also dont think you are right about Trudeau and Lewis. I dont have definite knowledge of that, but I do pay attention, and Wilf Day pays more attention than me. Both of us dont think that sounds right.
Now I know you are dead wrong and winging it on what you impute about the last several years. The only evidence you have is talk in the NDP increasing on the theme of overtaking the Liberals. At best, thats not evidence that it realigns peoples thinking on what is best for the NDP. In other words, and again at best, you only have a plausible case of motive.
I know or know of some of the people who engage in that kind of talk. For one thing they are a minority in the 'inner circle. Its certainly considered credible, but not bought into by everyone- especially as something 'just around the bend'. and even those who buy into it going on doing the day to day stuff and planning for next month as if such ideas had nothing at all to do with strategy. In fatc, they think they can get there by doing this incrementalist stuff. Keep doing it, and one day we're there. Doesnt even make sense to me. But thats neither here nor there. The point is that watching them do what they do, you dont see even evidence they take seriously the big talk.
Let alone 1972, you named 3 times in the last several years when you think the NDP was getting jazzed up about the big breakthrough that was coming under FPTP condidtions- "so we wouldnt want to spoil that". You've given no evidence at all of even one of those.
"So, we have Layton signing on to save the Martin government in 2005 with no PR in the deal. We have Layton agreeing on a multi-point policy agenda with Dion in 2008 with no PR in the deal. Is that sufficiently clear?"
You think that is proof? Sure sounds like you think so.
Occams Razor: even Dion- as desperate a possible tool as we could ever hope to have- would not take supporting PR as a condition from the NDP [it would secure him a certain deposing, as opposed the maybe deposing he got]. And as badly as the Liberals will need the NDP when Harper doesnt get his majority, demanding anything more than a plebiscite would be a non-starter, and my guess is that even a plebiscite might be a deal breaker [though they are getting progressivley more fearful of their future]. And Martin? Martin refused to even negotiate on privatizing healcare. So the NDP demanding PR as a condition is a joke.
Circumstantial evidence is what yoiu have at best- if you could make a case that PR could have been extracted from the Liberals.
"So let me put this to you: why do you think that people who rely on FPTP provincially and advocate vigorously for that system at the provincial level would have no problem functioning as good faith PR supporters at the national level?"
First of all cut down the framing to appropriate size: people dont advocate vigorously for FPTP because they dont have to. They do nothing. [And if you want PR, let you stew over them as the inconsistency.]
Like I said, we dont need them. You are right, they wont help. But thats very small potatoes next to other obstacles.
Remember that I'm the one who said its not as easy to REALLY put PR into play as people think. And that is just not a contributing problem.
Thats an attribution of positions to people. Its not even accurate about what Stockholm said, let alone its a dismissive tactic to take what one person says as representing everyone else with a similar position. It sure as hell isnt remotely like anything I said, and I object to being included in your charicature.
But you are welcome if you want to back that up with actual people saying that Canadians are stupid and oblivious to the problems of our democracy.
You're kidding, right? Here's a "starter plan" that might require a policy person for 25-50% of two days, a writer for a couple of hours and a webmaster for a couple more hours.
1) Set up a section on the website called "proportional representation" or "electoral reform" or "voting system reform". Perhaps make it a sub-tab of "Governance" on the "Vision" menu.
2) Write a short introductory statement that unequivocally states that the NDP will support ANY form of PR that it can negotiate with the other parties because ANY FORM OF PR has got to be better than FPTP and that's because, as Fidel says, it gives all voters equal votes. Stubbornly clinging to one type of PR does make the party look self-serving and gives the party an out (e.g. BC referendum)
3) Link to all existing federal & provincial policies on PR including the 2003 policy that does not seem to be available.
4) Link to Fair Vote Canada, other groups and academia where detailed resources about PR models exist on their websites.
5) Update the section periodically when there is new content to post.
6) Ensure that all MPs have PR talking points that they can use at the appropriate times but as often as possible.
There is a misunderstanding. Or multiple. You listed some staff resources. As it read, it would take that much of the staff resources.
Apparently that isnt what you meant. But even if you did mean it, as I assumed at the time, in quoting me you left out the part where I said doesnt matter, I'll take it as you saying more could be devoted.
The website is pathetic all around, so judging what it doesnt have on any issue is kind of pointless. The "little things" like that are not done on countless issues.And the lack of interactivity goes beyond the website.
ETA on point 6) :
There wont be opportunities to use the talking points if the NDP does not make them happen. They arent lying out there. The present situation being bad is not iin itself an opportunity to talk and be heard. Those opportunities happen when you prepare the ground. [And none of your previous 5) would subsatantively contribute to doing that.]
Why thank you Stuart, I am surprise that you realized the extent of my economy of words in respect to your empty positions. It is a skill I have honed over the years of dealing with men who are too full of their own privilege, though I shoulda started using it here sooner.
As I leave the long rebuttal diatribes over nonsense to the other male posters these days, as opposed to wasting my time.
This is a big part of the problem, the difference here.
People think that you move an issue by talking, having talking points, issue press releases.
When you do all that, and its an empty room, what next?
I liken PR to SSM rights and women's rights, children's rights etc. It's a no brainer and shouldn't even be up for debate. We need to help/cajole the two oldest political parties in Canada to recognize equal voting rights in our fair country. The struggle for democracy continues.
Bravo. Recently NDP strategists have been copying the unsuccessful strategy of the Green Party on this. Every election, I end up arguing with Green Party activists that put 75% of their time and effort into making noise so that Elizabeth May gets into the TV debates. If they spent as much time & energy to educate Canadians on why electoral reform was so important, they would be much farther ahead in the long term. But like NDP activists (and leadership, apparently), they can't see beyond the latest hot-button issue.
For a minute let's set aside the obvious democratic and policy advantages that proporational representation could offer Canada, and look at naked self-interest. The NDP have to start playing the long game, and they have to start realizing that for them to get real power to change things - consistently for every election going forward - there has to be fair and proportional voting system in place. No other single policy reform will put the federal NDP closer to the levers of power, forever.
New Democrat apologists sometimes give excuses for the party paying lip service to electoral reform by telling you that it's not an issue that Canadians care about (so why bother with it). If Canadians indeed couldn't care less about proportional representation, it's not electoral reformers who have a major problem, it's the NDP - they are the ones that will pay the biggest price by being marginalized for as long as we have first-past-the-post. No other party in Parliament is hampered more by lack of true democratic representation in this country.
If there's progress to be had, the NDP has to start taking ownership of the issue. Start educating voters, start moving on the issue. It's good politics for the long-term, and it's just plain good policy.
PR has been a platform plank of the NDP's for years. The NDP declared a motion to restart the federal study on electoral reform in May of 2007. Of course, it was voted down by the two oldest political parties like every other Parliamentary motion originating from the NDP.
The NDP still does have to play by FPP electoral dynamics, an obsolete method of voting which tends to punish voters not voting for the two mainstream parties. The NDP has to strike a balance between all promoting all progressive issues and doing what it takes to have as many democratic voices in Parliament as possible and speaking out on behalf of the widest range of progressive issues on behalf of Canadians as possible.
The NDP knows what the results are when it puts all its eggs in one basket and becomes a one issue party. The FTA-NAFTA debates are a bad example of that happening with the majority of Canadians betrayed on those major issues of trade and economic sovereignty. Those people wishing the NDP to please commit FPP electoral suicide by transforming itself into a one issue party will probably continue to be disappointed. The NDP is still an important voice in Parliament regardless of how distorted the vote to seat counts are. The NDP owes it to its support base to win as many seats as it can every FPP election. It's what the NDP will attempt to do every election. The NDP will probably not become a one issue party anytime soon. I think it would be political suicide for the NDP to abandon the fight for medicare and women and children's rights to focus on an issue which the two mainstream parties are not ready to deal with. That decision has to come from within those two parties for ER and PR to stand a real chance in Canada. As it was with the FTA-NAFTA and GST debates, the NDP simply does not have the resources to do an effective public information campaign for PR. If I am not mistaken, in every country where ER-PR was successful, there was a national level effort to educate voters.
Straw man argument. I haven't read a single person suggest that the NDP should campaign on ER as a single issue election campaign. Some people on this thread who are apologists for the party doing nothing on ER in the last few years seem to think that's what the pro-PR people are asking for. It is not, as far as I've read - just make it a principal part of a whole election platform. Important - not the be all and end all. Because right now it's been relegated so far back on the burner that people have to wonder about the sincerity.
I agree that PR is in both the interests of the NDP and GPC. [And people have suggested only plausible motives that the NDP leadership does not really see PR as in their interests.]
And I also have made the point that even though the GPC says more than does the NDP about PR, it isnt categorically more. And by the same way I judge the NDP- the actions of the GPC leadership shown in what issues they actually put time into, by that where-is-the-beef measure, PR isnt really a priority.
So in bothe parties' case, its in their interest, but they dont make it a priority.
How do people explain that?
I think we're having a hard time understanding each other and that's unfortunate.
I don't agree that the room is empty. Nor would I say that it's full if you're referring to voters. Life is complicated and people are able to have views on multiple issues at the same time. Awareness of PR has probably never been higher in Canada. Most of our society is politically apathetic, except at election time. For a lot of people, politics has become a bad reality tv show and the notion of civic responsibility (and engagement) has become just another consumer choice. They mistrust politicians and political parties. They're barraged with sound bites and gimmicks. It's a sad state of affairs.
So "what's next"? I guess the answer to that question depends on the objectives and being able to have effective short, medium and long term plans - to operate strategically. "What's next" includes prioritizing "democracy" itself as it is under steady and vicious attack by the Harper Conservative agenda. How politics are done is probably just as important to the voters as good (or bad) policy. Build it and they will come. Let it erode and it might die. There are new generations of voters and citizens coming of age who don't like what they see and need to understand why politics appear so fucked up. Who's going to tell them the truth about our rotten electoral system and our rotten economic system?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the NDP taking a huge gamble on ER-PR as psmith suggests. I just know that it would be political suicide for the NDP to focus off of the wide range of issues to concentrate on ER. It's a huge gamble and one that I think would not reap the rewards people like psmith suggest it might.
In fact, if the NDP were to lose very many seats, the pressure would be off the Liberals and Tories to even consider ER-PR. That's all those two parties care about right now is winning the much coveted phony majority dictatorial power in Ottawa and transforming even more Canadian votes into frustrated non-voters. The idea here with FPP is to punish and frustrate voters who support all three parties in general, but at the same time, it's good to punish voters of third and fourth parties even moreso. And the best way to frustrate NDP and Green party voters is to make every FPP as hard a go as possible. There is a marathon poker game in progress ever since Layton became head of the party. And he has the two big money players at the table sweating a little. I at least want to see how this game plays out. FPP is like a card game of baseball poker, or perhaps bullshit poker. Or is FPP more like a box of chocolates? Stale and moldy chocolates?
Puh-lease Fidel. Even if you actually believe that anyone is promoting a "one issue party" (without a shred of evidence); and even if you believe that it could result in "electoral suicide", the tactic of casting aspersions ("those people wishing") on the motives of people with whom you disagree is sleazy and unnecessary. You are labeling us as enemies as a way to win an argument. Please stop it.
Agreed, Very much.
We dont agree. And as you said, hard to even agree about what we dont agree about. But not hopeless.
We probably agree at least that there is a gap between people care about how politics is done, and connecting that to PR as a solution. [Though it would be nice if people would acknowledge that they arent the same thing.]
The difference would be in how much it takes to close that gap.
Obviously, it takes more work.
How do you resolve the difference around 'more work alone doesnt cut it?' I dont know the answer to that.
One thing I'd add is that part of the difficulty in the gap between people desiring better done politics and PR as solution, is that a lot of the 'gap' to be covered is around the fundamental lack of faith even in what it is you want to reform. "What good is PR going to do?" Damn good question. There is a lot of chicken and egg in this that isnt aced by PR.
True of everything important. and...?
Which of course gets back to what the disagreement is about, and from my side, truth telling is not sufficient. If it was, we wouldnt be where we are.
And of course people dont mean it as simplistically as literaly just truth telling- "I speak, they hear". But I think you do mean in practice something far enough down the continuum, that just does not work for us.
I think I will leave FPP strategy to the strategists. And I'm sorry, but FPP is still very much in play in Canada. We meed shrewd leaders in the NDP not kamikaze strategy IMHO. I'm not labelling anyone as enemies, and I resent that remark.
The NDP has obligations to the widest range of Canadians to stick to our guns and try to be a democratic voice for as many people as possible. IMO, we would lose support if all we did was focus on ER-PR. Under FPP, every party has to appeal to as many voters as possible, and the best way to do that is to multi-task. Spend too much time on one issue, and the results are simply not worth it. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is with FPP. And I don't see the NDP as slackers when it comes to addressing the widest range of progressive issues as possible. The NDP is working very hard right now. And as everyone who knows PR should also realize, the NDP has to work a lot harder than the other two parties for every seat we do win. We can't give them an inch, or there will be even fewer NDP MPs representing all of those platform planks including ER-PR. And then where will we be?