Andrew Coyne on the implications of the NDP's surge in Quebec - Macleans.ca
 

Andrew Coyne on the implications of the NDP’s surge in Quebec

Your daily campaign minute with Maclean’s columnists


 


 
Filed under:

Andrew Coyne on the implications of the NDP’s surge in Quebec

  1. Andrew;

    More likely the collapse of the Liberals federally than a merger with the NDP. What would the Liberals have to offer the NDP in a merger? Why would Layton give up leadership of a rising Party to absorb the dregs of a crumbling Party? I can see the Liberal's interest — another quick fix to their malaise but why would the NDP be interested?

    Sincerely,

    Biaced

    • What would the Liberals have to offer the NDP in a merger? Less vote-splitting, a team of experienced MPs, powerful connections and a moderate brand name. Sounds like a good deal to me.

    • No merger please. While I'm not typically a LPC supporter, I'm even less in favour of them moving further to the left and joining with the NDP.

      I thought if they moved to the right economically, they'd have a chance to win some votes from the CPC and maintain its base. Now they're moving to the left because they thought they had to differentiate themselves from the CPC. All this did was narrow the differences between the LPC and the NDP, and quite honestly, I can see how the NDP (especially because of Layton) is much more appealing to left leaning voters.

      Meanwhile, us centre-right voters basically have one choice. A lot of us would prefer a more centrist party, but won't cross the centre-line, so to speak.

      • If the Liberals and NDP merge, you'll get a centrist party on the right. In a 2-party world and a single issue dimension (left-right), there is a tendency for parties to move to the centre where the votes are. Canadians have this idea that two-party systems breed extremism because of the US. However, the key difference between us and the Americans is that they have primaries which push members out to the extremes in order to win the votes of ideologues. Our nomination meetings, in contrast, are dominated by party hacks that just want their party to win.

  2. Im not sure how a Bloc collapse in Quebec to the NDP translates into a merger of NDP/Liberals federally. The NDP would be in neo-Mulroney territory, owning a wild pack of MPs with divided loyalties to their Bloc roots in their riding and the federal party nationally, and Layton owes them big time. When Harper starts squeezing Quebec to see if the NDP will squawk separatist lines, the Libs can draw on the remnants of their once mighty Quebec federalist base and appear like a national party, maybe a new leader (Francophone?).

  3. Indeed this is going to be very consequential, but if the seat projection by EKOS stands ( I personally think they are way off) we could be having a situation like the one in the UK and Igniateff could be the one deciding which way is going to go, a conservative majority or a NDP majority (never thought in my wildest dreams I could say that out loud) I don't think I like that, a merger makes more sense, Chantal Hebert has been talking about that for a while. I still think it is going to be a consequential majority for the conservatives and their chances keep increasing the more the vote splits.

    Now if NDP does make major gains in Quebec it is good news, the less representation the BQ has in the HofC is a good start but then what? Whats the next step? This is going to be a huge blow for them.

  4. Is the constitutional crisis over? That was quick.