Would the Libs and NDP really join?

[Topaz]

Bob Rae is suggesting the Libs and the NDP join together and I coould see if work but maybe under a different Lib. leader. I don't think Iggy would go for it but if the Libs don't do something to strength their polls, we will have a Tory minority for awhile. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/bob-rae-hints-at-liberal-ndp-accord/article1582980/

[Argus]

Bob Rae is suggesting the Libs and the NDP join together and I coould see if work but maybe under a different Lib. leader. I don't think Iggy would go for it but if the Libs don't do something to strength their polls, we will have a Tory minority for awhile. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/bob-rae-hints-at-liberal-ndp-accord/article1582980/

The electorate is made of up several groups.

Group A will always vote NDP or Green. It's on the far Left.

Group B are slightly further right, will only occasionally vote NDP. Mostly, they're more comfortable with the Liberals.

Group C are centrists and will vote either Liberal or Conservative, depending on platforms and leaders.

Group D are further right, occasionally vote Liberal but mostly vote Conservative.

Gropu E are hard core Tory supporters.

Merging the Libs with the NDP will wind up with one larger party made up of Group A and B. But because the merger will force the Libs further to the left they will lose the majority of the centrists. The Tories will probably shift slightly left in order to be more open to them, and you'll wind up with a larger left wing party and a larger centre right wing party. Unless one of them made major gains in Quebec, however, it is unlikely either could get a majority, leaving the BQ as perpetual kingmakers.

[Alta4ever]

The electorate is made of up several groups.

Group A will always vote NDP or Green. It's on the far Left.

Group B are slightly further right, will only occasionally vote NDP. Mostly, they're more comfortable with the Liberals.

Group C are centrists and will vote either Liberal or Conservative, depending on platforms and leaders.

Group D are further right, occasionally vote Liberal but mostly vote Conservative.

Gropu E are hard core Tory supporters.

Merging the Libs with the NDP will wind up with one larger party made up of Group A and B. But because the merger will force the Libs further to the left they will lose the majority of the centrists. The Tories will probably shift slightly left in order to be more open to them, and you'll wind up with a larger left wing party and a larger centre right wing party. Unless one of them made major gains in Quebec, however, it is unlikely either could get a majority, leaving the BQ as perpetual kingmakers.

I was just having this discussion with someone on friday.

[madmax]

Good Analysis Argus.

Did I just say that

On another note, the only people talking about a merger are the lost liberals. As soon as the LPC find themselves the merger discussion will disappear.

Frankly, there is never any discussion amongst Federal NDP for a merger. And there is no support amongst the rank and file. NO Debates amongst any Provincial rank and files at any conventions discussiong a merger.

However, I would suggest that based on Argus analysis, that if the Liberals are intent on merging with someone, perhaps they should merge with the Conservatives.

It really makes more sense.

I can't see the Liberals backtracking on the HST.

Bob Rae has been going around campaigning against the NDP in various ridings. Not against the Conservatives. The Conservatives supported the HST and Bob Rae is going around Reinforcing the Conservative support for the Tax.

Considering that Layton just topped Harper as the strongest/popular leader, and we are splitting hairs as these numbers for either aren't super high, what is interesting is that Ignatieff is in the Cellar.

DEEP and BURIED.

As soon as the "NExT ONE" comes along to lead the Liberals into the promised land, the thoughts that Liberals have of grabbing the NDP apron will deminish.

The Liberals real truth is that they are losing ground and their leader sucks.

The NDP helped the Liberals a few years back and took alot of heat for it. The NDP should have let the LPC get wiped off the map. Regardless, the NDP were shit upon by Ignatieff the Pompous ass, who believed his own minions that he could defeat Harper and Canada was just dying for an election to annoited the appointed one.

Honestly, the NDP spend more time attacking themselves in their policy conferences and no time is spent worrying about the poor liberals. The NDP appear to be happy debating their ideas. Never is there an idea to merge with the Liberals. It just doesn't come up.

And those ideas are something the Liberals would never adopt and The Liberals have a problem with their own Ideas. I would think from an NDP perspective that merging leftwing/progressive ideas with a vacant lot doesn't really help the NDP.

But consider Bob Rae a half merger. He's a great speaker. Few can spread the BS better. Liberals can enjoy his parlimentary skills. Plus he gets the media buying into his BS too.

[Keepitsimple]

The electorate is made of up several groups.

Group A will always vote NDP or Green. It's on the far Left.

Group B are slightly further right, will only occasionally vote NDP. Mostly, they're more comfortable with the Liberals.

Group C are centrists and will vote either Liberal or Conservative, depending on platforms and leaders.

Group D are further right, occasionally vote Liberal but mostly vote Conservative.

Gropu E are hard core Tory supporters.

Merging the Libs with the NDP will wind up with one larger party made up of Group A and B. But because the merger will force the Libs further to the left they will lose the majority of the centrists. The Tories will probably shift slightly left in order to be more open to them, and you'll wind up with a larger left wing party and a larger centre right wing party. Unless one of them made major gains in Quebec, however, it is unlikely either could get a majority, leaving the BQ as perpetual kingmakers.

Bingo. Was just ready to post something similar. They gain something on the Left but lose much more from the center. While the Greens are mostly on the Left, if I was the Coalition, I wouldn't count on them to easily switch votes. I think the vast majority are making a statement and will want to continue doing that....after all, the Greens have never had any platform to speak of....so it's more of a protest party. We might even see some of the NDP vote head over to the Greens if the Libs and NDP unite. The Greens would then siphon votes away from the coalition....but still not win any/many seats. I'm sure Harper is saying to himself "Go ahead - make my day".

[BubberMiley]

I agree with Argus' assessment, but I think Group A and B together (with a touch of C) make an overwhelming majority and a virtually unbeatable party.

[Alta4ever]

I agree with Argus' assessment, but I think Group A and B together (with a touch of C) make an overwhelming majority and a virtually unbeatable party.

a merger wouldn't see them keep more then 37% there would be no majority.

[Jack Weber]

Bingo. Was just ready to post something similar. They gain something on the Left but lose much more from the center. While the Greens are mostly on the Left, if I was the Coalition, I wouldn't count on them to easily switch votes. I think the vast majority are making a statement and will want to continue doing that....after all, the Greens have never had any platform to speak of....so it's more of a protest party. We might even see some of the NDP vote head over to the Greens if the Libs and NDP unite. The Greens would then siphon votes away from the coalition....but still not win any/many seats. I'm sure Harper is saying to himself "Go ahead - make my day".

Of course,the other possibility is that a merger might get rid of the lefty nutters and moderate the left of centre message so that the Marxist twits either start their own party or go to the Greens(unlikely).In fact,it might just help in regaining the centre...

The fact of ther matter is that Madmax is right...This is all coming from the Liberals because they are a rudderless ship that is poised for a collapse.If nothing else,this tells me Ignatieff's days are truly numbered.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I take a different view. First of all I think there are as many right wing nuts as left wing nuts. Secondly, I believe the largest single group is the one that simply doesn't vote on a regular basis at all, and that group may vote or they may not depending on the issues at stake. Thirdly I will venture to say that the first group of political zealots that addresses the issues close to the hearts and minds of citizens is potentially the next government. It could be a left wing group, a right wing group, or any combination toward the centre that does it.

In my mind the key is the Canadian public as a whole, not merely the "voting" public. It is true that only voters can decide an election, but it is not just voters who voice opinions and sway public support. The media has long legs to stretch out and go for walks in the political park. The Liberals are stuck in low gear with their current leader, he seems afraid to force an election before he believes he can win a majority or at least wrestle power from the Conservatives, a weak kneed move that is becoming problematic for him. The current rumor mill was no doubt laid out as a fishing expedition to gauge sentiment which in my mind is an effort to lead in reverse by following the masses.

I have very nearly given up on Canadian politics, it seems full of wannabe's and cowards, not a viable leader on the horizon short of our useless Prime Minister. He will win the next election by default unless something changes. Change is a good thing, and we need to embrace it.

[Argus]

However, I would suggest that based on Argus analysis, that if the Liberals are intent on merging with someone, perhaps they should merge with the Conservatives.

It really makes more sense.

Yes and no. Within the Liberals, there is a right wing, a left wing, and a centrist faction. The right and centre would be relatively content to merge with the Tories - if the Tories moved further to the Left. But the Left wing would never buy it. If the united party moved far enough to the right to satisfy the tories, the Left wing would defect to the NDP. If the united party stayed far enough to the left to please the Liberal Left wing, then the right wing of the Conservative party would abandon them.

In all likelihood you'd see heavy defections from the Liberal Left to the NDP, strengthening them quite a bit, and much if not most of the Conservative right wing splitting away into a new party.

[Argus]

I agree with Argus' assessment, but I think Group A and B together (with a touch of C) make an overwhelming majority and a virtually unbeatable party.

My estimate is that no more than 25% of the Liberals are in group B, while perhaps 60-65% are in group C. The Liberal Right is not particularly strong maybe 10-15% of the party. I don't think A and B together would do the job, not without an awful lot of C going along, and that would require moderating the Leftward tilt more than A and B would likely tolerate.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Argus

[Machjo]

Bob Rae is suggesting the Libs and the NDP join together and I coould see if work but maybe under a different Lib. leader. I don't think Iggy would go for it but if the Libs don't do something to strength their polls, we will have a Tory minority for awhile. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/bob-rae-hints-at-liberal-ndp-accord/article1582980/

They can do what they want, but I'll still always vote candidate and not party, so such games really won't affect me much.

[bloodyminded]

Of course,the other possibility is that a merger might get rid of the lefty nutters and moderate the left of centre message so that the Marxist twits either start their own party or go to the Greens(unlikely).In fact,it might just help in regaining the centre...

Who are the "Marxist twits"; and what evidence is there for this charge?

Also, you can't "moderate the left of centre message"--because the left of centre is by definition already moderate.

[Jack Weber]

Who are the "Marxist twits"; and what evidence is there for this charge?

Also, you can't "moderate the left of centre message"--because the left of centre is by definition already moderate.

Fair enough on the moderate thing...

The Marxist twits are the folks you might see at Bedwetter Central(Rabble.ca) that bascially plug their noses and vote NDP,but really don't want to because they are'nt left enough.I guess what I meant by that is that many of the people in that party who are way out on the socially democratic left probably would take a hike if there ever was a Liberal/NDP merger.Rememeber,this almost happened a few years ago with that NPI business with the likes of Svend Robinson.

[bloodyminded]

Fair enough on the moderate thing...

The Marxist twits are the folks you might see at Bedwetter Central(Rabble.ca) that bascially plug their noses and vote NDP,but really don't want to because they are'nt left enough.I guess what I meant by that is that many of the people in that party who are way out on the socially democratic left probably would take a hike if there ever was a Liberal/NDP merger.Rememeber,this almost happened a few years ago with that NPI business with the likes of Svend Robinson.

I'm a bit ambivalent about your response (though not totally in disagreement): for one thing, I agree with you about Rabble...I visited them thanks to remarks I read here, and found a lot of pretty insufferable nonsense, and very quickly.

On the other hand, I too think the NDP aren't left enough.

I guess my point is that much of the criticism I hear about "the left" is devoid of information. The critics of "the left" rarely seem to have a clear idea of what they're talking about...or of the incontestable (in fact, obvious) fact that "the left" is actually multiple communities of people in stark disagreement with one another, even ideologically hostile.

They agree on gay marriage, and that George W. Bush wasn't too awesome, and that's about it. In other words, the only things they hold in common are views held by the majority of Canadians.

[Shwa]

I take a different view. First of all I think there are as many right wing nuts as left wing nuts. Secondly, I believe the largest single group is the one that simply doesn't vote on a regular basis at all, and that group may vote or they may not depending on the issues at stake. Thirdly I will venture to say that the first group of political zealots that addresses the issues close to the hearts and minds of citizens is potentially the next government. It could be a left wing group, a right wing group, or any combination toward the centre that does it.

This is interesting because I believe the non-voting block is quite large and could easily sway an election. However, would you venture a guess as to the political leanings of said block?

I have very nearly given up on Canadian politics, it seems full of wannabe's and cowards, not a viable leader on the horizon short of our useless Prime Minister.

Not true: Dominic Leblanc, whom I believe will restore credibility to the Liberal if party when they elect him leader. IF they elect him leader...

[williat]

This is interesting because I believe the non-voting block is quite large and could easily sway an election. However, would you venture a guess as to the political leanings of said block?

Not true: Dominic Leblanc, whom I believe will restore credibility to the Liberal if party when they elect him leader. IF they elect him leader...

I agree with you that the non-voting block is quite large, being a younger individual myself and being a part of a different aray of election processes I can certainly attest that many youth do not vote purely because they do not care. I think in Canada it has become difficult to draw lines between the parties because to most Canadians the terminology used can be confusing...I'm willing to bet that at my university most people wouldn't be able to give a decent description of what they thought Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Greens or anyone really thought for that matter. I'm not saying a lot of people know nothing about politics I'm just saying I think people care less. Perfect example among many youth and no doubt my close friends is that the Green Party merely wants marijuana legalized.

As for electing Leblanc, I think most of the voting public (usual folk that probably don't post on these forums, I'm thinking along the lines of my family) take a minor look at what each party stands for but mostly vote on leader. I think voting leader matters to some extent but I've always believed the whole there's no "I" in team, therefore I vote to more of a 50-50 split, I factor in who is in charge plus what I think of the party. Leblanc might be good for the Libs but I'm not sure anyone cares enough now adays to vote in a different party, most people are somewhat content with what the Conservatives have done. My father who voted Liberal for many years voted for the Conservatives in the last election and his reasoning was "they did a decent job, and thats all I ask"...seems like a simple concept really.

[Argus]

On the other hand, I too think the NDP aren't left enough.

Where do you think they need to move further to the left?

I don't believe the NDP have a prayer of ever getting into power until they throw off their idiotic class warfare rhetoric and mentality. Hating the rich and middle class isn't going to get you into power in a country where the middle class makes up the vast majority of voters.

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Argus

[Shwa]

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

Comparing WASP middle class votes for the NDP to Jews voting for the Nazi Party is a wee bit over the top don't you think?

Why would you - or someone like you - vote for a party that advocates primarily - according to you - for the poor and minorities? I dunno, because you care about the poor and minorities?

[Keepitsimple]

Where do you think they need to move further to the left?

I don't believe the NDP have a prayer of ever getting into power until they throw off their idiotic class warfare rhetoric and mentality. Hating the rich and middle class isn't going to get you into power in a country where the middle class makes up the vast majority of voters.

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

Especially when the "rich" is anyone making more than $60,000 a year and the "poor" include all those below the arbitrary Low Income Cutoff.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Jack Weber]

Where do you think they need to move further to the left?

I don't believe the NDP have a prayer of ever getting into power until they throw off their idiotic class warfare rhetoric and mentality. Hating the rich and middle class isn't going to get you into power in a country where the middle class makes up the vast majority of voters.

And as I've said before, why on earth would I, a middle aged, middle class, straight white male even consider voting for the NDP? Would you expect Jews to vote for the Nazi Party?

As long as the NDP sees the poor and minorities as its principal constituency it will only get a small percentage of votes.

A case of NAZI Tourette's?????

You just "Zig Zieglered" yourself....

[myata]

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties? How long could one walk with head firmly stuck in a 150 year old hole?

[Hydraboss]

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties? How long could one walk with head firmly stuck in a 150 year old hole?

And what would it take to finally realize that there ARE only two parties in Canada? Perhaps the NDP, Greens, etc, etc should finally wake up and denounce their party status and officially become what they really are: Lobby groups. Same with the Bloc. They might actually have some influence if they did that, and the rest of us can watch the only two real parties evenly split the airwaves come election time.

[myata]

And what would it take to finally realize that there ARE only two parties in Canada? Perhaps the NDP, Greens, etc, etc should finally wake up and denounce their party status and officially become what they really are: Lobby groups. Same with the Bloc. They might actually have some influence if they did that, and the rest of us can watch the only two real parties evenly split the airwaves come election time.

No, for all practical purposes there are only two parties in Canada: the government and the government in waiting. The rest is decoration (

meaningful representation

). E.g. Greens are a party with 10% of popular support but zero representation.

[williat]

Why would you - or someone like you - vote for a party that advocates primarily - according to you - for the poor and minorities? I dunno, because you care about the poor and minorities?

But couldn't this also show why the Liberals and Conservatives do better. Clearly people care about the poor and minorities in some way, but we are an individualist society, therefore the WASP would really have no reason (culturally) to vote NDP.

What would it take to finally figure out that a working democracy can (and probably should) have more than two (meaningfully represented) parties? How long could one walk with head firmly stuck in a 150 year old hole?

Couldn't agree more.