Thanks for this post Killerhurtz. Unite the Progressives I'm in the anyone-but-Harper camp - and as "Lead Now" says, that has to be done riding by riding. I'm very angry at the NDP-GREEN-LIBS for not creating a general progressive party. Every time one of them phones me -- which is all the time - I say "unite the left and I'll give you money." Or some version of "get over yourselves." The PC and Reform parties did it. Now we essentially have a version of the former Reform Party. I imagine the NDP didn't want to go in that direction as they feared they would be subsumed by the Liberals -- but the NDP is in a much better position now, Mulcair is popular and we took friggin' Alberta!! To be honest and at risk of ridicule, I have always liked Justin T ever since he gave what I thought was a slam-dunk of a eulogy at his father's funeral. I've also been a life-long NDPer. Jack Layton is buried a few blocks from my Toronto place and I visit him often.
I love ya, lil, but I can't agree with this at all. Part of the reason (aside from spending limits) that our democracy is so much more broad than the US's is that we have a multiple party system, instead of two parties (a left and right). What we SHOULD have is some sort of Proportional Representation, or Ranked Ballot. Even though neither of these strategies are perfect either, the result of either attempts to prevent parties from winning with a Plurality, but not a Majority. First Past the Post, the system we use now, has the unintended consequence of killing off smaller parties until there are only two competing parties.I'm very angry at the NDP-GREEN-LIBS for not creating a general progressive party. Every time one of them phones me -- which is all the time - I say "unite the left and I'll give you money." Or some version of "get over yourselves."
Definitely with you on the alternative voting system. I think it's the only long-term alternative to the left parties merging and us becoming another two party system. At the same time, I too look at what party is likely to defeat the Conservatives in my riding and will likely vote that way. Doesn't help that no one really excites me.
We should probably have some sort of PropRep -- and the NDP would probably disappear in a partnership with the Libs. I still wish they'd unite though, and in my lifetime. A fringe group, like the CCF (forerunner of NDP) will emerge soon after. sp00ns - do you have any idea which country has a good PropRep system? When done properly, it forces alliances and strange bedfellows.
As an Albertan, I would just like to say that the national NDP and our provincial NDP are quite different. The NDP here is more on the conservative-centre side (they have to be, around these parts) and Rachel Notley did EXTREMELY well in her campaign and during the debates. Jim Prentice, leader of the PC party, was an absolute ass, the Liberals have zero respect, and Brian Jean had absolutely no sense of image. Really, she was the only option for anyone but the staunchest members of the right. The national election is nowhere near as clear cut. I believe there's a very strong anti-Harper movement on the Internet, but Alberta seems to still be supportive of him. The biggest disadvantage for the left is definitely vote-splitting between the three parties, especially as there doesn't seem to be a clearly better candidate.
I can understand how people can like Trudeau - I did, too, at first - but then at the Maclean's debate he started rubbing me wrong - I felt like he may be starting to step in his father's footsteps (and I don't like that) without mentioning that, as previously mentioned, he throws off a strong "Harper-but-not-Harper" vibe. But hey - I'm only human, and I can definitely be wrong. Deep down, I want Trudeau to be elected and fucking ROCK at it just to see myself proven wrong.
First, he conspired with people in the UK, to get the Canadian Constitution to Canada - for which there was absolutely no reason to except give the federal government a possible power to modify it, AND cause more pain to the Francophone population (as the charter was made after England's obtention of the lands after the Seven Years War. He also wasn't exactly a great economist, and somewhat antagonized Quebec simply because of the separatist movement. And he was a bit full of himself. THEN there's the conspiracy theories which may or may not be true, like that he was behind the FLQ (which was an extremist Quebec separationist group - which forced the military into the streets of the major cities). And that he was acting behind closed doors to increase the powers that a Prime Minster had (hence the Constitution patriation) to maybe take over Canada eventually, or at least set up the place so that it could be done by some party. For me though, it's mostly the focus on "how to get things done" rather than "how to make a budget to get things done" that bothered me, but oh well.