I don't understand this statement simply because Ignatieff said loud and clear only 2 - 3 days ago that a merger between the Liberals and the NDP was not even a remote possibility.
Should the Liberals and NDP merge?
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Even in a plurality system there would be a significant difference simply because the Liberals And NDP would no longer split the vote. It would probably mean an overwhelming win for an NDP-Liberal coalition.
Not particularly, am I sounding adversarial? Sometimes you have to let people know where the bear sh*t in the buckwheat. :lol::lol::lol:
Exactly- If the N.D.P. and Liberal join forces they will both lose some votes and I think everyone knows where those votes will go and it won't be the Green. :lol:
That is not quite true- a lot of the money is going to us seniors in the form of tax breaks, so they are probably squandering only about 90% of the money. :lol::lol::lol:
What is interesting is all the ranting by Liberals that this is just something the Conservatives dreamed up, and yet:
On Tuesday, CBC News reported that senior insiders with the Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to challenge the Conservatives.
Many Liberal insiders confirmed that discussions between the two parties are not just focused on forming a coalition after an election or co-operation before one, but the creation of a new party.
The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats.
Kinsella told CBC News "serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."
But on Wednesday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called discussions of a merger "ridiculous."
Kinsella worked for Ignatieff in the Opposition Leader's Office until recently, reportedly leaving on less than the best of terms.
When asked Wednesday about his relationship with Kinsella, Ignatieff responded: "I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella."
Read more: CBC News - Politics - Liberal president talked merger: affidavits
On Tuesday, CBC News reported that senior insiders with the Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to challenge the Conservatives.
Many Liberal insiders confirmed that discussions between the two parties are not just focused on forming a coalition after an election or co-operation before one, but the creation of a new party.
The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats.
Kinsella told CBC News "serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."
But on Wednesday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called discussions of a merger "ridiculous."
Kinsella worked for Ignatieff in the Opposition Leader's Office until recently, reportedly leaving on less than the best of terms.
When asked Wednesday about his relationship with Kinsella, Ignatieff responded: "I have no relationship with Warren Kinsella."
Read more: CBC News - Politics - Liberal president talked merger: affidavits
Screw the feds and return power back to the provinces. This nation is far far too big and diverse to be managed from Ottawa.
I'm all for decentralization.
But the two parties in Ottawa most likely to support it (i.e. the CPC and BQ) are not likely to vote along with each other on anything even if they agree to it in principle because they don't trust each others' motives. In fact, if one of these parties expressed support for an idea of the other's, the other would likely backtrack wondering why that party supports it. Don't you just love partisan politics.
In fact I can think of one BQ idea at the moment that the CPC would likely normally support but cannot support because the BQ supports it.
But the two parties in Ottawa most likely to support it (i.e. the CPC and BQ) are not likely to vote along with each other on anything even if they agree to it in principle because they don't trust each others' motives. In fact, if one of these parties expressed support for an idea of the other's, the other would likely backtrack wondering why that party supports it. Don't you just love partisan politics.
In fact I can think of one BQ idea at the moment that the CPC would likely normally support but cannot support because the BQ supports it.
Oh, yeah. The Liberals are definitely populist. The trouble with their interpretations and kneejerk reactions to polls and news is off the rails sometimes.
I mean the first definition of "populist" here:
Merriam-Webster
I think so, too. A few might leave because of the union but, I'm almost sure that most would do as you say; pinch their noses and stay.
And just before that Martin bribed Layton to support him when he felt his grip on the PMO loosening.
A merger would again put the Liberals in contention but what would the NDP have to give up - As to dyed in the wool NDP types that would be against a merger they would either not vote as what do they vote for or drift to the Greens - the point is - how many The same would apply to those that are borderline libs or even Cons as it is applicable during any election - where would the drift to - Cons - again how many is the point - I mentioned earlier that 35-40 seats in this country control who is in power and who is not.
Do the libs want to regain power that they would contemplate this - Yes - Recall the Coalition of the Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest as the so called PM for 6 month - NDP were promised Cabinet Posts - Even Lizzie may was dreaming of the Senate seat to plunk her big arse in.
So yes Libs want to be in power that this would be given serious thought and discussion.
Polls show Minority Govts are going to be the norm and who have the Libs as leadership candidates after Iffy takes his walk in the park, possibly this summer.
But again i wold go back to those 35-40 seats - demographics, age, salary, blue -white collar - under 35 - all of those variables would have to be dissected.
Another important point is the NDP would have to give up some major planks in their party platform.
And would it last - The Liberals are famous for their internal slaughters of leaders and MP's.
They would also be betting that this merger would be better than what the Cons offer.
So Harper leads in all polls based on leadership - he handled the economy well - not my opinion - polls - and Iffy is not trusted or liked.
So if Iffy stayed i can already hear the attack adds coming.
lmao No-one in their rational mind can trust most pols as it is.
Big bump.
It might be comical, though. Get Layton in charge of a mostly Liberal party and the guy who is against everything and anything leads the people who are for anything and everything they think the public is for.
Or, get Iggy, a guy who doesn't really stand for anything but likes anything he thinks voters like in charge of some pretty left standing people with some pretty rigid ideas. I can imagine a lot of squawking in that coop.
A Liberal-NDP merger could also benefit the Greens potentially. If the Libs shift left, and the Cons stay where they are, a vacuum would be created in the centre. One possibility would be for either the Libs or the Cons to shift towards the centre (though if the Cons do that, the right wing of the CPC could fall off, and if the Libs do that, the NDP could re-emerge). If neither party risks taking the centre, then the Greens could try to fill that void, possibly in coalition with the Canadian Progressive Party, though admittedly that might be a tough one since the Progressive Canadian Party is essentially right of centre, red tory let's say, while the Greens are left of centre. But granted, they're both so close to the centre, that they might be able to pull it off. Consider too that the Progressive Canadian Party considers itself the rightful continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party, and many former members of the Progressive conservative Party had joined the Greens later on. Though the Greens are left-leaning overall, there is a centrist element among it too.
In the end, the result of and reaction to any LibNDP merger will be very unpredictable as it will also depend on how others react too.
Chances are in the end a merger would really just be a shifting of paty names. Let's look at the Conservative merger for a moment. Both sides had to compromise, some Red tories held their noses and joined, others couldn't take the stench and so formed the Progressive Canadian Party joined the Liberals, some later joined the Green Party, and I'm sure some just went independent or joined some other party.
And as for the right too, some held their noses and joined, others left and joined the Christian Heritage Party or the Libertarian Party, and again some might have either just become independent or joined some other party.
I think a Liberal-NDP merger would be no different. Some would pinch their noses, some left-leaning Dippers would join a marxist party or become independents, some blue Liberals would join the Greens, maybe the Conservatives, or possibly the Progressive Canadian Party, or become independent or join some other party.
In the end, the final reaction will be very unpredictable as there are too many variables.
And what about this party:
NeoRhino - De fête en fête jusqu'à la victoire
In the end, the result of and reaction to any LibNDP merger will be very unpredictable as it will also depend on how others react too.
Chances are in the end a merger would really just be a shifting of paty names. Let's look at the Conservative merger for a moment. Both sides had to compromise, some Red tories held their noses and joined, others couldn't take the stench and so formed the Progressive Canadian Party joined the Liberals, some later joined the Green Party, and I'm sure some just went independent or joined some other party.
And as for the right too, some held their noses and joined, others left and joined the Christian Heritage Party or the Libertarian Party, and again some might have either just become independent or joined some other party.
I think a Liberal-NDP merger would be no different. Some would pinch their noses, some left-leaning Dippers would join a marxist party or become independents, some blue Liberals would join the Greens, maybe the Conservatives, or possibly the Progressive Canadian Party, or become independent or join some other party.
In the end, the final reaction will be very unpredictable as there are too many variables.
And what about this party:
NeoRhino - De fête en fête jusqu'à la victoire
Agreed.... then all we'd have is something like the US's system of Democrats and Republicans.... both talk opposites but end up doing the exact same things all the while taking turns being the Good Cop / Bad Cop.
All that would happen is that our choices will be reduced, more so, and the government would still remain the same as it always has..... ie: continued bickering and whining between the parties and nothing worthwhile ever getting done.
The only reason why I started voting was because of the NDP and what they have done in the past. Regardless of their chances of ever leading the government federally anytime soon, they still have their place in the government and have brought many important things to our lives.
And why I finally decided to vote and vote NDP was because I was so sick and tired of the continual Liberal/Conservative coin flipping going on in our government, sick of all their corrupts schemes, and found the NDP's views (most of them anyways) align with my own.
If the NDP merge with the Liberals, then all we'd end up having is a bigger Liberal party, pushing more Liberal Party objectives, and far less choice at election..... and if that happens, then I see no point in voting any further, since there would be no parties to vote for that relate to my own views anymore.
The real problem isn't in that there's too many political parties dividing the votes.... the real problem is that there's not enough parties representing most citizens of the nation, which is why voter turn out is getting worse and worse.
Take the third best political party out of our choices and all you end up doing is forcing more people to choose between Conservatives, Liberals, or the remote chance, Green Party....... and when that happens, don't expect more people to start voting, expect many of the existing voters to stop voting and the turn out end up far far worse where the greater majority of the population is not voicing themselves.
Their own fault?
Hardly..... It's the responsibility of the government to get citizens interested in voting for them..... really interested, not force them through legal action to vote for a party (even if they don't like any of the current parties given to them, thus worse then a throw away vote) and not getting people to vote for your party simply because you removed all other options...... that's a farce way of running a democracy and is no democracy at all.
Sure you might get some current Liberal/NDP voters to turn out and vote for the new party, thus more votes for one party, rather then divided between two, but without a doubt, you will lose even more harder-lined Liberal Voters and NDP Voters to this new party, because they will not see any legit alternatives while they see some of their own values they voted for disappear in the process...... and just might abstain from voting altogether.
Meanwhile..... has there been anything done to bring in many of those who are currently not voting?
Nope.
While I agree it will make this new party lose more voters then they'd gain as two separate parties..... quickly assuming those who stop voting for them will suddenly jump ship to the Conservatives is narrow in view.
It is possible a good portion of those leaving this new party might switch to Conservatives.... but the more logical outcome will be most just no longer voting, period.
The voter turnout per election has continually been getting worse each election that goes by...... this little scheme will not suddenly reverse this trend, there are no incentives for anybody not voting now to start voting for this new party, and it is more likely to increase lack of voter turnout more, faster.
I suspect what will really happen is that the hard-liners of the Liberals not keen on this merger will form another party, while the hard-liners of the NDP will also make their new party..... thus, rather then getting rid of two parties to make one party, they end up created three new ones altogether.
Perhaps that is a good idea..... as if there are more options available to vote for, not only would the vote spread thinner more for current Lib/NDP voters, but current Conservative voters would have more to choose from as well....... and so would the current non-voters.
To simply sum up Canadian voting to Left/Centre/Right political mentality to me is a short sighted way of explaining how our government and the voters all work.
You and a few others may vote for a party based solely on if they're considered Left, Right, Centre or whatever...... but many more voters decide their vote over many more issues. Who's the leader of the party, what are their plans in the next election, what is the party's track record, what do they plan to do for your area of the country, what do they plan on doing for your family, your work, your living costs..... etc. etc.? Most voters, especially those currently eligible to vote but don't, vote based on deeper issues then where a political party stands in the overall spectrum of Left/Right/Centre.
I don't vote for the Conservatives simply because they're Right Wing or Left..... I vote based on their plans, who's running their show for them (Harper) and their character, what have they done in the past, what did they do that I felt was right or wrong? And so on......
These type of people will change which party they vote for much more easily, and it's these type of people whom one really needs to keep an eye on..... not those who vote based on Rubber Stamp mentality and loyalty.
Assumption based on party loyalty & bias.
The Conservatives "Could" gain ground..... but depending on what unfolds after such a change in the political spectrum and depending on if more parties show up on the door step from the old party hard liners..... the Conservatives "Could" lose ground as well.
At present, there's not enough information to determine which of the several outcomes might become true....... Nobody knows how centre or left the new party will end up...... Nobody knows if the hard-liners of the old parties will decide to form additional parties after this new party is formed....... Nobody knows how support will change for the Conservatives because of this...... Nobody knows how the current non-voters will view this and/or if they will start to vote for this new party or one of the other possible parties that may come out from all of this......... and Nobody knows if this action will just continue the trend of citizens losing interest in elections and just simply stop voting altogether.
It's simply just too soon to know anything, and since there isn't any real official word of the merger being talked about and is all just speculation, this is all just an exercise in time wasting.
Last edited:
Until they can find a competent leader the Liberals couldn't run a lemonade stand at a Sunday School picnic :lol::lol: and what self respectful Socialist is going to join up with a private enterpriser and vice versy? :lol::lol:
?????????????? Sometimes you are hard to follow, Anna or am I just stupid? :lol::lol::lol:
It means that I agree with what Petros said and decided it was worth bringing attention to the comment. (Bumping something means you don't want it to disappear into history according to internet protocols) specifically, "Screw the feds and return power back to the provinces. This nation is far far too big and diverse to be managed from Ottawa."
Oh OK, now I'm catching on - when you reply to a post that is near the bottom of the pile it brings it to the top of the list- neat trick, where do you get all this wisdom Anna? Never mind you've just been hanging around computers too long. :lol::lol:
Is that like the Black Eyed Peas?
Are you bragging?
My bump, my bump, my lovely lady lump....
The NDP will is very important to Canadian politice because they are like a loyal female dog where they will always be somebody's B????.
Last edited:
