The Future of the NDP

The comment about the CLC is false.

The rest is buzarre coming from a man who has moved to the Liberal party-- a party that has moved rightward over the last while. I find it interesting that he does not acknowledge that the Liberals have moved right more than the New Democrats such that in recent years the ga between the Conservatives and the Liberals has closed even as the Conservatives have gone on their own rightward adventure while the gap between the NDP and the Liberals has opened up.

The Liberals abandonned the coalition leaving the NDP embarassed referring to a coalition that did not exist even as the Liberals moved to back Harper. Yet Hargrove goes after the NDP on the point-- Buzarre.

Then the issue of public ownership: as Liberals from coast to coast to coast muse about or practice P3s, the NDP has concentrated on protecting those public enterprises we have from Liberal as well as Conservative attacks. The NDP has moved to propose substantial investments in publicly owned childcare, transit and housing -- with little support from the Liberals (not counting when the NDP had the ability to force the Liberals against their rightwing tendancy to do it for the purpose of retaining power). Let's not foget the embracing of Liberal Paul Martin by Hargrove. Martin of course is famous for the most sustained attack on federal public enterprise and functions in Canada's history. Buzarre.

Hargrove also supported McGuinty for Premier claiming the Liberals were more left than the NDP-- of course McGuinty has brought in massive P3 privatizations of public institutions and a regressive health tax that while it spares the unemployed it hits lower income working families especially hard. Of course Hargrove remains silent somehow still convinced the NDP sits to teh right of the Liberals. Buzarre.

Now I would certainly like to see the NDP stake out and debate issues on the left of our political spectrum more strongly and have the courage to debate and propose left of centre ideas with respect to management of the economy-- I am under no illusion that the Liberals, a party that is unable to distinguish itself from the Harper Conservatives on economic policy, could be to the left of the NDP which at least gets it right often although not always.

Makes you wonder if Hargrove has been concious the last few years.

Now if you go back

It's also very curious that Buzz is not a supporter of proportional representation but supports strategic voting. Electoral reform - making everyone's vote count through some form of PR - is the only way to put an end to strategic voting and let people vote for their first choice each and every election. 

You expect consistency from Buzz?

He's a straight up political diletante.

"Buzz Hargrove" 

The redcoats are coming.

The NDP is the only party with real growth potential, especially after the rallies this weekend.

Don't all the opposition parties have the potential for growth?

I should have clarified myself. I guess the Liberals might get their traditional support back - the ones who left after the Sponsorship Scandal. But real growth from new voters, well, I think the NDP is the one party that stands to benefit from a new breed of activists, the ones who will respond to the new Facebook groups and the CAPP rallies. I don't see how the BQ can grow unless Harper really pisses off Quebecers between now and the next election. I very much doubt the new breed of activists (including voters inspired by the CAPP rallies)  will have much interest in the Liberals.

The activists are a much smaller group than the angry people opposed to prorogation and abuse of power. Unless you mean that anyone attending a rally or joining a facebook group is an activist. I generally think of activists as "organizers". The CAPP base is really a mixed bag so I think it's perhaps a bit early to suggest that new voters will flock to the NDP. Many will want to punish their local conservative and may not see a vote for the NDP as accomplishing that end in their particular situation. However, the NDP at least has something on the table to address this particular kind of abuse and that should get people's attention. 

I can't see anyone excited by yesterday's rallies being drawn to any party but the NDP.

I think the Liberals are the most likely party to benefit since they are the ones best positioned to defeat the Conservatives as the Official Opposition.

That is kind of what Polunatic2 is saying above.

"The NDP is the only party with real growth potential, especially after the rallies this weekend."

I don't agree that the NDP is the only party with growth potential as the conservatives slowly self destruct. The Green Party is not going away despite what many on all sides may wish and predict. Should a liberal minority victory come in the next election then it will be a question of whether Ignatieff prefers to work cooperatively with the consevatives rather than form any kind of relationship with the NDP. Ignatieff is a conservative leader as was Martin and Ignatieff opposes any form of long term cooperation with Layton in the same manner as Martin did. A liberal minority will see the end of Stephen Harper and years of regrouping for the conservatives. They won't want an election in a short term anymore than Ignatieff wanted one in the past year and possibly this year. That gives Ignatieff the advantage to govern in similar fashion as Harper.

The question will be whether the NDP gain seats or hold steady or perhaps only lose one or two. The main exchange will be between the liberals and conservatives. For us in the greens we'll have to make a significant leap above 10% to reach a critical point where breakthroughs can occur. If the conservatives are seriously due for a meltdown then it's hard to predict where conservative voters go.

A complete conservative meltdown is not to the advantage of the NDP but a marginal advantage to the Greens depending on how Ignatieff is perceived as an alternative. Very strong conservative voters will still prefer the liberals over greens because they can trust Ignatieff won't move to introduce a progressive budget. Progressive conservative voters will split between the liberals and greens. A stagnant liberal party under Ignatieff and a significant decline in conservative support would favour both greens and new democrats. Additional seats for the ndp and a crucial increase in popular vote for the greens.

It's not a shift in policy emphasis from the ndp that is necessary.  A shift in Canadian consciousness is what is needed.  The vote percentage has to dramatically increase in the next election along with a clear signal that the ndp and greens are seen as serious alternatives.  Canada needs weaker liberal and conservative parties, a stronger new democratic presence and new green MPs to change the dynamic for good.  Another 58% voter turnout or worse a lower voter turnout favours only the liberals and conservatives.

That's why no one should be hoping for a conservative meltdown.  That will only bring another 1993 result and Canadians can't afford that.     

I think even the prediction of a slow self destruction of the Conservatives is WAY premature.

We haven't got the better of them yet. In fact, I'd say we haven't even got them on the defensive yet.

Though as time goes by the Cons hopes of pushing the button on a March election get ever less likely. So even if they get back on track, which I think is only a matter of time before they do it at least temporarily, derailing them from pushing the button will have been no mean feat.

And if they don't push the button for an election now, their day of reckoning is coming anyway... albeit more than a year away.

Harper is entering his fifth year, is he not?  And although he has a minority, still governs like he had a majority. That infamous video that was secretly taped a year ago or so showed that Harper really, REALLY wants a majority.

What Harper wants is irrelevant.

Like you said- as far as governing goes, he doesn't need a majority. But hes created a situation where next election he must have a majority... not so he can whip out that secret agenda, but simply so he can keep governing period.

And they were seeing that the prospects of getting a majority was only going to get worse next year. Hence setting up to push the button in March.

In the end, Buzz Hargrovee is STILL trying to punish the NDP for Bob Rae by voting for the party that now INCLUDES Bob Rae.

It made no sense in 1996.  It STILL makes no sense.

Yes, I think it's very likely that the next election will be Stephen Harper's last unless he wins a majority.  If he still can't win one next time it will become obvious to everyone both in the public and in his own party that he can't do it and that people don't like him enough to give him one.

He will end up like Lester Pearson who eventually had to hand over the reigns after several minorities.  Other challengers within Harper's own party will begin to get bolder as they see he is damaged goods who cannot win a majority.

I meant more than Harper will be gone. I mean that the Cons will not be governing, even if they are just 2 seats short of a majority that would traditionally pretty well ensure the ability to keep a minority government.

Harper has always been underestimated in the past, and I see no evidence of any change in that scenario presently. 

And surely no one is suggesting there would be another attempt at a coalition government.

If Harper fails at getting a majority, odds this time are that there will be some form of cooperating government- whatever its called.

I'm not so sure about that, as a matter of fact I think it is highly unlikely. Once burned. well, you know the rest of the story. There are a lot of NDP supporters who thought it was just dumb to try and do anything cooperatively with the Liberals. 

It won't happen unless the Liberals accept the fact that the combined support received by the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens means that THOSE parties would deserve to be treated as equals with the Liberals in the arrangement.

Until that undestanding is achieved, any call for strategic voting will be dismissed by the non-Liberal opposition parties as "vote Liberal, without getting anything for it, because THAT's your station in life, peasant!"

I know this is babble heresy, but I think Buzz has a few good points sprinked in there, and sometimes has the right idea about things.  Sadly, somehow he managed to get from some decent premises to giving Paul Martin the jacket.

For example, I would say that the third paragraph of this piece is pretty dead on in a lot of places, although I'm not sure about the attitude of the CLC cooling off to the NDP, but he does a good job of explaining the traditional ideology of the NDP and how the economic crisis does provide opportunity for rejuvenating some of those ideologies regarding public ownership, TINA, P3s, and the alleged efficiency of the private sector in everything.

Believe it or not, I can kind of see where Buzz is coming from on strategic voting and the NDP.  He was incredibly frustrated with the NDP over the Rae government and maybe he moved them from the "good" column to the "lesser of the evils" column, and felt they couldn't be trusted given his experiences with the Rae government.  Also, I think seeing the horror of the Harris government left an impression on him that the Tories have to be stopped no matter what.  So, if you're going to be voting for the "lesser of the evils", you might as well vote for a lesser of the evils who has a decent chance of winning - no one says "I want to get rid of Bush, and Ralph Nader is the lesser of the evils so I'm going to vote for him".

That said, the coaliton wasn't exactly "challeng[ing] the power of private business and right-wing ideas", even if it did turn out.  I'm sure most people on babble are wary of the idea that we can work with the Liberals to challenge the power of private business and right-wing ideas.

I don't really agree with where Buzz ends up though, and think there has to be a third way (okay, really really bad pun) for labour - neither Hargrovian strategic voting nor the unconditional support of the NDP which has been a dead end in Manitoba.  It would have to be charting an independent course from the political parties, and work on building up resistance to this agenda in the communities, workplaces, and in the streets.  It would also have to find ways to mobilize the membership on economic and other social justice issues maybe not directly connected to the workplace, which I figure would also raise consciousness and forge some good future leaders - these days, it seems as though the only mass membership organizations really doing a lot of member mobilization are the student unions, but they have some pretty big problems as well.  In short, it's about building up independent politics of working class resistance, instead of relying on one party or voting for the lesser of the evils.

After all, Buzz is dead on when he says

In short, I think Buzz found a problem back in 1993 and came up with a crappy solution.  +5 for seeing the problem, -20 for the jacket incident.

Even a diletante is going to say a few things one agree with- especially one that blathers as much as Buzz.

It must be nostalgia that accounts for you seeing any pattern of something useful in what Buzz recommends. The jacket incident was no aberration, and in Buzz's hands 'strategic voting' went from being something always problematic to a strategy deliberately aimed at helping the Liberals against the NDP. He made those appearances with Martin in windsor, where the Conservatives were not a factor and the Liberals were trying [vainly] to unseat NDP incumbents. He appeared on the campaign literature with Liberal MP Sam Bulte running against his own comrade Peggy Nash... Conservatives no factor there either.

Just Buzz being Buzz. I'm really glad we don't have to hear his BS often any more. He torched his credibility six ways to Sunday.

Why doesn't Buzz help form a party to the left of the NDP?

Anti-party leftists haven't exactly been successful over the past century, have they?

Leaving aside the question whether anyone could form a noticeable partylet to the left of the NDP:

a] Buzz wouldn't be able

b] hes torched most of the ceredibility that he had- deservedly or not

c] hes too much of a political diletante to figure out which way to turn. Thats why he opted for being a Liberal fellow traveller.

I'm not saying his recommendations are good, I'm saying it's his premises aren't bad and the fact that he is recognizing a problem in the NDP is good.

Neither have party leftists.  And social movements not tied to parties have accomplished a lot, and some of them have been rather successful (Spain)

I have often wondered if Prominent Liberal Hack Basil Hargrove is a liar or merely an idiot.

I have concluded that the correct answer is "yes."

You know, it actually wouldn't be a bad article if he cut a couple paragraphs out and a sentence here and there.  And it were written by someone who still has a bit of credibility left

for example:

Like I implied in my post, he's all talk only.  At least a certain German politician who commands my utmost personal respect (if not political respect) did help form a left party.  [Hint: I wish him very well in his retirement.]