Chretien: Liberal-NDP merger "inevitable"

[RogueBeaver]

What's inevitable is that he won't give up on running the LPC by remote control, and no one has the stones to tell him where to get off. Or more precisely, those that do are either unwilling (Rae) or unable (Goodale, Brison).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/06/pol-chretien-merger.html

[Хahar 🤔]

I find it interesting that Liberal apparatchiki are the only people who seem to think a merger is either possible or preferable.

[RogueBeaver]

I find it interesting that Liberal apparatchiki are the only people who seem to think a merger is either possible or preferable.

Apart from Chretien and a few journalists, no one takes this idea seriously.

[Frodo]

The only way the NDP will ever consider a merger with the Liberals is if the Conservatives under Harper wins by crushing margins in 2015.  With both the major parties of the left on the ropes, only then will either consider pulling together to unite.   

And as clearly shown by the comments above, I don't think Harper needs to worry about it. 

[greenforest32]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK. Plurality first past the post systems always lead to two parties due to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). If the right gets behind one party and the left splits the vote among two parties, the right will win again and again. Just look at Canada's 2011 election results. You think the conservatives aren't going to win again in Canada in 2015/2016 without a Liberal/NDP merger?

The only way to break the two-party system is to have electoral reforms like instant run-off voting or really proportional representation. The UK had a referendum on that this year and chose to stay with its current pathetic system. Nice going idiots (voters do the same thing here too).

Enjoy the neoliberal faction's dominance of the party post-merger UK & Canada. It's what's been destroying the US Democrats since the 1970s. Neoliberals like Obama are just the latest example of what is produced from "the left" party in a two-party system. Don't expect another Jack Layton post-merger. Someone like that will never make it to the top internally. The neoliberals won't allow it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I really don't think it's such a bad idea, but hey. I'm just an outsider.

[You kip if you want to...]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK. Plurality first past the post systems always lead to two parties due to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). If the right gets behind one party and the left splits the vote among two parties, the right will win again and again. Just look at Canada's 2011 election results. You think the conservatives aren't going to win again in Canada in 2015/2016 without a Liberal/NDP merger?

Did merging PC and Alliance automatically get them into government?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PR, yes. Instant run-off, no. If anything, IRV reinforces the two-party system further - see: Australia. Idiot.

[greenforest32]

PR, yes. Instant run-off, no. If anything, IRV reinforces the two-party system further - see: Australia. Idiot.

Proportional representation is best for lower chambers but are you really going to argue that a single member district system is better with a plurality base rather than with an IRV base?

IRV is also an improvement for single-winner positions like US Presidents/Governors and US Senators. Parliamentary systems should just go flat out proportional representation.

[minionofmidas]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK.

I honestly thought that was meant sarcastically until I read the remainder.

The Liberals will find survival in the center hard if they are relegated to third place in the longish run. Yeah, I know it worked out in the end - somehow - for the British Liberals, but it's not something you can count on. Small wonder, then, that Liberal apparatchiks think about it - sane self-defense strategizing.
And Chretien, of course, would probably not be so averse to the policies of a putative merged party.
 

[redcommander]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK. Plurality first past the post systems always lead to two parties due to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). If the right gets behind one party and the left splits the vote among two parties, the right will win again and again. Just look at Canada's 2011 election results. You think the conservatives aren't going to win again in Canada in 2015/2016 without a Liberal/NDP merger?

The only way to break the two-party system is to have electoral reforms like instant run-off voting or really proportional representation. The UK had a referendum on that this year and chose to stay with its current pathetic system. Nice going idiots (voters do the same thing here too).

Enjoy the neoliberal faction's dominance of the party post-merger UK & Canada. It's what's been destroying the US Democrats since the 1970s. Neoliberals like Obama are just the latest example of what is produced from "the left" party in a two-party system. Don't expect another Jack Layton post-merger. Someone like that will never make it to the top internally. The neoliberals won't allow it.

FPTP is the best system out there. PP allows for too many unstable coalitions and fringe parties to gain ground. Would the PVV and True Finns be as popular as they are now if the Netherlands and Finland utilized FPTP? What would correct vote splitting is like you said for Canada to adopt IRV. Then again we shouldn't automatically assume all the Liberals will transfer their support to the NDP. The Liberal party is pretty much borderline Tory lite in many of its policies.

[greenforest32]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK. Plurality first past the post systems always lead to two parties due to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). If the right gets behind one party and the left splits the vote among two parties, the right will win again and again. Just look at Canada's 2011 election results. You think the conservatives aren't going to win again in Canada in 2015/2016 without a Liberal/NDP merger?

The only way to break the two-party system is to have electoral reforms like instant run-off voting or really proportional representation. The UK had a referendum on that this year and chose to stay with its current pathetic system. Nice going idiots (voters do the same thing here too).

Enjoy the neoliberal faction's dominance of the party post-merger UK & Canada. It's what's been destroying the US Democrats since the 1970s. Neoliberals like Obama are just the latest example of what is produced from "the left" party in a two-party system. Don't expect another Jack Layton post-merger. Someone like that will never make it to the top internally. The neoliberals won't allow it.

FPTP is the best system out there. PP allows for too many unstable coalitions and fringe parties to gain ground. Would the PVV and True Finns be as popular as they are now if the Netherlands and Finland utilized FPTP? What would correct vote splitting is like you said for Canada to adopt IRV. Then again we shouldn't automatically assume all the Liberals will transfer their support to the NDP. The Liberal party is pretty much borderline Tory lite in many of its policies.

Who are you to say they shouldn't be in power? If a party gets seats because it gets votes then that is fair. It doesn't matter that you disagree with their platform and message.

And FPTP is definitely not the best system out there. Any system that allows for 10%+ disconnect between votes and seats (e.g. win 40% of the vote and 54% of the seats like in Canada in 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011#Vote_and_seat_summaries) is a failure.

[Хahar 🤔]

It is an inevitability. Just like with the Lib Dems/Labor in the UK. Plurality first past the post systems always lead to two parties due to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). If the right gets behind one party and the left splits the vote among two parties, the right will win again and again. Just look at Canada's 2011 election results. You think the conservatives aren't going to win again in Canada in 2015/2016 without a Liberal/NDP merger?

Yes, Duverger's law predicts a two-party system. It's not quite directly applicable in Canada for a few reasons, chief among them being the decentralized political structure, but that's not terribly important so we'll ignore that. While there will be a party of the right and of the left in Canada in the future, it is infinitely more likely that the NDP simply supplants the Liberals. Already places that have always voted Liberal are voting NDP. Others are voting Tory. That's how it works.

The idea of a Liberal-Labour merger in Britain is patently ridiculous.

[Meeker]

Why should the NDP merger with the Liberals when they can just kill them off?

[Hatman 🍁]

No. no. no. A thousand times no. Liberals are welcome to join the party of course. But any merger would cause many in the party to splinter off. It didn't happen when the right merged, but conservatives are less idealist. (in that they are more willing to sacrifice values for political gain). People in the NDP are less likely to do it.

[Sylvain]

The Liberal party are out from the action for the first time and they have to work to rise again.
No short cut allowed!

[Хahar 🤔]

No. no. no. A thousand times no. Liberals are welcome to join the party of course. But any merger would cause many in the party to splinter off. It didn't happen when the right merged, but conservatives are less idealist. (in that they are more willing to sacrifice values for political gain). People in the NDP are less likely to do it.

Also there's the small matter of the Liberals not actually being a party of the left.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

No. no. no. A thousand times no. Liberals are welcome to join the party of course. But any merger would cause many in the party to splinter off. It didn't happen when the right merged, but conservatives are less idealist. (in that they are more willing to sacrifice values for political gain). People in the NDP are less likely to do it.

Also there's the small matter of the Liberals not actually being a party of the left.

\normally IO'd swear at you for thisfor saying this since I'm drunk, but you are actualloy right. Not only are you right but you are wrong but you are right but for the future.

what I mean
is if the Liberals want to win... they NEED to move to the RIGHT. not to the left.

As a friggin card carrying friggin liberal I support the move to the right.

[RogueBeaver]

No. no. no. A thousand times no. Liberals are welcome to join the party of course. But any merger would cause many in the party to splinter off. It didn't happen when the right merged, but conservatives are less idealist. (in that they are more willing to sacrifice values for political gain). People in the NDP are less likely to do it.

Also there's the small matter of the Liberals not actually being a party of the left.

\normally IO'd swear at you for thisfor saying this since I'm drunk, but you are actualloy right. Not only are you right but you are wrong but you are right but for the future.

what I mean
is if the Liberals want to win... they NEED to move to the RIGHT. not to the left.

As a friggin card carrying friggin liberal I support the move to the right.

So would you vote for Brison as leader?

[Dizzun]

Enjoy the neoliberal faction's dominance of the party post-merger UK & Canada. It's what's been destroying the US Democrats since the 1970s. Neoliberals like Obama are just the latest example of what is produced from "the left" party in a two-party system. Don't expect another Jack Layton post-merger. Someone like that will never make it to the top internally. The neoliberals won't allow it.

The neoliberals in the Democratic Party are the people who made the party electable again. You say it's been destroying the Democrats, but without centrist candidates like Bill Clinton, the Democrats would have never been lead out of the political wilderness that was the 1980's. The same can be said for the Labour Party in the UK. The majority of the electorate simply aren't going to vote for hard-line left-wingers. 

[Phony Moderate]

The majority of the electorate simply aren't going to vote for hard-line left-wingers. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The majority of the electorate simply aren't going to vote for hard-line left-wingers. 

Why are you proving his point for him?