The progressive case for voting Liberal no longer exists.

I argue that the progressive case for voting Liberal never did exist.

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

You make a good case,Ken. But there is one giant problem with this.

Our provinces are going Conservative,the United States is Conservative and a Canadian government going Conservative would be a collossal nightmare unlike anything we've lived through. At least not in the past 60 years +

You really want a Conservative continent? Live in an extremely socially conservative world with MUCH more war and destruction than hat we're living in now?

How about the poor and marginalized? How would they live through this?

How about being jailed for being part of BDS?

And for all the Russiaphiles here,think about what a solidly Conservative continent would mean to Russia? How about Israel?

Would you like to live free or find yourself stuck with a government that would legislate whatever Scheer decides is immoral? Mandatory minimums..Possible private prisons in Canada. Intervention in North Korea and Iran?

How about our social safety net disemboweled like what the Trump administration has done in the US?

Sorry,Ken but the case for progressives voting Liberal not only exists but with half the provinces going Conservative and a Conservative America,take a long hard look at what the world we live in would look like with Canada going Conservative as well.

This is not the time to split votes. We are living in dangerous times.

Careful what you wish for,my friend.

It won't be necessary to split votes.  The Liberals are collapsing in popular support now.  If every 2011 NDP voter who voted for them in 2015 to beat Harper joins all of the people who have only voted Liberal instead of NDP historically because they believed the myth that "only the Liberals can win", right there you'd have more than enough votes to beat the Cons.

It's time for Canada to finally move on like the UK did in the 1920's.

Yes. In a perfect world,everyone would vote NDP. As it stands,the NDP can hardly exceed 20%.

And as for all these LIberal governments falling. It's nothing to celebrate. You don't see the extreme danger we face with a Conservative continent. Face reality instead of dreaming,mate.

Ken Burch wrote:

Besides which, there's no guarantee Justin won't start arresting people for supporting BDS.  His dad arrested leftists in 1970 just for supporting self-determination for Quebec-he blamed everyone who took that perfectly legitimate position for the actions of the FLQ.

The only people who fall for that are strongly partisan. The premier of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal requested military aid. A Quebec politician was kidnapped (eventually murdered). They were terrified and they wanted military protection. 

The majority of Quebecers wanted it too. Nobody wanted to be near the next bomb when it was set off by the FLQ.

The military didn't arrest anyone. All arrests were conducted by Quebec police. 

Apparently the truth isn't a good argument. 

Ken Burch wrote:

It won't be necessary to split votes.  The Liberals are collapsing in popular support now.  If every 2011 NDP voter who voted for them in 2015 to beat Harper joins all of the people who have only voted Liberal instead of NDP historically because they believed the myth that "only the Liberals can win", right there you'd have more than enough votes to beat the Cons.

It's time for Canada to finally move on like the UK did in the 1920's.

In 2011 when a large number of people voted NDP, we ended up with a Conservative Majority.

The NDP needs to find a way of attracting a certain percentage of conservative voters if it wants to beat the conservatives and form government.

Otherwise it's just a possible repeat of 2011 unless the NDP can find a different electoral formula.

Debater wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It won't be necessary to split votes.  The Liberals are collapsing in popular support now.  If every 2011 NDP voter who voted for them in 2015 to beat Harper joins all of the people who have only voted Liberal instead of NDP historically because they believed the myth that "only the Liberals can win", right there you'd have more than enough votes to beat the Cons.

It's time for Canada to finally move on like the UK did in the 1920's.

In 2011 when a large number of people voted NDP, we ended up with a Conservative Majority.

The NDP needs to find a way of attracting a certain percentage of conservative voters if it wants to beat the conservatives and form government.

Otherwise it's just a possible repeat of 2011 unless the NDP can find a different electoral formula.

Well, maybe if the Liberals just gave up the ghost and dissolved their party, the NDP might have a better chance at finally forming government?

The theory that "progressive voters" only vote Liberal because they are afraid the NDP can't win is unsupported and self-defeating. In 2015 the NDP came within a hairsbreath of winning. 

The NDP loses because it hasn't convinced voters that they would do a better job of running the country. Mulcair's promise of national daycare etc. without raising taxes while balancing the budget wasn't believed. 

2019 is an entirely different playing field but it still comes down to presenting a vision that is better than what the Liberals are offering and that people believe the NDP can deliver. 

I still have high hopes for Singh but under-estimating Trudeau's 2019 strategy is misguided. He will have progressive actions to point at and progressive plans for the next term. His campaign is going to be slick and happy happy happy as he woos the middle class and those working to join it.

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The theory that "progressive voters" only vote Liberal because they are afraid the NDP can't win is unsupported and self-defeating. In 2015 the NDP came within a hairsbreath of winning. 

Who expouses that theory? How do you know the NDP came within a hairsbreath of winning the 2015 election?

It isn't a theory. The NDP was in first place for a while and they were neck in neck with the Liberals after that. That's a good thing. It means winning is within reach. 

I have confidence in Singh because of his knowledge and focus on inequality and occasional points that he makes. For example, he pointed out that there were no dollars in the budget attached to the progressive plans. I don't think Singh can make much headway for this election but he can set the stage for 2023. Who knows, maybe he will hold Trudeau to a minority. 

NDPP]</p> <p>[quote=alan smithee wrote:

Wake me up when there is any evidence of this happening. AFAIK,Trudeau has said diddly squat about BDS,never mind giving any clue that he'd jail those who support BDS.

NDPP wrote:

Owned by Israel just like the one that came before and all the other parties/leaders too.  We're not supposed to notice but we do.

http://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/qa-justin-trudeau-opposed-bds-movement

https://www.cija.ca/building-ties-canadian-jewry-prime-minister/

https://youtu.be/OTvO_SeTvrU

Justin Trudeau Has Israel's Back

Thanks for the links NDPP. I was wrong but I knew he bent over for Israel,just like any and every PM and President has for I don't know how many decades. The NDP is not immune to this either. The Israel lobby is the most powerful special interest,far more powerful than the NRA and even more powerful than Oil interests.

Of course Trudeau is against BDS. I don't see where I said he wasn't.

But the chances of Trudeau and the Liberal;s passing such a draconian law is just not going to happen. There's more of a chance of Santa Clause knocking at my door.

However,Scheer and the Conservatives could. And probably would.

When Orange Hitler declared Jerusalem as the recognized capital of Israel,it was voted nay by most countries. The Liberals abstained from this vote. I would have rathered they reject it too,but at least they didn't side with America.

Scheer has already said he'd recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He's in Opposition and he's ALREADY sucking Israel's asshole.

What kind of policies would Scheer implement as PM? I think he'd kiss Israel's ass more than Harper did.

And when was the last time Netanyahoo visited Ottawa (or Canda for that matter)? I don't think he's come here since the Liberals have been in power. The Liberals kiss Israel's ass,the Conservatives give them rimjobs. So it's a case of 'bad' against 'worst of the possible worst'

There is a difference between the 2 parties. Has Trudeau visited Israel yet? Seriously,I don't know. Do you?

The Conservatives,especially the current horde,IMO,are much more likely to follow through with criminalizing BDS,criminalizing criticizeing Israel -- period.

Mark my words NDPP. As bad as things are now,they will be A LOT worse if the Conservatives win. The Conservatives will and already do echo every policy the Trump insurgency vomits out . This means Scheer will partake on attacking North Korea and Iran. Something the Liberals have not and I highly doubt would involve Canada in bombing NK or Iran.

It's something they haven't mentioned. Not once. But you're going to hear a hell of a lot of it if Scheer is PM.

So you haven't convinced me at all that the Liberals are much much worse than the Conservatives. ESPECIALLY when it comes to Israel and the United States.

I know people who were jailed by Trudeau (and the equally offensive Boubou and Drapeau) who had absolutely nothing to do with the FLQ. They were jailed for being sovereignists, progressives and in many cases unionists or community activists. Most of those still alive are retired now, but I met up with a few during the "casseroles" (pot and pan banging) demonstrations in support of the students.

Trudeau was no democrat. He had every right to be a federalist, but none to jail people with other ideas unless they were actually involved in political violence. He acted like the fucking Spanish state is doing now.

Drapeau was also using the War Measures Act, to destroy the FRAP, a progressive opposition party that was the forerunner of the RCM and Projet Montréal.

The very incompetent FLQ terrorists were arrested via normal police work. I don't care whether people supported a fascist action against political opponents. Most white people in the US south supported Jim Crow, and there are many other examples in the world. It is still wrong and a denial of the basics of democracy.

By the way, certain NDP MPs and other figures distinguished themselves in their unpopular fight for democratic rights, although they probably had very limited understanding of the modern sovereignty movement, except for its repercussions among membership in Québec.

alan smithee wrote:

 AFAIK,Trudeau has said diddly squat about BDS,

[/quote]

Of course Trudeau is against BDS. I don't see where I said he wasn't.

[quote=NDPP]

Nor did I try to convince you of anything re your syphillus/gonhorrea Liberal/Tory arguments. Got it now?

NDPP wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 AFAIK,Trudeau has said diddly squat about BDS,

Of course Trudeau is against BDS. I don't see where I said he wasn't.

NDPP wrote:

Nor did I try to convince you of anything re your syphillus/gonhorrea Liberal/Tory arguments. Got it now?

Fuck off,loser. The truth hurts doesn't it,you fuckin'pissant,blowhard,asshole..?

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't think Singh can make much headway for this election but he can set the stage for 2023. Who knows, maybe he will hold Trudeau to a minority. 

What's special about 2023? Looking at the 150 year old pattern of Canada's history, it seems that the Conservatives will likely replace the Liberals within the next one to three terms. What's about to change in 2023? Maybe Nostradamus mentioned something about 2023 and the NDP? ; )

2019 is too close for Singh to make much headway on the issue of inequality. I'm hoping it will at least be a secondary topic to start increasing public awareness. Maybe by 2023 there will be enough awareness to convince people the situation can be changed. 

Pondering wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Suggest you read up on The War Measures Act,  the 450 persons arrested and the suspension of civil and political rights including habeus corpus. Otherwise you risk doing the same.

I lived it. Maybe you are the one that needs to be informed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

 The Quebec government also requested military aid to the civil power, and Canadian Forces deployed throughout Quebec; they acted in a support role to the civil authorities of Quebec.[1]

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis/

On 15 October the Québec government formally requested assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces to supplement the local police, and on 16 October the federal government proclaimed the existence of a state of "apprehended insurrection" under the War Measures Act. Under the emergency regulations, the FLQ was outlawed as membership became a criminal act, normal liberties were suspended, and arrests and detentions were authorized without charge. Over 450 persons were detained in Québec, most of whom were eventually released without the laying or hearing of charges.

Police detained people. They weren't arrested. Neither the military nor Trudeau did the detaining. The Quebec police did it. 

Quebec requested military intervention and Quebecers supported it. The kidnapping and murder of elected politicians was more of a threat to democracy than the temporary War Measures Act supported by the people of Quebec. 

The War Measure Act was requested by Robert Bourassa.

But don't bother telling Mr. Know-It-All. Putin ass licker.

I was an articling student in Toronto in October, 1970. I was quite positive about PET at the time, and was shocked by his action. While the crimes of the FLQ were severe, there was nothing that couldn't have been handled under normal criminal procedures. I was well aware that the criminal code allowed "peace officers" to arrest suspects on the slightest of suspicions. The only extra power granted by the WMA was to arrest and detain people for no reason whatsoever.

In my recollection, most of the Toronto criminal bar agreed with this view. Certainly, Roy McMurtry, for whose firm I was articling, thought it was outrageous, as did Arthur Maloney, the leading criminal defense lawyer of the day. Lagatta is right, this was a cynical ploy by Trudeau to win votes in the ROC by looking tough on separatism, while simulaneously having the pleasure of locking up people who disagreed with him.

Oh, and regarding who did the arresting, by coincidence I have a close friend who was an infantry lieutenant in the CAF in Montreal at the time. He has described to me in detail how he and his soldiers went to people's homes at 4:30am, and dragged them out of their beds. Of course, they were turned over to the police, but they were apprehended by the military.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I was an articling student in Toronto in October, 1970. I was quite positive about PET at the time, and was shocked by his action. While the crimes of the FLQ were severe, there was nothing that couldn't have been handled under normal criminal procedures. I was well aware that the criminal code allowed "peace officers" to arrest suspects on the slightest of suspicions. The only extra power granted by the WMA was to arrest and detain people for no reason whatsoever.

In my recollection, most of the Toronto criminal bar agreed with this view. Certainly, Roy McMurtry, for whose firm I was articling, thought it was outrageous, as did Arthur Maloney, the leading criminal defense lawyer of the day. Lagatta is right, this was a cynical ploy by Trudeau to win votes in the ROC by looking tough on separatism, while simulaneously having the pleasure of locking up people who disagreed with him.

Oh, and regarding who did the arresting, by coincidence I have a close friend who was an infantry lieutenant in the CAF in Montreal at the time. He has described to me in detail how he and his soldiers went to people's homes at 4:30am, and dragged them out of their beds. Of course, they were turned over to the police, but they were apprehended by the military.

You were in Toronto. I was in Montreal.

It was what Quebecers wanted. Is democracy only applicable if the people want what the left wants?

It wasn't just about the kidnapping. The FLQ were murderers before they killed Cross.  

An explosion had gone off outside a federal building. Another detonation had rocked the east side of Montreal's City Hall, shattering windows and a door. On the west side of the building, Mr. Côté was busy with a third bomb, a four-kilo package of dynamite.

It was Jan. 1, 1969, and Quebec was in the sixth year of a campaign of terrorism by the Front de libération du Québec that had already left five people dead and badly maimed an army sergeant.

"From '68 to '69, it was the biggest, most devastating wave of bombs that Montreal had seen. It was very distressing," Mr. Côté, who was then the head of the Montreal police's bomb squad, recalled in an interview.

The FLQ were not freedom fighters. Just the opposite. They wanted to force Quebecers to their will. The FLQ had to be destroyed and it was. Police alone would not have been able to do it. Bombs would have continued. 

Apart from the interesting drifts this thread attracts the overly partisan messaging that is defeating on all sides.

The Liberal Party and the NDP need to take responsibility for their own failures. To their credit at least the NDP is in favour of electoral reform. For Liberals to use increased NDP support as a threat is the height of hypocrisy. Each party ought to attract the most voters. Any who want to discuss strategic dynamics with supporters of other parties should first come out here overwhelmingly for electoral reform or STFU.

No, the NDP does not have to learn to take votes from Conservatives. The Liberals are closer to them and have the main responsibility to do that if such responsibility exists at all. It is a fact that Conservative people will consider the Liberals before the NDP -- this is not the fault or responsibility of the NDP. The NDP is not and cannot be a stalking horse for the Liberal party. Liberals should internalize this.

The NDP has to stop blaming the Liberals for their existence but learn to beat them instead. They also have to fire any communications people who blame the media. They know what the media is -- not just mainstream but alternate and social media: figure out how to make your case in it. If you think there needs to be more left media, create some. Usually the NDP blames the media whan it has done something that got bad press: stop doing crap that gets bad press. There is enough history to see this coming.

The Liberals remain a bait and switch party. They are not worse than the Conservatives or as bad in the moment but the dishonesty gets many on the left pissed. Liberals -- accept this or be less prone to exagerate your plans during elections. I think that all parties do this but for Liberals it is an art form that they brag about (govern from right run from left).

The NDP has to cobble together a program that speaks to the people and refrain from this self -marginalizing that the party often does. If you consistently show a serious desire to govern, you may be less likely to be accused of splitting the vote without any real value.

The NDP does not need to run candidates -- since it opts to, it needs to make a committment to seriously vie for power as that is the point. That does not mean running to the centre or anywhere but applying lessons to run quality campaigns with good communications.

No, the Liberals are not done and no you cannot say that it is not legitimate for a progressive to vote for them: voting is an individual act and people can vote negatively as well as positively. Respecting democracy means really understanding this.

The underlying assumption of the opening post of this thread is that somenhow the NDP would be different. The NDP would enact their election promises.

As anyone who has lived with an NDP government knows, that is just plain untrue. The NDP is just as likely to toss their 'progressivism' under the bus as the Liberals.

Rev Pesky wrote:

The underlying assumption of the opening post of this thread is that somenhow the NDP would be different. The NDP would enact their election promises.

As anyone who has lived with an NDP government knows, that is just plain untrue. The NDP is just as likely to toss their 'progressivism' under the bus as the Liberals.

That's a possibility a lot of people here don't want to know anything about.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Today's Nanos poll for those who think there might be a case for voting Liberal:

http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Political-Package-20180323.pdf

Stopping the Cons is the best case so far.

 

Watch it SJ or you'll be piled on and called a Tory.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

That's right.  If I really don't want the Tories to win, then I'll be called a Tory.   But if I'd be okay with a Tory government, then I'd be considered a true progressive.   Bizarro World...

BINGO.

That's the problem with this forum.

From Ken Burch:

My point is that there's a long-standing authoritarian streak running through the Liberal Party...

​Actually, all parties have an authoritarian streak. That may be because when they form the government, they are the authority.

By the way,  the current Liberal government repealed two Conservative bills that were anti-union. That is, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

alan smithee wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

That's right.  If I really don't want the Tories to win, then I'll be called a Tory.   But if I'd be okay with a Tory government, then I'd be considered a true progressive.   Bizarro World...

BINGO.

That's the problem with this forum.

As a progressive, I can understand those who view the NDP as more than just a vehicle for positive change in Canada.   For some people here the NDP is their community, family, and possibly their employer.     As for me, I've voted for both the NDP and the Liberals, mostly depending on my riding at the time.   But the country comes first.  

SocialJustice101 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

That's right.  If I really don't want the Tories to win, then I'll be called a Tory.   But if I'd be okay with a Tory government, then I'd be considered a true progressive.   Bizarro World...

BINGO.

That's the problem with this forum.

As I progressive, I can understand those who view the NDP as more than just a vehicle for positive change in Canada.   For some people here the NDP is their community, family, and possibly their employer.     As for me, I've voted for both the NDP and the Liberals, mostly depending on my riding at the time.   But the country comes first.  

I never voted Liberal. But there's a possibility I will next election (not that it's anyone's business). You're right,the country comes first and we cannot afford (a) a Scheer government and (b) by extension a Conservative ruled North America.

I'm straight forward and honest about it. So I catch shit about it. Most here will vote NDP no matter what and Irespect that. It's just the few who are completely full of shit and hyper-partisan that I give an attitude to. I also react when I'm attacked.