Polling Thread: Part 1 Volume 5

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kloch

ottawaobserver wrote:
Hypothesis: Stephen Harper is such a big meanie, he's making everyone else crabby, including Babble contributors. Corollary: This is his explicit intention, or at least a pleasant but unexpected byproduct.

At the start of the NHL season, my friends and I were laughing because some Toronto-area broadcaster made a reference to the "undefeated Leafs", when their record was 1-0.

Could it be that some babblers are laughing at polling threads about the NDP for similar reasons?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Kloch, thank you for the Chomsky quote. It made my day.

 

KenS

Kloch, your smugness is boundless. As if none of us NDP dupes are aware of the issues.

Your own blindness to the reflection in the mirror is amusing.

Kloch

KenS wrote:

Kloch, your smugness is boundless. As if none of us NDP dupes are aware of the issues.

Your own blindness to the reflection in the mirror is amusing.

I made an appeal to my fellow babblers to help me understand what you were writing, as I legitimately have no idea what point you are trying to make.

JKR

KenS wrote:

You seem a bit too nuanced to just clasify as someone just looking for the way to rationalize falling in behind the Liberals. But still, just on the merits of ideas themselves, what gives with not including the possibility of shared power governing arrangements?

When the 2008/9 Coalition went over as a dud even with people who didn't like Harper.... even when that was fresh, there was ample reson to not see that resistance as insurmountable. And the UK experience has brought out the re-thinking that we knew would arise given the slightest concrete reason.

So what gives with dismissing it? Let alone comparing that to the realism of an instantly merged bigger and newer swallowing all Liberal Party?

I don't prefer a merger. I think it would be very regrettable if Canadians were limited to just two choices like they are in the US. But the circumstances of the last two-decades have changed the playing field. The advent of the BQ and Conservative parties and the emergence of the Green Party has made FPTP unworkable for centre-left supporters.  The choice for the left is between either electoral reform or a merger of the NDP and Liberals. With the right of centre unified behind the Conservatives, coalitions of the left are inherently weak as long as we use FPTP. Under FPTP, the numbers will always work against any group that splits their vote.

The possibility of Liberal-NDP  coalitions or pacts still exist under FPTP but they will likely be weak entities saddled with accusations of being "coalitions of the losers" or "treasonous coalitions with the separatists." As long as we have FPTP, vote splitting on the left will favour the Conservatives and make it very difficult for the NDP and Liberals to form strong governing coalitions. Under FPTP it is very difficult for the NDP, Greens, and Liberals to attain more seats then the Conservatives even though the Liberals, Greens, and NDP have greater public support.

Progressives will eventually tire of allowing the Conservatives a huge built-in advantage, just like neo-cons could no longer live with the Liberals having governments by default. I do believe that if we don't get rid of FPTP soon, a merger will be the 2nd best option, albeit a poor option.

The UK experience shows that a coalition between two FPTP also-ran parties is greeted with a "coalition of the losers" label. Even though the LibDems and Labour received a majority of the votes, they were seen as losers because the Conservatives won almost a majority of the seats. A Lib-Lab coalition would have eventually damaged both the Labour and LibDems so it was doomed from the start. If the Liberals and NDP do form a coalition under FPTP, they will also likely be tainted with a "coalition of the losers" label and will likely be thrown out of office and replaced with a huge fake FPTP Conservative majority. The LibDems deal breaking demand that electoral reform be part of their coalition was necessary because the LibDms understand that coalitions and FPTP don't mix. They know that under FPTP they'll likely be punished in the next election for having gone into a coalition. As the third party they are depending on electoral reform being used in the next election. If the next election in the UK uses FPTP, the LibDems will likely be back in the wilderness.

My view is not that the Liberals and NDP should merge. My view is that Canada must have electoral reform and if that doesn't happen, the NDP is best off if it merges with the Liberals. The undesirability of a merger is why electoral reform is the best option for the NDP and why it should fight for electoral reform as hard as the LibDems have.

lombardimax@hot...

To those who asked about the NDP and their ideas on the economy, their economic policies are outlined at this link at pages 1-4:

http://www.kwndp.ca/cambridge/content/federal-ndp-policy-booklet

George Victor

Kloch wrote:

KenS wrote:

Kloch, your smugness is boundless. As if none of us NDP dupes are aware of the issues.

Your own blindness to the reflection in the mirror is amusing.

I made an appeal to my fellow babblers to help me understand what you were writing, as I legitimately have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

Yours is certainly a determined ignorance, Kloch.  Grows tiresome. Your saying that you were sorry in not understanding anything was plain ingenuous bullshit.

That's not strong enough language, but immodest mods are likely to activate the trap door if I were to say, in detail, exactly how I felt about such obvious dishonesty, playing with one's correspondent.  

KenS

Kloch wrote:

I made an appeal to my fellow babblers to help me understand what you were writing, as I legitimately have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I don't doubt I confused you, which happens.

What people do when that happens- you see it in these discussions, is they address the person and say they don't understand, could you explain that.

"Did this make sense to anyone?"is nothing more than a rhetorical device for sneering at people.

remind remind's picture

Polling thread continued over here

Doug

NorthReport wrote:

Party/ Last Election / EKOS / Change

Cons / 38% / 34% / Down 4%

Libs / 25% / 26% / Down 1% - worse that Dion's results

NDP / 18% / 15% / down 3% - whatever it is the NDP is selling, Canadians are not buying

 

Pretty much a case of "We hate you ALL!"

NorthReport

Not surprising considering we are slowly losing our health care system, we have high unemployment rates with few decent jobs around, many people can't retire because they have saved little resources, few can actually afford to purchase a house, minimun wages are as low as $6. per hour in BC, almost no family can afford to have one parent stay home any more, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow, our MPs are afraid to show us their expense accounts, tell us one thing to get elected, and then do the opposite once in power.

Kloch

KenS wrote:

Kloch wrote:

I made an appeal to my fellow babblers to help me understand what you were writing, as I legitimately have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I don't doubt I confused you, which happens.

What people do when that happens- you see it in these discussions, is they address the person and say they don't understand, could you explain that.

"Did this make sense to anyone?"is nothing more than a rhetorical device for sneering at people.

Using long-winded sentences, jargon/polysyllabic words are a device for obfuscation when you have nothing to say.

Kloch

George Victor wrote:

Yours is certainly a determined ignorance, Kloch.  Grows tiresome. Your saying that you were sorry in not understanding anything was plain ingenuous bullshit.

That's not strong enough language, but immodest mods are likely to activate the trap door if I were to say, in detail, exactly how I felt about such obvious dishonesty, playing with one's correspondent.  

 

This was recommended reading in high school.  I'll read Marx's critique of Hegel if you read this: Orwell's Rules for Writing

KenS

Kloch wrote:

Using long-winded sentences, jargon/polysyllabic words are a device for obfuscation when you have nothing to say.

Convoluted structure of an argument is a good reason to be confused by what someone says.

The straightforward response is to just say you don't understand.

"Did anyone understand that?" is a response stated in the form of a question. But it is transperently a dismissal.

I could start over on my point in post #97. But since neither you or anyone else has asked, I assume that I was either understood or no one cared that they didn't understand it. I doubt anyone has ever lost sleep over missing the wisdom of babble.

Augustus

NorthReport wrote:

Party/ Last Election / EKOS / Change

Cons / 38% / 34% / Down 4%

Libs / 25% / 26% / Down 1% - worse that Dion's results

NDP / 18% / 15% / down 3% - whatever it is the NDP is selling, Canadians are not buying

Interesting remark on your part, considering that for weeks you were saying that the NDP was at 20% and on its way to 25%.

Pages