uniting the left?
--------------------
i'm not sure if i'd back this idea... first, it'd be a slippery slope to the hapless two-party system that the Americans have... politics and public policy is too complex to be subsumed under a simple "left vs. right" dichotomy... second, there's a difference between being "left" and playing "left"... the NDP seems to have lost its way or, as some might say, have "sold out" altogether... they still espouse left-wing values, but they've slowly drifted to the centre in their thus-far futile bid for power... the Liberals are rudderless these days, to say the least... i don't think they even know which direction is which... being "not-right" (pun intended) doesn't make one "left"...
i'd suggest this pipe dream should remain in the drawing board...
--------------------
"I think it's important for people who call themselves progressive to really think about the situation," former Ontario premier and putative Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae said in a speech last week in Winnipeg. "There's a progressive record that's shared by a majority of Canadians, but so far we have not succeeded in becoming a majority in the House of Commons, so we must think a bit about how that can happen." Rae, who fought eight elections as a New Democrat — three at the federal level and five at the provincial level — did not explicitly call for a merger between his former party (he resigned in 1998) and the Liberals, but that was the logical extension of his argument.
By splitting the left-wing vote, the Liberals and New Democrats squander the chance to form a government that can advance the values they share. By competing with each other, they improve the Conservatives' odds of staying in power. By fighting over small stuff — how greenhouse gas emissions are cut, how publicly insured medicine is delivered, how the child-care system is expanded and how tax breaks are apportioned — they risk letting the caring, cohesive Canada in which they both believe slip away.
The Liberals, for the most part, still see themselves as Canada's natural governing party. They regard their poor showing in the last two elections as a cyclical malaise that can be cured with a new leader, an invigorating policy conference and an updated agenda. The New Democrats, buoyed by their recent rise in popularity, see themselves as Canada's modern, urban party. They nurse hopes of supplanting the Liberals someday. The two parties have different roots. The Liberals — known in their early days as the Reformers and the Clear Grits — trace their origins to pre-Confederation British North America. The NDP — originally known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation — sprang from the social gospel movement of the 1930s. They draw their core support from different segments of the population. The Liberals are a mainstream, middle-class party. The New Democrats aim to represent workers and those struggling for a break.
There is little love lost between them. The Liberals blame the New Democrats for destroying their prospects in the last two elections. The New Democrats blame the Liberals for undermining their campaigns with scare tactics. But the arithmetic of union is compelling. The two parties won 47.7 per cent of the popular vote in the last election. The Conservatives gained power with 36.3 per cent. Vote splitting on the left allowed the Tories to pick up 19 seats in Ontario, four in Saskatchewan and 10 in British Columbia.
The ideological gulf between the Liberals and NDP has narrowed to a gully in the last 20 years. No longer do the New Democrats seek to nationalize banks or uproot capitalism. No longer do the Liberals scoff at the notion of banning corporate campaign donations. Both parties support balanced budgets, a strong central government, a publicly funded child-care system and an enhanced role for cities in national decision-making. The tussles over strategic voting in the 2004 and 2006 elections suggest the two parties know — even if they refuse to admit — that their constituencies have converged.
i'd suggest this pipe dream should remain in the drawing board...
--------------------
"I think it's important for people who call themselves progressive to really think about the situation," former Ontario premier and putative Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae said in a speech last week in Winnipeg. "There's a progressive record that's shared by a majority of Canadians, but so far we have not succeeded in becoming a majority in the House of Commons, so we must think a bit about how that can happen." Rae, who fought eight elections as a New Democrat — three at the federal level and five at the provincial level — did not explicitly call for a merger between his former party (he resigned in 1998) and the Liberals, but that was the logical extension of his argument.
By splitting the left-wing vote, the Liberals and New Democrats squander the chance to form a government that can advance the values they share. By competing with each other, they improve the Conservatives' odds of staying in power. By fighting over small stuff — how greenhouse gas emissions are cut, how publicly insured medicine is delivered, how the child-care system is expanded and how tax breaks are apportioned — they risk letting the caring, cohesive Canada in which they both believe slip away.
The Liberals, for the most part, still see themselves as Canada's natural governing party. They regard their poor showing in the last two elections as a cyclical malaise that can be cured with a new leader, an invigorating policy conference and an updated agenda. The New Democrats, buoyed by their recent rise in popularity, see themselves as Canada's modern, urban party. They nurse hopes of supplanting the Liberals someday. The two parties have different roots. The Liberals — known in their early days as the Reformers and the Clear Grits — trace their origins to pre-Confederation British North America. The NDP — originally known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation — sprang from the social gospel movement of the 1930s. They draw their core support from different segments of the population. The Liberals are a mainstream, middle-class party. The New Democrats aim to represent workers and those struggling for a break.
There is little love lost between them. The Liberals blame the New Democrats for destroying their prospects in the last two elections. The New Democrats blame the Liberals for undermining their campaigns with scare tactics. But the arithmetic of union is compelling. The two parties won 47.7 per cent of the popular vote in the last election. The Conservatives gained power with 36.3 per cent. Vote splitting on the left allowed the Tories to pick up 19 seats in Ontario, four in Saskatchewan and 10 in British Columbia.
The ideological gulf between the Liberals and NDP has narrowed to a gully in the last 20 years. No longer do the New Democrats seek to nationalize banks or uproot capitalism. No longer do the Liberals scoff at the notion of banning corporate campaign donations. Both parties support balanced budgets, a strong central government, a publicly funded child-care system and an enhanced role for cities in national decision-making. The tussles over strategic voting in the 2004 and 2006 elections suggest the two parties know — even if they refuse to admit — that their constituencies have converged.
— Carol Goar, Toronto Star (2006/03/22)
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 20:45
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home