There has been alot of talk about the LIbs/NDP/Greens joining forces to ensure that this is the Cons last term in office. The progresives keep splitting the vote which allows a majority government to be formed with less than 40% of the popular vote. We should stop this from occurring. An article from the LibDemo Movement is interesting... might be an alternative.
http://looniepolitics.com/love-hope-optimism-jacks-words-tell-us-trudeau...
That doesn't mean we should move to a two-party system. It's not progressives fault for allowing a 40% majority. That's always been the case. Especially when the right-wingers were splitting the vote in the 90s. Electoral reform would fix this once and for all.
But this movement appears to be advocating something other than electoral reform or electoral co-operation.
To be clear, the kind of agreement we propose is not for a coalition government (which we could see anyway depending on the results of 2015), but would restricted to policymaking.
In 2008, the NDP won 37 seats across Canada. Even in the most pessimistic polling for the NDP, those seats have been demonstrated to be safe holds for the NDP. And even in the most pessimistic polls, the NDP holds a solid half of the seats in Quebec. And that's worst case. There's still a chance the NDP holds most of Quebec and makes gains outside the province.
Whichever way you slice it, that's probably a minority government of some kind, with the NDP in a kingmaker role, with one of their best (if not THE best) seat toals in history. That means the NDP would have the most political influence in their history.
So policy cooperation isn't something to campaign for. It's going to be a necessity.
The Libdemo Movement is yet another iteration of the Liberals trying to use the NDP as a bag of votes. Sorry, we're bigger now, and we're going to use the Liberals as a bag of votes. We're going to appeal to Liberal voters in the election and if we get more seats than the Liberals, then it will be Tom Mulcair in the PM's seat. Most Liberals cannot stomach that thought at all. As Electoral Cooperation was defeated in the NDP Leadership Race, ISTM the question is settled from the NDP's POV.
Besides, if "strategic voting" were actually followed, then the Liberals should shut down their operations west of Ontario and give up on Quebec. But that won't get them enough seats, so it won't happen.
But it all comes down to whether you are a positive voter or a negative voter. If you are voting against the Tories, than anyone will do. But I want an NDP government and therefore I vote for the NDP.
This is getting tiresome as everyone by now should know that strategic voting = Liberal.
The fact that it's reoccuring with more frequency now, just shows the increasing Liberal desperation.
Thanks but no thanks.
Liberals and Greens aren't progressive. THe NDP isn't progressive depending upon the day of the week.
The Libdemo Movement is yet another iteration of the Liberals trying to use the NDP as a bag of votes. Sorry, we're bigger now, and we're going to use the Liberals as a bag of votes. We're going to appeal to Liberal voters in the election and if we get more seats than the Liberals, then it will be Tom Mulcair in the PM's seat. Most Liberals cannot stomach that thought at all. As Electoral Cooperation was defeated in the NDP Leadership Race, ISTM the question is settled from the NDP's POV.
Besides, if "strategic voting" were actually followed, then the Liberals should shut down their operations west of Ontario and give up on Quebec. But that won't get them enough seats, so it won't happen.
But it all comes down to whether you are a positive voter or a negative voter. If you are voting against the Tories, than anyone will do. But I want an NDP government and therefore I vote for the NDP.
ditto... well stated, Determinant!
I agree with SDM that the solution to "vote splitting" is proportional representation, and I agree with Determinant that the way to get there is to elect an NDP government in 2015 by crushing little Justin and his non-progressive Liberal party.
I agree with SDM that the solution to "vote splitting" is proportional representation, and I agree with Determinant that the way to get there is to elect an NDP government in 2015 by crushing little Justin and his non-progressive Liberal party.
What leads you to believe that an elected NDP government in Ottawa would change the electoral system? Has any NDP government done so before?
Well, I have certainly had my doubts about this, but for the moment I tend to believe Mulcair's repeated public statements that the NDP will present MMP as a part of their election platform, and will regard forming a government as a mandate to proceed with appropriate legislation. Perhaps he will renege, but I am willing to give him the benfit of the doubt until he does.
Well, I have certainly had my doubts about this, but for the moment I tend to believe Mulcair's repeated public statements that the NDP will present MMP as a part of their election platform, and will regard forming a government as a mandate to proceed with appropriate legislation. Perhaps he will renege, but I am willing to give him the benfit of the doubt until he does.
My emphasis, and my question:
The NDP policy book says that New Democrats believe in "reforming Canada’s electoral system through mixed member proportional representation", and also that they believe in "ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement". Getting elected with (say) 40% of the popular vote in a 30-day campaign on a multiple-issue platform doesn't sound to me as if it falls within that second quote. So I'm wondering: Have you seen a statement from Mulcair that goes beyond this?
I don't have a reference handy, but I think that I remember seeing him say words to that effect on camera more than once in the last 6 months. I could be mistaken, or he could have been carefully crafting his words to mislead fools like me, but that is the impression I got. I'm not willing to bet my life that this will actually happen, but it seems to be the only game in town at the moment.
We've been around the block on this one too many times. There is a sizable block of "blue" Liberals who would hold their noses and vote Conservative before they would support a Liberal-NDP 'alliance'. In fact, that faction of Liberal voters might be just large enough to put the Conservatives over the top and give them a second majority government.
In other words, whatever the proponents of Liberal-NDP cooperation say, in a back-handed way, they're really Harper's allies. Nice going!
After a little research, I found this video from last September. The final minute is the most relevant. Although he certainly could weasel out, Mulcair's concluding words are that he hopes the next election after 2015 will be proportional. FWIW.
Once someone has made a promise, speculating about whether they'll keep it is a poor use of your time.
You can choose to believe that politicians will break every promise, but then you may as well roll over, give up, and die. Or, you can choose to believe every promise, but then you may find yourself severely disappointed.
Really, the best thing is to think and act strategically. Governments are more likely to break promises if they think people don't care or notice. If you draw attention to the promise, and repeat the promise, and (ideally) get them on record repeating that same promise, then you're likely to see them follow through.
After a little research, I found this video from last September. The final minute is the most relevant. Although he certainly could weasel out, Mulcair's concluding words are that he hopes the next election after 2015 will be proportional. FWIW.
He said at 5:05: "It's the kind of change that won't take place without strong support across our society." As I said (and this replies to you too, sdm), this hardly constitutes any kind of statement that they'll consider the mere election of an NDP government as a mandate to introduce MMP legislation. And that's wholly consistent with what I quoted from the policy book.
SDM - I never said they'd break their promise. What I said, in essence, is that they have made no promise - unless you can find one, which would please me no end. Please read what's written carefully before composing a reply. But I do agree with your view about holding their feet to the fire. That's a must.
He said at 5:05: "It's the kind of change that won't take place without strong support across our society." As I said (and this replies to you too, sdm), this hardly constitutes any kind of statement that they'll consider the mere election of an NDP government as a mandate to introduce MMP legislation. And that's wholly consistent with what I quoted from the policy book.
Yes, you are quite correct. I may very well be guilty of over-optimism. However that is not the worst mistake that could be made by an old man.
"We will have MMP-PR next election, after 2015" sounds a lot like a promise to me. But I think it's fair to be skeptical, considering how many provincial NDP governments have run on electoral reform, and then not delivered.
Like I said, it sounds like a promise to me. But if there IS a gap between Mulcair's wording and what would be a "rock solid promise", it would still have a smaller impact on the reliability of that promise compared to the impact that WE have. If we as supporters don't broadcast and remind everyone about that promise over and over, it won't matter how well that promise is worded. And if there's someone at every NDP event to ask them pointedly to commit to PR, that more effective than mining for the right quote.
"We will have MMP-PR next election, after 2015" sounds a lot like a promise to me. But I think it's fair to be skeptical, considering how many provincial NDP governments have run on electoral reform, and then not delivered.
The criticism that provincial NDP governments have not delivered PR is fair, but I don't think any of them actually campaigned on doing so.
.
Mulcair has made a solid promise and said that it will not require a referundum.
Mulcair has made a solid promise and said that it will not require a referundum.
I'm curious as your source, because what I recall is [url=http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1862550]this[/url]:
At Fair Vote's news conference Thursday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair stated his party's support for proportional representation is “long-standing,” even though the NDP had no trouble tripling its seats in the last election under the first-past-the-post system.
Asked whether he could support the idea of a switch to proportional representation without a referendum, Mulcair said it would be such a "profound" change for Canadians he would start with “a broad-based consultation process" led by a panel of experts. He added he wouldn’t rule out a referendum.
Which is kind of like what he said in the video above: "It's the kind of change that won't take place without strong support across our society."
And kind of what it says in the policy book: "New Democrats believe in ... ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement."
So to repeat myself:
What's your source?
OK, then how about this, http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1862550
In part from that article:
"At Fair Vote's news conference Thursday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair stated his
party's support for proportional representation is “long-standing,” even though
the NDP had no trouble tripling its seats in the last election under the
first-past-the-post system.
Asked whether he could support the idea of a switch to proportional
representation without a referendum, Mulcair said it would be such a "profound"
change for Canadians he would start with “a broad-based consultation process"
led by a panel of experts. He added he wouldn’t rule out a referendum."
Sounds like Tom supports Porportional representation to me. At least if you use the Google Machine.
I will say this, anyone on here asking somone else to prove Tom's support would make better use of his/her time and everyone else,s time instead of deflecting like that, they might, like, I don't know, like, email him and ask, or something? Like, you know what I mean?
I'm just sayin'. Of course, he/she may not have time, they might be too busy flagging someone else's comments who doesn't attack other people all the time, to have time to do that. Again, I'm just sayin'.
And note, I didn't mention anyone specifically, so, I don't see how anyone could take offense at my post, unless of course, they really felt the need to.
OK, then how about this, http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1862550
[...]
Sounds like Tom supports Porportional representation to me. At least if you use the Google Machine.
Hi, Arthur! Thanks for linking to exactly the same article I did in my post - you know, the one just above yours. And thanks for reading my post carefully before responding!
Now, if you are aware of a promise made by the NDP to implement PR without a referendum if elected, just maybe give us that link too.
I personally think Mulcair's approach - promising broad-based transparent consultation - is far more principled than some of the "promises" falsely attributed to him here. I think if the NDP is elected with 40% of the popular vote in 2015, it would be the height of oxymoronic hypocrisy to declare: "Thanks for your mandate to change the voting system, Canadians!" It won't happen. And it shouldn't happen.
I personally think Mulcair's approach - promising broad-based transparent consultation - is far more principled than some of the "promises" falsely attributed to him here. I think if the NDP is elected with 40% of the popular vote in 2015, it would be the height of oxymoronic hypocrisy to declare: "Thanks for your mandate to change the voting system, Canadians!" It won't happen. And it shouldn't happen.
I don't understand why you think this would be a bigger change than Mulroney passing the FTA, or Chretien NAFTA, or P.E. Trudeau the patriation of the BNA Act. In 1980, the Liberals got 44.3% of the popular vote. In 1988, the PCs got 43.0%. In 1993, the Liberals got 41.3% None of these changes required a referendum. The fact that you think a minor change to the Elections Act requires something more than a similar mandate suggests to me that you'd rather just not have P.R. at all.
Yeah, I don't know why progressives want to unilaterally disarm. "I know you elected us on our platform, but we're not going to actually do any of that until we pass a referendum." This is why we can't ever have nice things.
I personally think Mulcair's approach - promising broad-based transparent consultation - is far more principled than some of the "promises" falsely attributed to him here. I think if the NDP is elected with 40% of the popular vote in 2015, it would be the height of oxymoronic hypocrisy to declare: "Thanks for your mandate to change the voting system, Canadians!" It won't happen. And it shouldn't happen.
I don't understand why you think this would be a bigger change than Mulroney passing the FTA, or Chretien NAFTA, or P.E. Trudeau the patriation of the BNA Act.
Ok, here goes again. It's Tom (not me) that said this change would require "strong support across society". It's Mulcair (not me) who said it was such a profound change that it would have to be preceded by "broad-based consultation" It's the NDP policy book (not me) that said it would require "a transparent process with wide citizen involvement."
Are you following me? That's what the NDP is saying. So, that's what they will have to do. Otherwise, it would kind of like lying - hypocrisy - if they just sprung it on everyone without doing all those things which [b]they themselves have said are required[/b] and without even a majority having voted for their party? No? What's the problem here?
The fact that you think a minor change to the Elections Act requires something more than a similar mandate suggests to me that you'd rather just not have P.R. at all.
Well, the fact that you said that suggests to me that you enjoy eating kittens for breakfast and worship the flying spaghetti monster.
Understand how childish straw-man arguments work now, or would you care for some more examples?
It's not [b]ME[/b] that says we need a strong mandate or all the rest. It's [b]Tom Mulcair and the NDP[/b]. Got it? Yes? No?
Goodbye Unionist, I will never engage in conversation with you again.
Goodbye Unionist, I will never engage in conversation with you again.
I responded to you that way because you made a personal unsupported comment about my beliefs. I also did it because I was upset and fell into sarcasm. You're one of a not-large enough group of people here who are generally more thoughtful and sober in conversation than I can be - and have some insights to offer. A roundabout way of saying, I apologize for my ill-tempered response and let's not banish each other. You can tell me off any time you want. Just keep the dialogue going.
Yeah, I don't know why progressives want to unilaterally disarm. "I know you elected us on our platform, but we're not going to actually do any of that until we pass a referendum." This is why we can't ever have nice things.
Then how do you explain why Mulcair is being circumspect - not ruling out a referendum - talking about "strong support" - and "broad-based consultation" - is he worried that promising to implement MMP in the first term, just based on winning an election, will lose more votes than it attracts?
OK, then how about this, http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.1862550
[...]
Sounds like Tom supports Porportional representation to me. At least if you use the Google Machine.
Hi, Arthur! Thanks for linking to exactly the same article I did in my post - you know, the one just above yours. And thanks for reading my post carefully before responding!
Now, if you are aware of a promise made by the NDP to implement PR without a referendum if elected, just maybe give us that link too.
I personally think Mulcair's approach - promising broad-based transparent consultation - is far more principled than some of the "promises" falsely attributed to him here. I think if the NDP is elected with 40% of the popular vote in 2015, it would be the height of oxymoronic hypocrisy to declare: "Thanks for your mandate to change the voting system, Canadians!" It won't happen. And it shouldn't happen.
OK, so from now on, I will read your posts, but from my point of view, I think Tom is clear where he stands. We have no idea if he and the NDP will or won't follow thorugh on his committments or not. As I have said over and over, Tom should be given a chance to deliver. If he doesn't, then as I have writtent in the past, that will be it, and I will simply stay home.
Let's see what happens before rushing to judgement. That's what I think.
Yeah, I don't know why progressives want to unilaterally disarm. "I know you elected us on our platform, but we're not going to actually do any of that until we pass a referendum." This is why we can't ever have nice things.
Then how do you explain why Mulcair is being circumspect - not ruling out a referendum - talking about "strong support" - and "broad-based consultation" - is he worried that promising to implement MMP in the first term, just based on winning an election, will lose more votes than it attracts?
Your description of Mulcair's stance might not be correct.
I'd want to ask the media how do you "not rule something out"? At the moment, all kinds of people are "not" doing a lot of things.
Strong support and broad-based consultation are what we expect to have leading up to and during elections.
And if he comes out and says "the next election, after 2015, it will be contested under a MMP-PR system", that's incompatible with your skepticism about Mulcair's first term.
But let me put the ball back in your court. If I don't trust the only pro-PR party that has a shot at forming government (and a strong shot at holding the balance of power) to actually deliver on PR, then what should I do as someone who wants to see PR get implemented as soon as possible?
[size=12] What I said in post #14 above. Hold their feet to the fire. I told you I agreed with you, didn't I? :) [/size]
Right! I guess what I'm geting at... it hardly matters if the wording of the promise is 8 out of 10 good, or 10 out of 10 good. We know that the only promises that are kept are ones where we lean on them.
Agreed. I just didn't like people saying "they promised", when they didn't. That has a soporific tendency to get us doing nothing but elect them and wait for the promise to be fulfilled. There's no promise. And even if there were, there's no fulfillment - without us, without the movement, without the struggle.
.
I completely disagree with the last statement. So did someone have to hold Tommy Douglas' feet to the fire to enact public healthcare? There are foundational positions that don't need feet held to fire.
You're right. Saint Tommy did it all on his own. The sheep just needed to vote for him, and the Shepherd led them to salvation.
Now Saint Tommy II will do likewise. Suggesting we need to pressure him is the very height of sacrilege and blasphemy.
Let us pray.
I completely disagree with the last statement. So did someone have to hold Tommy Douglas' feet to the fire to enact public healthcare? There are foundational positions that don't need feet held to fire.
You're right. Saint Tommy did it all on his own. The sheep just needed to vote for him, and the Shepherd led them to salvation.
Now Saint Tommy II will do likewise. Suggesting we need to pressure him is the very height of sacrilege and blasphemy.
Let us pray.
I don't understand your sarcastic attack on Douglas.
I don't understand your sarcastic attack on Douglas.
It's not an attack on Douglas. I love Douglas. But he did nothing alone.
It's a sarcastic attack on those who believe in "gods" - the immortal or the mortal type - and not in the humble masses who are the authors of all real change and progress.
Let me know if the allegory is still unclear and I'll try to improve on it.
I don't understand your sarcastic attack on Douglas.
It's not an attack on Douglas. I love Douglas. But he did nothing alone.
It's a sarcastic attack on those who believe in "gods" - the immortal or the mortal type - and not in the humble masses who are the authors of all real change and progress.
Let me know if the allegory is still unclear and I'll try to improve on it.
OK, I didn't undestand your point. I don't think he was a Saint, and I don't think anyone else does either. But it doesn't change the fact his reputation is richly deserved. The Libs have giverned since 64 on the basis of stealing his ideas. Now, THAT'S, ironic!
Yeah, I'm getting Unionist's point loud and clear. Tommy Douglas was only able to push for public health care because there was an entire movement pushing for it as well.
That must have been an interesting era, when movements were so active that they could start a new party and get into government within a decade. A lot of the institutions that made that kind of organization possible -- churches, unions, and farmer associations -- just don't play the same role anymore. And there are no institutions around now that have the same reach. People are so separate these days.
.
