+_+
A Little Merger Reality
Sun, 2010-06-13 01:14
#1
A Little Merger Reality
Sun, 2010-06-13 01:20
#2
Harper is enjoying every minute of this farce. If this keeps up Conservatives will be 10-15% ahead of the Liberals in support before too much longer
Tories win in Grit-NDP merger
It would be naive to think supporters of each party would flock to united front - they might just vote Conservative
All too often, the town that bluster built erupts in no end of controversy surrounding some alleged backroom political plot which is just too far-fetched or dumb to be believed.
Take the latest kerfuffle in the nation's capital over secret merger talks between the federal Liberals and New Democrats.
So far, it seems the would-be deal-making is so clandestine that nobody but two Liberal troublemakers knows anything about it.
Notably, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, the two leaders who would be plotting to tie the knot, have both denied the rumours.
The beleaguered Liberal leader called the whole thing "ridiculous," and it certainly is that.
For one thing, there is the small matter that the Liberals would likely have nothing to gain from merging with the NDP.
It could even make things worse for Ignatieff and his party, if that's possible.
For example, consider the results in the last federal election in seat-rich Ontario.
The Conservatives won 51 of the 106 seats in the province with 39% of the vote.
The Liberals and NDP split the rest - the Grits winning 38 seats with 34% of the vote; the Dippers holding 17 seats with 18% of the ballots cast.
In their dreams, the Libs and NDP imagine a merger would simply combine their respective votes and total seats.
Reality is not even close.
In fact, pollster Nik Nanos says his research suggests a Liberal-NDP union could well hand Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives their elusive majority win at the polls.
"A merger creates a new beast that repels people from both sides," Nanos says.
In other words, a lot of Canadians who vote Liberal would never support a party that includes the NDP, and a lot of New Democrats feel the same way about the Grits.
Nanos Research routinely tracks voters' second choice of political parties, and the results suggest a merger would indeed be smart as a brick.
The latest Nanos poll, for instance, shows that far more Liberal voters would rather go to the Conservatives (38.7%) as their second choice, than to the New Democrats (27.9%).
In other words, put the Libs and Dippers together and watch all those blue Grits holding their noses for Harper in the next election.
Even among current NDP supporters, 22.6% of them say they would rather go to the Conservatives than throw their support to the Liberals.
Other recent polling on hypothetical mergers led by various likely suspects - Ignatieff, Layton, Bob Rae, for instance - suggest just about anyone but Iggy might be able to mount a competitive race against the Conservatives.
Or not.
Again, let's take the last election results from Ontario, and for the sake of argument, pretend that a merger wouldn't send droves of supporters from both parties running for the hills.
Our statistical analysis shows that if all the NDP and Liberal voters had instead cast their ballots for a merged-party candidate in every riding, the Conservatives still would have won over 80% of the seats they took in Ontario.
All of which makes the latest round of merger-mania controversy dangerous for the Liberals and their already beleaguered leader.
As one longtime Grit strategist puts it: "The last thing he needs is this stuff swirling around.
"Unless they can kill it dead, this is exactly what could give the Conservatives the ballot question they want."
That question, of course, would position a Conservative majority as the only way to prevent a possible merger or coalition of the Liberals and NDP.
Heck, the Conservatives already had that fear campaign in the can and ready to roll long before the latest merger nonsense.
It features video from one of the dumbest political photo-ops ever, shot shortly after the 2008 election.
There was then Liberal leader Stephane Dion inking the deal to form a power-sharing government with Layton, co-signed by Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe - the Three Stooges and their coalition of losers.
Notably, Canadian voters responded to that idea by dropping Liberal support to one of its lowest levels in modern polling.
The latest bout of Liberal silliness over a merger that will never happen has merely supplied the joyous Conservatives with fresh material for their next election attack ads.
Bring in the clowns.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2010/06/11/1435...
Sun, 2010-06-13 07:58
#3
It seems this threa would be the succesor to:
Sun, 2010-06-13 14:42
#4
The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party would never merge because the NDP would make sure that it's pro-choice policy would exist after any merger, and that would drive the 'Liberals For Life' anti-abortion members straight over to the Conservatives, giving them the support they'd need for a majority.
We can all rest easy. A Liberal/NDP merger will never happen.
Sun, 2010-06-13 15:03
#5
If this keeps up Conservatives will be 10-15% ahead of the Liberals in support before too much longer
This merger idea is a made-up controversy by the media that does not have a chance of happening. The NDP and Liberals are each going to run two full slates of 308 candidates each in the next election.
The Conservatives are going to try to campaign against "a coalition of socialists and separatists" in the next election. It's up to the NDP and Liberals to figure out a way to respond to that line of attack.
One possible way to deal with this is for the NDP to simply tell the voters what minimum conditions they would require for them to be a part of a coalition. And the NDP could even open up the possibility of being in a coalition with the Conservatives or BQ if they meet the NDP's minimum coalition requirements.
One of the NDP's minimum coalition requirements could be renouncing separatism.
Others could be:
- No more corporate tax cuts
- No more prorogation without Parliament's consent.
- Enhance freedom of information laws to reduce government secrecy and information control.
- Fixed election dates that the PM can't ignore.
- Free votes in Parliament.
The NDP could use their minimum coalition requirements to enhance their image with the public.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:11
#6
JKR....I agree 100% with your earlier comment re more free votes...party discipline is an important factor in the poisoned environment of the current Parliament as MPs pay a price for having views contrary to their leadership...Reduce the role of party discipline and we'd have better government.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:27
#7
From the former thread.
Members of Congress feel free to take independent positions and hash out their differences in the open.
Democrats are free to cave in and support and vote for republican policies. It does often not cut the other way. From what I've ever seen, there is almost NO meaningful debate in the US mainstream media. US-style debates are a joke - full of lies, obfuscations, baiting and assumptions about what is "allowed" to be discussed. So perhaps there is more debate than in Canada but it's phony debate.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:53
#8
party discipline is an important factor in the poisoned environment of the current Parliament as MPs pay a price for having views contrary to their leadership
No party discipline in the US. Free votes on everything. and hard to imagine a more poisoned environment. Just on the level of civility, let alone the "content" of the mud slinging.
Sun, 2010-06-13 16:57
#9
The US system is a train wreck because politicians there and bought and paid for by corporate lobby groups.
Politicians there need tens of millions of dollars just to run their individual campaigns.
Meg Whitman just spent almost $100 million to win the Republican primary in California. She'll spend a lot more then that in the general election.
Sun, 2010-06-13 17:22
#10
The point is that uncoupling party discipline is talked about like its a panacea. I think party discipline is too tight in Canada. But they have the same rules in the UK. And having US Congresspeople that are free agents is one of the number one problems there. Put Canadian spending limits in the US, and the Congresspeople as free agents would still have outcomes that we would find very undesirable.
Sun, 2010-06-13 17:23
#11
Nanos asked the wrong question in his poll.
Sure a lot of Liberals might prefer the Cons over the NDP if the Liberals did not run in a particular ridng. And many NDP voters might prefer the Cons to the Libs.
But what was not asked was how voters would respond to a Liberal -NDP alliance. If there were a merger or an electoral ceasefire in certin seats how much of the Liberal vote might be transferred to the NDP and vice versa?
If there were an alliance I suspect that the transfer would be more substantial than Nanos indicates. The two parties would be alllies and not competitors. Their respective supporters could be expected to look more kindly on the partner of their preferred party.
Sun, 2010-06-13 19:26
#12
The point is that uncoupling party discipline is talked about like its a panacea. I think party discipline is too tight in Canada. But they have the same rules in the UK. And having US Congresspeople that are free agents is one of the number one problems there. Put Canadian spending limits in the US, and the Congresspeople as free agents would still have outcomes that we would find very undesirable.
I'd have to agree, party discipline has its place, but it should not be maintained through the threat of causing an unwanted election.
For minority Parliaments to work, the PM's ablity to dissolve Parliament should be abolished. That's what they've done in the UK. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have established a fixed election date that the PM cannot override.
We should have fixed election dates in Canada that the PM can not override. If the PM wants to resign, that's fine. But the House of Commons should then be able to choose a replacement if it does not want to dissolve itself. Only the House of Commons should be able to dissolve itself. The PM should not be allowed to do it unilaterally.
And I believe that party discipline is not nearly as tight in the UK. MP's in the UK are able to break party lines much more there then here.
In Canada, the power of the executive has grown so much that MP's truly are "nobodies". Much more so now then when Trudeau called them "nobodies" 40 years ago.
The role of MP has got to be resurrected.
Sun, 2010-06-13 21:38
#13
hmmm....so what does Romanow think he's going to do? Form yet another party that is something in between the NDP and the Liberals and let the anti-Tory vote get split five ways instead of four?
Sun, 2010-06-13 21:45
#14
Liberal NDP Coalition Still in Works
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-ndp-coalition-still...
"I know today's political people are worried about timing and they are worried about brands. These are all the same things that my political advisers were worried about. I think that they are legitimate concerns, I don't diminish any of them,' Romanow said.
'But as a Canadian who has been around the Horn a couple of times, I do not think that we should run away from the notion of a new political entity which would consider the issues.."
Mon, 2010-06-14 00:21
#15
From what I've ever seen, there is almost NO meaningful debate in the US mainstream media. US-style debates are a joke - full of lies, obfuscations, baiting and assumptions about what is "allowed" to be discussed. So perhaps there is more debate than in Canada but it's phony debate.
What's truly upsetting is that you've described the state of political debate in our Parliament, and on CBC Power & Politics / CTV Power Play, as well.
BRING BACK DON NEWMAN !!!
Mon, 2010-06-14 00:26
#16
hmmm....so what does Romanow think he's going to do? Form yet another party that is something in between the NDP and the Liberals and let the anti-Tory vote get split five ways instead of four?
Well, I would like to know what he's talking about there, for sure, but it could just be a coalition government.
Meanwhile that reporter is married to Stéphane Dion's former Communications Director, and is about as in the tank for the Liberals as you can get in the gallery. I don't believe very much of what she writes, to be honest with you. It's not that I don't think people can't be independent in thought from their partners, but I think she was a Liberal before she married him.
Mon, 2010-06-14 00:41
#17
"But, as a Canadian who has been around the horn a couple of times, I do not think that we should run away from the notion of a new political entity which would consider the issues of today," he said. Roy Romanov Globe&Mail June 13
IMHO, the NDP executive should consider, at minimum, to hold non-binding exploratory discussions with the LPC about a formal merger of the two parties and what the process of a merger between equals might look like. The executive could strike a committee to hold the non-binding discussions with a deadline of Sept 15, giving the party and MPs the summer to meet with constituents and party members. The executive can decide in the fall what path to take. And if there is a decision by the executive to pursue a merger, the final decision would have to be ratified by the party's membership.
Mon, 2010-06-14 00:42
#18
Over my dead body.
But, I can tell you're not a New Democrat, because you never mentioned Federal Council in any of that proposal, so you clearly don't know the first thing about our party's processes.
Mon, 2010-06-14 01:12
#19
party discipline is an important factor in the poisoned environment of the current Parliament as MPs pay a price for having views contrary to their leadership
No party discipline in the US. Free votes on everything. and hard to imagine a more poisoned environment. Just on the level of civility, let alone the "content" of the mud slinging.
Stating that there is "no party discipline in the US" is factually incorrect. Party discipline exists in Congress albeit a weaker variety,, just as it does in almost every democracy where political parties operated. Free votes exist in the US system but not every vote is a one where individual congressmen can exercise their discretion without fear of reprisal or punishment. It's true that congressmen have greater freedom to vote against their party, especially on regional issues but this can come at a price. Weak party discipline means politics is based on luring support rather than compeling it. Hence pork barrel politics. But party leaders can and do rely on party discipline for key legislation. Adversarial doesn't mean poisoned. There is currently a Democratic president, and Democratic controlled Congress and Senate and while it's not smooth sailing it's far from the atmosphere under Clinton.
Mon, 2010-06-14 01:38
#20
Over my dead body.
But, I can tell you're not a New Democrat, because you never mentioned Federal Council in any of that proposal, so you clearly don't know the first thing about our party's processes.
What's my being or not being a New Democrat have to do with discussing the mertis of a possible merger? I've never met a group of people so intent on pigeon holing others as a means of shutting down debate - he's not one of us so he must be one of them so therefore he is wrong...lol...Guess that includes Roy Romanov too huh? I've yet to see a cogent argument for not discussing this idea....only fear. Of course the NDP could call a FC to debate and vote on the question of non-binding discussions or anything else for that matter. My thinking is that the results of such discussions would be better fare for the FC than a discussion about having a discussion. But as you wish.
That someoone would threaten suicide over a proposal to have non-binding discussions is exteme don't you think?
An irony here is this attitude s exactly the same as how Social Conseratives react when you mention LGBT rights - "over my dead body"...extreme and reactionary
Mon, 2010-06-14 01:38
#21
I thought we'd already worked through the difference between a merger and coalition. Coalition maybe. hostile takeov--er, merger never.
Here's a piece (which I don't necessarily agree with) by Murray Dobbin:
http://murraydobbin.ca/2010/06/12/let-the-coalition-games-begin/
"After falling in the polls for weeks the leader of the Liberal Party seems finally to have received a reality check about his and his party’s future. He is actually talking about the possibility of a coalition. Mind you, it took a rumour of a merger of the parties to get things really out there. Broadcaster Wendy Mesley – who announced with dead certainty that serious negotiations were underway – will now have a legacy of putting forward the most absurd political story ever featured on CBC National news. Whoever suckered her into this one should get some kind of medal. I don’t usually give much credit to conspiracy theories but this smells like one.
But it doesn’t matter who did what. Something had to push Ignatieff off his delusional perch and whatever combination of factors did the trick we have now entered the next phase of saving the country from Stephen Harper. Ignatieff has only moved one step towards a coalition but it was the biggest step: acknowledging that such an arrangement is legitimate and (possibly) necessary."
Mon, 2010-06-14 09:14
#22
What's my being or not being a New Democrat have to do with discussing the mertis of a possible merger? I've never met a group of people so intent on pigeon holing others as a means of shutting down debate - he's not one of us so he must be one of them so therefore he is wrong...lol...Guess that includes Roy Romanov too huh? I've yet to see a cogent argument for not discussing this idea....only fear. Of course the NDP could call a FC to debate and vote on the question of non-binding discussions or anything else for that matter. My thinking is that the results of such discussions would be better fare for the FC than a discussion about having a discussion. But as you wish.
That someoone would threaten suicide over a proposal to have non-binding discussions is exteme don't you think?
An irony here is this attitude s exactly the same as how Social Conseratives react when you mention LGBT rights - "over my dead body"...extreme and reactionary
People who show up here for the first time during some kind of news event, and rather than look around and get the feel of the place and slowly participate in the conversation, instead drop a webpost of theirs that they're promoting and start telling everyone else what they should think, are suspect for good reason.
Mon, 2010-06-14 09:16
#23
Romanow might like the idea of a merger because of his experience in Saskatchewan. The Liberals there propped up an NDP government and quickly faded into oblivion leaving the province with two parties where the NDP now has the entire centre-left to themselves.
But the federal situation is very different then Saskatchewan's.
Mon, 2010-06-14 09:48
#24
Roy Romanow knows the differences with the federal situation. And while there is some ambiguity to what he says, I think hes saying he would like merger to be considered seriously.
Doesn't change either my assessment of the situation [assumed this would eventually be coming from some credible NDP figure], nor my opinion that its a non-starter for reasons much more compelling than I don't want it.
Mon, 2010-06-14 09:56
#25
One thing to consider is that maybe its a good thing to throw out the idea of merger so that it can be summarily dismissed by everyone as whacky and unrealistic and then the old idea of a post-election coalition starts to look more and more reasonable.
Mon, 2010-06-14 10:12
#26
remind
The NDP policy on this should be "never stand in the way when the Liberals are busy self-destructing".
Mon, 2010-06-14 15:33
#27
Three significant perspectives to add to the debate today:
* Michael Byers - "Reconcilable Differences"
* Douglas Bell - "The Romanow Factor"
* Brian Topp - "The pluses and minuses of Liberal-NDP merger"
Mon, 2010-06-14 15:53
#28
One thing to consider is that maybe its a good thing to throw out the idea of merger so that it can be summarily dismissed by everyone as whacky and unrealistic and then the old idea of a post-election coalition starts to look more and more reasonable.
yup
Mon, 2010-06-14 15:54
#29
I agree, Stock.
Mon, 2010-06-14 16:50
#30
For someone like myself completely outside - finding themself totally unrepresented by any of these mainstream parties - any kind of coalition or merger that looks to eliminate Harper would definitely have my interest. And there's probably lots more where I'm coming from. There should be serious discussions about this by whatever party mechanisms are appropriate, without hysterics or histrionics and so as not to frighten the horses - and away from the MSM - but clearly Harper has to be brought down asap because things were already bad before he came along and it's lots worse now and the contours of what is being constructed here are truly frightening. I fully appreciate the difficulties of what is contemplated but consider the direction we've already been taken.
Mon, 2010-06-14 17:28
#31
remind
well if things were bad before he came along, we only have the Liberals to point the finger at, so why in the hell would we consider them in anyway shape or form?
Tue, 2010-06-15 00:39
#32
"For someone like myself completely outside - finding themselves totally unrepresented by any of these mainstream parties - any kind of coalition or merger that looks to eliminate Harper would definitely have my interest. And there's probably lots more where I'm coming from."
I agree completely. I'm so tired of the squabbling over which party and who gets the bigger seat of power, etc., all of which I consider to be fiddling while Rome burns. And I'm sure the majority of progressive voters feel exactly the same way.
Tue, 2010-06-15 02:44
#33
Sorry if the details both you, outwest, but then what are you doing on a politics board. The relative number of seats the NDP and Liberals get in the next election will determine how much bargaining power each has in the subsequent negotiations. More seats for the NDP equals a better guarantee that the new government will be able to have more progressive policies. If that's fiddling to you, I'm sorry.
Tue, 2010-06-15 16:15
#34
Point taken.
What I was trying to say is that all the best (NDP) policy discussions and ideas in the world become, in the end, meaningless if cooperation doesn't actually happen; I was also alluding to the fact that some posters seem to continually naysay all the variant cooperative possibilities, coming up with a plethora of excuses at every turn as to why the party can't sit down at the discussion table. I believe that the majority of the progressive-voting (52%?) public doesn't care all that much about what they perceive to be the nit-picking internal details, but wants to see general and current movement towards electoral success by the centre-left, and now.
Tue, 2010-06-15 22:46
#35
The only good thing about the Libby controversy is that it's gotten rid of all the coalition/merger talk.
Hopefully the page will be turned on these topics so we can look forward to the upcoming $1.5 billion G8/G20 Fake Lake-Gate Meetings.
Tue, 2010-06-15 22:58
#36
"I was also alluding to the fact that some posters seem to continually naysay all the variant cooperative possibilities,"
Bullshit.
Virtually every Dipper here supports the idea, its active furtherance, and steps towards a governing coalition.
Double bullshit, because thats been pointed out to you at least once before.
Your beef is that people don't indiscriminately support every form of cooperation with the Liberals possible, no matter the drawbacks on substantive terms. And then you attempt to equate that as being driven by partisanship to oppose cooperation with the Liberals.
Wed, 2010-06-16 01:39
#37
Really, KenS? Virtually every Dipper here supports the idea of cooperation?
In fact, I think the poster who wrote after you makes my point, "The only good thing about the Libby controversy is that it's gotten rid of all the coalition/merger talk."
(Unless, of course, you think "cooperation" can be successful without a coalition. I don't happen to see it that way.)
PS. What's with the personally abusive language? That's twice now.
Wed, 2010-06-16 02:00
#38
Your complete non reading of what people say, replacing that with bullshit you attribute to them... AND doing it repeatedly, is flat out dishonest. So no apologies for the language.
Compare what you just wrote to what I said. Its not long. Point to a word said against coalition.
And by the way, the poster you referr to has not self idenified as a Dipper. But thinking he/she is such is fair enough anyway. He didn't say anything against coalition. It was a statement of the media turning it into obsessive yammering. What detainee document crisis, eh?
Getting the public acclimated to a coalition being normal is a good thing. [And even confusing/collapsing it with merger is useful to that end.] But after a couple weeks of nothing else, enough is enough already.
You might have seen that point if you werent intent on fabricating everything around here into your personal crusade that everyone [all the partisans] is too in to their partisan schticks to give cooperation anything but the thumbs down. Not to mention that JKR is pretty obviously not a candidate for the partisan label.
Wed, 2010-06-16 02:36
#39
Ryan1812
I don't know if anyone can recall, but when the Alliance/PC's merged, I seem to recall the Conservative % drop quite a bit before going back up. I think this could happen again with the left. Thoughts?
Wed, 2010-06-16 06:30
#40
That merger has dropped the % in BC permanently. Many areas of BC dropped below what Reform alone used to get. [And still inching south, with the NDP picking up seats as it does.]
And I think in the Atlantic region its pprobably that the Cons overall struggle to keep just what used to be the PC vote.
Wed, 2010-06-16 07:06
#41
Electoral pact = 173 seats for Lib / NDP / Greeens
Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/the-centre-lefts-last-hope-96454189.html
Chantel Hebert: NDP /Liberal Coalition Would Change Politics in Quebec:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823914--hebert-liberal-ndp-co...
Wed, 2010-06-16 13:30
#42
Scott Piatkowski
The only good thing about the Libby controversy is that it's gotten rid of all the coalition/merger talk.
What about the contribution of
- Ignatieff calling for an extension of our stay in Aghanistan?
- The Liberals (and Bloc) folding on the Aghan detainee issue?
- The Liberals allowing the budget (and all of its attachments) to pass as written?
- The Liberals co-operating with the Liberals to eliminate the right to apply for a pardon?
Then again, that's just more evidence of why a merger was never a possibility anyway.
Wed, 2010-06-16 13:40
#43
Chantel Hebert: NDP /Liberal Coalition Would Change Politics in Quebec:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823914--hebert-liberal-ndp-co...
Hmmm. There's a lot of truth in that piece - and I don't often say that of Chantal Hébert.
Wed, 2010-06-16 13:44
#44
Boom Boom
Given that today's Liberal Party is so utterly repugnant, the best avenue for the NDP in my opinion is for it to go alone and increase its seat count and thus its influence in Parliament. Getting together with the Liberals by way of an accord, coalition, or merger is really unthinkable - unless the NDP is allowed to dictate a good percentage of the terms of any cooperation. Probably a better partner for the NDP is the BQ, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Sat, 2010-06-19 21:26
#45
Ryan1812
Given that today's Liberal Party is so utterly repugnant, the best avenue for the NDP in my opinion is for it to go alone and increase its seat count and thus its influence in Parliament. Getting together with the Liberals by way of an accord, coalition, or merger is really unthinkable - unless the NDP is allowed to dictate a good percentage of the terms of any cooperation. Probably a better partner for the NDP is the BQ, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I feel the key is for the NDP and the Green's to come together, attempt to pull seats from the BQ and leftist Liberals and manage to pull alienated voters out of the wilderness. This, I believe, could even combate blue Liberals and the Conservative combination. But is this kind of coalition possible and would they be able to join, knowing that the NDP would likly hold the balance of power.
Sun, 2010-06-20 00:39
#46
But remember, the Green Party is NOT A LEFTWING PARTY. They keep braggng ad nauseum about how fiscally conservative they are and how they believe in "market-based solutions" to environmental problems (ie: if you don't like what BP is doing in the Gulf of Mexico, punish them by filling up at Texaco!), and how they represent the vacuum left by the old Mulroney PC party - which they seem to regard as some sort of paragon of progressivism (not!). Someone explain in what fantasy world, this kind of Green Party would touch the NDP with a ten foot pole?
Sun, 2010-06-20 01:05
#47
@InklessPW on Twitter earlier today:
InklessWells How utterly does the Green Party have to collapse before the Globe notices? A little more, apparently.
The NDP won't have to wait around and "merge" with the Green Party. The latter's vote will collapse. In seats where the NDP looks viable, they'll get a lot of that vote, and in other places they'll either go back to the Liberals from whence they come, or a few of the former PCs will vote for the new United Party of Canada, which is the successor to the Progressive Canadian Party, assuming it can get registered in time and find enough candidates.
My prediction, anyway.
Sun, 2010-06-20 10:08
#48
But remember, the Green Party is NOT A LEFTWING PARTY.
Well said, Stockholm!
There are a (very) few truly 'Green'-minded individuals in what serves as Canada's 'Green' Party, but it has become more and more obvious that this 'Green' Party is just a Liberal Party invention to slice votes away from the NDP to potentially help elect more Liberals.
When the Liberals call for an Green/NDP/Liberal merger, then (and only then) would I ever consider such an event seriously.
Sun, 2010-06-20 10:11
#49
Boom Boom
Hard for me to see the NDP and Greens joining forces any time soon.
Sun, 2010-06-20 10:28
#50
The Greens role in politics is to get 7% of the vote and 0% of the seats. Somehow that 7% ends up magically going to the Conservatives who get over-represented in the House of Commons. This is especially perverse since the Conservatives are Green supporters least favorite party.
... another reason Canada needs Fair Voting.
Sun, 2010-06-20 10:52
#51
it has become more and more obvious that this 'Green' Party is just a Liberal Party invention to slice votes away from the NDP to potentially help elect more Liberals.
I think you're right about the intent of the Liberals in promoting the Green Party last time, David. Ironically, though, it was a strategy that came back to bite them, because according to a study of the last election's results by John Ryan (cited in Frances Russell's column of the other day in the Winnipeg Free Press), the Green Party received more votes from former Liberals than NDPers.