Canada 2011 Official Thread

[Joe Republic]

He said she was the second Green politician elected under FPTP.  Fitzsimons wouldn't count because New Zealand uses MMP.

As I said, she was elected to serve the Coromandel electorate via the FPTP aspect of New Zealand's system, during her 1999-2002 term.  She was elected to her previous term via the list aspect, so that wouldn't count.

You can't out-pedant me, Inks.

[ag]

If Lib and NDP merge, it opens interesting naming possibilities ) Could be a Liberal Democratic Party ) Or, even better, a Liberal Labor Party ) And, after a hiatus, Canada would be back to the two-party FPTP norm )

Vive le Duverger!

[ilikeverin]

Now that Ignatieff has resigned, if Bob Rae does become the next leader, I could see a merger between the NDP and the Liberals, if the NDP is open to that.  That's certainly a step in the opposite direction of what Ignatieff was saying last night though.

Rae was interviewed and basically was like "I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN OPEN AND HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS!!!  YES!"

[Kevinstat]

Any idea when the next election will be held?  Is the law passed in Harper's first term that seemed to provide for a four-year term (yet he was able to prompt an election in 2008 that I recall was at least not completely forced by the opposition) still on the books?

Basically, will the next election be at a set time that will become pretty clear pretty soon or will it be (as is typically the case with majority governments in parliamentary systems) whenever the Prime Minister wants it to be (presumably when the Conservatives are polling well or better than they fell they might later, particularly for the election to be called before 2015) inside the five-year limit?  Or would four years now be the limit without the Conservatives having to embarrasingly get rid of their own law from 2004 or 2005?  (Of course, they would only do that if they were polling very badly, so the bad PR that move would generate might be not be a significant consideration.)

[bullmoose88]

If Lib and NDP merge, it opens interesting naming possibilities ) Could be a Liberal Democratic Party ) Or, even better, a Liberal Labor Party ) And, after a hiatus, Canada would be back to the two-party FPTP norm )

Vive le Duverger!

How about the New Liberals?

[Holmes]

Bob Rae? No. What, do they wanna solidify the Tories' showing in Ontario?

[cinyc]

Bob Rae? No. What, do they wanna solidify the Tories' showing in Ontario?

I think that if Rae ends up Liberal leader, there won't be a Liberal Party as we know it come 2015.  And he won't lead the merged NDP-Liberal Party, anyway, so he won't hurt chances in Ontario.

[Meeker]

Bob Rae would be the Liberal's Peter MacKay.

[Linus Van Pelt]

For what it's worth, Jeffrey Simpson, who is among the most reliable in the Ottawa press corps for this sort of thing and not into publishing unconfirmed leaks just to be the first to get it out, claimed the following in the Globe today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

Umm... Yeah... About that...

Frank Graves, EKOS Research

What he said prior to election: “We would see a Conservative minority where the NDP were within 20 seats and the NDP and the Liberals combined would have a narrow majority between them.”

What he said last night: “This has not been a good night for me. We were almost spot on about the popular vote, but where we really screwed up was with the Tory majority. We need to go back and do some work to find out what went wrong, but nobody has the resources to do this. This is done on a shoestring budget, and while we do our best to try and understand our failures it requires analysis and time and nobody is really interested in that.”

EKOS was CBC's pollster.  You think they'd be interested in learning why their poll results stunk so that they could get hired in the future or something.

[Foucaulf]

Isn't it wonderful how the results seems stranger and stranger as election day passes? People I know on the West Coast is realizing the size of the NDP's Quebec sweep. As soon as most Dippers get past their euphoria, they are going to realize they've been hung out to dry in the West: Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar was lost, Pat Martin is the last NDP Manitoba MP and Layton's target BC ridings all went for the Conservatives. The establishment of the NDP as the sole left-wing party shows how far we still have to go.

Considering the party's future problems, it's funny how people focus on the NDP's Quebec caucus, "the most unqualified band of misfits parliament has ever seen." It was only a few decades ago that people were complaining about the overepresentation of lawyers in parliament, but now anyone who does not meet the political archetype is deemed as "inexperienced" or representing "special interests". Politics has truly become vocation!


Continuing projector apologetics, here's ThreeHundredEight:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[redcommander]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger. the Liberal Party strikes me as a New Labour like party that promotes itself as being fiscally moderate but socially liberal. The NDP fits the model of a Social Democratic party. If both merged, many Liberal supporters might jump ship and support the Tories.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Martin is one of two; Ashton was easily re-elected in Churchill. Let's not get too maudlin, especially as the reason for the poor result there will be gone by the time of the next election (even if we may not like the way in that reason is removed).

[Holmes]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger. the Liberal Party strikes me as a New Labour like party that promotes itself as being fiscally moderate but socially liberal. The NDP fits the model of a Social Democratic party. If both merged, many Liberal supporters might jump ship and support the Tories.

Well yeah, if anyone expects a merged NDP-Liberal party to get 60% of the popular vote... they obviously know nothing about Canadian politics.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger.

Which are what, exactly? Most of the difference between them is just a matter of priority and how far they're willing to take certain policies. Liberals wanted to raise the corporate tax rate, NDP agreed, but wanted to raise it more than the Liberals did. The Liberals proposed a large credit for people caring for their ailing parents, the NDP agreed, but wanted to provide more than the Liberals did. The Liberals want out of Afghanistan soon, but are willing to stall on it, while the NDP wants out immediately.

Alot of that is really the main difference.

[You kip if you want to...]

So, at the risk of jumping the gun, is the NDP seriously a government-in-waiting?

[Dan the Roman]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger.

Which are what, exactly? Most of the difference between them is just a matter of priority and how far they're willing to take certain policies. Liberals wanted to raise the corporate tax rate, NDP agreed, but wanted to raise it more than the Liberals did. The Liberals proposed a large credit for people caring for their ailing parents, the NDP agreed, but wanted to provide more than the Liberals did. The Liberals want out of Afghanistan soon, but are willing to stall on it, while the NDP wants out immediately.

Alot of that is really the main difference.

Montreal Anglophones will not vote for the same party as soft nationalists long-range. The disappearance of the remaining Liberal rump in that Province would almost entirely result in them going Tory, since they are not voting Liberal for purely policy reasons.

I also think the Atlantic support would split pretty evenly, especially if Harper was succeeded by someone like John Baird. The fact is that the NDP is culturally a bad fit. Its not that its Quebec caucus is made up of students, activists, and randoms, its that the party as a whole is identified with groups that a lot of the Liberal electorate does not want representing them even if they agree with them politically. If the Liberals and NDP were to merge while the NDP is artificially inflated by their Quebec win, a party of professionals would be replaced in the Toronto suburbs with a party of inner city activists, and that would be devastating.

This is not to say a merger should not happen. But it should not be a merger into the NDP. I have serious doubts that the NDP could ever win a 1-1 national election against the Tories in any circumstances. So a merged party would have to maintain the Liberal's respectability, something that is not possible until the current NDP caucus sorts itself out.

[redcommander]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger.

Which are what, exactly? Most of the difference between them is just a matter of priority and how far they're willing to take certain policies. Liberals wanted to raise the corporate tax rate, NDP agreed, but wanted to raise it more than the Liberals did. The Liberals proposed a large credit for people caring for their ailing parents, the NDP agreed, but wanted to provide more than the Liberals did. The Liberals want out of Afghanistan soon, but are willing to stall on it, while the NDP wants out immediately.

Alot of that is really the main difference.

The Libs did run their platform on how a government under Iggy would be less financially cumbersome and more fiscally restrained than Harper's.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger.

Which are what, exactly? Most of the difference between them is just a matter of priority and how far they're willing to take certain policies. Liberals wanted to raise the corporate tax rate, NDP agreed, but wanted to raise it more than the Liberals did. The Liberals proposed a large credit for people caring for their ailing parents, the NDP agreed, but wanted to provide more than the Liberals did. The Liberals want out of Afghanistan soon, but are willing to stall on it, while the NDP wants out immediately.

Alot of that is really the main difference.

Montreal Anglophones will not vote for the same party as soft nationalists long-range. The disappearance of the remaining Liberal rump in that Province would almost entirely result in them going Tory, since they are not voting Liberal for purely policy reasons.

I also think the Atlantic support would split pretty evenly, especially if Harper was succeeded by someone like John Baird. The fact is that the NDP is culturally a bad fit. Its not that its Quebec caucus is made up of students, activists, and randoms, its that the party as a whole is identified with groups that a lot of the Liberal electorate does not want representing them even if they agree with them politically. If the Liberals and NDP were to merge while the NDP is artificially inflated by their Quebec win, a party of professionals would be replaced in the Toronto suburbs with a party of inner city activists, and that would be devastating.

This is not to say a merger should not happen. But it should not be a merger into the NDP. I have serious doubts that the NDP could ever win a 1-1 national election against the Tories in any circumstances. So a merged party would have to maintain the Liberal's respectability, something that is not possible until the current NDP caucus sorts itself out.

I can certainly see alot of cultural and regional issues involved in a possible merger (though I still think some sort of NDP-Liberal unity play is necessary at this point if they want to take back power) but I was just responding to a point he made about policy differences specifically.

Though, the Liberal Party's "respectability" lately..

[Dan the Roman]

So, at the risk of jumping the gun, is the NDP seriously a government-in-waiting?

Nowhere near to the degree its boosters are claiming. Right now its total is artificially inflated by winning 60 seats in Quebec, and given some of the candidates who won, it might be wise to say the extent of that win may be on borrowed time.

Outside of Quebec it went up from 36 to 43 seats, not really a large gain compared to the Conservative gain of 29 seats. And while they lost some close races in BC, the number of targets for them is probably not high enough to get them near a majority. I mean the Liberals were already pretty non-existent in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and large parts of BC this time, so thats not their problem, and remain skeptical of their ability to win ridings that went something like this in Ontario:

Con 44
Lib  29
NDP 26

Quite simply even with a merger they would need such a high proportion of the Liberal vote, which is hard for them.

This is not to say that they can't win at some point, but I would say right now that they are a much lesser threat to the Tories in 2015 than the Liberals would be if the seat tally between the two parties had been reversed, or even as the Liberals were going into this election.

[Foucaulf]

Martin is one of two; Ashton was easily re-elected in Churchill. Let's not get too maudlin, especially as the reason for the poor result there will be gone by the time of the next election (even if we may not like the way in that reason is removed).

That's my BC intuition kicking in again. It's hard not to be afraid of the NDP in perpetual opposition, and I don't think government is possible without the party making agriculture/natural resources/immigration focus issues in an attempt to win over Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC respectively.

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger. the Liberal Party strikes me as a New Labour like party that promotes itself as being fiscally moderate but socially liberal. The NDP fits the model of a Social Democratic party. If both merged, many Liberal supporters might jump ship and support the Tories.

The main question for a federal party is: do they give people more money, less money, or around the same amount? All three parties supported giving more money.

The next question is: do you keep healthcare spending levels at the current rate or cut it? All three parties supported the status quo.

Those two questions cover the economy and healthcare, the burning issues. With how devolved Canada is, those are the most the Federal government can do. With no party calling for a radical restructuring of federal Canada's role, it's no wonder they look similar.

Much of it comes down to identity politics, and Harper has been trying to Americanize political discourse (blue/red state) for a while. The remaining Liberals have survived because of personal recognition, and they will adapt as necessary. It's naive to wait for a united decision on anything from the remaining Liberals.

[Dan the Roman]

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger.

Which are what, exactly? Most of the difference between them is just a matter of priority and how far they're willing to take certain policies. Liberals wanted to raise the corporate tax rate, NDP agreed, but wanted to raise it more than the Liberals did. The Liberals proposed a large credit for people caring for their ailing parents, the NDP agreed, but wanted to provide more than the Liberals did. The Liberals want out of Afghanistan soon, but are willing to stall on it, while the NDP wants out immediately.

Alot of that is really the main difference.

Montreal Anglophones will not vote for the same party as soft nationalists long-range. The disappearance of the remaining Liberal rump in that Province would almost entirely result in them going Tory, since they are not voting Liberal for purely policy reasons.

I also think the Atlantic support would split pretty evenly, especially if Harper was succeeded by someone like John Baird. The fact is that the NDP is culturally a bad fit. Its not that its Quebec caucus is made up of students, activists, and randoms, its that the party as a whole is identified with groups that a lot of the Liberal electorate does not want representing them even if they agree with them politically. If the Liberals and NDP were to merge while the NDP is artificially inflated by their Quebec win, a party of professionals would be replaced in the Toronto suburbs with a party of inner city activists, and that would be devastating.

This is not to say a merger should not happen. But it should not be a merger into the NDP. I have serious doubts that the NDP could ever win a 1-1 national election against the Tories in any circumstances. So a merged party would have to maintain the Liberal's respectability, something that is not possible until the current NDP caucus sorts itself out.

I can certainly see alot of cultural and regional issues involved in a possible merger (though I still think some sort of NDP-Liberal unity play is necessary at this point if they want to take back power) but I was just responding to a point he made about policy differences specifically.

Though, the Liberal Party's "respectability" lately..

A lot is speculation.

I think a party with the NDP's views/policies and the Liberal's type of candidates and professional support base would do very well. I just doubt such an entity could be created right now, though I suspect it would Layton's first choice.

[You kip if you want to...]

Would a merger even be necessary? Maybe an understanding like the Liberal/Nationals in Australia would be a better fit...

[Dan the Roman]

Would a merger even be necessary? Maybe an understanding like the Liberal/Nationals in Australia would be a better fit...

Well that would be the blowback from Harper scrapping the per-vote subsidy. Right now it means that parties try and run at least paper candidates everywhere. Getting rid of it might force economizing on the part of the Liberals and NDP which would probably be far worse for the Tories than keeping the subsidy.

[2952-0-0]

Montreal Anglophones will not vote for the same party as soft nationalists long-range. The disappearance of the remaining Liberal rump in that Province would almost entirely result in them going Tory, since they are not voting Liberal for purely policy reasons.

I also think the Atlantic support would split pretty evenly, especially if Harper was succeeded by someone like John Baird. The fact is that the NDP is culturally a bad fit. Its not that its Quebec caucus is made up of students, activists, and randoms, its that the party as a whole is identified with groups that a lot of the Liberal electorate does not want representing them even if they agree with them politically. If the Liberals and NDP were to merge while the NDP is artificially inflated by their Quebec win, a party of professionals would be replaced in the Toronto suburbs with a party of inner city activists, and that would be devastating.

This is not to say a merger should not happen. But it should not be a merger into the NDP. I have serious doubts that the NDP could ever win a 1-1 national election against the Tories in any circumstances. So a merged party would have to maintain the Liberal's respectability, something that is not possible until the current NDP caucus sorts itself out.

Doubtful the NDP will entertain a merger with a party with no (or negative) brand value. They will then have the problem of arrogance of the Liberals AND the ideological extremes of the NDP. And besides, the NDP clearly has the upper hand.

What they should do is find a few Toronto Liberals with a reputation for strength on the economy to make the party seem less scary to middle class voters. Then they should scavenge for the remains of the Liberal Party machine in the inner suburbs of larger cities. At the same time the NDP could retain their populist image in (several) rural areas. Once this happens they will be in a position to form respectable urban islands of orange with smatterings across the prairies. This is crucial since their Quebec caucus has nowhere to go but down.