Coalition; to be or not to be?

It's been a perfectly good Tory-Liberal merger since Harper was elected to phony-minority government. Why would Liberal Party elitists want to fix what isn't broken?

They will try campaigning on the left as usual. And with the way our wonky electoral system works, a relatively small gain in votes could translate to a phony-baloney majority for the right-wing "Liberals."

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.

According to Terry Malewski reporting for CBC News tonight, apparently the denials do not include senior members from both parties, and who may even continue discussing an alliance.

I think you're absolutely right, U. By the way, I edited my post to add the word "maybe" at the start.

Boom Boom, it's called plausible deniability and the practical application of weasle words. We already know that Chretien and Broadbent have had serious discussions about a coalition/merger/cooperation call it what you want so the party leaders can truthfully claim that no one has been authorized to discuss it wink wink nudge nudge.

I apply Media Rule #4 - the more stridently someone publically denies something (I did not have sex with that woman!) the more likely the denial is false. And the more publically confident that a CEO or leader of an organization is about something the less likely it's true (see Bre-X saga or BP's CEO teling us how quickly they could have the well under control for examples).

:)

Remind, it's seriously amusing reading your responses to my post...I've been writing and commenting on politics and current affairs for 15 years...I've been called a right-wing zealot on the G&M comment boards and a socialist commie on Usenet and bulletin boards...Calling me a Liberal here as some sort of pejorative is just more of the same ad hominen attacks posing as informed comment...I'm certainly willing to be wrong, and to admit that there's a better way to think about this or any other issue when it's well argued, so please drop the ad hominen agruments and put your ideology on hold. Not everything nor everyone has some ideological agenda. There is no propaganda here but your own. I'm not some secret operative trying to drive the NDP onto Liberal shoals as you claim.

But let's deconstruct your four points. a) not only does your scenario not make the NDP better off, it would make the NDP cease to exist, eh!

The CCF changed its name to the NDP, does this mean that the CCF no longer exist? Only in name. By the same measure, the Liberal Party of Canada would cease to exist as well, but you're not sweating that fact are you?

A formal merger would not be the end of the NDP; it would simply be another transformation in the party's history, no different from the merger of the Progressives and the Conservatives or the reform and the PCs. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the NDP should simply "fold its tent", as some claim, and willy-nilly become members of the Liberal Party of Canada. A formal merger would instead allow the NDP to influence/control the rules of the game from the start - convention structure, membership rules, party bylaws, delegate selection, leadership selection - as well as party policies and election strategies. The NDP would bring a wealth of innovative and organizational leadership to any new entity and it would be an equal partner in the venture.

Wouldn't this be better than being a junior partner in a Liberal coalition of convenience?

b) the Liberals are in bad shape and getting worse

-- The LPC is not the political machine it used to be granted but it has reversed much of the financial stasis it suffered in recent years and is much better organized on the ground than just a few years ago. For example, memberships and donations have increased in 2008 and 2009, reversing years of decline.

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

--Just one more ad hominen argument without merit- I am a condescending Liberal so therefore I'm wrong.

d) and this is the clincher, the Liberals are NOT ideologically the same as NDPers, they are ideologically the same as the Conservatives

--Sigh....I never wrote that the NDP was ideologically the same as the LPC, although the Liberals have borrowed liberally (pun) from the NDP playbook over the past 50+ years, everything from old age pensions to medicare to labour reform to foreign policy.

This gives the two parties significant common ground to work with in Parliament and beyond, certainly more than any two other parties. Arguing that the NDP are different but the Liberals and Conservatives are the same glosses over significant policy and ideological differences, many of which are so blatant that you shouldn't have to ask what they are.

All of which goes to my primary point....which is better, a merger of equals or being a junior partner in a Liberal coalition of convenience?

Like I said, I'm willing to listen to and adopt better alternatives made with better arguments.

Unionist wrote:

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?

It wouldn't shock me to find out that some people from both parties had on their own decided to talk to each other and maybe make up a proposal they could present to their respective parties. A discussion, but not an official one.