Please do not write your newly elected Member of Parliament.
You're just not smart enough to know what you actually want. You may not even realize the depth of your ignorance.
With all due respect,
Canada's gun lobby
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
In which it is possible that David Herle may be wrong
A couple of days ago, former Liberal organizer David Herle was asked by the CBC to set down his views on the desirability of a merger between the Liberal Party and the NDP. He doesn't much like it. That column can be found here.
As a Liberal Party member for almost 30 years, some of Herle's arguments simply annoy me and I feel obliged to respond. It's not that I necessarily support establishing a new centrist party, but am open to finding a way to defeat the Conservatives that doesn't depend upon the intervention of magic faeries, blue Liberals or other mythical creatures.
For ease of reference, I'll leave Herle's headings to make it easier link my response to his piece.
1. Because the two parties do not share a common voter base.
Hell, the Liberal Party doesn't share a common voter base with itself from election to election. The Ekos poll that Herle cites reveals that only 53% of Canadians who voted for a Stephane Dion led Liberal Party were prepared to vote Liberal in 2011.
53% of the 26% of Canadians who voted for Stephane Dion is an awfully small band of loyal Liberal voters from which to build a viable national political party.
2. Because Liberals are not collectivists.
Nor are the New Democrat voters I know. There may well be a clutch of collectivists at NDP conventions. Anybody who has spent any time at political conventions knows that they seem to disproportionately attract people from outside the Canadian mainstream. Calling all New Democrats collectivists is like saying every Tory has been convicted for multiple gun crimes. It's just not true. And It probably wasn't true 30 years ago when Allan Blakeney was entering his last year as Premier of Saskatchewan.
If New Democrats hadn't voted for Ralph Goodale, the Tories would have swept the province.
Does support from voters who would likely vote NDP otherwise make Goodale less of a Canadian? I don't think so.
3. Because there are two kinds of NDP governments
We don't have common voters, but we often have common approaches.
I just can't mock that.
4. Because when Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were saving the economy back in the 1990's, they were able to do sensible things like trim back the size of the civil service without having to answer to trade union party bosses.
I have sat with union leaders at Liberal Party fundraisers. I have put Liberal lawn signs on business agents' lawns. Earlier this week, I helped pull vote for a union endorsed Liberal candidate.
As a union member, if this kind of Tea Party "union boss" rhetoric is the future of the Liberal Party, count me out.
5. Because merger is what Harper wants.
Why does Stephen Harper want to destroy the Liberal Party? It's what Canadian Conservative Party leaders do. It was Brian Mulroney's ambition too.
Anybody who has spent any time watching Calgary-based Alberta Tories building up the Alberta NDP with the unstated goal of spliting the opposition vote will recognize the pattern. Tory government's benefit from splits among similarly minded voters.
It's not complicated, they know that they can't win when non-Tory voters broadly unite and running down the biggest opposition party and building up the small one is the easiest way to get to where Stephen Harper wants to be.
It's Jack Layton's turn now. Don't be surprised to see Tories expressing much concern about the viability of Liberal Party in the months to come.
6. Because adding one-fifth of a national party to two-thirds of a national party does not equal a full national party anyway.
That's what they said about the PC/Alliance merger too. It will never work. It shouldn't be done.
The Liberal Party has lost much of its vote over the past 11 years. It's naive to suggest that Canadians seeking to replace the Harper government in the next election should only be concerned about the loss of Liberal votes to the right. A look at the last election that Liberals went into as Canada's national government suggests that the loss of votes to the right isn't a new phenomenon.
As big loss to the NDP is. The Ekos poll found that almost 30% of 2008 Liberal voters would go to the NDP this time around.
Herle's approach quickly takes us back to 53% of Stephane Dion's 26% with an exceptional emotional investment in the furtive hope that a very small number of Conservative voters lost to the Liberal Party under Paul Martin and Stephane Dion's leadership might consider voting Liberal ever again.
7. Because the territory the Liberal Party has in the past, and can again occupy, is the sweet spot of Canadian politics.
Or not. When Canadians were asked about the Liberal brand earlier this week - not even 19% said yes.
Still, Herle acknowledges that some NDP governments have been good for their provinces because they had much in common with the Liberal approach. But the Ross Thatcher/Bill Vanderzalm style rhetoric about dirty soshulists is simply unbecoming.
8. Because the NDP, especially under Layton and with this new caucus, hold views about the federation and Quebec's role in it that are anathema to most Liberals.
It's probably an anethema to most grassroots New Democrats outside of Quebec. It's another thing we have in common.
9. Because centrist, brokerage politics provides the best government for a country as diverse as Canada.
That more 90% of Saskatchewan voters didn't vote Liberal suggests that the love of brokerage government isn't shared by all Canadians.
As a Liberal Party member for almost 30 years, some of Herle's arguments simply annoy me and I feel obliged to respond. It's not that I necessarily support establishing a new centrist party, but am open to finding a way to defeat the Conservatives that doesn't depend upon the intervention of magic faeries, blue Liberals or other mythical creatures.
For ease of reference, I'll leave Herle's headings to make it easier link my response to his piece.
1. Because the two parties do not share a common voter base.
Hell, the Liberal Party doesn't share a common voter base with itself from election to election. The Ekos poll that Herle cites reveals that only 53% of Canadians who voted for a Stephane Dion led Liberal Party were prepared to vote Liberal in 2011.
53% of the 26% of Canadians who voted for Stephane Dion is an awfully small band of loyal Liberal voters from which to build a viable national political party.
2. Because Liberals are not collectivists.
Nor are the New Democrat voters I know. There may well be a clutch of collectivists at NDP conventions. Anybody who has spent any time at political conventions knows that they seem to disproportionately attract people from outside the Canadian mainstream. Calling all New Democrats collectivists is like saying every Tory has been convicted for multiple gun crimes. It's just not true. And It probably wasn't true 30 years ago when Allan Blakeney was entering his last year as Premier of Saskatchewan.
If New Democrats hadn't voted for Ralph Goodale, the Tories would have swept the province.
Does support from voters who would likely vote NDP otherwise make Goodale less of a Canadian? I don't think so.
3. Because there are two kinds of NDP governments
We don't have common voters, but we often have common approaches.
I just can't mock that.
4. Because when Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were saving the economy back in the 1990's, they were able to do sensible things like trim back the size of the civil service without having to answer to trade union party bosses.
As a union member, if this kind of Tea Party "union boss" rhetoric is the future of the Liberal Party, count me out.
5. Because merger is what Harper wants.
Why does Stephen Harper want to destroy the Liberal Party? It's what Canadian Conservative Party leaders do. It was Brian Mulroney's ambition too.
Anybody who has spent any time watching Calgary-based Alberta Tories building up the Alberta NDP with the unstated goal of spliting the opposition vote will recognize the pattern. Tory government's benefit from splits among similarly minded voters.
It's not complicated, they know that they can't win when non-Tory voters broadly unite and running down the biggest opposition party and building up the small one is the easiest way to get to where Stephen Harper wants to be.
It's Jack Layton's turn now. Don't be surprised to see Tories expressing much concern about the viability of Liberal Party in the months to come.
6. Because adding one-fifth of a national party to two-thirds of a national party does not equal a full national party anyway.
That's what they said about the PC/Alliance merger too. It will never work. It shouldn't be done.
The Liberal Party has lost much of its vote over the past 11 years. It's naive to suggest that Canadians seeking to replace the Harper government in the next election should only be concerned about the loss of Liberal votes to the right. A look at the last election that Liberals went into as Canada's national government suggests that the loss of votes to the right isn't a new phenomenon.
As big loss to the NDP is. The Ekos poll found that almost 30% of 2008 Liberal voters would go to the NDP this time around.
Herle's approach quickly takes us back to 53% of Stephane Dion's 26% with an exceptional emotional investment in the furtive hope that a very small number of Conservative voters lost to the Liberal Party under Paul Martin and Stephane Dion's leadership might consider voting Liberal ever again.
7. Because the territory the Liberal Party has in the past, and can again occupy, is the sweet spot of Canadian politics.
Or not. When Canadians were asked about the Liberal brand earlier this week - not even 19% said yes.
Still, Herle acknowledges that some NDP governments have been good for their provinces because they had much in common with the Liberal approach. But the Ross Thatcher/Bill Vanderzalm style rhetoric about dirty soshulists is simply unbecoming.
8. Because the NDP, especially under Layton and with this new caucus, hold views about the federation and Quebec's role in it that are anathema to most Liberals.
It's probably an anethema to most grassroots New Democrats outside of Quebec. It's another thing we have in common.
9. Because centrist, brokerage politics provides the best government for a country as diverse as Canada.
That more 90% of Saskatchewan voters didn't vote Liberal suggests that the love of brokerage government isn't shared by all Canadians.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Somebody bring me the head of my predecessor!
There is a real irony that the obvious need for this NDP call for more democratic riding distribution in Saskatchewan is a consequence of this NDP call for more democratic riding distribution in Saskatchewan.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Which NDP long gun registry policy do you prefer?
Over the course of this campaign, New Democrats have taken a number different and sometimes incompatible positions on the life saving long gun registry. Which do you prefer?
1) Municipal option
2) Support the gun registry
3) Take no stand but promise an independent vote.
4) Scrap the registration of long guns. Keep the registration of handguns.
5) National referendum on the long gun registry
6) Consult with rod and gun clubs on how to vote
7) Vote to scrap the long gun registry if the Bill as the same as the one that the House of Commons rejected
So what is the official NDP policy on the life saving log gun registry? We just don't know. The 2011 NDP platform doesn't even mention the long gun registry.
Maybe that's why the gun lobby has endorsed NDP candidates from the beginning of the campaign and is merrily adding others to their approved list.
1) Municipal option
2) Support the gun registry
3) Take no stand but promise an independent vote.
4) Scrap the registration of long guns. Keep the registration of handguns.
5) National referendum on the long gun registry
6) Consult with rod and gun clubs on how to vote
7) Vote to scrap the long gun registry if the Bill as the same as the one that the House of Commons rejected
So what is the official NDP policy on the life saving log gun registry? We just don't know. The 2011 NDP platform doesn't even mention the long gun registry.
Maybe that's why the gun lobby has endorsed NDP candidates from the beginning of the campaign and is merrily adding others to their approved list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)