A plea to unite the Liberals and NDP (WTF?)
The Tyee today reprints an abridged version of a letter sent to all NDP and Liberal MP's urging them to consider uniting to slay the Conservative beast. The gist of the message is that we can't let the CPC grab another 5-10% of the popular vote next election with a divided Liberal and NDP, as it would just about guarentee a majority government and then, apparently the absolute end of all things Canadian - yes, even hockey.
His analysis of the situation is similar to one that I wrote up some weeks ago, in which a broken Liberal party sheds still more votes both to the Left and to the Right, giving seats to both the NDP and Conservatives and thus tipping the Conservatives to a majority. This is altogether possible in my opinion, particularly if the Bloc continues to lose support dans la belle province, but as unsavory as the thought of a Conservative majority might be, it is not the end of the world and I don't think it wise to go doing anything rash to our political system to prevent it.
The letter is not wrong in stating:
but then does not go on to explain why we should further chase the American model by reducing ourselves to a two-party system or, heaven forbid, creating a Canadian version of the can't-win-for-losing Democratic party.
I agree that a Conservative majority government is something worth fighting against and I will try to do everything in my power to do just that, but I would not advocate going to bed with the Liberal party for any reason. That would effectively reduce the NDP and its supporters to the "soft mushy wing" that gets told to shut up when the adults with the money talk about important things.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't pay to play ball in Parliament with the Liberals to counter some of the more egregious Tory foolishness, but only as separate parties under temporary ceasefire. I'm even willing to suffer a few years of Tory majority if it means keeping an independent left voice and a viable third alternative in parliament.
His analysis of the situation is similar to one that I wrote up some weeks ago, in which a broken Liberal party sheds still more votes both to the Left and to the Right, giving seats to both the NDP and Conservatives and thus tipping the Conservatives to a majority. This is altogether possible in my opinion, particularly if the Bloc continues to lose support dans la belle province, but as unsavory as the thought of a Conservative majority might be, it is not the end of the world and I don't think it wise to go doing anything rash to our political system to prevent it.
The letter is not wrong in stating:
The newly evolved Conservative Party, in many respects a chilling echo of the USA's Republican Party, is poised for a two-stage attack to reshape Canada in line with its Canadian version of America's neoconservative ideology
but then does not go on to explain why we should further chase the American model by reducing ourselves to a two-party system or, heaven forbid, creating a Canadian version of the can't-win-for-losing Democratic party.
I agree that a Conservative majority government is something worth fighting against and I will try to do everything in my power to do just that, but I would not advocate going to bed with the Liberal party for any reason. That would effectively reduce the NDP and its supporters to the "soft mushy wing" that gets told to shut up when the adults with the money talk about important things.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't pay to play ball in Parliament with the Liberals to counter some of the more egregious Tory foolishness, but only as separate parties under temporary ceasefire. I'm even willing to suffer a few years of Tory majority if it means keeping an independent left voice and a viable third alternative in parliament.
The newly evolved Conservative Party, in many respects a chilling echo of the USA's Republican Party, is poised for a two-stage attack to reshape Canada in line with its Canadian version of America's neoconservative ideology
How is this "not wrong"?
Posted by
Jim (Progressive Right) |
Mon Mar 06, 01:47:00 PM
Do you have an actual point to make Jim, or are you under the impression that a cryptic 'hit and run' posting is going to blind us with your brilliance? I'm not saying I agree with the statement as written - I think it's a bit of over-the-top hyperbole, but essentially, it contains a kernel of truth - there are segments of the Conservatives who want to adopt an American-style neocon ideology, just because Stephen Harper's managed to keep them under wraps doesn't mean they're not still there. If you want to disagree with what Kev says, fine - make your point, right now this adds nothing to the substance of this debate.
Posted by
Dan |
Mon Mar 06, 02:25:00 PM
My take on this is that it's the same crap argument that Buzz Hargrove made during the last election - the NDP can't win, they're not powerful enough to play in the major leagues, so they should just shut up and abandon their principles and support the Liberals 'Conservative Lite' platform and the Great and Powerful Libs will throw them a bone or two.
Posted by
Dan |
Mon Mar 06, 02:29:00 PM
It remains more important for people to vote for what they believe in, not for what they believe against.
Just keep working on the grassroots, and the lawn will grow.
Posted by
Mark Richard Francis |
Mon Mar 06, 02:58:00 PM
The statement is not wrong, I believe, in that the stated goal of the NCC, Tom Flanagan and others in and around the Conservative Party is a much more American-style ideology. I think that it's quite plain, actually and should need no further explanation.
Jim, I see that you write a blog of your own called The Progressive Right, and so come at these things from a different point of view, which is cool. Unfortuntely, the question you have asked is so broad that I don't have the inclination or the time to tackle it right now. If you have a specific question, I'm willing to try to answer.
Or, perhaps I could just post "why" to a bunch of your articles, too.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Mon Mar 06, 03:06:00 PM