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

re #52. 

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

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.

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

"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!   

"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.

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.

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?)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

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.

$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.

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?

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.

"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. 

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.

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

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.