As more and more pundits are publicly discussing the possibility of a Liberal-NDP coalition pact, I am hearing people like Lessard call it a "center-left" coalition. Really, where does the "center" come from in any agreement with the NDP? As far as I can tell, they are pretty far to the left. You can call the Liberal Party alone center-left, but once you include the NDP in the Reindeer Games, you have to drop "center" from the label. That is false advertising. When you merge center left and far left, the end result is decidedly to the left.
You can add Don Newman to the club who think it is ridiculous to make an agreement before an election, that it can't be done. Even pulling candidates in the other's riding is electoral suicide according to Newman, and not even the heroic Ron MacLean could pull Iggy out of shit creek if he proceeds with what Scott Reid called "surrendering to Jack Layton." The confusing part was where Newman said that they shouldn't do it because we have first past the post system, which as I understand it is exactly why they need to make a pact before going to the polls.
Look at ridings where the Tories have 35%, the Liberals have %25, and the NDP has %15, then with no agreement the Tories win the seat, but if the NDP candidate drops out and those votes theoretically shift Liberal, then a coalition member wins the seat. There are a lot of ridings like this. If we had a purely proportional system, there would be zero need to partner before the polls. The concern for the Liberals is would a formal partnership prior to an election bleed off votes from their right flank? That question they do not have the answer to. Of course the biggest problem with proportional representation is that it virtually eliminates the possibility of a majority government. Our parliamentary system was designed to function best in majority situations, where minority governments are highly dysfunctional. My vote against proportional representation is because I do not like minority governments. We would need to re-write our constitution.
The NDP is definitly far left and not centre-left and a merger of both parties would likely lead to a much more left-wing party, especially if they have a major breakthrough in Quebec.
ReplyDeleteWhen the centre-right PC's merged with the right wing Canadian Alliance we ended up with a right wing party and I think the same will happen.
If Layton is involved you can definitely call it far left. He's now calling for a national pharmacare program. The Iggomaniac is calling for a national daycare program. Hell, it's getting to the point where we can't even afford a national health care program and these clowns want to add on two more incredibly expensive national programs. As a united party you might just as well call them the Communist Party of Canada because the government will have to control all sources of wealth creation to generate the necessary revenue to pay for these pipedreams. (Pipedreams comes from the activities in the old opium dens where one smoked a pipe full of dope and had wonderful and exotic illusions. Much like the Liberals and NDP.)
ReplyDeleteI agree totally, I think if their were a merger of the left, you might see the Liberal progressives and lefties moving to merge with the NDP. The Liberal centre might cozy with the conservatives or just wither away. Whatever happens, if the NDP are to be involved, the LPC will not be anymore. A bit of advice, if a progressive socialist comes knocking at your door don't answer it, because there will be a separatist lurking in the shadows. Progressives in/w Socialists & Separatists =(PISS)
ReplyDeleteThe Federal Democrats have never formed a government or had control. They have at times played a key role in shaping public policy when the Liberals were very weak.
ReplyDeleteGenerally Liberals Democrats have agreed on protectionism and Xenophia culture.
Against participating in conflicts to help our allies or national interest in WWI, WWII and this mission.
Anti-Americanism and a passion for the marxist, socialist dictatorship that have seen millions killed.
Both parties overlook (whitewashed) the evils of socialism, attack capitalism, freedom of the individual for more state intervention and redistribution of wealth.
The radicals-socialists support breaking a blockade. They did not support a blockade against Yugoslavia or Cuba done by Western democracies in the past.
The same parties that turn a blind eye to the North Koreans murdering 47 sailors aboard a North Korean ship. The Russian Navy 'let go' ten pirates in the open sea without a chance of survival and the progressive-socialists don't lose any sleep.
Here's the thing Iceman, the people are in the center. Most of them don't have a party and will make up their minds in front of the ballot or very nearly there.
ReplyDeleteThe NDP is not a government most of those people will want. They have to move the NDP to the center in a hurry or a coalition, even the possibility of a coalition, will actually push that mass of people to the conservative side.
Its a two party system however you cut it. If the numbers are right they will coalition. If not then they won't and say it was never in the works. People have to know that a vote for anyone but conservatives (abc) is a vote for the coalition of the left. A coalition of losers.
"You can add Don Newman to the club who think it is ridiculous to make an agreement before an election, that it can't be done."
ReplyDeleteUnder winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting, you have to shoot for the brass ring, although people didn't hesitate to mock Layton for saying he was running to be Prime Minister. Any hint of reasonableness or willingness to comprise is seen as weakness.
Under proportional voting, minority or coalition governments are almost inevitable, and it is perfectly standard practice for parties to discuss possible coalition arrangements before and during the election campaign.