Traveller2

Its not like we've been governed by the Conservatives forever. And they haven't had a majority government in 17 years.

For much of that time we were ruled by a Liberal majority. Now we can all agree that the Liberals did a number of things better than the Cons such as keep us out of Iraq, but overall most of the decisions made were the same ones the Cons would have made.

I think there's lots of progressive voters in the Liberal camp but the party they support isn't.

A Liberal government under Ignatieff would act the same as the current Conservative government except the optics, especially in regards to foreign policy, would be better.

Economic and social policy would be the same and electoral reform would never happen.

Any alliance with the NDP therefore would produce lots of rewards for Liberals but none for New Democrats.

Is Current Tory-Lib Coalition preferable?

Those opposed to a Lib-NDP Coalition, Bloc supported, might consider we already have a de facto coalition, one from Hell.

Cowardly Iggy & Co. endlessly prop up Harper's dreary, paltry plurality minority, a power-abusing gov't that, arguably, is doing serious damage to our system of gov't on a number of fronts, when Ig could easily acquire some gonads & join the NDP & Bloc in defeating Tory bills requiring House Confidence. The current gov't is a coalition that's all one-way, where Tories do pretty much whatever they choose, while Libs demand nothing in return for supporting the Tory minority: no cooperation or conciliation demanded or required! That's what I call a coalition from Hell.

If Harper's getting away with near-murder, Iggy's his chief ally & enabler in Parliament, ensuring Harper's gang remains in power. Ig therefore shares much blame for the Tory regime's existence.

So to progressive opponents of a Lib-NDP coalition, I ask: How could a Lib-NDP gov't possibly be anywhere near as bad for the country as is the current Tory-Lib "coalition"? With the left (& not the right) vote split & the Bloc strong, Harper can continue in power with his disturbing, relentlessly creeping & slithering agenda indefinitely - unless & until the left finally agrees to cooperate to oust him by forming a coalition gov't.

Realistically, how else but via coalition can the left hope to rid Canada, in the foreseeable future, of the Tories, their backward agenda, & their wannabe-dictator leader?

coalition

The Liberals have voted with Harper at least 58 times! That makes a Liberal/Conservative Coalition Government that currently exists in
Ottawa. World wide since the demise of The Soviet Union fascism has become the
flavour of the day. History repeating itself.

Coalition - Bring it on

And bring the Bloc into it too - they represent the majority of Quebecers and there's no better way to bring Quebec and its progressives into government.

Only people like Pee Wee are afraid of the 'separatism' boogie man anyway.

He's yelled 'wolf' several times too often on that score.

Quebecers are Canadians too and leaving the Bloc out of a coalition is stupid.

But it has to be a real coalition, and not just a sheepskin for the Liberals to return to power.

hallo, Gilles?

I certainly would be interesting if the grand old Liberal Party decides to join forces and share power with a political party committed to the breakup of this country.

I guess if Ignatieff is really desperate the Bloc could even negotiate for Cabinet seats.

The reaction west of the Ottawa River will be most entertaining.

R/M old man....

Hmmmm...that would be the Conservative Party of Canada under S. Harper, would it not? You know, the one that wants to eliminate the centralization of power in Ottawa (even though he has managed to usurp even more power, contrary to his campaign before becoming PM) and wants the provinces to become more autonomous...........

Humanitarian values?... or....Harper's values?

"Crompton talks about the need for progressives to challenge those values that now dominate the public discourse by strengthening intrinsic values: "...empathy towards those who are facing the effects of humanitarian and environmental crises, concern for future generations, and recognition that human prosperity resides in relationships -- both with one another and with the natural world."

This is such an important point that Crompton makes.

I am so glad you included it here, Murray.

(It is easy to see how this approach would have radically changed the health care debate in the US....which left progressives on the defensive ( and continues to do so) as the right-wing makes the debate all about money and profit - 'profit' that is defined only in terms of money.

Where was... and where is the defense of the profoundly humanitarian profits that come from the adoption of a universal health care system?)

Certainly, this applies to progressives in Canada as well.

NEWSFLASH!

Lynn. Canada has universal health-care.

Rick

One has to laugh. Rick, please find us one, just one quote or statement from either Iggy or Jack, or their parties (we know you can forget Gilles), that says a word about more power for Ottawa.

values

"to modify and control the operation of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning, ... where necessary [through] the principle of social ownership."

Murray Dobbin claims: “If [only] the NDP followed the advice of Crompton and created a new politics rooted in a moral imperative, not in tactical maneuvering on home heating, and called for a coalition that could advance those values, it could expose the Harper Conservatives as selfish and cruel while truly challenging the Liberals to reverse their drift to the right.”

Yes, there’s some truth to Dobbin’s “if only” picture, but there’s one problem: He’s only partly correct in thinking voter values will be easily changed (reframed) from being predominantly selfish, egocentric and concerned with financial success, image and fame; to a set of values that are more concerned with relationship, family, community and self-acceptance.

Dobbin is making the assumption that … in order to change the nature of politics from a system driven extrinsically to one driven intrinsically … there is a large enough voter base that cherishes a strong set of intrinsic values that are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people, and that they have beliefs which transcend their self-interest.

Neither Crompton nor Dobbin knows how to get around the fact Capitalism thrives and survives in a world created by self-interest.

I think she knows that

What she was trying to say was that we in Canada,should have helped get the message to the American public.Unfortunately,our system is being depleted a little more every day and nowhere as much as here in B.C. with private clinics and user fees.Harper has studied the dirty politics of the GOP and idea of framing the issues.Why the opposition can't frame an issue I have no idea.Fear and divide an conquer have been Harpers bread and butter.Attack the poor the disenfranchised and keep the opposition on their heels.Lots of photo ops,the recent north campaign was a classic.Building up our armed forces?Buying 17 billion worth of stealth bombers?Who are we attacking next?The country is unrecognizable in so few years.We have lost the best of what this country once stood for and are now a divided and unhappy country,led by a group of evangelical Christians who will exert their will through any means.Bill S-10 alone is reason enough to throw the bums out.Do we really want to start jailing pot smokers for mandatory minimum sentences when the US is trying to get out of the hole they dug with just that same policy.Harper sees only what he wants to see and reality escapes him totally.He is a very sick and dangerous man and even a minority government has allowed him to make Canada a meaner,colder and less friendly place.Perhaps Stephen Colbert should have held his keep fear alive rally in Ottawa.It would feel right at home there.

Another Flash

sicntired. Health-care in Canada is a provincial responsibility.

Quote: "We don’t need a

Quote:
"We don’t need a Liberal-NDP coalition. What we need is electoral reform."

Do you not understand that you aren't ever going to achieve electoral reform without a coalition FIRST?

Even if the SOLE point of agreement of a coalition is to implement PR, it should be done. So what if the Liberals get to rule for 4 years? It can't be any worse than what we have now -- the difference being, the entire election scenario in Canada will have changed for the better in following elections.

Mssr. realisticman wrote:

"Lynn. Canada has universal health-care."

Yes, I think I read that somewhere. ;-)

I realize Canada has universal health care (make that an ever-dwindling state of universal health care).... but it is less and less defended in terms of its human values, in fact almost apologetic for them.

sicntired wrote:

"The country is unrecognizable in so few years."

I feel so much the same way.

Harper's intention all along I fear.

A great post by the way....

sicntired wrote:

“Why the opposition can't frame an issue I have no idea.”

The problem isn’t that they can’t frame an issue, it’s that they are trying to frame issues around Harper’s … extrinsic values of financial success, image and fame … while at the same time trying to get folks to believe in intrinsic values like relationships with friends, family and community, and self-acceptance.

Since the two sets of values cannot exist at the same time, and voters aren’t convinced about the benefits of intrinsic values, they (the opposition) have effectively reinforced Harper’s stance.

Unfortunately, the opposition hasn’t been able to avoid getting caught up in Harper’s argument. If they keep it up Harper can’t loose.

Jack's son won tonight

Mike Layton elected in Toronto Spadina.

New Toronto mayor elected too.

Lessons for Vancouver?

NEWS FLASH

Health care in Canada is regulated according to the terms of the CANADA HEALTH ACT - a piece of federal legislation.

You obviously still haven't learned much about CANADA'S laws and history.

Canada Health Act, 1984, sets the conditions and criteria the provincial and territorial health insurance programs must meet in order to receive federal transfer payments. The criteria require universal coverage for all "medically necessary" hospital and doctor provided services, without any co-payments from patients.

That's why it's called universal health care.

Please, make a note of it.

R/M old man....

Am I to imply from this statement that you think ALL of Canada's federal parties (you omitted the Greens) advocate the breakup of the country?

It's a good article but it

It's a good article but it and the comments that follow reflect just how powerless we are. None of the scenarios proposed will change the overarching reality: the elite rule. It doesn't make the slightest difference who we vote for. As long as we refuse to acknowledge the situation, as long as we live in ignorance of the source of their power, money and banking, then more of the same.

At this current point in

At this current point in time, a coalition of the NDP, Bloc and Green may not garner enough votes to defeat the current coalition of Liberal and Reform / Conservative alliance.

Cut the Baloney please

Can we just drop it?! The NDP and Liberals, other than some coincidental rhetoric on various social issues, are fundamentally and diametrically opposed and in conflict.

The Liberals are exactly, as many more observant people point out, far closer to the Conservatives than they ever have been to the NDP--especially on the key fundamentals of economic and fiscal policy, where they are practically indistinguishable, as we have repeatedly seen by both Liberal and Conservative governments.

the Liberals, like the Conservatives, are dedicated to preserving and strengthening corporate capitalist economics and corporate rule over the economy. That's why they are supported mainly by corporate power cliques and wealthy special interests.

The NDP is rooted in the social democratic tradition of expanding freedom and democratically empowering working people and communities to have a greater bargaining say in the economy and sharing more of the wealth (as in putting wealth back into the hands of the working people who create it in the first place) and ultimately the full democratization of business, government and the economy as a whole by working people and their communities.

That's why it has traditionally been aligned with and largely supported by the labour, cooperative/democratic business and community economic development and ecology movements; social justice and human rights organizations and citizens' and popular fronts.

Coalitions only work when there are common goals around key fundamental issues. There are practically none that exist between the Liberals and the NDP. Given these opposing fundamentals, it's easy to see why.

It amazes me how many people just expect these two very opposing groups to just forget their legacy and identities and form what is little more than a marriage of convenience that will fail to do anything because there's no practical basis for it to begin with.

liberal-ndp convergence

There has actually been a fair degree of convergence of these two parties over the years. Steppenwolf's suggestion that the NDP is still commmitted to socialist values is simply false. In its search for seats in a FPTP system, the NDP has diluted its principles mightily. The effort to change its statement of fundamental principles reflects the party's efforts to supplant the Liberals as Canada's centrist party of mild reforms of capitalism.

Worse, the NDP pretends that it can work with any party and that therefore it doesn't really matter whether there's a Liberal or a Tory minority in Ottawa. The NDP managed to extract real concessions from Paul Martin in the form of monies for social housing and students. But then as Martin tried to suck up to his new allies with a national daycare plan and the Kelowna Agreement, they pulled the plug because their polls suggested they could pick up a few seats.

So the NDP were largely responsible for scuttling both the daycare program and the Kelowna Agreement,and they've demonstrated that they can't get anything from the Tories in a minority situation. If they can't work out some arrangement with the Liberals for a pre-electoral coalition that includes some guarantees of gains for working people, they really aren't worthy of support. The NDP needs to have the long-term objectives that Steppenwolf wants them to have and some notion of how to win incremental gains for working people and the poor in the short run as a waystation to longer-term goals.At the moment, they have neither.

Partisanship is getting Old and Ridiculous

Steppenwolf, at this point, I don't frankly give a fig leaf if the Liberals and NDP and Greens are "identities and policies are diametrically opposed and in conflict" or not, and I don't think most Canadian progressive voters do either.

What matters, and what smart strategists know, is that when BOTH PARTIES ARE LOSING, "the enemy of your enemy can be your friend" and "politics make for strange bedfellows." In other words, you use the other party's weakness as a bargaining chip to get what YOUR party needs and wants.

At this point, when the Liberals clearly NEED the support of the NDP to get into power, the NDP could be in the catbird seat. There's no reason whatsoever that PR shouldn't be the priority issue for the NDP and Greens in the next election.

And yes, I do expect "these two very opposing groups to put aside "their legacy and identities to form a marriage of convenience." Making Proportional Representation a condition of an alliance would NOT be failure. If we progressives aren't getting what we want in terms of policies, then a party's "legacy" is utterly meaningless pablum, and frankly laughable to anyone who's worried about their children's' future. (Ask even Rod Love about coalitions and learning to cooperate - a la Reform party and the Conservatives.)

At this dire point in time, partisanship is a stridently ridiculous and self-serving excuse for not moving forward to get new government.

What he said...

I sent a letter to Jack Layton months before the prorogue/coalition fiasco imploring him to consider a coalition. I got a form letter back. I'm just a schlubb but something on TV tonight seemed inspiring. In a re-run of PBS' excellent series, "We Shall Remain", about the European conquest of America. Tonight's episode was about Tecumseh's resistance movement and although, sadly, we already knew the ending, they discussed how the young Shawnee were uplifted by Tecumseh's vision. It involved making a stand to preserve the Indian territory and way of life and he led a "youth" movement to edge out the complacent elders who they feared were rolling over to the whites. Kinda like now, huh? The energy for change has to come from the young and that's going to take some doing in today's atomized world where within hours you can rally thousands to take off their pants on the Skytrain but can't get them to vote. Hey, how about Flash Voting. Night, night.

GWest

Are you up to date on the structure? If not here's some help.

By far the largest government health program is Medicare, which is actually ten provincial programs that are required to meet the general guidelines laid out in the federal Canada Health Act. Almost all government health spending goes through Medicare.

Despite being a provincial responsibility, the large health costs have long been partially funded by the federal government. The cost sharing agreement created by the HIDS Act and extended by the Medical Care Act was discontinued in 1977 and replaced by Established Programs Financing. This gave a bloc transfer to the provinces, giving them more flexibility but also reducing federal influence on the health system. In 1996, when faced with a large budget shortfall, [Rickie, this was when the dollar was around 65 US cents] the Liberal federal government merged the health transfers with the transfers for other social programs into the Canada Health and Social Transfer, and overall funding levels were cut. This placed considerable pressure on the provinces, and combined with population aging and the generally high rate of inflation in health costs, has caused problems with the system.

Rickie

Decentralization reflects the basic structure of Canada it does not mean the breakup of Canada. Canada has always been decentralized.

Here's a piece to read:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/maxime-bernier-ottawa-should-quit-intruding-on-provincial-jurisdiction/

Rickie

Charles Taylor was NDP vice chairman for many years. He wrote extensively on decentralization. Unless you've followed the national scene over the past few years you may not be familiar with him but he should be read. He's very well known in Québec, both by the French and the English and could easily be stopped for a chat when encountered walking around McGill. A regular contributor to the discourse in the media in both languages. Page 7 explains some and page 20 too but you should really read the whole thing if you are confused about this issue that you seem to be suggesting is a recent concept by the present prime minister. Far from it, you will find.

Of course, the important thing is that no party or leader is likely to put forward the idea of a stronger centralized federal government in the near future. Incidentally, Alberta has often supported Québec in court challenges over federal encroachments into provincial jurisdictions.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=SXRDxbzCmJwC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=quebec+decentralization&source=bl&ots=BwU1XE4vaP&sig=ypbk9vZwCOAE4yONlM7_N7zo30U&hl=en&ei=TJTGTKjnM4K4sQP6trGmDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=quebec%20decentralization&f=false

The selfish Liberal Party

The selfish Liberal Party refuses to entertain a coalition. We could of been rid of Harper almost two years ago but thanks to the libs we are still stuck with that low wage conservative.

The fact to that he said even if Harper does win another minority he won't go the coalition route and let Harper govern and he refused to take the PM job with the coalition in Jan 09 and whether it is him or the backroom boys won't entertain it just tells me he really does not want the job as PM....The libs will not win a majority and if they ever win a minority I guess since he backed the cons so much they may return the favour? I dunno but backing harper all the time has hurt the party.

Unless Iggy starts going on the offensive the Libs are done. He should be reminding people in BC and Ont about the HST Harper passed, darn he can not as he voted for it to. If the libs did not vote with the low wage conservatives to increase taxes for the people in Ont and BC they could of used that.

I also predict they will lose two ridings of the 3 they have in Vancouver that being Hedy Fry and Ujjal Dosanjh..I think both the NDP and Libs will lose seats in BC to the cons. I really wish I could figure out why but guns n jesus trumps all in many parts here.

Thanks to the Liberals Harper will get a majority next time. Shame on them for allowing Canada to be destroyed by the wicked man Harper and the rest of the low wagers.

The Liberals do not want a

The Liberals do not want a coalition. Iggy stated again this past summer if Harper wins another minority he will let him govern. I do not know why the Liberal Party is so selfish and because of them Canada will be destroyed under Harper. Just look at the damage so far.

It is the Liberal Parties fault we are still stuck with Harper, they had a chance to give him the boots a couple years ago with the coalition, which more than likely would of resulted in him being replaced as con leader and Harper would of been a distant memory now but the Liberals under Iggy did not want to form government.

I have to stop as thinking of the Liberal Party makes my blood just boil.

Right now the main problem

Right now the main problem that the left-wing vote is split, between the two main left-wing parties.
========

What two parties are those?

The libs have not been left wing since Trudeau, Chretien was a Centrist and Iggy id Conservative lite. Don't forget who constantly keeps the low wage conservatives propped up...

That's why it's called

That's why it's called universal health care.

Please, make a note of it.
==========

Yup but the sad realiotty is Canada is nowhere near having universal health care like Europe for example and Gordo the low wage conservative de listed so much when he was first elected and people continue to vote for him.

That other low wage conservative in Ottawa would do the same if he could get away with it.

R/M old man....

Ah! Then your statement "a political party committed to the breakup of this country" is a riddle? Or is it more a trick question - as your subsequent posts would suggest that ALL parties are committed to the dissolution of the nation?

I repeat

Health care in Canada is regulated according to the terms of the CANADA HEALTH ACT - a piece of federal legislation.

The problem is that Pee Wee Rambo actually doesn't GIVE a shit about CANADA and less about the actuall health care needs of ALL CANADIANS...if the stupid people of this country suvceed in giving Pee Wee and his band of mental midgets a majority government he'd be happy to let every provincial government gut the programs in whatever way they want.

The 5 main principles of the Canada Health Act are:

Canada Health Act

The Canada Health Act is federal legislation that puts in place conditions by which individual provinces and territories in Canada may receive funding for health care services.

There are five main principles in the Canada Health Act:

* Public Administration: All administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis. They also must be accountable to the province or territory, and their records and accounts are subject to audits.

* Comprehensiveness: All necessary health services, including hospitals, physicians and surgical dentists, must be insured.

* Universality: All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care.

* Portability: A resident that moves to a different province or territory is still entitled to coverage from their home province during a minimum waiting period. This also applies to residents which leave the country.

* Accessibility: All insured persons have reasonable access to health care facilities. In addition, all physicians, hospitals, etc, must be provided reasonable compensation for the services they provide.

Coalition

Pushing this idea now is beyond useless, it's not going to happen until after an election at best. Then if the numbers are there, well, who knows.

Otherwise this is pretty much all the usual political commentary blather.

alvin finkel

Do you get your stuff direct from the Liberal party? Because that's the origin of the "NDP killed daycare and the Kelowna Accord" nonsense.

It was a Liberal election plank, not actual history. I've posted the real history here several times and will dig it up again if you insist.

Frank

Alvin is right, the NDP did pull the plug.

We MUST look outside of the Cave

Cynic:

It's a good article but it and the comments that follow reflect just how powerless we are. None of the scenarios proposed will change the overarching reality: the elite rule. It doesn't make the slightest difference who we vote for. As long as we refuse to acknowledge the situation, as long as we live in ignorance of the source of their power, money and banking, then more of the same.

If we remain defiant enough to keep voting for candidates associated with any political party, then we have no one but ourselves to blame.

As long as we do not want to be represented in government, we will continue to buy into the conventional wisdom of supporting one of the strong parties. This means you vote for a candidate representing the party, not representing you or your area. Your representation is dead in the water the moment you mark the ballot.

A party demands adherence to the party line. Your party representative, fraudulently claiming to represent you, now just nods his or her head in agreement with the party leader. The party leader takes direction from party backers with pull -- the corporate community. We are left with corporate-democracy, or corporatism.

Though we have democracy, at least in form, we just refuse to understand how we can effectively participate in it:

Vote for an honest independent candidate from your district, or consider your vote in full support of corporatism.

It is that simple.

Change must come from below. We are that below. Change how we vote, and democracy will be returned. We, the people, are a force to be reckoned with but only if unleashed. As soon as we cut the chain with party politics, we all walk free.

r'man

Really? Then by all means tell me how it happened because then it'll be more fun for me when I tell you where you're wrong.

samuidave

I see you've come around to saying participating in elections is a good thing. I'm glad to see you compete that journey.

Any chance of convincing coyote?

Frank,

... there is a pretty clear pretext I lay out before voting is deemed participation in representative democracy 'of, for and by' the people -- something I do support.

What you do, see my above post, is help support corporatism. I never try to persuade anyone to do anything but to think of the issue with clarity so they can persuade themselves.

I'll save my work against your strong central government ideology for another time. ;)

Article: "If the NDP

Article: "If the NDP followed the advice of Crompton and created a new politics rooted in a moral imperative, not in tactical maneuvering on home heating, and called for a coalition that could advance those values, it could expose the Harper Conservatives as selfish and cruel while truly challenging the Liberals to reverse their drift to the right."

Idealistic nonsense. But necessary, anyway, if only to have something on the record. The Left has to realise that no matter how persuasive their rhetoric is, Stephen Harper's a thug and is impervious to finely-crafted argument. Don't waste your time in these online bitchfests, start organising in your community to try to displace this most pernicious threat to Canadian democracy we've ever faced.

Coalition

We all need to impress on our MP’s that we will accept a coalition government in the short term, but we need to start the electoral reform process now. Until we reform the voting process, we will continue to elect dysfunctional parliaments, which by their very nature are incapable of dealing rationally with long-term issues facing Canada.

samuidave

I never said you had to vote for one of the two main parties. If you think the NDP is a terrible choice and prefer to vote for independent candidates I'm happy with that.

Because voting is all we have.

democracyseeker

Start the electoral reform process now?

We just had votes on it in 3 provinces, the culmination of a generation of work. We lost. By far the majority of people in all 3 provinces preferred first-past-the-post.

I'm not a believer in the concept of "Electoral reform is dead, long live electoral reform".

Its dead for a generation.

Frank

You said you would like to correct this history of the pulling of the plug? Here are the facts as recorded by the history books and digital records.

"After the Gomery findings, NDP leader Jack Layton notified the Liberals of conditions for the NDP's continued support, one of which included a ban on private health care. Martin turned down the offer, as well as rejecting an opposition proposal schedule an election for February 2006, in return for passing several pieces of legislation. The Conservatives, supported by the other two opposition parties (the NDP and Bloc Québécois), introduced a motion of non confidence against the Martin government. The motion passed on November 28 by a count of 171–133, defeating the government, after which the Governor General issued the election writs for a vote to be held on January 23, 2006."

r'man

Yep, so with your own post you've shown that you and Alvin were wrong to blame the NDP.

Paul Martin wouldn't agree to what the NDP wanted. Instead he decided to call an election rather than trying to pass the Kelowna Accord or national daycare first.

He chose not to pass those initiatives because he figured it would be better to campaign on their promise.

So he told the NDP to take a hike and called an election. His choice.

I doubt the Bloc and the NDP would have voted against daycare in the House. Instead Liberals do what they always do, promise legislation that they don't pass when in government.

But the summation of it all is that the NDP didn't kill the Accord or daycare, the Liberals didn't want to try and pass them.

Frank

Fair comment.

r'man

Thankee kindly

Frank ~ "I never said you

Frank ~ "I never said you had to vote for one of the two main parties."

I realize that but I also know conventional wisdom and state propaganda teaches us that a vote for anything but a truly contending party is 1) a waste, or 2) a protest vote. I cannot help it if the masses refuse to see what is ever increasingly obvious --that a vote for any of these namebrand parties is a vote for corporatism and against their own interests

If you think the NDP is a terrible choice and prefer to vote for independent candidates I'm happy with that.

I know NDP is a terrible choice, and so should you. ;)

Because voting is all we have.

If that is the case, then we need to take it a little more seriously, and to fully understand what a vote supports.

Look, you are certainly a bright enough guy, Frank, to see your vote for a party candidate is ridiculous. You give up being represented and ask the power structure behind the party to look out for you. A trained dog could be your party rep and the result would be the exact same. This crap has been going on for 100+ years in BC. It is a joke.

My casting a vote for an independent or protest vote, which I have done but two times in every election I have participated in for 30-odd years, is meaningless without collective understanding of the painfully obvious.

No new Appetite for Coalition

Angus Reid
" (10/27/10) -
Conservatives Extend Lead in Canada as Stagnation Hits Liberals

The Conservative Party holds a double-digit lead in Canada and overall voter preferences are very similar to the will expressed by the electorate in the last federal election, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. "

Same as Dion, for the Libs.

realisticman,

The fact that there is any support for this regime is troubling but sadly understandable. Some of my oldest and dearest friends think Harper is The man, which is a wedge issue for sure.

I am beginning to feel how I imagine the anti-Nazi German resistance movement members felt.

Re Frank's coments that electoral reform is dead

Frank.....just because the concept of electoral reform was defeated in several provinces in the past, I don’t think it’s an idea we should just give up on. If you review the history of women suffrage in Canada, it took women many years of hard work to have the right to participate in our electoral process. Change is always difficult. Don’t you think that in our democracy, the right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all of us?

dreaming

"If the NDP followed the advice of Crompton and created a new politics rooted in a moral imperative ..."

Well, that's certainly easily said. If they, or anyone else (Mr Dobbin, for example) was remotely capable of doing this they would have already. If anything, this should be the starting point of a useful article, not the useless ending of an otherwise fairly decent analysis.

democracyseeker and samuidave

Good point democracyseeker, I agree and will continue to support any and all electoral or political reform. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't terribly disappointed in the results of the referendums on the issue in BC, Ontario and PEI. I had always believed people would jump at the chance to reform our system. Still can't believe people turned it down when they had the chance.

Which dovetails with your post samuidave, I agree we need less parties and more independents. One of the many many arguments I made in online discussions in support of electoral reform was the need to give the voter more realistic options, that reducing our population to two choices was ludicrous.

So on the one hand I voted NDP because they're better than the Libs but on the other I supported STV because I wanted to reduce the power of established parties and their leaders.

I was more disappointed that electoral reform was killed than I was seeing Campbell win a third majority. Which should tell you how much I believe we need real reform.

We have electoral reform ....

..just because the concept of electoral reform was defeated in several provinces in the past, I don’t think it’s an idea we should just give up on.

We have electoral reform we just don't use it. Reform who you vote for and change will come. Asking party-backed politicians to rescue us when we refuse to play the game with our brains turned on is our own fault.

Vote for only an independent candidate and we all circumvent party allegiances and big money backers. We force cooperation and consensus building. We make the representative, a single person and not a political organization operated in the shadows, directly accountable. Most of what we complain about is addressed by reforming our propagandized political view regarding 'wasting votes'.

Support for a party candidate is simply voting away your representation for another 4 years.

neoliberalism is the issue

The Liberals and the NDP have to after the neoliberalism that Harper is practising and that is ruining the country. Unfortunately they don't have the guts to do it.