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

I say it again, this whole thread is simply more Liberal nonsense. I don't care if you post it or not, but be honest about your motivation. I say again, the NDP is going no where. That must drive the Libs on this board, crazy.

Debater wrote:

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.

Debater, as usual, simply one more completey soically unaware, completely tone-deaf post from you. Your commentary on my level of happiness reminds me of that of the Rush Limnaugh and he Amriecan right regarding thier progressive citizens. You know not happy, miserable, negative, blah, blah, blah. You always are driven to make that kind of commentary. What you are doing is called, "projection"; look it up.

There is a basic flaw with your commentary; in no way is Trudeau like a New Democrat. I'm probably close to being a Marxist in political outlook. I believe that soceity is best run when it isn NOT run by our betters, supported by their sycophants. More importanly I therefore believe that without economic security, the 99% is at the whim and rigour of a system supported by their betters. The fact is, that Trudeau is completely prepared to sign the TPP. No one who is objective, (your recognize that accusation, don't yoou Debater?) would in any way support the TPP. And I KNOW you KNOW that only the failure of the US to pass it will keep Trudeau from passing it; he is uncourageous, and only worreid in his political skin and won't do anything that might hurt his false "legacy" Worse, you still suport a party that is only promsing window dressing change to a bill, C51 tht Lousise Arbor (you know who she is, right Debater?) says must be screapped in full. Or do you think a LPC appointed former Supreme Court Judge and respected International Jurist is "uninformed?

Your arguments,, as alway, are full of the same holes they always have had. But I will give you this, you're consistent, "Debater"

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I guess if we are going to start labeling the quality of people and, of their posts.

Quote:

Frankly, you aren't in Sean's league.

Thanks for showing us all how to not go there.

 

Magoo, I didn't go anywhere; the journey had already been made. You obviously didn't read my post. Go try it again. But I will say this I'm glad you and I are such good pals here.

ETA: By the way Maggoo, you aren't in Sean's league either; frankly, most of us, including me, arern't. Its just how it is. My issue is how he was treated. No one should expect to make such kind of commentry not expect challenge.

terrytowel wrote:

“Blaming the mainstream media and the Liberal strategists is a little like farmers blaming the weather,”

-NDP MP Cheri DiNovo on the 2015 Federal Election

And this has what to do with this thread Terrytowel? All your post shows is that the last thing this thread is about is the good of the NDP. This thread is charade. Its just another NDP/Tom Mulcair attack thread disguised as "discussion". Why are people who aren't NDP supporters or voters so obssesed with telling the NDP and its members what it is, and what they are? Why is it so important? Unless of course, the truth is, you're worried about the NDP upending the Libs again; and that is going to happen again, and sooner than you think.

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Its just another NDP/Tom Mulcair attack thread disguised as "discussion".

I thought you said you didn't like Mulcair?

You are missing the point of what I wrote. I said this thread is simply another NDP/Tom Mulcair attack thread. It doesn't matter whether I like Mulcair. If the leader were MEghan Leslie this thread would still be a NDP/Meghan Leslie attack thread. This is simply another attack on the NDP. And a poorly disguised attempt to reestablish the frame that the NDP can never form government. The Libs are afraid of the NDP; they know the NDP can replace them and they are going to do everyhting they can to stop it. This is simply another thread attempting to spread the meme that the NDP can NEVER be the government. This is a therad expressinga longing for the old days when the NDP was easily dismissed. Those days are gone forever, and Liberals know it. FOr the Libs its about power, and power only. Curse the NDP for actually wanting to govern rather than seek power for power's sake.

Terrytowel, is this thread about NDP history or a discussion of whether the NDP should ever think of governing? Which is it?

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A party running does run with the objective of froming a government. However when they are in a period of very low support the expectation is moderated in order not to sound dillusional. This does nto mean that the aspiration is not there or that the party does not desire to win or aim to win. At times the party asks for a more modest result as a realistic ask to the population that is not the same as aiming not to win.

I was just responding to what Stockholm 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.

By pointing out it is not always the case, like tiy wrote in your post above Sean

And of course you were trolling around for some quotes to back up this stupid idea that Audrey McLaughlin did not aspire to win.

I assume you came across McLaughlin's slogan of the NDP 1997 campaign while you were looking to prop up the bullshit you were flogging?

"Former federal leader Ed Broadbent campaigned in 1988 on the basis that the NDP was fighting to form a government, as did his successor Audrey McLaughlin -- whose war cry was "AM for PM" -- in the disastrous 1993 campaign."

Would you like some help interpreting what the words "am for pm" might mean in terms of aspirations?

Terry -- I don't take kindly to BS and in this htread you have associated yourself with a pile of it and I have responded accordingly.

No national party runs without aspiring to win -- it is the opponents who like to come up other things.

The concept of conscience of parliament was the label by others for the NDP never for the NDP itself. Any leader who would aspire to be ONLY the conscience of parliament would have no support in the party. The NDP has at times looked to the past and accepted that this is what it has been but it has never looked forward to that role. Every election, every NDP leader wants to win.

To think otherwise is dishonest or stupid as well as lacking in imagination, stooping to petty partisan propaganda. And people in the NDP will ALWAYS be inclined to be rude to a bunch of fucking Liberals trotting out this bullshit as the proper raison d'être for the party. Was that put clearly enough for you?

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I assume you came across McLaughlin's slogan of the NDP 1997 campaign while you were looking to prop up the bullshit you were flogging?

She wasn't Party leader in 1997, that was Alexa McDonough

Terrytowel, have you even read anything that Sean has actually posted? For a guy who votes Green, you sure love the Liberals.

terrytowel wrote:

Instead of debating you Sean, would it just easier not to repeat what the politcal panels are saying about the NDP in the media. (which was what started this thread)

So then all this place can be is just to preach to the converted?

Just say the word and I won't mention the At Issue panel or the Question Period panel again. Then everyone here can have blinders on to what the mainstream media is saying. Have a complete media blackout.

sorry Terry this is another pile of bullshit. I just wasted 17 minutes of my life going back to the At Issue panel and listening to the entire segment trying to find something that supported the statements you claimed to be the consensus of the panel. Nothing. This is your analysis and it is garbage. Please do not misrepresent others as supporting what you decide to say. That's not honest.

Terry Towel -- your logic in this thread stinks and I challenged you on it. But you have produced one nonsequitor after another-- one false reading of history and the panel after the other. One attempt to make different ideas equivalent after another. starting with this first line of absolutely unsupported garbage:

"Which is EXACTLY what the At Issue panel is advocating. Get away from trying to steal votes from the Liberals and go back to being the conscenience of Parliment."

Posts 8, 23, 25, 28, 45,46, were all out to lunch and read like gloating and twisting words out of context. Now, I just listend to the entire At Issue segment again and this is not a message they were advocating at all.

To say there is no room to the left of the Liberals is not to say the NDP should be just the Conscience of the House -- it was also a debatable idea as it is based only on campaign rhetoric rather than reality which will be exposed as promises are broken. I can see why journalists might in their analysis confuse reality and campaign rhetoric but I don't have to accept it. Still it does not lead to your conclusion.

15:35 is where this starts.

"Should be who they are" was the consensus best explained by Coyne. He went on to say that they may on the way have some electoral success (certainly not advice not to aim for it) and then saying they offer a "service to the public" by more diversity of opinion.

That was just his opinion.

The conclusion was that there is no electoral room in this context for the NDP to the left of the Liberals -- I disagree strongly. The fact that we cannot see this is just an indication that the NDP leader is doing a piss-poor job of articulating that and did so during the campaign. The middle class tax cut, as I have explained, is just one example.

The idea that the NDP should go back to just trying to be the conscience of the House is compeltely unsupported in the panel video and made up by you. Nobody in the video suggested that the NDP should give up trying to win and just be conscience.

As for the advice that the NDP should tilt left they did not even advocate that -- instead Hébert pointed out that those to the left, mentionned on the list are not winning or close to power. As well, they did actually provide a consensus on something else and it was about the tone -- they seemed to agree that the Liberals captured the tone of the NDP. The NDP might be better going back to that.

As well the bottom line was that the NDP would do better trying to be itself rather than trying to be Liberal -- but nobody suggested that this would consign the party to not winning or just being the conscience.

You want to know why I am angry Terry? It is becuase your analysis is biased, partisan, dishonest, inaccurate and contradictory to what was said and then you have gone on to equate things like publicly expressed expectations and aspirations as the same thing in order to sugges thtat there is some history of the NDP trying not to win. Since you have been a Liberal supporter here this self-serving bullshit was aggrivating.

I am not defending the NDP campaign nor the leader but I certainly think the NDP must always run to win -- or it should not run. That might mean in bad years not making the desire to win the message of the campaign. It might mean a strategy to get the most seats by concentrating resources where the support is the greatest but it does not mean the party is not running to win or wanting to win.

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

"Former federal leader Ed Broadbent campaigned in 1988 on the basis that the NDP was fighting to form a government, as did his successor Audrey McLaughlin -- whose war cry was "AM for PM" -- in the disastrous 1993 campaign."

Sean can you provide a source for this quote? I have sourced all my quotes. If you can do the same that would be great. Thanks!

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/039.html

Terry I did not need to becuase all you have to do is google it.

Only one thing comes up.

The source does not matter anyway.

The main thing was the slogan. And let me help you with that:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=McLaughlin+%22Am+for+PM%22

I get 506 hits. Go nuts read them all.

I lived through that cmapaign and I remember McLaughlin clearly stating she wanted to be PM and admitting, when pushed, that it was a steep road and simply increasing the seats would be a good step and provide value to Canadians. Did not mean she did not want to be PM, was not running to be or not aspiring to be.

Anopther thing to remember re the "AM for PM" idea: she wasn't just leader in 1993. She'd been leader since 1989--and earlier on, really *was* polling like a serious contender for PM, back when Mulroney was hitting rock bottom and Chretien still had a lame-duck/yesterday's-man stigma.  And back then, said slogan wasn't necessarily out to lunch, especially as she was sitting atop the highest (if still third-place) NDP seat total up to that time.

Oh, and re the "conscience of parliament" thing: of course, a real Liberal troll could claim that Elizabeth May renders the NDP obsolete even on *that* front.

adma wrote:

Anopther thing to remember re the "AM for PM" idea: she wasn't just leader in 1993. She'd been leader since 1989--and earlier on, really *was* polling like a serious contender for PM, back when Mulroney was hitting rock bottom and Chretien still had a lame-duck/yesterday's-man stigma.  And back then, said slogan wasn't necessarily out to lunch, especially as she was sitting atop the highest (if still third-place) NDP seat total up to that time.

Oh, and re the "conscience of parliament" thing: of course, a real Liberal troll could claim that Elizabeth May renders the NDP obsolete even on *that* front.

You are correct that McLaughlin had the NDP up to 36-37% in 1991 but then the party went into freefall for the next two years.

The AM 4 PM slogan remained throughout that period except that the public statements about specific objectives had to be moderated so as not to sound unrealistic. Certainly, at no point did the NDP not desire or aim for government. They just had to change their short-term focus in that campaign to save whatever seats they could.

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What a few of you Liberals should be remarking on is actually how few "Fuck off's" you have recieved in this thread. And what other's might want to remark on is just why are Liberals so fucking arrogant that they cannot see that their "advice" to another party to the effect that it really should not be trying to win is so offensive.

As for the bullshit that this came out of an At Issues panel -- just click on the link and you will see that this idea was not at all apart of the discussion and entirely made up by the person interpretting it for the rest of us.

Perhaps Liberals might want to consider that you do not need to be a Liberal to be able to operate a computer and go and see the link for yourself. And of course the questions on this topic were not "should the NDP go back and be the conscience of the House and not try to win" but rather 1) should the NDP be more true to itself (rather than trying to shift to get votes AND 2) is there room to the left of the Liberals. I answered the second disagreeing with the analysis. But I agree with what the panel did seem to say -- that the NDP actually is more likely to do better being itself (and therefore more likely to win). Nobody suggested the NDP should not try to win. As well the Coyne said that you may win from time to time by being yourself but you also can do good even if you do not win. He never suggested that winning would or should not be the objective.

Sean, you make some valid points, but you also come off as rather angry & sanctimonious.  There is no need for all that profanity.  You will notice that I rarely use profanity in my own posts.

Terry Towel may have over generalized what the At Issue panel said, but the basic essence of TT's summary was correct -- the analysts are saying that at this point in time, it is hard for the NDP to find a place on the Canadian political spectrum as long as there is a Liberal government in power which has NDP attributes/left-leaning ideas.

I already said above that I agree with you that Chantal Hébert & Rex Murphy are going too far when they say there is "no room" to the left of the Liberals.  As I also said, even Peter Mansbridge questioned them on that.  Of course there is room for the NDP to move to the left of the Liberals.

As for the philosophical/existential question about whether the NDP should be the "conscience of Parliament", I think what they are getting at is the way *Canadians* themselves view the NDP, and also the effect that the move to the center had on the soul of the party itself.  This isn't all about the way the Liberals want the NDP to view itself, but rather, how do *Canadians* view the role of the NDP?  If Canadians prefer for the NDP to put principle over power, that is an important factor for the NDP to consider.

You miss the point that this thread is based on somethign that was never said. I watched the At Issue Panel again just to look for this and it was not therre. Nowhere did they say what Terry Towel said. It is a self-serving Liberal -suggested prescription for the NDP that used to be around decades ago and while it used to be said only Liberals are saying it now. The NDP has been close enough to power that the public are not trotting this out right now. Liebrals are. And the At Issue Panel did not go there -- not at all.

Go listen -- it is Coyne's comments in the OP being paraphrased and he did not say that --  in fact he said that the NDP being iteself may win sometimes but would still provide value if it doesn't. He never said the NDP should go back to "concsience of the House) (or use the term) and he did nto in any way suggest the NDP should not be trying to win. In fact he suggested that by being more true to itself the NDP would improve its chances of winning.

It was a complete misrepresentation of what was said. Convenient too -- to support the position TYerry Towel was advocating but not taking credit for. I find this type of debating slimy. Relying on people not going to the source and hearing it for themselves -- just taking the person's word that something was said.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You are correct that McLaughlin had the NDP up to 36-37% in 1991 but then the party went into freefall for the next two years.

The AM 4 PM slogan remained throughout that period except that the public statements about specific objectives had to be moderated so as not to sound unrealistic. Certainly, at no point did the NDP not desire or aim for government. They just had to change their short-term focus in that campaign to save whatever seats they could.

In that sense, a useful comparison point might be the Doer NDP in Manitoba in 1988--or even, to whatever degree, the Mike Harris PCs in Ontario in 1990--though in Audrey's case, the scale of the tsunami was too much to bear; however, the seed they had remaining was enough *on its own* to eventually nurture the Orange Crush with (as opposed to the federal PCs having to merge with ReformAlliance)

The early 90s decline of the federal NDP to the post-Pawleygate Manitoba NDP facing (with an assist from Carstairs-mania) certain annihilation, as well as the 1990 Ontario PC circumstance where the legacy of their 1987 Grossman disaster + the shadow of the federal Mulroney backlash meant they had to conduct what was basically a skeleton campaign.  (And it's interesting to note that in both cases, the party leader who inherited a woeful circumstance went on to be Premier.)

Not that Audrey was destined for redemptive Doer/Harrisdom (among other things, the decline happened under her watch, as opposed to her "inheriting" it); but at that point, the party couldn't afford to have the knives out, so it was better to monitor the situation while putting on a brave face...

Yes, as I said above, there is the issue of how Canadians view the purpose of the NDP.

Sean has a point in saying that some Liberals (and some Conservatives, political commentators, media etc.) would prefer for the NDP to just remain the 'conscience of Parliament' without ever seriously challenging for power.

But it is also the case that many Canadians vote for the NDP because of its historical commitment to certain core values and a hope that the NDP will not compromise those values in the pursuit of power.

That gets back to what Andrew Coyne said at the end of the At Issue panel:  the NDP should try to achieve what it truly believes without sacrificing its soul.

I see that as an attempt to marginalize the NDP.  "Sacrifice its soul"?  It's a political party with a history, just like the Liberals and the Cons are political parties with histories.  How many people talk about the Liberal or Con parties "sacrificing their souls"?  Consider that the Cons have wrapped themselves in waving the red ensign Canuck flag, something they opposed a few decades back under Dief.  Have they sold their souls?  The Liberals were pro-free-trade, then anti-free-trade, then pro-free-trade again.  Have they sold their souls?  Does anyone ask such a silly question of these parties?  No.  Yet for the NDP, people do.  Why is that?  The NDP have a policy book, and are probably the only mainstream party that does, so they're relatively consistent, and whatever changes they make can be tracked. There was nothing hugely different from the NDP's last campaign to the previous few campaigns, except policies like child care and MMP were more definitive.  Compare this to the Liberal's last few campaigns, from Green Shift to raising corporate taxes to neither in the recent campaign.  Clearly the Liberal Party "sacrificed its soul."

quizzical wrote:

why do you advocate for this and vote Liberal Debater?

X1!

mark_alfred wrote:

I see that as an attempt to marginalize the NDP.  "Sacrifice its soul"?  It's a political party with a history, just like the Liberals and the Cons are political parties with histories.  How many people talk about the Liberal or Con parties "sacrificing their souls"?  Consider that the Cons have wrapped themselves in waving the red ensign Canuck flag, something they opposed a few decades back under Dief.  Have they sold their souls?  The Liberals were pro-free-trade, then anti-free-trade, then pro-free-trade again.  Have they sold their souls?  Does anyone ask such a silly question of these parties?  No.  Yet for the NDP, people do.  Why is that?

Because supporters of the NDP claim that it is different, that it is not just another mainstream party. The Conservative party has no soul. It's about 12 years old. It certainly doesn't have the soul of the PCs. The Liberals lost their soul during the Martin/Chretien wars to the point where it almost destroyed the party. Were it not for Trudeau they would probably still be in 3rd place.

It is no secret that the NDP has moved away from promoting the socialist part of social democracy.

Personally I would like the party that leads Canada to be it's conscience.

All the parties claim to represent the 99% but none of them do.

To be Canada's conscience today would be to stand against fossil fuels and income inequality.

Pondering wrote:

Personally I would like the party that leads Canada to be it's conscience.

All the parties claim to represent the 99% but none of them do.

To be Canada's conscience today would be to stand against fossil fuels and income inequality.

 

And you voted Liberal therefore, why, exactly, Pondering?

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I see that as an attempt to marginalize the NDP.  "Sacrifice its soul"?  It's a political party with a history, just like the Liberals and the Cons are political parties with histories.  How many people talk about the Liberal or Con parties "sacrificing their souls"?  Consider that the Cons have wrapped themselves in waving the red ensign Canuck flag, something they opposed a few decades back under Dief.  Have they sold their souls?  The Liberals were pro-free-trade, then anti-free-trade, then pro-free-trade again.  Have they sold their souls?  Does anyone ask such a silly question of these parties?  No.  Yet for the NDP, people do.  Why is that?

Because supporters of the NDP claim that it is different, that it is not just another mainstream party. The Conservative party has no soul. It's about 12 years old. It certainly doesn't have the soul of the PCs. The Liberals lost their soul during the Martin/Chretien wars to the point where it almost destroyed the party. Were it not for Trudeau they would probably still be in 3rd place.

It is no secret that the NDP has moved away from promoting the socialist part of social democracy.

Personally I would like the party that leads Canada to be it's conscience.

All the parties claim to represent the 99% but none of them do.

To be Canada's conscience today would be to stand against fossil fuels and income inequality.

 

The NDP is different.  The NDP, unlike the other two, are more consistent.  As I argued in the latter half of my previous post:

Quote:

The NDP have a policy book, and are probably the only mainstream party that does, so they're relatively consistent, and whatever changes they make can be tracked. There was nothing hugely different from the NDP's last campaign to the previous few campaigns, except policies like child care and MMP were more definitive.  Compare this to the Liberal's last few campaigns, from Green Shift to raising corporate taxes to neither in the recent campaign.  Clearly the Liberal Party "sacrificed its soul."