NDP-has the "move to the centre" done more harm than good?

I think its about being clear about objectives.

Either the NDP is a weight that drags the political agenda to the left, and seeks real policy reform that way, without necessarily achieving victory, or it is a party that seeks victory in order to implement policy reform.

In either case compromises will be made, in the first because one of the other parties will water down the agenda to suit its own ideological view when they implement reform, or because the the NDP will water down its agenda to achieve victory.

That is the truth of electoral politics in western democracies. Maybe the means doesn't match the end?

No. I just don't think that you can have a electoral party with a big enough tent to win that strays far from the mainstream of ideological discourse.

For example, I would call for:

1) Default on the debt.

2) Nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy".

3) Taxation system that, through whatever means, takes 51% of the profits of the corporations and business.

4) Housing as a right.

5) Healthcare as a right.

That might not appeal to a broad base, as well as I might like.

Sam Gindin and Michael Hurley: [url=http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1030.php]Working Class Politics After the NDP[/url]

We have, in summary, laid out four steps here. First, activists in the trade union movement must organize themselves to end the NDP's bankrupt lock on the labour movement's politics. Second, we must clearly reject shifting the break with the NDP toward the right (i.e. by supporting the Liberals) and fight to direct the funds formerly contributed to the NDP into mass mobilization campaigns in alliance with social movements organizing on the ground. Third, to also allocate such funds to supporting the capacity of class-based movements supplementing and going beyond the work of unions and to do so in a way that integrates these movements and union activists at the base. Fourth, we've emphasized the need to initiate discussions in workplaces and communities that explicitly address a socialist party.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Sam Gindin and Michael Hurley: [url=http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1030.php]Working Class Politics After the NDP[/url]

We have, in summary, laid out four steps here. First, activists in the trade union movement must organize themselves to end the NDP's bankrupt lock on the labour movement's politics. Second, we must clearly reject shifting the break with the NDP toward the right (i.e. by supporting the Liberals) and fight to direct the funds formerly contributed to the NDP into mass mobilization campaigns in alliance with social movements organizing on the ground. Third, to also allocate such funds to supporting the capacity of class-based movements supplementing and going beyond the work of unions and to do so in a way that integrates these movements and union activists at the base. Fourth, we've emphasized the need to initiate discussions in workplaces and communities that explicitly address a socialist party.

Great article.

Unionist wrote:

Brachina wrote:

The Martin Budget wouldn't have passed always, the NDP did not have the balance of power, the independents did and they voted against the budget.

If you're going to re-write history, at least take a little time to review it first. The NDP supported the Martin budget of 2005, because they negotiated it with him. Martin's government wasn't defeated on any budget vote.

 

True but that at least is more accurate than the fiction that the NDP brought down Martin in the end.

That non-confidence motion had the NDP without the balance of power. Regardless of how the NDP voted the Martin governemnt was falling. This was known to everyone at the time.

The NDP voted against for several reasons in an empty gesture but had they voted for Martin the governmenet would have fallen on the combined vote of the indepepdents, BQ and Conservatives. Martin knew this was coming and when Layton tried to bargain Martin refused as the NDP did not have the votes to deliver anyway.

Liberals ever since pretend that Layton brought down the so called "progressive" budget of Martin.

The truth was that at the time the Martin government was falling the NDP also understood in the ensuing election had the NDP supported Martin they would have paid dearly and that election could not be prevented. Add to that the anger on the principle that Martin was heading a minoirity government that refused to negotiate for support.

I can't find the context of this Brachina quote-- and the wording suggests there is one. It is true that the Liberal budget would not have passed even if that non-confidence motion had never happened.

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Liberals ever since pretend that Layton brought down the so called "progressive" budget of Martin.

Why are you saying this, Sean? I've heard Liberals say Layton brought down the government, but not the budget - that never happened. And the 2005 Liberal budget must have been somewhat progressive, because Layton co-authored it:

NDP.CA wrote:

Months after taking his place in Parliament, Layton displayed his remarkable ability to get things done for families. By rewriting the 2005 budget, Layton successfully diverted $4.6-billion in corporate tax giveaways to important priorities like affordable housing, training and public transit.

This is what we hear. Liberals citing elements of that budget and saying the NDP voted against it. This is not new and it is easy to find examples. Liberals claim it could not be implemented due to the NDP siding with the Conservatives in defeating Martin.

Of course the NDP lost the balance of power when the independents sided with the BQ and Conservatives. The NDP vote was both political and principled in December 2005 but it made no difference to the result. Voting non-confidence in a government with a horrible scandal; a government that would no longer even discuss negotiation (in fairness they told Layton he lacked the votes to deliver); and a government that if the NDP had supported they would have paid a serious price for doing so.

I have to agree with the article-- it also says what I have been saying a long while.

The NDP have to define where they are different from the Liberals rather than continue to sell the idea that the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same. The Liberla party is very much like a Progressive conservative party. The present Conservatives are now very far from that.

There are many things the NDP can do but retooling must be a start.

At some point soon staking out clear policy differences will be essential.

As I have been saying this will be a difficult election for the NDP.

A difficult election for sure but still a golden opportunity for the NDP. If the party can run a strong attractive campaign and make Mulcair into a charismatic candidate, then I think enough Canadians will care about questions of basic competency to pass over a neophyte like JT. Granted, as others have said, there are a number of important things the NDP needs to do that they have not done so far. They can still throw this away. But I remain hopeful based on their record lately. Obviously somebody in the party knows what they're doing or they wouldn't be in striking distance of government.

Jacob, it is very unlikely that the NDP can beat Harper.  That's the point.  I get the sense that some NDPers would rather have Harper in office for another term than acknowledge that Trudeau & the Liberals are more likely to beat him than Mulcair.

Mulcair can't change nearly 150 years of Canadian history by the time of the next election.  There has never been an NDP government elected federally.  Even in 2011, the NDP only won a majority of seats in one province, despite having a charismatic leader who achieved 30% of the vote and an unpopular Liberal leader who fell below 20% of the vote.

The NDP is now lower in support than it was in May 2011.  It is very unlikely it can move all the way up high enough to beat the Conservatives.  The only party that has ever beaten the Conservatives or kept them to a minority is the Liberals.

We either coalesce our votes behind Trudeau & the Liberals, or we risk another Harper government.  To use an idea from Jack Layton, "Lend us your vote".  Vote Liberal just this one time to get Harper out.  After that you can vote against Trudeau as many times as you want.  But if the vote gets split again, it will be Harper who benefits.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Not that Liberal propaganda crap again.

So long as the Liberals won't support another Harper minority, and their right does not collapse to Harper due to a bad campaign Harper is gone. He is no where near a majority.

The strategy to go after the NDP for the left Liberals as a way of keeping the right Liberals from going Conservative is a bust and has never worked. It always was baloney anyway affecting Liberal seats only in Liberal-NDP races and irrelevant in Conservative-Liberal races.

Debater you know that particular group of talking points will do nothing more than cause a fight. Why go there?

To derail the thread same as postin heberts comments in several threads.

Thats not his purpose though. The only reason I don't want to see these two propandist gone is that their arguments can get demolished very easily if an actual neatral party is looking at the tread.

What have been talking about more? All our energy is being sapped responding to this non sense. Every factually wrong post still gets a bunch of to have to go defend or correct or whatever, even though we could discuss something else.

That is there purpose. I know I have been harping about this, but really I don't even have to bother because they aren't even trying to pretend anymore.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree-- look at all the attention spent to their defense of their crackpot idea that the NPD caused Martin's downfall. Only serves to remind people of what actually brought down Martin: Liberal scandal. Everyone but Pondering can see that. Even Debater is clever enough not to engage in this losing battle.

I tend to think thats because Debater has been here long enough to know when the winds start to shift. If you aren't playing it subtle, like he did for a long time, then your comments won't come off as naive or just uniformed. Instead it comes off the other way, which tend to make our collective noses wrinkle.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree-- look at all the attention spent to their defense of their crackpot idea that the NPD caused Martin's downfall. Only serves to remind people of what actually brought down Martin: Liberal scandal. Everyone but Pondering can see that. Even Debater is clever enough not to engage in this losing battle.

I have confirmed multiple times that the NDP did not cause Martin's downfall. Adscam did that. I even said it is stupid to suggest the NDP was responsible for Martin's downfall and that no one would believe it. I can't be any more clear than that.

If you persist in repeating the opposite after this I will have no alternative but to believe that it is deliberate.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So long as the Liberals won't support another Harper minority, and their right does not collapse to Harper due to a bad campaign Harper is gone. He is no where near a majority.

In this week's interview with Paul Wells in Maclean's, Mulcair says that if Harper wins the plurality of seats, Mulcair agrees that Harper will still get first chance at facing Parliament.

So we'll have to see what the Liberals & NDP will do.  They may not want to form a coalition or force Harper to step down.  They may wait for him to resign after losing the Majority, and then decide to bring down the government against the new Conservative leader.  We have to wait and see what the discussions between Trudeau & Mulcair will be.

1) I think this will be answered in the next few weeks. There is not uch time for that. Harper is interested in history booksand I think he wants to be one of the longest serving PMs -- that would make resigning impossible as it would take him to January. There is not enough time for a new leader to get elected and put any stamp on the party before an election. While it is not impossible, the time to do this without damage to the party has already passed.

2) I see it as extremely unlikely that he could hold out till fall if any more MPs choose not to run again. They will have some difficulty keeping a government without new blood. I don't see Harper paying much of a price to go early that would not be paid later. If the numbers after the budget are reasonable he will have to go then and even if they are not Harper may have little choice.

3) I think if Harper gets a minority he won't be able to govern and if he loses the government he will resign as leader. There is little chance he would be leader of the Conservatives by the end of 2015 unless he won a majority.

Because I was crediting Trudeau to not be so stupid as to keep Harper in power.

When Harper governed with a minority the dynamics in the House and in national politics were different.

Yes I think longevity is what he sees as his legacy.

Also I don't think he trusts anyone else to win -- even if he is low in the polls.

We can work back from the election to when Harper would have to resign to give a new leader a reasonable shot.

Leadership convention minimum 5 months

Working time before election minimum 3 months

Time parliament not sitting 2.5 months

Total 10.5 months.

With the fixed election date in October, Harper would have to resign no later than some time in December. This allows him to pass Mulroney as one of the longest serving PMs. Assuming he wants that, the window is only a few weeks before a new leader would have no time to call and prepare for an election. It already is quite late now. If he is PM in January he is on the ballot some time next year.

And this does not even address the issues of a possible need to call an election early -- not just to take advantage of the budget but to avoid losing too many people that governing could get difficult. I expect we will see a number of resignations from the cabinet or from the House.

The issue is not about losing a majority -- the CPC majority presently stands at 17 and without time for byelections that is way more MPs than would resign from politics early. The issue is about losing enough of the MPs that Harper would put in cabinet.

I think that some ministers won't want to run again -- most will believe that they would win their seats but some would not want a risk of going into opposition and others just becuase they have done it long enough may want a rest -- or to go and make some money in the private sector before retiring. After this it is hard to imagine things getting better and there is nothing more to prove unless you think you can get the leadership and most know they are not leadership material.

Those not running again may not want to be in cabinet-- it is a hard job. And Harper may not want a minister who does not want to run  again-- for one there is no dedication and for two there is no hammer for discipline. This is pretty common that ministers choose to leave cabinet even if they serve out their terms as MPs. Problem is enough replacements may be difficult to find.

The numbers are bleak in Atlantic Canada. A good campaign by the NDP and the Conservatives could be looking at third place in ridings they currently hold. It is not pretty.

There are others who may not want to remain attached to this government that has such a nasty public reputation. Out of loyalty they won't publicly say anything but we know there are grumblings of discontent.

Finally Harper likes to be in control. He no longer controls the October date but he does earlier dates. An election budget followed by a Spring election makes the most sense to me.

I am not worred about the other parties -- this fall I expect both the NDP and the Liberals to nominate in most places- even the Greens will be mostly set by January.