Swing Voters

Yes I am tired of that garbage about the NDP defeating the Liberals. It is an absolute fact that had every New Democrat come in to the House and voted with the Liberals the government would still have fallen. I am tired of Liberals and their supporters lying about this.

Nothing could have prevented the government falling other than a deal with the BQ or Conservatives. The NDP knowing the Liberals were going down anyway elected to vote with the opposition at the time due to the Liberals record.

As a point fo fact when the Liberals and the NDP had enough votes the NDP did in fact side with the Liberals.

You can check all this out -- all over the place  -- Wiki is a start as it will give you all kinds of links to the original sources.

.

I'll also add that in Saskatchewan, from 1944 to 1978, the dominant right-wing opposition to the CCF-NDP was organized under the Liberal banner, as is currently the case in British Columbia. Also, remember that in 1998, when there was a tie between the NDP and the PCs for the most seats in Nova Scotia, the Liberals backed the PCs.

I don't know what board you think you're on, because this board loves to rip into Mulcair and demand more boldness, more activity on anti-poverty, anti-imperialism, and so on.

If this same board has 10 times as much contempt for the Liberal Party than it does for the NDP, it's because the Liberal party's contributions here have been NEGATIVE over the past 25 years.

Maybe Mulcair is being timid in focusing on a small increase in pensions or health care, paid for with a small increase in corporate taxes (while personal taxes for the rich are left alone). But the Liberals were the ones who slashed the social safety net to pay for corporate tax breaks.

.

janfromthebruce wrote:

The Liberals for the past 10 years have been losing voters and ridings. Including northern Ontario, and moving west the vast majority of seats are NDP and Con contests.

Not sure what issue he takes a stand on, and as for gravis, pray tell what book has he written, what policy or position has he campaigned prior to getting elected, and while a backbencher?

Ignat had written numerous books, a world reknowned scholar as some said. Where did that get him.

Harper as we know has written so many books on public policy and also discussed policy at large with voters in the last election by taking 5 questions a day and asking the candidates to not attend all candidate meetings. I am sure thats the reason why he won the elction. 

You are right about Libs losing votes and NDP gaining them but it has nothing to do with how many books their leaders had written, it was messaging. The talking points. And a record of broken promises.

janfromthebruce wrote:

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

I'm glad at least we are on the same page and Trudeau Jr. star quality is based on nothing he brings to the table on a personal and professional level except the last name. Of course, the rich and elites and corporate brokers know that Trudeau will be their boy because he is one of them.

Brings back fond memories of Bush Jr.

Iggy's problem was that people didn't trust him and one was better off voting for the real deal - conservative - rather than the fake one who was pandering all over the place.

I remember laughing when the debate between Harpe and Iggy was about the percentage of corporate taxcuts, and whether one should buy fighter jets with engines or without.

I find that scary too, but i believe thats the truth. I just experienced it in BC more recently and also as i pointed out last federal elction was not won by discussing policy it was won by messaging. The mistrust for Iggy in peoples minds was not because of his policy stances but because 'he was just visiting'.

It is a separate conversation about who has more gravitas and experience and how elections are won and lost. Remember Bush Jr won 2 elections and wasnt exactly a genius.

As for real conservative and fake conservative, same has been said here about real Liberal and fake Liberal.

And also thanks for pointing it out that I am a Liberal, I never knew that. Since i disagreed with you, I must be a Liberal.

Pondering I think you are confusing the budget discussions with the circumstances around when the government fell.

The budget discussions with Layton earlier that year were in a different context.

When the government fell the Liberals and the NDP had 151 seats the BQ and Conservatives also had 151 and agreed to bring down the government There were 2 seats vacant and 4 independents. The government's fate rested with the independents.

Parrish who had been a Liberal committed to vote with the government

Pat O'Brien also former Liberal had committed to bringing down the government

David Kilgour also a former Liberal also agreed to vote down the government

Another independent friendly to the Conservatives voted down the Martin government.

As such Martin with or without the NDP was doomed.

The earlier budget negotiations that year (that you are confusing the fall of the government) , the government hung on in part with the NDP and Belinda Stronach who crossed the floor as well as Chuck Cadman. This allowed a tie broken by the Liberal speaker. By the end of the year the math had moved against the government which required either support from the independents, the BQ or the Conservatives. Neither the NDP or Martin had any negotiating to do and everybody in the country knew it.

Since then we get Liberals lying about history pretending that the NDP's decision brought down the government. They do that because they feel that in a straight up contest with the NDP they will lose but if they can scare people into thinking the NDP helps the Conservatives win, people will vote for their less preferred option. It's dishonest, unethical, complete bullshit and very, very, Liberal.

That is the style of the Liberal party. Many people see through it and this is one reason why the Liberals are the third party.

Please get your facts straight. This is all public record.

I wrote

Quote:

You are right about Libs losing votes and NDP gaining them but it has nothing to do with how many books their leaders had written, it was messaging. The talking points. And a record of broken promises.

It was my opinion that the messaging was more important than the number of books a party leader had written. Nowhere did i say that it was what Liberals thought.

In reply

Quote:

yes, all it takes is messaging and lack of experience and any gravis is irrelevant. Geez, I find it scary that Liberals think that is all that matters.

I thought that messaging matters, and the reply was that it is scary Liberals think that messaging is all that matters. So essentially equating my opinion to be an opinion of a Liberal.

Now you may have not intended it to mean that way and i was just replying to what was written and not what was the intention behind what was being written which was impossible for me to know.

It would be even better if we could just communicate clearly and write what we intend and not expect others to read our minds. As i mentioned in my earlier post you had clearly that my opinion is an opinion of a Liberal. There was no need to mention'Liberal' when disagreeing with my opinion. I am sure we can disagree without innuendo.

Conservatives dont like to disagree with somebody without insulting them.

Supporting an unpopular gov't that's mired in corruption is a tricky business.  The fact that Layton did support Martin on one occasion to pass the budget led to two things:  1) severe criticism of Martin within the Globe and Mail (a front page editorial denouncing the deal) and 2.) a possible risk to the NDP to appear to approve of the Liberal corruption (which potentially could affect their chances in Quebec, something the NDP was obviously working on).  However, Layton did negotiate the first deal with them, but Martin refused to negotiate a deal with Layton afterword -- instead, it was Martin declaring support us or topple us we are not making any deals.  Layton then tried to make a deal to delay the effects of the non-confidence motion with Martin (IE, if Martin could call an election for March of next year, so that some of the important legislation could be put through, the NDP would not support the non-confidence motion near December) but Martin refused.  So the election happened earlier in December.

So I am always surprised at Liberal supporters who put the blame on the NDP for this.  Also, the vote would have required the independents to support it, which may not have been possible (as Jan mentioned).

"In politics perception is more important than reality. Why were there any negotiations between Layton and Martin if he couldn't prop up the government? What would be the point? The papers at the time certainly gave the impression that Layton could do it."

Pondering, I have spoken personally with three NDP MPs that I know personally who have all told me without my saying I had been similarly told by their colleagues that the final nail in the coffin was that Martin WOULD NOT commit to signing a resolution that would have bound him to penalizing provinces that introduced increased medical privitization. Martin was given an opportunity to do the right thing and prove the LPC commitment to the public medical system, and refused. There were plenty of negotiations; Martin had has chance and when asked to do the right think and protect the Candian Medical system, he refused.

Now, given that I was told this by three honorable people, who would not lie, I know them, there is NO question, that the Liberals were the crafters of their own demise. No one forced them to jump; they made that decision on their own.

And again, before you challenge the veracity of the claims of these MPs, I'd suggest you be careful. That kind of assertion means these MPs were lying; there would be no other conclusion you could reach. The facts are what they are.

Mulcair hasn't even mentioned the Liberal leader, let alone said the word "Trudeau". Something so notable that even the newspapers keep pointing it out. The NDP strategy HAS been to focus purely on the Conservatives until now, and I always thought that was a mistake. Just because the Liberals were down and out doens't mean that the NDP is the "natural alternative". The NDP still has to run against the two status quo parties.

Yes, and not become a "status quo" party, itself. 

.

.

.

.

.

If you're on the left and you're aiming to become more centrist, you must move to the right.  Consequently, the removal of socialism and social ownership from the NDP's constitution is a move to the RIGHT.  The party's strategy is to compete for the Liberal vote, which makes it more difficult to argue against pre-election cooperation between the two parties.  If this strategy gains favour among more and more New Democrats, voters on the left may find themselves scratching their heads when it's time to vote in 2015.  

.

Or maybe it was just another regularly scheduled update. Or should we recycle all of the campaign materials from 50 years ago, because anything else would be a sell-out?

If you REALLY want to know when the NDP abandoned "social ownership", it was almost 50 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Manifesto

The Regina Manifesto proposed social service programs such as publicly funded health care, supported peace, promoted co-operative enterprises and vowed that "No C.C.F. Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth."

The Regina Manifesto remained the CCF's official programme until 1956 when, in the face of the strong anti-communist sentiment of the Cold War, it was replaced by the more moderate Winnipeg Declaration which substituted Keynesian economics for socialist remedies.

I really have to shake my head at the people still debating a routine update to the preamble. The people who wanted to eradicate capitalism left the NDP a long time ago. And they occasionally stop talking about how they abandoned the NDP just long enough to create a tiny irrelevant faction to supposedly save the NDP from abandoning its socialist principles, again. No, ignore the other times, this time, the NDP is abandoning socialism for REAL.

Policywonk wrote:

Geoff wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Lens Solution wrote:

Trudeau is definitely to the right of his father on economic policy, and is more fiscally conservative.  But ever since Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan pushed economic policy to the right in the Western world, all parties are now forced to campaign closer to the 'center'.  Trudeau is probably doing the smart thing.  The person who can win red tories/blue liberals is the one best-positioned to win.  This is why Tony Blair moved Labour to the right with New Labour in the 1990's.

This is also what Mulcair and the NDP are doing now.  This is what led to the rift last year between the Mulcair wing & the Topp/Ed Broadbent wing.  The decision to remove 'socialism' from the NDP charter this year was an attempt to move the NDP to the center.  Harper has suceeded in moving Canada (particularly Ontario) to the right.  I think both Trudeau and Mulcair are trying to capture the swing voter red tory types.  Whoever gets those in Ontario in the next election has the best chance of winning.

 

The Topp wing?  Guess we're getting into old silly battles here, but wasn't Topp, former moderate Saskatchewan NDP advisor, part of the Jack Layton team that wanted socialism removed from the NDP constitution?  

exactly. And socialism is still in the constitution. Oh, it's updated to reflect the progessiveness of the environment and social justice.

Differentiating between "updating" socialism and "watering down" socialism is a most challenging exercise.  The NDP didn't need to change the Constitution to demonstrate its commitment to the environment and social justice; we've always stood for those values. 

As I've said elsewhere, the changes to the preamble were about committing the party to the market economy and rejecting alternatives such as social ownership.  If you check the Liberal website, there are countless references to the environment and social justice, which are broadly defined principles that almost any party could live with. 

In fact, the new preamble signals to voters that the NDP will not challenge the mainstream assumptions of the market system, although we may occasionally be more willing than the other parties to go to Bay St., cap in hand, and say, "Please sir, can the rest of us have some more."  

The changes to the preamble are so vague as to commit the Party to nothing concrete, including a rejection of social ownership. That's the problem with the preamble, not a perceived shift to the right that actually happened a long time ago.

I wouldn't suggest for a minute that these latest changes to the party's "rule book" are sudden or dramatic.  Indeed, there has been a long, steady drift away from the socialist roots of the party for over half a century.  However, I believe language is important, because it controls ideas.  Eliminate the words and the ideas follow.  Orwell would agree, I think.

If there is no significance to changing the wording of the preamble, then why do it?  The party has taken one more step toward distancing itself from its ideological roots and reducing the options for voters to weigh in favour of a general acceptance of the market system.

While this change might not be earth-shattering for many, I don't think it should be overlooked as nothing more than a bureaucratic word game.  Never underestimate the power of words. 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The reason is because we live in the age of twitter and 24 hour news media. The preamble IS meaningless in the sense that virtually no one in the country will ever take it upon themselves to read any of the party preambles... EXCEPT if the preamble says something glaringly outdated and out of touch, and the spindoctors turn that "meaningless" statement into controversy.

You know what else I'm tired of? Trying to fight for childcare, proportional representation, and fair trade... only to get stuck defending terminology from 150 years ago, as if a bunch of dead philosophers get more say over the direction of the party than than we do.

Very well put. The preambles of party constitutions are deservedly obscure. Unless one of them contains some hot-button wording that can be turned into a big, scary Ooga-Booga by the press and old line parties. These recent changes, in my opinion, are strictly defensive moves that are intended to avoid the necessity to spend time talking about the preamble that should be spent talking about real policies like "childcare, proportional representation, and fair trade".