Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I am fucking pissed off with the NDP and I say this as coming from a family

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:20 PM
Original message
I am fucking pissed off with the NDP and I say this as coming from a family
that been NDPers since its inception. Big fucking deal they are the opposition. It means dick all now that Harper has a majority. I'm pissed off they relentlessly attacked Ignatiff in their ads instead of focusing on what Harper would do and has done.

I voted for Olivia Chow because I voted stragetically but will never vote NDP again. They are the ones that brought down Martin's minority and are responsible for Harper getting his foot in the door.

A Harper majority is a fucking disaster. Next election I'm voting for the Green Party.
Refresh | +6 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've been warning of this for years
Edited on Mon May-02-11 10:23 PM by Very_Boring_Name
The NDP's goal has always been the elimination of the Liberal party, even if this means a conservative government. They finally did it! Congratulations! Welcome to 4 years of hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. There's no way that the Liberals could have been the stronger anti-Tory party
It's not like there were these polls that showed that the voters would have thrown out Harper if ONLY they had a guarantee that the Liberals were going to be stronger than the NDP.

The Liberal Party's defeat was there OWN fault for not being the party of Pearson and Trudeau any longer. Nobody WANTED to replace the Tories with a party that was only slightly different.

You can't put this on the NDP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laundry_queen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes
Just like why would you vote for a DINO when you can have the real thing and vote republican - I think that applies here too. Liberals have become like the DINOs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. The Liberals destroyed themselves
There was NO reason for the NDP to prop THEM up.

What the hell was Layton supposed to do? say "if you vote for us, we promise to get fewer votes than the Liberals"? It's not as if the Liberals were simply ENTITLED to be considered the only anti-Tory choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shockedcanadian Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. The NDP are not to blame.
They didn't polarize the issues and they weren't gung-ho on an election, especially during a time which made no sense. Iggy pushed for this election, noone else. The Liberals are to blame, the qualities that once made them the party of choice are gone.

This is politics, and Harper is a great politician, the opposition underestimated him and his planning. I have been disappointed with Harpers leadership to this point, and I hope he will improve, but ultimately the country has spoken, the Conservatives are by far the most popular party in the country, this slow growth has been building for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Not that I watch much TV but all the NDP I saw went after Ignatiff not Harper.
Why do you think Canadians buy into Harper and the Conservatives? Don't they comprehend what happened in the US under Bush and his neocons? Do they not see what hell privatised healthcare is like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Arrowhead2k1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. True, true, and True.
Harper should be calling Layton tonight to thank him for the strong majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Next election I'm voting for the Green Party."
That sounds like a punch line, but the joke is too subtle for me. Could you explain it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sit
In a closet and listen to yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. What is there to listen to? The NDP focused on destroying Ignatiff to
further their own ambitions at the expense of Canadians. Do you understand how destructive this govt will be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. My
Comment was on the post. He can listen to him/herself. That is all he/she wants to do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laundry_queen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Which will only push the country further left.
I plan to spend the next 4-5 years telling my family "I told you so" every time they are shocked at some far right piece of shit legislation that passes.

No, this is not the fault of the NDP. The Liberals have been on self-destruct mode ever since Paul Martin stepped down. They have no vision, and their whole campaign was run on 'we're not Harper'. NDP captured the imagination of Canadians. Yes, the next 4-5 years are going to be fucking horrible. I don't think the long term will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. How do you think NDP will get the funds to run an election in four years?
Harper promised that if he got a majority he would end public subsidies to political parties and open the door to corporate donors. That means 4 years of ads destroying Layton and the NDP, the way they relentless destroyed Ignatiff.

Do you think the protest voters this election are going to become NDP finacial backers? Dream on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The Liberals could never have won this election
They'd been behind for at least two years.

Why can't you admit they bear at least some of the responsibility here?

They didn't HAVE to refuse to treat non-Liberal anti-Harper parties as their equals.

They didn't HAVE to refuse to back proportional representation.

They didn't HAVE to just demand that every anti-Harper vote for them, just because.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
laundry_queen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. well that part sucks
and makes me sick. I get what we just lost. You can keep your 'dream on' rudeness to yourself though. I understand all of what you just said, but you are totally blaming the wrong people. The Libs fucked this up. Not the NDP. The libs became completely OOT and irrelevant, not the NDP. Besides, I could have told you from the day iggy was elected that it was the wrong decision. Oh, so wrong, and I saw it coming a mile away. Liberals are in deep, deep denial. They need to make a hard left turn to become relevant again. Canadians also don't have much patience for dictators. If Harper decides to 'rule' like one, we will see another 12 years of left majorities right after. We are not used to our leaders 'presidentin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It will be a protest vote. Canada has 5 federal parties, the newest one is the Green Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. Martin fucked up on dismantling UI (for his corporate contributors)
and got his ass handed to him (Martin had tax-shelters in tax-heavens and his boats were registered in Central America to avoid paying taxes in Canada).

Hello?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. What The F---
Are you talking about. This is 2011.

If all you can think about Martin is UIC, then you don't know that Harper rolled all the UIC into government money.
Martin cut medicare. Harper will kill medicare.

Where are you on this issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Where am I?
Two words: In Quebec.

First: Martin was the one who rolled all the UIC into goverment money.

Second: harper will not be able to kill medicare, because Canadians will take to the streets if he dares (especially in Quebec....).

And IF he does it anyway, there WILL be another election in Canada, you know? Remember mulroney? Or kim campbell?? (2 seats hahaha).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Snagglepuss2 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
20. You're not the only one
Edited on Tue May-03-11 03:09 AM by Snagglepuss2

that been NDPers since its inception. Big fucking deal they are the opposition. It means dick all now that Harper has a majority. I'm pissed off they relentlessly attacked Ignatiff in their ads instead of focusing on what Harper would do and has done.


What the NDP should have done, what they needed to do, was coordinate with the Liberals, and not run candidates where the NDP didn't have a damn good chance of being elected. In my riding, in the last election, the NDP got about 7500 votes; this time they got about 12K The Liberal got 15K, and the Conservative won with just over 16K.

I have the NDP to thank for helping the Conservatives win their precious majority.


I voted for Olivia Chow because I voted stragetically but will never vote NDP again. They are the ones that brought down Martin's minority and are responsible for Harper getting his foot in the door.


I voted strategically for the Liberals because I was absolutely desperate to keep this seat from falling to the Conservatives. If the NDP had pulled their candidate here, and done the same in another dozen ridings, then we would have a Conservative minority, not a Conservative majority.

I've heard Jack literally rail against strategic voting -- it's all fine and good saying that you should vote for something you believe in, and not vote against something. In a system other than our brain-dead first-past-the-post polling system, he would have a point. The point of this election was to keep Harper from getting a majority government, and instead of that, we gave him one. He now has carte-blanche to do whatever he likes, for four long years. I expect him to pack the Senate with more Tory bag men and political cronies. More ominously, at least two members of the Supreme Court are going to retire in the next few years -- Harper will get to appoint their replacements, thus ensuring that even if his government is defeated in another four years, his conservative legacy will live on, in a rightward-leaning Supreme court.

I haven't felt so disillusioned, not to mention disspirited, since the 1988 election where the Mulroney Tories got a majority government and foisted 'free trade' on us, despite the fact that over 50% of the voters voted against 'free trade'. Compared to this lot, Mulroney is almost a socialist.

I expect to see a repeat of what we saw after the defeat of the provincial NDP government under Bob Rae; when the Mike Harris Tories came to power in Ontario. They rammed-through a series of omnibus bills, rolling-back worker and union rights, cutting social assistance, and generally laying waste to all the social programs that previous governments had built-up over the decades. I fully expect that, in a similar manner, unemployment insurance will be slashed, transfer payments to the provinces cut. Although Harper has promised that there will be no abortion-related legislation passed as long as he is Prime Minister, I expect that one to be quickly introduced as well. Even if abortion is not re-criminalized, I expect that funding for it will be eliminated, to the maximum extent possible. I also expect an all-out assault on human rights -- Harper was famously quoted saying that Human Rights Commissions were totalitarian -- expect those to be eliminated/de-funded, just like the Court Challenges Program.


A Harper majority is a fucking disaster. Next election I'm voting for the Green Party.


For me, this election is the straw that broke the camel's back. For some 40 years now, since I started to vote, I've been a political junkie, actively following politics, and never missing an election. I've voted in Federal, Provincial and Municipal elections, and even the Quebec referendum on sovereignty, where I voted for the Federalist side.

In all those decades, there was only one election whose results I was really happy with. I lost count of the number of times I said to my family (or my wife):

"Why is it that no matter who we vote for we always get what we don't want?"

Trudeau was arrogant, Mulroney was arrogant (and corrupt) but both of these men are literal saints compared to Stephen Harper. Harper is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history, indeed in Commonwealth history, to be found in contempt of Parliament. Even Robert Mugabe was never found in contempt of Parliament!

Instead of throwing the bum out, we REWARD him for his perfidy by giving him a majority! I've come to the sad conclusion that voting is pointless, particularly under our brain-dead first-past-the-post electoral system. I do not expect it to change in my lifetime, given that the parties in power have benefited from it.

I am reminded of Emma Goldman's statement: "If voting ever changed anything, it would be outlawed."

Finally, one of the things that Harper campaigned on was that only a strong majority Federal government could stave off the threat of Quebec separation. Nothing could be further from the truth -- now that Harper has his majority, you can expect that the separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) will win the next Quebec provincial election in a landslide. A year or two after that, the PQ will hold yet another referendum on sovereignty -- and instead of the Federalist side winning by a hair (by 50K votes) like last time, I expect that the separatist side will succeed this time.

Why? Simple. Harper's political/philosophical views are 180 degrees opposite to those of the vast majority of Quebecois. It is well-known that Quebec is the most left-leaning province in Canada while Alberta is the most right-leaning. After the Quiet Revolution, Quebec is now the most secular province, while Alberta is easily the most religious.
Quebecois don't want to live under a theocracy once again, having already experienced one under the Duplessis regime. Most of what Harper represents (particularly his social conservatism) is anathema to Quebecois. If Harper aggressively promotes his social conservative agenda, this will only highlight the difference between English Canadian and French Quebecois society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Metric System Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. My riding was Liberal until last night. The NDP vote increased (still in 3rd) and the Con won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. What riding do you live in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. Wouldnt that argument go both ways?
I imagine there are a number of Ridings where Libs came in 2nd, and others where NDP came in second. If you want to say someone should have gotten out, wouldn't it be fair to insist that whoever was further from winning should step out.

At which point, why not just merge the parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Metric System Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
21. From what I saw, the NDP definitely went after the Libs first. So, yes, I blame them more. But what
really needs to happen is a merger between the two. Unite the left. I don't see any other option at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. "unite the left"
Yup -- invite the BQ into caucus.

The Liberals can stay in the right wing of the outer darkness, thanks. They are right-wing, and they brought the darkness on themselves.

I don't want them anywhere near my party.

Stick a fork in them for me if you see them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
23. don't blame the ndp for doing what the liberals should have been doing all along
A friend sent me this. I agree 101%.

Suppose the NDP stole 50 seats from the Liberals. What would have happened had those seats stayed Liberal?

Instead of:
Conservatives: 167
NDP: 102
Liberals: 34
Bloc: 4
Green: 1

We would have had:

Conservatives: 167
Liberals: 84
NDP: 52
Bloc: 4
Green: 1

Doesn't make much difference in terms of the majority, does it?

Suppose all the NDP votes had gone to the Liberals. Then we'd have had:

Conservatives: 167
Liberals: 136
Bloc: 4
Green: 1

Still not much of a difference...

The NDP didn't hand the CPC a majority by doing too well; the Liberals handed them one by doing so poorly.

*****

If you goofed off and failed a test in school, don't blame the kids who studied and got As for your poor grade.

Ignatieff was beyond incompetent, often supporting Harper's policies and otherwise offering nothing of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Erm, I don't think you're getting it.
Nobody is upset that Liberal seats went NDP. We're fucking upset that Liberal seats went CONSERVATIVE. This happened because the NDP refused to bow out in unwinnable Liberal ridings, came in third, but took enough votes away from the Liberal candidate to allow the Conservative to win. Mark Holland, Navdeep Bains, and Ruby Dhalla's ridings are three examples that immediately come to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. it happened because
LIBERAL VOTERS VOTED CONSERVATIVE.

Fucking duh.

And what exactly does this tell us?

Not much that we didn't know before.

"We" aren't upset about the same things at all, friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Conservative vote share only went up 2%
So no, your theory is incorrect. It happened because the NDP split the vote in unwinnable ridings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I'd like to think you're just being simple-minded
Edited on Tue May-03-11 01:27 PM by iverglas
but that may not be the problem.

Want me to name some ridings where the Liberal vote resulted in a Conservative win -- if the Liberal voters had voted NDP, the NDP candidate would have won? I can certainly name you some where it was the LIBERAL vote going Conservative that elected the Conservative candidate. Your 2% national vote share tale doesn't really tell the true story, does it?

Liberal voters were indeed voting strategically.

Voting Conservative to defeat the NDP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. Are you for real?
Edited on Wed May-04-11 12:11 AM by Very_Boring_Name
Conservative support stayed the same
Liberal support went down
NDP support went up


Yup, Liberals clearly backed the conservatives. Sounds logical to me :rofl::rofl:. You NDPers are entertaining, I'll give you that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. A question from an American
You write that "the NDP split the vote in unwinnable ridings." I can certainly understand the point about a third-place no-hope NDP candidate siphoning off enough left-wing votes to let a Conservative win with a plurality short of a majority. My question is: Did it also happen the other way? Were there ridings where the Liberal candidate came in third, but where those votes, if cast for the NDP candidate, would have given the NDP candidate the seat?

My guess is that the blame for the split on the left can't be placed entirely on either party.

I'm reminded of an incident from the early career of John Kerry. His Congressional district was represented by a conservative Democrat, Phil Philbin. Many Democrats in the district thought Philbin was too conservative and was therefore vulnerable to a challenge in the 1970 election. Kerry was one of several people who planned to run against him in the Democratic primary.

Their problem was that the primary, like the Canadian general election, was a first-past-the-post vote. It was easy to foresee that, if several progressive politicians pursued their individual ambitions and ran in the primary, while the conservatives were united behind Philbin, Philbin would win with a Harperesque 40% of the vote. In fact, Philbin had won in 1968 precisely because of a split on the left.

The various would-be challengers had the sense to realize that this would be a disaster. They agreed on a caucus to select a single progressive standard-bearer. After three ballots, no one had received the requisite two-thirds support. The leader was Robert Drinan, with Kerry in second place. Under the agreed-upon rules, Kerry was entitled to continue fighting for the endorsement. Instead, however, he gave priority to the goal of a unified opposition to Philbin. He withdrew in favor of Drinan, who was thus endorsed. Kerry received a standing ovation. Drinan went on to beat Philbin and served with distinction for several terms.

Obviously, it was easier to unify in one left-leaning district than it would be to pull off the same feat all across Canada. Still, might there have been a way to figure out which left party had the better chance to win each riding, and for each to agree to bow out of the other's turf? The left parties' failure to emulate John Kerry's public-spiritedness has brought disaster upon Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. It's possible, I've asked for examples from my NDP friends but none have been able to provide any
I haven't had time to sift through the results, but the NDP vote share went up significantly, and in virtually every single LPC riding that turned blue, that was the sole reason. Now, you might be asking yourself "Well heck, you can't really be blaming a political party for going after votes, can you?" Very early on in this campaign, an NDP candidate who was running in a doomed riding with no hope of winning voluntarily resigned, saying that he knew he wasn't going to win and he wasn't going to split the left in his riding and allow harper to get his majority. Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, was reportedly livid, and came out strongly AGAINST strategic voting to stop Harper.

It's a little hard for American DUers to understand this. Every pre-election post on DU outside of the Canada forum about the NDP surge was met by cheers of jubilation, how happy they were a pro-union, socialist party was finally replacing the "corporatist" liberals (which I always found particularly amusing, considering big unions in Canada traditionally endorse the Liberal party). It's a little bit difficult to understand if you're not familiar with Canadian politics, but the degree of difference between the LPC and the NDP is so miniscule. On every single major issue, their views are virtually identical. Yes, the LPC has had to veer to the center occasionally, but thats what happens when you go from campaigning to governing. The NDP has always had the luxory of not being in government, they could make any promise they wanted and not have to deal with the realities of actually having to implement those promises. This similarity between the parties means that the main NDP gains *always* comes from the Liberal party. That's why every election they run more attack ads against the Liberals than they do the conservatives. Their goal is not to defeat the conservatives, it's the elimination of the Liberal party.

They will -NEVER- openly admit it, but every single hardcore NDPer in Canada sees this an election victory. To them, the elevation of their party is more important than Canada's best interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Astrad Donating Member (374 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
24. They need to merge
The NDP and Liberals need to become one party. This is the 3rd election where the majority has voted for policies left of the party that won. It's a tyranny of the minority and will continue to happen unless they become one party and stop this vote splitting. Policy wise the NDP and Liberals are almost identical anyway. Layton's counter budget to Harper's actually proposed less spending. Either that or we need electoral reform to bring in a system that more closely represents the popular vote - but we know that ain't going to happen any time soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. the plain fact is
that it makes a whole lot more sense for the Liberal Party to merge with the Conservative Party. Their political agendas are far more alike than the Liberal and NDP agendas are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. Why the NDP-Libs will NOT merge
The people in power positions with each of these parties are more concerned about preserving their own party positions and promoting its fortunes than they are interested in defeating conservatives.

The Libs are fine with NDPers joining their party, and the NDP are fine with the Libs joining their party, but neither will agree to a merger, nor will they strategically collaborate to defeat conservatives in the next election, because they value their positions within these parties.

Because the party stalwarts put their partisan interests ahead of defeating the conservatives, I think we are now facing 7-8 more years of conservative rule. Maybe then the parties will merge, since this is the only way to defeat the conservatives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. maybe you could form your own party
You are obviously smarter and purer than anybody in any of the existing ones.

*I* would not agree to a merger with the Liberal Party because I do not wish to be tainted by anything that has touched it. *I* am a social democrat, electorally, and I plan to stay that way. I am not a Liberal or a liberal and I don't plan to become one.

I actually am an NDP member and voter, and that is what *I* want and don't want. If the leaders of my party proposed something else I would consider their reasons at the time, and decide whether I supported the proposal or was merely stuck with it. But the leaders' personal interests would play no part in my decision. And I'd get the same vote on the matter as anybody else.

You keep talking out your bum and riding your hobbyhorse about egotists in power if you like. Nothing you say is based on anything at all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Thanks for your comments
Your call is important to us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheCanadianLiberal Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-03-11 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
35. I still support the....
NDP and will vote for them in future elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC