Unite the Left: NDP, Greens, Bloc

And by the way, a quirk of opening threads on Babble is that you cannot edit the opening post [or the title]. Which is why people leave them blank, and put the opening post in the #1 slot.

Maybe the question should actually be:

"If the NDP obtains more seats than the Liberals in the next election, would the Liberals still be willing to work as a junior partner with the NDP to keep Harper out of power?"

Not with current Green leadership- not with the current Green membership either.

In the hypothetical- only a hypothetical it was possible- the NDP membership would have to think about it too. It probably wouldnt be worth all the effort required. THE NPI included more people, and was proposed and talked about during the NDP's doldrums... and it only got 40%. A new party means starting over. Most outsiders don't realize how much that means. All that to absorb what would be left of the Greens?

As to recasting for policy and appeal reasons- thats easier to do without creating a new party.

NorthReport wrote:

Brace for referendum -Duceppe

 'Desire for freedom' a powerful force

 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Brace+referendum+Duceppe/3145597/story.html

 

 

There'd be more support for the idea, if, after the next election,  the country is stuck with four or five more years of a Harper government.

Not with the Green Party leadership or membership and that is mirrored by the present NDP leadership and membership.  There's no movement to unite the left because not enough people want a party of the 'left'.  (whatever 'left' means anymore in the 21st century).  There is a struggle for the centre which remains erroneously associated with fence sitting and unsavoury compromise yet that is where the government should be.  The NDP ceased being a party of the 'left' a long time ago and the Greens never were except perhaps in the beginning.  The growth of the Green Party has been possible by an open move to the centre and a willingness to talk to those who still consider themselves to be progressive conservatives.  I suspect that Jack Layton and many others in the NDP leadership would welcome an equal shift in willingness but the membership appears reluctant to permit such an open move. 

So long as Canadian political parties remain stuck in 20th century framing there is nowhere for them to go. 

Cooperation and mutual respect doesn't require a public merger of parties which in reality puts an end to cooperation because it creates rifts and split off parties and left to become another amorphous blob in the eyes of most Canadians.  Whether we like it or not the 'left' thinkers are just as bad as republicans and Canadian conservatives with bullshit 'us good them bad', saint/devil, rhetoric.  Right now the political make up of the Canadian parliament is determined by this attitude and there is a huge non-voting, frustrated public out there waiting for politicians, as people, to change.  If that cross party lines communication became more public there would probably be more people willing to come to the polls on election day.  This might be to vote for a party that represents this change the most in their eyes or perhaps an individual candidate who represents this willingness to change.  There will always be a line in the sand that people will understand can't be crossed but they don't accept that every issue becomes a line in the sand. 

This is a struggle within the Greens that I witness almost daily.  We boast about being different and cooperative but struggle against the need to 'distinguish' ourselves from everyone else.  Why?  My personal opinion is that it is harder for us to trust that more votes will come from convincing people were different than will come from the status quo votes of those we're trying to convert and are certain will come out to vote.  It's just too easy to default to 'them bad. us good' statements which appease the party faithful but does little to convince the frustrated that you're serious about changing politics.  As an aspiring politician I certainly don't exempt myself from falling into this trap.  My pronounced distaste for the Liberal Party still paralyzes me in many instances.   I suspect this is an issue within the NDP as well but I'll leave that to New Democrats.  My concern is with my party, the Greens.

I was recently approached about attending a meeting to discuss the possibility of merging.  I said I would attend to speak against the wisdom of it.  I'm not interested in merging with the New Democrats and Bloc.  That's not what's needed.         

outwest wrote:

Are you suggesting that because in a coalition, the NDP wouldn't have ALL the power ALL by themselves, SOLELY, without anyone else "interfering," that's a completely unacceptable political solution for you? Wow.  Imo, the "it's my way or the highway" partisan philosophy is as unrealistic and antediluvian in politics as it is puerile in people's personal lives.

The topic of the thread is mergers not coalitions. You seem to be one of those people who want to do either and use merger and coalition interchangeabley.
Don't want to talk about mergers = dont want to talk about coalitions = don't want to talk about collaboration between parties is your invention. Don't try to foist it on others. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

People are ignoring the reality that they do not want to face.

The right is large in Canada and therefore uniting it created a big party.

The left is tiny and is already united. It is only not united if you consider it from a right-wing point of view where everything from the centre over is left

...

The fact is the left in Canada is only about 20% of the population and is largely united. There is a small number in the Greens or BQ that are unavailable and will not be available but those parties are not left parties.

The reality is the left needs to find a way to grow rather than to unite as it is mostly united already.

I'm not sure about the definitions of "right" and "left" but their is a lot of policy overlap between the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and Greens.

These parties all support polices such as national day care, prescription drug program, Kelowna Accord,abortion rights, cap and trade etc....

Most Canadians support parties that have these kinds of programs whether they're called left wing or not.

And last I checked, the Conservatives only have the support of liitle more then 1/3rd of the population.

Stockholm wrote:

Isn't it about the time the RIGHT was united once and for all and we could christen the new Liberal Conservative Party (LCP)

 

That could happen if we keep FPTP and the Liberals sink into 3rd place and the NDP soars into a strong first place. If it looked like the NDP had a fake FPTP monopoly on government, the right would demand the merger of the Liberals and Conservatives.

That's what happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC.

FPTP creates pressure for 2-party dominant systems.

 

NorthReport wrote:

Maybe the question should actually be:

"If the NDP obtains more seats than the Liberals in the next election, would the Liberals still be willing to work as a junior partner with the NDP to keep Harper out of power?"

Very interesting thought experiment. Let's say the NDP does very well in BC, Sask, MB, and Ontario and the Liberals do well in the Atlantic region, Quebec, and parts of Toronto. The election results could be:

Con:  103
NDP: 85
Lib: 75 
BQ: 45

In this case, the Liberals would have to show their cards as their seats would be required for either the NDP or Conservatives to form a stable government. There would be no place for the Liberals to hide. They would have to choose.

My guess is that the Liberals would not agree to be junior partners in a coalition with either the Cons or NDP. They would allow a minority government to go ahead with a lot of strings attached. Ignatieff would be in Clegg's position. After the election, he would probably negotiate with both Layton and Harper and try to get the best deal possible for the Liberals.

Like Clegg, his minimum requirements would include a fixed election date where the PM cannot call an election before the fixed election date and electoral reform.  Ignatieff could get both of those things without entering into a formal coalition with either the NDP or Conservatives.

And all things being equal, Ignatieff would likely choose the Conservatives because they have the most seats. Layton would have to offer Ignatieff a better deal then Harper because a deal with the NDP would be seen as less legitimate then a deal with the first place finishers. That was the position Clegg found himself in.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

People are ignoring the reality that they do not want to face.

The right is large in Canada and therefore uniting it created a big party.

The left is tiny and is already united.

Where's the "flag as stupid" button?

The right in Canada is far from large. Poll after poll shows that, on the issues, Canadians lean to the left. It is the right that is tiny, but it is rich and ruthless, and able to manipulate our increasingly compromised media to play on our fears.

The NDP and the Green party have practically identical platform goals. That means there are at least two parties aiming for the same voters. This is counterproductive. Neither one is able to obtain satisfactory power in parliament to really carry-though with much of its goals. In other words, there's a big chunk of the population that wants the same stuff but cannot make it happen because two practically identical parties are divvying up the same pool of votes.

A Liberal/NDP merger doesn't make sense, they're too far apart. An NDP/Green merger makes a huge amount of sense--where the parties aren't quite identical, they're complementary.

Last year, I started mapping the parties' platforms to one another, issue-by-issue, which is why I'm saying what I'm saying so confidently. I didn't finish my mapping project before the Green party came out with its revised platform, but from what I've read, there's no significant change to prevent a merger in terms of ideology. If you're curious, I posted what I did in a shared spreadsheet, along with a proposed skeleton of what the combined platform might look like, and a detailed rationale for doing so.

If I recall correctly, criticism of the Canadian Greens here on babble has often referred to their extreme fiscal conservatism. Does your analysis consider this aspect?

owlyph wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

If I recall correctly, criticism of the Canadian Greens here on babble has often referred to their extreme fiscal conservatism. Does your analysis consider this aspect?

In my (incomplete) matching project, I only considered the content of the platforms. I suppose some people might argue the Greens are in favour extreme fiscal conservatism but as far as I can tell, the content of the Green platform doesn't suggest anything like that.

Elizabeth May and The Greens mentioned being positive towards the idea of a guaranteed annual income for each Canadian citizen. Whether or not it's an actual part of their official party platform is another matter. But it does, at least, seem to indicate a step in the right (errr, left ?) direction.

If it were to be instituted, a tad above the poverty line, it could greatly reduce the Neoliberal/Neoconservative induced, seemingly endless, perpetually growing, double digit general poverty rate and double digit child poverty rate in Canada (yes, our 2-party state is mimicking the US). It would help to alleviate homelessness as well.

But many are wary of any formal merger with the Greens, as the party had a strong fiscally conservative backbone implanted by Jim Harris.

Why can't progressives use the phrase "fiscally responsible" instead ?!! "Fiscally conservative" reeks of privatization and tax cuts for the megarich.

The GPC espouses fiscal conservatism- in the abstract only. Their Green Vison planks add up to something that is anything but.

The NDP could easily merge with the Greens in my view. Yes, some Green members won't like it or stick around afterwards, but so what. It's not like a huge loss of talent. It would certainly help the NDP by reducing vote-splitting. If there was to be a merger though, I'd like to see the NDP adopt some of the Green's policies. I like how the Green party is open about their policies and has a coherent open vision. Taking the best of both the NDP and Greens it could be good.

Failing that, the NDP should push harder for PR so that the Green vote doesn't frustrate the NDP in swing ridings.

Jacob Richter wrote:

leftypopulist wrote:

Elizabeth May and The Greens mentioned being positive towards the idea of a guaranteed annual income for each Canadian citizen. Whether or not it's an actual part of their official party platform is another matter. But it does, at least, seem to indicate a step in the right (errr, left ?) direction. If it were to be instituted, a tad above the poverty line, it could greatly reduce the Neoliberal/Neoconservative induced, seemingly endless, perpetually growing, double digit general poverty rate and double digit child poverty rate in Canada (yes, our 2-party state is mimicking the US). It would help to alleviate homelessness as well.

Sorry, but basic income is anything but a step in the "right" direction.  It would come at the cost of the existing "social wage" (the welfare state), and it would have the effect of driving down wages.  It also fails to address anti-social attitudes that emerge with long-term unemployment.  There is an anti-poverty alternative, but in the form of massive but flexible zero-unemployment program (flexible because it goes past the usual public works schemes).

So you presented a theory of an intrinsic, negative systemic reaction. But has the GAI (guaranteed annual icome) experiment ever actually been tried anywhere ? Wouldn't you have to also theoretically factor in the positive, life-changing impact on the catastrophically poor ? The homelessness in Canada keeps so many locked into poor health, substance abuse, homelessness, crime, streetlife and suicide. It seems that if you were to give each of the homeless a GAI, it would drastically change the lives of 100's of 1000's of individuals. It seems that instituting a much higher national (or provincial) minimum wage would also help.

But the catastrophically impoverished are not employable in their current condition. A GAI along with other welfare and support programs could address that.

Are you rejecting GAI solely on the basis of presumed reactive market forces ?

The Republicans, unlike some of our Green posters, obviously think that the Greens split the anti-conservative vote:
 
Former Perry aide paid for aborted Green Party petition effort
By Kate Alexander | Thursday, June 24, 2010, 11:51 AM
Mike Toomey, a lobbyist and former chief of staff to Gov. Rick Perry, personally paid for an aborted effort to qualify the Green Party of Texas for the ballot, according to court testimony Thursday morning.
The testimony came from Garrett Mize, who led the failed petition effort beginning last fall. He said Toomey paid him $2,000 a month for about six months with a personal check.
Mize was subpoenaed by the Texas Democratic Party, which has filed suit to block the Greens from certifying their candidates for the November ballot.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

It seems pretty obvious to me that the Greens do not take from the Conservatives in any significant number.

The Greens are a bizarre mixture.   They have "green capitalists" in their ranks but also a "radical democrat" component as well.

I agree.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

What annoys me is their claim that they actually "transcend" left/right, when in reality they just take some positions that could be classified as left and others as right.  On the whole I would put them to the right of the NDP and the left of the Liberals.

 

I find the "transcending" thing annoying as well. What I want to know, and what I press them on, is how far do their left-ish policies go? You can talk about inequality and poverty, a guaranteed income and tax reform, but at the end of the day we don't know how strong these policies are. Would they reduce inequality a little bit? A lot? That's the important issue. I suppose it depends how strong the left and right camps are in the party?