Unite the center-left, or Harper will rule until 2025 - 2 - this just makes no sense to think like this

Once again, there is a huge difference between a "merger" and a coalition; one permanent, the other, a temporary arrangement with the potential of substantial gains, ie. PR, in the bargain.

As for the comment..."AND again and again and again. AND again and again and again. AND....", those of us who see coalition as the most probable key to future NDP power might well say the exact same thing to you after the next election and the NDP lose, "yet again...

outwest wrote:

AND again and again and again. AND....", those of us who see coalition as the most probable key to future NDP power might well say the exact same thing to you after the next election and the NDP lose, "yet again...

And they will be the same ones who said the NDP would lose seats in the last election, and never overtake the Liberals; and that voting Liberal was the only way to beat the Conservatives.

So, their speculations now will be taken with a huge grain of salt.

outwest wrote:

Once again, there is a huge difference between a "merger" and a coalition; one permanent, the other, a temporary arrangement with the potential of substantial gains, ie. PR, in the bargain.

As for the comment..."AND again and again and again. AND again and again and again. AND....", those of us who see coalition as the most probable key to future NDP power might well say the exact same thing to you after the next election and the NDP lose, "yet again...

Actually, outwest, my "again and again and again" post was just a goof on Malcolm's inadvertent triple post.

Quote: "How do you arrange/plan for a coalition? What would be involved...a convention where a David Orchard of the left is lied to?"

The same way they have been arranged in Scandinavia/Germany/Europe, etc. for decades, starting by parties discussing not the differences between the 2 parties (or 3, if the Greens were to be involved), but the commonalities - of which there are far more than some will admit to here.

QUOTE: "And they will be the same ones who said the NDP would lose seats in the last election, and never overtake the Liberals; and that voting Liberal was the only way to beat the Conservatives."

1. As a distinct society, Quebec is an anomaly in Canadian politics. 2. All the NDPers I know and have read who advocate for a coalition have never said "vote Liberal" in all ridings or we would simply call ourselves Liberals. (What nonsense you purport.)

 QUOTE: "I am very much in favour of proportionate representation to broaden the mix even more, and force politicians to collaborate more and be more accountable to us."

Of course. So am I. And those of us who advocate for coalition do so because we see it as the most plausible current path to PR. 

Does the Roman "divide and conquer" mean nothing? The Tories are laughing all the way to the polls.

outwest wrote:

Quote: "How do you arrange/plan for a coalition? What would be involved...a convention where a David Orchard of the left is lied to?"

The same way they have been arranged in Scandinavia/Germany/Europe, etc. for decades, starting by parties discussing not the differences between the 2 parties (or 3, if the Greens were to be involved), but the commonalities - of which there are far more than some will admit to here.

QUOTE: "And they will be the same ones who said the NDP would lose seats in the last election, and never overtake the Liberals; and that voting Liberal was the only way to beat the Conservatives."

1. As a distinct society, Quebec is an anomaly in Canadian politics. 2. All the NDPers I know and have read who advocate for a coalition have never said "vote Liberal" in all ridings or we would simply call ourselves Liberals. (What nonsense you purport.)

 QUOTE: "I am very much in favour of proportionate representation to broaden the mix even more, and force politicians to collaborate more and be more accountable to us."

Of course. So am I. And those of us who advocate for coalition do so because we see it as the most plausible current path to PR. 

Does the Roman "divide and conquer" mean nothing? The Tories are laughing all the way to the polls.

Of course, you started pushing this, IIRC, with regards to Alberta provincial politics, where a NDP-Liberal merger would always have been pointless, since the Right continues to hold the support of an outright majority of the voters there.  If the combined NDP-Liberal support was below 50%, it really doesn't matter whether the support for those parties is combined or not.  A defeat is still going to be a defeat there.

BTW, are you aware of the fact that, in the last election, there were hardly any ridings in which the Liberal candidate would have beaten the Tory if only the NDP voters in the riding had voted Liberal?

Sure you want to go out on a limb like that?  It's also possible that we'll get wiped out by a giant meteor in 2014...or maybe the Mayan calendar thing will turn out to be true after all.

I was speaking about coalitions, here, not a "merger," which is a different story. As for the "horror" of cooperating with the "right-wing" Liberals, that's how coalitions work, "the enemy of my enemy being my friend," and all of that.... And, for the record, I have many Liberal friends who are far more left-leaning in their politics than you can imagine; one wing of the party does not necessarily represent its entirety, and in fact, I don't think the most recent crop of back room boys of the Liberals currently do. 

As for Alberta politics, the Alberta DRP (Democratic Renewal Project, a grassroots group aimed at encouraging cooperation between the centre-left parties) conducted a poll last year where a decent proportion of Conservatives said that they would vote for a centre-left coalition. Impossible to believe, isn't it? Why would they? Because people like to vote for winners. But, without a strong coalition, leaving the centre-left parties isolated and weak, those malleable Tory voters won't bother. Yet by working together, the current 40% of centre/left voters would very likely increase, giving the 2 right wing parties (as Ted Morton fears) a real run for their money, and no longer leaving the 40% progressive vote in Alberta in the dust with a paltry 11 of 83 seats as it did in the last election.

I find that that there is a rigidity of opinion in discussions about strategic cooperation and coalitions. What happened to thinking outside the box?   

outwest wrote:

I was speaking about coalitions, here, not a "merger," which is a different story. As for the "horror" of cooperating with the "right-wing" Liberals, that's how coalitions work, "the enemy of my enemy being my friend," and all of that.... And, for the record, I have many Liberal friends who are far more left-leaning in their politics than you can imagine; one wing of the party does not necessarily represent its entirety, and in fact, I don't think the most recent crop of back room boys of the Liberals currently do. 

As for Alberta politics, the Alberta DRP (Democratic Renewal Project, a grassroots group aimed at encouraging cooperation between the centre-left parties) conducted a poll last year where a decent proportion of Conservatives said that they would vote for a centre-left coalition. Impossible to believe, isn't it? Why would they? Because people like to vote for winners. But, without a strong coalition, leaving the centre-left parties isolated and weak, those malleable Tory voters won't bother. Yet by working together, the current 40% of centre/left voters would very likely increase, giving the 2 right wing parties (as Ted Morton fears) a real run for their money, and no longer leaving the 40% progressive vote in Alberta in the dust with a paltry 11 of 83 seats as it did in the last election.

I find that that there is a rigidity of opinion in discussions about strategic cooperation and coalitions. What happened to thinking outside the box?   

What current 40%? Between the NDP, Liberal Party and Alberta Party, their total from either of the two polls in July was less than 30%. Or are you referring to the percentage of people who would vote for a centre-left coalition?

Outwest, I understand the difference between a merger and a coalition.

In the event of a hng Parliament, I have no issue about entering into a coalition (or a confidence arrangement like Ontario 1985) with whichever part or parties will allow us to accomplish the most in terms of our policy priorities. If that's the right wing Liberals,fine. If it's the right wing Conservatives, fine again. The issue there is not the coalition partner but the calition policy agreement.

Pre-election deals / coalitions watever are simply merger by another name - and a completely stupid "strategy" no matter how you cut it. The arithmetic simply does not work, despite all your wishing it were so.

If you want to enter into some pre-election arrangement with the Liberals, fill your boots. Take out a Liberal membership by all means, and take solace in the pretty progressive rhetoric used to cover up the right wing policy agenda.

Closing for length.