09.17.2012 01:20 PM

More Adams on merger

I admire his determination.  Reminds me of me, when I was younger and foolisher.

Having beaten my head against that particular wall for a few years, and with nothing left to show for it, I happily pass the torch to Paul.  Good luck to him.

He’ll need it.


  1. Dan says:

    I refuse to merge with a party that does not accept the Clarity Act.

    • Another Dan says:

      The NDP should refuse to merge with a party that prefers rule-changing and voter suppression to, you know, trying to win the hearts and minds of voters.

  2. GPAlta says:

    The only candidate who could run in the leadership contest claiming that he could effect a merger between the two parties would be Thomas Mulcair.

    It would never happen in a million years, but could you imagine the public interest that would be generated if Mulcair were to run on a unification platform? It would be spectacular. Any other candidate trying to propose what Adams wants will be disregarded because he can’t speak for the NDP. If Mulcair were to run and win, the unified party would have its leader for the next election from day one and would be able to work together in the house until then. If anyone else were to run on merging and win, it would be at least one election, if not two, before there would be a combined effort and a combined leader. Can you imagine the convention moment where Trudeau and Garneau both move their delegates to Mulcair at once?

    I know there are rules and there are issues, and it will never, ever happen, but it would be great TV, and Harper would be crushed to dust in the next election. Harper’s legacy, instead of being the savior of the right, would be as the force that drove the left together and destroyed the Conservative Party for a generation.

  3. Dan says:

    I became a great admirer of Nathan Cullen for his efforts.

    The article is right: he was initially mocked and insulted for his efforts.

    In fact, there were people who said “Nathan Cullen is great… EXCEPT for his cooperation talk. If he dropped that, he’d be a great leader.”

    But he didn’t. In fact, he doubled down on cooperation. And it attracted new blood. And even his critics began to see the merits of cooperation, or at least respect his honesty about it.

    There ought to be a Liberal leadership candidate who truly believes in it AND can make the case for it in a principled — not opportunistic — way. The idea ought to be debated on its merits. And then let the chips fall where they may.

  4. The Dude says:

    The people speaking mostly against mergers are the partisan types who would be the type to make comments against a merger. But like the polls show, more than half of NDP and Lib voters would support merger or coop. Those supporters are probably not the hard core “tribalistic” partisans that would write their opinions about it to the same extent as the partisans fighting a merger. Instead, they would hear about the “Liberal Democrats” on the news and say, “cool”. I should probably vote for them next election. And then they’d go back to their non-partisan, non-blogging life.

  5. The Dude says:

    Just to add,
    Mulcair rejected a merger. But, if he could be the not contested leader of a new Liberal Democrat Party, I bet he would jump at it. When those las ttalks were on, the NDP would have had to accept Iggy as leader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.