Would the Libs and NDP really join?

[PIK]

Does anybody not see what bob rae is all about ,he is a slimy backstabbing rodent, look at his past histories with trying to bring down goverments and not at the ballot box. He wants power and wants it given to him, it must be hard on iggy having this vulture hanging around him and trying to get him defeated. I think bob would love a election right now just to get rid of iggy.

Edited June 4, 2010 by PIK

[Jack Weber]

Does anybody not see what bob rae is all about ,he is a slimy backstabbing rodent, look at his past histories with trying to bring down goverments and not at the ballot box. He wants power and wants it given to him, it must be hard on iggy having this vulture hanging around him and trying to get him defeated. I think bob would love a election right now just to get rid of iggy.

Specifically with Rae?

I agree...He's always wanted to fold the NDP into the Liberal Party...

[wyly]

No matter what the differences are between the "progressive" parties, there is something more at stake here. Whatever it takes, we gotta get rid of the regressive party that's creating a country I no longer recognize. Whether it's strategic voting, coalitions, or formal agreements, the parties have to forget their petty differences. Otherwise we will have the CRAP Coalition coming up the middle with minority rule. 2/3 of us are progressive. We need to take our country back before it's too late.

For those who may have not seen this, I took it from that Spectre guy. It was a google news thingy, so don't come after me. But this is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. Read to the Layton part...

"In one respect, the results of an Angus Reid poll to be released on Monday are not surprising — the Conservatives are at 35 per cent, the Liberals at 27 and the NDP are at 19 per cent; in Quebec, the Bloc leads with 37 per cent.

However, the poll also asked Canadians how they would vote if the Liberals and NDP went to the polls offering Canadians a coalition government, and here things get interesting.

According to the results published in Monday’s edition of La Presse, the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper would defeat a coalition led by Michael Ignatieff 40-34 per cent.

With Bob Rae as Liberal leader, the coalition and Conservatives would be tied.

However, if the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.

The reason: Jack Layton is well-liked by Quebecers but they don’t vote for the NDP because they see no chance of the party forming government; with the prospect of Mr. Layton in the prime minister’s office, 44 per cent of Quebecers would vote NDP — 10 per cent more than the Bloc.

The pollster says that the question was only theoretical, and was only asked because of the results of the British election and because of Jean Chrétien’s statement on CBC last week that if a coalition is doable they parties should do it. And it’s hard to believe that these numbers would last through a campaign, though it’s worth noting that the poll has Mr. Layton as the most popular of the federal leaders (30 per cent to Harper’s 29). But it sure would make for an interesting election, and, in the nearer term, it will be interesting to see how the Liberals deal with the results of the survey. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/prime-minister-layton/article1586238/

coalitions are formed after elections not before so the question asked by the pollster becomes irrelevant...

[Wild Bill]

Thats funny WildBill. So much silly talk in this thread coming from all sides.

Any form of government is "Wealth Redistribution" as is any form of trade and commerce. Who benefits from the creation of laws, distribution and wealth is the focus of all political parties and it was the Socialists of the past who stabilized the excesses of rampant capitalism.

Those who support tax shifting have chosen a different form of distribution. The old model that made those who benefit the most from our resources pay a greater share of taxation has been changed to allow those who work more in society to pay the greater share of taxation.

This is not the NDP system of wealth redistribution but one supported by Conservatives and Liberals in back to back government.

There are some areas of our economy that are rigged. Possibly the last one to survive will be the Canadian Banking system. But eventually all the benefits many corporations had in this country came from the minds of Socialists. Corporatist and Global Corporatists wanted more influence and power within the Canadian economy and access to resources. Soon it will be the final nail in telecoms and maybe insurance will follow. And eventually the banks will be subject to globalization strategy.

Its not a new strategy its hundreds of years old. But has been resisted by smart governments in favour of local economies and having our country stand up and provide for itself.

The NDP would be the party that says we are more then the Hewers of wood.

The LPC and CPC freemarketers are of the mindset, just get the lumber out of Canadian yards an into foreign hands. And here is a subsidies (wealth redistribution) to make it happen.

Our trade laws are wealth redistribution.

The Bottom line is WHO PAYS!!!! and more and more WB with this LPC and CPC NeoLiberal economic policies.... It will be YOU footing the bill.

And you should be fine with that.

Enjoy and I look forward to the LPC /CPC merger.

Especially since Reform is DEAD and there is no difference in these parties economically or in terms of wealth redistribution.

Don't put words in my mouth, Max! I'm not railing against all "socialist" policies and ideas. Just the NDP!

I'm serious when I say that the present NDP have no idea of wealth creation. I've read through much of their literature over the years and talked to many of their people. I've never heard an economic CREATION idea from any of them that made any sense!

I'm talking federal and Ontario NDP here, I should point out. I recognize that NDP governments have been successful in some other provinces. I also recognize that the other parties, ESPECIALLY the Liberals, have stolen many of their ideas over the years! Although I should also say that it was from a friend in B.C. that I first heard the old joke about how they alternate NDP and Liberal provincial governments because one spends the money and the other has to come up with it!

It was the lack of any concept of how wealth must be created before it can be re-distributed that was responsible for the dismal failure of Rae's Ontario provincial NDP government, IMHO. We could fill pages of a thread on the silly things his party did with the money in Ontario. Virtually all of it would be about how he spread it around. I don't believe he ever helped CREATE even a thin dime!

I find the federal and Ontario NDP to be full of "dinosaurs". Despite the fact that the Canadian Left has co-opted the word "progressive" like the homosexual community took the word "gay" to mean something other than its dictionary definition, to make their ideas sound more palatable, I find nothing progressive in the present party(s).

Back in the 80's the NDP commissioned their own internal report from a Prof. James Laxer on what the party stood for in mainstream eyes, where they were headed and where they SHOULD be headed! He told them straight out that they were 1950's union dinosaurs! He strongly urged them to modernize and "get with it", along the lines of the British Labour Party which successfully succeeded Thatcher's Tories.

The NDP reacted with horror and couldn't shy away from him fast enough! He did command considerable support however, so the "powers that be" forced him out of the party.

I've no doubt you are quite familiar with Prof. Laxer, Max. Still, for the benefit of others here's a wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Laxer

Although I am no socialist and didn't agree with much of what he said I always thought that the NDP would have done well to listen to him. It would seem that by ostracizing Laxer they succeeded in remaining dinosaurs to this day!

So no, Max! I'm not an anti-socialist. I'm anti-dinosaur, which is why I don't respect the NDP!

BTW, perhaps you could provide me with a link to whatever concept of wealth creation the present NDP favours? I haven't checked in a few years. Perhaps they've finally come up with something, even if it's not practical. Since I was a lad, I never heard an NDP'er even acknowledge the need for such a concept!

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

Wow! After my post calling the NDP dinosaurs and invoking the name of their "Great Satan" James Laxer I really thought I would spark a host of replies!

Instead, the thread appears to have died!

I have this mental picture of a number of NDP posters looking at the ground while scuffling their shoes back and forth, at a loss for what to say...

[Wayne McQ.]

My thinking is that Harper is right when he says that losers don't get to form coalitions. If the Tories repeats as the party who gains the most seats as it has with the past elections, it is up to them to endeavor to form a coalition with opposition parties. The last time a coalition was suggested by Stephane Dion it was basically to ignore the will of the people by ignoring the party (Tories) who gained the most seats of any other party and instead form a coalition that contains no members of the party who was rightfully elected to form the government. What they were proposing was not a coalition, nor was it democratic without the inclusion of the Conservatives who were elected with the most number of seats. This suggestion was made because Dion desperately wanted to be PM and would have done anything to achieve tat goal, but he knew or should have been smart enough to realize that the people of Canada neither trusted him and the Liberals, nor did they want him as PM. Obviously Canadians also did not trust the NDP after what Bob Rae did to Ontario when he was the Premier of Ontario. As for the Bloc-heads, they represent nobody except Quebec and their separatist ways, and should have never been considered as a partner in any coalition government. Aside from the fact that it was the Conservatives who were elected and it was up to them to form a coalition so that they could govern with a majority, instead of spending all this time with MP's of other parties especially Liberal who were furious with the people of Canada that they were finally found to be incompetents and liars.

[Wayne McQ.]

Sadly there is little difference between any of the political parties presently in Canada since they are all following a strict corporate agenda, and as far as I'm concerned the Bloc-heads should not even be allowed to occupy seats in the Parlaiment of Canada since they seem to have no loyalty towards Canada except the transfer payments their province receives from the taxpayers of Canada.

We need to have politicians whose goal it is to represent the wishes of the electorate not those of their corporate masters, but I fear that if they were to start doing he jobs that the electorate are paying them to do, they might lose the lucrative brown envelopes with the bribe money corporations and their lobbyists are so eager to pass around. I am beginning to understand at 63 years of age that politicians by nature are pathological liars and many of them just happen to be lawyers. If we think of lawyers, and consider the fact that appointed and unaccountable judges are in fact lawyers, is there any wonder why our judges are timid in finding criminal fault with any politician, and instead they find fault with petty bureaucrats instead? God forbid our elected politicians be held accountable for criminal acts of fraud and misappropriation of taxpayer's money!

[Smallc]

It's clear that at 63 years of age, you have little understanding of human nature, government, or common law.

[dre]

I think a merger to create a center/left party and defeat the conservatives might work. But in the long run I think its bad for the country. We would essentially be stuck with a political system oriented around the same divisive and false left/right dichotomy they have south of the border.

Id like to see a lot more parties not less.

[Wild Bill]

My thinking is that Harper is right when he says that losers don't get to form coalitions. If the Tories repeats as the party who gains the most seats as it has with the past elections, it is up to them to endeavor to form a coalition with opposition parties.

This is a good point! The recent coalition in Britain is between the winning party and one of the "losers". This is the usual assumption as to what sort of coalition would occur. What is being proposed here in Canada is a coalition of only the parties that did NOT win the most seats!

Surely this would look very wrong to the average Canadian! It can't help but look like a "loser power grab" when the ruling party specifically excludes the party that won the most seats. It would also be a slap in the face to all the people who had voted for the winning party!

Nit-pickers can come up with all the rationalizations they want as to how a "coalition of losers" is still legal under our laws. So what? The average citizen would not care. The popular opinion of lawyers has never been very high.

Polls consistently have shown that while such a coalition might win the immediate battle they would likely have a pyrrhic victory. They would lose the war for decades at the NEXT election! Many partisans are so hungry for power that they are more than willing to chance it. Myself, I would LOVE to see the premise tested! Go for it, I say!

It takes a lot to rouse Canadians. Most of the time we just take our lumps and let the political waves just roll on by. Once in a while an issue comes up where the "powers that be" do something that blatantly takes us for granted and we wake up! Negative billing practices by the cable companies, firing Ron MacLean from Hockey Night in Canada, changing the formula for Coca-Cola and sticking the GST on every purchase we make are examples of things that roused us from our torpor! Every time such a thing happens it always results in negative consequences to the originator.

I can envision the election AFTER the coalition had seized power! The coalition partners are brought down in a Kim Campbell-like rout! Afterwards, MLW is filled with angry posts calling mainstream Canadians names - "You stupid people! Didn't I show you how everything was perfectly legal! How dare you vote this way!"

I really think some folks need to get away from their computer and go out and interact with their fellow citizens a lot more.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Wild Bill

[madmax]

Wow! After my post calling the NDP dinosaurs and invoking the name of their "Great Satan" James Laxer I really thought I would spark a host of replies!

Instead, the thread appears to have died!

I have this mental picture of a number of NDP posters looking at the ground while scuffling their shoes back and forth, at a loss for what to say...

Sorry WildBill. I thought it was a good post. Either you are losing your touch on thought provoking and constructive dialogue or its just not a topic that anyone here can get riled up over.

I thought you went at my post quite thoroughly.

You did miss one point for comment.

I see a GRAND COALITION of Liberal and Conservatives.

Targeted Investments is a form of WealthCreation that has been on NDP books since 2004 IIRC.

Retention is a form of wealth maintainence.

The battle is an old one between natural resources and their global exploitation or a local or National Driven Market and export of finished goods.

The Conservatives moved away from this around the time as you mention Laxers Lecture to the NDP.

So, one could say that Wealth Creation for the Conservatives has been a redistribution of wealth to export and Global Markets.

A rise in GDP is not a rise for the local economy. It can be, but it doesn't make it so.

[nicky10013]

Over 50% of Canadians would support a coalition of some sorts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/more-than-half-of-canadians-favour-liberal-ndp-co-operation-poll/article1596408/

[wyly]

Over 50% of Canadians would support a coalition of some sorts.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/more-than-half-of-canadians-favour-liberal-ndp-co-operation-poll/article1596408/

logical and practical over 60% of Canadians don't want a right-wing conservative government...

[Topaz]

The only way this could ever happen is all past Liberal voters stay home on election day. If Liberals don't want this is happen then they have to get off their backside and vote. BTW, in the video following this, Iggy says no way. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100609/liberals-ndp-merger-100608/

[ToadBrother]

The only way this could ever happen is all past Liberal voters stay home on election day. If Liberals don't want this is happen then they have to get off their backside and vote. BTW, in the video following this, Iggy says no way. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100609/liberals-ndp-merger-100608/

As he should. The time to talk coalition is after an election, or at the very least after you've defeated the current government. The Liberals would be insane to merge with the NDP, because what would happen is the Liberals closer to the center would walk away and join the Tories, and it would pretty much guarantee a Tory majority.

The numbers just don't make any sense. What the Liberals should be doing is trying to outcompete the Tories for the mid-30 range. Then, if they decide to pull the plug, they're in a position to go to the NDP, or heck, if they want, just reverse the informal coalition they've had running with the Tories since Iggy took over. I have a great suspicion that Iggy rather likes the tawdry motel-room affair he's having with Harper to the notion of a formal wedding with Layton. I know I would.

[Jack Weber]

As he should. The time to talk coalition is after an election, or at the very least after you've defeated the current government. The Liberals would be insane to merge with the NDP, because what would happen is the Liberals closer to the center would walk away and join the Tories, and it would pretty much guarantee a Tory majority.

The numbers just don't make any sense. What the Liberals should be doing is trying to outcompete the Tories for the mid-30 range. Then, if they decide to pull the plug, they're in a position to go to the NDP, or heck, if they want, just reverse the informal coalition they've had running with the Tories since Iggy took over. I have a great suspicion that Iggy rather likes the tawdry motel-room affair he's having with Harper to the notion of a formal wedding with Layton. I know I would.

Hehehe

That last line was good...

Dirty sex is always better than clean and proper sex...

The rest is all fina and good,however,the problem with the Liberal party getting to mid030's that they don't have ideas at all to get them there.In otherwords,in the current situation,they can't get there from here with who they've got!

I have seen precious little in policy initiatives coming from them that would indicate they would do a whole lot different from the current government.What I have seen is the Liberals trying to get the Conservatives on legal/constitutional matters that may be correct,but don't offer a viable alternate alternative that could compete with Mr.Harper's gang.As I've siad before,I believe this comes from not really having to do much for 15 years,other then saying,"We're not like those guys over there!".

I contend that the split on the right did as much,or more damage to the Liberal party,as it did to politics in theis country in general.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Jack Weber

[munsinger]

Whoever,(other than Kinsella)started this stuff.... have lost their minds. The Liberals after 60 years as Canada's "ruling party" are considering throwing up their hands, and merging with the people who they have derided for years, as the "loony left" - under Layton, as leader! All this nonsense is simply throwing the party into even more disarray, and giving the NDP more legitimacy and traction....just before the next election. Brillant.

After voting for yet another CON budget (with 30 members getting lost on the way to the house or something) and following the Wizard of Ig's comments....now the plan is for the Liberals to say nothing about a coalition, until after an election....and only attempt to impliment it....if they don't like the result. Real standup approach.

Bottom line, is that nothing is wrong with the party, that couldn't be fixed with:

A new leader

An actual vision and platform, with well articulated policies

A real committment to party renewal, from the grass roots up

Of course, this would involve ditching the culture of entitlement, no more damn SHORTCUTS, and a willingness to pay whatever short term price has to be paid now - for a much brighter future, down the road....

As far as guts, vision and credibility goes - the Liberals are simply an empty shell, right now....

Edited June 9, 2010 by munsinger

[Smallc]

now the plan is for the Liberals to say nothing about a coalition, until after an election....and only attempt to impliment it....if they don't like the result. Real standup approach.

Ummmm...that's exactly how pretty much every coalition works. They are formed after an election result that allows for them.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Smallc

[Jack Weber]

Anyone watching Power and Politics right now???

[ToadBrother]

After voting for yet another CON budget (with 30 members getting lost on the way to the house or something) and following the Wizard of Ig's comments....now the plan is for the Liberals to say nothing about a coalition, until after an election....and only attempt to impliment it....if they don't like the result. Real standup approach.

I'm curious. How would you know what kind of coalition to form prior to knowing seat counts? I'm fairly certain, for instance, that there were some very quiet negotiations between the Tories and LibDems in the UK prior to the election, but until you actually know the constitution of Parliament, the precise nature of the coalition cannot be known, and thus any attempt to formalize would be hazardous and misguided.

Do any of you Loyal Soldiers of Harper know a goddamned thing about how our system works? It's like you all dropped out of school at 12 years old so you could write anti-Liberal rants. The lot of you are just so damned stupid.

[William Ashley]

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/

I would have dropped the guantlet on the budget. It may still be posible if the senate fails it sending it back to the commons. There has been temporary upset on the G8/G20 costs, this might carry through to an increase in seating for both parties as the tories are lower than they were at the last election - then form a coalition minority.

#1 reason - unknown govenor general card - new senate seats will secure a majority in the senate. It is high risk time for parliamentary function.

Iggy is playing the long term - I won't patronize him - Layton can't rationalize the taste of government side administration - although opposition still has a fundamental role in government - the short is - it isn't in their interests to call the election - because 1. they are expensive and 2. they can't really impress with the results they would get from it - and their are no assurances - why not sit around for another month until the summer recess etc...

this leaves the fall as "the earliest election point.

It is too scripted. I honestly think that with 1 in 3 canadians supporting the governing party - it isn't the best party for canada to be run by. What is the real role?

I dunno but 5 billion dollars on security operations - ain't exactly the type of spending that seems appropriate when our navy is sinking and scuttling and becoming uncrewed. -OH but well just spend a couple billion on the navy anyway then - well what couple billion we are short 10-50 billion? the provinces are short billions - the money isn't there - and selling off assets is the ultimate failure of government.

Edited June 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

oh and yes tax and spend is more fiscally responsible than borrow at interest and spend

earn and spend is the option government should be pursueing though, and not by selling the public out.

[munsinger]

I'm curious. How would you know what kind of coalition to form prior to knowing seat counts? I'm fairly certain, for instance, that there were some very quiet negotiations between the Tories and LibDems in the UK prior to the election, but until you actually know the constitution of Parliament, the precise nature of the coalition cannot be known, and thus any attempt to formalize would be hazardous and misguided.

Do any of you Loyal Soldiers of Harper know a goddamned thing about how our system works? It's like you all dropped out of school at 12 years old so you could write anti-Liberal rants. The lot of you are just so damned stupid.

1. Haven't enlisted in anybody's army - I have voted for more than one party.....

2. Again, to panic at this stage (25-26%)is simply hazardous and misguided..... for the Liberals....

3. Both the Liberals and NDP are now swearing on bibles, that no talks, at all.. have taken place....

4. Does anbody think most of the big-city Liberal MP's are really going to follow Jack Layton around as leader?

5. People are to make decisions in polling booths, based on ambiguous and theoretical scenarios, instead of platform/policy?

6. Kinsella and the President of the Liberal Party are now essentially calling each other.....fibbers....

7. The only person really ranting and insulting anybody, at the moment.....seems to be you.

Edited June 10, 2010 by munsinger

[madmax]

1. Haven't enlisted in anybody's army - I have voted for more than one party.....

2. Again, to panic at this stage (25-26%)is simply hazardous and misguided..... for the Liberals....

3. Both the Liberals and NDP are now swearing on bibles, that no talks, at all.. have taken place....

4. Does anbody think most of the big-city Liberal MP's are really going to follow Jack Layton around as leader?

5. People are to make decisions in polling booths, based on ambiguous and theoretical scenarios, instead of platform/policy?

6. Kinsella and the President of the Liberal Party are now essentially calling each other.....fibbers....

7. The only person really ranting and insulting anybody, at the moment.....seems to be you.

Good Post... I think someone rushed to judgement.