Tomorrow Canadians may elect "a caucus of Kuciniches and Sanderses"

NOTE: Very important developments that can have a major impact on the United States as well.

Canadian friends invited to post here and everyone who's excited about this, PLEASE KICK.


Tomorrow, May 2nd is the Canadian election:

Most likely the genuinely socialist third-party NDP led by Jack Layton will become the largest opposition party, and the long-established Liberals under the neocon clone Ignatieff will be reduced to a small third party. That alone would constitute one of the most dramatic tectonic shifts in Canadian electoral history.

However, now that the NDP has made a historic breakthrough to second place in the polls, voters are coalescing around it as the only viable alternative to the Conservatives under the Canadian Bush, Stephen Harper, whose goals include the dismantling of the Canadian public health care system that we here can only envy.

Canada like us is saddled with a first-past the post system, so a mere plurality of 35 or 40 percent can in some scenarios capture a majority of the parliament. Based on today's poll, less of a shift is required to achieve a plurality for the NDP than would be required to achieve the sought-after Conservative majority.

Says a Canadian friend:

"The federal NDP have had influence in minority parliaments, but have never been this close to governing, and so have attracted a fairly quixotic brand of politician; moreso than some of its provincial counterparts. It's more like a caucus of Kuciniches and Sanders."



Layton's political philosophy, from 2003:





The NDP has always been against the NATO intervention in Afghanistan, and is very much "troops home now." (See Urban Dictionary entry, "Taliban Jack.")
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taliban%20Jack



With regard to Libya, the NDP joined a parliamentary consensus for a no-fly zone. Though with some caveats:





Jack Layton on the record -- VIDEOS:


Opposition to tar sands oil exploitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-UZ6CFDfgU&feature=player_embedded


Renegotiating NAFTA! Fair and sustainable trade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs&feature=player_embedded


Globalization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmem49ohsY8&feature=player_embedded




Global War On Terror:





Go NDP!

.

Well, more accurately, I'll be voting NDP.

I'm trying to spread the word around; frankly, Harper is taking credit for stuff that he would have killed if he could have. He tried to change our banking system to the US system; he couldn't, because he didn't have a majority. He once compared our banking system to the 'worst of Northern European socialist banking.' But we survived the Big Crash in relatively stable and safe condition. NOW, of course, he's taking credit for the stable banking and econmic systems.

But the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan alone have made him minority leader, and that's frustrating. Two thirds of the country leans left; that one-third that lean to the right can swing the whole thing the wrong way. By the way, it's actually not the West that swings the thing right; British Columbia is a mostly left province too. As in the US, the centre of the country is the right.

Me too. :hi:
Mon premier vote NPD.
My first vote NDP.

:fistbump:

on this side of the border. I'm fed up with thirty years of conservative rule.

It will be interesting to see how the people of Canada decide the type of political future they want for themselves. Go Jack!

Canadian system. Can the NDP form a coalition with Labour and use that as a basis for a GOVERNING coalition? Or do they have to win a plurality and be the "winning" party?

Regardless, here's to a more socialist Canada. It can't help, but influence the US in a positive way.

Thus 40 percent can win a majority of seats. If no party wins a majority of seats, the plurality party will attempt to make a coalition with one or more of the other parties in parliament. Any combination that adds up to a majority can form a government, even against the plurality party. However, the Liberals' Ignatieff has pledged no coalition with NDP if the Conservatives have the plurality. Harper currently runs a minority government. If the Liberals, once a perpetual governing party, should end up polling very low, it's possible Ignatieff will be sent on his way and there's no telling what the rump party would then do.

Is there that much difference between them? Or is that a "scare the voters into voting for us" move?

declare coalitions, the very essence of democracy, into an apocalyptic threat to democracy. Apparently a one-party state with 38-percent support is democratic but a coalition with 55-percent support is either a dictatorship of minorities or the signal for anarchy and terror in the streets, ignorance is strength, war is peace, love is hate, etc.

There's been a last minute smear effort, the revelation that Layton may have been present at a massage parlor... when it was raided... 15 years ago,* though he wasn't arrested or named at the time. Some pretty lame stuff. Meanwhile Harper's wife is rumored to have left him and to be living in a hotel with a female Mountie. Anyway, this nonsense has had no effect.

* 15 years ago? That would have been BEFORE Clinton's blowjob!

massage there before he went.

I hope that 'desparate' resort to try to smear Jack will backfire on the PTB tomorrow night.

obviously that's the basis for choosing the government of Canada!

you know... the.... Religous.... Reformerzzzzz, between Man. and BC.... you know the gang... Right? They have a LOT of hypocrit "Relatives" all across Ont. (and Que. too), I mean, not that much of 'em in the large cities, but... You know... Like "In The Country" (side)...

The conservative scare campaign convinced the public that it was illegitimate

Harper's entire campaign has focused on "the evil left will form an undemocratic coalition!" to the point where they've been stating one was already in place on the day the government fell.

The NDP getting substantial enough to hold nearly as many seats as the Liberals is very unusual here; the other parties are used to treating the NDP as largely irrelevant.

:hi:

From where I stand and from my observation I am not that impressed with Ignatieff and hopefully if he does lose, he will step aside as Liberal leader. I would love to see a Canada that swings to the left. I wonder how the military/industrial complex here would react to that?

John

I swear, it really gives the lie to the whole "Were number 1!" chant.

When he or she goes to the voting booth. They are a multiparty democracy. The way the America should be in my opinion. For a country that prides itself on " freedom of choice" our political choices SUCK!


John

SOmeone trapped in a blue district in Alberta is usually pretty screwed. Things are pretty good in my neck of the woods, though; provincial elections are often pretty tight three-way races with narrow margins in most of the local ridings. I like seeing the tangible proof that yes, a handful of votes matters.

95% of all ridings are between two parties, with the third and fourth parties distantly behind. This actually creates a huge problem for the left, since candidates who have no chance of winning suck votes from the leftist candidate who does. Imagine for a minute if suddenly the American green party started sucking 10-20% of the dem vote from every single congressional district.

Watch them polls.

NDP Liberal make up the majority in most areas but find themselves in 2nd and 3rd place allowing Cons (Bush's lapdogs) to slide in....over 53% of typical Liberal voters and about a 1/3 of NDP voters are claiming to strategically vote this time to stop a Con majority....please see http://catch22campaign.ca/ for more information.....We must stop Harper!

and sorry, the Liberals under Ignatieff deserve to be cut down to small-party status.

I'm sooooo jealous.
:hi:

tommorow

Quebec is the big player here. The Bloc is almost going to be obliterated. Quebecers love Layton. And he's even gained in urban ridings where NDP is usuallly a distant 3rd.

Add to that the lacklustre Liberal campaign and the backlash against Harper - and you've got the NDP in second place.

That's my prediction - and I'm sticking to it.

Centrism SUCKS!



"By their WORKS you will know them."

That would be a dream government! And should definitely have an effect on the U.S.

I never understood how Harper made it to where he got in Canada. It didn't seem like the Canadian people would tolerate such a Bush-like politician.

Anyhow, thanks for some good news for a change.

could get that close to being elected. Here, it is not even a possibility since the country has swung so far to the right because of the politics of fear.

But it will be really good news if they win! :-)

Edited to say, they make so much sense. Eg, the comments about the faux War on Terror and pointing out that more people are dying of aids and from other illnesses (here from lack of Health Care) than any terror threat can come close to.

I have always been surprised that Canada bought into the Bush garbage. Hopefully this will begin a return to sanity.

co-sponsored the resolution calling for a no-fly zone.

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011) (PDF)

see the wisdom of the estimable Mr. Layton and vote for the NDP in droves!

NDP used to be like way way down there in votes.

Or at least the small "s" socialists. :)

This campaign has not been the Liberals' or Bloc's finest moment, and at least in some places the NDP's been running a campaign that isn't as entirely attack-based as the other parties.

Attack ads are very effective.
If they didn't use them, then what did they do?

The reason I ask is if we can identify what worked in Canada, maybe we can try it here.

Appealing to patriotism and the "we are in this thing together" philosophy. Can't see if it's working because the assinine Canadian election laws make it illegal to broadcast election results in areas where the polls are still open. This means here in BC, the election will be pretty much over by the time the polls close and the news agencies come on line.

This tend towards campaigns where the entire strategy is attack, attack, attack is relatively new here, the last decade or so, and is pretty disliked by a lot of the voters. If three of the parties are doing nothing but mudslinging and one's acting like an adult, that sort of thing will catch on.

I actually planned to vote for whoever ran the least negative campaign because I'd lost patience with crap like that. A lot of the candidates wouldn't be able to tell you what they'd do without attacking the other parties; if they give the impression that they only exist in terms of their opposition to the other guy, which a lot of people have, it doesn't do much for confidence. It also largely decided the provincial election in my province; the conservatives were too attacky, and it finally pushed voters against them when they started openly defaming their opponents in the debates.

I'll vote for the politest one!

That's all very foreign. It's an extra terrestrial concept to us.

Fundamentally, it's that Canada has a winner-take-all system, one winner by plurality per district, so that 60-plus percent can vote for parties to the left of the conservatives, and find they are disenfranchised altogether by a majority of seats for the 38 percent.