Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

How About Merging NDP and Green?


Recommended Posts

How About Merging NDP and Green?​

By Exegesisme

What does new democracy mean? To my observation, NDP shows nothing new about democracy. NDP needs to make the meaning of its name real to Canadian people. New democracy, should not be just two words in the name of NDP, but means something our Canadian people hope for, our Canadian people want to work for, and so, our Canadian people want to vote for.

The actual meaning of the words new democracy, is something in my mind the people ask for in their future. If it is only something they ask for in their past, such thing certainly is not new. So, new democracy, first should have the ability to predict what Canadian people need in their future. In my knowledge, nothing is more important than environment in human future, so is in past, so is at now, and so is in future. However, only in future, the people realize this more clearly than any other time.

The demand to live in a good environment will become the first desire for all peoples, I believe so do Canadian people, then new democracy and green mean the same, and the two parties share the same value. Therefore, why not they do merge together? After merging, they need a new name, environmental humanism party. A new party represents a new philosophy, leads Canadian people live an environmental humanism life. What's your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you want a Republic check out the US presidential system (no thanks, I`ll take democracy instead any day. Actual democracy that is and we don`t really have that in Canada right now).

Democracy includes the meaning of ignoring minority, do you want to be ignored as you become one of minority?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a Republic check out the US presidential system

To be fair, there are at least 3 other systems to choose from (parliamentary republic, semi presidential republic, and parliamentary presidential republic - plus variations of each).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now we all watch from a distance....

Maybe you do. I'm going out tomorrow morning about 7:30 to do my bit to select the next Parliament, which will, one way or another, pick the next Government. I personally know the person most likely to be MP, and while I won't vote for him, he's a good man and I'll know he'll speak for my riding. I involve myself in the political process between elections, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you do. I'm going out tomorrow morning about 7:30 to do my bit to select the next Parliament, which will, one way or another, pick the next Government. I personally know the person most likely to be MP, and while I won't vote for him, he's a good man and I'll know he'll speak for my riding. I involve myself in the political process between elections, as well.

And now we all watch from a distance....

It's also worth noting that...it's kind of how representative democracy is supposed to work. We pick people to represent us and our interests. We don't always get our way, but that's the way things worth. It's also worth noting that we are free to engage when we want.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that...it's kind of how representative democracy is supposed to work. We pick people to represent us and our interests. We don't always get our way, but that's the way things worth. It's also worth noting that we are free to engage when we want.

Maybe you do. I'm going out tomorrow morning about 7:30 to do my bit to select the next Parliament, which will, one way or another, pick the next Government. I personally know the person most likely to be MP, and while I won't vote for him, he's a good man and I'll know he'll speak for my riding. I involve myself in the political process between elections, as well.

We got a government most people didn't want. A government that didn't even bother to try representing most of the people. You can believe that old "you get out of it what you put into it" crap but the reality speaks for itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We got a government most people didn't want. A government that didn't even bother to try representing most of the people. You can believe that old "you get out of it what you put into it" crap but the reality speaks for itself.

In a democracy, as in all other aspects of life, you're not going to get everything you want. If that's your expectation, then there isn't a political system that will ever deliver you that expectation.

And frankly, even for the Tories, the management end of things wasn't that bad. It was just that under Harper they became such insufferable arrogant jerks. Their time has come and gone, and hopefully, if the Liberals don't win a majority, we may at least have an electoral system that better reflects the public will. But even with a new system, compromises will happen, and we will all find ourselves feeling abandoned on one issue or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Hussain
      Can you ever imagine a country like Canada not having clean drinking water? In the 1970s the Canadain government promised to bring clean drinking water to all of Canada. Now in 2020 100% of cities of clean drinking water and 99% of rural areas have clean drinking water. the 1% which is missing is the Indigenous reserves. People living on the reserves don't have access to clean drinking water. They are poorly funded. Now the question of what would the Canadian government do if Toronto had no cleaning drinking water?
      BTW if you guys want to know more about me and my youtube channel check it out. I interview high profile politicians including Former PMs and MPs and Senators. 
       
    • By Scott Mayers
      If anyone has seen or heard what I've written or spoken, you'd know that I have an issue against Multiculturalism here in Canada since I disagree with ANY cultural type laws because they ALWAYS lead to some form of discrimination no matter how 'well-intentioned' it could be.
      All parties here support culture because those WITH culture always have more intense interest to be actively participant in politics, especially where their concerns are stronger. Those cultural groups who have the 'normal' power presently, prefer conservative politics because it preserves their cultural interests best. In contrast, those cultural groups who have less present power, can't compete in isolation and so require giving leniency towards other groups in similar 'weakness' if only to get the power through collective cultural coalitions.
      This does not mean that any of each of these cultural groups lacks 'conservative' interests. I've called the interest of those who most prefer some cultural interest WITH one's associative inheritances, "Nationalism", since this collectively covers the idea that they FAVOR some aspect of conserving one's ethnic beliefs, not simply culture per se. That is, with respect to culture, a Nationalist is one who favors at least SOME form of ethnic preservation in opposition to contemporary PROGRESSIVE cultures in which people voluntarily form or opt into without concern for any ethnic bias. As such, ALL parties of any political persuasion will inevitably have Nationalists among them.
      So what do we do if we believe we are 'free' to choose our culture but all parties in politics tend to be some force against this? If you are 'white', this accidental inheritance tends to be favored by our present conservatives where they are more predominantly 'white'. In contrast, the more non-conservative interests tends towards favoring those Nationalist groups who are most in opposition to those who ARE 'white', even if those parties do not necessarily intend this bias. This is because for the collective Nationalists disenfranchised, they lack the essential compassion to favor those they intrinsically believe are defaulted to be favored regardless of any potential flaw in this thinking. Any compassion threatens their own purposes where they interpret the nature of others to prefer the same KIND of Nationalistic thinking they intrinsically hold 'true' of themselves.
      It makes it difficult for those of us without Nationalistic interests but belong to some group of which those Nationalists of one side of the political spectrum interpret us to belong to.
      Given that I'm social democratic in principle, my preference is to vote NDP here in Saskatchewan in our upcoming election. But what I DO fear is that should this party become empowered, all the collective Nationalists among them will likely push for laws that will tend to posit special laws that empower their groups and in such a way that also prevents at least some groups from having the same privilege. Such laws are often proposed to only appear to FAVOR some in-group rather than to NEGATE some out-group. The problem is that this WILL occur in such a way that ALWAYS discriminates. Also, while it is relatively 'true' that at present our 'white' cultural Nationalists will continue to foster favor for those who are 'white', the ones who are white who are NOT Nationalists and NOT with power in fact, will be the only ones who lose to any Multicultural laws. That is, if one is white AND supports present liberalisms (NDP or Liberal party), those of us who do not belong to the Nationalists of most interest in these parties will become the sacrifices.
      It is this reasonable fear which makes those of us to be most confused at who to vote for. If we vote for what we believe, we are doomed as sacrificial lambs FOR those Nationalists in a majority there. And if we vote for the present conservative mono-cultural parties, or, as with the Liberals, a small subset of specific groups, we lose in that we don't get what we want, BUT we at least don't also get sacrificed or harmed the more 'white' we are and the more mono-culturally favorable parties favoring 'whites'.
      Conservatives are not necessarily biased in principle either by many. In fact, the ones who ARE of the present 'non-white' status who also favor the more capitalistic ideals of the right-wing parties ALSO have a similar problem but in reverse. This makes non-whites at present who are preferentially leaning to the right damned too regardless of how they vote. These particular non-whites though will more likely be at least more economically 'safe' as this is usually why ones tend to favor capitalistic economic liberal views with priority.
      Given these facts, the sacrifices of ones who are white and more liberal, will still be potentially penalized for voting more left-wing, in a worse way than those non-whites sacrificing who opt to favor non-liberal party views. What are we then supposed to do?
      I hope at least you could see why I'm so adamantly against Nationalism. But I believe that our NDP, while still likely to have more Nationalists against whites, the nature of multiple groups competing will have a better means to defeat the Nationalists of any parties. This is because those of us disenfranchised still have a potential to at least overcome the biases against us by exposing the logic I'm presenting here. I DO NOT believe in creating another posited group FOR some 'whiteness' as this only amplifies (or feedbacks) the very causes of Nationalism that threaten all of us in a renewed cycle of social abuses.
      So I believe our best chances are to still vote for NDP if we favor more liberal beliefs. But we also need to be clear to also vocalize this concern I present very LOUDLY! We need people of all backgrounds who believe in sincere PROGRESSIVE views, to make a stance against ANY form of Nationalisms and also in a way that doesn't foster FAVOR FOR ethnic preservation. "Ethnicity" is the combined connection of one's genetic as well as cultural inheritances. I am not against one choosing culture. But if one believes one's ethnicity entitles them to some kind of 'ownership' right in law because of this accidental factor, it IS Nationalism, even if they don't or won't acknowledge it.
      Let's fight to defeat Nationalistic views regardless of which political persuasion you hold based on economics. But, we have the best chance to be successful if we favor the NDP for those of us voting in the upcoming elections since right-wing parties have a natural tendency to foster Nationalism with more fervor. It is in the nature of "conservatives" to do whatever it takes to conserve the ethnicity of the majority to the extreme when those Nationalists among them are most empowered to make this happen. And don't be fooled by our Liberal party's apparent modesty to be partially kinder. Their favor is for a Catholic (Anglican or French-Roman) Nationalism of our founding established powers and their acceptance of other groups is limited to the ones which most enables them to keep power and distribute their past faults they 'own' among the general population instead. So they attempt to foster Nationalisms of targeted disenfranchised groups sufficient for their more 'liberal' ethnic, but biased interests.
      Thank you.
      Scott.
    • By ReeferMadness
      1. Elizabeth May is far and away the best parliamentarian of any of the party leaders. She is the least partisan, the most reasonable, the most willing to work with other parties and has the most integrity.
      2. Their platform is most aligned with my values as measured by the vote compass website.
      3. They are the only party that makes environmental issues a priority, not just a matter of preference when they happen not to conflict with other party favorite issues.
      4. They were the first (or only) party to get behind things that are so blindingly obvious, they should have been done years ago, including proportional representation, marijuana legalization and guaranteed minimum income.
      5. In my riding, the Conservative party candidate has no chance of winning so I don't have to worry about vote splitting.
    • By kraychik
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/alberta-oil-companies-hemorrhage-cash-after-ndp-tax-hike/
      So the "environmentalist" (i.e. "pro-science" Luddites) NDP seizes control in Alberta due to faux conservative prior leadership, and now massive profits have turned into massive losses. Well, at least now Alberta's NDP has an extra billion dollars laying around with which to purchase votes - which is what it's all about.
    • By cybercoma
      Harper and Trudeau are similar in a great many ways. Trudeau supporting bill C-51 just one example of that. The Liberal leader has also said he has no interest in joining a coalition with the NDP. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voiced concern about the "socialist" NDP forming government. I predict that an NDP win in the next election will lead to the Tories and Grits seriously considering a coalition to keep Canada from having a "socialist" government. If not a coalition, they would certainly force an election in a minority situation. Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Personally, I think either outcome would be disastrous and lead to a subsequent NDP majority, but I'm not as sure about that as I am the possibility of a Liberal/Conservative coalition. What do you guys think?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...