Annals of Bozosity: Secret Merger Edition

ANDREW POTTER on the coalition: the NDP would lose, the Liberals would lose, and Canadians would lose

by Andrew Potter on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:16am - 100 Comments
Annals of Bozosity: Secret Merger Edition

Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

I’ve been thinking of writing something on the whole Liberal-NDP coalition/merger stuff for a while, but I’ve been putting it off because life is short and there are, at any given moment, probably five hundred  more interesting things to write about, read about, talk about, or think about than about yet another Big Plan to save the Liberal Party of Canada from itself. But this whole “secret mergers” story, which appears to be somewhere between 98 and 100 percent bullshit, puts it into the top fifty.

So here’s what I think, for what it matters to anyone: It’s a stupid idea. Not just stupid as in don’t-eat-that-fifth-taco stupid, but deeply, profoundly, moronic. If it were to come to pass, the only, and I mean only, beneficiaries would be the Conservatives. The NDP would lose, the Liberals would lose, and, more than anything, Canadians would lose.

The problems with the Liberals and the NDP are not the problems that the ‘right’ faced when Chretien was in power, and merging won’t solve them, it will make those problems worse, especially for the Liberals. The NDP has a strong, well-defined brand — their problem is that just not enough people like what they are peddling. But merging won’t solve that; if anything, it will drive many of their supporters to the Greens.

The problem with the Liberals is not that their voter base it is divided, it is that their voter base has left them. And the reason their voter base has left them is because the Liberals have been acting like humungeous bozos for most of this decade. It is really not much more complicated than that. The former Natural Governing Party transformed itself into the Party of Humungeous Bozos, and if there is one thing Canadians have shown over the years is that you can’t get elected if you are a humungeous bozo. You can be an arrogant jerk (Trudeau), a slimeball (Mulroney), a gangster (Chretien) or a paranoid control freak (Harper), but the Canadian body politic is powerfully immune to bozos.

Ok, enough name calling. There’s actually a pretty good reason, from the realm of political theory, why a merger is a bad idea. For the past couple of centuries western democracies have tended to be divided into three main tribes: Liberals, Socialists, and Conservatives. There are overlaps and cross-breedings that complicate things a bit, and local factors such as secessionist parties that can complicate them a lot, but generally speaking this is the Canadian experience – the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives. Britain has always had these three constituencies shoehorned into a party system that is finally accommodating them; the outlier is the United States which has a weak socialist constituency that is further marginalized by the rigid two-party structure.

I think that Canada was well-served by the old three-party system, and I don’t think a Liberal-NDP merger is an improvement. Andrew Coyne likes to say that Canadians need more choice in their politics, not less. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do think shrinking the range of available serious options is going to really, really annoy a lot of voters, more than the people who may be engaged in secret negotiations can imagine.

But that’s speculation. What I do know is that the Liberals have two main problems, one internal, the other external. The internal problem is that it is run, as mentioned, by bozos. The external problem is the ongoing existence of the Bloc Quebecois. The disappearance of the Bloc would be the best thing that could happen not just to the Liberals, but to Canadian politics by bringing Quebec back into the federal system. How can we get rid of the Bloc? Proportional representation might do it, but that’s not on the agenda for the time being. Another idea would be to get rid of the public per-vote subsidy, which would certainly weaken the Bloc, if not destroy it.

But recall what happened when Stephen Harper suggested doing that: The Liberals went crazy, and started talking about a governing coalition with the NDP and the Bloc. Remember how that turned out?

Threatening to merge isn’t a solution to the Liberals’ problem; rather, the fact that this idea is being seriously floated is a sign of how deep their problems are. If the Liberals insist on chasing this, the NDP should run far and fast away.

Bookmark and Share
  • Noel Potts

    The Liberal party is truly in the doldrums as far as leadership is concerned. Viciously attacking Michael Ignatieff is cruel and downright stupid. He was chosen fairly as a leader and has performed his role as well as any liberal member can. We should not read anything into the barbs thrown by American GOP's against Obama and slavishly follow them. Some leaders take on the leadership role with all strikes against them and do rather well considering. Ignatieff, is a brilliant man, who was not given a chance from day one by some of the pundits – who are they and where are they ? Try running for any party before pretending to know who is or who isn't inept. We are a great country because of the Trudeau's and Chretien's. Now let Ignatieff alone! Nopo.

    • Harvey Mushman

      I agree Ignatieff may indeed be a "brilliant man."

      Unfortunately being a "brilliant" academic rarely translates into being brilliant in the real world.

      The man has no practical experience to draw upon in order to manage either people or an organization. Smart guy, wrong job. He's doomed.

    • Smith

      "He was chosen fairly as a leader …"!!!!!

      You're kidding, right? No, really – you must be kidding. Maybe it's me. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but your humour is just too subtle for me to pick up on – so it looks like you're being serious. But you couldn't possibly be serious.

      Now I'll be serious. His entry into politics and then into the leadership was as dirty, and as 'machievellianly' contrived, as one could possibly get: from the LPC backroom boys "shopping" him into politics on a napkin in a Yorkville bistro, through to his show of "support" to the legitimately chosen Dion while hte backroom boys orchestrated a coup.

      Before he was "shopped" he had no interest in politics, no interest in Canada, and no interest in the Liberal Party. As far as I'm concerned a vote for Ignatieff isn't really a vote for Ignatieff; it's really a vote for the dirty dealers that brought him here. I feel sorry for him, but he was the one who willingly got into this particular bed.

    • cooper

      Iggy lacks the political skills needed to defeat Harper's tories. But we have to look at ourselves as Canadians and question whether that is what we want in a government, an unscrupulous continually electioneering party or a team that closer resembles the values that we hold dear. The demise of the Lliberal Party, basically a party at the centre, in favour of this band of incompetants is a frightening prospect. Imagine just a choice between the dippers and the fundamentals in the forseeable future.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

    I absolutley love this idea. Speaking as a Tory I for one am 100% behind the idea of a canadian version of the Liberal-Democratic Party of canada .. I like the sound of it Fiberal-Dippers everywhere unite – man the barricades and power to the people – I love it .. the waters are chummed folks and the sharks are circling and as the freeding frenzy builds and builds the outcome is clearer and clearer a majority for the CPC. Harper must be having a very good day right now and that's for sure. Keep up the good work frustrated libbies and dippers – thank you and god bless you all.

  • the unmasked patriot

    so we need more choice, as long as it is not the bloc …and somehow quashing nationalism (by getting rid of a subsidy) is the path of less resistance? how do you get away with being a columnist with that kind of cognitive dissonance?

    p.s. the per-vote subsidy would screw the liberals most of all, because their base is the least fired-up and partisan.

  • JamesHalifax

    People who consider themselves "progressive" should be very careful of what they wish for.

    NDP'ers are looking for a chance to finally have some power to accomplish their goals of looking out for the workers and seeking social justice.

    Liberals are looking for "Power"

    Be careful.

    You could end up with Liberal Party Values and NDP financial know-how…….which would basically screw everybody.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      At this point it sounds better than Conservative endebtedness.

  • Felp

    This party is still so fractured ,with the Martin Camp and Old man Chretien camp.Now we have Iggy, that was never in a camp and failed to unite.Let Harper be PM for 4 years while the libs rebuild, put some young blood out there like Justin Trudeau, and yes I vote conservative.I can see what needs to be done, but the liberal party cannot

  • Orson Bean

    "…shrinking the range of available serious options is going to really, really annoy a lot of voters, more than the people who may be engaged in secret negotiations can imagine."

    Well put, Andrew. And as a result, Blue Liberals would go Tory, and pacifist, union and true socialist Dippers (query who'd be left, btw) would either re-colonize the Green Party or start their own new party.

  • whatdoyouknowreally

    I guessing a merger isn't authentic enough? Or too authentic? I forget your premise again.

  • robert

    This is funnier than sh!t. So…Harper gains Canada by default because Potter and ilk deny what lies ahead for Canada under Harper? Wonderful idea. Harper will make Liberals disappear like Buddhism left Afghanisnam. What American zealots couldn't achieve will become reality in Canada.
    The difference between Harperites and the Taliban is infinitesimal. Harper will use the bureaucracy like the thug Potter thinks Chretien was. There will be NO prisoners.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/jackoatmon jackoatmon

    I'm with you on everything except the part about a disappearing Bloc being good for the Liberals. Have you been to Quebec? Those Bloc voters are mostly conservatives and socialists. Very few would go to the Liberals I suspect.

  • Who cares

    The Cons just keep getting in the way of democracy. The Liberals are just like the Cons. The Dippers wouldn't consider it.
    Canada is Doomed. Idiots, all of them. Hey Duceppe, leave the Bloc, and give us a good leader of canada, pwetty please.

  • Tim

    One thing Potter is correct on is that the attempted coup by Dion and Layton in December 2008 was more about the government trying to get rid of sudsidizing political parties who can't raise a dime (see Liberals) rather than doing it for the good of Canada. God help Canada if the socialists ever have a say in the government. They screwed up Greece and will screw up Canada.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    "The former Natural Governing Party transformed itself into the Party of Humungeous Bozos, and if there is one thing Canadians have shown over the years is that you can’t get elected if you are a humungeous bozo. You can be an arrogant jerk (Trudeau), a slimeball (Mulroney), a gangster (Chretien) or a paranoid control freak (Harper), but the Canadian body politic is powerfully immune to bozos."

    Gee Potter…want a napkin to wipe that foam dripping from your mouth?

From Macleans