Mergers, coalitions, etc.

For several days now, I've been wondering whether I had anything to add to this conversation about Liberal-NDP co-operation, beyond what I babbled about on CBC's Power and Politics last Friday. The short version of my comments, by the way, is: bad idea; witness what happened when forays were made for Liberal-Green co-operation and since when did Liberals do well by rushing to the left? If anything, the past couple of decades have shown that the Liberals only come to power when veering right.  I'm not one of those who sees the Liberals and NDP as natural allies. 

But beyond that, here's why the whole discussion seems odd to me. 

I think the political future belongs to those who understand the fragmented state of the world.  I'm not sure it's possible to create any political party that unites people under a huge banner, or one big tent. This whole search for one big thing, in fact, seems kind of 1970s-ish.  

The Conservatives have figured this out, and Chretien, to a lesser extent, also did during his time in office. Getting and keeping power now is a constant process of shaping coalitions around smaller issues -- coalitions that form and dissolve, and move from left to right to centre.  You need a clever leader to do this, but you don't need a great leader or a messiah. 

There's this incredible temptation, mainly by the boomer generation, to believe in this mythical power of "one big thing."  But we're finding this out in my industry  too --  one big thing doesn't exist anymore; the days of media giants and big, authoritative voices  are over. The media universe is now an ever-shifting group of smaller, even individual voices.  The military is facing the same issues -- the challenges of pitting one big army against the fragmented forces of the terrorists are well documented this century. This is a huge cultural shift everywhere. 

So that's why I'm largely uninterested in this conversation about grand coalitions or mergers. I don't know if you can unite the voting public under any one big thing.  

What's more, on a more pedestrian level, I'm convinced that  this latest flurry of speculation  is rooted, at least in part, in just plain mischief. Since I came to Ottawa more than 20 years ago, I've watched various factions of the Liberal party trying to undermine the faction in power. I even got a book out of it. It's kind of a well-worn routine now, though. Isn't it time for a new story line?  

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

Susan - your position was made quite clear in your "not-so-babbling" comments on Power and Politics.
By the way - since you were only a "guest" that one evening - I can say this without presumably offending you. P&P - certainly under Mr. Solomon's direction - has taken what can be politely described as a turn downwards (since the days of Don Newman - and panels which included you as a regular contributor) smarmy comments and talking over by Mr. Solomon himself (much more perceptive coordination when Rosie Barton takes over at least - in my opinion) - and a general trend towards talking head guests who come from a right leaning bias.
What I found very interesting - in your comments and those of Don Newman's later - is that YOU coined the term MERGER - for what was only being discussed in other places at the time as strategic discussions - aimed I believe - at maximizing the value of votes (all 65% of them) not cast for Mr. Harper and his 35% minority.
Merger to me - is a term appropos for negotiations to actually bring together two or more parties into one. The Progressive Conservatives and Alliance merged - frankly - most people that I have been talking to were looking at that as being much too big a hurdle to jump (certainly until two (or more) parties had seen how well they could cooperate in governing the country.)
Discussions BEFORE an election - when it is pretty clear that - in the short to medium future - an election would result in another hung Parliament - makes sense to me - and would demonstrate that party leaders are practicing realpolitik and not simply "babbling" platitudes to the troops - and the general Canadian public.
So - you "miscommunicated" what was being discussed - but more importantly - spiked the idea that sensible people of discrete parties could talk of collaberation where goal number one was to remove Mr. Harper and his government from office before they did any more damage to Canada.

[Ed White]

Ever since reading the trend predictions of Toffler's "The Third Wave" in the early 80's I have believed in the demise of the "big tent" parties. Increasing educational levels together with the ability to source "personalized" media leads to no "we" in we. However, as the "big tent" is waning, doesn't the use of post election coalitions make sense to pull together those constituencies with the highest level of overlapping goals in to a working government that at least tries to reflect the populations' leanings. The alternative is what we face today - a very small (30%) group controlling the agenda of the entire electorate. This of course requires that the population are astute enough viewer's of the political climate to actually give a damn. Coalitions are complicated and messy with much bickering and negotiation over issues whereas a one party minority require party discipline and message control to survive. I think a country with the political intelligence of Canada would be better served by the messy public discussions and debates.
BTW, welcome back - I had missed the insight that you regularly brought to Don Newman' political table - too bad Don isn't back as well :)

[Frank Docherty]

Mergers and Coalitions are too easily scuttled - submarined. Most Canadians are more concerned with this Friday's Lotto Max than they are with political issues and corruption that resemble those of countries we at at war with??? ( http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/823235--afghan-detainee-proposal-was-scuttled ) ... but in Canada there is not the same concern of muzzling the media - lottery results and pop culture mean so much more than than even the taken for granted basic fundamental right to vote - right to shape the future???

[MRM]

'For several days now, I've been wondering whether I had anything to add to this conversation about Liberal-NDP co-operation, beyond what I babbled about on CBC's Power and Politics last Friday.'

Well Susan not sure what what took you so long? I and I am sure many others knew before you were done speaking that as usual you had nothing to offer.