Choosing between being right, and defeating the right

[Bragi]

if you acept the fact that the NDP will not form the next government, and that the Liberals could form, then it seems to me that the debate over whether the centre-right ought to unite comes down to this question:

Which is more important: defeating the neocons in the next election, or standing up for the policies that differentiate the NDP from the Liberals?

I know where I stand on this (I'm for defeating the neocons) but I'd be interested to know which policies it is that the NDP stands for that are worth splitting the centre-left vote for, and thereby allowing the neocons to win the next election?

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

1. Now I'm not saying anything against the cats....

They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat. You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Mouseland (and video here)



Deep Integration, John Manley and the Task Force on the Future of North America:

The Canadian Chair of this “task force” is former Industry Minister John Manley, who already expressed his sincere support for deeper economic integration to the U.S. in March 2004. His vice-chair is none other than Thomas d’Aquino, President and Chief Executive of the CCCE. Other Canadians on the task force, such as Wendy K. Dobson (Rotman School of Management at U. of Toronto and C.D. Howe Institute), Thomas Axworthy (Queen’s University), Michael H. Wilson (former Conservative Finance Minister, now with UBS Global Asset Management Co.) and Pierre-Marc Johnson (former Quebec Premier now with the Heenan Blaikie law firm) are also integration supporters.

Jack Layton on Paul Martin's plan for "Deep Integration"

More on Liberals and Deep Integration

Martin: Ignatieff Iraq War Support Okay

Liberals who support the war in Iraq have the right to express those pro-war beliefs even if they contradict the official government position, Prime Minister Paul Martin says.

Martin flatly rejected calls to bring into line star Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff, who came under fire Wednesday from New Democrats who attacked his foreign policy positions. "We're a political party," Martin replied. "Members are entitled to express their opinions."



"The reality is I'm pursuing the very agenda that I got involved pursue, when I was in the Liberal party supporting Paul Martin. I'm continuing to pursue that agenda. If that's arrogant to you, so be it." Liberal David Emerson



"Since 1994, I have crisscrossed the country, trying to raise awareness amongst Canadians that the institution of marriage was under attack by the activist homosexual agenda." Liberal Tom Wappel



" person with vision, a person with experience, a person with courage, a person who has the ideas, and a person who has the conviction that can help Canada recover to be the number one country in the world." Mike Harris nominating now-Liberal MP Belinda Stronach for the leadership of the Conservative Party.



"Tax reduction and significant tax cuts resonate significantly with Canadians as do messages from governments that keep their word. Mike Harris and Ralph Klein have remained consistent in keeping their word and providing meaningful tax relief to Canadians." Now-Liberal MP Scott Brison



Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail.

Being "Right"? That's the Liberal Party of Canada.

[MrPrax]

2. 2 for 2...

Your on a roll!!

Nice and tactful...unlike what my post was going to be

...something about the future liberal leader being an eugenic experiment involving the eggs of Iona Campangnola and the sperm of Marc Lalonde--kinder, gentler 'Trudeau era' appartition that will still promise to de-criminalize maryjane sometime in the next 4 decades...

[Bragi]

3. Nice graphics, poor argument

As you know, Manley isn't the leader of the party, nor is deep integration with the US a liberal policy. And it was the Liberals that kept us out of Iraq.

Meanwhile, we have a conservative party in power that will happily toady up to the US neocons, and who will defintely be re-elected if the centre-left again split its vote between the NDP, who can't win, and the Liberals, who could win if the NDP sectarians voted for them.

So I don't think your graphically overwrought response makes a lot of sense, since by continuing to vote NDP, you will end up getting a government that will do all the things you say you want to avoid.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

4. I'm not a Liberal, and there are millions like me. Get used to it.

Chretien/Martin oversaw more cuts to programs Canadians care about than the Mulroney regime, and it was only because the Liberal hand was forced by the NDP that the Liberals reluctantly rolled back tax cuts for social re-investment.

The Liberals didn't send troops to Iraq, but if Martin had been Prime Minister they almost certainly would have ("I think that we really are dealing with, you know, someone (Saddam Hussein) who… personifies, you know, evil in every way, and that… he has… he does have biological weapons. He does have chemical weapons. And he has demonstrated in the past his preparedness to use them. And so while I believe that he's contained, you know, for how long? And is it going to take 200,000 thousand troops on his borders forever in order to do this? So I… I mean I think that this issue has got, you know, there's much more that has to be played out before this issue is… will come to an end… It… has to be resolved and it has not been won.") The Liberals, of course, did send troops to Haiti to aid the coup against Aristide.

Look, I get it: you don't like us. You want a two-party system, though even that may be stretching it. Well get used to us, because the Liberal Party does not represent millions of voters on the Canadian left, because it is not a party of the left, even as it misrepresents itself as one during times of political expediency.

You're a centrist. Great. Work with that.

[Bragi]

5. Actually...

I've never been a member of the Liberal party, nor am I now a member, butI have been a member of the NDP, and I've voted NDP most of the time.

The problem with the NDP is that it has attracted about the same level of support since it was set up in the 1960's, has shown zero momentum over the past 40 years, and is not realistically anywhere near forming a federal government in Canada.

For the most part, in the past, this hasn't bothered me a whole lot, since the alternatives were being governed by Liberals, or by Red Tories, both of which seemed reasonably tolerable.

This has now changed, though, and we have a bona fide neocon minority in power now, and if we keep splitting the centre left vote, we will soon have a neocon majority, one that I believe will change this country in deep, dark, bad ways.

So I think it's now time to unite the centre left, prefereably in a new party, but if not, then united around the only party that can defeat the neocons. We simply can't afford any longer to split our votes and let the neocons win.

And that's where I'm coming from. The thing is that you and could probably sit down over a beer and agree on just about everything. Because of this, I think it's now time to agree on not splitting our vote, so as to stop a neocon takeover of Canada, which is otherwise going to happen.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

7. well

I'm sure we could have a beer - many of my best friends vote Liberal, and all of them drink beer - but we would still disagree.

[Bragi]

10. Here's where we would disagree

1. On you voting in a manner that elects more neocons.

2. On who pays for the beer.

- B

[V. Kid]

17. Whats interesting about this post is the two-party point...

...it simply means that they're be two choices and that therefore each one of them will have a chance to win every now and then, thus getting that neo-con majority that people like Bragi are so afraid of. And even if people like Bragi get what they want, and get a more left than the right-wing party like the Liberals, and a right-wing party like the Conservatives, it probably will win big in the first few elections, assuming of course that the left doesn't form its own party. A big assumption. Problem is that the people of the country, will inevitably get tired of the benevolent 'centre-left' party, as it inevitably gets bogged down in malaise or scandals, low-level, doesn't matter, the "its time for a change" argument will begin to take hold. And that will mean, voila, the only viable change will be the right-wing option. And then, voila they will win a majority. And the benevolent United 'centre-left' party will be able to do nothing significant about it. At least with a third party like the NDP on the scene saying they too want "change", it'll prevent too many reactionary change votes from going Conservative.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. multiparty systems also allow for minority govts

That moderating effect isn't possible in two-party systems. It also means that a third or fourth party can wield greater influence than the second.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. Granted, Manley isn't the leader,

and thank goodness he decided to sit out the next leadership race. The point is, there are SCADS of people in the Liberal party who espouse greater integration into a unified North American economy. These are not only people who like Manley; they're big fans of Martin, too. Martin is no mildly left-wing politician like Chretien. If Martin had had a majority government, he would have followed his natural instincts and assumed the position (bending over, grasping one's ankles, shutting one's eyes and thinking of money) whenever George Wanker Bush went to open his belt buckle. The only thing preventing him from toadying to the US government was the NDP threat to withdraw their support.

And you may also note, there are NO people in the New Democratic Party who espouse greater integration into a unified North American economy.

[tuvor]

8. I can't accept as "fact" something that has yet to happen.

Although it's probably an accurate prediction, nothing can be ruled out so certainly.

[CHIMO]

9. Your Crystal

Ball is lying to you. A fact, is a fact, is a fact.

The future is not fact. It is future. The future is a fact in that it will be, the future.

[Bragi]

11. Don't need a crystal ball

As a matter of *fact*, over the past 40 years, NDP support has been largely stagnant. At the federallevel, the party has never even achieved a level of popular support needed to seriously contest for official opposition.

So I can't think of a safer bet than that the NDP will not form a government in the next federal election. The only serious contestants are the Liberals and the neocons. Vote NDP and you will help the neocons win. The choices, and the consequences, are that simple.

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Britain's Labour Party

was formed in 1900 and was first invited to form a government in 1924, which lasted only several months. Then it won a minority in 1929 that lasted two years. It wasn't until 1945, 45 years after its founding, that it won outright power and displaced the Liberal Party on the left of the Conservatives.

The NDP led polls in the late 80s, including in Quebec, and in the mid-90s support dipped to single digits. Since then the party's drawn nearly two million more voters. Hardly stagnant.

[Minstrel Boy]

13. to add to that,

neoliberalism is to economics what neoconservatism is to foreign policy, and of course the Liberal Party, as Britain's Labour, embraces the "third way." I believe the circumstances of the 21st Century will favour parties of the left which have avoided this course.

[Bragi]

14. No, the NDP never lead in the polls in the late 1980s

There was a brief time when then-NDP leader Ed Broadbent lead in leadership confidence polls, but the NDP as a party has never come close to leading in the polls federally in Canada, at any time.

It's highest electoral percentage ever was 1988, under Broadbent, when it got 20 per cent. Since then it has floundered, picking up only recently to around 17 per cent, which is about where it was in the mid-1960's.

Fact is: the NDP has had no noticeable momentum among the electorate since it was established.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. well, you're wrong.

And the first link I found to prove it: a Vancouver Sun story from 2003, regarding Layton's leadership victory:

"But Layton and his backers argue that the NDP, which in the late 1980s had as many as 44 seats and once briefly led in the polls, needs to take a chance."

It's in Google's cache, the Sun must have removed it. The long URL is screwing up html coding, but you can find the story by looking on this Google page for "Print Story - canada.com network"

[Minstrel Boy]

16. "Under Ed Broadbent the NDP led national public polls for much of 1987"

From The Canadian Encyclopedia.

[Bragi]

20. One of us is wrong...

It could be me, or it could be the online site you referenced. Dunno. Wouldn't mind seeing an actual poll that showed the NDP leading.

Anyway, for the sake argument I will concede that maybe the NDP did lead under Broadbent for a nanosecond.

If so, then I would revise my central point as follows: the NDP has shown no momentum, or sustained growth in popularity, since it was founded in the early 1960s.

On refelction, I think that was my central point in the first place.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

21. see the post below and

view the CBC archive link for polling info. It was for more than a nanosecond, and it was as high as 43%.

[Bragi]

22. Great

They lead for a nanosecond, by by the 1988 election, had fallen to 20 per cent. Now, they are at 17 per cent, slightly less than they were in their first election in 1965.

As I said, the NDP has displayed zero momentum. They aint going nowhere, and only the Libs can defeat the neocons.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

23. so your being wrong

does nothing to invalidate your argument?

How very Liberal of you.

[V. Kid]

24. A year is a blip?

You can have a baby in that time you know.

[V. Kid]

18. Tell that to the CBC...

...clearly polls, and results are two things, but the point remains, the possibility exists.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-1580-10676/people/ed_broadbent/clip8

Including:

• As pollster Angus Reid predicted in this clip, the surge in popularity for the NDP was not just a blip. Two months after this clip, in July 1987, the NDP was at 41 per cent popularity compared with 35 per cent for the Liberals and 23 per cent for the Progressive Conservatives.


• Less than two weeks later, the NDP won three by-elections in federal ridings in the Yukon, Hamilton and St. John's.