CBC At Issue: Talks at the highest levels begin on Liberal/NDP coalition/merger

A merger might very well enable us to defeat the Tories, but what will we have won?  The Liberals didn't come by the nick-name 'establishment party' by accident.

Let me guess:  In return for handing the Liberals the keys to the treasury, the NDP will get to co-sign on all the anti-worker initiatives the Liberals come up with.

And, the best part is, there's no shortage of takers in the NDP.

Lordloveaduck.

Rob8305 wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I just hope a possible coalition includes the BQ. If they can be the Official Opposition - as in the past - why can't they be part of a coalition???

That would be political suicide for the NDP/Libs in English Speaking Canada.  It's like a third rail.  I think that there is no more politically toxic issue in Canada than that as 2008 showed.  They have to do whatever they want with just the 2 parties involved.

My, you sure misinterpreted 2008, didn't you? Without the Bloc, any coalition is doomed.

Quote:

What's new about this is for Ed Broadbent to be negotiating with Chretien.

My, you sure misinterpreted 2008, didn't you? Who exactly do you think was negotiating the coalition then?

[url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/11/28/coali... talks involve Chrétien, Broadbent, and possible Dion ousting[/url]

Thanks for your insights, though...

As for the danger of the Liberals including 'separatists' in a coalition, is that really any worse for them than including wannabe 'socialists'?

ps: I included a smiley, so please don't flame me.

George Victor wrote:

And 1988 might have been even more interesting.

I wonder how Canadians would feel about tying our economic fortunes to the American wagon today with Wall Street performing the way it has. As long as Harper and Iggy don't say too much about those neoliberal trade deals, some phony minority of voters will prolly give 'em the nod.

Hell, look at the hostility of some babblers for ANYTHING  NDP. Maybe they are just in training for their attacks on the neo-con scum, and they are holding off comment on them to surprise us all.

The hatred between the PCs and the Reform Party was INTENSE and they didn't just form an accord or a coalition - they MERGED - something that is not on the table between the Liberals and NDP at all.

Do you think the British Tories and LibDems love each other??? Think again - those parties have hated each other for the last hundred years and fight each other tooth and nail at the riding level - yet they formed a coalition government. Bob Rae and David Peterson HATE each other like poison and yet they signed an accord in 1985.

For that matter the Chretien and Martin wings within the Liberals party probably have more personal animosity for each other than do Liberals and New Democrats for each other.

I have a hunch that what MIGHT happen is that the Liberals inch towards dropping their stated opposition to ever forming a coalition with the NDP and that they instead try to be a bit more coy about it and that the door will be left open for a deal after the next election.

no

Hmm.  There would be practicle advantages.  From a coalition position, the NDP could work to get Conrad Black out of jail, and maybe help out poor beleagered BP at the same time.   Hey, bread upon the waters-- maybe those guys would do us socialists a good turn, like the Liberals seem set to do.

Seriously.  I'm all for practicality, but I don't see any practicle advantages to the NDP in this, compared to the favour we'd be doing the Liberals.

Think about it:  The Liberals would absolutely not be even thinking about coalition unless they were convinced they were facing serious political oblivion.  Why interfere with that process?

Why would you want to throw these Tories-- because that's what they are, just another flavour of tory-- a life line?    We saw in the last "negotiation" how arrogant the Liberals were, and how ignorant they were of their position.  

If we are going to go down this road, better to just announce an auction between the Conservatives and the Liberals for NDP support.

I mean, we've established what we are.  Now it's just a matter of price.

Let's be practicle.

You know, Iggy is a workable leader, and so was Dion, really.  Dion had language difficulties?  Like Chretien didn't?   Iggy thumbscrews is a knob?   Works for McGinty in Ontario.  In fact, I used to joke that if charisma was scaled like degrees kelvin, the charisma scale would bottom out at "absolute McGinty."  Yet, he's premier.  Currently doing very Tory things.   (Yay "strategic" voting!)

The Liberals aren't screwed because they keep picking the wrong leader-- though I'd love for them to keep thinking so.  It's because they lost the keys to the public treasury.   The treasury they'd use to throw government contracts to this consulting firm or that legal firm, or that PR firm and in return receive the best media coverage, the best intel, and the best backroom talent.

Without that they have nothing to fall back on.  As Stockholm astutely pointed out some time ago, when you have a political party based on giving away candy, when the candy runs out, what's left?

I'd rather be fighting one Tory party instead of two.  And all we have to do to accomplish this is to leave the Liberals alone.

Why snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for some nebulous hope of short term gain that would be really surprising if it materialized?

Hopefully electoral reform is a high priority in negotiations between former party stalwarts like Broadbent and Chretien.

Luckily, Broadbent has been one one of the foremost supporters of electoral reform.

I would consider the Liberals sliding into obscurity a victory for Canada, primarily, and the NDP secondarily.

I would say roll the greens into either party would fix a lot of the left right issues. Until the greens can be a regional player like the bloc or the reforms they just cant get traction. BC is close and even there they are barely 3rd party in most ridings. But if you add their numbers to lib or NDp or even split their number between the two it put the libs around 30 and the ndp aroun 20 with the cons picking up maybe 1 percent or so.

35/30/20 isn't too bad of a split when you figure a lot of that 35% for cons is bloat in alberta.

I think if the audits go through, a lot more cons will not be willing to run for the party as most make more from the kickback their present employers offer them. Why be an MP for less money than you make already, unless you make cabinet or can put things on the government tab.

If this is supposed to be an electoral coalition it  is doomed from the start.  Neither party controls the people who vote for them.  The idea that a significant number of NDP voters would vote for a Liberals if told too by the party is rather funny and the opposite is likely true as well.  Sure some of them will but I suspect that the largest group might be people who just say to hell with them all and stay at home instead of following the machinations by the party wheeler and dealers.

A post election parliamentary coalition is a different matter IMO and would be acceptable to more of the supporters of both parties.

The greens could look at a new kind of politics-- they could create a caucus in each of the parties and not run as a seperate party. Then they can endorse a wide range of people -- some competing against each other. The could effectively have candidates have two logos their own party and Green. I think most parties might not object as it would end the wasted vote and Green is only one element.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 

Let me guess:  In return for handing the Liberals the keys to the treasury, the NDP will get to co-sign on all the anti-worker initiatives the Liberals come up with.

 

And, the best part is, there's no shortage of takers in the NDP.

 

Lordloveaduck.

Or...the NDP gets a say in exchange for their MPs votes.

NDP-Liberal Cooperation pact - each party has between 50 and 75 seats where only their candidate runs, and the other party withdraws or backs the other.  Other seats have both.  No formal coalition, but NDP and Liberal's agree that if they have more seats than the Cons then they will try to form a Coalition government at the earliest possible opportunity.  No formal coalition with the Bloc, and no veto for the Bloc over any legislation.

Following the UK example (of course)...

NDP Cabinet spots - Deputy PM, Health, Environment, Labour, International Cooperation, Heritage, Status of Women...plus three or four Secretary of State spots.

Major policy areas to be dealt with - the deficit, pension reform, climate change, electoral reform (Citizen's Panel and referendum on 1 proposal within 4 years), poverty and rural issues.

NDP - gets a reasonable veto over major pieces of legislation, possibly with a bi-partisan committee of elders on stand-by to settle any serious disputes

It could work and in my opinion I would be happy to know that dialogue is at least occuring at some level, because if Harper gets a majority then we can bet on a new abortion law, massive and regressive tax cuts, and possibly capital punishment being reintroduced within 5 years.  Guaranteed.

OK, Red Rover has convinced me that the Liberals are now full-throttle in support of a coalition.  Why am I waiting for the other shoe to drop?  This is like those people who come and knock on your door, and want you to lock in your natural gas price for 5 years ... just before it drops through the floor.

I agree we should not rule anything out ahead of an election (not that WE did last time), but we should have a really strong platform and the very best campaign we can muster, and win stronger support for it than for theirs (especially since they've now stolen most of it from us anyway).

Why do you think I am a Liberal?

And for what its worth, what I know of the dynamics in the Liberal Party, I think this would also be a notion only at the fringes. No traction, maybe even less than in the NDP, among the grassroots... let alone at the top.

But since the Lib brain trust wouldnt have to worry about the notion taking root, there would probably be no harm in letting it flower to what degree it will. Since its always the NDP that takes the heat among progressives whenever and whoever disses ideas like this [and irregardless that the party never bothers to take an official or semi-official position against.]

A coalition of conscience won't work

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/silver-powers/a-coalition-o...

NorthReport wrote:

In spite of the usual negativity directed towards the NDP here, surprise, surprise, Layton keeps increasing the the number of NDP MPs each election he has been involved in as Leader. How could that be.

 

Hasn't Harper done exactly the same?

Which proves... ummm... remind me please...

Not many people find much crediblity in a lot of the comments here.  

A thread like this is a perfect example.

Tactics to exploit "saw-off" ridings, where one party agrees not to run against a second party to stop a third party (often in return for a reciprocal agreement elsewhere), never benefit anyone. Even if both the first and second parties can keep their word – which is far from guaranteed – the result clobbers the weaker party's vote for a long, long time afterward. I blame the deal reached between the CCF and the SoCreds for the historical weakness of the CCF/NDP in Alberta, at least in part. Better to fight for every single vote out there than sup with a mediocrity.