Topp as the merger/takeover candidate?

Lots of reaction poured in after Friday's post, about the future viability of the Liberal Party. In addition to  the comments logged at the actual blog, I received plenty of emails from people who wanted to offer more discreet assurances that the Liberal party was indeed alive and kicking. I'll have more to say on that in the days and weeks to come. 

There are folks out there, though, who continue to believe that Liberals, like the old Progressive Conservatives, are going to have to reconcile themselves to a merger with the NDP (which many argue was more of an absorption.) Within this group, there are those who see leadership candidate Brian Topp as a stalking horse for this eventual merger/takeover. Non-Liberals have also posited this theory. The evidence is intriguing. 

* Topp has received the endorsements of his old boss, Roy Romanow, as well as former NDP leader Ed Broadbent.  

* Broadbent and Romanow, along with Jean Chretien, were the senior statesmen behind the scenes during the 2008 attempt to unseat the Conservatives with a Liberal-NDP coalition. 

* Chretien continues to speak in favour of merger (much to the annoyance, it should be pointed out, of many people within the Liberal party, including some of his old loyalists.) 

So, loosely, the idea is that Topp would win the NDP leadership and then set about merging with the Liberals or doing an outright takeover, a la Stephen Harper with the PCs in 2002-03.

Problem with that theory: Broadbent and Romanow have spoken against a merger, and Liberal and NDP officials repeatedly deny that any talks or plans are under way. 

For his part, Topp was asked about merger possibilities when he appeared on CTV's Question Period yesterday. As I heard it, Topp is more focused on the long-term goal of simply making the Liberals irrelevant/extinct.  Here's how that conversation went (transcript courtesy of CTV): 

|KEVIN NEWMAN: Alright, so final question, let's assume you are leader of the NDP. If Bob Rae picks up the phone one day and says, hey, Brian, let's talk about combining our parties. What do you do? |TOPP: Well what I would tell him is that merging the New Democrats and the Liberals is not on our agenda. That the progressive left has united behind a party and that's the  NDP. And I would also tell him that in the next parliament, in the event that the public elects another minority parliament, then maybe there will be something for us to talk about. In the right circumstances it is right for political parties to work together, and I'm committed to that. We tried to do it in 2008. Mr. Rae's party reneged on a proposal that we had negotiated. |NEWMAN: So even with all the Tories did then to demonize a coalition government, you'd be willing to entertain that notion again? |TOPP: Well there's more tools in the tool box than coalition governments. I mean this is being debated right now in the province of Ontario which has just gone to a minority parliament. You can do coalitions. There's nothing wrong with coalitions. You can do accords. You can do case by case corporation as Tommy Douglas and Lester Pearson did very well in the '60s. The main principle is, yes, political parties should work together to get things done. That's what the public expects them to be. But we don't have to become Liberals to win. The NDP is doing very well as the New Democrats. And the duty that we have to the public is to put our principles, our values before the public. They can judge us against the other parties, and then we'll do our work in the parliament that the people elect.

 

 

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

This is a ridiculous theory. That may be fine for a partisan Conservative's blog, but I expect better from a Toronto Star report's blog.

[Observant]

If the Libs and Dips don't merge for the 2015 election, Canadian voters may just force them to merge their remnants for the 2020 election.

A centre-left and a far-left political parties just doesn't make sense in present day Canada given the reality of the last election. Not only that, but media pundits seem to ignore the influence of Harper and the Conservatives on the opposition parties.

Both the Libs and Dips are now forced to find a leader who can 'Beat Harper', rather than a leader who represents their political principles and ideals. Not a good situation.

The NDP is compromised with their fleeting Quebec support and the Liberals are in inexorable decline. They are like two people on a sinking raft, and they know it. Canada deserves better.

[Anne Streeter]

No merger but maybe eventually a coalition.

[Observant]

A Lib-Dip coalition is not only impractical, it is unacceptable to most Canadians because it's insincere and just a political trick. A merger or a perpetual Conservative government... choose your poison.

[Quebecois]

What's interestinf in this debate is the polling data from the US on the desire for a 3rd party. A polarized system has resulted in up to 60% of Americans asking for another choice. Perhaps are not so easily bucketed into left/right as some may assume.