Unite the center-left, or Harper will rule until 2025

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Incorrect

KenS wrote:

We've just witnessed our umpteenth lesson in what a huge proportion of Liberal voters go Conservative when the LPC is tanking.

Indeed we did. But if the Liberals and the NDP had come out publicly and said "vote for us, and we will run the country as a coalition" I'll bet those Liberal voters would have stayed with their party. They would be comforted that the NDP would be held in check against it's perceived potential for "reckless" spending by it's Liberal partners. NDP voters would tolerate the compromise knowing that it would be preferable to another Conservative government.

Incorrect

observer521 wrote:

This is far worse than the G20 nightmare. This is G20 everyday possible for a generation. blech.

Yes, but anything is better than getting in bed with the Liberals...

With great respect I strongly disagree with the premise that there is any use in “uniting the left”. I think we need to learn from the successful campaigns during the period of Thatchers England. The only successful campaigns that I can remember,  ones that actually stopped  right wing changes,  were rooted in broad extraparliamentary popular movements. It appears to me that  we should also consider the possibility of  trying to pry apart the economic conservatives who are  more socially progressive; i.e. Red Tories,  from the socially conservative and evangelically  inspired Tories.

 Our ability to stave off the worst of Thatcher and Harper will not be rooted in out voting  them in Parliament because they clearly have a viable majority. However we might be able to sufficiently mobilize popular support by shaming the bastards in public on a particular issue  and thus influence the parliamentary agenda and build  public discontent  that might be  useful in the decade to come.

 

 

observer521

This is not like anything Canada has ever seen before. With the global economic system, Harper will implement all their policies, and it may be impossible to get out of them, ever.

This is a catastrophe for the progessives in Canada. Harper is very smart, and will use the controlled media to keep himself in power.

Harper WANTS people on the left screaming at him, that gets him more support.

Harper will do what they are doing in England, and elsewhere.

This is why Harper had the G20 rehearsal in Toronto. If there are riots in the streets, now Harper has the jails and the hardware to crush them. And he owns the media through his buddies, so they shape public opinion, like G20.

The worst cuts won't come until his second mandate, he will turns the screws slowly in certain ways.

And if there are riots, then call in the troops, and throw the "anarchists" in his jails.

The moderate journalists will be purged starting now.

This is a crisis, and screaming about it, will do nothing. Harper loves when they left goes crazy, as Harper's base loves it.

But if there was one center-left party, Harper would crap his pants. But the party has to be fairly mainstream.

Sadly, I predict the center-left will not unify, and Harper will run amok like Canada's Putin, and remain in control of Canada perhaps for the rest of his career.

Sean in Ottawa

Mp post #39 in yay NDP sorry Canada should really be here-- please read if you want

klexo

[email protected] wrote:

With great respect I strongly disagree with the premise that there is any use in “uniting the left”. I think we need to learn from the successful campaigns during the period of Thatchers England. The only successful campaigns that I can remember,  ones that actually stopped  right wing changes,  were rooted in broad extraparliamentary popular movements. It appears to me that  we should also consider the possibility of  trying to pry apart the economic conservatives who are  more socially progressive; i.e. Red Tories,  from the socially conservative and evangelically  inspired Tories.

 Our ability to stave off the worst of Thatcher and Harper will not be rooted in out voting  them in Parliament because they clearly have a viable majority. However we might be able to sufficiently mobilize popular support by shaming the bastards in public on a particular issue  and thus influence the parliamentary agenda and build  public discontent  that might be  useful in the decade to come.

 

 

 

I don't see parliamentery electoral strategies as being at odds with exta parliamentary ones. The idea is to win "on the streets" (whatever that means -- in the culture) and at the polls. Mutually reinforcing, ideally. 

Maybe its best to recast the question this way: are we better off with 3 parties, one with a leftish hue, and a history rooted in the struggles of workers, women, etc. or 2 parties, one of which is marginally (how much???) less left with a watered down historical affilation with association with the antisystemic movements?   

iverglas

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Merger is useless.  Let the Liberals die on the vine.  Maybe then we can get real progressive politics back in Canada.

That was the plan, wasn't it? I mean, I like to think there was a plan. ;)

I'm quite surprised to hear this talk of "centre-left" hereabouts. The Liberal Party isn't "left" to anyone but a USAmerican, and surely we can leave this myth of the "centre" to the Liberals to promulgate.

The Liberal Party may be "libertarian" in the politicalcompass sense -- "liberal" in one of the senses used in the US (I join Phil Ochs in rolling over in his grave every time I hear the word used), i.e. socially liberal -- but the only sense in which it has ever been "left" is "as left as we absolutely have to be to maintain a grip on power in Canada". I voted strategically in 1974 -- for Bob Stanfield's Conservatives. I just didn't believe Trudeau's lips when he said no wage and price controls. I make a practice of not being fooled by Liberals.

I think I'd go first for the Bloc members in the House, then invite any interested Liberals to cross the floor, myself, in their own time. Forget the Liberal Party. Perhaps more of a pipedream than a plan, I know.

Four years of hell, but history marches on. Synthesis, antithesis ...

Wellington

observer521 wrote:

But if there was one center-left party, Harper would crap his pants. But the party has to be fairly mainstream.

Sadly, I predict the center-left will not unify, and Harper will run amok like Canada's Putin, and remain in control of Canada perhaps for the rest of his career.

But, if Harper has all the extra-legal power and can do all the things you suggest, why do you think "one center-left party" would be capable of stopping him?

Caissa

I doubt the NDP and Liberals will merge.

observer521

Simply for votes. 65% of voters oppose Harper, and Harper would not have a job today if vote-splitting didn't happen in Ontario. He only gained a few % in Ontario.

Many people fear the NDP spending if its not restrained. That is just reality.

I predict by Harpers 2nd term, he will do the cuts to the point of riots in the streets, after bankrupting Canada with military spending, etc.

The hatred between Libs and NDP means that Harper gets to pillage and destroy unopposed. Screaming in the streets, even riots, will have zero effect on Harper.

Just watch, his numbers will go up, like G20. Its all propaganda, and he controls the media now.

Caesar said: DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

That is what Harper says too.

observer521

.

Aristotleded24

observer521 wrote:
Simply for votes. 65% of voters oppose Harper, and Harper would not have a job today if vote-splitting didn't happen in Ontario. He only gained a few % in Ontario.

Ontario is not the whole country. You forget that the Conservatives already had a healthy base in Western Canada, and if Western Canada had voted differently (remember Mulroney lost Western Canada in 1988) Harper would not have a majority regardless of what Ontario did.

Wellington

observer521 wrote:

I predict by Harpers 2nd term, he will do the cuts to the point of riots in the streets, after bankrupting Canada with military spending, etc.

The hatred between Libs and NDP means that Harper gets to pillage and destroy unopposed. Screaming in the streets, even riots, will have zero effect on Harper.

Ok, I get the point about the votes, and agree about the vote-splitting. But I'm questioning the rhetoric: if Harper truly has that kind of power, why would he wait four years for another mandate and why would we think any kind of Parliamentary opposition to him would work? You have a case, perhaps, but I think you're really overstating it.

klexo

observer521 wrote:

Simply for votes. 65% of voters oppose Harper, and Harper would not have a job today if vote-splitting didn't happen in Ontario. He only gained a few % in Ontario.

Many people fear the NDP spending if its not restrained. That is just reality.

I predict by Harpers 2nd term, he will do the cuts to the point of riots in the streets, after bankrupting Canada with military spending, etc.

The hatred between Libs and NDP means that Harper gets to pillage and destroy unopposed. Screaming in the streets, even riots, will have zero effect on Harper.

Just watch, his numbers will go up, like G20. Its all propaganda, and he controls the media now.

Caesar said: DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

That is what Harper says too.

I think your rhetoric is over the top and I know your numbers are wrong. Just over 60 percent, not 65, did not vote for Harper. Big difference. CPC up over 5% to 44.2% in Ontario. In approx 90 seats the CPC won with over 50 percent of the vote. We need to pull votes FROM the Cons (ie convince, not insult, their voters) not just better divide the anti-Harper vote.  

Aristotleded24

klexo wrote:
We need to pull votes FROM the Cons (ie convince, not insult, their voters) not just better divide the anti-Harper vote.

This can be done. Remember those who voted Conservative in 2006 out of disgust with Liberal corruption?

KenS

klexo wrote:

"The idea that the NDP membership would agree to a merger with the Liberals is absurd."

What if we ask the members? Do you support that? A very DEMOCRATIC process is one absolute imperative here. 

I would support the principle, in the abstract. But here is the rub.

There is a small minority in the NDP who think the idea has some merit. But the bulk of the membership would find the idea offensive. If it was as simple as a riding association putting forard a resolution at the next Convention- if you could find one- they have that right. But a sponsored and mandated process to consider and debate the question- forget it. 

observer521 wrote:

By the way, I don't belong to either NDP or Lib or Green, so have no axe to grind. I like aspects of all of them, and dislike other parts.

 

I already figured you were not a member. Again, the question above: 

KenS wrote:

I'd like to hear how you intend to peddle this urgently needed recovery plan to us when we are too partisan and/or too block headed to smell your coffee.

 NS made the germane point that you are from the sidelines asking people to give up having devoted themselves to a party and its policies.

But that is too easily chalked up to the grand label 'partisanship'.

I'm more or less a centrist along most issues. That is not surprisingly rooted in pragmatism.

Like a lot of the other more or less centrist Dippers around here that same pragmatism tells that what a merged could do in the world is not worth working for.

When there was a possibility the NDP would fade away, I knew that if it did, I was out of electoral politics. Period. There is no second choice for me.

And the same pragmatism tells me that people are deluded if they think a merged animal would be 'in between' the NDP and the Liberals.

Even centrists have a line beyond which milquetoast just isnt worth bothering with.

Too bad about all that "partisanship" getting in the way.

 

Fidel

Liberals received nearly 19% of the vote and yet won only 11% of the seats. Clearly they were robbed by our dysfunctional electoral system. The combined NDP and Liberal vote alone is still more than the phony majority Harpers. The Liberal Party needs to consider helping the NDP to fix the democracy gap in this country. Almost 60% of Canadians who voted did not vote for the phony majority Harpers. We need to remind everyone of that truth over the next four years.

New West

 

 

I am against unifying the Liberals and New Democrats. These are two parties with very different outlooks on important economic issues. A two-party system in Canada couldn’t represent the diverse views of Canadians nor provide adequate scrutiny of powerful special interests. Just look at the U.S. - where the two parties compete for corporate funding and the attention of the corporate media. In that corrupt two-party system, there is no check on the Big Money boys, and the average joe is roadkill.

 

The NDP needs to put the bold in Democratic and go all out for a good system of proportional representation. In a democracy, it’s unacceptable that a big chunk of voters in Alberta and Saskatchewan have virtually no representation in Parliament. It’s unacceptable that a minority party with 40% of the vote has the power to dictate policy for the next four years.

 

Thanks to its disproportionate results in Quebec, the NDP got slightly more than its fair share of seats in Parliament this time around. So I hope Jack and the NDP do the right thing and really come out strong for a democratic, proportional voting system. Like public healthcare, that would be a great achievement for the party and the country.

SRB

observer521 wrote:

The hatred between Libs and NDP means that Harper gets to pillage and destroy unopposed. Screaming in the streets, even riots, will have zero effect on Harper.

Who are you trying to convince, I wonder? The Liberals and the NDP may want to merge in the future, I don't know.  But just saying it won't make it so.  The media is so facile about this, just saying that the two parties could as a matter of course form a new party called  The  "Liberal Democrats" as though the social democratic history of the NDP is a historical anachronism simply to be discarded. It's not that easy, even a new name would never be that easy.

There would need to be a huge amount of ground work laid (including the persuasion of both parties' memberships, who don't like or trust each other), before such a merger could be contemplated.

And before that ground work even begins, both parties need to take stock and understand who they are now.  I was just watching Libby speak honestly to this question on CPAC and she talked about the experience of losing party status in the NDP back in the 1993 election, and what the party went through at that time (real soul searching it sounds like in terms of ideological purity vs electoral success among other matters). She mentioned how there needs to be a time for self-reflection, for understanding what the party wants and where they want to go from that point on.  She suggested that the Liberals will need to do that first, and also that the NDP faces a significant challenge in understanding who it is now, with so many new members and such a strong Quebec caucus.

It's too soon to start talking about a merger until that process of reflection and maturation gets underway, and then someone in the parties actually has to start the conversation.

Procedurally I have no idea how it would work either, since the NDP is in principle a grassroots organization whose members vote on policy planks and other important matters.  I would think at least that there would have to be a convention convened where the membership could vote to go forward with negotations, committees (or whatever mechanism) would be used to draft the principles of the merger, and then another vote to ratify whatever conclusions the empowered group of negotiators or the committee (or whatever) reached. Anything less than a full discussion and consensus would be anti-democratic and illegitimate.

observer521

Well, the Cons got 40%, the last few % from the fear of the NDP. So at least 5% of the Cons vote is soft, so that is where I got 65% for progressives.

Harper will move slowly in certain ways. As stated in a FOX article, of all places, Harper's goal is to literally redefine what it is to be a "Canadian". They are winning. SunTV is going to have a spill-over effect.

Harper is re-engineering Canadian identity.

I wish the center-left could unify, and get rid of Harper in 4 years.

But they won't. The NDP and Libs will fight it out. And Harper is going to rip this country apart. But its like a frog in boiling water.

For those who saw what Harper did during G20, they know what he is capable of. If there are riots like in England in Canada when the Harper cuts come, then the police-state is all set to go.

And the media will cheerlead for Harper.

But like Dobbin said in his article, the elite Left is too comfortable and soft. Dobbin says the answer is donating 5% to the cause! Yes, that is the solution, more money to the moneyed Left elite? That does nothing.

If Canada is a chess-game, Harper has a checkmate right now. Sadly, I predict a minimum of 2 Harper terms. But the elected Libs and NDP are happy they have a job, for now.

But wait until Harper cancels party funding. Then its too late.

KenS

The "hatred" bit is vastly overstated too. As if it was all some viceral and partisan-competitive thing. And I dont mean just overstated about Dippers.

observer521

Layton is trying to be upbeat for the media. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/984946--layton-optim...

But Harper is not going to listen to Layton of course. Now Layton will be Harpers boogie-man. Its all Divide & Conquer, worked for Caesar, works today.

Mike Stirner

Observer........

calm down, as someone else said the sun will come up tomorrow and the leafs will fail(they have one more season by my calender), modern democracies go through cycles of left wing and right wing, deal with it, you sound like the equivolent of  a raving retard on freedominion who calls cananda a communist country in the pre harper days, harper and the cons are NOT fascists, be specific about the fucking term for fucks sake and stop calling it that which I don't like. I'm going to make a bet with you, providing 2012 doesn't happen(it will)I'll bet you that harper will never be as damaging in his structural ajustments as martin and chretian we're with theirs and overall canada does not have the rural heartland conservatism of the US, the ndp could consivable win if the right things come together...

......Now relax.

SRB

New West wrote:
The NDP needs to put the bold in Democratic and go all out for a good system of proportional representation.

I agree.  Luckily, Libby was already talking today both on the CBC and on CPAC about how crucial, how key, moving forward with democratic reform is; she said that it remains a priority for the party.  Luckily we are a national party, and while the NDP has to be happy about its success in Quebec, there are always heartbreakers in the West as you pointed it out.  The NDP won over 30% of the vote in Saskatchewan and wound up again with zero seats. Just as in Sask, progressive voters (except in Edmonton-Strathcona) are again disenfranchised in Alberta.  So I think it will remain a priority for the party as a whole because members in those areas will continue to raise it.  (And good new democrats like Libby seem actually to believe in it)

The only way to achieve success, though, is to get  public opinion on the side of PR.  I am uncertain about how that would be achieved.  It has to be a cross-party inititiave and perhaps even a movement.

klexo

SRB wrote:

observer521 wrote:

The hatred between Libs and NDP means that Harper gets to pillage and destroy unopposed. Screaming in the streets, even riots, will have zero effect on Harper.

Who are you trying to convince, I wonder? The Liberals and the NDP may want to merge in the future, I don't know.  But just saying it won't make it so.  The media is so facile about this, just saying that the two parties could as a matter of course form a new party called  The  "Liberal Democrats" as though the social democratic history of the NDP is a historical anachronism simply to be discarded. It's not that easy, even a new name would never be that easy.

There would need to be a huge amount of ground work laid (including the persuasion of both parties' memberships, who don't like or trust each other), before such a merger could be contemplated.

And before that ground work even begins, both parties need to take stock and understand who they are now.  I was just watching Libby speak honestly to this question on CPAC and she talked about the experience of losing party status in the NDP back in the 1993 election, and what the party went through at that time (real soul searching it sounds like in terms of ideological purity vs electoral success among other matters). She mentioned how there needs to be a time for self-reflection, for understanding what the party wants and where they want to go from that point on.  She suggested that the Liberals will need to do that first, and also that the NDP faces a significant challenge in understanding who it is now, with so many new members and such a strong Quebec caucus.

It's too soon to start talking about a merger until that process of reflection and maturation gets underway, and then someone in the parties actually has to start the conversation.

Procedurally I have no idea how it would work either, since the NDP is in principle a grassroots organization whose members vote on policy planks and other important matters.  I would think at least that there would have to be a convention convened where the membership could vote to go forward with negotations, committees (or whatever mechanism) would be used to draft the principles of the merger, and then another vote to ratify whatever conclusions the empowered group of negotiators or the committee (or whatever) reached. Anything less than a full discussion and consensus would be anti-democratic and illegitimate.

 

All of this seems to me to be true and thoughtful; I just hope it does not become an excuse for indefinite deferral and inaction on this. 

KenS

This whole discussion is stupid.

The dog wouldn't/would hunt if it existed is a discussion about hypotheticals that has no end. But it is pretty much beside the point.

This idea proposed by people outside the NDP cannot even begin to get off the ground.

PERIOD.

Call us unreasonable, pig-headed, whatever you want. I dont care. But forget it.

observer521

I don't think hatred is overstated. Some Lib flack was on SunTV going off about Layton and the massage parlor smear. Who leaked the massage parlor?

Apparently the Lib machine sent out emails about the SunTV story about the massage parlor right after it happened. So the NDP is not going to forget that smear-job.

If anyone sees any "leader" from either side hinting at working together, let us know. I need a little hope at least.

But I predict it won't happen.

Maybe Mike Duffy could lead the center-left coalition? Or Pamela Wallin? Have you seen the smack she is talking on SunTV? I guess they have learned from the US that going extreme right-wing pushes the public to the right, by contrast.

Like calling the media left-wing biased, when in fact 99% of the media supports the Cons, as proven.

I cannot see any other way to defeat Harper quickly.

KenS

referring to post73- 4 posts in between in 2 minutes....

And I say that with full respect to members that would like to give the idea a crack.

There just is not remotely near enough critical mass of you to get this off the ground, at all.

autonomist

for the love of all things holy, this is supposed to be a progressive site!  it is playing right into the hands of the powers that be to argue that there are only 2 choices - practically speaking, they are right, and ever-so-slightly left of center.  we want MORE choices, not fewer!  the political spectrum is NOT defined by 2 pale shades.   progressives in the ndp, and the few remaining in the liberal party must work, not together, but in concert, to defeat this government in 4 or 5 years, enact PR immediately, expanding democratic institutions, rather than contracting them.  imagine the creative policies that could be enacted with 2 or 3 parties acting in a coalition viewed as legitimate, perhaps even desirable by the electorate. 

klexo

KenS wrote:

And I say that with full respect to members that would like to give the idea a crack.

There just is not remotely near enough critical mass of you to get this off the ground, at all.

 

I expect that if the leadership wanted it, the membership would go along with barely a squeak. 

 

KenS

What you call "hope" is dismal. So dont hold your breath.

observer521

I know that those who control the NDP and Libs will never go for it. That is why Harper is going to run the show for many years to come.

And relax? Were you at G20 on the ground? Did you study and research what happened? The G20 nightmare in Toronto was a rehearsal, and it proved that in fact state power in Canada under Harper can do anything it wants, and get away with it. They can shred the Constitution of Canada, and no one can do anything about it. What can you do? Complain to who? The police? The courts? The gov't?

Relax? As Canada gets deconstructed into the US? Its going to happen. And Jack Layton, who I support, can't do a damn thing about it.

Canada is going to get stripped of hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, which will flow not to the people, but to the corps.

And who's fault is it? Partisanship among opposition parties. They couldn't even organize to make sure Harper didn't get a majority. Everyone looking out for themselves, and their own careers.

SRB

klexo wrote:

I expect that if the leadership wanted it, the membership would go along with barely a squeak. 

Oh, I don't know about that.  Based on the NDP conventions I've watched, I doubt it.  Anyway, I agree with others that working with other parties and more broadly in society to try to achieve PR is a better way to go.

SRB

observer521 wrote:

Everyone looking out for themselves, and their own careers.

I don't agree.  People, both politicians and voters, really did want to get rid of Stephen Harper.  Unfortunately our creaky, ancient electoral system does not provide a very efficient mechanism for doing so.

 

observer521

Or some type of stable coalition of parties! Whatever works, to get people working together, and not eating eachothers lunch.

Or if the center-left is splintered, then Harper rules unopposed. There is nothing worse than that.

stellersjay stellersjay's picture

I grew up with hereditary Liberal parents. My father was a party member and directed the campaign of a candidate in the ’68 election. I will never understand why anyone at this point expects anything but the purest pragmatism from the LPC. There’s been nothing even remotely “left” in that party in decades, and that small group within the LPC who imagine they’re going to reanimate the corpse of progressive Liberalism are like people who think they’re going to turn an aircraft carrier with a canoe paddle.

The NDP needs to plot its own course. There seems to be an arrogance to even progressive LPC supporters that makes it impossible for them to entertain the idea of anyone but the Liberals in charge, and a lot of time would be wasted courting them. Better to grow the base, converting those who surfed the orange wave and voted NDP for the first time this election into solid supporters.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@observer521.

Calm down!

Pogo Pogo's picture

So we work for 100 years to get to this point and for short term expediency we are supposed to merge with the Liberals and water our policies down even more.  Fuck that shit.

observer521

Our electoral system was designed by the Brits to control a colony with a tiny elite minority ruling over the rabble, and extracting the wealth of the country to benefit the elite, not the country. Same thing as today.

I just don't understand why the progressives can't work together more.

I have seen some left elites, recently saying the NDP is not far left enough! So ok fine, but that means it will never get elected, thus the Harpers of the world rule by default.

Not saying the progressives need to be professional liars like the Cons, but they need to be strategic. Or if not, then its game over, at least for the foreseable future.

 

observer521

Why are people telling me to calm down? that is absurd. This is a very bad situation, and certainly people expressing their viewpoint is appropriate? I am shocked how the progressives refused to work together over the last number of years, and now its lead to this.

but I totally see how loyal NPDers who worked for decades are not going to liquidate their NDP capital for anything. That makes emotional sense.

Same applies to loyal Lib party people, who identify with the Libs so deeply from birth.

That is why its a Catch-22.

 

 

Anonymouse

I don't factor Québec into my calculations of the NDP's competitiveness against the Conservatives because what happened there will be very difficult to repeat. Furthermore, what if Québec separates? where does that leave the opposition to the Conservatives then?

Anonymouse

observer521 wrote:

Layton is trying to be upbeat for the media. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/984946--layton-optim...

But Harper is not going to listen to Layton of course. Now Layton will be Harpers boogie-man. Its all Divide & Conquer, worked for Caesar, works today.

Layton is a brave man. He has had to endure Lastman, Harris, and now Harper (among others).

al-Qa'bong

We need the Liberals out there to split the rightwing vote.

autonomist

al-Qa'bong:  precisely (part of) my point.

Winston

knownothing wrote:

Kevin lamoureux should cross the floor and join NDP. That would be awesome.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Kevin Lamoureux's first vote as an MP in the House of Commons was against a woman's right to choose.  While he is certainly a populist and a good constituency rep, he is more in the vein of John Nunziata than Tommy Douglas.

Winston

klexo wrote:

I don't think "useless" is the word I would use to describe a merger.

The creation of a Lib Dem ((New?) Dem-Libs?) party, in red-orange, with a new platform and a leader selected by the new merged membership, would represent a monumental shift. 

I am curious: among the New Dems, how open are we to this? What are the bottom lines in any negotiations? Could merger with the tainted Libs hurt more than help in PQ and in the West?

I don't know, but I am inclined to think if we can take in 1/2 or more of the existing Liberal party, leaving little more than a rump, it would be hard not to jump at that. 

I would be open to a merger on 2 conditions:

1) The name of the party must NOT, under any circumstances contain the word "Liberal."  That word is anethema to Western Canada and in Quebec, thanks to the lingering resentment due to the party's corruption in the 1990s.

2) The new party must be a member of the Socialist International and not the Liberal international. This new party must be first and foremost a social-democratic party in the tradition of the European Social Democrats and Labour.

If these two conditions were not met, I would not support such a hypothetical party.

The big elephant in the room that no one is talking about is how the NDP and Liberals together scooped up 50% of the votes; it is very doubtful that a merged party could achieve such a result in terms of popular vote.  The better course of action is to push for electoral reform, so that every vote counts, without limiting voter choice.

klexo

Winston wrote:

klexo wrote:

I don't think "useless" is the word I would use to describe a merger.

The creation of a Lib Dem ((New?) Dem-Libs?) party, in red-orange, with a new platform and a leader selected by the new merged membership, would represent a monumental shift. 

I am curious: among the New Dems, how open are we to this? What are the bottom lines in any negotiations? Could merger with the tainted Libs hurt more than help in PQ and in the West?

I don't know, but I am inclined to think if we can take in 1/2 or more of the existing Liberal party, leaving little more than a rump, it would be hard not to jump at that. 

I would be open to a merger on 2 conditions:

1) The name of the party must NOT, under any circumstances contain the word "Liberal."  That word is anethema to Western Canada and in Quebec, thanks to the lingering resentment due to the party's corruption in the 1990s.

2) The new party must be a member of the Socialist International and not the Liberal international. This new party must be first and foremost a social-democratic party in the tradition of the European Social Democrats and Labour.

If these two conditions were not met, I would not support such a hypothetical party.

 

Deal.

What about the Progressive Party of Canada? And could we soft pedal the bit about the Socialist International -- it is not a big vote getter.

What about preferential voting for the unions? Do we need to keep that too? The great social dem Tony Blair sh** canned that in the UK. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Given Canadian history I don't think so.   The original libertarians with no coherent policies except representing the wishes of the voters in their riding.  In Vancouver the main right wing municipal party is called the Non Partisan Association.  Progressives were not a left wing party they were a right wing populist movement.  It would like saying we should call a new party the Reform Party.    

Quote:

The philosophy that government was mainly a matter of careful administration, transcending both class and political cleavages, led to the belief that the most efficient way of organizing the provincial government would be on a non-partisan basis. The goal on non-partisan government had long been a part of what William L. Morton had called the “bias” of prairie politics. [11] Since the early years of the twentieth century the West had been influenced by organizations such as the Non-Partisan League to which many farmers, frustrated with the near identical tariff policies of both the Liberal and Conservative parties, had turned. In provincial affairs, particularly in Manitoba, both parties had been tainted by either scandal or waste. The idea that the elimination of “parochial interests” and “partisan objectives” would provide for a government based on “sound, businesslike administration” paved the way for the election of the U.F.M. in 1922. Although the new premier had a strong distaste for partisan motivations it was not until the late autumn of 1940 that Premier Bracken came close to achieving the long standing goal of non-partisan government for Manitoba. His all-party government was established on the premise that the elimination of partisan politics would aid in the war effort. Accordingly, each party was to abandon partisan activities and, on this understanding, Bracken reorganized his cabinet to include representatives from all four major political parties on the basis of their strength in the legislature. [12]

When the C.C.F. entered the government in 1940 it had hoped that Bracken would break with the right-wing of the Liberal Progressive Party and look more sympathetically on C.C.F. proposals. [13] Bracken, however, remained true to his party and the C.C.F. quickly discovered that “nonpartisanism” would exist in name only. Seymour J. Farmer, the provincial leader of the C.C.F. and now also Minister of Labour, was denied a free rein in his department. On many of the proposals for legislation which Farmer did manage to introduce, Bracken insisted on holding free votes in the legislature. Since this allowed the members to vote along party lines the C.C.F. invariably lost. [14

 

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/26/garsoncoalition.shtml

KenS

observer521 wrote:

I know that those who control the NDP and Libs will never go for it.

You and others always frame it as 'the leaders' or 'the ones who control' As if it was someone out there forcing it down.

Never matters we tell you that we the grassroots don't like it. Wouldn't want to admitt that's it.... messes up the narrative.

klexo

Re the Progressive Party of Canada, a quick review of this canned history makes me think the name should not be disqualified for historical reasons.  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_of_Canada

 

 

Pages

Topic locked