Now that the story from "many Liberal insiders" about alleged merger discussions with the NDP has been denied by all sides, it's worth asking exactly what led to the possibility being mooted in the first place. And while Jeff's theory about leadership machinations is plausible enough, I wonder if the answer may instead lie in another of the Libs' internal hangups.
After all, part of the Libs' legacy to which they cling so proudly is that of putting mushy-middleness over leadership in any particular direction - from the "do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters" credo of days gone by, to their "party of the centre" definition as perpetually stated by their current leader.
With that self-image, it might be difficult for the Libs to accept a coalition deal after the next election when it's being portrayed as an extreme position by a powerful Con message machine - and when nothing more is apparently on the table. But discussion about an all-out merger could make it a lot easier to portray a post-election coalition as representing relatively comfortable middle ground rather than an extreme possibility.
Of course, the fact that the Libs' dealings with the rest of the country are so firmly grounded in their own internal neuroses makes for all the more reason why any party should be wary of taking on their weaknesses. But at the very least, I'd hope it's at least possible that the merger rumour might serve some useful purpose, rather than counting solely as the latest volley in the Libs' perpetual civil war.
No comments:
Post a Comment