Toronto Star columnist David Olive seems to think so.

The Liberal Democratic Party?

quote:

---

On Thursday, the leader of a centre-left federal political party was in Kitchener to unveil a $1.25-billion-year program to create 165,000 child-care spaces. The same day, the leader of another centre-left party was at an east-end Toronto day-care centre pledging a $1.45-billion-a-year plan to create a minimum of 150,000 child-care spaces.

A tweak here, a minor adjustment there, and the competing campaign pledges would be indistinguishable. The most salient thing the promises by Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton have in common is that neither will see fruition, at least not under a government formed by Dion or Layton, respectively, after voters cast their ballots Oct. 14. So far, at least, polls show Stephen Harper's Tories heading for a renewed minority government or perhaps even a majority that day.

We appear set for a replay of the 2000 election, when then-PM Jean Chrétien, against the wishes of a fretful Liberal caucus he memorably dubbed "Nervous Nellies," exploited a divided right and was vindicated with a renewed majority in what was initially derided as an unnecessary snap election.

Eight years later, the Tories are poised to return the favour, exploiting a split among no fewer than four opposition parties vying for centrist and left-of-centre votes, and coast to a renewed minority or even a majority in another snap election also widely seen as unnecessary.

So soon, we've gone from a Liberal monopoly that feasted on divided opposition through three majority governments to a new one-party rule under the Tories.

Uniting the left is a notion in increasing favour with pollsters, pundits and pols like Lorne Calvert, the former Saskatchewan premier who believes Canadians would be more comfortable with a two-party system and that his NDP is the natural base for building an alternative to the Tories.

It must be said that "uniting the left" is something of a misnomer. It would be an awkward coalescence of corporate-apologist Liberals, capitalist-bashing Dippers, the separatist Bloc Quebecois and libertarian Greens. Yet some combination of those moderate and centre-left parties has rarely seemed a timelier proposition.

Canadians are comfortable in what purists on both the right and left scorn as the mushy middle. Storming the Bastille in dinner jackets after tucking the kids in for the night is an urge not much given to us.

The numbers tell the story of our satisfaction with nation-defining values of civility, moderation, communally funded health care and other entitlements, and wealth redistribution. As parties perceived to embody those values, the Grits and NDP have captured an average combined 51.6 per cent of Commons seats in the past 10 elections since 1974 – a number that would be higher if proportional representation replaced the current first-past-the-post system. That compares with the 39.6 per cent won during that period by the now-defunct Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance parties and the new party most of their members united four years ago to create, the ruling Conservative Party of Canada.

The Grits won six of those 10 elections, and would have won eight if partnered with the NDP. (The two exceptions arose from the brief ownership of Quebec by Brian Mulroney's Tories in 1984 and 1988.) Add in the social democratic BQ, which has averaged 15.9 per cent of Common seats in its five electoral outings, and the average Commons representation of centrist and moderate-left voters rises to 71.1 per cent.

Governing with anything but a convincing mandate – the Tories won just 36 per cent of the vote in 2006 – Harper has skilfully managed as if he had a majority, easily gaining passage of more than 70 bills and his two budgets. He has reinvented minority government by designating an inordinate portion of government bills as confidence votes, daring the opposition to force an election. And by selectively ignoring legislation – including his own fixed-election-date law – when it suits him. In that sense, it hardly matters whether the Tories are returned with a minority or majority. Which should make the urgency of uniting to defeat the Tories altogether that much more obvious among the government's opponents.

"With Layton focusing on Harper, there's never been a better time for the Liberals and Greens to `unite the left,' go easy on the NDP, and bring down the Harper government," says NDP politics blogger Devin Johnston. "Instead, most Liberals seem to have resigned themselves to the fact they can't beat Harper this time around. Therefore, they are doing the next best thing: attack the NDP."

Because they fish in the same waters, Grits and Dippers have traditionally had far more contempt for each other than for the Tories, despite their ostensible ideological compatibility.

But the dynamics, as they say, are changing. The NDP that sought to quit NATO and nationalize banks and oil companies is long past – to the chagrin of the far left – and the ties with organized labour that gave rise to the NDP's creation in 1961 are frayed. Today's Grits, for their part, have purged or otherwise lost most of their right-wing stalwarts, including Paul Martin, John Manley, Roy MacLaren and David Emerson.

In the past two elections, Layton, a one-time energy consultant, has adopted business-friendly policies of funding his proposed retrofitting of commercial and government buildings to make them energy efficient, and spending heavily on environmental technology to create tens of thousands of "green jobs." The Grits, meanwhile, have poached from the NDP their new priorities of income equality, urban renewal, infrastructure rebuilding, pharmacare and curbing climate change.

Practically speaking, the Grits and Dippers complement each other. "Despite the fact the Liberals lack vision and policy, the party does know how to seek, gain and hold power," notes Arthur Weinreb, associate editor of Canada Free Press. "The New Democrats, on the other hand, responsible for much of Canada's social policy, have never held power federally and their chances of doing so in the near future appear to be grim. The merger between the Liberals and the NDP seems to be a perfect fit."

---

[Edited to note this thread as a belated continuance from here.]

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Progressives who push for a united left will see the same thing happen to their values as those of the Progressive Conservatives after the merger with Reform

I know that I have not found the Liberal Party to be progressive since the early 70s (and that progressive quality was a reflection of the times and trying to shore up their support against a growing NDP).

I personally think that the Liberals are loosing ground and will be in bad shape by the end of this but it will be because they don't realize that people want parties that believe in more than gaining and keeping power. They want parties that represent real policy options and ideas.

The only strength left in the Liberal brand (brand because it ain't a party of ideals) is in Ontario and in parts of the maritimes.

This is the moment for the NDP to truly push through and really have a shot at governing (yes difficult - not impossible in a minority scenario) but then it does mean that people will have to vote their hopes and values and not from a place of cynicism and fear.

Oliver and other lib appologist are wrapped in the myth that the libs are left. Iggy and his troops which would have marched in lock-step with Martin are there.

Besides libs promised national daycare since 1993. As we heard, libs are just doing their fake to the left - again!

I see neither libs now or Greens now as left.

Sorry but this dog won't hunt. I did love these quotes in the article, and add fuel to thought for New Democratic strategies for this election.

quote:

---

"With Layton focusing on Harper, there's never been a better time for the Liberals and Greens to `unite the left,' go easy on the NDP, and bring down the Harper government," says NDP politics blogger Devin Johnston. "Instead, most Liberals seem to have resigned themselves to the fact they can't beat Harper this time around. Therefore, they are doing the next best thing: attack the NDP."

---

quote:

---

notes Arthur Weinreb, associate editor of Canada Free Press. "[b]The New Democrats, on the other hand, responsible for much of Canada's social policy.[b/]

---

Attacking the party that brought us most of Canada's social policy, which Canadians cherish and love and bind us together as a nation.

There is no true left no more than there is any true religion. The left embodies essentially two certain values which are social and economic justice for all and especially workers and the vulnerable. It isn't rocket science.

The path to get there, or rather the various true paths, is what is at the core of the left's inability to coalesce into real political power.

However, the left is joined at various times by women, people of color, environmentalists, peace activists, religious organizations, and many, many individuals.

As an example, environment, to many, is a social and economic justice issue. But the same tensions that exist in the middle and the right, also exist among the left. So, for some, who are on the left, jobs and economic growth to eliminate poverty (it is a perception and not my own), trounces environment.

The greater the issue, the larger the left. The more narrow the issue, the smaller the left.

The question for self-described leftists on this board is rather simple - unlike rocket science: Is the threat of a majority Harper government sufficient for the left to come together in a grand coalition?

If yes, what demands would various powerful representatives of the left demand from those in the centre- and centre-right for joining?

The Liberals are an amalgam of mostly right-leaning people- think Paul Steckle and a few progressives. If the Liberals want to splinter and the centre left of their party (not centre left in Canadain politics)come into the real progressive tent and the right join the Conservatives we might all be better off regardless of the outcome of one single election.

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
What is it that Greens and Liberals don't get about there party being left. It isn't. There is no grand coalition to unite becuase the Liberals have walked in lock step with the Conservatives on virtually every issue when it comes to economics.

The Liberals are an amalgam of mostly right-leaning people- think Paul Steckle and a few progressives. If the Liberals want to splinter and the centre left of their party (not centre left in Canadain politics)come into the real progressive tine and the right join the Conservatives we might all be better off regardless of the outcome of one single election.

---

quote:

---

Is there any issue important enough to trump party sectarianism on the left? I would hope so, but the evidence doesn't offer optimism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
So the libs are tanking in this election, and the SOS goes out to save them?

---

quote:

---

I see neither libs now or Greens now as left.

---

quote:

---

brought us most of Canada's social policy, which Canadians cherish and love and bind us together as a nation.

And of note, Devon Johnston gets a couple of quotes. Note he does not bash the liberals but suggests that if Liberal really cared about Canada they would ease up on New Democrats to slay Harper. Good quote and looks like Layton is on the right lens, and libs are not.

---

If you do repeating the same stuff doesn't make your point, it makes it seem like you just don't get the issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
You understand that the Liberals and Greens are not left eh?

---

Yup we get that. I am a Liberal and I lean a little to the left. Mr. Fisher who lives next door is a Liberal too. He leans a little to the right fiscally. My mother grew up in a Progressive Conservative houshold, but she and dad vote Liberal. I would say they are about in the center with their ideas and stuff.

quote:

---

You understand that the Liberals and Greens are not left eh?

If you do repeating the same stuff doesn't make your point, it makes it seem like you just don't get the issues.

---

You don't understand what "left" is. I gave you a definition above. A failure to understand that the left must work in coalitions would preclude you from being left. That means any Liberals, Greens, and NDPers who do know the role of coalitions in left politics is more left than you are.

quote:

---

Some commentators have mused on the prospects of some sort of Liberal-NDP-Green coalition should the Tories be re-elected. Michael Ignatieff, campaigning in Whitby, Ont., yesterday strongly rejected such a possibility.

"I don't think the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of the left. There's no coalition to be done," he said. "We're a party of the centre and people vote for us because we're in the centre."

---

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The Greens, being committed to "market" solutions, are by definition not of the left. Being committed to market values and "small government" automatically puts you against social justice and anything remotely helpful to working people.

Canada doesn't need Blairism.

---

Layton and the NDP is Blairism. Get real.

quote:

---

FM your definition of the left is the same one the Conservatives use. Not those of us on the left use.

---

quote:

---

Do you think it is any coincidence that the greens are a right wing party that panders to the left

---

That would make the NDP a right wing party no different in scope than the other two.

quote:

---

Hell most of the board is pissed at how much to the right the NDP are, nevermind the libs and greens.

---

Interesting.

I think that goes to what Tomy Paine was saying yesterday about most of the NDP being middle- to upper-class folk committed to keeping rotten institutions because they are net beneficiaries of the rotten system.

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Not more of this blarney.

I can't even begin to express how sick to death I am of hearing this same crap I have been hearing for the whole of my adult life.

The day the NDP merges with the Liberals and/or the Greens is the day I start a new social democratic party. The NDP is a social democratic party, that means our economic analysis of the capitalist system leads us to beleive in a mixed economy and that government has a role to play in leveling class disperity. The Liberals and Greens simply do not share this vision.

Seems to me that's sort of what New Democrats and the CCF before them have been alluding to all our lives.

But given the traumatic state that capitalism finds itself in, is it not time for we social democrats to begin putting it into economic terms...even to the degree that the good senator from Florida does? Time to show that the stodgy old New Democrats in the West, always dutifully balancing their budgets, knew how to run economies and could do so nationally?

If we can't demonstrate in the midst of this crisis point of finance capital, that capitalism has to be regulated by the book, and large areas of it nationalized in the name of preservation of resources and jobs, then we should hand in our critics' kits.

Amalgamating one left wing party with too right wing parties who scam some progressive voters is NOT the way to accomplish this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

The way to unite the left is to destroy the Liberal Party a a viable political and electoral force.

---

That won't work; the NDP carries too much baggage and can't look at the future clearly.

What David Olive is talking about is a coalition of the moderate centre-right, the centre, and the moderate left, in one big-tent party, although he's not thinking clearly about the Greens. Probably as soon as the Conservatives responded by shedding most of their neocons and social conservatives, Olive's super-party would break up.

A more realistic solution is proportional representation. But it seems the NDP doesn't really want that. What it wants is to repeat Bob Rae's feat in 1990 Ontario and win a majority government on a minority of the votes, without thinking about where that would lead it. It's not likely.

David Olive, columnist for the Liberal Party's main media outlet in Canada, the Toronto Star (followed closely by the CBC by-the-way), looks out his window, and sees trouble ahead for his beloved Liberals. Not tiny, little troubles, but big, major troubles. In this current election campaign, Olive obviously sees a serious deterioration from the previous dismal Liberal election campaign. Like it's obviously going from bad to worse for his hapless Liberals. So M Olive, being the classy guy he is, wants to drag the NDP down into the gutter with the Liberals. Even if what he proposes is idiotic, don't ya just feel for dis man. It sounds like he needs a hug real bad, and he had better get one bfore the vote results on October 14, because it sure looks like that is gonna be one ugly nite for the people he pumps for, the Liberal Party of Canada.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Will we see the Liberals, for example, dropping out of the race in every Tory-held B.C. riding and all the Saskatchewan ridings other than Goodale's, for example?

Will they pull their candidate against Mulcair in Outremont?

Will the Liberals even offer any pro-worker policies(you know, like the ones they've never offered before)?

And what, exactly, does the Liberal Party's "Mini-Me"(the Green Party)bring to the table in this?
Will they drop out in all ridings outside BC and Central Nova(that is, all the ridings they already know they have no chance of winning)?

These questions will never get answered.

This is because the Liberals are, in fact, offering NOTHING in any of these scenarios. They just want the NDP to pull all of its candidates in marginal Tory ridings, and won't(as was the case in B.C. in 2004)give anything back.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

The day the NDP merges with the Liberals and/or the Greens is the day I start a new social democratic party.

---

Here let me help:

A coalition is an among individuals, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest. This alliance may be temporary or a matter of convenience. A coalition thus differs from a more formal covenant. Possibly described as a joining of 'factions'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition

The combining of two or more independent bodies into a single body.
www.ono-island-real-estate.com/dictionary/M.html

I'll let you digest that for a while. I know its complicated, but take your time.

quote:

---

The way to unite the left is to destroy the Liberal Party a a viable political and electoral force.

---

I realize you don't agree and that's okay we don't have to. But this is a fundamental disagreement. You see many people here believe, as I do, that the thumb of the right is both red and blue. If you think about this for a while you will see how ridiculous your proposal actually is.

In order to succeed, you would have to convince people here that there is enough of a distinction between the Liberals and the Cons to be worthy of sacrificing our electoral independence -- even temporarily as you do acknowledge. The problem is that the record of the Liberals in campaigns appears to support your view but the record of Liberals in government directly and completely contradicts it.

Indeed, for your argument to win, we would need to see the Liberals elected without NDP help (something that is deeply unlikely)
and then see them bring in truly progressive legislation. Unfortunately, left to their own devices the Liberals support the same kind of policies that they have all last year-- Conservative ones. This is why we fight to elect an alternative to this.

We have indeed heard Liberals sound as progressive as Dion can sound on a good day, support all the regressive crap that he was supposedly fighting against. For this you only have to go back to the very last example of a Liberal government overturning a Conservative one-- remember that? Axe the GST? Tear up the FTA? Child care? I remember that. I would need to have a severe case of Alzheimers to vote for the Liberals or support any kind of alliance with these liars, cheats and the consumers of political space that they have no intention of representing while in office.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

The Liberals are discredited-- the only unity will come when they no longer occupy any significant political space and the vote is split between two truly opposing visions.

I realize this is not what you want to hear and this means we all have a lot of work cut out for us -- but this is the reality and anything else is a simplistic diversion that only makes the end job more difficult. Even if you do not agree-- the vast majority of New Democrats think this way-- this is why we vote NDP even when we have no chance in our ridings. With this opinion representing the NDP you will have to come up with a completely different strategy to oppose the Cons.

If the so called progressive Liberals think they are so close to the NDP and want to stop Harper, then they should move to us since we have real historical reasons not to see things the other way.

Liberals should understand this. Often the smaller initial group is actually the better compromise. The reason is that those who thought like you already have joined the Liberals but because the NDP has been smaller the group that could come to the NDP remains undetermined.

Try to get the Liberals to come to the NDP as a compromise if you like-- although I am not convinced that will sell. But, I must say life is far too short for you to be spending your precious energy that needs to be spent saving the planet trying to get New Democrats to get in bed with the Liberal party on anything other than a confidence motion to bring down a Con government-- and even that we can't succeed with.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Could the results of this election precipitate a merger between the Liberals, NDP and/or Greens?

Toronto Star columnist David Olive seems to think so.

The Liberal Democratic Party?

---

I am really surprised, Robbie. Surprised that you would point to an article on restructuring the Canadian political left that make no mention of organized labour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I can't even begin to express how sick to death I am of hearing this same crap I have been hearing for the whole of my adult life.

The day the NDP merges with the Liberals and/or the Greens is the day I start a new social democratic party.

---

quote:

---

The NDP is a social democratic party, that means our economic analysis of the capitalist system leads us to beleive in a mixed economy and that government has a role to play in leveling class disperity. The Liberals and Greens simply do not share this vision.

There is no point to this sort of discussion other than a blantant attempt by Liberals and their more economicly conservative little cousin the Greens to try and marganilze social democrats and the questions we raise about who does and does not benefit in our economic structure.

---

quote:

---

What is it that Greens and Liberals don't get about thier party being left? It just isn't. There is no grand coalition to unite

---

As for the "grand coalition", there is one that should be built - but not with other political parties. It's uniting social movement activists and others who consider themselves on the left around some kind of realistic electoral program.

However, this would require an openness from the NDP to consider policy alternatives that were shelved a long time ago as well as new policies. It would require some kind of shift in approach - from pure electoralism to a blend of activism and elections.

Yes, I'm aware that many NDP activists are involved in social movements already, but that's more on their own initiative than as a party policy or strategy. And I know there are some riding associations that take on issues and try to build their base in between elections - but I think those are a small minority and are fuelled by the energy and initiative of riding activists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Woodard:

That won't work; the NDP carries too much baggage and can't look at the future clearly.

---

141 years of Grit and Tory scandal, incompetence and corruption doesn't stand in their way, but the NDP has too much baggage???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
I'm all for uniting progressive voters behind one party.

Amalgamating one left wing party with too right wing parties who scam some progressive voters is NOT the way to accomplish this.

The way to unite the left is to destroy the Liberal Party a a viable political and electoral force.

---

HERE HERE!

We could put this silly ideas to rest, and send the bamboozlers and three card monte guys packing if we only had a coherent deffinition for what "left" is, and a coherent vision for where we want to progress, and a coherent methodology for arriving there.

But we don't. And as long as we don't, we make ourselves easy prey for these snake oil salesmen.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

The choice really is whether Harper, who is the farthest right Canada has ever gone and the most dangerous on a global scale, will be given a free hand to drive Canada further to the right. The convergence of corporate forces with the neo-Conservative ideology is the most the dangerous thing facing the planet right now -- a growing shadow that has already captured power in the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, etc. If Harper is given the keys to the dominion, he will no doubt become a key ideological and military member of this new "Northern block".

The old Canadian consensus died when the Reform-Alliance absorbed the Progressive Conservatives. At least that allowed Canadians to muddle through. That's no longer case. The new Conservatives are stoking the embers of reaction and resentment, selfishness and fear, and riding them to election victory

The question is whether one prioritizes the need to combat this threat and unite all non-Conservative forces, whether on the centre, left, or even right as you may argue in the Green case.

I think a lot of Canadians instinctually understand this as demonstrated by the ABC movement, but partisan politics are such that non-fascist forces will be weakened and divided further after this election.

And then a Weimar-like disaster.

[ 21 September 2008: Message edited by: ceti ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
The choice really is whether Harper, who is the farthest right Canada has ever gone and the most dangerous on a global scale, will be given a free hand to drive Canada further to the right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The dirty secret is, if the NDP pulled its candidates in the bulk of ridings(which is what "strategic voting" actually means in the minds of the Liberal Party)they'd be unable to go back and recontest those ridings in the future, and thus they'd stop being a national party. Which is the actual Liberal objective behind the "strategic voting" talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
And then a Weimar-like disaster.

---

Does this qualify as a Godwin post?

I rather like your brand of Liberal doomsday rant, much more so than those of other, less sophisticated practitioners. There is a charming tone of intellectualism to it, as opposed to the harsh and hectoring "don't be a loser" talk which most Liberals peddle.

The word is "idiot."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
Frustrated-- I can tell why you are so frustrated.

I realize you don't agree and that's okay we don't have to. But this is a fundamental disagreement. You see many people here believe, as I do, that the thumb of the right is both red and blue. If you think about this for a while you will see how ridiculous your proposal actually is.

In order to succeed, you would have to convince people here that there is enough of a distinction between the Liberals and the Cons to be worthy of sacrificing our electoral independence -- even temporarily as you do acknowledge. The problem is that the record of the Liberals in campaigns appears to support your view but the record of Liberals in government directly and completely contradicts it.

Indeed, for your argument to win, we would need to see the Liberals elected without NDP help (something that is deeply unlikely)
and then see them bring in truly progressive legislation. Unfortunately, left to their own devices the Liberals support the same kind of policies that they have all last year-- Conservative ones. This is why we fight to elect an alternative to this.

We have indeed heard Liberals sound as progressive as Dion can sound on a good day, support all the regressive crap that he was supposedly fighting against. For this you only have to go back to the very last example of a Liberal government overturning a Conservative one-- remember that? Axe the GST? Tear up the FTA? Child care? I remember that. I would need to have a severe case of Alzheimers to vote for the Liberals or support any kind of alliance with these liars, cheats and the consumers of political space that they have no intention of representing while in office.

Anyway, I thought I would help you by explaining what you are up against here. It is not your argument that is so much at fault but the reality the Liberals have created that they simply can not, ever, ever, ever be trusted to do what they say they would do once they get into government

---

A coalition could represent NDP cabinet positions and chairs of some important committees. It could represent anything a power sharing arrangement would demand.

And Sean in Ottawa, please, the attacks on the Liberals are entirely childish. If provincial governments offer any sort of example, the NDP will govern from the right and sacrifice core principles and values just as soon as they did take power.

I mean I remember a public auto insurance scheme for Ontario and public sector contracts being ripped opened and violated by an NDP government, do you?

quote:

---

However, whether there is a coherent left in Canada is not a settled question. When it comes to values, Canada is a fractured country. The centre-left has several core value divisions, the biggest being the role of government. Close to a third of Canadians feel government should focus on redistributing wealth rather than creating opportunity. This is not a small difference in opinion, but a fundamental dispute over the role of government that explains why New Democrats and Liberals feel the need to have two distinct parties.

......

Traditionally, the way the centre-left elites have sought to overcome these divisions and stop Tories from getting elected is with a call for strategic voting. The core premise of strategic voting is that centre-left voters should look for the party in their riding that has the best chance of beating the Conservatives and unite behind it. This is the strategy the Bloc is pushing in Quebec in this election. The problem with this strategy is that it is just not realistic. Many voters, particularly swing voters, do not have the information they need to make this choice. Even well-informed voters may not agree in many seats.

---

The Liberals have no ideology other than getting elected and will sacrifice anything to accomplish that goal.

Dion will be removed following the greatest Liberal defeat in modern history, it only remains to be seen if it will be a Turner sized loss or Kim Campbell sized one, and/or an NDP leader of the opposition. The media will turn on Dion realizing that they can’t force this election to turn into a horserace and will choose to start bashing Dion.

The real test will be who the Liberals select as their next leader, and that will decide the "coalition".

If Iggy wins, the lefties will bolt and the NDP gains, if Rae wins they lose their righties who will join the Cons. I don’t think that the Grits will select another compromise candidate as the current two have too much time and money invested to give up easily.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Radioactive Westerner:
The NDP has a vision and a defined ideology.
The Conservatives do too, like it or hate it.

The Liberals have no ideology other than getting elected and will sacrifice anything to accomplish that goal.

Dion will be removed following the greatest Liberal defeat in modern history, it only remains to be seen if it will be a Turner sized loss or Kim Campbell sized one, and/or an NDP leader of the opposition. The media will turn on Dion realizing that they can’t force this election to turn into a horserace and will choose to start bashing Dion.

The real test will be who the Liberals select as their next leader, and that will decide the "coalition".

If Iggy wins, the lefties will bolt and the NDP gains, if Rae wins they lose their righties who will join the Cons. I don’t think that the Grits will select another compromise candidate as the current two have too much time and money invested to give up easily.

All that selecting Dion did was hold off the inevitable decision…

---

Your post is dead-on. I continually cannot figure out why more people do not vote NDP. The liberals are so clearly lacking in principles and definitely not leftist (which is what makes all of these calls to " unite the left" so funny). When pressed by the NDP, they try to seem rightist and when pressed by the Cons they try to seem leftist and they have a strange agreement with the capitalist greens. They end up seemed devoid on principles. Add to that the fact that they have so many members from other parties, who seem like they joined solely due to the chance of forming government some day. Rae would be the most blatant example of this.

quote:

---

a minority Con with strong opposition NDP would be an improvement in my opinion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
How would that be any different than the last government? Would a liberal minority be an improvement?

---

quote:

---

The NDP has a vision and a defined ideology.

---

quote:

---

think it would be an improvement as it is a realistic outcome and would give Layton a chance to show what he has got.

---

The Liberal brand is popular, even when the Party, the Leader, and the Policy is not. People identify themselves as "Liberal", even if they are not happy with the Liberal Party.

The Conservative brand is similar, in that people can say they are "conservative", despite what the Conservative Party may be doing.

To say you are a "New Democrat" ties you to the NDP. You are not going to call yourself a "New Democrat" if you don't like the Party, Leader, or Policy.

I think, however, the term "Democrat" does speak louder about a self-identification than any particular Party. I could say I was a "Democrat" and support any of the three parties above. Indeed, I have, and I do.

In terms of the US politics, most Canadians would vote Democrat over Republican. For one thing, Canada is not a Republic, so it would be hard to identify with "Republican" without being disloyal to the concept of the Canadian State.

So I think "Democrat" would be the best brand for a new party uniting the anti-Conservative. For one thing, any party opposing the Canadian Democrats would have to explain how they could be democrats without being Democrats.

To win, any party must capture the Canadian centre, which the Conservatives seem to be doing the best at currently.

Until then, I think Jack should stress the Democrat over the New. I also think the NDP should be the lead party in the new coalition, just as the Alliance was the lead party in the coalition on the right.

quote:

---

At the time of its founding in Ottawa in the first week of August 1961, the New Democratic Party was seen by many of its protagonists as the inevitable successor to the Liberals and the natural antidote to Diefenbaker conservatism. Liberals, though, derided the effort at unity on the left from the beginning.

It was a small success to have brought together unions, farmers, intellectuals, many Quebec Quiet Revolutionaries, and left factions of a bewildering array of differences. It was a greater success to have held it together during the explosive tensions of the '60s on the left, though the Waffle battles came close to ending the dream.

The lessons of that merger effort – the product of nearly three years of negotiations following the misery of the 1958 defeat of nearly the entire CCF caucus – are at least three: Mergers require leaders who are committed to making them happen; they require a party that will endure disappointment and partisan attack along the way; and they require partners who understand the price of failure is higher than the compromises required for success.

Could the party have been born if, as some had argued, it had attempted to split the Liberal party as well? Probably not: bridging the long and deeply defensive traditions of two political cultures as different as liberalism and social democracy is a far larger task than uniting the disparate and defeated factions of the democratic left.

In light of Stephen Harper's re-election last month and his successful reunification of Canadian conservatism, the plaintive call for unity on the left is once again being heard in more than the usual places. The frustration that two-thirds of the voters elected less than half the MPs has given new life to the unity debate.

Some people look at the Canadian Conservative experience of nasty divorce and successful reconciliation and say, "Why not us?" First of all, there is no comparison between the circumstances of the political families. The Canadian right had more than a century of unity before the usual tensions between Quebec and the West ripped the family into two and then three angry pieces. A marriage reconciliation is a big challenge; a genuine peace between former blood enemies is even more so.

The adroitly manoeuvred, and carefully managed, reconciliation process on the right was a credit to the diplomatic and political skills of David Frum, Belinda Stronach, Brian Mulroney, Peter McKay, Stephen Harper and the many others who played less public roles. It was an achievement, especially at the end game, that overcame considerable odds, deep personal animosities, and real policy and values differences. But it was a political reconciliation not a negotiated end to generations of political conflict.

Mergers create losers as well as winners, but the losers are always louder.

So why bother to make the attempt on the centre-left?

First, because the alternatives are worse. The arrival of the Greens has proved as destabilizing to the major parties as it was in Europe 20 years ago. Although Elizabeth May has bled support from each party, the Tories are the net beneficiary of Green strength. Second, the patterns of partisanship appear to be settling with large chunks of the political terrain relatively fixed in their behaviour. Alberta, Saskatchewan and much of B.C. are solidly Tory. Conservative gains this time in big cities and among new Canadians are deeply worrying to thoughtful Liberals and New Democrats. In Quebec, the Bloc, while weakened, makes the formation of a stable federal government unlikely. Finally, there is the simple reality that four against one in a "first-past-the-post" system of elections favours the one, when it occupies a swathe of ideological territory alone.

---

I don't think we will ever get the CPC (Communist Party of Canada) and the Marxist Lenninists to accept a merger.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
You understand that the Liberals and Greens are not left eh?

If you do repeating the same stuff doesn't make your point, it makes it seem like you just don't get the issues.

What economic issues important to the left would the Liberals endorse? We had 13 years of them pursuing the exact same economic policies Harper has pursued. I would be pretty sceptical of death bed conversions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
This is like the talk of one of the smaller christian cults. We are more left than you so you are not good enough.

---

I do believe it could be possible for the NDP to one day supplant the Liberals as the dominant "left of center" federal political party, as it has already done in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But that day still appears to be a long way off.

Another possibility would be electoral reform, so that the NDP's seat count would more accurately correlate with the number of votes it receives. That would eliminate "strategic voting" and guarantee the NDP increased influence in future parliaments even without supplanting one of the major parties. But electoral reform efforts have so far failed to take hold anywhere they've been put on the ballot, and I'm not optimistic about B.C. next year, either.

That leaves us with a Conservative government that won barely more than a third of the vote last time. And as long as the "anti-Conservative" vote remains divided, the Conservatives may well expect a continued reign for the foreseeable future. There has to be a better way.

I recall when there was a time, listening to GP policy and NDP policy sounded like an echo, and their was mutual respect and cooperation.

quote:

---

You're actually approaching the fundamental question of Electoral politics, namely resources. People, and money fight the ground war, Skilled people and money fund the Air war. The GPC is building their base in both these fundamental commodities, people and $$. There have been a plethora of errors, strategic, and tactical, BUT there are a lot of really bright people in the GPC, and they learn from their mistakes. In addition, over the past 4 years increasing number of skilled hacks and flacks have been migrating from the Libs and Cons to where the good policies are, namely the GPC. I ignore the NDP, because there has grown a really visceral hatred of Dippers by Greens . Besides, the only competent flacks and hacks in the NDP are MP's, and there's no way they'll abandon their cushy jobs for any cause.

---

What Now for the NDP?

Yes, I think Topp articulates the imperialism, it feasible, position rather well:

Topp:

quote:

---

Before committing troops to help continue this conflict, we have a duty - to those troops, and to our country - to ask precisely how further intervention would or could "finish the job." I suggest (as do many others) that at the current level of intensity, it will not finish the job. And that any conceivable level of escalation will also likely not "finish the job" unless the U.S. is prepared to broaden the conflict into the neighbouring safe haven - with the consequences I outlined.

---

It's my understanding that Topp managed Jack's campaign in the last election fiasco. He is also, I see the co-chair of the NDP election committee. Is there no restriction on the right of hired staff in the NDP that requires them to limit statements at variance with the party policy, especially when naming themselves in their official capacity.

My understanding of the NDP's 2006 Afghan resolution was that it was for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, not withdrawal unless the US invades Pakistan, and increases troops strength. Did I miss something in the resolution?

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Is this discussion more appropriatly about uniting the center?

---

The NDP is a party of that swings between the center and center-left.

The Greens claim to be neither left nor right and they actively recruit anyone and everyone.

Essentially, Canada has three liberal parties and no prominent party of the left.

quote:

---

I find it kind of strange that the party in that discussion arguing for unity, actually made statements which were marginally more left than Topp on the issue of Afghanistan,

---

You are right that Topp doesn't make a leftwing argument, he even claims to be a 'Realist', and it is a little disturbing to think about where the argument might have gone if Cambell had answered that he supported invading and occupying Pakistan, as Topp suggested was necessary for 'success', but beyond the philosophy of his argument, he is still calling for pulling out of Afghanistan whereas Cambell is arguing the opposite.

Cambell's criticisms of the NDP is just a regurgitation of what we always hear from mainstream pundits regardless of what the party does. Jettison organized labour, embrace neoliberalism, more support for militarism, because who cares about your base, Liberal voters are just brimming with enthusiasm to vote NDP if only the party's policies were more rightwing.

Topp uses this platform to present a false impression of the NDP position on Afghanistan, taking the liberty of authorizing his statement as the Co-Chair of the election committee, and the campaign manager for the most recent election. This is noteworthy because Topp has made a special point of remarking on the abuse of credentials for giving false authority to personal opinions of persons who challenged the direction of the NDP, in the past.

But I digress Topp's position is merely a call for an expanded war, and a troop increase in order to get "the job done". It is not a call for withdrawal but a demand that our Allies should commit more forcefully and expand the conflict to Pakistan, or we will not participate. No military venture is justified on the basis that the conflict is unwinnable. To say that we should support the war only if it is winnable is merely to make plain the implicit underpinings of the arguement for war. Any war, at any time in history.

The 2006 resolution for withdrawal had no caveats or conditions, upon which withdrawal might be reconsidered.

Topp's statement is militarist in the extreme. And it echos simillar underlying ideas that followed NDP candidates over the last months, notably Dawn Black in August, and Jack Laytons approving comments about statements from a British general who suggested a strategic shift of focus might change the fortunes of the war.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

But I digress Topp's position is merely a call for an expanded war, and a troop increase. It is not a call for withdrawal but a demand that our Allies should commit more forcefully and expand the conflict to Pakistan, or we will not participate.

---

Cueball, he says

quote:

---

I don't think I'll surprise you to say that (speaking strictly personally) I don't favour dispatching more Canadian combat troops to Afghanistan - and I don't think President Obama should, either.

---

quote:

---

I suggest (as do many others) that at the current level of intensity, it will not finish the job. And that any conceivable level of escalation will also likely not "finish the job" unless the U.S. is prepared to broaden the conflict into the neighbouring safe haven - with the consequences I outlined.

---

He says this because he believes the strategic error that made the US fail in Vietnam was "the strategic mistakes the United States committed in Vietnam - permitting an undefeated enemy to operate out of safe havens".

In other words, lack of resolve, and failure to expand the war. Topp is arguing for full commitment or none.

Is he confused? Yes. And it is precisely this kind of confusion of morality and purpose which has dogged NDP statements on this issue since the 2006 resolution came forward, and was approved.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The United States invaded Afghanistan because that country sponsored the terrorist organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks - not for any of the reasons you set out.

---

I think Brian makes some excellent comments wrt the futility of this Crazy George/Paul Martin Liberal government collaboration in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan as it looks now, but I can't agree with Brian's statement above. There is no proof that this desperately poor thirdworld country had anything to do with 9/11, nor did it warrant carpet bombing by the U.S. military.

We were led to believe that the "Hamburg cell" masterminded 9-11. But German high courts were denied damning evidence which the Pentagon possessed and refused to release for "national security" reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The ghost of general Zia is near. I can feel his presence.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40660000/jpg/_40660417_203zia-ap.jp
BOO!

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

the linked to page says:

quote:

---

404 - Liberal Party Integrity Not Found

This might be because the Liberals gave you the wrong address. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain Liberal red book promises or empty rhetoric.

It is possible that the Liberals you were looking for may have gone in to hiding in Ottawa, changed careers or were deleted.

Please click the back button to try another
party.

---

Or some such

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

According to the Time (June 11, 1984), one of Masoud's biggest operations against Russians was organized, financed and directed by CIA.
* * *

Milton Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan during the war: "Masoud spent most of his time preparing for the coming civil war -not fighting the Communists."

---

And your photo of Zia?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Look way up Fidel. I know its hard for you to keep things straight. But my photo of Zia comes after you started posting prison pictures of people who are completely unrelated to the subject.

---

You yourself commented on robby dee's link to "What now for the NDP?" like you usually do when scouring babble for NDP threads. "snap" "snap" HELlo!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I am shadowing you?

---

I am not the one whose making an issue of harrasment, when I am sure that 99% of the board would not be able to say who started what or where. Nor would most of them care I imagine.

That said, you are perenially throwing cheap shot insults around, and smears. Name calling, slander, personal insults, at a far higher rate thatn I ever do. My quaint little poke at your obssession with General Zia, is nothing.

And who is talking about my personal issues here? Me? Not at all. You brought it "them" up. Whatever you think they are. All I did was post an innocent little picture of your friends in the PDPA hanging out with Massoud.

And you are claiming I am thin skinned.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Like in this thread where your first post is a direct response to something I said, including a quote. I post, you "shadow".

---

A good look at that thread shows clearly that the bad behaviour starts with your little dig at "General strike". I just stepped in your doo doo, that is all.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Anyway enough about you. Let's not make this another thread about Cueball and your beefs with me for exposing disinformation and misleading comments in your personal crusade against the NDP.

---

Exactly, enough about me! Why did you even bring me up? That is my point.

And what beef? I haven't complained about anything, I was just a little confused when you got all hoighty toighty, when I decided to shovel back. The nerve of me, I know. Quote my complaint, if you can find one.

This starts with your complaint, and your telling me to fuck off:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Here's an idea, why don't you stop harassing me and shadowing my posts? Because then I wouldn't have to tell you to FUCK OFF every now and then.

---

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Just think, all I said in that other thread was that you were not a communists. And your not. I really believe that.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/QB]

---

PM, Dion unite to trim costs.

quote:

---

Fresh from a bruising campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion are joining hands to trim government spending and keep Canada afloat through tough economic times.

---

quote:

---

The political rivals met yesterday and agreed to collaborate on ways to help the slumping economy during the upcoming session of Parliament. Described by one senior government official as "cordial and business-like," the two leaders will seek common ground on government spending cuts, accelerating infrastructure investment, strengthening the ban on bulk water exports and keeping corporate taxes intact.

---

By keeping "promised corporate taxes intact" means that both the liberals and conservatives are remaining beholden to the "board table" and that like in the past of the liberals, will be willing again, to sacrifice social programs in support of corporate Canada.

The question for "progressives" (I use quotes because it seems everyone these days is a progressive) then, is how does the Left ever win power, or even influence power, if it remains divided, ineffectual, and most irrelevant? How does the Left you recognize unite?

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:
What I think a lot of the partisans don't understand is that the public is actually quite pragmatic. Thats why, when the NDP demonstrated they were willing to work with the Liberals to pass progressive legislation, the NDP, was rewarded in 2006 with more voters. For all the shrill Liberal screeching about Layton colluding with Harper, it was clear that the NDP was willing to take a risk to make Parliament pass legislation that helped Canadians. In the last Parliament, the NDP abandoned that approach, and instead spent most of their energy trying to embarrass the Liberals, not exactly a difficult task but not one that made people feel good about Canadian democracy. And so even with a slick and expensive campaign, and a charismatic leader, the amount of people who felt motivated to vote NDP went down. They obviously felt their vote was going to accomplish little more than support more games of chicken in the House of Commons.

---

Actually, I disagree that the statement that the NDP "spent most of their energy trying to embarrass the Liberals." The fact is that the liberals embarrassed themselves with no help from the NDP. It was the liberals who did not show up to vote or voted with the conservatives. Folks are responsible for their "own actions" and that is what I teach my children.

If one remembers correctly, the NDP did reach out to the liberals on occasion, and attempt as you suggested "to make Parliament pass legislation that helped Canadians. " This included cleaning up the unclean air act of the conservatives. Initially, the liberals were reluctant partners and poo-pood it and not all that willing to "take a risk to make Parliament pass [progressive] legislation that helped Canadians." Also, the NDP worked with the Bloc and libs no pass "progressive" anti-scab legislation and it was the libs who ended up voting it down, acting unprogressively, and in ended up embarrassing themselves. The NDP didn't tie their hands behind their backs or set their agenda.
I will remind you that each party steers its own course in parliament. The NDP is not responsible for making or not making the liberals look good or bad, or rescue them or not rescue them from themselves.
Not once did the NDP vote against or for legislation that was for or against their stated principles or party policy.

What I did also see during the last parliament is Liberals focusing on "gotcha politics" (such as trying to make hay out of the in/out scandal, Mulroney/Schriber affair and so on) rather than focusing on programs that would be of interest to most Canadians.I would suggest it was this focus of the libs combined with not showing up that lent to an overall feeling of people not feeling good about Canadian democracy. Libs abandoned any claim that they considered Canadians more important than party politics and their winning.

Using your same analogy that was suggested with this statement:

quote:

---

the NDP, was rewarded in 2006 with more voters

---

[IMG][/IMG]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

You see frustrated mess, I see progressive politics as both pushing from outside and also pushing inside. I have been involved in both. Pushing from the outside only can move things so far, and it requires also some moving to the inside to ensure that what is being pushed outside happens inside.
Simply put, at the end of a day, there is a vote on something. Having enough folks inside - those elected - ends of up effecting that "vote."
Being a lone voice, for instance, inside, means one is just tilting at windmills, forever.

---

In Canadian politics, it will and has been argued that only the Liberals can deliver "progressive" change as they are electable. But NDPers will argue, often convincingly, that the Liberals will only introduce progressive change when all other options for retaining power have been eliminated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

No one disagrees with that. The question is from where, inside or out, does one get the best traction and leverage?

In Canadian politics, it will and has been argued that only the Liberals can deliver "progressive" change as they are electable. But NDPers will argue, often convincingly, that the Liberals will only introduce progressive change when all other options for retaining power have been eliminated.

And is legislative concessions really always good enough?

---

First, I believe times are a-changing and that myth of liberals can deliver "progressive" change has not happen in eons. As to the rest of the claim re: liberals have to be completing on the ropes and at a point of needing to retain power - well - they are not in power - enough said.

quote:

---

First, I believe times are a-changing and that myth of liberals can deliver "progressive" change has not happen in eons.

---

quote:

---

As to the rest of the claim re: liberals have to be completing on the ropes and at a point of needing to retain power - well - they are not in power - enough said.

---

quote:

---

As to your last question what else are you proposing or thinking here that is better? You must have some ideas as you see legislative concessions not good enough?

---

The question is how do we get to that table. And I will soon be once more under attack, but I think we must join, start, morph a movement founded on a defined set of principles and goals and pour energy into politicians who be represent those goals regardless of political affiliation.

For example, while I have little faith in the US Democratic Party, I do have tremendous respect for the voices of some people within that party. Here is one excellent example:

quote:

---

If we can commit more than $1 trillion to rescue bankers and insurance companies from their reckless and irresponsible behavior, we certainly should be investing in millions of good-paying jobs that rebuild our nation and improve its economy.

---

Senator Bernie Sanders

It shouldn't be necessary that we agree with every position of Sanders, or that he agree with every position advanced by us, but that we agree on the society we want, or at least, the society we don't want.

quote:

---

We have this tradition of creating non-partisan organizations that offer advice and criticism across a spectrum of issues. What we need is an organization that reaches across the spectrum and is boldly partisan but party neutral.

---

What "we" are you referring to? What kinds of non-partisan orgs are you talking about? Perhaps there is already an org out there that is serving that purpose, say CCPA, that you could funnel your $ and so on into.
Anyway, we don't have a state side system where individual senators and house reps have lots of individual power as we have a party system of govt. Unless you want Canada to go to a republic system of govt, and well, that would be a non-starter. Anyway, good luck, I'm not interested.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
while I have little faith in the US Democratic Party, I do have tremendous respect for the voices of some people within that party.

---

quote:

---

Well good luck. I wish you the best. I am not interested in putting energy into starting another movement

---

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

We have this tradition of creating non-partisan organizations that offer advice and criticism across a spectrum of issues. What we need is an organization that reaches across the spectrum and is boldly partisan but party neutral.

---

I support the sentiment, am also not sure what tradition you are referring to.

And party neutrality is not a necessity. The Labour Party has for many decades had [barely] arms length think tanks that kick up ideas for consderation by activists as to where and how they want to put the rubber to the road.

You'd probably like what came out of a similar small scale shop in the general orbit of the NDP- even if you disagreed with the particulars of what they put out.

quote:

---

I support the sentiment, am also not sure what tradition you are referring to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

The Council of Canadians which is officially non-partisan but whose members lean NDP, is but one example. I only throw that out there as an example for clarification. I think I muddied my own waters by even raising it but I was thinking in terms of a vehicle.

What I mean to say, is what is really required is a grassroots, populist movement guided by a set of principles and goals. I should have stopped there.

---

So while there is some interest with people envisioning 3 parties "uniting" I would suggest a faint hope clause only.

On other forums, the GPs are more vocal about their intent and goals. And there views on Welfare apparently.

From a GP discussion in another forum I am using.

quote:

---

Welfare is an undeserved handout motivated by guilt . The sources and uses of cash in politics are of public interest. I am not talking about the equity, or which party gets what. I do not care if you are talking about Canada, or timbuktu, aside from the fact that I am a Canadian, and I want to see Canada, the country where my children live, well served by our Parliamentary democracy. It would be nice if you could come up with a cohesive response to my points about politics being a marketplace for ideas.

As far as your fallacies about the GPC go, please continue to hold them. We started by seperating the real environmentalists from the NDP, and leaving the whack-job's to stew. Then we picked up a chunk of the Progressives from the old PC's. Next we got plenty of 'operators' from the Liberals. Every time you old line parties have a leadership race, or a drawing of knives, we get stronger at the grassroots level that you love so much. We are the only party that is growing, and has not stopped growing our grassroots for 6 years. Your' crowd are next, as we emphasise our fiscal and environmental conservatism and we'll show you what the grassroots can do!

---