"The NDP is sick," shrieks Cherniak from his hospital pallet:
Why does the NDP exist? What is their purpose in Canadian politics? Should a political party be celebrating because they won less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons? Should a political party be kicking out lifelong members because they do not adhere to party policy?
1) To promote a corruption-free, patronage-free, social-democratic agenda in Canadian politics. 2) See (1). 3) 29 seats is not insignificant. Even the old Progressive Conservative party was 27 seats short of that once upon a time.
Should a political party be celebrating because the group most opposed to their ideology is now in government?
It isn't. It's celebrating the downfall of the most sleazy, corrupt and values-free party in Canadian history. Jason Cherniak's party. I'm not making this up.
Should a political party be kicking out lifelong members because they do not adhere to party policy?
What, are we talking Carolyn Parrish here? Or is Cherniak being hypocritical? Nah...you think?
What is the purpose of the NDP?
Asked and answered.
I will admit that I am personally biased on this.
I never would have guessed.
Some readers might have noted that I have no NDP bloggers on my link list. This is not because there are no good NDP bloggers. It is because I do not tend to have much time for the NDP. I have never liked the party, but my real problems began with the 2004 election. I contacted the Young NDP and tried to set up a non-partisan youth registration campaign. The response was that my timing was "convenient" and that they were not interested.
Imagine that. They didn’t want to work with Cherniak? But who would, except other Liberal brown-nosers?
I thought it was convenient because there was an election - I still do not know what the heck they meant. Did they really think that the Young Liberal goal was to hurt the NDP by registering new voters? That is just one small example.
Overall I just find the NDP to be a waste of a political movement.
But it's the Liberals who are circling the bowl.
The difference between the party and its members is actually a perfect example of the problem. I know a lot of people who vote or consider voting for the NDP. They are mostly good, idealistic people who are trying to improve the world. The problem is that they have been siphonned [sic] off from the rest of politics.
Anyone know WTF Cherniak is blathering on about here?
They vote for a party that can never win because some of that party's policies have become policy over time.
Funny how "Cherniak logic" [tm] doesn’t seem to apply to the NDP governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and the Yukon.
They have gone for the argument that somehow losing on principle is more important than truly obtaining the opportunity to change Canada. That used to be the clarion call of the Reform Party.
Better "losing on principle" than winning with none.
As a blue-Liberal, I am somewhat torn on this. The NDP also includes a lot of people who I prefer to have on the outskirts of the real political debate. They are the people who throw rocks at police, take over condemned houses and support some "right" of suicide bombers to kill innocent Israelis. If all of these nut jobs are held together in one insignificant party, then the Liberal Party might be stronger in the long-run.
When in doubt, smear. Typical Liberal. Newsflash, Jason: nothing can make that cesspool called the "Liberal Party" stronger, in smell or in any other way.
The problem is that these extremists are still pulling away too many good people. The problem is that as much as the NDP cannot win, it is not an "insignificant' party. It is party [sic] that took just enough anti-Conservative votes to ensure that the Conservatives would win in January. It is the party that put forward a campaign based on little other than a game-show host as leader.
When in doubt, smear. When you have no argument, attack a person’s physical appearance and style. I will not mention here that tired old Liberal leader with the above-his-level-of-competence demeanour. I'm above that sort of thing.
It is the party that refused to work with Young Liberals in 2004 on a non-partisan youth registration campaign.
Liberals are simply never "non-partisan." There’s no money in it.
The NDP response to this last election has finally put me over the top. The joyous reacting to less than 10% of the seats was embarrassing.
What should they do--go into mourning? The NDP gained seats. Guess which party didn’t? Want some sugar with those sour grapes?
The positive reaction to a Conservative government was unprincipled.
Listening to a Liberal talk about "principle" is embarassing. But in any case, the positive reaction to the turfing of a profoundly corrupt spoils-distribution machine was entirely principled.
Now, the Stalinistic removal of a life-long member of the party for advocating strategic voting has proven that the extremists really are in charge.
Hargrove was removed through a democratic procedure for actively campaigning for another party during an election campaign. Go read the NDP constitution, prepare some counter-spin about Carolyn Parrish and get back to me.
(“Stalinistic?” Is Cherniak really this blitheringly stupid? Could be.)
I do not want the NDP to merge with the Liberals because the NDP has too many extremists who I would rather not work with.
At last--a point of agreement. I do not want such a merger either. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Although, in the case of the Liberal party, it’s hard to find the dogs.
I do, however, think it is time for reasonable NDP supporters to reconsider what their political goal is.
No, thanks. Patronage, corruption and power for its own sake don’t appeal to us. Sorry.
There are certainly enough of them to help us Liberals mend some of our worst ways.
Cherniak's party is simply beyond repair. You can't put a shine on excrement.