NDP and Liberals merger?

[fellowtraveller]

It was Preston Manning's goal to polarize politics in this country, so that there were only two options.

Incorrect. It was Mannings goal to change the diorection of our democracy, with an aim to reform. He also wanted an option from the PC Party, which was viewed in the West as being indistinguishable from the other party of Central Canada, the Liberals. When Reform was founded, the PCs had a majority, the Liberals were Oppostion and NDP were small change,.

There is an element within the NDP that wants union with the Liberals. Longtime MP Pat Martin has recently come out of the closet and gone public on this very topic. It is not popular with the far left of the Party, who apparently see their gains in Quebec as being some sort of foundation for the Party for years to come. It isn't, and Martin is savvy enough to know it.

The biggest result in the last election was not the election of many NDP in Quebec. That was second.

The most inmportant thing was the election of a majority without any seats from Quebec required to form that majority. Voters in PQ are the most pragmatic in the country, they know that result is the worst possible for them. They also know if they go NDP in big numbers that the likely result next election is the same thing again, which would be intolerable. They won't stick with the NDP in those numbers, and Liberal numbers will likely increase both in Quebec and certainly will across the country.

I think Martin sees two possible outcomes: the NDP slides back to national bit player quickly or the NDP merges with Liberal and has a real shot at govt. He may well be right.

[charter.rights]

I think they could make the merger work.

What would be key is for each party faction (of the merged parties)to maintain their caucus, allowing free discussion of the issues from each perspective. The new party caucus would then be made up of both former party members and would work to find consensus. That would leave individual members with their core values yet create a unified opposition and a viable alternative to the Conservatives.

[Black Dog]

The point is that it would take a rather vivid imagination to see the Bloc anywhere near government.

Obviously. So you think people should only vote for parties that have a chance of forming a government, regardless of the voter's personal beliefs or values?

[Wild Bill]

The biggest result in the last election was not the election of many NDP in Quebec. That was second.

The most inmportant thing was the election of a majority without any seats from Quebec required to form that majority. Voters in PQ are the most pragmatic in the country, they know that result is the worst possible for them. They also know if they go NDP in big numbers that the likely result next election is the same thing again, which would be intolerable. They won't stick with the NDP in those numbers, and Liberal numbers will likely increase both in Quebec and certainly will across the country.

I think Martin sees two possible outcomes: the NDP slides back to national bit player quickly or the NDP merges with Liberal and has a real shot at govt. He may well be right.

You don't think it's possible that a large number of Quebecois could switch to the Tories? After all, the Liberals still have the reek of scandal in much of Quebec. Why should any drain from the NDP automatically go to them? Especially since it looks like Harper may well win more elections. Why would Quebecers decide to keep on being shut out?

From my POV, I think the NDP should wait at least one more term to see which way the wind is blowing. Instead of getting their act together, it's perfectly possible for the Liberals to keep on being screwed up, waiting for another philosopher King/Messiah. They could keep on sliding, as did the old PC Party, to the point where the only thing that could save them was a merger.

If the NDP then decide to allow a merger with a tiny rump of Liberal survivors, they should take a tip from what happened to the Reform/Alliance. The small number of PC's have ended up controlling the party, stamping out all traces of Reform and making it over into a clone of the old Mulroney party, the one that millions had abandoned in favour of the Manning dream. As I like to say, looking back at what's happened you can't help but wonder why all those Reformers even bothered!

The same thing could happen to the NDP. If the Liberals are dying out, the best approach for the NDP would be to stand back and let them die! Even more, don't pick up the pieces! They may be contaminated with "Liberal virus" that will infect them all and turn them into Liberal clones!

[cybercoma]

While it is true that Quebec voted "non" by a narrow margin in 1995, that was largely due to immigrants and English-speaking Quebeckers.

Anglophones and allophones do not make up greater than 50% of the Quebec population.

[cybercoma]

Incorrect. It was Mannings goal to change the diorection of our democracy, with an aim to reform.

Frankly, I don't think the apple falls far from the tree and his father believed Canada would be better off with only 2 parties. I believe Preston Manning's entire goal was to create a Right-wing party that would polarize this country and given the results of the last election, it seems it has worked.

[noahbody]

Frankly, I don't think the apple falls far from the tree and his father believed Canada would be better off with only 2 parties. I believe Preston Manning's entire goal was to create a Right-wing party that would polarize this country and given the results of the last election, it seems it has worked.

Manning created the reform party because Canada was already polarized - East vs West.

[capricorn]

I think the majority of Liberals have too much pride in their party to throw in the towel just yet.

That's my thought as well. And it seem to me that although the NDP and Liberal parties have similar visions, it is the way they want to implement those visions that for the most part are irreconcilable.

I found Michael Ignatieff's comments interesting. Of course, his comments are nuanced, as is pretty well with the case with everything he says.

"At Jack Layton's funeral service at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, I thought, yes we are separate families, separate traditions, and yes, we've fought each other over the years, but now sitting together in the same hall, isn't it obvious how much we have in common?

"The words we care about -- generosity, justice, hope -- they care about them too.... These values are bigger than all of us, bigger than our divisions and our arguments. It was good to put the past behind us... and imagine what the future of our country might look like if we put those values first."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/state-funeral-could-backfire-on-harper-128738828.html

Reading between the lines, it appears to me Ignatieff leans toward merging the parties. How else would the two parties put those shared values first?

[Wild Bill]

That's my thought as well. And it seem to me that although the NDP and Liberal parties have similar visions, it is the way they want to implement those visions that for the most part are irreconcilable.

I found Michael Ignatieff's comments interesting. Of course, his comments are nuanced, as is pretty well with the case with everything he says.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/state-funeral-could-backfire-on-harper-128738828.html

Reading between the lines, it appears to me Ignatieff leans toward merging the parties. How else would the two parties put those shared values first?

"generosity, justice, hope", that doesn't suggest a merger to me, Capricorn. This is just "Mom and apple pie" stuff!

ALL parties believe in those values! They disagree about how to go about them but surely they all share them! One party might believe the other parties are mistaken but only an irrational partisan would believe that his opponents are AGAINST such values by intent!

[capricorn]

"generosity, justice, hope", that doesn't suggest a merger to me, Capricorn. This is just "Mom and apple pie" stuff!

WB, your post prompted me to take another look at Ignatieff's words in another context. The fact that Conservatives were well represented in the Hall, it is conceivable that his remarks were inclusive of major political parties in attendance. So yes, a motherhood statement fitting for the occasion. What led me to concluding that Ignatieff might be amenable to a merger was the journalist's lead up to Ignatieff's quote:

With both the Liberals and the New Democrats leaderless, speculation is rife about merging Canada's progressive majority. Reflecting on the week-long public outpouring of praise and grief for Layton, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who nixed a coalition with the NDP in 2008, boosted the idea on his Facebook page Sunday.

I'm not usually so easily led.

[cybercoma]

Manning created the reform party because Canada was already polarized - East vs West.

Canada was fractured in more pieces than East v West. You would be remiss to omit Quebec from the regional divide. The Atlantic provinces also have less connection to Ontario than they do to each other. 'The West wants in' was nothing more than an opportunistic buzz-phrase he used to capitalize on populist sentiments about Ottawa ignoring the West; however, the country, as I'm saying, was divided much more than just that. The West was like the middle child that throws a fit because it's being ignored.

[William Ashley]

blah blah blah blah blah

they'd sooner swizzle snizzle (perhaps that is on the agenda) either that or they need to start fixing tinmen.

Its a good thing Mr. Harper isn't gay.

They still got time.. no need to rush into anything I'm guessing they will reexamine things in a couple years and see where they are at.

I think that really what THEY CAN accomplish is a MANIFESTO on JOINT GOALS OF THE TWO PARTIES.. that is a first step so they can COOPERATE publically on key issues both caucuses agree to.

They did afterall hold rump parliament together during prorogation.

It is two things 1. Cooperation and public acknowledgement of joint POSITIONS.. and two it allows independence of the two parties.

A little like the EU memberstates and EU. A co*ugh*

Edited August 31, 2011 by William Ashley

[ESDP]

Jack Layton has only been in the ground for 3 days and as my grandfather used to say, I am sure he is turning in his grave over this sudden transition backwards.

At this crucial time in Canadian political history, these two parties should be focusing on instilling confidence in both their memebers as well as in the rest of Canadians as to their abilities to perform the duties they have been elected to due to help quelch the talk of inexperience as a detrement to their future existance and at this point for myself this is leaving me little assurance that either party has what it takes leaving my vote suspended and in agony.

Canada has three parties, plain and simple. Maybe Canadian politians should spend more time focusing less on the celebrity abilities of leaders and return to what the role of a politican is, a voice for the people, a watch dog for a fair and just Canada that allows for individual opportunity based on strong economic ties and access to programs like education and healthcare.

If the time being spent on trying to push through a merger that would see at this point Bob Rae as the interim leader (lets not forget he walked away from the NDP) was directed at developing and educating potential candidates who would with time have the where withall to take down the government in power maybe the love and confidence gained under Laytons leadership would remain a potential threat. Maybe then the public would remain strong in belief that moving forward and remaining an inclusive country vs and exclusive country is possible.

Who knows maybe the people of Canada will get tired of both parties and open up the door for new individuals with fresh ideas to step onto the stage, the Green Party is salavating I'm sure at this possiblity.

Lets not forget Jack only became Jack after years of hard work and guidance from other great leaders within his own party and those who sat across the floor. His legacy was only honoured in death and in death he just may have sealed the fate of his country and party by attempting to politic from beyond the grave, a blunder even history could not erase.

[Wild Bill]

Canada was fractured in more pieces than East v West. You would be remiss to omit Quebec from the regional divide. The Atlantic provinces also have less connection to Ontario than they do to each other. 'The West wants in' was nothing more than an opportunistic buzz-phrase he used to capitalize on populist sentiments about Ottawa ignoring the West; however, the country, as I'm saying, was divided much more than just that. The West was like the middle child that throws a fit because it's being ignored.

Well, forgive me for disagreeing a bit. I WAS a Reformer and a rather active one so perhaps I saw some things that you missed.

Also, there are a couple of "behind the scenes" books that came out that you might want to read.

Anyhow, the consensus was that Manning was dealing with a very strong western separatist movement in the early days of Reform. There were a LOT of people who wanted to make Reform a western ONLY separatist party! Manning developed "The West Wants IN!" to counter this movement. It took a lot of finangling and manipulating but he got his way. The Party decided to be a truly national party and passed a motion to allow new members east of the Manitoba/Ontario border.

I know this because I had to wait to join! I still have if not the first certainly one of the initial Ontario Reform memberships.

The western separatist movement at that time was very strong and almost completely unknown by eastern pundits. They all took it for granted that western separation was a tiny fringe feeling and would never happen. They were all dead wrong!

If Manning had not got the party to expand nationally Canada might be very different and likely smaller today. Eastern people never understood that Alberta at least could easily afford to separate, which is quite a different "fish kettle" than Quebec. It is always easier for a giver to leave than a taker.

[Smallc]

WThe western separatist movement at that time was very strong and almost completely unknown by eastern pundits.

No, it wasn't. People were mad, they weren't ready to separate.

If Manning had not got the party to expand nationally Canada might be very different and likely smaller today.

No, in fact it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Smallc

[Sandy MacNab]

No, it wasn't. People were mad, they weren't ready to separate....

You sure don't know WTF you're talking about. It seems that Manitobans know as much about the three to the west as Alabamans know about Saskatchewan. Wild Bill has it absolutely correct!

[cybercoma]

I don't disagree about Manning trying to quell separatist sentiments in the West with his "the West wants in." That's not even what I'm arguing. I do disagree, however, with how strong the separatist movement was in the West. It was there. Yes. But, it wasn't anywhere even remotely close to being a Quebec situation.

[Smallc]

You sure don't know WTF you're talking about. It seems that Manitobans know as much about the three to the west as Alabamans know about Saskatchewan.

What utter tripe. Show me something as proof then (and don't use the Western Standard, because that was a stupid question from a less than honest publication). Something real to show me this western alienation (and don't pretend that you can lump urban BC, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, or Manitoba in with what people from parts of Calgary and rural Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC feel. People from rural areas (and I'm from one) are so selfish and self serving that they can't see beyond their one property...and I'm from rural western Canada, so I know. Rural people and parts Calgary don't speak for the west. There was discontent, not separatist sentiment.

According to recent surveys, Albertans are the most patriotic Canadians, btw. Don't try to tell me that just popped up out of nowhere.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

I would be willing to bet that the majority of voters for either party would rather the parties stay separate.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

I don't see that happening. The NDP is a federalist social democrat party. They aren't about to start advocating for separatism, which is really the only think that makes the Bloc unique.

This

Bloc Quebecois lite? PLEAAAASSEE

[jbg]

You sure don't know WTF you're talking about. It seems that Manitobans know as much about the three to the west as Alabamans know about Saskatchewan. Wild Bill has it absolutely correct!

Even I know more about Alberta and Saskatchewan. I did take a cruise from Edmonton to Saskatoon on a luxury liner.

[Smallc]

Even I know more about Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I don't think so. Westerners don't want to separate.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

But most Quebec NDP ridings are former Bloc ridings, and many if not most of the NDP MP's lack a political history. While it is true that Quebec voted "non" by a narrow margin in 1995, that was largely due to immigrants and English-speaking Quebeckers. I suspect strongly that most NDP support migrated from the Bloc and they will have their hands full trying to accomodate both separatist elements in Quebec and federalist elements elsewhere. Just ask Mulroney, Trudeau and Chretien.

One thing you fail to mention...

These Quebec NDP MPs are NDP, not Bloc

Going into the election, they weren't expected to be on the radar in Quebec, why would a sovereigntist be running for a federalist party that had no chance of winning (at the time)? Are all these MPs suddenly gonna go Levesque on all our asses? I don't see it happening. Their interest is to increase seats in the next election, not becoming a one province party.

[August1991]

Too many people forget that regionalism, not ideology, drives Canadian federal politics.

The federal NDP and Liberals could unite into a single party but unless this single party could attract regional support, it would not succeed.

IMV, any federal politician must ask this critical question: where in Canada will I get my votes?

Edited September 1, 2011 by August1991

[waldo]

The western separatist movement at that time was very strong and almost completely unknown by eastern pundits. They all took it for granted that western separation was a tiny fringe feeling and would never happen. They were all dead wrong!

If Manning had not got the party to expand nationally Canada might be very different and likely smaller today. Eastern people never understood that Alberta at least could easily afford to separate, which is quite a different "fish kettle" than Quebec. It is always easier for a giver to leave than a taker.

nonsense. You may have seen evidence within the early makeup of the Reform... call that the 'fringe of the fringe'. There was no public sentiment towards western separation... there is no public sentiment towards western separation... there has never been a public sentiment towards western separation.