Jagmeet Singh Suggests Bloc Is Irrelevant Because It Isn't A National Party

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Jagmeet Singh Suggests Bloc Is Irrelevant Because It Isn't A National Party

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he believes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s only options to pass legislation in a minority Parliament are to work with his New Democrats or the Conservatives, dismissing the idea the Liberals could work with the Bloc Quebecois because the Bloc isn’t concerned with national interests.

 “If they want to pass something national that really benefits all Canadians, they’ve got really two options for a national party. They can choose to work with the Conservatives or they can work with us,” he said.

“If they want to pass a bill they need to work with a party. If they want to pass a bill that’s progressive, that puts in place something that’s national, something that benefits all Canadians, they have to work with New Democrats.”

When asked why he doesn’t believe Trudeau could seek support from the Bloc Quebecois, Singh said he believes that is simply not an option for the Liberals, because the Bloc is not a national party.

“Mr. (Yves-Francois) Blanchet has made it really clear that he’s not interested in working on national programs that benefit all Canadians. That’s not his goal, that’s not his party’s goal, and frankly that’s not his job. He was elected in Quebec, for Quebecers, and that’s fine,” Singh said.

“If Mr. Trudeau wants to pass something that’s national, something that’s national and progressive that benefits all Canadians, he’s got really just two choices, he can work with us or the Conservatives.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/jagmeet-singh-justin-trudeau_ca_5dcd...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Shouldn't that be "because they aren't a NATIONAL party"? That is, that they aren't a party which contests seats everywhere from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Why is there a thread on this? Every seat for the Bloc is just as equal as any other seat in the HoC. If the Liberals put forth say a budget bill and there are provisions specific for Quebec's benefit in it, they are within their rights to work with the Bloc. It's called democracy.

So maybe Jagmeet Singh is saying that Quebec citizens no longer matter. Their votes are irrelevant and less important than everyone else's because he didn't like the outcome of the election. This is what Quebec citizens wanted. 

I would rather see the NDP taking a stand in support of Bolivians than making fools of themselves on crap like this.

The NDP used to stand for something.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

Why is there a thread on this? Every seat for the Bloc is just as equal as any other seat in the HoC. If the Liberals put forth say a budget bill and there are provisions specific for Quebec's benefit in it, they are within their rights to work with the Bloc. It's called democracy.

So maybe Jagmeet Singh is saying that Quebec citizens no longer matter. Their votes are irrelevant and less important than everyone else's because he didn't like the outcome of the election. This is what Quebec citizens wanted. 

I would rather see the NDP taking a stand in support of Bolivians than making fools of themselves on crap like this.

The NDP used to stand for something.

I agree. All seats have the same legitimacy.

I never liked any politician who tried to play this game.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Why is there a thread on this? Every seat for the Bloc is just as equal as any other seat in the HoC. If the Liberals put forth say a budget bill and there are provisions specific for Quebec's benefit in it, they are within their rights to work with the Bloc. It's called democracy.

So maybe Jagmeet Singh is saying that Quebec citizens no longer matter. Their votes are irrelevant and less important than everyone else's because he didn't like the outcome of the election. This is what Quebec citizens wanted. 

I would rather see the NDP taking a stand in support of Bolivians than making fools of themselves on crap like this.

The NDP used to stand for something.

I agree. All seats have the same legitimacy.

I never liked any politician who tried to play this game.

This is not the same party that my family dedicated their lives to at the grass roots level. Our cause was for all Canadians and everyone matters.

We are now just a hollow shell of our former selves. We have lost our soul.

Vive le Quebec! Mes amis!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that Jagmeet needs to get new Ottawa staff. This is the work of the insiders who think they can play politics at a master level none of which have much in the way of basic principles except the pursuit of power. I wish they would all just join the Liberals or Greens and leave the only leftist party to have a socialist voice. We have MP's that are socialist and always have had, it is the Ottawa cabal that is and always has been the problem.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that Jagmeet needs to get new Ottawa staff. This is the work of the insiders who think they can play politics at a master level none of which have much in the way of basic principles except the pursuit of power. I wish they would all just join the Liberals or Greens and leave the only leftist party to have a socialist voice. We have MP's that are socialist and always have had, it is the Ottawa cabal that is and always has been the problem.

I live in Ottawa and am looking for work at the moment.... 

melovesproles

I saw a press conference where he was saying the same thing but I though it was pretty that he meant national programs like pharmacare or public dental care. Is he wrong? Would the Bloc support those kinds of programs at a Federal level?

Sean in Ottawa

melovesproles wrote:

I saw a press conference where he was saying the same thing but I though it was pretty that he meant national programs like pharmacare or public dental care. Is he wrong? Would the Bloc support those kinds of programs at a Federal level?

They used to support pharmacare -- not sure what they agree with now.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Singh's statement-and again, why is this MORE important than condemning the coup in Bolivia?-is exactly the kind of thing which will guarantee the NDP never recovers in Quebec.  What is the point of his even saying this?

 

JKR

I think he is hurting the NDP's chances in Quebec which bodes very badly for the NDP in the future. Without Quebec and with the Greens picking a new leader the NDP are in a precarious position.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:

I think he is hurting the NDP's chances in Quebec which bodes very badly for the NDP in the future. Without Quebec and with the Greens picking a new leader the NDP are in a precarious position.

True.  And the only way the GPC leadership election doesn't give that party a chance to make major gains from the NDP is it May gets her alleged way and somehow simply imposes Wilson-Raybould as her successor, thus preventing the Greens from adopting internal party democracy anytime in the next decade or so, if ever.

 

josh

I guess he's determined to get rid of the NDP's last seat in the province. 

Unionist

I just wrote to Huff Post asking them to correct the headline (should say "national", not "nationalist"). I do wish Mighty Middle would do likewise with the title of this thread.

I'll have more to say about Jagmeet Singh's tone-deaf back-room unelected invisible string-pullers later.

lagatta4

We already have a form of pharmacare, but it does need improvement.

Québec innovated with dental care when the PQ was first in power, but it was restricted to minors with the aim of getting a younger generation with good teeth (Québécois and many in Atlantic Canada were stereotyped as having bad teeth, and poverty + too much sugar did contribute to this).  Unfortunately it was rolled back to some extent as the PQ drifted rightwards.

The Bloc did play a progressive role on such issues as unemployment insurance; remember that many Bloc MPs came from similar backgrounds as the NDP caucus; there were many trade unionists and people with a background in community movements. They remain a very contradictory party.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

I just wrote to Huff Post asking them to correct the headline (should say "national", not "nationalist"). I do wish Mighty Middle would do likewise with the title of this thread.

I'll have more to say about Jagmeet Singh's tone-deaf back-room unelected invisible string-pullers later.

Changed

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Singh's statement-and again, why is this MORE important than condemning the coup in Bolivia?-is exactly the kind of thing which will guarantee the NDP never recovers in Quebec.  What is the point of his even saying this?

Is something happening in Bolivia? I know stuff is happening in Chile. I don't think the mid-east is settled. The parties are competing to run Canada not the world. 

He has a point that passing legislation with only Bloc support would look very bad in the RoC but there was no need to make it. Quebec is out of play for all three parties due to Bill 21. It's the perfect new wedge issue. QS is our only hope in combatting it. That and PR which would double their seats. It is very sad that Bill 21 wasn't condemned by all media in Quebec. This bill marks Quebec as uncivilized and ignorant. 

The NDP wasn't going to win seats in Quebec anyway as long as the NDP is opposed to Bill 21. I'm assuming the NDP won't support it even if they change leaders. 

Unionist

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I just wrote to Huff Post asking them to correct the headline (should say "national", not "nationalist"). I do wish Mighty Middle would do likewise with the title of this thread.

I'll have more to say about Jagmeet Singh's tone-deaf back-room unelected invisible string-pullers later.

Changed

Thank you - and guess what? Huff Post listened to me and changed their headline too! Do I ever feel powerful today. What challenge should I take on next?

josh

Is something happening in Bolivia? I know stuff is happening in Chile. I don't think the mid-east is settled. The parties are competing to run Canada not the world. 

So you're saying Canada should not have a foreign policy?  A foreign minister?  Is your first sentence a serious question?

NDPP

The Hill & Knowlton socialist leader of all people should perhaps think twice before calling another political party 'irrelevant'. People who live in (shrinking) glass parties shouldn't throw stones.

Pondering

josh wrote:

Is something happening in Bolivia? I know stuff is happening in Chile. I don't think the mid-east is settled. The parties are competing to run Canada not the world. 

So you're saying Canada should not have a foreign policy?  A foreign minister?  Is your first sentence a serious question?

I was responding to Ken Burch:

Singh's statement-and again, why is this MORE important than condemning the coup in Bolivia?-is exactly the kind of thing which will guarantee the NDP never recovers in Quebec.  What is the point of his even saying this?

My answer is that domestic issues take precedence over foreign affairs. I think Canada should take positions on foreign affairs although we have been remarkably successful in choosing the wrong side so maybe not. 

I definitely don't think that foreign affairs should take precedence over what is happening in Canada. Right now Singh is positioning the NDP to have some bargaining power. He publically reminded Trudeau that teaming up with the Bloc to pass legislation without either the NDP or the Conservatives would be bad optics. He just made sure the Conservatives would have an absolute fit if Trudeau dared do any such thing although I think they would anyway.

He is setting the stage for Trudeau having to choose. Traditionally the Liberals have always been propped up by the NDP not the Conservatives. If Trudeau teams up with the Bloc they are teaming up with the party that wants to separate from Canada not a neutral that is simply neither NDP nor Conservative. If they team up with the Conservatives it offends Liberal/NDP voters. If they team up with the NDP, it offends Conservatives. It's win win win for the NDP. 

Yves-François Blanchet is going to be a lot of fun. Talk about a fox in the hen house. 

While the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals may find common ground in a minority government scenario on policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Bloc will follow its “duty” to fight the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, its leader Yves-François Blanchet says.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Singh's statement-and again, why is this MORE important than condemning the coup in Bolivia?-is exactly the kind of thing which will guarantee the NDP never recovers in Quebec.  What is the point of his even saying this?

Is something happening in Bolivia? I know stuff is happening in Chile. I don't think the mid-east is settled. The parties are competing to run Canada not the world. 

He has a point that passing legislation with only Bloc support would look very bad in the RoC but there was no need to make it. Quebec is out of play for all three parties due to Bill 21. It's the perfect new wedge issue. QS is our only hope in combatting it. That and PR which would double their seats. It is very sad that Bill 21 wasn't condemned by all media in Quebec. This bill marks Quebec as uncivilized and ignorant. 

The NDP wasn't going to win seats in Quebec anyway as long as the NDP is opposed to Bill 21. I'm assuming the NDP won't support it even if they change leaders. 

Evo Morales, the democratically-elected president of Bolivia, was forced to resign his office at gunpoint by the Bolivian military.  He has been given political asylum in Mexico.  His party has been forced out of power, even though it had just won solid majorities in both houses of the Bolivian Congress, and the non-elected new president is a right-wing white supremacist who has said she wants to bar Indigenous Bolivians from living in cities. 

As the most left-wing party in the Canadian Parliament, the NDP is SUPPOSED to oppose right-wing military coups and to explicitly denounce them.  And there's no practical political argument for keeping silent-a party like the NDP would never win the votes of people who think the military overthrow of elected governments anyway.

Singh has a moral/ethical obligation to explicitly denounce this.   If he keeps silence, he will forfeit any right to be able to claim to have any strong progressive convictions at all, to have any principles at all.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Is something happening in Bolivia? I know stuff is happening in Chile. I don't think the mid-east is settled. The parties are competing to run Canada not the world. 

So you're saying Canada should not have a foreign policy?  A foreign minister?  Is your first sentence a serious question?

I was responding to Ken Burch:

Singh's statement-and again, why is this MORE important than condemning the coup in Bolivia?-is exactly the kind of thing which will guarantee the NDP never recovers in Quebec.  What is the point of his even saying this?

My answer is that domestic issues take precedence over foreign affairs. I think Canada should take positions on foreign affairs although we have been remarkably successful in choosing the wrong side so maybe not. 

I definitely don't think that foreign affairs should take precedence over what is happening in Canada. Right now Singh is positioning the NDP to have some bargaining power. He publically reminded Trudeau that teaming up with the Bloc to pass legislation without either the NDP or the Conservatives would be bad optics. He just made sure the Conservatives would have an absolute fit if Trudeau dared do any such thing although I think they would anyway.

He is setting the stage for Trudeau having to choose. Traditionally the Liberals have always been propped up by the NDP not the Conservatives. If Trudeau teams up with the Bloc they are teaming up with the party that wants to separate from Canada not a neutral that is simply neither NDP nor Conservative. If they team up with the Conservatives it offends Liberal/NDP voters. If they team up with the NDP, it offends Conservatives. It's win win win for the NDP. 

Yves-François Blanchet is going to be a lot of fun. Talk about a fox in the hen house. 

While the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals may find common ground in a minority government scenario on policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Bloc will follow its “duty” to fight the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, its leader Yves-François Blanchet says.

 

Singh doesn't have to keep public silence on a military coup against democracy to be able to do those things, though.  This isn't a trivial thing, Pondering-it's first principles.  If you're on the left, you are supposed to stand with the poor of the world against oppression, not to act as though everything beyond your national boundaries is a meaningless distraction.

And quite frankly, it's a waste of time and energy to put more effort into trying to delegitimize the BQ than it is to stand with the poor, non-European majority of the human race against poverty and exploitation.  There's not going to be any gains in Quebec for the NDP from Singh choosing these priorities, and Trudeau isn't going to freaking CARE that Singh is trying to delegitimize the BQ.

And I say that as someone who wishes the BQ would go the hell away.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NDPP wrote:

The Hill & Knowlton socialist leader of all people should perhaps think twice before calling another political party 'irrelevant'. People who live in (shrinking) glass parties shouldn't throw stones.

A statement which might matter if you were actually being part of the work of creating an effective radical alternative.  While the NDP has deep flaws, no good would come to the Canadian left of the NDP being wiped off the map.  You can't build a new radical force starting from totally nothing and totally nowhere.  And neither the CPC, the CPC-ML OR the World Socialist Web Site-the one which opposed the Quebec students when they rose-are ever going to be that radical alternative.

NDPP

What a good and sucky sellout salesman you are Ken. Although I didn't say so, you did, I actually think quite a bit of good could come to the Canadian left if the 'deeply flawed' NDP was wiped off the map, which is clearly the path it seems determined to make for itself. Furthermore, 'totally nothing and totally nowhere' is a far better description of the No Difference Party than anything else.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

On what level have I sold out? 
I agree that the NDP needs to be radically changed.  My point is that destroying it for the sake of destroying it- which seems to be your objective-leave the left with nothing at all in Canada.

If you're going to call for the NDP to be wiped out, you need to already be building an alternative-something which can realistically take its place while standing for everything it should be standing for.  It's not radical simply to destroy something that already exists.

And as you know full well, none of the currently existing parties to the NDP's left in Canada have any chance of being the basis of a radical alternative.  The CPC is hopelessly Stalinist; The CPC-ML is hopelessly Maoist; the WSWS offers nothing but denunciation for denuciation's sake.

A radical left alternative needs to find a language which is understandable to people who aren't conversant with jargon, a way of communicating which is transformative but accessible. 

And it needs to be presenting a positive vision for something else which can be done.

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen here, you don't seem to be interested in working to create any of that.   

Could you maybe try being FOR something, rather than just being against things?

 

Debater

lagatta4 wrote:

We already have a form of pharmacare, but it does need improvement.

Québec innovated with dental care when the PQ was first in power, but it was restricted to minors with the aim of getting a younger generation with good teeth (Québécois and many in Atlantic Canada were stereotyped as having bad teeth, and poverty + too much sugar did contribute to this).  Unfortunately it was rolled back to some extent as the PQ drifted rightwards.

The Bloc did play a progressive role on such issues as unemployment insurance; remember that many Bloc MPs came from similar backgrounds as the NDP caucus; there were many trade unionists and people with a background in community movements. They remain a very contradictory party.

Yes, there are times when the BQ has helped pass progressive legislation.  Part of that is because the party moved to the left under Duceppe after Bouchard left for provincial politics.

Eg. The BQ helped pass the gay marriage bill during Paul Martin's minority government in 2005.  I think all BQ MPs but 5 voted in favour.

NDPP

The NDP is destroying itself, nobody else. They have apparently decided the solution is Hill & Knowlton leadership advice, supporting White Helmets, Nazis in Ukraine, and averting their eyes from Apartheid Israel and an open IDF recruitment of Canadians in Toronto. But not  supporting  Evo Morales. So be it. The voters have already spoken. They will again. 'The party smells of death'. As below...

"This could be it - the end of Labour. Some may scoff, pointing out that it has narrowed the gap with the Tories in some polls. But on the ground, in the heartlands the party smells of death...As a brexiteer from a dynasty of 'Labour men', I can't help but reflect with a hint of melancholy. But to former supporters, the party is like the family Staffordshire bull terrier that has become feral. The kindest thing is to put it down - peacefully but resolutely."

Sherelle Jacobs: Labour is On the Brink of the Most Seismic Wipeout in British Election History

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/labour-brink-seismic-wip...

Misfit Misfit's picture

We can start a pancake party. No one would ever draw a connection between it and a former left wing Canadian movement from around 50 years ago.

iyraste1313

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen here, you don't seem to be interested in working to create any of that.  ...

..There are 2 aspects of this to consider...one to discredit the political agencies and secondly the so called democratic system...secondly the building of an alternative populist and socialist alternative...which can only come as a result of mass movement...which must be encouraged, but but develop from the circunmstances forcing people to act.......

sure core groups can begin getting together to develop ideas...which is one reason I bother writing here....but events must carry the way.....

josh

NDPP wrote:

The NDP is destroying itself, nobody else. They have apparently decided the solution is Hill & Knowlton leadership advice, supporting White Helmets, Nazis in Ukraine, and averting their eyes from Apartheid Israel and an open IDF recruitment of Canadians in Toronto. But not  supporting  Evo Morales. So be it. The voters have already spoken. They will again. 'The party smells of death'. As below...

"This could be it - the end of Labour. Some may scoff, pointing out that it has narrowed the gap with the Tories in some polls. But on the ground, in the heartlands the party smells of death...As a brexiteer from a dynasty of 'Labour men', I can't help but reflect with a hint of melancholy. But to former supporters, the party is like the family Staffordshire bull terrier that has become feral. The kindest thing is to put it down - peacefully but resolutely."

Sherelle Jacobs: Labour is On the Brink of the Most Seismic Wipeout in British Election History

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/labour-brink-seismic-wip...

the Telegraph?  What's the matter, nothing in the Daily Mail or the Sun?

josh

Ken Burch wrote:

On what level have I sold out? 
I agree that the NDP needs to be radically changed.  My point is that destroying it for the sake of destroying it- which seems to be your objective-leave the left with nothing at all in Canada.

If you're going to call for the NDP to be wiped out, you need to already be building an alternative-something which can realistically take its place while standing for everything it should be standing for.  It's not radical simply to destroy something that already exists.

And as you know full well, none of the currently existing parties to the NDP's left in Canada have any chance of being the basis of a radical alternative.  The CPC is hopelessly Stalinist; The CPC-ML is hopelessly Maoist; the WSWS offers nothing but denunciation for denuciation's sake.

A radical left alternative needs to find a language which is understandable to people who aren't conversant with jargon, a way of communicating which is transformative but accessible. 

And it needs to be presenting a positive vision for something else which can be done.

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen here, you don't seem to be interested in working to create any of that.   

Could you maybe try being FOR something, rather than just being against things?

 

NDPP  callying someone else a sellout?  That takes chutzpah.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Singh doesn't have to keep public silence on a military coup against democracy to be able to do those things, though.  This isn't a trivial thing, Pondering-it's first principles.  If you're on the left, you are supposed to stand with the poor of the world against oppression, not to act as though everything beyond your national boundaries is a meaningless distraction.

I am not against Singh saying something but I disagree that a party on the left must actively release sound bites on all events in other countries when Canada is not actively involved. If the NDP does want to speak up more globally then I would prefer that they discuss this:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2019/10/popular-uprisings-against-neoliberalism-are-spreading-around-world#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5dc35b6a7c3f378b&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=3&at_tot=5

 The political left needs to focus assuming they want to win elections not just shout into the wind. 

melovesproles

I am not against Singh saying something but I disagree that a party on the left must actively release sound bites on all events in other countries when Canada is not actively involved. If the NDP does want to speak up more globally then I would prefer that they discuss this:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2019/10/popular-uprisings-against-neoliberalism-are-spreading-around-world#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5dc35b6a7c3f378b&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=3&at_tot=5

 The political left needs to focus assuming they want to win elections not just shout into the wind.

You don't think the NDP needs to say anything about an indigenous leader being overthrown in a coup and replaced by a President who has said "I dream of a Bolivia free of satanic indigenous rites. The city is not for Indians, they should go to the Altiplano (high Andes plains) or Chaco (lowland scrub forest region of Bolivia)." You don't think sitting back on this hurts the credibility that Singh and the party have been claiming they have on being the defender of indigenous rights? The NDP has literally said this is one of their primary focuses.

And because I know you'll respond with something about how Canada shouldn't care about indigneous rights in other countries: Do you think the assault on indigenous people taking place right now in South America has any effect on indigneous rights worldwide? Have you noticed that Singh often invokes the UN on why Canada should do something about our treatment of First Nations? Do you think these attacks on indigenous people in Brazil and Bolivia will have no bearing on how indigenous rights are advanced globally? 

Pondering

melovesproles wrote:

I am not against Singh saying something but I disagree that a party on the left must actively release sound bites on all events in other countries when Canada is not actively involved. If the NDP does want to speak up more globally then I would prefer that they discuss this:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2019/10/popular-uprisings-against-neoliberalism-are-spreading-around-world#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5dc35b6a7c3f378b&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=3&at_tot=5

 The political left needs to focus assuming they want to win elections not just shout into the wind.

You don't think the NDP needs to say anything about an indigenous leader being overthrown in a coup and replaced by a President who has said "I dream of a Bolivia free of satanic indigenous rites. The city is not for Indians, they should go to the Altiplano (high Andes plains) or Chaco (lowland scrub forest region of Bolivia)." You don't think sitting back on this hurts the credibility that Singh and the party have been claiming they have on being the defender of indigenous rights? The NDP has literally said this is one of their primary focuses.

And because I know you'll respond with something about how Canada shouldn't care about indigneous rights in other countries: Do you think the assault on indigenous people taking place right now in South America has any effect on indigneous rights worldwide? Have you noticed that Singh often invokes the UN on why Canada should do something about our treatment of First Nations? Do you think these attacks on indigenous people in Brazil and Bolivia will have no bearing on how indigenous rights are advanced globally? 

Do you not think indigenous people are protesting neoliberalism? Aside from indigenous activists I doubt many indigenous people are aware of what is happening in Bolivia. I am not saying he shouldn't have said anything about Bolivia. Just that it is not more important than Canadian politics or many other things going on in the world. He is auditioning to run Canada not Bolivia or the world therefore he talked about the Bloc. 

Globally indigenous people have no rights because "international law" has no force. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If you don't connect the dots all you give voters is a disjointed narrative that says nothing about anything except maybe us Canadians are exceptionally nicer than others. It really comes down to whether ones purpose in engaging in politics is to promote change or to gain power. They are not mutually exclusive goals theoretically but under FPTP the probabilities of a truly progressive party gaining enough seats is highly unlikely. So for people like me I have been content to work my ass off to send people like Svend Robinson and Bill Siksay and Gord Johns to Ottawa to speak truth to power. That IMO is the first step in awakening some sort of political understanding in the average voter. Without vocal and strident advocates for real change all you get is 30 years of missed targets on climate change and rule by the oligarchs whether they run SNC or Suncor.

quizzical

don't give a crap about what the Bloc is doing. nothing they say or do impacts my life any.

Pondering

I have hope that the NDP can win power under FPTP as they recently did in Alberta. I think the opportunity is coming even though it could still take a long time. When the powers that be fail big time revolution comes. Because we live in a democratic country the revolution can be pieceful. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I have hope that the NDP can win power under FPTP as they recently did in Alberta. 

It is in the realm of possibility that the NDP could win power under FPTP as they did in Alberta but that would most likely require the federal Liberals to become a 3rd party like the Alberta Liberals are in Alberta.

quizzical

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have hope that the NDP can win power under FPTP as they recently did in Alberta. 

It is in the realm of possibility that the NDP could win power under FPTP as they did in Alberta but that would most likely require the federal Liberals to become a 3rd party like the Alberta Liberals are in Alberta.

or the CPC  and  any of their incarnations relegated to the dust bins of history.

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I have hope that the NDP can win power under FPTP as they recently did in Alberta. 

It is in the realm of possibility that the NDP could win power under FPTP as they did in Alberta but that would most likely require the federal Liberals to become a 3rd party like the Alberta Liberals are in Alberta.

And have the governing party(whoever that would be) divided into two by a schism, as was the case with PC/Wildrose in Alberta 2015.

R.E.Wood

Pondering wrote:

Because we live in a democratic country the revolution can be pieceful. 

Yes, it will come slowly, in bits and pieces. We can only hope it will also be peaceful.

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Because we live in a democratic country the revolution can be pieceful. 

Yes, it will come slowly, in bits and pieces. We can only hope it will also be peaceful.

LOL, what an excellent typo!