I thought of something yesterday...A Liberal & NDP alliance

[jackbourassa]

This occured to me yesterday. Our two parties can be more effective if we work together than if we continue to hammer each other or talk down to each other. If we treated each other with respect and as equals we could change the balance of power in Canada for a generation and neutralize the incoming Harper government before they can do anything. We can use this new "alliance" to pass many strong and interesting pieces of legislation - even in the minority.

Think about this:

Together, we have more seats than the Tories even with the latest defection. We may not have enough seats to form a government - 131 seats - but we have more than the Tories - 125. But we could set the agenda and the tenor of the debate in the House of Commons.

This would give the Bloc the balance of power. To pass any legislation, the Tories must get the support of our Liberal-NDP alliance (which would vote as a bloc of its own) or go to the Bloc Quebecois. But the Bloc is a very dangerous ally for the Tories to have. First of all, the Bloc are very left-wing. Probably as left-wing as the NDP. Second, the Bloc are separatists which might alienate other parts of the country (especially the west, remember why Mulroney fell).

Divide and conquer, baby. We must be very "strategic" about what bills we introduce during "opposition days." Instead of using such days to bring down the Harper government or grandstand, we use them to introduce actual legislation of our own. Good solid progressive legislation. We force the Bloc to either side with us on such legislation or side with Harper in shooting them down. It is my belief that the Tories so-called "surge" in Quebec was nothing more than an abberation. A blip that came as a result of the Liberals corruption troubles. The Bloc Quebecois supporters might be put off by supporting the Tories, and the federalists might be put off by supporting the Bloc. With a new Liberal leader, and Liberal re-building in Quebec, this may be just what we need to get our foot in the door.

Once we are successful in reestablishing ourselves to the people, not as the corrupt Liberals or irrelevant NDP - but as two equal parties with a strong and solid agenda and an impressive and successful legislative record of our own (and we could do that by next year) then we pull the plug on the Tory government and go to the people.

THE NEXT ELECTION:

This is where things get fun. What I am suggesting has never been done before. You know how "strategic voting" doesn't work, right? Well what if we didn't run against each other at all?

- The NDP will forgo all elections in Quebec. Since the NDP has never won any seats in this province, this would give the Liberals a strong advantage. Where we could run a campaign of divide and conquer against the Bloc and Tories.

- The NDP will not challenge the Liberals in any ridings in Atlantic Canada or Ontario. Those seats currently held by New Democrats in Ontario or Atlantic Canada, will not be challenged by Liberals. Thus assuring the NDP will hold onto all of them. Second, this will assure that the Liberals will win significantly as well - especially in Ontario.

- The Liberals will not challenge the NDP in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC - again, just as in Ontario/Atlantic Canada, except in ridings currently held by Liberals. Let's be honest here. The West hates Liberals. But they like New Democrats. The New Democrats hold the provincial governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and are making a dramatic comeback in BC - where they have held government in the past. This will assure A MAJOR INCREASE OF SEATS for the New Democratic Party.

My estimate is this:

The Liberals will win between 125 to 160 seats under this system.

The New Democrats will win between 40 to 50 seats under this system.

The New Democrats current 29 seat total would basically not have any challengers - thus making all 29 New Democrats are pretty safe. The NDP can pick up an additional 15 to 20 seats in the west under this scheme. Thus giving the NDP its highest seat total ever.

The Liberals will probably win a minority government, although the math makes it possible for them to win a majority depending on what happens in Quebec. Either way, the Liberal-NDP alliance wins. Consider these numbers:

The Liberals win about 20 to 24 seats in Atlantic Canada; they win 70 to 75 seats in Ontario; hold onto their 12 or so seats in the west. Meaning that minus Quebec, the Liberals will win 102 to 111 seats. If we win big in Quebec (40 to 50 seats) we may have enough for a majority (as many as 161 seats). If we don't, and win our "base" there (20 to 30 seats) we win a minority (122 to 141 seats).

Now do the math...

If the Liberals win a majority (160 seats), the NDP with their 50 or so seats may have enough to win the position of official opposition. This too would be a first.

If the Liberals win a minority, which is likely, the two parties together would hold the balance of power in parliament. We sign an "accord" similar to what David Peterson and Bob Rae did in 1985 in Ontario, where the Liberals agree to introduce certain NDP legislation and pass them in exchange for the NDP agreeing to support the Liberals in the budget for a set period of time. 2 to 4 years, giving the government stability.

This "system" would assure Liberal-NDP political domination for the forseeable future.

Who likes this idea?

[Minstrel Boy]

1. "Who likes this idea?"

Er, not me.

The NDP does not exist to perpetuate Liberal power. (Liberals just don't seem to get this.) I don't want to ensure "Liberal-NDP political domination." I want a healthy political marketplace. That doesn't mean less choice. It means implementing some version of proportionate representation.

Liberal campaign marketing aside, a good portion of the Liberal Party is much closer to the Conservatives than the NDP. (Exhibit A, David Emerson.) Paul Martin oversaw more cuts to social spending than the Mulroney government. So, the NDP is to cease aspiring at power and be satisfied with being a rump of such people, having spent its influence and retired from most ridings, where it can be ignored at will and wither on the Liberal vine? Just wonderful.

BTW, a minor quibble re Quebec: "the NDP has never won any seats in this province." Yes, the NDP has, in a 1989 by-election in Chambly. In the late '80s the NDP were leading the polls in Quebec, until the BQ was founded. More than a quarter million Quebeckers voted NDP in '06; that's more votes than the NDP won in the CCF's birthplace of Saskatchewan/Manitoba. With the BQ in decline, I'm not thrilled at the suggestion of auto-castration.

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. Nothing in it for the Liberals.

At this point the NDP can vote it's conscience in the House on Conservative legislation and will usually come vote the same as Liberals will.
And Liberals will form the government after the next election anyway.

So why bother?

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Less for the NDP

Much of the grassroots believe it has already drifted too far to the centre. If the NDP struck a cynical bargain like this and abandoned the aspirations of a national party it would immediately trigger the birth of a new party on the left that would inherit a good chunk of the NDP's core support.

[Bragi]

8. I doubt it

I think a unified Liberal Democratic Party would not get 48 per cent of the vote (i.e. the Libs 30% plus the NDP 18%) but it would get enough votes to form a majority.

The logic is that while there is a hardcore ideological NDP vote that would go to a new purist party, I doubt they get more than 5 per cent (around what the Gren Party gets) of the votes.

- B

[jackbourassa]

12. buddy, we'd get more...

Don't get too used to Liberals getting only 30% of the vote. Martin was an idiot. A bad leader. The Liberals alone got 40 to 45% under Chretien.

The reason I suggested this was because the NDP could do better in the west and Liberals could do better in Quebec.

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. And your ideas are deeply flawed...

- The NDP will forgo all elections in Quebec. Since the NDP has never won any seats in this province, this would give the Liberals a strong advantage. Where we could run a campaign of divide and conquer against the Bloc and Tories.
- The NDP will not challenge the Liberals in any ridings in Atlantic Canada or Ontario. Those seats currently held by New Democrats in Ontario or Atlantic Canada, will not be challenged by Liberals. Thus assuring the NDP will hold onto all of them. Second, this will assure that the Liberals will win significantly as well - especially in Ontario.

You don't consider the cynicism that people will feel towards two parties who are not brave enough to join together but are coniving enough to develop a battle plan together and bow out (or step down or admit defeat) in certain ridings.
People will feel like they're being manipulated and treated like idiots. And they'll resent the reduction in choice and diverging ideas.

- The Liberals will not challenge the NDP in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC - again, just as in Ontario/Atlantic Canada, except in ridings currently held by Liberals. Let's be honest here. The West hates Liberals. But they like New Democrats. The New Democrats hold the provincial governments in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and are making a dramatic comeback in BC - where they have held government in the past. This will assure A MAJOR INCREASE OF SEATS for the New Democratic Party.

Hand over the entire West to the NDP except in ridings held by Libs? Well, my first answer applies here also.

As well there would be infighting very quickly. After Judy Washawhahwatshername leaves the race (for whatever reason) her riding opens up. She's elected on personal likability rather than the riding disposition. So then Liberals would want to put a horse in that race but the NDP would want to stick to the agreement. Looks bad to voters.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. That is a very important point:

"You don't consider the cynicism that people will feel towards two parties who are not brave enough to join together but are coniving enough to develop a battle plan together and bow out (or step down or admit defeat) in certain ridings."

I think the result of such cynical gamesmanship would devastate both parties and make a mockery of parliamentary democracy.
.

[V. Kid]

6. Hardly, Winnipeg North is an NDP bastion...

...but yes, for some of the otr reasons you and Minstrel Boy highlighted, this simply wouldn't work.

[Bragi]

7. I like the idea...

I like the idea of a merger, and believe that the centre-left majority in Canada will be shut out of power until a merger happens.

But I don't see it happening quickly, principally because NDP stalwarts are horrified at the idea, and will work ferociously to maintain disunity.

Nonetheless, I think your idea for unity is sound, and is what needs to happen.

- B

[Minstrel Boy]

9. "maintain disunity"

They are two distinct parties. The NDP is not a Liberal splinter group.

Don't you people ever get tired of sour grapes?

[jackbourassa]

11. I'm not saying that the two party's should conjoin...

I'm saying that we form an "alliance." That we work together. We would still hold separate caucus'. If ever the Liberals do something that you all disagree with, you can pull the plug. This "alliance" would keep the Liberals honest.

It's about getting things done that matter...like passing good legislation.

The NDP would have their own caucus, conventions, etc. The members of the New Democrats would send their MP's the message of what they want, who would in turn push those ideas on the Liberals.

[Minstrel Boy]

16. What you're calling for

is the NDP to be a Liberal "boutique." Frankly, it's insulting. And supremely Liberal of you.

[jackbourassa]

20. No Mr. New Democrat with his head so far up his own ass...

...that he doesn't know the difference between a call for an alliance and a hostile take over bid!

I'm not suggesting that the NDP are a "Liberal 'boutique'" as you put it. We don't need an alliance to take NDP members away from you. We do that already without an alliance. An alliance would respect each as equals. Each side, independant of one another will decide what is best for their respective party.

The problem with the far left is you want purity. I can twist your argument around. If we were all a bunch of raging lefties without concern of governing, we'd all be New Democrats instead of Liberals. But your insistence on purity is why you win only a small fraction of the vote. Even in a left wing country like Canada, you can't win 20% with a strong showing. That should tell you something.

Jez, thank god Tommy Douglas never thought like you. We'd never have Medicare today if he did. Because he actually thought it was a good idea to work with the Liberals to actually get legislation through.

[Minstrel Boy]

23. geez...

"thank god Tommy Douglas never thought like you. We'd never have Medicare today if he did. Because he actually thought it was a good idea to work with the Liberals to actually get legislation through."

That's not the issue, and your misrepresenting me. Tommy Douglas popularized the story of Mouseland, the moral of which is that Liberal fat cats and Conservative fat cats are still cats. It's the legislation that matters, not the colour of the cats.

Re "Far left" and "purity." Seriously, if you call today's NDP "far left," you're much farther to the right than you think.

[jackbourassa]

27. Minstrel: "it's the legislation that matters"

Yes, exactly. I agree. That would be the whole point of the "alliance."

[Bragi]

28. Mouseland is faux fable

Maybe the Mouseland parable made sense when Tommy made it up in the 1960s, but to claim now, as the NDP does, that there is no difference between the policies of the contemporary Liberal party, and those of the Harper neocons, is simply not true.

I realize that semi-religious belief in a policy equivalance between the LPC and the CPC neocons is central to the survival of the NDP as a partisan institution, but I do not think that this belief squares in any way with reality.

For those who truly believe the Mouseland myth, then I guess it doesn't matter to them that the neocons will get a majority next time out.

Personally, like most Canadians, I think it does matter, and would prefer a Liberal minority or majority next time, rather than see a Harper majority emerge, which is exactly what will happen if the centre-left vote in Canada continues to be split between one party that can form a government, and another that can't.

- B

[jackbourassa]

10. I don't understand their opposition

It simply doesn't make any sense...

They would have MORE power, MORE of a say. They would win MORE seats. They would essentially become the balance of power in Ottawa, which they have not achieved since 1972-1974.

Their ideas would be respected and many would probably get passed in law.

I just don't understand!

I mean, aren't the NDP the ones always harping about "proportional representation?" Wouldn't PR result in a government similar to the one I described above?

Maybe my problem is that i'm giving the NDP way too much credit. Maybe they really are just an irrelevant third party in perpetuity.

[jackbourassa]

13. Alright, forget the elections...how about...

How about an alliance while in Opposition?

Or would you New Democrats rather the left be divided by the weak Tory minority?

Is it better to support Steven Harper or the next Liberal leader?

[Minstrel Boy]

15. the "left"? who's left?

The Liberal Party was running former Harris Tories as candidates. It boasts shits like Tom Wappel as MPs. David Emerson - could you see him linking arms with the NDP?

It's not ideological "purity" to say I want no part of such people. It's simple ideology. I'm not a Liberal, and neither are New Democrats. If we were, we would be.

[jackbourassa]

18. Dude you're one pathetic New Democrat!

Enjoy being 4th. We'll win without you shits!

[Minstrel Boy]

19. "We'll win without you shits!"

How unconscionable of me not to welcome the warm, fuzzy embrace of Liberals.

[V. Kid]

25. Hahaha, that's how you convince people...

...of the validity of your ideas. :rofl:

[Wabbajack]

14. "Tories so-called "surge" in Quebec

was nothing more than an abberation. A blip that came as a result of the Liberals corruption troubles."

They won 8 of their 10 seats from the Bloc not the Liberals.

[Minstrel Boy]

24. Conservative swings in Quebec have always been

abberations, but they can last a couple of elections.

I wouldn't feel good about Quebec if I were a Liberal. The Conservatives won 150,000 more votes in the province than the Liberals, and who would have predicted that just a month ago? Harper's given Quebec more seats at the cabinet table than Alberta, and again, who saw that coming?

The BQ held nearly three times as many seats as the Liberals in Quebec, so it's strange comfort to take saying the Conservatives only won five times as many from the Bloc as they did from the Grits. At 13 seats the Liberals are pretty much down to their last redoubts in West-end Montreal. Westmount isn't exactly a bellweather riding.

[Minstrel Boy]

17. You know, there's a reason why in BC,

the Liberals and Conservatives have joined together under the banner of the "Liberal Party of British Columbia."

Any thoughts on that?

[jackbourassa]

21. Ya I think it sucks...having lived in BC

But there's no denying its success. What's wrong with the NDP and Libs joining together to do the same? Maybe we'd be as successful?

[Minstrel Boy]

22. My point is

that it is the Liberals who did it with the Conservatives. Dave Emerson was a former member of the Social Credit government, so his movement from Liberal to Conservative is not really such a surprise. When the Socreds collapsed the grand anti-NDP coalition reformed under the banner of the Liberal Party.

In your dreams, and in the campaign literature of the Liberals, are the Liberals closer on policy to the NDP than they are to the Conservatives.

[jackbourassa]

26. Minstrel, you fail to see the big picture

The Liberals formed that alliance in BC out of convenience. This is called politics. Politics is all about forming coalitions and creating realignments. As a consequence the BC Liberals moved further to the right...

Now what if the same were true between the NDP and Liberals? Wouldn't that force the Libs to the left? This is where I want them to go.

Are there right-wing Liberals? Yes. Do I think they are assholes? Yes. Is David Emerson a no-good opportunist? Yes.

But all of that is nothing but a gigantic red herring. If the two parties worked together - which to me just makes sense, since the NDP doesn't have enough seats to do anything alone - unless they intend to support and provide cover for the Tories.

I'm not talking about a take over! I'm not talking about turning the NDP into a Liberal Party farm team! I'm talking about the two sides working together to benefit each other:

1) By keeping the Tories in check. Together the Liberals and NDP have more seats than the Tories.

2) By passing legislation IN THIS PARLIAMENT that would be beneficial for both, and would enact things that you and I probably believe in. The NDP would come up with their legislation. The Liberals theirs. Each respective caucus would decide for themselves what they wanted. The two parties get together and on "opposition" days introduce and pass the said legislation.

We force the Bloc to support the left wing legislation, or we hit them on the head with the fact that they didn't, and that they are supporting a very right-wing government, in the next election. If the Tories stop having "Opposition Days" then we accuse them of hypocrisy.

I'm sorry I got testy yesterday, but that was because you made it seem like I was trying to screw over the NDP - which I definitely am not. I actually voted for them this time - for the first time ever. Maybe the election scenario I presented was unrealistic. But there too, I was seeking a way to actually help the NDP win more seats - by reclaiming seats in the west where the Liberals never do well. But excluding that, I think an "two-party alliance" is still the smart way to go during this parliament.