Do you see the NDP winning the next election now?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

The Liberal Minority Government will not survive 5 years.

So, do you see the NDP/Bloc forming an alliance if they can win enough seats?

[dave123williams]

1. Third Party for sure; I'm done with the Democrats - spineless.

[Maple]

2. No. Never

And they've been trying for over half a century.

The Liberals will return with a majority.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Will they stand up to Bush?

[Wat_Tyler]

5. Under Martin? Doubtful.

He's weak, old and indecisive. Under another leader? Maybe.

[HEyHEY]

4. no, I don't see them ever winning

[yvr girl]

6. I don't see them ever winning

I posted in another forum how they as a third party have been so effective in selling their ideas. We treasure many of their policies as a country, but I think we are afraid to let them run the show.

[democracy eh]

7. Bush winning will scare people away from the poodle wanna be Harper

thus ensuring Liberal rule, no matter how incompetent

who knows, maybe there is a Fundie wave about to rise here too

ughhh

[LiberteToujours]

8. Nope

And honestly, even though I vote NDP, I wouldn't want them in power. I think they make a GREAT balancing force but I personally would not trust them with the budget. They pull the agenda leftwards and that is great. I would love to see them gain enough seats to make Official Opposition status.

[Mother Jones]

9. I completely agree with you...

I love them, and love that they could potentially be our official opposition. But no, I would not support their agenda in running the country.

I am a die-hard liberal, however, I recognize this lib. govt. is not very liberal at all. I fully support the NDP in their attempts to pull us to the left.

It goes without saying, of course, that this brings two blessings with it, the other being the virtual elimination of the conservative party and their bush-loving harpies.

[iverglas]

16. so ...

I love them, and love that they could potentially be our official opposition. But no, I would not support their agenda in running the country.

... It goes without saying, of course, that this brings two blessings with it, the other being the virtual elimination of the conservative party and their bush-loving harpies.


... basically, you want a one-party state?

The arrogance of the Liberal never ceases to amaze me. And it's on display in this thread in spades.

If all these Liberals "support the NDP in their attempts to pull us to the left", why the fuck don't you have a Liberal party with the agenda you claim to want?? You're the Liberals; what's the damned problem here?

And what exactly is this "NDP agenda" that you don't want?

Just reminds me a lot of USAmericans. They want the universal health care, but not the sacrifices that must be made by people in a society that provides free health care ... and all the other social supports that such a society has, and limitations on individual action that a society like that generally imposes in the collective interests of its members.

It doesn't work.

Our health care plans are under attack, just for starters. They do involve violations of Charter rights, you know? Prohibiting the individual actions they prohibit -- like private payment for health services, or private insurance for health services -- is a limitation on liberty, the freedom of individuals to obtain all the health care they want, whenever and however they can pay for it. What if the Supreme Court were to hold that this is not "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"? If the free and democratic society in question were the US, it would not be justified. In Canada, a whole lot of us think that it is justified, but we might lose the argument.

Frankly, when I hear this Liberal noise, I get feeling a little like a lot of USAmericans have been feeling this past week. Fuck 'em. Let's agree that individual freedom is more important than social security, and you all just go look after yourselves from now on.

The elements of the "NDP agenda" that have been incorporated into the fabric of Canada in the last decades -- health care, old age pensions, trade union rights, unemployment insurance -- are pretty much what make modern Canada what it is. And the security they provide -- and opportunity to live fulfilled, successful lives that comes with that security -- do not come free of charge.

People are fond of saying that about "free" health care. We do pay for it, in dollar terms. We also pay for it by sacrificing a bit of our liberty to make our own choices, so that other people (if we're among the more fortunate) have choices that don't involve going bankrupt from illness, or just going without health care.

Social democracy isn't about everybody getting everything s/he wants -- whether it be someone who wants more than s/he has, or someone who wants to keep everything she has. It isn't about state control of everything, or private control of everything. It doesn't make choices based on ideology other than a basic commitment to decency, and it takes a pragmatic approach to achieving it.

It's about a decent quality of life for everyone, to the extent that this is possible, and what is possible may vary from time to time, whether because of available resources or because of attitudes.

And I'm really just sick of people who are very quick to boast about the relatively admirable level of decency we have but just strangely reluctant to acknowledge WHY we have it. We have it because of the bloody hard work of a lot of excellent people, damned few of whom were Liberals.

And we have it because WE are committed to having it, and that sometimes means sacrificing some of our own individual interests so that we all have a decent quality of life. And what I see from a lot of people is that they're just quite all right, Jack, with the quality of life they have now -- paid for as it is to at least some extent by others -- but not real happy about making sure that anyone else has it if it means more sacrifice from them.

Well, you all have what you've got because of someone else's sacrifice, to at least some extent. For starters, I can tell you without much fear of being wrong that my income tax bill is higher than anyone else's here, so some of what some of you have comes from *my* sacrifice. And rest assured that I only begrudge it when I hear somebody whom I'm sacrificing for whining about being asked to sacrifice for someone else.

And since the "NDP agenda" for Canada doesn't exactly call for collectivizing all the cattle farms in Alberta or abolishing the churches or forcing everyone to learn French, I can't think of why else anybody might actually be not supporting that "agenda".

[Mother Jones]

24. Iverglas, I think you've misunderstood me...

I don't want a one-party system. I would like to see the NDP and Liberals have the balance of power in this country, and the conservatives minimized. I hope I live to see this happen.

I'm fully willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am in a 50% tax bracket and that is exactly where I feel I should be. I am MORE than willing to pay my share to help out others. Like you, I see what's happening with our health care, etc...and no, I don't like it one bit.

Your rant is preaching to the choir....let me be clear- I don't like Martin, he is not a liberal the way I am. I see him as a conservative. The reason I voted for him, scandal or not, was to keep Harper far away. Period. Do you remember our polls showing them so close? The threat was real....

As I've said, the NDP are full of brilliant ideas that are great for Canadians. I hope we adopt some of them. I LOVE that they have insisted on a vote in the caucus on missile defense, knowing full well there are true liberals out there who do not support it. I am, however, concerned that they want to pull out of NATO, and I admit I do not fully understand this. Nor do I understand the proportional representation platform. Seems obviously a good idea, but again, I don't fully understand it.

[Wat_Tyler]

10. Why vote for them then?

Vote Liberal. That seems to be the right fit for you.

[Mother Jones]

11. Actually, Wat, I know many who vote NDP

just so the party will have more money, and potentially more seats towards becoming the official opposition. A great idea for a party that does have some great ideas. Problem is, they take it too far and the idea of pulling out of NATO or proportional representation is just not appealing to most.

The majority of us already are liberal, and that's not likely to change. Especially with another 4 years of the chimp in the U.S, that surely put Steven Harper's dreams of a conservative govt. out of reach. (harper has said he fully supports shrub and is embarassed by our govt. not sending troops to Iraq)

[Wat_Tyler]

12. I don't see the sense.

Either vote for a party you want to see in power, or let them die. They're a political party, not a charity. It seems odd to vote for a party you don't actually trust.

[Pierre Trudeau]

13. it's our parliamentary system

The parliamentary system is quite different than the US two-party system. You actually vote for your local member of parliament, and sometimes the best candidate is not from your party of choice. Plus there is the wonderful world of "strategic voting" which is a Canadian specialty.

For example: I voted NDP in 2004 federal election... not because I actually wanted the NDP to form the government (I do like Jack but he needs a little more experience in Ottawa), but because I believed that the local candidate actually had a chance to win in my riding, thereby increasing the NDP's presence in parliament which is a good thing. Also, the venerable Trudeau-era Liberal MP who used to represent me had retired, otherwise I would have voted for him, as I did in 2000.

Generally I tend to vote either Liberal or NDP, based on who I think is fielding the better candidate, and who has a better chance to win the riding. Now I'm starting to look at the Green Party. I have never voted Conservative (although if Bill Davis suddenly came out of retirement, who knows). :D

To put it all in perspective, think of all the progressive Americans who really preferred Nader but for practical reasons supported Kerry.

[Wat_Tyler]

14. That's OK. I'm actually an NDP riding officer. ;-)

[Pierre Trudeau]

15. haha!!

OK well I guess I didn't need to explain all that to you. :7

I have a friend who works locally for the NDP (provincial). Sorry you guys didn't do better in the last election (at least Jack & Ed made it)... I figure most people held their noses & voted Liberal in a stop-Harper effort, and felt that voting for another party was too risky. (Also, I'm sure that Paul Martin's last-minute rediscovery of Liberal heritage made a difference too.)

But in my riding, one of the safest Liberal seats in the country (over 40 years & still going strong), I knew there wasn't a chance for the Conservative candidate, so it was safe to vote NDP (mostly as a protest to remind the Libs they shouldn't take us for granted). Dude did pretty well, actually, even if he didn't get the seat.

Honestly, though, the NDP still has a lot of work to do in crafting a comprehensive, practical platform that can appeal to people across the nation. Too many of their solutions involve extending the federal bureaucracy, whereas I believe that decentralization and increased local autonomy is not a threat to federalism. For this and other reasons, I am finding that the Green Party more accurately reflects my own views, even though I am an old Pearson Liberal.

[Wat_Tyler]

17. Don't worry about it.

All I mean is that in my view, you shouldn't do the NDP any favours if you don't believe we should govern. I say that with no animosity or ulterior motive. If you really believe the Liberals are a better fit for Canada, then it's us who have to work harder to convince you otherwise.

[LiberteToujours]

18. Here is my reasoning

I believe that the best government for Canada is a Liberal government with a left-wing opposition. You may or not agree with me on that, but that is my current position. Because I know there is little chance of the NDP forming government, I vote for them to increase their presence and influence. But I do think that as an opposition, they have a good chance of getting many of their more mainstream ideas passed, most of which I strongly agree with. How I see it, if I vote Liberal, then that is really just a vote for a conservative opposition.

[Mother Jones]

21. So there you have it Wat.....

Many of us voted this time around, simply to keep Harpie out. Don't forget, our polls were showing the libs and cons were SO close.

I can see myself voting NDP, if we sufficiently decimate the conservative party. As I said, I do like many of the NDPs ideas. I don't like or trust Martin. He simply does not represent me.

My issue with the NDP is not related to taxes. Like you, I am also in a very high bracket, (50%) and I'm perfectly ok with this. What worries me is, the notion of pulling out of NATO. Perhaps you can help me with this one? As well, I admit I don't fully understand proportional representation. Would love to hear your thoughts on both.

[Wat_Tyler]

22. I'm just a grunt in a no-hope riding, really.

I wouldn't trust myself to represent the party line accurately. Besides, I'm a maverick. As far as taxes go, I'm in a lower bracket, I don't make much. As far as PR goes, I'm a big proponent. Here's a good example of my preferred system, the Additional Member System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system

I would say that the advantage of AMS is that the seat allocation more closely mirrors the popular vote totals, thus helping to even out geographical distortions and skewed results.

[Mother Jones]

23. Oops, I meant that for Iverglas.....

Sorry Wat! I'm also in a no-hope riding, but what that has meant to me, is much more activism! I won't let my MP get away with anything....seems I send an email/call once a week to get a status update on issues I feel are important.

[iverglas]

25. some help on that NATO thing

First, for background:

http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/16.1/bayer.html

A 1991 analysis of press coverage of the NDP's 1987 white paper on defence in which the opposition to NATO membership was set out.

Indeed, the Canadian press appeared content to give the question of Canada's membership in NATO a free ride. Journalists who normally question and probe the rationale for government policy appeared all too ready to accept the standard arguments put forward for Canadian membership in NATO even though there are valid questions as to the validity of these arguments. A number of examples serve to illustrate this point. For example, the likelihood of American economic retaliation against Canada for leaving NATO becomes far less certain if one examines the potential economic and foreign policy costs to the United States from taking such measures. Similarly, the economic cost to Canada of going it alone militarily may not be as prohibitive as assumed if one looks more closely at the experience of European neutrals such as Finland and Austria and at the same time defines more closely needs of a militarily independent Canada. Similarly, a closer examination of the influence which Canada is alleged to exercise on east-west relations through ``the seat at the table'' gained by right of NATO membership suggests that Canada's influence is really confined to procedural matters and technical questions rather than to major policy issues. For that matter the historical record also suggests that Canadian efforts to use the Western European members of NATO as a counterweight to American influence have tended to be unsuccessful because of the reluctance of the Europeans to jeopardize their relations with the United States in order to support Canada on issues of importance to Ottawa, such as Arctic sovereignty. These are a few examples; there are many others.

In short the historical record suggests that the arguments regarding Canada's membership in NATO are not as clear cut as was suggested in the press anlaysis of the NDP white paper. In this respect, there appears a need on the part of journalists to test more closely the key hypothesis and assumptions underpinning these issues. The consequence may not be a change in the press attitude towards the NDP policy on NATO but it might result in readership that is better informed as to the myths and realities of this important policy question.

Maybe if one knew what was so worrisome about the notion of pulling out of NATO, at the time it was first advanced, say, and in the context of that time, one might be able to address the concerns better. Maybe media coverage rather than actual substance had something to do with those concerns?

The paper itself doesn't seem to be available on the net, but can be had at libraries:
collectionscanada

Now, NATO is rather a different animal now from what it was in 1987, of course.

Skipping ahead to May 2004:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1085861243220_27?s_name=&no_ads=

The NDP election platform already softened the party's position, promising to bolster the United Nations and other regional security bodies as alternatives to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,

Layton went a step further Saturday, saying it would be better to change NATO than to abandon it.

"We've been very clear we don't think that NATO is the appropriate kind of institution for the future, so we would work to transform it," Layton said following a speech to union activists.

For decades, the NDP pledged to withdraw Canada from the Cold War alliance, which was founded in 1949 as a military response to the strength of the Soviet army.

More recently, NATO has led peace and security missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan, operations with a large humanitarian component more fitting with the NDP emphasis on human security over military defence.

"The Cold War is over. The transformation of the old institutions of the Cold War is important and is happening," Layton said.

"NATO is an organization essentially of the past. We are going to work for the restructuring of organizations for the future. People in NATO are already transforming it themselves."

Here's something else from the early period -- 1988:

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v04n3p18.htm

and a bit about what the policy in question really was:

Canada's Stake in Common Security, the NDP's new security policy, was released in April. With it, the NDP has embraced the concept of common security - that, in our age, security can for one nation can only be enhanced by increasing the confidence and security of all.

The NDP's policy builds on the consensus that existed prior to the recent White Paper, that East/West tensions constitute the primary security threat to Canada. It expresses a firm commitment to an active war-prevention policy and to concrete initiatives in the pursuit of a reduction of East/West tensions. It correctly stresses that, as a nation occupying space between two hostile superpowers, Canada must address the security concerns of both. Consequently, it avoids policies that could seem to threaten the security of either the U.S. or the Soviet Union. It stresses the need for surveillance and defence adequate to assure both superpowers that Canadian territory would never be used for aggressive action against either.

The document reveals determination to withdraw Canada from both direct and indirect participation in the nuclear arms race and to establish a new role for Canada as an active peacemaker. This will mean an end to cooperation in testing the cruise missile and a re-ordering of Northern defence arrangements to ensure that, through NORAD, Canada does not become entangled in the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative or in the Air Defence Initiative. <my, my; plus ça change ...> Furthermore, the NDP plans an activist Canadian role within NATO during the first term in office. Canada would press vigorously for arms control and disarmament and for NATO to pledge no first use of nuclear weapons. Military alliances are inimical to the interests of common security. Accordingly, the NDP proposes to withdraw Canada from membership in the NATO alliance during a subsequent term in office.

[iverglas]

26. and on proportional representation

I'm a late convert to the idea (I tend to want to hold onto distinctive features of things that have worked pretty well; just a conservative at heart), and so far just approve the principle without having a position on the practicalities.

The way to find out more about it would be some intensive googling, I'd think, although there may be others here with expertise to share.

One might start one's ruminations by considering the outcome of the most recent BC provincial election.

http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/sfu_news/regular_features/comment03180401.htm

In the 2001 provincial election the Liberals claimed 58 per cent (917,000) of the total vote, the NDP received 21 per cent (343,000) and the Green party received 12.4 per cent (198,000) of the votes cast. Yet in the legislature we saw 98 per cent of the seats occupied by Liberals, 2 per cent by the NDP and no seats held by the Green party.

In 2001, given the proportion of voting preferences, the Liberals would have ended up with 45 seats, the NDP would have had 16 seats and the Green party would have ended up with 10 seats. A far different picture from what we have now. If this is not an example of how our voting system needs an upgrade, I don’t know what is.

In actual fact, the Liberals have 77 seats and the NDP has 2.

There's also PEI:

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?forum=5&topic=386

The distortion rate in the PEI election was 31% -- that is, the gap between the 54% of the popular vote and the 85% of the legislature seats won by the government.

By comparison, the distortion rate in the Ontario election was 24%, while in Quebec it was 15%, in Manitoba and Nova Scotia 12%, and in New Brunswick 6%.

Canada's Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act does contain some provision for reducing distortion. The principle of "one person one vote", i.e. that votes should all have equal weight in our existing first-past-the-post system, is not actually the only governing principle of our electoral system; we do recognize the importance of "communities of interest" being represented. That is, there is some provision for the representation of minority-group interests, so that they aren't simply outvoted on a riding-by-riding basis, ending up with no representation. This isn't proportional representation, but it is recognition that basing the composition of the House solely on majority votes can deny any representation at all to some groups, and that this is not desirable.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/e-3/whole.html

15. (1) In preparing its report, each commission for a province shall, subject to subsection (2), be governed by the following rules:

(a) the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province, that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to the province as calculated by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection 14(1); and

(b) the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries:

(i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and

(ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

Departure from rules

(2) The commission may depart from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a) in any case where the commission considers it necessary or desirable to depart therefrom

(a) in order to respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, or

(b) in order to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province,

but, in departing from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a), the commission shall make every effort to ensure that, except in circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary, the population of each electoral district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota for the province.

Unfortunately, the electoral boundaries commissions that handle redistribution after decennial censuses don't always make decisions that reflect that provision. (Google for, for instance, "electoral boundaries" "new brunswick" acadian.)

[Mother Jones]

28. thank you for the info

(to both of you) I can honestly say they make alot of sense. I do think Jack is one of the best leaders ANY party could have, love his passion. He's a shining example that we're not all apathetic.
I look forward to hearing more from him, and possibly voting for him.

[CHIMO]

27. Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded

They walk the walk. They talk the talk. But they don't think the think. In the wake of the huge support given to George Bush last week, it's time we realised how different America's majority culture is, and changed our policies accordingly.
What Americans share with Europeans are not values, but institutions. The distinction is crucial. Like us, they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. But the American majority's social and moral values differ enormously from those which guide most Europeans.

It is true that Nato is unlikely ever again to function with the unanimity it showed during the cold war. The lesson from Iraq is that the alliance has become no more than a "coalition of the reluctant", with key members like France and Germany opting out of joint action.

But it is wrong to be complacent about Nato's alleged impotence or irrelevance. Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure. Europe is automatically expected to tag along in going to war, or in the post-conflict phase, as in Afghanistan or Iraq. Who knows whether Iran and Syria will come next? Bush has four more years in power and there is little likelihood that his successors in the White House will be any less interventionist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1345996,00.html

Seems like an idea that was ahead of it's time. NATO seems to have achieved its objective and is no longer required.
It seems to me that it is an institution that is looking for a new purpose. Seems like it now should be called follow the leader.

[CHIMO]

19. Well

I don't see them getting 155 seats in the next parliament.

But my crystal ball is completly busted after my call on down south. Unless some operatives were fudging the numbers.

I don't think that the NDP would join with the BQ and the Conservatives based on someone else's analysys of the scene.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20041021.html

So in short my answer is no to the last question.

[arikara]

20. I was thinking BC

and yes, I think NDP will win in BC next year.

And I'd like them to win federally too, the Liberals are really not all that liberal, they are going to get us into the missile defense and they'd love to sell out our health care too. That said, I would vote Liberal if it was the only way to keep out the Conservatives. I very nearly did in the last election.