Remember the new evolved, moderate Harper?

[Bragi]

Have you followed what's going down, day-by-day in the new Stephen Harper Ottawa?

Have you noticed what the new conservative government is up to? The child care plan is history, medicare is under attack, our military and the defence contractors await the largess that is about to be bestowed on them, and everything is just getting just so damn George Bush friendly.

Someone told me they arrived at the Ottawa airport the other day, and guess what banner now greets deplaning passengers? Why, it's a big and pretty (uniligual) "Support our Troops" banner, complete with the GOP-approved yellow ribbon thingy.

Does all this make NDP stalwarts happy that Jack helped vote out the Libs last November, and then spent the whole campaign pissing on the Libs, with barely a minute to spend on what would happen if people voted for the cons?

Hope so.

For me, what what's coming down now is scary enough, but what's scarier still is that the cons are saving their scariest stuff till after the next election, after the centre-left majority vote in Canada splits just enough to give them a majority. Then watch them go.

Course, if Jack wins a seat or two more, then heck, who cares if the cons get 4 years to remake this country into exactly what the the GOP (and the Alberta oil industry) wants.

- B

[Mother Jones]

1. For what it's worth

Bragi, I can see where you're coming from, and I worry about that too.


But surely you must see that antagonizing the NDPrs won't get you anywhere.

You're asking people to give up too much. Think about why they vote NDP in the first place, and surely you can see how a vote for Martin wouldn't help them.

[Bragi]

3. On the Virtue of Antagonizing NDPers

You write:

You're asking people to give up too much. Think about why they vote NDP in the first place, and surely you can see how a vote for Martin wouldn't help them.

I very much disagree with that. The inference above is that there is really no difference between a Liberal government (remember, the one that lept us out of Iraq) and a Harper ("Support Our Troops") government, so it's therefore logical and good to vote NDP, despite the fact that you know full well that the result will be a Harper government.

Personally, I think there is a profound difference between the two, as we are now seeing. And yes, I am and will continue to be critical of those NDPers who claim otherwise, and who divide the centre-left vote to the benefit of Harper.

- B

[Mother Jones]

11. Again, I see your points and I too am concerned about where

this is leading us. I am.

But surely you must acknowledge the Liberal accountability in this. They chose to alienate their left-leaning base when they picked Martin. If they are to get those votes back, they must not do this again. Can we agree on this point?


I'm curious to know where you think the 20-some-odd seats Harper needs for a majority are gonna come from? Remember, alot of moderates simply thought it was time for a change.....and there were at least a dozen ridings that were close enough to go the other way next time.


I brought up Afghanistan in the other thread....As that situation worsens, I don't see Harper gaining support for it. Regardless of the propaganda. Why do you think he will?

[V. Kid]

24. Don't expect an answer to a substantive question from Bragi...

...he sings one note.

As for your question, I think if the Liberals decide that we should pull out of Afghanistan, the Conservatives will eventually come around to that position too. I think the Liberals are in dissaray judging by the utterly pathetic lineup that they've attracted for the leadership thus far, absolutley no serious 'stars'. And much of the remaining frontrunners, like Bob Rae, Belinda Stronach or Scott Brison aren't really Liberals and wouldn't appeal to progressive voters. And if you look at the David Emerson thing, I think it was a clever move on the Conservatives part to help defeat the Liberal argument that they're significantly different from the Conservatives if the Liberal lieutenant for BC felt just as comfortable in the Conservative Party as in the Liberal Party. Anyhow, to get back to why I think the Conservatives will pull us out of Afghanistan, I must say this is qualified, not only by the Liberal position, but also by whether or not the Conservatives will last in government. So the reason I think the Conservatives will pull us out, is to help make them as similar to the Liberal Party as possible, to the average voter. This will help nullify Liberal arguments that the Conservatives are the collective love children of the Republicans and Nazis, as well as help boost up third party support when people say "gee the Liberals and Conservatives are the same thing".

[Bragi]

27. I agree on some points...

You wrote:

But surely you must acknowledge the Liberal accountability in this. They chose to alienate their left-leaning base when they picked Martin. If they are to get those votes back, they must not do this again. Can we agree on this point?

Yes, we agree on that point.

You then asked:

I'm curious to know where you think the 20-some-odd seats Harper needs for a majority are gonna come from?

I think about 10-15 will come from Quebec. And if the centre-left vote remains divided, the cons won't have much trouble picking up the rest of what they need from Ontario, particularly in the 905 belt. The traditional PC vote in Atlantic Canada will also solidify more in the next election, and hence may produce a few more seats for the CPC there.

In the absence of any uniting of the centre-left vote, and in the absence, of course, of an attractive Liberal leader, then I think Harper will get an easy majority next time.

You wrote:

I brought up Afghanistan in the other thread....As that situation worsens, I don't see Harper gaining support for it. Regardless of the propaganda. Why do you think he will?

Afghanistan could be factor, but right now none of the parties (other than the Bloq, I think) are actually opposed to the Afghanistan deployment, so it's hard to see it as a defining ballot question.

If the Libs were to move to a hard antiwar posture, then I do think they might benefit from our inappropriate involvement in Afghanistan.

The effect of the NDP changing its position to a clear antiwar posture, though, would be less pronounced, since people know they aren't going to win, and hence know they can't actually implement an anti-war policy.

Having said that, if Afghanistan becomes a real political liability for Harper, my guess is that he will find some way of cosmetically jiggling things about beore and for an election. He would also spend a lot of time getting international leaders other than Bush to praise Canada's role there.

This might be enough to fool a lot of voters into thinking we should be there so as to be reliable international actors, and remove the issue as a defining ballot issue (and that is on the assumption that the Libs even stake out a hard antiwar position, which I certainly hope they do).

- B

[GirlinContempt]

37. Could you provide actual ridings you see as possibilities for this?

[Minstrel Boy]

2. I'm sure you'll find this as funny as I:

there was a Buzz Hargrove flyer supporting Belinda Stronach in the last election, warning voters that because the Left didn't rally to the Liberal cause a Conservative was elected in '04. Oddly, it failed to mention the Conservative candidate was Belinda Stronach.

The child care plan history? You mean the one the Liberals promised in '93? Medicare under attack? You mean the same medicare the Liberals failed to defend, and Cauchon is building his leadership challenge upon dismantling?

Some vision of the left ya got there, Bragi One-Note.

[Bragi]

4. Read Minstrel's words

As the neocons take charge, notice how NDP hacks spend their time on shallow, partisan attacks on Liberals.

The reason the NDP attack rings so hollow is that it is premised on the fiction that there is no fundamental difference between a Liberal government, and a Conservative one.

if you read your daily newspaper, you can't help but notice how day-to-day reality doesn't reflect that shallow analyis.

- B

[Lautremont]

5. You're the only one saying this. Of course there's a difference

between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who on earth would deny this?

The crux appears to be well out of your field of vision: namely, that the differences between the resolutely pro-business Liberals (whose devotion to progressive social programs is dubious and illusory) and the NDP is more important to many people than the differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

At any rate, your examples of the suddenly fearsome conservatism of Harper are a surprise to no one except, evidently, you. Who didn't know before the election that he was planning all the things you've listed in your OP? Just you, it would seem.

[Bragi]

9. You write:

Of course there's a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who on earth would deny this?

Minstrel Boy, Jack Layton, etc, etc. They then "prove" their point using a hoary old Tommy Douglas fable from 40 years ago.

The crux appears to be well out of your field of vision: namely, that the differences between the resolutely pro-business Liberals (whose devotion to progressive social programs is dubious and illusory) and the NDP is more important to many people than the differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The political differences between most NDP voters and most Liberal *voters* are mere nuances. The difference between being governed by Liberals versus the new neoncons, however, is profound.

At any rate, your examples of the suddenly fearsome conservatism of Harper are a surprise to no one except, evidently, you. Who didn't know before the election that he was planning all the things you've listed in your OP? Just you, it would seem.

How quickly we forget. Don't you remember everyone saying it was safe to put Harper in becuase he was a moderate, and would be constrained by having a minority, etc, etc.?

What I'm seeing is clear right-wing moves by Harper, the building of support for militarism among Canadians, setting the stage for the withdrawal of the federal government from national initiatives, law and order justice crap, etc. etc. all of which will be popular with about 40 per cent of electors, and create the political conditions he needs to get a majority -- provided the centre-left obliges him by remaining divided.

This guy is smart, and he isn't going to blow himself up. From from what I can see shaping up, he will likely be in power for the next 8-10 years while all the leftist activists in the NDP continue to smugly think it just can't happen here, and falsely assure voters that it's sensible and safe to piss away their votes in ridings where the neocons could be defeated, but not by NDP candidates.

- B

[V. Kid]

40. If you were really a traditional NDP voter like you claimed...

...who only wants to "unite the centre-left" you wouldn't refer to Tommy Douglas' famous 'Mousland' Speech as a "hoary old Tommy Douglas fable from 40 years ago."

My friend, I think you've completely destroyed your credibility. I've enjoyed it though.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. oh, get over your Team Martin self already

Why did I know, before I opened this thread, that your alleged swipe at Harper would actually be a shallow, partisan attack on New Democrats?

[tuvor]

6. You know what we really need?

A snoring smilie.

[Bragi]

10. You may be bored...

but the division of the centre-left majority in Canada is the most important political factor right now in setting the stage for a long-term neocon takeover of Canada.

NDP activists like this division, of course, because it helps them elect a handful of MPs every election. But they also need to deny the obvious result, which is ceding power to the neocons, who only have the support of a minority of voters.

But feel free to be dismissive. Most NDP activists are doing this, and personally, I'm fine with anyone who wants to doze off, and pretend that the issue isn't real, and that the debate isn't happening.

- B

[tuvor]

12. I'm not bored at all.

I'm just put to sleep by the single note you're always playing in the Canada Forum, even when your subject line wrongly suggests you're interested in ideas besides "vote Liberal".

See Minstrel Boy's post #8 and say "Amen!"

[Canuck55]

7. Meh, let them go for it...

The more controversial, the better. I hope they try and pipeline every major agenda item they have as soon as possible. Their minority won't get shit through the House without leeching support from the Libs/NDP/PC anyway, let them expose their radical agenda for what it is so people realize what exactly might be at stake before we put pencil to paper in about 12-16 months. We all knew he was going to hitch his wagon to GW's spin points, let him embrace it while fucko nosedives down south in the polls even among his base.

[MrPrax]

13. There are a lot of interesting

things about Canadian politics that could be said--BUT why exactly is the half a century 'wet dream' of the Liberal Party of Canada's efforts to get rid of the NDP, topically, I don't know.

BUT--One really 'scary' thing is not the numbers in last election, but the fact that the Liberals don't have a leader and Harper will be able to manipulate the federalism until such time that the Liberals get a leader. Harper will also be able to 're-open' sponsorship and quite possibly the RCMP will end IT'S investigations and indictments can be brought down at the
MOST inconvenient time for the Liberals.

Because the liberals are in crisis (were not suppose to notice that part, I guess) and have no leader, the Liberals won't be able to provide Canadians with a coherent party position on anything Parliament does...

ERGO the time is ripe for the NDP to push itself ahead and work on the gains from the last election--hardly makes sense for the NDP to collapse their party, when they can make some good inroads into 'soft' Liberal.

It does seem a little trite for Liberal Party supporters to point out say, 'day care' plan , based on the position of their last leader, when in fact, the party's position on this, or Afghanistan or etc, might be entirely different with a NEW leader.

[Bragi]

15. The NDP's Big Mo'

Another NDP sectarian writes:

ERGO the time is ripe for the NDP to push itself ahead and work on the gains from the last election--hardly makes sense for the NDP to collapse their party, when they can make some good inroads into 'soft' Liberal.

Wish I had a dollar for every time that an NDP stalwart mouthed that phrase over the last 40 years.

As I recall, the NDP had a larger percentage of the vote in 1965 than they got in the 2006 federal election. Talk about momentum...

I notice that it always seems that the time is always ripe for the NDP, at least until people actually go to the polls, and one again vote in droves for other parties.

- B

[MrPrax]

19. I am not talking about 1965...

and neither are you.

I am well well aware of the deficiencies of the NDP and would hardly call myself a stalwart.

But here's some advice if you are, say, a student in university studying political communication and want to get into politics. You should drop the partisan stuff and really take a look at the situation.

In all honesty, I am a little confused as to what exactly are your motives, because MOST liberals I know personally are far more worried about the Liberal party race. IF a legitmate leadership candidate doesn't materialize, then the Liberals are in serious trouble.

That's why I sorta am thinking your a Tory, actually--this is something Tories would want to happen. I could be wrong, but you seem rather quixotic when it comes to actual criticism of the Tories, other than drying off the Liberal's last campaign that he's scary.

Moreover, several people here have mentioned to you that many of the things you decry about Harper, are things that were Liberal touchstones. I always notice that when you reply you IGNORE all of that, which is EXACTLY what a Tory would do--YOU STAY ON MESSAGE.

You don't provide depth to the criticism other than to keep saying 'Harper' is going to win, if WE don't merge? (Partisans don't think like that generally--they usually concern themselves with their OWN party)

There is no legitimate evidence that even the worst media pundit would suggest a merger?

Especially after the MSM as declared 'honeymoon over' and Harper's own foot soldiers are piss off with him. Why you keep 'harping' on something that ONLY you see as inevitable and then INSIST that the ONLY solution is a 'merger'? The evidence doesn't support any of this--it might a year from now, but not now.

That's why I think your a Tory--the Tories are in for a rocky ride and YOU seem to be the ONLY one of the regular posters here that fails to see this obvious fact.

I asked you straight up...what the fuck is the NDP suppose to merge with since the Liberals don't have a leader, platform or even direction??????????????

Maybe I am wrong, but it does seem strange...

[Bragi]

20. Yeah, you are wrong

Interesting theory, but I'm not all that complicated, really.

I've said several times here that I am your basic centre-left voter. I have voted NDP in most elections, and occasionally Liberal, but never Tory.

I am now deeeply cocnerned about the divisions among centre-left voters because it means the neocons (who are not traditional Canadian conservatives) are going to take over. IOn fact, they are well on their way to doing so.

I don't care if there is a merger, or a new party, or even just strategic voting to defeat conservatives. I just want them stopped.

The biggest impediment I see to stopping them is hard-core partisanship. Personally, I find that NDP partisans are far more opposed to doing what needs to be done to defeat the necons than are Liberal partisans.

Evidence of this in the last campaign was that the NDP spent most of its time attacking the Liberals, and very little time attacking the conservatives. This was not true of the Liberals, who spend no time at all attacking the NDP.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

21. In an election, does it really surprise you

that an opposition spend "most of its time" attacking the governing party? Martin didn't make the case that the Liberals deserved another mandate. Liberals had better pay some attention to why that happened, instead of moaning and whining that opposition parties happened to oppose them.

"This was not true of the Liberals, who spend no time at all attacking the NDP."

Of course not: as usual, they were trying to kill with kindness, fudging the distinctions to woo progressive voters.

[MrPrax]

22. Always on message...n/t

[CHIMO]

23. Who Are

The neocons?

What is a centre-left voter?

Why all of a sudden are their divisions where none existed before? Maybe you could spell out the divisions.

Confused by some of your apparent confusions.

[V. Kid]

25. Then prove us wrong and answer the questions I posed...

...here, in post #19 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x12820#13092

...and here, in post #14 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x12820#12884

[Bragi]

28. I think I dealt with your points here...

I dealt with as many of your points as seemed relevant at the time in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x12927

- B

[V. Kid]

29. Yeaaaa....

[IntravenousDemilo]

14. What it comes down to is this:

People vote NDP rather than Liberal because the NDP are virtuous.

[Bragi]

16. What it comes down to is this:

The NDP stalled in 1965, and has shown no momentum since then.

- B

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. Well, that's not exactly true, is it? n/m

[Minstrel Boy]

18. The Liberals must be in worse shape than I thought

for you to take such comfort in repeating such silly lies.

Or did you lose the links?

"Under Ed Broadbent the NDP led national public polls for much of 1987"
Canadian Encyclopedia

"As pollster Angus Reid predicted in this clip, the surge in popularity for the NDP was not just a blip. Two months after this clip, in July 1987, the NDP was at 41 per cent popularity compared with 35 per cent for the Liberals and 23 per cent for the Progressive Conservatives."
CBC Archives

Yeah yeah, that was 1987. It's not 1965 though, is it? And last month a Decima poll had the federal NDP leading in Ontario with 31%. But you would have New Democrats fold their tent and file into a leaderless and rightward-leaning Liberal Party. So naturally you need to repeat lies to sweeten the deal.

[Bragi]

26. Do you think?

I guess I could have writen: "Except for a few months in 1987, the NDP has shown no growth in popular support since it contested its first federal election in 1965."

On the other, call me crazy, but I think a party who support has largely remained static for 40 years, and which had a smaller percentage of support in the 2006 election than it did in the 1965 election, can be accurately described as "lacking momentum."

- B

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. Canadians will remember. The NDP will pay for it's lack of

campaigning against thier natural enemies.

[Minstrel Boy]

31. Will Liberals remember

it was Canadians who threw them out of office?

An opposition party campaigns against the government of the day. For most of Canadian history the Liberal Party has been every other party's "natural enemy."

[HEyHEY]

32. I'll vote for whoever I damn well please

And if you don't like that, tough fucking shit.
Maybe if your precious liberals hadn't taken so many fucking liberties I would have voted for them.

Who the fuck do you think you are? Trying to make me feel guilty for exercising my right to vote for who I chose?

[GirlinContempt]

33. Crawl back under that rock, please

[HEyHEY]

34. AS well - a few points

You said these three things

"Have you noticed what the new conservative government is up to? medicare is under attack"
Did you notice it was the Libs who destroyed healthcare?

"The child care plan is history,"
Did YOU noticeThat the childcare plan was pulled out of their ass at the last minute after years of promising one?

"our military and the defence contractors await the largess that is about to be bestowed on them"
Did YOU notice That good buddies of the libs were getting crazy kickbacks as well?

The funny thing is, had your Liberals not fucked all that up.... they'd of WON The election... had they run a better campaign, they'd of WON the election.

Shit on a stick, man... think, it's not hard. Stop blaming all your shit on us.

[GirlinContempt]

35. FACT ALERT FACT ALERT

[Canuckistanian]

38. Got a point there

A big couple of areas of the country were against the Liberals. Quebec and Alberta/BC (not that that's unusual).

Kind of hard to piss both of 'em off at the same time.

Liberals seemed to manage OK.

[V. Kid]

41. STOP IT NDP SECTERIAN...

...voting BC NDP*, as I know you did, and for Canada's NDP, horrible person you.

*Except not.

[CHIMO]

36. Keep Up The Good Work

Of course the last one to say that would be the Liberals.

You are really helping out the NDP, and in a way I suppose it will result in a unified left(Not this BS left of Centre).

So keep it up. Even the Bloc welcomes it.

Look forward to your next pronouncement.

[GirlinContempt]

39. Dear bragi,

Of your last nine posts, eight of them said the same thing. We here at the concerned citizens for original messages committee kindly request you read up on another 'issue'.

-CCOM

(edited to read 9 and 8 instead of 5 and 4)