Unite the center-left, or Harper will rule until 2025 - 2 - this just makes no sense to think like this

By the way, here is an after thought. I am feeling like Nimitz, in Midway. "That would probably be the smart thing to do Joe". "But thing is I want that other Carrier !"

If there were a temporary merged grouping, just for one election to bring in pr and then disband...I'd suggest calling it something like the Democracy Alliance or the Canadians For Democracy.  This avoids the "p word" and allows for the creation of an electoral coalition of equals.

You could it the Progressive Democratic Alliance, to revive Gordon Wilson's short-lived brand from B.C. provincial politics.

public healthcare  - ba ha ha ha.  You mean the Liberals that refused to enforce the Canada Health Act.  Please the zombie is down.  Don't let it get back up again.

The key here is the economy.  If it tanks the Conservatives will lose big the next election.  If it does well they will take all the credit, maybe they stay in power maybe not.  I do believe Harper will go out on a crest and will not take them into the next election either way.  The NDP has a lot to lose in the next election if they do not perform in Opposition.

France, New Zealand, the UK all governed by the right. The US Congress is Republican. Australia's Labour PM facing backlash from Unions opposing the Carbon Tax.

And now Canada has fallen as the left is fractured and we have 5 years of a US clone.

Sad.

You guys are a bunch of defeatists! Don't you get it? This is a sea-change.

All we have to do is rise to the opportunity. We have been given the chance we have always wanted. Lets roll up our sleeves and get the job done. I read all of the comments above. And I am sorry business leftist, where were you before the election? Nobody here wants a merger with the Libs. Look at Ontario, these so called progressive Libs voted with the Tories. How can anyone think that we would have anything in common with the Libs?

No way, if you want a alternative to Harper, you can come to us. The days of deals is done.

@Jeff Wells:

Great comment!

Frankly, I'm wondering if the big Quebec scoop-up is a double-edged sword--or in the process of being set up as such.  After all, consider what, in media and over the tweeting grapevine and whatever else, has quickly become the favourite visual meme for the NDP's Official Opposition Caucus...

I'm not saying a simple "merger" is the answer. But if the parties joined together, they would be able to stop the vote split, especially in urban ridings. To suggest that the Liberal party is full of redneck right wingers because of their strategic error of voting for Conservative bills to avoid election is just plain ignorant.

Most Liberals, and a huge chunk of their core support feel at home in the NDP. I'm from BC. Many Fed Libs support the NDP provincially...even when the Fed Libs had more seats out here.

We need a single, progressive voice. You may not feel the urgency now, But when we have legislation threatning abortion rights and gay rights and sending our young people into useless wars, then you will.

And if there's a lot of "blue" Liberals? Good. Let them head over to Harper.

And the mooting of merger is not `defeatist`, it is about winning, really winning, not just symbolically. 

Yeah, I actually think her election is something to celebrate not be embarassed by.  She is obviously well-balanced and lord knows we could use more MPs like that in the House regardless of party.

Since I work outside and dont watch TV, I didnt see any of that. But I knew it was aware it was out there, and was expressing enjoyment of the irony.

Whats a CP24 and a Snooki?

My cultural education is lacking without kids around on a daily basis. CP24s and Snookis might not be something aimed at kids. But kids can keep you updated pretty well on all the zones of popular culture.

Quite so, klexo.

@klexo:

"

Actually Arthur, you are wrong on a few things here:

some people here do want to discuss the ramifications of a merger and are open to the idea;  

progressive liberals voted in large numbers for the new dems this time -- you should consider being more welcoming;

we share with the Libs a history of cooperating on passing progressive legislation"

Okay, I can accept that there were Libs who voted New Dem. But, I am 53 and a real cynic. For me the sticking point still is how "progressive Libs" could support a government that gave Canadians the Paul Martin Budget, GST walk back, and cuts to EI, to name just a few things. For my those are really hard to overlook. I don't know how anyone could see those kind of things happen and not ask themselves what they were doing supporting a political party that would do that. It goes entirely against what I believe.

I am sorry, but I am suspicious. It is really hard for me to find it in myself to want to trust "progressives" who support harmfull and regressive legislation of that kind. So, I am really wary about the idea of a merger if the things I believe are representative of the New Dems are lost in some kind of new hybrid union, meeting of minds. My mom and dad would never have gone along with those kind of things, and neither would have Davie Orlikow, or David Lewis, or of course, Tommy Douglas.

Why is wanting to support really people oriented legislative agendas of this kind considered as so outside the realm of what is acceptable, or beyond the expectation that reasonably minded people can be convinced to support these kinds of things? I simply don't understand why this is such an ongoing struggle. It seems entirely obvious to me that these are what left leaning people should naturally believe.

Given the above, honestly, that is why I have so much trouble in not being suspicious or distrustful of talk of a merger. I don't want to be a large L Liberal. I am a New Democrat. Why should my wanting to be a New Democrat be such a problem? Do I have to give up my party by stealth or otherwise to win over enough people to move public opinion in such a way that change happens?

I don't want to belong to another Liberal party. Frankly, if there was no New Democratic Party, I can tell you that I know both my wife and I would simply stop voting.

So Klexo, what is you want? What do you expect me to give up? What will you give up. Untill I know what is being asked, how can I make any kind of decision. In all of my time in the service, I never asked my "men", to do something without providing some kind of explanation of why we were doing things. Why do I know, especially as a civillian, have to be willing to accept doing something when I am not sure what is being asked. It's like buying a car sight unseen.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfGB855SQ1A
Tommy Douglas predicted it: A merger and a 2 party system.
The man was a genius.

It's the best result that could be hoped for with 45% of English Canada bound and determined to vote Conservative and that will probably be the case until that government defeats itself. That's usually how change happens in Canada.

Chretien paved the way by not seriously turning back on the damage Mulroney did to the country. Pretty much all of these things also happened under his watch. Liberals did not enact national child care. Liberals changed the rules to the EI system to the detriment of working people, some of whom would have included single mothers. Liberals cut funding to universities, allowing tuitions to skyrocket. Liberals dragged their feet on implementing LGBT rights, and only after the courts forced them to. Liberals voted agaisnt federal anti-scab legislation. Liberals implemented a landing fee for immigrants. Harper actually celebrated the direction the Liberal party was moving, and the fact that it was done under pressure from Reform. You're absolutely right, progressives cannot celebrate any of these things having happened.

Been reading a lot of Lib writing, and they want to rebuild the Libs.

NDP is in euphoria, and consumed with their own situation. They are trying to make themselves believe they can win a majority next time.

The ugly reality, is that Harper is going to rule Canada with an iron fist, covered up by the media for 2-3 majorities, since the center vote is goign to be split.

Even Rex Murphy is doing soft-propaganda for Harper. You can see the media-elites sucking up to Harper now, they want to keep their jobs. Just watch the CBC start to go soft on Harper, as they want to keep their jobs.

And Harper will run his programs, some in our face, many others in secret. The RCMP will be his personal force for political dirty tricks.

Sadly, I predict Harper is going to run Canada as he wants for probably 3 mandates, as those guys know how to control the media. They will re-engineer Canada with 1000 cuts, and the media will be his cheerleader.

The Joe Average voter won't know what's happened until its too late. You see that grin on Harpers face? He knows power is like capital, once you have it, and know how to use it, its hard to lose it.

Unless there is one clear choice for center politics, then Harper wins. He has it locked up.

One thing I read in Chomsky years ago, was the extent of being an "intellectual" in the political sphere is based on being the most profilgate  at lying.

This has now come to Canada, full on. The soft-propagandists, as well as hard propagandists (professional liars) for the neo-con agenda have taken over. The most dangerous are the soft-propagandists, who sound reasonable.

It makes one think of the book POWER by John K Galbraith, a great book. But his idea is that right-wing power wins, as basically it is more rigid and follows orders. Whereas the left, is more democratic and diffuse, thus its like herding cats.

I don't see any signals coming out from the center-left about uniting to defeat Harper. None. I see those professionals in the center-left, more concerned with their own situation.

I hope I am wrong, but I see Harper in charge for easily 15 years, unless someone can do something. On top of this, any opponent that comes up against Harper, is going to have the defacto "secret police" of Canada turn up every single thing they ever did. And believe it, that will be used against them.

Other than the G20 fascist nightmare in our backyard, this is the worst day for being a Canadian. Now Harper will carry out his agenda, one step at a time, using the media to cover most of it up.

Harper will continue to divide and conquer, its the oldest strategy, and it works.

Majority Conservative governments "as far as the eye can see" is not inevitable. There's a very good chance that the Conservatives will not be able to win a majority in 2015. Almost everything went the Conservatives way this election, so a repeat is not a certainty by any means. I think there's probably something like an 85% chance that the next parliament will produce a minority or coalition government. Considering that the Conservatives hardly ever go above 40%, the Conservatives should consider themselves very lucky to have a obtained a majority with under 40% of the vote.  The Conservatives are only the second government ever to get a majority with under 40% of the vote. (Chretien's 1997 majority is the only other case.) The vote splits in this election worked exactly in favour of the Conservatives and that will not likely replicate in 2015.

The political landscape in 2015 will be different and many of the differences then will work against the Conservatives. The biggest hurdle the Conservatives will likely face in 2015 is that they will no longer have an unpopular McGuinty government to juxtapose themselves against in Ontario. In all likelyhood by then a right-wing Hudak government will hurt the Conservatives chances of winning a huge amount of seats in Ontario via a fake FPTP majority. And in all likelyhood by 2015 the Liberals will have a more popular leader that will also increase the chances of Canada returning to minority territory. So the chances of a Layton led minority in 2015 is actualy pretty good.

One huge silver lining from this election is that support for PR has likely increased exponentially within the BQ and federal Liberals. Both parties have now suffered unfarly because of FPTP and both are much more likely now to support electoral reform. Unlike the past,  PR/Fair voting now  works in favor of the the Liberals and BQ. If they don't support electoral reform now, they both deserve to be destroyed by FPTP. This election has forced the Liberals and BQ to discover the hard way, like the NDP has, how FPTP unfairly distorts democracy. So PR has been given a huge boost by this election and this will greatly benefit Canada in the long-run. It would seem that the Liberals, BQ, and many progressives had to learn the hard way how undemocratic and unfair FPTP is. This election has been a learning moment in favour of fair voting. After this election, the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and Greens should all strongly support PR/Fair voting.

My crystal ball tells me that the next parliament in 2015 will produce a minority parliament that will see the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and, Greens finally establish PR. And if they don't support PR/fair voting whole heartedly, they will have no reason to complain about the Conservatives winning unfair fake FPTP majorities.

The Conservative's fake FPTP majority should make it much clearer to one and all why FPTP must be replaced ASAP.

I also have a hunch that the Liberals will choose Carolyn Bennett to be their next leader. She supports electoral reform. Being a doctor she seems to know what kind of medicine Canada's political system needs.

I also think that after the BQ's experience in this election and with the growth of Quebec Solidaire, a PQ provincial government will likely implement PR/fair voting in Quebec.

And here in BC, I wouldn't be surprised if a provincial NDP government implements MMP. The NDP here has fair voting -MMP in their platform and an election is likely to take place here this year or next.

With parties now winning majority governments with less then 40% of the vote, and minority governmets and coalition governments possibly forming with under 30% of the vote, it is getting much more likely that Canada will implement PR.

oo, all the papers are following the new propaganda points...Harper is mainstream now...

Its all lies of course, he hasn;t done anything yet.

they will hammer that meme, while Harper does his deeds behind a screen of fog.

They are smart propagandists, they know first impressions count, so they will mock the NDP for now, and destroy them just enough to keep them low, but not too low.

Believe it, Fantino cop buddies have opened dirty tricks files on all those people already. Its a nightmare, I hope the civil society of Canada can wake up.

Normally, it would be, and it would have been awesome if she won somewhere close to Ottawa or even on Montreal Island, but I fail to see how having an urban Anglophone from Ontario representing a rural Quebec riding does any favour to our long-term credibility there. Thankfully, we have plenty of awesome new MPs who do. :-)

And either way, I'd take a Quebec represented by 75 Ruth Ellen Brosseaus if its keeps the Alfonso Gaglianos and the Andre Arthurs out of office.

Bravo, Life, I fully agree - and I think I was one of the few here supporting Ruth Ellen before the election. There's a new wind blowing. If the only ones disturbed by it are a few non-Quebeckers and the National Post, I think we're on to a good thing.

The NDP has an opportunity like never before. Lord only knows how they're going to manage it. Let's help them work it out. "Centre-left" mergers, I think, can be ruled out right off the bat. I do believe that Canadians have just voted against the "centre".

I have to say I am getting a little effin tired of all these comments about the sky is falling because Harper has a majority as if the world was about to end.  I'm getting old now.  I have been here many times before.  Yes there will be tough times ahead and we will see things happen we will hate.  But this was the decision of Canadians under our antiquated electoral decision.  Pissing and moaning is not going to change a single damn thing.  

This is also a historic opportunity.  Harper is going to screw over a lot of people.  In four years time we (and by that I mean progressives - not just New Democrats) will have an opportunity to reverse that by defeating the Conservatives and replacing it with a new government.   Canada will still be here, we will have problems to deal with, but baring a huge meteor our country will still exist.  We have to begin organizing now.  We need, under our system, to convince about 10 % of Conservative voters, or about 12% of non-voters that there is a prudent, practical, progressive alternative that could govern in their interests.  This project looms largest in Ontario based on the results, but it is needed across the country.  That's it.  It isn't a huge task and we will be helped every day by an arrogant government that will undermine what most Canadians believe in.  In four years the average person will be hurting even more than they are now, seniors will be in worse shape and young people will find it harder to get the education and training they need.  It is our responsibility if we believe in what we say to get out there and hit the bricks -resisting this government when necessary, but more importantly talking to people in a positive way about an alternative.  Over the top histronics will only push people to Harper - this election proves that.

Quit whining - we have been here before- and over your life we will undoubtedly be here again- but it is how we react that matters.  If we cover our heads and go hide for 4 years we will get what we deserve.  We build a coaltion to defeat Harper one citizen at a time.  Wasting time talking about mergers only sets us back.  Canadians have spoken- at this point in our history they have said that they NDP is the vehicle they trust most to take on the Conservatives.   We should respect that and begin the building process to defeat them in 4 years time.  Quit wasting time- the clock is ticking.

So what are you going to do about it?   

Exactly Jan. I would also like to add to what Vansterdam said about how maybe having more youth elected will shake things up. But there is a stereotype I also want to address. Most people think of "youth" as university students/graduates living in larger urban centres. I find it encouraging to see people like Nikki Ashton elected in northern Manitoba or Ellen Brouseau who is a manager at a pub, and I hope these people will give more visibility to those aspects of the younger demographic (young people in smaller communities, working class young people with or without post-secondary education) that are traditionally invisible to mainstream society.

That Steele column suffers from the same faulty logic as Walkom's.

"Why do we get vote splits? One reason is simple math. The Conservative vote stays the same, but as the Liberal vote falls, the Conservative candidate can get elected with fewer votes.

. . . .

So on Monday night a few per cent of centre-right Liberals, people who support national daycare programs and same-sex marriage and public health care, voted Conservative to keep the NDP out. (I was certainly not among them.)"

Wait. I thought he said the Con vote stayed the same?

Then there's this:

"Another reason is that NDP member rhetoric about wealth redistribution, and a "working class party" ending neo-liberalism seriously freaks out the middle class. It sounds to some "bourgeois" ears like the NDP is going to come and take away their RRSP nest egg, tax the hell out of them, and blow up the economy.

. . . .

So to get to a majority, the NDP will need to moderate their economic positions further. No rhetoric about class. No plan for soaking the rich. No talk of ending "neo-liberalism"."

So, thousands of middle class suburbanites, most of whom probably have no idea what the term means, are walking around worried about the ending of "neo-liberalism"? Right

business leftist is obviously just that -- BUSINESS 'leftist'.

reducing canadian parliamentary democracy to two mainstream parties - a la repubs and dems - is anti-progressive, and anti-democratic.  you are reduced to 2 choices, both of which represent a corporatist agenda.  one has a smile on its face, and you hope that, at least, they won't declare war and invade a foreign country (though the brits didn't even have THAT solace).  the other has a sneer on it's face, and you can count on it to demonize, criminalize, and incarcerate the poor.  neither gives a real shit about poor and working class people.  a two party system is NOT democratic, nor is it capable of generating truly progressive policy. as progressives, we must be committed to radical, REAL democracy, and hence we must facilitate a system within which EVERYONE has a choice that truly reflects their values and beliefs, and everyone has representation within parliament - whether we happen to agree with them or not.

working towards a two party system is MADNESS!  well, if you're progressive.  if you're main interest is "business," then it makes perfect sense.  at the level of the state, vis a vis our parliamentary system, the only progressive attitude to this issue is to work towards PR, and look forward to the day that the ndp/marxist-leninist/green/alberta-populists-for-jesus coalition is governing.

I think 2 parties could work better in Canada, unlike the US. But yes, some PR would be nice. But the cons will never agree to it. So how to get it? Someone has to win a majority with that mandate.

I think we can wait another year or two to see the lay of the land but I believe it unlikely that the Conservatives can be defeated in an election unless there is some accommodation between the NDP, the Liberals, the BLOC and the Greens.  I am not in favour of a merger but I can see many advantages to uniting behind one candidate in those ridings where no party can defeat the Conservatives on their own.  This would not apply to where I live as I think the NDP can win without Liberal/Green support (though it would make it a guaranteed thing if there was an agreement).  The last choice of most non-Conservative voters is the NDP.  The advantagesare numerous but the most important one is that we could have a minority government (probably led by the NDP) which could pass legislation for proportional representation.  Then, I don't think we'd have to worry about a majority Conservative government for the foreseeable future and there would be no need to have any accommodations thereafter. 

The other advantages I see are:

* allow all parties to concentrate their effort in those ridings where they have a chance of winning

* provide an incentive to get new members to all parties thereby causing local activity and fund-raising (the "joint" candidate should be voted on by the joint membership)

* it would enhance cooperation against the Conservatives in the House of Commons after the election

An informal agreement by the NDP and Liberals elect Linda Duncan (and Ralph Goodale). 

The NDP has nomination races throughout Canada to determine who candidates are.  Here in the Western Arctic we chose Dennis without any input from the National Party.  I don't think it fair to blame the Quebec NDP because they could not find a candidate in a riding where there was no significant NDP presence before the election.  It is up to the local NDP association to come up with a candidate.  Personally, I would resent any interference from the National party in our nomination process.  The other two local major parties had interference from their national parties and it helped us re-elect Dennis.

I have helped several NDP candidates earn election.  Most of them knew less than I do about running a campaign and all of them listened to suggestions from their campaign team.  If there is a need for training our new young MP's, I am sure that the party is up to it.  It might even be easier to train young people than older candidates who believe they have more relevant experience.

I don't think the private detectives will find much dirt on these young people.  They haven't lived as long as some of the rest of us and I suspect that by itself will make it harder to find anything that can be used against them.

well, the 19 yr old NDP kid is smart, he talks like a pro in the paper. that kid is legit.

But Vegas girl, that one is really bad. Frankly, it looks like someone chose her for the photo. Whatever, no one thought they could ever win, so it was a fluke. But the trouble continues, just more distractions from the issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/vacationing-ndp-candidate-a...

Someone in the NDP there was lazy and sloppy. Its going to hurt them. My local Greens never stood a chance in hell, but they were serious people. find serious people who even though they have no chance, at least walk the riding for gods sakes.

This Vegas girl is turning into a circus, the comments abovr are out of control. Politics is an ugly crazy game. The Con media are going to go berserk with this kind of stuff, and it wipes out serious issues.

That is why I say UNITE the center, and then have only well-vetted people running. Finding 300+ people is not easy.

yikes, this is looking like a legalistic contagion which will spread through every riding in Que for the NDP, checking all the papers, etc. If some in the NDP made errors or shortcuts, man o man.

@business left

there is NOTHING wrong with a business person being a leftist - i appreciate what i assume to be the basics of your position, even if i probably disagree with many of them. indeed, my position entails that you ought to have a party to vote for that truly represents your views and beliefs, and that that party's representation in parliament should be proportionate to the popular vote it received from you and others who share your views, and that that party should be free to enter into coalitions and participate cooperatively in the governance of the country to the extent all parties involved consider the arrangement to be mutually beneficial for their constituencies.  i believe that people who do not share your views, or my own, should a) also have a choice that reflects their views, and b) have representation in proportion to their party's popular vote.  as i see it, THAT is what a true representational democracy is, and anything less - including obviousely, de jure or de facto 2 party systems - is NOT democratic.  and i also believe that a 2 party system can, in the end, never instigate truly progressive reforms.

how to rid ourselves of conservative rule is a separate question, but i would, on principle, and frankly from a practical perspective as well, rule out a merged "left" party.

Your post is sexist and insulting.  If you refer to her as Vegas girl or Vegas pub girl again, or imply that the NDP chose here for her looks, you'll be looking forward to a vacation from babble.

answer to your first point:  there is...it's called the NDP.  private message me if you should like to buy a membership.  Some folks give $500 and benefit from the 75% tax credit available for political donations at that level, but the minimum is $25 for the waged.

comment on second:  you mean abortion legislation that Harper has ruled out, and if he does bring in will be supported by half the Liberal caucus again? and that useless war...you must be referring to Afghanistan right? the one the Liberals got us into first and Harper just continued?

your mistake BL is assuming we buy the idea that there are more national parties on the left than one.  The Liberals voting record, policy, and actions since 1993 prove otherwise.

can i offer you a soothing cup of tea? It's Orange Pekoe, and it's delicious!

Liberal policies under a majority over 13 years  hurt women, children, single mothers, students, LGBT people, working families, immigrants and unions...so how can you celebrate those results if you are progressive???

now do you get it?  Liberal majority / Conservative majority = the same thing.   Liberal minority / Conservative minority = the same thing

don't take my word for it. look at policy and voting record and then the results.

If we continue to have FPTP system with Conservative majorities for any length of time, it will naturally progress into a two-party system, one in favour of the Conservatives and one against it.   The longer we go without cooperation between the left-of-centre parties, the longer this process will take to happen, the more damage the Conservatives will do to those things that we in the NDP believe are important.  I believe that we can take government through some sort of association or agreement and that when we do we can start a proportional representation system.  The Conservatives then will not be able to get a majority and the rest of us will be able to vote for who we want (rather than some of us feeling pressure to vote strategically).  I am tired of having a significant part of the population voting against a party by making a strategic vote for another party rather than voting for what they believe in. I think this explains in no small part why we have so much negative advertising in elections. 

It is true that in much of English Canada, the NDP does not have the strength to defeat Conservatives on its own (and the the Liberals definitely cannot in almost all ridings in the West.)  It is also true that the Liberal brand is a detriment in much of Canada outside of Ontario, the west-end of Montreal, Newfoundland and parts of the Maritimes.  The same is true for the NDP in other parts of Canada.  I know that Conservatives are disliked in most of Quebec.

@Kara: and all the rest of you.

Farnival didn't make it up. Its the historical record. The Libs run left and govern right. They are not  a laft wing party; the historial record simply doesn't bare withness to that. They are a right wing, party that paints itself as centerist to attract "left wing", voters, whatever a left wing Lib is.

Paul Martin cut the size of government 15% IN 1995. It was the largest cut to government in history. That is fact, not fiction.

I don't remember you or any of you mystery rabblers showing up before today. Maybe my recollection is wrong, but I can't recall most of you involved in debate before now. Then all of sudden you guys start showing up. I never heard of businessleftist before this week. Where were you guys? Or observant,521, I have been reading what he has written. I have never heard New Dems that have ever spoken like you, including the young kids involved in the party today.

So, enough of the generalization. You have our attention; what SPECIFICALLY do you want to have done and what SPECIFCALLY do you want to see happen? Lets hear it.

I'd be interested in visiting this planet you're from, where the left used to have media power.

It certainly never happened here on Earth.

So far, the only people I've seen going berserk on this are the CBC, the Toronto Star, the Liberal Party and a handful of classist mysogynists.  And you.

It's one thing to remark on the absurdity of the situation.  You are engaged in a wholesale attack on this woman simply because she doesn't fit your bourgeois idea of what a proper middle class MP looks like.

Your behaviour over the past 24 hours has been outrageously sexist and classist and I have flagged several of your posts for offensive content.

The qualifications to be an MP are:

• Canadian citizen - check
• 18 years of age or older - check
• not in jail - check
• got more votes than the other candidates - check

If you think she shouldn't be an MP, you go take it up with the people that elected her.

In the meantime, if you could refrain from conducting your exercise in class warfare here, I for one would appreciate it.

You may be interested to know that rabble.ca had more than 300,000 unique visits during the election period.  We've many new users joining us (and the occasional troll, but they're easily dealt with).  Many other long time members have returned from hiatus because of the election.

Arthur, this isn't a private club, and we encourage new members with diverse points of view.  That's what keeps babble interesting.

What Malcolm said.

Ken and Malcom:

You guys are so on target on this.

yeah

BC is a perfect example of a place where it is one of two parties.  Even with a corrupt arrogant government the NDP has not won an election in a decade.  That is the fate of a merged NDP/Liberal party.  The Liberals are needed to draw off some of Harpers potential support.  It would be nice if they ran from the right next time but as a kinder gentler government.  Any left leaning liberal supporters who didn't vote NDP last time will likely make their own migration in the next election.  The Liberals have no membership base in places like BC and all their seats might be up for grabs next election.  The NDP always does its best in three way races and might lose seats in BC if a merger happened. 

This is a surprise. Very old thread.

But, I say ditto Tommy_Paine. If they want a party with Coops as President, they are welcome to it!

I used to say that there were two types of people who advocated merger:
* those who are clueless about politics and
* those who are clueless about arithmetic.

I relaize now that I missed a type:
* those who want the HarperCons to stay in power forever unchallenged.

I used to say that there were two types of people who advocated merger:
* those who are clueless about politics and
* those who are clueless about arithmetic.

I relaize now that I missed a type:
* those who want the HarperCons to stay in power forever unchallenged.

AND again and again and again.

AND again and again and again.

AND....

How do you arrange/plan for a coalition? What would be involved...a convention where a David Orchard of the left is lied to? Allowing merger to occur as laid down in the plot?

Mergers or pre-election coalitions are virtually the same thing.  I am all in favour of minority governments and after the next election the Liberals who still have seats might be in a position to play king maker but I hope no one gives them a seat at the cabinet table.  

The only time I think temporary coalition talks might be appropriate is if against all odds the Liberals have a dead cat bounce in the next election and come close to the NDP in their seat total and the two parties hold the majority of seats between them.  Otherwise why would the NDP want to throw a life line to politicians that have been trying to destroy them.  Otherwise a merger or coalition is about allowing liberal party hacks a say in the party.

An American relative was questioning the Canadian 3+ party system because it causes split votes allowing the Cons to win. A very Tory relative spoke up and said "If it wasn't for the NDP we wouldn't have universal health care." I about fell off my seat! Lol
A neighbour who likes to needle me about leftist politics started his usual rant and I demanded "Do you have a green card in your pocket, a health card?" He nodded and I said "The NDP got that for you." He shut up and hasn't mentioned politics since. Yay!

The value of a multi-party system is the temporary partnerships that can form around issues important to everyone during the day to day governance activities.Two party systems focus only on elections it seems to me, while multi-party systems focus on the business of good governance and make it their business to seek out alliances to bring forward issues and legislation that reflects a broader range of thinking and of the population.A narrow ideology with all the power such as we have now is not representative of all Canadians and not good for all Canadians, possibly very dangerous.

Obviously I am not in favour of merging the 'left' (the Libs aren't 'left'. They're merchants and bankers and shippers ... but whatever), and I am very much in favour of proportionate representation to broaden the mix even more, and force politicians to collaborate more and be more accountable to us.

The Lib losers who've been bleating about a merger are out of date and out of synch with the best way forward, and only looking out for their own interests.

For the record, I don't have an inherent objection to a merger of two or more partis on the left.

I'm just sane enough to realize that there is no room in such a merger for a consistently right wing party like the Liberals. However progressively pretty their rhetoric, only fools judge them on rhetoric alone. Their recod in government is consistently right wing, apart from the odd progressive sop when and only when backed into an electoral corner.

Hell, if we're to merge with the Liberals, we may as well merge with the Conservatives and be done with it.

I guess we'll see in 2015 if the NDP -  our new Official Opposition - has the ability to become government - or not.

dupe post.

You do know that insulting people has the opposite effect to what you are looking for?

I'm referring to the 2008 Alberta election, where the combined NDP, Liberal, Green vote in the province was essentially 40%, yet those centre-left parties in combination received only 13% of the seats. (And people think Alberta is totally small-C conservative county!) *See Wiki Alberta Election 2008. Add up the Green/Lib/NDP percentages (the second last number under each party leader.)

PartyParty leader# of
candidatesSeatsPopular vote

2004Dissol.2008% Change#%% Change

    
Progressive Conservative
Ed Stelmach
83
621
60
72
+20%
501,063
52.72
+5.92%

    
Liberal
Kevin Taft
82
161
16
9
-43.8%
251,158
26.43
-2.96%

    
NDP
Brian Mason
83
4
4
2
-50%
80,578
8.48
-1.72%

    
Wildrose Alliance
Paul Hinman
61
1
1
-
-100%
64,407
6.78
-1.92%2

    
Greens
George Read
79
-
-
-
-
43,222
4.55
+1.80%

    
Social Credit
Len Skowronski
8
-
-
-
-
2,043
0.21
-1.02%

    
Separation
Bruce Hutton
1
-
-
-
-
119
0.01
-0.52%

    
Communist
Naomi Rankin
2
-
-
-
-
96
0.01
xx

    
Alberta Party
Bruce Stubbs
1
-
-
-
-
42
0.00
-0.28%

    
Independent
7
-
1
-
-100%
7,635
0.80
+0.69%

 
Vacant
1
 

Total 407838383-950,363100.00 

I'm not intentionally insulting anyone but genuinely curious as to why so many are so opposed to coalitions without participating in an open discussion of what it would mean and how the numbers could play out, nor understanding how coalitions in Europe or New Zealand, for example, even work. I just find that unfathomable, that's all.  

OUtwest, if you believe that a merger of all of those parties would have resulted in a substantial change to the electoral outcome, then your "strategic" analysis isn't worth the bandwidth it's taking up. Not all supporters of the several parties would have supported a common candidate. Some would have stayed home. Some would have voted for whaever other parties remained on the ballot. Some would have voted Conservative. The net retention would not have been enough to affect the outcome in more than a few seats.

Please stop pestering us with this delusional "strategy." It is pure fantasy.