So the swirling rumour in Canadian politics of the day is that the Liberals and the New Democrats will unify to create a new, centre-left party.
Now, on the one hand, this sounds reasonable, because this is basically what the right-wing parties in Canada did years ago. On the other hand, the basic argument for this idea is that the Liberals are incapable of finding a leader with charisma, and at least Jack Layton looks vaguely human. (Note that the link points out that a “Liberal Democrat” party led by Layton would be victorious, and one led by Michael “useless limpdick” Ignatieff would lose. That Michael Ignatieff would lose an election in a country where generally only forty percent of the country at best is inclined to vote Tory tells you a lot about how useless a limpdick he in fact is.)
Of course, the problem is that in getting the strengths of both parties, you also get their weaknesses: this means you combine the funding collapse of the Liberals with the not-ready-for-prime-time economic strategies of much of the NDP (and, speaking as someone who has spent time in the NDP previously and is pretty reliably left in his politics, some of the lack of understanding of basic economic principles of many Dippers is just incredibly irritating to me). The potential voter has both the leeriness of voting soulless Liberal (and the Liberals will be soulless for as long as it takes them to start defending their record of leadership; why nobody in the party bothers to point out that Paul Martin’s government is largely responsible for Canada mostly avoiding the global financial meltdown is beyond me) and unready NDP. That combination is potentially toxic.
Of course, what’s more important is whether or not a reformed Liberal party would have any chance of picking up additional seats. Would they get a majority? Probably not. Looking at 2008 election results, if you go with a formula of “Liberal Democrats” getting a combined vote of the NDP and Liberals in any given riding and then subtracting ten percent (assuming the most pessimistic scenario with swing voters going Tory and disaffecteds voting Green), they pick up about another twelve to fifteen ridings, which still doesn’t win them an election. However, the upside is that the ridings they’ve already won become extremely solid, which means they can campaign harder in swing ridings and have more effect; they can also more reliably portray themselves as a national party, as they would become competitive in quite a few ridings in BC and Manitoba where they currently aren’t.
Is it a good idea? With the right leader, potentially. Unfortunately, they don’t really have the right leader. When Jack Layton is your best-case scenario, you have issues.
Related Articles
29 users responded in this post
What is Mr. Layton’s position on the recent news that Mr. Christopher Bird has a comic coming out soon?
You know, I’ve been wondering… what recourse do you northerners have when it comes to disciplining the idiots who rise to command your political parties?
Let me clarify. I live down here in the States, and as I’m sure you know, every election cycle our guys have to negotiate not just an election, but a primary in which most cases they’re directly accountable to the rank and file of their party. Theoretically we could even do things like tell a sitting President to go straight to hell; unlikely, but the mechanism exists.
Now say I’m a Canadian, a member of the Liberals, but I absolutely am terrified/disgusted by the prospect of Michael god-damn Ignatieff becoming PM. (This is not hypothetical; I have a number of friends who slot into that category.) Whenever I ask them ‘well, what can you do to replace him?’ They usually shrug and go ‘I ‘unno.’
One of these people LIVES IN HIS RIDING in Toronto. When I suggested that perhaps the good Liberals of Lakeshore should band together to kick his ass out, Lieberman style, I was looked at like I was insane.
Basically, does a mechanism exist for actual Liberal voters to get rid of troublesome leaders/MPs beyond a polite letter?
Wait, wait, wait. Professer Layton is involved in Canadian politics?
…I have so many more questions, now.
And the first is apparently “can I spell professor properly?” No, clearly I cannot.
Of course, if such a political wedding were to come to pass, neither Layton nor Ignatieff is likely to be the leader of the merged parties – witness the fate of poor Peter McKay, who was most responsible for the wedding between the Progressive Conservatives and the Conservative Reform Alliance Party (or whatever they were calling themselves then), and who found himself stuck with a mere cabinet post while Harper, having sucessfully backstabbed all his surviving political opponents, walked away with the leadership.
Of course, if such a political wedding were to come to pass, history teaches us that neither Layton nor Ignatieff is likely to be the leader of the merged party. Instead there will be a massive backroom bloodbath of backstabbing, and someone who you’d never expect will emerge as sole survivor ^H^H^H leader.
Witness the fate of poor Peter McKay, who was the one person most responsible for the wedding between the Progressive Conservatives and the Conservative Reform Alliance Party (or whatever they were calling themselves then), and who found himself stuck with a mere cabinet post while Harper took the leadership.
@ Murc, there is no method I’m aware of whereby the voters can get rid of a sitting MP without criminal charges or internal party pressure (both of which are relatively unlikely; there are punishments, but I doubt any party right now would want one their members actually kicked out of the party).
That said, the leader of the party can be ousted as such at the annual convention. That individual would cease to be the leader of the party, but the individual would (technically) be able to finish serving the term. Thus, if enough members of the Liberal party were to say that they didn’t want X as the leader, they could remove the individual, but that would require enough support for someone else.
Remember that the only people in Canada who directly vote a party leader into government are the people in that person’s riding. Members of the party get to vote on WHO the leader is, but only the people in the riding determine whether that individual is actually elected to parliament.
@Jonathan, yeah, I did know that, but that just brings me back around to another question, namely, how you guys decide who runs in what riding. Also, you say ‘If enough members of the Liberal Party were to say they don’t want X as a leader, they could remove the individual.’ Do you mean ‘members’ as in ‘I am a registered Liberal’ or ‘members’ as in ‘I am an MP?’
Here in the states, when a ton of the membership of a party is absolutely disgusted with one of their Senators/Congresspeople, he can be primaried. Only the Democrats in Connecticut could vote for/against having Joe Lieberman as their man; only the Republicans of California could vote for/against having Carly Fiorina.
But those people could raise money/support/manpower etc. from literally all across the country.
Given the massively widespread dissatisfaction that lots of the liberal rank and file has with Ignatieff (am I overstating the depth of that? I live in a border state, so I try and follow Canadian politics on the premise that it makes me a responsible neighbor, but will cheerfully admit to being wrong if I am) it would seem that the LOGICAL course of action would be to try and kick his ass off the Liberal ticket in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Only I have no earthly idea how you guys pick candidates up there. Is it nothing but smoke-filled rooms or do Liberals/Tories/etc. on the ground actually get a say?
@ Murc – Theoretically, all the registered Liberal party members would get a say in terms of the leader. Also theoretically, the leader is placed in the riding wherein that person has the best chance of winning and is nominated/elected by the party members in that riding. However, once actually elected to parliament by the constituency as a whole, the individual is there until the next election or until that person steps down. I am unaware of any mechanism for removing an MP once elected between elections (which isn’t to say that it does not exist, but I haven’t heard of such a thing). When the time next comes for the riding to choose who will represent them in an election, Iggy can be replaced but not until then.
Theoretically, the leadership is infinitely flexible, but the Liberals are apparently uncertain of who to proceed with at the moment. Also, changing leadership would likely be seen as an extra sign of weakness. Iggy was initially supposed to be a great new leader and the hope of the party following Dion’s failure. His failure as a powerful figure means that they will want to look carefully lest they have a third weakling in a row. There are undoubtedly candidates, but the real questions are who has the most potential and the least baggage, and who can take out Harper.
@ Murc – Oh, and essentially, the members of the party in a riding nominate people to become the potential MP. Usually, however, the party will place the leader in a strongly party-leaning riding with other party members discouraged from seeking nomination in that riding. Thus, the leader has to pass the formality of a nomination to the candidacy, but it’s just a show at that point.
@Jonathan; you make the word ‘theoretically’ do a lot of work there. Thanks, tho; that helps clear a lot of stuff up for me. Basically what you’re saying is that while Ignatieff is broadly disliked, the rank and file of the party can’t do anything about him until the next time there’s an election, and even if that happens it would require either a successor with broad support OR he’d have to be so roundly hated in his riding that he’s kicked out with no successor in sight, yes?
Also, it was thought that Ignatieff would be a strong, competent leader? Really? REALLY? Who thought that? Back during the runup in the invasion to Iraq, Ignatieff was providing cover to the Bush administration. ‘See, even this liberal CANADIAN intellectual who teaches in Europe thinks that our American empire is awesome and indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation is cool!’
And he ONLY started backpedaling from that, iirc, when it became clear that those positions would hurt him in his efforts to return to Canada and get into politics. That guy was supposed to be the hope of the party?
I’d also caution you guys against focusing ‘most potential, least baggage, who can take out Harper.’ That was the criteria the democratic party used to nominate John Kerry.
Forgive me for interrupting this exchange of ideas, but I love the title of this post. That is all.
You know, as an American I have often thought I was tired of the two party, winner-take-all system we have here and would like the extra alternatives a parliamentary system would provide. However, this makes it sound like leadership in any democratic government is made up of imperfect compromises at best, and complete and total douchebags at worst.
The Parliamentary style of government has always sounded insane to me. I’ve never understood why it’s so popular. You gave way too much power to party bosses.
Don’t worry, I’m not suggesting you adopt the US system, which has far too many flaws as well.
@ KenB3 – Both political systems have some serious advantages and disadvantages. Both are made up of imperfect compromises and total douchebags. “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
@KenB3 – something to keep in mind is that the Westminster system that Canada and the UK use is in some ways MORE two-party, winner-take-all than that of the U.S. One house, all you need is a majority (sometimes only a plurality; Stephen Harper’s ability to ignore Parliament and basically run the country through the PM’s office is going to be a model for all future Canadian minority governments regardless of party, I think) and all ridings/districts whatever are first-past-the-post.
It SEEMS like there’s a bit more choice, because they have more discrete parties, but I think that’s an artifact of not having ANY elections in which ANYONE has to run nationwide to really solidify things.
Good lord…what a bad idea.
@ Mary Warner: But we know what we’re getting that way. Well, more or less. If Obama was PM in a Westminster-style system, health care reform (for example) would have included a robust public option, instead of being watered down by people who have a (D) after their name but don’t seem to be interested in the party’s actual platform.
BringTheNoise– But that’s only an advantage if your PM has more good policies than bad, and I don’t know if that has ever been the case, in any government. It certainly isn’t true of Harper from what I hear.
The best part of the US system is that since the President, Senate, and House are all elected seperately, they can all be expected to shoot down the others’ bad ideas. It doesn’t always work, obviously. But a Prime Minister who is in charge of the House, and can stack the Senate, has nobody to stop him, unless things get so bad his own party turns against him.
I admit I still don’t know know a lot about the Westminster system, and the Canadian version in particular, so I’m aware my perception is somewhat distorted. So please don’t take my thoughts as a criticism of Canada, or as a claim that our Constitution is better than yours. (As I said before, there are a lot of problems with the US as well.)
“When Jack Layton is your best-case scenario, you have issues.”
Well yeah, why would your ideal leader be someone who’s basically admitted to having a finite amount of time left as party leader because of cancer?
@ Mary – It’s actually not that easy to stack the senate. Since senators in Canada are appointed for life, the only time the PM gets to choose new senators is when one retires or dies. Thus, the current senate leans towards Conservative but only because it had a number of senators placed by the conservatives during Mulroney’s reign 20 years ago.
Oh. I had read somewhere recently that they’d imposed a retirement age on the Senate, so that the Prime Minister got to appoint more than used to be done. Thanks for the correction.
(Is it true that Senators are still required to be property owners? That was in Wikipedia.)
I dislike the idea intensely while still liking the idea of a Liberal/NDP coalition. If I wanted to vote Liberal I would – and given the power disparity between the two parties I suspect the balance of power in any new party would shift Liberal.
It would also reduce the number of larger parties, and move us further to the ‘centrist vs. right’ system in the States. I much prefer systems with a large number of parties (well, and prop rep). It seems more democratic.
@ Mary – Okay, yes, there is a retirement age, but it’s 75, which is why there are (or recently were) still some people hanging around from the Trudeau administration.
Blurgh to a merger. Some sort of formal alliance (“we won’t run in this seat if you don’t run in that seat, and we’ll govern in coalition if we get the numbers in Parliament”) while maintaining separation would be better – largely because of what Sivi said.
What Canada could really do with is electoral reform. Soon.
Veto:
Conservatives
Liberals
NDP
Green Party
Bloc Quebecois
Add:
Alpha Flight
Laura Roslin
The Hong Kong Cavaliers
S.H.I.E.L.D.
Torchwood
That calls for an honest-to-goodness ROFL, but I do have to do this…
Veto:
Laura Roslin
Add:
Chritopher Bird
Veto:
Alpha Flight
The Hong Kong Cavaliers
S.H.I.E.L.D.
Torchwood
PROBLEMS SOLVED.
[…] under to any challenge Stephen Harper has put forth, mostly because Michael Ignatieff is a useless limpdick, but also because Ignatieff is firmly on the centre-right side of the Liberal Party and […]