Running Split

It's quite obvious that the "progressive" movement is fractured. There are parties, peoples, and projects - each independent, and weaker for it. They are weaker, at least, in terms of potential electoral support. For example, the Green Party may manage to bring in as much as 5% of the vote. The Canadian Action Party pulled in roughly 27,000 votes last election. We know that people like David Orchard and Joe Clark have clout that could be added to any action they support. In crunching some theoretical numbers the other day, I arrived at a percentage that was quite impressive. I thought, value added, there could be as much as 10% out there for a coalition of progressive parties, persons, and groups. David Orchard had a very strong following from within the old PC party. Joe Clark, too, had his backers. Lets not forget all those who read Mel Hurtig's work, but don't have a real option as of yet. Then there's the new Progressive Canadian Party, alienated Liberals, and a host of other landless established powers. When Mel Hurtig suggests that the best group to tap is the non-voting crowd, I agree. However, the untamed potential voter operates under the assumption, often, that their vote doesn't count. There are those who agree with CAP and the Green Party that fail to vote, not seeing the impetus for real change. I think few would disagree when I suggest that the above groups, merged, could be seen as a strong enough base to grow into a real political option. This is all very obvious, though. Why hasn't it happened? Do these groups vary so wildly in their beliefs? Could not the economic policy of the Canadian Action Party be merged with the environmental policy of the Green Party? Could David Orchard not throw his weight behind that union? That would a force to be reckoned with, even without the others backing it. It seems feasible. But there's some obstruction - some cog in the gears of unity. Perhaps it is even appropriate. It may be that the conflict is not with name changes, but with the very ideals of the groups coming into conflict. In either case, I hope that the CNF can deliver an answer to this pressing issue. We have sent out our first letters asking for the three top priorities of each group. We have asked that they list the perceived problems with a merger, and, as appropriate, the expected support they will have coming out of this election. These questions answered, we will be returning all parties with the list of key policies they gave us. They shall strike from the list those policies incompatible with their own, and return the list to the CNF. When compiled and properly assimilated, we will publish a report answering the very questions asked here. We will be able to list the groups that could work together, and the reason why the others couldn't. This unbiased report should shed some light on the future options open to progressives as well as providing something of a divining rod for those who don't yet know where to quench their thirst for a better Canada. Info on Project 2004 can be found at www.freenation.ca (follow the banner)