“What was irrational about the coalition talk was the suggestion that the situation in any way paralleled the one that led to the merger of conservative parties six years ago.
At that time, the governing party, the Liberals, were close on 50 per cent in the polls. The Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance were each scoring in the teens. Each was about 30 points behind. The case for a merger was boldly signalled. Today, the spread is about one-fifth of that. By comparison, the case for a merger is flaccid.”
Lawrence Martin in today’s Globe
4 comments:
"Flaccid"? When a party keeps governing with 35% of the vote and the opposition can't get its act together, now that is flaccid.
As an aside, I wish these journalists would stop using merger and coalition as an interchangeable synonym. They are 2 completely different things.
Lawrence Martin has a demonstrated gift for flaccid but the fact that more than 50% of Canadians think a merger on the left is an idea with virility, life and future, suggests Mr. Martin's vision may also be...impotent.
foottothefire
We're not stuck with a government that garners less than 35% of the vote.
We don't need no stinkin' "merger".
We need balls. Cajones.
The Opposition could kick Harper out tomorrow - if they so wished. Our democracy still works. Our elected MPs simply have to do what is their Parliamentary right. They don't see a need - just yet.
Coalition? Maybe. But, I myself was outraged at the "joint press conference" BS. Why do that before an election? What they should have done is had an NDP-Lib conference to indicate cooperation during the election. Coalition talk could have come later. Instead, the NDP continued to attack the Official Opposition like we were still in power, and continued to give Harper a free ride.
Cooperation first. Coalition maybe after an election. Merger? F that idea.
Post a Comment