# NDP and Liberal Merger Talk



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I was reading in the paper that a majority of Canadians who vote those parties think it might be a good idea to merge them in order to defeat Harper and the Conservatives. For me personally that would leave me no choice but to vote Conservative in the next election. If however the Conservatives really screwed up and that might force me into a different party that might appear because of the Conservative screw-ups.

The NDP has a lot of good ideas but for whatever reason can never come up a way to pay for them except to borrow money or tax the hell out of everyone in hopes that the money will come that way. Also when they are in power they will solve problems by doing nothing like leaving known crazy people on the streets to hurt others because they say they have a right to be there and shouldn't have to get treatment.

So to me if this merger happened it would be a terrible day for Canada and send us the the other half of the way to Greece.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think the problem is that the Federal Liberals and NDP have fairly different political agendas. While Mulcair could probably easily mesh with Liberal views, the NDP still has a strong Libby Davis type faction. If a merger did happen, I don't envision the two parties keeping all their combined votes. More right leaning Liberals may head towards the Conservative camp or keep alive the traditional Liberal banner. And if the combined party was too centrist, I could see some NDPers joining the Greens or forming another labour party. 

What the Liberals need is a new leader. I think the Conservatives have cornered much of the center and the NDP has the center-left. It may go against tradition, but I think there may actually be room on the center-right for a more business-oriented Liberal party - along the lines of a Gordon Campbell (former BC Liberal leader) or John Manley type Liberalism. Who would lead such a party is the million-dollar question.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> I
> The NDP has a* lot of good ideas but for whatever reason can never come up a way to pay for them except to borrow money or tax the hell out of everyone in hopes that the money will come that way*. Also when they are in power they will solve problems by doing nothing like leaving known crazy people on the streets to hurt others because they say they have a right to be there and shouldn't have to get treatment.


I think that you have hit the nail on the head. NDP is a socialist party. 

While they have lots of good ideas to spread the wealth around, they have no solutions for a balanced budget either. 

I remember the NDP Rae days in Ontario and how they came up with the ideal of "spending their way"
of the 80s recession back then. It didn't work then and left the provincial budget in a shambles, more than in today's dollar costs of programs and "Premier Dad" .the tax man
and it won't work in the future. While Jack Layton had some good ideas, he never
got a chance to implement any of them..and perhaps we should leave it at that. 

With the economy weak, the last thing you want to have is a bunch of elected candidates on their popularity, who haven't a clue on how to run a country.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

A two party system may work better than the current system all those years of minority government and the cost of elections.

I'd never vote for the Conservatives they in my view have little respect for Canadians, with all the real problems that can be addressed they chose to deal with things that they decided on.
There Law & Order crap in a country where crime has been falling is nothing but a waste of money.
The current bills before Parliament that they want to ram through affects the rights of every Canadian.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I voted for a Law and Order agenda and was happy the majority of Canadians shared my view. 

I would be upset if Liberals and the NDP throw their ideology out the door just to buy an election but it wouldn't surprise me...they were ready to rule Canada with the Bloc as their partner so anything is possible.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I voted for a Law and Order agenda and was happy the majority of Canadians shared my view.


What majority?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Spidey you are right I don't think a merger is likely to happen and if it did it would have to be the NDP doing all the merging and still be called the Liberal Party that is farther left then it is now.

I said it on another thread that the NDP or the Liberals only plan for law and order is to do nothing and hope the bad guys just go away. The Conservative plan is build more jails and I used to think that was a good idea until I saw how well that has worked in the US and how much it cost. 

We need new ideas to reform and make people pay for the crimes they committed and also leave a message to younger people that crime doesn't pay. Of course they need to go farther and address poverty and family issues that the NDP would like to address by just throwing money down a hole instead of finding ways to try to make people productive and contributing to our society.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> The Conservative plan is build more jails and I used to think that was a good idea until I saw how well that has worked in the US and how much it cost.


As the population grows, so will the ratio of nut cases and other criminals..so since we don't put them to death anymore, what are we supposed to do with the likes of that young man that likes to dismember and send parts in Canada Post all over the country? 

We will need more jails and more superjails for the future..because we don't have the gulag penal colonies like the soviets had to deport all criminals to Siberia to work in the mines/forests or starve to death.



> *We need new ideas to reform and make people pay for the crimes they committed and also leave a message to younger people that crime doesn't pay. *


That is a JOKE? Most criminals except for child killers get a slap on the wrist and maybe a minimum sentence. You can't force them to work community service,because they don't want to in the first place... and there isn't enough supervision in the second place.

You can't force them to join the army, because there are no wars we are currently involved in...and other than low paying jobs..there are no jobs out there to keep them employed and rehabilate them.

Then there is the drugs and the criminal activities to feed the drug habits.

No simple solution here...we are starting to go the same way as the US. 



> Of course they need to go farther and address poverty and family issues that the NDP would like to address by just throwing money down a hole instead of finding ways to try to make people productive and contributing to our society.


How are you going to make people more productive when there are fewer jobs for them, other than low paying minimum wage jobs? Make higher education free..maybe?


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

Will never happen.

The NDP may have more popular support at the moment but the Liberal party still has a stronger membership, any "merger" would result in the Liberal membership taking effective control of the new party. A leadership vote would end up with Bob Rae or Trudeau as the leader and Muclair playing the role of Peter MacKay.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Eder said:


> I voted for a Law and Order agenda and was happy the majority of Canadians shared my view.


+1.

Has anyone taken the 'Brain Grade test'? The lumosity ad popped up.

Wonder how the Conservatives would score vs the Liberals and New Democrats.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> What majority?


+1


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

The same majority that the Liberals/NDP would brag about if they had won same numbers.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

A merger might be necessary, but who knows how much continued growth the NDP could produce.

I personally have always thought that minority governments and coalitions would be an interesting addition to our political scene. I've never truly understood the negative reaction towards coalition-style governing. It seems Canadians don't want introduction of multiple party views/agenda's which I've found very close minded. Coalition governments have worked well in many other countries and there is no reason to think they couldn't be effective in this country.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> The same majority that the Liberals/NDP would brag about if they had won same numbers.


An imaginary one?

CPC has a plurality, not a majority. Our insane electoral system gives all the marbles to the party that can eke out support in the high 30s.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> The same majority that the Liberals/NDP would brag about if they had won same numbers.


+1


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Voter participation rate

58.8% — The voter participation rate in Canada’s general election in 2008.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Who is to blame for the voter turnout? It was 59.1% in 2008 and 61.4% in 2011.

The Conservatives won 167 seats, or 39.6% of the vote, and that = a majority according to our current system [no matter how you wish to analyze the numbers].


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

carverman said:


> As the population grows, so will the ratio of nut cases and other criminals..so since we don't put them to death anymore, what are we supposed to do with the likes of that young man that likes to dismember and send parts in Canada Post all over the country?
> 
> We will need more jails and more superjails for the future..because we don't have the gulag penal colonies like the soviets had to deport all criminals to Siberia to work in the mines/forests or starve to death.
> 
> ...




I agree with everything you say carvernman and yes we will need more jails with population growth.

Murder, rape, torture and all crimes done by sick evil people need to dealt with by locking them up in jail and so on. These are not the crimes I think of when I am talking reform or whatever. The most effective way to deal with the other crimes that I have heard of is caning or something like that as a deterrent and young people would take notice that criminals do get punished. Most people in Canada don't like this highly effective and cheap idea. To me jail is far worse to deal with then a hard spanking that most Canadians can't figure out for some reason, so we have to come up with far more expensive ideas.

On drug users doing crime forced complete withdrawal and treatment would be a better idea then locking them up with the murderers and so on. I think there are cheap effective ways to deal with crime but Canadians don't have a stomach for actually helping these people in a cost effective way and just want them in jail or set free to do more crime.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The crime rate in Canada is among the lowest anywhere and dropping every year. Why spend tax dollars changing a system that is not broken fear mongering works.

Drug use will never go away, what we have are violent and non-violent offenders.
The US system does not work they now know this.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Daniel A. you are right about the US system for crime, health care and many other things. We are kind of lucky that we can see what doesn't work so we don't have to go down that path.

I still think however that there is a lot more we can do to make our system cheaper and more effective in the now and the future.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Who is to blame for the voter turnout? It was 59.1% in 2008 and 61.4% in 2011.
> 
> The Conservatives won 167 seats, or 39.6% of the vote, and that = a majority according to our current system [no matter how you wish to analyze the numbers].


Majority of seats, not majority of Canadians.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Maybe we need a tax credit for those that vote.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Andrew: thanks for the information, but as a voter, I know how the Canadian system works! :rolleyes2:

I did say that the 167 seats is what gave the Conservatives a majority, didn't I? 

The voter turnout was in response to Daniel's post and it meant just that, voter turnout, not Conservative turnout.

*Daniel:* I like the idea! [That way I could tolerate better those who don't vote but forever complain about x,y,z].


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm happy that the uninformed, content citizens don't vote so that us 60% that turn off the tv and go vote can choose what is best for Canada.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

My original reply was to point out that a majority of Canadians did not vote Conservative in support of their hang 'em high crime policy, as claimed by Eder. Then you moved the goal posts to talking about seats won.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

This is one of the hard parts of our system andrewf and that is we are forced to except stuff in every party that we don't want when we vote for them. The party in who wins the election always says that the people elected them to do X,Y and Z but the majority may have only wanted X and Y but have to live with Z as part of the package. This often bothers me when politicians say we brought in Z because the majority spoke but they really didn't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Politicians will lie as much as we let them. We can at least try to not be accomplices to their deception.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Eder said:


> I voted for a Law and Order agenda and was happy the majority of Canadians shared my view.
> 
> I would be upset if Liberals and the NDP throw their ideology out the door just to buy an election but it wouldn't surprise me...they were ready to rule Canada with the Bloc as their partner so anything is possible.



So much for the environment Bill C-38


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Personally I think electoral reform makes much more sense than merging parties. Something akin to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system that was proposed. The two party system in the US is at the root of a lot of the "polarization" of political debate. Reality is much more nuanced than that. The only valid criticism I have heard is that MMP type systems often result in a lot of minority governments but frankly if you can't convince at least half of Parliament to vote for something, maybe its not that great an idea... And that kind of compromise might actually work if parties stopped "whipping" the vote for absolutely everything. It should not be a surprise that an MP representing a BC riding, and one representing a PEI riding may have different takes on an issue even if they are in the same party.

During the last election people bandied about the word coalition as if its a dirty word, but what they really meant was that they had strong feelings about one ore more of the parties involved. I liked to call it the "grown ups working together" option rather than the childish infighting that often results. How about we pass all the stuff that everyone agrees on, rather than using it as political capital to leverage votes on more controversial items? 

It is possible for a voter to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa, but the way the rhetoric skews now there is often no party that reflects that. 
The failure of our political system and representatives to accurately reflect the will of the people, and the needs of the people is part of why people are "tuning out" of politics. The other depressing fact is the number of people who can't see past the money that comes off their paycheque. 

Regardless of your political leanings, I think it should be socially unacceptable to be as ignorant of our political system as many people are. 

End rant


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Minorities are not inherently bad. They are less stable in first past the post parliamentary systems because the electoral system is ill-conditioned. If you swing a relatively small proportion of the electorate from one party to another, you can get a vastly different outcome, including the potential for outright majority. If small changes in vote share resulted in small changes in seats/power, minority governments would tend to be more stable, and parties would be more likely to work with each other to accomplish shared objectives. You could avoid a lot of the kabuki theatre of pure obstructionism.

I prefer something like STV, as it does not depend so strongly on party lists (independents have a good chance of being elected), and ensures every MP represents a geographical constituency. With MMP, you end up with two classes of MPs.


----------

