Thanks for your perspective! I mean, obviously I'm a Liberal and can only give the Liberal perspective on why I don't tend to get along with New Democrats. The NDP perspective on why you don't tend to get along with Liberals is going to be different. Of course. Some of why New Democrats don't tend to get along with Liberals is that we're…
Thanks for your perspective! I mean, obviously I'm a Liberal and can only give the Liberal perspective on why I don't tend to get along with New Democrats. The NDP perspective on why you don't tend to get along with Liberals is going to be different. Of course. Some of why New Democrats don't tend to get along with Liberals is that we're arrogant jerks - granted.
One area where we agree is that, yes, the NDP has more of a "winner culture" in some provinces than others. The Manitoba NDP and the federal NDP are two different animals, obviously. 100% granted.
But other than that, your comment actually just underscores my point: Liberals want to win elections, New Democrats want to influence policy (and it doesn't actually happen). I'm sorry if "seven percent of the vote" seemed unusually dismissive, but when you say "and official opposition in four more", you're basically making the same point I was making. If you think "hey, back in McGuinty times, the NDP was a sad third-place party with no influence, but now things are a lot better - Doug Ford is premier, and we're a sad second-place party with no influence!", or if you think Jack Layton winning more seats under Stephen Harper's majority than under his minorities was a good thing, or whatever, that's exactly what I was talking about.
And, re: Ottawa...prime ministers institute policy. Justin Trudeau provided dental care and pharmacare. If the Rhinoceros Party or the Marxist-Leninist Party or Doug Henning's Natural Law Party also thought those things were good ideas, well, then, they should have won a national election. To a Liberal mind, the Dips never have been and never will be any more relevant than Doug Henning. You, of course, disagree. This hasn't been a generative discussion in terms of us changing each others' minds. But I think it illustrates exactly what I'm describing.
Thanks for your perspective! I mean, obviously I'm a Liberal and can only give the Liberal perspective on why I don't tend to get along with New Democrats. The NDP perspective on why you don't tend to get along with Liberals is going to be different. Of course. Some of why New Democrats don't tend to get along with Liberals is that we're arrogant jerks - granted.
One area where we agree is that, yes, the NDP has more of a "winner culture" in some provinces than others. The Manitoba NDP and the federal NDP are two different animals, obviously. 100% granted.
But other than that, your comment actually just underscores my point: Liberals want to win elections, New Democrats want to influence policy (and it doesn't actually happen). I'm sorry if "seven percent of the vote" seemed unusually dismissive, but when you say "and official opposition in four more", you're basically making the same point I was making. If you think "hey, back in McGuinty times, the NDP was a sad third-place party with no influence, but now things are a lot better - Doug Ford is premier, and we're a sad second-place party with no influence!", or if you think Jack Layton winning more seats under Stephen Harper's majority than under his minorities was a good thing, or whatever, that's exactly what I was talking about.
And, re: Ottawa...prime ministers institute policy. Justin Trudeau provided dental care and pharmacare. If the Rhinoceros Party or the Marxist-Leninist Party or Doug Henning's Natural Law Party also thought those things were good ideas, well, then, they should have won a national election. To a Liberal mind, the Dips never have been and never will be any more relevant than Doug Henning. You, of course, disagree. This hasn't been a generative discussion in terms of us changing each others' minds. But I think it illustrates exactly what I'm describing.