Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper

Electoral ceasefire would put nation's centre-left majority in political control

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/719037

Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.

The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

I will tear this party apart before I see it endourse Iggy. Liberal Tory same old story.

So what? How is Michael Ignatieff any better than Stephen Harper?

The Liberals would have to make some kind of concession to the NDP if the strategy is found to have worked to give them a phony majority. Electoral reform would be a really good idea.

over and over and over again my friend.....

And gotta love the Star saying Harper changed their own, the media's, coverage...TFF.

"Harper made us make people selfish..." from the Star.

I found the article interesting because it was written by

"Michael Byers lives on Salt Spring Island and teaches political science at UBC. In October 2008, he ran for the New Democrats in Vancouver Centre."

Byers makes an argument on why he shouldn't have ran as a candidate.  Rather amusing. Regardless, the argument fails because, inspite of his running, the Liberal Candidate won, and of all things the Conservatives overtook the NDP Candidate.

Mr Byers is looking for the easy way.  That politics is nothing but electoral machines and rigging election results through manipulation of the democratic process.  Of course Byers fails to understand, that to win elections, you need to do your work on the ground first. All politics is local.

As I said in the other thread, and I am happy to see one dedicated to this article.  Byers has trivilised democracy.  Where have the big thinkers in Political Science gone?  Where are the real ideas vs a badly thought out attack on democracy.

The liberals and conservatives are singing from the same page, globalization and the dirth of poison it has brought upon us all.

Conserving what we have, localization, renewable energy and a simpler lifestyle is necessary and most of us know it but despite that the 2% who through paperwork, magic and lawyers say they own everything are hell bent on destroying our HOME. If the NDP and Greens combined and backed something close to this and people wake up in time then they could win. The fly in the ointment is that big business and the governments are in bed with each other and own the air waves. The struggle continues.

The Greens and the NDP combined will not win anymore seats than the NDP already has. I have been hearing this argument since the days of Tommy Douglas. It wont happen. 

Canada had a Green Party back in Tommy Douglas's day? I didn't know that.

The parties may change, but the argument remains the same.

I forgot the smiley.

nail, meet hammer.  excellent aim madmax.

Byers is channelling EMay now, must be the energy line on Salt Spring... ;)

All I can say is that it doesn't take much to be a political scientist these days.

The article is worse than I could have imagined.

It contains an assumption that a Liberal prime minister would want to champion proportional representation even though it is the first past the post system that allows his party a shot at a majority government. After unseating Harper and controlling the agenda with perhaps, Byers suggests, a majority, he would give this up becuase?

More central, the writer assumes that the population of the country would find a backroom deal to pass as democracy. The writer ignores the messages sent to first time voters-- the youth we wish to engage that their options were limited by previous voters before they were old enough-- that we devalue their franchise just in time for them to receive it.

The writer also completely forgets that this is not a competition between parties but of one of ideas. Those ideas are represented by the parties and they are all different. To declare a truce between the parties is declaring a truce between the ideas -- leaving some to win and others to lose. By lose I mean people would no longer have their choice-- we would stop having elections with a full competition between ideas.

I do not agree with the idea that the Conservatives and the Liberals are the same. that is a trite old NDP talking point most of us at least in private know is false but we say it over and over because it is the easy way to express their equality--they are equally unacceptable, equally damaging and equally founded on the wrong vision of how a society works.

But, they are indeed different from each other. In fact they are in many respects as different from each other as the Liberals are from the NDP. They represent political philosophies that we reject. That alone gives them a lot in common. There are a number of things the NDP and the Liberals could agree on. But there are also many things all the parties can agree on.

While the conservatives are "tough love" capitalists, the Liberals are kind capitalists looking to round the edges of that system-- this is not a minor difference as that rounded edge makes a huge difference in many ways. The NDP is a party of practical socialists-- we do not love the capitalist system-- we live with as much of it as we have to, but it is not built on our values and we replace it where possible with more collective options. The conservatives believe in deserving your fate and that charity ought to be private and optional, the individual solely responsible for his fate (I can't right his or her fate because that would imply a recognition of the existence of women as actors in a way the Conservatives do not acknowledge). The Liberals believe in public charity decided collectively. The NDP believes in collective and individual equality and rights and the sharing of collective wealth a concept almost completely unrecognized by the other two parties. Some of our policies may practically look like the more charitable Liberals but they come from a different place, different values and beliefs and they have a different purpose. It is amazing that someone who ran for the NDP would propose that that NDP agree to no longer present these ideas tat most of us (apparently not all of us) share.

If we consider the fundamental relationship between the two old line parties and the capitalist system, this is where we are convinced that they are the same. When we consider the policies driven by national charity from the Liberals or by a recognition of equality and collective wealth from the NDP these parties look the similar in spite of the huge gulf of difference that exists in their core and purpose.

Nobody that understands these things could propose a truce between teh Liberals and the NDP as being anything other than a sell-out.

I didn't find the article so objectionable. I do agree that relying on the liberals to sheppard in PR is a somewhat naive assumption (although I agree with the sentiment). Then there's the funding issue. It would cost the libs and ndp a lot of per voter funding if they stood down. On that basis alone, it's a no go. As I noted in another thread a few weeks ago, a similar tactic could be employed on a smaller scale though to ensure Harper doesn't get a majority. 

I have no qualms whatsoever with considering strategies that work around the inherent undemocratic nature of our current voting system and finesse a result more in line with the interests of working people. I don't buy the idea that strategic voting, coalitions, truces, ceasefires, etc. are bastardizing our "democratic" electoral system because we don't have a democratic voting system. The sooner people understand that we don't live in a democracy, the better. And I don't buy the idea that political parties are at the top of the political pecking order.

Yes, I think all liberal candidates should step aside in the interest of allowing a NDP majority government to be formed. All those in favour please raise their hands....

The fundamental notion that this article was based on was eviscerated on the mouseland mailing list.  Real data and all.

The Liberals swerved hard to the political right at the end of Trudeau's reign and have never been kind or otherwise centrist ever since. The Liberals can not lay claim to the political left or even centre in Ottawa any more. Not for a long time. Tommy Douglas' description of them were proven prophetic in the decade of the 90's: Whether they are black cats or white cats, they are still cats.

:D :D :D

hand raised

Thread drift: The Cons really attacked the BQ in Question Period today - well, it's something they do all the time - I can't help wondering when the BQ will say 'enough' to these provocations.

Thank you Fidel.

The Liberals did nothing to abrogate NAFTA, and they have initiated trade deals with other countries since, even though the majority of Canadians are opposed to these trade deals.  The Liberals got Canada involved in the "War on Terror", even though the majority of Canadians were and still are opposed to Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.  I think that these two issues come down to making trade between counties easy for large corporations, and making travel between countries difficult for people.  And the so-called "trade" is really stealing and destroying other countries resources.

In the past, I didn't think of the Liberals and Conservatives as being the same.  But, since Paul Martin took over the Liberal party, I do think that there really is very little difference between these two parties.  To give Jean Chrétien some credit, he did mostly keep Canada out of Iraq, and he kept Paul Martin from becoming leader as long as he could.

If you read the context I am still defining the Liberals and the Cons as being essentialy defenders of the capitalist system - unlike the NDP.

I stand by my comment that the Liberals represent themselves, are percieved as, and take the political space of the kinder capitalists. In that you have both what they have in common with the Cons and where they differ or seek to differ. That the Liberals are incompetent and dishonest and rarely deliver is seperate from their political space that they lay claim to.There are many policy differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives- perhaps not as many as there are similarities. This is why the NDP can deal with the Liberals and extract consessions when they can't with the Conservatives. But, as I said the Liberals are a party of capital and that is reflected in their policies and is where they share much common ground with Conservatives.

Of course as a party of capital and business, the Liberals would find it hard to abrogate the so-called FTA.

As we have seen the most moderate side of the Conservatives (and that is what we have seen as a minority for the most part because they have never had the luxury of planning for a few years before going to the voters). The current Liberal leadership leans to the right as did Martin. But the centre of each of these parties is quite different.

I am not minimizing how different both the Liberals and the Cons are from the NDP-- but to pretend there is no difference between them is to deny a political problem facing the NDP which is the establishment of a third idea when there already is a choice albeit a limited one. The NDP's option is different because it's foundation is different. The Liberals are more moderate than the Cons -- usually althoguh there have been exceptions. But the NDP is not  a moderate version of the same thing-- but a different thing altogether.

Byers isn't exactly proposing a novel idea here. We've been hearing this line for years (albeit usually from Liberals who want the NDP to shrivel up and die - kinda like it did in the 90s). 

What I can't figure out is the timing. Here is a guy who decided to run for Parliament in 2008 against one of the most left-wing members of the Liberal caucus, while the Liberals were running on perhaps their most avowedly left-leaning platform since the 1980s. But now that they have Iggy Thumbscrews at the helm, backed up by the Bay Street Gang and vowing to campaign and govern as a "blue" or "business" Liberal, suddenly Byers decides that it's time for the parties to co-operate?

Am I missing something here? At least a case could be made for EMay's backing of Dion, but I can't for the life of my understand Byers' about-face on this one.

He just got a Harvard Chair for pete's sake, in fact Iggy's old chair, I believe.

All these politicians are connected in some form or another, the elitism is the way of Canada.

Some politicians just are better at hiding their classism than others. We might as well just have one political party here in Canada and save 300 million every few years on elections.

Byers about-face seems to be in reponse to the Conservatives recent gain in the polls where they now are flirting with obtaining a majority government. Byers sees this as a disaster that requires a drastic response.

But Byers solution would actually enhance the Cons chances of getting a majority. Any talk of a NDP-Liberal coalition drives up Con support. Unfortunately, Harper has convinced very many Canadians that coalitions are underhanded and undemocratic. That's why the Liberal-NDP coalition failed so badly last year. The Cons used their big $$$ advantage to run a media campaign that slaughtered the NDP-Liberal coalition. There's no reason to think the Cons wouldn't be able to do the same thing again if the NDP and Liberals ever try a coalition again.

But Byers is right about the importance of keeping the Cons from getting a majority. That would be a disaster. But people should not panic. The Cons record in office will catch up to them.  I don't see them winning a majority.

What I'm having trouble figuring out is that, if the objective is to get proportional representation, can't the Liberals and NDP work together now to achieve that if they *really* wanted to? Why is an election necessary? Also, Byers idea would backfire. Even the article itself sends a message that the opposition is weak and Harper is strong. What is the campaign slogan, "We suck, but together we can defeat Harper"? It's insulting to the NDP...

The Liberals and New Democrats could have unseated Harper in January 2009, but Ignatieff decided that he preferred to be in a coalition with Harper.

I look forward to Mr. Byers submitting his nomination papers with Iffy...cos I can't see how Jack will sign his papers after this sophmoric political analysis.

Seriously, Byers appears to be going a bit too Heart of Darkness there on Salt Spring. Koo-koo-ka-Choo?

Why, as a New Democrat, should I vote for a party that endorses greater exploitation of the tar sands, whose past environmental record in government was worse that George Bush, is run by a man who legitimized an illegal invasion of Iraq, mused about the merits of some forms of torture, rubberstamped every single piece of regressive legislation the Conservatives have introduced in the last three years, resorts to stealing NDP ideas (pension reform, not credit cards etc) instead of coming up with their own.....?

 Advice to Byers: stick to the Ivory Tower. Leave the practice of real politics to people who believe in real change.

The only way they could unseat Harper is if the Liberals and NDP merged into one party. A unite the left as it were... but it won't because there is too much vitriol between these two parties and their supporters. Harper knows this and will play this up as much as he can. Divide and conquer.

Well - now you're talking, Webgear!

But I'm waiting to hear from Stockholm, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Byers backer:

Mind you, that was way way back on Sunday, so let's wait and see.

The Reform Party and the BQ was a triple splitting of the former Progressive Conservative Party.  Two of those parties are now merged, with the BQ unlikely to go away until democratically wiped out. The CCF/NDP have existed for some 70 years, of which the Liberal Party has been able to achieve numerous majority governments. The Splitting the left argument, doesn't hold water. Also, as seen on the MLW forum, I created a poll to find where Liberal Voters would go if denied an option. They overwhelmingly choose the Conservative Party over the NDP by 66%%. And given the option of Merging the two parties? It was rejected by 80% and desired by only 20%.  

Removing democracy is no solution. When viewed through a local lens. Is this not what the Liberals did in Outremonte? Remove candidates to get the one they want? Rigging the outcome? Same for Ignatieffs ride into the country. Override the riding association and appoint him directly.  And didn't it work good for choosing a Leader? Get the opponents to drop out and appoint Ignatieff as Leader of the Party without due process or democratic challenge.

While this happens, and these games are played, there is no reason to accept this treachery on the public as the solution to a much larger problem.

Byers peers should be having a heyday with the professor for coming up with something so shallow.

Why don't the Liberals merge with the Conservatives. It'd be more honest, and a better fit.

Thanks for proving my point. If we could get past the name calling perhaps we could have a real conversation about common beliefs and goals.

I didn't prove your point and I didn't call anyone names.

Any "real conversation" about Canadian politics will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the two parties on the Hill with the most in common are the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Oh stop it Scott. I would hardly call a party that introduced gay marriage and kept us out of Iraq as the same as the homophobic chicken hawks that is the Conservative party. A party that elected Dion as a leader is not all bad.

I have no doubt that a majority of Liberals have a closer kinship with the NDP than with the Conservatives. With the NDP moving closer to the centre there could be a chance of real dialogue but only if we put our name calling aside. That is if ideological purity is more important than stopping the horror that would be a Harper majority

Byers has been invited to an exclusive get together with Jack at a home in Vancouver later this month:

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/004438.html#more

I wonder if Byers will whisper his silly proposal into Jack's ear during the fest.

That's such crap, the Liberals fought tooth and nail against gay marriage every step of the way and only very reluctantly broiught in legislation after the Supreme Court left them with no choice. The only reason Canada didn't send troops to Iraq was that Chretien didn't want to jeopardize Charest's chances of winning the Quebec election in April 2003. Paul Martin, John Manleyt and the entire Liberal establishment was AGHAST at Chretien at the time for not sending troops to Iraq because they thought it was so importnat to preserve the alliabce with the US etc...Maybe a party that elected Dion as leader isn't ALL bad, but a party that elected Paul Martin or Michael Igantieff as leader is very bad. The Conservatives can't be all bad either - they were once led by Robert Stanfield.

So they stayed out of Iraq but they didn't really mean it and the party that said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation was reluctant to support gay rights.

Like it or not the Liberals have introduced a lot of good policy that all progresives should be proud of asterisk or not. They have also done some pretty stupid things as well. On the balance I would rather work with the Liberals than suffer the Conservatives.

"So they stayed out of Iraq but they didn't really mean it and the party that said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation was reluctant to support gay rights."

You have got that right....and the Liberal PARTY never said that the "state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation" that was one individual Pierre Trudeau - who actually kept the state in plenty of bedrooms the whole time he was PM having the RCMP snooping for gays in the civil service and the military, bringing in repressive abortion laws etc...Let's also not forget that it was the Liberals that sent Canadian troops into Afghanistan.

If we want to set that bar that low then maybe we could also argue that Harper should be hailed as a great progressive social liberal man of peace because since he became PM, Canada sent no troops to Iraq either and he made it clear that same sex marriage was here to stay case closed - Viva Harper!!

Meanwhile, you may say that you would rather work with Liberals than Conservatives - fine. But ist quite clear that the the Liberal Party would rather work with Conservatives than with the NDP. It was the Liberals who walked away from a coalition agreement and decided that they would rather let Harper be PM indefinitely in exchange for NOTHING than take power in a deal that would see the NDP get a share of power - and more recently Count Ignatieff has said in no uncertain tersm that he refuses in advance to consider working with the NDP - the Liberals have made it quite clear that either they will get a majority of their own or they will keep the Tories in power. They have no interest in working with the NDP.

If you really think that the NDP and the Liberals need to "work together" to "stop Harper" (as if we shoudln't also "stop Iggy") - then I suggest you stop wasting your time arguing with New Democrats. The NDP has been willing to work with the Liberals every step of the way. Things fall apart because the Liberals don't really want to deal with the NDP at all. So maybe you shoudl start lurking in the Liberal blogosphere and urge Liberals to "play nice" with the NDP.

I think it only takes campaign time to see that the Liberals have no interest in working with or cooperating with the NDP in any way, and only talk that way when they think it is in their advantage.

I am a staunch NDP'er but in many ways, I can understand and appreciate Cons more because at least they have a position - even though it is one i steadfastly and resolutely reject in every way.  For the Liberals, it is not so much a position, but a withering, dithering reluctance to stick to any ideology of substance based on the collective whims of fancy of the media and electorate.  This flight of fancy actually does more harm due to its unpredictability.

A look at the party's base says all you need to know.  The Liberal party is the party of connected cronyism.  Millionaires gathered around tables, election victory parties at the country club - much like the conservatives.  There is really no difference between the Liberals and Conservatives except that the Liberals are able to meld their ideologies a little bit further to try to cater to the winds of the fickle.  It is a relentless pursuit of power...no more, no less.

For the definition of disingenuous, try to live through one Stephen McNeil speech in NS.  That man has no other ambitions than his own personal gain, and no position other than the NDP are the antichrist.

Actually my whole point was that the NDP and Liberals can't work together because of a very poisoned atmosphere of distrust and name calling. Until that is resolved Byers argument is moot.

Leaders come and go what matters is if the grassroots of both parties can sit down for a beer and talk shop without glassing each other. That ain't gonna happen for a while. We are going to need a Harper majority in order for us to bury the hatchet.

Sure, and than all the young NDPers can go off and fight in more empirial wars cause Iggy is all for defending the empire.

I'm not sure whether your view is time-limited based on current polling data, but generally speaking I think that's bunk. The problem with the Liberals at the moment is they are looking inward at themselves rather than outwards at the country and the citizens. They just need to get their "mojo back". Also, I agree with the the view expressed here that the Liberals are closer to the Conservatives than they are to the NDP. The Liberals certainly aren't "left". They are a bunch of neoliberals. Talk of merger with the NDP is foolish and would be a disaster for the country. I'm starting to wonder whether this "unite the left" idea is part of a neoliberal scheme to get rid of the NDP. This baby probably hatched in a right-wing think-tank.

You're basing your argument about the Liberals being progressive on

1) Something a dead guy said 41 years ago.

2) The fact that the courts forced the Liberals to legalize same-sex marriage (and even then, more than 30 members of their caucus voted against doing so)

3) The fact that they once accidentally elected a guy as leader who did nothing to implement Kyoto beyond naming a dog after it.

I'm sorry, but that's just not very convincing.

Their record, and not just their recent record, shows that they have much more in common with the Conservatives than with the NDP.

The Unite the Right movement should have included the Liberals.

So why did the NDP attempt to establish a NDP-Liberal Coalition Government just about a year ago today?

The LPC was a supporter of the CPC from 2006 to 2008 without exception. After the 2008 the LPC continued to be a CPC supporter and the CPC choose to take exceptional advantage of the situation. By ignoring the economy and going for the political kill, Prime Minister Harper went for the LPC jugular. The effect of changing the election finance laws would have been a death grip over the LPC. The party would cease to exist. Recognising their peril, the LPC reached up to the only hand available. The NDP was willing and able to talk with regard to a coalition and the LPC were willing and able. The NDP would finally reap the rewards of ending the CPC/LPC cooperation and work on changing the direction of the country. Both parties recognised the economic situation before them.  The LPC had no choice. Survival depended upon working with the NDP. That first bold move by the LPC to end their term as CPC lapdogs, caught the Harper governments attention for the first time in 2 years. Fear set into the CPC and within an instant the CPC actions showed signs of desperation.  The CPC created a crises and needed to find a way out.

However, once the CPC threaded the needle with a little help from the GG. Ignatieff struck and finished off the hapless Dion. Taking control, he dismissed  his own signature and took the LPC train onto the Harper Tracks with Harper in Command of the Engine and Ignatieff the Caboose.

The NDP tried to work with the LPC. Obviously the evidence would indicate that the NDP goodwill towards the LPC was not returned and obviously those on forums like this or with the 66% majority, discovered the real truth behind the idealogy of the LPC and its compatibility with the CPC vs the NDP.

Regardless, when someone compares the two parties actions in having to deal with the Harper Conservatives, the NDP clearly deals with the CPC in a different manner then the LPC.  The LPC supported the CPC government in terms of policy. Its impossible to have  a run of 79 consecutive confidence votes without challenge unless you have base and movers and shakers that believe in the direction of the government.  The CPC realize that NDP supporters will only take so much nonsense and the NDP is capable of pulling the plug.  Does the NDP trust the CPC?  Hardly. But then again, the NDP did trust the LPC and got burned.

One might wonder how the NDP would fare after the coalition collapse. ANd I would say, that it looked like the Party took it personally.  However, the NDP of today in a stronger position then it was shortly after the collapse of the coalition. The LPC was in  a stronger position after the collapse of the coalition, but today is in no better position then when lead by Dion.

I give credit to the NDP for trying. The public wants government to work together.  Why did the LPC abandon a signed deal, that was an alignment of "the left"?  Fact is, many rank and file MPs in the LPC were against the coalition before they signed the deal, but did so out of desperation and lack of choice. Ignatieff provided the false hope for the LPC to go it alone.

The 26% polling figures of the LPC cannot be helped by eliminating democratic choice.

To give the Liberals the opportunity to live up to their anti-Conservative rhetoric. Of course, they didn't take it. They preferred to continue to support the Conservatives.

The numbers from last election prove this point. The Liberal collapse was most evident in Ontario and the West, and (excluding Edmonton-Strathcona) shifted almost universally to the Conservatives. In Ontario, the NDP picked up seats without increasing their vote because Liberal votes shifted Conservative and the NDP came up the middle. In Saskatchewan and BC, the Liberal vote shifted Conservative and either padded the Conservatives already-large margins or actually took out a few NDP MPs.

A little more complicated--the NDP share did go up in all of their pickups and a few of their supermarginal holds as well.  But it fell in most of their Toronto seats (Jack + Olivia not excepted), and a lot of other marginal places through the cannibalizing effect of the eMay Greens--plus in practice, the fastest growing Ontario seats tend to be weakest for the NDP...

This idea was the subject of discussion this morning on The Sunday Edition.

The panel included Byers, Elizabeth May and Tasha Kheiriddin (introduced as an expert in Canada's conservative movement).

There was no one on the panel from the NDP (or the Liberals) to speak against the idea -- something that would seem to be obvious -- but that wasn't the most frustrating thing about it. I'm still trying to decide whether I was more exasperated by Byers' adject naivete or May's blatant dishonesty (among other lies, she repeatedly talked about her backroom deal with Dion as "a leaders' courtesy arrangement" which was "part of a long tradition in Canada").

Kheiriddin, on the other hand, actually made more sense that either of her fellow panelists. She talked about why it wouldn't work and would likely lead to the very thing that it was purportedly trying to avoid -- a Conservative majority.

During her unending, chattering pronouncements, "Liz did mention that Byers had talked about taking up the NDP banner against her in her island retreat, next election. The idea of tri-party collusion did come from Byers, New Democrat. The Libs were missing in action.

But if you're going to have a panel talking about a proposal that the NDP fold its tent in most of the country, I think that it would make sense to have someone in the party who favoured that notion debating someone in the party who opposed it.

Didn't the Liberals sign an agreement with the Bloc and the NDP only to have the Governor General prorogue the House?

Yes but then in January of this year iggy declined. I wonder if he regrets it now? Harper was down and out and Iggy saved Harpers career and the conservative-reform party government now almost a year later the libs are down the drain and Harper is on the cusp of a majority.

The liberals have not been close to be 'left' since Trudeau anyway.  But Canada is moving to the far right it seems. probably not because Harper is a stand up guy but because of the incompetence of the Libs..

The military didn't remove it's draconian policies against Gays and Lesbians from the books until 18 Dec 92, under the Mulrooney regime no less.

Lesser evil politics doesn't doesn't mean beatifying the liberals, just attempting to work with them on common goals. I agree with the analysis that they're much closer ideologically to the cons on most issues than to the NDP. I agree that they're totally untrustworthy and have betrayed the people who voted for them on numerous occasions. Iggy went so far as to "unite" with Harper in order to distinguish themselves from the NDP (and gain some breathing room to build for an election). And look what he got in return? Some ugly personal attack ads. 

I also think it's naive to think that the liberals, as an institution, will support meaningful electoral reform given that they're a main beneficiary of the current unfair system. That said, I wouldn't agree that the libs and cons are exactly the same (or that the libs are worse). However, I don't see  the libs agreeing to anything that would smack of working together with the NDP. 

So that doesn't leave the NDP with much wiggle room. To avoid a conservative majority, I hope they will keep their guns trained on Harper and offer some positive proposals which might capture the public's imagination and unseat Harper. 

I await Elizabeth Mays announcement that she will step aside to allow the LPC candidate the right to defeat the CPC incumbent.

Why were they not proposing that the Green Party fold their tent?

And Byers appears to be shilling for EMay.......one wonders about his long tern political plans in SGI?

There is no doubt he knows that EMay will fall on her face in SGI, and that would leave the field wide open for him in the election after, to draw votes from the NDP, GP and the LPC..

It is empty NDP rhetoric and completely false that the Liberals and the Conservatives would be exactly the same.  I am not a Liberal, nor do I support them with a vote, however, I would much prefer them to the Conservatives for a number of reasons: 1) the systematic destruction of the federal Status of Women offices and of the ability for women to fight for equal pay for equal work that has taken place under Conservative rule, 2) the failure of Conservatives to live up to Canada's commitments to its citizens abroad, especially citizens from racialized groups, 3) the sweeping changes in foreign policy, which is not accountable to Parliament, that Canada will not seek clemency for citizens on death row in other democracies, that Canada no longer supports the International Criminal Court, but tolerates it, that Canada does not acknowledge the existence of child soldiers, but underage victims of war, etc (see Embassay Magazine article 29 July, 2009 http://embassymag.ca/page/view/foreignpolicy-7-29-2009 -- death penalty issue is a 2 or 3 year old policy, so not in article), 4) immigration laws have changed darastically under the Conservatives, making citizenship and permanent resident status much harder to get, if not ouright impossible -- the slow creep or racism and xenophobia at the highest levels, 5) even if you disagree with the Liberal stance on things, who would be a better Finance Minister Flaherty who said no deficit, then small, then 30bn, 50bn, 55bn and so on -- or John McCallum, who said they were wrong all along and has previous experience as an economics prof and chief economist at RBC? Who would you rather have as foreign affairs minister Lawrence Canon, Maxime Bernier, or whatever the Con flavour of the week is, or someone like Bob Rae (yes, there'll be NDP bad blood, but he's experienced, thoughtful, reflective, and knows his way around which is needed on the int'l level)? On the day of the Lib no-confidence motion, Justin Trudeau gave one of the best speeches for re-engaging young people in electoral politics and why Parliament mattered -- I'd rather have him on any portfolio than any one of the Conservative Cabinet members -- the same could be said for Gerard Kennedy or Carolyn Bennett...

This is not to say the Liberals are perfect, there are many individual NDPers who I also have great respect for (>Megan Leslie, Libby Davies, Charlie Angus and Jean Crowder) as there are even some Bloq (Serge Menard - who is Bloc critic for Public Security, who has destroyed the Cons in debates on their crime legislation and who can stand up to accusations of being soft on crime as he single handedly took down most of the leadership of Quebec's organized crime when he was solicitor general of Quebec in their PQ gov't)... what I am trying to say is that the Cons are horrible for our country.  They are destroying our social safety net, our standing in the world, and our dividing us against ourselves.  To say the Liberals will be no different is a cheap NDP ploy to try and get Liberal votes.  It misguides Canadians and misrepresents the choices available to them, and helps the Conservatives get elected by destroying the only opposition party with a chance of taking power.  The NDP would do much more for itself if it concentrated on opposing the government instead of opposing the opposition.

In 2002, the LPC had a Majority Government.  One of Canadas own "CHILD SOLDIERS"  was being held by the United States. While other countries from Australia to the UK had their captured countryMEN repatriated, the Liberal Government of Canada did not attempt to recognise or bring home a Canadian Born Child Soldier.

Chris you are right the black cats are a different colour than the white cats.  I doubt if that will make a difference to the mice in this country.  Liberals have been trying to get rid of the NDP since its inception in the 60's and the line is always the same.  Please fold your left wing tent so out w can beat the evil right wingers.  Paul Martin and Jean Cretien are the proof that both coloured cats like to eat mice.

Who was it that stole the surplus from the workers employment fund?  Who reduced taxes to the point where we cannot sustain social services in this country? Who just anointed the most right wing leader the party has seen in two generations?  And therefore we should consider folding the left wing party to defeat the right on behalf of Iggy.  The whole idea is absurdly funny despite being very dangerous to the political health of the Canadian left.  

If you want to unite the left in Canada then a half dozen of the progressive liberal MP's need to begin sitting as Independents and requesting permission to seek nominations as NDP candidates.  Then if we could get Pat Martin to run for the Liberals we might start having a coalition on the left.

... that is pretty empty rhetoric given, the Liberals  have supported all the measures the Cons put forth. And they have failed for over 13 years to fund a national day care program, and have clawed back funding to the provinces that has left women and children in poverty.

All of this is off set by the Liberals getting us into Afghanistan, and  leaving our own child soldier in Gitmo long before Harper came to power. Of course one could add to to that list too

No, sadly Canada has been much more racist than this....

No the Liberals started this long ago with Martin.

No actually it is documenting truth...

An afternoon of sampling the goods at a bromide producing factory wouldn't achieve nearly the same result as a quick skim through this thread, which would be a godsend for Insomniacs and Tautologists.

The Nutty Professor

And no, I cannot get the small text to go large by spacing after the quote. It works sometimes, but not always. ERR BABBLE ;)

This is what you wanted:

The Nutty Professor

Sometimes when you are criticised for your idea, it is because your onto something. Other times one gets critcised because the idea is nuts.

In Byers case, I agree with the editorials.  Perhaps professors have to come up with loopy ideas.  Simplistic as it is and with no intellectual rational or political merit the Byers proposal receives a brunt of criticism because its simply a bad idea. Not because it is to be feared by the CPC, it should be feared by anyone who believes in democracy. Its naive and illogical proposal if not downright stupid.

So, why do the nutty ideas get such media attention?  Because silly and controversial ideas make better copy then logical discussions.

Mr. Byers appears quite able to get media attention. Too bad he doesn't know how to harness it.

Its weird, and I don't know why it works, but there is something mysterious between "Nutty Professor" and the beginning of the quote. So you delete everything in between so they run together, and then hit the return button between where it belongs at the beginning of the quote.

Even then- the mysterious whatchamadiggy inserts itself between each of the following lines. You can tell its there because all the evil ines are indented slightly. So each one of those you have to give the same treatment to. [Delete everything between, etc.]

I'm sure the whizzes out there know an easier way, and even why and how things work.

But voodoo works too.