For once, I agree

A lot of what Bill Tieleman has to say doesn't resonate with me, but in this case, I think he's hit the nail on the head.

Mostly.

I don't think it was the idea of proportional representation that was the reason it was rejected in BC, but rather the ludicrous implementation proposal. If something more like New Zealand's were proposed, and properly explained, I believe it would have passed, and worked.

But when he talks about the fiscally and socially conservative Greens, and the Liberals, who just last week voted with the Conservatives to defeat a bill that would have strengthened an anti-bullying initiative, and against a bill that would have provided affordable medications to distressed portions of the world, I must agree with his point that a coalition, whether "temporary" or not, is not, and should not be on the table.

NDP progressive? Part 1

"...the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." William Shakespeare

Our understanding of "progressive" continues to be redefined over time. Was Tony Blair's "Labour" Party progressive? Is the embracing of neoliberal economic policies by the organized "left", the NDP, a progressive move.

I am sure we will receive no article from Tieleman on Dix's contradictions prior to the May 2013 election nor afterwards when, like US citizens have found, the so-called progressive leader is good at progressive rhetoric but poor at progressive actions.

When reviewing the history of the progressive movement in the US it is interesting to note that being "progressive" was not the exclusive property of the Democrats, progressives could be found in both camps of Democrats and Republicans.

These days, the moderates of the "left" movement, eager to capitulate to corporate globalism, like to use the term "progressive" rather than "left".

Unfortunately, Tieleman is using terminology that has become so twisted, left right, conservative liberal, progressive etc, that it no longer exists in the rational.

Small "c" conservatism may be more progressive than those purporting to be "progressive".

Part 2

David Korten, a self-described small "c" conservative, author of the 2001 bestseller, "When Corporations Rule the World" made the following statement that surely should make any reader wonder if it came from a person wrapped in conservative values:

"From the beginning of history, Empire’s rulers have maintained their power by sowing fear, mutual suspicion, and division to prevent those who bear the burdens of their rule from uniting against them. Currently, on the political right, anger is directed against government. On the political left, it is directed against Wall Street corporations.

Each blames the other for America’s decline and the economic distress of working families, thus diverting attention from the deeper truth. Corporate money, perks, and the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms have corrupted the political process. As a consequence, Wall Street and Washington are both running out of control and united in the pursuit of agendas that grow the power and privilege of the few at the expense of the many."

Tieleman should look carefully at the results of the recent Calgary Centre by-election to see how Harper's so-called Conservative (Reform Party) continues to hold the reigns of power. Calgary Centre Conservative MP's had never garnered less than 50% of the popular vote however in this recent by-election the Conservative candidate won with only 37% of the popular vote. Like the federal Conservatives, this new Calgary Centre MP, gets to fly to Ottawa with very low public support from her constituents.

However, Harper, like most politicians is able to claim Canadians support his policies due to the 2 out of 3 by-election wins even though his own electoral support for his party across Canada was and continues to be less than 40%. Stephen Harper, "...election results show that the public is fully behind our priorities."

If you believe in the future of Canada you will reject Tieleman's views on cooperation between the NDP, Greens and Liberals. How much more of King Stephen are we willing to suffer?

Greens on sewage

According to Donald Galloway's website (linked to and selectively quoted in this article), he and the Greens do support secondary treatment of sewage in Victoria, just not the current plan:

http://donaldgalloway.ca/victorias-sewage-treatment-finding-better-plan

Anti Harper voters are not deluded

"This coercive and anti-democratic impulse is driven by the deluded desperation of Harper haters."

Mr Tieleman this sounds very similar to Harper's rant about the coalition efforts a few years back. That coalition would have been totally legal and democratic just as any coalition between different parties would be now. Harper formed his own coalition with the Reform party and the old Conservative party but I don't hear you calling that anti-democratic. It's that coalition that allowed Harper to become Prime Minister. So if Harper's coalition isn't coercive and anti-democratic then neither is any coalition between other parties.

I'm one of the voters that would encourage a coalition between other parties hoping that would coalesce enough votes to unseat the Harper government. Harper only recieved 36% of the votes yet he gets to form a majority government and ignore the 64% of voter interest and needs. Now that's a deluded idea of democracy.

There's a very good reason there's a growing number of "increasingly angry agitators" as you put it. Harper is turning out to be the most divisive, mean spirited, uncaring and extremist prime minister to ever hold that office. His actions on the world stage are an embarrassment that's ruining Canada's international reputation. Canadians deserves better.

The Greens

Interesting and generally accurate.
Let's look at civic politics. Adrienne Carr is about as green as an egg plant. (Adrienne the Egg Plant). At the tip only.
She is a rank opportunist, walking in lock step with the NPA to oppose any Vision policy or questioning it in Council meetings to the point you'd think she was a member of the NPA.
Even when she knows many Vision policies, while clumsily handled and implemented are quite sustainable and 'green'.
If she's representative of the Greens, wow!

I've run out of parties to vote for, now what?

People tire of the constant "imaginary change" that comes from past /present politicians. It is obvious that low voter turn out isn't because of the flu, it's another kind of sickness that keeps voters away.

Weird Frames

Who is talking about "unite the left"? Who is talking about "competitive progressiveness"? All some of us are saying, and some of us for a long time, is that parties that don't support the present Harper false majority government should do a one-time cooperation to get him out and bring in electoral reform so it won't happen again. Uber-partisanship as exhibited by Tieleman is going to contribute to the continued destruction of our country. It's not about the party stupid!

Offensive and wildly inaccurate

Bill's argument that The Green Party is Conservative because two of its members were once conservatives is pretty thin. What about the great majority of us who weren't members of any party?

The fact that the Green Party wins some votes from conservatives does not make the Green party conservative either. It shows that some people are actually capable of changing their political allegiance due to changing circumstances.

Much of Bill's failure comes from his sticking to the greatly discredited that there is a one dimensional difference between all voters that tracks left to right. Twaddle.

All the other parties believe that the economy is the first priority. That the environment can - and ought to - be sacrificed on the altar of economic growth.

The Green Party recognizes the reality that the other parties ignore. The economy is the subsidiary of the environment - not the other way around. At one time that was easily expressed as the idea that if you have not got clean air, clean water and a safe place to grow food you are doomed. It is now clear that climate change is going to be catastrophic - and will happen much faster than was previously forecast - because we have failed to keep CO2 emissions in check, and a 2 degree C increase is now unavoidable - and it won't stop there.

Yet the NDP - like the BC Liberals, the Conservatives (federal and provincial) and the national Liberals - all support increasing the extraction and export of carbon based fossil fuels.

Like Bill, I oppose the idea of a "progressive" coalition - because I do not believe in voting AGAINST something - or someone. I believe that we must vote FOR the survival of life on this planet. There is not another habitable one we can get to in time. There are not going to be any lifeboats.

We could have been doing something effective for years. I helped write BC's first Greenhouse Gas Action Plan in the mid nineties. Glen Clark shelved that. In fact the NDP showed they cared little for the environment then too. (Even Moe Sihota rejected a natural gas fuelled ministerial car as it was not the latest model!) But like the other parties, the NDP is committed to other objectives - actually those are dictated mainly by organized labour and can be summarized as increasing job opportunities. The conservatives are simply interested in low cost labour. And repression of civil liberties to ensure that. The Liberals will adopt any policy at election time if it gets them votes - but then will do what their paymasters bid thereafter.

It is long past time that we change direction - and changing our own consumption patterns, and leaving the fossil fuels in the ground both have to be high priorities. Economic growth will continue in other countries, as they try to emulate North America. We cannot afford to try to stay ahead of them. No other party would even give such ideas consideration.

Roosevelt quote?

I realize Bill Tieleman likes to preface his columns with quotes, but I find it bizarre to see one from a Republican president like T. Roosevelt, who engaged in all sorts of imperialist adventures.

I thought his most famous line was, "speak softly, and carry a big stick."

After the last federal election I heard the NDP say loudly that they would hold Harper's feet to the fire, but unfortunately their great victory left them with no stick at all to oppose a majority government, much to the delight of Harper and his corporate masters.

In full disagreement

While Bill does make some valid points about the non-progressive nature of the Grits and Greens, it is true that no political party is perfect. What is most important is that we must get rid of Chairman Harper in 2015 and as long as non-conservative votes are split, this will never happen.

As NDPers, we can either stay pure and continue deluding ourselves about gaining power or we can cooperate just for one election and bring in a more democratic electoral system, followed by new rules in parliament to allow free votes so individual MPs can actually represent their constituents rather than continuing to vote the party line.

We do not need a complex proportional representation system either. All that is needed is a system that ensures that each MP is elected with more than 50 percent of the votes through a run-off election between the top two. That way each MP is guaranteed to represent the majority in their riding.

Lets face it, democracy is just about gone in Canada, as best evidenced by the fact that the polls show two thirds of Canadians are progressive, yet we are now being ruled with an iron fist by the Conservatives who likely stole the election in part through the use of robo-calls. Our elected representatives do not represent their constituents, but rather vote along party lines, as do the non-elected senators.

Power in Canada is now concentrated in the Prime Minister’s office and most national policies and decisions benefit the corporations and the one percent, to the detriment of most Canadians. Whether it is more prisons, jet fighters, pipelines, gutting of environmental laws or omnibus bills, the undemocratic Conservative government is destroying the Canada we once cherished. And now they are giving away our sovereignty by signing a treasonous trade deal with China, that will allow this thoroughly undemocratic country to sue any level of government that blocks its ability to utilize our resources.

If we do not get our act together in 2015, we might as well kiss our freedoms away permanently. Either we cooperate or Canadian democracy will be lost forever under a second term under Chairman Harper.

Really, Bill?

We've already seen what "progressive" agendas and parties have done to developed nations economies...might actually be time to try something new.

Disagree

Sorry Bill. Elizabeth May worked for a Conservative Minister of Environment despite partisan differences because she thought she could have a positive impact from the inside. She quit in protest when it didn't work out. Read her books.

If you place our current party leaders on the political spectrum by past positions and voting record Thomas Mulcair is pretty far to the centre. He would not have been out of place running for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership.

Contrary to your point of view I do believe that the Green, NDP and Liberal parties represent the Canadian left. That is why I signed this petition to unite Canada's progressive parties against Stephen Harper:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Unite_Progressive_Parties_in_Canada_to_defeat_Stephen_Harper/?pv=11

Unification of diverse elements requires strong leadership

It's too easy to forget that when the Tories and the Reform Party were rotting in opposition, their unification under strong leadership has become the majority government of the day.

However much one might despise Harper and his policies, it is his strong leadership that cements the somewhat diverse collection of weirdos that now make up the Conservative Party.

The opposition parties need to consider what issues are essential that Harper and his cronies are either ignoring or actively suppressing and to co-operate on those. If such co-operation requires a plan such as Cullen's, they will be fools not to adopt it. Otherwise they will continue to rot in opposition.

Greens are correct that the economy must be a subset of the environment. The NDP is correct in wishing to address poor employment opportunities and excessive inequality in the economy. The Liberals have always been a washy bunch (run progressively, govern regressively), but they at least have some credibility with corporate Canada.

The question is, who would be leader, and would he or she be strong enough to maintain the coalition?

Harper is doing sufficient damage that he needs to be turfed out at the earliest opportunity. Continuing division of the opposition will leave him in power as long as he wants, while his opposition screws around like kids in a playground saying, "Pick me!" "No, pick me!"

The reality is

The reality is that neither the federal Liberal nor Green parties are "left" or "progressive"

Absolutely!
The Green Party is a 'new romantic movement'
not a viable political party.

What 'Sphincters that splinter'? Im reading this wrong. Rather ass&*%s that don't accept science and rigor .
Good points about the sewage issue in Victoria. Poor Mr. Floatie

federal NDP contradictions & opportunism

Bill Tieleman complains about Elizabeth May's apparent contradictions, but I think she's been far more effective and consistent in her opposition to something as important as the proposed Canada-China FIPA than the NDP. Rick Mercer and leadnow.ca have helped make this an issue, too.

I know MP Don Davies has a post about the FIPA (in his blog archive, Nov. 20), but good luck finding it mentioned on the NDP website, which is mostly awash in photos of Thomas Mulcair. Maybe the party doesn't believe it's that big a deal.

I'm waiting for a reply to a letter I wrote him & the party President to ask if it's true that the NDP “…has dropped all talk of rescinding or reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal the NDP has stridently opposed in the past.”
(Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press November 14, 2012 http://tinyurl.com/cn7blc7)

Any future NDP government will be powerless to institute progressive national economic, culture and environmental policies if it doesn't rescind Chapter 11 and other parts of NAFTA. And the Canada-China FIPA has many aspects worse than NAFTA.

I fear that in its quest to woo voters the party will sacrifice principles and policies that suppposedly distinguish it from the other parties. When I remember how the NDP didn't prioritize "free trade" in the election of 1988, though, I'm not surprised.

Considering the context

a Liberal government wouldn't even consider bringing back a valuable tool to prevent gun violence that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police wanted kept in place.

Knowing that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (the "CACP") is about as rightwing and non-progressive in ideology and behaviour as permissible in our nation, the fact that Trudeau doesn't get into bed with them means what?

The problem is that the propagandist is picking and choosing his allegiances as it suits him, and it's not entirely consistent with the presumption the article began with: "neither the federal Liberal nor Green parties are 'left' or 'progressive'".

In the anecdote mentioned, either Trudeau is anti-rightwing in stance -- rightfully presuming the CACP is a conservative body; or the CACP is actually a progressive organization being shunned by Trudeau. Clearly binary, but "us, good; them, bad" is the hallmark of Canadian Party politics.

No doubt in the microcosm of NDP-ville, they consider themselves progressive and the people's party.

The rest of us know better.

Vote independent.

Just asking:

Guess it would be too much to hope for voters to use their brains next time?

More drivel

Typical Tieleman old left drivel. The idea that people who vote for the NDP or Greens, would consider voting for Harper if a unified progressive candidate was available to them is hogwash. If they want to vote for Harper they can!

Elizabeth May has been the most outspoken and articulate voice in this Parliament. The NDP were virtually silent re the Nexen deal. And mostly incoherent when they did speak up. And they only spoke up because of pressure put on them. Tieleman is out of touch - the NDP had a star candidate and nearly lost! Why - because May is rocking it in Ottawa and the NDP have stumbled badly! And to characterize a lack of support for the present sewage plam as categorically anti environmental is just plain silly political correctness. Which is no more attractive when posited by the left then it is when done by the right.

But the idea of cooperation has to be rethought. It cannot be driven top down, and never would/could be anyway. It has to come from the grassroots up, on constituency by constituency basis.

Victoria Sewage Treatment

Bill, you need to investigate the science behind the proposed sewage treatment plan in Victoria. I happen to agree with Galloway. What would you do with the sludge produced by the treatment system? It is a complex issue that needs to be separated from politics and thought out properly. Quit politicizing this issue, somewhat like the BC Liberals did with the fast ferries, so that a proper decision can be made.

Also, as a resident in Saanich, I am pleased with Elizabeth May's performance in Saanich-South. I won't hold it against her that she worked with Conservatives decades ago. The fact is she is NOT a Conservative and has performed admirably on her own in Parliament, "holding the Conservative feet to the fire." Please focus your rhetoric on Harper and the Conservatives who are systematically dismantling Canada.

E May

I am pleased with Elizabeth May's performance in Saanich-South. I won't hold it against her that she worked with Conservatives decades ago. The fact is she is NOT a Conservative and has performed admirably on her own ...

but she is a conservative, and there's the rub.

One thing to remember...

...is when you only have one seat, you can take any position you want. By the time you are in a position of influence, people won't even remember what position you took way back when. Elizabeth has been good on one issue FIPA, that alone won't be enough. She also gets some coverage because that is her only issue. Conclusions are hard to draw. Bruce Hill is engaging in old green drivel.

EMay

EMay is my MP--she spends a lot of time telling us how hard she works and other MPs don't--painting them all with the same brush. Her fiscal policies are regressive "Tax what you burn, not what you earn" is why rich people vote for the green party--no coincidence that she ran in one of the richest ridings in Canada

IF NDP LOVE SEWAGE PLANT THEY LOVE HARPER AND CAMPBELL-CLARK

Victoria doesn't need a land-based sewage plant when its marine-based preliminary sewage treatment works well and is sustainable. Even Harper/Lib-loving NDPer Rankin had to admit that there are "holes" in the billion-dollar waste of a sewage plant. Rankin may have won with 37% of total vote, but since every other candidate OPPOSED this sewage plant boondoggle, it was a de facto referendum - and 67% said NO to the sewage plant!

Do some reading please and set aside your Mr Floatie style prejudices against natural, sustainable marine-based sewage treatment:

9 Oceanographers letter says our marine-based sewage treatment ok: http://goo.gl/OsV3h

Oceanographer says our system fine: SCIENCE, IDEOLOGY, POLITICS: http://goo.gl/S5qB9

JOIN US TO STOP A BAD PLAN! http://stopabadplan.ca

jnewcomb

and there are oceanographers and other scientists that don't agree that dumping sewage in the ocean is a good idea--Denise Savoie spent a lot a effort to get federal money for this treatment plant--it's not perfect because a perfect solution is unaffordable--but it has to be done and not left for our children to clean up

jnewcomb

E, May had a kniption on Power & Politics when it was suggested that they opposed the treatment plant. So you cannot lump the Greenies in that 67% against, or can you?
The Greens were against the current plan, and chose to punt it into the future for my kid and grandkids to pay for. Who knows how many years it would be to come up with the perfect plan. Another 30 years? Galloway also claimed that having the plant would be unaffordable for some families. Well the Greens can't have it both ways, as any plant will cost the homeowners taxes to rise. Typical Liberal-like behaviour of sucking and blowing.
They played this option to pander to voters who did not want their taxes to rise and no other reason.
You can take your crap and shove it right back up your ass. That ocean is not yours to pollute and drop sediment on the bottom and affect marine life. That ocean belongs to everyone.

Baloney J Newcomb

The Sewage issue is a dead letter. Victoria should have had sewage treatment half a century ago - without extending the Clover Point outfall to the point it reaches today - the shit would still be reaching the both the shore and the windows of Victorians' houses every time there is a strong South-Easterly gale. For God's sake, the city dumped its garbage in the Strait (and it floated back to shore) for more than 50 years of the 20th century.

Victorians and Canadians should be embarrassed that the capital city of the province of BC is so utterly contemptuous of the environment.

Grow up!

Tielman has pounded a nail

Tielman has pounded a nail clean through his own foot and into the casket of the "once-mighty" ndp.

This country is going down the road to hell in a Conservatively decorated casket. In 2+ years it will be unrecognisable, just as Harper the Bizarre made clear well before he started firing his brimstone daggers into the hearts of CDNS.

We need a solution to this mad hater before it's too late. That's what I am voting for right now...2015 is too late!!!

sludge?

"What would you do with the sludge produced by the treatment system?"

Indeed, what are the rest of Canadas treatment plants doing?

It makes excellent soil/fertilizer for the home gardener as an for instance!

What makes Victoria so special that it alone cannot have a treatment system-- do you suppose systems are cheaper at other places?

Most likely the good citizens prefer to not spend money, period and never mind the consequences?

Much like certain tarsand companies that just keep maing more ponds for their effluent.

Bespoke Parties

"What's even worse than another Stephen Harper Conservative government is a country where high-minded elites deprive voters of a full range of political parties in the next election. "

By this logic, the ABC parties might as well each split up into several more parties, which closely match the views of the various factions within those parties. In the next election Harper would solidify his control (perhaps even winning every seat in Parliament), but voters would not be deprived of a full range of parties, and the anti-Harper voters could each cast their vote for a (losing) candidate whose views perfectly matched their own.

@northbranch: more ways the NDP can plan to lose

on the urNews spoof site:

http://www.urnews.ca/2012/09/ndp-seek-way-to-lose/
...enjoy ;-)

Unite the Right

Perhaps the three non-progressive parties (Conservatives, Liberals, and Greens) should form a pre-election coalition to keep the NDP out of power. The non-progressive party with the highest support in 2011 could take on the NDP candidate without worrying about vote splitting.

After any election anywhere on Earth when there is a chance that representatives of working people - especially unionized working people - might form a government, the anti-worker parties form a coalition to keep the corporate agenda in place. Just look at the UK, where the Liberals chose to join the Conservatives in government, or Michael Ignatieff stabbing his coalition partners in the back to prop up the Harper Conservatives, or the Liberals and Conservatives forming a Coalition in BC in 1941 (after an election where the CCF finished first in the popular vote, but second in seats due to gerrymandering). Take it from this NDP supporter - if there were no democratic socialist/social democrat/progressive on the ballot in my riding, I would either spoil my ballot, or run myself as an Independent so that there would be someone I could vote for.

In the long run, we should adopt the Louisiana system (I believe California has recently adopted it), with a first ballot open to all candidates that replaces party-run nomination meetings (all candidates approved by all parties run on the first ballot), followed by a run-off election between the two top vote-getters from the first round if no one gets a majority. If this means voters in Alberta are choosing between two Conservatives, or voters in East Van choose between two New Democrats, then so be it.

Tripe ... from a tripe-meister

Spin it Bill; it's what you always do and do best. I'll give you credit for being consistent and always on message -- "It's about meeee, and I never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn." That's why you were run out by the Straight; of course, you just being yourself which is a paid political hack for the N-Dippers. I doubt you've ever read a paragraph of a Green Party platform , but I do find it so intriguingly ironic that we are now blessed with a Conservative "majority" because of the dearly departed Saint Jack, who was responsible for bringing down Paul Martin's Liberals on the eve of the Montreal climate conference wayyyy back when. Doubt we'd ever hear about that from the likes of you.

EMay

EMay is Harpers best friend--she helped the Conservatives stay in power in Calgary, and spent a lot of money to try and defeat a green NDP candidate in Victoria--the NDP is not the problem

More partisan pap...

from Tieleman. Will someone from the Tyee explain why you constantly run what are basically ads written by NDP insiders. Please.

Bill, as usual, your crap is so riddled with contradictions, selective information, half-witted opinions and shallow logic that it's hardly worth responding to.

For instance, you offer the backgrounds of Elizabeth May and Jim Harris as evidence they are not 'progressive'. Well, why don't we track the careers of high-profile past NDP premiers?

Bob Rae - now leader of the federal Liberals
Ujal Dosanjh - became Liberal cabinet minister
Gary Doer - now Harper's man in Washington

and my personal favorite, Bill's old boss Glen Clark is now President of the Jim Pattison Group. How exactly do these champions of progressive politics so easily shed their skins?

So, I don't want to read any more nonsense about how the NDP is the only progressive party until Bill or one of the legions of 'true believers' out there can address this question.

experience outside Canada

If any of the three main Sandinista factions had taken Bill Tieleman's advice, the bloody Nicaraguan dictator Somoza might still be in power (though I expect he would have had a stroke by now).

They listened to Fidel who told them to get their shit together, then - with the support of the middle class - they overthrew a nasty regime backed by the US.

Plenty of problems & regressive moves followed their victory, but clearly an opposition that can unite on certain key issues has a better chance of victory than one that remains divided.

I'd talk about what's happening in Egypt, but it's getting late. Sigh.

BC NDP benefitted from FPTP

in 1996. With 39% of the popular vote to the Liberals 41% yet the Liberals still lost.
I doubt one single NDP party member commenting here today thought that election should have been overturned did you.
And when the NDP wins the next provincial election all talk of electoral reform will quickly die.
Just like how quickly the previous NDP demands for a ban on fracking have been quietly swept under the orange carpet.

Funny what the smell of power does to your priciples doesn't it Party members.

Daniel Trent

Bill, you blew this one

Bill, I've agreed with you (and disagreed) on many issues. But this time you are absolutely wrong.

Whereas Adrian Dix and the NDP, barring any major kafuffles, will likely win the next BC provincial election, but if you think that the federal NDP can form government without substantial help, then you've been living in Lotusland far too long. Time for a visit to the NDP roots of Saskabush or suburban Hogtown, or...

Even with a resurrected Jack, bless his soul, it would still be a tough fight.

Would you squabble while the Harperites keep pushing their spiteful agenda? More Omnibus bills, more militarism, more secretive trade deals, more Gazebos, more erosion of our already tainted democracy, more...

I like and respect Elizabeth, likewise the Green candidate in my riding. Had the NDP, LIB and Green candidates been united, I wouldn't now have a brown nose, non-entity in the House who no way actually represents me.

I know Joyce M. somewhat, I only occassionally agree with her but there is a dialogue there (she is offering an honest olive branch), nothing like that with any Harper Conservative I've met, they keep repeating the official party line with absolutely no meaningful dialogue, I think that they may be too frightened to really speak their minds.

I would gladly open the big tent to include even "Progressive" Conservatives and other Red Tories (Stanfield, Clark and even, shudder, Mulroney but), that's a whole lot better than the current bunch. Anything less than getting those self righteous *** out of Ottawa is intolerable. Work out the differences in the 4 years after.

It is absolutely essential to unite what you call the "Harper haters" before the next federal election. Them and those who perceive a more democratic and moderate Canada, regardless of some NDP hardliners.

The Tielman Unsolution

Your analysis is not informed (politicians are not scientists as in the sewage debate - you should present both sides of the debate from scientists) and rests on the need for choice for the voter. You propose that no choice is better than no choice. No unity among parties so voters have choice and they will continually lose at the polls (it has been proven). I think the discussion needs to turn to how do we support a more informed, qualified leadership. We need those that will lead, not along party lines, but based on good judgement and informed decisions. How do we get a parliament that functions in a way that makes decisions based on discussion to move to the best strategy. First and foremost we must bring back a government that supports a healthy democracy, does not suppress Canadian voices, and respects their electorate through a transparent and accountable system. Let's prioritise and look at what is critical at this point in our history.

from the Cullen camp

Uniting the centre-left: answering the skeptics
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/12/04/uniting-the-centre-left-answering-the-skeptics/

Hey Bill...

...with all these folks stepping out of the woodwork to pile it on you over an article stating your opinion, just remember the old adage: "Nobody shoots at a dead duck!"

Armchair pundits under anonymous titles are a dime a dozen striking madly off in all directions. I agree with you that uniting the liberals (spineless tories), green (who have some strange bedfellows) and the NDP would likely modify the NDP's policies to the point where it would be no more than a return of liberals (spineless tories). We don't yet know what Mulcair's election platform will be next time around but if it isn't progressive, he and the NDP are not going to win.

All this attempt to fine tune the manipulation or the democratic process is fraught with peril but that is what is being suggested by most posters.

Keep on trucking Bill. At least your articles get the debate going as anyone can see.

NDP lessons in sectarianism

This article is proof that sectarianism is not limited to us folks on the far left. Right-wing social democrats like Bill could give us a run for the money. No need to slander the Greens to hide the weak credentials the NDP has for being progressive. And I am not a member of the Greens, by the way.

Maybe it is...

....because the term progressive has it roots in the labour movement and is the opposite of conservatism. I listened to Justin Trudeau and he's beginning to sound no different than Joe Oliver, so how could that kind of united coalition not cause some great difficulty.

Somebody wrote Bill was old NDP: now he is a right-wing social democrat.

Yes, he is....

They are pretty well all right wing social democrats, Skywalker. They only want, at best to tinker with the system not change it. Of course that is better having than the right in power. A social democrat was once someone who very gradually wanted to introduce socialism into society through parliament. This notion is completely lost with today's dominant social democrats.They accept capitalism. This would make them right-wing social democrats, no?

As for progressive where was

As for progressive where was the NDP when the Quebec students were fighting Charest's reactionary meassures? Not a peep out of them. Where was the NDP when Jim Manly was kidnapped by the Israeli military? Why doesn't the NDP expose the govt debt and banking scam?

Does......

'United we stand, divided we fall.'

ring any bells??

Purity is ineffectual

I'm a dual Canadian/American citizen, making my home in Canada since 2005. By your logic, Bill, I should not have voted for Obama this year, since he's certainly no progressive and continues to piss me off in so many ways. I guess I should have just not voted, or voted US Green or Communist Party or whatever as a "protest" vote, as if anyone's listening. And millions of progressives like me could have done the same thing, and Mitt Rmoney would be about to be sworn in as president.

But... I care too much about the world to let my own ego get in the way and insist that I can only vote for people I completely agree with.

And I certainly hope there's cooperation here, or we'll endure a Harper dictatorship until the end of this decade. We won't even recognize Canada then. Already, we have a Canada that is more right-wing than the US. (Yes, they both voted against UN recognition of Palestine, but the US condemned the new settlements. Canada didn't.)

I'll be sure to thank you, if your advice is heeded, for sending us further into hell in 2015.

Does Vote-Splitting Really Exist?

Like mad-cow or Alzheimer's disease is posthumously diagnosed, vote-splittng is a postgnosis, mystically discerned by pundits prognosticating hindsight. The hypothesis accusing Greens of spoiling an NDP win in BC looks convincing when, after the votes are counted, some speculate that even if half the Green support had gone to the NDP instead, Gordon Campbell might have lost (might have, not would have.) I've wondered just how many Greens were once NDPers and as often how much Green support comes from NDP rivals on the right.

Well I remember Campbell grinnin' like a shit-eatin' hound when Adrienne Carr was introduced to the televised debate, the first time ever for a Green leader. It's difficult to say whether Greens split the vote on the left but the numbers to that effect are plausible. There have been a handful of BC ridings in both provincial and federal contests, a pair apiece, where Green/NDP vote splitting might be construed to have yielded a BC Liberal or a federal Conservative victory. The fact that Green support at large has peaked, then settled downward, might suggest that some initial Green support has had recriminations about possibly having contributed to neo-right victories. Perhaps, too, the popularity of proportional representation so prominent in Green boosting has cooled in the wake of pro-rep referendum rejections in a number of provinces, including two right here in BC.

Of course smaller parties like pro-rep because their "popular vote" (a meaningless measure foreign to almost all Canadian jurisdictions, particularly the sovereign ones) is usually bigger than their share of parliamentary seats. However, the likelihood of Mixed Member Plurality replacing our customary Single Member Plurality is exceedingly slim, maybe, maybe some sort pro-rep system in a reformed, elected Senate. It is most unlikely in our unicameral provinces, and especially, I'd bet, a BC-style Single Transferable Vote Multiple Member Plurality system, Mixed or not.

The greatest Green achievements are getting invited to televised election campaign debates and Elizabeth May's seminal win in a single federal riding. The higher profile has brought more resources to bear on the few promising ridings that are now the Greens'
strategic focus. Unfortunately, some lament, the isolated success encourages Green support at large, where it is impotently thin and potentially splits the vote, yielding neo-right victories. Pre-election it's a warning, post-election it will continue to be a plausible, if not provable, theory.

anarcho

I don't disagree with you about where the NDP is today, anarcho. I was talking about the inconsistency in attempting to "poison the well" by someone referring to Bill first as old NDP and then as a right-wing social democrat.

Metacamet touches on an interesting point. You would think that any aspiring green party candidate would do some ground work on what his/her chances were before going in to be a spoiler in a race. If you have no hope in hell of winning, why do you bother to hive off votes and run the risk of being a spoiler. You might actually make things worse for everyone with a Harper/Campbell. While it is a democratic right to be in the race; it is also a requirement to uses some brains in the process of making the decision. I have no patience with Greens fielding candidates when the party has had no presence, no resources or staff to show they are running a campaign and run a campaign with a parachute college student from some place 1000 Kms. away.

Some commons sense is better than a organized coalition of parties which don't have more than a few issues in common.

As I recall, Barrett's problem was that he tried to do too much, too fast. Harcourt was too slow and too moderate and too green for the rank and file and Clark was too left and not green enough.

We got Campbell and Christy as a result. If it wasn't for the fact that I and future generations will be paying for the mess we are now in, I'd be saying y'all deserve to pay.

Don't trust Tieleman

Bill Tieleman was the communications director in the B.C. Premier's Office and at the BC Federation of Labour. Talk about establishment.

Guys like Bill Tieleman have made a career out of the long standing cluster f*ck in Victoria and Ottawa, and don't want to have to do the hard work to succeed in a world free of divisive politics.

Progressive people of all walks of life should certainly be examining any and all efffective means of eliminating the likes of Stephen Harper from the PMO in 2015.

Provided we build a movement based on real democracy, I have no fear in teaming up with anyone who shares my distain for Harper's view of Canada and democracy, even if they believe the Victoria sewage plant is a waste of money. IMHO everyone should just use composting toilets, so whatever! Let's get on with changing Canada for the better and stop wasting time with BS rhetoric from communications people like Bill Tieleman .

and what wld Tieleman advise Egyptians?

Stay partisan and stick with one's preferred political party, or form a united front to defeat Morsi & the Muslim Brotherhood?

Change is Good

So, yes, Bill Tieleman, the NDP are the most progressive and you win the gold star. Now sit down, b/c the point is to get rid Harper and his ilk and ills. And then guess what? The election after the next one, the NDP can prove once again that they are most progressive. Joyce Murray's proposal is a simple one: each "progressive" party chooses their best candidate in key ridings and then there is a run-off to choose the "progressive" who will represent the riding. That way everyone still gets to vote - 3 times in fact. It might not taste all mountain-stream-clear-running-water clean - but it is start. And I'd rather drink this lukewarm tap water of a solution, then to have to keep drinking the fetid water that Harper expects us to drink from the neo-con cesspool.