Liberal NDP Merger Possibility?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You know, if you substitute "Progressive Conservatives" for Liberals (and change a few details) this was exactly what people were saying before the Reform-Conservative merger a few years back.

Just saying....

You are a hell of a lot smarter than this IFF. Reform was a splinter of the PCs and the merger was a restoration of the original party. While there certainly was a divergence in policy and ideology between the two, fundamentally they shared numerous traits that were nearly identical. The primary difference between Reform and the PCs was geography. One party catered to the west, while another mostly catered to the east.

I don't think you need a lesson on the ideological differences between the Liberals and the NDP.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by getbak

If this happens, welcome to a Conservative majority.

Probably a 'Liberal Democrat' minority. The new party wouldn't get a majority, not in the first election anyway. Expect some Liberal seats in Quebec to fall to the Bloc, and expect the Greens to pick up a couple of seats as well. It would be a very good situation IMO.

Personally, as someone who fluctuates between centre and left on most issues, I'd more than welcome this potential merger. I also wouldn't see it as the birth of a two-party system at all. The Bloc are still kicking around and will be more powerful, even, and the Greens are definitely going to pick up a few seats.

I really hope this happens.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

In the last federal election, held in October 2008, the Liberals, NDP, and Greens combined for a total of 51.22% of the popular vote nationwide.

The Bloc had 9.98%. The Conservatives had a mere 37.65% - a full fourteen points behind a potential Liberal/NDP/Green coalition.

A united left wing party would be terrible for all you true blue voters in the West. It would be just like it was in the good old days of Jean Chretien, who never had to worry about not getting a majority of seats in the House because the two right wing parties were too busy fighting each other to mount a serious attack on him.

Stop typing. Considering you're not the only leftie I've met who talks simplified redundant crap like this, it's no wonder there's so much animosity towards the left wing in this province, even from perfectly reasonable folk.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Major urban centers (other than Calgary) for the left, everywhere else for the right.

Well, that's a load of crap.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy

When the Liberals lost power in January of 2006 prime was at 3.25% Now it is at .50%.

How can you possibly defend the criticism of the Conservatives for giving out free money to induce a housing bubble and stop the economy from collapsing?

Because the criticism is a patently ridiculous example of partisan politics and the traditional Liberal tactic of demonization?

Your implied argument is that the Conservatives caused the economy to falter. I would very much like to see you support this, with documented evidence, that Harper and the CPC's are responsible for what has been a global recession. I would especially like to see your arguments for how Harper caused the American finance market to collapse.

Indeed. Canada, under the Conservatives, suffered fewer effects than other G7 nations. Canada was expected from the start to handle the storm much better than its southern counterpart, and succeeded. The banking sector, devastated in the US and many European nations, required no bailout because they were in much better shape than the institutions of many other nations.

I would also point out an interesting note on poll results from the Wikipedia article on the 08-09 Parliamentary dispute:

A Léger Marketing poll of 2,226 people, conducted on behalf of Sun Media and released on December 4, showed a regional split on what should happen if the Harper government fell. Nationally, 43% of respondents preferred a new election be held, compared to 40% who favoured allowing the coalition to govern. In Western Canada, however, respondents were sharply opposed to the coalition, led by Albertans, who responded 71% in favour of new elections. Quebec showed the highest level of support for the coalition, with 58% preferring it to a new election. Ontario was split, with 43% preferring an election compared to 39% supporting the coalition.[101] This poll also showed that 60% of Canadians were concerned that the Bloc Québécois would hold the balance of power in a coalition, compared to 35% that were not concerned, with the majority of respondants in every region, excluding Quebec, expressing concern. 34% of those polled argued that the Conservatives were best able to handle the economic crisis, compared to 18% for the coalition. 14% felt the Liberals individually were best prepared, 7% felt the NDP individually were the best choice, and 2% felt the Bloc Québécois were best.[102]

An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would have received 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party 8%, up from 4.5%. 37% of respondents (including the majority of Conservative voters) expressed support in proroguing parliament, while 28% (including a majority of Liberal and Bloc voters, and a near majority of NDP voters) supported the proposed coalition taking power within the next few weeks, with 19% supporting an election. Additionally, 47% of respondents thought that Harper's Conservative government would better manage the financial crunch, versus 34% in support of the Dion-led coalition. Furthermore, 48% of respondents (including the majority of Liberal, NDP, and Green voters, but only 41% of Conservative voters) expressed confidence in the Governor General's ability to make decisions regarding the impasse.[103]

It seems that even in a coalition, your vote still wouldn't count because Canadians just don't think like you.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

Probably a 'Liberal Democrat' minority. The new party wouldn't get a majority, not in the first election anyway. Expect some Liberal seats in Quebec to fall to the Bloc, and expect the Greens to pick up a couple of seats as well. It would be a very good situation IMO.

Personally, as someone who fluctuates between centre and left on most issues, I'd more than welcome this potential merger. I also wouldn't see it as the birth of a two-party system at all. The Bloc are still kicking around and will be more powerful, even, and the Greens are definitely going to pick up a few seats.

I really hope this happens.

Where, praytel, would the centre-right liberals go if this party should move left?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Leon Kennedy
In the last federal election, held in October 2008, the Liberals, NDP, and Greens combined for a total of 51.22% of the popular vote nationwide.

The Bloc had 9.98%. The Conservatives had a mere 37.65% - a full fourteen points behind a potential Liberal/NDP/Green coalition.

A united left wing party would be terrible for all you true blue voters in the West. It would be just like it was in the good old days of Jean Chretien, who never had to worry about not getting a majority of seats in the House because the two right wing parties were too busy fighting each other to mount a serious attack on him.

Your argument is somewhat laughable. You can't combine the votes of the Green, the NDP and Liberals and say, see the left has more votes. Because frankly they're parties with different policies, different viewpoints and different voter support.

If the NDP merge with the Liberal's sell out and the party moves left to center, you can kiss the union vote good bye.

If you merge the NDP and Liberal and they move further left, then the center left vote could end up with the conservatives.

Frankly Canadian's I would hope are smart enough to realize that NDP + Liberal + Green = true left votes.

Right now, even it the Liberals and NDP merged their parliamentary seats based on the last election, they're still a distant second to the Conservatives.

[Resolute 14]

I'd suggest the union vote would remain with the Lib-Dippers. There's nowhere else for them to go unless they want to throw their support away on a fringe party.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the NDP merge with the Liberal's sell out and the party moves left to center, you can kiss the union vote good bye.

If they merged and basically stayed where the liberals currently are on the spectrum... where would the union vote go?

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Where, praytel, would the centre-right liberals go if this party should move left?

I don't think the party will suddenly become blatantly socialist. I think it will initially start out with fearmongering about such things, the same way the new Conservatives started out with the other parties and many everyday Canadians fearing them as

What do we have now? We have, essentially, the Reform/Alliance party+a few other MP's, but the rebranding worked, the shift to the right from the old PC voters seems not to have affected much of anything. Look at the vote in any riding in Calgary, and look at the old Reform/Alliance candidate's percentage, and then look at the old PC candidate's percentage. Then look at the CPC vote.

While they did drop a lot of voters initially, and this isn't just in Calgary, explore other Conservative ridings in the country if you wish, they eventually ended up winning back the voters they lost, then actually becoming even stronger once the party solidified.

My answer to your query is that I fully expect the centre-right Liberals to scatter their vote. I think the idea that they will all suddenly jump ship to what is essentially the Reform/Alliance + a few other MP's and help that party to a majority is utterly absurd. I also think it's absurd to think they will all vote for the potential 'Liberal Democrats.'

I don't think it's so absurd, however, to assume that if the new party strikes the right balance, if it manages to do what the Conservative merger did, to take fears of a shift to the right which probably swung the 2004 election to the Liberals, and slowly convince the voters that they did in fact speak for the centre-right and not the far right, for the mainstream right and not for the West, that this new 'Liberal Democrat' party would become a powerful and serious contender in every election. A centre-left party could very well work much like the Conservative party currently works. Traditional centres of support don't matter. Look what happened in Ontario with a party that is essentially made up of members of the Reform and Alliance parties. While Alberta is going to be a tough sell on anything involving the word 'Liberal,' I can see a bunch of Western seats going to the 'Liberal Democrats.'

Similarly, I think the first election might possibly result in a Conservative minority akin to Martin's minority for the established Liberals, a win for the established over the new and untrusted.

[Resolute 14]

In reality, I suspect that this merger would be more a takeover by the Liberals than a merger of equals. The LDP would have to stay somewhat near the centre to have a hope of forming government. As such, One has to contemplate the possibility of those further to the left ("traditional NDP supporters") feeling disenfranchised by such a merger and splintering off. The merged party could not hope to cater both to traditional Liberals and traditional New Democrats. If it can't find that happy medium that bleeds off the least support, and the least to the Conservatives, it could prove disastrous.

[Resolute 14]

Heh, I guess in our own way, we just said the same thing, PoM, only from different POVs.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In reality, I suspect that this merger would be more a takeover by the Liberals than a merger of equals. The LDP would have to stay somewhat near the centre to have a hope of forming government. As such, One has to contemplate the possibility of those further to the left ("traditional NDP supporters") feeling disenfranchised by such a merger and splintering off. The merged party could not hope to cater both to traditional Liberals and traditional New Democrats. If it can't find that happy medium that bleeds off the least support, and the least to the Conservatives, it could prove disastrous.

I think Canada will likely fluctuate between merged and unmerged parties on both the left and the right without electoral reform... the mechanisms for splintering are real, as are the mechanisms for merging. Neither situation is really stable, and each one creates the conditions that lead to the other.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Come on, peter--you're a lot smarter than the Western exceptionalists from whom you've borrowed this tired claim. The historical liberal base is central and eastern Canada. Other than the Stephane Dion debacle, you have to go back pretty far in history to find an election where the Liberals didn't get most of their seats from Ontario.

And I know that Western exceptionalists love to pretend that this fact means they're somehow persecuted by the east, but as a function of simple arithmetic, central Canada is a far more powerful "foundation for a national government" than the West could ever be.

And we don't need to beat around the bush about this: it is part of the reason that Harper has been unable to form a majority. I will grant you that Harper lacks Preston Manning's vision and charisma, but it's clearly more important that he lacks the geographical base in Central Canada to push him over the top.

I'm not kidding. I have the actual demographic research to show you! The Liberal base has essentially shrunk to a small necklace of concentrated urban ridings.

Everything else, I totally agree. I wanted to get at something deeper, but I just got back from my philosophy reading group and I'm drunk. Also a nerd.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In reality, I suspect that this merger would be more a takeover by the Liberals than a merger of equals. The LDP would have to stay somewhat near the centre to have a hope of forming government. As such, One has to contemplate the possibility of those further to the left ("traditional NDP supporters") feeling disenfranchised by such a merger and splintering off. The merged party could not hope to cater both to traditional Liberals and traditional New Democrats. If it can't find that happy medium that bleeds off the least support, and the least to the Conservatives, it could prove disastrous.

The same was said when the PCs and Reform merged to form CRAP. "The centerist PCs will leave the party and move to the Liberals!!!" Some did, but it barely registered.

I'm an NDP supporter (who sometimes votes Green if the NDP are pissing me off) and have NEVER voted Liberal in my entire life. But if people see that voting for the Greens is going to ensure George Bush becomes president, I think we'll see people hold their nose and vote for Gore, if you get my drift. It's going to be tough to ignore the differences in policy between the Liberals and my own opinions, but given the alternative I'll take it.

As for the percentages thrown about, it's true that you can't just add the NDP percentage to the Liberal percentage, but you also can't think that the Conservatives 37.5 is going to hold. A lot of dissatisfaction came from not liking Dion.

Now this is interesting:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1586238/

In Alberta, Jack Layton may be seen as, as seen in this thread, "a clown". But in many parts of the country he is well respected and as the article states, the most popular federal leader. If Jack were leading the party, I wouldn't be holding my nose when casting my vote. And it would improve the Liberal chances to win seats in Quebec where Jack is quite popular. I'd be more worried about this striking an election too soon given his health issues.

BTW - if this happens, I'll change my bet to 2:1 odds. Which is crazy given that many in this thread are claiming that this move will lead to an instant Conservative majority.

[Leon Kennedy]

The Reform party received only 2.1% of the national popular vote in the 1988 election, yet they would go on finish just three seats short of official opposition status just five years later.

This is why so many Canadians trust Stephen Harper. People here seem to think that elections come down to who gets the most votes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The voting public, by and large, are sheep who will vote for whomever advertises more. If you don't believe me then look at what Linda McMahon of WWF fame is doing right now.

Harper tried to bankrupt the opposition by removing the money allotted to each party based on their share of the popular vote. If this had happened under Trudeau, it is very doubtful that the Reform party would have been able to get off the ground. Why do you accuse me of "wasting" my vote when I vote Green? They best represent my position on the environment, which is the most important issue to me personally, much more so than taxes, Afghanistan, etc. By voting Green I am doing my small part to (hopefully) grow from being a "fringe" party with 6.78% of the vote to one day a major political force in Canada.

[Pastiche]

Another example of the median voter theory at work.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not kidding. I have the actual demographic research to show you! The Liberal base has essentially shrunk to a small necklace of concentrated urban ridings.

Everything else, I totally agree. I wanted to get at something deeper, but I just got back from my philosophy reading group and I'm drunk. Also a nerd.

Well, that may be--but I'd argue that this is merely symptomatic of the depth of the Stephane Dion debacle.

It's not spin-doctoring to say that if Harper couldn't win a majority against a political imbecile like Dion, then the Conservatives will never win a majority under Harper.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's certainly possible. However, as a "moderate liberal" myself, I can tell you that Harper has done a very good job of alienating moderates. I doubt he'd pick up too many votes from a merger of this kind.

As someone mentioned previously, I think the number of votes gained would really depend on just how far left conjoined party became. I also think that Layton being properly elected (not crowned) by the new party would actually help keep supporters around (He's a dreamer, but one of the best leaders on the hill).

As a liberal Conservative, I can tell you Harper has done a very good job of alienating moderates. Five years ago I donated money and lots of time to the party.....now, my membership card has been returned and I won't even take the party's calls. In my honest opinion - if you discount the fringe supporters (who typically vote based on party, not on policy) the new style Conservatives aren't much better off than the Liberals. Neither party *really* has much to offer the average centrist Canadian.

[Cowperson]

The Liberals have managed to have power for much of the last century because they effectively stood for nothing.

Their ability to morph to the left or even the right as the mood of the electorate periodically changed was their greatest strength.

Fixing themselves to an obvious left position, abandoning their traditional flexibility, is just a stupid and ultimately doomed idea for them.

Cowperson