From yesterday's comments:
I told you the other day that the NDP were likely going to crush Iggy's pipe dream of an election this year in exchange for something from the Cons. I'm hearing that a referendum on PR may even be on the table.
When it comes to all things NDP, McClelland knows.
Sounds like a smart move...eliminates the possibility of a Conservative majority.
Sound like Iggy should have kept the coalition going eh?
Harper's done a good enough job of eliminating the possibility of a Con majority on his own.
The next step is eliminating the Harpocrite government which can only be done through an election.
Sound like Iggy should have kept the coalition going eh?Sounds like Iggy failed to understand the NDP will play politics as much as anyone else...more so in fact, when we see how Wasylycia-Leis served as a willing conduit (and I'm being charitable in assuming she wasn't an insensate dupe) for Zaccardelli's little scheme to bring down Paul Martin.
On specifics, this really isn't the time to focus on PR unless PR can be guaranteed for the next election (which is out of the question). I suspect McClelland was engaging in wishful thinking.
The NDP always love PR until it may cost them seats.
Take a look at BC's provincial election. In some seats the Greens are a challenge to the NDP. The vitrol on some boards I've read from NDPers about the Greens "taking their votes" has been quite forceful.
Then there's the current BC referendum on STV. BC NDP leader Carole James has indicated she opposed the last STV vote, and is biting her lips on this one. And the NO to STV campaign includes prominent NDPers like former MLA David Schreck.
I don't doubt that many at the grassroots genuinely believe in electoral reform. But for the bulk of their leadership, I believe it is mainly about electoral advantage and gaining seats. When they'll win they support it, when they'd lose support it's suddenly less about principle and they're lukewarm or opposed.
Such lack of principle, or pragmatism if you prefer, is common for all the major parties. Which is kind of the point.
But as for Robert's blue-sky theorizing, I'd ask you to consider this: could the Conservative Party ever form a majority government, or even a workable minority, under any of the likely new electoral systems?
If the answer is no, why would they ever agree to give the NDP a referendum just to buy a few more months of minority governing in a recession?
Probably right BCer, but the idea of a NDP/Tory "deal" seems quite plausible.
Oh, I'm sure Harper would give them something. Not a ER referendum, but something mutually agreeable. More than staying in power, anything that would elevate the NDP and potentially hamper the Liberals is to Harper's tactical and strategic benefit. It's been the CPC game-plan for years, just as Flanagan.
It will need to be something pretty substantial though for the NDP to survive the optics.
The NDP (anyone for that matter) trusts Harper - seems rather naive to me.
It's true that under PR there would never be another Con majority, but there will likely never be another major party with a majority under PR. Further down the road, it may even be a boon to the Cons as the left will become even more fragmented as the fringe groups will surely start popping up.
It's true that under PR there would never be another Con majority, but there will likely never be another major party with a majority under PR. Further down the road, it may even be a boon to the Cons as the left will become even more fragmented as the fringe groups will surely start popping upThis is true as every possible outcome is always "good for Conservatives."
A lone-party majority government, led by the Cons, may not be possible for the foreseeable future regardless of the electoral system. However, a coalition majority government with, say, the Cons and NDP in cahoots would be feasible under a PR system, in terms of # of seats. It's my guess that's why the Cons would consider it, because it would be to their advantage.
As for BCer's points, he's right on. The NDP, federally and provincially, and the other parties, are for PR only when it serves them.
Further down the road, it may even be a boon to the Cons as the left will become even more fragmented as the fringe groups will surely start popping up.Maybe so, Nate. But the Cons would fragment to. Look at the coalition of factions their party is in today. Is it really unreasonable to see a so-con party, a more red toryish party, etc?
And, sure, a majority would be tough for any one party. But its easy to see where a coalition could be built on that fractured left to get a governing majority. Who would be the Cons' dancing partners?
Promoting site game: http://votesmartbc.com/?q=games_raceafastferry
Post a Comment