NDP and Liberals merger?

[jbg]

I believe the NDPs success is due in part from a growing anti-corporate movement across all western nations.

I believe it was the result of Mulcair and Layton running a successful campaign, pandering to Quebec's latest flail for a pander bear.

I do not believe the NDP would be dumb enough to throw away a big part of their vehicle to achievment.

Either way there will not be any rush to give Harper time to calculate his next moves.

I believe that their perserverance as a non-viable third party will give the CPC lots of time.

[mentalfloss]

http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/ac/c3/bc5d1725438eb1cc9ab793d035ac.jpg Edited September 6, 2011 by mentalfloss

[CPCFTW]

I believe the NDPs success is due in part from a growing anti-corporate movement across all western nations.I do not believe the NDP would be dumb enough to throw away a big part of their vehicle to achievment.

[Guest Derek L]

I'd hazard a guess that if they DID merge, another party would eventually form on the Left. The resulting party would likely be closer to the Center but still tilting Left....but not enough for the Unions and some of the Green "movement". I'd put money on a Labour Party being organized somewhere down the road and splitting the vote once again.

I still think, both parties should wait until after the next election for obvious reasons, namely to see what the result is....one of the Liberals or NDP could form a government, and/or swap positions as official opposition....which could determine which party is going into a merger as the junior partner.

[Topaz]

Canada has had three parties for many years and today I heard on US TV that perhaps they should look at a third party because the two, Democrats and the Conservatives, people are tired of the ways US is going in. Canada NEEDS three parties,just for the choice for the voters.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has had three parties for many years and today I heard on US TV that perhaps they should look at a third party because the two, Democrats and the Conservatives, people are tired of the ways US is going in. Canada NEEDS three parties,just for the choice for the voters.

Ummm...no...the US has always had many political parties (more than in Canada), and the two major political parties are Democrats and Republicans. Democrats can be conservative...imagine that!

Edited September 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[WWWTT]

I believe it was the result of Mulcair and Layton running a successful campaign, pandering to Quebec's latest flail for a pander bear.

I believe that their perserverance as a non-viable third party will give the CPC lots of time.

Spoken like a true conservative.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

WWWTT

[shelphs]

The Canadian political atmosphere consists of five main parties: the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block Quebecois, and the Green Party. Of these, one represents the central-to-right political spectrum. There were two parties – The Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada – until they merged in 2003.

The Conservatives won a majority government in the last election with a voter turnout of 61.1%. Of the very few who took part, 39.6% voted Conservative. The majority of votes, however, were caste for a party on the left. Despite only a minority of Canadians voting for the right, the sole right-leaning Conservative Party won a majority.

Two options exist for the central-to-left parties to be more competitive in upcoming elections: to either merge or to pass legislation that changes the electoral system from simple plurality (first-past-the-post) to one of proportional representation.

Jean Chretien has noted that if a merger were to happen, it would happen quickly or not at all. He supports the Liberals and NDPs becoming one whereas Sheila Copps has been vocal against it on the Liberal’s side, and Libby Davies has been similarly vocal as an NDP.

Though I am strongly in favour of reform for a proportional representative electoral system, I think it unlikely. A merger is far easier to do and far more likely. But will it happen? A joining of the Liberals and NDP depend upon the differences between the two parties and if they are too great and how it would be received by Canadians who voted Liberal and NDP in the past.

With the current simple plurality system in place, merging left-leaning parties is the only realistic means of battling a united right. The only question is: would a merger alter past Liberal/NDP voters to support the Conservatives in the future? If the answer is no or negligible, the two parties should merge. The details of reconciling the differences between the two parties are all that would remain.

i. 2011 Election Results

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

ii. Jean Chretien and Libby Davies’s stance

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-ndp-merger-could-come-very-quickly-chrtien-predicts/article2155542/

Sheila Copps’ position on a merger

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seeking-liberal-presidency-sheila-copps-vows-to-fight-merger/article2156921/

[August1991]

The two are in fact very linked. It isn't as simple as you want to make it out to be.

Sometimes, but not always. Often, we can give allegiance to a region, or an ideology, but not both. Many Canadians tend to do the former. I have argued here that Canada's federal government works best when people are not forced to choose between their nation/province/region and the federal government.

Many in Qc and elsewhere hate the Liberals for ADSCAM and will never vote for them ever again. A merger will surely push more votes to the Tories. I say merge away.

The federal Liberals are not dead in Quebec; they just smell funny.

First part: correct. There is not now and never has been any significant separatist movement or sentiment in Alberta or anywhere else in the Wewst.

Second apart: incorrect. A few people bitch and whine about Alberta supporting the entire country financially, not just Quebec. But there is no political movement, no popular sentiment, no press of any note and little public or private discussion about the issue. I reckon that is at least in part because the West- for the first time ever perhaps- is actually relevant in Confederation.

The desire to separate from Canada should not measure "regionalism" (for lack of a better term).

----

IMV, the Reform Party started as a regional (western) party and then critically got support in Ontario once it had changed its name. Jeffrey Simpson, I think, noted the new alignment in federal politics after the 2011 election: the West and Ontario. Critically, Quebec has been excluded.

I don't think that this current alignment is sustainable. In general, too many Ontario voters prefer to align with Quebec voters to maintain the federation.

----

Getting back to the OP, a merger of the NDP and Liberals is ripe if the activist/party member English-Canadian ideologues in the NDP manage to put enough water in their wine to get along with the Quebec members. The NDP has managed its urban Toronto/Vancouver vs. rural Saskatchewan split. If the federal NDP copes with the Quebec caucus in the leadership race, then I think a Liberal/NDP merger is very possible.

Of course, the Quebec NDP caucus would split in a manner far worse than the PCs did after Orchard/Mackay.

[Evening Star]

Getting back to the OP, a merger of the NDP and Liberals is ripe if the activist/party member English-Canadian ideologues in the NDP manage to put enough water in their wine to get along with the Quebec members. The NDP has managed its urban Toronto/Vancouver vs. rural Saskatchewan split. If the federal NDP copes with the Quebec caucus in the leadership race, then I think a Liberal/NDP merger is very possible.

If the federal NDP copes with the QC caucus, they would probably have no need to merge with the Liberals. What will they gain?

Btw, NDP support in SK is totally concentrated in urban areas.

[jbg]

Canada has had three parties for many years and today I heard on US TV that perhaps they should look at a third party because the two, Democrats and the Conservatives, people are tired of the ways US is going in. Canada NEEDS three parties,just for the choice for the voters.

First get our party names right. Second, having three parties is a great way, in your case, of giving progressives any choice or voice at all.

[jbg]

Spoken like a true conservative.

WWWTT

I have never once voted for the Conservative Party of Canada.

[myata]

The best thing that can happen to Liberals now (and NDP) is merger with NDP (with Liberals). It'll happen now or a in few years/decades down the road accompanied by painful soul searching Canadian style before finally coming to realization of stu...ly obvious reality that it's the only way thing can happen in this system (and we won't have any different one at least for a few more generations). Then, a small dissatisfied sect would split off the main conglomerate forming distinct but useless "third" party and the things would resume their rightful and normal order. Amen.

[shelphs]

The Canadian political atmosphere consists of five main parties: the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block Quebecois, and the Green Party. Of these, one represents the central-to-right political spectrum. There were two parties – The Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada – until they merged in 2003.

The Conservatives won a majority government in the last election with a voter turnout of 61.1%. Of the very few who took part, 39.6% voted Conservative. The majority of votes, however, were caste for a party on the left. Despite only a minority of Canadians voting for the right, the sole right-leaning Conservative Party won a majority.

Two options exist for the central-to-left parties to be more competitive in upcoming elections: to either merge or to pass legislation that changes the electoral system from simple plurality (first-past-the-post) to one of proportional representation.

Jean Chretien has noted that if a merger were to happen, it would happen quickly or not at all. He supports the Liberals and NDPs becoming one whereas Sheila Copps has been vocal against it on the Liberal’s side, and Libby Davies has been similarly vocal as an NDP.

Though I am strongly in favour of reform for a proportional representative electoral system, I think it unlikely. A merger is far easier to do and far more likely. But will it happen? A joining of the Liberals and NDP depend upon the differences between the two parties and if they are too great and how it would be received by Canadians who voted Liberal and NDP in the past.

With the current simple plurality system in place, merging left-leaning parties is the only realistic means of battling a united right. The only question is: would a merger alter past Liberal/NDP voters to support the Conservatives in the future? If the answer is no or negligible, the two parties should merge. The details of reconciling the differences between the two parties are all that would remain.

i. 2011 Election Results

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

ii. Jean Chretien and Libby Davies’s stance

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-ndp-merger-could-come-very-quickly-chrtien-predicts/article2155542/

Sheila Copps’ position on a merger

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seeking-liberal-presidency-sheila-copps-vows-to-fight-merger/article2156921/

EPILOGUE

Party mergers like the Liberal/NDP one now being discussed and the one in 2003 that formed the CPC are a symptom of a damaged electoral system. Canada’s system does not encourage and cultivate diversity in the strong and influential institution of a political party; rather, it promotes polarization by limiting the number of parties on the left and right by coercing them to coalesce and, resultantly, abandon policy ideals as a compromise for a pseudo-shared macro ideology that trumps a more foreign one. This lessens the diversity of representation within government and decreases the level of Canadian voters’ influence.

That said, it is unlikely for the left to do nothing, especially if the Conservatives win another majority in the next election. The diversity of the parties is important, but that importance is diminished by the first-past-the-post voting system and would be further hurt by a sole left party – the CPC – that can consistently win a non-proportionally representative majority. Something would have to be done.

The below table shows a strong divisionary trend between the right and left political spheres: that is, the Conservatives and every other party.

2006 (%) 2008 (%) 2011 (%)

BQ: 10.5 BQ: 10.0 BQ: 6.0

CON: 36.3 CON: 37.6 CON: 39.6

GRN: 4.5 GRN: 6.8 GRN: 3.9

LIB: 30.2 LIB: 26.2 LIB: 18.9

NDP: 17.5 NDP: 18.2 NDP: 30.6

OTHER: 1.0 OTHER: 1.2 OTHER: 0.9

From 2006 to 2008, the Liberals lost 4 percentage points. The Greens gains 2.3, the NDP 0.7, and the Conservatives 1.3. From 2008 to 2011, the Liberal, Block, and Green Party’s numbers declined by 7.3, 4, and 2.9 points, respectively, while the NDP and Conservatives voter base was raised by 12.4 and 2, respectively.

When people who have voted on the left of the ideological divide in the past change their loyalties, they overwhelmingly stay on the left. Assuming only former Liberals would change to the Conservatives, 2 of the 7.3 lost Liberal votes shifted to the Conservatives, leaving 5.3 to the NDP.

Which is to say, assuming the trend holds, of the lost Liberal votes, approximately 27% would shift to the Conservatives and 73% to the NDP. If the current 18.9 percentage of Liberal votes were similarly divided equally between the PCP and a newly merged Liberal and NDP hybrid, the Conservatives’ numbers would be 44.7 points (27% of 18.9 is 5.1 + 39.6) and the merged Liberal/NDP Party would have 44.2 percent (72% of 18.9 is 13.6 + 30.6) of the votes.

It is certainly feasible that a merger would prevent another Conservative majority, but that would depend on how the hybrid is ideologically formed and received by now Liberals. I would prefer electoral reform for a proportionally representative system, but a merger seems more likely, particularly if the next election produces another Conservative majority. In such a case, the right would have to do something. No other likely choice is available aside from a merger in a political atmosphere of a united right and divided left.

It may be time to hit the streets with a message for electoral reform.

iii. General Election Results by Popular Vote Percentage

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Edited September 10, 2011 by shelphs

[TimG]

Party mergers like the Liberal/NDP one now being discussed and the one in 2003 that formed the CPC are a symptom of a damaged electoral system.

Nope. It is a sign of a healthy electoral system. Running a large country is a complex business and many diverse points of view need to accomodated. This system we have favours large parties that try to cater to the middle and do not too get hung up over issues that are only an interest to a minority. Multiple parties leads to the tyranny of the minority.

abandon policy ideals as a compromise for a pseudo-shared macro ideology that trumps a more foreign one.

Compromise is necessary to run a government. A system that rewards narrow interest parties who happen to hold the balance of power actually provides less representation - not more.

[jbg]

I would prefer electoral reform for a proportionally representative system, but a merger seems more likely, particularly if the next election produces another Conservative majority. In such a case, the right would have to do something. No other likely choice is available aside from a merger in a political atmosphere of a united right and divided left.

It may be time to hit the streets with a message for electoral reform.

The trouble with proportional representation is that the voters are stuck with a faceless slate of party candidates that they had no role in selecting. Another problem is that it leads inexorably to coalitions with the result that those governing can blame any failure on their "coalition partners".

[BC_chick]

After all, the Liberals still have the reek of scandal in much of Quebec.

By the next election, that scandal will be 11 years old and the Liberal Party will have gone through several different changes. Three different leaders have come and gone already.

Depending on what is happening with the CPC and LPC by 2015, the 'reek of scandal' might be nothing more than a whiff.

[Jack Weber]

The trouble with proportional representation is that the voters are stuck with a faceless slate of party candidates that they had no role in selecting. Another problem is that it leads inexorably to coalitions with the result that those governing can blame any failure on their "coalition partners".

However,in the course of time it might lead to a slightly different breed of politician.One that is more interested in concensus building and pragmatic legislation,as opposed to two camps of partisan bickering that gets people nowhere...

I'll take even handed legislation as opposed to wild ideological swings every election cycle...

[jacee]

However,in the course of time it might lead to a slightly different breed of politician.One that is more interested in concensus building and pragmatic legislation,as opposed to two camps of partisan bickering that gets people nowhere...

I'll take even handed legislation as opposed to wild ideological swings every election cycle...

Well said, and I agree.

We expect student to collaborate efficiently in the classroom.

Employers expect employees to collaborate efficiently in the workplace.

And yet we accept government that blusters and bickers like nincompoops for hours and hours on tv, on our dime? That's not governance, that's just Jerry Springer without the hairpulling!

Proportionate representation would help broaden the discussion and improve the quality of legislation IF all reps have to be accountable to a constituency and not just a party.

[jacee]

Multiple parties leads to the tyranny of the minority.

cite?

[ashleyjohnston]

It seems silly that a merger is politically acceptable but a coalition is 'off the table'.

[jbg]

It seems silly that a merger is politically acceptable but a coalition is 'off the table'.

Not really. In the case of a merger the people have some idea of w hat they're getting with the merged party. With a coalition the coalition forms post-election. By definition. that's after the vote. And after the people have had their say.

[Smallc]

And?