At Issue - NDP Should Give Up Their Quest For Power & Go Back To Being The Conscience of Parliment

Here's what I think; Chantal Hebert is full of Crap. The Libs will govern right like they ALWYS do, and after TPP is passed unless the US kills it (the won't because so called Progressive Dems will collapse to protect Obamas sorry, appeasing, Corpiratist ass), and we New Dems will be laughing and saying I told you so! Christ, I hate the F******G CBC! Up yours Chantal you Lib clown!

What these people say is interesting only as an indication of what our corporate overlords want us to believe. Every one of them has earned their place in the media by limiting their speech, (and most likely their thoughts as well) to approved areas. No idea outside those areas will ever be spoken of by these elite mouthpieces.

BTW, tt, the correct quote is "the most watched political panel on Canadian tv", not "the best", and there is a difference, although in this case none of the tv panels is worth listening to, for the very same reasons. They are all tame voices, who can be counted upon not to go "off the reservation".

Actually, what the NDP must do if it hopes to gain power is return to being the conscience of Parliament.  If the party learns to use the electronic media as a means of grass roots involvement rather than only as a fund raising tool, it may yet have a chance.  I won't hold my breath, though.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Here's what I think; Chantal Hebert is full of Crap. The Libs will govern right like they ALWYS do, and after TPP is passed unless the US kills it (the won't because so called Progressive Dems will collapse to protect Obamas sorry, appeasing, Corpiratist ass), and we New Dems will be laughing and saying I told you so! Christ, I hate the F******G CBC! Up yours Chantal you Lib clown!

Arthur, you are so full of anger.

I haven't responded to your posts in a while, but I just think for your own good that it would be healthy not to come onto every thread with such angry, negative thoughts and look for the worst in everyone.

Justin Trudeau is turning out to be the most progressive Prime Minister we have had since Pierre Trudeau.  He is almost like having an NDP Prime Minister.  He has already done many things that an NDP PM would do (eg. first gender diverse/racial diverse cabinet in history, bringing in more refugees & showing a more compassionate side than Canada has seen in years, encouraging an emphasis on science, environment & research again, etc.)

That doesn't mean Trudeau is perfect or that he won't let progressives down sometimes because that is inevitable for any leader.  But he is a huge change from the right-wing years we had under Stephen Harper.  And Barack Obama, while flawed, has turned out to be a good President who has been a positive role model for millions of young people & racial minorities of today's generation who never could have dreamed of accomplishing what he has until he shown the way.  Obama is far preferable to anyone running in the GOP.  Have you seen Donald Trump or Ted Cruz?

People complaining about Trudeau & Obama remind me of those who used to claim that Bush & Gore were the same.  History has shown that there are always differences between leaders, even as much as it may be easy for some progressives to cynically claim otherwise.  If it wasn't for Obama there would have been no health care reform at all in the United States, and if it wasn't for Trudeau we wouldn't have a diverse cabinet or the compassionate response to refugees we are now seeing.  And we would still be living under a climate-change denying, anti-science and anti-research PM trying to clamp down on the freedom of scientists and researchers.  Most progressives can see the huge change, and that is why polls show that most NDP voters are happier in 2015 than they were in 2011.

Please try to be happy about some of these things and give yourself a positive moment at this time of year.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said, the conscience objective is the interest of the Liebral party -- it defines the NDP out of a threatening position and it makes sense for Liberals.

Sean, why did you use the spelling "Liebral"?

Is this what passes for intelligent discourse in your world?

Debater, concern troll someoone else! As for messing with Sean, don't even try it, you aren't in his league you clown!

Debater I am very happy using "Lieberals". It fits your party perfectly.

lol

People who really support a left alternative want it to govern not be the voice of guilt at the edge of the conversation. There is a word for those who promote the conscience role for the NDP and that is "Liberals" and they are advocating their interest which is to have the NDP no longer a threat. I get the incentive but I really detest the kind of concern trolling this represents and the dishonesty of saying I like this party so much I want them to not even focus on winning.

 

I would disagree on the fact that the NDP becoming the left conscience would be a boon to the liberals, the fact is that the current leadership of the NDP abandoned many of its principles in a mad rush to win the election, and because of that they lost, honestly it would be in the best interest of the liberals for the NDP to act the same way that it was through out the campaign, doing its best to win votes than to fight for a cause. if the NDP changed its leadership, then it would stand a chance to convince people that it geniunely is a left-wing alternative to the current parties but until then the most damage it can do is to try and show people the flaws in the liberals actions and warn them against things like the TPP. Unfortunately the recent election has caused many people to stop considering the NDP as a viable party and puts them in the same position as the liberals in 2011, although the moment they try and act as the moral pillar of parlament is the moment harper becomes leader of the green party 

People make it sound like there was this mythic period in the past when the NDP made no attempt to win elections and just campaigned on being the "conscience of parliament". (Implying that the other parties campaign on "vote for us since we are ruthless and have no conscience at all").

In fact the NDP has ALWAYS tried to win power. The party was created in 1961 as an attempt to create a modern Canadian version of the U.K. Or Australian Labour parties and they had as their first leader a successful four term premier of Saskatchewan. There was a whole period in the 80s when the NDP was on the verge of a major breakthrough under Ed Broadbent and was positioning itself as a government in waiting and the whole strategy that Jack Layton forged was "the project" whereby the NDP would eventually become much more influential and a party of government.

Someone PLEASE refresh my memory when the NDP was ever promoting itself as the conscience of parliament and had no aspiration to win elections.

Stockholm wrote:

People make it sound like there was this mythic period in the past when the NDP made no attempt to win elections and just campaigned on being the "conscience of parliament". (Implying that the other parties campaign on "vote for us since we are ruthless and have no conscience at all"). In fact the NDP has ALWAYS tried to win power. The party was created in 1961 as an attempt to create a modern Canadian version of the U.K. Or Australian Labour parties and they had as their first leader a successful four term premier of Saskatchewan. There was a whole period in the 80s when the NDP was on the verge of a major breakthrough under Ed Broadbent and was positioning itself as a government in waiting and the whole strategy that Jack Layton forged was "the project" whereby the NDP would eventually become much more influential and a party of government. Someone PLEASE refresh my memory when the NDP was ever promoting itself as the conscience of parliament and had no aspiration to win elections.

Of course it is a mythology the NDP does not share -- it is the presepctive of the NDP's value from Liberals. They say it is best for Canada for the NDP to have this mythical non-threatening role where they crank out ideas but not really try to win against the Liberals. This idea is great for Liberals and Liberals have always seemed to have a hard time telling the difference between what is good for the Liberal party and what is good for Canada. When you think about it the idea is extremely condescending and arrogant but that is another Liberal tradition. It is also illogical becuase the ideas from a party that expects to have a shot at power tend to be more accountable -- thought through with the idea that they may have to stand behind them in practice. The NDP, however, is a more viable contender for power when it has a clear ideological and principled perspective.

Also the idea that the NDP has to move to the centre in order to win is another falacy that Liberals seem to like becuase they can only imagine the earth through their perspective. Liberals prefer to paint a picture where the NDP either is irrelevant becuase they are too centrist, too much like the Liberals or irrelevant because they are too left and NOBODY wants anything other than the Liberal centre to win. The key point is the Liberals are the only party worth attention becuase (pick the best of the two arguments to use at the moment). Of course the Liberals skate rhetorically themselves offering far more than they deliver, a tradition they proudly point to as "run from the left and govern from the right" (in other words, lie at election time).

Then of course there is the idea of the NDP shifting this way or that way -- I think this is a common perspective of journalists who focus on rhetoric, tone and leader statements more than the core values and platform positions. This is unfortunate. The NDP does not really shift in dramatic ways as a party. It has the same membership and tensions. The party long ago abandonned the nationalise the banks and everything else approach. What has happened since is recognizable from one year to the next in key positions.

But there are two shifts that do take place: the first is how activist and life changing are the policies in the immediate? On that question the NDP with multiple new national program proposals, took a tack to affirm its left position in the last election.

The second is the rhetoric of the leader. On this question Mulcair moved to the right but this is not a reflection of a party shift. His emphasis on balancing the books was out of step but it was not an ideological shift except in the Liberal imagination. (Ideology is not found in deficit it is found where you spend your money.) But there is no question that Mulcair did not come out and defend the NDP platform with any competence or sustained passion which he reserved for poorly placed attacks on the Liberals and his budget mantra.

The gap between the NDP as a party and the the leader's statements were catastrophic in the last election and these were part of the credibility problem. This was not about where they were ideologicaly but how out of step and tone deaf Mulcair was personally and how misplaced the NDP ads were in terms of strategy and the failure of the NDP to answer what the Liberals were saying (like not pointing out issues with the so-called middle tax cut).

This is not to say we cannot criticize NDP positions from a left perspective -- the position on taxation was problematic and seemed to come from the right flank of the party. But when you look at the entire plan you can see there was no wholesale drift to the right (thinking of universal daycare, pharmacare, minimum wage for federal jurisdiction etc.). Th tax positions seemed sourced not in an ideological shift but a profound gutlessness particularly from the leader who was more categorical than the party positions themselves.

At times the NDP has been too timid -- not so much a left-right thing as a rhetorical unwillingness to face the public with the alternative the NDP represents in the rhetoric. Largely the correct policies exist with a couple notable exceptions (Palestine and use of military).

The most problematic was in the tax policies which is part of what I did not like about the platform in spite of many other good things. Secondly the defence of peace and principles in foreign policy seem to be in many respects about timidity as well -- as if the NDP is fearful it will be branded a certain way if they do not take the "right" position. This is not a shift so much as competence. The NDP failing to be consistent on Palestine is a timidity where the party seems to think it cannot explain a principled position to potential supporters (Nobody in the NDP privately defends these positions except in electoral strategy). The branding the NDP faced in many respects was being gutless. But again I think this was not an ideological shift so much as pandering and a lack of confidence in principles.

So what the NDP needs are: first courage and second a leader who is in step with the party and a leader who is positive, optimistic and pro-active about promoting the NDP platforms rather than so afraid of it that he avoids it most of the time except in front of a partisan crowd.

But there is no purpose in being "just a conscience" if you think there is then why run candidates at all? And principled positions are more likely to get votes anyway.

terrytowel wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

  Someone PLEASE refresh my memory when the NDP was ever promoting itself as the conscience of parliament and had no aspiration to win elections.

Easy.

I'm a HUGE Alexa McDonough. It was during the 1997 election. The whole goal was to regain official party status with 12 seats. The only had 9 at the time. Led by Brian Topp they had Alexa go across the country saying Reform & The Bloc have let the Liberals off the hook. Only the NDP with official party status will hold the Government to account.

"How are we going to force the Liberals to STOP the cuts? By electing as many NDP members as possible."

Alexa McDonough in 1997 "We won't be forming government. But have always made a difference as the conscience of Parliment!"

Instead of running a national campaign, they narrowed their focus to the most winnable ridings. And pured resources into those ridings.

They only hopes for 12 seats, and almost doubled that by getting 21.

Next!

This whole thread is just nonsense. You Libs are shameless. Well forget it, the NDP isn't going to do what you want. If the US sings TPP, Trudeau will do the same, and that'll be the death warrant for your party. The NDP is a party of people with serious ideas; not a privileged, entitled, collection of self serving, self satisfied elitiists. The NDP isn't going any where. Deal with it.

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur you don't remember the 1997 campaign?

From the Toronto Star May 2, 1997

New Democrat leader Alexa McDonough said yesterday the government has enjoyed a free ride on the jobs issue - a ride that's about to come to an abrupt halt.

``We're coming back in force, and we're coming back to fight for jobs,'' she said at a press conference.

As Canadians prepare to vote, the NDP leader is conceding the best her party can hope for is a strong opposition voice. ``Not a week will go by without New Democrat MPs holding the Liberals accountable on jobs.''

The NDP must win 12 seats to regain official-party status, a goal that appears within reach.

 

I dom't care what she said, I worked that campaing to win. Forget it Terrytowerl, the NDP will never roll over and die, no matter how much you want it to. Your boy will sign TPP if the US passes it and that'll will be your party''s moment of truth. Forget it. THis is such a ridiculous thread. You know nothing about the NDP or its membership if that is what you think New Democrats see ourselves as. How hunristic to assume you think you know what the NDP wants or stands for. Stop partonzing me. Pathetic.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I like Chantal Hébert but once in a while she makes a mistake based on her biases.

I agree that Chantal Hébert is overgeneralizing.  But she was not the only one doing it.  Jennifer Ditchburn, Rex Murphy, and Andrew Coyne all basically said the same thing.

Of course there is room on the left of the Liberals.  There is always room to move to the left of the government on certain issues.  Even Peter Mansbridge pushed this point with the panel.  It looked like Mansbridge thought they were being overbroad in their conclusions.

However, the basic essence of what Hébert and the others are saying is true -- for the immediate future, there isn't a lot of room for the NDP on the political spectrum.  For now, Canada has a left of centre Prime Minister who has many progressive qualities.  This government may not be far left enough for some here, but Justin Trudeau is almost like having an NDP PM in power, so long as he doesn't move too far to the right or slash the social safety net the way that Chrétien/Martin did.

What backs up what Hébert & the others are saying is some of the recent polling showing that Tom Mulcair is competing with Justin Trudeau for support & approval with voters of his own party.  That is, Trudeau is almost as well-regarded right now by NDP voters as Mulcair is.

Here's an excerpt from a recent poll analysis by Eric Grénier at CBC:

--

Problematic for the New Democrats, however, is how Mulcair stacks up against Trudeau among NDP voters. Forum and EKOS put Trudeau's approval rating among New Democrats at between 67 and 72 per cent, with just 15 per cent standing in disapproval. By comparison, Mulcair scored a 71 to 77 per cent approval rating among New Democrats, with his disapproval rating sitting at 14 to 18 per cent.

. . .

The issue for Mulcair as he tries to hold onto the leadership of his party is not that New Democrats dislike him — they don't. It is that he can't claim their affections to be any greater for him than the man he is supposed to be criticizing and holding to account on their behalf.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-approval-ratings-polls-1.3363911

Debater wrote:

Of course there is room on the left of the Liberals.  There is always room to move to the left of the government on certain issues. 

Political issues are broken down into two categories: social and economic. Both the NDP and Liberals are similar on social issues.

On economic issues, however, the Layton/Mulcair/Horwath NDP occupies the Keynesian center (where the Liberal party was during the post-war Keynesian era: 1945-1984 in Canada.) The Liberal party occupies the right-of-center position established by Brian Mulroney when he brought Friedmanian neoclassical economic ideology to Canada. (After which the economy went straight downhill.)

Social democratic countries, like those in Scandinavia, are left-leaning Keynesian.

During the PWKE, all parties were Keynesian. Some Republican presidents, like Dwight Eisenhower, would be considered socialist by our present absurd standards. (Raised the highest tax bracket to 90% to pay for a mega-government interstate highway system.)

Those who want to beat the NDP back from their encroachment on centrist territory the Liberal party abandoned — but whose votes they still feel entitled to — will attempt to conflate the social and economic axes. "Trudeau is Left Wing: he appointed women to half the cabinet positions! Why? Because it's 2015!" But in terms of economic progress, it's more like 1935.

(PoliticalCompass.org put Mulcair at dead center; Trudeau at 20% right. I would put Trudeau somewhere between 30 and 40% right. They put Harper 85% right.) 

terrytowel wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

  Someone PLEASE refresh my memory when the NDP was ever promoting itself as the conscience of parliament and had no aspiration to win elections.

Easy.

I'm a HUGE Alexa McDonough. It was during the 1997 election. The whole goal was to regain official party status with 12 seats. The only had 9 at the time. Led by Brian Topp they had Alexa go across the country saying Reform & The Bloc have let the Liberals off the hook. Only the NDP with official party status will hold the Government to account.

"How are we going to force the Liberals to STOP the cuts? By electing as many NDP members as possible."

Alexa McDonough in 1997 "We won't be forming government. But have always made a difference as the conscience of Parliment!"

Instead of running a national campaign, they narrowed their focus to the most winnable ridings. And pured resources into those ridings.

They only hopes for 12 seats, and almost doubled that by getting 21.

Next!

I don't think Alexa accomplished anything in stopping the Chretien/Martin cuts. Look at this graph:

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/28akbjq.jpg[/IMG] 

Shows that the federal government has been continuously downloading costs since Chretien came to power. In 1993, the fed covered 40% of all costs and the provinces 40%. Now it's worse than 30%/50%.

In 2006, Jack Layton was able to stop Martin's corporate tax cutting. But that was only because he had leverage in a minority government.

The only time the NDP can be an effective conscience of a Liberal government is when they have power. Otherwise the Neo-Liberals can forge ahead with absolute corrupt power easily dismissing the NDP as radical socialists completely divorced from hard realities (which Liberals and Cons manufacture.)

BTW, Milligan is a market fundamentalist economic adviser on Team Trudeau. He criticizes the position held by Mulcair (and the PBO) that there's a massive fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. He obviously knows there is. But his job is to "starve the beast," not inform Trudeau on the facts. 

This thread should have been titled "Issue:Should The NDP REMEMBER ITS PLACE?"

I am curious what the Liberals will do about Harper's Bill C-51.  This certainly will be a good opportunity for Mulcair and the NDP to continue to be the conscience of parliament as they were in the last session.

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I like Chantal Hébert but once in a while she makes a mistake based on her biases.

I agree that Chantal Hébert is overgeneralizing.  But she was not the only one doing it.  Jennifer Ditchburn, Rex Murphy, and Andrew Coyne all basically said the same thing.

Of course there is room on the left of the Liberals.  There is always room to move to the left of the government on certain issues.  Even Peter Mansbridge pushed this point with the panel.  It looked like Mansbridge thought they were being overbroad in their conclusions.

However, the basic essence of what Hébert and the others are saying is true -- for the immediate future, there isn't a lot of room for the NDP on the political spectrum.  For now, Canada has a left of centre Prime Minister who has many progressive qualities.  This government may not be far left enough for some here, but Justin Trudeau is almost like having an NDP PM in power, so long as he doesn't move too far to the right or slash the social safety net the way that Chrétien/Martin did.

What backs up what Hébert & the others are saying is some of the recent polling showing that Tom Mulcair is competing with Justin Trudeau for support & approval with voters of his own party.  That is, Trudeau is almost as well-regarded right now by NDP voters as Mulcair is.

Here's an excerpt from a recent poll analysis by Eric Grénier at CBC:

--

Problematic for the New Democrats, however, is how Mulcair stacks up against Trudeau among NDP voters. Forum and EKOS put Trudeau's approval rating among New Democrats at between 67 and 72 per cent, with just 15 per cent standing in disapproval. By comparison, Mulcair scored a 71 to 77 per cent approval rating among New Democrats, with his disapproval rating sitting at 14 to 18 per cent.

. . .

The issue for Mulcair as he tries to hold onto the leadership of his party is not that New Democrats dislike him — they don't. It is that he can't claim their affections to be any greater for him than the man he is supposed to be criticizing and holding to account on their behalf.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-approval-ratings-polls-1.3363911

You missed the distinction I made which is critical between rhetorical room and actual room. Liberals always talk a good game and deliver yes. This reality is already becomeing clear -- again. This opens room no matter what the Liebrals say -- it is what they do that matters. Like the tax cut for the very rich only partly funded by a tax increase on the extremely rich.

Plenty of room on the left when you start comparing what Liberals do with what they say.

terrytowel wrote:

It wasn't an anomoly. In 1993 they also abandoned their quest for power, just to hang on to official party status.

So that is not one but two times they have run an election campaign where the goal was NOT to win power. But to be the conscience of Parliment. 1993 and 1997.

Uh, you realize you're cherrypicking from *the electoral nadir of the NDP's existence* in order to reinforce your "wasn't an anomoly [sic]" argument? They abandoned their quest in 1993 *because they were in single-digit free fall mode*. They were being "Clegged" a la the UK Lib Dems in 2015, and it was likewise a matter of "saving the furniture" more than anything--though beneath the disarray the NDP could still exert the "conscience of Parliament" claim with a certain conviction, which is more than you can say about the fatally chameleonic Clegg Lib Dems. Or, for that matter, the Kim Campbell PCs, whom the woeful Audrey NDP bluffed into out-seating.

1993 was because they were falling down an electoral chasm. 1997 was because they were climbing back out of said chasm. (2000 was more of a sloppy-seconds reiteration of 1997.)

To single those examples out is the *absolute blinkin' epitome* of "NDP knowing their place" thinking.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur please don't DEFLECT

From the Windsor Star 31 May 1997

NDP Leader Alexa McDonough addressed the largest, and possibly the most enthusiastic, crowd of the campaign at a rally for local candidates in Windsor. About 900 union members and other party supporters, pumped up by songs of worker solidarity, gave her a rousing welcome. Although the party can expect to win only a handful of seats in Ontario, Windsor could be among them.

McDonough long ago acknowledged her party won't form the next government and she conceded Friday the best New Democrats can hope for is to become a strong opposition voice in the Commons. The NDP, which had nine seats in the last Parliament, hopes to win the 12 necessary for official party status this time.

Again the 1997 campaign was just to get official party status.

McDonough kept saying over and over and over again "How are we going to keep the Liberals accountable? By electing as many New Democrats as possible"

Arthur the question was "When has the NDP ever run a campaign where they didn't want to form government"

The answer is 1997. I was just answering the question.

The fact is the NDP goal in 1997 was just to regain official party status.

There is no dispute of the goal of that campaign.

Actually there is.

This is one of the reasons I have so much trouble with Liberals -- they mess around with words -- and you have to guess if they are incapable of knowing the actual definitions of the words or just think they can get away with it.

So, in this case we have two very distinct concepts -- one is goals or aspirations and the other is expectations.

the NDP ALWAYS runs based on a desire to govern and produces proposals for government.

However, when the party is very low (like after the 1993 election and a loss of party status) the party knows that it cannot articulate an expectation that its aspirations (goal) would be met in that election. And the party understands that in spite of the goal or aspiration a much more modest result may still be progress. The reason is mostly credibility.

Now for the Liberals with Limited Vocabularly Support Group: the concept of aspiration and expectation are very, very different. You plan and you set your goals and proposals based on your aspirations. But of course you have to set your expectations to be much more modest sometimes. You cannot approach the public with expectations so wild that nobody can take you seriously. So the NDP leader in 1997 set her expectations, her standard for the minimum the NDP would need to improve its position to make a difference much lower than her aspirations. Aspiration is based on hopes and wants and NOT realistic expectation and for the NDP often these are not the same.

(For some reason I can no longer easily manoeuvre within the posting box or I would have cut out the first bit and bolded a few things).

I don't know why you must pepper your analysis with constant digs at those whom you presume to be Liberal supporters, Sean.

It reads as very immature.