Coalition; to be or not to be?

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn

AntiSpin wrote:

It's the NDP that would suffer most if it fully rationalized its election strategy in cooperation with the Liberals outside of full merger. In almost every instance, second place Liberal candidates garnered more votes than the NDP candidate in key ridings and as a result, the two parties would be better off if the NDP didn't run a candidate at all.

In short, a formal merger is in the NDP's best interest while a coalition works best for the Liberals.

 

Horse hockey.  Saying the other guy would do better folding their tent completely is utter nonsense, made all the more silly by saying it would only be temporary.   In many seats, particularly out west, the NDP consistently finishes ahead.  Out West, where the Liberals are weakest, some voters go from Conservative to NDP and back.  If this is the best that you Liberals can come up with then its best to announce to the world that yet again the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouth.  Call their bluff as I said -without having to commit ourself first. 

Erik Redburn

Geoff wrote:

Caissa, I think you're absolutely right.  A new left-wing party would be the most positive outcome of a Liberal takeover of the NDP.  (Let's not kid ourselves into thinking of it as a merger.  The Reform/Alliance did not 'merge' with the PCs; it absorbed what was left of the PCs.)

He's half right.  Any attempt at a full out merger at any time would mean a very sudden appearence of a new left party and a loss of votes on either side of the new Liberal-Democratic creation, but I didn't see anyone here with a history in the party talking about a merger. 

Just for the sake of discussion though, any new left coalition would also be at a disadvantage at first, lacking funds and structure, and facing an equally divided "left", but it would have stronger grounds to stand on once formed.  With the existing problem of a Republican-right PM like Harper, who's already been in power too long, those on the rightwing of the NDP would be better off just joining up with the Liberals as individuals and trying to sway their moderate wing from the inside.  The leftwing of the NDP could then start start talking to other progressives seriously again.

Quote:

I don't know if there would be enough disaffected NDPers and fellow travelers to join the Greens and make them a more progressive party, or if we'd simply start from scratch.  Regardless of which road we were to take, anything would be better than to let the electoral system devolve into an American-style duopoly.  You think elections are virtually meaningless now - you ain't seen nothin' yet.

No, a US-style duopoly serves noone well, but vested interests and the best funded lobbyists.  It denies the diversity of political views and possibilities in the general population.  But there are enough disaffected Greens and progressive Liberals as well to make another entirely new left coalition viable --just for the sake of discussion.

 

 

AntiSpin

Horse hockey. Saying the other guy would do better folding their tent completely is utter nonsense, made all the more silly by saying it would only be temporary.

--------------

 

At no point did I write that the NDP should "fold their tent".....instead, and quite clearly, I wrote that the NDP would be better served by a merger than a coalition only insofar as optimizing where the two parties run candidates.

 

Yeesh.

 

Erik Redburn

KenS wrote:

Calling it a "spreadshheet strategy" only covers the aspects of it that are adding up numbers of votes that don't add up in practice.

A coalition means a government formed after an election. Occasionaly- but not generally [and I can only think of one case]- there are arrangements between parties to trade where they will not run candidates. So when you say 'coalition' you are not using the term in the general usage way, and not the way it is used around here.

And where you get the idea a merger is in the NDP's best interest- lord only knows. Not from people in the NDP.

 

Too true, but pre-election arrangements have been successfully undertaken with the Green party, and others, on the local level and are quite common in Europe now.  Technically they're still coalitions, which again is all I was talking about.

Erik Redburn

AntiSpin wrote:

Horse hockey. Saying the other guy would do better folding their tent completely is utter nonsense, made all the more silly by saying it would only be temporary.

--------------

 

At no point did I write that the NDP should "fold their tent".....instead, and quite clearly, I wrote that the NDP would be better served by a merger than a coalition only insofar as optimizing where the two parties run candidates.

 

Yeesh.

 

 

That wasn't clear to me at all, you were making some very broad statements.  And again, I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.   To make any sense politically, any such idea would have to be sold as not what's best for party B and C politically but to protect the public interest of the majority.    

If small c Tories ever regain control of the big C party then such arrangements wouldn't even need to be spoken of out loud.

AntiSpin

I see Babble is just as doctrinaire as any other forum or comment site in Canada these days, where all ideas must be assessed first by ideology rather than rational thinking. If he disagrees with us he must be a ________________ collaborator (insert Liberal, Conservative, NDP as you see fit).

 

AntiSpin

Erik - I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.

------

I agree with this 100%.

In fact, given Canada's constitutional and political conventions, it can't be done any other way. Those, like Ignatieff, who believe a coalition of convenience after the fact will work are dreaming.

remind remind's picture

Ahhhh, I see...we are getting more trial ballons being floated here and a touch of setting of parameters, that could be discussed as a pre-election "co-operation" pact. With a just a hint of trying to set dialogue parameters, aka phoney propaganda, that favours the Liberals. Unwarrantedly I might add. Just the fact that Kinsella et al, are floating the ballons and spin that they are, indicates they finally realize they are in serious trouble and are now coming from a lesser position..

AntiSpin wrote:
No doubt Kinsella leaked the info on purpose as either a trial balloon to reduce the sting of the proposal when it's made official or to get Canadians thinking about it or both.

Leaked what info? He made the shit up and then floated it,  it was no damn 'leak'. Leak means there was dialogue occuring that could be leaked, so here you are attempting to say there was a "leak". Stop it, it is false optics.

Quote:
Electorally, a coalition - formal or informal - only works to a certain point. In ridings where one party or the other traditionally dominates it allows the other party to withdraw their candidate and spend resources elsewhere (assuming full cooperation).

However, in competitive ridings there is a danger of vote splitting. In the 2008 election, there were approximately 31 ridings where vote splitting between the Liberals and the NDP allowed the Conservative candidate to eek out a win.

So ...you are really asking the NDP to step down in 31 ridings...while you will not run any people in NDP 2nd place ridings where you are non-competative in the first place, as it would waste money, money that you do not have.

Pathetic, bargaining from the bottom of the barrel, and still expecting the NDP to give it all to the Liberals.

And the next paragraph is a  world wonder of spin, based on absolutely NOTHING. But then of course I am not surprised given your moniker.

Quote:
It's the NDP that would suffer most if it fully rationalized its election strategy in cooperation with the Liberals outside of full merger...In short, a formal merger is in the NDP's best interest while a coalition works best for the Liberals.

Would have said the exact opposite is true, but it is not that simple, as the Liberals are screwed no matter, and they are starting to realize it.

The Liberals would love to merge with the NDP and get their debt under control, and access to the NDP's assets and grass roots donators, while still trying to suck up to corporate interests, and assuring them a feeding at the trough, the best of both world's they still believe they deserve.

Quote:
Granted, a Liberal Democratic party

and there ya go building a search engine word search where "liberal democratic party" can be floated and then  quoted in the msm as being part of the discussion at a "left wing  political forum.

Even though ya just joined today to float the balloon of empty  propaganda, no one in  the greater public will know, so they could come to believe the  spin  you just threw around here trying to falsely indicate that there is discussions and this is the name being discussed even. Stop it, as again it is pure distorted propaganda based upon made up shit, by Kinsella. 

Quote:
  the NDP could have lost up to 25% of its support to the Green Party and still the combined Liberal/NDP total would've been greater than actual winners.

I see you are willfully ignoring votes lost by the Liberals, to the Green Party  indeed the NDP....flinging this type of propaganda around is not doing the Liberals any favours you know. But please do keep it up as it indicates just how desperate ya are.

Quote:
Finally, a Liberal-Democrat option

Re-worded it I see, for the search engine maximization.

Get a grip, die hard NDP supporters are NOT going to go  for a Liberal Party merger, nor are middle of the road ones, and the only reason why this merger nonsense is being thrown out is that the Liberals are in danger they know it, and want to generate "spin" they think will be in their favour thus trying to increase their negotiating power.

 

Quote:
A new party would also allow for a new leadership race and policy convention, something both parties are in dire need of.

In short, a minority Liberal-Democrat party would be a welcome change.

The NDP are not in need of a leadership race nor in need of a policy convention, unlike the Liberals who need both.

Perhaps for the Liberal brass, it would be welcome, as they want access to NDP money and contact lists.

What this propaganda shedding indicates is that the Liberals are even more desperate than one would have thought.

 

They are trying to convinvce us they are coming from a position of power, when quite the opposite is true.

Erik Redburn

AntiSpin wrote:
Erik - I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.

------ I agree with this 100%. In fact, given Canada's constitutional and political conventions, it can't be done any other way. Those, like Ignatieff, who believe a coalition of convenience after the fact will work are dreaming.

 

You don't think so?  How come?

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

There are lots of solid, rational arguments against a merger between the Liberals and NDP.

For now though, I'm against it for reasons somewhat less rational: I'd rather not be a part of the same party as Warren Kinsella.

 

Seriously people, 58 posts and counting on something coming from Warren Kinsella?  Is nobody aware of this guy's credibility level?

The less time wasted on this non-story the better.

Erik Redburn

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I'm not worried about this chatter. And Harper likely is at least if he is smart.

While the NDP and the Liberals will never do a pre-election deal both parties will likely talk about it and yes there is an agenda here.

That agenda is to get this chatter done extensively during the summer silly season and then after the next election when Harper tries to say a coalition is not legitimate the answer will be that it certainly is and that Canadians heard all kinds of talk before the election. Likely Harper can see through this but he can't stop it.

 

Very good, perfectly fair political positioning just to get the possibility out into the public domain again.   So play the cards as dealt just to show the NDP is willing to compromise in everyones best interests, but is unwilling to make sudden commitments to a party that's already sabotaged two more meaningful coalitions, has a recent history of supporting similar economic policies as Harper, and has yet to come to the table with any serious offers from any duly elected representatives.  As I said, call their bluff and see what they're holding. 

Post-election coalitions are generally wiser anyhow, as it gives either leader a clearer mandate for what they've proposed.  If Harper finishes ahead again then the biggest challenge would be to remind voters that grand colaitions are perfectly constitutional and democratic, and have some history, with leading (not winning) minority only having the right to make the first phone calls to others.    The terms have to be agreed on between any leaders involved.  If they can't negotiate that much then others are free to try.  That should be understood as foundational to parliamentary democracies, even if in places like Canada majority rule has been the norm.

AntiSpin

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

2) Electoral non-competition-- the parties remain separate but do not compete in key ridings. I can't get into many details because this is loaded with inconsistencies, except to say people are talking about this as if it is some kind of compromise. A two-headed constipated donkey is what it is. It would be horribly damaging to both parties to try to go down this road. It is an affront to democracy and the members of both parties. It looks like less than a merger but it really isn't in the long run. It is more like the death throes of independence for both parties. In case it is not clear I hate this stupid idea. I do object to it being called a coalition because that is not what it is and a coalition happens to be the arrangement I want to see.

3) A coalition is a post election arrangement

 

Sean, certainly defining terms is always an appropriate step but they have to be defined well and examined dispassionately...."I hate this stupid idea" is hardly rational. Electoral non-competition is no more an affront to democracy then a coalition is illegitimate. That you say you hate electoral non-compeititon but seem to tolerate and approve of governing accords seems at odds. Whereas the former is an explicit short-term agreement meant to maximize electoral advantage the latter is legislative bribery by another name.  And coalitions between parties can exist pre-election. There's no rule or convention that prevents parties from agreeing to form a coalition prior to or during an election, since we are, in most respects, in pre-election mode most of the time.

Neo-Kaleckian

Is anyone out there sick and tired of the globe and mail and its subsidiary the CBC talking about mergers and coalitions. Listening to this weeks the House on CBC we heard multiple liberal talking heads talk, discuss and deny mergers and pre-election coalitions all the while mentioning only ONE un-named source for the NDP. 

The globe is worse giving all this press space to liberals, even editorial space to Scott Reid so that they can pump up the liberal brand and refuse to be tainted by "the socialists."

I swear I've read the Alf Apps quote "we wont even talk merger until the NDP rejects socialism" a dozen times. 

To ask the NDP to reject socialism is to ask the Liberals to reject spinelessness.

Even with my ranting, I still believe cooperation is possible, but we need to frame the discussion around issues, values, and goals for the nation instead of the petty opportunism. The Libs just sound as power hungry and infused with their sense of entitlement as always and the press makes it seem that the NDP is just as petty.

Where have the good journalists gone? 

AntiSpin

sean...also thanks for your post....

Erik Redburn

Lou Arab wrote:

There are lots of solid, rational arguments against a merger between the Liberals and NDP.

For now though, I'm against it for reasons somewhat less rational: I'd rather not be a part of the same party as Warren Kinsella.

 

Seriously people, 58 posts and counting on something coming from Warren Kinsella?  Is nobody aware of this guy's credibility level?

The less time wasted on this non-story the better.

 

I'm sorry, but since no one party has been able to offer credible opposition to a far right minority that's been sitting for years now, this kind of idea is bound to attract some attention. 

I don't know what the problem with talking about it is anyhow, when most NDPers here were equally determined to defend the previous coalition deal which fell through.  (largely from hostile media spin)  This may be pure mischief making as you suggest, but like I said, it should be dealt with on the public stage to get YOur counter-spin stamped on it, and convey a willingness to look beyond your own partisan interests -if the other guys are serious.  This present situation, with even Ignatieff gasping for air, could allow you to lay more conditions than the last failed attempt.  

There.  I think I've laid out a middle ground of sorts, between immediate rejection or acceptence.  If it's nothing but Kinsella's musing then it'll fade soon enough anyhow.

Erik Redburn

Neo-Kaleckian wrote:

Even with my ranting, I still believe cooperation is possible, but we need to frame the discussion around issues, values, and goals for the nation instead of the petty opportunism. The Libs just sound as power hungry and infused with their sense of entitlement as always and the press makes it seem that the NDP is just as petty.

 

Yes, and sadly too true.  Thank you again.  Frame it around what "we" could agree is a reasonable accomidation based on Values and Goals "we" supposed still share --most Canadians still share.  A government that works for the average voter again, to start with.  Then the ball is back in the other's court.

AntiSpin

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

If the Liberals win a minority they certainly can make a lasting coaltion with the NDP. But if, after the next election, the allotement of seats is about the same as it is now why would Liberals bother? A coalition has to provide a voting advantage in the HoC so any post-election arrangement that gives the Liberals-NDP less seats than the Conservatives is a nonstarter in this scenario. And I thnk Canadians spoke loudly against any governing accord between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc (although I don't have a problem with it provide there's complete transparency and no backroom dealing (small chance I know)).

 

This is why I agree that forming a coalition pre-election and running based on that coalition - or call it whatever you want -  is the way to go. 

The role of the GG is highly constrained and while I am sympathetic of the idea of Parliament itself deciding which party has the confidence of the House, that's not how it works in reality. It would take a much humbler prime minister than we've ever had to lose a confidence vote in the House and then willingly step aside. Something to hope for perhaps.

NorthReport

 

I'm glad that Jack has spoken about about all this coalition nonsense.

Ignatieff is a much closer fit with Harper than he is with the NDP.

 Liberals quite frankly need to get a life, as it sounds like their political life is pretty much over.

NorthReport

--

AntiSpin

Remind....go back, and re-read wihtout the ideological glasses on and the knee-jerk reaction set to neutral.

I used the 2008 election as an example how the Liberals/NDP could cooperate and that any form of riding optimization or electoral non-competition agreement would NOT be in THE NDP's interest....instead, given the option, the NDP would be better off merging with the Liberals than accepting such an arrangement in theory.

We've had three minority government's in a row and there's unlikely to be a change given the current combination of parties and leaders.

Something has to change 'cause the status quo sure doesn't work.

 

Policywonk

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

If the Liberals win a minority they certainly can make a lasting coaltion with the NDP. But if, after the next election, the allotement of seats is about the same as it is now why would Liberals bother? A coalition has to provide a voting advantage in the HoC so any post-election arrangement that gives the Liberals-NDP less seats than the Conservatives is a nonstarter in this scenario. And I thnk Canadians spoke loudly against any governing accord between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc (although I don't have a problem with it provide there's complete transparency and no backroom dealing (small chance I know)).

This is why I agree that forming a coalition pre-election and running based on that coalition - or call it whatever you want -  is the way to go. 

The role of the GG is highly constrained and while I am sympathetic of the idea of Parliament itself deciding which party has the confidence of the House, that's not how it works in reality. It would take a much humbler prime minister than we've ever had to lose a confidence vote in the House and then willingly step aside. Something to hope for perhaps.

Parliament does determine whether the governing party has the confidence of the House. Whether or not it gets to choose between parties depends on timing (early or later in the parliament) and whether there is a viable alternative government. In the 1985 Ontario case essentially the provincial legislature decided and the Lt. Governor agreed. I think a coalition after the next election (assuming no one party has a majority) depends on whether the Liberals and the NDP have more seats than the Conservatives. If that happens, the Conservatives (if they chose to face the House) would be defeated at their first test of confidence, and if Harper asked for dissolution he would be unlikely to fare any better in the ensuing election.

Erik Redburn

Neo-Kaleckian wrote:

I swear I've read the Alf Apps quote "we wont even talk merger until the NDP rejects socialism" a dozen times. 

To ask the NDP to reject socialism is to ask the Liberals to reject spinelessness.

 

Onemore qualifying addendum on my part.  Too many NDPers are now rejecting socialism as well, even its most democratic forms, as evidenced in other threads.   But not so long ago both left-of-- parties accepted social democratic liberalism to some degree.  Progressive taxation, occasional deficit financing, government "interference" in the markets where called for, and public ownership of sectors where market "principles" serve noone but those who OWn most the markets, but staying out of individual citizen's bedrooms and business otherwise, basically.

Erik Redburn

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

 

Not quite.  A sitting government only has that position until the writ has fallen.  If their party fails to gain a clear majority in the following election then they are just another potential governing party looking for a partner to support them --first at bat but not the only option available.  If that weren't the case then any potential partner would be left with no leverage at any point in the negotiations, which is not the case historically or legally.  The guy with the most seats must include every seat in the House, not just the most out of X parties running.  The GG has to follow convention too, her/his personal preferences or ease is secondary on those rare occasions.  Lets not buy the corporate media line used in England starting out. 

You and the NDPers here can sort out which you think would be a better, more likely and/or desirable scenario otherwise.  I got to run again soon.

Erik Redburn

AntiSpin wrote:

Remind....go back, and re-read wihtout the ideological glasses on and the knee-jerk reaction set to neutral.

I used the 2008 election as an example how the Liberals/NDP could cooperate and that any form of riding optimization or electoral non-competition agreement would NOT be in THE NDP's interest....instead, given the option, the NDP would be better off merging with the Liberals than accepting such an arrangement in theory.

We've had three minority government's in a row and there's unlikely to be a change given the current combination of parties and leaders.

Something has to change 'cause the status quo sure doesn't work.

 

 

Oh, there you go again.  'Merger' of any description is out of the question.  Coalition, pre or post facto might not be.  If the Liberals are truly serious then they should stop putting such impossible conditions on any such arrangements to begin with.  That kind of tactic worked once before, under Trudeau when he wanted to disolve his own NDP-coalition; it won't work again.  I would be amongst the most open elements in the party presently.  Goodday.

JKR

Erik Redburn wrote:

Not quite.  A sitting government only has that position until the writ has fallen.  If their party fails to gain a clear majority in the following election then they are just another potential governing party looking for a partner to support them --first at bat but not the only option available.  If that weren't the case then any potential partner would be left with no leverage at any point in the negotiations, which is not the case historically or legally.  The guy with the most seats must include every seat in the House, not just the most out of X parties running.  The GG has to follow convention too, her/his personal preferences or ease is secondary on those rare occasions.  Lets not buy the corporate media line used in England starting out.

Harper has tried his best to confuse people but the GG has to follow rules and conventions. If a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons within 5 months of an election, the Governor General has to give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to form a government.  When Harper was Leader of the Opposition he himself sent a letter to the GG reminding her that if Paul Martin's government lost the confidence of the House, he was in line to form a government with the support of the NDP and BQ.  For Harper to turn around and complain about a "coalition of losers" is sheer hypocrisy.

 

I think that even if the NDP and Liberals have less seats then the Conservatives, they could still form a coalition government after the next election. After the next election, the BQ could say that for them nothing has changed, that they will continue to vote against the Conservative government as they have since the last election.  The BQ could add that they would not vote against a government led by one of the other opposition parties. And they could say that they have no interest in being a part of a government but in the interest of stability, they will help prevent the government from falling until the next fixed election day.

The NDP and Liberals would then be able to vote against the government and have it replaced. The party that comes in 2nd place, either the NDP or Liberals, could then form a minority government by itself or lead a coalition government. Under such a scenerio the Liberals and NDP would decide the form the new government would take. After the election and before the Throne Speech the NDP and Liberals would iron out the terms and conditions of such a government.

Most likely they would agree on having a referendum on electoral reform or even enacting electoral reform if it was already mentioned in at least one of their electoral platforms.

And once fair voting was enacted, the word "merger" would no longer have to spoken of in polite company.

NorthReport

Sworn affidavit my ass.

 

Let's face it Liberals like to lie, they basically live to lie. Liberals lie to the public, and Liberals lie to themselves. Who needs them!

 

Harper must really be enjoying this farce.

Liberal president discussed NDP merger

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/09/liberals-ndp-merger-kinsella...

JKR

 

Quote:

Ignatieff, Layton scoff at media report of Liberal-NDP merger talks


Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP chief Jack Layton are scoffing at a media report suggesting their parties are discussing a merger.

Ignatieff said the idea is "ridiculous."

Layton called it "fiction."

The two leaders reacted Wednesday to a CBC report in which Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella said senior Grits were involved in "serious" negotiations to unite the centre-left under a new Liberal-Democratic party banner.

Notwithstanding the flat denials from the two highest authorities in both parties, affidavits were flying by late Wednesday as Liberals engaged in a "did too-did not" tiff over who, if anyone, has been talking about uniting the parties.

"No one has any authorization to even discuss this matter," Ignatieff said following a Liberal caucus meeting.

"It's ridiculous."

Emerging from his own party's caucus meeting, Layton was equally categoric.

"It's not a fusion, it's a fiction," he said.

 

 

KenS

AntiSpin wrote:

At no point did I write that the NDP should "fold their tent".....instead, and quite clearly, I wrote that the NDP would be better served by a merger than a coalition only insofar as optimizing where the two parties run candidates.

You need to explain what you mean by merger. To most people it means the to parties combine to become one. Since the NDP wont exist any more after a merger, how is the NDP better served by a merger?

It just doesnt make sense.

Thats a very fundamental point.

Less pressing: but it makes the discussion more focused if we're talking about the same thing. No one said that there can't be pre-election arrangements like non-competing in some/many ridings. Thats not anyone here's understanding of a coalition. If you insist on calling it a coalition, then differentiate it somehow from the common understanding here.

KenS

"Sworn affidavit". Oh lordy.

This is so weird.

Will any Liberals EVER take Kinsella back to do anything?

So far, too weird to be farce.

Does Warren sing as well as play the guitar? That might do it.

Head banging metal tune. Yah.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Shorter AntiSpin:

I am not a Liberal propagandist. I am a free thinker trying to bring the benefits of logical thought to you naive left wing ideologues.

KenS

Andrew Potter:

 

Quote:

I've been thinking of writing something on the whole Liberal-NDP coalition/merger stuff for a while, but I've been putting it off because life is short and there are, at any given moment, probably five hundred  more interesting things to write about, read about, talk about, or think about than about yet another Big Plan to save the Liberal Party of Canada from itself. But this whole "secret mergers" story, which appears to be somewhere between 98 and 100 percent bullshit, puts it into the top fifty.

 

He gave the article just one tag: Bozos

NorthReport

Layton has the right political instincts, and the more I see of him the more I like him. He is doing a great job as leader of the NDP.

 

It's Saturday-night coalition fever, but on a Wednesday

NDP Leader Jack Layton during Question Period on Wednesday, June 9.

 

 

 

But who knew Jack Layton would raise the issue?

Of course, the NDP Leader was more interested in talking about a Liberal-Conservative alliance than the discounted rumours that his New Democrats are discussing a merger with the party led by Michael Ignatieff.

"The Liberal-Conservatives worked together against the public interest," Mr. Layton told the Commons. "They authorized the sale of AECL, they began the privatization of Canada Post and they used up the EI fund surplus"

Mr. Layton was referring to the omnibus budget Bill C-9 that was passed by the House of Commons on Tuesday night with the help of the Liberals, who deliberately ensured that enough of their members were absent to prevent its defeat.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried hard to control his grin when he delivered his response. "If the Leader of the New Democratic Party has nasty things to say about the Liberals when he is accusing the Liberals of working with us, why does he want to form a coalition with them?" he asked.

When Mr. Layton used the words "Liberal-Conservative coalition" in his follow-up question, it prompted uproars of laughter from the other benches. But he persevered. "He got his misguided budget through, Mr. Speaker, through a coalition of the unwilling. What else is this group going to support together? The privatization of the CBC? The extension of the war in Afghanistan? What's next for the coalition?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/its-saturda...

Harper though must appreciate this merger gift from heaven that he has been given.

remind remind's picture

AntiSpin wrote:
Remind....go back, and re-read wihtout the ideological glasses on and the knee-jerk reaction set to neutral.

Pardon me? I read your propaganda piece several times, then walked away and came back and read it again, thewre was no knee jerk reaction, there was debunking of your propaganda and calling it for what it was.

And in future, should you make a appearance again, do not ever, ever tell me what to do. Liberal condescentation is as nasty as it always has been, now I wanna shower.

Quote:
I used the 2008 election as an example how the Liberals/NDP could cooperate and that any form of riding optimization or electoral non-competition agreement would NOT be in THE NDP's interest....instead, given the option, the NDP would be better off merging with the Liberals than accepting such an arrangement in theory.

 

You used nothing, exactly nothing,  as we are all quite smart enough to realize:

a) not only does your scenario not make the NDP better off, it would make the NDP  cease to exist, eh!

b) the Liberals are in bad shape and getting worse

c) your condescention is so typically Liberal, it is a great example why there is an NDP

 

dand this is the clincher

d) The Liberals are NOT ideologically the same as NDPers, they are ideologically the same as the Conservatives

Quote:
We've had three minority government's in a row and there's unlikely to be a change given the current combination of parties and leaders.

NOT the NDP"s fault the Liberals have chosen the wrong leaders and have entered into a natural coalition with Harper, and as a result are losing what little credibility they had left.

Quote:
Something has to change 'cause the status quo sure doesn't work. 

It is, and has been changing, as the Liberals are continuing to decline and have now reached desperation levels it seems. There is not much difference between them and the Cons, so really they will continue to decline.

 

Policywonk

Erik Redburn wrote:

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

 

Not quite.  A sitting government only has that position until the writ has fallen.  If their party fails to gain a clear majority in the following election then they are just another potential governing party looking for a partner to support them --first at bat but not the only option available.  If that weren't the case then any potential partner would be left with no leverage at any point in the negotiations, which is not the case historically or legally.  The guy with the most seats must include every seat in the House, not just the most out of X parties running.  The GG has to follow convention too, her/his personal preferences or ease is secondary on those rare occasions.  Lets not buy the corporate media line used in England starting out. 

A sitting government is the government until another government is sworn in.

 

NorthReport

Ignatieff's hooped, and so are the Liberals.

Harper must be loving this farce.

Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/09/john-ivison-ignatieff-tri...

Erik Redburn

NorthReport wrote:

Ignatieff's hooped, and so are the Liberals.

Harper must be loving this farce.

Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/09/john-ivison-ignatieff-tri...

 

But please stop quoting the Post approvingly.  They're not looking out for the best interests of progressive minded Canadians.

Erik Redburn

"A sitting government is the government until another government is sworn in."

Well yes, but after an election it isn't really a "government" until it can govern.  My point was that the second and third party's can and have combined to form a coalition, if the number one finisher is too ideologicaly opposed to the rest of the House and can't or won't form a partnership others find acceptable.  To forget that would undermine one of the central advantages of minority situations, and give Harper more leverage than his own minority deserves

I see it's just a bunch of Kinsella bs after all, so I guess this too can safely be written off.  Long as more people become aware on the difference between a merger and coalition then it might not be a total waste of time. 

NorthReport

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

Erik Redburn

And the neo-cons are honest about Their intentions??  I know it would be a great day if more voters saw the many similarities between the Cons and Libs, but trying to argue that it makes no difference at All, while a hard right ideologue like Harper is in office, is not going to fly either.    

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

 

Is that why we have to be inundated with so much Conservative propaganda and spin from right wing sources like the National Post?

KenS

Broad reading is good for you. That includes the National Post, and more so John Ivison.

mybabble

The Liberals  fly false colours what a crock that is for certain as Harper and Layton are like mixing oil with water.  No party is excempt from telling false hoods and Harper is champ when it comes to keeping a secretative group as MP's are told to kept everything under wraps as there is no way he wants the public to know the Primer Ministers true agenda as aids are also told to kept their mouths shut about affairs concering Canadians. Mulroney is a fine example of a Conservative caught wearing the bear suit deny, deny, deny if when your caught.

 

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

 

 

The Liberals don't pretend to be social democratic. Their ideology is liberal. They come by it honestly. They support social programs but they also support capitalism. They feel it is important to keep taxes low for the rich but they also believe in social programs like medicare and national day care.

The Conservatives also support keeping taxes low for the rich. But they are against social programs.

This is why the NDP cannot find common ground with the Conservatives while it can find some with the Liberals.

That's why people like Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent can negotiate with Liberals and but not Conservatives.

In most part, politicians support their chosen ideology.

Liberal - liberal ideology
NDP - social democratic ideology
Conservative - neo-conservative idology
BQ - separatist/nationalist ideology
Green: environmenmtal ideology

 

I don't see false-flag operations.

 

outwest

"Harper must be enjoying this farce."

You bet he is.. and the entire right-wing, too, laughing all the way to and from the voting booth.

...Oh so proud centre-lefties who would cut off their own noses to spite their faces and wouldn't agree on today's date let alone to a simple, time-honoured winning European-type coalition strategy. Pathetic.

NorthReport

Hey folks, I suppose it is OK to quote from the BS in the Globe though!

 

What freakin' idiots. What part of "No" do the Liberals not understand!

 

Despite denials, merger debate continues in restive Liberal ranks

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-denials-merger-deba...

Policywonk

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

 

 

The Liberals don't pretend to be social democratic. Their ideology is liberal. They come by it honestly. They support social programs but they also support capitalism. They feel it is important to keep taxes low for the rich but they also believe in social programs like medicare and national day care.

The Conservatives also support keeping taxes low for the rich. But they are against social programs.

This is why the NDP cannot find common ground with the Conservatives while it can find some with the Liberals.

That's why people like Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent can negotiate with Liberals and but not Conservatives.

In most part, politicians support their chosen ideology.

Liberal - liberal ideology
NDP - social democratic ideology
Conservative - neo-conservative idology
BQ - separatist/nationalist ideology
Green: environmenmtal ideology

I don't see false-flag operations.

I suggest you investigate liberalism, as it covers a range of values that most members or supporters of all of these parties (with the possible exception of the Conservatives) would likely fit into (at least some if not most of these values), while espousing other values or principles. Social democracy is essentially a liberal political philosophy. I see the Liberals and especially the Conservatives as more neo-liberal, which is something else again. So you think that there aren't examples of parties running to the left and governing to the right?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If Kinsella still has a LPC membership after all this, it should be revoked. On the other hand, he's entertaining as hell, even if he a doofus.

ottawaobserver

I agree with Ken about John Ivison (and would throw in Don Martin at the same time).  They won't ever agree with us politically, but unless they're furiously spinning, their reporting and analysis of what's going on on that side of the spectrum is usually worth at least staying abreast of.

Of course I'd never spend money to *buy* that paper, but I do try to stay on top of what those two write.  And NR posts a lot of good links here that I might not have seen otherwise, which I appreciate.

NorthReport

Some folks would much rather be inundated with propaganda from the Liberal CBC and the Liberal Toronto Star, eh! Laughing

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

 

Is that why we have to be inundated with so much Conservative propaganda and spin from right wing sources like the National Post?

Unionist

When politicians or lawyers talk, you have to listen very very carefully:

Quote:

Flanked by Liberal MPs Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, Mr. Ignatieff emerged from his party’s weekly caucus meeting to discount reports that senior Liberals were discussing the merger with senior members of the NDP.

“We had some discussion of this ridiculous discussion of fusion of the two parties,” the Liberal Leader told reporters. “No one has any authorization to even discuss this matter. It’s ridiculous. I am a Liberal. I am proud to be a Liberal. The people around me are Liberals. We are going to form a Liberal government.”

NDP Leader Jack Layton dismissed as “fiction” reports of merger talks between his party and the Liberals.

“It looks like Liberals talking to Liberals,” he said. “It’s not credible. To have a discussion, you need to have two sides, two participants, and we don’t have that. ... Nobody’s assigned to talk to anybody about these topics.”

So tell me - how come I can't find, in that excerpt, an actual flat denial that there were discussions?

Ignatieff says, "no one has any authorization to even discuss this matter".

Layton says, "nobody's assigned to talk to anybody about these topics".

Nobody said: "There have been no discussions about a merger between any NDPers and Liberals that we are aware of."

Any theories as to why they commented this way?

 

 

Pages

Topic locked