Unite the right: LIberal/Tory merger on the horizon?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm
Unite the right: LIberal/Tory merger on the horizon?

I've heard rumours - and I WILL SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT that I have heard rumours - that some senior Liberals have been having drinks with some senior Tories about merging the Liberal and Conservative parties and unite the right once and for all! It would like the Saskatchewan Party that was created in Sask. when most of the provincial Liberals united with the PCs to forma new rightwing party.

There are already discussions about the Liberals renouncing liberalism - unless its laissez-faire economic liberalism and talk of Ignatieff being Foreign Minister so he can implement all his neo-conservative views on foreign policy.

More and more Liberals are getting tired of having the worst of both worlds - for the last three years they have supported the Conservatives in parliament as the conservatives have brought in a host of policies that Liberals wish they could be the ones announcing and they don't even get anything in return. More and more Liberals are revolting against the party leadership and want to merge with the Tories that way - many senior Liberals would get cabinet portfolios and be able to start dispensing patronage to their hacks again. "Blue grits" like Frank McKenna and John Manley have apparently been leading the chargre behind the scenes to fold the Liberals into the Tory party.

You heard it here!

JKR

This scenerio could happen if we keep FPTP and the Liberals sink into 3rd place and the NDP soars into a strong first place. If it looked like the NDP had a fake FPTP monopoly on government, the right would demand the merger of the Liberals and Conservatives.

That's what happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC.

FPTP creates pressure for 2-party dominant systems.

David Young

You mean there isn't a Conservative/Liberal coalition existing right now?

I thought there had been one for a number of years now!

 

Stockholm

yes, there is a Conservative/Liberal alliance right now - all we are waiting for is for the other shoe to drop and for the two parties to merge!

Polunatic2

Quote:
FPTP creates pressure for 2-party dominant systems.

A two party system is only one party away from a one party state. 

Fidel

I don't think they wanted to make it official all these years past. Not while they were campaigning on the left and dictating on the right once elected. They fooled a lot of Canadians into thinking they were voting against a right wing political agenda by voting Liberal.

 Perhaps they realize that it's not working anymore and desire to beef up a united right-rightist party. Perhaps Bay Street has grown tired of funding a redundant conservative party that hasn't pulled its weight for several years, and will soon decide on a merger. I can see that.

Polunatic2

Quote:
Perhaps Bay Street has grown tired of funding a redundant conservative party that hasn't pulled its weight for several years, and will soon decide on a merger.

Or perhaps Bay Street will conclude that the antiquated first past the post electoral system no longer serves its needs and we will start to see a shift in position from some of the MSM?

dgr_insurrection

Ignatieff isn't a neocon. He's a neoliberal institutionalist. He places a strong emphasis on international institutions (especially the UN), multilateralism, human rights, diplomacy as a first option (before violence),  in his advocacy of military intervention. Neoconservatism is similar, but its advocates do not care for international institutions or diplomacy, and advocate unilateralism or multilateralism through military alliances (like NATO) rather than the UN. They usually are more concerned with the realist (international relations theory) idea of the "National Interest" than any kind of moral issue, like human rights, autonomy for oppressed people, democracy (except in state propaganda, but I'm talking about what scholars say, not statesmen). Ignatieff is also opposed to weaponization of space, something that most realists would advocate.

Realists (and neoncons, they are pretty much cut from the same cloth) also usually place emphasis on Huntington's "clash of civilizations" meta-narrative, which explains their Middle East focus. Ignatieff if I'm not mistaken isn't concerned with interventionism only in the Middle East or to combat "Islam" or "Islamofascists" per se. He was a strong advocate of intervention in Kosovo and Rwanda. I would think in IR meta-narratives Ignatieff would come down more on the side of Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis than Huntington's "Clash." Admittedly, I haven't read Ignatieff's writing extensively but this is my general impression.

Bush's IR policy is a good example of neoconservativism in action. Obama seems to be trying to shift things back more toward the neoliberal side. Although he has two wars to deal with so this will take some time.

JKR

Polunatic2 wrote:

Quote:
FPTP creates pressure for 2-party dominant systems.

A two party system is only one party away from a one party state. 

If the leaders of the USSR could do it all again, they might opt for a two-party system like they have in the US. It would have created a veneer of democracy, When one communist party was unpopular it could have been replaced with the other communist party. Primaries like they have in the US, where only two major parties can win, would have helped the process along.