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

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...

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> 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?   

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?

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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 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:  precisely (part of) my point.

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.

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

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