Is the Election in the UK turning out to be a blueprint for NDP success here in Canada?

110 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2010-04-21 13:35

Centrist

Quote:
I think the big difference that nobody has brought up is that the NDP is a party of the edge of the spectrum (in so far as elected members) just as is the Conservatives. The Liberal Dems are the middle party in England as the Liberals are here.

The process for a centre party to come back from the dead in a system that has polarized is different than trying to get definition through polarization in the first place.

I agree with your analysis Sean. Again the parallels between the 1991 BC election and the current UK election are uncanny.

The 1991 moribund BC Libs only had one week from their own "Clegg" moment until election day and garnered 33.25% (from 6.74% the previous election). Again, NDP strategists later confirmed that had the BC Libs had an extra week until election day in 1991 they would have won - Believe it or not.

The Lib Dems have that extra week or two and such a juggernaut is difficult to stop. Using the 1991 BC election as a template, I expect the Lib Dems to be polling in the 35%+ range by this weekend. We will see if that rings true.

Wed, 2010-04-21 13:54

#53

Sean in Ottawa

I should point out that the Lib Dems are not in the same place on the left-right spectrum as the Liberals here-- in some repsects they are to the left of our Liberals and in others they are to the right.

This is a party that is somewhat Libertarian but beleives in a "welfare state"-- The philosophy while crudely centrist has no Canadian parallel.

I just thought I should clarify that for those who do not normally watch UK politics.

Wed, 2010-04-21 15:27

#54

St. Paul's Prog...

It seems to me that the Lib Dems are trying to be all things to all people, even if it's contradictory. If they ever get into power, though, they'll have to determine their priorities.

Wed, 2010-04-21 15:34

#55

ottawaobserver

Thanks all for the interesting points.

Wed, 2010-04-21 20:03

#56

JKR

Centrist wrote:

I agree with your analysis Sean. Again the parallels between the 1991 BC election and the current UK election are uncanny.

The 1991 moribund BC Libs only had one week from their own "Clegg" moment until election day and garnered 33.25% (from 6.74% the previous election). Again, NDP strategists later confirmed that had the BC Libs had an extra week until election day in 1991 they would have won - Believe it or not.

The Lib Dems have that extra week or two and such a juggernaut is difficult to stop. Using the 1991 BC election as a template, I expect the Lib Dems to be polling in the 35%+ range by this weekend. We will see if that rings true.

One important difference between BC in 1991 and the UK and and Canada presently is that back in 1991 the BC Liberals had a chance at winning a majority government while currently the Lib-Dems and the federal NDP can only hope to take power within a minority government or hung parliament. Majority governments for the Lib Dems and federal NDP are very unlikely, even if major seismic changes happen in their favour.

In Canada's 4-party federal political system, a seismic change in favour of the NDP would most likely not give the NDP a chance at forming a majority government. A seismic change toward the NDP would give the NDP a chance at forming a government through some kind of cooperation with another party or parties. Like it or not, the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc are not about to dissapear, so in our current political landscape the federal NDP is "stuck at the hip" to the Liberals and or Bloc. The NDP's strong cooperation with Paul Martin's minority government and the near coalition government between Layton and Dion were just the first two acts in what is likely to become a reoccurring storyline of NDP-Liberal cooperation in Canada's 4-Party Parliament.

If we go through more elections that produce minority governments, it will dawn on more and more people that a structural change has occured in Canadian politics that requires basic structural changes such as electoral reform and changing the confidence rules in Parliament.

This shift to minority government politics will require the NDP and the other parties to shift their outlook, strategy, and tactics. Just as Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats are being forced to change with the times.

Wed, 2010-04-21 20:59

#57

aka Mycroft

The difference is the Lib Dems are the second choice of a large number of Labour and Tory voters because they are ideologically between the two of them whereas the NDP are to the left of the Liberals making them the second choice of a lower percentage of voters. That's not to say there are not Tory voters who would vote NDP before they'd vote Liberal but they would be far fewer in number than the number of UK Tories who would consder the Lib Dems their second choice.

Wed, 2010-04-21 21:48

#58

RedRover

True...they are also playing the outsider card against special interests. Obama did this, but the Liberals have been far more effective - moving from 18% to 34% in just 7 days or so.

Clegg has acknowledged Thatcher's move to cripple unions was something like 'well and fine,' but says the same must now be done to banks. His party is not taking corporate or union donations, and he is playing up restoring power to the individual - which is very consistent with traditional liberal ideology/theory.

I think there are also there are some other campaign events that have contributed to the rise of the Liberals (outside of the monumental first televised debate in UK history)

- The Shadow Chancellor (Finance Minister) for the Liberal Democrats is one of the most popular politicians in Britain and has tremendous credentials on the economy. He is an economist, former Labourite, and essentially predicted the economic crisis, recession, and massive UK deficit back in 2005 when everyone thought the country was in and endless era of growth and prosperity. He was mocked by Brown, and in this campaign the roles have been reversed. The critic in question has tons of credibility on the economy and deficits, which are by far the biggest issues in the campaign.

- Clegg also gave himself up for an interview with the notoriously hardlined, and even ruthless, Jeremy Paxman. This interviewer has absolutely eviscerated people he has interviewd and the two main leaders decline to subject themselves to his examination. One interview doesn't seem like much to us, but Paxman is a bit of an institution and going on his show has been considered a 'litmus test' for PM candidates over the last 30 years or so. Clegg went on the show - even accepting the offer in a heartbeat - and handled Paxman very well. It wasn't flawless, but being the only leader to do the show and massively exceeding expectations was a very good pre-debate development. The interview was just a day or two before the debate, and mos polling outfits who were in the field have said that they were already picking up a 2-4 pont swing to the Liberals before the debate. Any lingering doubts of his 'stuff' were of course smashed by Clegg's outstanding debate performance - to the point know where the other leaders were blasted by even their most partisan supporters for not going on Paxson's show and not being prepped for the debate.

BTW - the Liberals are now in the lead - all be it at the top of the margin of error.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2620

Wed, 2010-04-21 22:26

#59

Centrist

JKR wrote:
One important difference between BC in 1991 and the UK and and Canada presently is that back in 1991 the BC Liberals had a chance at winning a majority government while currently the Lib-Dems and the federal NDP can only hope to take power within a minority government or hung parliament. Majority governments for the Lib Dems and federal NDP are very unlikely, even if major seismic changes happen in their favour.

Not necessarily. Two key polling results that have further peaked my interest during the campaign:

1. How would you vote if thought LibDems "had a significant chance of winning the election nationally"?

LD 49%, Con 25%, Lab 19%

2. Net Satisfaction with Leaders:

Clegg +53, Cameron +3, Brown -24

Combine those two outcomes and IF the juggernaut continues, the Lib Dems would be in majority government territory.

Remember that Broadbent and the NDP were also polling in the low 40's during 1987 (outside of the writ period), which was also a "pox on the other two houses" at the time. And the right-wing populist Reform Party attracted former NDP voters in droves in the west during the 1990's. Albeit, as Sean has noted, it's tougher to achieve political seismic shifts when a political party is further from the centre of the spectrum, etc.

Anything is possible - it's a matter having all of the stars aligned and all of the ducks lined up in a row. Rare but exciting moments in politics.

Wed, 2010-04-21 22:38

#60

adma

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I suggest it is harder for the NDP to come up and win from historic third place showings than the Lib Dems in England. Also they have challenged before about 25 years ago people thought they might come back when Thatcher was in power and the Labour in disarray.

Though keep in mind that 25 years ago, it was that two-headed monster, the Liberal/SDP Alliance, i.e. it was just as much an alterna-Labour as it was the continuation of the UK Liberals. But then the Alliance became the single-headed Lib Dems, and by then Labour was on its path t/w New Labour, thus negating the SDP spectre. So we were back to the old drawing board...

Thu, 2010-04-22 00:27

#61

Augustus

JKR wrote:

One important difference between BC in 1991 and the UK and and Canada presently is that back in 1991 the BC Liberals had a chance at winning a majority government while currently the Lib-Dems and the federal NDP can only hope to take power within a minority government or hung parliament. Majority governments for the Lib Dems and federal NDP are very unlikely, even if major seismic changes happen in their favour.

In Canada's 4-party federal political system, a seismic change in favour of the NDP would most likely not give the NDP a chance at forming a majority government. A seismic change toward the NDP would give the NDP a chance at forming a government through some kind of cooperation with another party or parties. Like it or not, the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc are not about to dissapear, so in our current political landscape the federal NDP is "stuck at the hip" to the Liberals and or Bloc. The NDP's strong cooperation with Paul Martin's minority government and the near coalition government between Layton and Dion were just the first two acts in what is likely to become a reoccurring storyline of NDP-Liberal cooperation in Canada's 4-Party Parliament.

If we go through more elections that produce minority governments, it will dawn on more and more people that a structural change has occured in Canadian politics that requires basic structural changes such as electoral reform and changing the confidence rules in Parliament.

This shift to minority government politics will require the NDP and the other parties to shift their outlook, strategy, and tactics. Just as Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats are being forced to change with the times.

Canadians may not be in favour of such an arrangement.

Thu, 2010-04-22 19:56

#62

edmundoconnor

St. Paul's Progressive wrote:

It seems to me that the Lib Dems are trying to be all things to all people, even if it's contradictory.

Just like the Liberals, then.

Thu, 2010-04-22 19:59

#63

Augustus

The Libs Dems are the equivalent to the NDP.

Thu, 2010-04-22 20:00

#64

RedRover

Some polls have them winning now.

The last one I saw had them at 34%...three up on the Tories, and seven on Labour.

Thu, 2010-04-22 20:20

#65

Augustus

If Margaret Thatcher was Conservative leader she would be running away with this election right now. David Cameron has just not stepped up to the plate. This was his election to lose, and he could end up losing it.

To think that only 6 months ago he had about a 25 point lead and blew it.

Thu, 2010-04-22 21:13

#66

edmundoconnor

It all depends on where the votes land. If they mostly land in Lib Dem-held seats, they're not getting one more Lib Dem MP elected than if the MP won by one vote. If they land evenly, then Labour and the Tories could win. What needs to happen is that the Lib Dems need to hold their seats (except in Scotland, where there is a more progressive alternative in the SNP), break out from their second places into first, and threaten to leapfrog where they previously were third.

Thu, 2010-04-22 21:15

#67

edmundoconnor

There is only one Thatcher. Thank Goddess.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:07

#68

Augustus

edmundoconnor wrote:

There is only one Thatcher. Thank Goddess.

She is unique, it is true. She is the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th Century after Winston Churchill. She was a giant in the political world for many years and we shall not see her like again.

The Conservative Party would be in much better shape if they had a titan like her leading it instead of a wimp.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:27

#69

ottawaobserver

She bloody ruined that country, Augustus. For heaven's sake.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:27

#70

Croghan27

Augustus wrote:

edmundoconnor wrote:

There is only one Thatcher. Thank Goddess.

She is unique, it is true. She is the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th Century after Winston Churchill. She was a giant in the political world for many years and we shall not see her like again.

The Conservative Party would be in much better shape if they had a titan like her leading it instead of a wimp.

WOW - the British public turfed Churchill as soon as the War was over .... maybe he was a good war leader (and that is moot) but he sucked big time as a Prime Minister. As for Maggy - her own party got rid of her before the electroate had a chance. Had they a leader like either Winnie or Maggy - the British Conservative Party would be in bad shape indeed.

Thatcher, for all her conservatism, accepted the social consquences of her policies ... mostly relaxed social attitudes as in views of of gays, immigrants and sexual mores: Cameron is trying to win an election by turning back appealing to chauvinistic impulses and traditional attitudes towards gays and 'new' British citizens.

John Gray in the London review of Books observes: The Conservative Party that emerges after the election may have more in common with the Continental European right than with anything that has been seen before in mainstream British politics. It is not unrealistic to imagine a breed of Conservatives appearing who have more in common with Geert Wilders than they do with Thatcher, Blair or Cameron.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/john-gray/thatcher-thatcher-thatcher

Fri, 2010-04-23 03:12

#71

Augustus

ottawaobserver wrote:

She bloody ruined that country, Augustus. For heaven's sake.

Are you kidding me?

Thatcher won 3 back-to-back majority governments - it's pretty clear that a large segment of the British public liked her.

Fri, 2010-04-23 03:46

#72

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You're ignoring the "ruined that country" part.

Fri, 2010-04-23 08:21

#73

Sean in Ottawa

You are right that a lot of Britons liked her-- for a while record numbers. Also record numbers hated her. She was a polarizing force.

It took a while but many who liked her powerful stance eventually saw te damage she did to virtually every public British institution.

In the end you don't just need an effective leader-- that effective leader needs to take you in the right direction. Better to have an ineffective leader than an effective leader doing all the wrong things.

Fri, 2010-04-23 12:46

#74

edmundoconnor

Thatcher destroyed any hope of more than a couple of Conservative MPs from Scotland for a generation, possibly longer. She gave the Scottish nationalists mountains of ammunition, which they still haven't used up. With using Scotland as a test-bed for the poll tax, she crystallized the opposition to her and did irreparable harm to the union (something I am in favour of, but not in the way it was done). She epitomized divide-and-conquer politics at its basest level, delivering a massive V-sign to anywhere which wasn't in favour of her (Wales, northern England, Scotland) while molly-coddling the City and the SE of England.

And for second-best British PM of the 20th century? I give you Clem Atlee. I struggle to think of another who has done so much to improve the country.

Fri, 2010-04-23 12:49

#75

edmundoconnor

* For those who aren't familiar, the V-sign (think middle and forefinger in a V shape, thrust upwards). Roughly analogous to giving the finger, but peculiar to Britain and British ex-pats.

Fri, 2010-04-23 13:57

#76

Sean in Ottawa

To clarify- it is like a peace sign given to yourself-- peace sign is pal out and this gesture is palm in.

Roughly means screw you and the fingers represent legs-- so using your imagination you can see it is not the most politically correct of gestures.

Just as the gesture many associate with BS (pinky and 1st finger) may remind you of a bull with horns but represents horns on the person it is show to which is said to mean they have been cockholded....

Middle finger apparently has disputed origins-- my favourite is the one where archers at Agincourt were said to show the French that they still had their fingers as the French would cut them off captives so they could not shoot an arrow again. However, there are some more graphic interpretations that people can imagine for themselves. I don't know which came first -- possibly there is a little of column A and a little of Column B.

Fri, 2010-04-23 14:19

#77

Augustus

Croghan27 wrote:

WOW - the British public turfed Churchill as soon as the War was over .... maybe he was a good war leader (and that is moot) but he sucked big time as a Prime Minister. As for Maggy - her own party got rid of her before the electroate had a chance. Had they a leader like either Winnie or Maggy - the British Conservative Party would be in bad shape indeed.

1. It is true that Winston Churchill was voted out of office after the War. My grandparents lived through World War II in London. It was because the country felt a different government was needed in order to improve the economic situation in Britain that deteriorated during the War.

You forgot to mention that Winston Churchill was later elected as Prime Minister in 1951 and served until retirement in 1955.

2. Margaret Thatcher was indeed removed by an anti-Thatcher element in the party in 1990, but it was something many of them later realized was a mistake since the Conservative government was never as strong again. The fact remains that the British people never voted her out and that she may have gone on to win another election had treachery within her own party not occurred. The British people elected her 3 times.

We also have to recognize the historical accomplishment of being the first woman Prime Minister.

Fri, 2010-04-23 18:50

#78

adma

To get away from this distracting Thatcherite bathos, here's an interesting piece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/general-election-2010-leaders-debates

in it actually references an case close to home, esp. among Babblers...

To come from third to first and hold on under the first past the post system is almost without precedent. It nearly happened in the Canadian province of Ontario in 1990 when the left-wing New Democrats came from a narrow second place to defeat both the traditionally larger parties, the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in an FPP landslide based on 38% support in the popular vote. But the real lesson of Ontario is not that a spectacular electoral bouleversement is a possibility. It is that it is the devil's own job to sustain. The NDP enjoyed a brief honeymoon, got hit by the politics of recession and was swept from power after a single term by the resurgent Conservatives. Something very similar could happen to the Lib Dems unless they can manage to change the voting system.

Fri, 2010-04-23 22:19

#79

edmundoconnor

With Nick Clegg being the UK's Bob Rae? Shudder. One is plenty enough, thanks.

Fri, 2010-04-23 23:10

#80

JKR

It's probably in the interst of the NDP to have as many televised debates as possible. These televised political debates help remove the filter the right-wing media has over politics.

The forces blocking British democracy - The Independent - 23 April 2010

Quote:

The British media is overwhelmingly owned by right-wing billionaires who order their newspapers to build up the politicians who serve their interests, and marginalise or rubbish the politicians who serve the public interest. David Yelland, the former editor of The Sun, bravely confessed this week that as soon as he took his post, he was told the Lib Dems had to be "the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored". Only a tiny spectrum of opinion was permitted. Everyone to the left of Tony Blair (not hard) had to be rubbished ? even when their policies spoke for a majority of British people.

Both TV debates, then, have been a very rare moment in which a slightly more liberal-left voice could speak to the public without the distorting frame of pre-emptive abuse and smears. When, for example, have you ever heard the EU defended as plainly and clearly? The window of permissible opinion was opened a little and people responded with a wave of enthusiasm.

The reaction of the right-wing press to briefly losing the ability to frame how politicians address the public has been a frenzied panic worthy of Basil Fawlty. They have "revealed" Clegg is a paedophile-cuddling, Gaddafi-licking foreigner and crook who wishes we had lost the Second World War. But now, for a change, people can test the smears against what they see and hear with their own eyes, unmediated, on TV.

Rattled, the right-wing press now demands Cameron start publicly thumping the table and articulating the agenda he whispers to them behind closed doors, and can be uncovered in his policy documents: big cuts in public spending, big tax cuts for the rich. But Cameron sees the polling and the focus groups, and he knows the public loathe his real agenda. That's why his performances in this campaign are so stilted. Once Cameron is forced to address us directly, without being bigged-up by the Murdochracy he has promised to feed and fatten, he withers under the weight of his own deception.

For two 90 minute blocks, the media demonisation of the liberal-left was switched off in favour of equal time and open access and it revolutionised our politics. If this happened day in, day out, how would our national conversation change?

Sat, 2010-04-24 12:12

#81

Michael Moriarity

edmundoconnor wrote:

With Nick Clegg being the UK's Bob Rae? Shudder. One is plenty enough, thanks.

I keep hearing people on this board diss Bob Rae. As a leftish voter who belongs to no political party, but generally votes NDP, I see him as just another politician, but far preferable to Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, and Michael Ignatieff. The few people I know who have met Rae personally have gotten a negative impression of him, but I'm not looking at him as a potential buddy, so I don't care if he's a jerk. While I was disappointed with his failure to implement public auto insurance, and other policies I favour, he was nonetheless the closest thing to a good leader I have seen as Premier of Ontario. If anyone thinks that Nick Clegg is likely to be a more progressive leader than Rae was, I think they are dreaming in technicolour.

Sun, 2010-04-25 15:53

#82

Augustus

It looks like Margaret Thatcher's old riding may be one of the seats that the Conservatives are able to take back from Labour according to recent polls:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/thoughts-thatcher-constit...

Sun, 2010-04-25 21:55

#83

adma

Not that that's surprising, given its ultramarginality and the fact that the Labour incumbent's retiring...

Sun, 2010-04-25 23:54

#84

Augustus

One of the reasons the Labour incumbent is retiring is because I think he knows he won't win it again, and because he's also been involved in some rather unethical dealings in the Parliamentary Expenses scandal.

I think the point being made is that what is most important about this seat is its symbolic value - winning back Margaret Thatcher's seat will be seen as the beginning of a new era for the Conservatives.

Losing Thatcher's seat was a symbolic blow to the Conservatives in the way that losing an Alberta seat to the NDP in 2008 was here in Canada or the way losing Outremont was for the Liberals.

Mon, 2010-04-26 00:19

#85

Stockholm

If the Conservatives want to have any chance of regaining power - they better win a lot more seats than Thatcher's old seat. The Tories need to gain about 140 seats to get a majority and Finchley-Golders Green is just about the lowest hanging fruit there is. If winning there is even in doubt - they have no chance of winning the election.

As it is thanks to the rise of the LibDems it now looks like the Labour/LibDem block will prevent a Tory government and stop the extreme right in its tracks in the UK. I hope that Labour and the LibDems cooperate to keep the radical right out of power and it will be a good role model for Canada so that after the next election all the non radical right parties work together to end this Canadian version of Oliver Cromwell's dictatorship!

Mon, 2010-04-26 00:33

#86

Augustus

In other words, because of the LibDems, the opportunity for the UK to have a new government that replaces the current corrupt Labour government may be ruined.

Let's remember, the majority of the MP's involved in the Parliamentary Expenses scandal have been Labour MP's, including the retiring Labour MP for Finchley-Golders Green. That is the reason he is retiring - he would have had his ass handed to him by voters.

Mon, 2010-04-26 01:05

#87

JKR

Augustus wrote:

In other words, because of the LibDems, the opportunity for the UK to have a new government that replaces the current corrupt Labour government may be ruined.

The Conservatives are not the only alternative to Labour. Cleggomania is running wild because voters in the UK have discovered that the LibDems are a viable alternative to their countries two-party monoploly. If the LibDems get enough votes they will be able to form a government and replace Labour. And if the LibDems get the most votes they will have earned the right to form a government regardless of the unfairness of FPTP.

Clegg has said that he won't support Labour if they come in 3rd. So if the Conservatives come in first place in a hung Parliament, Clegg will likely support Cameron, as long as he goes along with some kind of meaningful electoral reform.

And if Labour comes in third, maybe Labour will support a minority LibDem government? Unlike other governments, that government would be backed by a majority of the voters.

Mon, 2010-04-26 08:22

#88

adma

Stockholm wrote:
If the Conservatives want to have any chance of regaining power - they better win a lot more seats than Thatcher's old seat. The Tories need to gain about 140 seats to get a majority and Finchley-Golders Green is just about the lowest hanging fruit there is. If winning there is even in doubt - they have no chance of winning the election.

Keeping in mind, too, that the F-GG swingometer could have worked on behalf of the Tories in 2005 and Labour could still have held their majority. (Remember, too, another symbolic 1997 loss that was taken back by the Tories in 2005: Michael Portillo's old seat.)

Mon, 2010-04-26 23:45

#89

JKR

Electoral reform has become the #1 issue in the UK campaign. Clegg has said that "electoral reform is an absolute pre-condition for renewal in this country" and that that it's the LibDems bedrock issue if they are to go into negotiations over a coalition. Maybe this will be Layton's pre-condition too?

Cameron and the Conservatives have come out very aggressively against electoral reform This really shows how electoral reform is the greatest threat to those who want to maintain the status quo.

Quote:

Mr Cameron accused Mr Clegg of “holding the country to ransom” to benefit the Liberal Democrats, saying he was “interested in one thing and that is changing our electoral system so that we have a permanent hung parliament, we have a permanent coalition, we never have strong and decisive government.”

The Tory leader did not entirely close the door to electoral reform in the event of a hung parliament but backed first-past-the-post. He said: "I think it is a decisive way of changing our government... I do not want the electoral system changed."

The Tories warned a hung parliament could "paralyse" Britain, unveiling a mock TV election broadcast from "The Hung Parliament Party" promising to bring the economy to its knees and send interest rates soaring.George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, said: "Only a Conservative majority guarantees change for the better. Only a Conservative majority can secure the recovery."

I wonder what Cameron would say if Labour comes in third place and wins the most seats? Would he still support FPTP?

He'd probably still support FPTP because he thinks that sooner or later his party will unfairly benefit from it.

He and his Conservative Party colleagues don't like the idea that the government should represent more then 50% of the voters.

He'd rather have an elite minority rule over the majority.

Mon, 2010-04-26 23:50

#90

Stockholm

I think the NDP wouldn't hesitate to push for electoral reform as a bargaining chip if we were in a true balance of power situation (ie: Liberal+ NDP = majority), but I think it would be an insanely BAD idea for the NDP to to make electoral reform an explicit sine qua non during an election campaign. If the NDP is going to have a "bottom line" it needs to be a policy that directly benefits Canadian people - not something like PR which would be summarily dismissed as the NDP's first and only priority being monkeying with the electoral system so that the NDP gets more seats.

Even if the NDP wanted PR more than anything else, it would look REALLY REALLY BAD to try to build an whole campaign around something so obviously self-serving.

Mon, 2010-04-26 23:52

#91

Stockholm

Augustus wrote:

Let's remember, the majority of the MP's involved in the Parliamentary Expenses scandal have been Labour MP's,

Actually just as many of the MPs involved in the scandal have been Tories - including the notorious Tory MP who tried to expense the cost of refilling the moat around his castle!!

Tue, 2010-04-27 05:44

#92

Vansterdam Kid

To be fair to Douglas Hogg, apparently he just wanted to have the moat cleaned on a regular basis. Honestly though, what a stereotypically Tory thing to do. Not necessarily the corruption, but the vulgar display of pretentious upper class wealth. It's antics like that explain why the Lib Dems have surged at the expense of both major parties.

Tue, 2010-04-27 07:00

#93

Augustus

Stockholm wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Let's remember, the majority of the MP's involved in the Parliamentary Expenses scandal have been Labour MP's,

Actually just as many of the MPs involved in the scandal have been Tories - including the notorious Tory MP who tried to expense the cost of refilling the moat around his castle!!

Stockholm, the majority of the MP's in the scandal have been Labour MP's.

There are currently 3 Labour MP's under criminal prosecution right now, and no Conservative MP's (although there is one Conservative Peer under prosecution). If you have information to the contrary, I am open to correction. Please present it.

From BBC News - Three Labour MPs and one Tory peer are to face charges under the Theft Act over their expenses claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8500885.stm

Tue, 2010-04-27 09:14

#94

Stockholm

Let's apply that logic to Canada. 100% of the people in Canadian politics who are either Helena Guergis or Rahim Jaffer are Tories. 0% of Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer are Liberals or New Democrats!

Tue, 2010-04-27 17:42

#95

Augustus

Stockholm, sometimes it helps one's credibility to admit when one has been mistaken.

Bringing up Rahim Jaffer is an interesting point, actually. Like you, he would have improved his argument if he had been willing to admit he was wrong. When he pretended that he was right about everything, he impeached his own credibility in front of the Committee.

Tue, 2010-04-27 21:25

#96

RedRover

Stockholm? Wrong?

Wed, 2010-04-28 21:53

#97

epaulo13

A Ginger Revolution
Posted April 26, 2010

Grassroots campaigns could break Britain’s corrupt political system

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th April 2010

The most pernicious lie in politics is that the press is a democratising force. Journalists congratulate themselves for promoting democracy, even as they seek to shut it down. Witness the frantic campaigns in the Mail, Telegraph, the Sun and the Express to crush Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats(1). He’s no firebrand, but the rightwing press knows that the Liberal Democrats would introduce proportional representation and a fairer party funding system. The press barons would no longer be able to push an unrepresentative party into office or easily manipulate it once it’s there.

The liberal press claims to provide an antidote to these powers, but it still allows them to frame the question. It is obsessed by Westminster politics and the narrow range of issues that divide the two main parties, while neglecting both the external forces that limit political choice and the grassroots movements which seek to confront them. The true home of most political coverage is the gossip column.........

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/04/26/a-ginger-revolution/

Thu, 2010-04-29 01:00

#98

Augustus