06.10.2012 09:10 PM

As I was saying

1.  Mulcair was the wrong choice.

2.  Rae hasn’t moved the Liberal Party ahead, and he won’t.

3.  Until progressives unite, conservatives will continue to win.

Will anyone listen? Of course not.  Don’t be ridiculous.

30 Comments

  1. I`m afeared it will take til the Libs are down to their last two members left in the House, having learned nothing from past events.

    • Philip says:

      The good thing is that it will be two more members than the Conservative Party will field. Let’s ask Dean del Mastro just how election financing really works, shall we? Your little Conservative Party sold the high ground a long, long time ago.

  2. Jason Hickman says:

    When I click on the link I get “Nothing was found”. I think your link is broken – unless you’re making a subtle point at Rae’s expense 😉

  3. Dan says:

    Well if the Liberal platform is against regulating the oil sands and against raising taxes on the wealthy… progressives will still unite. It will just be from the bottom up, under the NDP banner. In fact, the polls are showing that right now.

    I understand that the Liberal party has given up on a formal merger. But driving progressives away just seems like bad strategy. But who knows, maybe Alison Redford’s Reform-lite is the new “center” that has the Liberals excited.

  4. Mulletaur says:

    Unless a new party springs up that can attract supporters from both, what you are talking about the way things are right now is a takeover of the Liberal Party of Canada by the NDP. Is that what you want ? Because there is no other alternative the way things stand at present. And constantly promoting merger destroys what little is left of the Liberal brand – wherever it may be found.

    • Warren says:

      Fine. Then by all means keep doing what progressives are doing.

      It’s so effective, after all!

      • Mulletaur says:

        It’s utterly ineffective, but the Harper Conservative government hasn’t run its course yet. And the option of creating a completely new party to attract progressives and get around the problem of who dominates whom after a merger is open to all.

      • Dan says:

        Not that I expect you to do this… but the NDP is polling in first place currently. Of course, polls can change (TM). But they have a legit shot.

        You (among other high ranking Liberals) basically endorsed the PCs to take out Wildrose, and it worked. Think of how many Liberals would vote NDP if high ranking members of the party said strategic support for the NDP was the best practical method to beat Harper. If your top priority is knocking off the Conservatives with a real alternative, there’s no reason you shouldn’t just endorse Mulcair and the NDP.

        But again, I don’t think your top priority is to beat the Conservatives.

      • !o! says:

        Harper’s logic was to unite the right. This lead to government, yes, but it also necessitated dictatorial control over the party to prevent fractures from shattering it into pieces. We’re now seeing the results of this as the cabinet and inner circle are the only players in the party itself, as democracy is being dismantled in a partisan effort to keep the party in power. Why do we want to propagate this logic? Will uniting the progressive parties fare any better, or will we end up with a similarly disparate merger party that can’t satisfy the party itself and further serves to homogenize our politics further and divorce politics from the average person.

        Just a few weeks ago you posted about the rise of the independent… This perspective seems to be completely contrary to this, unless I’m missing something, which is also entirely possible.

      • william smith says:

        So tell us Warren what will the policies of this “merged” party be, your urgings have only concentrated on the idea not the substance, If all you can do is urge it that is not enough we want to know what it will stand for, after just how much more Martin/Manley economics can we take in this new paradise?

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Warren, I”m sure you are already aware, but I do believe Harper has been planning the destruction of the LIberal Party for some time now. Everything he’s done in his political life was for this goal, as he thinks the best option for the country is to have two major parties to vote for. One on the left, and one on the right.

        The question is, how many of the remaining Liberal voters will go NDP, and how many will go conservative.

        Frankly, the Liberal Leadership since 2003…..has walked right into Harper’s trap.

  5. Sean says:

    At the end of the day it is all about Mulcair and Rae saving face… not about what the voters want, not about making a *difference* and certainly not about what is best for Canada.

  6. VH says:

    Merging doesn’t actually work in this instance, Warren.

    Point #3 is only true implicitly if both Liberals or NDPers have no compelling ideas to sell to voters.
    To me, that’s what needs to be worked on. As far as I can tell, there are literally no economic ideas in the LPC at this point in time.

    How does anybody who’s a card carrying LPC expect this to end other than “badly”?

    If you don’t have a message then #3 is true and by all means merge…. but it’s still going to end badly because you’re implicitly saying that both parties have no good ideas to sell to the public and that they need to hold their voters captive by eliminating choice.

    A party led by poor politicians who lack a sustainable idea and vision isn’t going to win anything, Warren.

  7. Swervin' Merv says:

    A wise one once cautioned:

    Show us not the aim without the way,
    for ends and means on earth are so entangled
    that changing one you change the other too;
    each different path brings other ends in view.

  8. kitt says:

    And conservatives are thinking of starting a new conservative party without Harper and his reformatories… :>

    Let’s not forget how well the polls worked during the Alberta provincial election :)))

  9. JamesHalifax says:

    Suppose the NDP and the remaining Liberals do unite?

    Would we get a party with the current Liberal Party’s reputation for corruption (ala Sponsorship, etc.) and the NPD’s reputation for economic illiteracy?

    Unfortunately, I will not be re-joining my former Party if they get into bed with someone like Mulcair. Other former Liberals will no doubt feel the same way and do as I have done. Find an alternative.

    • Jordan says:

      Liberals will rally behind Rae but not Mulcair?

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Hopefully, anyone in any party will rally behind the IDEAS……

        The NDP policies are simply ill-thought out, and the Liberals haven’t been shown to possess any.

        That’s the problem. If there is a merger, you get the NDP policy, and Mulcair as leader.

  10. ted says:

    I’m not sure a merger won’t give the CPC an extra 3 or 5% of the Liberal vote needed to win repeatedly or force the far left of the NDP already feeling marginalized to bolt for a new party. I do not like the push to marginalize the fringes on either side by creating a mushy center party in what seems to be an attempt to create a 2 party system. More ideas and opinions linked with real debate (unlike what we normally get) is the best situtation for good policy, while I’d support strategic cooperation to defeat the Conservatives it has to be with the understanding that the end result is electoral reform and PR.(NOT AV) The LIbs recent move to support AV torpedos any real cooperation to fix the voting system, reward diversity and ensure a healthy multi party sytem. I’m actually sad to say this makes the Liberals part of the problem not the answer.

    Also problematic is that Mulcair looks like a man dent on liberal destruction rather than cooperation, I don’t believe a merger is even possible under him. Too bad Cullen did not win.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      I think Harper is perfectly happy the NDP are doing as well as they are, as Harper knows that when the time comes, many of the previous folks who supported the Liberals will vote Conservative just to keep Mulcair out of the PM’s chair. We still have three long years ahead…and I’m sure Mulcair will show his true colours well before then.

  11. Chris says:

    A Liberal-NDP merger is clearly essential. It may take some time before people realize this, however. I fear many will need to exhaust all of the alternatives before doing what is wise and necessary.

  12. JamesHalifax says:

    Chris, I would say the Liberals and the Conservatives are more closely aligned than the NDP and the Liberals; particularly when you consider the NDP of today.

    The LIberals and the Conservatives are more pragmatist…and today’s NDP are more statist/marxist….though their current leader is less so than their MP’s or voters. Based upon what I hear about the NDP…they hate the Liberals even more than Harper does….especially now that they don’t consider they need them.

    Why do you think Mulcair is trying to divide the country between Quebec-Ontario…and everyone else West? He knows that’s where the most votes are.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      The Cons are not pragmatists. They are ideological. So too is the NDP.

      All, respectfully sumitted, in my humble opinion.

  13. Tim says:

    Just a quick question with the greatest of respect: if Mulcair, who, honeymoon or not, has led the NDP to first place nationally for the first time in the movement`s history and held above 50% polling in Quebec through tumultuous times there, was the “wrong choice” for New Democracts, who do you suggest was the “right choice” at the convention?

    Cullen? Nash? Topp? Really?

    Just doesn’t seem to make basic intellectual sense, let alone political sense. Mulcair is doing better than New Democrats could even vaguely fantasize for much of our history.

    Agree that Rae is damaged goods, though. Disagree that Justin is as impressive as you seem to allude. Agree wholeheartedly on progressive unity in general, but is the Liberal Party “progressive” when it’s defined by extreme right-wingers like Zach Paikin, Rob Silver and Bertschi? Tough call, bro.

    Anyway, a response would clarify.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Zach Paikin is an extreme right – winger?

      Where the hell did you get that from?

      What did Zach do to make you think that of him? Did he actually manage to balance his cheque book or something?

  14. Philip says:

    Rae has done a great job as interim party leader, doing pretty much everything that needed to be done after the pounding we took in 2011. That said; the job of full time party leader requires a different metric and higher expectations, which for all he has done, I am convinced Rae can’t meet. We need to look a couple of election cycles down the road, there is no easy way out for us. Let Rae mount his leadership bid, if he wants. Let take the hits for going back on his word and then put it to the membership. I don’t feel there is a big appetite for Rae at this point.

  15. JamesHalifax says:

    Yeah….Rae did such a great job he kept you in third place.

    Way to go Bob!!!!

    I can hear the Liberal Leadership Convention now.

    Bob….bob…Bob….
    Bob………bob….bob….bob……

    We’re number 3….We’re number 3…..We’re number 3………

    Don’t say you weren’t warned. WK’s been pointing this out for quite some time now……why don’t you listen?

    (As a Conservative…please keep it up)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*