Idea alert


While rejecting a Liberal-NDP merger, Rob Silver wonders if a new party might make sense.

But why not start a discussion between Liberals, New Democrats, Red Tories, and young people who have never been a member of a political party in their lives about a new vehicle – a new party. Consider it a blank slate. If we were starting from scratch, what would we fight for? How would we organize ourselves? So while there would still by definition be trade-offs (unless you start a new party by yourself, it’s impossible for there not to be in politics), hopefully by starting something new, instead of squishing together two organizations with existing rules and structures, you could avoid the easy-to-imagine analysis of “who’s taking over who,” “who won and who lost” that permeates so much Ottawa groupthink. Instead you’d create a new party for the next century. Naive potentially, I know.


Idea alert

  1. I think this is more than “potentially” naive, but I still like it.  I think the Liberals and NDP will need to experience more of what the Tories/Reform/Alliance experienced for it to become realistic, and we’re still years away from them being in the wilderness that long.  The Liberals might be in the doldrums a bit, but the NDP, prior to Jack’s passing anyway, are riding pretty high.

    We’ll see.

    • If the Dippers were to wound themselves in their leadership race the way, say, the Progressive Conservatives did in 2003, or to collapse into anarchy the way the Canadian Alliance did in 2001 — that’d put them much further along the road to supporting a consolidation of parties on the centre-left.

      Failing that, don’t see it.

      (Prefer not to see it, too — for my own partisan reasons, want to see that vote split continue for another cycle or two.)

      Still, you never know.  There might be a candidate or two in the leadership race who would favour some sort of rapprochement that falls short of a merger.  Riding arrangements or some such thing.

  2. I would go for this!

    All new party, none of the baggage, none of the old warhorses….a party of the future, not the past.

  3. Canada doesn’t need even more parties. Silver, and any followers he can attract, are focused on image not policy. Lib legacy tarnished greatly over past 30 years because they are fascists and now some people want ‘new’ party but lead by same people who wrecked Lib party. How about Liberal Party return to its roots and be for regular people and not special interests. 

    Never going to happen of course because Canada seems to have many know-it-alls and lots of them are in politics and msm. I bet a party that says they will work to get government off backs of regular Canadians would do quite well but I see no signs any such party will exist within my lifetime. 

    People are generally capable of running their own affairs but our political culture does not believe it. All our major parties think Canadians are morons incapable of doing anything useful with their lives and are not to be trusted. 

    Orwell ~ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good and not quite all the time.

    • Yeah, that’s why the banks were asking the government to lower the limits on the lengths of mortgages they can provide.. because people are so capable of running their own affairs.

      The truth is that people are generally short-sighted, and generally only capable of running their own affairs in isolation. You add a society to that, and some longer-term consequences, and people’s decision making ability tends to suck. That’s rather the point about the tragedy of the commons parable after all.

      • Agreed. It’s why humans organize themselves in a society with leaders and so on. To handle the larger problems….beyond simple hunting and gathering.

        Heck even those things require some organization.

  4. It’s a good idea, but I’m sure that the former Liberal cabinet minister about to run for NDP leader, and the former NDP premier now leading the Liberal party, will both explain how the two parties are so different that any crossover is impossible.

  5. Interesting that the G&M has 235 comments on this article…here it’s virtually ignored.

    • Better comment system, more people there in general.

      • I don’t like their comment system at all.  You can’t discuss anything.

        But I thought with all the political junkies on here, there would be more response.

  6. Like a federal version of the Alberta Party? I’m watching them with a little interest, but the whole lack of coherent ideology thing they got going prevents me from actually voting for them.

Sign in to comment.