There was lots of debate on the leadership threads about where the NDP can possibly grow and win. I thought it deserved its own discussion.
I have two questions:
1:
Where can the NDP grow - demographically? regionally?
2:
Which ridings are legitimate targets for the NDP (and under what circumstances or potential NDP leadership candidates do they become targets)?
What happened to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/mission-2015-convert-conservat... 15[/url]? And what's with all the military jargon?
What happened to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/mission-2015-convert-conservat... 15[/url]? And what's with all the military jargon?
We need to win non-voters, Liberal, Bloc and Green voters as well.
I'll start with Atlantic Canada:
Newfoundland and Labrador - 2 (Current) + up to 3 additional seats (Total: 5/7)
I think N&L is very much like Quebec. If conditions were ideal, I think we could potentially win all 7 seats.
Unfortunately, popular Liberal incumbants in some ridings will make it more difficult. I doubt we will see a surge of support for the Conservatives in N&L as long as Harper is leader. Avalon would be the most likely additional seat for the NDP, but Liberal Scott Andrews is popular (and still quite young), so unless we see an NDP surge here, I think Avalon is out.
I think we could win seats he have historically done well or held federally/provincially at some time in the past. These seats are: Labrador, Random-Burin-St.George and Humber-St.Barbe-Baie Verte. If we run well-known, local candidates in these ridings - we could easily win all three.
P.E.I. - up to 1 additional seat (Total: 1/4)
PEI, politics is almost a family tradition. The only seat we could win is Charlottetown (which we almost won in 1997).
New Brunswick - 1 (current) + up to 5 additional seats (Total: 6/10)
We have done well in Acadian regions of the province and the big three cities (Fredericton, Moncton, Saint John). Most obvious gain would be Beauséjour which we won in 1997 - but this riding is held by likely future Liberal Leader Dominic LeBlanc - so unless he loses and quits to become leader of the N.B. Liberals - we ain't winning this seat. Saint John and Moncton are our best bets at gains. Madawaska—Restigouche and Fredericton, less so, unless we run a well-known and popular person from the riding as a candidate.
Nova Scotia - 3 (current) + up to 6 additional seats (Total: 9/11)
Halifax West will easily fall with the right candidate. South Shore-St. Margaret's I think will eventually turf Conservative Gerald Keddy (even though NDP candidate/former MP Gordon Earle will likely be too old to run in 2015). The NDP needs to work to win back the two Cape Breton ridings, which have both been held by the NDP/CCF in the past. Kings-Hants and Central Nova are long shots, dependant on the incumbants (Scott Brison and Peter Mackay) not running - both these ridings have shown strong NDP support provincially (as we hold the majority of seats provincially in both these ridings).
TOTALS:
Current seats: 6/32
Potential extra seats: 15 (8 current Liberal ridings, 7 current Conservative ridings)
Total: 21/32
Just a reminder: the next election will be fought on completely different boundaries. That means potential nomination battles between incumbents (including, very possibly, some of ours). It also means that some Liberal incumbents may not be keeping the same seat boundaries.
This is true, though I suspect that in the four Atlantic provinces where the number of seats will be unchanged any redistribution related changes will be quite minor
Possibly, Stockholm, but the redistribution that added part of the downtown core of St. John's to St. John's South-Mount Pearl is what eventually made both St. John's seats winnable for even a smaller NDP vote than we have now. Certain boundary changes in the HRM and environs would also help or hurt us winning Halifax West and South Shore-St. Margarets. I'd also be playing close attention to the boundaries of Charlottetown riding, and at least keep an eye on Cape Breton.
That said, I didn't think this thread was exclusively about the east coast, just that Orangutan was starting the discussion there. Edmonton, I would think for example, is another place to pay attention to, along with Toronto and outskirts, and no doubt other places in the country.
Here: http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-polling-general was started a BC thread that touched this due to a new poll.
In BC, Vancouver Island North has got to be tops, it was close last election and by 2015 it should be bound to fall. Targets need to be ridings like Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo and Kooteny-Columbia, In Urban areas, Van Centre is Hedy Fry leaves but i still think its a top target along with Newton-North Delta, Fleetwwod-Port Kells and Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission... again all depends on the new boundaries.
ALTA, Edmonton Centre and East, being our strongest polls in the province outside of Strathcona. Ray Martin probably wont be back, its looking more likely he might win provincially if not hes gettin past his prime in age. Cardinal was a strong candidate and i'd expect he would run again.
Sask; Honestly i think Topp should run here, Maybe Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, it would be a great show that the NDP wants to win in the prariries. Palliser and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (Evanchuk and Wiebe) i really hope both run again, i know Nettie has ran a number of times but i think 2015 (or any by-election in Sask) would be it for her. Also Desnethe etc
I think trying to get the gov't to move on electoral reform, i mean the easy stuff like Online voting would help our higher support amongst young people actually turn into some electoral results too.
"Easy stuff" like online voting?
Not a single easy thing about that, unless you either accept that candidates will be unable to scrutineer the vote, or that balloting will be unable to remain secret.
Cardinal was a strong candidate and i'd expect he would run again.
He is in fact already running again. He announced on election night that he was taking a week off and then it would be back on the doorsteps.
I hope Martin Singh decides to run as a candidate in the next election.
He'd make a great replacement in Jagmeet Singh's riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton (depending on redistributed boundaries), which has to be amongst the highest on the NDP's 'Top 60' targeted ridings.
He'd make a great replacement in Jagmeet Singh's riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton (depending on redistributed boundaries), which has to be amongst the highest on the NDP's 'Top 60' targeted ridings.
Though to be quite honest (and very apropos to this thread), I'd rather see BGM (or whatever succeeds it) less as a standalone supertarget at this point, and more as a base from which to grow similar seeds in neighbouring 905-belt ridings. That is, to see urban Peel Region at large, never mind that one seat, as a place of potential.
In a way, BGM in 2001 might be a harbinger in the same way that Gatineau in 2008 was a harbinger.
Being from Newfoundland and Labrador I personally don't think there will be enough room for growth to the point where the NDP can win more seats. While the 2008 election was a unique one the NDP actually lost a bit of support here in 2011, while they did pick up a seat. Besides the two seats won, the NDP weren't much of a factor in any of the other ridings. Due to the small population in Labrador it is a riding that you don't need to swing a lot of votes to win the seat, so it is probably the NDPs best chance. If the Liberal Party's support collapses further though it could be an opportunity for the NDP, as long as Harper is still around and remains disliked here. If the provincial NDP perform well over the next few years it will help the party to.
I also think the chance of Jack Harris running in 2015 is slim so St. John's East will likely become a major target for the Conservatives.
St. John's East will be a Liberal target if Jack Harris retires.
Oh great, Debater. Now you're trying to do to Jack Harris what the Conservatives just admitted doing to Irwin Cotler.
St. John's East will be a Liberal target if Jack Harris retires.
Seeing the Liberals have done horrible in the riding recently, and never did great there, it wouldn't be much point. The Liberals didn't care about the seat in the last two elections so I don't know why they would try and target it in the future.
Oh great, Debater. Now you're trying to do to Jack Harris what the Conservatives just admitted doing to Irwin Cotler.
Pardon me? All I said is that it would a pick-up target, just like all the other ridings listed here that the NDP said would be targets for them.
I didn't suggest doing a false telephone campaign telling people lies that Harris was retiring this week.
Why do you jump to conclusions?
St. John's East will be a Liberal target if Jack Harris retires.
Seeing the Liberals have done horrible in the riding recently, and never did great there, it wouldn't be much point. The Liberals didn't care about the seat in the last two elections so I don't know why they would try and target it in the future.
They didn't target it in 2011 because it is now a Harris stronghold, but the Libs finished 2nd there in 2008.
I agree it's not a strong riding, just a possibility.
St. John's East will be a Liberal target if Jack Harris retires.
Seeing the Liberals have done horrible in the riding recently, and never did great there, it wouldn't be much point. The Liberals didn't care about the seat in the last two elections so I don't know why they would try and target it in the future.
They didn't target it in 2011 because it is now a Harris stronghold, but the Libs finished 2nd there in 2008.
I agree it's not a strong riding, just a possibility.
The Liberals have never performed very well in ridings in St. John's. In St. John's East they finished second with 12% of the vote when they ran a former provincial cabinet minister who spent $12,000 on women's clothing and alcohol out of his constituency allowance. The Liberals ran a local businessman in May and only won 6% of the vote, probably the lowest popular vote total a Liberal has ever won in Newfoundland and Labrador, The provincial party is on life support in the whole capital area so the federal party won't get much help from them.
The big reason that Jack Harris has won this seat by such large margins is because he has never faced any strong competetion. If the Liberals had been able to run a strong well known candidate in 2008 then the vote would have been much closer.
Also because he's highly regarded, a very intelligent and committed person, an accomplished politician as the former provincial leader, and people realistically assess that he will be extremely difficult to beat so why bother.
Also because he's highly regarded, a very intelligent and committed person, an accomplished politician as the former provincial leader, and people realistically assess that he will be extremely difficult to beat so why bother.
Jack Harris had a tough time winning his provincial seat, though the federal party has done better in NL then the provincial party has. He would have been tough to beat in 2008 but a a strong Liberal candidate would have made for a much closer race, I believe it took a good bit of convincing to actually get him to run and he only made up his mind after the Liberal candidate was chosen.
I hope Martin Singh decides to run as a candidate in the next election.
He'd make a great replacement in Jagmeet Singh's riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton (depending on redistributed boundaries), which has to be amongst the highest on the NDP's 'Top 60' targeted ridings.
Wouldn't he run in Nova Scotia?
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Jack Harris wouldn't run again in 2015. He is a highly respected front bencher and when the NDP forms a government in 2015, Harris would be guaranteed to be given a senior portfolio.
Remember, too, in Newfoundland, that NDP targets can often tend to be star-candidate "one-offs" rather than a part of province-wide efforts (like Random-Burin in '04)
"Easy stuff" like online voting?
Not a single easy thing about that, unless you either accept that candidates will be unable to scrutineer the vote, or that balloting will be unable to remain secret.
Easy stuff as in it wont invovle any constitutional work like Senate reform does... Also, Estonia has been using Online voting since.... 2005 or 2007? and now its not perfect since i don't agree you should be able to change your vote over a 7 day period BUT if a country like Estonia can get online voting rolling, surely Canada can... but i might be giving the Tories too much credit here.
By 2015, i think the Liberals will have been able to claw back some of that middle-centre right vote that bolted to the tories cause they fearied the raving commies in the NDP would win :P ... so with that, i think More ridings in Ontario will be races the NDP can win in three way races, same in BC.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Jack Harris wouldn't run again in 2015. He is a highly respected front bencher and when the NDP forms a government in 2015, Harris would be guaranteed to be given a senior portfolio.
If the NDP look like they're able to form government he would probably consider staying on, but he's 63 now and could retire then with a nice pension.
Since my post in the other thread may have helped start this thread, here's my post again:
Someone else said: potential gains in the West: 18 (10 in BC, 2 in AB, 4 in Sask, 2 in MB)
I said: "Likely more in the West: Edmonton will have eleven seats after redistribution, BC will gain six seats, Saskatchewan should have six urban ridings plus one or two winnable northern ridings, and we can win more than four Manitoba seats. Say a total of 24 in BC, 5 in Alta, 6 in Sask, 5 in Man = 40.
But the biggest potential is Ontario. And Ontario wants a leader who is either a Quebecer or has appeal in Quebec, because that makes us a real Canada-wide party. Nash is, sadly, unknown in Quebec. We have three Quebecer candidates: Mulcair, Saganash and Topp. Someone like Svend Robinson, who was very well known in Quebec, might do nicely; but we have no one like that. Mulcair, Topp, or Saganash -- IF all of them can appeal well to Quebec, which is not yet proven -- could reasonably create a potential for 62 seats out of Ontario's 121. With 65 in Quebec, 62 in Ontario, 40 in the West, a dozen in Atlantic Canada, and at least one in the North, we have 175, a majority of eleven in a 338-seat House.
We require a leader who is capable of that."
Maybe my 12 in Atlantic Canada is a bit modest, although 21 is overly ambitious.
Just a reminder: the next election will be fought on completely different boundaries. That means potential nomination battles between incumbents (including, very possibly, some of ours). It also means that some Liberal incumbents may not be keeping the same seat boundaries.
Potential nomination battles between our incumbents? In theory, yes. In reality, I can't find one, not even in Quebec. See:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/more-electoral-maps
If Northern Ontario manages to keep nine ridings by adding Parry Sound into the North, no problem. If it shrinks to eight, we have only six MPs, should still be no problem. As for Halifax, its present 4.2 ridings should become 4.7 ridings.
62 seats in Ontario by the next election is quite an ambitous prediction, the NDP would need to be able to win well over 40% of the vote. As well winning 12 seats or more in Atlantic Canada will require a big breakthrough. The NDP needs to start working now on a plan to completely get rid of the Liberal Party.
Well i don't agree with killing the Liberal Party, i think thats unhealthy for democracy, i think two party states just don't offer the choice to citizens... but thats a different thread i think.
We have the double edged sward of using our OO to attract small L liberals to the NDP camp while also making sure centre-right moderate liberals jump back into the Liberal camp. In that cases i think 62 in ontario is not that unrealistic. BUT in order to win the NDP has to make major moves into rural ontario (prime areas are SW ontario; ridings like Essex, Chatham-Kent, Brant, Huron-Bruce) As well as the only way to win more ridings in Cities (Ottawa, GTA) and second tier cities (Kitchener-Waterloo/London) in ontario is through three way races.
Well i don't agree with killing the Liberal Party, i think thats unhealthy for democracy, i think two party states just don't offer the choice to citizens... but thats a different thread i think.
We have the double edged sward of using our OO to attract small L liberals to the NDP camp while also making sure centre-right moderate liberals jump back into the Liberal camp. In that cases i think 62 in ontario is not that unrealistic. BUT in order to win the NDP has to make major moves into rural ontario (prime areas are SW ontario; ridings like Essex, Chatham-Kent, Brant, Huron-Bruce) As well as the only way to win more ridings in Cities (Ottawa, GTA) and second tier cities (Kitchener-Waterloo/London) in ontario is through three way races.
Well in order for the NDP to get over 40% in Ontario the Liberals support will need to collapse, the latest poll has them at 39% in Ontario. There are still areas where the NDP aren't even much of a factor in Ontario. The party is not going to be able to swing much of the Conservative vote to them so they will need to target the Liberal vote and get them under 20%, reducing them to only a few seats. In Atlantic Canada the Liberals are still very much a factor, for the NDP to gain seats the Liberals need to be almost wiped out. When the Liberals formed government in the 1990's the NDP was barely non-existant and if the NDP wants to form government the Liberals will need to be reduced to about a dozen seats. The NDP can form government if they can get the Liberals under at least 15% support and take away a few points from the Conservatives.
People may not like having basically a 2 party system but if the NDP are going to form a government that is likely what will need to happen.
I don't think the Liberals need to be reduced to a dozen seats for the NDP to take power in the next election. If the Liberals really are a "progressive" party then all that has to happen is for the Conservatives to lose their majority and the NDP can form a minority government or even a coalition with the Liberal rump. If the NDP just holds what it has and picks up four Tory seats on the Prairies and 3 or 4 in BC and a couple in Atlantic Canada and maybe half a dozen in ontario...and then if the liberals have bit of a dead cat bounce in Ontario and win back some silk-stocking GTA ridings like Wllowdale and Don valley West etc... we would end up with 120 NDP seats, 45 Liberals and 140 or so Tories. The leader of the NDP would become Pm.
Adding seats in Alberta would likely help the NDP in Edmonton, if it results in creating more "pure" inner-city type seats (i.e. cutting out the more suburban part of Edmonton East in the creation of more suburban Edmonton ridings).
BUT in order to win the NDP has to make major moves into rural ontario (prime areas are SW ontario; ridings like Essex, Chatham-Kent, Brant, Huron-Bruce)
Three of those four "rural" ridings aren't really rural ridings at all.
I don't think the Liberals need to be reduced to a dozen seats for the NDP to take power in the next election. If the Liberals really are a "progressive" party then all that has to happen is for the Conservatives to lose their majority and the NDP can form a minority government or even a coalition with the Liberal rump. If the NDP just holds what it has and picks up four Tory seats on the Prairies and 3 or 4 in BC and a couple in Atlantic Canada and maybe half a dozen in ontario...and then if the liberals have bit of a dead cat bounce in Ontario and win back some silk-stocking GTA ridings like Wllowdale and Don valley West etc... we would end up with 120 NDP seats, 45 Liberals and 140 or so Tories. The leader of the NDP would become Pm.
I highly doubt that wthout a coalition the Liberals would prop up an NDP government.
The NDP will still need to figure out how to at least keep the Liberals down.
The NDP has always been willing to form a coalition with the Liberals - but the Liberals still claim they will never do such a thing because it might give canadians the message that the Liberals can't rule without the NDP! Of course now that they are a distant third party i suspect the liberals will accept what ever crumbs the NDP tosses their way.
The NDP has always been willing to form a coalition with the Liberals - but the Liberals still claim they will never do such a thing because it might give canadians the message that the Liberals can't rule without the NDP! Of course now that they are a distant third party i suspect the liberals will accept what ever crumbs the NDP tosses their way.
Distant third party? Hardly. The Liberals are much bigger now than the NDP has been at various points in its history, including when it was down to 9 seats.
And I still don't get why a party which was in 3rd place (and as low as 5th place) for 50 years keeps degrading a 3rd party as if it is insignificant. Did you consider the NDP insignificant and worthless for its first 50 years?
It is mainly the NDP who have been turning down the idea of a coalition lately. Broadbent, Topp, Mulcair etc. have all said they are not interested. Only Pat Martin has said he is.
Incidentally, if the Liberals continue to move up in support over the next several years, the NDP may be back down to 3rd place again in 2015, so wouldn't it be best to keep some bridges open rather than burning them?
I know of NO ONE in the NDP who is against a possible coalition with the Liberals after the next election. Broadbent, Topp, Mulcair etc... are all 100% in favour of exploring any and all post-election arrangements with the third party. the NDP is not the obstacle to a coalition. The Liberals are. Remember January 2009.
"Coalition" and "merger" are not the same thing, Debater.
I have to agree with some of Debater's points on some NDP members considering the Liberals insignificant because they are the third party, it just comes off as pure arrogance. The NDP were the fourth party at the beginning of the year and now look at whee they are.
It is mainly the NDP who have been turning down the idea of a coalition lately. Broadbent, Topp, Mulcair etc. have all said they are not interested. Only Pat Martin has said he is.
You make such sensible arguments for the rest of your comment, and then you throw this in there. I don't know whether you actually don't know the difference between a coalition and a merger or whether you're just trying to obfuscate, but either way, you just end up making the case for not taking anything you say seriously.
62 seats in Ontario by the next election is quite an ambitous prediction, the NDP would need to be able to win well over 40% of the vote.
No, with the present 106 seats I can show you a projection that gives the NDP 53 seats with 38.4% of the vote, Con 47 seats with 33.4%, Lib 6 seats with 23.9%. The NDP gets 6 of the 8 seats in Mississauga and Brampton. Then with 121 seats, that would be about 62 NDP.
I hope Martin Singh decides to run as a candidate in the next election.
He'd make a great replacement in Jagmeet Singh's riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton (depending on redistributed boundaries), which has to be amongst the highest on the NDP's 'Top 60' targeted ridings.
Wouldn't he run in Nova Scotia?
He lives in Peter Stoffer's riding.
Should Peter decide not to re-offer, then yes, I would hope Martin would try for the nomination there.
However, I haven't seen a single indication that Stoffer won't be running next time, so it seems to me that B-G-M would be the next logical place for him to seek a nomination. He made his leadership announcement there, didn't he?
Well spoke Stockholm!
Also because he's highly regarded, a very intelligent and committed person, an accomplished politician as the former provincial leader, and people realistically assess that he will be extremely difficult to beat so why bother.
Also, in the 08 election, Jack Harris was the de facto candidate anointed by Danny Williams. The two of them, IIRC, were room mates in law school and best men at each other's weddings. In 11, he contnued to benefit from the Williams connection.
Not to say, of course, that Jack Harris isn't also brilliant his own self.
Regarding Nettie Wiebe - by the next election, Nettie will be 66. She's run and run and run and never managed to win. I'm not sure how much interest there is in the party in having her run again - especially if the redistributed target seats are (deo volente) more strongly urban.
If the Liberals really are a "progressive" party . . .
But you're too smart to believe that, Stockholm.
It is mainly the NDP who have been turning down the idea of a coalition lately. Broadbent, Topp, Mulcair etc. have all said they are not interested. Only Pat Martin has said he is.
Debater, it's nice that you've finally admitted to being a steadfast Liberal Partisan. You certainly lie like a Liberal.
I'm not aware of a single New Democrat that has rejected the idea of a coalition with the Liberal Party. What I have seen is a whole lot of New Democrats who refused to be snookered into a pre-election deal with the Liberal Party.
You are not a complete idiot, and you understand that those are two very different things. Therefore, in treating them as one and the same, you have lied.
Which, as noted, is the one reliale behavioural characteristic of partisan Liberals.
In Saskatchewan, had the last several elections been fought under the boundaries originally proposed by the commission, the NDP would likely have won five seats in each election (plus possibly a sixth in the most recent election) instead of being shut out each time. That model had one entirely urban seat and two predominantly urban seats in both Regina and Saskatoon. Ironically, the proposed distribution was dealt the coup de grace by NDP MP Dick Proctor, who objected to the proposed Moose Jaw seat which extended from the US border to the outskirts of Saskatoon.
The only province in Canada with no entirely urban constituencies, I think the Conservatives would face some backlash if they try to retain that anomaly. Assuming the anomaly is done away with, the NDP are in a strong position to win up to six seats in Saskatchewan and possibly seven should Liberal Ralph Goodale choose to retire. That assumes three competitive, predominantly urban seats in Regina and in Saskatoon, and a notionally winnable seat in the North.
It is mainly the NDP who have been turning down the idea of a coalition lately. Broadbent, Topp, Mulcair etc. have all said they are not interested. Only Pat Martin has said he is.
Debater, it's nice that you've finally admitted to being a steadfast Liberal Partisan. You certainly lie like a Liberal.
I'm not aware of a single New Democrat that has rejected the idea of a coalition with the Liberal Party. What I have seen is a whole lot of New Democrats who refused to be snookered into a pre-election deal with the Liberal Party.
You are not a complete idiot, and you understand that those are two very different things. Therefore, in treating them as one and the same, you have lied.
Which, as noted, is the one reliale behavioural characteristic of partisan Liberals.
Please don't use these sort of personal attacks - they are the sort of thing that almost deserve attention from a moderator.
I wasn't lying. I was assuming people meant more or less the same thing in this case regarding a merger vs. a coalition. If we want to distinguish between the two, please say so and I will also try to do so. Perhaps I could have been clearer in what I was trying to say as well.
When people like Broadbent and Topp have been asked this fall what they think of some sort of a merger or coalition with the Liberals, they have basically said they are not interested. I heard Broadbent say this in a CPAC interview earlier this year.
From what I can tell, the only NDP MP who has said he is in favour of a merger is Pat Martin.
Please don't use these sort of personal attacks - they are the sort of thing that almost deserve attention from a moderator.
Do we really need to go crying to a moderator whenever our points are challenged? Really, let's grow up. I grant that it takes courage to post as a Liberal on a board that is dominated by NDP partisans but you have to expect that the vast majority are going to disagree with you.
I even sort of respect how you try to stir up the pot here, but if you don't like all of the other people that are posting and everyone else's posts distress you so very much, why do you persist in hanging around?
You had said that no MP other than Pat Martin was in favour of "a coalition." While that statement may be true about a merger, it is clearly not the case about a coalition. Since it is assumed that anyone able to read a newspaper over the last few years would understand that to be the case, the previous poster believed you to be disingenuous. The only other alternative would be to assume you were ignorant of the facts.
I don't mind intelligent and polite disagreement with one another's views, what is considered out of bounds is to say "You lie like a Liberal" and to tar every Liberal with that statement. Is that not considered name-calling, amongst other things? That should be kept out of discussions. I don't use those phrases towards others.
And I don't try to 'stir the pot' as much as provide some analysis, commentary and facts that aren't partisan NDP rhetoric. I also used to try and find some points of agreement between NDPers and Liberals, but I have more or less given up on that since virtually no one here likes anything about the Liberals or thinks they have ever done anything good for Canada and are basically worse than the Conservatives.
Incidentally, I think the issue of mergers and coalitions IS confusing to many people. It's one of the things that Harper has used successfully against both the Liberals and NDP in recent years. No one is sure exactly what the arrangement would be or what it means or what its central attributes would be. None of us know exactly how these 2 parties are going to end up right now.
