Saturday, June 05, 2010

More Merger Talk

You've probably already read this one, but Dan Arnold's plea for a LPoC/CPoC merger is probably the best and funniest thing written on the topic this week:

Believe me, I too see how bleak the future looks for the Liberals. After all, we have been out of power for four years, while Harper sits with a towering 34% in the polls. I cannot imagine a more hopeless situation.

My own opinion, similar to Dan's, is here. And another reason it ain't gonna happen (I mean a merger of Canadian progressive parties)--at least not before the next election--is: you can't go dancing without a partner, and I have not heard a single NDP blogger/politician in favour of a merger. And why should they be? How could the NDP faction within a Liberal-New Democrat coalition be anything but the juniorist of Jr. partners. Look what's happened to the old Progressive Conservatives within the new CPoC. Poof! Gone without a trace...except for a few brave souls up in the Senate!

So let's put aside the unseemly panic, shall we?

Update: X Sask. NDP Preem Roy Romanow is down with a coalition. Missed that previously. And a fairly authoritative figure too, in my book.


Skinny Dipper said...

I was kinda hopin' for a merger of the Conservative Party and the Natural Law Party. One's got really weird candidates and strange policies; the other is the Natural Law party.

Eugene Forsey Liberal said...

However, to keep our options open, as you also previously advocated, Iggy, the current Leader, needs to repeat what Reid said, now, to get hypocrisy accusations out of the way asap (and as Iggy's official coalition position has already changed three times - no, yes, no - there shouldn't be a problem with a further conditional yes, as the price for changing positions has already been paid and discounted by public - "typical politician"). Iggy needs to at least repeat this part of Reid, or suffer further turmoil:

"It’s important to clarify these terms. Typically in Canadian experience, a coalition between parties is understood to mean a parliamentary alliance established in the aftermath of a general election – usually a minority circumstance. This is in keeping with accepted traditions of both the country and the party. Post-electoral coalitions of a formal and informal nature have populated minority parliaments frequently over the past century and Liberals have often taken part. CONSIDERATION OF SUCH COALITIONS SHOULD DEFINITELY BE MAINTAINED IN FUTURE."

Terence said...

EFL, while your thoughts are good Iggy has to tread carefully on that issue so as not to give Harpercrite a bone to chew on in a campaign.

RuralSandi said...

Remember, in the UK, the coalition talk was during the election campaign, not before.

CK said...

Rural sandi: it's high time to stop comparing ourselves to the UK. Apples...oranges...I can write about it.

For a start we have that American winner/loser mentality. Campaigning coalition is a sign of defeat.

I used to advocate strongly for coalition/merger in my blog for awhile.

Won't work here, unless Steve executes a hostile take over of the NDP.

Even if a coalition were to be haphazardly attempted, the blue grits won't stick around and would cross the floor to probably the Harpercons. Thus more seats to appoach his coveted majority.

CuriosityCat said...

However, a power sharing agreement between the LPC and NDP is OVERWHELMINGLY supported by a massive majority of both parties, as Rob Silver points out when he analyses the details of the latest Angus Reid poll: "Both parties are equally enthusiastic about a "shared power" scenario (72 per cent LIB, 70 per cent NDP)."
So, if we want confirmation that the members of the two parties are way way ahead of the leaders, we have it in this finding by Angus Reid.

That result is the most significant contribution to the debate about some form of cooperation between the LPC and NDP made during the past week or so.


Our respective leaders cannot say after this finding that a majority of LPC or NDP members are not in favour of any cooperative pact.

That is just as misleading as Harper's asinine comments about the legitimacy of coalitions under our parliamentary conventsions.

Ordinary Canadians who support the Liberals and the NDP want a power sharing agreement. Period.

CK said...

unfortunately, the math isn't there. Reality is that the centrist majority is swinging right these days.

A liberal/NDP coalition won't be able to steal those votes from Steve, in fact, more will go to Steve.

Sorry, but its' the centrist majority who hang out at Timmy Hortons who know precious little about how parlliament and democracy work and content to remain that way, these parties must pander to.