Here is a stacked bar chart showing voter intentions and election dates (with some editorial comments) since 1978.

Click here for a full size version.

I have to imagine Jean Chretien would be the first to credit a deeply divided conservative opposition as an important contributor to his party's success in elections from 1993 through 2000.

Stephen Harper now enjoys the same benefit.

Based on Wednesday's news cycle, it appears that many professional and armchair pundits alike have concluded that there's no water in the merger talk bucket. I beg to differ. Bear with me to the end of this piece to learn why.

Let's indulge ourselves in a bit of denial first.

On Tuesday Warren Kinsella in an interview on CBC's The National had stated that serious people from the parties concerned were having "serious" discussions.

These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.

This led to twin denials from the leaders of both the Liberals and NDP on Wednesday. Following a pre-Question Period caucus meeting, Michael Ignatieff - physically flanked by potential leadership rivals Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc - actually sounded honestly forceful in his denial. Jack Layton merely commented that it was his view the talk was all about and between Liberals. Both camps declared that they'd authorized no such discussions.

• Despite denials, merger debate continues in restive Liberal ranks - The Globe and Mail)
• John Ivison: Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours | Full Comment | National Post

That seemed to put the story to bed for a while on Wednesday, until Warren Kinsella let it be known there would be further information forthcoming on CBC's late afternoon Power and Politics show. This turned out to be a sworn affidavit Kinsella provided to the CBC wherein he asserts that Liberal Party president Alfred Apps stated "there is a lot of interest in merger in the NDP. There have been many discussions at a high level... involving the NDP saints [whom he described as Broadbent, Romanow]." Apps is also said to have stated that a pre-election coalition would not work, only a merger would be viable as a pre-election party configuration.

• MergerWatch: The affidavits of Warren Kinsella and John Mraz
• Liberal president talked merger: affidavits - Apps denies 'serious' merger talks

Then, in real time during the Power & Politics show, Apps contacted the CBC to deny the assertions made in Kinsella's affidavit.

No matter what one believes about Kinsella or Apps, a he-said, he-said match is always less than satisfactory when the stakes are high. Fortunately circumstances did not disappoint and before the Power & Politics show concluded, another affidavit was submitted to the CBC, this time from Liberal consultant John Mraz.

Mraz had recently met with Alfred Apps in preparation for an article or op-ed piece he was submitting to the National Post for publication. The potential for coalition is a topic Mraz has written on in the recent and more distant past, including covering the tense days in 2008 prior to Harper proroguing Parliament.

• John Mraz: The Liberal-NDP coalition's mission - National Post, December 1 2008
• Just ask Stephen Harper - National Post, June 9 2010

Mraz was the Ontario director of Bob Rae's bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Mr. Rae is said to have the support of Jean Chretien, and very clearly Warren Kinsella is very supportive of Jean Chretien.

Yet I do not believe that what is going on is simply an attempt to mirror the Tories "Dump Dief" campaign of decades ago, rebranded Liberal red and labelled "Toss ignaTief". There seems to be much more at play.

Consider Mraz's affidavit and take it at face value. In it he states that Apps exclaimed to him, perhaps in a fit of exasperation or self-important fact-dropping, that "you don't know the half of it. You've got no idea what you're talking about. I've been involved in those discussions, and they not only include Broadbent and Chretien, but Romanow, Clark, and McMurtry."

Joe Clark? A once Progressive Conservative Prime Minister and second to last leader of that now extinct party? And Roy McMurtry? A close friend of a former P.C. premier of Ontario, Bill Davis? These "conservatives" are sitting down with elders from the Liberals and NDP?

McMurtry might not be a household name but in political circles the name not only resonates, his inclusion in these talks makes sense.

McMurtry's history with the federal and Ontario provincial Tories dates back many decades. He is, I believe he would agree, a "Red Tory". As Chief Justice of Ontario when he retired he could look back on his career on the bench with the satisfaction of knowing he and his panel of judges paved the way for same-sex marriages in that province, and thus setting a precedent for the rest of the country.

Roy McMurtry was also one of the political elders engaged in federal-provincial negotiations of the repatriation of our constitution and the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Around a kitchen table McMurtry worked with none other than Jean Chretien and Roy Romanow to break through a frustrating impasse in negotiations, coming up with the kitchen accord that helped lead to all provinces, save Quebec, signing on to our Canadian constitution and the often hated by Conservatives Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Joe Clark. Jean Chretien. Roy McMurtry. Roy Romanow. Ed Broadbent. These are indeed very serious people, broadly trusted people, all arguably are progressive politicians in their own right with decades of experience behind them. In their day some truly big, great, advances were made in Canada, for Canadians and indeed because of some of the things done in those days we broadcast a better reflection of ourselves to the world. The Economist once then declared "Canada is cool". We stood on our own two feet and did stuff.

Thinking about the life and times of these leaders, I can't help but draw a comparison to Stephen Harper. What, really, has Harper done - started and finished of his own accord - that has made Canada a better place? I don't think you can name much save for election trinkets and minor tinkering.

Based on the names named so far, I have to take both Kinsella and Mraz at face value. These are not people whose name one can wrap up into a false rumour of a merger or some other "serious" realignment of Canadian political parties. Something is happening.

I'd like to take a guess: these elders are working on principles which a merged party, or a totally new organization if need be, can be formed.

If you have people like Romanow, Broadbent, McMurtry, Clark and Chretien talking together at the kitchen table again, I'm interested, and once the story truly breaks out into the open, I'd bet that many Canadians will be likewise intrigued, and perhaps even excited, by what they see.

Layton says merger talk is nothing more than Liberals talking to Liberals. Just now Ignatieff, in a press scrum outside today's caucus meeting: "I have no relationship with Kinsella". Warren Kinsella has been a visible figure in press reports of potential merger discussions of late.

Are merger/coalition discussions happening? Or is this a resurfacing of the Martin-Chretien war?

With such a blanket repudiation of merger discussions by Iggy, with leadership contenders standing behind him, joined in the chorus by Layton, I can only think of... Peter "I am not the merger candidate" MacKay, who would soon (talks held over the summer... coincidence?) announce a merger.

Regardless of the veracity of merger discussions, the base problem - a fractured centre / centre-left support in the country, with insufficient critical mass to challenge Harper's Conservatives in large swaths of the country - remains very real.

If the current opposition parties stick to status quo, then how about a much more radical plan: ditch all the cliques in the opposition parties and start an entirely new organization not beholding to either the NDP or the Liberals as they stand today, backed by well recognized and trusted names, and invite Canadians to join. Give Canadians the option they want, but no party leader seems willing to deliver upon.

In other words, follow the "Reform" route, only faster. Cut off the other two at the knees. And then fold the remains of the hold-outs back into the new party at a future point in time.

Where can Canadians sign up?

This evening CBC News reports Liberal, NDP insiders talk merger, quoting Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella "Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level."

Having lived through the Progressive Conservative Party's morphing into the Conservative Party, I have a perspective on mergers that might be different than those of the average NDP or Liberal member.

As one can probably tell from the title and pull quote in this article, I'm all in favour of what Mr. Chretien says.

I know it won't be easy, and that there'll be plenty of naysayers on both sides of this discussion. There has been plenty of scorched earth left between the two parties and there are elements in each party which have a visceral hatred of the other.

If it is doable, lets do it! Former P.M. Jean Chretien

This is a situation exactly like that which faced the Reform / Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties. Yet the vast majority of members in each, after they had time to consider what the merger meant, voted in favour of the merger.

I wasn't in favour of that merger. I'd spent a great deal of time volunteering with the PC Party specifically because I wanted to help ensure that the Reform/CA did not rise to power, and when Harper returned to the CA, I had an even greater reason to continue to fight for the resurgence of the PC Party.

That of course would never happen. Why that is so is the subject of another post some day, but the bottom line is that regional divisions within the country that had been growing for years would prevent the PC Party from ever regaining the critical mass a party needs to be viable on a national, winning, basis.

Winning might not be everything, all the time, but it isn't a concept politicos should be shy about desiring. You've got to be able to win to prevent others from winning, and winning remains the single best approach for effecting real change for the country.

While I wasn't in favour of the CA-PC merger, I did help man the phone banks that were set up to communicate to members, in order to make the merger happen. Why? Because it was clear from the start that most members wanted it to happen, and indeed on voting day for the merger ratification, members who had not participated in many years had come out of the woodwork to make their voices heard.

Don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. The CA-PC merger proved that it can be done, and that the result can achieve results.

Consider this as well: unless bold action is taken by Canada's centre and left, Harper will win a majority. I have no doubt at all about this. Those who believe he is stuck at a permanent minority have learned nothing about him, or how ruthlessly efficient a political machine they have built. No other party on its own could build an effective counter to what Harper and his minions can do when they grab a majority.

Canadians, the regular kind that are not party activists, don't give a crap about what we insiders care about when it comes to our beloved party creatures. They want to see a strong, united, opposition to whoever is in power, and I happen to believe that most Canadians, like me, oppose Stephen Harper.

Yeah, I was one of those "red Tories" but even within that bunch the political compass spins wildly. I might be too conservative for some hard core NDP activists, or too progressive for some Liberals, but chances are we would agree on a great many things. I'd like to see the Greens join this party because I find myself agreeing with David Suzuki - we need our big national parties to all be green, green or out of power.

I support a union of the Liberal-NDP parties because I believe that is what their members would like to see, and what's more, I will jump in to help if it stands a chance of happening.

Let's do it!