King of Kensington
Senior Member
Justin Trudeau? Seriously?
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Why not? He's already far older than Joe Clark was when he became leader of the opposition. And almost as old as Stephen Harper was when he became leader of the opposition.
picard102
Senior Member
Because if his name wasn't Trudeau no one would be paying any attention to him.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
You deal with the cards life gave you - good and bad. I have no problem with Trudeau using his name to give his career a boost. If he's a dud it'll show soon enough, if not already.
I doubt I could have ever brought myself to vote for PE Trudeau had I been old enough at the time, but in hindsight I can see why most people did vote for PET. He wanted to build something, had a idea for what sort of country he wanted, just society, etc. and had a clear vision of the government's role - and had the ability to clearly communicate this to the mob... err... masses.
Today's politicians stand for nothing, even "big government" NDP'rs can only promise to add a few programs here and there for childcare, etc. None of the parties talk of making fundamental changes to how Canada works. So, either the country is fine, or there are no ideas from this bunch.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Ignatieff isn't useless, he's the only person who can form an alternative government to Harper.
The NDP should really be willing to work with Iggy on this and force a coalition, such as not fielding candidates in ridings like Waterloo or any number of rural Ontario ridings. Why? Because the NDP stands to gain the most it's ever had in it's history even if it loses several ridings.
Why? Because the Liberals and NDP can form a coalition, Ignatieff is unlikely to form a majority government, and Layton has the bargaining power. Even if the NDP drops to 20 members or 30 members in Parliament, with an official coalition the NDP could finally be represented in Parliament. NDP ministers in key areas... With Ignatieff as Prime Minister, it would be a truly different kind of government.
The left doesn't have to merge into one party, but it can work together and defeat Harper. In the end, this election can be a win-win even if the NDP loses seats and can responsibly not run candidates in ridings where they know it just helps Harper. Layton really should step up to the plate and run a more cooperative campaign to get rid of Harper.
Iggy isn't useless, he's key to bringing Harper down.
The NDP should really be willing to work with Iggy on this and force a coalition, such as not fielding candidates in ridings like Waterloo or any number of rural Ontario ridings. Why? Because the NDP stands to gain the most it's ever had in it's history even if it loses several ridings.
Why? Because the Liberals and NDP can form a coalition, Ignatieff is unlikely to form a majority government, and Layton has the bargaining power. Even if the NDP drops to 20 members or 30 members in Parliament, with an official coalition the NDP could finally be represented in Parliament. NDP ministers in key areas... With Ignatieff as Prime Minister, it would be a truly different kind of government.
The left doesn't have to merge into one party, but it can work together and defeat Harper. In the end, this election can be a win-win even if the NDP loses seats and can responsibly not run candidates in ridings where they know it just helps Harper. Layton really should step up to the plate and run a more cooperative campaign to get rid of Harper.
Iggy isn't useless, he's key to bringing Harper down.
lead82
Senior Member
I disagree. I think the left does indeed have to merge before we can defeat the right wing Conservative party. The right has merged. The left vote is not perpetually split. Each poll says that Canada is more liberal and left-wing, yet Harper could very well get a strong majority with just 39/40% of the vote. Now if the NDP and Liberals join, their vote would be 56%, a true majority and if they merged we would reduce the Tories down to opposition status.
I think Harper winning a majority this time around will force the Liberals to re-think and do some hard-thinking about how to bring forth a new Liberal vision for the country. Merging with the NDP would be their best best for success in the future.
I think Harper winning a majority this time around will force the Liberals to re-think and do some hard-thinking about how to bring forth a new Liberal vision for the country. Merging with the NDP would be their best best for success in the future.
Brandon716
Senior Member
What I hate to see, in Canada anyway, is a totally wasted vote for the Green Party. It isn't like the Liberals didn't bring in universal health care, or that they didn't institute gay marriage, or as if they didn't create a gun registry, and all kinds of other socially responsible, human rights oriented legislation over the past several generations. Even Stephane Dion ran on a more green platform than the Green Party itself in 2008, they stood for it and they lost a huge election because of it. Its been tried, and they stood up for it, so now they are going in a different direction... It isn't like the Liberals haven't stood for left leaning policies in meaningful ways. There is absolutely NO REASON to vote Green in Canada. It is purely a wasted vote when the left is so well represented by a major party (or parties with the NDP).
If you vote Green, you might as well be voting "The Harper Government" instead. It is a 100% useless, wasted vote when such good, viable choices exist already.
If half the Green vote would just implode and send a good 2% toward Ignatieff things would be tremendously better.
If you vote Green, you might as well be voting "The Harper Government" instead. It is a 100% useless, wasted vote when such good, viable choices exist already.
If half the Green vote would just implode and send a good 2% toward Ignatieff things would be tremendously better.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
The problem there is--shouldn't an aim be to reduce the Conservative vote, not merely to unite and outflank it?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
The Libs need to eliminate the Bloc and regain their Quebec seats. That is their only hope.
jn_12
Senior Member
Shouldn't we be trying for more/better representation than having to resort to American style left-right poltiics? The answer isn't to merge the left, in the same way the answer never should have been to merge the right. We should be striving to ensure that a broad range of views and perspectives are heard and represented in parliament and the only way to achieve that is through electoral reform. It's bad enough that our current system forces a "dumbing down" of politics. We deserve better.
Brandon716
Senior Member
America doesn't have a left wing party. It is a centre-right vs right debate in the US since the Congressional Progressive Caucus doesn't have say in legislation that ends up passing on even when Democrats are in power; however, the "Tea Party" caucus of the Republicans gets to shape policy in profound ways before they submit legislation.
In Canada right now it is a left, centre-left, and a right debate with a Conservative party that has a few old centre-right PC candidates still in the mix. The Conservatives have been pushed to the right with Harper and his reform/alliance background.
In Canada right now it is a left, centre-left, and a right debate with a Conservative party that has a few old centre-right PC candidates still in the mix. The Conservatives have been pushed to the right with Harper and his reform/alliance background.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
+1
Unfortunately, Brandon's experience comes from the US, where he's only familiar with the ascerbic politics of the republic and not with parliamentary democracy (though Harper is increasingly threatening the latter tradition).
Contrary to what people believe, merging the Liberals and the NDP will not usher in a century of leftist governments. Instead, as the new Lib-Dems will be further to the left than the Liberals now, it will all but guarantee a string of Conservative governments.
Most Canadians are staunchly centrists. We may be more to the left than the yanks, but then so are our political parties. Instead of a synergies of brands you might get a destruction of brands. Formerly safe Liberal ridings might be thrown into contention because of a belief that the new Lib-Dems are too far to the left. And all those rural NDP ridings, where they vote orange out of a view of the NDP as a rural party (hangover of the old days), could well see a switch to blue, because many will believe the NDP is now "tainted" by the Liberals.
Indeed, the Chretien and Martin Liberals for all their left-leaning campaigns, essentially governed at the centre (or maybe even right of centre). And that's how they held power. Running on the hard left would be the kiss of death of them.
One only has to look at what happened to the Conservatives to know what would happen to a merged Liberal-NDP party. The combined PC-Reform party polls lower today than the sum of their parties did in the late 1990s. They thought that merging would give them power and even majority status. Except, as they shifted right, the population stayed in the centre. Why would the Liberals and NDP repeat the same mistake?
The problem with the current electoral landscape is the Bloc. Whoever keeps them in check gets the throne.
jn_12
Senior Member
^ see, I disagree with regards to the Bloc. I think they're a great party that allows our system to reflect a greater number of views. It's unfortunate that their main goal is separation, but beyond that, they're fighting for their constituents in a way that Ontario MPs, or BC MPs aren't. If our democracy is about representation then the Bloc are the best at it and it shows. That's not to say we should have provincial parties in every province, but i'd rather that than 2 parties expected to represent the bredth and depth of the entire country.
As a politics major I agree wholeheartedly. But, whether it's left and right or centre-right to right, it's still a two-party, "you're either with us or against us" mentality which has done nothing for that country and it shouldn't be something we are striving for.
As a politics major I agree wholeheartedly. But, whether it's left and right or centre-right to right, it's still a two-party, "you're either with us or against us" mentality which has done nothing for that country and it shouldn't be something we are striving for.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Ah, the typical arrogant keithz reponse. Insult my intelligence and use the excuse for it because I grew up in America (yet obviously don't prefer this way of governance). I understand Parliamentary democracy quite well and will forever be interested in politics.
I gave a positive outlook (as I see it) for this election based on a rough estimation for how I think things will end up. I may be wrong, but the best political pundits can't predict an election either. I think Ignatieff will post some pretty good gains, it may or may not be as positive as my guess, but I think at the very least he'll get to 100 ridings in the Liberal column. The question that I find most interesting is how weak the NDP will get. I don't think it is possible for them to maintain support at the level they got in 2008, but it may not weaken as much as I'm hoping for some of the ridings where Liberals could use the help. I also think the Bloc is going to be slightly (and I do mean slightly) weaker in Quebec, allowing for some ridings in the Montreal and Quebec City area to be in play.
Otherwise I do see a lot of Liberals who sat out the last election coming back to support Ignatieff. I supported Dion strongly in 2008, but I understood his campaign was weak. He had a single minded campaign with the Green Shift, he couldnt' communicate well in English Canada. The Liberals were still being dogged by sponsorship even in 2008.
My experience tells me that people are forgetting about sponsorship, because it seems like a distant issue. It happened largely in the late 90's, it was uncovered years ago... People don't care about it anymore. What people are starting to see is how Harper's government has abused it's power and did so before even taking office. The media hasn't ran with In-and-Out scandal that strongly, but it will still be more important than sponsorship this time around.
toraerach
Active Member
Sorry in advance for the long-winded response, but here goes:
Uniting the Right was a Herculean task that took years and years to happen, and even though it seems to have gone off generally successfully today, it was still marred by huge infighting (especially on the PC side) and many high profile defections (Scott Brison, David Orchard, etc.). There are still Senators who refuse to join the Conservative caucus in that house, remaining Progressive Conservatives. Early on in the life of the new Conservative Party, it was tanking in the polls and probably would never have formed government if the Liberals weren’t tainted by the Sponsorship scandal and plagued with their own decades-long infighting.
Even then, the two right-leaning parties in Ottawa had much more common ground to work upon than the Liberals and the NDP. The Reform Party/Canadian Alliance was still the new kid on the block. Many of its members and supporters were disaffected former Progressive Conservatives who became disenchanted with the party as Mulroney’s grand coalition of right-leaning interests began falling apart in the late 80s. The divided right through the 90s was a historical anomaly, not a long standing tradition in Canadian federal politics (the federal Socreds having become mostly irrelevant in English Canada decades before the rise of Mulroney). The right also had the benefit of being undivided on the provincial level in most parts of Canada and members of the Reform Party/Alliance were used to working with members of the federal PCs. Remember, even the historically Red Tory-dominated Ontario PC party was already drifting to the right with the election of Harris as leader of the party. Jumping from the Common Sense Revolution to Western-rooted conservative populism was not that difficult.
The Liberals and the NDP, by contrast, have little in common. Both parties have roots stretching back well into Canadian history resulting in two very different institutional cultures. And although they have co-operated in the past, they’ve butted heads far more often (see, for example, Tommy Douglas’s famous “Mouseland” speech). There is a soft centre-left element to both parties’ support bases that do sometimes migrate between the two and do like to see the two parties co-operate. However, this element is outnumbered in both parties’ ranks by factions or interests that are frankly suspicious if not downright hostile to the other party. In fact, neither party has done particularly well when that soft centre-left element has been in control. On the provincial level, Bob Rae’s centre-left NDP alienated the labour and populist branches of the party (think Peter Kormos types), and it was precisely those elements of the party that distanced themselves from Rae that survived the coming decimation of the ONDP.
Besides that, many in the NDP are resentful that the Liberals have taken credit for their innovations (like universal healthcare), and many are frustrated with the Liberal strategy of campaigning to the left, but governing from the right. In some of their core areas of support (especially urban ridings), the NDP are also far more used to running against the Liberals than the Conservatives and bad blood does exist between the two at the local level. Further, in provinces across Canada, the Liberals have merged with the Conservatives against powerful provincial New Democrats (Saskatchewan, BC). Rarely have provincial Liberals and New Democrats co-operated to keep powerful Conservatives parties at bay (ex. Peterson in Ontario).
Were the Liberals and NDP to unite, we cannot assume that their bases would be all too thrilled about supporting this new party. The “Blue Grits” would probably jump ship to the Conservative party (just as many Red Tories jumped to the Liberals after the right united). In the NDP, you have a wide array of interest groups and party factions that would probably defect. For example, the radical leftists in the Socialist Caucus, the descendants of the NPI movement, their Labour and populist wings, etc. I would imagine, knowing that their power would be marginalized in a united left, them going off and starting their own party.
After all, the NDP owes its existence on the federal scene to the voices of dissent in another merger. When the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party “merged,” the majority of the Progressive Party migrated back to the Liberals. The more radical leftwing of the party broke off and formed the Ginger Group, eventually leading to the formation of the CCF, and later, the NDP. Democratic Socialists the world over have resisted when their big-tent parties move towards the centre. In Europe, they often form coalitions or alliances with Communist parties (ex. the German Die Linke). Even in the US you have guys like Bernie Sanders who don’t join the Democrats (though I believe he sits with their caucus in the Senate).